NR 153.17(6)(b)(b) Expected reduction in pollutant loading or pollution potential attributed to the project. NR 153.17(6)(c)(c) Extent to which performance standards and prohibitions will be implemented. NR 153.17(6)(d)(d) Potential for the desired water quality response to implementation of best management practices. NR 153.17(6)(e)(e) Evidence of local support and involvement, including support from governmental units, interest groups, landowners, and land operators. The department may also request information concerning a governmental unit’s continuous decision-making process which ensures participation by minority and low income populations in affected areas, along with majority populations, to ensure that as an outcome all people receive the benefits of a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment regardless of race, national origin, or income. NR 153.17(6)(f)(f) Consistency between the project and other state and local resource management plans. NR 153.17(6)(h)(h) Use of other funding sources to supplement or reduce the state cost share provided under this chapter. NR 153.17(6)(i)(i) Strategy for evaluating changes in pollution potential, pollutant loading, and receiving water response after implementation of the project. NR 153.17(6)(j)(j) Extent of local authority to enforce performance standards and prohibitions, including information required to determine the project score enforcement multiplier under s. NR 153.19 (4). NR 153.17(6)(k)(k) For the city of Racine, an explanation of how the proposed project will contribute to meeting storm water requirements under ch. NR 216. NR 153.17 HistoryHistory: CR 00-025: cr. Register September 2002 No. 561, eff. 10-1-02; CR 09-112: r. and recr. Register December 2010 No. 660, eff. 1-1-11; correction of numbering of (3), (4) made under s. 13.92 (4) (b) 1., Stats., Register December 2010 No. 660. NR 153.18NR 153.18 Targeted runoff management project screening. This section applies only to targeted runoff management projects. NR 153.18(1)(1) The department may deny consideration of applications that are incomplete by the submittal deadline. The department may consider an application incomplete if the project proposal requires significant additional review to determine compliance with other state laws and the department determines that such reviews may significantly delay the project. State laws that the department may consider in determining if the application is incomplete include those to protect navigable waters, wetlands, historic places, historic properties, endangered resources, or threatened resources and laws for managing environmental hazards due to site contamination. NR 153.18(2)(2) The department shall screen each completed project application to determine if the project meets basic eligibility criteria for funding under this chapter. The department shall use the information required in s. NR 153.17 (4) to make this determination. The department shall remove from further consideration applications that fail to satisfy screening requirements and shall inform the applicant of this decision. NR 153.19NR 153.19 Targeted runoff management project scoring. NR 153.19(1)(1) Applicability. This section applies only to targeted runoff management projects. NR 153.19(2)(2) Scoring procedure for small scale projects. The department shall use the procedure in this subsection to score any small scale project that passes the eligibility screening under s. NR 153.18. NR 153.19(2)(a)(a) The department shall develop an initial project score using the information submitted by the applicant under s. NR 153.17 (6). NR 153.19(2)(a)1.1. The department shall assign a sub-score to each of the application elements identified under s. NR 153.17 (6). The initial project score shall be the sum of the sub-scores. NR 153.19(2)(a)2.2. In determining the initial project score for small scale projects, the department shall give greatest weight to water quality need, extent of pollution control, and cost-effectiveness. NR 153.19(2)(a)3.3. The department may establish minimum score requirements to identify projects that should be removed from further consideration. NR 153.19(2)(b)(b) The department shall multiply the initial project score by a factor based on local enforcement authority to determine the final project score. The department shall determine the local enforcement factor in accordance with sub. (4). NR 153.19(3)(3) Scoring procedure for large scale projects. The department shall use the procedure in this subsection to score any large scale project that passes the eligibility screening under s. NR 153.18. NR 153.19(3)(a)(a) The department shall develop an initial project score using the information submitted by the applicant under s. NR 153.17 (5). NR 153.19(3)(b)(b) The department shall multiply the initial project score by a factor based on local enforcement authority to determine the final project score. The department shall determine the local enforcement factor in accordance with sub. (4). NR 153.19(4)(4) Multipliers for local enforcement authority. NR 153.19(4)(a)(a) The department shall increase the initial project score in accordance with this subsection if there are local regulations adopted prior to application submittal that give local authority to enforce state performance standards and prohibitions. The result shall be the final project score. NR 153.19(4)(b)(b) The department shall increase the initial project score in accordance with the following for projects that are agricultural in nature. NR 153.19(4)(b)1.1. The department shall multiply the initial project score by a factor of 1.15 if the applicant certifies to the department that it has local authority to enforce all state agricultural performance standards and prohibitions at all sites within the local jurisdiction where such state agricultural performance standards and prohibitions apply. NR 153.19(4)(b)2.2. The department shall adjust the enforcement multiplier based on the scope of the local ordinance coverage. Adjustments under this subdivision shall be made so that the multiplier is greater than 1.0 but less than 1.15 for instances where the local regulations cover some, but not all, of the state agricultural performance standards and prohibitions or where a local regulation is applicable to some, but not all, of the sites where the state agricultural performance standard or prohibition applies. The department may request that a copy of applicable ordinances be made available to the department for review in determining the enforcement multiplier. NR 153.19(4)(b)3.3. The department may adjust the multiplier if the ordinance contains a variance clause that significantly reduces the effectiveness of the ordinance in achieving compliance with the state agricultural performance standards or prohibitions, or both. NR 153.19(4)(b)4.4. If no multiplier is earned, the initial score shall be the final project score. NR 153.19(4)(c)(c) The department shall increase the initial project score in accordance with the following for projects that are urban in nature: NR 153.19(4)(c)1.1. The department shall multiply the initial project score by a factor of 1.15 if the applicant certifies to the department that it has local authority to enforce all state non-agricultural performance standards and prohibitions at all sites within the local jurisdiction where such state non-agricultural performance standards and prohibitions apply. NR 153.19(4)(c)2.2. The department shall adjust the enforcement multiplier based on the scope of the local ordinance coverage. Adjustments under this subdivision shall be made so that the multiplier is greater than 1.0 but less than 1.15 for instances where the local regulations cover some, but not all, of the state non-agricultural performance standards and prohibitions or where a local regulation is applicable to some, but not all, of the sites where the state non-agricultural performance standard or prohibition applies. The department may request that a copy of applicable ordinances be made available to the department for review in determining the enforcement multiplier. NR 153.19(4)(c)3.3. The department may adjust the multiplier if the ordinance contains a variance clause that significantly reduces the effectiveness of the ordinance in achieving compliance with performance standards. NR 153.19(4)(c)4.4. If no multiplier is earned, the initial score shall be the final project score. NR 153.19(4)(d)(d) If the department is required to assign a multiplier pursuant to this section and the project is not clearly rural or urban in nature, the department, in consultation with the applicant, shall choose and apply one of the multipliers in accordance with par. (b) or (c). NR 153.20NR 153.20 Targeted runoff management project selection and funding. NR 153.20(1)(1) Applicability. This section applies only to targeted runoff management projects. NR 153.20(2)(a)(a) The department shall assign each project application to one of the four project categories identified in s. NR 153.14 (2). NR 153.20(2)(b)(b) From the total budget available to fund targeted runoff management projects, the department shall create annual budget sub-allocations for each of the project categories the department intends to fund in the application cycle. Sub-allocations may change from year to year. The amount in each sub-allocation shall be based on the department’s water quality goals and the quality of applications submitted. NR 153.20(2)(c)(c) Projects compete for funding only against other projects in the same category. NR 153.20(2)(d)(d) Within each category, the department shall place the projects on a statewide selection list. NR 153.20(2)(d)1.1. For each small scale project category, the department shall use the following procedure to create the statewide selection lists: NR 153.20(2)(d)1.a.a. Identify the highest scoring project in each department region. Provided that the highest regional project score is equal to or greater than the median score for all qualifying applications submitted statewide, place the project with the highest regional score at the top of the statewide selection list. If the highest scoring project in the department region is less than the median for all qualifying applications, the project may not be moved to the top of the statewide selection list and shall be ranked with other projects in accordance with subd. 1. b. NR 153.20 NoteNote: This will increase the likelihood that at least one project from each department region will be at the top of the statewide selection lists for each small scale project category.
NR 153.20(2)(d)1.b.b. Following projects with the highest regional score, the department shall place all remaining eligible projects on the statewide selection list, in rank order from highest to lowest score. NR 153.20(2)(d)1.c.c. Projects shall be selected in order from the top to the bottom of the statewide selection lists until available funds have been allocated. NR 153.20(2)(d)2.2. For each large scale project category, the department shall use the following procedure to create the statewide selection lists: NR 153.20(2)(d)2.a.a. The department shall place all eligible projects on the statewide selection list, in rank order from highest to lowest score. There may be no regional adjustments in the ranking for large-scale projects. NR 153.20(2)(d)2.b.b. Projects shall be selected in order from the top to the bottom of the statewide selection lists until available funds have been allocated. NR 153.20(2)(d)3.3. Notwithstanding subds. 1. and 2., the department may do the following when selecting any small or large scale project for funding: NR 153.20(2)(d)3.a.a. Not select a higher scoring project in favor of funding a lower scoring project if federal funds are being allocated for the project, the higher scoring project is ineligible to receive the federal funds, and the lower scoring project is eligible to receive the federal funds. NR 153.20 NoteNote: There are geographic restrictions on the use of certain federal funds being used to support grant awards, such as those allocated to the state under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. In order to use the available federal funds, it may be necessary to leap-frog down the ranked list to match a project with the federal funds.
