Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement And Soil Conservation Programs - Informational Paper 70 Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau January, 2015
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement
And Soil Conservation Programs
Informational Paper 70
Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau
January, 2015Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement and Soil Conservation Programs
Prepared by
Paul Ferguson
Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau
One East Main, Suite 301
Madison, WI 53703
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfbTABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction……. .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Current Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Programs and Grants ........................................ 5
Program Components....................................................................................................................... 5
DATCP Funding to Counties ........................................................................................................... 6
DNR Nonpoint Source Grants ....................................................................................................... 11
Best Management Practices ........................................................................................................... 20
Soil and Water Resource Management and Nonpoint Source Grant Funding............................... 22
Soil and Water Resource Management and Nonpoint Source Administrative Funding ................ 30
Other Funding Sources .................................................................................................................. 32
Chapter 2: Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Regulatory Authority .................................................. 35
Nonpoint Source Performance Standards ...................................................................................... 35
Special Orders and Notices of Intent ............................................................................................. 44
Local Regulations……………….. ................................................................................................ 44
Animal Feeding Operations and Animal Waste ............................................................................ 46
Erosion Control Programs.............................................................................................................. 48
Program Evaluations ...................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix I: Definitions of Cost-Shared Agricultural Best Management Practices ............................ 59
Appendix II: 2015 Joint Final Allocation Plan for Rural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Grants............................................................................................................ 63
Appendix III: Targeted Runoff Management Project Grants for 2015 .................................................. 65
Appendix IV: Urban Nonpoint Source and Storm Water Project Grants for 2015 ................................ 66
Appendix V: Municipal Flood Control Grant Awards for 2012-14 ..................................................... 67
Appendix VI: Original Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Grant Program .................................... 68Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement and Soil Conservation Programs
Introduction sources that are diffuse in nature without a single,
well-defined point of origin. Nonpoint sources
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
include land management activities that contrib-
sources (DNR) and the Wisconsin Department of
ute to runoff, seepage or percolation and adverse-
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
ly affect the quality of waters in the state. DNR
(DATCP) work jointly to control nonpoint source
reports that nearly one-half of the lakes and
water pollution and soil erosion in the state. The
streams the state considers as impaired are de-
soil and water conservation program in DATCP
graded by varying levels of nonpoint source pol-
and the nonpoint source water pollution abate-
lution. Soil erosion and runoff of water polluted
ment program in DNR provide for local coverage
by chemicals, nutrients or both are major con-
of the state's soil and water conservation needs,
tributors to the level of nonpoint source pollution.
typically at the county level. Further, the DNR
nonpoint source pollution abatement financial
Several state programs address both urban and
assistance program intends to focus resources
rural sources of nonpoint pollution and soil ero-
where nonpoint source-related water quality
sion. These agencies and their roles in imple-
threats are the most severe and where control is
menting water pollution abatement programs are
most feasible. As shown in Table 1, approximate-
described below.
ly $110 million was available in the 2013-15 bi-
ennium for nonpoint soil and water conservation Natural Resources
grants to landowners and municipalities. These
grants are distributed through DNR and DATCP
Section 281.11 of the statutes directs DNR to
programs and through direct federal support.
serve as the central unit of state government to
Funding sources for soil and water conservation
protect, maintain and improve the quality and
programs include general purpose revenue
management of the waters of the state, ground
(GPR), the nonpoint account of the segregated
and surface, public and private. DNR holds gen-
(SEG) environmental fund, federal (FED) reve-
eral supervision and control over the waters of
nues and revenues from the issuance of bonds
the state and is directed to carry out planning,
(BR).
management and regulatory programs. Under
these general powers, in addition to the specific
Nonpoint sources of water pollution are those
statutory program, DNR implements nonpoint
source water pollution abatement grant programs
Table 1: Total Available 2013-15 Direct Fund- and regulates certain animal waste and nonpoint
ing for Local Soil and Water Conservation source pollution discharges.
Funding Source Biennial Amount
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
GPR $6,271,700
SEG 19,514,700
BR 19,000,000 Chapter 92 of the statutes establishes DATCP
FED 65,333,800 as the central state agency responsible for im-
plementing statewide land and water conserva-
Total $110,120,200
tion policies. DATCP administers programs that
1assist in the abatement of rural water pollution administrative rules pertaining to the SWRM and
through the reduction of soil erosion, the man- nonpoint source pollution abatement programs.
agement of animal wastes, improvement of agri- In addition, the Board is to monitor the achieve-
cultural nutrient management, and funding of ment of statutorily defined soil erosion control
county and state land and water conservation goals, as discussed in a later section. Chapter 281
staff. DATCP efforts are commonly known as the of the statutes also provides LWCB the authority
soil and water resource management (SWRM) to make recommendations to the Governor and
program, a complement to the DNR nonpoint DNR concerning funds budgeted to the nonpoint
source program. source pollution abatement program or concern-
ing the efficiency and effectiveness of the pro-
Safety and Professional Services gram. The Board is also responsible for assisting
counties and DNR in the resolution of program
The Department of Safety and Professional concerns.
Services (DSPS) is required to establish
statewide standards for erosion control at con- The LWCB consists of the following 11
struction sites for one- and two-family dwellings members: (a) the Secretaries of the Departments
and for public buildings and places of employ- of Administration (DOA), Natural Resources,
ment that would disturb less than one acre of and Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
land. The Department may issue stop-work or- or their designees; (b) three county land conser-
ders for noncompliance, and DSPS also may del- vation committee members, who are designated
egate its administrative authority to counties, cit- at a statewide meeting of land conservation
ies, villages or towns. DSPS authority had previ- committees and appointed for two-year terms;
ously been under the Department of Commerce, and (c) five members appointed by the Governor,
which preceded DSPS in regulating certain activ- one for a two-year term and four for staggered
ities related to building safety and environmental four-year terms, to include one farmer, one
protection. Various portions of construction site member of an environmental group, one person
erosion control programs have transferred be- from a city with a population greater than 50,000
tween DNR and DSPS under several recent bien- people, and one person from a governmental unit
nial budget acts. Construction site erosion control involved in river management.
is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.
