Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 590, 2/28/2005

Rule-making notices

Notice of Hearings

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(reprinted from 2/15/05 Register)

[CR 05-013]

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule relating to nutrient management on farms (ATCP 50). The department will hold the hearings at the times and places shown below. The department invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. The department will manage oral testimony to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak. These hearings will be held in conjunction with hearings on a rule related to livestock facility siting (ATCP 51). DATCP has issued a separate hearing notice related to the livestock facility siting rule.

Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until April 7, 2005, for additional written comments. Written comments should be sent to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management attention Sue Porter, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison WI 53708. Written comments can be submitted via email to [e-mail].

You may obtain a free copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents such as the environmental assessment, by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling [phone] or emailing [e-mail]. Copies will also be available at the hearings. To view the proposed rule online, go to:

http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/arm/regulation/proposed_rules.html

Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for these hearings. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by February 28, 2005, by writing to Sue Porter, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone [phone]. Alternatively, you may contact the Department TDD at [phone]. Handicap access is available at the hearings.

Hearings with location information:

Date:   Monday, March 14, 2005

Location:   Fort Community Credit Union

  100 N. Main St.

  Jefferson, WI 53549

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Location:   Heidel House

  643 Illinois Ave

  Green Lake, WI 54941

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Thursday, March 17, 2005

Location:   Ramada White House

  1450 Veterans Drive

  Richland Center, WI 53581

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Location:   UW-Manitowoc Center

  705 Viebahn St.

  Manitowoc, WI 54220

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Location:   Northcentral Technical College

  1000 W. Campus Dr.

  Wausau, WI 54401

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Thursday, March 24, 2005

Location:   Chippewa Valley Technical College

  620 W. Clairemont Ave.

  Eau Claire, WI 54701

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP") regulates plant nutrients to maintain and improve water quality. DATCP proposes to amend the current nutrient management rules for farms. Current rules are based on nitrogen, not phosphorus. This rule would incorporate updated federal standards based on nitrogen and phosphorus. Phosphorus is a key nonpoint source pollutant, and phosphorus levels in soil are increasing due to excessive phosphorus applications.

Current nutrient management rules apply to all farms, not just livestock operations. Current rules are scheduled to take effect in 2005 in some watersheds, and 2008 elsewhere. However, enforcement of current rules is contingent on cost-sharing (per current state law), so the availability of cost-share funding will limit actual implementation.

By adding a phosphorus standard to current nutrient management rules, this rule will increase compliance costs for farmers. This rule will have the greatest impact on livestock operators, who may incur additional costs related to the disposal of manure (which provides more phosphorus than nitrogen, compared to crop needs). However, this rule does not change current rule effective dates or cost-sharing requirements.

Statutory authority: ss. 93.07 (1), 92.05 (3) (k) and 281.16 (3) (b), Stats.

Statutes interpreted: ss. 92.05 (3) (k) and 281.16 (3) (b), Stats.

DATCP has general authority to adopt rules interpreting statutes under its jurisdiction (see s. 93.07 (1), Stats.). DATCP is specifically authorized to adopt farm conservation standards, including standards for nutrient management on farms (see ss. 92.05 (3) (k) and 281.16 (3) (b), Stats.).

Background

Under current DATCP rules (ch. ATCP 50, Wis. Adm. Code), all farmers who apply manure or commercial fertilizer to cropland (not just livestock operators) must have nutrient management plans. This requirement takes effect on January 1, 2005 in certain watersheds and January 1, 2008 elsewhere. Under current rules, enforcement of nutrient management requirements is contingent on cost-sharing.

Under current DATCP nutrient management rules, a nutrient management plan must comply with all of the following requirements:

• It must be prepared or approved by a qualified nutrient management planner. A farmer may prepare his or her own plan if the farmer has completed a DATCP-approved training course within the preceding 4 years, or is otherwise qualified under current rules.

• It must identify the lands on which the operator will apply manure and other nutrients.

• It must be based on soil tests that determine the nutrient needs of the affected cropland. A soil test laboratory, certified by DATCP, must conduct the soil tests.

• It may not call for nutrient applications in excess of amounts needed to achieve crop fertility levels recommended by the University of Wisconsin (there are limited exceptions).

• It must comply with nutrient management standards published by the Natural Resource Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (“NRCS").

Rule Content

This rule modifies current DATCP nutrient management rules as follows:

Updated Federal Standard

Current DATCP rules incorporate an outdated version (March, 1999) of the NRCS nutrient management standard. This rule incorporates an updated NRCS standard. A nutrient management plan (if required) must adhere to the following provisions in the new standard (many, but not all, of these provisions already apply under the current standard):

• The nutrient management plan must consider all primary nutrients – nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. The older NRCS standard focused on nitrogen rather than phosphorus and potassium. Phosphorus is a key nonpoint pollutant, and has been applied in excessive amounts (as reflected in rising average soil-test phosphorus levels in Wisconsin). The new standard will limit excessive phosphorus applications.

• Nutrient applications may not exceed the amounts needed to achieve soil fertility levels recommended by the University of Wisconsin for crops in the farmer's rotation (there are some exceptions). These recommendations are designed to achieve optimal economic returns for farmers. Phosphorus and potassium needs are generally determined over a crop rotation, so that some buildup of these nutrients is permitted in anticipation of future crop needs during the rotation.

• The nutrient management plan must consider all nutrient sources, including existing nutrients in the soil, manure applications, fertilizer applications, and nitrogen from legumes. The plan must account for relevant limitations on nutrient applications -- for example, on frozen land, near water bodies, or on highly eroding fields (see below).

• Nutrient calculations must take into account the amount and timing of nutrient applications from all sources.

• Soil tests must be used to determine existing soil fertility levels (soil tests must be not more than 4 years old).

• Nutrient management plans must be updated annually (to account for relevant changes in cropping patterns, land base, nutrient applications, soil test results, etc.). Each annual update must document and consider relevant cropping patterns and nutrient applications from the preceding year.

• Manure nutrient content may be determined by laboratory analysis or from standard “book values" specified in the NRCS standard. Labs performing manure analyses must meet standards specified in the rule.

• Nutrients may not run off the field during application.

• Nutrients may not be spread in certain areas, including the following:

- Fields eroding in excess of “T-value" levels (the standard specifies acceptable methods for calculating erosion rates).

- Surface water areas, or areas of established concentrated flow.

- Permanent non-harvested vegetative buffers or wetlands.

- Areas within 50 feet of drinking water wells.

- Areas within 200 feet up-slope of direct conduits to groundwater (such as wells, sinkholes, fractured bedrock, tile inlets or mine openings), unless the nutrients are effectively incorporated within 72 hours.

• Nutrients may not be applied to frozen or snow-covered land within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake or within 300 feet of a navigable stream.

• Liquid manure may not be applied to frozen or snow-covered land at a rate of more than 7,000 gallons per acre.

• Manure may not be applied to frozen or snow-covered land at a rate that provides more phosphorus than will be used by crops in the next growing season.

• Manure may not be applied to frozen or snow-covered land that has a slope greater than 9% (12% if contour-cropped).

• Commercial fertilizer may not be applied to frozen or snow-covered land, except on pasture or surfaces planted in winter grains.

• At least one of the following practices must be used when applying nutrients to unfrozen surfaces within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake or within 300 feet of a navigable stream:

- Install or maintain permanent vegetative buffers.

- Maintain 30% crop residue or vegetative cover on the soil surface after application.

- Incorporate nutrients within 72 hours, leaving adequate residue so that erosion does not exceed “T-value."

- Establish cover crops promptly following application.

• Liquid manure applications (less than 12% solids) to unfrozen land within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake or 300 feet of a navigable stream may not exceed rates specified in the rule.

