[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
M U@ I C I PAL"' 2 Z@ o Ak PARK GOLF j I MA U ' 0 I @P AL 0 COURSE- RPORT o 0 0 00 L 32 33 34 35 111 11136 L 2 N o* JLLI I I . .,.. 00o DEE= 2 T I IP 1@ IE A @S A- 1-4F kf,.:F?t y 5 0 6 5 4 -03 1 00 2 32 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 @00010 0 0 0 lp@ L 0 14 0 0 0 00 0 H 0 !D 1 .00 8 o..01 I c I L 00 00 .0 9 @6@c Go 0000,4 00 000 0 0 000 EZ 0 o 0 0 0 E! 00 174 7 16 15 f a 014 00, /C_ 0 io A 0 m T 0 0 c S-rAl 0 zoNE 000 FO 21 I CE TF F, N @Plooo 23 PR A U. v ZFO a 0 00 000 A 0 I I , AN T o x ff 1 1 _U"[email protected] 71 s 0 0 0 J 0 0 26 25 3D 28 27 1 29 0 9 00 0 0 00 00 0 UKEE 0 RAIRIE :i: i:. 0 0 kQ),H UNT 0 2 32 41 0 35 1 C _@ONS - 31 190, 7 3 34- 0 36 IHD 0 0 0 211 00, 0 M6 0 7@ PJRA@AIE I? JETV, E@m A M5 IL E: SA R 22 E R 23 E 0 0 tk @e 0 0 0 0 19-84 0 N 6 0 @0_ - - - 'o U@HEA TBRN- Wl @CON'SIN Rokd 10 N A La P\L N N I 4G m SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION KENOSHA COUNTY RACINE COUNTY Francis J. Pitts John R. Hansen Mary A. Plunkett Earl G. Skagen Sheila M. Siegler Michael W. Wells MILWAUKEE COUNTY WALWORTHCOUNTY Irene M. Brown John D. Ames Richard W. Cutler, Anthony F. Balestrieri Secretary Allen L. Morrison Harout 0. Sanasarian, Vice-Chairman OZAUKEECOUNTY WASHINGTON COUNTY Allen F. Bruederle Harold F. Ryan Sara L. Johann Thomas J. Sackett Alfred G. Raetz, Frank F. Uttech Chairman WAUKESHA COUNTY Robert F. Hamilton William D. Rogan, Treasurer Paul G. Vrakas SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF Kurt W. Bauer, PE, AICP, RLS ..................... Executive Director Philip C. Evenson .............................. Assistant Director Kenneth R. Yunker, PE .......................... Assistant Director Robert P. Biebel, PE ................... Chief Environmental Engineer John W. Ernst ............................ Data Processing Manager Gordon M. Kacala ................ Chief Economic Development Planner Leland H. Kreblin ......................... Chief Planning Illustrator Donald R. Martinson ................... Chief Transportation Engineer Thomas D. Patterson ...................... Chief of Planning Research Bruce P. Rubin ............................ Chief Land Use Planner Roland 0. Tonn, AICP .............. Chief Community Assistance Planner Joan A. Zenk .............................. Administrative Officer MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING A LAND 'ISE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE-CAROL BEACH AREA OF THE TOWN OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE October 23, 1984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission r P. 0. Box 769 Old Courthouse 916 N. East Avenue Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607 U.S. DEPARTMENT 01"COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH H083 6ON AVENUE CHARLESTON , SC 29405-241,@ The preparation of this report was financed in part through a planning grant L) from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES Page Minutes of Public Hearing Lance Junior High School Kenosha, Wisconsin, October 23, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 APPENDICES Appendix A Materials Distributed to Attendees at Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 57 Appendix B Attendance Record at Public Hearing, Lance Junior High School, Kenosha, Wisconsin, Tuesday, October 23, 1984 . . 63 Appendix C Notice of Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Appendix D Materials Submitted Prior to Public Hearing . . . . . . . 71 D-1 Letter from Geraldine Lachman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 D-2 Letter from Francis D. Ifole, Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Appendix E Materials Submitted at Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . 73 E-.1 Statement and Recommendations Prepared by the Chiwaukee- Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc . . . .. . . . . . . 73 E-2 Letter from John Crosetto, Crosetto & Vash.Law Offices, S.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 190 E-3 Statement of Warren J. Buchanan, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 E-4 Letter from Ray Felton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 E-5 Letter from Ed Nelson, Kettle Moraine Audubon Society, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 197 E-6 Testimony of C. Gregory McAndrews . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 E-7 Testimony of Bernice Popelka . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 204 E-8 Letter from Stephen H. Barasch and Nancy M. Barasch . . . 207 E-9 Memorandum from Robert W. Trefz, P.E., Warzyn Engineering, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 E-10 Statement of Mariette Nowak, Director, Wehr Nature Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219 E-11 Petition Submitted by Joan Rohan, Hoy Nature Club . . . . 220 Page E-12 Statement of Jerrine Osenga, representing Waukesha Evironmental Action League . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 E-13 Letter from Robert Ahrenhoerster, Prairie Seed Source 223 E-14 Letter from Ruth Grotenrath Lichtner .. . . . . . . . . . . 224 E-15 Statement of David J. Nowak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 E-16 Statement of Lorrie Otto, Citizens Natural Resource Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 226 E-17 Letter from Jim Reis, President, Wisconsin Metro Audubon Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 E-18 Letter from Richar'd,P. Rouse, Legislative Counsel, Wisconsin Electric Power Company . . . . . . . . . . . 228 E-19 Letter from Lyman F-Wible, Administrator, Division of Environmental Stan da'rds, and George Meyer, Administrator, Division of Enforcement, Wisconsin Department of.Natural Resources . . . . . . .. . . 230 'Appenlix F Materials Submitted After Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . 239 F-1 Letter from Sherry Dragula . . . . . . ... . . . . . 239 F-2 Letter From Helen Kluge, Conservation Chair, Lakeland Audubon Society, Inc . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 F-3 Letter from Jeffrey D..Myers .246 F-4 Letter from Mrs. John Berge . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 248 F-5 Note from Dorothea H. Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 250 F-6 Letter from J. E. Shaffron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 F-7 Letter from James H. Zimmerman, Consulting Ecologist and Lecturer, University of Wisconsin-Madison 252 F-8 Letter from Joan Lutz Kuckkahn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253, F-9 Letter from and Comments of Kathleen M. Falk, Wisconsin Public Intervenor,.W isconsin Department of Justice . . . . 254 F-10 Letter from Gunter Hartung . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 269 F-11 Letter from Ardell& S.. Alton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 F-12 Letter,from Lee Bialozyaski . . . . .. . . . . . . .271 V Page F-13 Statement from John and Carol Brdecke . . . . . . . . . . 272 F-14 Letter from Gordon Delsarts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 74 F-15 Letter from Lavonne E. Galbraith . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 F-16 Letter from Steven M. Krimp, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 F-17 Letter from Virginia Lundskow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 F-18 Letter from Richard Christiansen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 F-19 Letter from Lisa Conley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 F-20 Letter from Calvin DeWitt, Professor, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison 287 F-21 Letter from Eugene Dunk, President, Hoy Nature Club . . . 290 F-22 Letter from Richard A. Harthun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 F-23 Letter from Ann N. Hartman . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 293 F-24 Letter from Carl J. Hujet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 F-25 Letter from Janet H. Lutze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296 F-26 Letter from Lynda Manning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 F-27 Letter from Jean McGraw . . . . . . . . . . . 298 F-28 Letter and Petitions submitted by Mary Ann Ortmayer . . . 299 F-29 Letter from Wallace Piroyan . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 315 F-30 Letter from Dennis Prusik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 F-31 Statement Submitted by Jennette Schroeder . . . . . . . . 318 Letter from John L. Arkema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 320 F-33 Letter from Rhoda Dadian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 F-34 Letter from David H. Hewitt, Conservation Committee Co-chair, John Muir. Chapter, Sierra Club . . . . . . . . . 323 F-35 Letter from Sandra Kallunki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 F-36 Letter from Peg and Tony Krzyzewski . . . ... . . . . . . 332 F-37 Letter from LaVerne Kulisek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 Page F-38 Letter from Linus R. Lindberg and Jack L. Lindberg . . . . 334 F-39 Letter from Deanne M. Lovely, Chair for the Wisconsin Wetlands Association Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 F-40 Letter from Jim Olmsted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 F-41 Letter from Sherry Sanderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 F-42 Letter from Genevieve J. Crema, Land Trust Chairman, Wisconsin Garden Club Federation . . . . . . ... . . . . . 34o F-43 Letter from Terry Pavletic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 341 Hearing But Before Publication of Minutes . . . . . . . . Appen'ix G Materials Submitted After Closing Date of Public 343 G-1 Letter from Eileen Gibbs . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 343 G-2 Letter from Eugene Potente, Jr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 G-3 Letter from Mary Ellen Johnson, Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . . 345 G-4 Letter from Susan M. Leatfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 354 G-5 Letter from Bernice C. Maertz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 G-6 Letter from Catherine Doyle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @. 356 G-7 Letter from G. C. Yost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 G-8 Lette r from Kevin Niebauer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358 Appendix H Newspaper Articles Pertaining to Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Land Use Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359@ Appendix I Index of Individuals or Organizations That Presented Statements at the Public Hearing or SentStatements or Materials Concerning the Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE- CAROL BEACH AREA OF THE TOWN OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE Lance Junior High School Kenosha, Wisconsin 7:00 P.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1984 Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, opened the hearing at 7:03 p.m., CDST. MR. KURT W. BAUER: Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is a little bit af ter 7 o'clock and time to begin this public hearing. My name is Kurt Bauer, and I am the Executive Director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, which is the agency holding this hearing. The Commission is charged by law with assisting the state and local governments in planning for the development of the rapidly urbanizing southeastern region of the State. The Commission's plans are advisory to the local, state, and federal units of government concerned. The purpose of the hearing tonight is to obtain public reaction to a pro- posed land use management plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie. Because of conflicting natural resource preservation and urban development objectives, the future of this area has been uncertain for many years. The Town of Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha County, recognizing the problems created by this uncertainty, in 1981 asked the Regional Planning Commission to prepare a land use plan for the area. The plan was to be prepared by the Commission with the help of an @Advisory Committee comprised,of representatives of the Town, the County, the Wiscon- sin Department of Natural Resources, the U. S. Army Corps of'Engineers, private citizens, and affected landowners, among others. Members of that Advisory Committee are here tonight to learn about the public reaction, as are a number of elected officials. At this point it is customary to intro- duce those members of the Advisory Committee and the elected officials in attendance. I will not do that tonight, however, in order to give the many individuals who have expressed a desire to speak as much time as possible to do so. For a list of attendees who signed the attendance roster, see Appendix B. A few words may be in order as to why agreement on a plan would be to the advantage of both the property owners of the area and of those concerned with environmental protection. Everyone here tonight should understand that, in the absence of an agreed-upon plan that can serve as a basis for future governmental actions, theexisting federal-state regulatory process wi-11- prevail in the area. This means, among other things, that: 1. Residents owning lots defined by the federal government as wet- lands may not be able to fill and develop those lots. This could affect up to about 800 lots in the area; 2. Residents owning lots defined by the state government as wetlands in the Lake Michigan shoreland area will have those lots zoned for conservancy and may be unable to fill and develop thoselots. This would also affect up to about 800 lots; 3. Except where The Nature Conservancy may choose to spend its limited funds, residents of lots adversely affected by the federal and state exercise of the polite power would not be compensated for any losses; and 4. In spite of this heavy burden on private owners and the potential for costly litigation, the resource base of the area would not be properly protected. Accordingly, a plan is needed both to mitigate the potentially harsh impacts of the existing federal and state regulatory processes on the landowners.of the study area and to properly protect the unique natural resource features of.the area. Since the Regional Planning Commission would like to have a complete.:record of who was present here tonight and of what was said here tonight, we-would ask that you register your attendance. This should have been done as you entered the auditorium, and we hope all of you have cooperated in this respect. In addition, you should have been given handout materials which summarize the plan that is the subject of this hearing. [Copy of materials attached as Appendix A]. These materials will be referred to in the course of the hearing here tonight. If you do not have a copy of these materials, please raise your hand, and we will see that you get them. The hearing will begin with a short presentation on the proposed plan. That presentation will be given by Mr. Philip Evenson of the Commission staff. Be will use slides in his presentation. The key slides that you will see have also been reproduced for your convenience in.the handout materials. Following Mr. Evenson's presentat ion, the hearing will be opened.to receive your comments on the proposed plan. Your comments tonight will be recorded so that they can be considered by the Advisory Committee and the Commission in the preparation of a final version of a land use management plan for the are.a. To the extent warranted, your comments on the preliminary plan will be reflected by changes in the final plan. -2- In order to ensure a fair, as well as orderly, hearing, we would ask that all of you observe a few simple requests. We would ask, first of all, that you fill out appearance slips indicating yourdesire to speak. The appear- Ance slips should be turned in to one of the staff members present, who will bring them to me. I will then call on the speakers in the order in which the slips are received. When I call your name, please come up to one of the microphones in the front of the room and speak into it slowly and clearly. In this way, not only can a good record be made; but everyone will be able to hear your comments or questions. Please begin by stating your name and address for the record, indicating whether you are appearing as an individual or on behalf of a group. If you have prepared your comments in written form, please give a copy to us. This will greatly ease the difficult job which the Recorder, Mrs. Margaret Shanley, has and help to ensure that an accurate hearing record is provided. in order to ensure that everyone has a chance to be heard, we would ask that you confine your initial comments at the microphone to no more than five minutes. If five minutes is not sufficient, you will be accorded additional time after everybody else who wishes has had an initial chance to speak. The hearing record will be kept open for a period of 10 calendar days, or until Friday, November 2, 1984. The Commission will accept for inclusion in the record of the hearing written comments mailed to its offices and postmarked on or before that date. The Commission's mailing address is given at the bottom of the last page of the handout materials. We would very much appreciate your cooperation in observing these procedures. I will now ask Mr. Evenson to provide a brief presentation of the-proposed 'pla n. MR. PHILIP C. EVENSON, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Thank you, and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. STUDY AREA The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie is bounded on the east by Lake Michigan, on the south by the Wisconsin-Illinois state line, on the west by Sheridan Road, and on the north by 80th Street. The area totals about 1,825 acres, or nearly 3 square miles, and represents about 8 percent of the Town. About 1,400 persons live in this area. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF AREA 'From an environmental point of view, the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area contains some of the most outstanding natural resource features remaining in southeastern Wisconsin. It is characterized by a relatively uncommon -3- series of alternating beach dune ridges and lower, wetter swales. Associ- ated with these ridges and swales are high-quality wetlands and high-quality up',.and prairies, both of which are growing increasingly scarce in southeas- tern Wisconsin and elsewhere. The area contains a State Scientific Area that is a national natural land- mark and is recognized as one of the best remaining examples of lowland prairie in the upper Midwest. The State Scientific Area and national landmark is located south of 116th Street and east of the Chicago & North Western Railway trackage. The overall study area contains six additional natural areas of either statewide or regional significance located along both sides of the railroad tracks. At the north end is the.Kenosha Sand Dunes natural area, which is owned by the Wisconsin Electric Power Company. Th@@ lands in the study area that are either wetlands or environmentally signif icant uplands are shown on this slide. There are in the area nearly 750 acres of wetlands--shown in green--of which about 650 acres have been deemed to be particularly important in terms of providing critical plant habitat, providing quality wildlife habitat, having a special natural area value, or for maintaining water quality and low streamflows. The important upland areas total about 160 acres and are shown in brown These lands provide important plant habitat, quality wildlife habitat, or have a special natural area value. Because of the current emphasis at the federal and state levels on wetland protection through regulation, much of the discussion concerning the Carol Beach area has been on protecting the wetlands; yet, it is important also to protect the significant uplands which in this particular location often are intermixed with the wetlands. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The earliest plans to develop portions of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area date back to 1921. The most intensive efforts to subdivide, however, occurred after World'War II, with the subdivision activity being completed by the mid-1950's. The current pattern of land ownership and building development is shown on this slide. There are a total of 2,785 parcels in the study area, of which nearly 2,750 constitute lots platted for residential development. Yet, after more than 60 years, only about 640 lots, or about 23 -percent of the lots platted, have been built upon. Housing units are found scattered throughout the area, with relatively heavy concentrations at the north*end just south of the Kenosha Sand Dunes and toward the south end west of the railroad tracks. Certain streets platted in the original subdivisions have not been constructed; others are little used and. have fallen into disrepair. There is no public sanitary sewer service in the area and, except for the concentration of housing just south of the Kenosha Sand Dunes, no.public water supply service. With few exceptions, the soils in the study area are unsuitable for development with septic tank systems. -4- The current status of the study area, then, is one of partial urban devel- opment--much of it highly scatter ed--exis t ing side-by-side with high- quality wetlands, prairies, and important wildlife habitat Areas. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS In recent years, both the federal and state governments have moved to establish regulatory programs that will significantly impact upon the future pattern of urban development in the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. At the federal level, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the placement of fill into lakes, rivers, and adjacent wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has determined that most of the wetlands located east of the railroad tracks in the study area are subject to federal regulation and that these wetlands are generally unsuitable for the placement of fill materials. The lands impacted by this regulation are shown.in light green on this slide. While the Corps has not ruled out the granting of permits for filling of these lands, the Corps' action to date does provide a pre- liminary indication that the granting of permits would be unlikely, parti- cularly in the absence of a land use plan for the area. Ate the state level, the Department of Natural Resources administ ers a program designed to protect wetlands in shoreland areas. The shoreland areas of Carol Beach are shown in blue on this slide. These lands lie within 1,000 feet of Lake Michigan or an inland navigable pond, or within 300 feet of Barnes Creek, Tobin Creek, or other minor creeks in the study area. Under the state program, Kenosha County is required to place in a conservancy zoning district all wetlands lying within the blue area. That z.oning district would prohibit filling and development. Clearly, as indicated earlier, the impacts of these federal and state regulations would be severe on those owners of lots previously platted for development and lying within federal and state designated wetlands in the study area. PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING PROGRAM The primary purpose of the planning effort for Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach, then, was to develop a plan which would identify those lands, both wetlands and uplands, which should be protected and preserved in.the public interest, and those lands upon which urban growth should be accommodated. The attempt would be to achieve a sound balance between the conflicting open space preservation and urban development objectives within 'the area. Furthermore, the planning process was intended to seek a way to fairly compensate those residential lot owners whose land would be placed in an open space preservation area. Right from the very beginning, it was recog- nized that the plan would have to represent a compromise. Those who advo- cate intensive urban development in the area would have to concede that some lands should be permanently preserved in open space uses. Those who advocate permanent protection and preservation of the entire area would have to concede that some development in the area should be accommodated. Without such a compromise, the regulatory process will prevail and there would be no compensation. -5- THE RECOMMENDED PLAN The Advisory Committee assisting the Commission in this planning effort co7-.tsidered three alternative plans: 1) a maximum development plan; 2) a maximum preservation plan; and. 3) a combination development-preservation plan. After considering these three alternatives, the Committee selected the development-preserva t ion alternative as the basis for preparing a preliminary* recommended plan. That plan is shown on the accompanying slide. Open Space Preservation Area The recommended plan proposes an open space preservation area consisting of a continuous corridor connecting the Kenosha Sand Dunes on the north with .the Chiwaukee Prairie on the south end. The proposed preservation area, shown in green, consists of about 803 acres. Of that total, about 215 acres, or 27 percent, is already owned either by the Town, the County, the UnLversity of Wisconsin, or The Nature Conservancy. With respect to the remaining 588 acres, the plan proposes the following: 1. About 640 undeveloped platted lots would be acquired at fair market value by the Department of Natural Resources or by The Nature Conservancy. Fair market value is proposed to be deter- mined through an appraisal process that would use for comparison a similar lot, or lots, located in the urban development area and not proposed to be acquired. 2. An additional 20 lots are proposed to be acquired by the Town to preserve open drainageways along creeks. 3'. There are 30 existing homes within the open space preservation area. These are shown by black dots in the green area. The plan proposes that these homes be left in private ownership and be maintained indefinitely. No one would be forced to leave their home under the plan. However, should the owners of these 30 homes wish to sell and not be able to f ind a purchaser in the private market, the plan recommends that the homes be acquired by the Department of Natural Resources. 4. All of the lands in the open space preservation area--both wet- lands and uplands--would be placed in a newly created conservancy zoning district in the Kenosha County Zoning Ordinance. That district would prohibit filling, draining, building, and other activities that would tend to destroy the natural environment. 5. Nearly two miles of,existing streets would be vacated and revege- tated. 6. Utility construction corridors would be provided along 7th Avenue and 85th Street. -6- Urban Development Area The recommended plan proposes an urban development area of about 860 acres, or slightly less than half of the study area. This area is shown in yellow on the slide. Most of the area would be devoted to single-family residen- tial use as is permitted under the current zoning. The key factors of this .aspect of the plan are: 1. Assuming full development of the areas shown in yellow, housing units in the area would increase from the current level of about 500 to nearly 1,500. Population would increase from about 1,400 to about 4,300. 2. As needed and as finances will permit, the Town would provide public sanitary sewer service, public water supply service, improved drainage systems, and new or improved roads within the urban areas. 3. All platted lots in the urban areas would be zoned for develop- ment and be placed in a residential, commercial, institutional, or recreational district, as appropriate. None of the wetlands in the yellow area would be placed in a conservancy district. 4. An 18-acre area just south of the Kenosha sewage treatment plant would be set aside for the possible expansion of that plant to meet unknown future needs. 5. A 36-acre area adjaceiit to the existing Trident Marina would be set aside for the posisible expansion and further development of that marina. 6. The Town would, on behalf of al 1 property owners within the yellow area whose lots, have been classified as wetlands, apply for a collective permit from the Corps of Engineers to fill and develop those wetlands. This will avoid the need for individual landowners to deal with the federal government. CONCLUSION in conclusion, it is important to reiterate that the recommended plan is an attempt to lift the cloud of uncertainty which has for many years been attendant to the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie. The plan would ensure the preservation of valuable plant and animal commu- nities, while at the same time enhancing the potential for good urban development in the area and fostering the establishment of neighborhoods which offer a unique opportunity for living in proximity to a natural prairie environment. If this plan--or something similar to it--is not accepted by all parties concerned, both those who advocate future develop- ment in the area and those who advocate preservation of the area will lose. The preservationists will lose important uplands over time as add itional -7- development takes place on unregulated lands. The development advocates will lose the ability to create sound neighborhoods with proper utility services, and further will lose the ability to compensate individual lot owners whose lands would be placed in a conservancy zoning district. Thank you for your attention during this briefing. MR,, BAUER: Thank you, Mr. Evenson, for that presentation. I hope that all of you present were able to clearly identify in your minds the problems addressed by, and the recommendations being made in, the proposed plan. I will now open the hearing to comments and questions from those present. I would again ask that you assist the Recorder by speaking slowly and clearly as you make your comments or ask your questions and that you submit copies of any written statement that you may have prepared. In order to give as much time as we can to the speakers, I am going to follow the practice of calling not only the next speaker but also the fo-i-lowing speaker. While the first speaker is making his remarks, the second can be coming up to the microphone to save time. Please try to limi t Your initial remarks to three minutes because, with the number of people registered to speak, it will be a long hearing. If you feel that is not enough time, we will come back to you after everybody has had his first chance to speak. The first speaker desiring to be heard is Mr. Wallace Piroyan, and the second speaker will be Mr. John Crosetto. MR. 'WALI ACE PIROYAN, CHAIRMAN, CHIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH CITIZENS ORGANIZATION, INC. My name is Wallace Piroyan. I am a property owner and Chairman of the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc. Before I start to toot my own horn--and I feel like David welcoming Goliath--I would like to sincerely welcome The Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, the Hoy Nature Club, and, of course, the Public Intervenor, Kathleen Falk. To those of you who traveled from Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine, we, the property owners, are delighted that you have taken so much interest in our homes and backyards. I hope your interest is not seasonal. I hope that you understand that we do not want to destroy our area and our prairie any more than you do. I hope your interest will not f ade, but remain constant like ours. I hope you are open minded and seek thetruth. A@, typical property owner in the area is a true conservationist. He pays his taxes. He protects the prairie. He cares for his home and his family, and likes to be lef t alone by government bureaucrats that threaten his economic well being. The definition of a compromise plan, according to the Southea stern Wis- .consin Regional Planning Commission, is you give it and they take it. The plan is full of errors and flaws. It is inconsistent. The complex legal issues, which will be addressed by our Counsel, are not addressed in the plan. The wetland inventory done by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission on which the plan is based is not accurate. It was agreed that a field inspection would be conducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Biologist. and myself for the purpose of identifying the wetlands. The DNR initially classified the entire area as wetlands. A large number-- 29 6--owners requested that their property be field inspected. We spent seven days inspecting 296 lots. We found an alarming margin of error, and this was confirmed by two independent biolo- gists. 1 believe the Commission Biologist--Don Reed--under a lot of pres- sure, has tried to do a fair job. But it is important that a complete and accurate inventory of the wetlands be made. This should be your concern and our concern also. This has not been done. The short-term solutions depend on such an inventory. The long-term solutions require good neighbors and caretakers, as can be confirmed by The Nature Conservancy, and a show- ing of sensitivity for the people of the area. For many years I have enjoyed the prairie. When spring comes, from every room in my house, I see the colors changing. Oftentimes when the going gets rough, I start my day by walking through the prairie. The experience takes me to another time, another place, and puts me in touch with my soul. Let me make an analogy--one day I was crossing the culvert at my house and a small bird flew down like a phantom jet, weighing only a few ounces, and for a moment I thought he had been sent by my friend, Mr. Don Reed--who proposed a four-lane highway across my house--to attack me. I then saw a nest under the culvert, a mother sitting on her nest, the father attacking me who was many times bigger to defend his home. A man's home is his castle and we will defend it. I hope you will recognize the deep differ- ences between residents of and visitors to the area. I ask those visitors who are our guests to treat us with respect and.courtesy. Let us talk about mutual concerns and make this a strong foundation for fair and just compromise, and not just a political football game. If not, a long legal battle will ensue. We want to work toward a complete compro- mise that man and nature can both live in harmony and peace with. Thank you for listening. [Recorder's Note: At the Public Hearing, Mr. Piroyan submitted the "Statement and Recommendations" of the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc., along with five supporting exhibits. These mater- ials are contained in Appendix E-1.1 A. MR. BAUER: The next speaker is Mr. John Crosetto. Mr. Warren Buchanan will follow Mr.. Crosetto. Q. MR. JOHN CROSETTO, ATTORNEY: I am John Crosetto, a member of the law firm of Crosetto & Vash, S.C. We have been retained by the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc., to make sure that whatever is done to their property in the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area be within the law. The questions which are before -9- you, the Committee, are complicated and controversial. You have devoted much time and energy to laudable ends: the protection of valuable land and water interests while balancing the concerns of private landowners. In these difficult proceedings, my role as attorney for the Citizens Organiza@ tion will be legally to stop any rezoning of the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach area which: one, would legally deprive the citizen-property owners of the area of. the use of their property without just compensation; and two, would deprive them of certain uses of their property through zoning which was based on erroneous facts and illegal proceedings. The Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization has asked my law firm, and we intend to use every legal means available to us, to see that our client has its interests protected and to see that all governmental agencies . concerned go through the legally required decision-making process fairly and justly, using accurate facts and legal procedures. What we hope to accomplish tonight is to point out some of the problems with the proposed zoning plan. We believe the present plan is flawed because it incorporates zoning which is unconstitutional and which is based on erroneous facts. Furthermore, the procedures used both to create and to support the plan in its present form are subject to serious legal and factual questions. If the plan in its present form is adopted, the County and State can be cer- tain of expensive and time-consuming litigation by, among others, the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization. If the County or State adopts the proposed conservancy zoning district, the limitations on the property owners will be so severe as to deprive them of all -practical value in the use or marketability of their real estate. In reality, the property owners will have had their property taken from them without having been justly compensated for the lost value due to the impo- sition of the conservancy zoning. This violates present state and United States constitutional law. Furthermore, in Kenosha County there are pend- ing several lawsuits against the conservancy zoning districts. With, liti- gation already instituted against a portion of the conservancy district zoning ordinance, it does not seem wise for the Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee, tonight to adopt a zoning plan which incorporates the i legally flawed zoning categories. If the Advisory Committee decides to adopt policies to keep the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach land in its natural,'State, then it should recommend that the County or State purchase the land from private property owners for just compensation. Zoning cannot legally be used as a means to preserve land in a way which limits private owner usage to a substantial degree. Any zoning plan for the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach area cannot be finalized or ,approved without an accurate map which shows what areas need to be pre- served as wetlands. It is uncertain as to whether or not the county zoning agency has held a public hearing as required under NR 115. There are wbstantial questions as to whether or not the county zoning agency and the Department of Natural Resources have followed the correct Wisconsin admi- nistrative procedures in developing and adopting a wetlands map. Any zoning plan which incorporates a nonfinal wetlands may be subject to legal challenge. _10- The Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization has substantial questions and objections to both the factual accuracy used to support the zoning proposal under consideration, as well as the procedures used by the South- eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in the formation of the zoning plan. If we will be given access to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's field notes and onsite evaluations of the land within Chiwaukee Prairie and Carol Beach, some of the potential dis- putes may be avoided. My client expects, and we will see to it, that the property owners in the Chiwaukee,Prairie-Carol Beach area be treated fairly and lawfully. Thank you. