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
| |||
NR 25.05 (1) (c), Wis. Adm. Code
| |||
Subject
| |||
Adding six days to the commercial harvest season for whitefish in Lake Michigan and Green Bay
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
GPR FED PRO PRS SEG SEG-S
| |||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
X No Fiscal Effect
Indeterminate
|
Increase Existing Revenues
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
Increase Costs
Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
State's Economy
Local Government Units
|
X 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
| |||
This rule change was requested by the Lake Michigan Commercial Fishing Board, which was established under s. 15.345, Wis. Stats., to advise the department regarding commercial fishing issues on the Great Lakes. The seven member Board includes five licensed, active commercial fishers; one licensed, active wholesale fish dealer; and one state citizen. The proposed rule extends the commercial fishing season for whitefish from the Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan and Green Bay for the benefit of Wisconsin commercial fishing businesses.
| |||
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)
| |||
The department has determined that this rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, or the overall economic competitiveness of this state. This rule will have a positive economic effect on commercial fishing businesses as well as Wisconsin-licensed wholesale fish dealers. Increased revenues will contribute toward the health and welfare of these businesses. There would be no implementation or compliance costs expected to be incurred by the proposed rule. No fiscal impacts are expected for public utility rate payers or local governmental units.
Background Information
Commercial fishing is managed in Wisconsin by a limited number of licenses, by harvest limits, and by individual transferable quotas. There are 65 available licenses for Lake Michigan. Since 1990, commercial harvesting of yellow perch, rainbow smelt, and chubs has declined significantly. As a result, whitefish are now the mainstay of the commercial fishery in Lake Michigan. The current open season for whitefish in Green Bay and Lake Michigan is December 1 through October 25, both dates inclusive. If this rule is promulgated, the projected added harvest of whitefish during October 26-31 is 137,184 pounds, which is the average harvest during October 20 25 over the last five years. In addition, as shown in the table below, the whitefish harvest limit was not reached in the 2010-11 fishing year, which ran from July 2010 to June 2011, and it is expected that additional harvest will not harm the whitefish population.
| |||
Harvest Zone
|
Whitefish Quota Holders
|
Harvest Limit (pounds)
|
Reported Harvest (pounds)
|
Percentage of Limit
|
1
|
23
|
362,185
|
263,633
|
73%
|
2
|
31
|
2,166,329
|
1,025,648
|
47%
|
3
|
12
|
351,487
|
270,395
|
77%
|
The department estimates that the value to the commercial fishing industry of extending the whitefish season by six days is approximately $161,300 annually. This is a wholesale value which would increase if some of the catch is marketed retail, however, there are no available numbers for retail sales or value. The table below shows the reported value of whitefish harvests by fishing year.
|
Product
|
2007-08
|
2008-09
|
2009-10
|
2010-11
|
Dressed Whitefish
|
$2,268,837
|
$1,342,070
|
$1,927,781
|
$2,022,978
|
Whitefish Eggs
|
$52,718
|
$63,245
|
$63,473
|
$63,395
|
Emergency Rule
The Natural Resources Board (NRB) approved an emergency rule (FH-22-11E) to extend the whitefish season for six days in October 2011. During the NRB hearing to approve the rule, Charles Henriksen, a member of the Lake Michigan Commercial Fishing Board and President of the Wisconsin Commercial Fisheries Association provided the following testimony: “This rule is necessary because of the difficulty and unpredictability that has recently beset the Lake Michigan whitefish harvest. Quagga mussels, cladaphora, and cormorants along with varying weather conditions have drastically altered our ability to fish and made an already challenging occupation even more difficult. The whitefish fishery is the last remaining success on Lake Michigan and for most whitefish fishers October is vitally important. Many of us produce 30-50% of our annual income in October and adding six days will be immensely beneficial and may be the difference maker to our survival in business. We give all the people of Wisconsin access to their wonderful renewable resource. Enacting this rule change will benefit and preserve the public welfare of our great state and aid the preservation and welfare of our first industry."
| |||
As of December 2, 2011, commercial fishers reported harvesting 78,416 pounds of whitefish less than the projected 137,184 pounds and 3,642 pounds of whitefish eggs during October 26-31, 2011, but not all harvest data had been reported.