In addition, advisory members to the Board
Land and Water Conservation Board include representatives from: (a) the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natu-
The Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation ral Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); (b)
Board (LWCB) is directed to develop recom- the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA); (c) the
mendations and advise DATCP and DNR on College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS)
matters concerning land and water conservation of the University of Wisconsin–Madison; (d) the
and nonpoint source water pollution abatement. University of Wisconsin–Extension; and (e) the
This advisory role includes the review and rec- Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Associ-
ommendation of a joint annual allocation plan for ation (WLWCA), a nonprofit organization that
several grant programs administered by DNR and represents the state's county land conservation
DATCP. committees and departments, which holds advi-
sory memberships for its president and executive
The LWCB also reviews county land and wa- director. DATCP provides administrative support
ter resource management plans, which are de- to the Board, and both DNR and DATCP staff
scribed further below, and DATCP and DNR provide technical support to the Board.
2County Land Conservation Committees and LCDs or the combined departments implement
Departments state and federal land and water conservation
programs, as well as other programs such as the
County land conservation committees (LCCs) DNR wildlife damage abatement program and
set county policy on land and water conservation tree planting programs, with assistance from fed-
issues and directly oversee the activities of coun- eral and state staff. Conservationists also assist
ty land and water conservation department staff. county zoning administrators on land and water
Each county board is statutorily directed to create resource issues.
an LCC. County LCCs must include: (a) two
county board members who are also members of Generally, a county employs a county conser-
the county committees on agriculture and exten- vationist, a clerical assistant (part- or full-time)
sion education; and (b) the chairperson of the and may also hire one or more technical assis-
county FSA committee. In addition to these tants to the conservationist. As of the 2013 cal-
members, any number of other county board endar year, which is the most recent year com-
members and up to two persons who are not pleted for which counties have reported staffing
county board members may be appointed. levels to DATCP, counties reported a total of
335.5 full-time equivalent employees working in
County LCCs' powers and duties relating to Wisconsin as county conservation staff.
the implementation of state land and water con-
servation programs include: (a) distributing fed- Land and Water Resource Management
eral, state and county funds for cost-share pro- Plans. In order to receive grant funding from
grams; (b) providing equipment, technical assis- DATCP, each LCC is required to have a LWRM
tance and materials to landowners for conserva- plan reviewed by the LWCB and approved by
tion purposes; (c) developing county ordinances DATCP. By statute and administrative rule
for the regulation of land use and land manage- ATCP 50, plans at a minimum must include: (a) a
ment practices; and (d) developing standards for county-wide assessment of soil erosion condi-
management practices and monitoring compli- tions and water quality, including identification
ance with those standards. The LCCs are required of causes of impairments and pollutant sources;
to prepare land and water resource management (b) water quality objectives identified for each
(LWRM) plans. In addition, LCCs are required to watershed, including pollutant load reduction tar-
prepare annually a single state grant request de- gets; (c) key problem areas for soil erosion and
scribing staffing and funding needs for all county water quality, including priority farms and sites
soil and water conservation and animal waste that contribute or may contribute to water quality
management programs. These programs include: impairment; (d) identification of the best man-
(a) DATCP's annual county staffing and support agement practices (BMPs) to achieve the water
grants; (b) the targeted runoff management grant quality objectives and to reach current state soil
program; and (c) the urban nonpoint source and erosion control goals; (e) strategies for achieving
storm water grant program. DATCP and DNR voluntary compliance with farm conservation
then prepare a single allocation plan for all coun- practices, or for carrying out notice and enforce-
ties, with DATCP and DNR each administering ment actions against persons not complying with
its own respective programs. applicable standards; (f) a multi-year strategy for
implementing LWRM plan-related activities and
The LCCs direct the activities of county land priorities, including those priorities identified in
conservation departments (LCDs), which in some the plan and those activities necessary for com-
instances have merged with other county depart- pliance with applicable federal and state laws,
ments such as planning and zoning. County and including an estimate of cost-sharing, educa-
3tion and other assistance needed for the imple- years. This 10-year period replaced a five-year
mentation; (g) a system to track progress of activ- maximum approval period, beginning August 1,
ities identified in the plan; (h) a system for moni- 2011. To receive a 10-year approval, planning
toring conservation compliance with persons documents must include evidence the county
claiming farmland preservation tax credits, which specifically constructed the plan on a 10-year
are described later in greater detail; (i) an infor- horizon, and the plan must describe targets the
mation and education strategy; and (j) local and county will attempt to reach over the plan period.
state regulations to be used to implement the Plans approved for 10 years typically will be re-
plan, as well as methods for coordinating imple- quired to report on progress after five years.
mentation activities with local, state or federal Counties not meeting the requirements for a 10-
agencies and organizations. year approval will continue to have LWRM plans
approved for five years. Counties with a plan ap-
County LCCs develop the plans with the as- proved for five years can request extensions for
sistance of DATCP. DNR also assists counties in up to five years, provided the extended plan in-
LWRM plan activities by providing available wa- cludes measurable targets and demonstrates the
ter quality data and information, training and county created the plan to cover a 10-year plan-
support for water resource assessments and ap- ning and implementation period.
praisals and other related program information.
The LWCB reviews plans and recommends DATCP reports most counties with five-year
DATCP approval or disapproval. approval terms have sought five-year extensions
as plan expirations have approached in recent
Currently, DATCP administrative rules re- years. DATCP also reports it intends to guide all
quire LWRM plans to be approved by an order of counties to 10-year approvals as current plans
the DATCP Secretary for a period of up to 10 expire over the coming years.
