Groundwater Protection Rule Framework March 2018

Similar documents
Nitrate, Well Testing and Rules

Report on Nitrate in Groundwater

Addressing Groundwater Quality in Karst Regions

Nitrogen Management on Sandy Soils: Review of BMPs. Carl Rosen Department of Soil Water and Climate University of Minnesota

Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in SOUTHWESTERN AND WEST-CENTRAL MINNESOTA

Irrigated Spring Wheat

6.1 Recommended Overarching Actions to Support Nutrient Reduction Strategy Implementation

Protecting Your Water and Air Resources

Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in SOUTH-CENTRAL MINNESOTA

Saturated Buffer. Subsurface Drainage PURPOSE N REDUCTION LOCATION COST BARRIERS

BUILDING CLIMATE RESILIENCE INTO OUR AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM. Jeremy Emmi, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Utilizing farmers changed nitrogen application technologies to demonstrate improved nutrient management practices year 2

Fertilizing Corn in Minnesota

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT. philosophy/approach for determining N rate guidelines for corn.

Applying Dairy Lagoon Water to Alfalfa

HOW CHANGES IN NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS WILL AFFECT FORAGE PRODUCTION

Nutrient Management in. A presentation to the West Metro Water Alliance

Hello my name is Joy Loughry and I am with the groundwater technical unit of the Minnesota department of natural resources. Today I am going to talk

Maintaining and Improving the Health of All Minnesotans

Objective 1: Manage the demonstration site using common agricultural practices and monitor runoff quantity and quality.

Survey Results of Nitrogen Fertilizer BMPs on Minnesota s 2013 Corn Acres

IA NRS Cost Tool Overview Tyndall & Bowman, 2016 Draft

Objective 1: Manage the demonstration site using common agricultural practices and monitor runoff quantity and quality.

Climate Services for Vulnerable Communities: Listening to African American Farmers

2017 Kentucky Soybean Production Contest FORM A Agronomic Data Form*

APPENDIX F. Soil Sampling Programs

Cover Crops: Potential Role in Nutrient Management & Establishment Methods

Analysis of the Co-occurrence Of Nitrate-Nitrogen and Pesticides In Minnesota Groundwater

Nutrient Management (NM)

Form 2L - Land Application of Industrial Wastewater and/or Sludge

Maryland s Regulatory Approach to Nutrient Management

SAMPLE FARM Nutrient Management Plan

Nitrate in Trout Brook

PROCEEDINGS 2017 Crop Pest Management Short Course & Minnesota Crop Production Retailers Association Trade Show

Farmer Considerations and Practices with Cover Crops

New Practices for Nutrient Reduction: STRIPs and Saturated Buffers. Matthew Helmers and Tom Isenhart Iowa State University

Land Application and Nutrient Management

Iowa Bioreactor Demonstration Project

NRCS EQIP and CSP IPM Programs. IPM Implementation Trends, Cost Effectiveness, and Recommendations for Optimizing NRCS Investments in Conservation

Developing BMP s to Minimize the Water Quality Impacts of Winter Manure Spreading - Amendment

Aus dem Institut für Betriebswirtschaft, Agrarstruktur und ländliche Räume

Nitrogen BMPs for horticultural crop production Tim Hartz UC Davis

Cover Crops and Nitrogen in Water

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

A Guide to Collecting Soil Samples for Farms and Gardens

WVU Extension Fertility Recommendation Tool (FRT) for Small Farms

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Wisconsin Wastewater Operators Association. Protecting Our Water Resources: The Future Bill Hafs - NEW Water 10/2014

November 2008 Issue # Nutrient Management Considerations in a High-Cost Environment

Phosphorus for the Ontario CCA 4R Nutrient Management Specialty

Iowa Senate Natural Resources Committee February 3, 2015

Water Plans. Water Plans: Houston County LWMP amended 2012 Winona County LWMP

Pennsylvania s Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan

ARC / PLC Program Overview

Government Conservation Programs

Water and Nitrogen BMPs for Tomato and Watermelon: Water Quality and Economics 1

Notice Soliciting Comments Regarding an Economic Impact Analysis

Livestock and Poultry Environmental Learning Center Webcast Series June 20, 2008

Keeping it Green and Growing: An Aerial Seeding Concept

WATER AWARENESS PROGRAM (WAP) FOR FARMERS (Moga, Punjab)

