Section 120.14. Cost-share agreement conditions for best management practices.

 

(1)   General applicability.

(a) The cost-share agreement conditions described in this section apply to best management practices included in cost-share agreements or otherwise provided for in s. NR 120.12 (5) or identified by variance under s. NR 120.29 . The cost-share conditions and standards for all best management practices listed in this chapter shall apply to all cost-share agreements signed after October 1, 2002.

(b) The following conditions shall be met while implementing the best management practices in this chapter:

1. Wildlife habitat shall be recreated to replace significant wildlife habitat lost through the removal of obstructions or other means required to install the best management practice.

2. Wetlands may not be destroyed or degraded as a result of installing the best management practice.

3. Sediment generated from the construction of the best management practice shall be controlled consistent with performance standards in ch. NR 151 and with standards of the Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook , WDNR Pub. WR-222, November 2001 Revision, which is incorporated by reference for this chapter and other technical standards disseminated by the department under subch. V of ch. NR 151 .

4. Permanent and temporary vegetative cover including any or all of the following: seed, mulch, fertilizer, trees, shrubs and other necessary materials, except for conventional agricultural crop cover, shall be established.

5. Preparation, grading, shaping and removal of obstructions necessary to permit the installation of best management practices shall be conducted on the site.

6. Temporary or permanent fencing and the repair of fencing necessary to implement or protect a best management practice shall be built.

7. All required permits, including those mandated by the department, shall be obtained prior to installing a best management practice listed in this chapter.

(c) A landowner, land operator or governmental unit shall comply with the standards in subs. (2) to (28) when installing best management practices.

(d) Cost-sharing is authorized when the best management practices are installed on sites in a manner consistent with par. (b) and the watershed plan approved under this chapter.

(e) Best management practices listed in this chapter and which are conducted below the ordinary high water mark may be eligible for cost-sharing only when the practice is a cost-effective means of preventing or reducing pollutants generated from sources of runoff or from sediments of inland lakes polluted by runoff.

(2)   Contour farming.

(a) Description. Contour farming is farming on sloped land so all cultural operations from seedbed preparation to harvest are done on the contour. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions. Cost-sharing may be provided for the establishment of a contour farming system and, if necessary, subsurface drains and the removal of obstructions.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 330 — contour farming; May, 1986.

2. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

3. 606 — subsurface drain; September, 1989.

4. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; June, 1987.

(3)   Contour and field stripcropping.

(a) Description. Contour and field stripcropping is growing crops in a systematic arrangement of strips or bands, usually on the contour, in alternated strips of close growing crops, such as grasses or legumes, and tilled row crops. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions. Cost-sharing may be provided for the establishment of the stripcropping system including field stripcropping.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 585 — contour stripcropping; July, 1987.

2. 586 — field stripcropping; August, 1983.

3. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

4. 606 — subsurface drain; September, 1989.

5. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; June, 1987.

6. 330 — contour farming; May, 1986.

7. 589 — wind strip-cropping; July, 1987.

(4)   Field diversions.

(a) Description. Field diversions are structures installed to divert excess water to areas where it can be used, transported or discharged without causing excessive erosion or contacting materials with water pollution potential. Usually the system is a channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across the slope at a suitable grade with a self-discharging and non-erosive gradient. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Diversions and subsurface drains necessary for proper functioning of the diversion. Cost-sharing for subsurface drains is limited to areas on sloping land where the internal water seeps to the surface and causes the land or cover to lose its stability.

b. Installations of structures such as pipe, underground outlets or other outlets, if needed, for proper functioning of the dike, for more even flow or to protect outlets from erosion.

2. Diversions shall discharge to a suitable outlet.

3. Cost-sharing may not be authorized for ditches or dikes designed to impound water for later use, or which will be a part of a regular irrigation system.

(c) Standards. Standards are the following from the NRCS field office technical guide:

1. 362 — diversion; September, 1989.

2. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

3. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

4. 412 — grassed waterway; June, 1993.

5. 468 — lined waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

6. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

7. 606 — subsurface drains; September, 1989.

8. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

9. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; June, 1987.

(5)   Terraces.

(a) Description. Terraces are a system of ridges and channels constructed on the contour with a non-erosive grade at a suitable spacing. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Terraces and the necessary grading to permit installation of an effective system consistent with the type of terrace and criteria for use specified in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

b. Materials and installation of underground pipe outlets and other mechanical outlets necessary for the proper functioning of the terrace.

2. Terraces shall discharge to a suitable outlet.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 600 — terrace; September, 1990.

2. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

3. 412 — grassed waterway; June, 1993.

4. 468 — lined waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

5. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

6. 606 — subsurface drain; September, 1989.

7. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

8. 638 — water and sediment control basin; September, 1989.

9. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; June, 1987.

(6)   Grassed waterways.

(a) Description. A grassed waterway is a natural or constructed drainageway or channel which is shaped, graded and established in suitable cover as needed to prevent erosion by runoff waters. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions. Cost-sharing may be provided for the following:

1. Site preparation, grading, shaping, filling, establishing temporary and permanent vegetation cover and for subsurface drains necessary for proper functioning of the waterway.

2. Removal of obstructions necessary to permit installation of an effective system.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 412 — grassed waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

2. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

3. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

4. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

5. 606 — subsurface drain; September, 1989.

6. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; June, 1987.

7. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

8. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

(7)   High residue management systems.

(a) Description. High residue management systems refer to any tillage and planting system that is designed to reduce soil erosion caused by water or wind. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) . These systems include the following:

1. No-till. The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting. Planting is completed in a narrow seedbed or slot created by the planter or drill.

2. Mulch-till. The total soil surface is disturbed by tillage prior to planting. Tillage tools such as chisels, field cultivators, disks or sweeps are used.

3. Ridge-till. The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting. The seedbed is prepared on ridges with sweeps, disks or other row cleaners. The ridges are rebuilt for the next year's crop during cultivation.

