Form 1100·001N (Rev. 10/12) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Item No. 3 • o. 1 • Natural Resources Board Agenda Item SUBJECT: Request Approval of the Department's 2015-17 Biennial Budget including Operating, Capital, and Environmental Improvement Fund components. FOR: September 2014 Board meeting TO BE PRESENTED BY: Joe Polasek, Director, Bureau of Management and Budget; and Dan Olson, Chief, Capital Budget Section, Bureau of Facilities and Lands SUMMARY: The Department's 2015-17 Biennial Budget includes Operating, Capital, and Environmental Improvement Fund components. 1. Operating Budget-- The proposed two-year DNR operating budget is $577.3 million for 2015-16 and $577.4 million for 2016-17. In total, the two-year budget includes a 2 year increase of about $5 million over the 2013-15 Biennial Budget. $3.5 million of this two year increase represents standard cost to continue items as defined by DOA, which are primarily composed of the difference in amounts budgeted for salaries versus actual salary costs. This budget in total reflects a 0.43% increase over the 2014-15 base. There are no GPR increases included in the budget. Increases that are included are primarily Conservation Fund financed. These increases will be used to maintain Park, Forest and Law Enforcement operations. This budget includes a decrease of 1.0 FTE to the Department's base staffing complement, bringing overall staffing to 2,641 .54. 2. The Capital Development Budget provides the Department the funding necessary for maintaining and improving public access and public recreational facilities on DNR owned lands, and funding for maintaining and improving various customer service and employee support facilities. Thi s budget would authorize $44.1 million for capital development projects as outlined in the attached material. 3. The Environmental Improvement Fund (ElF) is a mix of federal funds, state bond revenue, and repayments from past loan projects that are awarded to municipalities as loans to construct or upgrade municipal wastewater or drinking water treatment facilities. The Biennial Finance Plan for the ElF includes no additional general obligation bonding authority, or revenue bonding authority, and $53.4 million of present value subsidy for the Clean Water Fund. It also includes $7.5 million in general obligation bonding authority and $32.9 million of present value subsidy for the Safe Drinking Water Fund. RECOMMENDATION : Recommend approval of the 2015-17 operating and capital budgets, and the ElF Biennial Finance Plan. Authorize the Secretary to make technical adjustments if necessary. LIST OF ATTACHED MATERIALS (check all that are applicable): Background memo D Type name of attachment or type N/A if not applicable Type name of attachment or type N/A if not applicable 0 Type name of attachment or type N/A if not applicable 0 0 Approved by Joe Polasek and Steve Miller, Bureau Directors Type division administrator's name or type"Not applicable", Administrator Cathy Stepp, Secretary cc: Board Liaison ­ AD/8 Date State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2015-2017 BIENNIAL BUDGET PROPOSAL WISCONSIN DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES Recommended by: Cathy L. Stepp, Secretary To the Natural Resources Board September 2014 . State of Wisconsin DATE. September 12. 2014 To. Natural Resources Board 'ka .1 rim FROM: Cathy L. Stepp, Secretary 27/ Department of Natural Resources 8 Et JECT: Proposed Department of Natural Resources State Budget: 2015-17 Enclosed for your review and action are my recommendations for the Department of Natural Resources 2015-17 Biennial State Budget. This is a restrained budget package. reflecting our desire to operate the Department within the resources available and the Department of Administration's policy guidance. The proposed two-year DNR budget is $577.3 million for 2015-16 and $577.4 million for 2016-17. In total, the two-year budget includes an increase of about $5 million over the 2013-15 Biennial Budget. $3.5 million of this two year increase represents standard cost to continue items as defined by DOA. which are primanty composed of the difference in amounts budgeted for salaries versus actual salary costs. This budget in total reflects a 0.43% increase over the 2014-15 base. There are no GPR increases included in the budget. increases that are included are primarily Conservation Fund financed. These increases will be used to maintain Park. Forest and Law Enforcement operations. A table outlining these requests follows in this overview on page iv. This budget includes a decrease of 1.0 FTE to the Department's base staffing canpiemont. bringing overall staffing to 2.64154. I look forward to presenting these proposals and discussing them with you at you September meeting. 2015-17 DNR BIENNIAL BUDGET (in millions of (Subtotals may vary due to rounding) . - 2015-17 DNR2014-15 . TOTAL Base Cost to I I Budget Change of Total Recommendations Doubled Continue to Base General Pu eRevenues 73.9 . 1 . 72.7 23.6% Conservation Fund 476.7 - - . 480.5 0.8% 41.6% Environmental Fund 135.2 . . 136.3 0.7% 11.8% Clean Water Fund 4.3 - I 4.3 0.4% PECFA-SEG 21.5 . . 1.9% Dry Cleaner Environmental 2.1 . . 0.0% 02% Res Fund Revenue . I . . 1.5% 6.0% Tribal Gaming Agreement . 3.1 0.3% Revenue . Federal Revenues - 3 164.6 14.2% Total . $1 154.7 0.38% 100.0% ding Source Department of Natural ResourceStaffing by Fun 2015-17 DNR 2014-15 TOTAL Base Budget Secretarys (FTE) Request of Total Recommendations . (FTE) Budget General Purpose Revenues 277.20 277.20 10.5% Conservation Fund 1,443.56 1,443.56 54.6% Environmental Fund 120.10 120.10 4.6% Clean Water Fund 15.00 15.00 0.6% PECFA-SEG 41.45 41.45 1.6% Dry Cleaner Environmental. 3.00 3.00 0.1% Response Fund Program Revenue 235.14 235.14 9.0% Tribal Gaming Agreement 12.00 12.00 0.5% Federal Revenues 494.59 11 .0017- 493.59 18.6% Total 2,642.04 2,641.04 100.0% Department of Natural Resources 2015-17 Biennial Budget Request FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FTE 1 2014-15 Adjusted Base Budget 574,854,600 574,854,600 2,642.04 2 Standard Budget Adjustments 1,696,100 1,807,000 (1.00) 3 Forestry Operations 4 Maintaining Base Forestry Operations 200,500 200,500 5 Forestry Field Data Recorders?Master 76,900 76,900 Lease 277,400 277,400 6 Parks Southern Forests Operations 7 LTE Funding Increase 322,500 322,500 8 Utilities Funding Increase 180,400 180,400 9 New Property Operations. 150,000 150,000 652,900 652,900 10 Law Enforcement Operations 11 Law Enforcement Overtime Funding 347,700 347,700 12 Enforcement Computer Master Leases-? 378,200 378,200 Law Management 13 Removal of One?Time Walleye Initiative (900,000) (900,000) Capacity Grant Funding 14 Program Revenue Reestimates (26,100) (26,100) 15 Total New Requests 3 thru 14 730,100 730,100 16 Total Change Including Standard Budget 2,426,200 2,537,100 (1.00) Adjustments 17 New Total Budget 577,280,800 577,391,700 2,641.04 18 Biennial Growth 0.43% 2015-17 Biennial Budget Bonding Requests 2013-15 2015-17 Program Authorized Proposed Dam Repair and Removal 4,000,000 4,000,000 Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) 7,000,000 7,000,000 Urban Nonpoint and Stormwater Control and Municipal Flood Control (MFC) 5?000?000 5?000?000 Contaminated Sediment 5,000,000 5,000,000 TOTAL $21,000,000 $21,000,000 2015-17 Biennial Budget Statutory Language Requests Forestry Language 1. Forestry Grant Appropriations 2. Timber Sale Reporting Requirements 3. Timber Direct Sale Limit Increase 4. Timber Sale Advertising Requirements 5. MFL Program Modifications Water Language 6. Stormwater General Permit 7. Expand Eligibility for Well Compensation Grants 8. River Grant Appropriation Structure 9. Kettle Moraine Springs?Stewardship Bonding Technical Clarifications 10. Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation 11. Renaming Chapter 20 Program 3 to reflect inclusion of Business Support Functions 12. Elimination of Obsolete Statutory Appropriations vi 2015-17 Department of Natural Resources Biennial Budget Request .j?iVi??id?s?fB tire-ans .-.-. szo1415 Base 2' By Bivision and Bureau Cost to Continue FTE Other Requests or. Internal Transfers FY 2016 Total 2015.517; LANDS Lands Operations Wildlife Management Southern Forests Parks And Recreation Endangered Resources Facilities And Lands total 1,129,800 21,735,300 5,872,100 18,792,700 4,988,100 10,587,500 63,105,500 8.00. 162.50 45.25 149.70 33.50 89.30 488.25 ?125,900 ?233,600 ?2,500 389,400 58,500 214,300 300,200 217,300 483,000 ?25,000 205,800 881,100 217,300 483,000 -25,000 205,800 881,100 2.00 2.00 1,003,900 21,501,700 6,086,900 19,665,100 5,021 ,600 11,007,600 64,286,800 1,003,900 21,501,700 6,086,900 19,665,100 5,021,600 11,007,600 64,286,800 7.00 162.50 44.45 151.50 33.50 91.30 490.25 FORESTRY 54,837,000 461.58 -72,200 310,700 310,700 55,075,500 55,075,500 461.58 WASTE Air Management Waste Materials Management Remediation Redevelopment Air And Waste Operations total 16,093,400 7,687,500 13,316,000 1 162 700 38,259,600 136.50 77.25 109.95 7.00 330.70 -317,200 150,400 137,200 50,400 20,800 15,776,200 7,837,900 13,453,200 1,213,100 38,280,400 15,776,200 7,837,900 13,453,200 1,213,100 38,280,400 136.50 77.25 109.95 LQQ 330.7 ENFORCEMENT SCIENCE Law Enforcement Office Of Business Support Sustainability Science Services Enf/Science Operations total 30,879,400 8,970,300 919,700 40,769,400 224.58 57.40 6.50 288.48 ?164,900 461,200 -87,300 209,000 (1.00) (1.00) 661,200 3,882,100 -26 100 4,517,200 661 ,200 3,882,100 -26 100 4,517,200 39.00 39.00 31 ,375,700 3,882,100 9,405,400 832,400 45,495,600 31,375,700 3,882,100 9,405,400 832,400 45,495,600 224.58 39.00 56.90 6.50 326.98 WATER Watershed Management Fisheries Management Drinking Water/Groundwater Water Quality Management 15,648,100 28,050,900 13,798,200 20,485,800 137.54 223.58 119.79 167.02 273,900 ~21,000 ~1 50,900 21,000 vii 100,000 100,000 15,922,000 28,129,900 13,647,300 20,568,200 15,922,000 28,129,900 13,647,300 20,506,800 137.31 223.58 119.79 168.15 .- - . He Other Requests orInternaI . Cost tdco?tinueil- - "3 gr: 2016 FY 2017 _.-Total 2015- 17 Budget As Requested Fr'e - Water Operations total 1 276 000 79,259,000 11.00 658.93 42,000- 111,000 100,000 100,000 1,264,000 79,531,400 1,264,000 79,470,000 10.00 658.83 RESOURCE AIDS Fish And Wildlife Aids Forestry Aids Recreational Vehicle Aids Aids In Lieu Of Taxes Enforcement Aids Wildlife Damage Assistance total 1,935,400 10,178,400 14,891,700 14,870,000 2,277,000 3,523,700 47,676,200 -1,000,000 ?300,000 -300,000 ?1,000,000 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 935,400 9,878,400 14,891,700 14,870,000 2,277,000 3,523,700 46,376,200 935,400 9,878,400 14,891,700 14,870,000 2,277,000 3,523,700 46,376,200 ENVIRONMENTAL AIDS Water Quality Aids Solid And Hazardous Waste Aids Environmental Aids Environmental Planning Aids total 9,153,600 21,000,000 5,689,600 346,400 36,189,600 9,153,600 21,000,000 5,689,600 3.46992 36,189,600 9,153,600 21,000,000 5,689,600 346,400 36,189,600 DEBT Resource Debt Service Environmental Debt Service Water Quality Debt Service Administrative Facilities Debt Service Resource Acquisition Development total 90,412,100 3,385,300 37,751,200 6,823,400 14,779,200 153,151,200 90,412,100 3,385,300 37,751,200 6,823,400 14,779,200 153,151,200 90,412,100 3,385,300 37,751,200 6,823,400 14,779,200 153,151,200 ADMINISTRATION Administration Legal 1,717,900 2,261,400 13.50 18.50 80,900 91,500 1,798,800 2,352,900 1,798,800 2,352,900 14.50 18.60 .DiVisionS'lBureaus Base FY 2014 15. 1r; .FY 2016 Other IReqUests or internal Transfers . - - FY 2017 Total 5201521 ZBudsstiiAngequesjted Office Of Business Support Sustainability total 3,761,800 7,741,100 120,300 292,700 -3,882,100 -3,882,100 w3,882,100 ~3,882,100 (39.00) (39.00) 4,151,700 4,151,700 33.1 CAES Finance Management Budget Information Technology Human Resources Administrative Facilities Rent Customer Services Licensing Education information Community Financial Assistance Caes Operations total 7,233,700 860,100 10,706,800 4,364,600 7,383,600 11,750,500 2,288,000 6,428,700 2,850,000 53,866,000 61.25 7.00 59.50 48.05 77.60 17.80 59.15 12.75 343.10 61,300 ?70,700 660,300 -1,000 405,500 ?15,500 58,300 153,400 ?6 100 1,245,500 -61,900 -17,700 87,900 ?205 100 -1 96,800 61,900 -17,700 87,900 -205,100 496,800 (1.00) (0.35) 1.50 2.15 (2.00) 7,295,000 727,500 11,367,100 4,345,900 7,616,800 11,822,900 2,346,300 6,377,000 2,843,900 54,742,400 7,295,000 727,500 11,367,100 4,345,900 7,789,100 11,822,900 2,346,300 6,377,000 2,843,900 54,914,700 60.17 4.97 60.50 47.81 80.10 16.80 57.00 12.75 340.1 Department Totals 574,854,600 2,642.04 1,807,000 (1.00) 730,100 730,100 577,280,800 577,391,700 2,641.04 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department Mission Description The mission of the Department is: To protect and enhance our natural resources- our air, land and water; our wildlife, fish and forests; and the ecosystems that sustain all life. To provide a healthy, sustainable environment and a full range of outdoor opportunities. To insure the right of all people to use and enjoy these resources in their work and leisure. To work with people to understand each other?s views and to carry out the public will. And in this partnership to consider the future and generations to follow. Recognizing that the valuable natural resources of our state could only be protected and wisely managed through a coordinated effort, the Wisconsin Legislature, in 1967, created the Department of Natural Resources. In creating the Department, the Legislature brought together closely related traditional conservation functions and combined them with newly emerging environmental protection programs. The Department coordinates the preservation, protection and regulation of the natural environment for the benefit of the people of this state and its visitors. Included in its objectives are water and air quality maintenance, water supply regulations, solid and hazardous waste management, fish and wildlife management, forest management and protection, providing parks and recreation Opportunities, lake management, wetland, shore/and and ?oodplain protection, and law enforcement. The Department also coordinates federal, state and local aid programs of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. 8. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies and administers federal funds available for outdoor recreation, thereby taking a lead role in planning state outdoor recreation facilities. It administers state aid programs for local outdoor recreation and pollution abatement. The Department is a cabinet agency, with the Secretary and a citizen Board appointed by the Governor and con?rmed by the Senate. The Secretary is the Department?s chief executive of?cer, and the seven-member citizen Natural Resources Board directs and supervises the Department. The Department is organized with a headquarters office in Madison, five regional offices and about 200 other field stations and of?ces. The central office staff assists the Secretary in directing the regions, which carry out the field operations of the Department. Over 70% of the Department?s personnel operate from field stations outside of Madison. The Department is organized into programs and subprograms to facilitate the accomplishment of its mission. Six divisions -- Land, Forestry, Air and Waste, Enforcement and Science, Water, and Customer and Employee Assistance -- have primary responsibility for the Department's programs. The subprogram breakout and organization follow. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PROGRAMS SUBPROGRAMS Program 1-?Land and Forestry Subprogram 08?-Land Program Management Subprogram 11-~Wildlife Management Subprogram 12?~Forestry Subprogram 13?-Southern Forests Subprogram 14~~Parks Recreation Subprogram 15wNatural Heritage Conservation Subprogram 18?-Facilities and Lands Program 2--Air and Waste Subprogram 22--Air Management Subprogram 26--Waste and Materials Management Subprogram 27--Remediation Redevelopment Subprogram 28--Air and Waste Program Management Program 3--Enforcement and Science Subprogram 30-?Law Enforcement Subprogram 34--Science Services Subprogram 38?-Enforcement Science Program Management Program 4--Water Subprogram 40--Watershed Management Subprogram 41??Fisheries Management Subprogram 42--Drinking Water Groundwater Subprogram 43?Water Quality Subprogram 48--Water Program Management Program 5--Conservation Aids Subprogram 51--Fish and Wildlife Aids Subprogram 52~~Forestry Aids Subprogram 53?-Recreationa Aids Subprogram 54--Aids in Lieu of Taxes Subprogram 55~~Enforcement Aids Subprogram Damage Aids Program 6??Environmental Aids Subprogram 60?-Water Quality Aids Subprogram 61--Solid and Hazardous Waste Aids Subprogram 62?-Environmental Aids Subprogram 63--Environmental Planning Aids Program 7??Debt Service and Development Debt Service: Subprogram 70~?Resource Debt Service Subprogram 71--Environmental Debt Service Subprogram 72--Water Quality Debt Service Subprogram 73~~Administrative Facility Debt Service xi Development: Subprogram 74?-Wildlife Mgmt.?Development -?Wildlife Mgmt.-Acquisition --Forestry?Development --Forestry?Acquisition --Southern Forests-Development --Southern Forests?Acquisition --Parks Recreation-Development --Parks Recreation-Acquisition --Endangered Resources-Development --Endangered Resources-Acquisition ?-Facillties Lands?Development ~~Facilities Lands?Acquisition ~~Fisheries Mgmt. Habitat Protection-Development ?-Fisheries Mgmt. Habitat Protection?Acquisition -?Mississippi and Lower St Croix Development -?Law Enforcement Development Program 8--?Customer and Employee Services Subprogram 80--Administration Subprogram 82?-Legal Services Subprogram 83-?Finance Subprogram 84--Management Budget Subprogram 86--Technology Services Subprogram 87-?Human Resources Subprogram 89-?Facility Rental Costs Program 9?-Customer and Employee Services (CAES) Subprogram 90--Customer 8: Outreach Services Subprogram 93--Communication Education Subprogram 94??Community Financial Assistance Subprogram 95?Of?ce of Business Support Sustainability Subprogram Program Management xii State- of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NATURAL RESOURCES WARD OFFICE or THE an RY Lquwum Sway-(31W Supp We Brim anmy Mammy Am 1km ??m?m?a?mm ?d?mar me? Fedrm/Sl?e?d?m ?int-:6: Khulna (Min. Camila-km Psi-E th Ln Edmunml Tue-dd 5mm Q5 Lq? Strikes Tam Am ?mm? 0? DIVISION 0 LAND I?m-3?03" 0" OF mea??fmgf WEE 0mm 0 vmsra Km FORESTRY WATER C15 5: a: REDIWEIDPM ENT 535% Gksum. WW pug palm Ems R. A 9m SERVICES Pat Smut. Dam-5 now. My Stat: ?my Nauru! ?ning- SCIECE. WSTALNAHHJT Vamimy Roget; Gunman Vanna Air Mmuwmmt Ema Cam-a Mm?o Yam Dem Pm Mam-mum Bob Maths! Iii-him: Wain-um Cm dull?? Tm Ctr-nuke Paci?c: and land: RE 1m Fewest Martina kw MaEer: Tm Marv Stmiets Runcdh?m and Fisheriu Manama-u Marlon-neat Dam Fm Elm-p; and Debra Hm Rumba Bax-:11 Fm?munmua Anubis DawS?ubm Park and Eta-min Du: 5:11.65? Bu 8 it 'mea a Wmulwd Magma" ?chi? Mew Wasted: Madam: Pam Branch Magi-men! Wil?it Mwem AmCmR?-qr a: Vim Swat: Srnias, hiS?Emm Hum Encarta ?an Cruz! Lain-a MW Sacha-Wm (Emmet-Sam ma [lemming Diane Sun: Syhmu' Hmda! Maw Rom Tex-ea and mag," foe Mack NJ MHERN CENTRAL NORTH EAST SOUTH ($me SOUTHEAST REGION REG ION REG ION REGION REGION Mm Du: Batman Jenn W?Baadak Again-4: Fm Mamie: ?mam; 4 Department of Natural Resources 2015?17 Biennial Budget Request Table of Contents DEPARTMENTWIDE 3001?3010 Cost to Continue 3 5026 Program Revenue Reestimates 4 LAND Parks Southern Forests 5140 LTE Funding Increase 5 5141 Utilities Funding Increase 7 5142 New Property Operations. 8 5143 ParksEquipment-Master Lease 9 Facilities and Lands 5180 Facilities Lands Equipment-Master Lease 10 FORESTRY 5123 Maintaining Base Forestry Operations 11 5125 Forestry Field Data Recorders-Master Lease 14 5126 Forestry Equipment?Master Lease 15 ENFORCEMENT AND SCIENCE Law Enforcement 5300 Law Enforcement Equipment?Master Lease 16 5301 Ginseng Funding 17 5302 Law Enforcement Overtime Funding 18 WATER Watershed Management 5400 Dam Repair Bonding 19 5401 Urban Stormwater Municipal Flood Control Bonding 21 5402 Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Bonding 23 Fisheries Management 5410 Continuation of Wisconsin Walleye Initiative 26 Water Quality 5431 Contaminated Sediments Bonding 28 STATUTORY LANGUAGE PROPOSALS 32 OTHER ITEMS Environmental Improvement Fund?Biennial Finance Plan 38 Capital DeveIOpment 2015-17 Budget 39 Waste Management Fund 42 PROGRAM: DEPARTMENTWIDE DECISION ITEM 3001-3010: COST TO CONTINUE AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS Decision FY 2016 FY 2017 Item Tltle FTE FTE 3001 Turnover Reduction (3,177,700) (3,177,700) 3002 Remove Noanontinuing (1,133,500) (1.00) (1 ,194,900) (1.00) Elements 3003 Full Funding Salary and Fringe 2,580,300 2,580,300 3007 Overtime 3,193,800 3,103,800 3010 Full Funding of Lease and 233,200 405,500 Directed Moves TOTAL $1,696,100 (1.00) $1,807,000 (1.00) 3001 Turnover Reduction A reduction of 3 percent must be taken on adjusted base permanent salaries for all alpha appropriations funding more than 50.0 FTE permanent (classified and unclassified) positions. 3002 Removal of Non?continuing Elements from the Base Dollars or positions previously approved on a one-time basis which are in an agency?s adjusted base, and which are to terminate, must be removed with this decision item in the year. 3003 Full Funding of Continuing Position Salaries and Fringe Benefits The purpose of this decision item is to provide the funding adjustment needed to bring the salary levels for base level (decision item 2000) permanent and project positions to salary levels as of July of the even-numbered year (only). The calculation is made by comparing the base salary level to that of the actual salary level. The adjustment may be up or down. 3007 Overtime Funds for overtime and premium pay on holidays which are budgeted in the adjusted base will be automatically removed in the full funding of salaries calculation. These same dollar amounts only may be restored with this decision item. 3010 Full Funding of Lease and Directed Moves Actual rent increases approved in the first year of the current biennium, for which additional funds are needed to fully cover these increases on an annualized (12 month) basis, should be requested in this decision item. PROGRAM: DEPARTMENTWIDE SUBPROGRAM: DEPARTMENTWIDE DECISION ITEM: 5026?Program Revenue Reestimates FUNDING FY 2016 FY 2017 SOURCE FTE FTE Program Revenue ($26,100 0.0 ($26,100) 0.0 The Department proposes an annual spending authority reduction of $26,100 in appropriation 20.370 Environmental impact?power projeots for the purposes of realigning spending authority with actual revenues. DIVISION: Land BUREAU: Parks and Recreation TITLE OF PROPOSAL: Funding Increase I Forestry SEG 72,500 0.0 72,500 0.0 Parks SEG 250,000 0.0 250,000 0.0 TOTAL $322,500 0.0 $322,500 0.0 The Department requests $322,500 SEG annually to provide an additional 23,800 LTE hours at the properties listed below: Amnicon Falls State Park $2,200 166 Big Bay State Park $3,000 223 Big Foot Beach State Park $4,300 317 Blue Mound State Park $5,600 417 Brunet Island State Park $1,700 127 Buckhorn State Park $2,300 172 Copper Falls State Park $2,200 159 Devil's Lake State Park $7,300 539 Glacial Drumlin ?West State Trail $8,000 591 Gov. Dodge State Park $12,900 953 Gov. Nelson State Park $8,600 637 Gov. Thompson State Park $7,400 550 Harrington Beach State Park $19,900 1,468 Hartman Creek State Park $1,200 86 High Cliff State Park $8,700 643 Kinnickinnic State Park $4,400 327 Kohler Andrae State Park $4,300 314 Lake Kegonsa State Park $8,100 597 Lake Wissota State Park $1,600 120 Merrick State Park $5,400 397 Mirror Lake State Park $8,400 624 Nelson Dewey State Park $900 65 Newport State Park $5,100 378 Pattison State Park $3,500 258 Peninsula State Park $36,800 2,717 Perrot State Park $11,500 849 Potawatomi State Park $3,400 250 Roche?A-Cri State Park $2,900 212 Rock Island State Park $3,400 250 Whitefish Dunes State Park $3,200 237 Wildcat Mt. State Park $3,700 273 Willow River State Park $18,100 1,336 Wyalusing State Park $18,000 1,329 Yellowstone Lake State Park $12 000 883 Richard Bong Recreation Area $17,700 1,308 Havenwoods State Forest $18,900 1,392 Point Beach State Forest $3,000 222 Kettle Moraine S.F. -Northern Unit $13,700 1,014 Kettle Moraine Southern Unit $19,200 1,418 The Wisconsin State Park System (WSPS) is constantly evaluating its staffing resources to best meet the needs of visitors and to maximize available resources. Over the last several budgets, the WSPS has evolved its staffing complement, becoming increasingly dependent on seasonal employees to safeguard the health and well?being of visitors, provide visitor services, interpretive services, perform facility maintenance and to manage the natural resources system?wide. This has become increasingly necessary due to higher than average vacancy rates and position reductions. In 2008, the WSPS had a total of 216.25 FTE positions, whereas it will end the 2013?2015 biennium with 194.95 FTE positions. This equals a nearly 10% reduction to the total FTE complement and results in over 46,000 lost hours across some of the busiest work units in the system. The 2013?2015 budget restored a total of 11,000 LTE hours; however, the ability to serve its customers is still permanently reduced by over 35,000 hours. The ability to bring on additional and be able to fund additional hours of work for existing would alleviate the ongoing workload issues in the most critically understaffed work units. Over the last several budgets, as LTE wages have increased and new properties, facilities and functions have been added, the overall LTE allotments have actually decreased in real dollars as budget cuts, inflation and overall property expenses have reduced the available LTE allotments system-wide. Due to the seasonal nature of the tourism business, the WSPS relies heavily on hiring a sizeable workforce to accomplish critical tasks during a defined season. The need for seasonal employment has dramatically risen as new facilities, uses and increased Camping volume has strained the available resources system- wide. DIVISION: Land BUREAU: Parks and Recreation TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5141?Utilities Funding Increase Forestry SEG 82,900 0.0 82,900 0.0 Parks SEG 97,500 0.0 97,500 0.0 TOTAL $180,400 0.0 $180,400 0.0 The Department requests $180,400 SEG annually to offset fuel and utility operational cost increases. Since FY 2000, WSPS has added six new state park and southern state forest properties: Cross Plains State Park (SP), Glacial Heritage Area-Conservation Parks, Menominee River State Recreational Area (SRA), Rainbow Springs, Sauk Prairie SRA and Straight Lake SP. The WSPS also added the Hank Aaron State Trail, a total of 76 State Ice Age Trail Areas and new facilities at multiple properties in the interim. Additionally, Parks and Southern Forests have added 470 electrified campsites, which have increased utility costs. As detailed in the table below, utility and fuel expenditures have increased $304,000 from FY 2007 to FY 2014, which exceeds the funding increases that have been provided in two previous budget initiatives by $180,400. Consequently, shortfalls in utility funding have forced WSPS to reallocate funding from buildings and ground maintenance. These are fixed costs that cannot be eliminated or reduced for extended