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr..Crosetto at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement, as filed by Mr. Crosetto, is contained in Appendix E-2.) A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Buchanan. Following Mr. Buchanan will be Mr. Bob Deutsche. Q. MR. WARREN J. BUCHANAN, JR., CRIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH CITIZENS ORGANIZATION, INC.: My name is Warren J. Buchanan, Jr. I am a professional consultant in environmental sciences and have been in this profession for 12 years. I have an undergraduate degree in botany and a masters degree from the Uni- versity of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Environmental Studies, in land resources. I have performed ecological assessments of many wetlands in Wisconsin for quite a few years, both as part of my graduate research and as an environmental consultant. I became involved in this project at the invitation of the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization because they said they were concerned about inaccuracies in the wetland maps being used as a basis for planning the zoning of their land. They asked me to make an independent judgment whether or not inaccuracies existed and to recommend any studies to rectify the situation, if necessary. I visited the area in August, and I qualitatively looked over several areas. I concentrated on the area south of 116th Street and west of lst Court, which the residents said had been an old golf course. I observed many areas of grassland which were not wetland and had little ecological value. Based on these observations, I recommended further detailed studies of the hydrology, soils, and vegetation in the area because these three factors are how wetlands are defined in the State of Wisconsin. Another motivation in recommending further studies is that I also observed in the area many areas that had very high ecological value, including wetlands. To protect those areas--and it was obvious the wetland maps were inaccurate--further studies were necessary. Based on my recommendations, the homeowners association--the citizens organization--hired IDP out of Waukesha, Wisconsin, an environmental con- sulting firm specializing in wetland mapping. They sampled three different areas totaling 17 acres and used the definition of wetland specified by Wisconsin State Statutes. Based on their studies, which I reviewed and found to be technically sound and unbiased, they in one area found that 80 percent of the area mapped by SEWRPC was incorrect; in another area sampled 50 percent incorrect, and in the third area 40 percent incorrect. SEWRPC went back., at the request of owners of 296 lots; and they ended up reducing the wetland acreage by 71 acres. That ended up being a net reduc- tion of 71 acres; there were 35 acres of wetlands incorrectly omitted from the survey, and 106 acres that were mapped as wetlands that were found not to be. The numbers suggest that almost the whole area rechecked was incor- rec,-.t This strongly supports my recommendation that an independent, un,)iased biologist accompanied by SEWRPC staf f go back and recheck the inventories. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr. Buchanan at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement as filed by Mr. Buchanan is contained in Appendix E-3.] A. MR. BAUER: Your time is up. The next person to speak is Mr. Deutsche. After him will be Nancy Barasch. Q. MR. ROBERT DEUTSCHE, SKOKIE, ILLINOIS: My name is Robert Deutsche. I am a property owner at 104th Street and Sheridan Road. I am stunned by all that is going on, here. Yes, stunned beyond belief . My property is now designated for preservation. It has ,been in the family for 64 years and passed from father to son. In the Depression of 192�--and I see some people in the audience that remember that Depression--we had a hard time paying the taxes; but we did and have been paying ever since. Last year I had a 22.5 percent tax increase, a $10,000 assessment increase. Every year the taxes have gone up and up. It's a joke. Now some DNR botanist claims the property is wetland. I q!iestion his qualifications. My property is higher above sea level than the City of Kenosha. And it is wetland? I refuse to believe that. Ladies and -gentlemen, here tonight you are seeing "Big Brother" at work. Remember, the government who is powerful enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away. I am going to fight this outright tyranny even if I have to take it to the Supreme Court. Someone said, "United they stand, divided they fall." How many in the audience really care about me and the other Carol Beach property owners? Well you had better, because tomorrow it could be you. We are going to be picked off one by one unless we unite and stop "Big Brother" now and fast. in closing let me say, if you think your tax bill will only increa&e 68 cents, as said here tonight, with all this acreage removed@ from the tax rolls, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. A. MR. BAUER: MS. Nancy Barasch and then next will be Ms. Margaret Kramer. Q. MRS. NANCY BARASCH, CHIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH CITIZENS ORGANIZATION, INC. Thank you. I am Mrs Barasch. I will try to make it short because I know what we are really interested in was hearing from our Attorney and Biolo- gist. I realize this is not a hearing on the wetland maps. We have been told by the County Zoning Office and the newspaper reports that this is a courtesy hearing and nonstatutory hearing used to provide the citizens with an opportunity to be heard. However, I do want to talk about the wetland maps because they are an important component of this proposal. Their accuracy or inaccuracy is the factual underpinings of this proposal. The County has been mandated by the State to adopt zoning that protects wetlands. In addition, the County has discretion to adopt other zoning. I am concerned about the theory of the area as a "complex." Does the theory of an area as a "complex" mean anything other than some areas are wet and other areas are dry? How much wetlands must occur in a complex before the mixed area is declared a wetland? The DNR guidelines seem to recommend a lot-by-lot analysis, but this hasn't been done. By not holding. the wetland hearings, the proposal has left open areas of rumor and specu- lation. We can recognize the importance in a complicated plan of addressing the comprehensive issues. We ask now at this stage an opportunity to ask factual questions. The citizens have real questions that need to be addressed. We would like an opportunity to share factual information. We have attempted to be open in sharing the field work of our biologists, and we request a similar opportunity to examine the results and the field work of Mr. Don Reed. Perhaps we will find there is no disagreement. I realize there are valuable resources in the area. Let us participate by allowing us to examine the studies which have led to your conclusion. Finally, since our situation is unique, and we do not seem to fit a statu- tory definition of wetlands, perhaps the interest of the State in providing park and open space preservation and the interest of the citizens are best served by an eminent domain proceeding in which everyone would be assured that just compensation would be paid. I think the worst thing that could possibly happen in a plan of this nature is if some areas were zoned, a few scattered lots were bought, and other. people took the plan to court and the plan was declared unconstitutional because no final wetland map had been adopted by the County and the proper procedures had not been followed and the definition used of wetlands was not correct. We wish to ask questions and to f ind out and share in your concerns. Thank you. -13- A. MR. BAUER: Ms. Margaret Kramer, and then next will be Mr. Ray Felton. Q. MS. MARGARET A. KRAMER, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: Ladies and gentlemen, I am here this evening to protect my home. My name is Margaret Kramer, and I am one of the many Carol Beach residents present here tonight to fight for our homes. Speaking strictly for myself, I am not.here for sympathy, but rather to fight to keep what I have invested six and a half years of my life in. My ex-husband and I bought our house in 1978 on our limited budget. It's a small house originally built as a summer cottage. We almost immediately learned of all of its quirks and idiosyncracies, such as the fact that it had no insulation, needed a new kitchen and bathroom, and many other things. Despite all of its shortcomings, it was still our home. A year and a half later my daughter was born, and we all resided there until a year and a half ago when my husband and I divorced. Since then I have worked hard and long to keep my home, and I have no intention of rolling over and letting the DNR or anybody else take it away from me. Our home was purchased through the Wisconsin Veterans Administration secured loan program. My husband had served his country by doing a tour of duty in Germany. The house was located in Wisconsin; and my husband was a resident of the State of Wisconsin prior to enlisting, thereby qualifying us for the V.A. program. At the time the V.A. offered us 6.25 percent interest on the $31,000 mortgage we took out. If I am forced out of my home and attempt to buy another, the present interest rate is 13.75 percent. This would increase my monthly house payment a whopping 46 percent! How many of you would like to take that big a chunk out of your paychecks? Let me give you some real numbers. My present mortgage payment is $281 per month; if I am even able to secure a new mortgage for the same amount, my monthly payment jumps to $410.15 per month. That is an increase of $129.15 per month, or 46 percent. If I attempt to buy another home by taking the equity I have accrued on my existing home as a down payment and put into an equivalent mortgage@ to avoid capital gains, this 46 percent will probably push me over the edge. I could apply to the Aid for Dependent Children program; but do you, as taxpayers, wish to support me when, if left alone, I could manage on my own? I think not! Then, as if to add insult to injury, the DNR is offering to buy me out for the 1981 assessed value of my home. In 1981 my property was assessed at $42,800. In 1984 it was assessed at $44,700, a difference of $1,900, or about 5 percent. Five percent is a lot of money to me. Our laws provide for just compensation when property is siezed by the State as is stated in the Constitution of the United States of America in Amend- ment 5; and I quote: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In light of the current offer of the 1981 assessed valuet how "Just" do you find that? "14- To demonstrate the inequity here, the other side of the coin if they allow me to stay is equally grim. I will not be entitled to sewer service since I live off lst Avenue. First Avenue may not be maintained so that I run the risk of no police, fire, or ambulance service. Not to mention that access in the winter will be possible only by snowmobile or airlift. Some deal, huh? I would like to thank everyone for your patience and listening. As I said at the beginning, I am not looking for sympathy, but for fairness. I appreciate my independence, my freedom, and the rights which are mine by law in this country. I do not think that due process has been followed; I do not think we have been offered fair and viable alternatives, and I do not think we are being treated as honest, tax-paying citizens. If the State of Wisconsin insists on taking my home or isolating me in such a fashion that I have no choice but to sell my home,.1 feel these are some of the rights I have: 1. A subsidized mortgage for the difference between the 6k percent mortgage I presently have at whatever rate I would be able to obtain in purchasing a new home. 2. Assistance in finding new accommodations equivalent to what I now have so that I am not forced into mssing work to find a home for my daughter and myself; and 3. Payment for the inconvenience of relocating. Ladies and gentlemen, I love my home and have worked hard to keep it. I have no intention of letting anyone railroad me out of it, and I will fight with all my resources and strength not to become another trod-upon resident of Carol Beach. Thank you for your time and patience. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Ray Felton, and then Ms. Kathleen Falk. Q. MR. RAY FELTON, WISCONSIN WILDLIFE FEDERATION: This prairie started at the beginning of time; and like all good things in life, we'll make it better--or will we? I I I am Ray Felton. I live at 2513 Hamilton Avenue in Racine, Wisconsin. I am a Director for the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation. This is a statewide organization, and I was given permission to represent them on October 6 in Stevens Point. I am also President of the Wisconsin Sportsman's Associa- tion, and the authority to represent them on all issues of importance was granted in January. Both of these agencies or clubs or organizations have authorized me to-be here. This very beach area is something that is very, very old and very delicate. A footprint will leave its imprint for a long time.. If developed, there will be many, many footprints and things to follow. It will never be put back where it was before. -15- That is part of my statement, but I am filing this written statement. Thank You. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr. Felton at the hearing in the time allotted; the written statement, as filed by Mr. Felton, is contained in Appendix E-4.1 A. MR, BAUER: Next will be Ms. Kathleen Falk, and following her will be Ms. Linda Monroe. Q. MS. KATHLEEN M. FALK, PUBLIC INTERVENOR, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be submitting comments in writing at a later date. I appreciated the remarks that Mr. Crosetto made ...... I appre- ciate the remarks by Margaret Kramer, and others like her here tonight. It looks to me like we are reading different plans. I am not used to repre- senting the government, I am used to suing the government. I think the plan should be explained better. I have not heard or read in the plan that anyone is going to get kicked out of their home. That is not in the plan. I think we need to get rid of some misconceptions. We are talking about what to do with the undeveloped lands in the area, not about existing homes. Professor Cherkauer--a wetland expert and a soil scientist--will explain later on why the area should not be developed. I will not go into that detail. What I want to do is to talk about what is going to happen in the next couple of years. There is a lot of emotion on both sides, and a lot of steps need to be gone through. The choice isn't simply accepting the plan or accepting government regulation as was stated by Mr. Bauer. This is a sy,:tem of law, and we cannot say which law we like and which we don't, and thlow out the law we don't like, and take the plan. In our democratic society if we don't like the law, we change it. There are laws we have to follow--a number of state and federal laws. The State has to make a deci- sion on this whole process and on the whole plan. There are important questions involved: What should be a wetland? What should be taken? Where are they going to put sewers, private wells, roads? What is going to be protected by the county zoning ordinance? Unfortunately, it is a long process. There are many legitimate conflicting interests. The federal government--the Army Corps of Engineers--has a responsibility to look at the big picture. There are important natural resources.at stake--and they are not going to be inclined to grant federal permits. Mr* Bauer, your plan is in big trouble and not likely to be permitted. Le@ s sit down with the various groups and try to come out with solutions. We should do a greater hydrological study to determine exactly what'devel- opment can occur without sapping the groundwater and affecting the prairiej an archaeological study to find out where development can be permitted--we should come to some kind of agreement--a compromise--and I don't think the plan is a compromise--and resolve this so we don't have to take up the threats of the lawyer. We have the laws to follow; we must deal with facts. Thank you. -16- A. MR. BAUER: Next is Ms. Linda Monroe, who will be followed by Mr. Edward Ganek. Q. MS. LINDA MONROE, MADISON, WISCONSIN: My name is Linda Monroe. I live in Madison. I am speaking on my own behalf. I have a healthy respect for the nearly unique prairie and ridge and swale complex. This provides an important habitat for plants and animals. There are at least two dozen on the endangered, threatened, or watch list. The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has already recog- nized just how valuable and fragile this resource is. In 1980 it desig- nated much of the area as environmental corridor. In 1981 the Commission published a report which said destruction of one element of the corridor would bring a chain reaction of deterioration. Also, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers made an advanced identification study. That study concluded that this area is not generally suitable for filling of wetlands. Now the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission is considering a pro- posed.plan which fails to protect this most valuable resource in four ways. I am most concerned that this plan is not a compromise between maximum devel- opment and maximum preservation, but a compromise between some damaging development and minimum preservation. The first way the plan fails to protect the resources is due to the fact that all of the plans considered in the Advisory Committee would sewer much of the area around the prairie. The sewers and the accompanying development would change the hydrologic conditions. Once the sewers are in, water would be channeled in different directions out of the prairie, and the wetlands would be dewatered. Some endangered species would lose the water they depend on to exist. The plan proposes a three-fold increase in population, for which additional roads will have to be built--with further damage to the prairie water system, and with the use of road salt toxic to endangered species. Drain tiles would be required for houses adding to the dewatering problem. Professor Cherkauer will give further information on this. The second way the plan fails to protect the resources, it allows an enor- mous expansion of the Trident Marina. There are two types of endangered species where the plan would expand the marina into an important wetland. A road would go through a part of the prairie designated a natural'landmark, or along the state line, which has been a nesting area. Again, we would have road contaminants, which would affect the prairie. The third threat in the plan is the Wisconsin Electric Power Company utility corridor. They asked for 400 feet. I don't think the plan has Adequately addressed this. I don't see the need for an additional 400 feet. They have an existing corridor. Let them put their new intake lines above or below the existing lines. The fourth threat is the Kenosha wastewater treatment plant expansion to accommodate another 20 years of growth with an expansion into the sand dunes. Isn't there a better place for it? -17- I would like to conclude by saying this proposed plan is going to be ter- ribly expensive--the sewers and roads will cost something like $721,000. The average annual public improvement cost over 20 years doesn't include the sewer in Sheridan Road, or the wastewater treatment plant expansion if that is necessary. Compared to that the very small tax increase--even under the maximum preservation plan according to the plan report--seems unrealistic. We have an increase in property tax of $3.23 for a $50,000 house for a Pleasant Prairie homeowner and an improvement cost of over $14 million. We have a very expensive, very damaging, very unnecessary plan. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Edward Ganek, and following Mr. Ganek will be Ms. Mary Ellen Johnson. Q. MR. EDWARD R. GANEK, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: Thank you, I am a resident of Carol Beachl and I would like to rebut all of those people who wrote letters to the Kenosha News calling the residents graedy, selfish, and who don't care anything about wildlife or rare species. The ones who love the 'area are the ones who live in it and protect it. I have.called the police several times when boys have come out with high-speed motorcycles and hunters shooting anything that moves. I am a nature lover. Also, about 15 years ago, Illinois conservationists began a propaganda campaign to save the dunes 'and wetlands of northeastern Illinois'. north of .Illinois Beach State Park. After a few years they convinced the Illinois State, Legislature to condemn and purchase all property east of the Chicago & North Western Railroad north of the Illinois Beach State Park to the Wisconsin border. They purchased all the property and homes; and Zion with Winthrop Harbor lost 178 families, with all the business that brings, lost revenues of property taxes, sales taxes, and the heartbreak of losing 178 fliends and neighbors. 'Now after 10 years, Illinois finds that the wetlands and all the treasure of rare plants, grasses, and flowers aren't so rare or such a treasure af ter all. So now they are planning to build a 1,500-boat marina and convention center with all other "marine-related" businesses. To quote Lake County Economic Development Commission Chairman, William Baker:. "The project is a golden egg in the Illinois coho coast. It can be a.- spring- board of dynamic new economy for North East Illinois." Now 15 years later, the DNR of Wisconsin, the Sierra Club, and all: the oLhers discover a rare dune and wetland area here in danger of overdevelop- mcnt. It is supposed to contain all kinds of precious grasses and plants nowhere else to be seen. Let them go to the Des Plaines Valley, Fox River Valley, Horicon, or Bong. So they are hell-bent on acquiring 812 vacant lots at confiscation prices, not market value as they say, but for $300 per lot for lots originally bought for $1,500 to $3,000 each and taxes paid for how many years--15, 20, or whenever they were purchased--just to save this rare treasure for posterity. It seems we have heard this somewhere before. I think Wisconsin or Kenosha may be just 15 or 20 years behind Illinois. Thank you. A. MR. BAUER: Next will be Ms. Mary Ellen Johnson, and following her will be Mr. Richard Harthun. Q. MS. MARY ELLEN JOHNSON, CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE RESCUE COALITION: My name is Mary Ellen Johnson. I am a member of the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. We are opposed to the proposed plan as a threat to the native plants and species in the Chiwaukee Prairie. So many of you who live in the area have expressed your love for it. You seem to share in our interest and enthusiasm for the preservation of the area, and this should lead to a compromise down the road. The reason I am speaking tonight, and the reason we formed a coalition, is that throughout this whole planning process, there has been adequate knowledge conveyed of the unique value of the area, the value of the natural resource which has over 400 species of native plants, has rare and endangered species, species very hard to save in case they get much rarer. It is cheaper to save them now than 20 years down the road. The time to save these species is now by preserving their habitat. You can't leave a narrow corridor and expect them to survive. The reason they live there and survive is because of the particular features of the habitat, the swells and swales that exist there. We believe a larger area should be preserved. At the same time we recognize that the area was platted. A lot of you have a misunderstanding of the plans. The homeowners are all under every plan to be left to live in their houses. Many will be left with lots. You see those lots being taken by a government bureaucracy. We feel the landowners should be recognized with adequate compensation, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands to be preserved in conservancy. We would like to see a larger area preserved--virtually all of the remaining open space preserved--to protect the prairie, but at the same time the landowners should be. compensated at a fair and equitable value. The figure of $300 has been mentioned. I think that might have been the amount The Nature Conservancy offered at one time. I don't think anybody is taking $300. The price has gone up. That price--a fair price would have to be negotiated. I think the DNR is prepared to buy. The Nature Conservancy is also prepared to buy. But the money used to buy land doesn't come from nowhere. It is given by people who love the prairie and want to preserve it. I have given over $200 to buy land in Chiwaukee Prairie. If we divided it all up, it won't be good. It will destroy the prairie. It won't be good wetland. We will all lose. A. MR. BAUER: Next will be Mr. Richard Harthun, and the next speaker will then be Ms. Carol Owens. MR. RICHARD A. HARTHUN, NATURE AND HER INHABITANTS: I would prefer to send in my comments at a later date, please. _19- A. MR. BAUER: Thank you Mr. Harthun. Your written comments will b e made a part of the record of the hearing and will have the same force and effect as would your oral testimony. Ms. Carol Owens. Q. MS@ CAROL OWENS, WAUKESHA ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEAGUE: I would like to.do the same thing. A. MR. BAUER: Thank.you. Next then will be Mr. Richard Marciniak, and following him will be Mr. Charles Graf. Q. MR. RICHARD MARCINIAK, CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE RESCUE COALITION: I @-m a representative of the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. I would like to give a summary of what we would like to see done with the area. We wil"I present to the Commission a detailed plan within 10 days. The Coali- tion has found the Advisory Committee plan unacceptable to us. We are not dissatisfied with the work of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission but rather with the changes in that work that have been initiated by the Advisory Committee, the changes that I will address farther along. Our plan is based on two principles--reasonable treatment of the existing property owners and also maximum preservation of the open prairie lands. To safeguard property owner rights, no existing homes should be moved or condemned in any fashion, and the DNR or any private organizations involved should provide reasonable guarantees that, if property owners wish to sell, they can but they cannot be forced to sell, and that monies will be avail- abie for purchase. Any purchases of property should be made at a fair market value to be determined by the parties involved, and WEPCo should be granted its desired utility corridor easement; but they should not be permitted to put a building on the corridor and should not be permitted to use herbicides in the area. For natural resources protection, we have a number of proposals. One,'we feel that the 18-acre wetland site immediately adjacent to the sewage treatment plant should not be preserved for expansion, but other areas be considered, possibly some areas across 7th Avenue, so that in the future we will not be forced to use that 18-acre site. Two, sewer service should not extend east of the railroad tracks. Three, no new roads should be built t hr ough the prairie to the Trident site, and no new lands should be put aside for the expansion of the marina. All open lands within the 825-acre study site should be zoned for conservancy. A. MR. BAUER: Thank you Mr* Marciniak. The next speaker will be Mr. Charles Graf, and then Mr. Thomas Terwall. -20- Q. MR. CHARLES GRAF: I'registered not so much to make a statement but to preserve Thy right to ask questions. I have no questions at this time, and my wife did the same thing. I might want to ask questions later. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Terwall. Q. MR. THOMAS W. TERWALL, SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE: My name is Thomas Terwall, and I am a Town Board Supervisor for the Town of Pleasant Prairie. During the course of this study, many individuals and groups have expressed concern for the rare and endangered species thought to inhabit this area. Several agencies of both the state and federal governments have also stressed the importance of protecting these endangered species. While I share their concerns, I am more concerned about another specie that these governmental agencies and other special interest groups do not feel is entitled to similar protection. I am speaking about the 1,400 human beings that inhabit the study area in some 511 permanent dwellings. Any plan for this area must include a solution to the problem of failing septic systems that many of these people face. This is a problem that is .not limited to the boundaries of this study area. Many property owners in the southeast corner of the Town are experiencing similar problems and are facing forced abandonment of these failing systems. The solution lies in providing sanitary sewers to this area. It can only be accomplished if development of the nonwetland area is permitted with the full approval of all regulatory agencies involved. The Town of Pleasant Prairie is working diligently to resolve this serious problem for the entire area. Further study, as advocated by the Public Intervenor, will only increase the sever- ity of the problem and delay a much-needed solution. I believe that the interests of the property owners must be protected in any proposed solution if it is to succeed. 'This means fair compensation must be offered on a timely basis to the owners of land rendered unbuild- able by wetland zoning and that written assurance be given that upland areas will be permitted to develop with the installation of public utili- ties. New roads that are proposed for the sole purpose of splitting lots that are partially wetland should be deleted from the plan and the lots retained in the development zone if the majority of the lot is upland. -This will eliminate the cost of unnecessary new roads, as well as the risk of disturbing the hydrology of the area. During the many months of deliberations that have taken place since the formation of the Technical Advisory Committee, I have been appalled at the lack of concern that has been shown by the state and federal government for the residents and property owners of this study area. SEWRPC is the only agency involved in this complex issue that has shown any regard for the -21- rights and welfare of the people most affected by these deliberations. I commend Mr. Bauer of SEWRPC and Mr. Fonk of the County Board for showing concern for these people. If this or any plan for the area is to succeed, 1 believe that the least protected animal specie--the human beings that inhabit the area--must. receive at least the same consideration given to the white-fringed orchid and sand hill cranes that may or may not inhabit the area A. MR. BAUER: Thi@ next speaker will be Mr. James Post, who will be followed by Ms. Rebecca Leighton. Q. MR. JAMES W. POST, TOWN OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE: I am James Post from 1st Avenue and 128th Street. I am going to take a half a minute and ask the other two minutes be donated. I read this thing [Recorder's Note: Indicating the handout materials] and heard it read back.. I am learning a great deal. I would like to hear from some experts. A. MR. BAUER: After everybody else. has had a chance to speak in the order in which the registration slips were received, we can come back to them. Q. MR. POST: Then I will take the rest of my two and one-half minutes now. It seems there is an awful lot of talk about wetlands and uplands. it all gets complicated. I am a pretty simple-minded person. Elevation is the key. I agree with the gentleman that said the nature lovers don't have to be people who live out of the area. It might be people who live there to enjoy it. I have some questions to ask. First of all, I heard statistics about lots that weren't developed. Very deceiving. A lot of people like open area. When they build a house, they might buy two or three lots that they don't want to build on, but keep for open space. Many people have tried to build and found roadblocks in their paths. The perc tests don't turn out. No one wants to talk about new methods to accommodate septic systems. What will be the recourse assuming this board makes a recommendation? What recourse do we have for those of us who might not agree with the recommen- datio'n? A. MFI. BAUER: I I.,, Mr. Post, understood you to have only one question. Q. MR. POST: The question was whether or not you agree with my statement. I would like to know, you know. -22- A. MR. BAUER: What part of your statement? Q. MR. POST: I heard this read back, and you were talking about vacant lots. Nobody wants to build there anyway. Why make a fuss. Well that maynot neces- sarily be true; some people want to build and are discouraged. Many people own lots and want to keep them open. A. MR. BAUER: I think that your observation concerning the desire for open space is a valid comment. Clearly if there are adjacent multiple lots in a single ownership, they should be regarded as one site. As far as your question concerning recourse is concerned, you should under- stand the Regional Planning Commission is an agency that tries to seek a consensus on a plan--that is, on a course of action--among often conflicting interests. We certainly see such conflict here. This is probably one of the most controversial issues the Commission has tried to address in some 20 years of work. As I said earlier, the Commission's plans are, however, entirely advisory. Assuming that the Committee that is helping the Commis- sion in this matter can agree on a plan--which is not at all certain given ,the conflict in evidence tonight--and recommends a plan to the Commission, the Commission would consider, as will the Advisory Committee, the comments made here tonight. There were valid suggestions made that deserve careful consideration in arriving at a final plan. If the Regional Planning Com- mission adopts that final plan, it becomes advisory to the Town, the County, the State, and the federal government; and the elected and appointed offi- cials at the town and county level would have to decide whether they want to adopt the plan and begin to carry it out. The Secretary of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources would have to decide whether he will adopt the plan and attempt to carry it out; and,, of course, your legislators would have to decide whether they will provide monies to purchase the land that may be involved. Your recourse, then, will be through your elected offi- cials. As was said earlier tonight, this will be a long process. Govern- ment in Wisconsin was designed to include many checks and balances so ,things do not happen quickly. The plan, if it is adopted, if a plan can be agreed upon, really becomes the point of beginning for the actions that would be required to carry it out. I don't know if that is a satisfactory answer. Q. MR. POST: Thank you. A. MR. BAUER: Ms. Rebecca Leighton will be next. She will be followed by Mr. Robert Ahrenhoerster. -23- MS.. REBECCA A. LEIGHTON, WISCONSIN AUDUBON COUNCIL AND BROWN COUNTY CON- SERVATION ALLIANCE: My name is Rebecca Leighton, and I am from Green Bay. I am speaking on behalf of two organizations--the Audubon Council, with 17 member chapters and 13,400 members, and the Brown County Conservation Alliance, with a combined membership of 3,300 memberships in Brown County. Both organiza- tions are opposed to SEWRPC's development plan. We feel the Chiwaukee Prairie requires careful preservation and management. Prairies have become scarce, and a prairie at least the size of the Chiwau,kee Prairie is needed to protect its endangered species. The long-term stability of these endangered species depends on there being a natural exchange of genetic varieties. There will be no such variety coming in from the outside, and the endangered species will have to make do with what they have in the area. Inbreeding makes the species more susceptible to loss, and the number of individuals can decrease considerably. Though the people I am representing are not local people, we feel we have an important stake in the decision. We are sympathetic with the property ownersi problems. Wetlands are not appropriate residential sites. These should be discouraged as not being in the public interest. Prairies are valuable and disappearing at a drastic rate around the country. Chiwaukee Prairie belongs to all citizens, and the native species have a right to exist. I will submit more information in writing later. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. 