4. Strip-till. The soil is left undisturbed prior to planting. Tillage in the row is done at planting using tools such as a rototiller, in row chisel or other row cleaner.

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided on a per acre basis to convert to high residue management systems.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided to a landowner or land operator for both this practice and cropland protection cover (green manure) for the same acreage in the same crop year without prior departmental approval.

3. Cost-sharing may not be provided for continuous no-till unless surface applications of nutrients, including animal manure, are prohibited or the surface application of nutrients is in compliance with s. NR 151.07 . Continuous no-till is defined as 3 or more consecutive years.

4. Cost-sharing may be provided for nutrient management and pesticide management under subs. (8) and (9) provided that the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application identifies these practices as eligible.

5. A minimum 30% residue coverage shall remain on the soil surface after planting.

6. Tillage and planting shall occur as close to the contour as practical.

7. Residue cover may be from meadow, winter cover crop, and small grain or row crop.

(c) Standards. The practice shall meet the requirements in either NRCS field office technical guide, Technical Standard:

1. 329A – residue management, no till and strip till; May, 1998.

2. 329B — residue management mulch till; May 1998.

(8)   Nutrient management.

(a) Description. Nutrient management is controlling the amount, source, form, location and timing of application of plant nutrients, including organic wastes, sludge, commercial fertilizers, soil reserves and legumes, for the purpose of providing plant nutrients and minimizing the entry of nutrient to surface water and groundwater. This practice shall be implemented using the standard in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions. As part of a nutrient management plan, cost-sharing may be provided for:

1. Soil testing including residual nitrogen analysis. Cost-sharing for soil testing shall be limited to an initial testing for purposes of plan preparation and another test 4 years after plan preparation.

2. Manure nutrient analysis. Cost-sharing for manure nutrient analysis shall be limited to an initial analysis for purposes of plan preparation and another analysis 4 years after plan preparation.

3. Use of crop consulting services for the purpose of preparing and implementing a nutrient management plan. To be eligible for cost-sharing, consultants shall meet the certification requirements in ch. ATCP 50 .

(c) Standards. NRCS field office technical standard: 590-nutrient management; March, 1999.

(9)   Pesticide management.

(a) Description. Pesticide management is controlling the handling, disposal, type, amount, location and timing of application of pesticides in order to minimize contamination of water, air and nontarget organisms. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. As part of a pesticide management plan, cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Spill control facilities with liquid-tight floors for pesticide handling areas. Spill control facilities consist of structures designed to contain accidental spills or overflows from pesticide mixing, loading and unloading operations for the purposes of groundwater and surface water protection. The items eligible for cost-share funds associated with these facilities include a sealed, liquid-tight, reinforced concrete pad for the mixing area; water-tight walls or perimeter flow diversion structures to convey spills or contaminated water to the sump area; perimeter flow diversion structures needed to convey surface water away from the mixing area; a shallow sump collection area capable of storing spills, rinsate, washwater and precipitation that may leak or fall on the pad; roof structures and walls protecting the pad mixing area; approach ramps; water supply systems needed for the facility; and sump pump alarm and recovery systems.

b. Use of crop consulting services for the purpose of preparing and implementing an integrated crop management plan for not more than 3 years per operation. To be eligible for cost-sharing, consultants shall meet the certification requirements in ch. ATCP 50 .

2. Operators shall adhere to the requirements of chs. ATCP 29 and 33 (pesticide use and control and pesticide bulk storage).

3. Licensed commercial pesticide applicators, as described in s. ATCP 29.11 , are not eligible for cost-share funding for this practice.

4. Material storage buildings are not eligible for cost-sharing under this subsection.

(c) Standards. The following standards apply under this subsection:

1. NRCS field office technical standard — 595-pest management; January, 1991.

2. Designing Facilities for Pesticide and Fertilizer Containment, MWPS-37, 1st ed. 1991, which is incorporated by reference for this chapter.

(10)   Cropland protection cover (green manure).

(a) Description. Cropland protection cover are close-growing grasses, legumes or small grain grown for seasonal protection and soil improvement. This practice shall be implemented using the standard in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for the planting of cover and green manure crops for all of the following purposes:

a. To control erosion during periods when the major crops do not furnish adequate cover.

b. To add organic material to the soil.

c. To improve infiltration, aeration and tilth to the soil.

2. Cost-sharing may only be provided for those fields that contribute to the degradation of water quality as a result of harvesting a crop during the growing season that either leaves the field devoid of residue or lacks enough residue from the harvested crop to provide for adequate surface protection.

3. Cost-sharing may not be provided to a landowner or land operator for both this practice and high residue management systems for the same acreage in the same crop year without prior departmental approval.

(c) Standards. NRCS field office technical guide: 340 — cover and green manure crop (acre); May, 1986.

(11)   Intensive grazing management (rotational grazing).

(a) Description. Intensive grazing management is the division of pastures into multiple cells that receive a short but intensive grazing period with high animal density followed by a period suitable to allow for the recovery of the vegetative cover. Rotational grazing systems can correct existing pasturing practices that result in degradation and should replace the practice of summer dry-lots when this practice results in water quality degradation.

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for the installment of rotational grazing systems on croplands, animal lots or pastures that are currently contributing sediments, nutrients or pesticides to a water source. This practice may also be eligible for an animal lot that adversely impacts groundwater or surface water, provided the adverse impacts are adequately addressed through the resulting reduction in animal manure and use of any additional cost-effective best management practices such as clean water diversions.

2. In instances of eligibility due to soil loss or eligibility due to animal lot abandonment, cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Practices that would remediate streambank erosion and streambank habitat degradation.

b. Practices that would exclude livestock from woodlands, wildlife lands and recreational lands.

c. The establishment of cattle access lanes that are stable and not prone to erosion. This includes cattle crossings either on streams or severely eroded areas.

d. The development of permanent boundary and main paddock fences. This may include perimeter fencing, lane fencing, portable fencing including gates and electrical connections and supply limited to the immediate area being protected.

e. The establishment of good seeding stands for pasture and hayland planting.

f. The development of a watering system including pipeline watering systems, pasture watering systems, wells, spring developments and portable watering systems such as pumps, pipes and tanks. The total cost-share of the watering system may not exceed $2,000 for components listed in this subparagraph.

g. The stabilization of a site eroding due to cattle access or cropland erosion through the critical area planting processes.