4CHAPTER 1
CURRENT NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAMS AND GRANTS
fulfill statutory and administrative requirements
Program Components for the funding that must be offered to owners of
agricultural facilities or operators of agricultural
practices that are existing nonpoint sources of
The current structure of the nonpoint and pollution. Under s. 281.16(3) of the statutes, cost
SWRM programs was first created by the 1997- sharing must be available to require compliance
99 biennial budget act (1997 Act 27) and the with, or enforcement of, the performance stand-
1999-2001 biennial budget act (1999 Act 9). ards, prohibitions, conservation practices and
These acts made several major modifications and technical standards for agricultural facilities and
additions to the nonpoint and SWRM programs, practices existing prior to October 14, 1997.
as described below, and created the basis for the
current programs. In general, the state or a municipality may not
require water pollution-abatement practices or
Although the current nonpoint source pollu-
structures that would change or discontinue exist-
tion abatement program has several distinct com-
ing agricultural practices or facilities to meet per-
ponents and grant programs as noted below,
formance standards unless the landowner re-
LCCs have been required since 2000 to prepare a
ceives a "bona fide offer" of having a minimum
single annual grant request. This grant request
portion of the cost of installing the necessary best
describes staffing needs and proposed county ac-
management practice (BMP) provided to them.
tivities for: (a) soil and water conservation and
This portion for most practices is 70%, meaning
animal waste management under Chapter 92 of
the landowner would be responsible for 30% of
the statutes; (b) financial assistance under s.
total project costs. (In 2014, DATCP administra-
281.65 for nonpoint source water pollution
tive rule changes began limiting certain practices
abatement, including funding requested under the
to a 50% cost share, including practices in non-
competitive targeted runoff management (TRM)
farm settings and practices installed on lands
grant program; and (c) the urban nonpoint source
owned by a local government. BMPs and their
water pollution abatement and storm water man-
cost-share rates are listed in Appendix I.) Bona
agement program under s. 281.66. To this end,
fide offers may consist of other public or private
DATCP and DNR have created a single grant
funding sources, such as those from federal con-
application process. However, each agency pre-
servation programs, and need not consist only of
pares, issues and administers its own grants. The
state funds.
agencies are required to jointly review the appli-
cations, determine if projects should be consid-
Certain sites must comply with performance
ered for funding through DATCP or DNR com-
standards regardless of cost-sharing availability,
petitive funding, and submit a coordinated grant
including: (a) livestock facilities permitted as
allocation plan to the LWCB for its review and
point sources of pollution under DNR's animal
recommendation to the agencies.
waste regulatory program (NR 243); (b) unper-
Several of the grant programs described mitted small and medium livestock facilities that
throughout this chapter are primarily intended to have a point source discharge to waters of the
5state; (c) persons obligated to meet standards as a Performance Standards and Conservation
condition of receiving farmland preservation tax Practices. DNR was required under 1997 Act 27
credits; and (d) expanded or modified sites that to create performance standards for both agricul-
are granted a local livestock siting or manure tural and nonagricultural facilities that are non-
storage permit. Aside from these instances, point sources of pollution. DNR and DATCP
BMPs generally cannot be required for existing subsequently revised and created several admin-
facilities or practices, absent a cost-sharing offer. istrative rules (NR 120, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155,
Therefore, the extent to which nonpoint source 216, and 243, and ATCP 50) to implement the
water pollution abatement is implemented in program changes enacted under 1997 Act 27 and
Wisconsin is significantly influenced by the grant 1999 Act 9. The revised rules mostly took effect
funding that is available to Wisconsin landown- on October 1, 2002. However, several chapters
ers. This differs from abatement of point sources have undergone revision since 2002 to change
of pollution, for which the responsible party gen- performance standards or make changes to pro-
erally must pay for all necessary structures and cedures for awarding and distributing grants.
practices. These administrative rules are discussed later in
greater detail in Chapter 2.
County Staffing and Cost-Sharing Grants.
Rather than DATCP and DNR each funding
county staffing and cost-share grants, 1999 Act 9
required DATCP under its SWRM program to
fund grants to counties for land conservation staff DATCP Funding to Counties
and administration of land and water conserva-
tion programs. This includes cost-sharing grants
Since 1987, DATCP has disbursed state funds
distributed by DATCP to counties for implement-
to local units of government and other project
ing pollution abatement practices in accordance
cooperators for land and water conservation ac-
with their LWRM plans.
tivities across the state. A joint final allocation
Urban Nonpoint Source and Storm Water plan lists the amount and program purpose for
Management. 1999 Act 9 removed cost sharing funds to be received by the recipient in each cal-
for urban storm water management practices endar year. DATCP has the authority to make
from the priority watershed program, and created these grants through the provisions of s. 92.14 of
a competitive urban nonpoint source and storm the statutes, and administrative rule ATCP 50.
water management grant program (UNPS) under
DNR's authority. This program provides funding Funds are allocated to a county only if the
for both planning and construction activities. Al- county has an approved LWRM plan and the
so, the municipal flood control and riparian resto- county board has resolved to match state grants
ration program (MFC) was created to address with county funds. LCCs are allowed to use the
floodplain and storm water quality issues. grants for several purposes: (a) staff activities
related to the county's LWRM plans for nonpoint
Targeted Runoff Management. 1999 Act 9 source water pollution abatement, animal waste
also created a competitive nonpoint grant pro- management, or other conservation activities; (b)
gram to pay for urban and rural nonpoint source activities that promote compliance with soil and
water pollution abatement projects. This program water conservation requirements under the farm-
became the TRM grant program, also adminis- land preservation program; and (c) consistent
tered by DNR. with approved LWRM plans, best management
practices related to animal waste management,
6nonpoint source pollution abatement and other Table 2: DATCP 2015 SWRM Grant Allocation
conservation practices determined by the county
Percent
to be necessary for conservation and resource Program Grants of Total
management. LCCs also may use the grant for
shoreland management projects. DATCP pro- County Staffing Grants $8,880,000 58.8%
vides funding on a reimbursement basis, not as LWRM Plan Implementation* 5,488,700 36.3
Cooperator Contracts and Grants 735,300 4.9
advance payments. County recipients are re-
quired to file annual reports on the progress made Total $15,104,000
toward achieving conservation goals specified in
* Includes cost-sharing funds for implementation of LWRM
LWRM plans, as well as on other funding pro- plans, funding for nutrient management planning and other
vided for the county's conservation staffing. soft practices, and a reserve for animal waste discharge
response grants.