'Robert Ahrenhoerster will be next, who will be followed by Mr. Donald Wruck. Q. MR. ROBERT AHRENHOERSTER, PRAIRIE SEED SOURCE, NORTH LAKE, WISCONSIN: I have submitted a written statement. I don't wish to speak at this point. A. MP,. BAUER: Thank you. Now Mr. Wruck, to be followed by Mr. Ed Nelson. MR. DONALD H. WRUCK, CHAIRMAN, TOWN OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE: Mr. Bauer, I would like to thank you and your staff for holding this hear- ing tonight so that the public could be heard. I guess what I have to say is that the Town Board must look at both sides of the issue, and will be looking for a compromise that can satisfy the scrutiny of both sides. I would like to present this statement then, as the Town Chairman, to your Committee. The Town of Pleasant Prairie wishes to advise the Committee of -the urgency for, a timely resolution of a compromise plan by all concerned regulatory agencies that addresses the concerns of all parties involved. -24- The Town is currently preparing a facilities plan that addresses the elimi- nation of pollution caused by failing onsite waste disposal systems, both within the study area and areas to the west of Sheridan Road. As an example, the Unit One Subdivision that lies within the Carol Beach/ Chiwaukee Prairie Study Area is also designated to be a part of the Facili- ties Planning Area. Manyhomes within this subdivision have been cited for violations by the County Sanitarian. Further legal action against these residents have been temporarily suspended pending progress toward the installation of a sanitary sewer system., Any further delays in resolving these issues will likely result in the resumption of legal action against residents within Unit One as well as in other areas with failing septic systems, both east and west of Sheridan Road. In addition, further delays may jeopardize available funding for the sewerage system. The Town strongly urges all groups to take a position of compromise as the only. viable method of realizing each respective group's interests. A. MR. BAUER: Thank you, Mr. Wruck. The next speaker will be Mr. Ed Nelson, who will be followed by Mr. C. G. McAndrews. Q. MR. ED NELSON, KETTLE MORAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC.: Good evening, I am from Hartland, Wisconsin. I.am the Conservation Chair- man of the Kettle Moraine Audubon Society, Inc. I have been sitting back here and getting hotter and hotter. I have a prepared statement. However, let me state a few observations. I am sure some of you see me as the enemy. I am a homeowner on a septic system. You do not want your homes taken away. I have looked at the Cher- kauer report. I have looked at the SEWRPC report and read CPR's,recommen- dation from Chiwaukee. I would hope between those proposals, some compro- mise and modification can be reached, not lawsuits, not shouting, not rudeness, but compromise. Furthermore, I am a homeowner. I would speak to the residents,of the Carol Beach area. You said you like to live in the area; you enjoy that area; you watch the birds; you walk in the area to let off steam. It is something to appreciate.' What some of these other people, the conservationists, are trying to tell you this evening is you should not be thinking of SEWRPC or DNR as bureaucratic monsters; that, if the prairie is infringed upon to a certain extent, the thing you most want to protect and enjoy will be harmed; and in some parts, it will be destroyed. Hopefully, somewhere between the plans that are being submitted this evening, there is going to be a compro- reached so the homeowners will not feel their homes will be taken away. I wouldn't want that; and the people who want the prairie reserved don't want that, but there are very few areas like this left in southeast- ern Wisconsin, if not in the Midwest. The area of Chiwaukee Prairie should _25- be allowed to continue. I have a written statement I will leave with you. Thank you. tRecorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr. Nelson at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement, as filed by Mr. Nelson, is contained in Appendix E-5.1 A. MR. BAUER: We certainly share the hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on a plan. Next is Mr. C. G. McAndrews, who will be followed by Ms. Ione. Graf. MR. C. GREGORY McANDREWS, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: I will submit a written statement. I will briefly summarize that state- ment. The compromise plan has taken into consideration many valid inter- ests. The plan, which I have followed over the last two or three years, has shown considerable wisdom. I would like to reinforce two. principal areas--first, compensation of those people whose properties are being set aside for scientific, recreational, or scenic reasons and, secondly, a rea- sonable time frame. Many things are being held in abeyance; a timely conclusion of this issue is needed. Two specific things I would like to bring to the attention of the Advisory Committee. First of all, the statewide significance of this area. Mr. Bauer indicated that the people who will determine if this has statewide .significance is the State Legislature. If the State Assembly does not allocate money within the next five years or eight years or whatever the time limit is set, then the land that is zoned into conservancy, but will not be purchased because the State decides not to, should return.to its original zoning, or the zoning should follow some sort of gradual schedule as the money is available and when the owner says, yes, we will sell it, the State will buy it. So we are concerned about what happens if the Legislature decides the area is not of statewide significance. One picky point in regard to the upland area north of 90th Street and 4th Avenue and the WEPCo utility corridor. On this Map 1. it is indicated as upland. Two or three years ago it was a swampy area, but it was simply filled with inert clay from under the City of Kenosha as a result of the sewer separation project. I would suggest, therefore, that the environ- mental corridor be stopped at 90th Street because there is no longer a minimum width of 200 feet north of there. The only significant change is between 7th Avenue and where this inert fill has been added. I would suggest that you do consider that particular area. Thank you for your patience with us. I would'echo the need for a speedy solution of this very complex area. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr. McAndrews at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement, as filed by Mr. McAndrews, is contained in Appendix E-6.] -26- A. MR. BAUER: Ms.: Ione Graf will be next, and she will be followed by Ms. Bernice Popelka. Q. MS. IONE GRAF, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: I will pass, thank you. A. MR. BAUER: The next speaker will then be Ms. Bernice Popelka, who will be followed by Mr. Joseph Shaffron. MS. BERNICE B. POPELKA, KETTLE MORAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY AND CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE RESCUE COALITION: I am Bernice Popelka representing the Kettle Moraine Audubon Society and the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. The Audubon Society has 450 mem- bers over three counties. I want to say that I have been a preservationist for natural areas since 1961. Some of these years I was in the Chicago area and helped save the prairie down there. I lived down there and appreciate what it can be like when you have nothing but houses and businesses and cement. I can remember many times taking our young family into the forest preserve. How grateful I was that somebody had the foresight to set aside that natural area. Many people in the Chicago area were grateful for that. I also recall the fight to save the Indiana sand dunes, and they were saved, and people are grateful that took place. There were people who had concerns about their rights and so forth, but in the end posterity is very grateful. The prairie I worked on saving is now owned by the University--it is extremely valuable, a gem. When I was working on that, I became aware of Chiwaukee Prairie. I know it is of the highest quality in the Midwest. I know people from many states who are acquainted with the prairie. I men- tioned to them that there was a possibility of the prairie being divided up among many interests. They were alarmed. They did not realize this. could happen. I am concerned because I see here there are two forces fighting against each other--homeowners against preservationists. In the middle is SEWRPC. We are being played against each other. But I did know in, Kurt ,Bauer's letter of September 19 that he appears to already have a position in support of this plan although in the Advisory Committee many people abstained from voting because they were from agencies and people whom I question their pursuitof facts. I also know that he made some statements that appeared to show he had a particular position, and we see Dr. Cher- kauer's study of soil and water. as it relates to preserving the prairie. I suggest SEWRPC go back to the drawing board and study all the facts before taking a position. We may some day be part of a megapolis. We should be concerned about saving such areas for the future. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Ms. Popelka at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written.statement, as filed by Ms. Popelka, is contained in Appendix E-7.] -27- A. MR. BAUER: Indeed, the plan before you tonight is a s taf f- recommended plan. We think it is a technically sound plan; but it is at this point a staff recommenda- tiont and it will have to be acted upon by the Advisory Committee, the Commission, and ultimately the elected officials concerned. The next speaker is Mr. Joseph Shaffron, who will be followed by Mr. David Hew itt. MR. JOSEPH E. SHAFFRON, DEVELOPER OF CAROL BEACH ESTATES: Members of the Committee, my name is Joe Shaffron. I have to qualify myself to you folks so that you can credit my statement, and believe that I know what I am talking about. The qualification is this. I am head of the organization that developed Carol Beach Estates. It was acquired from Rockefeller-McCormick. On the day I closed the deal with them, my daughter was born. We named her Carol and the development then Carol Beach Estates. I am about the only land developer that lives on the land he developed, and I am not afraid to live there; I am proud of the area. I am going to make some statements. I don't need three minutes. I am go.-m.ng to ask the Committee to stop and think what you are doing. First of all, I received several hundred telephone calls when this action started in my office asking me questions and accusing me and telling me what to do. I received a lot of mail. I am not an official and not on your Committee. I received nothing but complaints, and I had nothing to do with this. I was accused of agreeing to fight this action because I am in love with a lot of money invested in property. For your information, members of the Com- mittee, my company doesn't own one lot except the building where I live. We are completely sold out. Financially I am not interested. Morally I am very much interested, and I believe that your Committee is doing the wrong thing. I am sorry I have to make that statement. You are not doing what you are because you want to, you can't do otherwise. Carol Beach is not a wetland. I have built more than half the homes in that entire subdivision. We have had no problems except in a few houses where the septic tank was installed by somebody that didn't know what they were doing. We had to teach and correct. We have had no complaints and no problems. We have one of) the finest developments in this part of the country. I am very proud of the development, and the residents make me feel proud. If you drive through especially the wooded sections, you would see what a wonderful development it is. Besides the residential area, we have also developed an industrial park right on the corner of 91st and Sheridan, which is part of the Carol Beach property. I am very proud of it, too. I know that your Committee has got a big problem, but you don't know how to handle it because most of the things that apply to your work do not apply to Carol Beach Estates. It is not wetland. If anything at all, it is a desert property. It is dry. There is no trouble. I have lived there for 37 years, and I am not afraid to live on the property I developed. There are no problems except some credited by builders who made mistakes. Stop -28- bothering us with your wetland action. You have no right to do this because it is not wetland. I wish you would stop because if you don't, we will hire legal talent; and we will make you stop'. Thank you very, very much. (Applause from the audience) A. MR..BAUER: Mr. David Hewitt will be next, he will be followed by Ms. Helen Helgren. Q. MR. DAVID H. HEWITT, SIERRA CLUB AND CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE RESCUE COALITION: My name is David Hewitt. I live in the Town of Bristol. I am the Conser- vation Chairman of the State Chapter of the Sierra Club and Vice-Chairman .of the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here tonight, I think this hearing was long overdue. I know that many people would like to have spoken before. Generally speaking, we favor the maximum preservation plan. We will be submitting a detailed plan. I will also submit further written comments. I would like to read part of a letter that appeared in the Kenosha News on January 31 of this year from a concerned property owner. A woman and her husband and two sons live a couple of blocks from the lake. "We love it out here. We love raising our boys out here because it is so free and open." That speaks for a. lot of people who live in Carol Beach. After attending most of the Advisory Committee meetings, I didn't hear this point of view represented very well, if at all. I think that many people who live there would lose this openness with the urban enclaves set forth in the present plan. Therefore, we are recommending the maximum preserva- tion plan, which would preserve more of the open space. I will stop there. A. MR. BAUER: .Ms. Helen Helgren will be next, and will be followed by Mr. Preston Helgren. Q. MS. HELEN HELGREN, GURNEE, ILLINOIS: I didn't really have a statement. We came as long-time admirers of the prairie from Lake County. I wanted to verify something I understood or misunderstood from the opening presentation. In the event that this is not resolved by some kind of compromise plan, this would go to the Department of Natural Resources. Is that correct? A. MR. BAUER: if agreement cannot be reached on a compromise plan, the existing regula- tory framework would be rigidly applied. That would have, at.least the Commission staff believes, adverse effects on the property owners and adverse effects on the preservation of, the resource base itself. The rigid application of the law would permit the State to zone the open wetlands against development without payment of compensation. That would probably lead to court action. _29- Q. MS. HELGREN: I couldn't believe that zero compensation in that instance. A. MR. BAUER: There is case law in the State of Wiscon sin which apparently upholds the State in the application of the police powers in this way. We think one of the things that is different in this area from the previous cases is the fact that it has been platted. Q. MS. HELGREN: Are you referring to acreage or platted land? A. MR. BAUER: The Commission staff believes the situation is different when dealing with platted lots. Q. MS. HELGREN: That was my question. I didntt.know if I had heard it correctly. I*found it dif f icult to believe that would be the case, but that is what you are saying. I think that is all I needed to know right now. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Helgren will be next, followed by Mr. Stephen Barasch. Q. MR. PRESTON HELGREN, GURNEE, ILLINOIS: I am from Gurnee, Illinois. I didn't come up here to tell you what to do with your land. We value it and appreciate it very much. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Stephen Barasch will be next. Mr. Barasch, I notice you have filed a written statement. Do you want to also make an oral statement? MR. STEPHEN BARASCH, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: Yes. I have been a resident of the study area for over 12 years. I am one of many that would be adversely affected by the study. In fact, one of the things I most object to is the whole concept of public ownership. Sensible stewardship is being denied simply due to the fact that we happen to own the land. I believe there has been a more or less systematic effort by certain state and county officials to perpetuate the myth that the land in the study area is mostly unbuildable and the concept of holding tanks is undesirable. In point of fact, I believe most of the lots are buildable. There are techniques that can be used, as for example, to require there be no basements. Our climate only requires a four-foot foundation be put underground. That is no problem at all. -30- From an environmental point of view, far from being undesirable, holding tanks would prevent sewers from being brought into the area. It is also the best solution environmentally. There would be no adverse effect on.the surrounding soil. There are pumping charges; but for an average family today, they are a little more than 50 percent of what you would pay for city sewer and water. I also want to point out sensible things could be put in the compromise plan. I do not believe single-family residence construction is incompati- ble with conservation. Special land use zoning could be passed restricting landscaping, paved driveways, planting of incompatible species of plant life. Houses could be built on stilts with the land underneath left natural. Another compromise would be to limit sewer expansion to along Sheridan Road and the Trident Marina. If this limitation makes sewer expansion uneconomi- cal, then it could be dropped. We don't need the sewers. The pumping costs with holding tanks are not prohibitive. It is a price many people are willing to pay to live in a less developed environment. The use of holding tanks will also keep the development pace low by use of free market factors rather than government coercion. If there are sewers put through, the urban areas will be more fully developed in the first year with more housing units than have been built south of 91st Street in the past 30 years. I am glad to see the environmentalists are also beginning to see the light about the compromise plan. I also want to address myself to Mr. Evenson. What do you think of a plan that is offered in the spirit of compromise, yet you say, if you don't accept this plan, anybody who owns a lot within 1,000 feet of the lake you are going to lose this land. Is that a com- promise? (Applause from the audience) That was a rhetorical question. I will tell you the answer. The public officials are not sincerely interested in the environment, but are inter- ested in acquiring public parkland at basement prices, through forced sales ,and denying owners legal condemnation proceedings--what the public officials are interested in is sewers and large-scale development. I would say that next to small property owners the environment is the least of their concerns. Thank you. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr. Barasch at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement, as filed by Mr. Baraschi is contained in Appendix E-8.] A. MR. BAUER: Rhetorical or,not, I think the question you posed needs to be answered. The Public Intervenor in effect answered it earlier with a much harder line, which perhaps you didn't catch. She said the law is the law. It was enacted duly by your elected legislative bodies. The proposed compromise plan is _31- intended to ameliorate the effects of the law. The only other course of action open is to get the law changed. It is now af ter 9 o'clock. We have been at this for over two hours, and are only about halfway through the list of people who want to be heard. We will now recess for a short rest break to stretch and then promptly recon- vene. [Recorder's Note: Mr. Bauer recessed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened it at 9:13 p.m.] May we have your attention, please. Let us resume the hearing. The next speaker will be Mr. John Allen, and following him will be Mr. Richard Christiansen. Q. MR. JOHN ALLEN: When this problem first came up, I was at one of the original meetings. I discussed the problems with members of your staff, but the answer received was rather indefinite. My concern is about the lands that I will refer to on these maps, and the staff member seemed to indicate that any lan&north of 90th Street was to be our land. He apparently recommended that that not be covered by the plan. My concern is--and I would refer to these maps--the site known as the Kenosha Towne Club, 25 acres between 84th and 90th Streets. This site has never been visited by any member of the DNR staf f or by any member of the SEWRPC staff. You might ask me how I know that. Well, that land is posted against trespassing and has been patrolled. We bought some 25 acres some 20 years ago from an estate that existed in the metropolitan area of Chicago. The land prior to our procurement was used as a dump for cans, papers, logs, trash, and whatever. We purchased that land with the idea of building a tennis and swim club, which we thought would be for the betterment of Kenosha and our families. I will show you a map and aerial overlays of the area. Much of your judgment was made from aerial overlays. SEWRPC or the DNR have never set foot on this piece of land. For your identification and for the audience [pointing to map], this is 80th and this is 91st. It is the first piece of property south of the City. The only thing between us and the city limits are the Power Company lands. You propose to take this piece of land for utility corridor--for the Power Company--they own the land on 7th Avenue approximately 300 feet in depth. We own this. This piece of land is the Pleasant Prairie park and some property directly south of us. Tfiis is the aerial overlay that I think the staff used for their inventory. At the north end of this area we built a road. They don't know that road is here. We thought that was where we would locate this club. We decided, however, that this was where we would build the club. This is where the club proper is. That area there, which I understand is to be put in con- sdrvancy area, about an acre in size, is not a natural pond, we built that pond which is 10-to-14 feet deep. Hundreds of yards of dirt were spread on this land, filling it for our use. -32- Also, the instrument building, when it burned downtown, the steel girders and brick were buried underneath this.land. We invited builders in, but there was nothing but solid fill. Maybe 20 years ago there were some precious resources there. There aren't now. The tennis and swim club is private, and should not be included in any sort of conservancy area. I suggest to DNR and SEWRPC that we would meet with them any time to discuss this. We built that pond, stocked it with 1,000 bass fingerlings purchased from the State. I will be happy to meet with anybody out there that can show me something precious and unique in this land. Thank you for your courtesy. (Recorder's Note: The maps referred to by Mr. Allen were submitted at the Hearing and are on file at the Commission offices.] A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Richard Christiansen will be the next speaker. He will be followed by Mr. Carl Salerno. Q. MR. RICHARD CHRISTIANSEN, BRISTOL, WISCONSIN: I am from Bristol, Wisconsin. I am a member of the Sierra Club and the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Rescue Coalition. I am speaking for myself. I came to this meeting thinking that I would have, to spend at least f ive minutes going through a bunch of facts or reasons for saving the prairie. From what I have heard tonight, I can certainly see that the homeowners and ,property owners in the prairie area cherish this piece of land as much as I do. I am hopeful some of us. can get together, talk to each other, and learn from this; and the misinformation will be stopped. What I am concerned about with.the present plan, at least one of.the things, is the proposed expansion of the Trident Marina. Chiwaukee Prairie is a special place. I have walked over Trident on a couple of occasions. At least 90 percent of the cars have Illinois license plates. They talk about reopening 122nd street and paving it over so they can expand the marina and bring in more traffic for this marina. There would be Illinois people going right through the middle of the Chiwaukee Prairie. It strikes me honestly as some terrible remake of a horror movie, with the prairie cast in the role of Dracula. Drive it right through the heart. It doesn't.make sense. I support the maximum preservation of this area with fairness to the prop- erty owners and to the homeowners. That might sound like a strange state- ,ment. Often property owners and homeowners are one person. Some property owners, who have bought lots in what may become a preservation area, bought those lots as an, investment. An area of land between Milwaukee and Chicago would be a good investment, platted; and some governmental agency said this would be developed. They thought the value would be increased and that this would be an excellent investment to make. It seems to me that, if these people are offered $300 or $700 for these lots, that is kind of a terrible joke. What do I mean when I say fairness for property owners of -33- land that should be preserved, who maybe would like to. sell it in the future? It means looking back at the original purchase records. See what the value was of the money spent at that time and correct that into today's dollars. Then also go back to records and find out how much property, taxes have been paid on these parcels of land, and give that money back. I am certainly not an economist. Maybe that is totally ignorant... A. MR. BAUER: Well, it is a very novel idea. Q. MR. CHRISTIANSEN: ...but it is only fair to give these people their money back because they deserve that. For the homeowners, it seems to me maximum preservation is what you want. This is an area you cherish. As time goes on, you will have an. area with open spaces, with a beautiful prairie to walk through that will be a very valuable area. Those homes will go up in value if the area to be preserved is the maximum. Instead, in the compromise plan, you are talking about $71,000 a year for improvements. This is going to be shared by the property owners. I am not a property owner; but if I were, that is a cost I would not like to pay over 20 years. If I were a senior citizen, that would scare me very much. That seems a terrific burden to bear. I urge the Committee to support the true maximum preservation plan, to spare the property and homeowners. That plan would preserve the unique land we know as the Chiwaukee Prairie. A. NF... BAUER: Mr. Carl Salerno will be the next speaker. He will be followed by Mr. Robert Trefz. MR. CARL SALERNO, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: I would like to address the folks that were talking about the moral obliga- tion of the homeowners of the area to protect, but who don't extend the same moral obligation to protect private property. There is an issue involved; justice requires a willing seller along with a willing buyer. People do have property rights that are, in my opinion, more precious than the plants on that property. As one of the owners of some of that vacant land,. I have spent quite a large sum of money to protect the land. from the waves of Lake Michigan. I would like to represent the people. Without the prairie we wouldn't have an issue today. I am wondering about those of us without property rights but who wish to have the use of it for whatever reason. This original effort came up when the DNR said we had to protect the wet- lands. The Secretary of DNR requested the SEWRPC to propose a compromise between wetland preservation and development. The idea was to preserve the valuable wetlands and allow the wetlands of low value to be developed. SLWRPC was to propose a plan that protected the valuable wetlands while protecting the legal rights of the property owners. -34- The plan proposed by SEWRPC is not a compromise. It is an "open space taking" plan. Without direction from the Town or County, SEWRPC changed the plan's objective. The Technical Advisory Committee to SEWRPC voted to change the plan by removing lots that were not wetland from any conservancy area and placing them under development zoning. Against the Committee's request, SEWRPC left nonwetland lots under the conservancy area in their plan. SEWRPC has refused to propose a true compromise, stating there are valuable uplands that should be preserved, and an open space compromise is needed. In the so-called compromise, lots that SEWRPC calls wet will be allowed to be developed. In return, upland lots will be taken for preservation. A study submitted to the Technical Advisory Committee shows a substantial error in the wetland inventory. SEWRPC has set upland lots aside as wet- lands according to IEP, a very well recognized survey group. If this is true, we don't have a compromise. If this is true, we have a plan biased by special interest groups instead of a plan following the legal rights of property owners. SEWRPC's value judgment of the uplands is their right, but what happened to the value judgment and the rights of the property owner in a platted subdivision? At no time has SEWRPC justified the need for preservation of more upland than is alre ady preserved. At no time has SEWRPC performed soil borings to confirm if a lot is a wetland or an upland. As a result of these shortcomings, the rights of landowners with values other than SEWRPC are not being protected. There are already over 200 acres of land under preservation in the area. The Town and County have not requested that more land be preserved. A detailed study by IEP has shown huge errors in SEWRPCs wetland inventory. No need has been established to remove property rights from platted uplands. No law requires preservation of uplands; yet SEWRPC proposes we take property rights from owners of land in platted subdivisions to keep homes from being built on an abandoned golf course. It is no wonder companies are moving out of Wisconsin and taking jobs with them. How can anyone feel sIecure under Wisconsin government with conditions such as SEWRPC and the DNR dictate? Before submitting any plan to remove private property from residential zoning, I would like to see SEWRPC: 1) document the need to preserve.more land... A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Salerno, please, your initial time is up. Q. MR. SALERNO: I want to present what is necessary, I will ask to continue later. -35- A. MR. BAUER: Surely. The next speaker will be Mr. Robert Trefz, who will be followed.by y Mr. Gerald Buhnerkemp. MR. ROBERT W. TREFZ, TRIDENT MARINA: I am Bob Trefz with Warzyn Engineering, a civil engineering firm. I am an environmental engineer. I am appearing on behalf of Trident Marina. Before I go to my statement, I would like to make some comments for your information concerning the testimony earlier by Linda Monroe from Madison, who said she was here on her own behalf. To clarify the situation, you should know that Miss Monroe met with me and Kathy Falk on Friday, Kathy being the Public Intervenor. Miss Monroe was introduced to me as Assistant to the Public Intervenor. At that point in time, the proposed concept of the Trident Marina development was explained to both Kathy Falk and Linda Monroe. Our extensive studies performed on behalf of Trident, including studies by an independent expert botanical firm, did indicate some limited areas.of smooth flox in the area proposed for expansion of the Marina. Subsequently the concept plans were revised to permit the preservation of these areas. The areas where the smooth flox was found were specifically pointed out on maps to both Kathy Falk and Linda Monroe. I lef t the maps with them for study at their leisure following our meeting, which lasted a couple of hours. We have, on behalf of Trident, and at the urging of Tr ident, tried to maintain open communications with the Public Intervenor's office and pro- vided that office with substantial amounts of information, not to help their cause but to hopefully bring this matter to a head. This issue has been discussed for way too long. There are strong opinions on both sides. We at Trident would like to urge a timely and reasonable compromise be reached and approved so that we all can get on with @our lives. My comments in my prepared statement deal primarily with some observations made by Dr. Cherkauer, who I understand will be making comments later this evening; and a report has been submitted by the Public Intervenor's office by Dr. Cherkauer to SEWRPC. Our comments deal basically with the area in the vicinity of Trident west to the railroad right-of-way. We do not iy-.tend to develop anything as far west as the railroad right-of-way, but this is the area we feel could be impacted by whatever Trident might do. A. MR. BAUER: You can either let the written statement stand in the record as submitted, or you can ask to appear again later to expand upon it orally. -36- Q. MR. TREFZ: Our concern is that Mr. Cherkauer has tried to evaluate the potential impacts on the area without detailed quantitative information. We do have' some limited information and certainly propose to acquire other more detailed information necessary to provide an informed design concept sub- mittal for a major project, including information on the impacts of roads and marinas; and we do intend to work closely with organizations, such as DNR, the federal agencies, and The Nature Conservancy in developing sound solutions to the design problems. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Mr. Treft at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement, as filed by Mr. Trefz, is contained in Appendix E-9.1 A. MR. BAUER: The next speaker will be Mr. Gerald Buhnerkemp, who will be followed by Mr. Mike Sebetic. Q. MR. GERALD G. BUHNERKEMP, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: My name is Gerald Buhnerkemp. I am a homeowner in the Carol Beach area. I have a question. It is my understanding that, if this plan goes through, there will be certain restrictions on repairs and improvements to existing buildings. Is that true? A. MR. BAUER: As far as any of the existing homes are concerned that are already located in the proposed preservation area, it is being recommended in the plan that they not be regarded as legally nonconforming uses. That would be a depar- ture from normal zoning practice, but the plan as it now stands recommends that the existing homes be allowed to remain unless the homeowners want to sell them. Since they would not be regarded as nonconforming uses, if the owners wanted to add to them and met the various requirements of the normal zoning, he or she could do so, or if the house was damaged by fire or winastorm, it could be rebuilt. Q. MR. BUHNERKEMP: Even if it was 50 percent or more destroyed? A, MR . BAUER: Yes. The normal kind of nonconforming use restrictions that are placed in zoning ordinances in Wisconsin would not be used--the proposed plan recom- mends that that kind of restriction not be attached to homes that would remain in those areas. I want to say again that the plan as the Regional Planning Commission prepares it is advisory, so that that would be our recommendation to the zoning authorities. They have to make the f inal decision, your elected officials. -37- Mr.: Mike Sebetic will be next, who will be followed by Ms. Mary Ann Ortmayer. MR. MICHAEL SEBETIC, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: My name is Mike Sebetic. I am a resident of Carol Beach. I am a life-long resident of Wisconsin and have lived in Kenosha all my life. I have been a homeowner in the Carol Beach area for the last 20 years and have enjoyed the beauty of this area and intend to stay and enjoy it for another 20 years. I now feel threatened and angered by radical environmentalist groups who are not from this area or.even possibly from this State. They are claiming that this is not only a wetland but there are rare fauna and endangered species in our area and that the land is unfit for residential use, there . fore worthless to the homeowner. I claim that, if this property contains all that they say, then the property is valuable; and the owner should be compensated at a fair market price. Property owners in Carol Beach have purchased and paid taxes on these properties for many years. If supplied with sewer and water, these areas are developable and, therefore, worth market value. There have been no thorough, accurate, intensive studies done on this area to prove that the area is indeed a wetland. If these groups would spend as much time preparing accurate studies as they do trying to take land from property owners, they would create a better image to us all. I am also angered by the tactics of the DNR, a governmental agency that is funded by the citizens and is supposed to work for the people. It is a matter of political blackmail, agree with DNR or we will not receive sewers in this area or any part of Pleasant Prairie. I have never nor will I ever submit to threats, and I will stand with my neighbors and resist your attempts to take our land without fair compensa- tion. The idea of preservation has always been at the forefront of my mind, and the preservation of the landowner is a top priority compared to the preser- vation of some rare and disputable fauna that is supposed to be somewhere i1A the area. The State is still made up of people who are taxpayers. A. MR. BAUER: Next will be Ms. Mary Ann Ortmayer, who will be followed by Mr. Ju an Marianyi. MS..MARY ANN ORTKAYER, CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE RESCUE COALITION: Mr. Bauer, I am Mary Ann Ortmayer. I am an earth science teacher at Hor- 1**-,.ck High School. I am appearing on behalf of myself and my petitioners. W@- are concerned citizens for Chiwaukee Prairie. We are concerned in two w4ys: first, as citizens trained as practitioners of the earth with univer- sity degrees and, secondly and most importantly, as. secondary high school -38- educators. We recognize the intrinsic value of the Chiwaukee Prairie, the swell and swale with its unique plant life. We are concerned about a limited species base, limited genetic diversity, and limited vigor. We are concerned about the groundwater level and pollution levels. And we are concerned about the environmental habitat. We also recognize, as educators, the responsibility that we have--that we all have--to maintain the prairie and to ensure its continued existence, not as a museum piece not ever to be touched, but to be experienced, to be enjoyed, to be walked through, to be studied not only for us now and today, not only for the 500 homeowners of the area, but for all of our children, for our grandchildren, and even our great-grandchildren. On behalf of the 28 secondary science teachers, we ask you--the Committee--- to carefully consider the alternative plan presented by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition for maximum preservation to safeguard both the natural resources and the property and homeowners' rights. (Applause from the audience) Q. UNKNOWN: Go back to Racine. We don't go to Racine to tell them what they can do. A. MR. BAUER: Please, we don't need that kind of behavior at this hearing. It 'doesn't help. Next will be Mr. Juan Marianyi, who will be followed by Ms. Jean McGraw. Q. MR. JUAN J. MARIANYI, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: Mr. Bauer, members of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commis- sion, friends, and neighbors, my name is Juan Marianyi.. I am a mechanical engineer by profession. My family and I own a home in Carol Beach. We have lived there for the past 12 years. We love the lake, the forests, and the prairies. I am a conservationist at heart, and so are my neighbors in 'Unit W. I wrote on the sheet that I represent the Carol Beach Property @'Owners Association. I am not speaking officially for the Association but rather for my friends and neighbors. I have followed the SEWRPC work on the Carol Beach/Chiwaukee area almost since the beginning. I have also read the @ so-called compromise plan, the final result of this work; and I am profoundly dismayed. I am compelled to speak out against this plan. The plan is wrong. Let me explain why I think it is wrong. 1. The wetlands maps, as previously indicated, are wrong. There are three independent studies of the area that have been made that prove it: the marina's biologist report and the two reports and studies commissioned by the Citizens Organization. All of these conclude that the SEWRPC maps are largely in error. -39- 2. State law requires wetland preservation, not open land preserva- tion. The compromise plan proposes to preserve almost half of the study area, a small portion of which is true wetlands. This is no compromise plan at all; this is tantamount to land grabbing. 