(12)   Critical area stabilization.

(a) Description. Critical area stabilization is the planting of suitable trees, shrubs and other vegetation appropriate for controlling and stabilizing sloped lands which are producing nonpoint source pollutants and lands which drain into bedrock crevices, openings and sinkholes. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions. Trees may not be sold during the operation and maintenance period.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

2. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

3. 386 — field borders; December, 1991.

4. 472 — livestock exclusion; June, 1983.

5. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

6. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

7. 612 — tree planting; October, 1991.

8. 725 — sinkhole treatment; March, 2000.

9. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; June, 1987.

(13)   Grade stabilization structures.

(a) Description. A grade stabilization structure is a structure used to reduce the grade in a drainageway or channel to protect the channel from erosion or to prevent the formation or advance of gullies. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Channel linings, chutes, drop spillways and pipe drops of less than 15 feet in height to discharge excess water.

b. Detention or retention structures, such as erosion control dams, desilting reservoirs, sediment basins, debris basins or similar structures of less than 15 feet in structural height and with maximum storage capacities of less than 15 acre-feet.

2. Cost-sharing may be provided for structures with embankments of 15 to 25 feet in structural height or with maximum storage capacities of 15 to 50 acre-feet if the department makes a determination in writing that all of the following apply:

a. Control of the site is needed to achieve the water quality objectives specified in an approved priority watershed or lake plan or in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

b. Construction of the structure is cost-effective.

c. Failure of the structure would have minimum potential to endanger life or real or personal property.

3. Cost-sharing may not be authorized for any grade stabilization structure on a navigable stream or stream classified as supporting a fishery.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 410 — grade stabilization structure; July, 1994.

2. 350 — sediment basin; September, 1990.

3. 638 — water and sediment control basin; September, 1989.

4. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

5. 348 — diversion dam; March, 1987.

6. 362 — diversion; September, 1989.

7. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

8. 412 — grassed waterway; June, 1993.

9. 468 — lined waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

10. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

11. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

12. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

13. 606 — subsurface drain; September, 1989.

14. 638 — water and sediment control basin; September, 1989.

(14)   Agricultural sediment basins.

(a) Description. Agricultural sediment basins are permanent basins designed and constructed to reduce the transport of pollutants to surface waters and wetlands of sediment eroded from critical agricultural fields. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for the sediment basin including embankments, principal and emergency spillway structures, including anti-seep collars, dewatering outlet and outlet protection.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for:

a. Basins having embankments exceeding 25 feet in structural height or with maximum storage capacity of more than 50 acre-feet.

b. Basins located where failure may result in loss of life.

3. Sediment basins with embankments of 15 to 25 feet in structural height or with maximum storage capacities of 15 to 50 acre-feet in volume may be cost-shared only when approved by the department, in writing, prior to construction. For the department to authorize cost-sharing, it shall make the following findings:

a. Control of the site is needed to achieve the water quality objectives specified in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

b. Construction of the structure is cost-effective.

c. Failure of the structure would have minimum potential to endanger life or real or personal property.

(c) Standards. The sediment basin shall be designed consistent with standards for construction site sediment basins in the Wisconsin Construction Site Best Management Practice Handbook , WDNR Pub. WR-222, November 2001 Revision, the Wisconsin department of natural resources conservation practice standard 1001 for wet detention basins, June 1999 and the NRCS field office technical standards from the NRCS field office technical guide as follows:

1. 350 — sediment basin; September, 1990.

2. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

3. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

4. 412 — grassed waterway; June, 1993.

5. 468 — lined waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

6. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

7. 393 — filter strip; January, 1984.

8. 561— heavy use protection area; September, 1999.

9. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

(15)   Shoreline and streambank protection.

(a) Description. Shoreline or streambank stabilization is the stabilization and protection of the banks of streams and lakes against erosion and the protection of fish habitat and water quality from livestock access. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. The cost-share recipient is responsible for obtaining all permits for the installation of the practice.

2. Cost-sharing may be provided:

a. For planting trees if approved by a county's land conservation department in consultation with the department fish manager.

b. For water pumps and other measures required to eliminate livestock access to water.

c. To install livestock and machinery crossings that will minimize disturbance of the stream channel and banks.

d. For the design and placement of practices such as shaping and placement of vegetation, riprap or structures which improve fishery habitat, or other materials on banks and shores identified in an approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or the project grant application, or in areas where streambank repair is the least costly alternative. Written departmental approval is required for the stabilization of banks with structural heights higher than 15 feet.

e. For required permits.

3. Cost-sharing is not authorized for wood chunks, unsorted demolition material, brick, plaster, blacktop and any other material that could produce leachates or would violate provisions of statutes or administrative codes for use as riprap.

(c) Standards.

1. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

a. 580 — streambank and shoreline protection; February, 1997.

b. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

c. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

d. 472 — livestock exclusion; June, 1983.

e. 612 — tree planting; October, 1991.

f. 395 — fish stream improvement; June, 1987.

g. 560 — access road; March, 1989.

h. 614 — trough or tank; September, 1989.

i. 510 — pasture and hayland management; December, 1984.

2. Other standards:

a. U.S. department of transportation hydraulic engineering Circulars numbers 11, Design of Riprap Revetment, Pub. No. FH WA-IP-89-016, March, 1989 and 15, Design of Roadside Channels with Flexible Linings, Pub. No. FH WA-IP-87-7, April, 1998, which are incorporated by reference for this chapter.

b. American fisheries society's stream obstruction removal guidelines, which are incorporated by reference for this chapter.

c. U.S. department of agriculture's Stream Habitat Improvement Handbook, publication R8-TP-16, June 1992, which is incorporated by reference for this chapter.

d. Natural Resources Conservation Service Engineering Field Handbook, Soil Bioengineering for Upland Slope Protection and Erosion Reduction, Pub. 210-EFH, October, 1992, which is incorporated by reference for this chapter.