| |||
Economic Impact - Request for Comments
Prior to the November 10-26 open period for economic impact comments, the department requested comments from all Wisconsin-licensed commercial fishers, the Lake Michigan Commercial Fishing Board, 17 port city mayors offices and the same cities' chambers of commerce, the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Wisconsin Conservation Congress, Wisconsin Federation of Great Lakes Sport Fishing Clubs, UW Sea Grant, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, and Wisconsin-licensed wholesale fish dealers, as well as posted the proposed rule documents to the Department website and the Wisconsin Administrative Rules website. The department received the following comments: | |||
Mike LeClair, President of Susie-Q Fish Company, Two Rivers, WI The rule proposal FH-25-11 would be very beneficial economically to our business. We would be able to purchase 10 to 15 thousand pounds of whitefish in late October to process in our wholesale and retail markets over the winter months. Although our fishing season in Two Rivers is usually over by October 1st, it still would give us the opportunity to buy fish from fishermen in Door County the whole month of October. This rule also gives the restaurants and stores a fresh product for a longer time. As far as I can see, there are no adverse effects in ratifying this rule. | |||
Ken Koyen, Commercial fisher, Washington Island, Door County Mr. Koyen stated during a phone conversation with Department staff that he is opposed to the extension of the whitefish harvest season proposed in FH 25 11 because he thinks the extended catch time, along with a growing whitefish sport fishery, would be risky for the future population of whitefish. Mr. Koyen said he benefited economically from the extended season in October 2011, but he said the current season dates are fine. He said he was concerned that economic benefits may not be there in the future. Mr. Koyen noted that he fished during the six-day extension in October 2011 because he was unable to fish during the week prior to that time. He said that he caught a large amount during those six days: 300 pounds of eggs and 6,000 pounds of fish. He said he was concerned that a lot of eggs would not be allowed to spawn due to the extended season. | |||
Robert Ruleau III, President Ruleau Bros. Inc. As both a Michigan and Wisconsin Commercial Fisher, I would be in favor of extending the whitefish harvest from Oct 25 to Oct 31. I would though, like to see some cooperation between Michigan DNR and Wis DNR in treating the entire Upper Lake Michigan “Spawning" areas, such as Moonlight Bay and Big Bay deNoc with equal management...just because Wisconsin has come around to the Oct 31 end date, should not mean that Michigan should extend their season by one more week...that is not only not good for the overall stock of whitefish but also extremely harms the price and effects the few commercial fishers that try to fish the entire season...Instead of a 2-3 week spawning season fishery, which many are now undertaking...we need to get back to a year round fishery, to save both the fish and the Fishermen themselves. | |||
Angie Schafer, Schafer Fisheries, Inc. We feel that this will benefit our company in that we will be able to receive the fish in question for a longer period of time during one of our busiest sales seasons and don't see how this would affect our business negatively in any way. | |||
Charles W Henriksen I am commenting as a commercial fisherman, wholesaler, President of Wisconsin Commercial Fisheries Association and as a member of the Lake Michigan Commercial Fishing Board. As this was the most difficult fishing fall in most of our experience it is difficult to quantify the extended season benefit, but without the (emergency) rule change every fisher who participates in the fall whitefish harvest would have had their worst year ever. Not implementing this rule permanently will adversely affect our economic competitiveness. To put this in perspective: During October my business produced 50,000# - 40% in the extra six days - while this was still our smallest catch (by 17 - 65,000#), the extra time prevented a complete disaster. My business bought roe from 5 gillnet boats - all but 1 had 50-80% of their production during the extra six days. The one that did not had crew problems at the end and a couple excellent lifts just prior to the extension, they still produced 36% during the extra six days. It appears that we have only scratched the surface of what is possible, but in these difficult economic times the chance to compete for those extra days is vitally important in order to maintain an economically viable fishery. And there is no downside. | |||
Jeff and Mark Weborg, J & M Fisheries This rule not only positively affects us personally financially, but all of the people and their families that work with us. It also enables us to be more competitive economically with our counterparts in other states. This rule helps us to ensure more product to our buyers when it is most needed. We will have no increased cost as a result of this rule. We see no adverse affects of this rule. |
Kurt Dramm, President of Dramm Corporation, Manitowoc, WI Dramm Corporation supports adding six days to the whitefish commercial harvest. Dramm Corporation produces fertilizers from fish scraps for organic crop production. This product is also exported to nine foreign countries. Due to the lack of commercial fishing on Lake Michigan we have a very difficult time obtaining the quantity of fish scraps we require. The additional six days of whitefish fishing will help to supply fish for the strong demand for whitefish as a food and it will provide us with a few more scraps. | |||
Paul Becker, Riverside Foods, Two Rivers, WI The lengthening of the season will help Riverside Foods procure product that is from Wisconsin, USA versus bringing in product from a foreign country and keeping our monies local. |
Based on these comments, the Department has determined that this rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, or the overall economic competitiveness of this state. The department consulted with Mr. Ken Koyen, a commercial fisher from Washington Island, who said he benefited economically from the emergency rule change but did not support the permanent rule because of potential future population and economic losses. He said he believes that additional information from the October 2011 harvest of eggs and fish as well as future harvests would need to be reviewed in order to know if extending the season would not adversely affect the commercial fishing economy in Wisconsin.
|
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
As noted above, the extended season is for the economic benefit of Wisconsin commercial fishing and wholesale fish dealer businesses. Current abundance and recruitment data indicate Wisconsin's whitefish population is healthy. This fishery is managed through a quota system that controls the total annual harvest and, at present, whitefish harvest limits are not being reached. This rule will allow commercial fishing businesses to catch and sell more fish, and department biologists believe that the additional six days will not threaten whitefish stocks in Wisconsin waters.