• In order to minimize nitrogen loss to groundwater in certain sensitive areas, most crop nitrogen must be applied to those areas after the crop is established in the spring. This applies to areas with coarse soils, areas with less than 20 inches to bedrock or 12 inches to water table, and areas within 1000 feet of a municipal well.

• In order to minimize phosphorus losses to surface water, a farmer must use one of the following strategies (and establish perennial vegetative cover where there are recurring gullies):

- Maintain a phosphorus index, calculated according to the Wisconsin phosphorus index model, at or below a level of 6. Stop phosphorus applications to fields that exceed that index level, unless UW recommendations call for additional phosphorus applications (based on soil tests and crop needs).

- Regulate phosphorus applications based on soil tests. Forego or limit phosphorus applications as necessary, based on soil test levels and phosphorus removal by relevant crops (the standard specifies application limits based on soil test levels).

Excess Nutrient Applications

Under current DATCP rules, a nutrient management plan may not recommend nutrient applications that exceed the amounts needed to achieve fertility levels recommended by the university of Wisconsin for relevant crops. However the current rules allow certain exceptions.

One current exception allows for excess soil nutrient values caused by manure applications in prior years. This rule limits that exception, so that it only applies to manure applications in the year immediately preceding implementation of the nutrient management plan.

The current rules also permit excess nutrient applications for the following reasons:

• The farmer applies only organic nutrients (such as manure).

• Excess nutrients from organic nutrient applications will be used later in the planned crop rotation.

• Fields with corn following corn receive conservation tillage with greater than 50% residue after planting.

• Starter fertilizer is properly applied to row crops.

• The crop is irrigated.

This rule eliminates these exceptions, because these conditions are more precisely addressed in the (updated) NRCS technical guide nutrient management standard 590 (incorporated in this rule). This rule, like the current rules, permits excess nutrient applications based on special agronomic conditions documented by the nutrient management planner.

Cost-Sharing and Initial Applicability Not Affected

This rule does not change the previously-established effective dates for DATCP nutrient management rules (2005 in some watersheds, and 2008 elsewhere), nor does it change current cost-sharing requirements (enforcement of nutrient management standards is normally contingent on cost-sharing). Those effective dates and cost-sharing provisions still apply under this rule.

Environmental Impact

This rule will protect the environment by preventing excess nutrient applications that can result in nonpoint source pollution of surface water and groundwater. Nonpoint source pollution from farms has a major impact on surface water and groundwater quality.

Fiscal Impact

This rule will not have a major fiscal impact on DATCP or local units of government. This rule will change applicable standards for nutrient management plans, but will not increase the number of nutrient management plans required. Enforcement of this rule is generally contingent on cost-sharing. DATCP estimates that approximately $25 million in additional cost-share funding would be needed each year in order to fully implement this rule within 10 years. This rule does not mandate additional state or local review of nutrient management plans (beyond what already exists). County conservation staff currently review and monitor nutrient management plans as necessary, on farms that are required to have those plans.

DATCP and county land conservation staff will need to become familiar with the new standards. Staff will need to provide information and education about the new standards, and respond to questions from farmers and others. DATCP will undertake these new responsibilities with existing staff. DATCP estimates that counties will likewise be able to implement the revised standards with existing staff. A complete fiscal estimate may be obtained by calling [phone] or emailing [e-mail].

Business Impact

This rule will have a substantial impact on agricultural producers and other businesses.

Agricultural Producers

To the extent that it is implemented, this rule will increase costs for livestock operators and crop producers who are required to implement nutrient management plans. However, rule implementation is contingent on cost-sharing. Actual implementation will depend on the availability of cost-share funds. Without cost-sharing, most agricultural producers will not be obligated to comply.

This rule will not increase the number of nutrient management plans required, but will affect the content of the plans. It will also affect the farming practices needed to comply. This rule will have the greatest impact on livestock operations. It will have less impact on non-livestock crop producers. For livestock operations, the impact is primarily related to new phosphorus management requirements (current standards are based primarily on nitrogen, not phosphorus).

Manure generally provides higher amounts of phosphorus than nitrogen, compared to typical crop needs. So, livestock operators may need more acreage for manure disposal, to avoid excessive phosphorus applications. Costs will vary widely by livestock species, size of livestock operation, geographic location, cropping patterns, current nutrient content of soil, and availability of acreage for manure disposal. Non-livestock crop producers will be less affected, and may actually reduce their fertilizer costs by avoiding excessive phosphorus applications.

DATCP has estimated the costs to implement the new phosphorus standard, assuming that the standard is fully implemented (this will require cost-share funding that is not currently available). The estimate represents the annual incremental cost, over and above the cost to implement the existing (nitrogen-based) standard. DATCP estimates the statewide incremental cost, by livestock sector, as follows (estimation method described in attached business impact assessment):

Dairy:   $1.5 million

Beef:   $1.5 million

Swine:   $0.5 million

Poultry:   $2.8 million

Actual costs to the industry will be much less, because compliance is contingent on cost-sharing and cost-share funds are limited. Many farmers may never be required to comply. Cost-share payments will offset part of the cost for many who comply.

Under current rules, a cost-share offer must cover 70% of the cost to conduct soil tests and prepare a nutrient management plan (90% if there is financial hardship), or $7 per cropland acre, whichever amount is greater (the farmer chooses). The percentage rate applies only to costs of writing a nutrient management plan and performing soil tests (not manure hauling, etc.). The flat-rate payment ($7 per acre) applies regardless of actual costs.

Cost-share payments (whether flat-rate or percentage) are limited to 4 years. After that, the farmer assumes the full cost of compliance. Once a farmer achieves compliance, the farmer must maintain compliance regardless of cost-sharing. If a farmer falls out of compliance, the farmer is not eligible for cost-sharing to regain compliance.

In cost-share transactions to date, nearly all farmers have chosen the flat-rate ($7 per acre) payment. If farmers need additional acres to landspread manure (as many will under a phosphorus standard), the total cost-share payment will increase accordingly (even if the rate per acre does not change). The limited availability of state cost-share funds will limit actual enforcement of nutrient management requirements. Available funds will be allocated among fewer operations.

Some livestock operators must comply with nutrient management requirements under other applicable law, regardless of cost-sharing (and regardless of whether DATCP nutrient management rules would otherwise apply prior to 2008). These include:

• Operators who need a point source pollution discharge permit under NR 243 (mainly operations over 1,000 animal units).

• Operators who need a permit, under a local manure storage ordinance, for a voluntarily constructed manure storage facility (see current ATCP 50.54 (2) (b)).

• Operators who need a local permit for a new or expanded livestock facility with 500 or more “animal units," according to DATCP's proposed livestock facility siting rule (not this rule).

For more information contact DATCP small business regulatory coordinator Dennis Fay at [phone] or email at [e-mail].

Federal Regulations

The federal government does not regulate nutrient management on farms except that, under the federal Clean Water Act, certain concentrated animal feeding operations are subject to federal regulation as water pollution “point sources." DNR regulates these operations by permit, under authority delegated from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

NRCS is proposing updated nutrient management standards based on phosphorus as well as nitrogen. NRCS does not enforce its standards as mandatory standards, except for operations that receive cost-share funding from NRCS. However, DNR and DATCP have incorporated these federal standards in state nutrient management rules. DATCP is proposing to incorporate updated NRCS standards in this rule.

Adjacent State Regulations

Surrounding states regulate nutrient management in a variety of different ways. Most of the states regulate phosphorus, as well as nitrogen. A description of other state programs is found in the plain language analysis that accompanies this rule.

Businesses Affected

Those effected are small businesses, as defined by s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.

This rule will have a substantial impact on agricultural producers as discussed above in the Business Impact section. In addition, this rule may increase farmer demand for services provided by the following businesses:

• Nutrient management planners.

