Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Revisions to Ch. NR 1 are minor and consist of an update to Natural Resources Board policy so that the term “population objective" and “goal" are used consistently throughout the board order and for concise wording. This rule order favors the term “objective" to describe the deer population level that management activities are designed to achieve. The terms “objective" and “goal" are very similar and “objective" is favored in this rulemaking because it was a recommendation of the trustee's report.

Chapter NR 10 establishes most of the deer population management policy and practices and hunting regulations that are in place today. Currently, Ch. NR 10 establishes the Sex-Age-Kill model for estimating deer populations, deer population goals, and deer management units. These rules repeal that specific population model from the chapter. However, these rules do not prohibit the department from continuing to analyze deer populations using the Sex-Age-Kill model or others as methods of developing population information. These rules will replace the current population goals by eliminating numeric goals and replacing them with a simplified statement of objectives to “increase, stabilize, or decrease the deer population." These rules establish a set of metrics to monitor progress towards the objective. These rules significantly reduce the number of deer management units. These rules do not change the department's current requirement to evaluate deer management unit boundaries and population goals or objectives on a recurring three year basis.

Under these rules, the department will be able to modify antlerless harvest quotas, and permit levels on an annual basis. These rules recommend that the department consult with groups or representatives for certain deer related interests in establishing quotas each year. Historical demand for antlerless permits has not been a factor that the department was required to consider in quota setting in the past but would be a mandatory consideration under these rules. Under this proposal, hunters in most of the state will continue to receive an antlerless deer tag with the purchase of a firearm or archery license. This tag will be comparable to the current “herd control unit" tag which is issued in units that are 20% or more over the established population goal. Under the proposal, these tags will be valid in any farmland unit. The department currently issues additional herd control tags for the cost of a $2.00 issuance fee but those tags will be discontinued by this rule. Under this proposal, the standard fee of $12.00, also the current fee for a bonus permit, will apply for all antlerless permits which are in addition to the one that was issued with hunting licenses. These rules also establish a $12.00 fee for additional antlerless tags which allow harvest of deer in the CWD-affected area. Under statute, $5.00 of the fee for these permits will be credited to an account for management and testing of chronic wasting disease. Finally, through the Deer Management Assistance Program, these rules allow establishing unique antlerless deer permits that are specific for use on properties enrolled in the Deer Management Assistance Program. A recommendation resulting from the public involvement process that preceded development of these rules was that the fee for bonus permits should be $10.00. That is not proposed in these rules because the bonus permit fee is already established by statute and the department does not have rulemaking authority to change it. Other permits, the fee for which the department does have rulemaking authority, are generally also $12.00 for consistency with bonus permits.

A variety of related hunting regulations changes are proposed in these rules. Many of them are simplifications to current rules. Changes include the names for permits and the allowable use of various deer permits. Deer carcass tags, tagging, and transportation requirements are modified where possible in order to simplify regulations or as opportunities will arise during development of new automated licensing systems. The current requirement to register deer is replaced in these rules with a more customer-friendly harvest reporting procedure using telephone or internet. Black bear are another species for which in-person registration of harvested animals is required. These rules will modify bear harvest recording requirements because deer and bear registration occur at the same locations and through the same process under current rules. These rules will eliminate deadlines to register deer and bear that currently vary by season, harvest method, and location. Instead, a simple statewide requirement to register deer and bear harvest before midnight of the date of harvest is established. This allows fewer hours to register an animal than under current law but electronic registration will be significantly more convenient. Faster registration of deer will provide the department and others who are interested with very timely harvest information. The shorter deadline may also help with enforcing bag limit restrictions. The option to require in-person registration of deer carcasses is preserved in areas that are part of a CWD affected area or where necessary for deer population and herd health monitoring purposes. The department could take advantage of this authority in order to collect tissue specimens for sampling for a wide variety of diseases or biometrics associated with deer populations. Finally, in order to assure hunter accountability and compliance with group bagging restrictions, these rules establish that a deer carcass possessed in the field must be accompanied by the person who tagged it. For practical purposes, this requirement is the same as current rules because in-the-field registration of harvested deer was not possible previously. However, now that deer could be registered while in the field, rules will continue to require that the person who tagged the carcass accompany it during dragging or other field transport. Deer that have been registered could be transported by other people on public roads or possessed at home.

Season date modifications will have the impact of opening a number of refuges, which are established in Chs. NR 11 and 15, to additional deer hunting during the late firearm season that begins on December 24. These refuges are located primarily on department managed lands and most of them were established to provide undisturbed resting areas for migrating waterfowl. This deer hunt will occur very late in fall migration and will normally be after all waterfowl seasons are closed.

The department is recommending deer hunting season date modifications as a result of this rulemaking. While the report generally recommended that, “keeping seasons and bag limits consistent for longer periods of time would allow better assessment of management progress", it is challenging to discuss management system changes of this scale without considering season dates. These rules will maintain the current season for hunting deer by archery methods. This proposal maintains the traditional Wisconsin firearm deer season opener on the Saturday before Thanksgiving and 9 day structure. The current 10 day muzzleloader season is extended by four days under this proposal and this extended muzzleloader-only season will replace what had previously been a statewide four day any-firearm season for antlerless deer only. This proposal establishes an additional firearm deer hunting opportunity in the portion of the state South of HWY 64 beginning on December 24 and continuing to the Sunday nearest January 6. This holiday deer hunt occurs under current rules in the CWD management zone. It has been a low-pressure event but, for some, a greatly appreciated opportunity for additional deer hunting at a time when families are together and around which some new deer hunting traditions are developing. The late firearm season, or holiday hunt, is similar to seasons offered in other adjacent states and will occur during a time of the year when more residents are traditionally taking vacation or home for the holidays as in the case of veterans. Finally, only in areas that are part of the CWD season under current rules, archery deer hunting has been allowed on the day before the traditional 9-day firearm season opens. Under this proposal, the archery deer season will be open statewide on the day before the traditional 9-day firearm season for consistency with the rest of the state.

