Transcript Nutrient Uptake - Penn State University College of

NRCS 590 STANDARD
& ACT 38 ISSUES
Douglas Beegle, Department of Plant Science, Penn State Univ.
Mark Goodson, PA State Agronomist, USDA NRCS
PA NM Conference 6/13
NRCS Practice Standard 590
Nutrient Management
• Not a regulatory requirement
– EPA would like this to be the national
standard for all programs
• Pushed for a very restrictive 590
• Basis for manure application in an
NRCS Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan (CNMP)
– CNMP required for technical or
financial assistance with manure and
nutrient management from NRCS
• In PA consistent with PA Act 38 and
CAFO plans
• New revision in 2012
590 Standard Revision process
• NRCS HQ released 590 standard to all
states
• States must adopt new 590 within 1 year
• States may modify 590 for use in their
state
• State 590 may be no less restrictive than
national 590
Will changes in 590 impact nutrient
management regulatory process?
590 analysis in PA
• Detailed review of new 590 criteria with current PA
nutrient management regulations and planning
procedures
• Included technical and non-technical stakeholders in
advisory capacity:
– Keep 590 NM planning consistent CAO and CAFO
planning
– Maintain a single planning standard across NRCS,
CAO program and CAFO program that meets 590
standard
• Multiple conversations with NRCS HQ for clarification
What has Changed?
More Emphasis on Risk Assessments
• Erosion Loss
• Nitrogen Leaching tool
• Phosphorus Risk Assessment (P-Index)
Erosion Loss
• Requiring erosion loss to meet “T” over the rotation is new in 590
However. . .
• This criteria is already required by state law and has been part of
Act 38 and CAFO planning since 2006.
– [83.361(f)] “…verification by the delegated conservation district or
the Department of Environmental Protection that the operation has
a current agricultural erosion and sediment control plan.”
• PAOneStop to include soil loss calculations which would simplify
this part of nutrient management planning
• P Index uses erosion loss
PAOneStop.org
• Currently used to
develop maps for
NMPs
–
–
–
–
Fields
Soils
Topography
Setbacks
• Tools for E & S planning
are under development
within PAOneStop
Nitrogen Leaching Index Criteria
(NI-190-302)
• The NRCS-approved nutrient risk
assessment for nitrogen must be completed
on all sites unless the State NRCS, with the
concurrence of State water quality control
authorities, has determined specific
conditions where nitrogen leaching is not a
risk to water quality, including drinking water.
(A version of the N-LI is contained in RUSLE2)
Nitrate Leaching Index (RUSLE)
County
Adams
Allegheny
Armstrong
Beaver
Bedford
Berks
Blair
Bradford
Bucks
Butler
Cambria
Cameron
Carbon
Centre
RUSLE Leaching Index
Soil Hydrologic Group
A
B
C
15.37
9.74
6.04
13.90
8.40
4.90
16.37
10.43
6.51
13.28
7.91
4.52
13.77
8.30
4.81
20.01
13.43
8.92
15.09
9.37
5.65
12.66
7.30
4.00
19.67
13.13
8.67
15.38
9.62
5.86
20.87
13.98
9.27
18.62
12.13
7.78
20.97
14.25
9.61
15.33
9.59
5.84
D
4.10
3.00
5.00
3.00
3.00
7.00
4.00
2.00
6.00
4.00
7.00
6.00
7.00
4.00
Grouping of the leaching index values into severity classes:
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
0–5
5 to 10
10 to 20
greater than 20
BMPs
Restrictions
Class boundaries are examples and should be set by local
experience
Pierce et al.
CAFO
Nitrogen Leaching Index
Act 38
Act 38
Manure
590
Application
Plan
•
Not required in Act 38 or CAFO plans
•
Requiring N Leaching index under 590
would result in NRCS 590 plans being
different from PA Act 38 Plans and CAFO plans
•
OR . . . Act 38 [Chap 83,Subchap D] and CAFO [Chap 92.5a(e)(1)]regulations
would need to be changed
•
Alternative in 590 “…unless the State NRCS, with the concurrence of State
water quality control authorities, has determined specific conditions where
nitrogen leaching is not a risk to water quality, including drinking water”
– Worked with NRCS Deputy Chief for Science and Technology, Wayne Honeycutt,
and the NRCS National Nutrient Management Specialist, John Davis to develop a
solution
– Implementation of currently required BMPs would be the condition where N
leaching is not a risk to water quality
NRCS
CNMP
Nitrogen Leaching Index
• Meeting this criteria with BMPs?