• Soil and manure testing laboratories.

• Manure haulers.

• Construction contractors and conservation planners (practices to reduce soil erosion).

This rule will likely reduce sales of commercial phosphorus fertilizers, but may increase sales of commercial nitrogen fertilizer to meet crop needs (where manure applications are curtailed because of phosphorus constraints).

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Procedures Required for Compliance

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the NRCS nutrient management standard are stated above in the Rule Content section. Current DATCP rules incorporate an outdated version (March, 1999) of the NRCS nutrient management standard. This rule incorporates an updated NRCS standard. A nutrient management plan (if required) must adhere to the following provisions in the new standard (many, but not all, of these provisions already apply under the current standard).

The updated NRCS standard requires field features to be identified on maps or aerial photos in the plan. These features include field boundary, soil type, field identification, areas prohibited from receiving nutrients such as surface water, grassed waterways, sinkholes, land where vegetation is not removed, areas within 50 feet of a potable drinking well, and fields eroding at a rate exceeding tolerable soil loss (T). Other field features to be identified on maps are areas restricted from receiving winter nutrient applications. These areas are slopes greater than 12% and slopes greater than 9% that are not contoured, surface water quality management areas (land within 1,000 feet of lakes and ponds or within 300 feet of perennial streams), and areas within 200 feet upslope of direct conduits to groundwater.

All farmers required to have a nutrient management plan, will need to maintain planned and applied records for each fields nutrient application rates, timing, and methods of all forms of N, P, and K listed in the plan and consistent with UW Publication A 2809, Soil Test Recommendations for Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops, and the 590 standard. This procedure is already required under the current rule.

A single phosphorus assessment of either the Phosphorus Index or soil test phosphorus management strategy must be uniformly applied to all fields within a tract.

Professional Skills Required to Comply

The proposed changes affect how nutrients, particularly phosphorus can be applied to fields. This rule may require moving manure to fields testing lower in phosphorus. However, phosphorus applications can still occur on fields testing excessively high for phosphorus if they are 25% less than the crop rotation's phosphorus removal over a 4 year period. Because nutrient management planning involves crop rotations, crop nutrient removal, and the predicted soil erosion levels of these crop rotations, nutrient management planners need an understanding of conservation planning and soil fertility management.

While anyone can develop nutrient management plans if they are knowledgeable, adoption of nutrient management planning on individual farms will in some cases require assistance. Training for producers, agronomists, and conservation staff has been provided by University of Wisconsin Extension personnel and agency staff in the past. In recent years, many farmers have been using crop consultants to plan and recommend nutrient applications. The department anticipates these information sources will continue to be used as the primary sources of information for crop producers.

Notice of Hearings

Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(reprinted from 2/15/05 Register)

[CR 05-014]

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP") announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed rule (ATCP 51) to implement Wisconsin's Livestock Facility Siting Law (s. 93.90, Stats.). DATCP will hold the hearings at the times and places shown below. DATCP invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on this proposed rule. DATCP will manage oral testimony to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak.

DATCP will hold these hearings in conjunction with hearings on another rule (ATCP 50), relating to nutrient management. This livestock siting rule (ATCP 51) incorporates the same nutrient management standards proposed in that other rule. DATCP has issued a separate notice of hearing on the nutrient management rule.

Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until April 7, 2005, for additional written comments. Written comments should be sent to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management attention Dilip Patel, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison WI 53708. Written comments can be submitted via email to [e-mail].

You may obtain a free copy of the proposed rule, and supporting documents such the environmental assessment, by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling [phone] or 224-4610 or emailing [e-mail] or [e-mail]. Copies will also be available at the hearings. To view this proposed rule online, go to:

http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/core/environment/land-water/siting_rule.html

Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for these hearings. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by February 28, 2005, by writing to Dilip Patel, Division of Agricultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone [phone]. Alternatively, you may contact the Department TDD at [phone]. Handicap access is available at the hearings.

Hearings with location information:

Date:   Monday, March 14, 2005

Location:   Fort Community Credit Union

  100 N. Main St.

  Jefferson, WI 53549

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Location:   Heidel House Resort

  643 Illinois Avenue

  Green Lake, WI 54941

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Thursday, March 17, 2005

Location:   Ramada White House

  1450 Veterans Dr.

  Hwy 14 East & Veterans Dr.

  Richland Center, 53581

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Location:   UW Manitowoc Center

  705 Viebahn Street

  Manitowoc, WI 54220

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Location:   Northcentral Technical College

  1000 W. Campus Drive

  Wausau, WI 54401

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Date:   Thursday, March 24, 2005

Location:   Chippewa Valley Technical College

  620 West Clairemont Avenue

  Eau Claire, WI 54701

Times: 12:30-4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

Wisconsin's Livestock Facility Siting Law (s. 93.90, Stats.) is designed to facilitate the siting of new and expanded livestock facilities in Wisconsin. The law establishes a general statewide framework for local approval of new or expanded livestock facilities. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection proposes this rule to implement the Livestock Facility Siting Law.

Statutory Authority: ss. 93.07 (1), 92.05 (3) (k), 93.90 (2) and 281.16 (3) (b), Stats.

Statutes interpreted: ss. 92.05 (3) (k), 93.90 and 281.16 (3) (b), Stats.

Summary of Rule Contents

Livestock Facilities Covered by This Rule

This rule applies only to new or expanded livestock facilities that require local approval, and only if those facilities will have 500 or more “animal units" (or will exceed a lower threshold incorporated in a local zoning ordinance prior to July 19, 2003). DATCP estimates that this rule will apply to approximately 50-70 local siting applications each year.

This rule applies only to facilities that keep cattle, swine, poultry, sheep or goats. This rule does not apply to facilities that keep only horses, farm-raised deer, fish, captive game birds, ratites (such as ostriches or emus), camelids (such as llamas or alpacas) or mink.

Application for Local Approval

To obtain local approval, a livestock operator must complete the application form and worksheets attached to this rule. The application form and worksheets elicit key information to show compliance with the siting standards in this rule.

If an application contains the information required by this rule, the local government must approve the proposed livestock facility unless the local government finds, based on other clear and convincing evidence in the local record, that the facility fails to meet the siting standards in this rule. By spelling out clear application requirements and approval standards, this rule adds certainty to the application and decision-making process.

An application for local approval must include all of the following:

• Applicant information.

• A description of the proposed livestock facility, including the types of livestock and the number of “animal units" for which the applicant seeks approval. The applicant must calculate animal units according to an animal units worksheet (worksheet 1). The application must show the maximum number of “animal units" the applicant proposes to keep on at least 90 days during any 12-month period. If the local government approves the proposed livestock facility, this is the number of “animal units" approved (the operator may not exceed this number without further approval).

• An area map. The area map must show a 2-mile radius around the proposed facility (with topographic lines at 10-foot elevation intervals). The map must show relevant features, including current and proposed livestock structures.

• A site map. The site map must show a 1,000 foot radius around the proposed facility (with topographic lines at 2-foot elevation intervals for the area within 300 feet of livestock structures). The map must show relevant features, including current and proposed livestock structures. The applicant must certify that livestock structures will comply with applicable property line and water quality setbacks in this rule.

• The following worksheets:

- Animal units (worksheet 1).

- Odor management (worksheet 2).

- Waste and nutrient management (worksheet 3).

- Waste storage facilities (worksheet 4).

- Runoff management (worksheet 5).

- Mortality management (worksheet 6).

An applicant who holds a WPDES permit from DNR for the same proposed livestock facility (and the same or greater number of animal units) is not required to submit worksheets 3, 4 and 5, but must submit worksheets 1, 2 and 6.

The application form includes a notice of other laws that may apply to livestock operations. The notice makes the applicant aware of these laws. But except as specifically provided in this rule, the listed laws are not used as standards for local siting decisions (other compliance and enforcement mechanisms apply).