3. The areas containing rare and endangered plant species have not been independently identified. If the true, pristine areas are honestly identified, the neighbors of Carol Beach-Chiwaukee will be the first ones to make sure they remain protected. I assure you of that. 4. There is no equal enforcement. The exception given lands to be developed by the marina to the south and those to be used by the sewage treatment plant to the north belies the unique environ- mental value originally assigned to this area. The same standard must be applied to all property owners, whether they are powerful or not, whether they are corporations or simple property owners, whether they are rich or poor. 5. No other sewerage plan should be held hostage to the outcome of this study. It is wrong to do that to sorely needed relief in other areas of the County, which must now wait for an acceptable plan to the DNR for Chiwaukee-Carol Beach. For the state govern- ment to apply that kind of pressure on its citizens is not only illegal, it is also immoral. Taking of wetlands alone in the presence of pristine prairie lands is no compromise, I admit. But arbitrarily taking 50 percent of the land is no compromise either. Acquisition through rezoning is the worst abuse of all. This is no compromise at all; this is rape. (Applause from the audience) What do we want? We want a compromise plan that espouses two basic ele- ments: 1. All acquisition of wetlands must be done with due process of law; that is, condemnation procedures and fair, equitable compensation. 2. All other areas worth preserving must be purchased in the open market, by mutual agreement between the agency concerned and the property owner. Only then talk to us about compromise. our town and county officials support us in our efforts toward a fair and equitable compromise. After all, we elected them to represent us. We are grateful to the ones that have spoken up in our behalf. Finally, none of us believe that it is necessary to resolve this issue in a court of law. *But we are prepared to do just that if reason does not prevail. Don't underestimate our strength. -40- Thank you for allowing us to present our views. A. MR. BAUER: The next speaker will be Ms. Jean McGraw, who will be followed by Ms. Mariette Nowak. Q. MS. JEAN McGRAW, RACINE, WISCONSIN: I belong to the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition, but I am speaking for myself. It seems to me a great deal of paranoia is floating around this hall. If we get rid of that, we can get to a much faster and cheaper reso- lution. We must have just compensation for the property owners and homeowners and we must have the preservation of this irreplaceable natural resource. By just compensation I mean a lot in the preservation area would be bought for the same price as a lot in a development area. I want to remind you that both in the SEWRPC plan, and in every plan that has been suggested by any environmental group, including the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition, any homeowner regardless should have the right to remain as long as he or she wishes; and he would not be obliged to sell his property unless he wished to the State. He could sell to anyone he wished to sell to, and his heirs would have the right to remain there. Under the SEWRPC plan or our planj there would be no question of condemning property of people who presently.live in that area. Also I want to mention that some people might want, in view of the fact there will be some sewers built in that area in spite of the gentleman who said the septic tanks work, to connect to such sewers. The homeowners and property owners could look forward to a bill of many thousands of dollars, and this might not be worth it, especially for property in the area of $10,000 or $11,000 value. In view of that, some people who own lots might be glad to sell these lots if they could get the fair market value. I also think people shouldn't be expected to wait for years and years if their property is in the open preservation area to get purchased if they want. I certainly hope the prairie can be preserved. Very doubtful about the Trident Marina proposal. More surveying should be done in that area. They plan to dredge 30 acres of prime prairie land there. I would like to say this should be resolved' quite soon so that the best protection of the prairie will be achieved and so that also Carol Beach homeowners can get a good night's sleep. A. MR. BAUER: Ms. Mariette Nowak will be next and she will be fol lowed by Ms. Margaret Kozlowski. Q. MS. MARIETTE NOWAK, DIRECTOR, WEHR NATURE CENTER: The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area is a unique and priceless natural resource for residents throughout southeastern Wisconsin and, indeed, -41- throughout the State. As Director of the Wehr Nature Center, I have taken many groups to the Chiwaukee Prairie as part of the environmental education programs offered by the Center. At the Wehr Nature Center, we have a few acres of restored prairie, but in no way can we duplicate the diversity and abundance of flora and fauna that nature has produced over thousands of years at the Chiwaukee Prairie. As one specific example, our sparse spring flora pales in comparison with that of Chiwaukee Prairie. We do not have the knowledge to re-create this com- plex ecosystem elsewhere in the State. For these reasons, I fully support the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition's preservation plan, which aims to preserve homeowners' rights, as well as the natural resources of the area. I have set forth specific objections to the plan of the Southeastern Wiscon- sin Regional Planning Commission in a written statement, but one of the worst is the proposed sewer development and expansion, including that of the Trident Marina east of the prairie. In conclusion, I believe we have an obligation to consider the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area in terms of the residents of all of this Region and, in fact, of the entire State. Chapter VII of the SEWRPC report states that there are four areas of statewide significance and three areas of regionwide significance within the study area. We have an opportunity here to establish a park or preserve akin to the Illinois Beach State Park with its nature preserves and wildlife refuges. There is precious little of Wisconsin's original prairie and wetlands remaining, and we owe it to ourselves and our posterity to preserve this outstanding relic--a small fraction of the millions of acres which once were our heritage. .[Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Ms. Mariette Nowak at the hearing in the time allotted; a more complete written statement, as filed by Ms. Nowak, is contained in Appendix E-1.0.] A. MR. BAUER: Ms. Margaret Kozlowski. Q. MRS. MARGARET KOZLOWSKI, WISCONSIN METROPOLITAN AUDUBON SOCIETY: I will submit a written statement. A. MR. BAUER: Thank you. The next speaker then will be Ms. Minnie Frew. Q. MS. MINNIE FREW, GREENDALE, WISCONSIN: I am here to say use other places for development and roads. Our genera- tion isn't the only people to be served. Hopefully future generations will enj oy the plants and animals that now is our obligation to preserve. In southeastern Wisconsin it is the Chiwaukee Prairie area. I believe the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition has the best plan for the -area. -42- A* MR, BAUER: Next will be Ms. Donna Peterson, who will be followed by Ms. Joan Rohan. I Q. MS. DONNA PETERSON, CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE RESCUE COALITION: Mr. Chairman, Committee members, and fellow citizens, my name is Donna Peterson; and I have lived in the southeast corner of Wisconsin all of my life. In fact, my a ncestors came here in 1848. I am the Racine-Kenosha Sierra Club Environmental Education Chairwoman and a member of the CPR Coalition. By combining my teaching profession with my environmental concerns, I have been providing schools in Racine and Kenosha with free programs about Wisconsin's endangered species. I would like to share with you a few of the facts that I have gathered over the years. Saving ecosystems, such as this prairie, is not done so much for the present as for the future. Now that the geneticists have unlocked some of the secrets of the genetic structure, other scientists are using the genes from wild species to improve the domestic plants. For instance, Professor Iltis from the UW in Madison said that the wild corn found in Mexico has genes which are immune to seven of the nine diseases that attack our hybrid corn crops. Combining the wild corn genes with the hybrid corn will increase the corn crop in America by I percent, which, when converted to dollars, amounts to $100 million a year. A large percent of our medicines have had their starting point with wild species. The little rosy periwinkle was the starting point for a life-saving medicine now used to treat leukemia. Before this discovery the odds were one to five for a leukemia victim's survival; but now, thanks to this plant, the odds are four to five in the patient's favor. Most of us know someone who is allergic to penicillin. Squib Lab discovered in the soil of the pine barrens in New Jersey a new antibiotic that can be used to save the lives of these patients who might otherwise die. These are but a few of the case histories of science and wild spec ies coming together for the good of mankind. But if you think the only reason we wish to protect the prairie is strictly for our own selfish reasons, you are mistaken. We are working for the future of all mankind because only 2 percent of the plants on this planet have been scientifically analyzed. This prairie has over 400 different species of plants, of which one, the prairie white-fringed orchid, is being considered for the federally endan- gered list. Five are on the Wisconsin endangered list. They are the chestnut sedge, smooth phlox, pink milkwort, purple milkweed, and the pale false foxglove. Four are on our State's threatened list, the false asphodel, prairie Indian plantain, sand reed, and round-stemmed false foxglove. There are eight plants on the watch list, for a grand total of 18 plants. For. every 1,000 acres of prairie Wisconsin once had, we now have just one. -43- We can only dream and hope for the discoveries that science has yet to make for mankind. With help from the Almighty and enough sensible people here and now saving places like Chiwaukee Prairie for future research and dis- coveries, who knows, maybe the wild species we save now will serve us and generations yet to come. Thank you. .A. MR. BAUER: Ms- Joan Rohan will be next, and following her will be Ms. Jennette Schroeder. Q. MS JOAN ROHAN: My name is Joan Rohan. I live in Racine, but I am speaking as a representa- tive of' the Hoy Nature Club of Racine and Kenosha. I am also speaking for people in my church, who come from both Racine and Kenosha, and other interested citizens who have indicated their interest by signing this petition, which I submit as evidence of just a few of the many people from all walks of life who recognize the importance of Chiwaukee Prairie and wi,*h to save it. [See Appendix E-11 for the petition referred to.] In Racine we are celebrating the sesquicentennial anniversary of the found- ing of our City. This encourages us to think of our heritage. My great grandfather came to Racine in 1849. At that time there were probably close to two million acres of prairie in the State of Wisconsin. Today there are perhaps 2,000 acres of tiny prairie fragments mostly scattered along rail- road tracks, in pioneer cemeteries, and along country roads. I am getting to be something of an antique myself, but I am not quite ancient enough to remember those wide expanses of prairie that existed in the last century. However, I do recall my father's description of fields that were full of flowers in his boyhood. When he talked about them, I thought these were rosy recollections of his childhood. Then in 1965 1 saw Ch1waukee Prairie, which had miraculously survived development. It was then and is today the largest unbroken sweep of prairie in the State--a continuously blooming garden of multicolored native wildflowers and waving sedges and grasses from early spring to killing frost. Then I realized that this was magnificent reality--not a dream. A prairie, as you know, is a native grassland with less than one tree per acre. There are wet prairies where soils warm up slowly and bloom is late. are dry prairies where plants are shorter and bloom earlier, and those in between. Chiwaukee, formed on the ancient beaches of glacial Lake Chicago, is a series of ridges and swales--both wet and dry, which makes it richer than most in plant species and correspondingly more valuable. Chiwaukee holds in its plants and soil a rich storehouse of raw materials containing the genes that may in the future help to save lives with .,their contributions to medicine and agriculture. But like many valuable antiques, Chiwaukee is extremely fragile. Roads, houses, sewers--any development in areas which surround it can compact the soil and stop the vital flow of water which nourishes the prairie plants. -44- We know about endangered mammals, birds, plants, fish, and insects. But here the Chiwaukee Prairie itself is one of our endangered species. It is a refuge for the spirit, a place of natural beauty, a source for scientific research, and with its archaeological remains a repository of our history. We must save the prairie and the lands that su *rround and protect it for all of us. There must always be a prairie in Pleasant Prairie. A. MR. BAUER: Ms. Jennette Schroeder will be next, and will be followed by Ms. Annette Henter. Q. MS. JENNETTE SCHROEDER, HOY NATURE CLUB: I prefer at this time to send my comments in writing. A. MR. BAUER: Thank you. Then Ms. Henter. Ms. ANNETTE HENTER, BROOKFIELD, WISCONSIN: I am here from Brookfield. I do not have a written statement. 1 have a short statement to make. I would like to urge the Committee to preserve the prairie to the fullest extent possible because of its unique and state- wide signif icance. In order to save time, I would like to second the statements made by Linda Monroe from Madison and Robert Leighton of Green Bay, who have stated my sentiments, just two of many who have stated my sentiments. A. MR. BAUER: The next speaker will be Ms. Vera Stroud, who will be followed by Ms. Jerrine Osenga. Q. MS. VERA STROUD, NEW BERLIN, WISCONSIN: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Vera Stroud. I am a ,Waukesha County Board Supervisor. I am also a teacher for the Wisconsin Extension on the subject of growing wildflowers. As a County Board Super- visor, I can well understand the dilemma you are facing in balancing the rights of all parties concerned in this decision. But as a wildflower gardener and teacher of the subject, I must come down very hard on the side of preservation of a natural habitat that is not and cannot be duplicated elsewhere in the United States or, for that matter, the world. I also want to state that I made my largest monetary contribu- tion ever--$250--to The Nature Conservancy to buy a portion of a lot for preservation in Chiwaukee Prairie. -45- Specifically, I want to stress that any compromise you reach should not anticipate population trends but should address only the existing situa- t ion. I am referring now to the 18 acres of the northern dunes given over to expansion by the Power Company. In 1975 SEWRPC projected roughly a 50 percent rise in population for Kenosha County by the year 2000. The popu- lation did rise by about 25 percent by the year 1980 but then, instead of continuing to climb, dropped by roughly 111 percent by 1983. In Racine County a projection of somewhat over 25 percent by the year 2000 was partly achieved by a rise of almost 15 percent by the year 1980. However, by 1983 that rise had given way to a drop of almost lh percent of the 1980 popula- tion. I hasten to add that SEWRPC did issue a revised population estimate in 1982 to correct for its prior population predictions; but going on what happened in Waukesha County where I serve, even the second prediction failed to anticipate the actual losses of population that southeastern Wisconsin is presently experiencing. Wf, don't know whether the move to the Sun Belt or even out of the country by major Wisconsin businesses will continue. What we do know is what has happened so far in the 1980's. Population here is going down. I urge you not to write any positions into your plan for Carol Beach that are based on the needs of population of this area beyond the next five years. A plan for population trends that are as unstable as we are witnessing should always allow for an update about every five years or thereabouts. This will give planners an intelligent way of addressing the utility needs of this area. For the time being, please restrict your plan to what exists here and now. Thank you. A. MR. BAUER: Mn. Jerrine Osenga will be next, and will be followed by Mr. John Allen. Q. MS. JERRINE OSENGA, WAUKESHA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEAGUE (WEAL) I am here representing the Waukesha County Environmental Action League. Actually it is a group of citizens that got together years ago because we were concerned about development in our County. We were concerned about preserving not just the natural resources but'the value of the land for the people who live here. Right away the first year we found out how valuable our wetlands were. They are essential to our water quality, essential to how human beings survive, and have a great economic effect upon our govern- mo@,nt. We are here objecting to the consideration of filling wetlands. 'We s@ecifically applaud SEWRPC on their advisory assistance to these people. T'iey are using their knowledge to help all of the citizens that are here. They are strictly advisory. We applaud the environmental corridor system that they are proposing to put into your area. It will help to preserve the prairie by forming a pathway for the transference of seeds and animals. These seeds and animals will then regenerate themselves. Without the corridor system, it leaves your natural systems open to inbreeding, which will eventually take over. Development will remove those lands that could help those natural things regenerate. -46- We are here to say that we feel that SEWRPC's recommendations of filling these wetlands will. influence the regulatory agencies to compromise their legislative mandate to protect the wetlands. We are expecting our reguid- tory agencies to safeguard the future of our State's wetlands, as well as our precious natural areas of significance. Thank you. [Recorder's Note: The foregoing statement was as made by Ms. Osenga at the hearing in the time allotted; a written statement, as filed by Ms. Osenga, is contained in Appendix E-12.1 A. MR. BAUER: Mr. John Allen has spoken already. He must have filed two slips. Mr. Jack Schmidling will be next. Mr. Schmidling must not be here. Mr. Dennis Fisher will then be next. Q. MR. DENNIS FISHER, MILWAUKEE AUDUBON SOCIETY: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Dennis Fisher. I am a resident of Milwaukee. I am here as the President of the Milwaukee Audubon Society. The Society has 3,500 members who live in the SEWRPC area. I am here tonight with more of our board members because of our concern over the so-called compromise plan proposed by SEWRPC. The Carol Beach-Chiwaukee Prairie area presents a very complex social, economic, and ecological situation. On the one hand, you have a very unique natural resource with many special attributes which have been des- cribed and alluded to by prior speakers tonight. On the other hand, we have some very concerned landowners who purchased land in the area, some of whom did build homes, others of whom bought platted lots and, under the then regulatory jurisdictions, may have expected to build in the future. To further compound the situation, the prairie is located in an urban area. That means that, of course, it is readily available to hundreds of thou- sands of people who live in this area and who may enjoy visiting it. We have busloads of people every year tour the area and many come on their own. At the same time because it is in an urban area, it is very subject Ao development pressure. It is close to areas where people work and who would like to live there. SEWRPC is to be commended for undertaking this difficult task, with trying -to come up with a compromise plan, and commended for the years of@ :time and effort spent in doing it; but we feel this plan is not a compromise plan. The kind of level of development to be allowed under this plan would have such significant secondary impacts that would result in severe damage to the preserved areas. You cannot simply match up the numbers of acres preserved to the number of acres for development; you must see whether they will have an impact on the remaining preserved areas. The studies done by Dr. Cherkauer and others raise questions that it will Compromise may still be possible from what I hear tonight. More land wili have to be preserved, and those whose lots are sold will have to receive a -47- genuine fair price. Because of the history, that fair price may require some special formula and some have been advanced here tonight. I quote from the late Chief Justice Wilkie in the case of Hixon versus the Public Service Commission: There are over 9,000 navigable lakes in Wisconsin covering an area of over,54,000 square miles. A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body of water may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage; once gone, they disappear forever. We have over 9,000 lakes but only one Chiwaukee Prairie. I would ask the Commission not to let that prairie be eaten away in small pieces. A. MR. BAUER: Thank you. Next will be Ms. Susan Michetti. Q. MS,.,,,SUSAN MICHETTI, RESIDENT OF TOWN OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE: As a resident of Pleasant Prairie, I am opposed to SEWRPC's deve .lopment plans. I am opposed to a fiscally irresponsible public works project esti- mated at $14.5 million. Who is looking out for the small property owner, who is not in a financial po,-,ition to pay a gigantic assessment for a public works improvement of over $10,000 per household? This is not fiscally responsible when the average house is only worth two, three, or four times more. It is interesting that this plan benefits the few monied interests in the area without consideration for the small landowners. What about a plan from Sheridan Road to sewer only the heavy residential Carol Beach develop- ment. west of the tracks? Let's evaluate how much that will cost each impacted household. It is interesting that Trident Marina benefits. Yet Trident Marina is an unwelcome neighbor, who will bring hordes of Chicago people into this area, where the rest of the taxpayers will pay for the destruction of a national wonder, for public works improvements, for Trident Marina's expansion. And expansion for what? A closed private club where money spent does not stay in Kenosha, unlike a downtown Kenosha marina. And expansion on a site with two endangered species. I do not want to see the quality of the ecosystem in Chiwaukee Prairie degraded. This calls for a true maximum preservation plan, not the compro- mise called by that name. We need to impose a freeze on all future devel- opment west of the tracks, with the possible exception of running sewers -48- from Sheridan Road to the heavy Carol Beach development west of the tracks and excluding repairs and additions to existing homes, also making provi- sions for existing mortgage requirements if the house has to be moved across the property. That area should be excluded from development. This means WEPCo, the sewage treatment plant, and the Trident Marina. These wetlands serve as a water filter to purify Lake Michigan and to protect it from siltation and pollution. These wetlands also absorb storm impacts around the shoreline of 'Lake Michigan and protect it from erosion. A greater biological, study is needed. Let's examine how sewers will dis- rupt the hydrological conditions and destroy the uniqueness in the Chiwau- kee Prairie. All development and public works which dry up the wetlands or change the flow need to be examined for,hydrological impact. With due respect for the people conducting preliminary generalized reports, it seems logical to freeze all development until the impact of scientific development projects can be scientifically scrutinized, researched, examined, and analyzed in terms of total damage to the total ecosystem. Let's examine street improvements. The additional traffic from increased development and from increased residents will bring toxic contaminants, such as road salt, oil, gas, lead, and pesticides into the prairie. Research should examine how much current traffic goes through the area, how much current traffic-related contaminants are now being introduced there. Let us project the impact of additional traffic into the prairie based on this sort of research. We are accelerating the destruction of our own habitat--mother earth. our fervor toward development has out distanced our social values, our common sense, and our concern for the future because we have shrinking natural resources, sinking water tables, a land pungently interlaced with noxious sewers. As problem piles upon problem, we must quickly gain greater awareness of man's actions--our own actions--as they relate to the complete chain of life because man's survival coincides with survival of the greater ecosystem. MR. PIROYAN: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. You set rules everyone was to speak only three minutes. Let's keep to those rules. A. MR. BAUER: We are trying. Is Senator Strohl here? He must have had to leave. The next speaker then will be Mr. James Justen, who will be followed by Pro- fessor Douglas Cherkauer. Q. MR. JAMES A. JUSTEN, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN: I don't have a speech to make. Don Reed has done a good job. The DNR in this State has got a bit out of hand. I am up tight. I am a resident _49- facing the loss of constitutional rights. My home may be razed or@relo- cated, and who proposes to fund this thing? I was told, looking A,t 'the zoning map, that my home would be razed or relocated, and was told @to pay my expenses. The government is taking my rights to my property. only built my home four years ago. Today they are saying we are going to take your property rights but not compensate you duly. Offers from The Nature Conservancy for $800 are ridiculous. You can't buy a plot of land anywhere for $800. The DNR and the State of Wisconsin representatives do not know what a wetland is. Sharon Meier did not know what a definition of a wet- land was until I pointed out in DNR's pamphlet what it was. I have not seen Don Reed do any borings. The State Statutes require a high water table. The Committee should recommend that any lots zoned wetlands should be examined by borings across the board. This is part of th0l_ State Statutes. How can we declare an area a wetland without examining it accord- ing to State Statutes? A. MR. BAUER: The next speake r will be Professor Douglas Cherkauer, who will be followed by Mr. Laurance E. Royt. Q. PROFESSOR DOUGLAS S. CHERKAUER, REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC INTERVENOR: I am Dr. Cherkauer, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I have been asked by the Public Intervenor to review the SEWRPC pla !n as to the potential impacts on groundwater. The plan as presented assured the readers that the proposed development would preserve over 800 acres of open space, including 605 acres o ii wet- lands. ' At the same time, the plan allows increased development around Chiwaukee Prairie, which is the predominant wetland within the area. The plan is vague as to the types of construction which are to take pla@e-roads, C homes, sanitary sewers, expansion of the Trident Marina--and involves soeaething like 30 acres of dredging. It may even include the construction of a road directly through the prairie. To my amazement, the plan presented .by SEWRPC provides absolutely no information on the groundwater sys1tem in and around the proposed development area. It does casually suggest that the proposed development will not impact the groundwater. This is a wholly unsupported assertion. There is no scientific support presented. Mr. Bauer, I would have to take issue with your earlier statement that your plan is technically sound because there is no groundwater consideration. A. MR. BAUER: We.,clearly disagree on both points. PROF ESSOR CHERKAUER: Reliable groundwater information must be incorporated before the plan is approved and should have been included a long time ago. Any plan developed -50- without groundwater input is seriously flawed. The entire area is under- lain by a sand aquifer with water very close to the ground surface. General flow is west to east; recharge occurs throughout the areas, and discharge is to Lake Michigan through ditches and streams, and to transpiration. The wetlands are dependent upon this groundwater. In a system such as this, groundwater and surface water flows are strongly interconnected. Any change to the surface water flow also changes the groundwater. Also, human activities will impinge on this delicate balance because the groundwater system is so shallow. How serious will the impacts be? At this point in time, we cannot assess how serious the impacts might be because there is no information. It is conceivable that the plan developed will actually cause the demise, through drainage, of the wetlands it claims to preserve. I would argue the plan should be tabled until such work is done. , Without information on the groundwater or specific information on the plan, one cannot predict what the impacts will be--nor can anyone state that there would be none. Groundwater work must be done before this plan can be ad opted or rejected in good faith. A. MR. BAUER: Mr. Laurance Royt will be next. Q. MR.. LAURANCE E. ROYT, WEST ALLIS, WISCONSIN: My interest in the prairie is interest in the various things tha t have been mentioned before. There are many,' many photographs of these flowers and ,these are used as instructional material for school groups, senior citizens, and library groups. The value of this alone is very great. I am disturbed that, if any intensive development of this area is permitted, the area will be destroyed. The drainage of water will be diverted by the storm sewer system, the street system will reduce the normal flushing through the wetiand area; and besides that, you will have more lawns, more fertilizer, higher phosphate content, which will putrefy the wetland area; you will have considerable salting of streets, which will get into the wetland area and destroy the vegetation there. I have observed this happen in the Whitnall Park area over the past five years by diverted water. Some drain- age systems actually show foam when phosphates are brought into the system at certain seasons of the year. The area which used to be a wetland with wildlife and waterfowl in there is so fouled it is practically nothing but a sludge bed. This is the sort of thing that is likely to happen to this prairie because this has not been taken into consideration. A. MR. BAUER: That was the last registration slip that I have for an appearance. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? Yes, please give your name and affiliation, if any. Q.. MS. CARMELITA MARQUARDT: I am Carmelita Marquardt and I am a resident of Deerfield, Illinois. I owned property in Carol Beach from the original sale. I consider my family -51- a group of rare birds. We have not built on our property; we have let it remain free in the state it is in today. We have preserved a jewel for everyone who sits here. I feel there should be very high consideration given to the dollar value of this land. it involves our inheritance and our desires. I have been a person who has used the.Trident Marina sailing from Waukegan many times. The effect will grow in five years, double in fact. That is the tail that wags the dog. Thank you. A. MR. BAUER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? Yes, please give your name and affiliation. MS. LAVERNE KULISEK: I am LaVerne Kulisek. I live at 324 116th Street. I have listened here tonight and I feel compelled to make a couple of comments. I have lived in the area for seven years. When I see the interest exhibited this year in the prairie--I have never seen so many busloads of people and so many people walking around the prairie until this year--I have to ask has this been politically stimulated? I believe in the preservation of the prairie. I.belielve in the rights of the citizens. I have heard a lot about compensa- tion., People should be reminded that many persons don't want to sell, c'ompensation or not. The right to take platted wetlands has not been established. D.NR has no authority to take uplands. It is obvious by the comments tonight that some kind of compromise is in order. It is important that the basis of any planning be based on fact and legal authority, not on falsehoods and threats. I urge the County Board to take into consideration not only the comments of the staff paid by public dollars but the public who,provides those dollars, (Applause from the aud ience) A. MR. BAUER: is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Yes, Mr. Salerno. Q. MR. SALERNO: I was unable to finish my statement. I would like to take up where I left off. I was mentioning.that the specific amount of land for preservation has not been established at this time. The minutes of the last. meeting of the Committee indicate an inventory was taken on a lot-by-lot basis. It has not been proven that the inventory is accurate. Those lots that were to be preserved were not inventoried in the same way as those which were not; in order to be fair they should be uniformly done. I would ask you to quote the law requiring upland preservation, show where it is legal to rezone platted wetlands. Ms. Falk mentioned we should be following the letter of the law. I think these two laws should be clarified before a plan is -52- adopted and finalized. We have to provide a plan that can legally be adopted by the County; if not, the County is going to incur lawsuits. Unless you come up with a plan that addresses the issues, those people who do love their land will have lost it for an unjust, cause. Before submitting any plan to remove private property from residential zoning, I would like to see SEWRPC: 1) document the need to preserve more land; 2) prove the wetland inventory is accurate on a lot-by-lot basis; 3) quote the law requiring upland preservation; 4) show it is legal to rezone platted wetlands; 5) propose a land use plan that can legally be adopted rather than a wish list of conservation; and 6) condemn the land to be rezoned. A* MR. BAUER: Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? If not, I would remind all of you that the record will remain open for 10 days, during which a written statement may be filed for inclusion in the record. I would like to thank all of you for attending here tonight. Please be assured that your com- ments will be carefully considered by the staff, the Advisory Committee, and the Regional Planning Commission itself as an attempt is made to arrive at a final plan that hopefully all of the interests involved can agree upon. We very much appreciate your taking the time to come here tonight and to make your views known, Those of you who listened carefully will understand what a difficult job it is going to be to sort out the conflict- ing testimony that was offered by the various interests represented here tonight. We will, however, make every attempt to do that and attempt to identify the means by which the plan can be improved upon and hopefully agreed upon. Again, thank you for coming. The hearing is now adjourned. Mr. Bauer adjourned the public hearing at 10:37 p.m. CDST. Respectfully submitted, Margaret M. Shanley Recorder -53- APPENDICES Apperidix A MILWAUKEEI MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED TO ATTENDEES AT PUBLIC HEARING 49 MILES CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE-CAROL BEACH STUDY AREA 9; SOMERS SUMMARY OF LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN STUDY AREA PLEASANTPRAIRIE CHICAGO 52 MILES INTRODUCTION endangered or threatened species in Wisconsin. Those lands in the study area that are either wetlands or environmentally significant The future of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area in extreme uplands are shown on Map 1. southeastern Wisconsin has been uncertain for many years. Natural resource preservation and urban development objectives have con- Because of these factors, there have been ongoing efforts by both flicted in the area. There are many public agencies and private public and private groups to preserve and protect the important interests that are concerned about this conflict; and these agencies natural features of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. However, and interests influence land use decisions in the area. The Town the preservation and protection efforts are complicated by the fact of Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha County recognized both the impor- that much of the area has been platted for residential development. tant natural resource values of the area and the problems of, and potential for, urban development. In response, these two units of HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE government in 1981 proposed a planning program that would bring together the concerned groups in an attempt to reconcile the con- Plans to develop certain portions of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol flicting objectives, Beach area date back to the 1920's, with the most intensive efforts to subdivide occurring between 1947 and 1956. By 1983, a total of In 1982 the proposed planning program was begun by the South- 2,746 lots had been created in the area through platting activity. eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission with the support of However, after all of these years, only 643 lots, or 23 percent, of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the County, those platted were actually built upon. and the Town. The planning took place under the guidance of an advisory committee made up of representatives of the Town, the Nevertheless, high-quality wetlands, prairies, and wildlife habitat have County, the DNR, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, private persisted in many locations, and the natural res ource values of much citizens, and major affected landowners, including the Wisconsin of the study area remain intact. This is partly due to wet soils and Electric Power Company and The Nature Conservancy. This informa- other physical limitations which have restricted urban development. tion sheet summarizes the findings and preliminary recommendations Certain streets proposed in the original subdivision plats have not of the land use management planning program for the Chiwaukee been constructed. Others are not used and have fallen into disrepair. Prairie-Carol Beach area. There is no public sanitary sewer service in the area. GENERAL LOCATION OF THE AREA Today, housing units are found in scattered locations throughout much of the area. Some concentrations of housing do exist and The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area is located in the eastern should eventually be provided with public sanitary sewers and other portion of the Town of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County. It is urban services. Other portions of the area may not be suitable for bounded on the east by Lake Michigan; on the south by the Wis- development even with centralized sanitary sewer service. consin-Illinois state line; on the west by STH 32 (Sheridan Road); and on the north by 80th Street. The study area encompasses about FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS 1,825 acres, or about 8 percent of the total area of the Town of Plea- AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT sant Prairie. Federal Level ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act requires the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to regulate the placement of dredged and fill The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area contains some of the most materials into the waters of the United States, including lakes, rivers, outstanding natural resource feature s remaining in southeastern and adjacent wetlands. The Corps of Engineers has determined that Wisconsin. It is characterized by a relatively uncommon series of most of the wetlands located east of the Chicago & North Western alternating beach dune ridges and lower, wetter swales. Railway right-of-way in the study area are subject to regulation through individual Section 404 permits and that these wetlands are Associated with the ridges and swales are high-quality upland prairies generally unsuitable for the placement of dredged or fill material and high-quality wetlands, both growing increasingly scarce in south- (light green area on Map 2). While this does not rule out the granting eastern Wisconsin and elsewhere. The area contains a state scientific of Section 404 permits, it does provide a preliminary indication that area that is a National Natural Landmark recognized as one of the the granting of such permits would be unlikely-particularly in the best remaining examples of lowland prairie in the upper Midwest. It absence of a land use management plan for the area. also contains three additional natural areas of statewide significance and three natural areas of regional significance. Furthermore, the. State Level area supports the largest concentration of prairie white fringed Chapter 59 of the Wisconsin Statutes directs the Wisconsin Depart- orchid in the central Midwest. This orchid, as well as four other ment of Natural Resources to administer a shoreland regulatory plants and seven animals found within the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol program. Under the program, counties are required to regulate shore- Beach area, are endangered or threatened species in Wisconsin. lands within unincorporated areas. Included are lands lying within In addition, the area supports 13 plants and 20 animals whose 1,000 feet of a lake, pond, or flowage; within; 300 feet of a river or populations are unstable. These have been identified by the DNR as stream; or within a floodplain (blue area on Map 3). The county "WatchList" species, which are usually candidates for designation as shoreland regulations must include restrictions on lot sizes, building -57- EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE STUDY AREA Status of Detailed Percent Platted Lots Number of Lots Land Use Acres of Total Developed . . . . . . 643 Residential . . . . . . . . . . . 237 13.0 Undeveloped . . . . . 2,015 Commercial . . . . . . . . . 6 0.3 Eroded . . . 88 Transportation and Utility . . . . . . . 257 14.1 Total 2,746 Institutional (churches) . . . . . . . . 0.1 Recreational ............... 15 0.8 Open Space Uses (wetlands, agricultural lands, water, and unused lands) . . . . . . . 1,308 71.7 Percent Total 1,825 100.0 Land Ownership Acres of Total Public Land Population Town of Pleasant Prairie . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.0 and . I I Kenosha County . . . .. . . . . . . . . . - . . 2 0.1 Housing Number University of Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . 91 5.0 Wisconsin Department Population . . . . . . 1,402 of Transportation ............. 1 0.1 Housing Units . . . . . . . 512 'Street Rightsmof -Way ............ 254 13.9 Subtotal 421 23.1 Private Land Potential State and Number The Nature Conservancy .......... 55 3.0 Federal Regulatory Impacts of Lots Wisconsin Electric Power Company .... 145 7.9 Chicago-& North Western Wetland Lots Subject to Regulation Transportation Company . . . . . . . . . 46 2.5 through Individual Permits Under the Other Privately Held Land ......... 1,158 63.5. Federal Water Pollution Control Act ....... 840:t Subtotal 1,404 76.9 Wetland Lots Subject to State- -total 1,825 100.0 Mandated Shoreland-Wetland Zoning . . . . . . . 750.1t setbacks, and filling and grading according to Chapter NR 115 of the 0 Guide the Town of Pleasant Prairie in providing basic urban Wisconsin Administrative Code. Wetlands five acres or larger located services; within. the shoreland area must be placed within a conservancy zoning district that would prohibit filling and development. 0 Guide public agencies and private interests in purchasing environmentally significant open space lands, and Given the number of already platted residential lots in the wetland areas, the financial impacts of these regulations would be severe. Yet, 0 Guide private interests by providing a framework within which because the federal and state regulations focus primarily on wetlands, they can confidently plan for additional development within the important upland resources in the area could be lost through the area. .continued scattered development. In essence, the plan should provide for both preservation and devel- opment in an orderly fashion. It should accommodate significant PURPOSE OF THE PLANNING PROGRAM urban growth within the area, while preiierving its most important natural features. The continuation of past trends will not allow either The primary purpose of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach planning to occur in a sensible way. program was to develop a plan which would identify those open space lands 7both wetlands and uplands--which should be protected The planning program recognized that both past platting and devel- and preserved in the public interest and those lands upon which opment activities and the past acquisition of open space areas meant urban growth , should be accommodated-. The planning process that various individuals and groups had significant investments in attempted to achieve a sound balance between open space preserva- the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. Therefore, without a "com- tion and urban development objectives within the area. Furthermore, promise" plan each group had something to lose, while with such it sought a way to fairly compensate those residential lot owners a plan each group had something to gain. whose land would be placed in an open space preservation area. THE NEED FOR A PLAN @The,plan is intended to: Without a plan that can serve as the basis for federal and state action, the regulatory process would prevail. This generally means that: 0 Guide the Town of,Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County, the Wisconsm- Department of Natural Resources, and federal 0 Landowners withmetland lots regulated by the federal govern- agencies in exercising their respective land use regulatory ment (light green area on Map @ 2) will not be able to fill and responsibilities; develop their lots--about 840 lots; -58- M*4 LAMM WARRANTOM C(MVERATION RECOMMENDED LAND USE MANAGEWNT FOR PRESERVA71ON IN THE CHMAUKEE PLAN FOR THE C14VWAUKEE FRAIRIE- PRAIRIC-CAROL BEACH 9TUDY AREA CA ROL BEACH STUDY AREA -61 wv" --L. % -59- Moll MOP 3 FEDERAL SECTION 404 JURISDICTION STATE SHORE LAND ZONING AREA IN THE CMfWAUKEE PRAIRIE- JURISDICTION AREA IN THE CHRNAUKE4 CAROL BEACH STUDY AREA PRAIRMCAROL BEACH STUDY AREA A d CIL, .... ... ... ig.011M.: 71K -60- THE RECOMMENDED PLAN AT A GLANCE Generalized Percent Number Annual Land Use Acres of Total Open Space of Estimated Cost Over Land Acquisition Lots Acres Cost 5 Years Urban Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 860 47.1 Open Space Preservation Area. . 803 44.0 Wisconsin Rural Area . . ... . . . . . .. . . . 116 6.4 Department of Railway Right-of-Way ...... 46 2.5 Natural Resources . . . 449 157 $ 950,000 $190,000 Total 1,825 Town of Pleasant Prairie ..... 20 6 34,500 6,900 The Nature Conservancy . . . . . . 192 59 149,560 29,900 Total Portion TI; 1 661 222 i$1,134,000 i $226,8001 in Study Preserved Key Natural Area Resource Features (acres) Acres Percent Wetlands Wetlands Particularly Important for Maintaining Water Quality, Low Strearnflows, and Increase Over Fish Populations . . . . . . . . . . . 153 138 90.2 Population 1980 Levels Wetlands, Providing Critical and Plant Habitat. . . 505 454 89.9 Housing Number Number Percent Wetlands Providing Quality Wildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . 566 518 91.5 Population . . . . . 4,250 2,848 203.1 Wetlands Aaving Special Housing Units . 1,460 948 185.2 Natural Area Value . . . . . . . . . 394 363 92.1 Wetland 7en Area . . . . . . . . . . . 60 55 91.7 Wetlands Having at Least One of,the Above-Listed Values . . . . 654 565 86.4 All Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 604 80.9 Uplands Uplands Providing Critical ant Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 76 84.4 Average Annual Uplands Providing Quality Public Estimated Cost per Cost Over WP,ildlife Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . 131 101 77.1 Improvements Cost Household 20 Years' Uplands Having Special Natural Area Value . . . . . . . . . 78 74 94.9 Sanitary Sewer Upland %@@-)odlands of at Collection System . . . . $ 7,001,000 $ 4,800 $350,000 Least F@@,e.Acres in Area . . . . . . 15 9 60.0 Water Supply Uplands Having at Least One Distribution System. 4,966,000 3,850 . 248,300 of the Above-Listed Values . . . . 159 112 70.4 Local Street I I Improvements . . . . . . 907,000 620 45,400 Prairies Stormwater Drainage High Quality Prairies . . . . . . . . . 358 327 91.3 Improvements . . . . . . 1,729,000 1,180 86,500 All Prairies . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 828 584 70.5 Total 1$14,603,0001 $10,450 1 $730,200] 0Lande-wriers with wetland lots in state-defined shoreland areas 0 Except where the University of Wisconsin. The Nature Conser- (blue area on Map 3) will have their lands zoned for conser- vancy, or other groups choose to spend their limited money, vancy and will be unable to fill and develop their lots-about residents owning the adversely affected Icts will not be com- 750 lots; pensated for their losses. 0 The DNR likely will not approve the extension of sanitary sewers into the portion of the study area east of the Chicago The lack of a plan would also mean that: North Western railroad tracks; *The general unsuitability of the soils for the installation and 0 Roads presently constructed through sensitive natural areas use of septic tank systems will effectively prevent development but not serving existing development will remain in place@- on many lots which are not subject to federal or state regula. thus continuing to fragment the natural areas and entailing tion; and continuing maintenance costs; 0 Even if protected from physical alteratio 'n, the biological integ- 0 The lands within the open space preservation area will be rity of many areas containing high-quality wetlands, prairie, placed in a conservancy zoning district to ensure their preser- and wildlife habitat may be threatened because ownership by vation until purchased; and many private parties will not allow important parts of the study area to be managed as a resource unit; 0 The 30 existing homes within the open space preservation area will be left in private ownership, be maintained indefinitely, 0 Healtn@related problems and concerns will probably increase and be rendered "conforming use" under the proposed zoning. as more failing septic systems axe discovered over time in the However, the plan does not rule out acquiring these homes study area because of the general unsuitability of the soils to if this is agreeable to both willing sellers and the purchasing agencies. treat the septic effluent generated by existing residences; and Urban Development Area 0 Scattered, unplanned development will likely continue at The recommended plan proposes an urban area of 860 acres, or a slow pace in portions of the study area, further complicating 47 percent of the study area. Most of the urban area would be future efforts to both preserve and manage key resource fea- devoted to single-family residential use, and to limited commercial tures and provide needed urban services to concentrations and institutional use. In addition, the proposed urban area includes of development. land specifically set aside for the possible expansion of the Kenosha sewage treatment plant and the Trident Marina. THE RECOMMENDED PLAN The plan envisions that: Three alternative land use management plans were developed for the Chiwaulkee Prairie-Carol Beach area, each proposing a different 0 The Town and the County will apply to the U. S. Army Corps developmeni-preservation pattern. The three plans were: 1) a maxi- of Engineers for a collective permit to fill and develop those mum development plan; 2) a maximum preservation plan; and wetlands lying within the urban development area, thus 3) a comb;,nation development-preservation plan. After carefully relieving individual landowners of that burden. considering the alternative plans, the Advisory Committee selected the development-preservation alternative as the. basis for preparing 0 Housing units in the study area will increase from just over a preliminary recommended plan. That plan is shown on Map 4 and 500 to nearly 1,500, while the population will increase from described below. about 1,400 to about 4,300. Open Space Preservation Area 0 Over time the Town will provide public sanitary sewer service, The recommended plan proposes an open space preservation area water supply service, drainage systems, and new or improved consisting of a continuous "corridor" connecting the Kenosha Sand roads within the urban area--as needed and a Is finances permit. Dunes on the north end of the study area with the Chiwaukee 0 All platted lands within the urban area will be zoned for Prairie on the south end. It also proposes small isolated preservation development and be placed in a residential, commercial, areas in the southwestern portion of the study area. The open space institutional, or recreational district, as appropriate. preservation area includes 803 acres, or 44 percent of the study area. It encomp&:ses 604 acres of wetlands, or 81 percent of all wetlands CONCLUSION in the area.. including 565 acres of special-value wetlands, or 86 per- cent of suc7i wetlands. The plan envisions that: The recommended plan attempts to lift- the cloud of uncertainty which has for many years surrounded the (71i'waukee Prairie-Carol � A total of about 641 undeveloped platted lots within the open Beach area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie. 11, Z plan would ensure space preservation area will be acquired at fair market value the preservation of valuable plant and animal communities in the by the Department of Natural Resources or private resource area, as well as the unique heritage of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol protection organizations such as The Nature Conservancy; Beach area. At the same time, implementation of the plan would enhance the potential for good urban development in the area'and � An additional 20 lots will be acquired by the Town of Pleasant foster the establishment of neighborhoods which offer a unique Prairie to preserve open drainageways; opportunity for living in proximity to a natural prairie environment. This document was prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission working in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin- Extension and was financed in part through grants provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. The offices of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission are located at 916 N. East Avenue, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607 Telephone: (414i 547-6721. -62- Appendix,B ATTENDANCE RECORD AT PUBLIC HEARING CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE-CAROL BEACH LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN LANCE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL KENOSHA, WISCONSIN Tuesday, October 23, 1984 Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee Members Roger E. Prange, Chairman Town Clerk, Town of Pleasant Prairie Lewis R.,Dixon Senior Land Use Planner, Wisconsin Electric Power Company David Drew Representing Alvin Crispell, Town Engineer, Town of Pleasant Prairie James L. Fonk Supervisor, Kenosha County Board of of Supervisors Charles Graf 'Resident, Carol Beach Estates LaVerne Kulisek League of Women Voters of Kenosha Russell Knetzger Town Planner, Town of Pleasant Prairie George E. Melcher Director of Planning, Zoning and Sanitation, Kenosha County 0. Fred Nelson General Manager, Kenosha Water Utility John Papan Chairman, Town of Pleasant Prairie Plan Commission Carl Salerno Resident, Carol Beach Estates' Allen K. Shea Planning Analyst, Policy and Planning Section, Bureau of Water Resource Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Phil Sander Member, Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee on Coastal Management in Southeastern Wisconsin Russell Van Herik Director, The Nature Conservancy Press Andy Blankenburg Racine Journal Times Brian Elam WLIP Radio - Kenosha Arlene Jensen Kenosha News Robert Kiesling The Milwaukee Journal SEWRPC Staff Kurt.W. Bauer Executive Director Gerald H. Emmerich, Jr. Senior Planner, Land Use Planning Division Philip C. Evenson Assistant Director Gary K. Korb Natural Resources Agent, University of Wisconsin-Extension Dennis K. Lefevre Planner, Land Use Planning Division Donald M. Reed Principal Planner, Environmental Planning Division William J. Stauber Principal Planner, Land Use Planning Division Attendees Ahrenhoerster, Robert Prairie Seed Source Akerhaugen, Henry 0. 11360 3rd Avenue, Pleasant Prairie Alexander, Marcia 4701 James Avenue, Racine Andre, Lonn C. 12008 Ist Avenue, Kenosha Andre, Priscilla W. 12008 1st Avenue, Kenosha Andrea, Joseph Wisconsin State Representative, 24th District Arkema, Mr. and Mrs. John 6265 N. Cicero Avenue, Chicago, Illinois Barasch, Nancy Chiwauke6-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc. Barasch, Samuel 8610 2nd Avenue, Kenosha Barasch, Sarah 8610 2nd Avenue, Kenosha Barasch, Stephen 8610 2nd Avenue, Kenosha Barloga, Richard 11045 W. Parnell Avenue, Hales Corners Bauers, Harold A. 2846 N. 84th Street, Milwaukee Bauer, William, 3071 Superior Street, Milwaukee Beck, Robin 11415 lst Avenue, Kenosha Berge, J. S. 1529 Crabapple Drive, Racine Bergstrom, Thomas R. 2512 Buchanan Road, Kenosha Brumback, Larry Planning and Zoning Administrator, Kenosha County Buchanan, Warren J. Jr. Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc. Buhnerkemps, Gerald G. 9838 3rd Avenue, Kenosha Carlstedt, L. V. 8861 Ist Avenue, Kenosha Carr el, Russell 851 95th Street, Kenosha Carrillo, Juan Kenosha Cherkauer, Douglas S.. Department of Geological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Christiansen, Richard 12146 223rd Avenue, Bristol Conoscenti, Jack 12135 2nd Avenue, Pleasant Prairie Conoscenti, Ross 12135 2nd Avenue, Pleasant Prairie Craft, Tim 2028 Deane Boulevard, Racine Crema, Genevieve J. Land Trust Chairman, Wisconsin Garden Club Federation Crosetto, John Attorney for Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc. 64- Dadian, Rhoda 5220 Hunt Club, Racine Dearolf, Kenneth 8963 22nd Avenue, Kenosha Deutsch, Lois 7814 LeClare Avenue, Skokie, Illinois Deutsch, Robert 7814 LeClare Avenue, Skokie, Illinois Dunlop, Lenore S66 W30330 C. T. I., Mukwonago Dunnington, Mary 10619 4th Avenue, Kenosha Eger, Arthur 10011 Lake Shore Drive, Kenosha Estka, Thomas Carthage College Evans, Russel C. Waukegan, Illinois Falk, Kathleen M. Wisconsin Public Intervenor Falk, Lois 726 Wabash Avenue, Waukesha Felton, Bruce 2513 Hamilton Avenue, Racine Felton, Raymond Wisconsin Wildlife Federation Fisher, Dennis Milwaukee Audubon Society Ford, Marilynn 11415 lst Avenue, Kenosha Forna, Michael 11505 lst Avenue, Kenosha Frew, Minnie 5564 Angle Lane, Greendale Fueston, Margaret 11360 lst Avenue, Kenosha Fueston, Thomas L. 11360 Ist Avenue, Kenosha Ganek, Edward R. 327 100th Street, Kenosha Ganek, Luise C. 327 100th Street, Kenosha Glassel, Barbara 8709 N. 66th Street, Brown Deer Gla.tzer, Thomas U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago, Illinois Graf, Ione 9135 Lake Shore Drive, Kenosha Gulon, Peter A. 11367 lst Avenue, Kenosha Hall, Nancy 125@ W. Third Street, Beaver Dam Hanley, Earl J. 2926 73rd Street, Kenosha Hansche, Ben 8405 Sheridan Road, Kenosha Hansen, Joan 1022 Boxwood Court, Wheeling, Illinois Hansen, Mark 1100 North Street, Racine Harthun, Richard A. Nature and Her Inhabitants Heidemann, Robert W. 11335 3rd Avenue, Kenosha Helgren, Fred J. Waukegan, Illinois Helgren, Helen 435 O'Plaine Road, Gurnee, Illinois Helgren, Preston 435 O'Plaine Road, Gurnee, Illinois Henter, Annette 19225 Lothmoor Drive, Brookfield Hermann, Phillip 5907 Taylor Avenue, Racine Hewitt, David H. Sierra Club and Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Hoff'er, Billie 9505 Lake Shore Drive, Kenosha Hoffer, Charles 9505 Lake Shore Drive, Kenosha Hoover, Judith Representing Congressman Les Aspin Hoselton, Mr. and Mrs. Elmer L. 12116 1st Court, Kenosha Howard, Greg 4027 Nicholson Road, Racine -65- Isermann, Leone N88 W14947 Cleveland Avenue, Menomonee Falls Jensen, Daniel 8700 1st Avenue, Kenosha Jimenez, Renee 12140 1st Court, Kenosha .Johnson, Mary Ellen Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Justen, James A. 12448 Lake Shore Drive, Kenosha Kleppe, Joan M. 12333 Ist Court, Kenosha Kleppe, Willard E. 12444 1st Court, Kenosha Koessl, Wayne E. Board of Supervisors, Kenosha County Kotlinski, Michael Carthage College Kozlowski, Margaret Wisconsin Metro Audubon Society Krame;@, Margaret A. 104 102nd Street, Kenosha LaMere, Karen River Bend Nature Center Lamparek, Glenn 2403 Olive Street, Racine LaViolette, G. 8808 3rd Avenue, Kenosha Lawrence, Richard 22302 10th Avenue, Kenosha LeBean, Duke 8815 5th Avenue, Kenosha Leighton, Rebecca A. Wisconsin Audubon Council and Brown County Conservation Alliance Lewis, Bonnie Rocky Pt. Road, Pewaukee Lichtner, Ruth Grotenrath 2626 N. Maryland Avenue, Milwaukee Lins, Jeff N40 W32805 Wildwood, Nashotah Lins, Nancy N40 W32805 Wildwood, Nashotah Luebke, Neil T. 4829 N. Larkin, Milwaukee Luke, Robert 11435 Ist Avenue, Kenosha Lyle, C. 11344 Shore Cliff Lane, Mequon Lyons, Gerald 2205 Hawthorne, Waukegan, Illinois MacLaren, Lisa B. 2864 N. Downer Avenue, Milwaukee Maksyn, Edward J. .12532 1st Avenue, Kenosha Manning, Lynda 700 Brook Road, Franksville Marciniak, Richard Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Maria.ayi, Juan J. Carol Beach Property Owners Association and Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc. Marquardt, Carmelita F. 415 Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois Marquardt, William 415 Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois Marsh, Jan 1626 N. Prospect Avenue, Milwaukee McAndrews, C. G. 8860 1st Avenue, Kenosha McGraw, Jean Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Meyer, Marcus J. 1108 87th Avenue, Kenosha Michetti, Susan P. 0. Box 54, Kenosha Momper, Virginia 11108 Green Bay Road, Kenosha Monroe, Linda 101 E. Mifflin, Madison Murray, John 11725 1st Avenue, Kenosha Murray, Mary A. 11725 Ist Avenue, Kenosha -66- Muschel, Ralph 3712 N. Monticello, Chicago, Illinois Nelson, Ed Kettle Moraine Audubon Society Nowak, Mariette 5998 Sycamore Street, Greendale Ortmayer, Mary Ann Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Osenga, Jerrine Waukesha County Environmental Action League Otte, Lorrie 9701 N. Lake Drive, Milwaukee Owens, Carol Waukesha County Environmental Action League Pemper, Stephen 12110 W * Greenfield Avenue, West Allis Peterson, Donna Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Piroyan, F. 11745 Lake Shore Drive, Kenosha Piroyan, Wallace Chairman, Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc. Popelka, Bernice Kettle Moraine Audubon Society Post, Elizabeth 12003 1st Avenue, Kenosha Post, James W. 12003 Ist Avenue, Kenosha Prepenburg, Kurt 6124 7th Avenue, Kenosha Rajguru, S. 4025 S. Brook Road, Franksville Rew6linski, Stan 1940 N. Prospect Avenue, Milwaukee Rice, Mary 4510 118th Street, Kenosha Rice, R. B. 225 87th Street, Kenosha Rice, Terry Supervisor, Town of Pleasant Prairie Rohan, Joan Hoy Nature Club Rooney, Barbara 8036 7th Avenue, Kenosha Rooney, James 8036 7th Avenue, Kenosha Ross , Jon A. 10720 4th Avenue, Kenosha Rossett, James E 11424 1st Avenue, Kenosha Roth, John F. Senior Planner, Kenosha County Royt, Laurance 1565 S. 79th Street, West Allis Royt, Ruth 1565 S. 79th Street, West Allis Schmidling, Jack 4501 Moody, Chicago, Illinois Schneider, Michael University of Wisconsin-Extension, Kenosha County Schroeder, Jennette Hoy Nature Club Sebetic, Michael 8785 3rd Avenue, Kenosha Shaffron, Joseph E. Developer of Carol Beach Estates Si gger, K. 7734 23rd Avenue, Kenosha Sorenson, Daniel 2227 Summit Avenue, Racine Spears, C. 11335 3rd Avenue, Kenosha Stokes, Sarah A. 1111 E. Brown Deer Road, Milwaukee Strohl, Joseph Wisconsin State Senator, 21st District Stroud, Vera 16940 W. Shadow Drive, New Berlin Sweet, Fred E. 4729 N. Elkhart Avenue, Milwaukee Tekwall, Marilee 5644 116th Street, Kenosha -67- Terwall, Thomas Supervisor, Town of Pleasant Prairie Tierney, Patrick S. Planning and Research Analyst, Kenosha County Trefz, Robert Trident Marina Ugoretz, Steven Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Van Allen, Nancy Kenosha County Corporation Counsel West, Glen R. 11325 1st Avenue, Kenosha Wetzel, Marge Wisconsin Public Intervenor's Office Williams, Cathy 305 96th Street, Kenosha Wink, William F. 11451 8th Avenue, Kenosha Wonak, Mr. and Mrs. Charles E. 9703 W. Ruby Avenue, Wauwatosa Wruck, Donald H. Chairman, Pleasant Prairie Town Board Wuerker, Kurt 3118 Conrad Drive, Racine Zoller, Mr. and Mrs. Jack 11371 1st Avenue, Kenosha Zumach, G. L. 1314 Thurston Avenue, Racine Name Illegible 1st Avenue, Kenosha Name Illegible 8318 25th Avenue, Kenosha Appendix C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The following Public Hearing notice-was-sent to approximately 90 individuals and organizations, including citizens organizations, environmental groups, major landowners, local and state officials, concerned state and federal agencies, and major newspapers and radio and television stations in the area. SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING"@,,._, kii 72 916 NO, EAST AVENUE0P.O. BOX 769f WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 53187-1607 0 ;@_i-@@TJCLEIP k,(411 Serving the Counties ot" ZA, k" DEOO061W ASH# A 10/1184 U K NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Land Use Management Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie- Carol Beach Area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie A public hearing will be held on October 23, 1.964, at 7:00 p.m. in the audi- torium, of the* Lance Junior HIgh School, 4515 80th Street, Kenosha, Wisconsin, for the purpose of receiving public comment on, and reaction to, a proposed land use management plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie. This public hearing is being sponsored by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC). The proposed plan sets forth recommendations regarding future open space preservation-urban development patterns; provision of public services, including public sanitary sewer service; and public acquisition of open space lands in the area. 'A draft report describing the proposed land use management plan, including a plan map, is on file at the Town of Pleasant Prairie Municipal Building and the offices of the SEWRPC. The proposed land use management plan will also be explained at the public hearing. Following the public hearing, an advisory committee to the SEWRPC will deter- mine Qhether any changes should be made in the plan as presented at the hear- ing and consider recommending action on the plan to the Commission. if approved by the advisory committee, the SEWRPC will then formally adopt the plan and certify the plan for adoption or endorsement to the Town of Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha County and to the state and federal agencies having land .use regulatory responsibilities in the area, including the Wisconsin Depart- ment of Natural Resources and the U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend the public hearing. Further information about this matter may be obtained by contacting the Town of Plea- sant Prairie or the offices of the SEWRPC at 916 N. East Avenue, Waukesha, Wiscorain 53186. Kurt W. Bauer Executive Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Appendix D MATERIALS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING Appe ndix D-1 C J E i" 2 0 1984 Mr. John Antaramian 8318 25th Ave. Kenosha, Wis. 53140 Mr. Donald Wruck,Pleasant.Prairie Town Chairman 9915 39th Ave. Kenosha, Wis. 53140 Mr. James Fonk Southeastern Wis. Regional Planning Commission 10710 88th Street, Kenosha, Wis. 53140 cc: Mr Terry Rice RkCEIVEL) Mr. lhomos.lorwell SEP 2 6 1984 @'Mr. Roger Prange, SEWRPO Re: Chiwaukee Project As a concerned property owner in the Carol Beach unit, I would.not like to see the rejection of the four developments proo%ed for Ch1waukee Prairie# this will mean a severe loss of revenue for the township-and the value 6f our property will drop. A road along the stateline from Sheridan Road to the lake sounds like the most economical proposal and the develop first avenue and not allow the beautiful shoreline to erode into the lake. There Is still a good area of wetlands left for the preservation of the plants, flowers, birds, and animals. I was born and raised on a form so there Is still a great deal of appreciation for the things of nature; but I feel this area should be developed. Some day our sub-division may be able to have sewers installed and our homes once again in this area will be able to be sold. There are several homesJor sale in the area, but no one is interested in buying them due to the sewer situation. I sincerely hope-the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission will take constructive action in this matter before the DNR makes their decision in October. C@// gl-g Mrs. Geraldine Lachman 1002 111th Street Kenosha, Wis. 53140 Appendix D-2 2201 Center Ave., Mad I son X .53704 (6o8)249-7255 Oot.15sl984 Ohiwaukee Prairie Planning Group Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Co mmission, RECEIVED OCT 18 1984 Dear Friends: SEWRPC These comments are In response to dn Invitation from Margaret R. Wetzel, Public Interva%r Clinical Intern and Kathleen M. Falk, Wisconsin Public Intervenor, The State of Wisconsin Depart- ment of Justice, on October 10, 1984. The two documents enclosed by Wetzel and Falk, one by Professor Douglas S.Cherkauer, and Chapt.V, Recommended Land Use Management Plan from SEWRPC have been noted. My comments are of a general nature. (1) 1 would favor a maximum preservation plan for the C41waukee Prairie-Carol Beach area, in view of its ecological importance. (2) 1 favor should the maximum preservation plan be rejected, a compromise between the maximum preservation plan and the combina- tion development-preservation plan (which includes dewatering thatts unacceptable from the standpoint of maintaining the prdrie vegetationl. (3) 1 recommend that continuous m6nitoring by hydrologists, ecologists and geologists be arranged for, to document water levels, flow of water and quality of water in years to come. Resulting data would be of scientific and practical interest for land managers of shorelands throughout the country and abroad. (4) 1 recommend that speciAl maintenance-of-prairie operations be planned to defend the prairie against I)otential damaging changes in the ecosystem arising from present and future development. (5) 1 recommend that adequate programs be developed for public enjoyment and understanding of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area, which will undoubtedly attract visitors from abroad as well as from the United States. I congratulate those who have worked on plans for the area to date on their awareness of the Importance of the prairie. To keep it undisturbed Is a special kknd 'of "developmentO which will attract tourists and enhance the environment , with resulting economic as well as aesthetic benefits. This statement I send In lieu of a personal appear- ance. SVe Y* r tu Francis D. Hol Em a Pro_fe@@'of Soil Science and Geography, University of Wisconsin, Madison Copy to M.R.Wetzel and K.M.Falk -72- Appendix E MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC HEARING NOTE: Appendices E-1 through E-12 contain materials submitted by attendees who spoke at the Public Hearing. Appendices E-13 through E-19 were submitted by attendees who did not speak at the Hearing. Appendix E-1 STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY THE CHIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH CITIZENS.ORGANIZATION, INC. October 1984 -73- 1. WHAT IS D.N.R.'S AUTHORITY UNDER N.R. 115 T 0 DECLARE KENOSHA COUNTY IN NONCOMPTjIANCE AND ADOPT ITS OWN WETLAND STATUTES? Section N.R. 115.06 (3) allows D.N.R. to declare a county in noncompliance, hold a hearing, and adopt wetland statutes for that county. However, the wetland must be 1) an area over 5 acres in size and 2) within 1000 feet of Lake Michigan or within 300 feet of a stream. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources does not have unlimited discretion in defining wetlands. Stat 23.35 Sec. (1) ....... wetland means an capable area where water is at,near, or above the land surface long enough to be of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation and which has soils indicative of wet conditions. Also see: NR 1.95: "Wetland" means those areas that are inundated or staurated by surface or ground water at a frequenc y and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. wetlands generally includes swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. None of the platted land east of the railroad tracks could be rezoned using this definition. Even the unplatted areas do not often if at all meet this definition. ThEt study area is a dune, ridge)swale area with only the swale areas being true wetland according to both D.N.R. and SEWRPC. (See SEWRPC minutes dated September 6, 1984 .......... the ridges are dry . ......... the swales are too small to delineate individually.") Such wetlands are less than five contiguous acres within 1000 feet of Lake Michigan. Therefore, D.N.R. ca nnot force rezoning. D.N.R.'S classification of the area as a "complex" is unworkable an d arbitrary. The "complex" theory has allowed D.N.R. to list land as wetland in which the water table was over 6 feet below the surface. How much wetland within a complex makes a dry ridge area a wetland? Will a few feet of wetlands within 1000 feet of the lake be sufficient to make the whole area a wetland? There are no standards in the D.N.R.'S guidelines. The statutes do not mention or define a wetland "complex". The five acres area minimum in Stat. 23.35 Sec. make it clear that D.N.R.IS authority does not extend over other types of geologic formations which are only wet in areas smaller than five acres.. Several other types of land formations have been identified as areas to be zoned and which D.N.R. does not have authority over. 1) Uplands even if unplatted can not be rezoned by D.N.R. 2) Unplatted lands such as Wisconsin Electric Company.lands contain five acres of wetland,. but this is not within 1000 feet of Lake Michigan.. Lands which D.N.R. has no authority over should be purchased not rezoned. Unplatted lands as well as platted-1-ands will have to be paid for if they are -74- not 1) wetlands over five acres in area and 2) within 1000 feet of Lake Michigan or 300 feet of a stream. Kenosha County presently has shoreland zoning ordinance No. 64. This adequately protects the wetlands. 2. WHAT IS THE WETLAND? The area known as Chiwaukee Prairie Carol Beach has been well studied and described by naturalists and biologists. It has been consistentl y described as a prairie TmON00, containing some swales. The area closest to the lake is a dune area varying from approximately 100 to 300 yards followed by an alternating linear pattern of ridges and swales. In the 1980 Chicago Aerial Survey commissioned and paid for by the South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, the swale areas show clearly. Based at least partly on this survey, South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission produced a topographical map showing wetlands of two acres or more. In these 1980 maps only the swale areas are shown as wetland. Most of these wetland swales are too small to meet the five acre minimum requirement for preservation under the Shoreland - Wetland Zoning Provision. These maps have been described as highly accurate. The i.e.p biologists have stated that their descript ions of the wetland areas are 80% accurate and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources map is 70% inaccurate. An independent surveyor has also described the .1980 maps as accurate. These 1980 maps made by the South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission have not been produced by South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in the 1984 discussion of wetland zoning, (see Chapter V SEWRPC reports) and no explanation has been given why they were not ,used to determine wetland by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The 1970 U.S. Department of Agricultural soil map is also consistent with this map. See exhibit 4.. The checkerboard feature of the 1984 D.N.R. wetland map is especially questionable. Wetlands and uplands follow topographical features and do not ordinarily occur in squares following lot lines. (The checkerboard feature will be discussed further in the analysis of the review proceedure of Mr. Don Reed.) D.N.R.IS mapping procedure is described in its' January, 1982 phamplet entitled USER'S GUIDE TO THE WISCONSIN WETLANDS INVENTORY, page 4 in the section entitled MAPPING PROCEDURE states: "To insure that the maps are accurate, staff personel consult local specialists, soil conservation services soil surveyors, U.S.G.S. topographic maps, existing wetland inventories, "Wisconsin Lakes", "Surface Water -75- Resources", Wisconsin Land Inventories", natural and scientific area information, and other related data." .................. "Wetlands are mapped using 1978-1980 aerial photographs" On page 5, the same report states: "Examples of areas not mapped as wetland include: 1) Lands no longer wetland because of draining, filling ........... D.N.R. does not appear to have followed its procedures outlined in the phamplet described above. Existing soil maps topographical maps, and 1980 aerial p1iotographs and wetland maps have been given little or no weight in preparing the proposed wetland maps. The land mapped as wetland adjacent to the Kenosha Town Club illustrates another procedural error. This land has had an artificial lake constructed on it. It.has been legally filled a road has been constructed on it, and Kentucky bluegrass has been planted. All in accord with existing laws over 50 year period of ownership. This area has little natural or scientific value, but it has been mapped wetland and zoned for conservancy. A more precise delination of the swale areas are still needed. The 1984 Wisconsin D.N.R. wetland map is highly misleading and should not be given approval by any governmental' body. Nor should any land use plan based at all on this misleading study be approved. 