In addition to direct funding of individual
county conservation programs, DATCP may pro- 2009 Act 28 nonpoint account SEG appropriated
vide SWRM grant funding under contract with must be used specifically for county staffing
other organizations for regional or statewide ef- grants or landowner cost-sharing. ATCP 50 also
forts. For example, DATCP has customarily allo- allows counties to reallocate state staffing grant
cated grant funds to the WLWCA for partial sup- funds provided to a local government or tribe to
port of its Standards Oversight Council (SOC). meet LWRM plan priorities or achieve compli-
The SOC assists in the development and mainte- ance with state agriculture performance stand-
nance of technical standards for statewide soil ards.
and water conservation practices, and DATCP
intends for the allocation to further a comprehen- Allocation Procedures
sive statewide approach to soil and water conser-
vation and the achievement of state program re- Both statutes and administrative rules de-
quirements. The University of Wisconsin System scribe the methods by which annual allocations
also has regularly been contracted for technical to counties are determined. Section 92.14 (6) of
support services under the SWRM program. the statutes requires DATCP and DNR to attempt
to provide funding for an average of three staff
Appendix II shows, by recipient, the 2015 persons in each county, with salary and fringe
DATCP soil and water resource management benefits funded at a rate of: (a) 100% for the first
(SWRM) allocations, and Table 2 shows funding county staff person; (b) 70% for the second staff
by grant type. DATCP administrative rules speci- person; and (c) 50% for each additional staff per-
fy that counties and cooperating organizations son. Accordingly, a county match is required for
must apply for funds each year by April 15. The 30% of the salary and fringe benefits of the sec-
DATCP portion of the plan is to be approved by ond staff person and 50% of the salary and fringe
each December 31, with funding then provided in benefits for each additional staff person. The
the subsequent calendar year. statutes do not specify the match requirement for
support costs other than salary and fringe bene-
Staffing grants in limited circumstances may fits, such as travel expenses, computers and soft-
be transferred to pay for landowner cost-sharing ware, office supplies and equipment, field
grants with DATCP approval, provided the funds equipment, and training costs. ATCP 50 requires
are expended the same year in which they were no local match for these training and support
allocated. Additionally, while the statutes allow costs, although as of May 1, 2014, administrative
for GPR appropriated for the SWRM program to rule ATCP 50 caps training and support costs at
be used for general program purposes, under 10% of a county's annual grant allocation.
7Additionally, the Departments are to attempt stead, a $75,000 minimum grant has been in ef-
to provide an average of $100,000 in cost-sharing fect since the 2013 allocation. ATCP 50 currently
funds per county, with the statutes generally re- does not specify a minimum Tier 1 grant for each
quiring a 30% landowner match for most cost- county.
shared practices for agricultural facilities or prac-
tices in place prior to October 14, 1997, the ef- Tier 2 grants provide staffing for second and
fective date of 1997 Act 27. The minimum land- subsequent positions, with DATCP's goal being
owner contribution typically is 10% in cases of to provide funding for an average of three posi-
economic hardship. tions per county. Each county matches at least
30% of the second position and 50% of third and
Further, DATCP has set forth in ATCP 50 subsequent positions. DATCP awards these
several priorities it must consider in establishing grants based on the amount of state funding
each grant allocation plan: (a) continuation of available, as well as how far the Tier 1 base allo-
county staff and projects; (b) funding projects cation goes toward covering multiple staff posi-
that address statewide priorities identified by tions. This funding is awarded in up to three
DATCP and DNR; and (c) other factors. Other rounds, one for each position to be funded, alt-
factors include: (a) the county's demonstrated hough first-round funding is awarded only to
commitment to implementation of its approved counties that have costs of the first position ex-
LWRM plan and to farm-conservation practices; ceeding the Tier 1 base.
(b) the cost-effectiveness of the grant; (c) the
likelihood that the grant will resolve problems Beginning in 2015, DATCP also has adminis-
specified in the county's LWRM plan; and (d) the tratively determined counties' first state-funded
county's demonstrated cooperation, commitment position, which is eligible for 100% state fund-
and ability to manage and implement the project. ing, must be a department head or technician
"fully engaged in conservation activities." The
Staffing Grants. To carry out these funding policy is intended to avoid state appropriations
directives, DATCP uses tiers to divide funds for land and water conservation supporting other
among counties and other collaborators. Typical- program areas, as counties have in some instanc-
ly, DATCP has allocated funds in two tiers, in- es in recent years combined land conservation
cluding one tier for base funding and a second departments with other offices. DATCP has spec-
tier to provide funding for additional positions. A ified that a full-time assignment to conservation
third tier was implemented in 2009, which programming should be as close to 100% time as
awarded $10,000 each to 13 counties that had is realistic, but in no case would a position work-
been most effective in creating and substantially ing on conservation programs less than 95% of
following local strategies for limiting nutrient time be eligible for full funding. For a second or
runoff. No additional funding tier has been used subsequent position, positions working in other
since. non-conservation program areas part-time could
seek SWRM funding, but only to the extent of
Among several ATCP 50 revisions that took that position's share of time spent on conserva-
effect in 2014 was the repeal of an $85,000 annu- tion programming. Conservation work is consid-
al base staffing grant to each county. In recent ered to be: (a) LWRM plan implementation; (b)
years this had been the minimum amount award- conservation practice engineering, design or in-
ed to each county under Tier 1. However, due to stallation; (c) cost-share grant administration; (d)
funding levels beginning with the 2011-13 bien- farmland preservation program administration; or
nium, the Department waived the $85,000 mini- (e) livestock regulation. Excluded programs may
mum in the 2012 through 2014 allocations. In- include: (a) planning and zoning; (b) parks; (c)
8geographic information systems; or (d) design of tion plan provided $3,588,000 in bonding for
non-conservation practices. Department heads LWRM plan implementation cost-sharing. This
must oversee only conservation programming, includes $3.5 million in new bond proceeds au-
and may not make policy or budgeting decisions thorized under the 2013-15 budget act, plus
in the ineligible program areas. $88,000 in previously allocated funds that went
unspent in earlier grant years. Bonding proceeds
For the 2015 joint allocation plan, available are distributed through counties on a reimburse-
staffing grant funding of $8,880,000 includes ment basis for cost-sharing grants to landowners
$5,852,800 nonpoint account SEG and that provide up to 70% of the cost of installing
$3,027,200 GPR. Tier 1 grants are $75,000 per conservation practices. Funding up to 90% may
county, or $5,400,000 total. Tier 2 funds are allo- be available in cases of economic hardship.