A local government may not alter the application form (except for limited purposes specified in this rule). A local government may charge a reasonable application fee, not to exceed $500, to offset its costs to review and process the application. A local government may not charge any other fee, or require the applicant to post any bond or security with the local government.

Property Line Setbacks

New livestock structures, and livestock structures enlarged by more than 20%, must comply with property line setbacks under this rule. The following setbacks apply, unless a local ordinance specifies shorter setbacks:

• The structures must be located at least 100 feet from property lines and roads.

• The structures must be located at least 200 feet from property lines other than roads, and 150 feet from roads, if the livestock facility will have 1,000 or more animal units.

Water Quality Setbacks

This rule does not create new water quality setbacks, but requires compliance with applicable shoreland zoning ordinances, floodplain zoning ordinances and well code.

Odor Management; Livestock Structures

The following livestock facilities must have a positive “adjusted odor index," calculated according to the odor management worksheet (worksheet 2):

• A new livestock facility with more than 500 “animal units."

• An expanded livestock facility with more than 1,000 “animal units."

The “adjusted odor index" indicates the likelihood of objectionable odors from livestock structures, based on:

• The type of livestock, and the nature, size and location of livestock structures.

• Distances from high odor livestock structures (such as waste storage facilities) to non-consenting neighbors.

• Odor management and good neighbor practices the applicant will implement.

An applicant can improve the “odor index" score by implementing odor management practices (to reduce odors) and good neighbor practices (which do not reduce odor but may reduce conflicts with neighbors). A local government may also grant some discretionary credit, if it wishes to do so.

Odor Management; Land Application of Stored, Untreated Liquid Manure

A livestock operator must use at least one of the following practices when applying untreated liquid manure that has been stored for at least 7 days:

• Inject the manure directly into the soil.

• Incorporate the manure into the soil within 48 hours (or as soon as weather permits).

• Cover the manure with vegetative residue within 48 hours (or as soon as weather permits).

• Apply the manure at least 500 feet from the nearest “non-affiliated residence" and from the nearest “high public use area" (distances do not apply if owner consents in advance to manure application).

• Apply the manure during only 2 weeks of the year (at least 500 feet from the nearest “high public use area)."

• Comply with an odor management plan approved by the local government (operator proposes plan). A plan might include, for example, advance notice to neighbors or avoiding applications at sensitive times.

• Comply with less restrictive manure application odor setbacks enacted by local ordinance.

This rule does not regulate application of fresh manure (stored less than 7 days), solid or heavily bedded manure, or manure that is effectively treated to reduce odor (such as by anaerobic digestion or substantial dilution).

Waste and Nutrient Management

A livestock operator must manage manure and other waste responsibly, according to standards in this rule. A waste and nutrient management worksheet (worksheet 3) must accompany every application for local approval. The completed worksheet must include all of the following:

• The types and amounts of manure and other waste that the livestock facility will generate.

• Waste storage methods, duration and capacity.

• Final waste disposition (by landspreading or other means).

• Acreage available for landspreading (include map).

• A nutrient management checklist, signed by a qualified nutrient management planner. This checklist is not required for a livestock facility with fewer than 500 “animal units" if the operator meets a minimum ratio of land to “animal units."

Waste Storage Facilities

Waste storage facilities must meet standards in this rule, to provide reasonable assurance against leakage or structural failure. A waste storage facility worksheet (worksheet 4), signed by a registered professional engineer or certified agricultural engineering practitioner, must accompany an application for local approval.

• New or substantially altered waste storage facilities lots must meet current NRCS construction standards.

• Existing waste storage facilities need not meet current construction standards, but must meet standards to assure against leakage and structural failure.

• Existing facilities waste storage facilities lots must meet be closed according to current NRCS standards.

Runoff Management

To qualify for local approval, a livestock facility must comply with standards to prevent polluted runoff. A runoff management worksheet (worksheet 5) must accompany the application for local approval. A registered professional engineer or certified agricultural engineering practitioner must sign the worksheet.

• New or substantially altered animal lots must meet current NRCS construction standards.

• Existing animal lots need not meet current construction standards, but must meet basic phosphorus runoff standards.

• Feed storage must be managed to prevent significant discharge of leachate or polluted runoff. Special requirements apply to storage of high moisture feed (65% or higher moisture content).

• Runoff from a livestock facility must be diverted from contact with animal lots, manure storage facilities, feed storage areas and manure piles within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake or 300 feet of a navigable stream.

• A livestock facility must be designed, constructed and maintained to prevent overflow of manure storage facilities.

• A livestock facility may not have any unconfined manure piles within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake or within 300 feet of a navigable stream.

• A livestock facility may not have unrestricted livestock access to waters of the state, if that access will prevent adequate vegetative cover on banks adjoining the water.

• If the construction of a new or expanded livestock facility will disturb more than one acre of land, the operator must have a construction site erosion control plan (per current DNR rules).

Mortality Management

A mortality management worksheet (worksheet 6) must accompany an application for local approval. The worksheet must describe the operator's plan for disposing of livestock that die at the livestock facility. This rule does not regulate the method of disposal (other laws may apply).

Local Decision

A local government must grant or deny an application within 90 days after it receives a complete application. If the application complies with this rule, the local government must approve the application unless the local government finds, based on other clear and convincing evidence documented in the local record, that the proposed livestock facility fails to meet the standards in this rule. The local government must issue its decision in writing. The decision must be based on written findings of fact included in the decision. The findings must be supported by evidence in the record. The local government must keep a decision-making record.

Under the Livestock Facility Siting Law, an “aggrieved person" may appeal a local decision to the state Livestock Facility Siting Review Board. The Board will review the local decision based on the local record (the Board will not hold a new hearing or collect additional evidence).

Environmental Impact

This rule will protect the environment by establishing clear environmental protection standards for new and expanded livestock facilities that require local approval. It will protect neighboring land uses by establishing reasonable odor management standards and property line setbacks. It will protect surface water and groundwater quality by incorporating existing water quality setbacks, and by establishing reasonable standards related to waste management, waste storage, nutrient management and runoff control. This proposed rule will ensure that applicants for local approval are aware of other environmental laws that may apply, even though those laws are not incorporated as standards for local approval. A complete environmental assessment is available from DATCP.

Fiscal Impact

This proposed rule will have a significant fiscal impact on DATCP and local units of government. DATCP will incur an estimated additional cost of $155,000 annually to administer the Livestock Facility Siting Review Board and carry out other duties. Local governments that require local approval may incur a cost of $600 to $1,500 per approval. Local governments may charge an application fee of up to $500 to offset costs to review and process an application. If there are 50-70 local approvals per year, aggregate local costs for all local governments may range from $5,000 to $70,000 annually. This cost will be offset by savings related to more orderly, less contentious, approval proceedings. A complete fiscal estimate is available from DATCP.

Business Impact

This rule will have a significant impact on livestock businesses in this state. This rule will facilitate the orderly growth and modernization of Wisconsin's critical livestock industry by providing a clearer, more uniform, more objective and more predictable local approval process.

This rule directly affects only a small number of livestock operators – those who voluntarily choose to build new or expanded livestock facilities in jurisdictions that require local approval. The affected facilities will typically have over 500 “animal units" (some smaller facilities may be affected, in local jurisdictions that had lower permit thresholds prior to July 19, 2003).

DATCP estimates that this rule will directly affect only about 50-70 livestock facilities per year. But the rule will have a significant impact in those cases. It will also have a long-term, indirect impact on the growth and development of the state's livestock industry as a whole. The rule will facilitate more orderly planning, more appropriate siting choices, more predictability for livestock operators and their lenders, and more efficient and environmentally sustainable industry development.