periods of time as they will jeopardize the safety of property visitors and staff and will also reduce the expected life of property improvements, thus mitigating the investment in new facilities. ?sts? Uilyand nditures FY 4 00 Utility and fuel expenditures FY 07 $498,300 Difference $304,000 Less funding provided in 2007-09 budget $56,200 Less funding provided in 2009-11 budget $67,400 Net Difference $180,400 DIVISION: Land BUREAU: Parks and Recreation TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5142 New Property Operations Forestry SEG 50,000 0.0 50,000 0.0 Parks SEG 100,000 0.0 100,000 0.0 TOTAL $150,000 0.0 $150,000 0.0 The Department requests $150,000 SEG annually for anticipated operations expenses associated with additional facilities at multiple state parks, trails and southern forests. Funds will be used to offset additional LTE, contractual, supplies and services, utility and fleet expenses associated with the opening of new properties and major facilities, including: the Sauk Prairie Recreation Area (Badger Army Ammunitions), Menominee River State Recreation Area (partnership with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources), the Lake Michigan Water Trail and the Sybaquay addition to the Chippewa Moraine State Recreation Area. Major new facilities include: . Blue Mound State Park: New public entrance visitor station (PEVS), new gathering center . KMSF?Lapham Peak Unit: lighted ski track and snowmaking operation . KMSF-Southem Unit: new bathroom and water source at Hwy trail head, four new campsites at the Hickory Woods Group Campground, new bathroom and reconstructed boat launch at Whitewater Lake. . Point Beach SF: New PEVS. 0 Richard Bong SRA: New toilet/shower building, new toilet building and multiple vault toilets. Without these additional operational funds, the manner in which these facilities are operated and maintained will be difficult to sustain in future years. To date, properties containing these new facilities have absorbed the additional operational costs. Given the current funding levels forthe system as a whole, opening new facilities, or continuing to operate the facilities on the ground is in excess of the operational capabilities of the Wisconsin State Parks System (WSPS) without the requested funding Increases. With increased funding for new properties and facilities, the Parks program will be able to generate the additional funding needed to operate new facilities and campgrounds, resulting in improved visitor services, timely maintenance of facilities, increased visitor and resource protection and enhanced revenue collections. DIVISION: Land BUREAU: Parks and Recreation TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5143-Parks Equipment?Master Lease Forestry-"SEG 11,900 0.0 11,900 0.0 Parks SEG 35,500 0.0 35,500 0.0 TOTAL $47,400 0.0 $47,400 0.0 The Department requests one?time funding of $47,400 SEG per year in FY 2016 and 2017 for years one and two of a 4-year master lease to finance the purchase of 37 Mobile Data Computers (MDCs), lP Mobile?Net radios, and associated equipment for Parks system staff. The total cost of the purchase is projected to be $166,500, or $4,500 per unit. This request wiil enable the Parks Program to upgrade law enforcement equipment necessary to communicate, perform visitor services and provide public safety. The WSPS has 34 Mobile Data Computers units with associated operating equipment and 17 additional units for support and TIME (DOT criminal history, driving records, and vehicle information) system use. Each unit is over five years old and has exceeded its warranty and useful life. Consequently, units are experiencing hardware problems at an increasing rate. Visitor and resource protection in Parks is a high priority. These tools are basic law enforcement tool to more safely manage compliance with laws and gather the data needed when faced with situations. The Wisconsin State Parks System (WSPS) anticipates purchasing tablets through this initiative, with the capability to remotely perform visitor service activities such as check-in campers. DIVISION: Lands BUREAU: Facilities and Lands TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5180 Facilities Lands Equipment?Master Lease Conservation SEG $9,000 0.0 $9,000 0.0- The Department requests one?time funding of $9,000 for FY 2016 and FY 2017 for years one and two of a four year master lease for the purchase of 7 Mobile Data Computers (MDCs), IP Mobile-Net radios, and associated equipment for Facilities and Land?s law enforcement staff. The total cost of the purchase is projected to be $31,500, or $4,500 per unit. Facilities and Lands has 7 MDC units with associated operating equipment. Each unit is approximately 2.5 years old and at the time this budget would be provided, these units would be at the end of their warranty period and useful life. In order to maintain the necessary level of Law Enforcement effectiveness, we would need to be able to replace the existing units at that time. To not do so would leave out 7 credentials staff vulnerable to dealing with unsupported machines that would experience increasing rates of failure. The use of computers is one way wardens are able to be more efficient. To help address the current law enforcement vacancy situation, since 2000 Wisconsin has equipped each warden with a ruggedized laptop computer. In addition, each warden received an office desktop printer, a mounting platform for the vehicle and a data radio compatible with the statewide system used by the Wisconsin State Patrol. Wisconsin also developed or made available to the warden service various software applications that aid the warden in his/her duties. They include: a personal accountability system (DEARS) that generates the numerous reports timesheets, vehicle and expenses, activity, work planning) required by state service; DNR forms as templates; digitized Wisconsin statutes and codes; access to DNR websites when connected to the state?s Intranet: and access to State Patrol?s mobile data network. Facilities and Lands will be the purchase of new computers with the DNR Bureau of Law Enforcement and DOT State Patrol and other DNR programs in order to maximize purchasing power and to gain efficiencies with similar equipment and the state contract. These computers have become a critical life-line for the law enforcement community. They provide access to files that are critical from an investigative and public safety standpoint. 1O FORESTRY TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5123??Maintaining Base Forestry Operations I Forestry SEG $200,500 0.0 $200,500 0.0 The Department requests annual funding of $200,500 to fund base operations costs associated with operating a facility or maintaining infrastructure. In the case of the Division of Forestry, these base costs include utilities (water, heat, electric), rent, and LTE funding. Additional base operations funding are being sought to support the continued work of the Division. The request is comprised of the following 5 components: 1. $15,000 in operations funding for increased rent payments. DOA negotiates rental payments for non?state facilities that house forestry staff, which increases 1?3% per year. The last increase to rental funding was made in FY 07 when annual payments were $52,000 annually. FY 14 payments are calculated to be $65,000, $67,000 in FY 15 and $69,000 in FY 16. The Division leases privately owned office space in 11 lease agreements. These leases are DOA negotiated and usually for a five year period. FY 14 payments are projected to be $65,000. The last operational increase for rent payments was in the FY 07 when annual payments were $52,000. This request of $15,000 each year would fund the rental account to anticipated rent levels through the 1517 budget periods. 2. $88,000 to support operational cost increases related to energy rate increases for current and new facilities. Annual utility rate increases across all providers to the state has averaged Ensuring the Department physical properties are maintained and in good working order is critical to providing long-term services. The Division has six categories of physical plant. These consist of Ranger stations, cold and warm storage buildings, airplane hangars, the Forest Health Lab and state forest buildings. It is expected in this upcoming biennium that three ranger stations, five new warm storage buildings, a new forest headquarters on the Flambeau River State Forest and 4-5 smaller support buildings on the other state forests (storage buildings, toilet-shower buildings and a new PEV on the Black River SF) will come online. Although these buildings are built and engineered to be efficient, they are replacing smaller buildings or adding a function that did not previously exist. It is estimated based on past operating costs of like constructed warm storage buildings that the utility cost to operate these is $500.00 per month. Adding five of these to the program will add approximately $30,000 in increased annual operating costs for the utilities. The Flambeau Headquarters is estimated to increase operating costs $10,000 per year when completed in late FY 15. Alternative heating and cooling sources were explored for the Flambeau during design, but the build site was not conducive or cost effective for alternative sources such as geo-thermal. Below are the expected operational increases by physicai plant for all buildings: 11 Facility Heat/Utilities Ranger Stations $20,500 Warm Storage $24,000 Cold Storage $7,500 Hangers $5,000 Forest Health Lab $6,000 State Forest $25,000 TOTAL $88,000 3. $52,500 to support annual operating costs for seven mechanic shops. These are new duties and operations that did not exist on this scale prior to strategic direction. These costs support, phone, janitorial uniform service, tool replacement, shop supplies, and other miscellaneous expenses. The 2012 Division?s Strategic Direction created seven specialized forestry mechanic positions in Brule, Grantsburg, Spring Green, Wausaukee; Wautoma, Wisconsin Rapids and Woodruff. These positions and locations were chosen to provide basic mechanical repair on the highly specialized firefighting equipment the Division builds and operates. Mechanical repairs for the actual vehicles are still administered through cooperation with the ARI fleet management vendor. It is estimated that each shop requires approximately $7,500 per year to operate for a total of $52,500 per year. This operational funding covers base shop supplies, uniforms, tool replacement and parts requisition to do minor repairs. Prior to the creation of these positions much of the specialized equipment was going un?serviced and would only be inspected or repaired when a breakdown would occur. This proved costly as breakdowns often resulted in total replacement. The most frequently repiaced item prior to the mechanics coming on board and providing maintenance duties were fire pumps. The average price of a replacement pump is between $1500 and $3000 depending on size. Routine service has greatly reduced this need, but has increased operational costs. It is critical that ali firefighting equipment be serviceable and operational at a moment?s notice to suppress forest fires. 4. $30,000 to support annual communication equipment upgrades in forest fire suppression equipment. This funding will provide suppression equipment to be updated with mobile repeaters and cell phone boosters as engines are built or are refurbished, maintaining operability in remote areas. The Division operates emergency vehicles in all 72 Wisconsin counties. The communications infrastructure is unique in each county and the Division is constantly adapting its equipment and programming to be able to communicate with emergency services personnel form other agencies in those counties. in the past, examples of this are purchasing unique radios, vehicle cellular boosters and mobile repeaters. This update or adaptation has been done mostly when a vehicle is up for replacement. This has created a situation of prioritizing replacements where the greatest communication gap exists, while still having situations where there is poor communications. The result of this is a communications infrastructure in constant upgrade as technology changes. This has been handled in the past by taking vehicles out of service and not replacing until the position is filied. This was a manageable item when the Division had a 20% vacancy rate, but at a rate of 5-6% it is no longer an option to delay the inevitable and have vehicles out of service or unable to communicate to necessary responders. Funding of $30,000 per year will allow for the purchase of the necessary upgrades and programming to occur in emergency vehicles without jeopardizing officer safety, public safety or response availability. 