Using Dairy Manure as a Fertilizer Source for Forage Crops. Workgroup. Marsha Campbell Mathews University of California Farm Advisor Stanislaus County

Split Application- North Dakota Perspective. Dave Franzen, PhD Professor Soil Science Extension Soil Specialist, NDSU, Fargo

Agricultural Phosphorus Management

1998 Missouri Crop Costs and 2000 Crop Cost of Production Estimates

Nutrient Management in Crop Production

FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE PRICE OF MANURE AS A FERTILIZER Ray Massey, Economist University of Missouri, Commercial Ag Program

Agricultural Environmental Management

NASDA Enumerator Survey Training

INJECTING LIQUID HOG MANURE FOR IMPROVING CROP YIELDS

How Do Cover Crops Affect Fertilizer Recommendations?

Proposal. What is the issue? Why is it important? Key findings and draft recommendations

Feedlot Construction Setbacks from Open Water and Wells

Cover Crop Economics. The green behind the green. Jim Stute Rock County UWEX

Evaluation of Corn, Soybean and Barley Varieties for Certified Organic Production-Crawfordsville Trial, 2001

available detached transport availability detached carries

Resources Conservation Practices Tillage, Manure Management and Water Quality

Agriculture Action Packet DRAFT Attachment # FARM MAP EXAMPLE DRAFT

Use of Pre-sidedress Nitrogen Tests (PSNTs) to Understand Nitrogen Availability after Incorporation of Cover Crops on Vegetable Farms

The Next Generation of Stormwater Management and Site Design. Melanie R. Grigsby, P.E. Stormwater Resource Manager, City of Fort Myers

Monitoring Soil Nutrients in Dryland Systems Using Management Units

Orange County Fertilizer Application Education Course for Citizens

Overall Instructions

Implementation of Priority CRP Conservation Practices and Estimated Nutrient Load Reductions

Switchgrass for Forage and Bioenergy

Land Application of Biosolids Rules, Regulations and Benefits EPA regulations, under Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 503 (40 CFR 503) -

Ottawa County Farmland Preservation Program Scoring Criteria

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CERTIFIED CROP ADVISER. Local Performance Objectives For Exams and Continuing Education Programs

THE INTRODUCTION THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT

The Effect of Climate on Sugar Beet Yields In Western Montana

Economics of Irrigation Ending Date for Corn 1

IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF RYE COVER CROP SYSTEMS

Tree Physiology: Nitrogen. December 8, 2016

NCDA&CS 2012 AGRICULTURAL LANDS ASSESSMENT

SECTION 17.1 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION CONTROL

Outline. Farmer Goals/Needs for their Soil 1/23/2017. Compost. Challenges Using Compost. Other Support

Water Resources on PEI: an overview and brief discussion of challenges

Transcription:

Groundwater Protection Rule Framework March 2018

Purpose of This Meeting We want you leave this meeting with an understanding of the rule framework, timeline, opportunities for involvement, and the tools to talk about the rule with your membership.

Foundation for the Rule The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) is the lead state agency for the management of fertilizer and for addressing nitrate from fertilizer in groundwater The Groundwater Protection Act (Chapter 103H) outlines specific requirements and a process to address contamination in groundwater The Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan (NFMP) is the state s blueprint for minimizing groundwater impacts from the use of nitrogen fertilizer The Groundwater Protection Rule is based on the approach in the NFMP Our goal is to work with local farmers and agronomists to promote science based and economically viable practices to reduce nitrate in groundwater

Foundation for the Rule 1989 Groundwater Protection Act passed 1990 First Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan (NFMP) drafted 2010 to 2015 NFMP revision Advisory committee of farmers, agronomists, commodity groups, and environmental organizations 420 written comments Summer 2017 Draft Groundwater Protection Rule released for informal comment 17 listening sessions across the state 1,500 attendees 820 written comments

Nitrate Leaching from Fertilizer A very challenging problem Under row crop production in vulnerable soils, nitrate leaching will occur Losses may vary significantly between years due to weather May be long lag times (years) between changes in practices and changes in groundwater quality Enormous variability between and within aquifers There is no simple solution

