Scope Statements
Justice
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on February 15, 2012.
Rule No.
The proposed emergency rules will be numbered Wis. Admin. Code section
Jus 17.01 through
17.13 and
Jus 18.01 through
18.10 and will replace the existing emergency rules bearing the same numbers.
Relating to
Licenses authorizing persons to carry concealed weapons; concealed carry certification cards for qualified former federal law enforcement officers; and the certification of firearm safety and training instructors.
Description of the Objectives of the Rules
The State of Wisconsin Department of Justice (“DOJ") proposes to promulgate emergency administrative rules relating to the implementation of DOJ's statutory responsibilities under
2011 Wis. Act 35 regarding licenses authorizing persons to carry concealed weapons, the certification of firearm safety and training instructors, the recognition by Wisconsin of concealed carry licenses issued by other states, and concealed carry certification cards for qualified former federal law enforcement officers.
The proposed emergency rules will correspond to and have the same scope as the emergency rules covering the same subjects which were adopted by DOJ on October 25, 2011, with an effective date of November 1, 2011, and which are currently in effect.
The need for these emergency rules arises out of the November 7, 2011, action of the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (“JCRAR"). On that date, acting pursuant to Wis. Stat. s.
227.26 (2) (d), JCRAR suspended the following portions of the emergency rules that were adopted on October 25, 2011:
•
Portion of section
Jus 17.03 (8) requiring that a “firearms safety or training course" be reasonably calculated to “test" a student's comprehension and application of firearm safety rules and safe firearm handling;
•
Portion of section
Jus 17.03 (8) requiring that a “firearms safety or training course" include “at least four hours" of training;
•
Portion of section
Jus 17.03 (13) requiring that a “national or state organization that certifies firearms instructors" must “require[] firearms instructors to successfully complete instructor training of at least eight hours in length;"
•
Section
Jus 17.05 (2) (c), requiring that documentation of a license applicant's firearms training must include the “length in hours of the firearms safety or training course;"
•
Section
Jus 17.05 (2) (e), requiring that documentation of a license applicant's firearms training must include “the city and state in which the applicant completed the firearms safety or training course;"
•
Section
Jus 17.05 (2) (f), requiring that documentation of a license applicant's firearms training must include “the name, address and telephone number of the person or entity responsible for the firearms safety or training course;" and
•
Section
Jus 17.05 (2) (h), requiring that documentation of a license applicant's firearms training must include a “signed statement by the instructor who taught the firearms safety or training course to the applicant affirming that the course satisfied the definition of a firearms safety or training course in section
Jus 17.03 (8) and that the applicant successfully completed the course."
On November 10, 2011, while the suspension of the above portions of the emergency rules was in effect, DOJ submitted for the Governor's approval a scope statement for proposed permanent rules corresponding to and covering the same subjects as the emergency rules. Under that scope statement, the proposed permanent rules are not to include the substance of any of the provisions that had been suspended by JCRAR. On December 19, 2011, the Governor approved that scope statement. The scope statement for the permanent rules was subsequently published and received final approval from the Attorney General on January 10, 2012.
See Wis. Stat. s.
227.135 (2). Since that time, DOJ has been engaged in the process of drafting proposed permanent rules which — consistent with the approved scope statement — will not include the substance of any of the provisions in the emergency rules that had been suspended by JCRAR.
Under Wis. Stat. s.
227.26 (2) (i), if a bill supporting JCRAR's suspension action of November 7, 2011, is not enacted into law by the end of the current legislative session on March 15, 2012, then the suspension would be lifted and the original version of the emergency rules — including the previously suspended portions — would go back into legal effect. At that point, the emergency rules in effect would be inconsistent both with the emergency rules as they have been administered by DOJ since November 7, 2011, and with the proposed permanent rules, the scope of which has already been approved by the Governor and the Attorney General. Any such lack of continuity in the operation of DOJ's concealed carry rules would be confusing and disruptive both for permit applicants and for DOJ staff administering the concealed carry permit program.
The rules proposed here would prevent such a discontinuity in the operation of the concealed carry rules by re-promulgating the existing emergency rules in their entirety, with the exception of those portions that were suspended by JCRAR on November 7, 2011. The promulgation of emergency rules in this revised form will ensure that the operation of the rules remains consistent through the completion of the permanent rulemaking process that is already under way.