cated first to counties whose first position costs These cost-sharing grants are intended to support
exceed $75,000; for example, a county with a implementation of nonpoint source water pollu-
first position cost of $95,000 is provided $20,000 tion prevention BMPs, which are discussed later
additional funding in the first round of Tier 2 in this paper.
funding. For 2015, $834,800 is allocated over 47
counties to fund first positions not fully support- DATCP has customarily provided a base
ed by base funding of $75,000. Therefore, total amount of bond funding for each county. From
allocations in 2015 for fully funding each coun- 2007 through 2013, this was $20,000 per county,
ty's designated first position, with minimum but beginning in 2013, DATCP awarded a base
funding of $75,000 per county, are $6,234,800. of $10,000 per county, for a total of $720,000
Based on 2014-15 appropriations for county con- among all 72 counties. For 2015, DATCP con-
servation staffing grants, funding remaining for tinues past practice of making awards based in
second and subsequent positions is $2,645,200. part on counties' record of spending all or most of
annual cost-sharing allocations. Additionally,
The subsequent two rounds of Tier 2 allow funds are awarded: (a) on the basis of need, as
funding for second and third positions at 70% measured by agricultural acreage in the county
and 50%, respectively, subject to fund availabil- reported in the 2012 USDA Census of Agricul-
ity. For 2015, amounts available funded 81% of ture; and (b) on the basis of total amounts of
the total needed to fund 70% of counties' second bond proceeds spent in 2011 through 2013, the
positions. No funding is available for third posi- three preceding completed grant years. Table 3
tions in 2015. No third positions have been pro- shows the dollar amounts awarded by grade in
vided state funding since the 2010 allocation cy- each of the three categories. (For 2015, DATCP
cle. indicates eight counties were awarded lower than
the amount for which they are otherwise eligible
For 2013, the most recent year for which due to the county requesting less funding.) Bond-
counties have reported staffing levels and the use supported cost-sharing awards in 2015 total
of staffing grant awards, allocated DATCP fund- $3,388,000, and are between $10,000 and
ing of $8.6 million supported 112 full-time $72,500 per county, with an average of about
equivalent (FTE) positions out of 335.5 total FTE $47,100 per county. (DATCP reserved bond
reported by counties. Other funding for positions funding of $200,000 for regulatory animal waste
may come from county tax and fee receipts, pri- grants, which are discussed later in greater de-
vate or governmental grants, or other sources. tail.)
Cost-Sharing and LWRM Plan Implementa- In addition to the bond funding that was
tion. As shown in Appendix II, the 2015 alloca- awarded to counties for cost-share grants,
9practices. Beginning with the 2012 allocation,
Table 3: 2015 DATCP Bond-Funded Cost-
Sharing Performance- and Need-Based Awards DATCP has determined nonpoint SEG cost-
sharing by three criteria: (a) the number of farm-
Category/Evaluation Metric Amount ers claiming farmland preservation tax credits in
2011-13 Average Underspending
the county; (b) the number of nutrient manage-
0% to 5% $30,000 ment checklists submitted to DATCP annually
6% to 10% 20,000 proving active nutrient management plans com-
11% to 20% 10,000 ply with USDA standards; and (c) the county's
Greater than 20% 0
past performance in deploying allocated nonpoint
Agricultural Acreage, 2012 Ag Census SEG cost-share funds. An additional $735,300 is
275,000 acres or more $17,500 planned for collaborating organizations, as de-
175,000 to 274,999 12,500 scribed later. Grants are shown by county in Ap-
50,000 to 174,999 7,000
Less than 50,000 0 pendix II. Fifteen counties did not apply for non-
point SEG cost-sharing funds for 2015.
