Motion to approve CREP field plans: Willkom/Brost.  Motion carried.

D. Masterpole provided an update on the status of a DATCP/USDA proposal to expand the CREP area in Wisconsin.  The USDA is now reviewing the proposal.  A decision is anticipated in the near future.

Item #2 - Review 2005 Work Plan and Status of Scheduled Activities.

D. Masterpole distributed and the Committee reviewed a table titled:  Schedule of Activities to Implement Plan, (LCD 6/22/04).  The table contains a quarterly schedule of activities which are being systematically implemented to pursue program goals and objectives, as outlined in the Chippewa County Land and Water Resource Management Plan - 2004 (12/15/04).

Staff provided a brief report on the status of each planned activity.

There was general discussion.               

Item #3 - Review Wetland Mitigation Bank Siting Process and Status of Bank Proposal.

M. Dahlby distributed the following:

1.         Written report titled: Tentative Timeline for Establishing Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Bank.  The report is an activity schedule which illustrates the status of activities conducted by Chippewa County to establish a wetland mitigation bank under NR131.

2.         Written report titled: Summary of Work Performed Pursuant to the Development of a Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Bank in Sections 16 and 21, Township 28 North, Range 8 West, Chippewa County, Wisconsin, (LCD 7/13/05).  The report is a detailed outline of agency interactions between Chippewa County and DNR through the course of the project.

In summary, the Chippewa County Highway Dept. has advanced a proposal to sponsor a wetland mitigation bank to compensate for current wetland losses and to meet future needs associated with public transportation projects.  The Land Conservation Dept. has served as a technical agent for the Highway Dept.

The County has selected a drained and degraded wetland, located in the watershed of wetland takings, as a potential bank site.  A proposal to restore the functional values of the degraded wetland site has been submitted following procedures outlined in State administrative rules.  The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has recently evaluated the proposal and has advised that the site is not suitable for the purpose of establishing a wetland mitigation bank.

There was general discussion regarding the process, the evaluation criteria, and the agency’s decision to reject the County’s proposal. 

The Land Conservation Dept. will contact the Highway Dept. to inform that department of the DNR’s decision, and to assess its interest in pursuing the concept through use of an alternative site.

Item #4 - Review Status of 2005 Animal Waste Ordinance Permit Application.

D. Nashold distributed and the Committee reviewed a table titled:  Summary of Annual Waste Management Facilities Planned for 2005, (7/21/05).  The table lists the landowners (11) that have applied for Animal Waste Storage permits, the location and engineering status  of each facility, and the cost-share funding sources that are being pursued.

There was general discussion.  Discussion focused on the number of applications, the scope of the County’s service commitment, and the availability of State and Federal cost-share grants to offset the costs of manure facilities. 

Item #5 - Review USDA Technical Service Provider (TSP) Reimbursement Rates/Set 2005 TSP Engineering Design Priorities and Rates.

J.T. Jensen distributed and the Committee reviewed an issue paper titled: Options for Resolving County Service Concerns Caused by Applications to Federal Cost-Share Programs, Issue Paper 1/05, (Working Draft LCD 7/21/05).    The issue paper provides the following:

1.         A summary of the issue:

•           Requests for nutrient management planning and engineering services to fully service Animal Waste Ordinance applications now exceed the service capacity of the County.

                        •           The service shortfall has now become more acute, as a result of an increase in permit applications, associated with an increase in the availability of Federal cost-share grants.

                        •           To meet the service shortfall and to provide the necessary engineering services, the County has adopted an interim management approach whereby the LCD will provide preliminary designs to all applicants, and additional engineering services through a fee for services approach.

                        •           Upon selecting the 2005 grant recipients, the USDA informed the County and the applicants that no funds will be allocated in 2005 for engineering design services, provided by outside service providers (TSP engineering option). 

                        •           As a result of the USDA’s decision to not allocate funds to outside service providers, the County must now reevaluate its management approach and further clarify the type and extent of services that it can provide.

2.         An overview of an interim management approach (adopted by LCC 11/04) to curtail services and prioritize the type of services provided to applicants by the County.

3.         An updated management analysis.

4.         Short and long term management options to resolve the issue.  The short term options are as follows:

Short Term Management Options

OPTION 1     

Offer final engineering design services to applicants that have had (manure storage) projects funded by USDA in 2005.  In providing these services, do one of the following:

                        A.        Charge at full Federal TSP rates for final design, construction oversight, and post construction verification.

                        B.         Charge at partial Federal TSP rates (i.e. 70-80%).

                        C.         Charge actual County costs ($50/hr).

OPTION 2

Do not provide any final engineering designs.

OPTION 3

Other.

There was general discussion regarding the farm planning, nutrient management planning, and engineering services provided by the County.  Additional discussion focused on the short term options and on the Committee’s interest in transitioning to a business-based model for service delivery.

Motion to offer accelerated engineering services to all landowners with animal waste storage projects funded by USDA, to be charged at partial TSP rates (70%), as outlined in Short Term Management Option: Brost/Willkom.  Motion carried.

Item #6 - Overview of Current NR151 Stormwater Plan Review Process.

D. Nashold distributed and the Committee reviewed a table titled: 2005 LCD Stormwater Review Projects, (LCD 7/20/05).  The table lists current development proposals in Chippewa County, which are subject to NR151 stormwater management requirements and the status of each project: