A mortality management worksheet (worksheet 6) must accompany an application for local approval. The worksheet must describe the operator's plan for disposing of livestock that die at the livestock facility. This rule does not regulate the method of disposal (other laws may apply).

A local government must grant or deny an application within 90 days after it receives a complete application. If the application complies with this rule, the local government must approve the application unless the local government finds, based on other clear and convincing evidence documented in the local record, that the proposed livestock facility fails to meet the standards in this rule. The local government must issue its decision in writing. The decision must be based on written findings of fact included in the decision. The findings must be supported by evidence in the record. The local government must keep a decision-making record.

Under the Livestock Facility Siting Law, an “aggrieved person" may appeal a local decision to the state Livestock Facility Siting Review Board. The Board will review the local decision based on the local record (the Board will not hold a new hearing or collect additional evidence).

This rule will protect the environment by establishing clear environmental protection standards for new and expanded livestock facilities that require local approval. It will protect neighboring land uses by establishing reasonable odor management standards and property line setbacks. It will protect surface water and groundwater quality by incorporating existing water quality setbacks, and by establishing reasonable standards related to waste management, waste storage, nutrient management and runoff control. This proposed rule will ensure that applicants for local approval are aware of other environmental laws that may apply, even though those laws are not incorporated as standards for local approval. A complete environmental assessment is available from DATCP.

This proposed rule will have a significant fiscal impact on DATCP and local units of government. DATCP will incur an estimated additional cost of $155,000 annually to administer the Livestock Facility Siting Review Board and carry out other duties. Local governments that require local approval may incur a cost of $600 to $1,500 per approval. Local governments may charge an application fee of up to $500 to offset costs to review and process an application. If there are 50-70 local approvals per year, aggregate local costs for all local governments may range from $5,000 to $70,000 annually. This cost will be offset by savings related to more orderly, less contentious, approval proceedings. A complete fiscal estimate is available from DATCP.

This rule will have a significant impact on livestock businesses in this state. This rule will facilitate the orderly growth and modernization of Wisconsin's critical livestock industry by providing a clearer, more uniform, more objective and more predictable local approval process.

This rule directly affects only a small number of livestock operators – those who voluntarily choose to build new or expanded livestock facilities in jurisdictions that require local approval. The affected facilities will typically have over 500 “animal units" (some smaller facilities may be affected, in local jurisdictions that had lower permit thresholds prior to July 19, 2003).

DATCP estimates that this rule will directly affect only about 50-70 livestock facilities per year. But the rule will have a significant impact in those cases. It will also have a long-term, indirect impact on the growth and development of the state's livestock industry as a whole. The rule will facilitate more orderly planning, more appropriate siting choices, more predictability for livestock operators and their lenders, and more efficient and environmentally sustainable industry development.

Prior to the Livestock Facility Siting Law, some individual livestock operators spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on unsuccessful applications for local siting approval. When local approval was denied, the operators lost income opportunities. Other operators, though ultimately successful, incurred extraordinary (and often unnecessary) costs and delays.

Contentious local proceedings have exacted a heavy emotional toll on livestock operators and their families, and harmed community relations. The unpredictability of local approval has discouraged lending and capital investment.

New and expanding operations will need to comply with regulations spelled out in this rule. This may add costs for some new or expanding operations, but will also save costs related to local siting disputes and litigation. Operators will be able to evaluate compliance needs before applying for local approval, and will be able to plan their investments accordingly.

DATCP has developed preliminary cost estimates for livestock facilities directly affected by this rule. DATCP estimates the following average cost (or savings) range per siting, by livestock facility size category:

Based on reports of livestock siting disputes prior to the Livestock Facility Siting Law, DATCP believes that the net costs of this rule may actually be much lower, and that savings may actually be much higher. Net costs may also be offset, in some cases, by government cost-sharing grants. An applicant for local approval is not ordinarily entitled to cost-sharing for conservation practices needed to comply with this rule. However a political subdivision may provide cost-sharing if it wishes.

This rule affects local approval of livestock facilities that will have 500 or more “animal units" (or that will exceed a lower threshold established by local zoning ordinance prior to July 19, 2003). Many of these operators are “small businesses" as defined in s. 227.114 (1), Stats.

This rule will have a significant economic impact on affected small businesses, and is therefore subject to the delayed small business effective date provision in s. 227.22 (2) (e), Stats. That provision automatically delays a rule's applicability to small businesses by 2 months, compared to the effective date for other businesses. A complete business impact analysis, including a small business analysis (“initial regulatory flexibility analysis"), is available from DATCP.

This proposed rule addresses local regulation of livestock facility siting. There are no federal regulations that address this topic directly. But the following federal programs have an impact on livestock facilities in this state: Federal Clean Water Act, Federal Clean Air Act, NRCS nutrient management standards, federal conservation incentives.

