Building backups and damages caused to private property by such incidents and that may be caused by deficiencies in the sewage collection system create potential financial liability issues for the system owner. Implementation of the actions required by the rule will serve to reduce the number of building backups and any subsequent emergency activities for which the permittee may be responsible.
Therefore, the principal “new" cost associated with implementation of these proposed rules is the requirement that all owners of sewage collection systems develop or create a CMOM program. These are primarily municipalities, but also include a small number of private sewage collection systems. Under the proposed rule, creating a CMOM program requires the preparation of all documents and plans necessary to implement activities for the proper operation and maintenance of the sewage collection system. Many system owners already have in place preventative maintenance practices that essentially meet the principles of the CMOM program requirements established in the rules. The department, U.S. EPA and other organizations have been actively promoting such a program among the regulated community for the past several years and the CMOM concept has received considerable support from system owners.
Many small communities, including those serving populations less than 10,000 to 15,000 and most satellite sewage collection systems, likely do not have the full capacity to develop a CMOM program without assistance, training and/or guidance from consulting professionals. Consultants and other businesses involved in sewage collection system work will realize monetary benefits from the services they provide assisting owners with CMOM development.
Statewide costs to develop CMOM programs for all sewage collection system owners is difficult to predict due to the variability in size of systems and the status of each individual community's current operation and maintenance program. Based on information available, the estimated cost to develop a CMOM program for a small community that has minimal documentation of its preventative maintenance activities and has the ability to develop the program in-house could be as low as $1,000. More likely, costs will range upward of $5,000. If a consultant is involved to provide training or was contracted to actually prepare the CMOM documentation, the costs would be in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. CMOM program development for medium-sized communities is estimated to cost in the range of $15,000 to $20,000. Larger systems might expect costs proportionately greater. It should be noted that these costs are estimates only and should not be used for budgeting purposes. Careful, individual assessments of needs are important considerations in determining what the actual costs will be in each case.
Once the CMOM program is created, the permittee will likely have to collect and analyze sewage collection system data and undertake construction or other rehabilitation projects to implement the program. Irrespective of a CMOM program, these activities could be very costly, but are a necessary component to the effective and efficient management and proper operation of a sewage collection system and those costs cannot be directly attributed to the enactment of these rules.
Because existing rules and permits contain reporting requirements similar to those specified in this proposed rule, there should be no or minimal additional cost associated with this activity. If a system owner, under the Compliance Maintenance Annual Reporting (NR 208) rule, identifies more than 4 SSO events (as defined in the rule) in any given year, a “failing grade" for this section of the report will be noted in the reporting system. Some owners have indicated that adverse publicity and potential lawsuits by third parties could result in significant costs, even though the sewage collection system is operating within all design parameters.
The City of Superior believes the proposed rule will impose significant additional costs due to the current unique configuration of their combined sewer system. They have estimated “…a conservative expenditure of 20 million dollars…will result in a 40% increase to the residential user volume discharge."
The additional costs to the department resulting from these rule revisions will be minimal. Minor revisions to permit documents will be necessary and can be easily incorporated into the permit data management system.
Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation
There are no federal regulations that correspond to ch.
NR 110. The revisions to ch.
NR 205 will make Wisconsin's rules more compatible with current U.S. EPA regulations. Current NR 205 language applicable to “bypassing" is contained in a section of the rule that applies only to publicly owned treatment works and, therefore, does not apply to bypasses at industrial waste treatment facilities. Federal rules do not distinguish between publicly owned treatment works and industrial facilities. One amendment to NR 205 addresses this issue.
Current federal regulations are ambiguous concerning their application to SSO discharges. Inconsistency in U.S. EPA's interpretation of their regulations has created uncertainty in expectations. Therefore, revisions to ch.
NR 210 will create greater specificity with respect to provisions governing SSO discharges. Other changes to NR 205 also make this rule more compatible with U.S. EPA regulations concerning bypasses within treatment facilities that are necessary for purposes of essential maintenance and operation as well as addressing some discrepancies associated with anticipated or scheduled bypasses.