2011-13 Cumulative Spending
$275,000 or more $15,000 For funds spent during 2013, the most recent
$200,000 to $274,999 7,500
year reported, 1,150 practices received cost shar-
$75,000 to $199,999 5,000
Less than $75,000 0 ing, including 708 funded by bond proceeds and
442 funded by nonpoint account SEG. In 2012,
installed practices numbered 1,095, including
DATCP has had funding available annually since 832 bond-supported practices and 263 SEG-
2005-06 for nutrient management plan (NMP) funded practices.
development grants. 2005 Act 25 made $520,000
nonpoint account SEG available beginning in Further, DATCP estimates that approximately
2005-06, and this increased under 2007 Act 20 2.58 million acres in Wisconsin were under nu-
by an additional $6,000,000 nonpoint SEG avail- trient management planning in 2014, compared
able beginning in 2008-09. Funding has been re- to approximately 1.95 million acres in 2012 and
duced to $2,500,000 annually by subsequent bi- 2.34 million acres in 2013. The 2014 amount re-
ennial budgets. This funding is provided to coun- flects about 28% of Wisconsin’s harvested
ties for: (a) grants to landowners for the imple- cropland, which comprises about 9.1 million
mentation of NMPs, which were required under acres, according to the 2012 USDA Census of
ATCP 50 for most Wisconsin cropland beginning Agriculture. This total includes: (a) 1,146,000
January 1, 2008, or (b) other impermanent or acres under cost sharing from DATCP, DNR,
"soft" cropping practices that will reduce nutrient NRCS or receiving farmland preservation tax
runoff. Impermanent practices may not be funded credits; (b) 825,000 acres at concentrated animal
through the use of state general obligation bonds, feeding operations (CAFOs), which have
which the Wisconsin Constitution generally re- wastewater discharge permits under provisions of
quires to be used only for permanent structural NR 243, and must practice nutrient management
improvements. planning regardless of cost-sharing availability as
a condition of their wastewater discharge permit;
From the $2,636,000 nonpoint SEG available (c) 570,000 acres under a local ordinance for ma-
for 2014-15, which includes $136,000 encum- nure management or livestock siting; and (d)
bered but unspent in previous cycles, DATCP 42,000 acres outside of a specific program.
awarded $1,900,700 for counties to distribute to
landowners in 2015 for cost-sharing of nutrient In addition to funding landowner cost-sharing,
management planning and associated cropping DATCP has customarily funded projects to sup-
10port statewide priorities of nutrient management, s. 92.14 (3) of the statutes to share costs for
technical standards development, and training. installing animal waste management practices
The 2015 allocation includes allocations of and facilities as a result of a "notice of discharge"
$330,000 for UW–Extension, which is for main- (NOD), or notice of intent (NOI) to issue an
taining and updating online nutrient management NOD under Chapter 283 of the statutes and
planning tools and other nutrient management administrative rule NR 243. DATCP in recent
outreach. DATCP also awarded 2015 funding of years customarily has reserved $200,000 in bond
$182,100 to the WLWCA, including up to revenue for grant awards. DATCP also has
$151,600 for statewide conservation training ac- customarily funded NOIs rather than NODs.
tivities, $27,500 for the Standards Oversight DATCP contends NOIs better reflect the
Council to support the development and mainte- voluntary nature of counties' implementation of
nance of technical standards for urban and rural LWRM plans, which seek to use cost-sharing to
soil and water conservation practices in Wiscon- encourage the installation of conservation
sin and $3,000 for the Conservation Observance practices at sites where the practices would have
Day, an event recognizing conservation initia- the greatest effect, as opposed to requiring
tives on farms. pollution abatement practices at specific sites.
DATCP must commit its reserve funds to cost-
For 2015, DATCP also allocated $163,200 to share agreements by the end of the calendar year
nutrient management farmer education (NMFE) in which funds are allocated. This is intended to
grants for 14 recipients. The Department began align with provisions of ATCP 50 for extending
awarding NMFE grants directly in 2014, effec- funding by one year to projects that are not
tively replacing a similar program previously completed by the end of the grant year, but for
administered by the UW–Extension. NMFE which contracts have been signed.
grants allow recipients to conduct workshops or
other training to provide basic education to farm- Between 2002 and 2007, when DATCP first
ers on nutrient management principles. Grants reserved bond revenues for animal waste man-
also may fund stipends to farmers to assist with agement, only the priority watershed program
costs of training or soil sampling. DATCP reports and the competitive TRM grant program funded
most training results in farmers writing their own NOD remediation. The 2007-09 budget act, how-
nutrient management plans, which the Depart- ever, authorized DNR to address animal waste
ment expects will help farmers gain necessary pollution from a similar reserve that operates out-
understanding to properly implement the plans. side competitive grant programs. DNR funding
Plans written under NMFE-funded programs may for animal waste pollution is discussed later in
help increase nutrient management planning out- greater detail.
side of full state-funded cost-sharing. However,
NMFE grants serve a purpose different from that
of cost-sharing grants, which are intended to ful-
fill the cost-sharing requirements under which a DNR Nonpoint Source Grants
landowner must adopt nutrient management prac-
tices on existing cropland.
With the expiration of the priority watershed
Regulatory Animal Waste Grants program in 2010, DNR funding for pollution
management practices is distributed mostly
Regulatory funding for animal waste through competitive grant programs. These com-
management is statutorily available from DATCP petitive grants are intended to assist landowners
or DNR. Counties may use DATCP grants under and governmental units in controlling nonpoint
11source pollution by complementing staffing and abatement in high-priority target areas, character-
practice grants made to counties by DATCP. ized by the following: (a) a need to meet compli-
ance with nonpoint source performance standards
DNR administers the following three com- established by DNR; (b) the existence of im-
petitive grant programs under the noted adminis- paired waters as identified by DNR to the federal
trative rules: (a) the targeted runoff management Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); (c) the
(TRM) program (NR 153); (b) the urban non- existence of outstanding or exceptional resource
point source and storm water (UNPS) grant pro- waters as designated by DNR; (d) the existence
gram (NR 155); and (c) the municipal flood con- of threats to public health; (e) the existence of an
trol (MFC) program (NR 199). (Recent grants animal feeding operation that has received a no-
under these programs are listed in Appendices tice of discharge or a notice of intent to issue a
III, IV, and V. The priority watershed program is notice of discharge; or (f) other water quality
described in Appendix VI.) DNR also provides, concerns of national or statewide importance.