Under current rule, numerous state parks are listed in the table that establishes deer seasons because the DNR was required to establish hunting seasons in state parks by administrative rule. Under 2011 ACT 168, hunting is allowed at state parks except where, or at times when, the Natural Resources Board has prohibited the activity in order to protect public safety or a unique plant or animal community. Because the old presumption that state parks are closed unless opened by rule has been replaced by a presumption that state parks are open unless board action has been taken to close them, most state park names have been removed from the table. Those parks will be open to deer hunting under normal statewide regulations at times when hunting has not been prohibited for safety related purposes. A number of parks, which had deer hunting seasons or regulations which are not the same as the ones that apply statewide are still found in the season table in order to preserve those unique seasons or regulations. All state park deer management unit number designations have been repealed and state parks are simply referred to by their name. Finally, current rules require that deer hunters in state parks in the CWD management zone obtain a free access permit to a park. The number of access permits is not restricted. This rule repeals that requirement because it is no longer needed considering that access to other parks will not be monitored to this extent.

The trustee's report generally recommends a more passive approach than current department policy to the management of Chronic Wasting Disease. This approach is reflected by the establishment of deer seasons in CWD affected areas that are the same as in other areas of the state. Management of CWD in the state's deer herd is still important under these rules. These rules retain the firearm deer season occurring over the Christmas holiday, the option to issue landowner permits for sampling or for additional harvest opportunities, and provide advice on when an October firearm season will be held if necessary in a CWD areas. While the promulgation of emergency rules is required under s. 29.016, Stats., before an October firearm season can be held, establishing by permanent rule when that season would occur is intended to simplify development of an emergency rule if that authority is utilized. These rules modify the current CWD zone management system by designating it as the CWD-affected area using county boundaries to describe the zone instead of the previous DMU configuration based on roads and natural features such as rivers. A process for efficiently adding new counties as CWD-affected areas when the disease is discovered in new areas is created. The department currently establishes numeric population goals for deer units that are in a CWD zone. Those goals are modified by these rules so that they are consistent with the objectives for other units to increase, maintain, or decrease the density of the deer herd.

This rulemaking establishes a Deer Management Assistance Program that will allow landowners and hunters to work together with the department to manage deer on a site-specific basis. The program will actively involve members of the public in the collection, analysis, and reporting of deer harvest information and improve management of the deer herd at the local level. The rule establishes enrollment fees for participation in the program and statute has established that revenue will be credited back to implementation of the program. This proposal establishes a separate half-price fee of $6.00 for antlerless deer hunting permits obtained through participation in the program. The lower fee is intended to be an incentive for participation. The program is a central recommendation of the report which recommended that the department establish: a) applicability to private and public lands, b) initial areas eligible to participate, c) administration of DMAP, d) funding, e) personnel and training, f) minimum property size to participate, g) fees, h) participation requirements, i) data collection requirements, j) registration of deer harvested on DMAP properties, k) data analysis and reporting, and l) assessment of DMAP effectiveness.

Chapter NR 13 is intended to regulate off-reservation treaty rights of treaty rights participants recognized by Lac Courte Oreilles Band v. Voigt, 700 F. 2d 341 (7th Cir. 1983). Modifications to ch. NR 13 updates a cross reference with ch. NR 10. Other out-of-date cross-references exist in this chapter but are not revised here as that might be more appropriate as a stand-alone, more thorough review. The report did not recommend changes to this chapter of administrative code.

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

These rules, and the legislation which grants the department rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector or small businesses. Additionally, no significant costs are associated with compliance to these rules.

Effects on Small Businesses

The department estimates that the economic impact of these rules will be none or minimal and, pursuant to 2011 Executive Order 50, will facilitate a 14 day period for comment on a draft economic impact analysis. The comment period will begin in September, 2013.

This proposal modifies rules that establish the department's habitat and deer harvest management strategies. Examples of the new management efforts include: increased emphasis of habitat management on private land through the Deer Management Assistance Program, eliminating the requirement to use a specific method of measuring and estimating deer populations even though that model may still be used and considered, and new ways to describe desired deer population levels. These rules will result in moderate revisions to regulations that apply to individual deer hunters. Examples of the types of changes proposed include adjustments to deer management unit boundaries, simplified harvest registration procedures, different deer hunting regulations on private versus public lands, and different uses and changes in the availability of antlerless deer harvest permits.

Deer population, harvest, and habitat management affect many entities in this state. A broad description of affected industries includes agriculture, forestry, tourism, and retail. Governments may be impacted by these rules because many do have programs to manage nuisance deer locally. Many non-profit groups are focused on natural resource conservation, wildlife resources, or deer in particular, and may be affected by these rules.

The department anticipates there may be none or a minimal effect on the financial health of industries, governments, and groups. The department anticipates there will be no economic effects of these regulations for individual hunters and landowners.

Affected entities are likely to base their evaluations of economic impact on their opinions of whether-or-not the rules will result in deer population increases, stabilization, or decreases. For instance, agriculture and forest-products interests may benefit from low deer populations and resulting low levels of crop and tree damage. The tourism and retail industries may benefit from high deer populations that result in greater enthusiasm and participation in deer hunting. This rule package will be designed to balance competing interests with a different approach than current rules.

