Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

(5) Providing advice comparing health benefit plans that may be better or worse for the consumer or employer.

(6) Recommending a particular health benefit plan or insurer or advising consumers or employers regarding a particular insurer or health benefit plan selection.

(7) Engaging in any fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest acts or unfair methods of competition.

(8) Receiving consideration directly or indirectly from any health insurance issuer in connection with the enrollment of individual or employees into a qualified health plan as defined 45 CFR § 155.20, as amended.

6.97 Navigator, nonnavigator assister, navigator entity, and nonnavigator assister entity records. (1) Purpose. This section protects consumers by prescribing minimum standards and techniques of accounting and data handling of navigators, nonnavigator assisters, navigator entities and nonnavigator assister entities to ensure that timely and reliable information will exist, if applicable, and be available to the commissioner. This section implements and interprets ss. 601.42, and 628.34, Stats., by establishing the minimum records that are to be maintained.

(2) Cash disbursed record. The cash disbursed record shall show the name of the party to whom the payment was made, date of payment, and reason for payment.

(3) Cash receipts record. The cash receipts record shall show the name of the party who remitted the money, date of receipt, and reason for payment.

(4) Personnel records. Personnel records shall include dates of employment, supervision or affiliation; position held; description of principal duties; name and last known address and telephone number of employee, supervisee or affiliated person.

(5) Recordkeeping requirements. Beginning October 1, 2013, each navigator, nonnavigator assister, navigator entity or nonnavigator assister entity shall maintain, for at least a 3-year period, unless a specific period is provided elsewhere, all of the following financial, consumer and employee records, as applicable:

(a) Business checking account.

(b) Cash disbursed records.

(c) Cash receipts records.

(d) Personnel records.

(e) Consumer or policyholder records.

(6) Place of maintaining records. (a) The navigator shall maintain records required by subs. (2) to (5), at the business address of the navigator or the navigator entity, or at another location only if the navigator provides written notice of the other location to the commissioner of insurance.

(b) The nonnavigator assister shall maintain records required by subs. (2) to (5), at the business address of the nonnavigator assister entity or at another location only if the nonnavigator assister entity provides written notice of the other location to the commissioner of insurance.

(7) Updating records. The navigator entities and nonnavigator assister entities shall maintain all financial records, records of compliance with prelicensing training completion, successful passage of the examination and continuing education completion, compliance with federal training and other federal requirements for the navigators and nonnavigator assisters it employs, supervises, or is affiliated with, as applicable for at least 3 years from the transaction of an insurance business.

Ins 6.98 Prohibition of uses of designations. (1) Prohibited uses of designations. It is an unfair and deceptive trade practice under s. 628.34 (12), Stats., for an agent to use terms including “navigator," “navigator entity," “nonnavigator assister," “certified application counselor," and “nonnavigator assister entity," in such a way as to mislead a purchaser or prospective purchaser that the agent has special certification or training in advising or providing services to consumers in connection with the advertising, solicitation, sale, or purchase of a health insurance policy or in the provision of advice as to the advisability of purchasing a health insurance policy, either directly or indirectly, offered in the state either within or outside the exchange. The terms may not be used by an agent who is not licensed as a navigator or registered as a nonnavigator assister. The terms may not be used alone or be combined with one or more such terms as “certified," “licensed," “registered," or like words, in the name of the certification or professional designation that appears as a certification or professional designation.

(2) Penalties. A violation of this section is an unfair and deceptive trade practice under s. 628.34 (12), Stats., and shall subject the violator to ss. 601.41, 601.62, 601.64, 601.65 and 628.10, Stats.

Ins 6.99 Exemption. Governmental entities or any persons acting on behalf of a governmental entity are exempt from subch. II.

SECTION 3. These changes first apply to navigators, navigator entities, nonnavigator assisters and nonnavigator assister entities on the effective date of the emergency rule.

