Board Members Present: Troy Kuphal, Dale Olson, Marcia Hartwig, Shawn Stocks, Gaylord Olson, Pat Sutter, Dale Konkol, Mark Jenks, Paul Tollard, Greg Baneck, and Dan O’Connell
Advisors present: Rebecca Baumann, Pat Murphy, Andy Yencha, and Don Houtman
The
meeting was called to order by President Troy Kuphal at 9:35 a.m.
Minutes:
Troy Kuphal called for a motion to accept the
February 15, 2001 minutes.
Treasurer
Report: Marcia
Hartwig reviewed the cash flow and register reports.
A revised report will be sent out. As
of today WALCE Membership is 238 for the year.
Marcia will send some information out to each representative for
recruiting new members. Treasurer’s
report approved by unanimous consent.
Committee
Appointments: Board
discussed committee existing committee appointments and vacancies. Troy will
prepare and distribute an updated list of committees and current membership and
call for volunteers to fill committee openings.
Annual
Conference: The
2002 Conference will be in Sauk County at the Chula Vista Theme Resort,
Wisconsin Dells on February 27-28 and March 1, 2002. Sauk, Juneau, Columbia, and
Adams counties will be hosts. The
overall comments for the 2001 Conference in Cable were very positive with
respect to both the facility and training sessions.
Many attendees would like to see it in Cable again.
Pat
Murphy reported for Brian Pillsbury, SWCD President, who was unable to attend.
SWCD would like to explore the possibility of holding their
conference/training seminar in conjunction with the WALCE Conference.
Discussion took place and it was decided to allow the 2002 Conference
Planning Committee decides on the feasibility.
Strategic
Plan: Membership
on Joint WLWCA/WALCE Committee. Discussion
on recommendations of the Internal Issues Committee. Troy went through the summary of the letter dated April 4,
2001 (see Attachment A). Discussion took place regarding membership and the
selection process. Motion by
Gaylord Olson, seconded by Greg Baneck, to have Troy select committee membership
according to the recommendations in the April 4th letter.
In addition to continuing the work of the Internal Issues
Committee, Troy suggested the need for WALCE to address funding for Land and
Water Plans, as described in strategic plan item III (1) and (5).
Non-bonded and other dedicated sources of funding are critical to the
successful implementation of LWRM Plans. This
requires the public and elected officials to have a heightened awareness and
understanding of LCD’s, what we do and why it is important. Murphy mentioned
involving all agencies to bring more people in.
Troy will initiate a proposal for addressing these issues
Legislative
Update: Troy
Kuphal handed out the WALCE/WLWCA Position and Comments regarding DATCP’s
proposal for competitive-based cost share grants (see Attachment B). There was
overwhelming consensus that counties do not want to compete against each other
for funding. Counties will not
tolerate having alternative sources of funds used against them and that looking
at county underspending needs to be done cautiously.
WLWCA and WALCE are very interested in working with the departments on
increasing accountability and reducing underspending.
Troy spoke about DNR’s non-point rules and handed out a copy of WLWCA’s initial position paper. The main issues deal with lack of tie to Land and Water Resource Management Plans, lack of annual cost share grant mechanism and lack of implementation strategy. Other issues deal with last minute changes to the standards by Natural Resources Board, over-prescriptiveness in some areas and ambiguities in others. Rebecca commented the DNR had not made an honest effort to meet directly with counties ahead of time in recognition of their unique role as primary implementers of the program. A final position paper will be developed after April 10, 2001 Legislative Committee meeting. The Board recommended WALCE to submit comments jointly with WLWCA.
Don
Aron Memorial Scholarship Update: Jean Schomisch has agreed to take the lead on this issue.
Troy passed out a memo from Kay Wassinger highlighting WALCE’s $1000
challenge grant. This memo was sent
to every state in order to raise awareness of the challenge grant and to
encourage donations. O’Connell expressed concerns over how the scholarship is
limited to agriculture or agriculture-related studies. Other concerns were
expressed over who will administrator this scholarship and who will do
screening. Houtman suggested WALCE should seek to have the scope of the
scholarship expanded to include natural resource-related studies.
Dale Olson made a motion and Dan O’Connell seconded it to have Troy
contact Jean Schomisch and have her seek such changes. Motion carried.
Web Site: Rebecca Baumann explained the set up for the web site for WALCE will be $2,000.00, in keeping with the approved budget amount. Chris and Gina from WLWCA will be working on it.
Agency Report:
UWEX (Andy Yencha) Extension hired two more people for being out in the field. This has concluded the 15 that have been hired. Basin educators – Pam Packard and Chris Stubenheck. (Volunteer Quality Monitoring). Multi agency grants program has $400,000.00 for educational purposes. Proposals will be available in the middle of May and due back at the end of June. You will have three years to spend the money.
DATCP Don Houtman as advised us that Jim Harsdorf is the new secretary. Relationships with LCD/LCC’s should improve. The agency will be seeing GPR cuts, meaning that positions will get cut or not filled. This could directly effect counties, depending on what position it is.
NRCS Pat Murphy touched on CREP stating there is a verbal agreement with Wisconsin and National FSA. Statewide training for the agencies will occur soon. CREP Program will continue until the end of 2002. Stated swamp buster and HEL requirements will apply to dairy producers who receive milk subsidy payment, thus creating a new workload for staff to do planning and investigations.
Other Issues: Representative for the North Central Region Employees Association, Donald Bajumpaa, asked if WALCE would consider making a donation to support his attendance at the National Conservation District Employees Association meeting. Dale Olson made a motion to use $200.00 from the scholarship fund towards Don’s trip to NCDEA as a one time only donation. Also WALCE need to be provided with a written report. Pat Sutter seconded the motion – motion carried.