It may be important to note that the department is statutorily prohibited from managing deer populations with regulations that require a hunter to first harvest an antlerless deer before harvesting a buck. The department also lacks rulemaking authority for certain deer hunting season frameworks. These changes to the department's regulatory authority result from recently enacted statutes and they will not be considered as part of an economic analysis prepared for these rules. While deer may have significant positive or negative impacts to different entities, removal of these harvest regulations likely moderates the economic impact of this rule package.

The department anticipates that there will be no or very few implementation and compliance costs for the affected entities. These rules will not establish reporting or compliance requirements or other regulations for small business. A possible outcome of these rules is the elimination of deer registration stations at local businesses throughout the state. The department has summarized the value of registration fees paid by the department to businesses, and related impacts of this voluntary program, in the economic impact analysis.

This is not a complete estimate of economic impacts but, rather, a summary which indicates that these rules could have none or minimal economic effects. The final economic analysis for these rules includes a description of the specific impacts of deer and deer hunting in this state based on surveys and research done by the department and other state and federal agencies. However, even though significant research exists, the impact of wild deer on the environment and to people under various conditions cannot be anticipated with exact precision. The final analysis includes significant narrative descriptions of anticipated economic impacts.

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

Agency Contact

Mr. Scott Loomans, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to [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
Ch. NR 1 Natural Resources Board Policies, NR 8 License and Permit Procedures, NR 10 Game and Hunting, NR 11 Closed Areas, NR 15 Game Refuges, NR 12 Wildlife Damage and Nuisance Control, NR 13 Chippewa Treaty Rights Participants, NR 19 Miscellaneous Fur, Fish, Game and Outdoor Recreation, and NR 45 Use of Department Properties.
3. Subject
Deer management, hunting, and implementation of the 2012 White-tailed Deer Trustee's Report, Board Orders WM-11-13 and WM-24-13 (E).
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
X GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect X Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs X 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
There was dissatisfaction with various aspects of white-tailed deer management and hunting in Wisconsin following the 2009 season. Gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker made a promise to appoint a “Deer Trustee" to review programs. In October of 2011 Dr. James C. Kroll entered into a contract with the State of Wisconsin to conduct an independent, objective and scientifically-based review of Wisconsin's deer management practices. The White-tailed Deer Trustee's report was released to the public in July, 2012. The objective of the process that resulted in these rules is to integrate the work of the Deer Trustees and the publicly driven action teams into the policies and procedures to enhance deer research, management and hunting in Wisconsin.
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.
Deer population, harvest, and habitat management affect many entities in this state. A broad description of affected industries includes agriculture, forestry, tourism, and retail. Governments may be impacted by these rules because many have programs to manage nuisance deer locally. Many non-profit groups are focused on natural resource conservation, wildlife resources, or deer in particular, and may be affected by these rules. During a comment period beginning in September, the department will contact representatives of all of these groups. Affected entities are likely to base their evaluations of economic impact on their opinions of whether-or-not the rules will result in deer population increases, stabilization, or decreases. For instance, agriculture and forest-products interests may benefit from low deer populations and resulting low levels of crop and tree damage. The tourism and retail industries may benefit from high deer populations that result in greater enthusiasm and participation in deer hunting. This rule package is designed to balance competing interests with a different approach than current rules. It is important to note that the department is statutorily prohibited from utilizing management tools or regulations that had previously been implemented at times when deer populations were 20% or more above established overwinter population goals and not likely to be reduced to goal under standard season frameworks and regulations. Notably, this includes regulations that require a hunter to first harvest an antlerless deer before harvesting a buck. The department also lacks rulemaking authority for certain deer hunting early season frameworks except when a finding of emergency is made under s. 227.24 Stats. These changes to the department's regulatory authority are a result of 2011 ACT 50 and they are not considered as part of an economic analysis prepared for these rules. While deer may have significant positive or negative impacts to different entities, removal of these harvest regulations likely changes the department's ability to manage deer populations in farmland regions. A result is that any economic impact of rule changes the department currently has statutory authority to establish is minimized in farmland regions. Prior to drafting rule language the department anticipated, in its scope statements for permanent and emergency rules, that the proposal could have a moderate level of economic impact, as described in 2011 Executive Order 50. Upon completion of the public involvement and rule drafting process, the department has revised its estimate and anticipates that these rules will have none or a minimal economic impact locally or statewide.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
During a comment period beginning in September the department will solicit comments from local governments using an email distribution list, posting on a website, and by contacting groups who represent associations of local governments.
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)
- Economic Impacts - The department anticipates that there will be no implementation and compliance costs for the affected entities. These rules will not establish reporting or compliance requirements or other regulations for small business. The state's economy as a whole will continue to benefit from the presence of a well managed deer herd. The management tools established in these rules will ensure that continued opportunities for good hunting and wildlife-based recreation are available well into the future. Like previous rules, a significant purpose for establishing deer population management objectives, managing antlerless deer harvest levels, and focus hunting activities through programs such as the Deer Management Assistance Program, landowner permits in CWD zones, and the Agricultural Damage Abatement and Assistance program is to maintain a deer herd that is in balance with the needs of industries such as agriculture, forestry, and others. In certain urban and agricultural regions the department estimates that deer herds are already increasing under current rules. While increasing deer herds may have negative impacts on industries such as agriculture, the impacts are currently occurring and are in part a result of a lack of hunting access in certain areas and less authority under statutes to implement certain harvest regulations. Increasing deer herds in certain areas following implementation of these rules should not be attributed to these rules.