SECTION 4. This subchapter may be enforced under ss. 601.41, 601.64, 601.65, 628.095, 628.097, 628.10, and subch. V of ch. 628, Stats., or any other enforcement provision of chs. 600 to 646, Stats.

SECTION 5. These emergency rule changes will take effect on day of publication as provided in s. 227.24(1)(c), Stats.

Office of the Commissioner of Insurance Private Sector Fiscal Analysis

Section Ins 6.91 relating to navigators and nonnavigator assisters and affecting small business.

The proposed rule will not have a significant effect on the private sector. With an exemption for governmental entities, there will be no effect on county, city, village, town, school district, technical college district and sewerage districts. Additionally the office will be able to manage any cost associated with maintaining the licensure and registration process without additional state funds being provided to the office during this current biennium.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (C04/2011)					Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES – FISCAL ESTIMATE
1. Fiscal Estimate Version
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter Title and Number INS 691
3. Subject navigators and nonnavigator assisters and affecting small business
4. State Fiscal Effect:
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues					⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Yes X No   May be possible to absorb       within agency's budget. ⍽ Decrease Costs
5. Fund Sources Affected: ⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S						6. Affected Ch. 20, Stats. Appropriations:
7. Local Government Fiscal Effect:
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Revenues ⍽ Decrease Revenues			⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Decrease Costs
8. Local Government Units Affected: ⍽ Towns   ⍽ Villages   ⍽ Cities   ⍽ Counties   ⍽ School Districts   ⍽ WTCS Districts   ⍽ Others: None
9. Private Sector Fiscal Effect (small businesses only):

X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Revenues ⍽ Decrease Revenues ⍽ Yes X No   May have significant   economic impact on a   substantial number of   small businesses		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Yes X No   May have significant   economic impact on a   substantial number of   small businesses ⍽ Decrease Costs
10. Types of Small Businesses Affected:
Individual licensed agents working as a navigator or nonnavigator assister, small organizations that work with consumers, and some surety bond issuers that may be considered a small business.
11. Fiscal Analysis Summary
The proposed rule may affect small businesses, however, the Office has taken steps to minimize the impact of the rule by limiting the effect of the regulation to those navigators or nonnavigator assisters who are working on behalf of the federal government. For perspective, the federal government only awarded six navigator grants for the entire state of Wisconsin. There are no restrictions or regulations for governmental entities or persons who work with such entities. These governmental entities currently assist consumers with health insurance and public assistance concerns and will not be impacted by this regulation. By keeping the scope of the proposed rule very narrow, the impact on small businesses is lessened. Further, the proposed rule limited the amount of fees navigator and navigator entities are required to pay annually and did not impose fees on nonnavigator assisters or nonnavigator assister entities other than the cost of prelicensing training and examination costs. The office minimized the impact by establishing less stringent requirements than those imposed on licensed insurance agents and agencies. Further, the office provided, and continues to provide, some free prelicensing training to interested parties and in locations throughout the state in advance of the first open enrollment period. Additionally, the office approved licensed vendors to provide prelicensing training both in-person and on-line to reduce imposition on organizations. Finally the office imposed slightly lower fees than is required for licensed agents.
12. Long-Range Fiscal Implications
None.
13. Name — Prepared by Julie E. Walsh		Telephone Number [phone]		Date Aug. 26, 2013
14.   Name – Analyst Reviewer		Telephone Number		Date
Signature—Secretary or Designee		Telephone Number		Date

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

rulemaking_notices CR 13-067 CR 13-067

(DNR # WM-05-13)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014 and 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., interpreting ss. 29.014, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public meetings on revisions to Chapter NR 10, Wis. Adm. Code, related to relating to bobcat hunting and trapping and elk management.

The Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings at the times and places shown below.

