Scope statements
Natural Resources
Objective of the rule. In April of 2002 the Natural Resources Board adopted NRB Order FH-34-01 changing the seasonal boundaries for commercial chub fishing on Lake Michigan. The provisions of that rule will expire on July 1, 2007. In the next few months the Department will review the issue and would like to consider extending the provisions of the rule beyond the present expiration date.
Policy analysis
Areas open to commercial chub fishing are limited in order to protect lake trout from being caught incidentally in the gill nets used by the commercial fishers. In general, the incidental catch of lake trout during winter and spring decreases as the nets are moved farther from shore. When commercial fishers are required to fish farther from shore, however, their operating costs increase and their yields decrease. NRB Order FH-34-01 was developed in order to address the concerns of commercial fishers while also not increasing the incidental catch of lake trout. By reducing the minimum fishing depth during winter but increasing it during spring, the rule sought to enhance fishing opportunities while actually reducing the total incidental catch of lake trout. With the rule scheduled to expire in 2007, the Department proposes to review the issue and consider recommending an indefinite extension of the provisions of NRB Order FH-34-01.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
One month FTE (combined effort by the Great Lakes Fisheries Specialist, a staff attorney, several field biologists, and wardens).
Entities affected by the rule
The interests of both commercial and sport fishers will be affected. In the past this issue has been controversial at times.
Comparison with federal regulations
None.
Natural Resources
Objective of the rule. To address nuisance algae and aquatic weed problems in lakes and low oxygen stress to fish and other aquatic life streams, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring all states, including Wisconsin, to adopt nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) criteria as part of its water quality standards. EPA's guidance identifies values for principally four “ecoregions" in the state, the northern forested areas, a west to east central zone, the driftless area and the southeastern quarter of the state. It also calls for adoption of “causal" pollutants, phosphorus and nitrogen, and “response" problems, algal biomass and high turbidity. EPA's guidance is based on the lowest 25th percentile of available data for each region, including data from other states. If EPA's approach were used, inevitably 75 percent of the lakes or streams – regardless of the actual conditions in the water -- would be considered as not meeting water quality standards and would need to be placed on the state's 303(d) impaired waters list.
Upon adoption, the criteria will be used to:
develop nutrient water quality based municipal and industrial WPDES permit effluent limits;
identify impaired waters under s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act;
further identify watersheds where nonpoint source controls, including performance standards and prohibitions, are most needed; and
develop Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) allocations.
Policy analysis
EPA provides a number of options to the states. States may adopt nutrient criteria based on:
EPA's guidance values (based on the 25th percentile of available data for multi-state eco-regions);
the 25th percentile of available data for the state;
conditions found in good quality lakes and streams; deemed as “least-impacted" reference conditions in EPA guidance; or
analyses of effects found on the fish and aquatic life in the state's lakes and streams.
Also, states may adopt criteria:
uniformly applicable across the state;
varying by geographic regions determined by the state; or
varying by EPA's ecoregions.
Finally, Department staff anticipates that EPA may accept promulgation on only phosphorus criteria instead of the suite of parameters (phosphorus, nitrogen, algal biomass and turbidity) identified in federal guidance.
If the state chooses to vary from EPA's guidance, the state must justify its approach to EPA. If the state chooses to not adopt nutrient criteria or if EPA finds the state's approach unacceptable, EPA may “over-promulgate" its own criteria (described above) for the state. EPA may “over-promulgate" as soon as 2008.
To date, EPA has not issued nutrient criteria guidance for the Great Lakes and their nearshore waters, including bays and harbors. In addition to adopting criteria for inland lakes and streams, criteria could be developed for these interstate waters. EPA also recommends that the criteria take into account the quality of downstream waters, including the Gulf of Mexico since nutrients, especially nitrogen, flow with the water and may cause water quality problems long distances from their source. Beyond use of the 25th percentile of available nitrogen data, EPA has not provided guidance on how to take into account the hypoxic (very low oxygen) conditions of the Gulf.
To better address the options listed above the Department requested researchers from the Department's Integrated Science Services Division and the U. S. Geological Survey (Department of Interior) to study Wisconsin streams and rivers. Two study reports will be published in 2006. The first report evaluates 250 small and medium sized streams. The second report dealing with over 30 large streams and rivers will be completed late this year. The Department intends to use the results of these two reports, related study reports from Minnesota and Michigan and past Department studies to develop and recommend criteria that are specific to Wisconsin's lakes and streams.
Statutory authority
Statutes interpreted: s.
281.15, Stats.
Staff time required
Staff estimates that 20 to 30 months are needed to complete promulgation of the nutrient criteria for lakes and streams. An initial target for completion of the promulgation process is early 2008. Due to the complexity of the issue, a Department work group will need to review both recent and past studies, evaluate other pertinent data, and analyze implementation issues. After the work group process has sufficiently advanced, an external advisory group will be convened. Public hearings should be held in late-summer of 2007. Overall, it is estimated that approximately 2000 hours in staff time will be needed for the various steps in this process.
Entities affected by the rule
Either directly or indirectly, the nutrient criteria will likely affect the majority of point sources and urban and rural nonpoint sources. The number and extent that will be affected will depend on the values promulgated.
For municipal and industrial point sources, the nutrient criteria may require phosphorus removal for dischargers below the ch.
NR 217, Wis. Adm. Code, phosphorus effluent limits threshold levels. It may also require lower limits for those with either 1 mg/l or alternate limits under ch.
NR 217. At the same time, there will be a group of point source dischargers unaffected by the rule. Again, the number and the extent of any additional point source limits cannot be determined at this time.
Nutrient criteria will likely result in some additional lakes or streams being added to the section 303(d) Clean Water Act impaired waters list. TMDLs for these waters will identify the need for nutrient control from agriculture and urban nonpoint sources in watersheds draining to the impaired waters. In many situations, installation of best management practices to meet the required nonpoint source performance standards and prohibitions will be sufficient to attain and maintain the nutrient criteria. In those situations, no additional nonpoint source control is needed. In other situations, where the nonpoint source performance standards and prohibitions are insufficient, the result of this rule will be additional nonpoint source controls.
Comparison with federal regulations
In 2000, EPA promulgated nutrient criteria guidance for both lakes and streams and set a promulgation deadline of the end of 2004. For states choosing to conduct applicable studies, EPA has extended that deadline for states an additional three years. The estimated time needed to develop the rule may extend somewhat beyond EPA's extended schedule.
As briefly described above in the Subject/Objective section of the scope statement, states have the option to directly promulgate EPA's guidance values as criteria or to develop and justify reference or effects-based values as criteria for lakes and streams.
Transportation
Subject
Objective of the rule. This rule making will amend ch.
Trans 200, relating to displaying attractions on highway specific information signs, to include the category of “Attractions" within the Specific Information Sign program and establish guidelines for criteria of qualification for “Attractions."
Policy analysis
2005 Wis. Act 136 amended s.
86.195, Stats., which adds the “Attractions" category to the Specific Information Sign program and authorizes the amendment of ch.
Trans 200 to include specific criteria addressing the qualifications of an attraction. This also would give the Department a chance to add different types of tourist type businesses to the program that may not have had the chance to be included in any directional signing programs.
Comparison with federal regulations
This rule making would establish more detailed criteria on qualifications to the attractions category, therefore, Wisconsin would be consistent with the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices by adding the attractions category to the Specific Information sign program.
Entities affected by the rule
Department of Tourism, Department of Transportation, Outdoor Advertisers Association, Tourism business community, historic and cultural sites, and various amusements throughout the state.
Statutory authority