CWD was first detected in Wisconsin on February 28, 2002. The department's goal has been to minimize the negative impact of CWD on deer and elk populations and the state's economy, hunters, landowners and others. The available evidence indicates that CWD has the potential for significant, negative impacts on the future of deer hunting and the related economic benefits of white-tailed deer in Wisconsin. The proposals contained in these rules are not likely to result in a reduction in the rate of infection in deer or geographic location of infected animals. However, the department continues to have the ability to implement strategies recommended in its CWD management plan which could result in reduced deer numbers in affected areas and could help control disease spread. Those include additional firearm hunting opportunities following the traditional 9-day firearm season, landowner permits allowing deer harvest by landowners and their agents following the end of regular seasons, and population objectives to decrease the density of the deer herd. Under the proposal, the department will continue to provide a free antlerless deer permit which can be used in a CWD-affected area. While additional harvest permits will need to be purchased for a fee, part of that fee is earmarked for CWD testing of hunter harvested deer. Continuing to provide low cost CWD testing for hunters may be an important feature to keep hunters interested in harvesting and utilizing their deer. With the implementation of 2011 ACT 51 some people would say that Wisconsin has taken a more passive approach to managing CWD - a recommendation of the Deer Trustee's Report - but that approach is not a result of these rules. Considering these factors, the department estimates that these rules are unlikely to have a significant impact on the management of CWD. These rules are also unlikely to have an economic impact that would result from CWD management efforts. Conflict has occurred between farmers (traditional crop farmers, Christmas tree farmers, orchard growers, cranberry growers, and many other agriculturalists) who are trying to protect their crops and a public who wants abundant deer for viewing and hunting. With the population above state management objectives in certain areas under current rules, deer will likely continue to create agricultural problems. Deer damage complaints outnumber the other three program eligible species combined. Corn, soybeans, sweet corn and hay account for the majority of acreage damaged by deer. The creation of a Deer Management Assistance Program provides another opportunity for management of deer in specific areas which may assist in reducing agricultural damage. Overall, however, the department does not anticipate significant impacts to agriculture specifically from these rule proposals. Additional analysis of the Agricultural Damage and Nuisance Abatement program is found below under the section on fiscal impacts to the department. White-tailed deer range throughout the state, adapting to every habitat type in Wisconsin. Their ability to live in close proximity to people has allowed deer to flourish in environments with significant human development, thus the agriculture damage they cause is no longer restricted to traditional rural areas. Additionally, damage is not restricted to agricultural products. Again, the department does not anticipate significant impacts from these proposals. Where hunting access is available in proximity to urban areas, the Deer Management Assistance Program may provide additional opportunities for hunters to act as deer managers. Forest landowners may be economically impacted by white-tailed deer, depending upon their goals and objectives for the land. Economic impacts of deer on forest vegetation focus primarily on the foraging of plants, although antler rubbing on high value forest crops such as Christmas trees can have significant economic impacts as well. There is evidence found in research documenting site specific examples of deer impacts on forest vegetation. The effects of deer on desirable forest vegetation for a specific site can be detrimental and can create economic losses. However, a cumulative approach to assessing the impact of deer on forest landowners and desirable vegetation has not been done. Research to increase our understanding of forest habitat and white-tailed deer, in response to a recommendation of the Deer Trustee's report, is ongoing. The department's estimate that these rules will have none or a minimal effect on the forest products industry is based on estimates that these rules will not result in significant increases of deer population density. These rules maintain existing methods of controlling deer populations including a flexible system for the issuance of antlerless deer harvest permits and an Agricultural Damage Claims and Abatement Program for which certain forest products producers are eligible. Additionally, owners of industrial forest may benefit from the services that will be available through the Deer Management Assistance Program. Vehicle deer collisions are a factor in determining how many deer the public will accept and are a cause of millions of dollars of property damage and personal injury in this state. The total number of deer salvaged after traffic accidents or removed from roadways by contractors was 26,114 in 2011. The actual number of collisions is estimated to be greater. Significant increases in deer numbers may be expected to result in higher numbers of vehicle deer collisions, particularly considering that traffic volume is not likely to decline. A goal of these rule proposals, however, is to continue managing deer herds to be in balance with ecological and social tolerances. The department's estimate that these rules will have none or a minimal effect on the economy as a result of vehicle deer collisions is based on estimates that these rules will not result in a significant increase in deer population density. Deer impacts on the ecological composition and function of Wisconsin's ecosystems may be occurring and may have resulting impacts on tourism, gathering wild plants, species other than deer which have economic significance, and other effects. Land use by agriculture, development, silviculture, cessation of fire, and invasive species may be having more wide-sweeping impacts compared to deer.