There is no federal regulation mandating establishment and implementation of CMOM programs. U.S. EPA has incorporated CMOM requirements into many enforcement actions across the country. Over the past decade, the practice of diverting sewage around biological treatment units at sewage treatment facilities under specific conditions and recombining or “blending" this diverted wastewater with fully treated effluent has been subject to several U.S. EPA proposals. None of the proposals for allowing blending have been finalized and U.S. EPA's application of the federal “bypass prohibition" rule to blending has been sporadic and inconsistent creating great uncertainty about the acceptability of this practice.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states
All the other U.S. EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio) and the state of Iowa regulate SSOs through state statutes, regulations or guidance in a manner similar to past interpretation of U.S. EPA's bypass regulation. The general bypassing prohibition language and reporting requirements in these states are similar to current Department of Natural Resources rules and permits. Most states, over the past several years, have implemented enhancements to the reporting requirements and tracking (including making such information available to the public) of SSO releases. None of the states have rules relating to blending, though it is apparent from reviewing information available that this practice is not unusual at some sewage treatment facilities. No adjacent states issue permits to satellite sewage collection systems nor do they specifically require that all sewage collection system owners operate a CMOM program.
Environmental Analysis
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.
Agency Contacts
Duane Schuettpelz
Department of Natural Resources
P. O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Telephone contact:
Michael Lemcke
Department of Natural Resources
608-266-2666
Notice of Hearing
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs.
NR 1—
(DNR # FR-19-11)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to sections 227.16 and 227.17, Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the department, will hold public hearings on changes to Chapter
NR 47 Subchapter
VII, regarding administration of the Private Forest Landowner Grant Program (WFLGP) and the creation of Subchapter XIII regarding the establishment of the Weed Management Area Private Forest Grant Program (WMA-PFGP) on the date(s) and at the time(s) and location(s) listed below.
Hearing Information
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Wisconsin DNR Service Center
Gathering Waters Meeting Room
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Fitchburg, WI 53711
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Wisconsin DNR Service Center
Conference Room 1
107 Sutliff Avenue
Rhinelander, WI 54501
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Wisconsin DNR Service Center
Rooms 158/185
1300 W. Clairemont
Eau Claire, WI 54702
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 contact Carol Nielsen in writing at the Department of Natural Resources, Private & Community Forest Section (FR/4), 101 S Webster, Madison, WI 53707; by E-mail to
carol.nielsen@wisconsin.gov; or by calling (608) 267-7508 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Availability of the Proposed Rule and the Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis
The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be viewed and downloaded and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. (Search this Web site using the Natural Resources Board Order No. FR-19-11).
Place Where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission
Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to contacting Carol Nielsen, Department of Natural Resources, Private & Community Forest Section (FR/4), 101 S. Webster St, Madison, WI 53703, or by calling (608) 267-7508. Comments may be submitted until July 31, 2012. 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. If you do not have Internet access, a personal copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate may be obtained from Kristin Lambert, Bureau of Forest Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by calling (608) 261-0754.
Related rules or statutes
Section
23.2355, Weed Management Grants was created to disperse federal dollars that are no longer available. Under subch.
III of Ch. NR 47, Admin. Code, the Stewardship Incentives Program was created to disperse federal dollars that are no longer available.
Plain language analysis
The proposed rules address 1) revision to the current Wisconsin Forest Landowner Grant Program (WFLGP) for NIPF landowners in subch.
VII of Ch. NR 47 Admin. Code and 2) the establishment of WMA-PFGP in subch.
XIII of Ch. NR 47, Admin. Code.
Revisions of Ch.
NR 47 are proposed to implement changes to the Wisconsin Forest Landowner Grant Program (WFLGP) for NIPF lands and to create WMA-PFGP to award weed management groups interested in controlling invasive plants on NIPF lands.
A review of the 12 year old WFLGP was completed by the Division of Forestry's Private Land Management Specialist Team to identify ways to streamline administration, more efficiently use the dollars available and to continue to address landowner and forest resource needs. The team includes internal forestry and wildlife staff, and external landowner, consulting forester and educator representatives.
Creation of subch.
XIII of Ch. NR 47, Admin. Code, will enable the department to award funds to control invasive plants on NIPF lands in WMA-PFGPs, by defining application requirements, eligible practices and costs, and rules for administration.
Proposed revisions of subch. VII NR 47 Forest Landowner Grant Program
These recommendations were developed through a review of the existing program and are recommended to provide greater flexibility in meeting landowner and program goals, more efficient use of funding, and to address current and future resource needs identified in the Statewide Forest Strategy.
• Modify rule to allow the department to annually set funding levels and priorities. Currently funding levels for practices are set in rule. This change would allow the department to be more responsive to changing forest resources concerns, address statewide forest strategies and respond to private forest landowner needs.
• Modify application deadlines from four to two and allow for additional dates to be established on the application. This will allow the department to be more responsive to landowner needs as the deadlines for other related programs change (e.g., MFL application deadline).