– If N leaching BMPs are included in the NMP this would be the “specific
conditions where nitrogen leaching is not a risk to water quality” and thus no N
Leaching Index would be required?
• Many BMPs in an Act 38 NMP are designed to minimize nitrogen leaching
– For example:
• Never exceed N based manure rates [83.293 (a)(1)]
• Time manure and fertilizer applications as close to crop uptake as practical
[83.293 (b)]
•
•
•
•
Cover crops for fall and winter applied manure [83.294(f) & (g)]
Setbacks and buffers [83.294 (f)]
Use the PSNT to determine supplemental N needs [83.293 (d)]
Incorporate manure as soon after application as practical or use low
disturbance manure injection [83.291 (d)]
• Unfortunately, these BMPs are not explicitly listed as “N leaching BMPs” in
Act 38 regulations and technical guidance.
Nitrogen Leaching Index
•
Develop N Leaching BMP Factsheet
– Explicitly listing existing N leaching BMPs
– Provide planning guidance for
addressing N leaching
– Provide management guidance for
better N leaching management
– Include an N Leaching Management Matrix as planning
guidance
•
Put greater emphasis on N leaching in Nutrient
Management Certification training
•
Bottom line message:
If you are following Act 38 regulations this would be the
“specific conditions where nitrogen leaching is not a
risk to water quality” and you would not need to run
the N Leaching Index
Agronomy Facts 90
Best Management Practices
for N Leaching
Fertilizer Nitrogen
Nitrogen Leaching Management Matrix (DRAFT)
Management
BETTER
GOOD
N Fertilizer Rate
Rate does not exceed crop N
recommendation or N removal
by legumes and considers:
previous legume crop, previous
manure history, and planned
manure application and PSNT
or Chlorophyll meter used to
adjust sidedress N rate
Fertilizer applied in split
applications in sync with crop
uptake. eg. Apply by cutting to
grass forages, sidedress N on
corn, apply the bulk of N in the
spring to winter grains, etc.
Rate does not exceed crop N NA
recommendation or N removal
by legumes and considers:
previous legume crop, previous
manure history, and planned
manure application
Rate exceeds crop N
recommendation and does not
consider: previous legume
crop, previous manure history,
and planned manure
application
Fertilizer applied immediately
(days) prior to planting annual
crops
or
Applied earlier (weeks) to a
growing cover crop
or
Applied earlier (weeks) with a
nitrification inhibitor
Fertilizer incorporated within 1
day
Fertilizer applied well ahead
(weeks) of planting annual
crops with no cover crop or
expected uptake by a perennial
crop
Fertilizer applied a month or
more before planting an
annual crop or expected
uptake by a perennial crop
Fertilizer incorporated by
conservation tillage methods
or
Not incorporated and a urease
Inhibitor used with urea or
UAN fertilizer1
or
Not incorporated surface band
application of UAN1
Fertilizer not incorporated but NA
applied immediately before a
non-runoff producing rainfall
event1
or
Incorporated by conventional
tillage methods
N Fertilizer Timing
N Fertilizer Incorporation
Timing
Fertilizer placed or Injected
directly into the soil
N Fertilizer Incorporation
Method
Fertilizer placed or Injected
directly into the soil with
minimal soil disturbance
FAIR
NOT ACCEPTABLE
by Act 38 Regulations
Fertilizer incorporated within 1 Fertilizer not Incorporated
1See “N Fertilizer Incorporation
week
Methods” below for
alternatives to incorporation
Nitrogen Leaching Management Matrix (DRAFT)
Management
BETTER
GOOD
FAIR
Manure Location
Manure applied on level, well
drained soils far from water
with growing crop or 25% crop
residue and conservation
practices implemented
Rate does not exceed crop N
recommendation and
considers: previous legume
crop, previous manure history,
and fertilizer N to be applied
regardless of manure (eg.
Starter N)
Manure applied to growing
crops (Primarily grass forage
crops)
or
Manure applied immediately
(days) prior to planting annual
crops
Placed or Injected directly into
the soil
Manure applied on sloping
well drained soils with
growing crop or 25% crop
residue and conservation
practices implemented
NA
Manure applied on steep
slopes or in areas prone to
flooding and excessively well
drained or poorly drained soils
Incorporated within 1 day
Incorporated within 1 week
Manure Nitrogen
Manure N Rate
Manure Application Timing
Manure Incorporation
Timing
Manure Incorporation
Method
NOT ACCEPTABLE
by Act 38 Regulations
Manure applied within
required application setbacks
or where restricted by the P
Index or on greater than 15%
slope in the winter
NA
Rate exceeds crop N
recommendation and does not
consider: previous legume
crop, previous manure history,
and fertilizer N to be applied
regardless of manure (eg.