As previously noted, the emergency rules proposed here will cover the same subject areas covered by the existing emergency rules and the proposed permanent rules. There are five such subject areas:
First, there are rules governing the issuance of concealed carry licenses to qualified applicants by DOJ pursuant to s.
175.60, Stats. These rules govern all aspects of the licensing process and describe the procedures and standards under which DOJ processes applications, sets and collects fees, and verifies that each license applicant meets all of the license eligibility requirements under s.
175.60 (3), Stats., including procedures and standards for certifying that an applicant has satisfied the applicable statutory training requirements and procedures for conducting the statutorily required background check of each applicant to determine whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
Second, the rules govern the administration of concealed carry licenses that have been issued by DOJ. These rules cover: the maintenance and treatment of licensing records by DOJ; the receipt and processing by DOJ of information from courts regarding individuals subject to a court imposed disqualification from possessing a dangerous weapon; procedures for renewing a license and replacing a license that is lost, stolen, or destroyed; procedures for processing address changes or name changes by licensees; procedures and standards for revoking or suspending a license; procedures for the administrative review by DOJ of any denial, suspension, or revocation of a license; and procedures governing DOJ's cooperation with courts and law enforcement agencies in relation to emergency licenses issued by a court.
Third, the rules govern the procedures and standards for the qualification and certification of firearms instructors by DOJ under s.
175.60 (4) (b), Stats., and provide a definition identifying those firearm instructors who are certified by a national or state organization, as provided in s.
175.60 (4) (a), Stats.
Fourth, pursuant to s.
165.25 (12m), Stats., the rules designate those states other than Wisconsin that issue a permit, license, approval, or other authorization to carry a concealed weapon that is entitled to recognition in Wisconsin under s.
175.60 (1) (f), Stats., because the permit, license, approval, or other authorization requires, or designates that the holder chose to submit to, a background search that is comparable to the type of background check that DOJ is required to conduct for Wisconsin licensees under s.
175.60 (9g), Stats.
Fifth, the rules govern the procedures and standards under which DOJ issues concealed carry certification cards to qualified former federal law enforcement officers pursuant to s.
175.49, Stats. These rules govern all aspects of the certification process for former federal officers who reside in Wisconsin and describe the procedures and standards under which DOJ processes applications, sets and collects fees, and verifies that each applicant meets all of the certification eligibility requirements under s.
175.49 (3) (b), Stats., including procedures and standards for certifying that an applicant has satisfied the firearm qualification requirement under s.
175.49 (3) (b) 5., Stats., and procedures for conducting the statutorily required background check of each applicant to determine whether the applicant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. The rules also cover: the maintenance and treatment of certification records by DOJ; procedures for renewing a certification card and replacing a card that is lost, stolen, or destroyed; procedures for processing address changes or name changes by a certified former federal officer; procedures and standards for revoking or suspending a certification; and procedures for the administrative review by DOJ of any denial, suspension, or revocation of a certification.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
In
2011 Wisconsin Act 35, the state of Wisconsin established a new system under which DOJ is required to issue licenses authorizing eligible Wisconsin residents to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin and to certify firearms safety and training instructors. The legislation also authorizes DOJ to issue concealed carry certification cards to qualified former federal law enforcement officers who reside in Wisconsin. Because the concealed carry licensing and certification programs established by Act 35 are new, there are no existing DOJ practices or policies that cover the subject areas of the administrative rules here proposed other than the emergency rules that went into effect on November 1, 2011.
Most of the proposed rules simply carry into effect the legislative directives set forth in Act 35. In a few areas, the proposed rules articulate policies which give substance to undefined statutory terms or are needed to ensure that licenses and certification cards are issued only to eligible individuals and that all applicants and licensees are properly identified at all times. Such rules are specifically intended to carry out the legislature's intent reflected in Act 35.
For example, the proposed rules provide definitions of such undefined statutory terms as “firearms safety or training course" and “national or state organization that certifies firearms instructors." Such definitions are necessary to give substantive content to these otherwise undefined statutory terms so as to carry out the legislative purposes of ensuring that all licensees have been trained in firearms and firearms safety and of ensuring that all certified firearms instructors have demonstrated the ability and knowledge required for providing training in firearms and firearms safety. The policy alternative of not defining such terms in DOJ's administrative rules would be contrary to those important legislative purposes.