Prior to the Livestock Facility Siting Law, some individual livestock operators spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on unsuccessful applications for local siting approval. When local approval was denied, the operators lost income opportunities. Other operators, though ultimately successful, incurred extraordinary (and often unnecessary) costs and delays.

Contentious local proceedings have exacted a heavy emotional toll on livestock operators and their families, and harmed community relations. The unpredictability of local approval has discouraged lending and capital investment.

New and expanding operations will need to comply with regulations spelled out in this rule. This may add costs for some new or expanding operations, but will also save costs related to local siting disputes and litigation. Operators will be able to evaluate compliance needs before applying for local approval, and will be able to plan their investments accordingly.

DATCP has developed preliminary cost estimates for livestock facilities directly affected by this rule. DATCP estimates the following average cost (or savings) range per siting, by livestock facility size category:

Under 500 “animal units:"   ($15,500 savings) to $18,500

500 to 1,000 “animal units:"   ($46,150 savings) to $48,200

Over 1,000 “animal units:"   ($163,590 savings) to $159,000

Based on reports of livestock siting disputes prior to the Livestock Facility Siting Law, DATCP believes that the net costs of this rule may actually be much lower, and that savings may actually be much higher. Net costs may also be offset, in some cases, by government cost-sharing grants. An applicant for local approval is not ordinarily entitled to cost-sharing for conservation practices needed to comply with this rule. However a political subdivision may provide cost-sharing if it wishes.

This rule affects local approval of livestock facilities that will have 500 or more “animal units" (or that will exceed a lower threshold established by local zoning ordinance prior to July 19, 2003). Many of these operators are “small businesses" as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats.

This rule will have a significant economic impact on affected small businesses, and is therefore subject to the delayed small business effective date provision in s. 227.22 (2) (e), Stats. That provision automatically delays a rule's applicability to small businesses by 2 months, compared to the effective date for other businesses. A complete business impact analysis, including a small business analysis (“initial regulatory flexibility analysis"), is available from DATCP.

Federal Regulations

This proposed rule addresses local regulation of livestock facility siting. There are no federal regulations that address this topic directly. But the following federal programs have an impact on livestock facilities in this state: Federal Clean Water Act, Federal Clean Air Act, NRCS nutrient management standards, federal conservation incentives.

Regulation in Surrounding States

Among states bordering Wisconsin, there is an apparent trend toward state regulation that pre-empts or standardizes local regulation. State standards can address important concerns such as runoff control and odor management, while providing a more uniform and predictable regulatory environment for farm businesses. Illinois, Michigan and Iowa have established state frameworks for approval of new and expanded livestock facilities, while Minnesota is re-evaluating the state's role in siting decisions.

Notice of Hearings

Natural Resources

(Fish, Game, etc.)

[CR 05-016]

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014, 29.063, 29.177 and 227.11, Stats., interpreting ss. 29.063, 29.177 and 29.361, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings regarding revisions to ch. NR 10, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to deer hunting as it relates to the management of chronic wasting disease. The proposed rule includes the following proposed changes in the chronic wasting disease hunting rules:

1. Expand the Western Disease Eradication Zone (WDEZ) around new positives near Plain and Blanchardville.

2. Expand the Eastern Disease Eradication Zone (EDEZ) around new positives found near the north and east border of last year's EDEZ.

3. Remove most of the Richland County portion of the WDEZ from the WDEZ.

4. Expand the Herd Reduction Zone (HRZ) to include all of Deer Management Unit (DMU) 76A rather than just the south half.

5. Create a 5-day split in the gun season of the DEZs so that there is no gun deer hunting the 5 days prior to the Saturday before Thanksgiving.

6. Apply either sex hunting regulations to the archery and gun seasons beginning on the Saturday before Thanksgiving through January 3 in both the DEZs and the HRZ.

7. Allow earning of buck hunting authority in any earn-a-buck unit in the state by shooting an antlerless deer in any earn-a-buck unit in the state.

8. Establish a deer hunting season for Belmont Mound State Park, which is located in the HRZ.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:

[e-mail] or by calling [phone].

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department will have an open house/informational meeting immediately preceding each public hearing. The open house/informational meeting on the deer herd status and the proposed CWD rule will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Department staff will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed rules and deer herd status in the surrounding deer management units.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:

Monday, March 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.

Room 151, State Office Building

141 NW Barstow Street

Waukesha

Monday, March 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.

Activity Center, Jefferson County Fairgrounds

503 N. Jackson St.

Jefferson

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Hearing Room, Kenosha Center

19600 75th Street (Hwy. 45 & 50 intersection)

Bristol

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Basement Conference Room, Karakahl Country Inn

1405 Bus. 18-151

Mt. Horeb

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Cafetorium, Elkhorn Middle School

627 W. Court Street (STH 11)

Elkhorn

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Kurt Thiede at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Fiscal Estimate

Since the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin's free-roaming deer herd in February 2002, the Governor, the legislature, and the Natural Resources Board have given the Department of Natural Resources the directive to control the spread of CWD from its current known location and to eradicate the disease where is exists. Additionally, an Environmental Impact Statement completed in conjunction with the 2003 CWD rules, identified adaptive management as the preferred management alternative to manage and eventually eradicate the disease from the state. This rule, which is a follow-up rule to last year's CWD rule order, contains rule changes that adapt to current scientific knowledge gathered in previous seasons and through extensive research. This rule order includes the following proposed changes in the CWD hunting rules:

1) Expand the Western Disease Eradication Zone (WDEZ) around new positives on the north end and the south end of the zone.

2) Expand the Eastern Disease Eradication Zone (EDEZ) around new positives found near the north and east border of last year's EDEZ.

3) Remove most of the Richland County portion of the WDEZ from the WDEZ.

4) Expand the Herd Reduction Zone (HRZ) to include all of Deer Management Unit (DMU) 76A rather than just the south half.

5) Create a 5 day split in the DEZ gun season so that there is no gun deer hunting the 5 days prior to the Saturday before Thanksgiving.

6) Apply either sex hunting regulations to the archery and gun seasons beginning on the Saturday before Thanksgiving through January 3 in both the DEZs and the HRZ.

7) Allow earning of buck hunting authority in any earn-a-buck unit in the state by shooting an antlerless deer in any earn-a-buck unit in the state.

8) Establish a deer hunting season for Belmont Mound State Park, which is located in the HRZ.

Since 2002, the department has promulgated rules to manage and control CWD. In previous years the department has added significant areas of southern Wisconsin to one of the designated CWD management zones, which has resulted in added costs and reduced revenues to the department. However, this year the department is seeking to add smaller areas to the eradication zone and unlike previous years is proposing to eliminate a section of the current eradication zone in Richland county. The areas added and the area removed are roughly similar in size and therefore will not result in a recognized fiscal effect.

However, there is a significant portion of land being added to Herd Reduction Zone. This area including portions of Jefferson, Dane, Waukesha and Dodge Counties is currently designated as Deer Management Unit 76A. By adding this area and including it under the HRZ designation, the sale of antlerless permits will not take place in this area in 2005, since the antlerless permits in the CWD zones are unlimited and issued without a charge to hunter. In 2004, 737 Bonus Permits were sold in the non-CWD portion of 76A. Approximately 90% of bonus permits are sold to resident hunters with the remaining 10% sold to non-residents. Bonus permits cost $12 for residents and $20 for non-resident deer hunters. Given these factors, assuming the same number of permits were purchased in 2005, then this would result in a loss of $9,436 to the agricultural damage account (663 resident permits x $12 = $7,956 and 74 non-residents permits x $20 = $1,480).

The remaining proposed modifications do not result in an increase or decrease in appropriations or revenues for the department. Additionally, these proposals do not result in increased or decreased department costs.

The proposed rule may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Kurt Thiede, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until March 21, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Thiede.