NR 153.20(2)(d)3.b.b. Establish a maximum total amount of funding that a grantee may receive in multiple grant awards in any one year. This amount may not exceed 20 percent of the grant funds available in the funding category or the maximum allowable funding amount allowed for a single project, whichever is greater. Projects on the ranked list whose selection for funding would exceed the allowable grantee total will be moved to the bottom of the list and funded only after all other eligible projects have been funded. NR 153.20(2)(d)3.c.c. Establish a maximum grant award that any single project can receive based on the amount of funding available and the funding demand in any year. For purposes of administering this subdivision paragraph for small scale projects, all management practices proposed on contiguous property shall be considered part of a single project regardless of whether the management practices are submitted on the same or separate project applications. In this subdivision paragraph, “contiguous” means touching or sharing a common boundary with a second parcel of land. A lake, river, stream, road, railroad or utility right of way which separates any part of the parcel from any other part does not render the parcel of land non-contiguous. NR 153.20(2)(d)3.d.d. Offer reduced grants for projects that do not require minimum cost-sharing to meet the requirements of s. 281.16 (3) (e), Stats. Reduced grant offers may be based on a reduction in the cost share rate or a reduction in the maximum project grant award amount. NR 153.20 NoteNote: This includes projects that are not being implemented to meet required state performance standards or prohibitions under ch. NR 151. NR 153.20(2)(d)3.e.e. Offer an award of less than the amount requested if that is the only funding remaining. In these circumstances, the applicant is required to complete the project as specified in the application if the partial funding is accepted. NR 153.20(2)(e)(e) The department shall notify the land and water conservation board of project scores and ranks no later than September 1 of each year. NR 153.20(2)(f)(f) Before November 1 of each year, the department shall also notify the land and water conservation board of the budget sub-allocations determined in accordance with par. (b) and the projects that it has identified and proposes to select for funding in the following calendar year. NR 153.20(2)(g)(g) After selecting projects for funding, the department shall notify applicants in writing of its intent to offer grant agreements for the selected projects. The department shall inform applicants if the location of the project indicates measures may be needed to address environmental contamination, potential negative impacts of the project on navigable waters, endangered, threatened, or wetland resources, historic properties, or historic places. NR 153.20(3)(a)(a) The department shall, where practicable, issue grants to successful applicants by December 31 of each year for work that begins in the following calendar year. The department shall consider the factors in pars. (b) to (e) when determining final grant awards. NR 153.20(3)(b)(b) The department shall make adjustments to the requested grant amount if necessary to correct errors made by the applicant concerning eligibility of items for cost sharing and errors in cost-share rates used in developing the application. NR 153.20(3)(c)(c) For any large scale project, the department may make a partial grant award. The department shall complete the grant award based on availability of funds and project performance as defined under s. NR 153.21 (5) (h) 2. NR 153.20(3)(d)(d) The department may offer an award of less than the amount requested if that is the only funding remaining. In these circumstances, the applicant is required to complete the project as specified in the application if partial funding is accepted. NR 153.20(3)(e)(e) If the department determines, following scoring, that a project may have unacceptable impacts on endangered, threatened, or wetland resources, historic places, or historic properties, or that it may expose environmental hazards at the project location, it may do any of the following: NR 153.20(3)(e)2.2. Place a condition on a grant requiring that the grantee take specific actions or develop a plan to reduce or eliminate the impacts of the project. NR 153.20 NoteNote: In addition, s. NR 154.04 (2) (k) states that all required permits, including those mandated by the department, shall be obtained prior to installing a best management practice listed in this chapter. NR 153.20(3)(f)(f) The department may fund, in a grant, activities needed to identify impacts on navigable waters, endangered, threatened, or wetland resources, historic places, or historic properties and actions needed to reduce or eliminate the impacts. NR 153.20(4)(4) Joint allocation plan. The department shall provide information to the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection about grant decisions it has made under this section for incorporation into the joint allocation plan required under ss. 92.14 (14) and 281.65 (4) (pm), Stats. NR 153.20 NoteNote: The joint allocation plan is distributed to counties for review and comment and is submitted to the Wisconsin land and water conservation board which may make recommendations to the department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection on approval, modification, or disapproval. This process affords the affected public and the board an opportunity to make recommendations on items such as budget sub-allocations and project selections determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in the section.
NR 153.20(5)(a)(a) A grantee may request a substitution to a project selected under this section. The request may be to change best management practices or install the best management practices at an alternative location. NR 153.20(5)(b)(b) The grantee shall submit the request to the department prior to the end of the grant period. The grantee shall submit the substitution request on a form provided by the department. NR 153.20 NoteNote: Forms can be obtained from the department’s Bureau of Watershed Management or the department’s Bureau of Community Financial Assistance, 101 S. Webster St., PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921.
NR 153.20(5)(c)(c) The department shall consider the substitution request and inform the grantee of its decision. The department may approve the substitution request only if all of the following criteria are met: NR 153.20(5)(c)1.1. The grantee provides a description and rationale for the substitution. NR 153.20(5)(c)2.2. The altered project meets project screening, minimum scoring, and local share requirements of this chapter. NR 153.20(5)(c)3.3. The altered project is cost-effective, will not increase the original grant award, and will achieve results substantially similar to those anticipated through the original project proposal. NR 153.20(5)(c)4.4. The altered project will affect the same hydrologic unit and water resources identified in the original application. NR 153.20(5)(c)5.5. There is sufficient time remaining to complete the revised project. NR 153.20(5)(c)6.6. The substitution will not result in removing a cost-share offer included in a notice that has been issued or is expected to be issued under s. NR 151.09 or 151.095.