12 5. $15,000 to support cover credit card point of sale merchant fees. Forestry pays merchant fees for Reserve America System, and point of sale transactions where a credit card is used (state forests and nurseries). Credit card processing fees (current average of 3-4% of the transaction) are expected to continue to grow. Credit card merchant fees are those fees that the host merchant charges the Division for customers to pay for service via credit or debit card. Currently those fees average 3-4% per transaction. As the public has transitioned from paper check to credit based payments, those associated fees have increased. The State Forest program primarily through camping 7 administered by Reserve America and the Nursery program through seedling sales are the two largest programs accepting credit payment in the Division. Prior to 2010, the Division had no credit card processing fees. In FY 13 the total was $10,000 and expected to continuously increase. The Division is asking for $15,000 in annual operations support to cover the point of sale merchant fees. 13 DIVISION: FORESTRY TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5125?Forestry Field Data Recorders-Master Lease Forestry SEG $76,900 0.0 $76,900 0.0 The Department requests one-time funding of $76,900 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017 to support a 4? year master lease for the purchase of field data recorders that Forestry staff would use to gather data electronically and input into existing databases. This will fund the purchase of about 180 units with associated compatible software at an estimated price of $1,500 per unit, for a total estimated purchase price of $270,000. There is no single mechanism to currently collect forestry field data ranging from forest reconnaissance data, fire occurrence and assessments, and monitoring efforts best management practice, invasive, reforestation, etc.). Forestry staff are using methods that range from paper and pencil, to cell phone, GPS unithigher end field data recording unit (ruggedized handheld computer) to collect field data. This poses several challenges including user training (a single forester may use multiple devices for different needs), user and application support, and storage of the data being collected by staff. Many times the information collected in the field needs to be re-entered into a computer back in the office, creating inefficiencies, redundant work, and errors. There are multiple components to a field data collection system including; 1.) Hardware or ?units? an individual takes to the field, 2.) Software the individual uses to collect the data in the field, 3.) System back in the office where data is stored, analyzed and findings on data is reported out. This budget initiative focuses on the hardware units and generic software that would be installed on the units required for the collection of field data Once the hardware is acquired, and generic software installed, customizations to the software may also be required to make the data collection efforts consistent'and efficient for field staff. Depending upon the program, this could range from developing a mobile collection application, purchasing existing commercial software, or evaluating free software to meet the collection needs of the various programs. For example, once the hardware is acquired software is needed to support the collection of plot-level data and tools for summarizing the data at the stand-level for entry in to the Recon system Data management tools will need to link to GPS coordinates captured in the field. The system should allow for review of the data from the field before automatically being uploaded into the application. Having the ability to collect data in the field would reduce the time it takes for field staff to re-enter data into computer systems back in the office. This would make staff more efficient allowing them to re?invest their time on other high priority work for the Division. Specifically, this initiative will potentially provide the following benefits: 0 Improve data quality and consistency, and provide more complete data. - Improve efficiency and minimize site revisits. - Facilitate data collection more quickly and thus increase the usefulness of the GIS. - Easier to use interface that requires less training. 14 DIVISION: Forestry TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5126~~Forestry Equipment?Master Lease Forestry SEG $33,300 0.0 $33,300 0.0 The Department requests one-time funding of $33,300 per year In FY 2016 and FY 2017 for years one and two of a 4-year master lease for the purchase of 26 ruggedized computers to replace existing devices. These replacements will cost approximately $4,500 per unit, for a total expenditure of $117,000. The Law Enforcement Officers and State Forest Rangers with the Division of Forestry rely on ruggedized computers, in the form of Panasonic Toughbook CF3is, to accomplish their work. These units are now four years old, and must be replaced beginning in FY 2016 alongside the Bureau of Law Enforcement and the Bureau of Parks and Recreation. The intended replacement model is not yet known, but the cost estimate is $4,500 per unit for the ruggedized models which are more expensive than a standard computer. This funding will allow the various programs within the agency that have law enforcement personnel to stay consistent with their acquisition of the ruggedized computers. ?15 DIVISION: Enforcement Science BUREAU: Law Enforcement TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5300?Law Enforcement Equipment-Master Lease Various SEG $288,500 $288,500 The Department requests one?time funding of $288,500 in both FY 2016 and FY 2017 for years 1 and 2 of a 4-year master lease for the purchase of computer equipment for the Bureau of Law Enforcement. The Bureau projects the need to purchase 225 new ruggedized tablets and associated docking stations and peripherals to equip all permanent credentialed conservation wardens and deputy warden water guards. The computers allow wardens to be very efficient when doing theirjobs, allowing access to public safety and law enforcement information at all times. This funding request is based on an estimate of $4,500 per unit, for a total purchase price of $1,012,500. Bureau staff is currently using Panasonic CF-31 laptop computers which are nearing the end of their life cycle. From past experience, as the current laptops reach the end of their warranty, they will begin to fail at a rapid rate. Therefore, the Department has plans to replace the current computers. There are other factors to consider regarding this request: . Switching from laptop computers to tablets will reduce cost, and at the same time improve efficiencies. . Warranties for the current CF models will expire at about the time the new tablets are brought into service. 16 DIVISION: Enforcement 81 Science BUREAU: Law Enforcement TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5301-Ginseng Funding FY 2016 FY 2017 FUNDING SOURCE FTE FTE Endangered Resources SEG (25,000) 0.0 (25,000) 0.0 CON SEG 25,000 0.0 25,000 {0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 To coincide with the shift of the ginseng program from the Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation (NHO) to the Bureau of Law Enforcement (LE), the Department seeks to shift $25,000 in spending authority from NHC to LE. The dollar amount that would be shifted is based on an annual average of ginseng dealer and harvester license revenues collected since FY 2002. Ginseng is a resource with significant commercial value and can easily be overexploited without adequate protection and enforcement. In order to maintain a stable ginseng resource for the future, the Department needs to continue to enforce laws designed to conserve and protect this plant. Additionally. there are federal mandates concerning this resource that Wisconsin needs to comply with. Appropriating the funds into the Bureau of Law Enforcement will ensure that adequate staff continues enforcement efforts to manage this resource and ensure adequate protection for its conservation. Note: This initiative would aiso require a statutory modification to convert where ginSeng iicense revenues are deposited from 3.20.370 to the Fish and Wiidiife Account of the Conservation Fund. 17 DIVISION: Enforcement Science BUREAU: Law Enforcement TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5302?Law Enforcement Overtime Funding Various SEG $347,700 0.0 $347,700 0.0 The Department requests $347,700 annually from various state segregated funding sources to fund overtime expenses in the Bureau of Law Enforcement. Historically, overtime for wardens has provided the equivalent of 36 additional FTE worth of work, without the additional costs of more trucks, equipment, training, and benefit packages. Over the last 10 years, as the average hourly wage and overtime allocations have fluctuated, the FTE equivalent has dropped as low as 27. Currently, projections show that this overtime account will be operating under a shortfall at the end of FY 2015. The Bureau currently employs 188 staff that is eligible to earn overtime. Conservation wardens serve hundreds of thousands of hunters and anglers, 850,000 boaters, 280,000 snowmobile and 300,000 ATV enthusiasts, and millions of other citizens. The demands by the public on warden service are considerable while the prospect for workload relief through increased staffing is not possible at this time. 18 DIVISION: Water BUREAU: Watershed Management TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5400?Dam Repair Bonding Bond Revenue $4,000,000 The Department requests $4 million in additional bonding authority to provide matching grants for the repair, reconstruction, or removal of municipal dams, to provide grants to dam owners for voluntary removal, or for grants to remove an abandoned dam. This grant funding has been a key component of the Department?s efforts to improve the safety of dams in the State over the last 25 years. The Department anticipates the majority of this funding will be committed to municipal projects during a grant application cycle that would occur during winter in 2015- 2016. The remainder of the funding would be committed to dam removal projects. While the program has a continuous application process, the majority of the available funding has typically been committed in the first year of the biennium. Background The Department is charged with protecting life, health and property from unsafe dams. Beginning with the 1989?91 biennium, the Department has administered a grant program to repair, reconstruct or remove municipally-owned dams. In 2001 a program component was added to allow any dam owner to voluntarily remove their dam or anyone with legal access to remove an abandoned dam. Nearly all of the $24.1 million previously authorized for the program has been spent or committed. Chapter 31 of the Wisconsin Statutes provides for several grant programs to help dam owners bring their dams into compliance with dam safety regulations. The largest program, the Municipal Dam Grant Program, provides up to a 50% matching grant to repair or reconstruct, or a 100% matching grant to remove municipally owned dams. The grants are capped at a maximum state contribution of $400,000. This program is implemented under Administrative Code, NR 335. The Dam Removal Grant Program provides up to $50,000 to any dam owner to voluntarily remove their dam or anyone who wishes and has legal access to remove an abandoned dam. The program is implemented under Administrative Code, NR 336. These programs have been active since 1991 and 2001 respectively, providing over $24 million in funding for: . 142 municipal dam repair, reconstruction or removal projects . 34 dam removal projects through the Dam Removal Grant Program a 5 abandoned dam projects through the Dam Removal Grant Program The bonding that was authorized for the current 2013-2015 biennium is in the process of being awarded to dam owners who applied for a grant in January of 2014. Municipal dam owners submitted applications for 42 projects, and after completing the priority ranking process the Department committed funding to 21 projects. The funding committed included $3.5 from the biennial budget and approximately $330,000 in funds returned from projects from previous grant cycles. In addition, funding is pending for 5 dam owners under the Dam Removal Grant program. Over 40% of State-regulated, large dams that are required to have statutorily mandated, periodic safety inspections are owned by municipalities. Safety inspections were completed for 98 municipally owned 19 dams during 2013 and an additional 77 inspections of municipally owned dams are scheduled in 2014. Experience has shown that approximately 75% of the dams inspected have safety deficiencies and require repair. Ofthe dams with safety deficiencies, about 1 in 4 is found to be in poor condition, necessitating major modifications, complete reconstruction, or removal. Additionally, more and more owners are deciding that they cannot afford to maintain their dam or do not want the liability for their dam and are looking to remove the dam and restore the stream to a natural condition. This is happening more often as the new owner responsible inspection program is implemented. Finally, ownerless dams continue to pose additional problems. When a dam is determined to be ownerless, the Department works with the surrounding community to try and find a party willing to take responsibility for the structure, bring it into regulatory compliance, and operate and maintain it in a safe manner. In many cases, no one is willing to take on that responsibility, so the only alternatives are to leave the dam as is, thus creating a potential hazard, or for the Department to seek to remove the dam. Without funding to remove abandoned dams, the Department is unable to address the potential safety hazards they pose. Providing funding for these grant programs will help owners with at least a portion of the cost to address safety issues at their dams. It will also provide money to mitigate unsafe, abandoned dams and help owners who want to remove their dams and restore the stream. Without these programs more dams will be left in an unsafe condition and owners will have more difficulty complying with Department directives or orders to address safety deficiencies. This ends up costing the Department significant resources and time to push for compliance. Over the past 15 years there have been a number of bills introduced in Congress to fund a federally- backed grant program to repair or remove dams. If a federal budget proposal fund dam repair is enacted, Wisconsin dam owners could access the program to help repair the most critical dams. The federal grant program would likely require a local match, so the potential for leveraging both state and federal funds would be a great incentive to dam owners to undertake their dam safety projects in a timely manner. Such a program would be analogous to federal funding provided through the US. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which has been paired with municipal dam grant program funding to fund Vernon County dam projects. Using multiple funding sources is also common in dam removals projects where environmental restoration funding can be paired with more traditional state and federal infrastructure programs. 20 DIVISION: Water BUREAU: Watershed Management TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5401-~Urban Stormwater Municipal Flood Control Bonding Bond Revenue $5,000,000 The Department requests a $5 million increase in bonding authority for the Urban Nonpoint Source Storm Water Management Program and the Municipal Flood Control Riparian Restoration Program. Storm water runoff from urbanized areas has substantially increased flooding and the discharge of urban storm water pollutants into the waters of the state. As a result, many of the urban water resources receiving storm water runoff are on the state?s impaired waters list, which was first prepared by the Department in 1998, in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Urban Nonpoint Source and Storm Water Management Program (5. 281.66, Wis. Stats.) and the Municipal Flood Control and Riparian Restoration Program 281.665, Wis. Stats.) comprise the state?s principal financial assistance programs to municipalities for urban storm water management. These programs are designed to reduce the economic and social impact on municipalities of meeting storm water management requirements, reduce flooding, and make improvements in water quality and habitat. Background The 1999 Wisconsin Act 9 created the Urban Nonpoint Source Storm Water Management Program and the Municipal Fiood Control Riparian Restoration Program. The bonding authorized under s. Wis. Stats, can be used for either program. Urban Nonpoint Source Storm Water Management grants provide funds for municipalities to construct best management practices (BMPs) to improve storm water discharge quality. BMPs that are typically constructed under the grant program include storm water detention ponds, infiltration devices, and stream bank restoration projects designed to lessen flooding potential and reduce the amount of pollution that is released from eroding banks. There are currently 218 municipalities covered under NR 216 permits (plus an additional 30-35 municipalities that may need to seek permit coverage in 2014), which require implementation of BMPs as needed to meet the urban storm water performance standards under NR 151. These extensive permitting efforts have triggered a significant increase in the amount of BMPs installed, as well as an increased need for state financial support for implementing the BMPs. The Municipal Flood Control Riparian Restoration Program provides grants to municipalities for: . Property acquisition and removal of structures to create a permanent open space or to establish an area for flood water storage. 0 Acquisition of vacant land or flood water flowage easement to facilitate efficient flow of flood waters. . Floodproofing and flood elevation of public and private structures in the 100~year flood plain. - Riparian restoration activities along a river or stream. 21 As is detailed in the tables below, demand for these cost-share programs has historically outstripped available resources. Demand for grants from the Urban Nonpoint Source 6 Storm Water Management Program is expected to continue as more municipalities come into compliance with requirements to control storm water discharges Under administrative rule NR 216. SUMMARY OF DEMAND FOR URBAN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 6; CONSTRUCTION GRANTS Calendar of Total Requested 34. of Year Applications Funding Demand Mot 2004 29 $2,792,000 94% 2005 42 $4,262,000 56% 2006 63 54% 2007 NA No Funds NA 2006 41 $4,664.36? 61 ?In 2009 49 $5,074,113 43% 2010 31 $6,310,361 20% 2011 26 63 336,375 46% 2012 26 $3,162,341 64% 2013 16 $1,636,766 100% 2014 33 $4 l365,661 51 ?rt. In addition, demand for grants from the Municipal Flood Control Program is expected to increase as municipalities continue to seek financial assistance to mitigate the impacts of future floods. Historical demand for these grants has been so high that the Department has chosen to solicit grant applications once every two years in order to reduce the number of municipalities that prepare extensive grant applications, only to be told later on in the process that funding had already been fully committed. SUMMARY OF DEMAND AND AVAILABLE FUNDING FOR MUNICIPAL FLOOD CONTROL GRANTS Total Total of Calendar of Requested Available Demand Year? Applications Funding Funding Met 2002 73 $22,433,662 $3,000,000 13.4% 2004 15 $4,265,153 $1,665,222 46.1% 2006 13 $6,241,376 513034000 27.3% 2006 22 $3,612,337 $2,600,000 74.1 ?it: 2010 16 $6,000,000 53. 7% 2012 19 $4,460,405 $3,000,000 67.3% 2014 13 $3,099.350 $2,500,000 61.6% ?Grant cycle for grant program ls every other year. 22 DIVISION: Water BUREAU: Watershed Management TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5402?Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) Bonding Bond Revenue $7,000,000 0.0 $0 0.0 The Department requests $7 million in additional bonding authority for Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) and Notice of Discharge (NOD) grants. The TRM NOD programs help to implement performance standards and prohibitions statewide and provide funds to achieve the water quality goals of ?total maximum daily loads" or in targeted watersheds, as required in Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Nonpoint source or runoff pollution continues to be a significant threat to water quality in the state. It occurs when rainfall or snowmelt runoff picks up pollutants and deposits them into rivers, lakes, and coastal waters or introduces them into groundwater. Unlike pollution being discharged from a specific origin, like a pipe, nonpoint source pollution has no single, well?defined origin. As strong demand for TRM and NOD grants continues, additional bonding authority is needed to further the Department?s efforts at controlling nonpoint source pollution. Background The TRM Grant Program, established in 1997 Wisconsin Act 27 (the 1997-99 biennial budget act), is covered by ch. NR 153, Wis. Adm. Code. It was intended to supplant the Priority Watershed Lake Program with smaller?scale projects that could be managed more effectively from both fiscal and environmental aspects. Grants from this program are primarily intended to help farmers achieve compliance with agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. The TRM Grant Program funds up to 70% of eligible project costs for nonpoint source pollution abatement, up to a total maximum grant of $150,000 per small-scale project and $1,000,000 per large-scale (up to subwatershed scale) project. Grants come in the form of financial assistance to local units of government, who in turn work with landowners to implement best management practices (BMPs) for controlling nonpoint source pollution. Examples of BMPs include, but are not limited to the following: manure storage facilities barnyard runoff control measures shoreline/streambank protection projects riparian buffers - grassed waterways conservation tillage wetland restoration projects The TRM Grant Program is also a funding mechanism for achieving water quality goals of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) in targeted watersheds. Under Section 303(d) of CWA, the Department is obligated to submit every two years a list that identifies waters of the state that are ?impaired? or are not meeting their designated use. Wisconsin currently has about 770 waterbodies or stream segments on its impaired waters list, and the impairments on 380 of these waterbodies or segments are caused wholly or in part by nonpoint sources of pollution. 23 The Notice of Discharge (NOD) Grant Program started in 1984 and offers cost?sharing grants to governmental units working with owners and Operators of livestock operations to meet pollution controls required by the DNR. The Notice of Discharge Program is an enforcement process through ch. NR 243, Wis. Adm. Code, addressing unacceptable practices at animal feeding operations with less than 1,000 animal units. Local governmental units (typically county land conservation offices) work with department staff to identify and categorize discharges at animal feeding operations. Depending on the severity of the discharge and impacts to waters of the state, either a Notice of Discharge (NOD) or Notice of intent (NOI) to issue a Notice of Discharge are issued by the Department to the owner or operator of the animal feeding operation. in certain cases, animal feeding operations may be eligible for funding through the NOD Grant Program to address discharge issues identified in a department issued NOD or As is detailed in the following table, the historically strong demand for TRM and NOD grants continues52"Deman 5 152 121 38% 6 $794 352 75% 2009 16 1 583 523 85% 8 2007 2008 2010 53 021 72% 2011 11 1184185 88% 2012 10 1315 050 68% 2013 15 1 547 992 70% Future demand for TRM and NOD grants is expected to increase as the Department plays a role in implementing more Therefore, as more are developed, more funding for implementation to meet the goals of these analyses will be needed. Demand will also be impacted by an increase in statewide implementation of agricultural performance standards and prohibitions. This request, in conjunction with continued federal Section 319 funds and continued state GPR funding for nonpoint source pollution abatement grants in 5. 20.370 Wis. Stats, will allow the Department to continue funding a mixture of both small-scale and large-scale TRM projects in the 2015-17 biennium. This mix of funds is critical to providing state support for structural practices, cropping practices, and local staff support both in TMDL projects and other projects statewide. Consequences if the Proposal is Not Approved 24 The TRM Grant Program was intended to replace the Priority Watershed/Lake Program with smaller-scale projects that could be managed more effectively from both fiscal and environmental aspects. Demand for TRM grants continues to exceed available funding. Failure to provide continued funding could substantially reduce or eliminate state participation in nonpoint source pollution abatement. Without adequate financial support for TMDL implementation, impaired waterbodies statewide will continue to be impaired and not meet water quality standards. Eligible state bond revenue expenditures in the TRM and NOD Grant Programs are used to generate the required 40% match for the federal Section 319 Clean Water Act grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Nonpoint Source Program. Without these expenditures, the Department will face difficulties in trying to leverage these federal funds. 25 DIVISION: Water BUREAU: Fisheries Management TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5410?Continuation of Wisconsin Walleye Initiative Fijivomc FY 2010 FY 2017 "sauces FTE FTE can ($900,000) 0.0 ($900,000) 0.0 The Department proposes the following adjustments to funding for the Wisconsin Walleye Initiative (WWI) - Discontinue funding of $1 millionlyear for grants to tribal and private hatcheries to expand fish production capacity. - Increase the funding for contract purchases of walleye by $100,000 annually~from $500,000 to $500,000?to better meet the Department's obligation to purchase fish produced by recipients of the capacity grants. Capacity Grants The Department believes that the capacity created by the original $2 million grant program, along with the expected additional capacity of DNR hatcheries when their infrastructure work is done, will be sufficient to meet statewide walleye stocking demands for the next 5-10 years. Grants have been awarded to 3 tribal and 6 private hatcheries to expand production, with an estimated time frame of 3-5 years for stocked walleyes to reach a size that will attract anglers. Contract Purchasing The Department requests that additional contracting funding be added to purchase the increased number of fish that will be available from tribal and private hatcheries who received capacity grants. Those grant recipients are contractually obligated to sell an agreed to number of fish back to the DNR for three years after their project is completed contingent on funding availability. The 9 grant contracts issued in early 2014 specify that 290,000 large walleye fingerlings will be available for purchase in fall 2015 at a cost of $543,000 (average cost of $1.87/fish not including the capacity grant itself), and 368,500 in fall 2016 at a cost of $753,150 Therefore, the current base amount of $500,000 for contract purchasing would need to be increased to ensure that the Department can take full advantage of the increased capacity resulting from the grants. Background Walleyes are the state's most sought after game fish. Nearly 500,000 anglers fish 6.1 million days and harvest 2.2 million walleyes statewide in Wisconsin each year, which generates an estimated $680 million in economic activity statewide. Walleye are also in demand from Chippewa tribal members exercising federally protected treaty rights to spear and net in off reservation waters within the ceded territory. Chippewa tribal members annually harvest