Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

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.

The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

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)

Department of Natural Resources

101 S Webster St.

Madison, WI 53703

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Thomas Boos II, Forestry Invasive Plants Coordinator (FR/4)

Department of Natural Resources

101 S Webster St.

Madison, WI 53703

Ph: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [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
Chapter NR 47 Subchapter VII– The Private Forest Landowner Grant Program, and Subchapter XIII – The Weed Management Area Private Forest Grant Program. FR-19-11
Subject
Chapter NR 47 Subch. VII – Rule revision and Subch. XIII – Rule creation.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS X SEG SEG-S			s. 20.370 (5) (av), 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 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
Wis. Stats. 26.38 Forest Grant Program (2m) (a) The Department of Natural Resources shall establish a program to award grants for developing and implementing forest stewardship management plans by owners of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land and award grants to groups of interested parties for projects to control invasive plants in weed management areas. Subch. VII revisions will amend policy issues and implement updates and improvements to the program related to the implementation and administration, including practice description and priorities, grant calculations, allowable costs, funding sources, and eligibility of applicants who previously failed to use or misused grant funds. Subch. XIII rule development will implement a cost-sharing grant program for controlling invasive plants in weed management areas on NIPF lands. This includes administration, practice description and priorities, grant calculations, allowable costs, and eligibility for applicants and practices.
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)
Subch. VII – There will be no change to the current economic impact based on the proposed rule revisions as the amount of funding and eligibility are not changing. NIPF landowners wishing to apply for grants to create a forest stewardship plan or implement a forestry practice on their land, cooperating foresters, and resource managers or other private businesses that may be hired by a landowner to implement a practice under the grant program have been positively impacted by this voluntary cost-share grant program from its inception. Subch. XIII – There will be a small positive impact with the implementation of this new voluntary cost-share grant program, with $60,000.00 awarded annually. The impact will be to any party, organized landowner group, or organization owning less than 500 acres of NIPF land whishing to apply for a grant for the control of invasive plants; federal, state, and local agencies interested in the control of invasive plants on NIPF land; and any cooperating forester, restoration/landscape consultant, farm coop or other private businesses that may be hired to implement a practice under the grant program. For both subchapters, there are administration costs that will be absorbed by the department. During the solicitation period, one comment was received from a cooperating forester stating that there would not be an economic impact associated with the proposed rule change and rule creation.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Subch. VII – Implementing the rule changes would allow needed improvements and efficiencies in the implementation and administration of the program. The alternative is to continue with the program as is. Subch. XIII – Benefits of implementing this rule would be to the interested parties who want to control invasive plants or implement a practice for invasive plants. There are currently very limited funds available to persons for controlling invasive plants. Implementing this rule would be well received by all interested parties. If this rule is not implemented, NIPF landowners will either continue paying for the control of invasive plants or they will choose not to control due to cost restrictions.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Subch. VII – Increased efficiency in administering the grant program and increased understanding by partners and landowners. Subch. XIII – Development of a cost-sharing grant program benefits weed management groups who have interest in controlling invasive plants on NIPF land.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
There are no known federal rules or programs that apply directly to the control of invasive plants on NIPF lands. There are several programs that provide cost-sharing for development and implementation of forest stewardship plans on NIPF lands. However, the programs were developed for, and primarily focus on agricultural lands, and the funding is inconsistent. 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).
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
There are no known programs in neighboring 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-NRCS: EQIP and CSP; and USDA-FSA, CRP. Illinois is the only one with a state funded cost-sharing program for NIPF lands. The program covers practices similar to WFLGP and is funded from a timber harvest fee.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Carol Nielsen [phone] and Thomas Boos II [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

rulemaking_notices CR 12-031 EmR1207, CR 12-031

(DNR # WM-09-11 and WM-03-12(E))

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections 29.011, 29.014, 29.192, 227.11 and 227.24 Stats., interpreting sections 29.011, 29.014 and 29.192, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on permanent and emergency rules revising Chapter NR 10 Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the bobcat hunting and trapping season.

Hearing Information

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearing will be held on:

Date:   Monday, August 27, 2012

Time:   11:00 a.m.

Location:   Natural Resources State Office Building
  Room 608
  101 South Webster Street
  Madison, WI 53703

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.

Availability of the Proposed Rule and the Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis

The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov.

