Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Of the four adjacent states, only Minnesota and Michigan have lake trout fisheries on the Great Lakes. The commercial harvest of lake trout from Minnesota waters of Lake Superior is limited to a population assessment fishery. In Michigan waters of Lake Superior there is no state-licensed commercial fishery, but tribal harvest is guided by the same modeling approach as in Wisconsin.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The total allowable catch of lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior is divided among tribal commercial fisheries, state-licensed commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishers, and state sport anglers. A ten-year State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement specifies annual allowable lake trout harvests, defines refuges and special fishing areas, and establishes other terms and arrangements for state and tribal commercial fishing. The allowable lake trout harvests are reviewed by a state-tribal biological committee using the latest available data and modeling results. Based on those results and recommendations from the biological committee, the Agreement is re-negotiated as needed to change the total annual harvest of lake trout by all fishers, and possibly to address other issues related to shared harvest of lake trout and other species by state and tribal fishers.

There has been a steady decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior since the early 2000s. This decline has been confirmed by independent surveys conducted by the department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Some level of decline was expected due to high harvest limits in the early 2000s, which were in response to several large year classes (numbers of fish spawned in the same year) predicted to enter the fishery. However, mortality of lake trout from sea lamprey over the last eight years has also been higher than Lake Superior target levels. This combination of increased harvest and lamprey mortality has caused lake trout abundance to decline. While relatively stable abundances of spawning lake trout suggest that this decline is still reversible, action needs to be taken to arrest the lean lake trout population's decline. The decline in lake trout population abundances and predicted further declines necessitate the emergency harvest reductions in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.

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

There would be no implementation costs for the department. State-licensed and tribal commercial fishers may be affected by the amount of fish they are able to harvest. It is not expected that fishers will have any compliance expenditures or reporting changes associated with the rule.

The decline in lean lake trout abundance in Lake Superior has been confirmed by surveys conducted by the department and has been projected by models used to set safe harvest levels. Rule changes are necessary in order to ensure a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.

Effects on Small Business

The proposed rule change would impact state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, fish wholesalers, and others whose interests or businesses are affected by commercial fishing. Minimal impact is expected for businesses or business associations. No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed on small businesses as a result of these rule changes.

The rule will be enforced by department conservation wardens under the authority of chapter 29, Stats., through routine patrols, record audits of wholesale fish dealers and commercial fishers, and follow up investigations of citizen complaints.

Final regulatory flexibility analysis

The proposed rule is expected to have minimal economic impact on small businesses. The department determined 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's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Rules Proposed by the Department of Veterans Affairs

No information.

Environmental Impact

The department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

Agency Contact Person

Peter Stevens

Department of Natural Resources

141 S. Third Street

Bayfield WI, 54814

Telephone: [phone] Ext: 12

Email: [e-mail].

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   Updated   Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Sections of chs. NR 20 and 25 related to lake trout harvest limits in Lake Superior
3. Subject
The emergency rule will implement harvest limits for the 2012-13 lake trout commercial harvest season. It reduces the annual commercial fishing harvest limit for lake trout on Lake Superior, revises rules limiting gill-net fishing effort, and authorizes limitations on recreational fishing based on negotiations to develop the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect X Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		X Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers X Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The welfare of state-licensed commercial fishers, tribal commercial fishers, recreational anglers, and associated businesses is threatened by a decline in the lake trout population in the Apostle Islands vicinity of Lake Superior. The emergency rule is necessary to implement harvest limits for the 2012-13 lake trout commercial harvest season.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
The purpose of the emergency rule is to amend Lake Superior lake trout harvest limits as required by revisions to the State-Tribal Lake Superior Agreement. The total allowable catch of lake trout in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior is divided among tribal commercial fisheries, state-licensed commercial fisheries, tribal subsistence fishers, and state sport anglers. Lake trout harvest limits were negotiated in October 2012 among the Department of Natural Resources and the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa and those changes must be ordered through Administrative Code. The Department met with the Lake Superior Commercial Fishing Board in November 2012. The Board understood the biological need for making harvest quota changes, but it had concerns that cuts be made fairly and equitably across all fishers.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
N/A
12. 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 rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2011 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, this rule will also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish since lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $160,000 in 2011. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $40,000 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000. The proposed rule does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. The rule does not allow for the potential to establish a reduced fine for small businesses, nor does it establish “alternative enforcement mechanisms" for “minor violations" of administrative rules made by small businesses. Public utility rate payers and local governmental units will not be affected by the rule.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
A predicted continued decline in lake trout population abundances necessitates the current reductions in harvest numbers to support a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term. Allowing harvest at current quota and effort limits - an alternative to implementing the rule - is not biologically sustainable and could create negative economic impacts for commercial fishers.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
Reducing quota and effort limits for commercial fishers, authorizing harvest limits on recreational fishers, and monitoring lake trout populations will support a sustainable lake trout fishery over the long-term.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Authority to promulgate fishing regulations is granted to states. None of the proposed changes violate or conflict with federal regulations.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Of the four states, only Minnesota and Michigan have lake trout fisheries on the Great Lakes. The commercial harvest of lake trout from Minnesota waters of Lake Superior is limited to a population assessment fishery. In Michigan waters of Lake Superior there is no state-licensed commercial fishery, but there is a tribal harvest guided by the same modeling approach as Wisconsin.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Peter Stevens				[phone] Ext. 12