Part 1: Nitrogen Fertilizer Application Restrictions in Vulnerable Groundwater Areas If you farm in a vulnerable groundwater area, you will not be able to apply nitrogen fertilizer in the fall or on frozen soils Criteria include coarse textured soils, shallow bedrock, or karst geology Vulnerable groundwater areas will be determined quarter-section by quarter-section If 50% or more of a quarter-section is vulnerable, fall application will not be allowed in the entire quarter-section The MDA web site will have a zoomable interactive vulnerable area map

Part 2: Mitigation Efforts in DWSMAs with Elevated Levels of Nitrate The goal of Part 2 is to take action before a public water system exceeds the health standard of 10 mg/l nitrate-n (nitratenitrogen) It is designed so the MDA partners with local farmers and their agronomists to find the best approaches to improve water quality Two levels are voluntary, two are regulatory Always starts with one of the voluntary levels Becomes regulatory only if BMPs are not voluntarily adopted or if nitrate contamination increases

Part 2: Mitigation Efforts in DWSMAs with Elevated Levels of Nitrate There are 4 levels: Levels 1 and 2 are voluntary, levels 3 and 4 are regulatory. Level 1: DWSMAs that are at 5.4 to less than 8 mg/l nitrate-n. Level 2: DWSMAs that have exceeded 8 mg/l at any point during the previous 10 years or are projected to exceed 10 mg/l in the next 10 years. Level 3: After three growing seasons the BMPs are not adopted on 80% of the cropland acres (excluding soybean acres) or after three growing seasons the residual soil nitrate below the root zone increases or after three growing seasons or the estimated lag time, whichever is longer, the nitrate concentration continues to increase. Level 4: If nitrate-n in the public water supply well exceeded 9 mg/l for any three samples in the previous 10 years; or after three years the residual soil nitrate below the root zone increases; or after three years or the estimated lag time, whichever is longer, the nitrate levels continue to increase.

What s at Stake for Community Water Suppliers Dealing with Nitrate Problems? A public water supply system cannot exceed the health standard for nitrate Nitrate removal systems typically costs millions for upfront construction in addition to long-term operations and maintenance costs May be costs for drilling new wells May blend water from multiple wells to achieve acceptable water quality Consumer costs are 2-6 times higher than non-impacted water supplies

Overview of Changes Since the 2017 Draft June 2017 March 2018 Part 1 Statewide Restrictions on Nitrogen Fertilizer Application in the Fall and on Frozen Soil Vulnerable Groundwater. Area Definition Field Determination Criterion Areas with vulnerable groundwater were defined using a method that measured how water moved through a 5 foot soil profile (KSAT) and karst geology Used full sections to determine if Part 1 of the rule applied to individual fields Areas with vulnerable groundwater defined based on USDA NRCS soil maps and shallow bedrock and karst geology Uses quarter-sections determine if Part 1 of the rule applies to individual fields County-level exclusions Provided no county-level exclusions Excludes counties based on their low risk for nitrate contamination in groundwater due to climate and minimal row crops Part 2 Mitigation Efforts Eligibility Criterion Applied to both townships and DWSMAs Applies to DWSMAs

Changes to Part 1 of the Rule Since the 2017 Draft Part 1 of the rule deals with restrictions on nitrogen fertilizer in the fall and on frozen soil in vulnerable groundwater areas. Vulnerable soils are defined as: Coarse textured soils based on USDA NRCS soils maps (not KSAT) Shallow bedrock based on USDA NRCS soils maps (not DNR maps) Karst geology (no change) Added Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs) for public water supplies exceeding 5.4 mg/l nitrate-n. Changed the mapped area subject to restrictions to quarter-sections where 50% or more is vulnerable. Previously it was mapped by full sections. Added an exclusion for counties with low leaching potential based on precipitation and evapotranspiration rates and a short planting season. Added an exclusion for counties where less than 3% of the land is used for cropland.