Similarly, the proposed rules specify the types of information that must be included in a training certificate or affidavit in order for DOJ to find that certificate or affidavit to be sufficient to satisfy the training documentation requirements in s.
175.60 (4) (a), Stats. Such specification is necessary to give substantive content to the statutory documentation requirements so as to carry out the legislative purpose of ensuring that every successful applicant for a concealed carry license has adequately demonstrated completion of at least one of the forms of statutorily required training. The policy alternative of not specifying the required contents of an acceptable training certificate or affidavit in DOJ's administrative rules would be contrary to that important legislative purpose.
Likewise, the proposed rule designating those states other than Wisconsin that conduct a background check for concealed carry licensees comparable to Wisconsin's background check is necessary to comply with the statutory requirement of s.
165.25 (12m), Stats. That rule enables law enforcement officers and others to determine whether a particular concealed carry license issued by another state is entitled to recognition as an “out-of-state license" as defined in s.
175.60 (1) (f), Stats. The alternative of not promulgating such a rule would violate the requirements of s.
165.25 (12m), Stats. and would be contrary to the purpose of facilitating recognition of out-of-state licenses.
The proposed rules also contain procedures for issuing a new concealed carry license or certification card to an individual who changes his or her name, and procedures under which DOJ will work cooperatively with courts and law enforcement agencies in relation to any emergency concealed carry license that may be issued by a court, pursuant to s.
175.60 (9r). These procedures are not specifically required by statute but are necessary to carry out the legislative purposes of ensuring that licenses and certification cards are issued only to eligible individuals and that all applicants and licensees are properly identified at all times. The policy alternative of not including such procedures in DOJ's administrative rules would be contrary to those important legislative purposes.
Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Those portions of the proposed rules that establish the amount of the fee to be charged for a concealed carry license are expressly and specifically authorized and required by s.
175.60 (7), Stats., which provides:
SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION. An individual may apply for a license under this section with the department by submitting, by mail or other means made available by the department, to the department all of the following:
(c) A license fee in an amount, as determined by the department by rule, that is equal to the cost of issuing the license but does not exceed $37. The department shall determine the costs of issuing a license by using a 5-year planning period.
Those portions of the proposed rules that establish procedures for the administrative review by DOJ of any denial, suspension, or revocation of a license are expressly and specifically authorized by s.
175.60 (14g), Stats., which provides:
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW. The department shall promulgate rules providing for the review of any action by the department denying an application for, or suspending or revoking, a license under this section.
Those portions of the proposed rules that establish the amount of the fee to be charged for the renewal of a concealed carry license are expressly and specifically authorized by s.
175.60 (15) (b), Stats., which provides:
The department shall renew the license if, no later than 90 days after the expiration date of the license, the licensee does all of the following:
4. Pays all of the following:
a. A renewal fee in an amount, as determined by the department by rule, that is equal to the cost of renewing the license but does not exceed $12. The department shall determine the costs of renewing a license by using a 5-year planning period.
Those portions of the proposed rules that are not specifically authorized by ss.
175.60 (7),
(14g), and
(15) (b), Stats., as described above, are authorized by s.
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., which provides:
(2) Rule-making authority is expressly conferred as follows:
(a) Each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by the agency, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute, but a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation. All of the following apply to the promulgation of a rule interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by an agency:
1. A statutory or nonstatutory provision containing a statement or declaration of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature.
2. A statutory provision describing the agency's general powers or duties does not confer rule-making authority on the agency or augment the agency's rule-making authority beyond the rule-making authority that is explicitly conferred on the agency by the legislature.
3. A statutory provision containing a specific standard, requirement, or threshold does not confer on the agency the authority to promulgate, enforce, or administer a rule that contains a standard, requirement, or threshold that is more restrictive than the standard, requirement, or threshold contained in the statutory provision.
This statute expressly confers on DOJ the general power to determine whether administrative rules interpreting those statutory provisions in Act 35 that are to be enforced or administered by DOJ are necessary to effectuate the purpose of those statutory provisions and, if such necessity is found, to promulgate such administrative rules, as long as those rules do not exceed the bounds of correct interpretation of the governing statutes.
DOJ finds that the rules here proposed are necessary to effectuate those portions of ss.