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

The rule may limit the commercial harvest of lake trout and other species by state-licensed and tribal commercial fishers. The total dockside value of the reported state commercial lake trout harvest in 2011 was approximately $20,000. Harvest is not expected to be reduced by more than 25% and therefore the lost value of lake trout is not expected to exceed $5,000. However, this rule will also limit the amount of gill net effort commercial fishers can use to target whitefish since lake trout are frequently caught in the same nets. Reductions in gill net effort therefore have the potential to cause commercial fishers additional income reductions. The total dockside value of whitefish harvested by state commercial fishers in gill nets was approximately $160,000 in 2011. Harvest is expected to be reduced by no more than 25% putting the total loss at no more than $40,000 and likely less because fishers can shift to using trap nets that are not subject to the same effort restrictions governing gill nets. Moreover, commercial fishers can continue current efforts to adjust the location, time, and manner in which they set gill nets targeting whitefish so as to reduce harvest of non-target lake trout. The exact amount of economic impact is unknown, but is not expected to exceed $50,000. The proposed rule does not impose any compliance or reporting requirements on small businesses nor are any design or operational standards contained in the rule. The rule does not allow for the potential to establish a reduced fine for small businesses, nor does it establish “alternative enforcement mechanisms" for “minor violations" of administrative rules made by small businesses. Public utility rate payers and local governmental units will not be affected by the rule.

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

Dockside values of fish; commercial fishing harvest reports.

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

X Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements X Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting X Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements X Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards X Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements ⍽ Other, describe:

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

No additional compliance or reporting requirements will be imposed on small businesses as a result of these rule changes.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

The rule will be enforced by Department Conservation Wardens under the authority of chapter 29, Stats., through routine patrols, record audits of wholesale fish dealers and commercial fishers, and follow up investigations of citizen complaints.

6. Did the Agency Prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. 1—
Environmental Protection—General, Chs. 100—
Environmental Protection—Water
Regulation, Chs. 300—
Environmental Protection—Air Pollution
Control, Chs. 400—
Environmental Protection—Solid Waste
Management, Chs. 500—Environmental Protection—Hazardous Waste Management, Chs. 600—
Environmental Protection—Water Supply, Chs. 800—

rulemaking_notices CR 13-022 CR 13-022

(DNR # OE-46-10)

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board proposes an order to revise chs. NR 2, 19, 51, 108, 110, 126, 134, 150, 166, 101, 300, 305, 310, 327, 345, 410, 512, 670, and 820, relating to the Department's environmental analysis and review procedures under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 1.11 and 227.11, Wis. Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the Department's environmental analysis and review procedures under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. The proposed rule revisions would make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s. 1.11, Wis. Stats. The revised rule will emphasize the analysis of broad issues and policies, de-emphasize document production for individual project actions, and provide for meaningful public involvement.

The hearing will be held on:

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time:   11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Location:   Eau Claire Room
  LE Philips Memorial Library
  400 Eau Claire Street
  Eau Claire, WI

Date:   Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time:   11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Location:   Green Bay DNR Service Center
  2984 Shawano Avenue
  Green Bay, WI

Date:   Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Time:   2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Location:   Room G09
  State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2)
  101 South Webster Street
  Madison, WI

The Department will hold an open house for one-half hour prior to each hearing. Department staff will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed rule.

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

Availability of Rules and Submitting Comments

The proposed rule may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Information concerning the Natural Resources Board review of this rule is available at the following internet site: http://dnr.wi.gov/about/nrb/.

Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Jeff Schimpff, Bureau of Energy, Transportation, and Environmental Analysis (ETEA/7), P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until April 26, 2013. 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. Jeff Schimpff, Bureau of Energy, Transportation, and Environmental Analysis (ETEA/7), P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Statutes interpreted

Section 1.11, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 1.11 and 227.11, Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

The Department has general authority to promulgate rules under s. 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., that interprets the specific statutory authority granted in s. 1.11, Stats.

Related statutes or rules

WEPA compliance is a requirement for all state agencies and Department programs. As a result, many statutes and codes are WEPA and NR 150-related.

Statute chapters: Chapters 16, 23, 30, 33, 160, 196, 227, 285, 289, 291, and 293, Stats.

Administrative Code chapters: Chapters NR 1, 2, 19, 44, 48, 52, 60, 103, 107, 108, 110, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 162, 166, 182, 191, 200, 243, 299, 300, 305, 310, 327, 345, 347, 406, 410, 489, 512, 670, 820, and 852.

The department proposes several housekeeping changes to some of these other administrative codes that would have obsolete ch. NR 150 references after the changes to ch. NR 150 are codified.

Plain language analysis

WEPA and ch. NR 150 are cornerstone laws for the agency that date back to the early 1970's. The rule change will make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s. 1.11, Wis. Stats. The new rule emphasizes the analysis of broad issues and policies, reduces process and paperwork requirements for individual project actions, and provides clear procedures for public involvement.

The new rule will require that the Department: 1) identify and analyze environmental issues important for their geographic, multidisciplinary, or policy scope; 2) analyze issues earlier, when alternative options have not been foreclosed; 3) provide that environmental analysis information be incorporated into departmental policy and decision-making; 4) define and provide meaningful public involvement; 5) address the information/policy-driven requirements of s. 1.11 (2) (e) and (h), Stats., as separate from the action/project-driven requirements of s. 1.11 (2) (c), Stats.; 6) identify and eliminate process requirements that have become duplicative over time as a result of changes in statutory authorities and administrative practice; and 7) replace the current Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code type list with criteria for identifying, prioritizing, analyzing and seeking public input on relevant issues.

The new rule eliminates the use of Environmental Assessments as a means of WEPA compliance for individual actions. The new rule adds new process and procedures for bigger picture strategic policy analyses.

The fundamental Department policy regarding WEPA, as currently embodied in NR 150, will not change. The rule re-creation will result in a number of procedural changes and a new emphasis on how the Department applies the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, especially to its policy development actions.

Summary and comparison with existing and proposed federal regulations

The 1970 Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) and s. 1.11, Stats., were modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which established guidelines and regulations to implement the Act. As with other state agencies' WEPA rules, ch. NR 150 was based in part upon the federal CEQ guidelines. This proposed revision of ch. NR 150 will remain substantially consistent with the CEQ guidelines.

Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states

Neighboring states have significant differences in their related laws, so the opportunity to gain from their experience is limited. For example, Minnesota requires that counties also follow WEPA-like analysis procedures, whereas Wisconsin counties have no such requirements. Illinois' law covers only actions conducted by the state itself, whereas in Wisconsin, WEPA applies to all actions by other entities that are subject to state approvals.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

The Department of Natural Resources Office of Energy and Environmental Analysis (OEEA) staff reviewed relevant WEPA case law and federal CEQ regulations, obtained the input of an internal team of staff from several Department programs, and involved a broad range of potentially interested and affected external parties.

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

Chapter NR 150 is an administrative process rule that applies internally to the Department, so impacts to businesses are minimal.

Effect on Small Business

Businesses that may be affected by this rule revision include mainly those that are required to apply for certain DNR permits for projects. The level of environmental analysis required for DNR actions will be considerably less under the proposed rule.

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 SmallBusinessReg. [e-mail] or by calling [phone].

Environmental Impact

The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.

A Copy of any Comments and Opinion Prepared by the Board of Veterans Affairs under s. 45.03 (2m), Stats., for Rules Proposed by the Department of Veterans Affairs

Not applicable.