Fall Restrictions Map

Changes to Part 1 Exemptions Since the 2017 Draft Increased the allowed nitrogen rate from 20 pounds to an average of 40 pounds per acre when applying ammoniated polyphosphate (MAP and DAP) or micronutrient formulations. Fields that have very low to low phosphorus levels are not subject to the 40 pounds per acre total nitrogen limit. Added exceptions for specific crops including winter grains, perennial crops, grass seed, cultivated paddy rice, and fall cover crops. Specified an effective date of January 1, 2020 to provide enough notice for entities that need to order and ship fertilizer.

Part 1 Statistics Cropland Acres with Fall/Winter Application Restrictions Estimated number of cropland acres classified as vulnerable: 2.6 million Estimated percent of statewide cropland: 12.6%

Changes to Part 2 Since the 2017 Draft The rule will prioritize protecting DWSMAs. The goal is to prevent source water from exceeding the health standard of 10 mg/l nitrate-n. There will be no regulatory component for townships. Voluntary Township Testing and NFMP activities will continue to occur in townships such as forming local advisory teams, promoting BMPs, and evaluating BMP adoption. Mitigation level 2 DWSMA criteria decreased from 9 mg/l to 8 mg/l nitrate-n. Criteria for moving up levels in DWSMAs now include: Increasing nitrate levels in groundwater, or Increases in residual soil nitrate below the root zone.

Changes to Part 2 of the Rule Since the 2017 Draft The timeframe for evaluating changes in water quality has been modified to include the vertical lag time for nitrate to reach groundwater and travel time within an aquifer to reach the impacted well. Soybean acres are NOT included in the evaluation of BMP adoption. Commissioner's Order DWSMA Level 3 BMPs Alternative Management Tools (AMTs) may be required if funded. DWSMA Level 4 Commissioner can order any practices allowed by the Groundwater Protection Act. These likely will be AMTs. There are two limitations: 1. The Commissioner cannot restrict selection of the primary crop, and 2. The nitrogen rate cannot be below the lowest University of Minnesota recommended rate. The Commissioner can grant a one-time exemption to delay entering each regulatory level if there is demonstrated progress.

Before Farmers are Required to Follow Practices The Local Advisory Team (LAT) recommends appropriate BMPs The recommended BMPs are published and promoted BMP adoption is evaluated A local monitoring network may be installed in the DWSMA The LAT will also evaluate suitable Alternative Management Tools (AMTs) Commissioner required to seek LAT input before imposing water resource protection requirements

Alternative Management Tools (AMTs) Precision agriculture Cover crops Use of perennials Lower nitrogen use varieties Highly targeted lands swapped or taken out of production New technologies and practices added over time

Example Commissioner s Order Process Example Regulatory Options: Appropriate Regional BMPs Record keeping Local Advisory Team Commissioner s Order Attend training Collect well water samples Credit N from previous crop and manure Soil testing Nitrification inhibitor Example Commissioner s Order: Record keeping Credit nitrogen from all sources Soil testing Select BMPs Irrigation management

Part 2 Statistics Drinking Water Supply Management Areas Estimated number of cropland acres currently in DWSMAs subject to the rule: 97,580 acres Estimated percent of statewide cropland: 0.45%

Rulemaking Timeline and Next Steps Spring 2018: MDA staff completes the draft of the rule and the Statement of Need and Reasonableness. MDA begins outreach to stakeholders to explain the content of the proposed rule. Early May 2018: MDA publishes the draft Groundwater Protection Rule and Statement. of Need and Reasonableness. A 30-60 day formal public comment period begins with the publication of the rule. MDA reviews comments and considers changes to the rule. Summer 2018: Hearings are held at various locations before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Any interested person may testify. Summer 2018: Post-hearing comment period. Agency and interested parties can submit written comments. Fall 2018: Administrative Law Judge completes report, gives MDA time to respond to ALJ report. December 2018: MDA submits the final Groundwater Protection Rule to the Office of Administrative Hearings, the Office of the Revisor of Statutes, and the Governor. January 2019: Governor signs final Rule. January 2020: Fall fertilizer application prohibition goes into effect.

Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program Farmers certified under the MDA s Ag Water Quality Certification Program will be deemed to be in compliance with the rule. As of 3/19/18: 541 farms certified 335,924 acres enrolled 1,021 new practices in place 28,858,503 lbs of sediment per year 65,369,933 lbs of soil per year 17,432 lbs of P per year

Questions & Answers