CR_14-027 Revises Chapters NR 200, 201, 203, and 205, relating to the administration of the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit program regarding wastewater discharges.

Exceptions to the one hook, bait, or lure rule are listed in Section 3 (creating s NR 20.15 (4), covering 55 counties) and Sections 16, 20, 25, 32, 33, 35, 37, 48, 50, 55, 60, and 61 (amendments throughout s. NR 20.20 and ch. NR 23 ). All other sections repeal existing rule language for counties that will now be governed by Section 3, which allows trolling with up to three hooks, baits, or lures per person. Door, Florence, Jackson, Lincoln, Marathon, Marquette, Oneida, Sawyer, Sheboygan, and Washington counties will allow trolling with 3 hooks, baits, or lures on waters where it is currently allowed and trolling with 1 hook, bait, or lure on all other waters in the county. The number of hooks, baits, or lures allowed on Lake Michigan and Green Bay tributaries will match the number allowed in their respective counties. All Lake Winnebago system waters will allow trolling with up to 3 hooks, baits, or lures. There is no change to trolling rules on outlying waters and WI-MN, WI-IA, and WI-MI boundary waters, which already allow trolling with up to three hooks, baits, or lures except on WI-MI boundary waters of Vilas County which will allow trolling with only 1 hook, bait, or lure.

Summary of and comparison with existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

Authority to promulgate fishing regulations is granted to states. None of the proposed changes violate or conflict with federal regulations.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Motor trolling has been allowed for decades in Michigan (3 lines) and Minnesota (1 line). Trolling is allowed in Illinois provided the angler has not more than three poles and lines with not more than two hooks or lures on each. Iowa anglers may not use more than two lines or more than two hooks on each line when still fishing or trolling; if trolling and bait casting, one cannot use more than two trolling spoons or artificial baits on one line. A third line may be used when possessing a valid third line fishing permit.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Restrictions on motor trolling are inconsistently applied across the inland waters of Wisconsin. There is no biological justification for this inconsistency from lake-to-lake or county-to-county; angling success (catch rates) and harvest of muskellunge, walleye, or northern pike do not differ between casting and trolling. Also, a variety of interpretations still exist among anglers regarding the differences between "motor trolling" and "position fishing." For example, the practice of drifting with live bait and occasionally repositioning the boat, usually with an electric motor (often while also casting and retrieving an artificial lure), is specifically prohibited, yet many anglers believe this method is consistent with the definition of "position fishing." There are two primary concerns related to motor trolling: first, that trolling will result in more conflicts among anglers on small lakes, and second, that trolling negatively impacts the size-structure of fish populations (mainly muskellunge). However, the department has had no reports of user conflicts from the considerable number of waters already open to motor trolling, even though most are less than 400 acres in size.

In 2012, attendees of the statewide Spring Fish and Wildlife Hearings voted in favor of a Conservation Congress advisory question to allow motor trolling statewide, with 1,928 people in favor and 1,576 people opposed. In a 2010-11 statewide mail survey, 64% of musky anglers reported doing some amount of trolling for muskellunge in Wisconsin during 2010, and 91% indicated they would do some amount of trolling if it were legalized statewide.

A 2013 rule (FH-18-12) proposed by the department originally included a trolling proposal that would have allowed trolling on all inland waters statewide with up to three hooks, baits, or lures per angler (three is the maximum number of hooks, baits, or lures that a person may use while hook and line fishing). After public hearings in each county and discussions with Wisconsin Conservation Congress delegates, the rule was modified to allow trolling on all inland waters statewide with one hook, bait, or lure per angler, and allowing trolling with up to three hooks, baits, or lures in most counties of the State and some individual waters. However, after submitting the rule to the Governor's Office of Regulatory Compliance, it requested that the department remove all trolling elements from the rule and obtain additional public input on a trolling proposal.

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

It is not expected that there will be any economic impact directly related to these rule changes. The proposed rule does not apply directly to businesses, but to sport anglers. The department will conduct an economic impact analysis to determine if any individuals, businesses, local governments, or other entities expect to be affected economically.

