NR 120.17(2)(d)
(d) Activities funded through state or federal grants for wastewater treatment plants.
NR 120.17(2)(f)
(f) Pollutant control measures needed during building and utility construction, and storm water management practices for new developments.
NR 120.17(2)(g)
(g) Pollutant control measures needed during construction of highways and bridges.
NR 120.17(2)(h)
(h) The planting, growing and harvesting of trees associated with silviculture, except as necessary for site stabilization.
NR 120.17(2)(i)
(i) Installing, operating or repairing a small scale on-site human domestic waste facility construction.
NR 120.17(2)(k)
(k) Installing dams, pipes, conveyance systems and detention basins intended solely for flood control.
NR 120.17(2)(m)
(m) Practices other than those in
s. NR 154.04 that are normally and routinely used in growing crops and required for the growing of crops or the feeding of livestock.
NR 120.17(2)(n)
(n) Practices whose purpose is to accelerate or increase the drainage of land or wetlands, except where drainage is required as a component of a best management practice.
NR 120.17(2)(o)
(o) Practices to control spills from commercial bulk storage of pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum and similar materials required by
ch. ATCP 33 or other administrative rules.
NR 120.17(2)(p)
(p) Significant expansions of livestock operations that are not in compliance with agricultural performance standards under subch.
II of ch. NR 151. Significant expansions shall be determined using the criteria under
par. (q) 2. The base livestock population and the portion of the expansion that is considered less than significant shall be eligible.
NR 120.17(2)(q)
(q) Practices needed to control sources that were adequately managed for the specific land use at the time of cost-share agreement signing, including management of a source in compliance with performance standards, but that are producing an increased amount of pollutant loading to the surface water or groundwater due to the landowner's or land operator's significant changes in land management.
NR 120.17(2)(q)1.
1. Changes that the department may consider significant and ineligible for cost sharing include significant increases in size of the livestock population, changes to more intensive cropping and other changes in land use or management which increase the pollutant loading counter to the water resource objectives in an approved areawide water quality management plan, priority watershed plan, county land and water resources management plan or performance standard for the area.
NR 120.17(2)(q)2.
2. For purposes of this paragraph, the department shall use the criteria in this subdivision in determining whether the increase in the size of the livestock population is significant and ineligible for cost sharing. In this subdivision, “livestock population size" means the size of the livestock population, in animal units. In this subdivision, “base livestock population size" means the livestock population size determined when the department or governmental unit, including a county land conservation committee, visits the site and documents the size of the livestock population. In this subdivision, “animal unit" has the meaning given in
ch. NR 243.
NR 120.17(2)(q)2.a.
a. If the base livestock population size is less than or equal to 250 animal units, that portion of the expansion that results in a livestock population size exceeding 300 animal units is considered to be significant and ineligible for cost sharing under this chapter.
NR 120.17(2)(q)2.b.
b. If the base livestock population size is greater than 250 animal units but less than that required to apply for a WPDES permit under
s. NR 243.12 (1) (a) or
(b), and the expanded livestock population size will be less than that required to apply for a WPDES permit under
s. NR 243.12 (1) (a) or
(b), then that portion of the expansion that is greater than 20% of the base livestock population size is considered to be significant and ineligible for cost sharing under this chapter.
NR 120.17(2)(q)2.c.
c. Any expansion to a base livestock population size that results in a livestock population size required to apply for a WPDES permit under
s. NR 243.12 (1) (a) or
(b) is considered to be significant and ineligible for cost sharing under this chapter, and shall also render the base livestock population component ineligible for cost sharing in accordance with
s. NR 153.15 (2) (f) 2.
NR 120.17(2)(q)2.d.
d. The base livestock population and the portion of the expansion that is considered less than significant shall be eligible.
NR 120.17 Note
Note: The department may not provide cost sharing under this chapter for activities requiring coverage under a WPDES permit. This includes activities requiring permit coverage at livestock operations that are greater than or equal to 1,000 animal units in size or that will become greater than or equal to 1,000 animal units through an expansion.
NR 120.17(2)(s)
(s) Practices previously installed and necessary to support cost-shared practices.
NR 120.17(2)(u)
(u) Changes in location of unconfined manure stacks involving no capital cost.
NR 120.17(2)(w)
(w) Practices needed for land use changes during the cost-share agreement period.
NR 120.17(2)(x)
(x) Urban nonpoint sources that must be controlled to meet the requirements of a municipal WPDES storm water discharge permit.