Next Meeting Date: June 14, 2001 at Schmeeckle Reserve, Stevens Point, WI.
Adjourn:
Greg Baneck made a motion to adjourn – Dale Konkel seconded –
motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Shawn Stocks
WALCE Secretary
To:
WALCE Board
Members
From: Troy
Kuphal
Date: April 4, 2001
RE:
Membership on Joint WLWCA/WALCE
Committee
Background:
In
January, our Board approved the recommendations of the Internal Issues
Committee. That recommendation was
to “Form a joint WALCE/WLWCA Committee to explore options which improve the
effectiveness and accountability of both organizations through the joining of
resources.”
At
their March meeting, the WLWCA Board agreed to participate on such a committee.
The representative from WLWCA will essentially be the same people on
their Board. The next step is for
WALCE to determine its delegation – we need about 8.
To that end, I asked the original Internal Issues Committee how they felt
we should do this. Following is a
summary of their ideas:
·
The
people who served on the original WALCE Internal Issues Committee should be
given priority to continue on with the task they were originally charged with.
In other words, ask for volunteers from the original IIC first.
·
The new
delegation should be a good mix of people (personality, title, geography, etc.)
and overlap with the WALCE Board is good.
·
Make sure
that there are at least several members who have experience (are very familiar
with the history of both associations) and have the ability to be articulate
well.
·
Although
too many new folks would make us lose ground, some “new blood” would be
fine.
Recommendations:
1)
Ask who
from the original IIC would be interested in volunteering for the next
“round”.
2)
President
would select 7 volunteers altogether, 2-3 Technicians and 3-5 County Cons.
(President would not be one of them.)
3)
Reserve
the eighth seat for the Vice-president
Board Action:
Debate the different options then approve the process
and guidelines that the President would follow in making the final selection.
To: All Land and Water
Conservation Committees
From:
Rebecca Baumann, Executive Director
Date: March 10, 2001
RE: Opposition of DNR Nonpoint
Administrative Rules
On March 9, 2001 the WLWCA Board met for our quarterly board meeting.
At that meeting we discussed the DNR Nonpoint Administrative Rules, and
there was unanimous support for this position opposing the DNR Nonpoint
Administrative Rules for the reasons stated in the position paper.
Public
hearings will be held this week and next. Written comments may be submitted
until April 6, 2001. I would
encourage you to speak at the public hearing that is located closest to you in
opposition of the rule package. I
would be glad to provide our specific comments to you, and welcome your
particular county’s comments.
When
you speak or submit comments, it is important to have both a unified voice, but
also to add your particular counties specific comments.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments.
608-833-1833.
While
recognizing the progress that has been made by DNR in drafting the nonpoint
program redesign rule package for Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association (WLWCA)
is opposed to the current rule package primarily because of serious
concerns with program implementation issues.
We believe the current rules do not embody the original intent of the
statutory changes that initiated the program redesign. We also believe the
entire rule package deserves more review time than has been afforded in the
current process. The following are
the primary reasons for our general opposition:
•
Land and Water Resource Management
Plans (LWRMP) must be included in the rules as the major vehicle for
implementation.
The nonpoint performance standards are required by statute to be implemented and funded through County Land and Water Resource Management Plans (LWRMP). LWRMP’s are obscurely referenced only three times the currently revised set of rules. The LWRMP must be included in the administrative rules as the major vehicle for implementation of the nonpoint performance standards.
•
Funding must be directly tied to
the LWRMP.
Funding for the performance standards is not
addressed, and funding must be tied directly to the LWRMP.
Without discussion and inclusion of adequate funding there is no point in
passing new rules.
The Targeted Runoff Management (TRM) program was intended to address critical
nonpoint problems that could not be met by implementing the performance
standards through the LWRMP. TRM
was not intended to be a mini-priority watershed program, which is how it has
evolved in the rule process. The
budget for TRM was originally intended to be funded at a much more modest amount
of approximately $2 million, with the majority of funding going to implement the
performance standards through the LWRMP. We
support increased funding for non-competitive grants to implement LWRMP’s,
which by statute must ensure compliance with the performance standards and
prohibitions.
•
General changes which must be
addressed-
1. Inconsistencies
and ambiguity- The
current rules are laced with inconsistencies and ambiguities.
A goal of the rules is a product that can be used by the counties and
landowners. Inconsistencies and
language that cannot be understood must be corrected for this to happen. As written, this is not a usable package for counties
or landowners.
2. Too
much prescription- Too often
the rules are too prescriptive or have too much detail.
Performance standards should state the desired end result not the means
to achieve it and should be measurable.
The local administrators and landowners are best suited to prescribe
methods of obtaining the results. Specific
enforcement details limit, rather than enable the desired end results and should
be removed from the rules.
3. Critical
details are missing- Details
that should be included are not, such as the stated expectation of county’s
role in implementing the rules, time frame for landowners to comply, and
consequences for non-compliance. Linking
these standards to the LWRMP would address these problems.
While
we support the concept of the redesign, we feel that getting the rules into a
format that is workable for the counties and landowners are critical, and
therefore we oppose the rules at this time, in their current format.
The County Land and Water Conservation Committees and Departments should
be working with the department as a critical partner in developing these rules
because we are the primary local delivery system for the program.
These comments are consistent with a detailed review of the rules by more than 15 County Land Conservation Department Administrators who have a combined total of more than 280 years experience with implementing nonpoint programs in Wisconsin. This position has been approved and endorsed by the WLWCA Board. Specific comments on each of the current rules will be submitted by WLWCA. We are willing to continue working with the DNR on this rule package, however major revisions are currently needed in order to obtain our support.