Controversial Public Issues
The Department has not encountered any major public controversies related to this rule, and does not anticipate such controversies going forward. The 2015-590 NM Standard was revised through an intensive, two-year long process. In 2013 a revision team was formed by NRCS to provide their technical expertise regarding needed revisions to the 2005 version of the NRCS 590 Nutrient Management Standard. A draft copy of the proposed 2015-590 NM Standard revision was released twice for public comment in 2015. Numerous comments were received and the team considered each one individually and made adjustments. Thus, the Department presumes that any controversies regarding the 2015-590 NM Standard have already been settled.
During the hearing and comments process, the Department anticipates receiving additional public feedback on provisions of the 2015-590 NM Standard, changes in the cost-sharing rate, and record submission for nutrient management plans.
Alternatives to this Rule
No Action
Not promulgating the proposed rule would cause the Department to be in violation of State statutes. The Department is required to promulgate rules in Chapter ATCP 50 prescribing conservation practices to meet Chapter NR 151 performance standards and to specify a process for the development and distribution of technical standards for the practices (s. 281.16 (3) (b), Stats.). The Department is required to establish, by rule, a nutrient management program coordinating with state and federal agencies (see s. 92.05 (3) (k), Stats.). The Department must develop applicable land and water conservation standards for owners claiming farmland preservation tax credits (s. 91.80, Stats.). This rule is designed to clarify and modernize existing rules and ensure regulatory consistency between the state and federal standard. If the Department does not adopt this rule, there will continue to be inconsistencies between nutrient planning requirements leading to confusion. In addition, changes being proposed to clarify existing requirements and provide options for more flexibility will not be enacted. Provisions being established to protect human health and the environment, such as new mechanical manure application requirements creating a 50 feet setback in spring, summer, fall, and 300 feet setbacks in winter, around conduits to groundwater will not be enacted, which could lead to unsafe drinking water. Implementing the rule will benefit business, the general public, and the environment.
Modify Rule Provisions
The Department could modify the proposed rule provisions. However, the Department developed this rule in consultation with government agencies, organizations, and industry groups that have supported implementation of the 2011 DNR performance standards and other provisions of this rule. This rule includes specific accommodations to address the needs of the most impacted groups, and represents a fair balance between business concerns and the need for natural resource protection. The final version of the rule also responds to feedback received during public hearings, as noted above.
Additional Measures to Mitigate Adverse Environmental Effects
The Department does not anticipate any adverse environmental effects as a result of this rule. Therefore, no additional measures will be needed to mitigate any adverse environmental effects.
Conclusion
This rule will implement the 2011 DNR performance standards and make improvements in Department programs, which will facilitate implementation of these standards. Overall, this rule will have a positive effect on the environment. However, implementation of conservation practices will depend on available cost-sharing. There are no preferable alternatives to this rule. This rule is not a “major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment,” for purposes of s. 1.11, Stats. No environmental impact statement is required under s. 1.11, Stats., or ch. ATCP 3.