Agency Contact Person

David Siebert, Director

Office of Energy and Environmental Analysis

Phone: [phone]

[e-mail]

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)	Division of Executive Budget and Finance 101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor P.O. Box 7864 Madison, WI 53707-7864 FAX: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter NR 150 - Environmental analysis and review procedures for department actions.
3. Subject
Implementation of Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, s. 1.11 Wis. Stats.
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   X SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			No
6. 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 Cost
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers ⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes   X No
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
This rule was last updated in a significant way in 1987. Over time, many WEPA process requirements have become duplicative of analysis and public involvement steps in internal review processes and regulatory program processes. This is a result of changes in statutory authorities and administrative practice, especially in the operations of environmental permit review programs. The revised rule emphasizes identifying and eliminating such duplication. This rule proposes to shift resources to conducting issue or policy analyses.
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
Businesses that may be affected by this rule revision include mainly those that are required to apply for certain DNR permits for projects. The workload of environmental analysis required for repetitive DNR actions will be considerably less under the proposed rule. Chapter NR 150 is an administrative process rule that applies internally to DNR, so any impacts to businesses are minimal. DNR convened an external group to advise on rule development that included agribusiness, developers, manufacturers, homebuilders, utilities and conservation groups.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Our external review group included a representative of the WI Towns Assn, as well as an attorney who regularly represents municipalities on wastewater, wetlands, waterway, water supply, stormwater and other environmental issues.
12. 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)
We estimate that the proposed rule will have a minimal economic impact because it affects the internal operating procedures of the department. It does not directly affect businesses, local governments, or other entities. Although the intent of the proposal is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of department project-specific actions under WEPA, any staff resources made available as a result will be devoted to other issues that address the broader impacts of categories of actions of generally statewide importance.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rule change will make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s. 1.11, Wis. Stats. The revised rule will emphasize the analysis of broad issues and policies, de-emphasize workload associated with individual project actions, and provide meaningful public involvement. The new rule will require that the Department: 1) identify and analyze environmental issues important for their geographic, multidisciplinary, or policy scope; 2) analyze issues earlier, when alternative options have not been foreclosed, and on an ongoing basis; 3) provide that environmental analysis information be incorporated into departmental policy and decision-making; 4) define and provide meaningful public involvement; 5) address the information/policy-driven requirements of s. 1.11(2)(e) and (h) as separate from the action/project-driven requirements of s. 1.11(2)(c); 6) identify and eliminate process requirements that have become duplicative over time as a result of changes in statutory authorities and administrative practice; and 7) replace the current Ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code type list with criteria for identifying, prioritizing, analyzing and seeking public input on relevant issues. Alternatives to the proposed rule changes would include leaving NR 150 as it currently is. This alternative was rejected as not meeting the need to more effectively and efficiently implement s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The rule change will make the Department's WEPA compliance more effective, meaningful and consistent with WEPA and s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
This revised rule is similar to the existing rule, in that it substantially follows the guidelines of the federal Council on Environmental Quality, as directed by s. 1.11, Wis. Stats.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Neighboring states have significant differences in their related laws, so the opportunity to gain from their experience is limited. For example, Minnesota requires that counties also follow WEPA-like analysis procedures, whereas Wisconsin counties have no such requirements. Illinois' law covers only actions conducted by the state itself, whereas in Wisconsin, WEPA applies to all actions by other entities that are subject to state approvals.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
David Siebert				608-264-6048

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

None

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

None

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?

⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements ⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting ⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements ⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards ⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements X Other, describe: NR 150 is largely an internal process rule, so rule changes would have no measurable impact upon small businesses.

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

Not applicable.

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

This rule carries no enforcement provisions. Disputes regarding the need to conduct an analysis and the procedures to follow for the analysis and public involvement have administrative and judicial avenues of appeal.

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—

rulemaking_notices CR 13-023 CR 13-023

(DNR # FR-24-11)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to Section 28.05 (3) (am), Wis. Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold a public hearing on revisions to ch. NR 1, Wisc. Adm. Code, relating to the promulgation of a rule that establishes a program allowing cooperating foresters and private contractors to assist the state in regenerating harvested areas of state lands to meet the annual allowable timber harvest established under Wis. Stat. s. 28.025. The statute also directs the department to pay for the services from a portion of the proceeds received from timber sales. Section 28.05 (3) (am) Wis. Stats., created by 2011 Act 32; and Section 28.025, Wis. Stats., created by 2005 Act 166, required the Department to promulgate this rule.

Hearing Dates and Locations

Date:   Friday, April 26, 2013
Time:   1:30 p.m.
Location:   State Natural Resources Building
  Room G09 (GEF 2)
  101 S. Webster Street, Madison, WI 53703