in conjunction with DATCP, animal waste con-
trol grants to livestock operations issued an NOD Beginning with grants awarded in 2011 and
or NOI. Local governments that are awarded any funded in 2012, administrative rule NR 153 (tar-
of these grants enter into a contract with DNR. geted runoff management grants) provides that
Grant recipients must comply with program con- TRM grants are to be allocated in one of four
ditions, provide the local portion of the project project categories: (a) large-scale TMDL (total
costs, and install and maintain all BMPs con- maximum daily load) implementation; (b) small-
structed under these programs, and local gov- scale TMDL implementation; (c) non-TMDL
ernments that use state funds to provide assis- large-scale control projects; and (d) non-TMDL
tance to private landowners must enter into a small-scale control projects. (TMDL plans are
similar contractual agreement with the landown- intended to reduce pollutant loads introduced to a
er. water body to levels that will allow water quality
standards to be achieved. TMDL plans are re-
Grant Programs quired for waters DNR has identified to EPA as
being impaired by some type of pollutant.) Table
Targeted Runoff Management Grant Pro- 4 compares characteristics of each project type,
gram. As created under s. 281.65 (4c) of the including information on funding allocated for
statutes, TRM grants are intended to promote the 2014 and 2015 grant years. Following is a
"the accelerated implementation of nonpoint description of each type of project:
source water pollution control" that cannot be
achieved through activities funded under DATCP • Large-Scale TMDL Implementation.
cost sharing. Grants are to support pollution These projects are limited to managing agricul-
Table 4: Summary of Targeted Runoff Management Grant Categories
Standard Maximum Agricultural 2014 2015
Category Duration Grant or Urban Funding Funding
Large-Scale TMDL 3 years $1,000,000 Agricultural $165,000 $1,000,000
Large-Scale Non-TMDL 3 years 1,000,000 Agricultural 1,000,000 0
Small-Scale TMDL 2 years 150,000 Both 603,400 415,000
Small-Scale Non-TMDL 2 years 150,000 Both 1,785,600 1,326,900
Totals $3,554,000 $2,741,900
12tural nonpoint sources. Projects should manage jects are limited to two years, unless an extension
the most critical or significant sources in a water- to a third year is approved by DNR. Maximum
shed area, based on relative contributions to the grants for this project type are $150,000, subject
identified impairment, and must be possible to to 70% cost-sharing requirements.
control cost-effectively. Projects may last up to
three years, with extensions possible for a fourth Construction grants may be awarded under
if approved by DNR. Grants are capped at $1 any of the categories. Property acquisition costs
million per project, subject to 70% cost-sharing are also eligible for grant funding. Non-
requirements. construction local assistance grants may only be
made for activities conducted during the grant
• Large-Scale Non-TMDL Projects. Large- period in large-scale projects. Local assistance
scale projects not implementing a TMDL plan grants fund activities including public outreach,
may apply for this category of TRM grants, pro- planning, management and evaluation of best
vided the project focuses on attaining perfor- management practices. However, local assistance
mance standards of NR 151 and ATCP 50. Such grants are contingent on the availability of fund-
projects must be guided by a watershed plan or ing other than general obligation bonding, which
another strategy for achieving water quality goals is the primary source of funding for TRM pro-
in an area. As with large-scale TMDL projects, jects, and the Wisconsin Constitution only allows
large-scale non-TMDL projects must be limited issuance of public debt for support of long-term
to agricultural sources, and must focus on con- capital improvements. DNR also reports project
trolling the most critical or significant sources costs regularly exceed the grant maximum, lead-
that can be cost-effectively controlled within a ing to most grants being fully allocated to con-
watershed area of between eight and 39 square struction costs.
miles. Projects are limited to three years, alt-
hough extension to a fourth year is possible. DNR is to determine the annual TRM budget
Maximum funding is $1 million per project, sub- prior to applications being submitted. The De-
ject to 70% cost-sharing requirements. partment then divides total funding into sub-
allocations for each category following applica-
• Small-Scale TMDL Implementation. tion submission. Sub-allocations are to be based
Small-scale TMDL implementation projects may on water quality goals and the quality of applica-
address nonpoint source pollution at one or more tions in each category, but thereafter, projects
sites, which may be either agricultural or urban in compete only within categories. Relative funding
character. As with large-scale projects, small- levels among categories will, therefore, vary by
scale TMDL-implementation projects are re- year with the types of applications submitted.
quired to address significant nonpoint sources However, for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 grant cy-
that can be cost-effectively abated. Projects may cles, DNR awarded at least one grant in each cat-
last for two years, with a possible extension to a egory. In 2015, DNR awarded no grants in the
third, given DNR approval. Projects may receive large-scale non-TMDL category despite having
a maximum grant of $150,000, subject to 70% one applicant, which was the first instance of a
cost-sharing requirements. category receiving no awards since the TRM
program's restructuring. The type of funding
• Small-Scale Non-TMDL Implementation. available also would be expected to influence
Small-scale non-TMDL projects may address project selection; for example, federal funds un-
water quality concerns in agricultural or urban der the Clean Water Act have multiple conditions
settings, and are required to achieve attainment for their use. Further, DNR expects more grants
with corresponding performance standards. Pro- may be funded through TMDL-based projects as
13TMDL and equivalent plans continue to be creat- runoff performance standards that meet require-
ed for more impaired waters. ments under NR 151, achieving water quality
standards, protecting groundwater, and helping
Both urban and rural nonpoint projects can be municipalities meet municipal storm water per-
funded through a TRM grant. However, point mit conditions of NR 216. UNPS grants are
sources of water pollution are ineligible for TRM funded by a combination of SEG and bond reve-
grants, and approximately 218 urbanized munici- nues.