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Time:   7:00 p.m.
Location:   South Central Region Department of
  Natural Resources office
  3911 Fish Hatchery Rd.
  Fitchburg, WI

Date:   Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Time:   7:00 p.m.
Location:   Lunda Theater — Middle School Auditorium
  1202 Pierce St.
  Black River Falls, WI

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 Scott Loomans at [phone] with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Copies of Proposed Rule and Submittal of Written Comments

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov or by searching the keywords “administrative rules" on the department's website. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to [e-mail]. Comments may be submitted until September 30. 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. Loomans.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Plain Language Rule Analysis

This proposal could result in new hunting and trapping opportunities for bobcat in portions of the state where harvest is not allowed under current rules.

This proposal would create a new elk management zone and population goal in an area of the state where elk are not currently found but where a management plan approved by the Natural Resources Board recommends establishing a herd.

Specifically, these rules would:

Section 1 establishes that bobcat hunting and trapping may be allowed statewide instead of only north of State Highway 64.

Section 2 establishes that the elk hunting season begins on the Saturday nearest October 15, instead of September 15, in any open elk management zone.

Section 3 establishes one elk population goal, instead of two, for the Clam Lake elk management zone and establishes a population goal for the newly created Black River elk management zone.

Section 4 establishes that elk tags issued for the Black River elk management zone, in addition to ones issued for Clam Lake, may be designated as valid outside an elk management zone.

Section 5 establishes that the formula for determining the number of bull elk tags to issue applies to new Black River Falls elk management zone as well as the Clam Lake zone.

Section 6 clarifies that the department may establish a bobcat harvest quota in areas where it has not established a population goal.

Section 7 creates new zones where bobcat hunting and trapping may be allowed in the Central, Southwest, and Southeast portions of the state. An alternative approach, to create just one new zone for the remainder of state, will also be a topic of hearings and is described in this rule order.

Section 8 consolidates two existing elk management zones in the Clam Lake area, expands the size of that overall zone, and creates a new Black River elk management zone.

Federal regulatory analysis

These state rules and statutes do not relieve individuals from the restrictions, requirements and conditions of federal statutes and regulations. Regulating the hunting and trapping of native species has been delegated to state fish and wildlife agencies.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Bobcats are not harvested in Illinois but are present and increasing in number in both states. Michigan hunters and trappers can generally harvest two bobcats per season. Iowa trappers/hunters have a bag and possession limit of one bobcat while Minnesota hunters and trappers have a season limit of five bobcats. The more liberal season frameworks in Michigan, Iowa and Minnesota reflect greater abundance of the species in those states and/or significantly less hunter and trapper interest. Neither state has the long tradition of hunting with hounds that Wisconsin has.

Restored elk populations exist in Michigan and Minnesota and both states hold an annual hunting season. Hunting regulations and management activities in both states are comparable to Wisconsin's activities.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Bobcat are currently hunted and trapped in one management zone which consists of the area north of Hwy 64. Demand for this opportunity greatly exceeds availability – the department consistently receives more than 12,000 applications for fewer than 500 available permits. Research recently completed has provided us with additional answers about the presence, observed expansion and density of bobcats in areas south of Hwy 64. These findings resulted in a recommendation to allow hunting and trapping in additional areas, which would require these proposed new rules.

This rule proposal will be in anticipation of a decision to hunt and trap bobcats in new areas. Alternative 1 which is being evaluated through this rulemaking process is to establish three new management zones. Alternative 2 is to create one new zone south of the current zone. These rules do not require the department to allow bobcat hunting and trapping in new areas as those activities are still controlled by the establishment of a harvest quota and issuance of permits. However, the department has good information on bobcat populations in central Wisconsin and anticipates a 2014 quota recommendation for this zone as well as the established zone in the north.

A population goal for bobcats north of Hwy 64 is currently established in administrative rule. The department is not proposing to establish a goal in new zones south of Hwy 64 at this time.

This proposal repeals the elk hunting season opening date of the Saturday nearest September 15 and replaces it with a Saturday nearest October 15 opener, as required by 2013 ACT 20. Under this proposal, the elk hunting season in the newly created Black River elk management zone will be the same as the season in the Clam Lake area.