An outcome of these rules would be the elimination of 626 deer registration stations, most at local businesses such as convenience and sporting goods stores throughout the state. These rules will relieve businesses of implementation costs they may have voluntarily incurred as registration stations. While these rules will not have any implementation or compliance costs for former registration stations, there may be an economic impact to the businesses whose customers may not come to stores to register deer and spend money on other transactions which are incidental to registering deer. Department payments and distribution of materials to registration stations totalled approximately $182,000 in 2012, a value of approximately $290 on average to an individual registration station. Many stations employ extra help to register deer meaning that direct payments for services may cover costs to register deer but may not have a direct financial benefit. The value of incidental purchases made by deer hunters are likely the primary reason stations volunteer to register deer. Even without registration stations, the economic benefits of deer hunting for convenience stores and other businesses will continue to be significant. This can be seen by the heavy traffic at convenience stores as early as 4:30 a.m., before the season has opened, and the need some stores have to employ extra staff. A likely benefit to convenience stores in general is that spending activity may be distributed more equally between stores, as certain ones will not have the unique selling point of being a registration station. Department staff have heard both positive and negative comments from registration stations about an electronic registration system. At this time, we anticipate the impacts will be minimal under the criteria established in 2011 Executive Order 50. - Fiscal Impacts on the Department - Mandatory, in-person registration for deer began in Wisconsin in 1953. A subset of the 626 stations (~110) collect age- and sex-structure data from 20-30,000 deer annually during the traditional 9-day gun season. In-person registration provides accurate counts of annual harvest, recruitment, adult buck mortality rates and sex ratios, deer health assessments, buck antler characteristics, and allows for the collection of biological samples that are used to determine the age structure of the population and for CWD monitoring. Eliminating or reducing in-person registration of deer will result in savings of approximately $180,000 in supplies and services for maintaining registration stations each year for the department. The department's expenditure authority will not change, allowing a shift of financial resources and staff time to other purposes such as implementation of the Deer Trustee Report recommendation to establish a Deer Management Assistance Program. Based upon a budget analysis for FY13 (through 6/11/13) on all expenditures department wide for the activity codes WMAP (Registration of Deer, Bear, and Turkey) and WMUB (Deer Registration/CWD Sampling), in-person registration costs totaled $674,042.30. Electronic registration costs may be half the amount of in-person during the initial year, and less than $50,000 in future years. This total includes the following expenditures (estimates of potential savings do not include CWD zone expenditures because the department will continue to place an emphasis on contacting hunters and collecting samples in CWD areas): •   Permanent labor & fringe - ($125,158) •   Permanent labor allocables - ($21,353) •   LTE labor & fringe - ($22,767) •   LTE labor allocables - ($327) •   Total supplies & services - Mileage, Station Materials, Station Payments, Aging Materials, and stipends ($182,056) •   CWD registration and sampling expense – ($322,381) •   CWD permanent labor & fringe* •   CWD LTE labor & fringe* •   Total supplies & services* - CWD carcass tags, bonus buck tags, rent, mileage, electric bills, cell phone bills, CWD samples, and stipends The department evaluated the following benefits and drawbacks to eliminating in person registration of deer. The benefit of increased convenience to deer hunters was seen as a significant improvement. Pros: •   Significant reduction in staff time and costs •   Increase in customer convenience •   Immediate collection and tabulation of harvest data Cons: •   Alternative methods (potentially less accurate) of collecting age data would have to be considered •   CWD samples would become difficult to collect •   Economic impact to registration stations (loss of revenue from payments and business) •   The face-to-face interaction between DNR staff and hunters and the social aspect of hunting would be lost •   Potential enforcement issues •   Potential loss in public trust of population estimates
The department currently administers an Agricultural Damage and Nuisance Abatement program which reimburses participating farmers for damage caused by certain wildlife species, including deer. These rules do not impact the organization of the program or rules for participation. The program is currently funded in part from the sales of bonus antlerless deer permits. It is likely that bonus antlerless deer permit sales will increase under this proposal, resulting in an increase in available funding to reimburse farmers for damage and for the costs of abatement measures. Under the proposal, the department will charge a fee of $12.00 for antlerless permits issued in a CWD management zone which are free under current rule. While $5.00 of the cost of those permits is now statutorily earmarked for CWD management, the remaining $7.00 is earmarked for the damage program. Another possible opportunity for increased funding exists in units which are designated herd control under current rules, antlerless deer permits are free except for a $2.00 issuance fee. Under the proposal, one free antlerless deer permit for farmland units would still be included with the purchase of a deer hunting license, but additional permits would cost $12.00 and the revenue is earmarked for the damage and abatement program. Charging a fee for additional antlerless permits may result in hunters obtaining fewer antlerless permits and harvesting fewer deer overall, potentially offsetting economic benefits to farmers of increased damage program funding. However, decreased antlerless harvest is not an assured outcome. Hunters may be more motivated to utilize permits they have spent money on versus free permits. When statutes were changed to allow the sales of additional turkey hunting permits for $10.00 each to residents, versus issuing them for free, demand for extra turkey hunting permits remained very high. Under these proposed rules, the department anticipates continuing to generate enough revenue to reimburse farmers for the full amount of damage allowed under the program. The department anticipates that it will not need to prorate the amount paid for claims at current or a slightly increased level of agricultural damage claims. In the past, changes in the issuance of hunting licenses and permits have resulted in fiscal impacts from the expenses of revising automated license system programming. However, the department's current contract already contains many options for the issuance of $12.00 bonus permits and free permits with the issuance of archery and firearm deer licenses. Implementation of these rules will require name changes and updates to descriptions of the allowable use of tags, but may not require extensive or expensive programming to create new license types. Additionally, these rule revisions may occur concurrently with a new contract for administration of an automated licensing system and can be included in the initial construction of a new system without additional expense. The fiscal impact to the department of these proposed rules is expected to be an effect that can be absorbed under the department's current budget. These rules will result in savings of staff time with reduced duties to set up registration stations, keep them supplied through the season, collect registration stubs, and enter data. These savings in staff time will be offset by new emphasis on consulting with owners of private and public land through the newly established Deer Management Assistance Program. The level of offset will be a result of the level of landowner and manager interest and will vary as the program becomes established and cannot be anticipated at this time. The department's Bureau of Law Enforcement has established a flexible system of conservation and environmental law enforcement and already places a significant emphasis on the most popular activities like deer hunting. Deer hunting and deer herd management has historically been a significant source of segregated funds for department management, licensing, and enforcement activities and will continue to be a significant expenditure under these proposed rules.