175.49 and
175.60 that require DOJ to establish and operate procedures governing:
•
the issuance of concealed carry licenses to qualified applicants, including verification that each applicant has satisfied the applicable statutory training requirements, has passed the mandatory background check, and has met all of the other statutory eligibility requirements for a license;
•
the issuance of concealed carry certification cards to qualified former federal law enforcement officers residing in Wisconsin, including verification that each applicant has satisfied the applicable firearm certification requirements, has passed the mandatory background check, and has met all of the other statutory eligibility requirements for certification;
•
the administration of concealed carry licenses and certifications that have been issued by DOJ, including the maintenance and treatment of records; the receipt and processing of information from courts about individuals subject to a court-imposed disqualification from possessing a dangerous weapon; the renewal of licenses and certifications and the replacement of those that are lost, stolen, or destroyed; the processing of address changes or name changes for licenses and certifications; procedures and standards for revoking or suspending a license or certification; procedures for the administrative review by DOJ of any denial, suspension, or revocation of a license or certification; and procedures governing DOJ's cooperation with courts and law enforcement agencies in relation to emergency licenses issued by a court; and
•
the qualification and certification of firearms instructors by DOJ and the identification of those firearm instructors who are certified by a national or state organization.
DOJ further finds that the rules here proposed:
•
do not exceed the bounds of correct interpretation of ss.
175.49 or
175.60;
•
are authorized by the statutes described above and are not based on authority derived from any other statutory or nonstatutory statements or declarations of legislative intent, purpose, findings, or policy;
•
are authorized as necessary interpretations of the specific requirements of ss.
175.49 and
175.60 and are not based on authority derived from any other general powers or duties of DOJ; and
•
do not impose any standards or requirements that are more restrictive than the standards and requirements contained in ss.
175.49 and
175.60.
The rules proposed here may be promulgated as emergency rules under s.
227.24 (1) (a), Stats., which provides:
An agency may promulgate a rule as an emergency rule without complying with the notice, hearing and publication requirements under this chapter if preservation of the public peace, health, safety or welfare necessitates putting the rule into effect prior to the time it would take effect if the agency complied with the procedures.
DOJ finds that the public welfare necessitates promulgating the proposed rules as emergency rules under s.
227.24 (1) (a), Stats. For the reasons already described in Section 1 above, in order to ensure continuity and avoid confusion and disruption in the operation of the rules governing the concealed carry permit program, it is necessary for DOJ to promulgate revised emergency rules that do not include the provisions of the existing emergency rules that were suspended by JCRAR on November 7, 2011. The preservation of such continuity and the avoidance of such confusion and disruption is plainly in the public interest. The public welfare thus necessitates that the proposed rules be promulgated as emergency rules under s.
227.24, Stats. Once these emergency rules have been promulgated, DOJ will continue the permanent rulemaking process that is already under way.
Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
It is estimated that state employees will spend approximately 10 hours on the rulemaking process for the emergency rules proposed here, primarily for compliance with required rulemaking procedures.
Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
The proposed rules governing procedures and standards for the issuance and administration of concealed carry licenses under s.
175.60, Stats., directly affect the interests of all Wisconsin residents who wish to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon. In addition, the proposed rules also indirectly affect the interest of the general public to the extent that the proper training and licensing of concealed carry licensees generally affects public safety.
The proposed rules governing procedures and standards for the issuance and administration of certification cards under s.
175.49 (3), Stats., directly affect the interests of all former federal law enforcement officers residing in Wisconsin who wish to apply for such certification. In addition, the proposed rules also indirectly affect the interest of the general public to the extent that the proper firearm certification of former law enforcement officers generally affects public safety.
The proposed rules governing the procedures and standards for the qualification and certification of firearms instructors by DOJ under s.
175.60 (4) (b), Stats., directly affect the interests of all eligible persons who wish to apply for such certification. The proposed rules identifying those firearm instructors who are certified by a national or state organization, as provided in s.
175.60 (4) (a), Stats., directly affect the interests of all persons who wish to claim such certification as a basis for providing training in firearms and firearm safety under that statute. In addition, the proposed rules also indirectly affect the interest of the general public to the extent that the proper certification of firearms instructors generally affects public safety.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
For persons other than current and former law enforcement officers, the regulation of the carrying of concealed weapons is primarily governed at the state level. Numerous federal statutes and regulations restrict the possession of weapons that have been shipped in interstate commerce, but there are no federal regulations that relate to the licensing of concealed carry by such persons, nor are there federal regulations governing the certification of firearms instructors for concealed carry purposes.