The department has already established, by rule, elk management zones in the northwest part of the state and is managing an elk herd in that area. The department anticipates establishing another elk herd in the Black River Falls area and has a management plan that has been approved by the Natural Resources Board and which enjoys significant local support.

These rules will expand the existing Clam Lake elk management zone by 508 square miles south and immediately adjacent to the original elk range that contains 1,112 square miles, bringing the total Clam Lake zone to over 1,600 square miles. The proposed boundary expansion avoids most agricultural areas and is primarily composed of a large block of state, county and industrial forest land that has the most abundant aspen resource in the region. Existing forest management plans in this area are designed to aggressively manage the aspen resource which will add to the long-term forage security for a growing elk herd. This existing management creates high quality elk forage now and into the foreseeable future.

These rules will replace the current Zone A and Zone B delineations for the Clam Lake elk range with one elk range delineation to include the newly-proposed expanded elk range. Elk density goals will be revised to about one elk per square mile of total area for this entire area. This represents a lower density of elk than established under current rule, but the same overall number of animals for the new, larger zone.

This proposal would establish a new elk management zone in the Black River Falls area. This area is approximately 300 sq. miles in west central Wisconsin. Interstate Highway 94 and County Highway 54 make up the West and North boundaries of the core area. A 70 square mile core range, where initial reintroduction efforts will occur, is centered within the Black River State Forest and Jackson County Forest with a few parcels of non-agriculture private land. A buffer elk range of 250 square miles surrounds the core range. These rules will not establish a legal difference between core and buffer areas. The overall population goal will be 390 animals which equals approximately 1 elk per square mile of elk range.

Under current rules, areas which are not part of the Clam Lake zone are outside of the designated elk range. The new Black River elk management zone will also be designated elk range. Animals outside of the elk range showing nuisance behavior or causing damage may be captured or killed. Elk hunting permits issued for the Clam Lake or Black River zone may also be valid for use outside of the designated elk range.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis

The department will solicit comments on an economic impact analysis of this proposal during the summer of 2013. During that period the department will post a preliminary analysis on its website and distribute the proposed rule and analysis to parties it determines would be interested. A copy of the analysis will be posted on the department's website at http://dnr.wi.gov and can be located by searching for the keywords “administrative rules".

Anticipated Private Sector Costs

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector. Additionally, no costs are associated with compliance to these rules.

Effects on Small Business

These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule. Because this rule does not add any regulatory requirements for small businesses, the proposed rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses under 227.114 (6) or 227.14 (2g).

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 SmallBusiness@ dnr.state.wi.us or by calling [phone].

Environmental Impact

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 rulemaking. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

Agency Contact

Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, [phone], [e-mail].

