This rule updates and clarifies the conservation practice standards for cover crops to the current terminology, reflect the practice’s application in an agricultural setting, and the practice’s purpose for improved soil health, water quality, and management of excess nutrients.
This rule expands the use of a diversion to control runoff and prevent contamination.
This rule expands the eligible costs allowed under prescribed grazing.
This rule limits eligible costs under residue management to no-till, strip till or similar practices and eliminates ineligible costs.
This rule updates the definition section of roofs to include a definition of animal housing, refine the definition of roof and eliminate the definition of wall. The rule limits ineligible costs to those that pay for a roof over feed storage, machinery storage or animal housing unless otherwise considered eligible.
This rule expands the components allowed for inclusion under streambank or shoreline protection and allows the costs for lunkers as eligible costs for reimbursement through a cost-share grant as part of this practice.
This rule allows ford crossing to be considered a stream crossing.
This rule expands eligible costs for subsurface drains and expands the ability to cost-share the use of the practice as part of other systems including feed storage runoff control system or as part of a nitrate nitrogen or phosphorus removal system.
This rule expands the definition of a wastewater treatment strip to include use from feed storage areas.
This rule expands the definition of a wetland development to the creating or restoring hydrologic or other conditions suitable for wetland vegetation and/or other important wetland functions and to include the types of common practices to implement this conservation practice.
This rule adds conservation practices and a technical standard to Subchapter VIII for Standards for Practices Receiving Financial Assistance.
Conservation crop rotation
Habitat diversification
Nutrient treatment systems
DATCP 01 Verification of depth to bedrockThe definition of these practices clarifies their use within an agricultural setting where the application may have additional natural resource benefits for water quality, soil health or other related resource concerns.
Summary of, and Comparison with, Existing or Proposed
Federal Statutes and Regulations
The NRCS has adopted conservation practice standards that receive financial assistance from NRCS. Current department rules incorporate many NRCS conservation practice standards by reference. In most cases, these standards apply only to conservation practices that receive financial assistance from department funds. Enforcement of the standards is generally contingent on cost-sharing, with some limited exceptions.
While NRCS sets national conservation practice standards, conservation practices standards vary, to some extent, among states. NRCS coordinates its Wisconsin standard-setting process with the department, DNR and others through the Standards Oversight Council (SOC). For purposes of Wisconsin’s soil and water conservation program, the department may incorporate NRCS conservation practice standards as written or may modify the conservation practice standards as appropriate.
NRCS gives job approval authority to engineering practitioners who design, install or approve conservation practice standards that receive financial assistance from NRCS. The department certifies practitioners who perform similar functions under department rules. Although the two systems are separate, they have many similarities, and the federal and state agencies collaborate to ensure efficiencies and ensure the landowners who rely on technical services from engineering practitioners receive technical assistance.
The United States Department of Agriculture administers several federal programs that offer voluntary conservation incentives to farmers. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a key program offering cost-sharing for conservation improvements, including nutrient management plans, manure storage improvements and other conservation practices. Other programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) also provide cost-sharing and other incentives for conservation practices.
The department attempts to coordinate state programs for conservation funding with relevant federal programs whenever possible. As a result of confidentiality requirements, federal cost-sharing provided to landowners through federal programs cannot be publicly disclosed and it is difficult to account for what role, if any, these funds may play meeting state agricultural performance standards.
Summary of Comments Received during Preliminary Comment Period
and at Public Hearing on Statement of Scope
A preliminary public hearing on the scope statement for ch. ATCP 50 was held on September 30, 2021. No formal comments were submitted during the preliminary comment period.
Comparison with Rules in Adjacent States
A review of other states for requirements related to manure applications on shallow soils over bedrock found limited similarities with s. NR 151.075. There were similarities in technical standards and existing rules statewide that apply to timing of manure applications and setback distances to some direct conduits (wells, sinkholes). Each state has a soil and water conservation program, and offer cost share grants, but Wisconsin is the only state that coordinates with land conservation departments within counties. Other states have conservation districts, which are established under state law. The goal of conservation districts and land conservation departments is to coordinate assistance from all available sources—public and private, local, state and federal—to develop locally-driven solutions to natural resources concerns.
Regardless of organization, the bulk of funding is acquired from NRCS. In Wisconsin in 2021, approximately $51.4 million was spent from NRCS for conservation activities through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program ($30.5 million), the Conservation Stewardship Program ($18.1 million), and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program ($2.8 million). In contrast, in 2022, Wisconsin appropriated approximately $9 to $11 million for county conservation staff. Additionally, approximately $6 million was available for cost-share to producers to install conservation practices with county assistance. Wisconsin is only state where a Farmland Preservation Program requires participants to comply to soil and water conservation standards.
Illinois
While Illinois has a statewide farmland preservation program in which landowners may restrict the use of their land to agricultural or related uses in exchange for tax credits, the program does not include conservation compliance requirements.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture offers Sustainable Agriculture grants to organizations, governmental units, educational institutions, non-profit groups, and individuals to cost share a variety of conservation practices. Practices are funded at a 75% cost-share rate, but the list of eligible practices is much smaller than the number of practices in Wisconsin.
Iowa
Iowa nutrient management planning includes a nitrogen leaching index and, like Wisconsin, includes restrictions on manure applications near surface water, groundwater conduits, and frozen soil. Iowa requires 200 ft. setbacks from sinkholes and wells when manure is not incorporated and 0 ft. setback when manure is incorporated. There are no specific requirements for spreading manure over shallow bedrock soils in Iowa.
While Iowa operates a county-based statewide farmland preservation program in which landowners may restrict the use of their land to agricultural or related uses in exchange for tax credits, the program does not include conservation compliance requirements.
The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship offers both cost-sharing and incentive payment programs. Cost-sharing usually cannot exceed 50%, and they have an active watershed program similar to Wisconsin’s old priority watershed program. Iowa also offers a revolving loan fund to fund conservation activities.
Michigan
Michigan’s Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMP) provide general recommendations to keep manure within the root zone of plants. GAAMPs have no specific manure setback recommendations from direct conduits (wells, sinkholes) and no recommendations for spreading manure in shallow bedrock soils.
While Michigan has a statewide farmland preservation program in which landowners may restrict the use of their land to agricultural or related uses in exchange for tax credits, the program does not include conservation compliance requirements.
The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development offers all 75 conservation districts base funding with the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). Cost-sharing is also available for MAEAP verification.
Minnesota
Minnesota has no specific requirements for manure applications on shallow soils over fractured bedrock. Minnesota recommends at least 2 ft. of soil between manure and fractured bedrock and avoid fall applications of manure (N loss).
While Minnesota has a statewide farmland preservation program in which landowners may restrict the use of their land to agricultural or related uses in exchange for tax credits, the program does not include conservation compliance requirements.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) offers grants via their Clean Water Fund, Agricultural Water Quality Certification Program (MAWQCP), and Revolving Loan Fund for Best Management Practices. The MDA received $21.7 million from the Clean Water Fund in 2020-2021 and the legislature appropriated $20.24 million of Clean Water Funds for the MDA in 2022-2023. The MDA is using Clean Water Fund dollars to support a variety of programs, projects, and activities.
Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies
After the DNR passed s. NR 151.075 in 2018, the department published DATCP 01 - Verification of Depth to Bedrock Technical Standard in February 2020. The technical standard was developed through the Standard Oversight Council using the council’s standard development process. To develop this rule, the department held multiple listening sessions and stakeholder meetings with a variety of stakeholders including farm groups, environmental groups, and government entities such as county land and water conservation departments and staff from other state agencies. The meetings allowed the department to gather input and incorporate that input into the rule.