Effects on Small Business

The rule is not expected to have an effect on small businesses. 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 Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at [e-mail] , or by calling [phone].

Environmental Analysis

The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150 , Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.

Fiscal Estimate Summary

It is not expected that there will be any economic impact directly related to these rule changes. The proposed rule does not apply directly to businesses, but to sport anglers. The rule is not expected to have an effect on small businesses. 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.

Agency Contact Person

Tim simonson

Department of Natural Resources

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

Telephone: [phone]

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
NR 20, Fishing: Inland Waters; Outlying Waters and NR 23, Wisconsin-Michigan Boundary Waters
3. Subject
Trolling regulations on inland and boundary waters of Wisconsin
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 ⍽ 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 is being pursued in order to allow some form of trolling on all inland waters in Wisconsin, which would simplify current regulations and reduce angler confusion between trolling and position fishing.
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.
For comments on the economic impact of the rule, the department will be contacting the Wisconsin Conservation Congress, the Wisconsin Counties Association, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, tribal entities, and many other angling associations throughout the state.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
If any local governmental units request to coordinate with the department on preparation of the EIA they will be listed here.
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)
It is not expected that there will be any economic impact directly related to these rule changes. The proposed rule does not apply directly to businesses, but to sport anglers. The rule is not expected to have an effect on small businesses. 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.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Restrictions on motor trolling are inconsistently applied across the inland waters of Wisconsin. There is no biological justification for this inconsistency from lake-to-lake or county-to-county; angling success (catch rates) and harvest of muskellunge, walleye, or northern pike do not differ between casting and trolling. Also, a variety of interpretations still exist among anglers regarding the differences between "motor trolling" and "position fishing." For example, the practice of drifting with live bait and occasionally repositioning the boat, usually with an electric motor (often while also casting and retrieving an artificial lure), is specifically prohibited, yet many anglers believe this method is consistent with the definition of "position fishing." There are two primary concerns related to motor trolling: first, that trolling will result in more conflicts among anglers on small lakes, and second, that trolling negatively impacts the size-structure of fish populations (mainly muskellunge). However, the department has had no reports of user conflicts from the considerable number of waters already open to motor trolling, even though most are less than 400 acres in size.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
No state fiscal impact is expected. Allowing trolling statewide would: 1) simplify regulations by eliminating confusion about where trolling is or is not allowed; 2) allow moving boats to trail behind suckers or other minnows while occupants are casting on all waters; 3) eliminate the need for disabled anglers to have to apply for trolling permits; and 4) provide additional fishing opportunities for anglers who may have difficulty fishing by other methods.
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 )
Motor trolling has been allowed for decades in Michigan (3 lines) and Minnesota (1 line). Trolling is allowed in Illinois provided the angler has not more than three poles and lines with not more than two hooks or lures on each. Iowa anglers may not use more than two lines or more than two hooks on each line when still fishing or trolling; if trolling and bait casting, one cannot use more than two trolling spoons or artificial baits on one line. A third line may be used when possessing a valid third line fishing permit. A 2013 department rule (FH-18-12) originally included a trolling proposal that would have allowed trolling on all inland waters statewide with up to three hooks, baits, or lures per angler (three is the maximum number of hooks, baits, or lures that a person may use while hook and line fishing). After public hearings in each county and discussions with Wisconsin Conservation Congress delegates, the rule was modified to allow trolling on all inland waters statewide with one hook, bait, or lure per angler, and allowing trolling with up to three hooks, baits, or lures in most counties of the State and some individual waters. However, after submitting the rule to the Governor's Office of Regulatory Compliance, it requested that the department remove all trolling elements from the rule and obtain additional public input on a trolling proposal.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Tim Simonson				608-266-5222

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

Notice of Hearing

Natural Resources

Environmental Protection — WPDES, Chs. 200—

CR 14-027

(DNR # WT-13-12)

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT pursuant to ss. 227.16 and 227.17 , Stats, the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department, will hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to Chapters NR 200 , 201 , 203 , and 205 , Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) wastewater permit program regarding permit processing and permit issuance procedures, on the date and at the time and location listed below.