3. WAS THE REVIEW OF THE WETLAND MAP FAIR AND UNBAISED? Comment sheets protesting lot and house classification as wetland were filled out by 296 lot owners, and the review was conducted by Mr. Don Reed. He conducted the review by field observation of the plants on the protested lots. Pr esent maps are due to the method of Mr. Reeds review. The Citizens organization has requested Mr. Reed's field notes, but the request was denied. A few preliminary observations can be made. A) Mr. Reed made no attempt to make his observations consistent with topographical features. Mr. Reed examined only the lots protested. If a lot h ad unquestionable upland features,,he did not attempt to map the extent of this topography even though the unprotested lot nearby had similar features. It seems unlikely that any kind of natural feature mapping could be accurately described by legal boundries. This is also inconsistent with SEWRPC descripLion of the area as a lake terrace area. See Report #1 (1965. B), Mr. Reed made no soil borings or observation of the soil in areas in which plant observation was ambiguous. -76- C) Mr. Reed was very aware that all wetlands ov er which D.N.R. has Jurisdiction must be at least five acres, and for that reason he resolved all doubts in favor of wetland classification. Mr6 Reed included areas with facultive growth as wetland with no attempt at an examination of the soil. Howeveri after Mr. Reeds investigation, South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission did not request wetland zoning. The proposed zoning is conservancy not wetland. 1. Plants can be described as 1) obligate wetland species which are species requiring saturated ground for at least part of the growing season 2) facultive species which can grow in either wetland or upland 3) obligate upland species which are restricted to upland. Typical wetland species in Chiwaukee Prairie - Carol Bea.ch area are the cattail and sedges. In upland areas,.ridges and stabilized dunes, the common grasses are little blue-stem, switch grass, indian grass and sand reed grass.. Blazing star, fringed puccoon, lupine, flowering spurge, lead plant, bird-foot violet, pinweed, black-eyed susan and downy indian painted cup are some conspicous flowering plants found in upland areas. Prickly pear cactus forms large colonies in 'this dry habitat. wet prairies contain blue Ijoint grass, prairie cordgrass, reed grass, big blue stem and sedges. Grass pink orchid, foxglove and cardinal flower are found here. Alkaline ferns are found in some of the swales nearer the lake. The common species are sedges. See also: the plant description in the report by the Marina. 4. WHAT ARE THE UNIQUE NATURAL R ESOURCES IN THE CHIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH AREA? Although the reports of the South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission conclude that the area has highly valuable natural resources, there has been no organized description in SEWRPC reports of what these resources are and where they exist. A careful search has been made by repu table naturalists, but there has been no report of threatened or endangered animal species. No nationally endangered plants have been reliably reported in recent years. One plant, the prairie white-fringed orchid, which is on the threatened plant species list is known to exist in the 250 acres now held by the Nature Conservancy. Whether this plant exists outside this area has not been reported. -77- The Chiwaukee - Carol Beach area has been highly disturbed by private owner- ship over a 50 year period. The natural contour of the dunes can only be seen in two areas; a three lot area at the north end of Carol Beach and the land at the north end of the study area owned by the Wisconsin Electric Power and Light company. Endangered plants are endangered because of their sensativity to disturbance. It is unlikely they will be found in this area. Since the Conservancy zoning now proposed is highly predicated on the proposition that the natural resources of the area are unique and valuable, a description of exactly what these resources are should be included in the report. Of course, opportunity to correct inaccuracies should be allowed. 2 The Citizens Committee has revealed the method and content of their studies. We request the SEWRPC show the basis on which they form their conclusions. 2. SEWRPC Report No. 41, A PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN FOR THE KENOSHA PLANNING DISTRICT (1980) Map 19 on page 42 shows the areas of state scientific interest as the'present Chiwaukee Prairie and Wisconsin Gas and Electric Company land. Map 10 on page 21 shows roughly the same areas as containing important wild life habitat. The areas in between are not listed as of scientific interest or being a wildlife habitat. 5. WHAT WILL BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION? The cost of acquisition has been seriously underestimated. The South Eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission has proposed that Wisconsin and the Nature Conservancy, will pay for,the platted land at the assessed valuation after the proposed zoning is adopted. They have based their estimated proposal cost on the assessed valuation of the lots. The assessed valuations have had undue downward pressure since the area has been declared a Nature Study Area and described as predominately wetland and scheduled for an uncompensated taking. The recommendation that owners need not be paid @for five years after zoning also represents an additional unfair expense not present in an eminent domain proceeding. I No plans at all have been made to purchase unplatte d land zoned conservancy. This is unrealistic! Although Just v Marinette, 56 Wis'!2d7, 201 NW 2d 761 (1972) cert. den. U.S.S. Ct. establishes some precedent for a county to zone areas wetland without purchase, no Wisconsin law or precedentimakes it possible to zone lands conservancy without purchase. Conservancy zoning appears to be more restrictive than wetland zoning. A private owner will have less allowed use. -78- Conservancy zoning seems to fall squarely under the precedent established,by San Diego Gas and Electric Company, 450 U.S. 621 (1981). Plans should be made to purchase all land zoned and not at an artifically deflated price. 3 The second cost of conservancy zoning is to the community as a whole. Land near Lake Michigan is not only desirable as park land, it is highly desirable for homes. The homes built in the area in the last 10 years have been a valuable addition to our tax base. The area has attracted both the professional people and business owners needed to revive and diversify Kenosha's economy. Refusal to allow development of this area will mean that Kenosha will lose one of its most attractive housing areas. This will have an effect on the economy of the county and city far beyond the loss to the tax base. 3. In SEWRPC Report No. 41 A PARK AND OPEN SPACE PLAN FOR THE KENOSHA PLANNING DISTRICT (1980) on page 83, land acquisition cost allocated to Kenosha County Park commission for acquiring the Chiwaukee Prairie - Carol Beach area is $3,024,200.00. Added facility cost for recreation will be $948,500.00. It is noted here by SEWRPC that this is 1980 dollars and they believe half, of these closts will be paid for by State and Federal Governments. This might be a more objective analysis of costs allocated to the county. 6. IS THE LAND BUILDABLE? Fora number of year,s, land which must utilized holding tanks, was considered @undesirable. In the past a number of lending institutions would not lend money on homes with holding tanks. Over the last five years there has been a trend to greater acceptance of holding tanks. Now many major institutions no longer consider a holding tank a defect. The initial cost of the holding tank is less then any other septic system, and it is environmentally the most desirable, because no waste passes to the surrounding soil. Total system costs compare favorably. The prohibition against land fill will also not provide a serious drawback. Virtually all lots can be built on without land fill. Some additional costs may be incurred because slab on grade construction would still require footings, in other words conventional basements would not always be possible. However, given cost savings on lower septic system, most land in the study area is build- ablefrom both a technical and economically feasible point of view. Actually swale areas are often quite narrow and occupy only a small portion of the lots. -79- CITIZENS RECOMMENDED PROPOSALS 1. Since it should be recognized that land owners must be compensated, a proposal should be made by the legislature stating exactly how much.funding will be available before it is determined what can be comdemned by eminent domain. 2. The D.N.R. wetland map should be revised and made more consistent with past studies and actual soil conditions so that no proposal be adopted based on misinformation. 3. The valuable natural resources in the area should be described and plants should be catalogued as'to when, where, and who observed them. Highly disturbed areas sh ould be noted and these areas should not be acquired if the disturbance was due to legal private use of privately owned lands. 4. A list should be made of the most valuable areas, and the areas which have .the) highest priority be purchased as funding allows. Priority should be given to I)wetlands and 2) virgin lands. 5. All other areas should be released to their present owners for private use. Since SEWRPC did not inform SEWRPC voting members and the public that as the result of this hearing, the impact statement will be prepared, opportunity should be allowed for written comment on the impact statement. -80- EXHIBIT NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF 17 ACRES SAMPLE prepared by: IEP CONSULTING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS S22 W22660 BROADWAY. SUITE 3C. WAUKESHA. WI 53186 IN c inc. (414) 542-2733 NATURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF LAND IN THE CAROL BEACH VICINITY Prepared for the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organizations, Inc. by IEP Inc.. September 1984 GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER SCIENCE *HYDROLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING WETLAND MAPPING AND EVALUATION TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIOLOGY -82- In CC ?in c. 1. 0 114TIRODUCT1014 IEP Inc. was contracted by the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organizaticn, Inc. to conduct field investigations on roughly 17 acres of land in the southeastern corner of the Town of Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County, Wisconsin. The objettives of the investigations were to: (1) determine the extent of wetland as defined under Wisconsin statute, and (2) to provide a botanical survey of areas not meeting the statutory definition of wetland in order to characterize and classify the site's uplands. The Citizens Organization has initiated this study as a result of the proposed zoning of land within four miles of the I Illinois state land and east of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad tracks. It is IEP's understanding that the zoning is being implemented due to the great extent of wetland in the area and due t6 existence of high quality prairie habitat throughout nuch of the'area. Any such zoning should be based upon factual imformation of natural resource conditions derived from and supported by detailed field investigations. This current investigation was perceived and carried out by IEP as an unbiased, ;traight-forward natural resource inventory of a small portion of the land proposed to be zoned. 2. 0 METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA EMPLOYED The field investigations were conducted on September 1 1984 by an IEP Biologist and an IEP Soil Scientist. The si@e was traversed in east/west transects roughly 100 feet apart. Plant species were recorded and estimates of relative abundance were rated as dominant, commoni or occasional where: Dominant - abundant or highest density species Co-mmon - species with densities such that they are generally easily found but are less than abundant occasional - species that are locally abundant and tend to have a contagious distribution or are sparse and have a low frequency of occurrance. Wetlands were identified and delineated based upon statutory criteria. in Wisconsin, the statutory definition of wetland is: ... an area where water is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to be capable of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation and which has soils indicative of wet conditions. (Section 23.32. (1),Wis.Stats.) -83- M I C ?onc. ,In IEP's opinion, based upon our experiences mapping wetlands in the field since 1975, this is an excellent definition. It ,is consistent w-ith criteria recognized by,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servict. in their national classification and inven- tory program: hydrology, vegetation, and soils are considered. Since vegetation is the most readily observed of these resources, assessment of the plant cormiunity is typically the first step in wetland identification. In this process it is necessary to recognize the affinity of different plant species for various moisture regimes. The U.S. Fish and,Wildlife Service recognizes five such classes: 1) obligate wetland species which require saturated ground for at least some por'Cion of the g@owing season, 2) facultative wetland species which are typically found in wetland, but occasionally occur in uplands, 3) facultative plant species which are found with equal.frequency in both uplands and wetlands, 4) facultative upland species which are most often found in uplands but occasionally are in wetlands and 5) obligate upland species or plants restricted to-uplands. Areas identified as wetland on the site are those where the plant community is composed primarily of obligate or facultative wetland species or if coriposed primarily of facultative species, contain hydric. soils. Soil test holes were dug at 10 locations on the site. Stand- ard Soil Conservation service criteria were employed to identifY, soils "indicative of wet conditions". These include thick, dark surface horizons high in organic content, gleyed subsoils, or the presence of mottling within 18 inches of the ground surface. Since the soils provide a long-term indica- tion of a site's moisture regime, and since the Wisconsin examination of soils is considered essential. statute specifically includes soils in the criteria, the Cla.-1;-;sification of the upland plant coranunities has been based upon the work of Curtis (1959: The Vegetation of I-dsconsin). Howbver, since we are unauare of any statutory criteria defining prairie cor-a-aunities worthy of preservation, it is difficult to rtake definitive judgements. The presence and relative abundance of disturbance indicator species was the primary criterion used to assess the upland plant communities. During the field inventory a search was made for plant speci.es having special status. The adjacent Chiwaukee Prairie is a state Scientific Preservation Area with known presence of endangered and threatened plant species as well as species on the "watch" list. Obviously, a single day's search in early September is not sufficient to determine 2 -84- 01 MC iPonc., whether or not these species occur on the subject land; additional surveys throughout the growing season would be required for this. 3.0 RESULTS The results of the investigations are presented in terms of findings on wetlands and uplands individually. 3.1 Wetlands Figure 1 presents the delineation of wetlands as identified by IEP's field investigations. In the southern parcel of land, roughly 700 feet x 400 feet, a wetland cormniunity was identified ust north of center. This is a relatively sn"all pocket, roughly 120 feet long by 55 feet wide on average. The wetland is dominated by tussock sedge (Carex stricta), with blue-joint grass'(Calamagrostis canadensis), marsh fern (Thelypteris Palustris), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensi- bilis), swamp milkweed (Asclepias incarnata), blue flag (Iris versicolor) and silky dogwood (Cornus amon-um) as key iiTdlcai@ors of this area as wetland. Wetland soils are present in this basin in the form of dark black sapric (well-decomposed) organics 17 inches thick. overlying a gray sand. Towards the wetland edges, as deline- ated, poorly drained mineral soils are found. The transition to moderately well-drained soils outside of the wetland is noted in the plant community by decreases in.abundance or complete disappearance of blue-joint grass, marsh fern, purple meadow rue (Thalictrum dasycarpus), blue flag and swamp milkweed, and increases in the numbers of raspberry (Rubus idaeus stri-gosus) and goldenrods (Solida2o gigantea, inifolia). Soils outside of the wetland area typically gram contained a surface horizon 7-10 inches thick of dark gray- brown to black loa!-,,y sand over a non-s@ratified light-brown Medium to coarso sand. Nottling in the soil was typically encountered from 18 to 20inches below the surface, indicating the seasonal high water table in the upland areas. The wetland in the southern parcel is isolated in terms of surface water flow. On September 1, 1984, free water was encountered 21 inches below ground surface in the wetland. Maximum water depth in the wetland is probably about 12 inches. Recent plowing in the area just southwest of the wetland may have covered signs of ephemeral surface water; however, soil test pits in this area revealed no buried soils with hydric 3 9! 2 'IV V, V % 41 -?VD., A", vz --?, p .6 �PV 00, rb 66" 69 F14ao XV-', FIGUR Stud -Y @reas and Iletlands 7. Study -Area Boundaries Uc'tlands aS Deternined bY IEP Field Investigators W1 @c ipinc. conditions. In the central parcel of land investigated (Figure I)f wetland communities exist on both the west and east sides. In the eastern section, wetland s@fiubs (Salix spp., Cornus stolonifera) are present near 116 Street, while herbaceous vegetation indicative of wet meadows or low prairies extends south'into the lot. Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium maculatun), boneset (F. perfoliatun), blue-joint grass and marsh fern are principal indicators. The wetland to the west of this (Figure 1) is doninated by shrubs. Between these two wetland areas, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi), bluegrass (Poa compressa), blazing star (Liatris aspera), swtchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and pasture rose (Rosa carolina), along with moderately well- drained soils, indicate upland conditions. Similar conditions are found on the north side of 116 th Street, with a number of wetland corimu *t* width @j, les varying in from 50 to 200 feet extending from 116 Street to the north (Figure 1). A full description of each area is beyond the scope of this report. 3.2 Uplands As stated earlier, portions of the site not meeting the statutory definition of wetland (i.e., uplands) were exanined through plant species composition to assess their status as prairie. Given the absence of any statutory definition of prairie that we have encountered, we reference Curtis' (1959:2G2) definition where a prairie is defined as: ...an open area covered by low-growing plants, dominated by grasslike species of which at least one-half are true grasses, and with less than one mature tree per acre. In practica I terns, it is recognized that prairies are identi- fied both by the presence of indicator species (e.g., Anc.ro_po- _qon _qerardi) and by the absence of disturbance species (e.y., Poa compressa). Again, given the lack of any firn guidelines, we offer the following assessment of the upland plant coraziuni- ties on the parcels investigated. The southern-most portion of the land studied, roughly 500 feet by 400 feet, consists largely of land either recently plowed or planted. Planted species include arborvitae (Thuia occidentalis), and pear (Pyrus sp.) trees. A portion of the land is a mowed lawn. Amidst the plowod'land some 5 ic?inc. prairie vegetation could be identified along with many non- prairie species. This area obviously could not be classified within any of Curtis' (1959) plant communities on the date of our field investigations due to its disturbed nature. The 200 foot by 400 foot section immediately north of here had riot been recently plowed. Table I lists the estimated relative abundance of the identified plant species on the upland portion of this area as well as on the other upland areas examined. Many of the listed species are considered indicative of prairie: the bluestem grasses (Andropogon qcrardi, Schizacki,riun scopariiun), sloughgrass (Spartina 12ectinata), blazing star (Liatris sp.), blue-joint grass, and culver's root (Veronicastrum virginicum). others are clearly disturbance species in ter;ns of indicating that the land is not virgin prairie but has been influenced by past land-use practices of man: Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa), red raspberry (Rubus idaeus strigosus), buckthorn (Rha;,,,,nus frangula), quack grass, (Agropyron repens), and meadow fescue (Festuca elatior). The presence of these species through most of the upland areas investigated nakes classification of these lands as.11virgin prairie" tenuous. In addition, the presence of elevated cart-paths extending through portions of the land is clear evidence of past disturbance. There are sections of land idth a greater relative abundance of prairie indicators and fewer disturbance indicators. Within the areas studied however, it would take extremely detailed mapping to designate their locations with any mean-Lng. Prior to any such effort, specific criteria should be developed by regulatory agencies defining and documenting what is to be considered as prairie worthy of preservation--and why--and to what level of napping detail should such areas be delineated. 6 IeP inc. Table 1. Relative Abundance of Plant Species on the Upland Portions of the Land Investigated. Scientific Name Common Name Occurrence1 Helianthus giganteus Giant Sunflower 0 Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass 0 Asclepias, syrica Common Milkweed C Schizackyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 0 Verbascum thapsus Common Mullen 0 Allium cernuum Nodding Wild onion 0 Ambrosia arterrisiifolia Common Ragweed 0 Andro0pogon gerardi Big Bluestem C Achillea millefolium Yarrow C Linaria vulaaris Butter and Eggs 0 Liatris aspera Rough Blazing Star C Equisetum hyerrale Scouring Rush 0 Solidaco nemoralis Gray Goldenrod 0 Rhamnus franaula European Buckthorn 0 Spartina pectinata Fresh-Water Cord-Grass 0 Rubus idacus striaosus Red Raspberry C Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle C Convolvulus sepium Hedge Bindweed 0 Solidago caqnadensis Tall Goldenrod C Rosa carolina Wild Rose C Crataegus sp. Hawthorn 0 7 -89- 01 @c ?inc. Occurrencel. scientific Name Common Name Thali(,,-trun dasycarpus Purple Meadow Rue C Calamagrostis canadensis Blue Joint Grass 0 Physalis virginiana Lance-Leaved Ground Cherr 0 y Solidago aigantea Late Goldenrod C Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass Situ,i suave Water Parsnip 0 Pycnanthemum virginianum Common Mountain Mi nt 0 Meadow Sweet 0 Spiraea alba Panic ur, vi rgatum Switchgrass 0 Solidago graminifolia Lance-Leaved Goldenrod C Northern Bedstraw U Galiun boreale Lithosperi-.iun canescens Hoary Puccoon 0 0 Fraaaria vir2iniana Wild Strawberry Veronicastrum virginicurn Culver's-Rout 0 Prunus serotina, Black Cherry 0 Meadow Fescue 0 Festuca elatior Rudbeckia hirta Black-Eyed Susan 0 physoste-aia virginiana False bragonhead 0 Populus deltoides common Cottonwood 0 Vernonia fasciculata Western Ironweed 0 Rhamnus.cathartica Common Buckthorn 0 Cornus amomuln Silky Dogwood 0 Potentilla sim0ex Common Cinquefoil _90- in C@ ?i n c. Scientific Name Corilon Name Occurrence Lycopus americanus Cut-Leaved Water-Horehound @O Solanum dulcamara Nightshade 0 Juncu@; balticus Rush 0 Fraxinus sp. Ash 01 Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed .0 Hypericum kalmianum Kalm's St. John's V.1ort 0 Hieraciur.1 sp. Hawkweed 0 Asparagus officinalis Asparagus Asclepias verticillata Ilhorled Milkweed 0 Agropyron repens Quack Grass .0 See Text _91- EXHIBIT 2 FLORAL AND WETLANDS STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED TRIDENT MARINA DEVELOPMENT AREA prepared by: Warzyn IEP -92- WARZYN ENGINEERING INC Engineers & Scientists*Environmental*Geological*Civil*Structural*Geotechnical*Chemical/Materials Testing*Soil Borings* Surveying 1409 Evil Street, p.o. Box 9538, Madison, Wis. 83715*Tel.(808)257-4848 Wis. Toll Free No. 800-388-8005 July 20, 1984 C 11128 Mr. Donald Conley, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emery 111 W. Monroe Street Chicago, Il * Re: Floral and Wetlands Study for the Proposed Trident Marina Development Area Dear Mr. Conley: Enclosed herwith is a copy of the subject study as prepared by Warren Mueller, IEP Inc., Consulting Environmental scientists. A supplemental investigation is scheduled to e performed at the site on Tuesday, July 24. At that time, an attempt will be made to identify endangered, threatened or watched species which may not have been evident at the time of the initial survey. You are hereby invited, if you desire, to attend the site inspection. Warren Mueller and Steve Wittmann, of IEP and Warzyn, respectively, plan to meet at 10:00 a.m. at the pond location near the north end of the site, just off 122nd Street. During the course of the performance of the botanical study, observations were made of certain species of wildlife. No endangered or threatened species were noted. While these observations do not contitute a detailed study, they are repeated herein for your information. The observed species are: COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Woodchuck Marmota monax White-Tailed Deer (Tracks) Odocoileus virginianus Ring-Necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Killdeer Charadrius vociferous Red Winged Blackbird Agalaius phoeniceus Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Eastern Garter Snake thamnophis sirtalis Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus This report and similar letters are being distributed to the various govern- mental agencies involved in the project. -93- Mr. Donald Conley, Esq. Chicago, Illinois -2- July 20, 1984 C 11128 If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, WARZYN ENGINEERING INC. Robert W. Trefz, P.E. Principal RWT/dkp [dkp-197-24] Encl: Total Distribution of Various Letters and Enclosures List of Addresses cc: Mr. Jim Potter-Potter, Lawson and Pawlowsky (w/encl) Mr. Robert Smith, Esquire-Wickwire, Gavin and Gibbs, P.C. (w/encl) -94- WARZYN ENGINEERING INC C 11128 Page I of 2 LIST OF ADDRESSES Mr. Donald W. Conley, Esq. McDermott, Will and Emery III West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 Mr. Steve Eggers St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1135 USPO and CH St. Paul, MN 55101 Mr. Thomas Glatzel WOO-11 Region V United States EPA 230 S. DearboPn Street Chicago, IL 60@604 Mr. Jim Potter Potter, Lawson and Pawlowsky Architects 15 Ellis Potter Court Madison, WI 53711 Mr. Robert Smith, Esq. Wickwire, Gavin and Gibbs, P,,'C. P.O. Box 1683 Madison, W1 53701-1683 Mr. Ron Spry U.S. Fish.and Wildlife Service University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Room SE 480 Green Bay, WI 54302 Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 916 N. East Avenue P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187 Mr. Wayne Gorski WQD-11 Region V United States EPA 230 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604, Mr. Steven Ugoretz Department of Natural Resources hol S. Webster Street WARZYN adison, WI 53703 -95- C 11128 Page 2 of 2 LIST OF ADDRESSES (continued) Ms. Sharon K. Meier Department of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster Street Madison, WI 53703 Mr. Robert Roden, P.E. Department of Natural Resources 101 S. Webster Street Madison, WI 53703 Ms. Gloria McCutcheon Department of Natural Resources 2300 N. Third Street Milwaukee, WI 53212 Mr. Gregory R@ Pilarski Department of Natural Resources 2300 N. Third Street Milwaukee, WI 53212 Ms. Janet Smith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Room SE 480 Green Bay, WI 54302 Mr. George Melcher Director of Planning and Zoning Kenosha County Courthouse Kenosha, WI 53140 RWT/dkp [dkp-197-25~] WA R ZYN ENGINEERING INC -96- Pinc. I C A FLORAL AND WETLANDS STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED TRIDENT MARINA DEVELOPMENT AREA Prepared for Warzyn Engineering Company by IEP Inc. S22 W22660 Broadway Suite 3C Waukesha, WI 53186 July,1984 -97- Ic?.-C. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY 4 3.0 RESULTS 9 3.1 Plant Communities and Surface Soils 9 3.2 Wetland Values Assessment 13 3.3 Regional Wetland Evaluation 20 4.0 REFE4ENCES 21 APPENDIX A: Study Area Soil Boring Logs 22 APPENDIX Bs Wetland Inventory Summary Forms 26 APPENDIX Cs List of Plants and Habitat 54 Preferencds for Species Found in the Proposed Trident Marina Study Area. -98- MC Pon c. 1.0 INTRODUCTION IEP Inc. was contracted by Warzyn Engineering Inc. to pro- vide a botanical survey of approximately 48 acres of land proposed for development in the southeastern corner of the Town of Pleasant Prariej, Kenosha County, Wisconsin (Figure 1). The Study area is bounded by a drainage ditch and wetiand to the west, 122nd Street to the north# Sunset Drive to the east and the Wisconsin - Illinois State line to the south. The study area was once a golf course and contains numerous man-made water and sand depressions. The proposed development is immediately east of Chivaukee Prarie which is a state Scientific Preservation Area that contains pro- tected plant species (Table 1). Surface @ater run-off.from the site flows south and then southeast or east to Lake Michigan via two drainage ditches (Figure 1). Preliminary soil boring data collected during April 1984 by Warzyn Engineering Company at three locations show the soils to be mainly fine to medium sand with occa- sional horizons of fill and organic silt with traces of clay and gravel (Appendix-A). Groundwater was found be- tween 2.6 and 4.0 feet below the surface. Groundwater elevation data are preliminary and so seasonal changes and direction of flow are.presently unknown. It is assumed that the net movementtof groundwater in the study area is towards Lake Michigan. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the presence or potential for special status plant species and to determine the extent and significance of wetland areas. This data is needed as part of the environmental review process to obtain a.Federal 404 permit. _99- 4/26/84 H0200A-P Table 1 WISCONSIN ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND RARE PLANT SPECIES PRESENT IN THE CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE-CAROL BEACH STUDY AREA ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES Fimbristylis puberula -Chestnut sedge Phlox glaberrima--Smooth phlox Polygala incarnata--Pink milkwort THREATENED PLANT SPECIES Habinaria (Platanthera) leucophaea 1-- Prairie white-fringed orchid Tofieldia glutinosa--False asphodel WATCH LIST PLANT SPECIES PENDING DESIGNATION AS AN ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES Asclepias purpurascens2--Purple milkweed Gerardia skinneriana2--Pale false foxglove Cacalia tuberosa3--Prairie indian plantain Calamovilfa longifolia3--Sand reed Gerardia gattingeri3--Round-stemmed false foxglove WATCH LIST PLANT SPECIES4 Carex crawei--Sedge Carex richardsonii--Sedge Coreopsis lanceolata--Sand coreopsis Liatris spicata--Spiked blazing star Satureja akansana--Low calamint Scleria triglomerata--Tall nut-rush Scleria verticillata--Low nut-rush Solidago ohioensis--Ohio goldenrod NOTE: Two additional threatened species--Ascleplas sullivantii (Prairie milk- weed) and Cypripedium candidum (White lady's-slipper orchid)--have also been reported from the study area; but these reports are unconfirmed. 1Plant species presently under review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for listing as a Federal Threatened Species. 2Proposed for listing as a Wisconsin endangered plant species. 3Proposed for listing as a Wisconsin threatened plant species. 4Watch list plant species were identified using the DNR Technical Bulletin No. 92, "Endangered and Threatened Vascular Plants in Wisconsin," by Robert H. Read, 1976. Source: WDMR and SEWRPC 2 -100- 4 sort M., 595.5--1504 -:)z ,01 a @l in .:"A40 is ki , ,, I c LAKE so IF. MICHIGA, Ott a" set-* , 9S --)o c), 54S.S I f3- $44 Al, C, $46.0 $67.5 904.c Is 6649 N p 9114.1 Sob's boss 0. '13 660-0 v; 50 -7y I 500.9 1. TOPOOPINANIC INFUNTION SkVW 05 OBTAINn VWX MOVA COWT All'Al. PwTOSwvvlFTVIC 0010 OF SECTION 33, Tin. WSK. DAY" rvwtwm. Sm Adwav" LEG" TRIDENT MARINA $011111m #11111111011 KENOSHA WISCONSIN T A - IA- 5 14 5 a"* i'a 200' ado at a." Figure 1 WANZYN 3 C11128-2 Ic 2.0 METHODOLOGY Field surveys were conducted by IEP during June 18 20, 1984. The site was traversed in east/west transects that were about 30 feet apart to search for special status species and define the plant communities. The relative abundance of each species was rated as dominant# common, or occasional where: Dominant - abundant or highest density species Common - species with densities such that they are, generally easily found but are less than.abun- dant Occasional - species that are locally abundant and tend to have a contagious distribution or are sparce and have a low frequency of occurance Wetland boundaries were mapped on a 1:400 aereal photograph of the site using floral composition and surface soil samples to identify wetland edges. Wetlands were considered contin- guous based on a surface water connection and the contin- uity of wetland species uninterrupted by roads or natural topographic features. Twenty-six soil borings between two to three feet deep were made with a shovel. A six foot long and one-half inch diameter'metal rod was used to probe the thickness of the.brganic horizoii. A Wetland Inventory Form (Table 2) was completed for each wetland and used in conjunction with functional values models based on NR 1.95 requirements ( Normandeau and IEP 1982). According to NR 1.95 "Wetlands are these areas characterized by surface water or saturated soils at least part of the growing season such that moist soil vegetation or shallow water plants can thrive." This definition recognizes the classification of wetlands based on the affinity of plant species for moisture and includes five classes: 1) obligate wetland species which require saturated ground for at least some portion of the growing season, 2) facultative wetland species which are typically found in wetland, but occasion- ally occur in uplands, 3) facultative plant species which are found with equal frequency in both uplands and wetlands#' 4.@ facultative upland species which are most often found in uplands but occasionally are in wetlands and 5) obligate upland species or plants restricted to uplands (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1981). Areas identified as wetland within the project area are those where the plant community is composed primarily of obligate or facultative wetland species or if composed primarily of facultative species# contain hydric soils. -102- TABLE 2 IEP inc. WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER WETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT WET MEADOW SHALLOW MARSH DEEP MARSH SHRUB SWAMP WOODED SWAMP BOG OTHER TOTAL 5 -103- Metlind Uradttnt Slight O-It steep 3% SU slight 0 C Ste" 3Z qraphfc Position in Watershed Up"r Intermediate Lower Geological Elements 14 ci I "a I Till S rf, a t, a' Stratified Sand and Gravel Stratified Fine Sand slid Silt Alluvion BtdroCk orphiC Ius and Metam lediffient Absent Oros., c "a rry, bility Low Permeability ...... Mon unusual. rare, or endangered unumml, rare, or endangered Hydrological Elements vegetation unus rare and fauna' unus rare and Ndr;l ic Position .;:t,d W.tl..d water Table Wetland we ter Table/Artesian Welland Artesian Wetland 7ra"smissivity of Aawfer Low 10,000 gal/day/ft Moderate 10.000 - 40.000 gal/day/f iijah-40.000 gal/day/ft Omi 'nant ilydrologic Type Condition I Condition 2 Condition I condition 4 Condition S Social- economical Elements Condition & Size Hydroloqic Connection ogic Connection C3 Large 314.6 acres Connected to a Small Stream Inlet t Part of Riparian System C3 Medium 1.1-4.5 Connected to a River Absrnt "THP10'rt of Riparian System C-3 Small <1 acre Conneued, ts a take present. from wpt I and W.Pter Level Fluctuation SurfiCial Geologic Material HComacted to a Combination porenniol P tNi .9 he of watershed Access to Public Ephe ne rat Ver. I Pool C3 Till Ith in IW ft of Road Inlet C3 Stratified sand and gravel ss by Passable Waterway Absent Groundwater Outflow C3 Stratified fine Sand and silt :1,", 1 a t ed Prvient. frm wrtl4red Absent Surrounding Population Denilty Perennial 8 Present C3 Alluvitan ;Ispersonlacro ('320/mV) Ephmvrsl Inlet Percent Wetl&nd Bordering . - 1.9 old (430-12201411) ft @ "Sent Open Water .2 pts ( -1220/at') Ahs"t Present. from wetland C3 c33% - 0 Scarcity Present. to wetlAnd Perennial -66% 200 ft to nearest similar type Perennial Ephemeral C3 34 201 to 1000 ft to nearost similar type Ephemeral C3 67-100% C3 DNS not border pment. from welland :-IOQD ft to nearest %faller type et HAbsent to crop value CW Potential Absent Legal Access No" Present. to wetland Perennial C3 Yes supports I family for part of year Perennial Ephemeral C3 No Completely supports I family Ou@ Ephemeral lfilet Fetch Nsupports viable commercial Interefit Absent rom wetland C3 Over 2000 ft. "ant. f 3 Tg C3 Under 2000 ft. Perennial Depth of Lake HEpaimaral 0 Deep >6 ft. C3 Shallow <6 ft. 01 MC ?in c. The wetlands in the study area were classified using the Wisconsin Wetland Classification System (Wisconsin Depart- ment of Watural Resources 1982). This system is a modifi- cation of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services national classification of wetlands and deep water habitats (Cowardin et al. 1979). There are seven classes defined in the Vii-consin system: Aquatic Bed, Moss, Emergent/Wet Meadow, Scrub/Shrub, Forested, Open Water and Flat/Unvegetated Wet Soil. Aquatic Bed, Emergent/Wet Meadow, Scrub/Shrubs Forested and Open Water were found in the study area. -105- MI CC Pine. 3.9 RESULTS The results of these investigations are organized into three sectionst 1) qualitative descriptions of the plant com- munities and surface soils on the site, 2) assessment of wetland values and 3) regional context evaluation. 