Update on Nutrient Management Regulations

Legislation
Update on Nutrient Management Regulations
by Ken Hough, OCPA Director of Research and Market Development

The Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Helen Johns, and the Minister of Environment, Hon. Chris Stockwell, resumed public consultations on the proposed Phase II draft NM regulation and protocols in the first week of February. At the outset of each of these consultation sessions, Ministry staff outlined several possible changes being considered to the draft regulation and protocols as released in early December. The changes under consideration have arisen from issues brought forward during the December 2002 consultation sessions hosted by the Ministers as well as extensive discussions the Ministers and their staff have held with many stakeholders in the interim. Further due process must be undertaken within the government system before these changes can be issued as ‘proposed changes’. Nevertheless, OCPA is encouraged by the suggested revisions, which clearly show that the Ministers and their staff have listened to the serious concerns put forward by farmers and other stakeholders regarding the impact of the draft Phase II regulation and protocols as issued in December.

A synopsis of OCPA’s submission to the Ministers, forwarded to their attention on January 31, follows. As noted in previous newsletters and articles, OCPA’s input reflects issues pertaining to cropping (based on use of commercial fertilizers or receiving of nutrients in manure or biosolids) but does not address ‘livestock farming’ issues such as manure generation, housing, siting, storage, etc.

OCPA continues to strongly endorse:
• the purpose of the legislation and regulations (to protect our water and the environment)
• the phase-in timelines as proposed
• the recognition that nutrient management must be science-based, and that nutrient application to crops is based on agronomic need
• the affirmation by the Hon. Helen Johns, Minister of Agriculture and Food, that the Ontario government is committed to maintaining the competitiveness of our agri-food industry though this process
• the implementation of provincial regulations that will provide a consistent business environment for all farmers province-wide and supersede the current patchwork of municipal bylaws that regulate nutrient management.

Short Version NMP
OCPA commends OMAF/MOE for providing the option of the Short Version for a Nutrient Management (NM) Plan or NM Strategy. (See the February issue of the Ontario Corn Producer magazine for the article outlining the short version NMP.) This option should lighten the administrative burden for many farmers.

However, to broaden the usefulness of the short version as proposed, OCPA has recommended that the ‘OMAF nutrient recommendation level plus 15kg/ha’ restriction be relaxed to allow application at crop removal levels plus a maintenance factor (of perhaps up to 70 kg/ha) of phosphorus on soils that do not already have excessive phosphorous levels, and that a wider allowance also be allowed for N (i.e., OMAF recommendation plus up to 30 kg/ha) to allow for variability due to unusual weather, soil moisture conditions, etc. These alterations would make the short form applicable to many more low-risk farmers while still achieving the objectives of the Nutrient Management Act. (The Minister has stated that up to 70% of farms should be able to use the short version.)

OCPA has also requested greater clarification on the extent of documentation required for the field-by-field plans for nutrient applications that must accompany the short version. We assume that farmers would require a comprehensive set of records of actual nutrient applications and management, but it is unclear what level of detail for projections is required at the time of plan preparation.

Compensation
Farmers require compensation for lost productivity within the area covered by buffer strips (along watercourses) and required setbacks (from municipal and private wells) as well as for costs of implementing other measures, including training, required under the NM Act. The government has made assurances that funding assistance to farmers for implementation of NM measures will be forthcoming. However, OCPA strongly recommends that OMAF and OME develop clear plans for the level of compensation they will provide to farmers. In the absence of such information, farmers are understandably concerned regarding the impact of the NM Act on the viability of their operations.

OCPA has also recommended that funding be available for NM-related measures ahead of the phase-in dates, to encourage early adoption of environmental protection measures/management.

Buffer Strips
OCPA concurs that the implementation of 3m permanent buffer strips along surface water is a good environmental protection management practice, although this will affect a significant area of crop landbase. OCPA recommends, however, that intermittent watercourses (i.e., that flow only during early spring or late fall, or when very
unusual rainfall events occur) be excluded from the definition of surface water. At a minimum, application of commercial fertilizers should be allowed on the buffer strips at times when no water flow normally occurs. This would significantly reduce the amount of land area lost to production and for which compensation would be required.