(16)   Riparian buffers.

(a) Description. Riparian buffers are areas in which vegetation is enhanced or established to reduce or eliminate the movement of sediment, nutrients and other nonpoint source pollutants to adjacent surface water resources or groundwater recharge areas and to protect the banks of streams and lakes from erosion and to protect fish habitat. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided only when the riparian buffers are used consistent with the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application or approved priority watershed or lake plan.

2. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Permanent fencing to protect a riparian buffer.

b. Establishment or enhancement of permanent vegetative cover in a riparian buffer.

c. Mulch, fertilizer, seed, seedling trees and other necessary materials.

(c) Standards. NRCS field office technical guide technical standards are as follows:

1. 342 — critical area planting; May, 2000.

2. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

3. 386 — field border; December, 1991.

4. 393 — filter strip; January, 2001.

5. 472 — livestock exclusion; June, 1983.

6. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

7. 645 — wildlife upland habitat management; July, 2000.

(17)   Lake sediment treatment.

(a) Description. Lake sediment treatment is a chemical, physical or biological treatment of polluted lake sediments.

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Design and treatment of lake sediments with chemical compounds, including, but not limited to, aluminum sulfate, sodium aluminate, ferric chloride, calcium hydroxide and calcium carbonate.

b. Treatment of lake sediments with physical or biological methods including, but not limited to, the aeration of water overlaying lake sediments and the biological manipulation of organisms which exacerbate sediment contamination of overlaying lake water.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for the dredging of sediments.

3. Water quality objectives shall be achieved through the control of polluted lake sediments.

4. Significant nonpoint sources of the pollution to the lake shall be controlled prior to treatment of lake sediments.

5. The department prior to implementation shall approve the engineering design and, if required will issue an appropriate permit.

(c) Standards. The design and proposed implementation of lake sediment treatments shall be approved by the department prior to implementation.

(18)   Wetland restoration.

(a) Description. Wetland restoration is the construction of berms or destruction of the function of tile lines and drainage ditches to create conditions suitable for wetland vegetation. This practice shall be implemented using the standard in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

1. Earth moving to construct or remove berms, levees or dikes.

2. Earth moving to fill in portions of drainage ditches.

3. Destruction of portions of tile lines.

4. Vegetative cover needed to develop or restore wetlands consistent with the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

(c) Standards. NRCS field office technical guide technical standards 657 — wetland restoration; September, 2000.

(19)   Shoreline habitat restoration for developed areas.

(a) Description. Shoreline habitat restoration is the establishment in developed areas of a shoreline buffer zone of diverse native vegetation that extends inland and waterward from the ordinary high water mark. The shoreline habitat restoration design seeks to restore the functions provided by the original, natural vegetation, and includes a mixture of native trees, shrubs, ground cover or wetland species. This practice includes the following:

1. Natural recovery. Used where native vegetation will recover naturally when a site is protected from disturbance, due to the presence of existing native plants, and adequate seed sources and site conditions. This method may be applied to wet margins of lakes or rivers where turf grasses are not well established and in shallow water areas adjacent to shoreland restoration areas.

2. Accelerated recovery. Used in areas not suited for natural recovery. Native vegetation is established by seeding and planting. This method shall be used in areas where dense turf grasses have been maintained for several years. This may also be used in limited situations where one or more layers of natural vegetative cover have been removed if approved by the department. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing for shoreline habitat restoration may be approved when existing shoreline vegetation lacks the structure or complexity to support habitat functions for littoral and riparian areas.

2. Cost-sharing may be provided for plants, seed, mulch and erosion control materials.

3. Cost-sharing may be provided for labor and services necessary for installation, not to exceed 70% of total practice costs, or not to exceed a cost containment policy developed by the governmental unit for this practice.

4. Cost-sharing may not be provided for the following:

a. Practice design unless approved by the department.

b. Plants, seed, mulch or other materials not approved by the department.

c. Shoreline erosion control materials such as riprap or biologs unless approved by the department.

d. Material for stairs, walkways, paths or other access structures.

5. The following conditions shall be met in order for cost-sharing to be available:

a. No violations of county and local shoreland zoning requirements are present on the entire property.

b. Runoff from roofs, driveways or other hard surfaces on the property shall be maintained in sheet flow with no channels or gullies to the greatest extent possible. This can be accomplished with downspout runoff spreaders, directing runoff to flat or gently sloping grassy areas and minor landscaping to temporarily pond or spread out runoff. There may be no channelized flow through the restoration area. Where fertilizers are desired outside the buffer area, zero-phosphorus types shall be used unless soil tests specifically indicate a need for phosphorus and the project sponsor approves its use.

c. No changes in land use or management may occur that cause increased pollution to surface water from sources that were controlled prior to the installation of a shoreline habitat restoration practice.

6. The following dimensions or restrictions apply to the restoration:

a. The buffer created by shoreline habitat restoration shall extend the entire length of the lot along the shoreline except that a viewing and access corridor is allowed, which corridor will not be eligible for cost-sharing. Corridors may not exceed 30 feet in width and may encompass no greater than 30% of the property for lots less than 100 feet wide. The restoration area design may include the provision of water access, the enhancement of desirable views, the screening of unwanted views and consideration of privacy. Where buildings are set back 50 feet or more, the buffer shall extend at least 35 feet inland from the ordinary high water mark. Where buildings are set back less than 50 feet, the zone where vegetation removal and land-disturbing activity are prohibited after buffer establishment, shall extend to within 15 feet of the structure.

b. Shallow water areas that are capable of supporting aquatic vegetation waterward of the ordinary high water mark shall be managed as a zone where vegetation removal and land-disturbing activity are prohibited after buffer establishment. Areas waterward of the viewing and access corridor are exempt from this condition.

c. An evaluation of existing vegetation on the site is necessary prior to the selection of plant materials and restoration method. The natural vegetation that occurs in the region or vicinity of the restoration site shall be considered in developing restoration plans.

d. In order to restore the functional values of the vegetative buffer, it shall consist of 3 layers: a ground cover, a shrub layer and a tree canopy. Vegetation in all 3 layers shall be vigorous, diverse and structurally complex. The only exception to this requirement shall be where natural conditions in the region lack these characteristics.

e. Vegetation shall be adapted to the local soils, climate and the surrounding vegetation. Only species approved by the project sponsor may be planted. Native species are required, and certain invasive species such as reed canary grass and purple loosestrife are prohibited.

f. The project sponsor shall identify the most appropriate recovery methods for each individual site.