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 Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until August 27, 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. 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 analysis

These identical emergency and permanent rules establish that the bobcat hunting and trapping seasons are split into two time periods; the first beginning on the Saturday nearest Oct. 17 and continuing through Dec. 25 and the second beginning on Dec. 26 and continuing through Jan 31.

Related statute or rule

There are no related statutes or rules currently under promulgations. This emergency rule will take effect on October 1, 2012. The department anticipates that the identical permanent rule will be in effect for the 2013 bobcat hunting and trapping seasons.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

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

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.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Through this rulemaking, the department will make permanent a trial bobcat season framework that was split into two separate time periods in 2010 and 2011. The primary interest expressed by advocates for a split season framework is that ideal conditions for hunting with hounds occur when there is snow cover. These conditions do not occur before the December 31 end of the traditional, straight-season framework every year. In order to provide the type of hunting opportunity that hunters have asked for, but still maintain opportunities that trappers and hunters who do not use hounds have enjoyed, this proposal would add an additional month and create an early and a late time period and require permit applicants to choose one-or-the-other.

The dates of the bobcat season under this proposal and during the 2010 and 2011 trial period were; 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 permanent or 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.

All hunters and trappers must obtain a special harvest permit before pursuing bobcats, and the annual bag limit is one bobcat per permit. Bobcat harvest goals are set annually based upon population size in relation to management goals. The number of harvest permits issued is based on the highest success rate during the previous three years for the first time period and a conservative, high success rate for the later, new time period. Because these harvest controls are in place, the actual dates and length of the hunting and trapping seasons are more important for hunter/trapper satisfaction than for protecting the bobcat population from overharvest.

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 ss. 227.114 (6) or 227.14 (2g).

Pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

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

Agency Contact Person

Scott Loomans, 101 South Webster St., PO BOX 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921. [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
Chapter NR 10, Game and Hunting, Natural Resources Board Order WM-09-11
Subject
Re-establishing seasons for bobcat hunting and trapping.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
GPR FED PRO PRS X SEG SEG-S			None
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		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
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 and a permanent rule that eliminates a sunset provision 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.
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 bobcat hunting and trapping season framework proposed in this rulemaking will be the same as the season that was in place in 2010 and 2011. Because this rule preserves hunting and trapping opportunities which are identical to ones already in place, no fiscal or economic impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order 50, Section II, this is a level 3 economic impact analysis. A notice for Solicitation of comments on the analysis was posted on the department's website from March 26 through April 8 and various interest groups were contacted by email. One general comment of support was received from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association. An alternative to be considered during the rules process is to allow the new, split season framework to sunset. No significant fiscal or economic impacts would be expected under this scenario either. Under both the single and the split season frameworks, bobcat harvest is controlled through the issuance of permits. Bobcat population goals and harvest quotas will be the same under either season framework. The level of participation by hunters and trappers is expected to be similar and their activities would generate similar levels of economic activity. Economic activity generated under the split season framework would be spread over an additional month. The very high level of interest in the bobcat season, 12,431 applicants for 455 available permits in 2010, indicates that people will pursue bobcats regardless of the season framework. The primary interest expressed by advocates for a split season framework is that ideal conditions for hunting with hounds occur when there is snow cover. These conditions do not occur before the December 31 end of that traditional, straight-season framework every year. In order to provide the type of hunting opportunity that hunters have asked for, but still maintain opportunities that trappers and hunters who do not use hounds have enjoyed, this proposal would add an additional month and create two time periods.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Implementing this rule will assure program continuity by preventing a return to the single, straight season framework. 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. Returning to the single, straight season framework for bobcat hunting and trapping is the primary alternative. Another alternative would be to extend the trial period but that may not be needed because the department will have two years of harvest and survey data following the 2011 season. Extending the trial season framework is not particularly practical considering the length of time it will take to promulgate permanent rules to repeal the sunset.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Following the two year trial, the department's opinion is that the new split season framework provides 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.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Bobcat 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 and Iowa but are present and increasing in number in both states. Michigan hunters and trappers can generally harvest two bobcats per season. Minnesota hunters and trappers have a season limit of five bobcats. The more liberal season frameworks in Michigan and Minnesota reflect greater abundance of the species in those states and significantly less hunter and trapper interest. Neither state has the long tradition of hunting with hounds that Wisconsin has.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Scott Loomans, Wildlife Regulation Policy Specialist, 608-266-3534.