OCPA has also requested that consideration be given to allowing moderate fertilization of buffers adjacent to surface water (i.e., lakes, ponds, streams, non-intermittent ditches) with commercial fertilizers (perhaps 50% rates), at times when potential movement of nutrients into the adjacent water is minimized, to maintain the productivity and integrity of the buffers over longer periods of time.

Setbacks
It is OCPA’s understanding that commercial fertilizer materials have now been removed from the Odour Category 1 (O1) classification list. OCPA welcomes this correction, since it allows commercial fertilizers to be applied to the property line adjacent to residences, residential areas, schools or designated health facilities. This change will mean considerably less land lost to productive cropping, thereby reducing the economic compensation that farmers would have otherwise required.

OCPA has recommended that farmers be adequately compensated for lost productivity resulting from the 100m setback from municipal wells (through municipality purchase of the land at fair market value, or other means of compensation).

OCPA has also recommended that OMAF invest in research to augment the scientific basis for the Nitrogen Index, since this formula will govern nitrogen applications within the two-year-time-of-travel zones under the Regulation/Protocols as proposed.

Training and Licensing/Certification
OCPA has recommended that proposed training for plan/strategy preparation (1 day course) encompass a review of recommended nutrient management principles (i.e., fertilizing to meet crop needs, required setbacks, etc.). Hands-on training of farmers in the use of the NMAN software would also be useful, as this knowledge will reduce the time required or cost for farmers to complete their NM Plans. A separate course that deals with application procedures should be available for those farmers who feel they require more information. Such a course should not be required for all growers, however, as most are already capable of applying nutrients in a responsible and appropriate manner. This would reduce the cost in time, effort and finances imposed on farmers.

OCPA has further recommended that farmers be compensated for their time and costs of taking the required training.

No-Till
OCPA has recommended that the proposed regulation/protocols be reviewed and revised to facilitate (and encourage) no-till production of crops, due to the environmental benefits associated. Specifically, we recommend that regulations for no-till mirror the regulations for ‘living crops’.

We have also recommended that no-till be defined as cropland with a minimum of 30% crop residue cover on the soil surface, since this has been the established threshold for well over a decade.

Winter Spreading
From a cash cropping perspective, winter spreading pertains largely to application of fertilizer on winter wheat in the spring.

Spreading fertilizer on wheat on partially frozen soils is a normal, recommended practice. OCPA understands that the ‘2 cm frost’ limitation is to be corrected to be ‘5 cm or less of frost within the top 15 cm of soil’. OCPA welcomes this correction.

However, OCPA has challenged the rationale for using specific dates to govern winter spreading, rather than field conditions. For example, using arbitrary dates, spreading of fertilizer on winter wheat (where application is not restricted by frozen soil or snow cover limitations) could occur at full application rates on April 1, but be restricted to 50% rates on the previous day, March 31. OCPA has recommended that the restrictions on winter spreading be subject only to the limitations on field conditions (i.e., frost and snow cover restrictions, avoidance of areas that flood every 5 years or less, etc.), and not be subject to specific dates.

Provincial Nutrient Management Registry
OCPA has supported the recommendation of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition that only minimal information from individual plans be posted on the registry. (For example, NM Plan XXX has been submitted by farmer YY, approved by OMAF, and covers NM on the land parcels aa, bb, cc, dd, etc.). Also, the government needs to be mindful that cost-efficiency in operating the database is paramount.

Miscellaneous Issues
OCPA has recommended that all NM Act enforcement personnel be required to have extensive training or experience in agricultural issues (perhaps Certified Crop Advisor status should be required), and that enforcement take the form of abatement measures and education of farmers, rather than fines and penalties, wherever possible. OCPA has also recommended the establishment of procedures that discourage nuisance complaints against farmers.

OCPA has recommended specifying that soil sampling must be done once within a complete crop rotation or every five years, whichever occurs first, rather than the arbitrary ‘every three years’ as proposed. This would be more in line with appropriate agronomic practices.