Starter N)
Manure applied earlier
Manure applied well ahead (a Manure in the winter to
(weeks) to a growing cover
month or more) of planting
frozen ground or applied well
crop
annual crops with a cover crop ahead (a month or more) of
or
or at least 25% residue cover planting annual crops with no
Applied earlier (weeks) with a
cover crop or less than 25%
nitrification inhibitor
residue cover
Placed or Injected directly into Incorporated by conservation Not incorporated but applied
the soil with minimal soil
tillage methods2
immediately before a non2
disturbance
runoff producing rainfall
event2
or
Incorporated by conventional
tillage methods
Not Incorporated
2See “Manure Incorporation
Methods” below for
alternatives to incorporation
NA
What has changed?
Phosphorus Index (or equivalent)
NRCS policy and CPS 590 standard requires:
• All phosphorus loss risk assessments must use
a phosphorus index approach
• More standardization of P risk tools:
 The way they look and feel
 Risk categories
 Response to risk categories, i.e., similar treatment for
similar risk
Improving Current P-Index Tools
(NI-190-302-NM Policy Implementation)
Why are we concerned about State P-Index tools?
• Not all state P-index tools are doing an
adequate job.
• State P-index tools need to be coordinated
across jurisdictional boundaries so similar risk
receives similar treatment.
• Improvements made with cooperation of statebased partners
PA P Index
• We are ok with the current PA P Index under the revised 590
standard
However . . .
• A new version of the PA P Index is in the works
• Chesapeake Bay regional collaboration
– NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG)
•
•
•
•
•
PA, MD, DE, VA, WV, NY, USDA-ARS
Develop a network of field data on P loss
Model P loss to validate and improve the P Index
Develop revised P Index
Evaluate impact on farm NMPs
• Proposed improvements are significant
– Mainly in structure of the index with minimal changes in the inputs
required by the planner
– Better represent what is happening on the land
PA Phosphorus
Index
Critical Source Area
Source
Transport
Current
PA Phosphorus Index
SOURCE Factor
• Soil Test
• Fertilizer
• Rate
• Method
• Manure
• Rate
• Method
• PSC
X
Transport Factor
• Erosion
• Runoff
• Leaching
• Distance
• Modified
Connectivity
=
P Index
r2=0.52
Each Transport Factor
weighted
Each Source Factor
weighted
Revised “Component” PI
Modeled P loss (kg/ha)
Sediment P SOURCE
• Soil Test
X
Sediment Transport
• Erosion
=
Sediment P Factor
Soluble P SOURCE
• Manure P
• Fertilizer P
• Soil Psat
X
Runoff Transport
• Runoff
=
Runoff Soluble P
Factor
Soluble P SOURCE
• Manure P
• Fertilizer P
• Soil Psat
X
Leaching Transport
• Leaching
=
Leaching Soluble P
Factor
Each Source Factor
weighted
r2=0.65
Each Transport
Factor weighted
Distance
Modeled P Loss (kg/ha)
Connectivity
P Index
(Bolster et al. 2012
Improving Current P-Index Tools
All State P Risk Tools Must, at least:
• Consider STP, erosion, runoff, and leaching;
• Must demonstrate that risk increases with
increasing STP, erosion, runoff and leaching;
• When manures are applied, the P risk
assessment must be based on the annual soil
loss value associated with the crop interval
including the manure application; and
• Include environmental “redlines” for P
application
Rotation vs. Annual Soil Loss
Manure 
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Corn
Corn
Corn
Corn
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
7 t/A
7 t/A
7 t/A
7 t/A
1 t/A
1 t/A
1 t/A
1 t/A
• This is not a specific
requirement of 590, but
could come into play with
the revised P Index
Rotation
soil loss
4 t/A*
*Currently used in P Index and for
conservation planning to meet “T” soil loss
• Annual soil loss makes
sense
• RUSLE2 calculates
annual soil loss
• Not typically reported
• How are we going to get
this done on all fields
that need the PI?
• PAOneStop
Improving Current P-Index Tools
• The P-Index must “zero-out” at some point
(environmental threshold). There is a point
above which the risk of P loss from a field is
too great to warrant the application of P for
plant production. NRCS in collaboration with
State partners must establish this upper limit.
