Most farmers and feedlot operators are found to be following nutrient-management plans when they are spot-checked by state officials, whether that state's programs are mandatory or voluntary.
he bad news is, not many plans are actually audited by an on-site inspection.
The driving force in a spot-check isn't that a site was chosen as part of a thorough, random auditing strategy. Often, inspectors show up simply because of a complaint.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in cost-share funds for the creation of plans and systems to keep soil, fertilizers and livestock manure out of streams and other public waters. Despite that investment, water-quality issues continue to surface and gain the attention of environmental groups.
According to state officials and others contacted by DTN, a lack of adequate funding and personnel makes it less likely that existing plans are as effective as they could be.
Farmers' desire may be greater than resources available to create formal plans, since many producers who don't receive financial assistance still draft plans.
Jim Sowash, a Stover, Mo., farmer and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) technical advisor on nutrient-management plans, said it likely will be difficult to expand nutrient management.
"I try to keep as much money in my county as I can," he said. "The money is starting to get thinner." His county is "not going to have the finances to be able to do some of this."
As a farmer, Sowash received cost-share through the voluntary Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which provides financial and technical assistance to producers to implement conservation practices.
He has used the funds to improve nutrient management on his 250-acre farm, which includes both a cow-calf and a turkey operation. Part of his plan includes management of turkey litter and expanding composting.
Based on his experience, Sowash said nutrient-management plans developed through EQIP are not being spot-checked like they should. The follow-up is necessary, he said, because it helps producers perfect their practices.
"DNR (Missouri Department of Natural Resources) is supposed to follow up on plans," Sowash said. "They're not being spot-checked. I don't feel like it is going on at all. Follow-up really needs to be done."
According to the NRCS web site, there were about $514 million in active EQIP contracts as of April.
Dennis Pate, director of planning for Validus, an environmental auditor based in Urbandale, Iowa, said 85% to 90% of the nutrient plans written in Iowa include NRCS cost-share funds. While few of those are audited, he said there likely is no follow-up on whether plans are being implemented when cost-share is not involved.
"In my view, there are some holes in follow-up to assure application per the plans," he said.
Because resources are scarce, Pate said it is less likely spot-checks are done on cost-share plans in Iowa and other states -- especially those that do not include livestock. The same can be said for comprehensive nutrient-management programs for livestock producers, he said.
"We manage the program as effectively as we can given the resources we have," said Kenneth Hessenius, supervisor of an Iowa Department of Natural Resources field office in Spencer, Iowa.
NRCS officials could "always do more," he said, and would step up the frequency of inspections if more resources were available.
EQIP RESOURCES
Federal officials said they receive far more applications for EQIP assistance than there are contracts approved annually. Contracts not approved are often put on a waiting list for funding. Mark Rose, EQIP program manager at NRCS in Washington, D.C., said as many as 35,000 or more applications are unfunded each year.
David P. Brommel, EQIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program coordinator for the Iowa NRCS, said even without financial assistance, most producers request follow-up visits from NRCS to verify practices.
For example, in 2009, there were more unfunded EQIP applications than approved contracts, he said. Nationally, 31,960 contracts were approved in 2009. However, 54,329 applications were unfunded.
About $731 million was obligated to EQIP contracts in 2009, according to NRCS. The unfunded applications, however, would have required nearly $1.4 billion. In 2008, there were about 28,000 unfunded applications.
NPDES PERMITS
State officials keep a closer eye on plans submitted by open cattle lots that are required to have National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
The facilities are inspected once every five years, and compliance is near 100%, Hessenius said.
Iowa requires manure-management plans for animal confinements exceeding 500 animals but does not require NPDES permits for confined operations because they are subject to the state's zero-discharge law. Zero discharge means manure is not supposed to be discharged directly into waterways. Manure applications are allowed on crops.
Iowa has about 6,000 manure-management plans submitted annually by concentrated animal-feeding operations (CAFOs), Hessenius said. Professional plan writers prepare most of those plans, and the state requires annual updates to them. In addition, most manure is applied by certified manure applicators who are spot-checked by the state.
CAFOs are required to submit a complete plan that includes phosphorus index and soil sampling every four years, Hessenius said. On-site field inspections are conducted on a rotating basis, and compliance with those plans is about 98%.
PLANS IN OTHER STATES
Doug Goodlander, director of nutrient- and odor-management programs with the Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission, said his state makes annual visits to all farms with approved nutrient-management plans. About 1,100 larger farms in Pennsylvania are required to have plans. These farms are more likely to have nutrient-balancing problems and generate about half of the manure generated in the state, he said.
"We have found farmers to be much more active in implementing their plans once they discover that there will be a continuing state agency presence on the farm to monitor their implementation efforts," Goodlander said.
The state started spot-checking some 5% of participating farms back in 1997, he said. That changed in 2002 with the start of annual inspections on all of those farms. Those inspections, however, cover just a fraction of all farms. Pennsylvania has more than 30,000 farms producing manure, Goodlander said.
"So in this way, we impose ourselves on a minimal number of farms," he said. "But we address a large portion of the manure generated in Pennsylvania -- biggest bang for the buck. We would never have the staffing resources to visit all of our animal operations annually, so we bit off a chunk of the industry that we thought we could handle, which are these larger farms."
Tim P. Sexton, nutrient-management program manager with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, said there are about 440,000 acres under nutrient management in Virginia, which inspects all animal-feeding operations required to have nutrient-management plans annually. About 5% of farms with cost-share plans are inspected each year.
"Most farmers are found to be in compliance," Sexton said. "A few are required to return cost-share money or get a violation notice each year. Not many."
SPOT CHECKS IN OTHER STATES
Nora Mena, program manager of the Dairy Nutrient Management Program at the Washington Department of Agriculture, said the state's program has a 95% to 98% compliance rate on nutrient-management plans. The state oversees plans on 433 dairies with about 226,000 acres of crop or grazing land.
Washington also issues permits to CAFOs, including 12 dairies, seven feedlots and two poultry operations. All of these facilities are inspected every two years.
"Compliance, for us, means there were no discharges, or practices or situations that pose a potential to pollute. That includes not following key elements of their nutrient-management plan," Mena said.
Complete recordkeeping by the facilities has been "spotty," she said, but has improved in the past two years since state law was changed to require better recordkeeping.
Dairies in Washington's drier eastern half have fewer problems when it comes to their facilities and manure application. However, Mena said those dairies export a lot of manure to other farms that are not required to keep records or to submit to inspections.
Larry Towle, nutrient-management program administrator with the Delaware Department of Agriculture, said the state conducts 20 to 30 routine inspections each year. There are 1,138 private nutrient handlers and 478 operations that generate manure in the state. Nutrient handlers can include brokers who buy and sell nutrients for farmers.
Delaware conducts about 25 complaint investigations annually, he said. Most plans that are spot-checked are followed.
"The farmers are receptive to the spot-checks," Towle said, "since it has been explained through many training sessions and update meetings that verification is important for validation of the program's success."
He said non-compliance issues in Delaware had been related to recordkeeping and housekeeping.
"If the results of the inspections suggested that we had a great deal of non-compliance, then I would not be comfortable with 20 to 30 inspections," Towle said.
"We are currently limited by a lack of staff. This section has lost two staff members due to transfers, vacancies and finally budget cuts in the past three years. We are working to change that issue."
Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@telventdtn.com
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=eddd1310-50bf-4ee7-adbd-597512891e22