Notice of Hearings

Natural Resources

(Fish, Game, etc.)

[CR 05-015]

[CR 05-017]

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014 (1), 29.041 and 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., interpreting ss. 29.014 (1) and 29.041, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch. NR 20, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to fishing on the inland, outlying and boundary waters of Wisconsin. The changes proposed include:

1. Prohibiting the placement of setlines, set or bank poles or any part thereof prior to the opening of the setline, set or bank pole season and requires that they be removed after the season is closed.

2. Increasing the minimum length limit from no minimum to 26 inches and decreases the daily bag limit from 5 to 2 for northern pike on Bass Lake (T33N, R10W, S34), Barron County and Horseshoe Lake (T34N R14W S7), Barron and Polk Counties.

3. Restricting hook and line fishing to artificial lures only and creates a catch and release only regulation for all fish species on Inch Lake, Bayfield County.

4. Eliminating the 26-inch minimum length limit and increases the daily bag limit from 2 to 5 for northern pike on Ellison Lake, Bayfield County.

5. Reducing the daily bag limit from 25 in total to 10 in total for panfish on Lake Arbutus and connected waters, Clark and Jackson Counties.

6. Reducing the daily bag limit from 25 in total to 10 in total for panfish on Lake Menomin and Tainter Lake, Dunn County.

7. Eliminating the 32-inch minimum length limit and increases the daily bag limit from 1 to 5 for northern pike on Butternut and Franklin Lakes, Forest County.

8. Extending the open season for trout on Lake Wazee by changing the closing date from September 30 to the first Sunday in March, Jackson County.

9. Increasing the minimum length limit from 12 inches to 30 inches, decreases the daily bag limit from 5 in total to 1 in total, and shortens the open season by changing the closing date from the first Sunday in March to September 30 for trout on Big Carr and Clear (T39N R7E S16) Lakes, Oneida County.

10. Establishing a 15-inch minimum length limit and eliminates the restriction of only 1 fish longer than 14 inches allowed for walleye on Pelican Lake, Oneida County.

11. Increasing the minimum length limit from no minimum to 26 inches and decreases the daily bag limit from 5 to 2 for northern pike on Horseshoe Lake (T34N R15W S1, S12, S13, S14), Polk and Barron Counties.

12. Increasing the minimum length limit from 40 inches to 45 inches on the Chippewa river from the Chippewa flowage dam (Winter dam) downstream to and including the Radisson Flowage, Sawyer County.

13. Increasing the minimum length limit from 7 inches to 30 inches and decreases the daily bag limit from 5 in total to 1 in total for trout on Long Lake, Vilas County.

14. Eliminating the 28-inch minimum length limit and establish a restriction of 1 fish longer than 14 inches allowed, and increase the daily bag limit from 1 to 5 for walleye on Kentuck Lake, Vilas County.

15. Eliminating the catch and release only with artificial lures only season and replaces it with the Waushara County base regulation of a 7-inch minimum length limit and a 5 in total daily bag limit for trout on the Pine River upstream from the Wild Rose mill pond, Waushara County.

16. Increasing the minimum length limit from 15 inches to 18 inches and reduces the daily bag limit from 5 in total to 3 in total for walleye, sauger and hybrids on Nepco and Wauzeecha Lakes, Wood County.

17. Making it illegal to hook and line fish at night (1/2 hour after sunset to1/2 hour before sunrise) on the Little River in Oconto County from October 1st through the Friday immediately preceding the opening of the general fishing season. If the September 15 closure starting date is adopted, the October 1 date will be changed to September 15 to make it consistent.

18. Beginning the current night fishing closure and hook gap size restrictions on September 15 rather than October 1 each year to better coincide with the runs of migratory salmonids on tributaries to Lake Michigan and Green Bay. The prohibition of hook and line fishing at night will continue to end on the first Saturday in May. In addition, these sections prohibit fishing by any methods from September 15 – December 31. Thus, on January 1, authorized fishing methods other than hook and line fishing reopen. For example, under the proposal, dip netting for suckers at night in the spring would remain open to sport fishers.

19. Providing anglers with the ability to legally possess a non-indigenous detrimental fish for the purpose of transporting it to a DNR office for identification. An angler is restricted to one specimen and it must be immediately killed.

20. Changing the open season for northern pike on small Lake Michigan tributaries north of U.S. Highway 10 from a continuous open season to the general fishing season of the first Saturday in May to the first Sunday in March to protect northern pike during the spawn. The northern pike fishing season on the East Twin River, West Twin River, Ahnapee River and Kewaunee River will remain open all year.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 23.09 (2) (b), 29.014, 29.089 (3), 29.091, 29.193 (2) and 29.889 (2), Stats., interpreting ss. 1.026 (1) (b), 23.09 (2) (b), 29.014, 29.089 (3), 29.091, 29.193 (2) and 29.889 (2), Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to chs. NR 10, 12, 15 and 45, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to hunting and trapping regulations. The proposed rules:

1. Allowing landowners on private land to shoot and kill any gray wolf in the act of attacking domestic animals provided that they report the shooting to the department within 24 hours and turn the carcass in to the Department.

2. Prohibiting the tagging, collaring or marking and release of wild animals without the Department's authorization.

3. Eliminating the bear hunting “no dog zone" in bear management zone A.

4. Creating a subzone in bear management zone C where the use of dogs would be allowed.

5. Modifying the bear hunting license application deadline and updating application submission information.

6. Creating consistent standards for body-gripping type traps (conibear size restrictions).

7. Prohibiting the use of electronic turkey decoys for turkey hunting.

8. Establishing a deer hunting season at Kohler-Andrae State Park and correct a drafting error relating to the hunting season at Yellowstone State Park.

9. Allowing “Long Term" Class B disabled permit holders to participate in disabled hunts.

10. Allowing the hunting of other game species on lands open to disabled hunts.

11. Eliminating the requirement for bear hunters to declare their willingness to participate in agricultural damage and nuisance situations and modification of the application deadline.

12. Establishing a “no entry wildlife refuge" at the Turtle Valley Wildlife Area.

13. Requiring the owner to identify tree stands used on state-owned lands and lands under the management of the department.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:
[e-mail] or by calling [phone].

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, April 11, 2005, the County Conservation Congress for each county will hold its election of delegates. Upon completion of the delegate election, the joint Spring Hearing/Conservation Congress meeting will convene to take comments on the foregoing rule modifications.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on Monday, April 11, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at the following locations:

Adams - County Board Room, Adams County Building,

400 Main Street, Friendship

Ashland - Ashland Senior High School, Auditorium, 1900 Beaser Ave., Ashland

Barron - Barron County Courthouse, Auditorium, 330 E. LaSalle Ave., Barron

Bayfield - Drummond High School, 40 Eastern Ave., Drummond

Brown - Franklin Middle School, Auditorium, 1234 W. Mason Street, Green Bay

Buffalo - Alma High School Auditorium, S1618 STH 35, Alma

Burnett - Burnett Co. Government Center, Room 165, 7410 County K, Siren

Calumet - Calumet County Courthouse, Room 25, 206 Court St., Chilton

Chippewa - Chippewa Falls Middle School, Auditorium A, 750 Tropicana Blvd., Chippewa Falls

Clark - Greenwood High School, Cafetorium, 306 W. Central Ave., Greenwood

Columbia - Columbia County Courthouse, 400 Dewitt St., Portage

Crawford - Crawford County Courthouse, Courtroom, 220 N. Beaumont, Prairie du Chien