Where field-based research has been
conducted to develop this upper limit, this
State-specific information should be used to
establish the zero-out limit.
The P-Index must “zero-out”
• 83.293(c)(2)(iii) Phosphorus application is completely restricted, if the
application of phosphorus to the soil would be expected to pose an
immediate risk of impacts to a surface water which cannot be managed
by limiting the nutrients based on phosphorus.
PA P Index v2 Table 2. Phosphorus Index Management Guidance
Value
0 to 59
Rating
Low
Management Guidance
Nutrients can be applied to meet the Nitrogen crop requirement.
Low potential for P loss. Maintenance of current farming practices is recommended to
minimize the risk of adverse impacts on surface waters.
60 to 79
Medium
Nutrients can be applied to meet the Nitrogen crop requirement. Medium potential for P
loss. The chance for adverse impacts on surface waters exists. An assessment of current
farm nutrient management and conservation practices is recommended to minimize the risk
of future P losses.
80 to 99
High
Nutrients can be applied to meet the Phosphorus crop removal. High potential for P loss
and adverse impacts on surface waters. Soil and water conservation measures and P-based
management plans are needed to minimize the risk of P loss.
100 or
greater*
Very High
No Phosphorus can be applied. Very high potential for P loss and adverse impacts on
surface waters. Conservation measures and a P-based management plan must be
implemented to minimize the P loss.
What has changed?
Continued
• Requires laboratory proficiency testing
programs for soil and manure
• Nutrient applications to frozen, snow covered
or saturated ground only when approved by
NRCS and state water quality authority and
w/ adequate conservation practices.
Winter Manure Application
Act 38 Regulations 83.201 & 83.294(g)
• Winter is defined as any time any one of the following conditions exists:
– the date is on or between December 15 and February 28
– the ground is frozen at least 4 inches
– or the ground is snow covered
• All Act 38 setbacks must be followed.
– Year-round:
• 100 feet from streams (intermittent and perennial), lakes, ponds, and open existing sinkholes;
unless less there is a permanent vegetative buffer at least 35 feet in width next to the stream, in
which case there will be a 35 foot manure application setback.
• 100 feet from active private water wells
• 100 feet from active public water wells unless other state or federal programs require a larger
– Winter:
• No winter manure application within 100 ft. of an above ground agricultural drainage inlet where
surface flow is toward the inlet.
• No winter manure application within 100 ft. of a wetland (identified on National Wetland
Inventory Maps) within the 100 year floodplain of an Exceptional Value stream segment if surface
flow is toward the wetland.
• Fields receiving winter manure applications must have 25% cover or an
established cover crop.
• Use the Winter Manure Application Matrix for planning winter applications
• Site specific management must be spelled out for any planned winter
manure applications
PA Winter
Manure
Application
Matrix
Summary – what has changed?
•
Erosion plan to meet “T” over rotation
–
•
Existing PA regulations implemented to meet this criterion
Nitrogen Leaching tool
–
Will continue to address leaching risk and mitigation in
NM planning process across all programs per current
regulations and BMPs
–
Increase training and guidance for planners and
producers for selecting N Leaching BMPs
•
–
•
•
N Leaching Factsheet
Do not need to run the Nitrogen Leaching tool
P-Index
–
Current PA P-Index meets the new 590 criteria
–
Revisions to PA P-Index will come in the future with
impacts to PA Nutrient Management Program planning
affecting NRCS, CAO and CAFO programs
Winter Application of Manure – PA Act 38 regs
meet 590 criteria
Revised PA Nutrient Management
Standard 590 Issued Jan 2013
Impact of new 590 to PA
• New 590 criteria were sent to all 50 states
• A number of states lag behind PA state NRCS and
Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Management Program
• Pennsylvania’s current 590, Pennsylvania’s Nutrient
Management Program and regulations meet all new
590 criteria
• Must revise PA590 according to new 590 language
but no additional planning burden to meet new PA590
• Consistent with PA regs, planning process.
Penn State Extension
http://Extension.psu.edu
Penn State Extension Crop Management Team
http://Extension.psu.edu/CMEG
Penn State Extension Nutrient Management Program
http://panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu
Douglas Beegle
Penn State
Department of Plant Science
[email protected]
(814) 863-1016
NRCS in Pennsylvania
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/pa/home/
NRCS PA Tech Guide
http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov//efotg_locator.aspx
NRCS Technical Resources
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/pa/technical/
links to Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning page
Mark Goodson
USDA NRCS
[email protected]
(717) 237-2146