palities in Wisconsin, including some UW cam-
puses, are required to have a Wisconsin pollutant
The DNR awards UNPS grants to local gov-
discharge elimination system (WPDES) permit
ernments either with jurisdiction over a project
for discharges from their municipal separate
area or with responsibility for controlling storm
storm sewer systems (MS4s). This classifies
water discharges under a WPDES storm water
these municipalities as point sources, and elimi-
permit (s. 283.33 of the statutes). To be eligible
nates them from TRM eligibility. Most TRM
for UNPS grants, projects must occur in an urban
grants thus go to rural counties or small munici-
area, which is land: (a) with a population of at
palities, and most of these grants in turn are pro-
least 1,000 persons per square mile; (b) used in-
vided to landowners to assist with costs of im-
dustrially or commercially; or (c) surrounded by
provements made on privately held lands.
either type of area. Projects must align with ur-
ban nonpoint source performance standards and
Up to 70% of a project's eligible costs can be
with DNR pollution abatement priorities identi-
funded through a TRM grant, subject to maxi-
fied for a watershed or other geographic area.
mum grants noted previously. The 70% rate may
Recipients must also have a local program that
be exceeded in cases of economic hardship. Con-
adequately ensures implementation of construc-
versely, local units of government may request a
tion site runoff controls, and of storm water man-
lower cost-share rate in their project applications.
agement for newly constructed or redeveloped
Eligible BMPs under the TRM program are ex-
sites; these are also required conditions under a
plained in Appendix I.
municipal WPDES storm water permit.
DNR awarded TRM grants of $3,554,000 in
The UNPS grant program contains two grant
2014, as shown in Table 4, including $2,710,600
types. Local assistance grants, or planning grants,
in general obligation bonding, $75,000 GPR and
help local governments cover various non-
$768,400 in federal Clean Water Act funding.
construction costs including engineering designs
For calendar year 2015, the Department has se-
not specific to a project, feasibility studies, public
lected 16 projects to be funded with a total of
information initiatives, ordinance drafting, and
$2,741,900 from bonding, federal funds and
ordinance enforcement. Planning activities may
GPR. Small-scale projects will be initially au-
cover developed areas, new development or re-
thorized through 2016, and large-scale projects
development projects. Municipalities seeking
will be initially authorized through 2017. These
planning grants must be urban areas or areas pro-
grants are listed in Appendix III.
jected to be urban within 20 years. Planning
grants are supported by nonpoint account SEG,
Urban Nonpoint Source and Storm Water as non-construction costs cannot use bond reve-
Grant Program. 1999 Act 9 created an urban nues. Projects are carried out either by the local
nonpoint source (UNPS) program under DNR government or a contract entity.
and removed the program's oversight and project
selection from the LWCB. The primary goals of UNPS construction grants provide funding for
the UNPS program include implementing urban physical improvements. As with TRM grants,
14UNPS construction grants are provided to local 2003. The maximum planning grant is $85,000.
governments applying for funds. However, under In addition, projects that involve land acquisition
the UNPS program, storm water management or permanent easements are eligible for an addi-
projects typically occur on municipal property, tional $50,000 at the 50% state cost-share rate.
and do not involve cost-sharing with private Both construction and planning grants are limited
landowners. Eligible projects include: (a) stream to two years per project, although DNR may ap-
bank and shoreland stabilization; (b) structural prove a one-year extension.
urban BMPs for abating runoff from government,
transportation, commercial, recreational or cer- About $7.6 million is available for urban non-
tain industrial facilities, including costs of land point grants and municipal flood control and ri-
acquisition, storm sewer rerouting, and structure parian restoration grants in 2013-15, as the pro-
removal; and (c) other activities, such as im- grams share an appropriation of $1,313,200 an-
proved street sweeping, identified by DNR rule. nually in nonpoint account SEG and $5 million in
Costs associated with designing and building the additional general obligation bonding under 2013
specific BMP are allowable uses of grant fund- Act 20 for use during the biennium. State law
ing. Ineligible construction-related activities in- does not specify how program funds are to be
clude, among others: (a) BMPs associated with divided between the UNPS and municipal flood
new development; (b) most replacement costs for control (MFC) and riparian restoration grant pro-
BMPs; (c) BMPs whose installation began prior grams. DNR typically attempts to allocate fund-
to the beginning of grants or cost-share agree- ing approximately equally between the programs
ments; and (d) BMPs for runoff that was ade- as new bonding authority is provided each bien-
quately controlled at the time of a grant or cost- nium, although actual spending on projects se-
share agreement but has since undergone signifi- lected for grants affects how funds are expended.
cant changes in land use. Construction grants
may be funded by general obligation bonding or For 2014, the UNPS program awarded grants
nonpoint SEG. of $3,500,600, including $1,089,000 in planning
grants supported by nonpoint SEG and
Governmental units, including the Board of $2,411,600 in construction grants supported by
Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, $2,187,400 in general obligation bonding and
may apply for UNPS grants. Administrative rules $224,200 in nonpoint SEG. DNR has approved
for the UNPS program (NR 155) do not allow grants of $2,513,000 for 2015, including 11 con-
construction grants to support abatement of dis- struction grants with a total state cost-share
charges covered under WPDES permits other amount of $1,219,200 and 20 planning grants
than storm water discharge permits. This provi- with a total state cost-share amount of
sion therefore prohibits UNPS construction $1,293,800. A list of these grants can be found in
grants from supporting, for example, BMPs at Appendix IV.
private industrial properties to contain storm wa-
ter runoff from sources associated with or con- Municipal Flood Control and Riparian
taminated by industrial activity. (These sources Restoration Program. 1999 Act 9 created a mu-
have separate storm water discharge permitting nicipal flood control (MFC) and riparian restora-
requirements under NR 216.) tion program within the urban nonpoint program.
The program provides grants to cities, villages,
Planning grants may not exceed 70% of total towns or metropolitan sewerage districts for the
costs, while construction grants have a 50% cost- collection and transmission of storm water for
share rate. The maximum amount for a construc- flood control and riparian restoration projects. As
tion grant is $150,000, a level established in in the UNPS program, the municipal flood con-
15You can also read