7. The following conditions apply to practice installation:

a. Refer to compliance with local NRCS planting recommendations to determine recommended planting dates for ground covers, shrubs and trees.

b. Exposure of bare soil shall be kept to an absolute minimum by using methods such as black plastic covers to remove competing weeds. All exposed soils shall be mulched. A temporary seeding is required on sites where permanent ground cover will not be established until the following year. A temporary or companion seeding is required on any exposed slopes exceeding 12%. Mulching and netting or erosion control matting is required on slopes exceeding 20%.

c. Zero-phosphorus start-up fertilization is permitted. Phosphorus application is only permitted where soil tests indicate deficiencies.

d. Herbicides approved for use near water may be used only where essential, and with the approval of the project sponsor.

e. Heavy equipment is prohibited, except where specifically approved by the project sponsor, to prevent soil compaction. If heavy equipment is used, tree roots shall be protected by not driving over the root zone.

8. The following conditions apply to practice operation and maintenance:

a. All buffer areas are to be managed as zones where vegetation removal and land-disturbing activity are prohibited after buffer establishment.

b. Fertilizers are prohibited after the buffer is established.

c. Herbicides are prohibited except as approved by the project sponsor, where this is the best method to control undesirable invasive species.

d. Burning to clear or maintain buffer areas shall be approved by the project sponsor, and is limited to regions where prairies are the natural habitat.

e. Cutting of trees or shrubs may be done only to prevent safety hazards, or to remove undesirable competitive species, and shall be approved by the project sponsor.

f. The forest floor duff layer and leaf litter shall remain intact to provide a continuous ground cover and meet the habitat functions of this practice.

g. Lawn mowing is permitted in the viewing and access corridors. Elsewhere, mowing is prohibited except in established prairie buffer areas, and in accordance with a mowing plan approved by the project sponsor. In viewing and access corridors, mowing is allowed to a minimum height of 10 inches, and only as needed to reduce competition from undesirable species. Mowing may occur only between August 1 and September 1 to avoid disturbance of nesting birds and allow regrowth before winter.

h. Vehicles, boats, docks or other equipment storage shall be excluded from the restoration area to prevent soil compaction and damage to the buffer vegetation. Boats and docks may be temporarily stored during non-growing seasons as long as vegetative cover is unaffected.

i. The access corridor may not channel runoff to the waterbody and shall be located to avoid areas of high runoff or erodible soils. Grass or other cover that will hold the soil is required for the access corridor.

j. Except for areas waterward of the access corridor, areas waterward of the buffer shall be managed as zones where vegetation removal and land-disturbing activity are prohibited after buffer establishment.

(c) Standards. UW Extension Publication GWQ014, Shoreline Plants and Landscaping , DNR Publication PUBL-WM-228, Home on the Range — Restoring and Maintaining Grasslands for Wildlife, which is incorporated by reference for this chapter, or similar publications as approved by the project sponsor.

(20)   Barnyard runoff management.

(a) Description. Barnyard runoff management is the use of structural measures to contain, divert, retard, treat, collect, convey, store or otherwise control the discharge of surface runoff from outdoor areas of concentrated livestock activity. Measures include, gutters, downspouts and diversions to intercept and redirect runoff around the barnyard, feeding area or farmstead. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may not be provided if:

a. The operator intentionally aggravated a pollution discharge for the purpose of receiving cost-sharing.

b. The discharge could be prevented through improved management practices at significantly lower costs than for a barnyard runoff system.

c. The operator could have prevented the discharge by means of a previously agreed operations and maintenance plan with the department, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection, the county land conservation committee or the natural resources conservation service.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for:

a. Costs to design or construct a barnyard that is not installed.

b. Costs to construct or modify a building. This subdivision paragraph does not apply to a modification that is essential for the installation of a barnyard runoff control system or to the construction of a roof system pursuant to sub. (26) .

c. Costs for equipment to apply manure to land.

d. Costs resulting from anticipated changes in livestock numbers, housing or management.

3. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Diversions, gutters, downspouts, collection basins, infiltration areas, filter strips, waterway outlet structures, piping, land shaping and filter walls needed to manage runoff from areas where livestock manure accumulates.

b. Concrete paving of portions of yards necessary to support walls, necessary to enable proper yard scraping and used as a settling basin.

c. Concrete paving of all or portions of the yard required to protect groundwater when specified in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan, ch. NR 243 project or other project grant application.

(c) Standards.

1. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

a. 362 — diversion; September, 1989.

b. 558 — roof runoff management; March, 1996.

c. 342 — critical area planting; May, 2000.

d. 561 — heavy use area protection; August, 1999.

e. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

f. 412 — grassed waterway; June, 1993.

g. 468 — lined waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

h. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

i. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

j. 350 — sediment basin; September, 1990.

k. 533 — pumping plant for water control; September, 1986.

L. 590 — nutrient management; March, 1999.

m. 312 — waste management system; January 1987.

2. Other standards as approved by the department.

(21)   Animal lot abandonment or relocation.