Among states bordering Wisconsin, there is an apparent trend toward state regulation that pre-empts or standardizes local regulation. State standards can address important concerns such as runoff control and odor management, while providing a more uniform and predictable regulatory environment for farm businesses. Illinois, Michigan and Iowa have established state frameworks for approval of new and expanded livestock facilities, while Minnesota is re-evaluating the state's role in siting decisions.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 29.014, 29.063, 29.177 and 227.11, Stats., interpreting ss. 29.063, 29.177 and 29.361, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings regarding revisions to ch. NR 10, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to deer hunting as it relates to the management of chronic wasting disease. The proposed rule includes the following proposed changes in the chronic wasting disease hunting rules:

1. Expand the Western Disease Eradication Zone (WDEZ) around new positives near Plain and Blanchardville.

2. Expand the Eastern Disease Eradication Zone (EDEZ) around new positives found near the north and east border of last year's EDEZ.

3. Remove most of the Richland County portion of the WDEZ from the WDEZ.

4. Expand the Herd Reduction Zone (HRZ) to include all of Deer Management Unit (DMU) 76A rather than just the south half.

5. Create a 5-day split in the gun season of the DEZs so that there is no gun deer hunting the 5 days prior to the Saturday before Thanksgiving.

6. Apply either sex hunting regulations to the archery and gun seasons beginning on the Saturday before Thanksgiving through January 3 in both the DEZs and the HRZ.

7. Allow earning of buck hunting authority in any earn-a-buck unit in the state by shooting an antlerless deer in any earn-a-buck unit in the state.

8. Establish a deer hunting season for Belmont Mound State Park, which is located in the HRZ.

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s. 227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:

SmallBusinessReg.Coordinator@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.

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

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department will have an open house/informational meeting immediately preceding each public hearing. The open house/informational meeting on the deer herd status and the proposed CWD rule will be held from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Department staff will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed rules and deer herd status in the surrounding deer management units.

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

Monday, March 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.

Room 151, State Office Building

141 NW Barstow Street

Waukesha

Monday, March 14, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.

Activity Center, Jefferson County Fairgrounds

503 N. Jackson St.

Jefferson

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Hearing Room, Kenosha Center

19600 75th Street (Hwy. 45 & 50 intersection)

Bristol

Tuesday, March 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Basement Conference Room, Karakahl Country Inn

1405 Bus. 18-151

Mt. Horeb

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

Cafetorium, Elkhorn Middle School

627 W. Court Street (STH 11)

Elkhorn

NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Kurt Thiede at (608) 267-2452 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.

Since the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin's free-roaming deer herd in February 2002, the Governor, the legislature, and the Natural Resources Board have given the Department of Natural Resources the directive to control the spread of CWD from its current known location and to eradicate the disease where is exists. Additionally, an Environmental Impact Statement completed in conjunction with the 2003 CWD rules, identified adaptive management as the preferred management alternative to manage and eventually eradicate the disease from the state. This rule, which is a follow-up rule to last year's CWD rule order, contains rule changes that adapt to current scientific knowledge gathered in previous seasons and through extensive research. This rule order includes the following proposed changes in the CWD hunting rules:

1) Expand the Western Disease Eradication Zone (WDEZ) around new positives on the north end and the south end of the zone.

2) Expand the Eastern Disease Eradication Zone (EDEZ) around new positives found near the north and east border of last year's EDEZ.

3) Remove most of the Richland County portion of the WDEZ from the WDEZ.

4) Expand the Herd Reduction Zone (HRZ) to include all of Deer Management Unit (DMU) 76A rather than just the south half.

5) Create a 5 day split in the DEZ gun season so that there is no gun deer hunting the 5 days prior to the Saturday before Thanksgiving.

6) Apply either sex hunting regulations to the archery and gun seasons beginning on the Saturday before Thanksgiving through January 3 in both the DEZs and the HRZ.

7) Allow earning of buck hunting authority in any earn-a-buck unit in the state by shooting an antlerless deer in any earn-a-buck unit in the state.

8) Establish a deer hunting season for Belmont Mound State Park, which is located in the HRZ.

Since 2002, the department has promulgated rules to manage and control CWD. In previous years the department has added significant areas of southern Wisconsin to one of the designated CWD management zones, which has resulted in added costs and reduced revenues to the department. However, this year the department is seeking to add smaller areas to the eradication zone and unlike previous years is proposing to eliminate a section of the current eradication zone in Richland county. The areas added and the area removed are roughly similar in size and therefore will not result in a recognized fiscal effect.

However, there is a significant portion of land being added to Herd Reduction Zone. This area including portions of Jefferson, Dane, Waukesha and Dodge Counties is currently designated as Deer Management Unit 76A. By adding this area and including it under the HRZ designation, the sale of antlerless permits will not take place in this area in 2005, since the antlerless permits in the CWD zones are unlimited and issued without a charge to hunter. In 2004, 737 Bonus Permits were sold in the non-CWD portion of 76A. Approximately 90% of bonus permits are sold to resident hunters with the remaining 10% sold to non-residents. Bonus permits cost $12 for residents and $20 for non-resident deer hunters. Given these factors, assuming the same number of permits were purchased in 2005, then this would result in a loss of $9,436 to the agricultural damage account (663 resident permits x $12 = $7,956 and 74 non-residents permits x $20 = $1,480).

The remaining proposed modifications do not result in an increase or decrease in appropriations or revenues for the department. Additionally, these proposals do not result in increased or decreased department costs.

The proposed rule may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. Mail to Mr. Kurt Thiede, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until March 21, 2005. Written comments whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Thiede.