Alternatives to implementing this rule:
If the rule would extend the season into November, angling pressure would infringe upon whitefish spawning time. Adequate spawning time is necessary for continued health of the population. Over the past 20 years, department biologists have noticed lower levels of whitefish egg production and delays in maturation. And because whitefish eggs are a highly-valued product of the commercial fishery, extending the harvest closer to the peak of spawning may result in a differential harvest of females over males, resulting in less spawning opportunity over time. For the past five years, whitefish assessment data show the harvest ratio has generally either favored males or been close to a 1:1 catch ratio.
If this rule is not implemented, commercial fishing businesses would have limited fishing opportunities compared with Michigan commercial fishing businesses that can fish for whitefish until November 1. Wisconsin businesses would miss the opportunity to earn approximately $161,300 during the extra six days of fishing. Department biologists believe that the six day extension to October 31 will not harm the whitefish population.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
It is expected that this rule would annually contribute to the economic viability of commercial fishing businesses in Wisconsin.
In consultation with entities that would be affected by this rule, it was determined that the rule would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, jobs, or the overall economic competitiveness of this state.
The proposed rule will not have an economic effect on public utilities or their ratepayers.
The department is planning to hold a public hearing on the proposed rule in January 2012 to solicit any additional comments.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
The department is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulation that would govern commercial fishing in Wisconsin's waters of Lake Michigan and Green Bay.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
There is no Lake Michigan commercial whitefish harvest in Illinois. In Michigan, the season for licensed commercial fishers closes on November 1, while for tribal fishers it lasts one week longer.
| |||
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
| |||
William Horns, Great Lakes Coordinator 608-266-8782
|
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
| |||
Chs. NR 50, County Snowmobile Aids, and NR 64, All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs)
| |||
Subject
| |||
Revise bridge design, signage requirements, and trail maintenance reimbursement rates; define trail/route combinations.
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
GPR FED PRO PRS
X SEG SEG-S
|
ss. 20.370 (5) (cr), (cs), (ct), (cu), Wis. Stats.
| ||
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| |||
X No Fiscal Effect
Indeterminate
|
Increase Existing Revenues
Decrease Existing Revenues
|
Increase Costs
X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget
Decrease Costs
| |
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| |||
State's Economy
X Local Government Units
|
X 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
| |||
• Standards for existing trail structures (e.g., bridges) do not accommodate the width and weight of modern grooming equipment.
• Existing easement terms for land under trail structures are not consistent with the cost of present-day structures.
• Inconsistency between the snowmobile and ATV vehicle grant programs for bridge specifications.
• Existing per-mile reimbursement rate for local governments for summer ATV trail maintenance is not compatible with current costs.
• Trail signage is not season-specific.
• Existing rules have no definition for trail/route combination; these hybrids (called “troutes") have been in use in WI for several years.
| |||
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)
| |||
• No economic or fiscal impact is anticipated for public utility rate payers or the State's economy as a whole. Funding for both grant programs comes from Segregated accounts and not from General Purpose Revenue. No tax increase will be needed to implement the proposed rule revisions.
• The majority of businesses possibly impacted by this rule are those that manufacture structures to be used on trails. In particular, a group of Wisconsin small businesses have adapted their products to be used specifically in off-road conditions. Bridges constructed to higher standards may cost more to build; we expect that any increased costs will be rolled into the sales price. Grant funds will continue to be awarded to successful applicants to cover a percentage of total project costs, even if those costs are higher due to the improved standards.
• It is more likely that some local governmental units may be impacted by the proposed rule revisions. As a result, comments about possible economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed rule revisions were specifically solicited directly from 80 individuals, 48 of whom represented Wisconsin counties that contain active snowmobile and/or ATV trails. The remaining represent the following organizations:
○ Governor's Snowmobile Advisory Council
○ Off Road Vehicle Advisory Council
○ Wisconsin All-Terrain Vehicle Association
○ Wisconsin County Foresters Association
A total of seven comments were received and are summarized as follows:
○ Comments ranged from “no negative effect on economic competitiveness, productivity, or jobs" to “minimal adverse effects". (See Attachment 1 for list of all comments received.)
○ One commenter felt that increasing the minimum easement term on private lands when grant funding is provided for a bridge would be a negative impact because extra work would be required of county staff to secure longer-term easements from private landowners. However, that same commenter also indicated that the extra time spent securing the longer-term easement would be time well invested as it would provide for more permanence to the locations of trails.