NR 120.17(2)(zb)
(zb) Installing or modifying an agricultural facility or practice which is required pursuant to a court order or court-ordered stipulation.
NR 120.17(2)(zc)
(zc) Other practices which the department determines are not necessary to achieve the objectives of the watershed project.
NR 120.17(3)
(3) Demonstration projects. The department may establish alternative eligibility criteria for demonstration projects. With prior department approval, demonstration projects meeting these alternative criteria may be implemented during the grant period.
NR 120.17 History
History: CR 00-028: cr.
Register September 2002 No. 561, eff. 10-1-02; corrections in (2) (b) 3. made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register September 2002 No. 561; correction in (2) (o) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register March 2011 No. 663.
NR 120.18(1)(a)(a) The maximum state cost share rate for individual best management practices cost-shared under this chapter may not exceed 70%, except as otherwise provided in this subsection. Cost-share funds from the appropriations under s.
20.115 (7) (c) and
(qd),
20.370 (6) (aq), or
20.866 (2) (te) and
(we), Stats., shall be considered part of the state rate.
NR 120.18(1)(b)
(b) Cost-share rates in this section shall be increased in cases of economic hardship in accordance with
sub. (4).
NR 120.18(1)(c)
(c) The department may provide cost-share up to 100% to replace best management practices eligible in accordance with
s. NR 120.186 (4).
NR 120.18(1)(d)
(d) The cost-share rates for best management practices under existing cost-share agreements may be amended to use the rates identified in this section.
NR 120.18(1)(e)
(e) The maximum state cost-share rates shall be reduced by 50% for landowners of critical sites when a cost-share agreement is signed after the period of cost-sharing availability for critical sites has ended.
NR 120.18(1)(f)
(f) The following conditions further specify eligibility criteria for cost-share reimbursements under this section:
NR 120.18(1)(f)1.
1. Wildlife habitat re-creation associated with implementation of contour farming, contour strip-cropping and field strip-cropping has a maximum state cost-share rate of 70%.
NR 120.18(1)(f)2.
2. For the best management practices under
s. NR 120.14 (16), riparian buffers, and
s. NR 120.14 (6), grassed waterways, a single payment in addition to installation costs may be made in accordance with the following:
NR 120.18(1)(f)2.c.
c. Payments under this subdivision are eligible only for acreage upon which a commodity crop was harvested in at least 2 of the 5 years prior to the signing of the cost-share agreement. The 2 years need not be consecutive if separated by non-grain portions of a normal crop rotation.
NR 120.18(1)(f)3.
3. Cost-share payments for high residue management systems may not be made for more than a total of 6 years.
NR 120.18(1)(f)4.
4. Cost-share payments for cropland protection cover (green manure) may not be made for more than a total of 3 years.
NR 120.18(1)(f)5.
5. Flat rates identified under
par. (g) may be used in lieu of calculating cost-share amounts.
NR 120.18(1)(f)6.
6. Cost-share payments for nutrient management may not be made for more than a total of 3 years.
NR 120.18(1)(f)7.
7. Cost-share payments for pesticide management may not be made for more than a total of 3 years.
NR 120.18(1)(f)8.
8. The maximum amount cost-shared for leases of manure storage tanks shall be 70% of the down payment and lease cost of the tank during the grant period of the watershed project.
NR 120.18(1)(f)9.
9. A governmental unit may establish a flat rate for cost-sharing critical area stabilization in order to simplify the administration of cost-share funding for this best management practice. The flat rate shall be calculated based on the cost-share rate, up to 70%, and the average cost of the practice.
NR 120.18(1)(g)
(g) Counties may use the following state cost-share rates per acre in lieu of the state cost-share percentage listed in this section.
NR 120.18(1)(g)5.
5. $25 per acre per year for cropland protection cover (green manure).
NR 120.18(1)(g)6.a.
a. Three strand barbed wire, steel or wooden post at a flat rate of $5.00 per linear rod.
NR 120.18(1)(g)6.b.
b. Woven wire, steel or wooden post at a flat rate of $8.00 per linear rod.
NR 120.18(1)(g)6.c.
c. Two strand electric, fiberglass, steel or wooden post and insulators at a flat rate of $3.00 per linear rod.
NR 120.18(1)(g)6.d.
d. Fiberglass posts, high tensile wire at a flat rate of $7.50 per linear rod.