Hearing Date and Location

Date:   Thursday, May 1, 2014
Time:   10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Location:   Department of Natural Resources
  Natural Resources Building
  Room 313
  101 South Webster Street
  Madison, WI 53703

Reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Paul Luebke using the contact information below. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Availability of the p roposed r ules and f iscal e stimate

The proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative Rules System Web site which can be accessed through the link https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/public/Home . If you do not have Internet access, a printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Paul Luebke using the contact information below.

Submitting Comments

Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before May 12, 2014 . Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, E-mail, or through the Internet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be submitted to:

Paul Luebke, WQ/3

Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Water Quality

101 S Webster St

PO Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

Phone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

E-mail: [e-mail]

Internet: Use the Administrative Rules System Web site accessible through the link provided above.

Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources

Statutes interpreted

Sections 283.31 , 283.33 , 283.35 , 283.37 , 283.39 , 283.41 , 283.45 , 283.49 , 283.53 , 283.63 , 285.61 , and 285.62 , Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 227.11 , 283.11 , 283.31 , 283.37 , 283.39 , and 283.41 , Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Chapter 283 , Stats., grants authority to the Department to establish, administer and maintain a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES). More specifically, ss. 283.11 and 283.31 , Stats., provide authority to promulgate rules to administer the WPDES permit program consistent with federal requirements. The Department has general authority to promulgate rules under s. 227.11 (2) (a) , Stats., that interpret the specific statutory authority granted in ch. 283 , Stats.

Related statute or rule

These rules relate directly to the WPDES permit program that regulates wastewater discharges. Chapters NR 200 , 201 , and 203 , Wis. Adm. Code relate to permit processing and permit issuance procedures. Chapter NR 205 , Wis. Adm. Code, contains general provisions applicable to the WPDES permit program.

Plain language analysis

The purpose of the proposed rule changes is to ensure that the state's regulations are consistent with federal regulations as well as recent statutory revision in 2011 Act 167 . The rule changes will establish clear regulatory requirements for the processing of WPDES permits. Minor clarifications and corrections will also be made to these chapters.

Specifically, the proposed rule package will address EPA's issues with the state authority regarding permit processing issues and other permit issuance procedural matters. In a letter dated July 18, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified 75 potential issues with Wisconsin's statutory and regulatory authority for the WPDES permit program. EPA directed the Department to either make rule changes to address this inconsistency or obtain a statement from the Attorney General's Office verifying that the existing rule is consistent with federal regulations. The Department believes adoption of these rule changes (referred to as Rule Package 6) will address EPA's concerns for 13 of the issues. The item number of the applicable EPA issue is indicated in each rule section that addresses an EPA issue.

Following is a brief summary of changes to chs. NR 200 , 201 , 203 , and 205 , Wis. Adm. Code:

Chapter NR 200 — This chapter contains the requirements for permit applications and water quality standards variances. A new section was created to add the federal regulations for the preparation of a draft permit after the receipt of a complete application, which were lacking in the rule as cited in EPA issue 65.

Chapter NR 201 — This chapter contains the requirements for the contents of the fact sheet for WPDES permits. Because of several changes needed to update the existing rule this chapter was repealed and recreated. It now includes all the federal regulations to address EPA issues 21 and 66. It is also consistent with s. 283.45 , Stats. A note states that if the public notice includes some of the information specified in the fact sheet it may be omitted from the fact sheet because it is more appropriate in the public notice (decision to issue or deny a permit and the beginning and end dates of the comment period). The recreated rule was written compliant with the format procedures for drafting rules that the existing rule did not follow.

