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: (608) 267-0372
|
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
| |||
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
|
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: (608) 267-0372
|
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 1, contracting with cooperating foresters and private contractors for regenerations services, s. NR 1.27.
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Contracting with cooperating foresters or private contractors for forest regeneration services on harvested lands owned and managed by the Department of Natural Resource.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
20.370 (1) (cy)
| |||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
X No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
X 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)
| ||||
X 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
| ||||
2005 Assembly Bill 254 and the resulting 2005 Act 166 promulgated the process to provide an inventory of all forested Department of Natural Resource lands, identify the forest resources available for management, develop annual allowable harvest levels, and undertake such management within 90% and 110% of those levels. Act 166 further provided a mechanism, through the use of Cooperating Foresters, to assist the department in establishing timber sales. What was not provided was an additional funding source to implement pre and post harvest regeneration treatments in the areas harvested. These funds are needed to ensure the forest continues to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state and certification guidelines. To date, Department owned lands have seen a 190% increase in timber sale activity since 2005 from approximately 9700 acres to approximately 25,000 acres per year. With an increase in timber sale activities, regeneration needs closely follow the acres harvested.
In the absence of the new rule the Department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. These funding sources fall short of regeneration needs and the ability to achieve future desired conditions on state lands will continue to be hampered. In addition, land managers may be apprehensive to harvest in more complex ecosystems where a quick response of regeneration is required. The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
Entities that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments include: cooperating foresters and private contractors that perform regeneration services. The department utilized a e-mail distribution list that includes registered cooperating foresters, members of Wisconsin Consulting Foresters (WCF), and small businesses that perform regeneration services.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
No local units of government are affected by this rule and as such none were involved in the development of the EIA
| ||||
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 will provide a positive economic impact on short and long term business opportunities for contractors that perform and provide regeneration services and equipment. It is estimated that annual state spending under the rule will be between $300,000.00 and $600,000.00. This will support between 6,000 and 12,000 contractor-hours spread across the entire state, but concentrated in rural areas. The forests will continue to be sustainably managed and assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits, including long-term support of Wisconsin forest products industry.
Minimal implementation or compliance costs are expected to be incurred. Any oversight or administration of this rule will be performed by existing staff.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The new rule will provide assurance that funding will be available to implement forest regeneration activities after harvesting has occurred. In the absence of the new rule the Department would rely on gifts, grants, and limited existing regeneration funds to implement regeneration activities on state owned lands. Implementing the rule will allow the Department to meet land management objectives identified in property master plans and provide assurances that harvested lands will be regenerated and those harvested lands will be managed accordingly.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Wisconsin's state forests will continue to be sustainably managed and to assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits within state guidelines.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
The Federal Government provides a similar mechanism on federal lands. The USDA Forest Service utilizes the Knutson-Vandenberg) – Brush Disposal (KV-BD) accounts, which are deductions from timber sales to fund forest regeneration and reduce fire hazard. The USDI Bureau of Indian Affairs utilizes Forest Management Deductions (FMD) under 25. CFR § 163.25 for a similar purpose and method.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
A search of rules in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota revealed that these states do not have similar rules
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Tim Beyer
|
(920) 892-8756 x3047
| |||
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 will provide a positive economic impact on short and long term business opportunities for contractors that perform and provide regeneration services and equipment. It is estimated that annual state spending under the rule will be between $300,000.00 and $600,000.00. This will support between 6,000 and 12,000 contractor-hours spread across the entire state, but concentrated in rural areas. The forests will continue to be sustainably managed and assure that the post harvest stand will continue to produce re-occurring forest products and other public benefits, including long-term support of Wisconsin forest products industry.
There are no new compliance, reporting, or bookkeeping requirements with the proposed rule.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
This rule is not expected to have any adverse impact on small businesses.
|
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:
There will be no impact on small businesses.
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
This rule provided a positive economic impact on small businesses the perform regeneration services. Minimal implementation or compliance costs are expected to be borne by small businesses. It simply provides a funding mechanism to fund regeneration work on state managed lands.
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
There are no enforcement provisions specific to this rule other that enforcement of performance measures outlined in State of Wisconsin Professional Services contracts (specific performance criteria, state labor laws, etc.).
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|