around 30,000 walleyes from approximately 180 waters each year. Although tribal harvest accounts for only ~10% of the overall harvest on all lakes, it often exceeds 25% on waters where both angling and tribal harvest occur. The best walleye fisheries are universally those that are self-sustaining through natural reproduction. Populations in those waters are 2-3 times higher than those in waters stocked even at the highest levels. Studies have shown that stocking waters with good natural reproduction is not effective and can actually harm the native population if the wrong genetic strains are stocked. Currently an estimated 84% of the 26 walleyes caught by anglers come from natural reproduction, with the remainder coming from stocking by state, tribal and private hatcheries. Although protection of self?sustaining walleye populations is the most cost-effective long term management strategy, stocking can create significant and locally important fisheries. Many smaller waters in tourist destinations such as northern Wisconsin?s ceded territory, and many waters in the southern part of the state lack adequate walleye reproduction and would not have any walleye fishing without stocking. Other waters that winter kill or are impacted by other short term weather or habitat impacts can be rehabilitated by appropriate stocking to restore natural reproduction. Wisconsin DNR annually stocks 3-4 million small fingerlings and 60,000-100,000 larger fingerlings. The smaller fish are much cheaper to produce but have a high mortality rate and only work in certain situations. The larger fish are more costly to produce and distribute but generally have high survival in most situations. Unfortunately demand for walleyes exceeds the supply from natural reproduction and current stocking efforts. In the ceded territory, tribal walleye declarations have exceeded 50,000 fish each year since 2008 reaching nearly 60,000 in 2010 and 2013. State angler harvest varies around 300,000 but the 366,000 harvested in 2012 was the second highest seen since 1990. These increasing demands are made on walleye populations that have seen measurable declines in recent years. 27 Water BUREAU: Water Quality TITLE OF PROPOSAL: 5431-Contaminated Sediments Bonding Bond Revenue $5,000,000 0.0 $0 0.0 The Department requests $5 million in additional bonding authorization to provide state-sourced funding to clean up contaminated sediments in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior or their tributaries (Ch. 281.87 Wis. State Statutes). This money would be used to match federal agency programs (EPA Great Lakes Legacy Act, Great Lakes Restoration initiative (GLRI), and US Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authority Program) to provide as much as $20 million for remediation of Great Lakes sediment sites in the state. Also requested is a change in the statutory language of Ch. 281.87 to allow the use of funds bonded through 8. to be used for contaminated sediment remediation projects outside of the Great Lakes basins. In these instances, bonded money would be used as match against US. Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authority Program grants and local government grants or their comparable cost- share efforts. This request builds upon $32 million of existing bonding authorized under the 4 previous biennial budget acts. As detailed in the table below, of the $32 million authorized, nearly $23 million has been committed thus far on 5 projects and used to leverage nearly $115 million in federal and local funding. roiec. on (is. .tatu xpendlturesrs Matt: 2009 170,000 14,200 Remediation 7,527,916 14,300,000 21,827,916 River compiete Lincoln 2011~12 119,000 9,000 Remediation 8,900,000 18,200,000 27,100,000 Park/Milwaukee compiete River Ph. Sheboygan 2012 301,000 36,800 Remediation 3,319,998 50,700,000 22,500,000 76,519,998 Harbor complete Lincoln 2012-14 est. To be Feasibility 15,900,000 18,000,000 Park/Milwaukee 35,000 determined study and 2,100,000 River Ph. li design work completed; remediation activities in 2014 Ansul arsenic 2014-2015 To be Contractor 1,000,000 15,842,428 9,561,619 26,404,047 site, determined selection in Menominee progress; River, Marinette work to start in late 2014 and finish 2015 Total 625,000 60,000 22,847,914 114,942,428 32,061,619 169,851,961 28 Immediate and near?future (1 to 3 years) expenditures will allocate the remainder of the bonding authority to additional contaminated sediment sites, including those listed in the table below: Milwaukee River PCB $2,000,000 GLRI Betterment Cedar Likely; currently undergoing Responsible Party Creek Superfund feasibility study and negotiations with Responsible Party. St. Louis River Likely 2015; signed agreement Lead, Tributyl Tin, $1,000,000 GLRI Betterment Howard's between agencies and PAH industry Stakeholder Bay stakeholder, feasibility study to be completed in 2014 St. Louis River Likely 2015; Heavy metals, PAH $1,000,000 USFWS Barker's Feasibility study to be Pickle Pond completed in 2014 St. Louis River Potential 2016; feasibility study Dioxin, PAH $1,500,000 Betterment Crawford to be completed in 2015, Responsible Party Creek discussions with agencies and responsible party for Betterment action initiated eariy 2014 Milwaukee River Potential; PAH $2,000,000 GLRI Betterment Solvay Responsible Party currently Responsible Party Coke Superfund conducting risk (muitiple partners Alternative assessment; Sediment outside through transferred of RP's area of responsibility will liability) be investigated in 2015 by GLNPO Milwaukee River Potential; extent and degree of PCB $3,000,000 GLRI Responsible contamination still needs to be Party, and County. of Estabrook Dam defined (scheduled for 2015, GLNPO). Potential 2016; feasibility study Lead, Mercury $10,000,000 Columbia Co.& Portage Canal to be completed by early U.S. ACE 2015. Dept. has recently initiated discussions with Corps of Engineers for Sect.206 project potentia! TOTAL $20,500,000 Expenditure of all funds currently authorized will contribute towards removal of all Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC) designations in the state by helping address approximately 75% of the activities identified in the existing Remedial Action Plans. Additional funding authorization, coupled with statutory language adjustment to allow for expansion of funding use, will move the state towards the ambitious goal of initiating management actions for delisting all AOCs by 2020, and will lead to healthier aquatic environments across the state. 29 Background The release of industrial contaminants from both point and nonpoint sources into the waters of the State has resulted in sediment contamination at .a significant number of. locations in Wisconsin. Contaminants, both inorganic and organic, have typically originated from historic releases from single or multiple industrial operations, or from wide-spread releases occurring as both point and non-point sources at varying times throughout the watershed. Common risks associated with contaminated sediments include human and ecological health impacts caused by exposure to pollutants in the food chain. In the Great Lakes, contaminated sediment has been identified as the largest source of toxins entering the aquatic food chain, and most ofWisconsin?s major Great Lakes estuarine tributaries and harbors contain contaminated sediments. All five of the state?s Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC) have beneficial use impairments attributed to contaminated sediment, such as restrictions on navigational dredging and disposal, and large~vessel anchoring. Contaminated sediment sites also exist in the Wisconsin River and the Mississippi River Basins, often located within the large impoundments created by the hydroelectric dams found on these rivers and their major tributaries. These sites, while typically smaller in size than Great Lakes sites, still contribute to environmental degradation and are associated with impaired waters of the state. To address these sites, the Department requests modifying statutory language in Ch. 281.87 Wis. State Statutes to include contaminated sediment removal outside of Great Lakes watersheds. Continued and expanded funding will allow the Department to continue to aggressively address complex contamination issues throughout the state by providing the resources necessary to conduct feasibility studies, plan and execute clean?up operations, leverage local partners and apply for grants and financial matches from federal agencies, and move remedial actions to completion. These efforts will result in decreasing or eliminating the sources of contaminants to fish and wildlife, will lead to the removal of beneficial use impairments in the AOCs, and will help protect the health, safety, and welfare of generations of Wisconsin citizens. The State of Wisconsin has identified several rivers and streams in the state that have water quality impairments due to the release of toxic contaminants from sediment deposits. in many cases, these streams have fish consumption advisories in place due to the risk to human health presented by the contaminants. Organic chemicals biphenyls aromatic hydrocarbons Dioxin) and heavy metals (Mercury, Lead, Chromium, Cadmium, and Arsenic) are among the common contaminants identified through sediment sampling. in addition, the sediments can be a significant source of conventional water quality impairments such as phosphorus and ammonia. The Department's Sediment Management Program has evolved over the years to identify contaminated sediment issues in other Great Lakes tributary waters not identified in the early RAPs, as well as in state waters external to the Great Lakes basins. It is primarily through the continued and expanded use of money made available through 3. bonding authority and executed through Ch. 281 .87 that the program has been and will continue to be able to address the human and ecological health risks associated with these sites. Alternative approaches, such as modifications to the State?s Environmental Repair Fund or mimicking Minnesota?s direct-tax environmental funds (collected through the Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment to the MN state constitution) could iikewise provide the money necessary to match sums from federal and local-government granting partners. Aside from the environmental benefits of remediating contaminated sediment, economic benefits are also appreciated. Temporary economic booms for local businesses occur throughout the duration of a remediation project as equipment operators, landscapers, tradesmen, engineers, and scientists converge on site. Beyond the immediate clean up, long-term economic growth in the form of shoreline property development and increased recreational opportunities is common, with estimates of a $2 to $3 return for 30 every $1 spent on remediation. By removing contaminants, deepening waterways, and restoring shoreland, these blighted regions instantly become more attractive for business investment, redevelopment, and tourism. It is anticipated that partnering with federal agencies will continue to be the primary mechanism by which Wisconsin?s Great Lakes contaminated sediment sites are cleaned up. Funding granted through the Great Lakes Legacy Act (GLLA), authorized in 2001 and managed through has provided the state the opportunity to leverage s. 281.87 bonding with EPA Legacy funds to execute unprecedented remediation projects at large AOC contamination sites around the state. Additionally, the decision by EPA to manage together the Legacy Program and the 2010 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative appropriations (GLRI) resulted in an increase in available funding to $70 Million. The GLRI continues to be a very important program for advancing restoration, remediation and protection of the Great Lakes through implementation activities. While the GLRI action plan is scheduled through 2014, the Great Lakes Commission and the Council of Great Lakes Governors have provided strong endorsement of both the GLRI and the Legacy Program and have supported continued funding. Based on the demonstrative success ofthis initiative throughout all the Great Lakes States, this important funding initiative is expected to continue beyond 2014. 31 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 2015~17 Statutory Language Proposals A. DEPARTMENTWIDE 1. Obsolete Appropriations--The Department proposes to repeal the following inactive apprOpriations from Chapter 20 of the statutes: . 20.370 Environmental impact?consultant services; printing and postage costs . . 20.370 Water Regulation and Zoning Dam inspections and safety Administration; 20.370 Resource aids Milwaukee Public Museum 20.370 Lake Koshkonong Study 20.370 (bj) Environmental aids?waste reduction and recycling grants and gifts 20.370 (bk) Environmental Aids Wastewater and drinking water grant 20.370 (ca) Environmental aids-scenic urban waterways 20.370 (eg) Gifts and grants; environmental management systems. 