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Ch. NR 10, Game and Hunting, Natural Resources Board Order WM-05-13
Subject
Relating to bobcat hunting and trapping and elk management and hunting.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
X State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
Bobcat This proposal would result in new hunting and trapping opportunities for bobcat in portions of the state where harvest is not allowed under current rules. Elk The goal is to restore elk at two locations so they become self-sustaining populations that can adapt to the Wisconsin landscape. The benefits of this effort include greater diversity in our state's wildlife community, increased genetic diversity of Wisconsin elk, additional hunting opportunities in the future and increased tourism from elk viewing opportunities.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
Pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order 50, Section II, this is a level 3 economic impact analysis. Fiscal Impact of the Proposed Rules Bobcat No fiscal impacts are anticipated. The hunting and trapping season frameworks proposed in this rule will be similar in scope to those already implemented by the department and which have been in place during previous seasons. In the past, approximately 200 to 500 bobcat harvest permits have been issued annually. The department does not anticipate a significant change in the number of applicants for permits or permits issued. Elk These rules do not require reintroduction of elk in the Black River area and will not result in a significant change in management of the existing Clam Lake elk herd. However, a decision has been made to reintroduce elk in the Black River area and supplement the Clam Lake herd and a management plan has been adopted. A summary of anticipated fiscal impacts of reintroduction follows below and in the table attached in Appendix A. Note that the table provides a range of costs for acquiring various numbers of elk. Planning documents recommend translocation of 275 elk over a period of several years. In summer 2013, discussions with managers of a source herd indicate that 150 animals may be more achievable. Translocation of 150 animals might occur over two years for an estimated total cost of $277,000. Fiscal Impact of the Elk Restoration Effort in Black River Falls and Supplementing the Clam Lake Herd: Based on 2011-12 figures obtained from Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife along with estimates from Wisconsin's current program, the importation of 275 elk (potentially from Kentucky) over a 3-4 year period (anticipating 75-100 elk per year) would cost approximately $480,000 to $560,000. All necessary funding has been pledged from partner groups including the Ho-Chunk Nation ($100,000 existing grant), Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ($300,000 written pledge), and Jackson County Wildlife Fund ($50,000), with other pledges pending. See the table attached in Appendix A. Note that the acquisition of the full 275 elk may not be possible and potential costs could be lower. Fiscal Impact of Future Elk Management in Wisconsin: Wisconsin's elk management program is currently supported by Fish and Wildlife Segregated Funds and General Program Revenue at a cost of approximately $200,000 per year. When elk hunting begins, management costs will be offset with revenues from applications for elk hunting permits and the sale of hunting licenses. The cost of a permit application has been established at $10 per applicant including a $2.75 processing fee and $0.25 issuing fee, with the remaining $7.00 returning to the elk management program. Revenue from the sales of the elk hunting permits ($50 resident, $250 non-resident) is earmarked for elk management. Although harvest permits will be limited, with over 620,000 deer hunters in Wisconsin, anticipating approximately 40,000 applications seems reasonable, if not conservative. At that level, the $7 from application fees will provide an estimated $280,000 annually for elk management and will be used to cover personnel costs, vehicle and equipment purchases and maintenance, elk research and monitoring, and implementation of the elk hunting season. Revenues from all fees would be segregated to an elk management account. Additional revenues from the implementation of an elk hunt are also anticipated. By State Statute, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation will be provided with one elk harvest permit each year for the first five years that hunting is allowed. The permit must be raffled (sale at auction is not allowed), and is expected to generate additional dollars that are earmarked for elk management in Wisconsin. We are hopeful that this single permit could generate an additional $100,000 or more per year. In total, these revenue-generating items are expected to provide approximately $400,000/year for elk management, research, and monitoring need. Once elk arrive in Wisconsin and the new BREH is established, additional personnel may be needed to monitor the herd and cover management responsibilities. The job responsibilities of the Jackson/Clark County wildlife biologist will include 40% of their time being dedicated to elk management if an elk herd is present. Ho-Chunk Nation Division of Natural Resources has agreed to help with herd monitoring, and graduate student projects from UW-Stevens Point are anticipated to monitor the BREH after release. Eventually, a full-time project position and LTE help may be required and would cost approximately $80,000 per year.
Economic Impact of the Proposed Rule Bobcat No economic impacts are anticipated. The hunting season frameworks proposed in this rule will be similar in scope to those in place during the previous seasons. While this proposal would result in increased hunting and trapping opportunities, the number of harvest permits issued will continue to be low relative to other hunting seasons like deer, bear, or turkey. The positive impacts of increased hunting related expenditures will likely not be noticeable. These rules are applicable to individual hunters and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. Elk The positive impacts of elk-related tourism will be noticeable in local communities. The Cable Chamber of Commerce estimates that 1,200 people visiting the Clam Lake area annually to view elk and contribute approximately $175/day totaling approximately $210,000 annually to the area. While difficult to predict in the Black River Falls area of Jackson County, elk-related tourism is expected to be higher due to the ease of accessing this area via the Interstate corridor between southern Wisconsin and the Twin Cities. The Black River Falls Bureau of Tourism has been a supporter of establishing a herd there and is optimistic that they will see high levels of elk viewing interest. Local and state interest in elk is high, as evidenced by continually large numbers of requests for information about the elk reintroduction, and statewide support from a variety of partners