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
These proposed rules establish additional methods of managing deer harvest at the statewide and local level. Under s. 29.016 Stats., the department is prohibited from requiring hunters to harvest an antlerless deer before harvesting their first buck and the ability to establish firearm seasons early in the fall season is reduced. The department is proposing more consistent seasons frameworks in these rules that are more likely to be accepted by hunters but which will still result in increases in deer hunting opportunities and provide deer herd management opportunities. Not implementing these rules will result in maintaining the current deer season frameworks. Maintaining the current deer season framework will not address dissatisfaction that some members of the public have expressed to the department, legislators, and governor. The establishment of a Deer Management Assistance Program is statutorily required.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
White-tailed deer will still be a prominent feature of Wisconsin's landscape whose presence generates economic activity from the related activities of hunters and other wildlife enthusiasts. Deer have historically impacted small and large businesses, and will continue to do so. However, the negative economic impacts of deer abundance on agriculture, forestry, and other industries is not expected to increase as a result of these rules.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
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 and the federal government is not involved in any large scale way with deer herd management in Wisconsin.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and allow or encourage antlerless deer harvest and other strategies to manage white-tailed deer herds. All of the surrounding states utilize a range of hunting seasons and allow the use of archery equipment, firearms and muzzleloading firearms at certain times. The seasons proposed in this rule order do not vary in any significant way from the hunting opportunities that are available in other states. Illinois The Illinois archery season runs from October 1, 2013 - January 19, 2014 except that it is closed during the firearm deer season in those portions of the state that hold a firearm deer season. Illinois has two periods for firearm deer hunting, a muzzleloader season, and special CWD and antlerless-only seasons. The first firearm season in 2013 is November 22 - 24 and the second season is December 5 - 8. The muzzleloader season is Dec. 13 - 15. The special CWD and antlerless-only seasons occur on December 26 - 29 and January 17 - 19, 2014. A youth firearm deer hunt is open on October 12 - 14. All firearm hunting permits are distributed first through a tiered drawing system where residents have a higher chance of being selected for a permit than non-residents, then through a random daily drawing, and finally they are offered over-the-counter on a first-come first-served basis until the unit's quota is reached. Hunters who are eligible to purchase a hunting permit receive an either-sex permit and one bonus antlerless-only permit. There is no limit on the number of resident archery licenses that will be issued, and each resident archery license includes an antlerless-only and an either sex permit. Non-resident archery licenses also include an either sex permit and an antlerless-only permit, but are allocated through a lottery system. Iowa In Iowa, there are two archery seasons, two muzzleloader season, and two shotgun seasons. There is also an antlerless-only season, a youth hunt for residents, and a holiday season for non-residents. The archery season runs from October 1 – December 6 and December 23 – January 10, 2014. The muzzleloader seasons run from October 12 – 20 (residents only) and December 23 – January 10, 2014. The shotgun seasons run from December 7 – 11 and December 14 – 22. The antlerless-only season runs from January 11 – 19, 2014, the youth hunt runs from September 21 – October 6, and the holiday season runs from December 24 – January 2, 2014. When a hunter purchases an `Any Deer License', they are entitled to harvesting either a buck or an antlerless deer statewide. Hunters also have the option to purchase an `Antlerless-only License' which is valid for a specific zone in the state. The number of antlerless licenses available in any particular zone is determined by a quota system, and hunters are able to purchase these licenses on a first-come first-served basis until the quota is reached. Michigan Michigan has one firearm season, two archery seasons, and one muzzleloader season, as well as two antlerless-only seasons and a youth hunt. The firearm season runs November 15 – 30. The archery seasons run October 1 – November 14 and December 1 – January 1, 2014. Michigan's muzzleloader-only season season is split into three zones with each zone's season occurring in December and lasting for either 10 or 17 days. The antlerless-only seasons run from September 21-22 and December 23 – January 1, 2014 and the youth hunt occurs on Sept 21-22. Hunters interested in harvesting an antlerless deer must purchase an antlerless license that is valid within a specific DMU for use on either public land or private land. In some DMUs, these licenses may only be purchased over the counter, whereas in other DMU's there is an application process and drawing. Minnesota Minnesota has one archery season, one firearm season that is divided into four separate zones, and one muzzleloader season. There is also a special archery season on Camp Ripley (a military base) and a youth season. The archery season runs from September 14 – December 31. The firearm season runs November 9 – 17, November 9 – 24, or November 23 – December 1 depending on the zone. The muzzleloader season runs November 30 – December 15. The special archery hunt on Camp Ripley occurs on October 26 – 27 and November 2-3. The youth hunt runs from October 17 – 20. Antlerless permits are distributed through a license lottery in “lottery" areas of the state. In “Hunter Choice", “Managed", or “Intensive" areas licenses are either-sex. Bonus permits for antlerless deer are available over the counter for use in managed and intensive areas.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Scott Loomans				[phone]