3.1 Plant Communities and Surface Soils A total of nine wetland communities were identified in the study area (Figure 2). These wetlands ranged in size from 0.04 to 21.70 acres and comprised a total of 23.07 acres or about 48 percent of the study area. The largest wetland syutem# designated as WI, comprises 94 percent of the total wetland drea and consists of open waterp shallow fresh marsh, shrub and wooded swamp and sedge/grass meadows associated with thedrainage system that traverses the site. This system receives surface run-off mainly from undeveloped wetlands and fields to.the north and west of the study area and drains into the present marina via two drainage ditches. The surface water has a dark brown color due to humic acids leached from the organic layers of wetlands in the watershed. MyriophXllum or water milfoil and Chara (muskgrass) are the most abundant plants visible in the open water areas of the three ponds in,wetland W1. The shallow fringes of the ponds have a sp-6cies composition similar to the shallow fresh marsh areas in the drainage ditches but the pond fringes are generally not as diverse or dense in plant species versus the drainage ditches. Carex stricta,,Sc rpus validus, species of spike rush (Eleochar s and Eattails (Typha latifolia) are among the prevalent s cies in the ditch community- Species of willow (Salix) are also common along the ditch margins and occasi6-nally-the ditch is enveloped in willow thickets consisting principally of the sandbar willow (Salix interior). These thickets represent the shrub swamp com- mp.nity areas and include red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) and the horsetail rush (Equisetum arvense) as common associates. There are two wooded swamp areas on the site where willow saplings have grownto over four inches in diameter at breast height and are classified as.trees (Figure 2). The rue anemone (Anemonella thalactroides) is a prevalent understory species. The shallow fresh marsh at the extreme southwest corner of the study area has relatively high species richness. Phragmites maximus, S. stricta, S. validus, Solidago appep Sparganium eurycarpum and Heterant limosa are among the most common species. 9 106- 4 .1 4 41P Co U. Jv r 1,44 ISO 42-a It lip U 'k S-A 'Ale #7W. IW41 161 19111 I IL, t-- - - ; ..I 1: V Awe Figure 2 Wetland Map showing numbered wetlands. All we .tland areas are mainly E2K unless otiierwise shown. -107- 01 Mc ?in c. The sedge/grass meadows comprise most of the acreage of W1 with C. stric'tal Calamagrostis canadensis and species of golde@_nro7d_( some of the dominant species. Purple mehdow rue- (Thalictrum dasycarpum) is a common species growing along the wetland edge. There are also occasional thickets of red raL;pberry (Hubus idaeus strigosus) in the wetland meadows but these thickets-ar-emost prevalent along the field edges bordering wetland areas. W2 is a small (0.142 acre) depression that appears.to have been formed as a water trap of the former golf course (Figure 2). It is a shallow fresh marsh community with C. stricta and S. validus the dominant species and E. cumpressal T. stolonifera and horsetail (K. hymale) among the common associatVs. W3 and W4 are also small and isolated wetlands in depressions that may have formerly been created as golf,course hazards (Figure 2). Wetland W4 is a meadow community that is 0.171 acres in size. Silverweed (Potentilla anserina), species of goldenrod and blue joint grass are characteristic of this wetland. Wetland W3 is 0.143 acres and has a mixture of shrub swamp and meadow areas. The large pussy willow (a, discolor), sensitive fern (Onoclea 'sensibilis), sedges, horsetail rushes andblue joint grass are the most abundant associates. W5 is a sedge meadow that is about 0.72 acres in size with species of Carex, silverweed and goldenrod the most abundant plants. W6 is a 0.084 acre willow shrub swamp wetiand west of the marina (Figure 2). Recent grading and filling of the area to 'the east of this site has resulted in some visible disturbance to this wetland. Sandbar and the large pussy willow, silverweed, horestail rushes and canary grass are prevalent species. Wetlands W7 through W9 are all less then 0.05 acres in size. W7 is a narrow and isolated gully that is character- ized by C. stricta, meadow rue, sandbar willow and blue joint grass. W8 consists of shallow fresh marsh and meadow communities in a depression and swale. Cattailsp horestail rushes, goldenrod and blue joint grass are the common plants found, -W9 is a'small grass meadow consisting primarily of blue joint grass and goldenrod (Figure 2). A more de- tailed summary of the species composition and relative abundance of the wetland communities is presented in Appendix B. 408- Pinc. I C The upland areas of the site consist of open fields inter- spersed with willow/raspberry thickets and scattered/clustered blacX oak (Quercus velutina) and cottonwood (Populus deltoides) trees. Grasses and forbes dominant in the open field areas @nclude: Bluegrass (Poa compressa), meadow fescue (Festuca elatior), goldenrod, common milkweed (Asclopias syriaca), (Rumex acetoselia) sheep sorrel - , brpme grass, showy tick trefoil (Desmodium canadenst) and probably little blue stem (AndroRogon SC015-a-rius). A list of the plant species iden- tified in the study along with their habitat preferences based on field observations and the literature is presented in Appendix C. No endangered, threatened or watch status plant species were observed in the study area during this floral survey. A total of seven rare and endangered species and thirteen watch status species have been reported from the Chiwaukee Praire and Carol Beach Areas (Table 1). Additional plant surveys have been recommended for special status species since many of them are inconspicuous until they flower (Thomas Glatzel and Steve Aggers personal communication). The flowering or expected period when the endangered and threatened species may be observed is listed below: Segcies 2ptimum Observation FimbristXlis puberula July - October 2 Phlox Qlaberrima May - June PolYgala incarnata 2 June - November Plantanthera leucophaea July - August 3 Tofieldia Slutinosa July. Asclepias sullivantii 2 June July 2 Cypripedium. candidum May July References: 1 = Brynildson (1982); 2 = Peterson & I-IcKenny (1968)1 3 Gleson & Cronquist (1963). 12 _109- 1 CM Pinc. Rare and threatened fauna have also been reported from the ChS.waukee Praire Area and would require field surveys to determine their actual or probable occurrance. Smooth phlox (Phlox glaberrima) was found growing in a field about one- half mile north of the study area. It probably does not occur on the study site since this field survey was con- ducted during its flowering period. The remaining endangered and threatened species have habitat preferences that way allow them to be present in the study area and future field checks should be made for their occurrance. The largest known population of the white fringed orchid (P. leucopliaca) near Lake Michigan occurs in the Chiwaukee Praire Area (Merlin bowles personal conanunication). Twenty-six soil auger holes and peat probes were made in the study area to assist in defining wetland boundaries (Figure 3). In general, wetland surface soils had one to six feet of black, sapric peat over fine sand which oc-. casionally had rust brown mattling and a sandy-clay under- lying layer in some southern portions of the site. Upland. sites had zero to one foot of black sapric peat intermixed with fine sand over fine light brown sand (Table 2). 3.2 Wetland,Values:Assessment IEP evaluated ten functions of wetlands mentioned in UR 1.95 (Table 3). The significance of each wetland function was determined using models developed by IEP and Normandeau (1982). A wetland function was considered significant if it had model values that approached or exceeded the model means. Thus, these models evaluate each function and des- cribe the results in terms of above or below average value. Those wetlands with below average value are considered to .be less important versus above average functional wetlands. There is presently no generally accepted method for eval- uating peotected wetland functions. Previous qualitative an.,semi-quantitative models have been developed by Adamus and.iStockwell (1902), Golet.(1979), Pcppert and Sigleo (1979) and others. The WUNR (1983) is currently developing a cont- puterized-modeling system to evaluate protected wetland functions. The modeling system developed by lEp is based on previous models, published literature and professional experience. 110- 441 .04 WWI AL.4. .15 41 t7_ q4eql 71- :7. V. vq lot It 'IV IrpV CIO Op dr 4. Figure Surface Sail Test Hole Locations. 14 ICPinC. Table 2 Summary of surface soil profile data collected ,in the study area. Station Depth (ft.) D6scription Habitat 1, 6.01 Black, sapric peat W1 2 3.0 Black, sapric 'peat W1 GW lateral seepage at 2 ft. 3 0.5 Black, sapric peat Field 2.0 Fine brown sand A 1.0 Black, sapric peat we Field. fine sand intermixed 2.0 Fine lt. brown sand 5 0.5 Black, sapric peat w. Field fine sand intermixed 2.0 Fine lt.,brown sand 6 2.0 Brown, fine sand mixed Field w. black, sapric peat 0.5 Black, sandy topsoil Field over fine, black sand a 1.0 Black, sapric peat w. W1 fine sand intermixed 2.0 Fine gray sand. GW Seepage at 2 ft. depth 9 6.0 Black, sapric peat W1 10 0.8 Black, sapric peat w. W1 fine sand intermixed 1.2 Lt. brown, fine sand 11 0.8 Black, sapric peat w. W4 fine sand intermixed 1.2 Lt. brown, fine sand 12 0.8 Black, sapric peat w... W3 fine sand intermixed 1.2 Lt. brown, fine sand- 15 -112- El MC Pinc. Station Depth (ft.) Description Habitat 13 0.8 Black, sapric peat W. Field fine shnd intermixed 1.2 Lt. brown, fine sand 14 0.8 Black, sapric peat W5 0.2 Gray sandy clay w. rust brown mottles 1.0 Gray sandy clay % 15 0.7 Black, sapric peat Field 1.3- Lt. brown, fine sand 16 1.5 Black, sapric peat 145 1.0 Fine, gray sand w. rust brown mottles GW seepage at 2.5 ft. 17 0.7 Black, sapric sandy Field peat 1.3 Lt. brown, fine sand .-18 0.8 Black, sapric sandy Wl peat 1.2 Lt. brown fine sand w. rust brown mottles 19 1.0 Black, sapric & sandy W1 peat 1.0 Lt. brown, fine sand w. rust mottles 20 1.5 Black, sapric peat W1 1.0 Fine gray sand w. rust mottles 21 1.0 Black, sapric & sandy W1 peat 1.0. Fine brown/gray sand 22 1.0 Black, sapric peat, W1 Lt. brown sand w. slight rust brown mottles 23 1.5 Black, sapric peat WI 0.5 Fine gray sand w. mottles 16 -113- ic?inc. Station Depth (ft.) Description Habitat 24 1.0 Black, sapric & sandy W1 peat 0.2 Gray sandy clay 0.8 Lt. brown fine sand w. rust mottles 25 1.0 Black, sapric peat W1 0.5 Gray sandy clay 0.5 Lt. brown, fine sand w. rust mottles 26 0.5 Black, sapric peat Field 1.5 Lt. brown fine sand 1 Notes Depth bf peat.using probe greater'than six feet. 17 14 IC Inc. The features of'wetlands that largely determine,their bio- logical value include dominant wetland'class,, the number of different classes and their interspersione wetland size And juxtaposition with respect to 6ther wetland or aquatic systems, and the nature of the surrounding habitat. The combined influence of.these factors indicate that Wetland 1 is the only system that has above average biological value (Table 3). This wetland contains ponds, shallow fresh marsh, shrub and wooded swamp as well as wet meadow that have rela- tively high vegetative density and structural diversity. The population density and diversity of wildlife have been demonstrated to be related to the length and different kinds of edge (i. e. the number of plant communities andtheir interspersion; Weller and Spatcher 1965). Weltand 1 has good stractural diversity and its juxtaposition with re- spect to the Chiwaukee Praire enhances its biological value. The remaining wetlands have size limitations (Wetland 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8) or have low interspersion and structural diversity (Wetiand 6) that limit their biological value. The biological value of these wetlands is largely related to'their contribution to the diversity and edge of the sur- rounding field habitat. The water resource values specified in NR 1.95 include hy- drologic support, groundwater, storm and flood control and water quality. Wet.Xand 1 was the only wetland that had above average value'for all of these functions (Table 3). The remaining wetlands had above average values for ground- water# storm/flood and water quality. The above average values for these wetlands were related to their assumed proximity to groundwater, good vegitative density, low per- meability organic soils and closed basins. All the wetlands. except WI did not have riparian connections which resulted in their low hydrologic support value. Hydrologic support value is related to the ability of a wetland to discharge surface water to downstream surface waterbodies, streams, lakes and other vegetated wetland, while maintaining the chemical and physical intergrity of downstream aquatic eco- systems. Location, size, extent of surface water connec- tions , water chemistry, velocity, water depth and fluc-, tPation patterns are some of,the important-functional ele- mehts. W.1 had average shoreline erosion protection value due to the generally high density of plants in the drainage chan- nels which reduce water flow rates and erosive energy,. 18 115- 01 @c ipinc. Table 3 Summary of wetland functional values for the nine wetlands identified in thL- study area. Wetland Fw:,nction Wetland Model 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14ean/Range Biological 101 77 66 55 58 65 71 56 58 93 29-158 Hydrological 62 8 8 8 8 8 0 8 36 6- 76 Groundwater 54 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 44 20- 76 Storm/Fl'ood 97 91 91 89 89 93 91 89 89 76 29-127 Water Quality 90 71 69 67 67 71 69 67 67 58 18-101 Shoreline Pioteqtion 13. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 3- 32 Cultural & Economic 41 33 27 19 25 29 27 25 19 36 11- 61 Recreation 38 33 19 14 18 26 23 20 14 40 10-.71 Aesthetic 35 38 22 13 22 30 26 22 16 37 9- 66 Educational 39 25 .23 14 25 28 28 28 19 24 7- 42 NA Not applicable! wetland does not border a lake or stream -116- IC OMPinc. W1 was the only wetland that had above.average cultural/ economic, recreation, aesthetic and educational values. Other wetlands had above average aesthetic (W2) or educa- tional (W2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8) valUes. Their functional values area largely related to wetland size*and the pro- vision of significant continguous wetland space with high plant density and structrual diversity. Aesthetic value .is related to the presence of broad vistas and visual re- lief which are generally increased by the interspersion of open water, marsh, shrub and wooded swamp with wet mea- dows. Above average educational value for many of the wetlands was due to their potential accessibility via ex- isting roads and the diversity of plant comminities in the area. 3.3 Regional Wetland Evaluation None of the wetlands in the study area comprised more than three percent of the total similar wetlands'in the region. The total area of similar (i. e. E2K) wetlands classified by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wetlands inventory of Pleasant Prairie Township was used to define the study region and compare regional scarcity. The total Project area wetland acreage was 23.07 versus 714.63 acres of E2K wetlands in the township region. 2U -117- lc?inc. 4.0 REFERENCES Adamus, P. R. and L. T. Stockwell. 1982. A method for wetland functional asses-sment. Prepared for the U. S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F' C. Golet and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands 'and deepwater habitats of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Services Washingtone D. C. Glatzel, Thomas and Steve Eggers. Personal communica- tion via telephone conversations on June 12, 1964. Golet, F. C., 1979. In: Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding. Greeson, P..'E., J. R. Clark and J. E. Clark (ads.). American Water Resource Assoc., Minneapolis. Normandeau and IEP. 1982. Wetlands Assessment Report. Report prepared for Ebrxon Minerals Company, Crandon Project by Normandeau Assoc., Ind., Bedford, New Hampshire and IEP Inc., Northborough, Massachusetts. Reppert, R., and W. R. Sigleo. 1979. Int Wetland functions and values: the state of our under- standing.' P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark (eds.). American I-later Resources Assoc., Minneapolis, pp. 558-563. U. S. Fish and.Wildlife,Service. 1981. National Wetland Inventory Wetland plant list of the north- east. NWI Central Control Group.'@ St. Petersburg# Florida. Weller, M. W., and C. S. Spatcher. 1965. Role of habitat in the distribution and abundance of marsh birds. Special report No. 43. Iowa Agric. and Home Econ. Exp. Sta., Iowa State Univ. of Science and Tech., Ames, Iowa. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1982. User's @ureau guide to the Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory. L of Planning, Madison, Wisconsin. 1983. Wetland Evaluation Methodology. Prepared by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District in cooperation with Wisconsin D14R, September 1983. 63 pp. 21 -118- IEP inc. APPENDIX A Study Area Soil Boring Logs' 22 -119- W, RZYN LOG OF TEST BORING A Trident Marina* Boring No . ........................... ProJect ............................................................... Surface Elevation ............... Job .......................................................................... No. ............... Location ............. K@qq@@h@.,...Wj.s.qonsj.n ............. Sheet ...... ....... of .......1 ...... $400 EMIL STREET - P.O. BOX 0030. MADISON. WOO. 53718 e TEL. (4081 287-4840 @SAMPLE VISUAL CLASSIFICATION SOIL PROPERTIES Recovery Moisture and Remarks .40 W LL FL 0 No. Type r _N -Depth DarK Brown Silty Sand I SS x M 6 FILL (ML) Black Loose to Very Loose, 2 Ss x W 2 Fine Silty SAND, Trace Clay (SM) 3 SS X W 18 Light Brown to Gray Medium Dense to Dense, Fine SAND, S S X W 22 Trace Silt (SP) 4 48- Light Brown Very Dense.SILT, Little Clay, Trace Fine 5 SS x _j4 @1_ I Sand (ML) End Boring at 151 20- 25- 30- 35- 401 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS GENERAL NOTES While Orilling StaW?@Y" Comoletel/ 11/.84 Upon Completion of Drilling Crew Chie1R1.0 Rig.. Time After Drilling 1/4 hour Drilling Method Depth to Water 4.00 ............................... ............. epth to Cave In ...... .....................................j WARZYN LOG OF TEST BORING Boring No . ............2.............. Project ............ ini.d.e.nt.Nrio.4 ......................... Surface Elevation ............... C 11128 Job No . ............................... ....................... Ki@lYilfi@',-V i's"66"n"s"i'l ................ I" IENGINEBRINO INC Location ............................................................ Sheet-A ....... of .......1....... -*409 SMIL STREST - P.O. SOX 9530, M^01SON. WIS. 53715 - TIEL. tSO01 2137-404 r@SAMPLE VISUAL CLASSIFICATION SOIL PROPERTIES Recovery Moisture and Remarks qv W LL PL a No. Typel NTOopthl Dark grown Silty Sand FILL (ML) M -3 Light Brown to Gray Medium 2 SS x W 8 5- Dense to Dense Fine SAND, Trace Silt (SP) 3, SS X W 21, 4 SS x 1W 12 Light Brown to Gray Loose to Very Dense Fine to Coarse SAND,, Trace Fine Gravel , Trace 5 SS X W 45 Silt (SP) End Boring at 15' 20- *Black Loose Or anic Fine ML Silty SAND 25- 30- 35- 40 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS GENERAL NOTES 3/ 8/84 3/28/ 84 Whoe Drilling Start .......... Complete ......... Upon Compi oetion of Drilling Crew Chid@MRig [email protected]... Time After Drilling 1/4 hour Drilling MethodfA..Q-.J 5 ...... Dopth to Water 24 .............................. ............. Depth to Cave In ..................... . ........ 21- WARZYN LOG OF TEST BORING Boring No . ....... ***3 Project .............. T.r.i d e n t..Ma.r.i n a ....................... Surface Elevation ............... ..... job No. S.MRa ............... "'Vir ...........I.............. Sheet .......I...... of ..... ........ ENGINEERING INC Location ............................................... po. elaX 9630, 64ADI&O". Wl%. %3710 - IraL.. 4600) 257-.846 SOIL PROPERTIES SAMPLE VISUAL CLASSIFICATION Recovery Moisture and Remarks qu W LL PL 0 7YYpe N Depth. 1 SS X M 7 2 SS X W 14' 5- Light Brown to Gray, Loose I to Medium Dense Fine SAND, 3 SSI x W 18 Trace Silt (SP) 4 SS X W 37 5 SS X i.4 41 trid Boring at 12.51 Wel I installed at a depth of 20- 9,00 *Dark Brown Silty Sand a FFILL (ML) 30- 35- 40 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS GENERAL NOTES ......... ....... While Drilling Star@128/84comple @J23/84 Upon Completion of Drilling CreWLChiedR/.CJ3Ria ... Time After Drilling 1/4 hour Drilling Method FA.0712,5' Depth to Water 2.11 Viet ............................................ 25 epth to Cave In ........................................... IEP inc. APPENDIX B Wetland Inventory Summary Forms 26 -123- ic WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER' VETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(s) MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT r E_ I WET MEADOW 10, 3 3 SHALLOW MARSH --DEEP MARSH 4.3S F ISHRUB SWAMP I F !WOODED SWAMP ISOG F -1 OTHER TOTA I ao L 2_7 124- numb x or W I t n Br @,Ck;ldl! Wetland n, li-@b iet I and + 0:1e@ Flesh whter . . WA ! - date VenetAtel SuhClA%% r-n r,.Sh 0.,rt, e. E tjnn Veqptat-d SubC18%% @hw I i r@ F ^ s P, h Open Fresov Marsh Flqndod Flnnd Plain f iold Invest D-ad Woody i@ort 0-alow lgator(s) Shr,.Ib Shrub S-amn Sub-Shrub SwAmo Robust M, IL Broad-Leaved m. t 14rA Cre-s -STI-C 91-1es -$ a %allow Fresh Marsh Robust 4 grn:d-Le v d ? j Narrnw-Leaved Water quality r10 tinq8-L:avPd .2 Fiooid Plain/Flats S-ilorlass Richness (Lateral Diver%it, Ep*rqertt ID Shrubs and Trees @-9 Wet Meadow 4-S Un r:z I n ed Graz d Shrub Swamp V,-t4tivP Intersr-rsinn Saplinq Hinh Bushy Mmelpr4to CORO ct Lnw, Aqualtic Surrmintlinq HAbi tit Wooded Swamp On! of 2 or -,10 of Listed Tyc- @;.A. cl@ Deciduous 50-9()7 of I or Pvvro. ql' of I I Evergreen W Of I Or -Ile MF Listed Ty,.@ anq r,vp @ r T,- Shrub 26-75t ScAtt---i Wooded 26-7@' Periph-0 7-' 75' ir 25 SCAOtProd LJ lnn'@ Cover. 75' r -,S' Perip@-, P--nt Open Water t1j A r e -IX7 Ln 34-467@' jy= "- I nn't Veo-tAtive Species Richness j Jt-)A it j Low M.1 i ton ntinn of Wildlife Food Plants Prop I OW T 1i w 14% A 0 1.e 0." 4@rfitf ltiqh 0. lf-,@t.t,ve Density a. 414h n, A ' n A.1411. Knrlerate C: Low Watland Juxtapnsitiin ot I,& @LJ-IL 6.1le" - A 4irlhly Favnrabla Kri4prAtibly r4vnrahlo Ip )re, Un(Avnrable eciall Elements rark U. lre3 Aquatic Study Area Sanctuary or Ref ge 0 jpp-- Wildlife PAnagement Area sheries fUnagement Area it A r -cation. I Stuoy Area E* Oistorical Area Other_ F A7 S@ Topographical Elements Tinrapttic Configuration Cl"ed essin r"- I Se.i.closed Basin Valley Rea Vill bet 14fQ bradient Slight 0-3% L---j Steep 31 lorrourlIft, Slopes Slight O-r. Steep 3% V U s0i J!t P aphic Position in Mattrshed q; .0 u per FED eae-Indt. 14:-'AjW"j\ '2'0 Intermediate Jr- 9 Lower E2:1 4f kr-'-C@ X-P -ag 1J-L4L1Uii'-= Geological Elements S4 a P erw Surf'" I 'it -Z AA Till Stratified Sand and Gravel Stratified Fine Sand find $I It At I uv i Lin Bedrock la"eous, and Pletamorphii: Sediment0 4 4 ;j fil- I D'aanic Haterriby, Kpir; 17A"- Absent ;/' e i Pich Per-wability Z-y -C Lch. Permeability unusual, rare, or endangered unusual. rare. or endangered Hydrological Elements vegetation unus rare end fauna unus rare end 11@rolocic Position Perched Wetla"d water Table wetland water lable/Artesian Wetland Artesian Wetland I'a"srtss-vity of Aauifer Lo- -10.000 Cslld&Ylft Maderate IO.bOO - 40,000 Cal/day/ft Hiah- 40.000 galidaylft Droinant Hydrologic Type Cond tionI C00011ti On2 Concition3 Conat tion4 Condition5 Size Social-econorriical Elements Condition6 0 Large 1-4.6 acres mvdroloqic Connection Hydrologic Connection [3 Medium 1.1-4.5 Connected to a Small Stream Inlet Not Part of Riparian System C) Small 41 acre Connected to a River Absent W Part of Ripar, an System Surficial. Geologic Material Connected to a Lake Present. f rtat wet l4n'! Woter Level Fluctuation I Connected to a Combination PerenniAl High of watershed Access to Public Ephemeral Loa C3 Till N Within 100 ft of Road Inlet #Vernal Pool C3 Stratified sand and oravel Access by Passable Waterway AhSent Groundwater Outflow = Stratified fine sand and Silt Isolated Present. frmn.wotIjimn Abstrt C3 Alluvium Swrrounjinq Population Ornsity Peren"iAl 6 Present Percent 'lletland Bordering I rversntl/acre NErhem"ral Inlet Open Water 0.6 - 1.9 P/* (430-1220/mil) Outlet Absent 1'-2 to/a ( 12201mi-) h%rmt rvi;A. Pre @' it , from wetland 0 <33% Local Scarcity :rpsent. to iw-p4"mj Perennial E3 34-6V. 200 ft to nearest similar typo Perennial Ephe,-Oral C3 67-100' . 201 to 1000 ft to nearest similar type Ephemeral ln@et C3 Does not border, 1 .)000 ft to nearest similar type Dittlet @ Absent Legal Access %mown Crop Value or Potential Abse"t Present. from wetland W C3 Yes "One Present tn Perennial supports I family for part of year Ppremi;) Ephemeral a No Emplettly supports I family In et Fetch TuppartS viable cl -rcial Interest Absent C3 Over 2000 ft. Present. from wetland C3 Under 2000 ft. Perennial Depth of Lake Ephemeral C3 Deep >6 ft. Q Shallow @c6 ft. ol Mc ?in c. WETLAND INVENTORY REPO T PROJECT NUMBER WETLAND NUMBER w Z- FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT I E: IWET MEADOW E I SHALLOW MARSH -J DEEP MARSH ---I SHRUB SWAMP ----I WOODED SWAMP I BOG 10THER too )TOTAL 30 -127- %!1-41 -1, el"It"n. wetlana :Tr,,- - [email protected]@ -t- ; number Onen Fresh kWel L___j L_Ix_@ Vejet4ted Subtl is S, @h4l @.'Fr sh MArqh date lanm vpeiptatel S,4,bclass op.?p r,p-,h Plarsh iy.arly Flnodf-d.Flnnd Plain O-ad WDody @Irt Mew. Shr b Shrub Swaffin !E 1, Jr.. - field InmUgator(s) S.buShrL�b AW.4-d Swamp -Qnh st on" IL Na=-Leaved Otkpr Broad-Leaved Wrtlaind Era-si"TI-chness Snallow Fresh Marsh Robust 4 ow-Leaved 3 Srn:d-Leaved 7 L Jo tin Leaved I water qual ity Fiond Plain/Flets S-iticlaSs Richness (Lateral Divers!- 10 Emergent Shrubs and Trees T), r Wet Meadow Unqrazed 2-3 Grazed @ I* S11rub Swamo V,notativP Intj6rsp.rSin" Saplinq Hi ah Bushy W 4,iffor4ts! Compact L-1 L"W Aquatic Soirroundinq HAbitit IP6 Swa" qnI of 2 or mnri? crf Listed Tyc-, Deciduous Sn-911, of I nr mnrp; V'! Of I r Evergreen j(J" of I or @nrp of List-d Ty-- rnV,,r Ty-w Shrub r- 26' 75* Sc4-t.rln Wooded 26-7S:Perioho!r4l 751. or 25 ScAttreod inn'! Cover; 75' mr 251 Peritlhe- F, P nt Opon W4te, I - 3r, 67-95't Se JA C. voapwi" Specie% Ric'mess Low Minh propnrtinn of WiidlifP Food PI "ts L"Vej see 11ozzate Ifig Vfjptati" Density Minh Low ",A rate W.LIA"tj Juxtaposition Hiqhly Faviirtbla pMp,4tpjy Urifavor4ble lai Elements Aquatic Study Area Sanctuary or Refuge Wildlife ranagement Area Fisheries Planagement Area Educational Study Area Historical Area Other Topograoical Elements Tiinrap"Ic Configuration Closed Basin Semi-LIGI,ed Basin valley Snee Hillside mm Wetl4nd uriaient Slight O-r. Steep 3t Surrounding Slope& I slig"t C-11% Steep 3% T tiraPhic Position in Watershed upper Lower Geological. Elements Surficia, "oteial Till Stra%if)ee Sara one G,avel S%ratifird fine Same one Silt A' I uvitr. loneous and KetamorphiC Spdirwnta-y Orcanic Material Absent Mich Pe"Wability Lo- Permeability unusual, rare, or endangered unus rare end unusual, rare. or endangered Hydrological Elements vegetation fauna unus rare end POS ii;n t I and L_j e bi t1and Xte sxat Wetland Perch' T;I a A@tlll. :t and 7-0-s-isvVity of AQuifer Lo. -10'OCC: ael/dayift mooe,ate 10,000 - 40.000 gal/day/ft Lj Mich 4_0DO 9&1/day/ft Orwinint Hydrologic Type [DA4100n I Comilition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Social- economical Elements Condition 5 S1 ze Conoltion 6 Large @4.6 acres OydroiDoic Connection ii ologic Connection Median 1.1-4.5 Connected to a Small Stream lnls@t hot Part of Riparian System Connected to a River Abspnt 4part of Riparian Systeff. n Small <1 acre Connected to a Like P el Fluctuation Surficial Geologic Material resent, f rom wpt I and Woter Lev N Connected to a Combination Perennial h of watershed Access to Public L C) Till Within 100 ft of Road I n If-t Verna oo M Stratified sand and oravel Access by Passable Waterway Ahsent Grouni.ater Outflow = Stratified fine sand and Silt Isolated Pre snt. fr@ wotlamd Aosept C3 Al luvi an SurrounainQ Population Density Perennial I Present Percent Wetland Bordering I Pe,'S,)r/*Cre (,320/mi-) Ephemeral Inlet 0.5 - 1.9 P/a (430-12201m!') Outlet Absent 0:)en Water '-2 pla ( 12201mi:) Ahs"mt Present, from wetland C3 -33% Local Scarcity prosent. to wrtl4md Pererinwil C3 34-66. 200 ft to nearest similar type pe e ial I Epheine ra I 201 to ION ft to nearest similar type ham. Inlet = 67-100. 1 Eor I 0 Does not border .1000 ft to nearest similar type 01ttlet Absent Legal Access i(nown Crop Value or Potential Absent Present. from tottlind E:3 Yes kofit Present, to wetlAnd perennial Supports I family for part of year Perennial Ephemeral No Completely supporu I family Inlet Fetch Isupports viable commerctal Interest- 4bs nt C3 Over 2000 ft. Present, from Weiland perennial C3 Under 2000 ft.- Depth of Lake Ephemeral C3 Deep >6 ft. C3 Shallow <6 ft. ol Mc Pinc. WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER WETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUMBER(S) ACR@AGE ACREAGE PERCENT W EADOW ET M I SHALLOW MARSH DEEP MARSH I ISHRUB SWAMP -71 1 1 WOODED SWAMP -I I BO%x I OTHER r- po ITOTAL 33 MM M MM Er M M M M M M M M m , M M M occ co 0M ',.,0CjA%% PS nr B"Icksti. Wetland 6. R-f,@, sl@. wetla-d number 07- Fresh WAter WAT., date ZZ fann Vro-tatal SklbclAS. r-sh Mlr,@h DAqn Fresh ma,sh V- .4 -lv F1'*nd-"Flonn Plain Daid W30dy wet M-ale@ L___j field inmtigator(s Shrub Shrub Sub-Shrub Jnrl-A SwAna Prib st On n C r Marrow-Leaved aroad-Leaved W-11,mcl class Ich-ess Shallow Fresh Karsh P Robust 4 harrnw-Leaved Brnad-Leaved water quality LJ FlqiitinQ-LP4ve4 FiCnd Plain/Flats S -ibf: I i S I R I C hme S S L 3 tra 1 0 1 v e rs i E@erqent 10 hrubs and Trees A-9 wet "eadow 4.S -inrazed Grazed T.- Shrub Swamp vf-nmvive lAte,sr-sinn Saplinq pirh Bushy Co"act Aquatic S.1'roundinq Habitit Qn' f 1 or -0 Of Listel Tyvp@ Wooded Swam Deciduous o; I or, -P,.; 911 of I reen pf I rr -Ire -if Listed Ty@- Everg k-. sno 1,vri, Typft Shrub 7ws.- SCA!,:r-l Wooded 'L-75' Pe,,D --4' 7i- or .25 ScA@-Pd Irr' Cover.. 75" ,r ZS' PprlDh- Pjj@lt Open WAtel 34 - 0;A . 695r",@ LJ % I r, VP.QPA;ivc- Species D-ness L� Pripmrtinn rif Wildl,"- Fool PlAnts, .4 Niqh wo"Ptativ. Density Hinh mndrrate Low W.tland ravo,Abl. r4v'113@0- unfavnirable eCial ElementS AQuatic Study Area Sanctuary or Refuge Wildlife Managenient Area Fisheries Management Area Educational Study Area Nistorical Area Other Y , S@ t TopOgraphical ElementS Tsponrdlihic Conflgu@&EIOII Closeo Basin valley Se 1-closed BasIn Upti4nd tiredle"t A. A V,- A- slight O-r- N St"q 7A )j X Sarrounding Slopes Slight 0-r. steep 31 frophic Position in watershed Lipper PA Intermediate ----------- ilogical Elements Surficial Paterial J. 'L F-1 4L Till Stratified Sand and Gravel J'-;'A" PS,ralified Fine Send end Silt Alluvidt Redrock EI&J,j oneous and "etamarphic is d' Rent ry Je V -q Croanlic Matellial Absent 141 oh PerpResbility La. Permeability unulual, rarO, Or endangered un-m L rare, or endangered Hydrological Elemenis vegetation unus rare end fauna untis rare end 14 drolooic Positi6n L--j Perched Wetland water Table Wetland water lable/Artesian Wetland Arte%lst Wetland lriins@issivity of Aouifer I Lo- -10.DDC Pal/day/ft mmderate 10.DOO - 40.000 041/day/ft t4%ah- 4:.000 gal/day/ft Orowinant Hydrologic Type ConditionI Cordition Condition Condi ti on4 Si ze Social- economical ElementSr Condition S Condition6 C3 Large >4.6 acres Hvdr0l041C Conr*ction ogic Connection C3 Me t Part of Riparian System $call <1 acre Connected to a liver Absent HFPft-'rt of Riparian System djLp 1.1-4.5 Connected to a Small Stream I n O.-t Surficial Geologic Material Connected to a Lake PrVSentq from WMIAM' Wever Level Fluctuation of watershed 0 Connected to a Combination Porennial Q, Mi gh C) Till Access to public N EpheworAl 0 Within IDO ft of Road Inlet - 11XI-nal Pool Access by Passable Waterway Ahsent 0 Stratified Sand and oravel Groun"ater Outflow = Stratified fine sand and silt Isolated iii-psont. frVV" Wftt)And Absent C:3 Al luvi um Surroundinq Population Density ppremmial M Pres ant Percent Wetland Bordering 1 "t'sr,"141cre (-3201mi-) Epho-eral Inlet 0:)en Water 0.5 - 1.9 p/a (430-1220/mi) O@et Absent C3 <33% *2 P/A I 1220IM11 Ah%pnt Present, from wetland Local Scarcity ProSent. to wrtlAlld Perennial 0 34-66w. 2DO ft to nearest similar type ps-re"nial Epheaw ra I C3 67-100'- 201 to 1000 ft to nearest similar type Eoh-ral Inlet DoP.S not border '1000 ft to nearest similar type Absent Known Crop value or potential Outlet Present. from wetland Legal Access None Absent Yes Supports I f4mily for part of year Present. to wnland Perennial fto Pere"nial @Ephemersl Fe tch Completely Supports I family Eoftemoral Inlet ISupports viable crcfal $ntemst Absent C3 over 2000 ft. Present. from wetlend C Under 2000 ft. Perennial Depth of Lake NEpiseweral C3 Deep >6 ft. C) Shallow <6 ft. al Mc Penic. WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER WETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBERM MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT l J WET op MEADOW SHALLOW MARSH ]DEEP MARSH ]SHRUB SWAMP IF ]WOODED SWAMP IBOG JOTHER -1 TOTAL 30 -133- S:-4n or Brncksid- WPI;and mr Wetla-d fluffibOr Onen Fresh tlater nr%.A r-h Watpr n,.p r-sh mir,.h VenetAted SubclAss @Lzd 14 Unn ve(setatpd Subclass F-sh Mir%h Den rrpih Parsh V.4rly Flooded Flond Plain t mpajnw 3Pad Woody Shrub Shrub Si-affin fisid IfMgt 19OWN Wnnnad S.ARV Sub-Shrub [Inn Robust marrow. Leaved Other Richness L Broad-Leaved WP lArA C hallow Fresh Parsh Robust 4 @7 -4 Narrow-Leaved 3 8 Frn:d -Leaved water quality @ 10 ti,q-Lp4vpd I Flood Plai n/Fla ts Subclass Richness (Lateral Diversi*t Emergent 10 Shrub% and Tree% 6.9 W,@ t Meadow Unnrazed 2-3 Grazed I' - Shrub Swami) V.n.tativi- Interso-rsinn Saplinq Mich Bustly "n-irr4to, Compact L eva Aquatic S,Irrnun4inq KAbitqt Wooded Swamo 9.11t of 2 or more of Listed Tyr- -3, ont-p- Deciduous in-gn'r of I . 901 of I green Sr of I or -nre of Listed Tyz-t Ever C@Vrr TYPP Shrub 76-7St Scattar-I A 4.".. Woomed ?6-75* Pertab;Ial 7s, or -25 Sc tter-d Inm Cover; 75' or -25'@ Pori0- pj,71@nt open WAter n- 2n' Sopries Richness ve Low 4h e- e Pron4itinn of Wildlife Fnod PlamtS ow, Lj 11"I tit qh Vonotativo Density /FVrA4t MCA_ Mich 4nd te Lowrra 11 'A Wotl*na Justemsition Mjqhly Favorlibi -a R&io Isrry) "njp,4tpjy ravnplahlo # ., @ Unfavorable JJIA Ill'top - ecial Elements .Of Aqu,tvic Study Area )1&-- r Sanctuary or Refuge 4.49 Wildlife Management Area, Fisheries Kafta9ellldnt Area f'r, 6- r Z C., V ;_r@ &A So- EducatiOrAl Study Area J mi,toric.1 Are$ Other TopographiCal Elements SI T@nrai:lhlc Configuration 1 6 L. N 4L We, j CjosLd fidSin StIol.closed $&sin valley Mi liside be% 14114 uraciera Slight 0-31. $'irroknaing slopet Steep It Slight 0-3Z steep 11 7 araphic Position In Watershed uPptr Intermediate Ewer Geological Elements ; Stratified land and Gravel Stratified fine Sand and Silt Alluvium eous and Ketamorphic diment4ry Oroanic Material Abs nt Hioeh Permeability Low Permeability unusual, rare, or endangered un-m 1, rare, or endarvered Hydrological Elements vegetation unus rare mid fauna unus rare end olooic PositGn Perche Wetland water Table Wetland water 7able/A,tesiar, Wetland H@Artesiai, Wetland 1ra",,,,,,v11y of Aquifer I Lo- 10,000 galtday/ft Moderate 10.000 - 40,000 aal/day/ft LJI miah. -0.600 gal/day/ft Dm6nant Hydrologic Type Condition I Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Si ze -economical EWnwnts Condition b Social Condition 5 0 Laroe ),4.6 acres Hydrol*41c Cariftction Hydrologic Connection 0 Median 1.1-4.5 Connected to a Small Stream Inlet mot Part of Riparian System a small <1 acre COr.Wted to & River Absent Part of Riparian System Surficial Geologic Material Connected to a Like Pre Serit. from WPIlAnd Noter Level Fluctuation of watershed N Connected to a Combination Porennial High C3 Till Access to Public N Eiihemer a I low ithin IDO ft of Road Inlet vernal Pool r_3 Stratified sand and cravel Access by Passible Waterway Ahsent Groundater outflow M Stratified fi Isolated PrPsont, frnm wptl4nd ne Sand and silt ADse"t C3 Alluvium Surroundinq Population Density Perennial Present Percent Wetland Bordering 1, per'son/dcrv (,3201mi ') N E Phevera I Inlet 0.5 - 1.9 p/a (430-12201mil) outlet Ab:ent open Water '.2 P16 ( 1220/vl@) Absent Pr sent. from wetlAnd r-3 <33% Local Scarcity Present, to wrtlAnii Perennial C3 34-66. 2OD ft to nearest similar type Perennial @ Ephemeral C3 67-100. 201 to 1000 ft to nearest similar type lEph"arral Inlet Does-not border IDDD ft to nearest similar type Outlet Absent Leaal Access Known Crop Value or Potential Absent Pre sent, from wetland Nes None Present. to wo-tlAnd PerenA I A I No Supports I family for part of year Perennial @ Ephemeral Completely supports I family Iftlft Fetch ISupports viable conaerctal interest EpheRwral Absent M Dver 2000 ft. Pr set. from wetlAn(I C3 Under 2000 ft. Perennial Depth of Lake HEphemerAl C3 Deep >6 ft. C3 Shallow <6 ft. mi Mc Pinc. WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER WETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S)-.-- MAP NUMBER(S) .ACREAGE 0-717 ACREAGE PERCENT too WET MEADOW SHALLOW MARSH IDEEP MARSH F ISHRUB SWAMP IWOODED SWAMP IBOG -10THER )00 ITOTAL 39 136- MR)r-(. NWrn Mtn M M M M Str.Am or Brnckside Wetlamd eir number YJ r' at eAee x Venetated Subclass Dppp rrn%h MAr%h 1 4 IZA 4;h4linw Fr'osh MAr%h date Non we@etated Subclass oo!eD rrp%h Marsh Y.arly Fln0de.1 Flood Plain Dead W3ody wrt Mpadnw, field Investigator(s) Shrub Shrub Swamp P. 4- A, A J .1 Sub.Shrub wnonod SwAmo Rabus t In" Narrow-Leaved Broad-Leaved Wotland CriTS-1-ichness fresh Karsh Robust shallow 4 arrow-Leoved 3 04" d-L , d water quality J. FIO:ttn;-Le&vPd Flood Piain/Flats Subclass Richness (Lateral Diversxt,@ Emergent 10 Shrubs and Trees 6.9 W,@ t dow, 4'_ 5 Un,,r zed 2-3 G a I razed Ai- A Jj j Shrub SwM 111.40tative Intersnpi-sinn Saplinq Hiah #'A) Bushy Mndrrate compact Low Aquatic Soirrnundinll Mabit4t Wooded Swamo, qni of 2 or mnr,- Of Listed Typ-; Deciduous sn-%7 of I or -re; 9n% of I Evergreen "SC1- of I or mnre of Listed Ty:i- Sot% r@vrr Tytf! Shrub 26-7St SCAItOrPll e! r- I.V S Wooded ?6-75' PeriphftrAI 75' or -2S Scatters?d C: V-0 hi, 0 lor'! Cover; 75' or 25' Perip-f. IG j bi - ii-ent Opo!n Water .4' 1. ?01 e_ I It 34-661: 67-95'@ %-inn @Vpa.tativ@ Sppcies Richness rA let T7 Lnw r', V d i urn .00, Pj qh Sir& V ex el-V ), - I Pronni-tinn of Wildlife Fnod Plants I Ow 1J.