(a) Description. Animal lot relocation is relocation of an animal lot from a site such as a floodway to a suitable site to minimize the amount of pollutants from the animal lot to surface or ground waters. This practice does not include the purchase of land. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Stabilization and abandonment of a site, which does or does not include relocation to a different site owned, operated or controlled by the cost-share recipient. For abandonment of a site which does not include relocation, the site shall either have been in existence for a minimum of 3 years and found to be a significant nonpoint source of pollution, have been issued a notice of discharge under ch. NR 243 , or have been identified during a watershed inventory as being a nonpoint source of pollution and listed as eligible in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

b. Reconstruction or replacement of buildings and other structures necessary for the relocation of the animal lot.

c. Proper abandonment of wells required as a result of the relocation of the animal lot.

d. Runoff management practices needed on the relocated lot consistent with sub. (20) .

e. Stabilization and abandonment of a previously used earthen animal lot which has either been in existence for a minimum of 3 years and is found to be a significant nonpoint source of pollution or has been identified during a watershed inventory as being a nonpoint source of pollution and is listed as eligible in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

2. Wells shall be properly abandoned in accordance with the requirements of ch. NR 812 .

3. The landowner agrees to abandon the existing site permanently for livestock use and agrees to record a restrictive covenant to this effect in the office of the register of deeds for each county in which the property is located. The restrictive covenant shall permanently exclude the use of the property by livestock. A maximum of 10 animals may be kept on the site, provided that no more than 4 individual animals exceed a live weight of 200 pounds and the desired level of pollutant control for the site is maintained.

4. A plan for relocation shall be approved by the governmental unit, in writing, prior to initiation of relocation. The project grant application shall list criteria for relocation plan approval. At a minimum, these criteria shall include the following:

a. The site is identified as eligible in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

b. The relocation to a site owned, operated or controlled by the cost-share recipient is cost-effective provided the cost-sharing for repairing, reconstructing or replacement of buildings and other structures at the relocation site does not exceed the appraised values of the buildings and other structures to be abandoned which have utility for livestock operations.

c. The relocated lot will not significantly contribute to a water quality problem.

5. If the cost-share recipient has received state cost-share funding at the site to be abandoned for practices listed in this paragraph, the amount of cost-sharing received shall be deducted from the relocation cost-share payment.

6. In cases of abandonment which does not include relocation to a different site owned, operated or controlled by the cost-share recipient, livestock may not be relocated to a site which will significantly contribute to surface water or groundwater quality degradation. A written plan shall be submitted to the governmental unit for approval detailing the disbursement of the animals.

7. The abandonment of a site without relocation to a site owned, operated or controlled by the cost-share recipient is cost-effective provided the cost-share grant does not exceed the estimated cost-share grant of the best management practices which would have been installed at the abandoned site. The best management practice cost-effective requirement may be waived by the department if the site to be abandoned has a significant water quality impact and the proposed best management practice cannot ensure an acceptable level of water quality protection when compared to relocation.

(c) Standards. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

1. 635 — wastewater treatment strip; July, 2001.

2. 362 — diversion; September, 1989.

3. 558 — roof runoff management; March, 1996.

4. 342 — critical area planting; November, 1999.

5. 561 — heavy use area protection; August, 1999.

6. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

7. 412 — grassed waterway; June, 1993.

8. 468 — lined waterway or outlet; June, 1993.

9. 484 — mulching; July, 1987.

10. 620 — underground outlet; June, 1993.

11. 350 — sediment basin; September, 1990.

12. 312 — waste management system; January, 1987.

13. 500 — obstruction removal; January, 1983.

14. 590 — nutrient management; March, 1999.

(22)   Well abandonment.

(a) Description. Well abandonment is the proper filling and sealing of a well to prevent it from acting as a channel for contaminants to reach the groundwater or as a channel for the vertical movement of surface water to groundwater. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. The removal of the pump, pump piping, debris or other obstacles that interfere with the proper sealing of the well.

b. The sand-cement grout, sodium bentonite, clay slurry, chipped bentonite or concrete used for the well sealing.

c. Chlorine used as a disinfectant.

d. The backfilling operations to fill the surface around a well pit.

e. The necessary labor costs to complete the proper abandonment.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for:

a. The abandonment of wells at an oil or gas drilling site or wells that produced gas or oil.

b. The abandonment of wells used for test or exploratory purposes.

c. The abandonment of mine shafts, drill holes or air vents associated with the mining industry.

d. The abandonment of high capacity wells.

(c) Standards.

1. NRCS field office technical standard 351 — Well Decommissioning; April, 1999.

2. Section NR 812.26 on well and drillhole abandonment.

(23)   Manure storage facilities.

(a) Description. A manure storage facility is a structure which stores manure from operations where manure is generated or from operations where the location and site characteristics of manure spreading areas result in a high potential for runoff to carry pollutants to lakes, streams and groundwater during periods of frozen or saturated conditions. The facility shall be necessary to accommodate proper land application of manure in accordance with a nutrient management plan. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. A nutrient management plan for the operation is required.

2. Cost-sharing may be provided if:

a. The locations and site characteristics of areas where manure is spread have high potentials to carry runoff to lakes and streams and the facilities are necessary to accommodate proper land application of the manure in accordance with the nutrient management plan.

b. The existing storage or spreading of manure has a high potential for contaminating groundwater as specified in the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan or project grant application.

3. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Aerobic or anaerobic basins, liquid manure tanks and solid manure stacking facilities, piping and other stationary equipment necessary for conveying manure to the storage facility required as part of a nutrient management plan.

b. Storage capacities of no less than 30 days and no more than 365 day manure generation.

c. Leases of manure storage tanks subject to the restrictions of ss. NR 120.18 (2) (b) and 154.03 (1) (i) 8.

d. The repair, modification or abandonment of existing manure storage facilities needed to meet water quality objectives including well abandonment required under ch. NR 812 .

e. Manure storage structures at operations where manure is generated.

4. Cost-sharing may not be provided if:

a. Manure can be spread at acceptable rates on locations which are nearly flat and represent a minimal risk to surface water and groundwater or which do not drain to surface waters.

b. The landowner intentionally aggravated conditions in order to qualify for cost-sharing.