• Modify rule to limit matching grants to not more than 75% of actual costs. Currently matching grants cannot be less than 50% nor more than 65%. Providing for up to 75% will allow for focusing funding on higher priority resource and landowner needs (e.g., recovery after a catastrophic event).
• Modify grant period from 18 to 24 months. The grant period is being expanded to respond to landowner needs to implement the practices and to decrease the dollars that may other wise be returned when a practices is not fully implemented.
• Create a waiting period (24 months) for individuals who fail to use any portion of the funds awarded before the grant expires. Since this grant program is not a continuing appropriation any grants awarded in a biennium and not used cannot be given out again. This revision would encourage landowners who are awarded a grant to complete the practice or return the money earlier so it can be awarded to another landowner. This would not be applied when circumstance are beyond the landowners control.
• Update practice descriptions to reflect changes in practice components and purposes.
• Modify language to allow for the use of nonprofit organization funding similar to federal funding currently provided for in the rule.
Creation of subch. XIII NR 47 Weed Management Area Private Forest Grant Program
• Define eligible and ineligible applicants. Weed management groups (WMG), non-profit organizations, government entities may be applicants as long as funds are being used on NIPF land. A WMG consists of 3 or more persons of which at least one must be a person participating.
• Define eligible practices. Education and outreach if it pertains to invasive plants; inventory, control, and monitoring of invasive plants; development of long-term management plans; and establishing a WMG are all eligible practices under this grant program.
• Define eligible costs and ineligible costs. Eligible costs are those identified in the application and are associated with implementing eligible practices. Ineligible costs are those incurred before grant is awarded; practices that have not been approved by the department; costs to repair damages caused by implementing a practice, work on industrial forests; work on public land and travel to and from sites.
• Create grant criteria. The department will review applications to determine if the practice is needed and feasible, that there is evidence of at least one participation agreement at the time of application, and that there is a person participating who owns 500 acres or less of NIPF land.
• Create grant selection criteria. Preference will be given to projects which accomplish one or more of the following criteria: work on prohibited invasive plants, work on early detection species, protect sustainability of forest lands, applicants have a long-term management plan, work on forested land that is not heavily infested with invasive plants, or forest land where invasive plant species may be contained or eradicated.
• Define rapid response practices. These practices aid the department in allowing for control of prohibited or early detection invasive plant populations. Grant applications for rapid response practices are accepted at any time of year to offer more flexibility with prohibited or early detection invasive plant control. The department may cover up to 100% of the eligible costs for rapid response practices.
• Create requirements for payment, reconsideration, and enforcement. Reports detailing work completed are due before payment will be awarded. If grant extensions are needed due to conditions beyond the applicant's control, the department can award up to a one year extension. If funds are used for ineligible practices or costs, reimbursement may be withheld.
• Allow for other state, federal, or non-profit organization funds to be distributed through this program.
Summary and comparison with existing and proposed federal regulations
There are no known federal regulations that apply to the Wisconsin Forest Landowner Grant Program or the Weed Management Area Private Forest Grant Program. Federal funds distributed through subch. VII and subch. XIII are subject to the rules of the specific program.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
There are no known programs in adjacent states regarding cost-sharing grants for invasive plant control. Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa primarily use federal cost-sharing programs for development and implementation of forest stewardship plans on NIPF lands. Programs include USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS): Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP); and USDA-Farm Service Agency (FSA), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Illinois is the only one with a sate funded cost-sharing program for NIPF. This program covers practices similar to WFLGP and is funded from a timber harvest fee.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Department of Natural Resources Private Land Management Team completed a program review of WFLGP policies and procedures which was referenced during the rule revision.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of economic impact report
The total amount of funding from the WFLGP appropriation under s.
20.370 (5) (av), Wis Stats., is not changing from the past amounts; therefore the overall secondary effect on small businesses will be the same as it has been in the past. The only change is to shift $60,000 of the WFLGP funds to be awarded through WMA-PFGP total $60,000.00; this shift in funds will have a positive secondary impact on small businesses that provide services or equipment for controlling terrestrial invasive plants.
Effect on Small Business
This rule positively affects small business as a secondary benefit, specifically contractors (restoration consultants, cooperating foresters, loggers) and retailers who provide services or equipment for controlling terrestrial invasive plants or forest stewardship plan development and implementation.
Pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses.
Environmental Analysis
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.
Agency Contact Person
Carol K. Nielsen, Private Lands Forestry Specialist (FR/4)