including the Ojibwe tribes and Ho-Chunk Nation, government partners such as the U.S. Forest Service and county administration boards, and non-profit groups like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Jackson County Wildlife Fund, and Safari Club International. Hunting will become part of elk management in Wisconsin when a harvestable surplus develops. The Clam Lake herd is nearing that level with a hunt anticipated in 2014. Harvest permit levels will be limited, but local economies would receive some economic gains from elk hunting. Hunters would be expected to spend money on food, lodging, fuel, and hunting equipment. However, the greatest impact will be from general tourism activities as people travel simply to view elk, primarily during the fall rutting season. Michigan sees as many as 53,000 visitors per year who spend over $3,000,000. The potential for crop damage by a Black River elk herd exists, but the scope is unknown. Agricultural crop damage has not been a concern with the Clam Lake Herd, which is not in close proximity to agricultural areas. The Black River area is more agricultural, but not intensely-so compared to other areas of southern and central Wisconsin. Elk causing crop damage inside the designated range before public hunting is initiated will first be hazed and/or relocated. If hazing and relocation are unsuccessful the animal will be killed. Once public hunting is initiated, additional permits will be issued for areas surrounding those where crop damage problems have occurred. The department, in its 2001 plan where elk reintroduction was first authorized, the project was made contingent on establishing that elk be added to the Wildlife Damage, Abatement and Claims program, which was accomplished by 2001 ACT 109. In the Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program (WDACP), farmers are eligible to receive both abatement assistance and claims reimbursement for elk damage to agricultural crops. The primary focus of the WDACP is to help farmers reduce agricultural damage occurring on their property. An important abatement tool, and a requirement of participating in the WDACP, is to provide hunting access to the public during the open season(s) for the species causing damage. In the case of elk, farmers that enroll in the WDACP for elk damage in a given year would only be required to allow elk hunters access to their property during the open season(s) for elk. Claims reimbursement for crops damaged by elk are also available to farmers enrolled in the WDACP. The claim amounts are determined by crop appraisals conducted by WDACP field technicians, and are based on 26 tested appraisal methods documented in the WDACP Technical Manual. Farmers are eligible for 100% of losses up to $5000, and 80% of losses up to a maximum of $15,000, with a $250 deductible. Appraisal methods in the WDACP Technical Manual will be updated, where needed, to reflect damage specific to elk which may be of a multi-year nature (e.g. severe elk damage to cranberry beds necessitating replanting). These rules direct the department's management activities and may be applicable to individual hunters, but they impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small business, nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Bobcat The primary benefit of implementing the rule will be increased opportunities for bobcat hunting and trapping in additional areas of the state. The amount of new opportunity provided will be limited. For comparison, in areas north of HWY 64 where bobcat hunting and trapping are currently allowed, a range of approximately 200 to 500 permits have been issued annually in recent years. The number of permits issued in new areas where hunting and trapping may be allowed will be lower. However, the opportunity to pursue bobcat in Wisconsin is valued very highly and any amount of increased opportunity will be viewed as very important to hunters and trappers. The significant demand for this opportunity is illustrated by the fact that 11,424 people applied for 165 available harvest permits in 2011. Elk The consequences of not implementing these strategies are expected to be a herd that will experience suppressed population growth and little range expansion. Without these changes, there may also be reduced public support for Wisconsin's current elk restoration efforts, resulting in a loss of tourism opportunities and revenues, both locally and statewide. The Black River Elk Herd would may not be established. Implementation of these strategies will best enhance individual fitness and adaptive potential of the Clam Lake Elk Herd, place it in the best habitat available that will support sustainable population growth, and help spread elk across more of the available suitable habitat. This will all be accomplished together with public and private partners, the Ojibwe Tribes and Ho-Chunk Nation.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Bobcat Wisconsin's bobcat season framework will continue to provide harvest management tools that allow for sound use, management and protection of the bobcat resource. We hope to provide this level of resource protection and provide bobcat hunting and trapping opportunities well into the future. Elk Implementation of these strategies will best enhance individual fitness and adaptive potential of the Clam Lake Elk Herd, place it in the best habitat available that will support sustainable population growth, and help spread elk across more of the available suitable habitat. Establishment of a second herd will provide opportunities for elk viewing and the associated tourism related benefits in an additional area of the state. Hunting opportunities that may be available in the future will also provide recreational and some economic benefits. Healthy, sustainable elk herds in both locations will contribute to Wisconsin's overall image as a desirable destination for outdoor recreational opportunities.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Bobcat and elk population goals, seasons, and regulations on the method of harvest are controlled by the state. There are no federal regulations and federal authorization is not required.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Bobcats are not harvested in Illinois but are present and increasing in number. Michigan hunters and trappers can generally harvest two bobcats per season. Iowa trappers/hunters have a bag and possession limit of one bobcat while Minnesota hunters and trappers have a season limit of five bobcats. The more liberal season frameworks in Michigan, Iowa and Minnesota reflect greater abundance of the species in those states and/or significantly less hunter and trapper interest. Neither state has the long tradition of hunting with hounds that Wisconsin has. Restored elk populations exist in Michigan and Minnesota and both states hold an annual hunting season. Hunting regulations and management activities in both states are comparable to Wisconsin's activities.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-266-3534.