5. Cost-sharing may not be provided for any of the following:

a. Portable pumps and other nonstationary equipment.

b. Buildings or modifications to buildings.

c. Equipment for land applying or incorporating manure.

d. Additional costs associated with the construction of a manure storage facility incurred for the purpose of providing structural support for a building or other structure located over or attached to the facility.

6. Runoff from solid manure stacking facilities shall be controlled.

7. Manure stored in the storage facility shall be land applied in accordance with the operation's nutrient management plan. Manure stored in facilities designed to be emptied annually or semi-annually may not be applied on frozen or saturated ground and shall be incorporated within 3 days after application.

8. Basins shall be constructed to assure sealing of the bottom and sides to prevent contamination of wells and groundwater.

9. The project sponsor prior to the payment of cost-share funds shall certify compliance with the manure management prohibitions in s. NR 151.08 .

(c) Standards.

1. NRCS field office technical guides are as follows:

a. 312 — waste management system; January, 1987.

b. 313 — waste storage structure; September, 1998.

c. 634 — manure transfer; January, 1999.

d. 590 — nutrient management; March, 1999.

e. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

f. 561 — heavy use protection area; September, 1999.

2. Other standards as specified by the department.

(24)   Animal waste storage system abandonment.

(a) Description. Manure storage system abandonment is the permanent disabling and proper abandonment of leaking and improperly sited manure storage systems including a system with bottom at or below groundwater level; a system whose pit fills with groundwater; a system whose pit leaks into the bedrock; a system which has documented reports of discharging manure into surface water or groundwater due to structural failure; or a system with evidence of existing structural failure or evidence of imminent structural failure that will likely result in resource degradation. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for the following practices to protect water resources from contamination by manure:

a. Proper removal and disposal of accumulated wastes in the pond or structure.

b. Removal of any constructed soil liner, concrete or membrane liner.

c. Removal of all soil saturated with waste, which can be removed.

d. Proper land spreading of excavated liner material and waste saturated soil.

e. Filling, shaping to insure surface drainage away from site, and seeding of area.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for removal and spreading of manure that can be removed using conventional equipment and routine agricultural practices.

(c) Standards.

1. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

a. 312 — waste management system; January, 1987.

b. 313 — waste storage structure; September, 1998.

c. 634 — manure transfer; January, 1999.

d. 590 — nutrient management; March, 1999.

e. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

f. 561 — heavy use protection area; September, 1999.

2. Other standards as specified by the department.

(25)   Milking center waste control systems.

(a) Description. A milking center waste control system is a piece of equipment, practice or combination of practices installed in a milking center for purposes of reducing the quantity or pollution potential of the wastes. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Design and construction of filter strip systems with appropriate pretreatment measures, storage systems and land irrigation equipment.

b. Repair or modification of existing milking center waste control measures.

c. Stationary waste transfer equipment, such as piping and pumps, needed to convey milking center wastes to storage, treatment or land application systems provided that the equipment is an integral component of the system and is designed for that exclusive use.

d. Other milking center waste control measures when they are needed to assure that the milking center waste treatment systems will meet identified water quality objectives. These measures may include conservation sinks, pre-cooler water utilization systems, manifold cleaning systems, air injection systems, waste milk diverter valves, booster pumps for parlor floor cleaning and other measures as approved by the department.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for:

a. Design and construction of systems, practices or components that are installed or adopted for purposes other than for the correction of an identified water pollution hazard.

b. Buildings or modifications to buildings, unless modifications to buildings are essential for installation of a milking center waste control system.

c. Portable equipment for spreading milking center wastes onto land or incorporating the wastes into land.

(c) Standards.

1. Standards from the NRCS field office technical guide are as follows:

a. 635 — wastewater treatment strip; July, 2001.

b. 634 — manure transfer; January, 1999.

c. 614 — trough or tank; September, 1989.

d. 313 — waste storage facility; September, 1998.

e. 590 — nutrient management; March, 1999.

2. Milking center waste control systems shall be planned in accordance with the Pollution Control Guide for Milking Center Wastewater Management (UWEX Pub. No. A3592-July, 1994), which is incorporated by reference for this chapter and designed in accordance with standards approved by the department.

(26)   Roofs for barnyard runoff management and manure storage facilities.

(a) Description. Roofs for barnyard runoff management and manure storage facilities are a roof and supporting structure constructed specifically to prevent precipitation from contacting manure. This practice shall be implemented using the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may not be provided for materials and labor for other structures or buildings.

2. The roofed structure may not be permanently enclosed unless the landowner receives written approval from the department.

a. For purposes of this subsection, a permanently enclosed structure is defined as a structure where the sum of the length of the walls exceeds 50% of the total length of the perimeter of the structure. When the structure has a shape other than a rectangle or square, each rectangular or square portion of the total structure, excluding the common sides, shall be calculated separately to determine whether it exceeds 50%. A segment of the perimeter shall be considered a wall if greater than 50% of the opening from eave to floor is of solid building material.

b. An application requesting cost-sharing for the enclosure of a roofed barnyard runoff management system shall be submitted in writing to the department for its approval. The written application and the applicable cost-share agreement shall include a recognition by the landowner or land operator that the barnyard may not be used for purposes other than an animal lot for the duration of the cost-share agreement.

3. The livestock facility may not establish additional outdoor animal lots on the site unless the department certifies that adequate runoff control practices are established for the duration of the cost-share agreement.

(c) Standards.

1. The roof shall be designed to support wind, snow and other live and dead loads consistent with the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Engineering Practice (EP) 288.5, 1992, which is incorporated by reference for this chapter.

2. The roof and supporting structure shall be constructed of materials with a life expectancy of a minimum of 10 years.

3. The structure shall have sufficient ventilation.

(27)   Livestock fencing.