For qualified current and former law enforcement officers, state and local laws restricting the carrying of concealed firearms are federally preempted by 18 U.S.C. ss. 926B-926C (commonly referred to as “H.R. 218"). The provisions in
2011 Wis. Act 35 related to qualified current and former law enforcement officers are state-law codifications of the corresponding provisions in H.R. 218. Similarly, the rules proposed here governing procedures and standards for the issuance and administration of concealed carry certification cards for qualified former federal law enforcement officers also codify corresponding provisions in the federal law.
Contact Person
Assistant Attorney General Clayton P. Kawski, (608) 266-7477.
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on February 15, 2012.
Rule No.
WM-05-12(E) (Revises Chapter
NR 10)
Relating to
Reestablishing a four day, October, anterless-only firearm deer season in the CWD Management Zone.
Description of the Objective of the Rule
This emergency rule proposal would re-establish the annual October, antlerless-only, four day firearm deer season that has been held in the chronic wasting disease management zone.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Under 2011 ACT 50, if the department elects to continue holding the four day, antlerless-only, firearm deer season prior to the traditional nine day firearm season, it must do so by enacting emergency rules each year. This season may only be held in areas where a chronic wasting disease management zone has been established. The season would begin on Thursday, October 11.
Since 2002, the department has held an October firearm deer season to provide hunting opportunity and for herd management and disease control purposes in the chronic wasting disease management zone. Deer population reduction is the available disease control method most likely to be effective in controlling CWD in free-ranging deer. Over the past 50 years, regulated hunting has been shown to be an ecologically sound, socially beneficial, and fiscally responsible method of managing deer populations. Hunter harvest in the CWD Management Zone during the past eight years appears to have reduced the deer population in this region, although it has not been sufficient to cause substantial, widespread population decline. An October season helps maintain a consistent hunting-season structure that improves hunter understanding of regulations and enhances both compliance and enforcement of those regulations. A consistent season framework also makes it easier to evaluate management efforts.
Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
In promulgating this rule, ss.
29.014,
29.016 (2) (b),
29.063 and
227.24, Stats., have been interpreted as providing the department with the authority to make modifications to deer hunting seasons.
Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
Approximately 73 hours will be needed by the department prior to and following adoption by the board.
Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Interested groups and individuals are those who are concerned about deer management including hunters and people whose interests involve agriculture, environment, forestry, wildlife viewing, and non-hunting related outdoor recreation that occurs during deer hunting seasons.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
Anticipated Economic Impact of the Rule
No economic impacts are anticipated. The hunting season framework proposed in this rule is identical to the season framework that was in place during the previous season.
Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 101 S. Webster Street, PO Box 7921, Madison WI 53707-7921, (608) 267-2452 or Kevin Wallenfang, Big Game Specialist, 101 S. Webster Street, PO Box 7921, Madison WI 53707-7921, (608) 261-7589.
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on February 15, 2012.
Rule No.
WM-03-12(E) (Revises Chapter
NR 10)
Relating to
Modifying Chapter
NR 10 related to the bobcat hunting and trapping season.
Description of the Objective of the Rule
This rule would establish the 2012 bobcat hunting and trapping season framework.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Through this rulemaking, the department will propose continuing the current trial bobcat season framework that was split into two separate time periods in 2010 and 2011. The alternatives to be considered are reverting back to a single, straight season framework, or extending the trial period in order to allow additional evaluation.
In 2010 and 2011, the bobcat season was split into two separate permit periods: the Saturday nearest Oct. 17 - Dec. 25 and Dec. 26 to Jan 31. There appears to have been public support for the new season framework and the opinion of department staff is that it provides the tools for sound use, management and protection of the bobcat resource. If emergency rules are not promulgated, the season automatically reverts back to a single permit period beginning on the Saturday nearest October 17 and continuing through December 31 in 2012. Some people will view a reversion to the single season framework as a reduction of opportunity that is not socially acceptable. Frequent change of season dates and regulations for hunting and trapping can be confusing and disruptive to the public, can result in citations being issued, and is not necessary for protection of the bobcat population in this situation. Therefore, this emergency rule is needed to preserve the public welfare.