Appendix A. Wisconsin Elk Restoration Annual Budget

Item		1-time Cost	50 Elk	75 Elk	100 Elk
Trapping Costs
Bait for corral trap			$1,500.00	$2,000.00	$3,000.00
Lodging/meals/expenses	Trapping crews		$10,000.00	$15,000.00	$20,000.00
Misc Supplies			$2,500.00	$2,500.00	$2,500.00
subtotal			$14,000.00	$19,500.00	$25,500.00
Holding and Processing in KY for 90 days
Hay	est $3.75 ea		$2,765.00	$3,500.00	$4,250.00
Water
24 hour Caretakers	2 caretakers		$11,000.00	$12,000.00	$13,000.00
subtotal			$13,765.00	$15,500.00	$17,250.00
Holding and Processing in WI
Release Site Prep		$3,000.00
Holding Pens	3 pens	$15,000.00
Water Tanks	2 tanks	$1,100.00
Feed			$3,520.00	$5,250.00	$6,000.00
subtotal		$19,100.00	$3,520.00	$5,250.00	$6,000.00
Post Release Herd Monitoring
VHS Transmitters			$16,250.00	$25,000.00	$32,500.00
Misc Equipment/Supplies			$5,000.00	$5,000.00	$5,000.00
subtotal		$0.00	$21,250.00	$30,000.00	$37,500.00
Disease Testing/Supplies
Osterpro (Vet supplies needed for disease tests and parasite control)			$3,500.00	$5,000.00	$6,500.00
CWD Test Lab wCSU ($25/elk)			$1,250.00	$1,875.00	$2,500.00
Disease testing MSU ($60.50/elk)			$3,025.00	$4,540.00	$6,050.00
Immobilization drugs for KY			$1,000.00	$1,500.00	$2,000.00
Misc Supplies			$500.00	$750.00	$1,000.00
subtotal			$9,275.00	$13,665.00	$18,050.00
KYDFWR Reimbursements
KY Staff time/lodging/meals for trapping			$50,000.00	$50,000.00	$50,000.00
subtotal			$50,000.00	$50,000.00	$50,000.00
Transportation
Contract semi-hauling $3.50/mile X 1000 miles			$3,500.00	$5,000.00	$7,000.00
subtotal			$3,500.00	$5,000.00	$7,000.00
Total Cost		$19,100.00	$115,310.00	$138,915.00	$161,300.00

Note: Planning documents recommend translocating a total of 275 elk over a period of several years. In summer 2013, discussions with managers of a source herd indicate that 150 animals may be more achievable. Translocation of 150 animals might occur over two years for an estimated total cost of $277,000.