6) 5) 6) 9) B. FORESTRY DIVISION 1. Forestry Grant Appropriations??The Department requests conversion of 3 forestry grant programs to continuing appropriations to allow for flexibility in funding projects that may cross fiscal years and fully utilize available funding for these purposes. The appropriations are as follows: . Wisconsin forest landowner grants . Urban forestry grants . Fire suppression grants The Bureau of Forestry administers three main partnership grants that utilize state funding-?Urban Forestry grants, Forest Fire Protection grants (FFP) and Wisconsin Forest Landowner grant program Grants are awarded for up to a two year period and funds are reimbursed to grantees based on actual project costs. Funds lapse back to the Forestry Account in instances where there is a difference between the award amount and the actual project amount. a. grants are funded at $1 ,147,900 per year in a biennial appropriation. The advantage of the biennial appropriation is that it allows some flexibility in dealing with funding discrepancies the first year of the biennium. However, this type of funding only offers minor relief from the problems associated with funding long-term forestland improvement practices for landowners. i. The Department must encumber funds for the 24 month grants based on estimates of the cost of the practice. While Department staff use the best information that is available at the time the grant is applied for, the estimates can be off by due to changing circumstances, unforeseen problems, or switches in contractors. When the actual cost is less than the initial estimated cost, only part of the award is paid out and the balance is returned to the Forestry Account. The balance or slippage from the grant can be reallocated only if used within the same biennium from which the initial award originated. Otherwise, the dollars cannot be reallocated. Currently over $600,000 each biennium is reverted from grants awarded in a previous biennium, whereas a continuing appropriation could provide 32 the means with which to fund up to 100 additional landowner grants from reallocated dollars. b. Urban forestry grants are funded at $524,600 per year in a biennial appropriation. Grants are awarded to municipalities to aid in managing urban forests and most recently have been targeted to municipalities dealing with Emerald Ash Borer (EAB). As with grants, much of the same approach is taken to administer and award the funds to grantees. This program reverts about $20,000 per year in funding. Converting to a continuing appropriation would support the addition of 1-3 grants per year to municipal communities. c. Fire suppression grants are funded in an annual appropriation of $170,000. Currently, by the time grantees realize that they have requested more funding than they need, there is too little time in the fiscal year to re?allocate the leftover funding to other eligible projects/expenditures. Creating a continuing appropriation will allow full use of the grant funding in any given fiscal year. 2. Timber Sale Reporting Requirementsw The Department requests modification of 3. 28.11 of the statutes related to submitting a report of merchantable wood products cut on a county forest. The current requirement is that a report be submitted within 90 days of completion, but no more than two years after filing the cutting notice. It would be amended to require transmission of a report within 90 days of completion, but no more than five years after filing the cutting notice. This change from two years to five years for filing the cutting notice more closely reflects currently accepted timber sale contract and reduces unnecessary county and department workload. The intent of the statute is to require county forests to report harvested merchantable timber in a timely fashion and to ensure timely repayment of any outstanding county forest loans. Timber sale contracts are most often written to cover a period of approximately two years, although the length of time varies based on specific circumstances including volume of timber to be harvested and seasonal restrictions. In addition to the original contract period, contracts may be extended multiple times at the discretion of the county forestry committee. Department guidance recommends that total contract length should not exceed four years. In order to comply with the current statute, county forestry departments must file final cutting reports within 90 days for all timber sales completed and must also file partial cutting reports for all contracts that have not been completed within two years of filing the initial cutting notice. Since the typical contract length is two years and in most cases the cutting notice is submitted to the Department two to six months prior to the contracts being signed, most initial contracts are not even required to be completed until sometime more than two years after filing of the cutting notice. Further, many contracts may be written for longer than two years to provide additional flexibility to logging contractors, particularly for large, complex, or seasonal timber harvests. The result is county forestry departments filing partial cutting reports on many timber sales each year, some of which have not even been started. Filing partial cutting reports takes time and effort for county forestry staff and subsequently for Department staff, who must review and record those partial reports. This time could be better spent on other forest management tasks. Ultimately, total repayment amounts will be the same under the proposed revision, aithough some repayments tied to individual timber sales will be delayed. However, averaging out all county forest loan repayments for all outstanding loan balances based 33 on all the individual timber sale partial and final reports will mostlikely result in a very similar stream of total loan repayments to the state each year. . Timber Direct Sale Limit Increase?The Department requests modification of ss.28.05, 28.11 and 28.22 of the statutes to increase the direct sale?sales without a competitive bidding process-?amount for timber sales on public lands from $3,000 to $10,000 to better align them with current price structures. This direct sales limit was last revised in 1999. The intent for these three statutes is to mandate that an open and fair competitive bidding process be applied on our public land timber sales. The direct sale limit, currently $3,000 of appraised value, allows managers to sell smaller amounts of timber directly to a contractor without advertising. In certain instances, being able to quickly work with a contractor is advantageous. They may have the availability or type of equipment that is a perfect match for a smaller timber sale, allowing timber to be sold when in other circumstances it may be less possible. When the direct sale limit was last revised in 1999, the average sold timber sale value on public lands was $21,525. The direct sale limit of $3,000 was 13.9% of that figure. in 2012, the average sale value has risen to $48,178. A proposed direct sale limit of $10,000 would be 20.8% of the current average sale value. Reasons for the proposed increase include increased stumpage rates and the onset of more efficient (and more expensive) cut~to~length processing machines. This technology is now the norm in Wisconsin and has increased production rates dramatically. Moving the equipment from site to site is costly and contractors are less likely to move to small timber sales. There is also an expectation that there will be some savings from not advertising as well as time saved from not working through the entire timber sale process. The land managers will be in a position to perform the land management activities in a timely and efficient manner when unique circumstances present themselves and maximize revenue from that sale, As an example of the impact of increased stumpage rates, with the high value of some products, such as red pine, the current $3,000 limit prevents the direct sale of as little as 40 cords of red pine pulp in some cases. The proposed $10,000 limit would allow for direct sale of approximately 275 cords of wood, on average. In summary, the proposed change would allow state, county and community forests to more efficiently and effectively sell small timber sales, which can be difficult to complete. I'Avg,numberof Avg, number of sales . sales FY11 1. Amt. [25 STATE COUNTY <$3,000 29 30 >$3,000 <10,000 34 92 >$10,000 167 628 Total Sales 230 750 . Timber Sale Advertising Requirements--The Department requests modification of 3528.05, 28.11 and 28.22 of the statutes to remove the requirement for publishing notice of timber sales in an official newspaper having general circulation in that county that the timber is being sold. The revised statutes would offer an option to post on an official website or publish in a neWSpaper. 34 The intent for these three statutes is to mandate that an open and fair competitive bidding process be applied on public land timber sales. In doing so, the statutes require publication of a classified advertisement in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in which the timber is sold. Soleiy relying on newspaper advertising to reach prospective bidders may be missing some potential contractors who are becoming more attuned to searching for opportunities on the web. Classified ads are also expensive, averaging $23.78 per sale in FY13. Allowing for other advertising methods such as posting on the web would save administrative costs while still ensuring a competitive bidding process. Revising the advertising requirements could save approximately $21,900 per year for the state, counties, municipalities and schools who administer public forests. The goal of advertising public forest timber sales is to encourage the maximum number and value of bids submitted. As such, in most cases a list of interested eligible bidders is maintained locally and those bidders are contacted to be made aware of the sale of timber. Further, it is also typical to give bidders as much time as possible (often 2?4 weeks) between notification/advertisement and the actual bid opening, in order to provide time to inspect the sale areas and develop bids; however, the time frames vary based on the unique circumstances of each sale. Department handbook guidance currently requires adVertising for two consecutive weeks, with the last being at least one week prior to the bid opening. There is also the effect of duplicity. For example, many of the Department?s properties span multiple counties. it is common practice that as timber sales are established and ready to be sold, they are all offered for sale at one time as a ?package" whereby contractors bid on individual sales in that package. It is not uncommon that in these packages, sales are bundled that originated from more than one county. To execute the law, the same advertisement for that package is published in County A, County and even County and then repeated a second time to meet the law of publishing twice. This essentially triples the cost of advertising for the same event. MFL Program Modification?~The Department requests modifications to 5.77.88 of the statutes to allow a landowner to voluntarily withdraw from managed forest law (MFL) designation if the Department determines that part of a parcel is unsuitable for the production of merchantable timber, due to environmental, ecological or economic or other concerns or if the Department determines that the parcel is unable to produce merchantable timber in the amount required under the MFL program. The owner would only be able to withdraw the number of acres that is necessary for the parcel to resume sustainable production of merchantable timber or resume its ability to meet the merchantable timber production requirement. The owner is exempt from paying a withdrawal tax or fee for these types of withdrawals. C. LAND 1. Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation--The Department requests to modify the following Statutes to recognize that the Bureau of Endangered Resources Bureau has been renamed to the Bureau of Natural Heritage Conservation: all references in Chapter 20 s. 29.319(2) 3. 71.10 (5) s. 71.30(10) 35 D. ENFORCEMENT 1. Renaming Program 3--The Departmentrequests to rename subsection 20.370(3) of the appropriations schedule from ?Enforcement and Science? to ?Public Safety and Business Support?. The name change coincides with the transfer of the Office of Business Support Sustainability from subsection (9) to subsection (3). E. WATER DIVISION 1. Stormwater General Permit-?The Department proposes statutory language that would require it to issue a general stormwater permit to the Department of Transportation (DOT). Current law exempts DOT from permit process requirements and instead requires a formal interagency liaison process review of all environmental aspects of DOT projects. EPA raised concerns that the Department was not issuing WPDES permits to DOT based on the exemption. This proposal would maintain the long-standing review processes of the interagency cooperative agreement and would result in the Department granting WPDES permit coverage to DOT projects. Under an interagency agreement with DOT, the Department provides transportation "liaisons" throughout the state who perform environmental reviews (erosion, waterway and wetland regulations, and environmental assessments, as needed) of state roadway projects in the DNR regions. The amount of money that DOT pays the Department for these services is not expected to change, nor would the amount of workload that is needed to review and approve DOT projects. Kettle Moraine Springs-Stewardship Bonding--The Department requests that an additional $14 million of Stewardship Bonding be designated for the Kettle Moraine Springs Fish Hatchery renovation project to fully fund the project. This request has two components: Redirect additional existing Stewardship Bonding for this project - $7 million in FY 2017 and $7 miilion in FY 2018 ?that may be obligated only for infrastructure improvements to the Kettle Moraine Springs Fish Hatchery? to complete the anticipated funding package needed to construct improvements at the Kettle Moraine Springs SFH. Modify the date by which all monies directed to the Kettle Moraine Springs Hatchery renovation are obligated to ?before July 1, 2018?. Renovation of the Kettle Moraine Springs SFH is estimated to cost $28 million. 