During this rule making process the impacts of the split season framework and public opinion will be evaluated, including through consideration of voting on an advisory question at the April, 2012 spring hearings in each county. If there is support, this rule proposal will be followed by permanent rules.
Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
144 hours.
Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
Groups likely to be impacted or interested in this rulemaking are bobcat hunters and trappers, including members of groups such as the Wisconsin Trappers Association, Bear Hunters Association, Wildlife Federation, and the Conservation Congress.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
Federal regulations allow states to manage the wildlife resources located within their boundaries provided they do not conflict with regulations established in the Federal Register. None of these rule changes violate or conflict with the provisions established in the Federal Code of Regulations.
Anticipated Economic Impact of the Rule
No economic impacts are anticipated. The hunting season framework proposed in this rule is identical to the season framework that was in place during the previous season.
Contact Person
Scott Loomans, 101 S Webster St., Madison, WI 53707, (608)267-2452,
scott.loomans@wisonsin.gov or John Olson, 2501 Golf Course Road, Ashland, WI 54806, (715) 685-2934,
johnf.olson@wisconsin.gov
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on February 15, 2012.
Rule No.
WM-02-12(E) (Revises Chapter
NR 10)
Relating to
Establishing the 2012 Migratory Bird Season Framework.
Description of the Objective of the Rule
This emergency rule order will establish the 2012 migratory bird hunting seasons.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
This is an annual rule that will be consistent with a federal framework and is not a change from past policies. Migratory game bird hunting is regulated by the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), in
50 CFR part 20, who will offer a final season framework to Wisconsin on approximately August 1, 2012. The State of Wisconsin's season proposal will be based on the federal framework and local conditions. Wisconsin will also not be more restrictive than the federal bag limit framework except that we will propose one less hen mallard in the bag limit if the federal framework allows two or more, consistent with existing Wisconsin rules. This rule may relax the prohibition on hunting waterfowl in open water for holders of permits for hunters with disabilities and lift a sunset of special migratory bird hunting regulations at the Mead and Zeloski Marsh Wildlife Management Areas.
Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
Approximately 400 hours will be needed by the department prior to and following the hearings.
Description of all Entities that may be Impacted by the Rule
These rules will impact migratory game bird hunters and those who enjoy viewing waterfowl in Wisconsin.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison of any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
Under international treaty and Federal law, migratory game bird seasons are closed unless opened annually through the USFWS regulations process. As part of the federal rule process, the service proposes a duck harvest-management objective that balances hunting opportunities with the desire to achieve waterfowl population goals identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Hunting opportunity increases as duck populations approach the goals in the NAWMP. Factors such as habitat are also considered.
Locally produced giant Canada geese are now a considerable portion of the harvest in states that also harvest Mississippi Valley Population geese that nest in Canada. The MFC has been testing the use of a standard season framework for 5 years, ending in 2011. Season lengths and bag limits for each MVP harvest state have remained unchanged. In 2012, the MFC will conduct an evaluation of harvest impacts of these stable regulations and establish a framework for future seasons. Following the 2012 review, changes to the Canada goose zones or hunting regulations may be proposed in Wisconsin.
Anticipated Economic Impact of the Rule
No economic impacts are anticipated. The hunting season frameworks proposed in this rule will be comparable to those in place during the previous season.
Contact Person
Scott Loomans, 101 S Webster St., Madison, WI 53707, (608)267-2452,
scott.loomans@wisonsin.gov or Kent Van Horn, Migratory Birds Specialist, 101 South Webster Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921, (608) 266-8841,
Kent.Vanhorn@wisconsin.gov.
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — General, Chs.
NR 100—
This statement of scope was approved by the governor on February 15, 2012.
Rule No.
Revises Chapter
NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code WT-06-12
Relating to
Wisconsin's Shoreland Management Program.
Description of the Objective of the Rule
Modify the rule relating to the impervious surface limits, nonconforming structure provisions, vegetation standards and administrative procedures to reduce the administrative burden on counties.
Description of Existing Policies Relevant to the Rule and of New Policies Proposed to be Included in the Rule and an Analysis of Policy Alternatives; the History, Background and Justification for the Proposed Rule
Wisconsin's minimum shoreland zoning standards were originally codified as Ch.
NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code, in the 1960's, and had been revised very little until 2009. Rule revisions in 2009 addressed the changes in land use and development patterns from small, older family cottages to year-round homes and multi-unit complexes with sizes proportionate to the high value of the shoreline property. Since the 1960's, most counties have elected to create shoreland zoning ordinances that go beyond the minimum standards, but were looking for up-to-date statewide minimums to make these protective measures more consistent. Scientific research has show that easily-implementable up-to-date minimum standards are a critical tool for protecting Wisconsin lakes and streams.
Since the legislature approved the modifications to Ch.
NR 115 in 2009, counties have identified certain provisions in the revised rule that are unclear, difficult to implement or administratively burdensome. The current proposal is to clarify and modify certain sections of the code to address these concerns, so that counties can implement the state minimum shoreland standards efficiently and effectively.
Current policy under Ch.
NR 115.05 (1) (e) specifies that the impervious surface standards be applied to land within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark and limits the amount of impervious surfaces on a property to a maximum of 30%. The new policies will simplify the application of impervious surfaces to only riparian lots or those lots that lie entirely within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark. Further, the policy will provide additional options for properties that currently exceed 30% impervious surfaces on their lot or wish to exceed 30% in the future.
Second, the nonconforming structure standards under NR 115.05 (1) (g) limit the ability for structures to be laterally expanded within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark, require the removal of nonconforming accessory structures when relocating or reconstructing a principal structure and specify that maintenance and repair of nonconforming structures may be allowed. The new policy would allow for some lateral expansion of structures within 75 feet, but more than 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark. The new policy will also remove the requirement that nonconforming accessory structures be removed when relocating or reconstructing a nonconforming principal structure, and will clarify the department's intent in allowing maintenance and repair of legal nonconforming structures.
Third, the current policy under NR 115.05 (4) requires the submittal of variances, special exceptions or conditional use permits, or appeals for map or text interpretation, and decisions to amend a map or text of an ordinance. While the policy will remain the same, current NR 115 contains two substantially similar requirements but is confusing because the language is conflicting. The new policy will be to remove one these statements to clarify the intent of the department.
Finally, the vegetative management standards under NR 115.05 (1) (c) (d), specifies that counties may allow the removal of exotic or invasive species, damaged or diseased vegetation or vegetation that creates an imminent safety hazard, as long as the property owner agrees to replace or replant vegetation as soon as practicable. The new policy will continue to allow the removal of these species, but will clarify that counties do not have to require a permit for the removal of these species or the replanting of new vegetation.
Statutory Authority for the Rule (Including the Statutory Citation and Language)
Section
59.692 (1m), Stats. requires counties to adopt zoning and subdivision regulations for the protection of shoreland areas to effect the purposes of section 281.31 and to promote public health, safety, and general welfare.
Section
281.31 (6), Stats. requires the department prepare and adopt general recommended standards and criteria for municipalities to protect navigable waters giving “particular attention to safe and healthful conditions for the enjoyment of aquatic recreation
…the capability of the water resources
…building setbacks from the water; preservation of shore growth and cover; shoreland layout for residential and commercial development; suggested regulations and suggestions for the effective administration and enforcement of such regulations."
Estimate of the Amount of Time that State Employees will Spend to Develop the Rule and of Other Resources Necessary to Develop the Rule
The department estimates that approximately 820 hours of existing staff time will be needed to complete the rule revision process. This time includes meeting with stakeholders, drafting rule language, completing an economic impact analysis, conducting statewide public hearings, collecting public input at those hearings, and providing information for the Natural Resources Board, and legislature. Little to no economic impact is expected from the proposed rule revisions; a Level 3 Economic Impact Analysis will be prepared.
Description of all Entities that may be Affected by the Rule
Groups likely to be impacted by these issues include a) property owners: b) zoning administrators and county officials: c) realtors: d) contractors, and others who provide land alteration services: and e) members of the public who recreate on or near navigable waters.
Summary and Preliminary Comparison with any Existing or Proposed Federal Regulation that is Intended to Address the Activities to be Regulated by the Rule
There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that address the issue of shoreland zoning.
Contact Person
Russ Rasmussen, Deputy Water Division Administrator (608) 267-7651.