Dane - Alliant Energy Center, 1919 Alliant Energy Way, Madison

Dodge - Horicon City Hall, 404 E. Lake Street, Horicon

Door - Door County Court House, A 150, 421 Nebraska Street, Sturgeon Bay

Douglas - Solon Springs High School, 8993 E. Balwin Ave., Solon Springs

Dunn - Dunn County Fish and Game Club, 1900 Pine Ave., Menomonie

Eau Claire - South Middle School, Auditorium, 2115 Mitscher Ave., Eau Claire

Florence - Florence Natural Resource Center, Large Conference Room, Highway 101/70, Florence

Fond du Lac - Theisen Jr. High School, Auditorium, 525 E. Pioneer Rd., Fond du Lac

Forest - Crandon High School, Auditorium, 9750 USH 8 W, Crandon

Grant - Grant Co. Youth and Ag Building, Grant Co. Fairgrounds, 916 East Elm Street, Lancaster

Green - Monroe Middle School, Auditorium, 1510 13th Street, Monroe

Green Lake - Green Lake High School, Small Gym, 612 Mill Street, Green Lake

Iowa - Dodgeville High School, Gymnasium, 912 West Chapel Street, Dodgeville

Iron - Iron County Court House, Main Courtroom, 300 Taconite, Hurley

Jackson - Black River Falls Middle School, LGI Room, 1202 Pierce Street, Black River Falls

Jefferson - Jefferson County Fair Park, Activity Center, 503 N. Jackson, Jefferson

Juneau - Old Courthouse Building, Room # 200, 220 East State St., Mauston

Kenosha - Bristol Grade School, 20121 83rd Street, Bristol

Kewaunee - Kewaunee County Courthouse, Court Room, 613 Dodge Street, Kewaunee

LaCrosse - LaCrosse County, Auditorium, Onalaska High School, 700 Wilson Street, Onalaska

Lafayette - Darlington High School, Cafeteria, 11838 Center Hill Road, Darlington

Langlade - Langlade County Multi-purpose Building, 1581 Neva Rd., Antigo

Lincoln - Tomahawk Elementary School, Auditorium, 1048 E. Kings Rd., Tomahawk

Manitowoc - UW-Manitowoc, Theater, 705 Viebahn Street, Manitowoc

Marathon - John Muir Middle School, Auditorium, 1400 West Stewart Ave., Wausau

Marinette - Crivitz High School, Auditorium, 718 Hall Hay St., Crivitz

Marquette - Montello High School, Community Room, 222 Forest Ln., Montello

Menominee - Menominee County Courthouse, Basement, Courthouse Lane, Keshena

Milwaukee - Greenfield High School, Auditorium, 4800 S. 60th Street, Greenfield

Monroe - Tomah High School, 901 Lincoln Ave., Tomah

Oconto - Suring High School, Cafeteria, 411 E. Algoma Street, Suring

Oneida - James Williams Junior High, Auditorium, 915 Aracia, Rhinelander

Outagamie - Riverview Middle School, Auditorium, 101 Oak Street, Kaukauna

Ozaukee - Webster Middle School, Cafeteria, W75 N624 Wauwatosa Rd., Cedarburg

Pepin - Pepin Co. Government Center-Co., Board Room, 740 7th Ave. W, Durand

Pierce - Ellsworth Senior High School, Auditorium, 323 Hillcrest, Ellsworth

Polk - Unity High School, Gymnasium, 1908 150th St./Hwy. 46, Balsam Lake

Portage - Ben Franklin Jr. High School, Auditorium, 2000 Polk St., Stevens Point

Price - Courthouse, 126 Cherry Street, Phillips

Racine - Union Grove High School, Auditorium, 3433 S. Colony Ave., Union Grove

Richland - Richland Co. Courthouse, Courtroom, 181 West Seminary Street, Richland Center

Rock - Loyal Order of Moose Lodge, 2701 Rockport Road, Janesville

Rusk - Ladysmith High School, Cafeteria, 1700 Edgewood Ave. East, Ladysmith

Sauk - Robert G. Brown Theatre - UW Baraboo Campus, 1006 Connie Road, Baraboo

Sawyer - Hayward High School, Auditorium, 10320 Greenwood Lane, Hayward

Shawano - Shawano Community Middle School, LG 1, 1050 S. Union St, Shawano

Sheboygan - Sheboygan Falls High School, Auditorium, 220 Amherst Ave. Sheboygan Falls

St Croix - Indianhead Tech. College, Cashman Auditorium, 1019 S. Knowles Ave., New Richmond

Taylor - Taylor County Multi-purpose Building, Intersection of Hwy 64&13, Medford

Trempealeau - Whitehall City Center, Gymnasium, 36245 Park Street, Whitehall

Vernon - Viroqua Middle School, Blackhawk Drive, Viroqua

Vilas - Sayner Community Center, Golf Course Road, Sayner

Walworth - Delavan/Darien High School, 150 Cummings, Delavan

Washburn - WI Ag Research Station, Conference Room, W6646 Hwy 70, Spooner

Washington - Washington Co. Fair Park, Exhibit Hall, 3000 Hwy PV, West Bend

Waukesha - Waukesha County Expo, Arena, 1000 Northview Road, Waukesha

Waupaca - Waupaca High School, Auditorium, E2325 King Road, Waupaca

Waushara - Waushara County Courthouse, Court Room, 2nd Floor, 209 S. St. Marie Street, Wautoma

Winnebago - Webster Stanley Middle School, Auditorium, 915 Hazel St., Oshkosh

Wood - Pittsville High School, Auditorium, 5459 Elementary Avenue, Pittsville

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call AnnMarie Kutzke at [phone] with specific information on your request by April 1, 2005.

The proposed rule may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed fishing regulations may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Steve Hewett, Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Written comments on the proposed hunting and trapping regulations may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Kurt Thiede, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Written comments shall be postmarked no later than April 12, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will NOT, however, be counted as spring hearing votes.

Fiscal Estimate

The objective of these rule changes is to offer deer, bear and disabled hunters more hunting opportunities and to simplify application procedures and regulatory requirements. In addition, these rules include provisions to effectively manage wildlife populations and to assure that hunters and trappers are offered a quality hunting experience.

Of the proposed rule changes, that would appear on the 2005 Spring Hearing questionnaire the following will have a fiscal impact:

⋅ Allowing landowners on private land to shoot and kill any gray wolf or cougar in the act of attacking domestic animals provided that they report the shooting to the Department within 24 hours and turn the carcass in to the Department.

⋅ Creating a subzone in zone C where the use of dogs would be allowed.

⋅ Establishing a deer hunting season at Kohler-Andrae State Park and correct a drafting error relating to the hunting season at Yellowstone State Park.

⋅ Allowing "Long Term" Class B disabled permit holders to participate in disabled hunts.

⋅ Allowing landowners to hunt on lands open to disabled hunts.

⋅ Requiring the owner to identify tree stands used on state owned lands.

A. Reduce Costs:

From July 2003 - June 2004, there were thirty-one cases of wolf depredation on domestic animals. USDA-Wildlife Services conducted trapping and all but one of the wolves were euthanized. Additionally, USDA-Wildlife Services provided flashing lights. Costs for these abatement measures were shared by the state and the USDA. However, damage claim payments rest exclusively with the state. Wolf damage payments during FY '04 were $ 67,715.43 Although there is potential for a reduction in costs once landowners are allowed to kill wolves in the act of attacking a domestic animal, the reduction in state costs will be minimal, likely less than 10%. If we assume an 8% reduction in claims it may result in a savings of ~ $5,400.

Requiring tree stands to be identified on department owned and managed lands will likely reduce the number of stands illegally left on these properties and will make it easier for wardens to identify those individuals violating various hunting related regulations. This rule change has the potential to reduce the amount of time wardens spend investigating complaints about illegally placed stands and violations of hunting laws on department owned and managed lands. Although time will likely be saved, warden time would be reallocated to enforcing other regulations and tasks. So no appreciable cost reductions will be realized.