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)

Wisconsin's deer hunting opportunities are enthusiastically enjoyed by more than 600,000 participants each year, resulting in significant economic and fiscal benefits for small business. Additionally, high deer populations impact the agriculture, forestry, and other industries in ways that may not be positive. The department anticipates that this will continue to be true after implementation of these rules. The department will continue to manage the deer herd with a goal to obtain a balance between the positive and negative impacts of white-tailed deer. Some management strategies which may have been viewed as aggressive are no longer available to the department. New management strategies proposed in this rule will be viewed by some as a more cooperative effort to manage deer herds and may improve management success over current rules. Improved cooperation between hunters, landowners, other stakeholders, and the department will have a beneficial impact for everyone who is affected by white-tailed deer, although the specific economic impact cannot be measured. Over all, the department anticipates none or a minimal impact on small businesses. A minimal impact to certain small businesses could be a loss of incidental sales at convenience stores or sporting good shops who currently volunteer to register deer for the department. A corresponding increase in sales for other area stores as that type of shopping effort is dispersed among stores that do not register deer, will negate any overall impact to small businesses.

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

Deer Population Goals and Harvest Management Environmental Assessment, 1995. Information related to registration of deer at private businesses such as convenience and sporting goods stores is from an analysis of department's own budget information for FY 2013. Wisconsin's Chronic Wasting Disease Management Plan: 2010 - 2025 The 2011 Wisconsin Deer Hunting Summary records that firearm deer hunter numbers exceeded 600,000 for the first time in 1977 and have remained above that number since then. This information provides a basis for the estimate that deer hunting and related economic and fiscal benefits for small business will continue to exist after implementation of these rules. USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Wisconsin Wildlife Damage Abatement and Claims Program - 2012 Summary Report. Project Summary - Evaluating the interdependency between white-tailed deer and northern hardwood habitat; increasing our understanding of forest management and white-tailed deer health. Reported Vehicle Killed Deer Removed from Wisconsin Roadways - FY 2011 DNR Spring Turkey Harvest Report - 2011. This document contains information on sales of leftover turkey permits.

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 ⍽ Other, describe: These rules are applicable to individual deer hunters and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses.

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

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 227.114(6) or 227.14(2g).

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

These rules do not establish any new enforcement provisions. The department has determined that existing enforcement efforts and penalties will continue to be effective at assuring a level of compliance with hunting regulations which results in a fair distribution of resources among hunters and other deer enthusiasts, safe hunting seasons, and effective deer herd management.

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

⍽ Yes X No

Notice of Hearing

Public Service Commission

rulemaking_notices CR 13-068 CR 13-068

(PSC Docket # 1-AC-236)

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to repeal sections PSC 160.02 (4g ) and (4m ), 160.031, 160.035, 160.04 (5), 160.05 (1) (h) to (j) and (L), 160.05 (1) (o) and (r) and (4), 160.062 (1), (2), (5) and (6), 160.071 (1) (d), (2) and (3), 160.073, 160.09 (3) (intro.), (a) and (b) and (8), 160.091, 160.092 (4), 160.10, 160.11, 160.14, 160.15, and 161.05 (4); to renumber sections PSC 160.02 (1g), (1m), (3), (5) and (9) to (12), 160.05 (1) (s), 160.071 (1) (b) 2., 3., 4. to 6. and (c), and 160.115 (6) (c); to renumber and amend sections PSC 160.01 (5), 160.02 (2), (6) to (8), (12) and (13), 160.03 (1), 160.04 (1), 160.06 (1) (intro.), (a) to (c), (4) (a) and (5), 160.062 (3), 160.07 (title), (1) and (2), 160.071 (1) (title), (a), (b) 1., 4. to 6., (c), (e) to (n), (6) (a) and (b), 160.09 (1) and (3) (c), Figure 160.09 (3) (c), 160.092 (1), 160.125 (2) (c) 1., and 160.18 (9) (b); to amend 160.01 (1), (2) (b) and (4), 160.04 (2) to (4), 160.05 (intro.), (1) (a), (c), (d), (n), (p), (2) and (3), 160.06 (2) and (3), 160.062 (4) and (7), 160.063 (1) to (4), 160.071 (title), (4) and (5), 160.08, 160.09 (2), (3) (a) and (b), (4) (intro.), (b) to (g), (5) to (7) and (9), 160.092 (2) and (3), 160.115 (1) (a), (b) 1. and 2., (2) (intro.), (b), (c), (3), (4) (a), (5) (intro.), (b), (c) and (g), (6) (a) (intro.), 4., (b) and (6), 160.125 (1) (title), (a), (b), (e), (2) (a) and (b), (c) 1. to 3., 5. and (d) to (f), 160.16 (1) and (2), 160.17 (1) (c), (2) and (4), 160.18 (4), (6), (9) (a) and (b) 2. and 3., 160.181, 160.19 (1), (2) and (4) (b), and 171.06 (1); to repeal and recreate sections PSC 160.03 (2), 160.04 (title), 160.061, 160.13, and 160.18 (10); and to create ss. PSC 160.01 (5) (a) to (c), 160.02 (2) to (6), (9), (11) to (16), (18), (22), (25), (26), (28), and (31), 160.03 (1), 160.04 (1) (a) 1. to 5. and (b), 160.05 (1) (s) and (6) to (9), 160.06 (1) (b), (c), (4) (a) and (5), 160.062 (1) to (2r), (3) (title) and (b), (4m), (5), (6), (7) (title) and (8), 160.063 (3m), 160.071 (1m), 2. and 3., (6m) (b) and (c) and (7), 160.09 (1), (1r), (2) (c), and (3) (a) and (b), 160.092 (1) (b) and (c), 160.115 (6) (c) and 160.125 (2) (c) 1., regarding the provisions and administration of the universal service fund.

Pursuant to s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., DATCP will hold a public hearing at the time and place shown below:

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   Amnicon Falls Hearing Room — 1st Floor
  Public Service Commission
  610 North Whitney Way
  Madison, Wisconsin

This building is accessible to people in wheelchairs through the Whitney Way (lobby) entrance. Handicapped parking is available on the south side of the building.

Appearances at the Hearings

The commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding, or who needs to get this document in a different format, should contact Jeff Richter, USF Director, at [phone] or [e-mail] as soon as possible.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Tuesday, November 19, 2013, at noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-236. File by one mode only.

Industry:

File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's web site (psc.wi.gov).

Members of the Public:

Please submit your comments in one of the following ways:

•   Electronic Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “ERF - Electronic Regulatory Filing" graphic on the side menu bar. On the next page, click on “Need Help?" in the side menu bar for instructions on how to upload a document.

•   Web Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov, click on the “Public Comments" button on the side menu bar. On the next page select the “File a comment" link that appears for docket number 1-AC-236.

•   Mail Comment. All comments submitted by U.S. mail must include the phrase “Docket 1-AC-236 Comments" in the heading, and shall be addressed to:

Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission

Public Service Commission

P.O. Box 7854

Madison, WI 53707-7854

The commission does not accept comments submitted via e-mail or facsimile (fax). Any material submitted to the commission is a public record and may appear on the commission's web site. The commission may reject a comment that does not comply with the requirements described in this notice.

Analysis prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Statutory authority and explanation of authority

This rulemaking is authorized under ss. 196.02 (1) and (3), 196.218 (5) (b) and (5m), and 227.11(2), Stats.

Section 227.11 authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section 196.02 (1) authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.02 (3) grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Sections 196.218 (5) (b) and (5m) authorize the commission's creation and revision of these specific rules.

Statute interpreted

This rule interprets s. 196.218, Stats.

Related statutes or rules

None.

Brief summary of rule

The objective of this rulemaking is to revise the existing ch. PSC 160, Universal Service Support Funding and Programs. These rules were originally created in 1996, and then revised in 2000. Minor changes are also made to chs. PSC 161 and 171. In the proposed rule, the commission revises existing Universal Service programs that provide access to telecommunications service to all Wisconsin customers regardless of geographic location, income or disability. In this same chapter are revisions to the mechanism for funding those programs and for administering the Universal Service Fund (USF).

Any changes made as a result of this rulemaking are intended to continue and enhance support for these general purposes stated in the statutes.

A prior USF rulemaking was withdrawn by act of law on December 31, 2010. That draft of the rules included several issues that were contentious, and time for promulgation ran out. This rulemaking is primarily intended to promulgate those portions of the previously proposed rule that are less contentious, such as program-specific updates. While these proposed rules were being drafted, changes occurred on both the state and federal levels that required additional revisions to these rules. For example, 2011 Wisconsin Act 22 changed the statutory definition of “essential telecommunications services." Additionally, the federal Lifeline and Link-up programs were changed dramatically. As a result, these proposed rules were also crafted to make changes necessitated by state and federal law changes.

PSC 160.02 (2), (3) and (4)

These are definitions of call blocking, call control and call limitation. The changes provide consistency with applicable federal language and usage.

PSC 160.02 (9), (12), (14) and (22)

The commission now recognizes three different types of eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC). A definition of each type has been added.

PSC 160.03

This section on essential telecommunications services has been extensively rewritten to reflect changes made by 2011 Wisconsin Act 22. The prior requirements for and definition of essential services have been replaced with those that federal law had in place as of January 2010, as required by 2011 Wisconsin Act 22.

PSC 160.031

Pursuant to 2011 Wisconsin Act 22, references to data transmission have been deleted.

PSC 160.035

Pursuant to 2011 Wisconsin Act 22, references to advanced service capability have been deleted.

PSC 160.04

The section on call limitation (formerly toll blocking) has been rewritten to bring it more into line with current federal rules and definitions.

PSC 160.05

This section lists programs that can be funded through the Universal Service Fund (USF). The programs themselves are described elsewhere in the rules. Likewise, a description and explanation of changes appear in the program-specific parts of this analysis.

PSC 160.06

This section addresses eligibility requirements for low-income USF programs. Language is added throughout s. PSC 160.06 to address the different types of Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) now recognized by the commission. Subsection (1) requires all subject providers to use the state verification databases, as required under federal rules. Subsection (1) (c) addresses situations in which the state databases cannot be used for verification. Subsection PSC 160.06 (2) requires providers to re-verify the eligibility of all lifeline recipients annually. This requirement has existed in state rules for years and has now been adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well.

PSC 160.061

The FCC has eliminated the federal link-up program (that waives certain service connection charges for low-income customers) for all but tribal lands. This rule change eliminates the existing statewide link-up program. More limited programs targeted at specific customer groups, including those on tribal lands, who show a clear need for support may be authorized under s. PSC 160.125

PSC 160.062 (1)

Customers are eligible for only one lifeline credit at a time under federal law. The commission and FCC have both needed to take action to prevent lifeline fraud in this area. The draft rule specifically states that a customer may not request more than one lifeline credit, and requires the providers to take steps to prevent customers from receiving multiple lifeline credits.

PSC 160.062 (1r)

ETCs apply the lifeline adjustment to an eligible customer's bill, regardless of whether that customer is purchasing service on a standalone basis or as part of a bundle. The adjustment is made to whatever service or bundle the customer purchases.

PSC 160.062 (2), (2g) and (2r)

The lifeline base rate is defined as the rate for essential services, when offered on a standalone basis, or a fixed $25, when essential service is only offered as part of a service bundle. The lifeline discount is tied to these rates, and is either $10 or an amount necessary to reduce the lifeline base rate to $15 (subject to a maximum contribution from the state of $9.25). Another provision allows for automatic adjustment of lifeline benefits, provided they do not put the state universal service fund at risk. Where federal changes could require additional state payments, the commission would have to consider the impact of those changes before authorizing the resultant state USF expenditures. The draft rules also include a section addressing prepaid wireless service, which offers free minutes of use in lieu of a discount to monthly rates, since prepaid service has no monthly rates. Subsection (2r) contains language for lifeline on tribal lands to keep that portion consistent with the federal program.

PSC 160.062 (4m)