NR 120.18(2)(a)(a)
Least cost. A governmental unit may set cost-share rates up to the maximum amount specified for the practice in this section. Where 2 or more practices are of equal effectiveness in reducing pollutants, the cost-share rate shall be based on the least cost practice provided the practice is consistent with the use and management of the land in question. The department may approve, in writing, cost-sharing for a best management practice that is not the least cost if the practice is more cost effective. The department shall approve the cost-share agreement if the best management practices are the least-cost alternatives to control the nonpoint sources or if the practices provide greater water quality improvement or habitat enhancement than the least-cost alternative.
NR 120.18(2)(b)
(b)
Leases of manure storage tanks. The maximum amount cost-shared for leases of manure storage tanks shall be 70% of the down payment and lease cost of the tank during the grant period of the watershed project.
NR 120.18(2)(c)
(c)
Critical area stabilization. Governmental units may establish flat rates for the cost-sharing of critical area stabilization in order to simplify the administration of cost-share funds for this practice. Flat rates shall be based on the percentage, up to 70%, for state cost-sharing and the average cost of the practice.
NR 120.18(3)(a)(a) The local share of project costs may include funds from federal, local or private sources, or state sources not identified under
s. NR 120.18 (1) (a). A cost-share grant under this chapter may not reimburse a landowner or land operator for any cost that another unit of government is also reimbursing.
NR 120.18(3)(b)
(b) In-kind contributions of labor and material used directly in the installations of best management practices may be considered part of the local share of best management practice costs, if properly described and substantiated to the cost-share agreement grantor.
NR 120.18(3)(c)
(c) The value of a conservation easement donated to the department, or to any person approved by the department under s.
281.65 (8) (m), Stats., may be considered as a portion of or all of the landowner's or land operator's share of a cost-sharing grant.
NR 120.18(4)(a)(a) The governmental unit submitting the cost-share agreement under
s. NR 120.13 (5) shall exceed the cost-share limits identified under
sub. (2) if the landowner or land operator that will provide the local share of best management practice installation meets the application and economic hardship requirements as set forth in this subsection.
NR 120.18(4)(b)
(b) The landowner or land operator shall submit an application to the governmental unit in accordance with this subsection in order to be considered for a determination of economic hardship. The governmental unit may not make a determination of economic hardship for cost-share purposes until it has received a completed application.
NR 120.18(4)(c)
(c) The landowner or land operator shall include the following financial information in the application:
NR 120.18(4)(c)1.
1. The landowner or land operator's debt-to-asset ratio or the capital debt repayment liability ratio.
NR 120.18(4)(c)2.
2. Demonstration that the landowner or land operator has the ability to pay the local share of the best management practice installation cost.
NR 120.18(4)(c)3.
3. The information required under
subds. 1. and
2. shall be documented by a signed and notarized statement from an accredited financial institution or a certified public accountant. The grant recipient shall provide to the accredited financial institution or certified public accountant a full and true disclosure of applicable corporate, partnership, personal and marital assets and liabilities, including a copy of the prior year's federal tax returns, as verified by a sworn and signed affidavit. The affidavit shall be made on a form provided by the department.
NR 120.18(4)(d)
(d) The governmental unit shall make a determination of economic hardship if the statement under
par. (c) 3. verifies that one or both of the following conditions exist for the landowner or land operator:
NR 120.18(4)(d)1.
1. The landowner or land operator of an eligible site has a debt-to-asset ratio of more than 60%, and net assets of less than $200,000.
NR 120.18(4)(d)2.
2. The landowner or land operator of an eligible site has a capital debt repayment liability ratio of more than 60%. The capital debt repayment liability ratio is determined by the following formula: (total debt payment) divided by (annual income + depreciation) — (family living expenses + annual debt principal payment).
NR 120.18(4)(e)
(e) If evidence of economic hardship is verified in accordance with the criteria in
par. (d), the governmental unit shall increase the cost-share rate in accordance with this paragraph for all best management practices for which the landowner or land operator is eligible.
NR 120.18(4)(e)1.
1. If the cost-share amount is based on a cost-share rate, the cost-share rate shall be increased so that the cost-share rate is not less than 70% and not greater than 90%.
NR 120.18(4)(e)2.
2. If the cost-share amount is based on a flat rate, the flat rate shall be increased so that it approximates a cost-share rate that is not less than 70% and not greater than 90%.
NR 120.18(4)(f)
(f) The governmental unit shall notify the department in writing when it has made a determination of economic hardship.
NR 120.18 History
History: CR 00-028: cr.
Register September 2002 No. 561, eff. 10-1-02; correction in (1) (a) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register September 2002 No. 561;
correction in (1) (a) under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 7., Stats., Register January 2017 No. 733.