(a) Description. Livestock fencing is the enclosure, separation or division of one area of land from another in a manner that provides a permanent barrier to livestock. The purpose of the practice is to exclude livestock from land areas that should be protected from grazing or gleaning where degradation of the natural resource will likely result if livestock access is permitted. This practice shall be implemented using one or more of the standards in par. (c) .

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for permanent fencing when fencing is needed to:

a. Eliminate the degradation of a surface water body.

b. Reduce the impact to a resource from sedimentation that is being caused by livestock.

c. Exclude livestock from a forest or woodlot.

d. Eliminate the degradation of other natural resources as defined within the approved priority watershed plan, priority lake plan, notice of discharge or project grant application.

2. Cost-sharing may not be provided for:

a. Fencing of cropland fields for the primary purpose of providing areas for gleaning by livestock or for handling or segregating of livestock.

b. Temporary fencing.

c. Situations where benefits to water quality improvement cannot be readily defined.

d. Electric fence energizers.

(c) Standards and specifications. NRCS field office technical guide standards and specifications are as follows:

1. 382 — fence; November, 1999.

2. 472 — livestock exclusion; June, 1983.

(28)   Urban best management practices.

(a) Description. Urban best management practices include structural urban best management practices and other source area measures, transport system and end-of-pipe measures designed to control storm water runoff rates, volumes and discharge quality. In this definition, "source area" means a component of urban land use including rooftops, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, streets and lawns from which storm water pollutants are generated during periods of snowmelt and rainfall runoff.

(b) Conditions.

1. Cost-sharing may be provided for:

a. Excavation, grading, mulching, seeding, necessary landscaping, piping, drop spillways and other measures required to implement the practice.

b. Land acquisition, including storm sewer rerouting and the removal of structures necessary to install structural urban best management practices.

c. Materials and labor for the initial installation of groundwater monitoring wells required by the department.

d. On a prorated basis, for multi-purpose practices which manage both water quality and unrelated water quantity problems.

2. Cost-sharing under this chapter may not be provided for:

a. Urban best management practices, land acquisition, storm sewer rerouting or removal of structures where the practices serve solely to solve drainage and flooding problems unrelated to the primary water quality improvement strategy in a priority watershed or lake plan or application selected for funding under this chapter.

b. Removal or disposal of accumulated sediments or other materials needed to properly maintain the practice.

(c) Review and approval procedures.

1. The department shall identify acceptable standards for each best management practice in an approved priority watershed plan, approved priority lake plan or project grant.

2. The department shall consider documents containing non-agricultural technical standards developed under the process in subch. V of ch. NR 151 and other documents when identifying acceptable technical standards.

3. The governmental unit, landowner or land operator shall submit preliminary designs for each identified alternative to the department for review and comment.

4. Based on the review of the preliminary designs for each alternative, the governmental unit, landowner or land operator shall submit a detailed design including pertinent information addressing each criterion listed in subd. 5. , for the selected alternative prepared by a registered professional engineer or other individual trained in the design of the practice and approved by the department, to the department for review and approval.

5. The department shall approve or disapprove within 90 days the detailed design based on the following criteria:

a. Adequacy of pollutant control to protect surface water, groundwater and wetland resources in accordance with the objectives of a watershed plan. Applicable performance standards identified in ch. NR 151 may be considered and addressed in the detailed design.

b. Consistency with water quality provisions of department approved plans, such as priority watershed or lake plans, integrated resource management plans, remedial action plans or wellhead protection plans, or with existing local storm water management ordinances or plans that meet minimum department requirements.

c. Structural integrity of the design.

d. Aesthetics.

e. The degree to which other environmental considerations are integrated in the proposal.

f. The adequacy of the provisions for long-term maintenance of the structural practice.

g. Other pertinent factors.

6. The department may waive or modify the review or approval procedures under subds. 3. to 5. Any waiver shall be specifically described in the grant agreement or the cost-share agreement.

History: CR 00-028 : cr. Register September 2002 No. 561 , eff. 10-1-02.

Note

Copies of the materials described in subd. 3. may be inspected at the offices of the department, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison; the Secretary of State, 30 W. Mifflin, Madison; and the Legislative Reference Bureau, One E. Main Street, Suite 200, Madison. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of this publication may be inspected at the offices of the department, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison; NRCS; the Secretary of State, 30 W. Mifflin, Madison; and the Legislative Reference Bureau, One E. Main Street, Suite 200, Madison. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 NRCS has examples of practices that may be beneficial to this BMP, for example 512-pasture and hayland planting; March, 1992. For more information reference UWEX Publication A3529 Wisconsin Pastures for Profit: A guide to rotational grazing — 1997" Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of "Wisconsin Pastures for Profit: A guide to rotational grazing" are on file with the department, the Secretary of State and the Legislative Reference Bureau. Copies may be purchased from the department or from the University of Wisconsin-Extension, UWEX Pub. No. A3529. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of this publication may be inspected at the offices of the department, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison; the Secretary of State, 30 W. Mifflin, Madison; and the Legislative Reference Bureau, One E. Main Street, Suite 200, Madison. Copies of the NRCS technical standards may also be inspected at each county land conservation department office and at the state NRCS office, 6515 Watts Road, Madison. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 A permit may be required under ch. 30 , Stats., when installing this best management practice. For more information, please contact the Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin 53707. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of the materials described in subd. 2. a. to d. may be inspected at the offices of the department, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison; the Secretary of State, 30 W. Mifflin, Madison; and the Legislative Reference Bureau, One E. Main Street, Suite 200, Madison. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of these publications may be inspected at the offices of the department, 101 S. Webster Street, Madison; the Secretary of State, 30 W. Mifflin, Madison; and the Legislative Reference Bureau, One E. Main Street, Suite 200, Madison. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of this document may be inspected at the offices of the Department's Bureau of Watershed Management, NRCS, the Secretary of State and the Legislative Reference Bureau, all in Madison, WI. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Copies of this publication are available for inspection at the central office of the department of Natural Resources, and the offices of the Legislative Reference Bureau and Secretary of State. Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1