• In addition to direct requests for comments, other interested parties were invited via the ATV and snowmobile web pages to provide economic and fiscal estimate comments about the proposed rule revisions. No comments were received from “other" parties.
• The department provided written clarification to one commenter regarding the difference between the department's permanent rule revision efforts and a parallel, ongoing emergency rule just about “troutes".
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
I. Benefits include:
• Sustainability of rider safety on existing snowmobile and ATV trails.
• Encouragement of tourism in local communities; support of local economies; increased snowmobile and ATV equipment sales.
• Satisfaction of Governor's Snowmobile Advisory Council, Off Road Vehicle Advisory Council, Wisconsin All-Terrain Vehicle Association, Wisconsin County Foresters Association, and various Wisconsin counties where active snowmobile and/or ATV trails are located.
• Potential for expansion of the WI trail system.
II. Alternatives to the proposed revisions to Chs. NR 50 and NR 64 are as follows:
A. Maintain the Status Quo
This alternative means no increase in bridge construction requirements, no signage improvements, and no per-mile increase in trail maintenance reimbursements. This alternative is rejected because the Snowmobile Recreation Council, Off-road Vehicle Advisory Council, and WI ATV Association have requested all the proposed changes for the last five years. DNR staff vacancies and workload kept these changes from being made before now. In addition, refusal to increase reimbursement rates to keep up with actual costs is causing counties to have to pay the difference. County budgets are stretched to the point where some trail maintenance may have to be delayed. Refusing to increase reimbursement rates may result in improperly maintained trails, possible trail safety issues, a diminished recreational experience as a result, decreased visitor traffic, and decreased visitor revenues for local economies.
B. Pursue some but not all of the proposed rule revisions
This alternative would require us to eliminate some proposals. All proposals involve public safety in some way and are a “package". This alternative is rejected because the Snowmobile Recreation Council, Off-road Vehicle Advisory Council, and WI ATV Association have requested all the proposed changes for the last five years. DNR staff vacancies and workload kept these changes from being made before now. In particular, refusing to increase reimbursement rates mean that stretched county budgets might result in trail maintenance delays. Refusal to increase reimbursement rates may result in improperly maintained trails, increased safety risks, a diminished recreational experience as a result, decreased visitors traffic, and decreased visitor revenues for local economies.
C. Pursue additional rule revisions
This alternative is rejected because it is beyond the scope requested by the Snowmobile Recreation Council, Off-road Vehicle Advisory Council, and WI ATV Association. Higher bridge standards would require additional research. Increasing the per-mile reimbursement rate beyond that requested in light of limited fee revenues would mean fewer maintenance miles statewide and might be harmful to the overall trail system. Increase snowmobile or ATV license fees to make up revenue shortfalls due to increased per-mile reimbursement rates would be contrary to legislative directives and would be a penalty to snowmobile and ATV riders.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
• Snowmobile Recreation Council, Off-road Vehicle Advisory Council, and WI ATV Association receive the satisfaction they have been seeking.
• By increasing the state per-mile reimbursement rate for maintenance of summer ATV trails, counties can be reimbursed closer to 100% of their actual trail maintenance costs. Improving the state reimbursement rate ensures that trails will be maintained. Poorly maintained trails result in safety concerns. Economic opportunities are lost when poorly maintained trails are closed due to safety concerns. Increasing the per-mile reimbursement rate will mean fewer poorly maintained trails, fewer trail closures, and greater snowmobile and ATV rider safety.
• Bridge designs would be safer.
• Easement terms would be longer in keeping with the cost of more expensive bridges.
• Trail signage would be improved, increasing rider safety.
• Trail+route combinations (called “troutes") would be legally defined; troutes would be eligible for trail maintenance reimbursement. | |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
None are known. | |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
Bridge Design Load requirements: No bridge design load limits were found in adjacent states.
Length of Easements or Lease Agreements: Michigan requires an easement of not less than five years for bridge projects or any improvements located on private land costing more than $10,000. Minnesota has a 3-month minimum easement length for all off-road vehicle grant programs. No other adjacent states require minimum easement terms.
Expenditure Threshold Before Counties are Eligible for Supplemental Snowmobile Grants: No per-mile maintenance expenditure threshold could be found in adjacent states.
Combination Trail and Route trails (also called “troutes"): Only Michigan allows ATVs on both trails and routes.
Higher per-mile Rates for Summer Trail Maintenance: Only Michigan allows for higher spring and summer maintenance reimbursement rates for trails.
ATV Trail Seasonal Signage: Only Illinois has seasonal signage requirements for their Off Highway Vehicle Program. In Illinois, grantees are responsible for posting appropriate signage. | |||
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
| |||
Diane Conklin, DNR ATV and Snowmobile Grant Manager, 715-822-8583
| |||