2013 Wisconsin Act 20 redirected $7 million in FY 2015 and $7 million in FY 2016 of existing Stewardship Bonding ?that may be obligated only for infrastructure improvement to the Kettle Moraine Springs Fish Hatchery" as iong as the monies are obligated before July 1, 2017 and are subject to approvals by the Joint Committee on Finance. These funds represent half of the funding needed to complete the improvements at the Kettle Moraine Springs SFH. All $28 million must be appropriated for the project before the project can be taken to the Building Commission and go out for bid. The renovation of the Kettle Moraine Springs SFH is key to maintaining the stocking of fish in support of Fisheries Management activities on the Great Lakes, primarily Lake Michigan, which is iargely dependent on stocking. The Kettle Moraine Springs Hatchery project is Fisheries Management's highest priority hatchery renovation/reconstruction project for enhancing the state?s capacity to stock fish in Wisconsin. Over time, stocking 36 has fallen short of the identified need due in large part to many older, deteriorating hatchery facilities. Expand Eligibility for Well Compensation Grants-~The Department requests modification of the Well Compensation Statute (281.75) to allow a city, village, town, county or special purpose district to access the well compensation fund for monies to properly fill and seal residential water supply wells or livestock water supply wells, on parcels with no clear owners, within their jurisdictional boundaries. Proposed changes will specifically exempt industrial wells or any well that has been used as a community public water supply. Unused wells, on properties with no clear owners, are not being properly filled and sealed. These unused wells often pose a threat to public health or the environment. Wis. Stats. 281.75 (4) does not allow a city, village, town, county or special purpose district to apply for well compensation or well abandonment grants. During the last 10 years, the Drinking Water and Groundwater Program has encountered one or two private wells each year on properties that have no clear owner that do not comply with the well and pump code. These wells often pose a threat to public health and welfare or to groundwater. Well compensation/abandonment grant funds may only be granted to a well owner or renter. If the program was available to local government entities, they could negotiate access to the well and contract with a licensed individual to do the work. They would then receive reimbursement for 75% of the costs of the well filling and sealing. lf grant eligibility is changed, the Department estimates that it would receive 2 4 applications per year for wells on properties with no clear owners. The estimated cost for filling and sealing a private well is $800 - $1,000. Industrial wells or wells that have been used as a community public water supply will continue to be excluded from well abandonment grant eligibility. These wells are often deep and large diameter. Excluding these wells will prevent excessive draws on the fund. River Grant Appropriation Structure?The Department proposes to modify the river protection grant appropriation [20.370 from an annual to a biennial appropriation and further specify that any unencumbered balance at the end of a biennium shall lapse back to the water resources account instead of to the lake protection continuing appropriation. This proposal, in effect, establishes a 2?year grant cycle that allow staff to more consistently manage the program in concert with the Lake Protection and AIS grants. The Water Quality and Community Financial Assistance bureaus have recently undertaken a long term plan to coordinate and align application and awarding processes to improve customer service and reduce staff work load. The three grant programs have many common features similar application requirements, application deadlines, often the same applicants or sponsors and similar kinds of activities as well as accounting and reporting requirements). Having all three operating on a more closely aligned grant cycle will make the coordination and administration of the funds consistent and easier. River grants are currently funded at $289,500 and are oversubscribed. Moving to a biennial appropriation would allow more river projects to be funded each biennium rather than lapse at the end of each fiscal year. Moreover, a two-year grant cycle reduces time constraints for staff, improve customer service and evens out staff work flow. 37 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 2015-2017 FINANCE PLAN September 2, 2014 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Environmental Improvement Fund (EIF) is jointiy administered by the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Administration. The comprises the Clean Water Fund Program, the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program, and the Land Recycling Loan Program. These programs provide low?interest rate loans to municipalities to construct wastewater and drinking water facilities. The EIF ls budgeted as a separate agency. Therefore, any debt authorization for the EIF does not appear within the Department?s budget. The statute requires the two agencies to jointly prepare a Biennial Finance Plan detailing the amount of general obligation bonding authority, revenue bonding authority, and present value subsidy authority needed for each of the loan programs. The Biennial Finance Plan is submitted to the Joint Finance Committee, the standing environmental committees of the Legislature, and the Building Commission. The legislative committees make recommendations to the Building Commission, which ultimately either approves, modifies or denies the requested authorizations. The following table provides the authorizations for each of the loan programs which will be requested in the Biennial Finance Plan. The requests total $7.5 million of general obligation borrowing authority, no new revenue bonding authority, and $86.3 million of present value subsidy authority. PROPOSED FUNDING LEVELS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND (EIF) 2015-2017 Biennium BONDING AUTHORITY AND PRESENT VALUE SUBSIDY LIMIT (in millions of dollars) CHANGE IN AMOUNT CUMULATIVE A. CLEAN WATER FUND PROGRAM General Obligation Bonding $740.8 Revenue Bonding $0 $2,708.9 Present Value Subsidy $53.4 n/a Bonding and present value subsidy levels are expected to be sufficient to meet all of the estimated non-hardship requests. B. SAFE DRINKING WATER LOAN PROGRAM General Obligation Bonding $69.4 Present Value Subsidy $32.9 n/a C. LAND RECYCLING LOAN PROGRAM Present Value Subsidy $0 n/a Notes: For the 2015?17 biennium, it is estimated that the Clean Water Fund Program and the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program will together require $7.5 million of new general obiigation bonding authority to fund $611.0 million in new projects expected to apply during that period. The new authority requested, along with amounts expected to carry over from previous biennia, will provide amounts sufficient to fund the subsidies, reserves, federal capitalization grant matching amounts, and hardship grants for the biennium. The proposed funding levels of general obligation bonding, revenue bonding, and present value authority are based on estimates of future needs for funding. These estimates, and the associated funding levels, may change as more data becomes available and as the budget development process proceeds. 38 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESGURCES BUDGET 2015?201? Comparison of 2015-17 Request to 2013-15, by Somme Foam Source 2013-15 Request 2013-15 Find Request Stewardship Recreation Development $14,000,000 $14,000,000 $12,500,000 Did Stewardship 450,000 450,000 0 Foresmr Conservation Segregated Bonds 6,550,800 6,550,800 5 ?03,700 Fish and W?t?ife Conservation Segregated 339,500 089,500 2,470,000 Bonds Can?ngemy Com?on Segregated Bonds 392,200 302,200 500,000 Environmm? SegeE-ted Bonds 943,300 040,300 912.000 Total Bonding $23,230,000 $23,239,800 $12,052,400 GPR 1,624,600 1,211,200 1,300,000 GEL-Historic Sites 12 1,200 300,000 365,800 Multi?Pro?g?dm Facility 350.215 230 300 358.000.. Total CPR $2,104,515 $1,010,000 $2,1o4,m Roads Rom) 4,000,000 2,606,665 4,000,000? Road Aids (for Local Gotmem Roads.) 2,000,000 1,333,335 2,000,000 Total Rand Funds $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 Fish Sag. 224,300 32,540 225,000 Forestry Sag. 1,340,600 1,333,105 1,546,200 Wildlife Seg. 224,300 222,543 225,000 Seg. Administrative Facilitie; 256,004 744 ,000 757,000 Opera?ons (ATV, Smbiie) 405,000 0 405,000 LE oat - State 200,000 200,000 200,000 Boat Motor fuel tax, Boat 773 7'75) 500,000 554,400 600,000 Rem-Ether 42,500 350,000 360,000 Stamps (Sebmn, etc.) 1,373,021 1,373,021 0 h?ssisaimi River (EMF) 125,000 115,400 125.000 Total Conservation Other DER $5,003,625 $5,625,022 $4,443,200 om Regular DER Fande? $40,903,075 $34,605,022 $30,600,200 A??genq 500,000 000,000 1,410,000 General Fund Sirppnortai Honouring 0 0' 4,025,900 Federal {halting SFR, PR, NRTA, Boat 3,335,535 3,335,535 4,050,400 REF, LE Boat- Fed, IAWCDN) Ducks Unlimited 0 0 0 Gifts 3: Grams 0 0 0 Total Fed Either $1,335,535 $4,135,535 $9,514,300 TOTAL $44,019,010 $38,301,151 $44,114,500 Kerrie Moraine Springs Hatchery - Future $7,000,000 $14,000,000 SEE. HQ Tot-31 Special 517,012,900 517,012,900 50 DEVELOPEMT - Future State Funde? $61,831,910 $52,814,057 $50,114,500 and Sperinl Proejcts Premarary Design Com 533,900 39 9mm 4 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET 2015-1111 7 Proposed Project and Funding Summary by Program Program Emmott ENDANGERED RESOURCES 330.000 ED FORESTRY 57.554.0EID LANDS 562.853 LAW ENFJISSIRESEARCH 51.844100 PARKS 8. REC $13,318,335 WILDLIFE $2,194,550 FACILITIES 315.772.1357 [includes funding phoehdders and oon?nnenoy) 'I'ohl: "4,114.51? 40 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BUDGET 2015-2017 Major 8. Minor Project List, by Prior?y P?mity Rank ?Bjor Prolects $760 Med CHSI AT WILLOW RIVER STATE FALLS DAM REPAIR) 53.041100 AI 2 GOVERNOR DODGE STATE HOLLOW DAM REPAIR) 3934.200 SI 3 BLACK RIVER FALLS SERVICE CENTERIBRF JOINT FOREST FIRE OPERATIONS $1,547,?00 FACILITY) ET 4 GRESHAM RANGER STATIONICONSTRUCT JOINT RANGER STATION AT GRESHAM) 31.003100 B1 5 FOREST HEALTH PROTECTION FOREST HEALTH PROTECTION LAB) BI LAKE WISSOTA STATE PARKICONSTRUCT PEVS) 51.131200 B1 7 SCR FISHERIES OPERATIONSINEUIN CONSOLIDATED FISHERIES AND WATER 52.570300 QUALITY OPERATIONS OENTER) Priority Rank Minor ejects I '3 $750 and 3? $185? I AT YELLOWSTONE LAKE STATE PARKIDAM 5332.030 AI 2 GOVERNOR DODGE STATE HALVERSON AI 3 POINT BEACH STATE FORESTIREPLACE WATER LINES IN THE CAMPGROUND) $218,100 AI 4 HIGH CLIFF STATE PARKIHIGH CLIFF STATE PARK INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES) BI 15 MCMILLER SHOOTING RANGEIMCMILLER REPLACE IUD-YARD RANGE FIRING 3552.000 LINE BI MCMILLER SHOOTING ZE-YARD RANGE FIRING LINE $422,500 STRUCTURE) BI 7 MCMILLER SHOOTING - REPLACE 50-YARD RANGE FIRING LINE STRUCTURE) BI 51 POINT BEACH STATE FORESTILE BOAT SHED POINT BEACH) $240,100 BI 0 WAUSAUKEE RANGER ST ATIONMAUSAUKEE FIRE CONTROL MECHANIC SHOP 5744.510 ADDITION) B1 BIG FOOT BEACH STATE CONTACT ST ?03.200 BI 11 LAKESHORE STATE PARKIDOCK DECKING AND BUMPER REPLACEMENT) $263,200 BI 12 MEAD WILDLIFE AREAIREPLACE DANCY COMMUNICATION $317,500 BI 13 POINT BEACH STATE FORESTIHISTORIO LODGE SHELTER REMODEL) 3185.000 BI I4 PENINSULA STATE PARKILTE HOUSING BUILDING 5231.500 BI 15 KEITLE MORAINE STATE FOREST-SOUTHERN UNITIEAGLE FISHERIES 5300.300 OPERATIONS SHOP BI 16 OREX MEADOWS WILDLIFE CONSOLIDATED LARGE $590,400 EQUIPMENT STORAGE FACILITY) BI 17 POYNETTE STATE GAME FARMEONSTRUCT HEAW EOUIPME NT STORAGE 3736.700 B2 13 HIGH CLIFF STATE PARIHMARINA MODERNIZATION AND REPAIR) 5324.700 02 19 NORTHERN HIGHLAND AMERICAN LEGION STATE FORESTIREPLACE OLD VAULT $314,300 TOILETS ORYSTAL DAY USE AREA) 32 20 BUFFALO RIVER STATE TRAILIBRIDGE MAINTENANCEIREPLACMENT) 21 WOLF RIVER STATE TRAILIRECREATIONAL BRIDGE OVER WOLF RIVER AT HWY 5500.200 54) 41 WASTE MANAGEMENT FUND Wisconsin State Statutes, 289.68(7) requires the Natural Resource Board to submit with the biennial budget a report on the fiscai status of the Waste Management Fund. The Waste Management Fund was established by the Legislature to provide for the long-term care and environmental repair of municipal solid waste disposal facilities after the owner's financial responsibility has terminated. As authorized, revenues to the fund were obtained through a tipping fee collected from owners or operators of sites licensed for the disposal of solid- or hazardous waste Fiscal Status of the Waste Management Fund Cash Balance, 07/01/2013 $7,946,408 Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue 12,317 Fiscal Year 2014 Expenditures (347,211) Cash Balance, 06/30/2014 $7,611,514 The fiscal year 2014 beginning cash balance consists of $1,999,172 from fee revenue, $4,920,986 from interest earned on the fee revenue, and $1,026,250 from various legal actions and interest earned on those deposits. Revenue received in fiscal year 2014 includes $5,999 of interest earned on fee revenue/interest and $6,318 of revenue and interest from judgments and other legal actions. Expenditures of $347,211 were for closure and long-term care work at several landfills. The only steady source of revenue to the Waste Management Fund is interest generated by the Fund. Revenue from judgments/legal actions is infrequent and unpredictable. The Department cannot anticipate what specific expenditures will be made from the Fund in future years, other than to say they would be necessary to repair or provide long-term care for a municipal solid waste disposal facility. 42