B. Increase Costs:

Creating a subzone in bear management zone C where the use of dogs would be allowed, will likely create a number of complaints about dogs running at large in a part of the state where dogs pursuing bears is uncommon. However, dogs may currently be used to pursue coyotes, raccoons and train bear dogs in this part of the state. The area affected encompasses 4 counties. However, since there are other hunting seasons open concurrent with the bear hunting season, and the bear hunting season is already open in this part of the state, the costs to Law Enforcement should be absorbed into local budgets and work time.

Establishing a deer hunting season at Kohler-Andrae State Park. Costs include signage at the property (one time cost ~$500), annual permit issuance and informational materials will be incorporated into Customer Service and Licnesing and Wildlfe budgets. Patroling of the property by Park staff durng the season will result in additional costs to the local Park staff in terms of staff time.

One additional conservation warden will be needed to be on staff during this hunt (LTE). Additional hours would be at a minimum 140 hours if the LTE worked 17.5 days of the season with permanent staff working the other 17.5 days. Hours will also be needed to work on dual boundary posting adjacent to private property. The park facility repair worker and other staff can accomplish this in a minimum of 50 hours.

LTE officer   =$1330.00 (wage)

FTE officer   =$2590.00 (wage)

FTE staff   =$846.00 (wage) - time spent on boundary work – One time cost

Materials   =$500.00 (signs/posts for boundaries) – One time cost.

Estimated annual expenditures (staff time) - $3,920

Mileage and equipment (including sign maintenance) - $500

Signage at Turtle Valley will also result in a one time cost of approximately $500.

Allowing "Long Term" Class B disabled permit holders to participate in disabled hunts and allowing landowners to hunt on lands open to disabled hunts will likely increase the number of properties open to disabled hunts and the number of participants. This will have the potential to increase administrative costs associated with the implemenation of these disabled hunts. However, again, these costs will be absorbed by central ofice and regional staff into their daily work activities.

A personal copy of the proposed rules and fiscal estimates may be obtained from Ms. AnnMarie Kutzke, Bureau of Legal Services, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by calling [phone].

Notice of Hearings

Natural Resources

(Environmental Protection—Air Pollution Control)

[CR 05-018]

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11 (2) (a), 285.11 (1) and 285.59 (5) (a) and (6), Stats., interpreting s. 285.59, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to ch. NR 488, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to revising regulations concerning activities during the salvage and transport of equipment containing refrigerants that damage the atmosphere. The proposed rule revised ch. NR 488 as follows:

1. Adding substitute refrigerants. The proposed rule will apply the ch. NR 488 requirements to salvaging and transporting equipment containing substitutes for ozone depleting substances, namely HFC (hydrofluorocarbon) and PFC (perfluorocarbon) refrigerants. HFC refrigerants have been utilized in nearly all vehicle air-conditioners manufactured since 1995 and are increasingly found in appliances, vending machines and residential and commercial air conditioning and refrigeration systems being retired. PFC refrigerants have only seem very limited use in specialized refrigeration systems. Adding HFC and PFC refrigerants to ch. NR 488 will mean those who recover these refrigerants during salvage will have to register with the Department, use approved recovery equipment, continue to have at least one person on their staff who holds the appropriate certification to operate the equipment, and keep records of their recovery activities. They will also have to supply documentation that these refrigerants have been recovered from any equipment they deliver to a scrap metal processor, a procedure already in effect in this industry in response to the federal release ban. The requirements for equipment operator certification are the same as they have been previously required.

2. Modifying record keeping requirements. First, those who recover refrigerants from salvaged equipment will be required to keep more specific records of processed items to allow better tracking and enforcement of regulated activities. Second, anyone who sells, gives or transports salvaged refrigeration equipment to a scrap processor must now supply a document to the scrap processor assuring that all remaining refrigerants have been recovered from the items they deliver. The proposed rule requires that anyone who provides this document to a scrap processor retain a copy of it themselves for three years. The scrap processor is already required to retain the document for three years.

3. Operator qualifications. The Department proposes to clarify and update the qualifications for individuals recovery from “stationary" equipment during salvage.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:

a. Types of small businesses affected: Small businesses who recover refrigerants from refrigeration and air conditioning equipment that is to be salvaged or dismantled, typically vehicle and appliance salvagers, appliance retailers and HVAC contractors who are replacing air conditioning equipment or preparing buildings for demolition. Approximately 400 such businesses will be affected. The rule also affects small businesses that haul refrigerated appliances to be salvaged, typically waste haulers, recycling facilities and appliance stores and salvagers. Approximately 70 such businesses will be affected.

b. Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required: The proposed rule change does create some additional record keeping requirements, but no additional reporting requirements. Those who recover refrigerants from salvaged refrigeration and air conditioning equipment are required to keep more detailed records of the equipment they process than under previous rule language. These same parties will also be required to keep a copy of the document they provide to a scrap processor stating that all refrigerants will be removed from any equipment they deliver for scrap. Previous rule language did not require that those providing this documentation to scrap processors must keep a copy for themselves. Adding the HFC and PFC refrigerants will not require additional recovery work by these parties, since recovery of these refrigerants has been required under federal law since 1995. Those who recover refrigerants during salvage and those who transport appliances to be salvaged must register annually with the Department, as has been required since the program began in 1993.

c. Description of professional skills required: The proposed rule change does not create an additional need for professional skills, since the qualifications for operators of refrigerant recovery equipment have not changed.

The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:
[e-mail] or by calling [phone].

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearing will be held on:

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 at 10:00 a.m.

Video conference participation will be available at:

Room 139, State Office Building

718 W. Clairemont Avenue

Eau Claire

Room 618, State Office Building

200 N. Jefferson St.

Green Bay

Room 8F, State Office Building

101 E. Wilson Street

Madison

Room 98, State Office Building

819 N. 6th Street

Milwaukee

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Robert Eckdale at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Fiscal Estimate

1. The Department's existing Refrigerant Recovery Program oversees ch. NR 488, Refrigerant Recovery from Salvaged or Dismantled Refrigeration Equipment. The rule changes include adding new refrigerants including HFC (hydrofluorocarbon) and PFC (perfluorocarbon) refrigerants. In 1995, the state legislature granted DNR (and the other state agencies) authority to apply regulatory coverage to any refrigerants that are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting refrigerants (see s. 285.59 (6), Wis. Stats.). The Department would be able to absorb the additional work to regulate these additional pollutants as part of work done by the existing program. These appropriations provide for the equivalent of two full-time-equivalent (FTE) Air Management staff used to administer the NR 488 program elements statewide: facility registration, compliance assurance, enforcement, education and administrative support. The work is actually performed by several staff in Department offices throughout the state.

2. A very small number of local governments including villages, cities, counties and school districts are affected directly by this regulation, since these local governments chose to transport appliances for salvage or recover refrigerants from appliances or from fleet vehicles that they own. Currently, local governments are 17% of the total safe transporter registrants and 1% of the total salvager registrants. One state health care institute and one UW campus are registered as a salvager and transporter, respectively. There will be a small increase in costs incurred by registered salvagers from keeping additional records for processed equipment. A larger number of local governments will potentially see slight increased costs passed on to them by their appliance salvage contractors.

3. Many of the regulated parties are small businesses, including vehicle and appliance salvagers, scrap metal processors, HVAC businesses that retire refrigeration and AC systems, waste haulers and others who collect discarded refrigerated appliances and demolition contractors. These small businesses will see some small cost increase as a result of increased record keeping required for compliance. Regulation changes will not require any new or additional small businesses to enter this program. The addition of other refrigerants (HFCs and PFCs) will not add any increase in costs for their recovery, since these refrigerants must already be recovered for federal requirements (40 CFR 82.154).

The proposed rule may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Lance Green, Bureau of Air Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until April 8, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Green.