Chapter NR 203 — This chapter contains the processes for public noticing a draft permit, informational hearing, final determination to issue or deny a permit, and public adjudicatory hearing. Following are the significant changes to this rule:

•   The rule was revised to address EPA issues 3, 22, 50, and 51 to be consistent with federal regulations. This consists of language clarifying the processes for permit actions (modifications, revocation and reissuance, or termination), identifying the causes for permit actions, the notification of government agencies and others, and public informational hearing requests.

•   The rule was revised to address 2011 Act 167 changes to ch. 283 and ch. 285 , Stats., and changes initiated by the Department to clarify public notice procedures. This consists of language to identify what is to be included in the public notice, allows use of the Department's Internet Web site to post public notices and documents, proposed variances to water quality standards may be included in the public notice, the term notification replaces circulation to reflect the broader use of electronic media, and permit actions related to substantial changes to concentrated animal feeding operation nutrient management plans.

Chapter NR 205 — This chapter contains WPDES program definitions, general conditions applicable to WPDES permits, and requirements for the issuance of WPDES general permits. The rule was revised to address EPA issues 18, 45, 47, 48, 49, and 62 to be consistent with federal regulations. This consists of language that added termination of the permit for certain violations, replaced the use of the term suspension with termination, clarified the signatory requirements for permit documents, revised the reporting requirements for facility changes, and added general conditions that permit compliance constitutes compliance for purposes of enforcement and affirmative defense.

Summary and comparison with existing and proposed federal regulations

The Department rules will be consistent with existing federal regulations with the revisions contained in this rule package. No proposed federal regulations are applicable; none were mentioned in EPA's letter that contained the 75 issues the Department needed to address.

Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states

All the other U.S. EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio) are subject to the U.S. EPA regulations that are delegated to the states for implementation. Wisconsin's rules for permit processing and other permit issuance procedures should essentially be the same as the other states.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Not applicable.

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

Not applicable. The requirements of this rule package establish permit processing procedures that are implemented by the Department and affect Department staff, not the permit applicants.

Effect on Small Business

None, the requirements of this rule package affect the Department not the permit applicants.

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

Environmental Analysis

The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150 , Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on comments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.

Fiscal Estimate Summary

The Department's tentative determination is that proposed Rule Package 6 will not have an economic impact, and we do not anticipate any entity will be economically affected. The requirements of this rule package establish permit processing procedures that are implemented by the Department and affect the Department staff, not the permit applicants. The solicitation notice for comments on the economic impact analysis was posted on November 4, 2013. The Department has not received any comments or requests for information about Rule Package 6.

Agency Contact

Paul W. Luebke, PH

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Bureau of Water Quality WQ/3

101 South Webster Street

P.O. Box 7921

Madison, WI 53707-7921

[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
NR 200, NR 201, NR 203, and NR 205
3. Subject
Regulatory requirements for the processing of WPDES permits
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S			None
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
The primary purpose of these rule additions and amendments is to establish clear regulatory requirements for the processing of WPDES permit. In a letter dated July 18, 2011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified 75 potential issues with Wisconsin's statutory and regulatory authority for the WPDES permit program. EPA directed the department to either make rule changes to address this inconsistency or obtain a statement from the Attorney General's Office verifying that the existing rule is consistent with federal regulations. The department believes adoption of these rule changes (referred to as Rule Package 6) will address EPA's concerns for 13 of the issues.
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.
We do not anticipate that any of these groups will be economically affected by this rule package.
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Not applicable.
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)
Not applicable. The requirements of this rule package are directed at the WDNR, and will not affect permit applicants.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The department will be in compliance with EPA regulations.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The department will be in compliance with EPA regulations and will maintain its regulatory authority for WPDES permit programs.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The department rules will be consistent with existing federal regulations with the revisions contained in this rule package. No proposed federal regulations are applicable; none were mentioned in EPA's letter containing the 75 issues the department needed to address.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota )
All the other U.S. EPA Region 5 states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and Ohio) are subject to the U.S. EPA regulations that are delegated to the states for implementation. Wisconsin's rules for permit processing and other permit issuance procedures should essentially be the same as the other states.
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Paul W. Luebke				[phone]

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