=7X %,d@rate # Hinh Ve ""ativ, n",y "'Idprate L ow _r. aLj.:_. A. W V-0and Ju%tarnsitiOn Mighly FavorablP Mel-jor4tply ravrirarile blo R o's r@ 4 A-0 A A- lal Elements AQUALIC Study Area r X it, i C ***t S&nctusry or Refuge Wildlife PAnagement, Area Sol a Fisheries K&nagement Area ;A* L jonal Study Area Educat mistoriCal Area Other RX Topographical Elements snec T@nriphic COnfl9urdtlOA L-r, r CIO.,,a Basin I or B-sln Ast. ILJI^. Val Icy "I I Is ids met 14nd bradlent Slight G-r. steep 31 widing Slopes Slight 0-311 Steep 3% I vaphic Position In Watershed upper Intermediate Lower gogical E ents Surficial Raterisl Till Stratified Fine Sand and Silt Stratified Sand and Gravel Alluvium Btarock o"eous and Netamorphic Oroanic %aterial Absent "i oh ftveabi I i ty Low Permeability unusual. rare, or endangered unusual, rare, or endangered vegetation unus ram end fauna unus rare end Hydrological Eleme@ts "@roloaic Pasiti@n Perched Wetland Water Table wetland Water lable/A@tesian Wetland Artesian Wetland a,@srissivity of &quifer Low 10.ODO gal/day/ft Moderate 111,010 - 40.000 aal/day/ft I Mich-40.000 gal/day/ft W 00 Druninant Hydrologic Type I ondition I 5or-dition 2 Zondition 3 Condition 4 S1 ze Social- economical Elerrwnts Condition 5 Condition 6 E3 Large >4.6 acres Hydrolo0i; Confection Hydrologic Confection M Medion 1.1-4.5 Connected to a sma it Stream Inlet Not Part of Riparian System M Smal I <1 acre Connected to a liver Absent MP&rt of Riparian System Surficial Geologic Material Connected to a Lake 'resent. from wrtlane Moter Level Fluctuation of watershed pConnected to a Combination Perennial High Access to Public C3 Till Ephe"rA I Low Itratified sand and oravel Within 100 ft of 11toad Inlet Vernal Pool [:3 Access by Passable Waterway Ah ent Groundwater Outflow Isolated s Stratified fine sand and silt P Present. frnm wtljtn,d Absent C3 Alluvium Surrouncinq Population Density Perennial M Present Percent Wetland Bordering I Perstin/acre (-320/mi-*) E pho-ir ra I Inlet LOpen Water 0-5 - 1.9 P/A (430-1220/mi') Outlet @ Absent C3 <33% P '2 P/d ( 1220/01@) Ahsent Pre sent. from wetldnd Local Scarcity Present. to wrtlAnd Perennial C3 34-66% 200 ft to nearest similar type Perennial Ephemeral C3 67-1000- 201 to IODO ft to nearest similar type In a t Does not border 1000 ft to nearest similar type Outlet Absent Legal Access Known Crop Value or Potential Absent Present. from wetland Yes None Present. to wotland Perennial W - -1 Supports I family for Part Of year Perennial NEPhemeral Fetch ComP)etely supports I family Inlet D Over 2000 ft. Supports viable commercial Interest @'Ephemaral Absent C3 tkder 2000 f t. present. from wetland Depth of Lake Perennial C3 Deep @6 ft. Ephemeral Cl Shallow <6 ft. mi @c Pinc. WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER' WETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT F I WET MEADOW F J SHALLOW MARSH IDEEP MARSH SHRUB SWAMP ]WOODED SWAMP JBOG -10THER 1 0. ox 011/00 TOTAL 42 -139- Str@Am nr BrookSICIR Wetland ',trpAm nr 8,opis)40 uptla.@d number ODen Fresh WOteP f1r.-M froth water jr, VenetAted Subclass Deep Fresh MAMh date Non Veoetated Subclass %hallnu Frest- 144r%h Deep Fresh Marsh V-4rly Flooded Flood Plain ,(sA_A Dead W*ody Wet Mead field Inyeatiptor(a) Shrub Shrub Swfv"p am Sub-Shrub W"dpd S.Imp LAE6. Robust Boo I = = = Narrow-Leaved Other RropO-Ledved mptland 0-6-si-ri-c"ess Shaiiam Fresh Marsh i(o fr-'? V s j e PA. Robust 4 Narrow-Leaved BrOad-Leaved Flostinq-Leavpd water quality VAX. t-J rjood Pigin/Flats Subclass Richness (Lateral Diversit- Emergent Shrubs and Trees Wot Meadow unqrazed 2-3 Grazed @ I' Shrub Swamp Yr-"tative Intersn-rsinn Saplinq Fiqh Bushy "n4fr4tp Compact Low Aquatic Surroundinq Habitat JL A I 0L- Wooded Swamp Qn! of 2 or mn,#! of Liste4 Tyc- 8 Deciduous %,1.9()'! Of I or mrp. On% of I Evergreen 50' of I or @nre of Listed Tyo- anq Shrub r.,vrr Tynp 26-7St ScAtterrd Wooded 26-7S, Peripheral 75, or 25 ScAttprod Inn"t Cover; 75" or -2S@ Periph-- ;rnt Open water 0 TA 3;'fn'6% C)I 67-95! 1 Lj 96 - I r4r. Vea-tAriveSpocies Richness V C.Aj 4L Low Pfinh J' Dnrtion of Wildlif* Fnod Plants tow, 1 A I'lit"ireAs Eil Khlorate Htqh /_D"@ 6r"A V Hich N. Low Vatiand Juxtaposition Hillily Favorablo Ig m t I ravnrahip Unfavorable f .1 P 123 S ial Elemnts ALjC Stuay Area r: J nct"ry or Refuge j1diffe Plansgiamient Area 0. V A 0%4. &A i Short 81, M4 1149ement Area Educational Study Area historical Area ' A "r r'. Other. t.1 Topographical Elements tion rA 4 "'U@j So' Wi Ed ot Toljotirapnic Configura @L*011 A Closed edsin See,-closed Basin valley Hillside met i 4ftd Ur&alent Slight O-r. Steep 3% Surro'And1w, SItillies slight 0-3% Steep .31 rophic l'u5ition in watershed Upper Intermediate Geological Elements Surficial "aterial Till Stratified Sand and Gravel Stratified Fine Sand and Silt Al I uvi Lor stdrock loneous and MetaoiorphiC Sedimentary Organic Katerial Absent Mi on permeabi I i ty NLON Perivability unusual, rare, or endangered unusual, rare, or endangered Hydrological Elements vegetation unus rare end fauna unus rare and olooic PositGn Perched Wetland Water Table wetland Water l'able/Artesian Wetland "@rAeteSiar Wetland lraes@issivity of AQuife, La- lO.DOC pal/day/ft fteerate 10.030 - 40.C00 oal/day/ft Hich 400.000 galiday/ft Dinminant Hydrologic Type Condition I Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4 Size Social- economical Elements Condition 5 Condition b E3 Large -j,4.6 acres hydroloqic Connection Hydrologic Connection C3 MediLP 1.1-4.5 Connected to a Small Stream Inlet Hot Part of Riparian System M Small <1 acre Connected to a River Absent MPart of Riparian System Surficial Geologic Materi al Connected to a Lake Present, from wotlAnd Wo-ter Level Fluctuation of watershed N Connected to a Combination - High Access to Public PprenniAl M Till - N Epheme. rA I t(W C3 Stratified sand and gravel Within 100 ft of Road Inlet vernal Pool Access by Passable Waterway Atisent Groundwater Outflow 111111 Stratified fine Sand and Silt Isolated P"Sont, frnm wetlAnd Absent C3 AlluviLn Surrounding Population Density perenni;ll Present Percent Wetland Bordering I person/acre (,3201mi-) E lihmmp ra I Inlet Open water O-S - 1.9 PIA (430-1220/mil) outlet Absent C3 -03% P '-2 p/a ( -I 220/mi Ahsont Present, from wetland Local Scarcity Present, to wetland Perennial E3 34-66% 200 ft to nearest Similar type Perennial I Ephen*ra I M 67-100. 201 to IODO ft to nearest similar type Eph"ral Inlet M Does not border 1000 ft to nearest similar type Outlet Ab n, Pr:e Legal Access 9nown Crop Value or Potent',al Absent '.n t. frW wotland yes None q,t%ett, to I-tlhf%d Perennial Supports I family for part of year Pere"nial Ephimmeral Completely supports I family Fetch Supports viable comercial Interest Absent C3 Over 2000 f t. NEphewral Inlet Present. from wetl8nd C3 Under 2000 ft. Perennial Depth of Lake Ephemeral M Deep >6 ft. C3 Shallow <6 ft. WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER WETLAND NUMBER FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT V. 8/7 1 F ro 1 WET MEADOW I . SHALLOW MARSH. ---i F, IDEEP MARSH I ISHRUB SWAMP WOODED@SWAMP IBOG F JOTHER 1 1 1 TAL 45 -142- number W 7 Coen Fresh Wet r Veqetated Subclass f-0 MArsh date 1124E SNon Ve"tated Subclass EO;,:r,,1nw FreSh MArsh Deep Fresh Marsh V irly Flocided Flood Plain Dead Woody wr-t mpade%. Shrub Shrub Swami) Sub-Shrub Sowafflo obust No r. Ow-Leaved other Broad-Leaved wptljlnd Cre-s'-T-ichness Shallow Fresh Marsh 9- le s@ L: h, Robust flarrm-Leaved 3 Brnad-Leaved F, oatino-LeAv water quality ed Flodd Plain/FlatS Subclass Richness (Lateral Diversi-:. Emergent Shrubs and Trees Wat Meadow Ungrazed 2-3 lGrazed @ I' Shrub Swam vr-o-tatlve Intersnarsinm I Salilinq HiQ%. Bushy lind"ratr Compact Lnw Aquatic Snrcoundinq Habitat Wooded Swamp qn2 of 2 or mn re 0 P Listed Tyrp-: Deciduous SO-9V of I or mmee.; "I of I Evergreen ,sn- of I or meire of Listed Ty,-.-, .0 Bnq r@ovrr Type &I: ZJ, r, + Shrub ?6-7s! ScAttorod Wooded 26-75'. Perioh-rAl 7SI nr 2S Sc trpr d 0" ln(7*@ Cover; 1715' o Ir 25' Perip@-- P.".nt open Water 34-0;6' 67_951@ Lj 96 1101 00 Veo-tative Species Richness A.. V ff, A A -i I r K-diuln Hiqh t Proomrtinn nf Wildlife Food Plants I.Ow .0 34A. .1 10 11footativo Density Niqh Moderate low W.tlarA Jultapositilm it-O" b8A woo I H1%)hly rbvr)rkblp - T Mndpr4triy r4,,rAhjr J 4L I- Ut-,fAvnrable fal Elements 4,4uAtic Study Area rh= a- Sanctuary or Refuge WOO IN X"agenient Area a- I- r- 6' A 44 L 4A, Fisherfes Management Area Educational Study Area Historical Area Other A @^411 S SrE d t." Ot, To@ibqrjphlc Configuration Topographical Elements close Basin ED Stvii-closed Basin "I I )side Net .4. fir. 1.011, sligtit"o-r. steep 3% Surrounding SIWS slight O-r. W steep 3z 7 qrsphic Position In Watershed u"pe intermediate Geological Elements Strrficial ftteTial Till Stratified Sand and Gravel Stratified fine Sand and Silt Al I uviw. joneous, and HetfmorohiC ro, W edimentary Orcaslic fultrial Absent Hich Permeability Low Permeability unusual, rare, or endangered unusual, rare. or endangered end mydrological Elements vegetation unus rare end fauna unus rare 0100ic Poslli;n Percw Wetland L-i L--j Water Table Welland water 7able/Artesian Welland "@"Arteslan Welland Iransrissivity of Aouifer 41, Lo. '10.000 001/day/ft Hcoerste 10.bDD - 40.000 aal/day/ft micb-40.000 gal/day/ft Dminant Hydrologic Type Condition I Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition a Condition S Si re Soc ial- economical Elements condition 6 Hydrolotlic Connection Hydrologic Connection 0 Large >4.6 acres Not Part of Riparian System C3 Medium 1.1-4.5 Connected to a Small Stream Inlet MPart of Riparian System Small <1 acre Connected to a River Absent woter Level FiuCtubtftn Connected to a Lake present. from Welland Surficial Geologic Mbterial Connected to a Combination Perennial of watershed Access to Public N EphemerA I Pool I= Till Within IDO ft of Road Inlet C3 Stratified sand and gravel Access by Passable Waterway Absent Groundater Outflow M stratified fine sand-and Silt Isolated Present. frm wptljknd Absent C3 Alluvium Surroundinq Population Density perennial Pre ant I Perinn/iiCre (-320/mi1 Inlet Percent Wetland Bordering Absent Open Water 0.5 - 1.9 plo (430-1220/mil) Outlet Present. from wetland A '-2 P/A ( -1220/01 Absent Perennial EM < 33% Local Scarcity Present. to wrtland M 34-66% 200 ft to nearest similar type N.,rennial [pheceral M 67- 100 S. 201 to IOM ft to nearest similar type Ephpreral Inlet A -1000 ft to nearest similar type Outlet Absent 0 Does not border Cnow" Crop value or Potential Absent present. few wetland Legal Access None Present, to wptland Perennial 0 Yes Supports I family for Part of year Perenn I a I Ephemeral 0 No Completely supports I family Ephewral Inlet Fetch Supports viable commercial Interest Absent C3 Over 20M ft. present. from wetland C3 Under 20DO ft. Perennial Depth of Lake NEphemeral C3 Deep >6 ft. C3 Shallow <6 ft. FAM' M M lc?inc. WETLAND'- INVENTORY REPORT' PROJECT NUMBER- WETLAND NUMBER@ FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUM BER(S) ACfIEAGE ACREAGE PERCENT JWET MEADOW 0. via..F -ISHALLOW MARSH. ]DEEP MARSH I SHRUB SWAMP WOODED SWAMP IBOG IOTHER v- 002 F- lop .-ITOTAL -145- tort 14. broolent t 0- 3t Is', lgpft 31 Sarreivnising Slopes Ist X01 032 3% @ qrphit Position in Watershed jk4_r latierwadiate Lower Geological Elements surficial Material 701 Stratified Sand and Gravel Stratified fine Sand and Sill stcroo joneous tne Netmrphic =1 -V "Ic ter I Abse"t Pe-,eability Low Perviteability unusual, rare, or endangered unusi L ram or endangered end Hydrological Elements unus rare end fauna unus Mre 04 orropeeit vegetation Perchee 6etland water 7able Wetland Water l'able/ArteSiat Wetland Artesiar. Welland jra.!S_jsSjvjty of Aquifer .10.000 Gal/day/ft ftoe"Ite 111,00 - 41,101 pal Iday,ft Hlop- -40.OW gal/day/ft Dmilinglit myeirologic 7ype Condi t ion I condition 2 Condition 3 Come tion 4 Condition S Social-economical EWMnts Condition 6 Size cigic Connection 0 Large >4.6 Acres Colinitction t Part of Riparian System = Meditxi 1.1-4.5 Connected to A Small Stream Inlet "Aipirt of Riparian System JS Sir'811 <1 acre Connected to a liver Abs"t Worr Level rluctubtlon Connected to a Lake Present. fromoPtIA'. Nigel Surficial Geologic Material Connected to a Combination FirrenniAl watershed E rihemp rx I Low Of Access to Public H @ Vernal Pool C3 Till Within 100 ft of Road Inlet [_-3 Stratified sand and gravel Access by Passible WAterwAy Absent Groundwater Ovtflow ne sand and silt I Isolated 0@ Prolsont. frnm wntl4rd Absent 0 Stratified fi Surroundine; Population Density Perennial Present C3 Al luvitri I Peestin/scre Ephr-wral I et Percent wetland Bordering Absent 0.5 - 1.9 pla (430-1220/ol') Pt Present. from oetlalld Open Water P *-2 P/A ( 1220/mi Ahso-nt Perennial C:) -33. Local Scarcity Present . to we-114"d Epheo*r#l 200 ft, to nearest similar type Pprennial C3 34-66*. 201 to IWO ft to nearest similar type Eph-*ral ln@et 0 67-100% Absent a Does nct border IDDO ft to nearest similar type outlet Present. from wetlencl Legal Access Known Crop Value or Potential Absent lend Perennial one Present, to wptl, IN- Yes supports I family for part of year Perennial pEphemral M No Coupletely supports I family Ephewra I Inlet Supports viable commercial Interest Absent Fetch Present. from wetland M Over 2000 ft. Perennial = Under 2030 ft. PEPhmrsl Depth of Lake C3 Deep 1-6 ft. C3 Shallow <6 ft. Pinc. I c WET,LAND INVENTORY REPORT PROJECT NUMBER s*-19+ WETLAND NUMBER IVI --- I FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) MAP NUMBER(S) ACREAGE ACREAGE PERCENT /00 WET MEADOW IE SHALLOW MARSH i ]DEEP MARSH ISHRUB SWAMP IWOODED SWAMP 7771BOG F -10THER IE ITOTAL 51 -147- wetland Sir- n, R,onksil- Wetland number w S - 4 n 10 no.. rr.@" wjkto@ aien Fresh watee ri@,, rr-.,.h MAr,;h L_j -1 LZ Vipnet4ted SubclAss 0; EPP)n Ve-jetated Subclass %h4lin. Fresh MAr,.h J date z- Open rrmh Marsh voArly flondpdFinnd Plain D-ad W:Oody Ant "Pad S,rub Swam If fold Iffm9tigator(s) Shrub H Sub Shrub Annfi-4 Swam* Ono Robust Other Nan -Leaved .1 j 4 Broad-Leaved W-0mr-i E a-ss-Tich"ess Shallow Fresh K6r%h j Robust %srrnw-Leaveol Ornad-Leaved water quality Float inq-teaved Flond Plain/Flats S,jbcl4ss Richness (Lateral Diversit, 0 @10 Emergent 9 SO-.rubs and Trees W,!t Meadnw 4 'intirazed Grazed ji v I Intersp-r0iin S Shrub SwM Saplinq Hinh Bushy Mnd@rattp Comoact L.u 100, AQuatic Siscroumilinq HabitAt ?0 r it "Aft Wooded Swamp QnT of 2 or --fnro of Listed tyro Deciduous Sn.qn'! of I or -n,p; 9M of I Everareen sn' of I or -e nf Listed Ty7.@z )U;4L jN A@J_i rnver Type Shrub 76-75t Scattarod 20;.7S- Periph.ril I-It L -.Z, @i, nr -2S Sc a'" to-d nr7 Cover; S mr 257 Perint- C- A P.".1 Den (1, Yr D W"te, it A + f- 3 -0;6-- 90; -vt r I La le k- Veop"A;i,e Specie% Richness - 'M:d i LM H I qN Propmrrinn of Wildlife Fnnd Plants tow M#,,O@rate L Ij von-tative Dens ty Niqh WA.-- Ig 41,1,ate Low K j6 1000iind Juxtaposition Ilielhly Favor4ble f%oPr4tPlY r4itn'atilp Jor @ijni`Avnrable mcial EINMOnts A4uhtic Study Area Sanctuary or Refuge Vi I d I i ft- PAAA 9emil " t Fi&heriell Maniqiiiiient Area Area Educational Study Area mistorical Area Other- Topographical Eiements J. -j S@ T@qrapftic Configuration closed Boo,A Semi-clofiec Basin valley Millside 111, 4 nd t-r 46%e slight OT.1 Steep 3% Surrounding Slow$ S11"t 0-1% steep 32 Tgraphic Position In Watershed Upper Ewer In" i"e Geological Elements Surficial Paterial Till Stratified Send and Gravel Stratified Fine Sand and Silt Al luviur Ic eous and Metamorphic S.d"'Mentary Absent Mich Pe-4ability unusual. rare, or endangered unusual, rare, or endangered Low Per"eabi li ty Vegetation unus rare end fauna unus rare end Hydrological Elements lolocic Positi;n PerCheC Welland Water Table Wetland Water TablefArtesian Wetland Artesiar wetland 1@6-srlst%vlty of Acuifer 10.00C Cal/day/ft L.--de'rate 10.600 - 40.000 cal/day/ft Lj V%on' -4:.000 9811day/ft Drminant Hydrologic Type ItionI -@CConn'u,,tIon2 Cond t1on I Cono ,t,on4 Size Social- econorniCal Elements Condition S Large >4.6 acres hvdroloqic Connection Condition 6 MediLn 1.1-4.5 Connected to & Small Stream Hydrologic Connection Small <1 acre Connected to a River jnlf!t Not Part of R;pariin System .Surficial Geologic Material Connected to A Like Absont Part of Riparian System of watershed Connected to 4 Combination Present. from wrtlAno. Wottr Level Fluctuation C3 Till Access to Public porennial h IM Stratified Sand and oravel thin 100 ft of Road Ephi:-"ra I @Aoclce$S by Passable Waterway Inlet L_; Verna I Pool M Stratified fine sand and silt Is plated Absent GrOund.iter Outflow C:) Alluvium surrounding Population Density Prosont . frnm w@tlxnd Absent Percent Wetland Bordering I Persnrl/dcre (,320!mi-) Oprennial M Present Open Water 0-5 - 1.9 P/A (430-1220/mtl) Erhompral Inlet C3 -33% @'-Z P/d ( lZ2O/mj:) Outlet Absent Local Scarcity Absent Present, from wetland M 34-66% 200 ft to nearest similar type Pr-sent. to wrtlAn(l Perennial C:) 67-100% 201 to 1000 ft to nearest similar type Porpnnial I Ephemeral M Does not borde Ir @ '1000 ft to nearest similar type I Eph-w@&l Inlet Legal Access XnOwn Crop VAlue or Potential Outlet Absent Yes Itone Absent Present. from wetland No Supports I family for part of year Present. to wotland Perennial Fetch Completely Supports 1 family Perennial NEpnemeral 1upports viable conimerci#1 interest NEphempral Inlet C3 Over 2000 ft. Absent M Under 2000 ft. Present, from wetland Depth of Lake Perennial C3 Deep >6 ft. @Epftemeral C3. Shallow <6 ft. IEP inc. APPENDIX C List of Plants and Habitat Preferences for Species Found in the Proposed Trident Marina Study Area. 51 -150- MC Pinc. Scientific Name Cuitunon Natne- Habitat Scirpus validus Ilardstam' Bulrush OW, Thelepteris palustris Marsh Fern Ow Potentilla simplex CoIr'non Cinquefoil FW (0) Carex aquatilis Sedge Ow Thalictrum dasycarpum Meadow Rue Ow zizia aurea Golden Alexander FW Spirea alba Narrow Leaf Spirea Fw (U) EupatoriWn perfcjliatum Boneset Hieracium sp. Ilawkweed F (0) Rosa carolina Pasture Rose F (0) Asclepias syriaca Coitunon Milkweed FU (D) Rubus idaeus stuigosus Red Raspberry FU (D) Equisetum hymale Smooth Scouring Rush UIVI Lathyrus palustris Vatchling FW (0) Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw F14 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Ox-Eye Daisy OU (U) Hypoxis hirsuta Stargrass F Rhamnus sp. Buckthorn F (0) Tradescantia ohiensis Spiderwort F (C) Polygonatum ca naliculatum, Great Solomon's Seal FU (U) Juncus balticus Lakeshore Rush F .(0) Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass FU (D) Solidago gigantia Late Goldenrod FW Achillea millefolium Yarrow FU (U) Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry (0) Her.acleum maximum Cow Parsnip OW Rumex orbiculatus Great Water Dock OW Sium suave Water Parsnip Erigeron strigosus Daisy Fleabane FU (U)@ Sporobolus sp. Dr opseed -151- lc?enc. Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Potalmogeton pectinatus Sago Pondweed (Aj spiraea latifolia Bro@dleaf Spiraea F%j Cirirsium arvense Canada, Thistle FU (0) Urtica gracilis Slender Nettle FU (0) Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac OU (0) Galium aparine Cleavers 'FU (0) Pol@gonatum biflorum Solomon's Seal FU (0) Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper FU (0) Plantago Inajor Common Plantain OU (0) Rumex acetosella Sheep Sorrel UU (D) Festuca eliator Meadow Fescue (D) Artemesia caudata Wormwood OU (0) Salix humilis Prarie Willow FW (0) solanarum dulcamara Bittersweet F (0) Cirisium muticum Swamp Thistle Senecio pauperculus balsam Ragwort F (U) iris versicolor Larger Blue Flag FW Aroy,xxon repens Quack Grass FU (C) Carex stricta Tussock Sedge 014 Salix interior Sandbar Willow FW (0) a'torium maculatum Joe Pye Weed J@up OW Potentilla anserina Silverweed OW Calamagrostis canadensis Blue Joint Grass Fli Cornus stolonifera Red Osier Dogwood FW Convolvulus sepium Hedge Bindweed F Eleocharis compressa Flat Stemmed Spike Hush OW Sali'x discolor Large Pussy Willow FW Equidetum arvense Common Horsetail F14 (0) Myriophyllum sp. Water Milfoil OW PotA,mogeton natans Floating Leaf- Pondweed OW 56 1--5-21 MC Pinc. Scientific Name Common Name Habitat1 Sparganium eurycarpum Comon Bur Reed OW Heteranthera limosa Mud Plantain OW Eleocharis calva Spike Rush Ow Rorippia islandica Yellow Cress OW H@Pericium canadense Canadian St. John's Wort .014 Anemonella thalictroides Rue Anemone Ft4 Carex bebbii Sedge OW Glyceria striata Fowl Meadow Grass Ow Bromus lAiglumis Lar Leaved Drojite I"U (C) Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweat Clover FU (C) Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac, FU (0) Oenothera biennis Common Evening Prinirose OU (0) Arenaria lateriflora Grove Sand Wort OW Desmodium canadense Showy Tick Trefoil OU (C) Cirsium discolor Field Thi stle OU (0) Smilacina stellata, Starry False Solomon's Seal I-v (0) Sambucus canadensis'; Common Elderberry FU (0) Lonicera tartarica Tartarian Honeysuckle F' (U) Hesperis matronalis Dame's Rocket FU (0) Vitis riparia Wild Grape FU (0)' Morus rubra Red Mulberry ru (U) Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canary.Grass Fi. (0) Rhus radicans Poison Ivy FU (0) Equisetum fluviatile swamp Horse Tail OW Solidago grauninifolia Lance-Leaf Goldenrod F onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern FW (Q) Typha angustifolia Narrow Leaf Cattail UVj Phragmites maximus Reed Grass Fli Anemone canadensis Meadow Anemone FVI Prunus virginiana Choke Cherry FU 57 -153- MI Mc Pinc. Scientific Name Common Name flabitat Typha latifolia Common Cattail oil Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod (0) Silphium terebinthinaceum Prarie Dock FW (0) Carex granularis Sedge FW Lobelia kalmii Dog Lobelia OW scirpus atrovirens Dark Green Rush oil Scirpus americanus Chairmaker's Bulrush OW Chara sp. Muskgrass oil Quercus v"elutina Black Oak OU (c) Populus deltoides Cottonwood FU (C) Asparagus officinalis Asparagus FU (0) Mirabilis nyctaginea Four O'clock OUI(O) comatandra, umbellata Bastard-Roadflax Oil (0) Carex stipata Sedge 014 Lynchinis alba. Evening Lynchnis OU (0) Bromus tectorum DownyBrome FU (0) Notes OW - Obligate Wetland FW - Facultative Wetland F - Facultative FU - Facultative Upland OU - Obligate Upland (D) - Dominant in Upland (C) - Common in Upland (0) - occasional/Rare in Upland EXHIBIT 3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INDEPENDENT SERVICE OFFERED BY: IEP -155- CONSULTING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS S22 W22660 BROADWAY. SUITE 3C. WAUKESHA. WI 53186 I C InC. (414) 542-2733 June 14, 1984 Dennis Ward Environmental Services Division Sargent & Lundy 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60603 ,Dear Mr. Ward: As we discussed in.our telephone conversation, I am sending you some materials that describe the consulting services offered by IEP Inc. IEP is composed of about thirty full- time, professional employees with expertise in biology, ecology, limnology, geology, geophysics, hydrology, land use, environmental engineering and planning. .IEP has provided environmental consulting services for ten years in the preparation of environmental impact statements, landfill and munic@pal water and sewer projects, wetland and floodplain issUes, lake management and feasibility studies, and planning/assessment reports for land development projects. I would be happy to discuss our capabilities with you further should you require consulting services in-environ- mental assessment, planning or permitting. Sincerely, 2J Warren M. Mueller Office Manager WMM/sts GEOLOGY AND GROUNDWATER SCIENCE *HYDROLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING WETLAND MAPPING AND EVALUATION 11 - --- -0 TERRESTRIAL AND AOUATIC 81OLOGY -1 CC_ WETLANDS ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT' EXPERIENCE IV- Its IA j 121 r 14 77 7 -77 31.1ir- fT 7w;,7, Warren Mueller Senior Biologist Limnologist C Pinc. Ic Mmi Rine. CONSULTING ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS S22 W22660 Broadway, Suite 3C. -157- Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186 414-542-2733 El @c Dim CORPORATE OVERVIEW IEP, Inc. is an environmental consulting firmcomposed of full.-time professionals trained in a variety of the natural resource disciplines. Fields of expertise include biology, ecology,- limnology, geology, hydrology, environmental planning and engineering. The firm was formed in 1975 and has become well e9tablished in the general area of environmental analysis, particularly water resource protection and management. I Since the corporation's inception, IEP has established itself as a leader in the field of wetland science. The firm has conducted more wetland related projects in the nation than any other organization. Clients include all levels of government, developers, engineering/planning firms, industry and private interest groups. Among the services provided to clients involved with wetland, issues are the following: oWetland Identification *Wetland Ma@ping oWetland Function Assessment Wetland Function Enhancement/Management Wetland Impact Identification and Mitigation *Wetland Permitting Processes oWetland Construction *Expert Testimony 158- WETLAND EXPERIENCE IEP has completed over 500 individual wetlands projects in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland and Wisconsin. These projects have ranged in scope from one day jobs to long-term projects. Clients have included developers, private interest groups, and local, state and federal agencies. In terms of volume, IEP's wetland work can be broken down into approximately 50% for development interests, 40% for local government agencies, 6% foi- private in'terest groups, and 4%forstateand federal agencies. As a result, IEP is cognizant of and has been involved with all issues relative to wetlands protection. The majority of this work has resulted in the generation of documents which are part of the public record. This includes expert witness testimony provided in court and at administrative proceedings. Both lectures and class instruction have been provided to a variety of interest groups, as well as to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition, IEP assisted the Massachusetts Audubon Society in developing the Progressive Architecture award winning guidebook entitled A Guide to Understanding and Administering the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. This document covers both the technical and legal aspects of the wetland regulations. IEPwas also the primary author of A Guide to theCoaslal Wetlands Regulations of the Massachus@tts Wetlands Protection Act prepared for the Wetlands Di'vision, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Staff members of IEP are experts in understanding and applying wetland statutes and regulations, as well as performing the scientific aspects of wetlands science. As a result, the firm is highly qualified to address wetland issues in a manner best suited to meet the client's particular needs, while insuring a proper and sufficient scope of work within budgetary cons traints. Ml A PTN J Y101115 Wetlands Assessmeyit, Crandon Project, Exxon Minerals Company. -159- THE PROBLEM The value of a wetland is determined by the functions it serves within the Wetland regulation has historically been designed to protect the functions, rather than the wetland itself. Examples of statutory wetland functions are: Wisconsin NR 1.95 Biological Recreational Hydrologic Support Aesthetics Groundwater Edu cational Storm and Floodwater Storage Cultural and Economic Shoreline Protection Scarcity of Wetland Type Water Quality Maintenance Regional Context Massachusetts Ch. 131, s. 40 Public and Private Water Supply Groundwater Prevention of Pollution Flood Control Fisheries Storm Damage Prevention Shellfish To protect these functions, each must be defined, and the numerous elements which give rise to the individual functions must be identified. Some have all of the identified functions, others only a few, and rarely a wetland the functions. Certain statutes require the rating and ranking of wetlands to determine those significant wetlands which deserve a greater degree of protection wetlands which are less significant. The importance of this issue apparent when it is realized that projects adversely impacting the function be denied by the appropriate permitting agency. THE SOLUTION IEP has found the following steps necessary when determining the functions by a proposed activity: 1. Inventory the natural resource elements which occur in the wetland 2. Define the wetland. This requires mapping the wetland in such a manner as to create closure by encircling a definite wetland entity. 3. Define individual wetland functions and determine the natural elements of the wetland that create the individual functions. 4. Place the wetland inventory data into models designed to determine the functions of the wetland and to provide an above average or below average for each function. 5. Identify the proposed activity, determine how it will change the natural resource elements, and analyze how these changes will either decrease or eliminate a given function. Mitigative measures are identified from their procedure and their methods of implementation can be similarly assessed -160- REPRESENTATIVE WETLAND PROJECTS Table 5.4-1. Regional scarcity expressed as the percentage of supplemental wetlands versus those in the region. Project: Wetlands Assessment/Impact Reports Client: WETLANDS AS A SUPPLEMENTAL WETLANDS Exxon Minerals Company AREA OF WETLANDS PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED AREA ACREAGE OF AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE Rhinelander, Wisconsin PHOTOTYPED THE TOTAL OF WETLANDS IN SUPPLEMENTAL REGIONAL AREA IN THE REGION REGIONAL AREA THE REGION WETLANDS WETLANDS IEP aided Exxon Minerals Company in WETLAND TYPE Nactores Acres (Percent) Nactores Acres Nectores Acres (Percent) conducting an assessment of the wetlands contained in the project area of a proposed zinc- Shrub swamp 1,650 4,084 3.3 4,081 10,083 25.23 42.34 0.4 copper mine near Crandon, Wisconsin, in Bog 186 1.943 1.6 1,434 4,800 84.55 208.92 1.4 Aquatic bed 129 320 0.3 317 785 0.67 1.16 0.1 Deciduous 2,404 6,446 3.3 6,440 15,140 10.74 24.35 0.2 compliance with Wisconsin Administrative Code, swamp NR 132. This regulation requires that assessments Coniferous 4,228 10,467 0.6 10,453 25,173 189.46 148.64 1.8 swamp of wetland functions be conducted to insure that Marsh 356 881 1.1 1,285 3,176 25.62 61.64 2.1 proposed project activities result in the least Total 9,753 34,145 20.2 24,515 60,455 334.23 334.25 1.4 overall adverse impacts to wetlands. There were two primary objectives of this investigation: (1) to Total land area of the region: 121,967 ha (30:.900 acres). Total land area in the supplemental wetlands study area: 230 . ha 3693 . acres) map, inventory and assess the functions of the study area wetlands; and, (2) to evaluate and compare wetland functions within the study area to the region at large. To fulfill the latter objective, numerical rating models were developed for each of the ten wetland functions listed in the The study area was approximately 11 square miles Wisconsin Administrative Code. The data and in size and contained five lakes and 224 wetlands results of this assessment were intended to aid including bogs, shrub swamps, wooded swamps, Exxon, the Wisconsin Department of Natural aquatic beds, marshes and streamside wetlands. Resources, and the public in applying the Wetlands in the study area were first delineated on Wisconsin Administrative Code to mining aerial photographs, and then mapped by field activities. Through this process, functional investigation. Detailed numerical rating models damage to individual wetlands and to the regional were developed for the ten wetland functions. An wetland ecosystems could be minimized. inventory list of resource elements required for the model inventory sheets was prepared, based upon established scientific criteria obtained from literature review. A field study was then conducted for each wetland larger than 0.25 acres and a resource element inventory sheet was also completed for each of these wetlands. Data from the inventory sheets were entered into each numerical model and the functions of the 157 wetlands were assessed using a numerical rating system. The numerical modeling results were evaluated in a regional context by determining the regional scarcity of each wetland type. The frequency of occurrence, or scarcity, was then expressed as a percentage of the total study area. Results of the qualitative and numerical modeling assessments indicated which wetlands had above average ratings and which had below average ratings for each of the ten wetland functions. This information was then related to the proposed project activities and alternatives, and their Duck Lake Wetand, Crandon, Wisconsin, impacts to wetland hydrology. A detailed analysis Exxon Minerals Company. of the data identified wetlands of special interest based on their relationship to the proposed mine waste disposal areas, and the alternate routes for roads, railroads and pipelines. -161- X.N V A4' ............ JL je .x: F- 28 AL F-25 F-22 Jar. F-21 F-24 F- 18 X. . . .. ..... . ..... ... . .... .... . .... . . .... F- 3 2 .... . .. . . . ..... . F-19 e..e. .. .............. .. ............ . ... .. .. % F-53 ... . ..... F -55 F-5 (WF-54 F-52 Y F-40 F-3 -37 F F-38 Portion of wetlands map, Crandon Project, Exxon Minerals Company. -162- Project Type: Wetland Variances for Landfill Expansions Many existing and proposed landfill expansion areas throughout the country involve the filling of wetlands. In Wisconsin,the expansionof landfills into wetland areas requires a variance from the Department of Natural Resources under NR 1.95, the state environmental code which protects Building wetlands. If the proposed work will destroy a A Lot A significant wetland, the request for a variance may be denied. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the functional value of the wetlands which are proposed to be filled through data collection and Lot B Lot C field investigation. This information must be submitted to the DNR as part of the request for a variance. IEP has been involved in these assessments for all Lot D Building B three stages of landfill development and expansion. Prior to the landfill design stage, IEP ELM STREET has been involved with determining the functional significance of wetlands in the proposed development areas, and assisting in identifying Proposed development plan and resource area identification. alternative upland areas where feasible. In the case of expanding an existing landfill, IEP has determined which wetland areas have the least Project Type: Residential, Commercial and functional significance and will most likely Industrial Projects qualify for a variance under the state regulations. Most land development projects involve sites After the landfill design has been completed, IEP which contain or are adjacent to wetland areas. has provided expert testimony when wetlands are Numerous state and local statutes exist which to be altered and the project has become a contested regulate or prohibit work in or adjacent to wetland case. All three of these situations have required and floodplain areas. Before work can begin, IEP to identify, map, inventory and assess wetland wetland permits are required. IEP has performed functions, and propose alternatives or means to over 250 wetland projects for clients needing mitigate negative impacts. wetland permits. All of these projects have involved the identification and mapping of wetland areas. In most cases, this field work is conducted prior to preparation of the definative site plan, with the wetland data being utilized as a critical site design criterion. IEP's scientists work with the client's engineers and designers in producing a site plan that meets the requirements of the applicable wetlands regulations, as well as fulfilling the goals of the client. This includes the design of wetland restoration and construction projects as a trade-off or mitigation measure for compliance. IEP will normally prepare the necessary documents for the applicant and represent the client at all types of public hearings, administrative proceedings, in court, or at adjudicatory hearings. IEP has successfully obtained wetland permits for a large number of developments, many of which posed difficult and Wetland at landfill site. complex wetland issues. -163- Ila EXHIBIT 2-1 vktlmws by w"tative Criteria fit =OFENWATERIPM) SWAMP SHFKJB SWAMP QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING LOCATIONS 27 4 f 26 41@ a A at 32 Ila lo, -41L cl 4p, A lo, Ok ENVIRONMENTAL 24 1 ASSESSMENT, Lots24-32 ,,r,.$ Westover Estotes NOTEg FILE - 209-8 BASE FROM: Lynnfield,Moss. 11*10v76 PI of WdinLyrpfielcl shming imi area lobe dra"d III III'le"d, num"red P12F3PIQ, ot revi"d I* Mm. 31,1975. -412 Identification, Delineation and Classification of Wetlands Client: Planning Board Town of Concord, Massachusetts Hils study conducted for the Planning Board, 4- Town of Concord, Massachusetts, involved letailed mapping of the extensive wetland system -J' e within the boundaries of the 16,500 acr municipality, and development of a regulatory j I)i-ogram for protection of identified wetlands. Wetlands were identified by field survey methods and botindaries were delineated on 120 base maps w ith a scale of I" = 100' and a two foot contour interval. Various key, value and interpretive maps were produced at a scale of I" = 1000'. Wetlands were mapped and classified according to the vegetation, soils, surface water and groundwater criteria listed in Masschusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Sectibn 40, as amended. .7 The f ield survey method was initially suggested by I E 13 because i t wou Id prod tice more accura te maps than could be produced by means of ilerial photo interpretation. By using aerial photos, not all Botanical survey. Wetlands could be identified, since there were Problems phototyping certain plant species wetland actually exists and whether it would be categorized by Masschusetts General Laws, affected. Secondly, accurate mapping would aid Chapter 131. Boundaries could not be accurately the town Board of Health in evaluating sewage plottcd. It was further felt that a wetlands map disposal applications by determining the location interpreted from aerial pliotog4aphy would be of wetland boundaries as, required by a town inappropriate, since a detailed listof species found health ordinance, with one condition for approval within each wetland could not be developed, nor being a 75 foot setback requirement from a could the technique yield other information as wetland to an individual subsurface sewage readi I y as the field survey method. Field survey, on disposal system. Thirdly, accurate wetland the other hand, especially using an mapping would allow a more equitable town- interdisciplinary team, would yield information wide property re-evaluation prograrn. to town departments and boards that would be valuable in their various decision making The study then proceeded involving several steps. processes. Rare plant species could be identified The first step included collection of all available and located. The hydrologic and geologic existing data that could be interpreted as possible situation could be determined for each wetland, as wetland areas within the town. Interpreted well as their sensitivity to various land use wetlands and waterbodies were delineated on the activites. Its value in terms of wildlife, plant 1960 1" = 100' scale, two foot contour interval resources, flood retention and groundwater topographic base maps produced by Air Survey storage could be iden tif ied. A buf fer zone cou ]d be Corporation. determined that would respond to the identified V alues, sensitivies and physical factors of the Soil Conservation Service maps provided data on , wetlands. soils classified as wetland soils or soils having severe land use limitations due to wetness. The rhe town concurred with IEP's recommendation, United States Geological Survey had mapped j,udging thataccurate maps would case thecurrent surficial geologic deposits in the area. Certain work load of the town Department of Natural surficial materials could be used to identify Resources in administering the State WetkindS possible wetland situations. In addition, data on Protection Act, in that a determination could state-wide land use, including wetland categories, (JUickly and accurately be made as to whether a had recently been generated using aerial -165- Mf If I I 11111M 11 1 1 1 -1 1 11111111 m 1 1111 1 1111 I I . 11111 1 If 1 -11 if Ill I I Ill I I 'T I I R -hit I j1d is is H.0 143 91.3 zi ;r 1 u 84@ 1141 Ili ilNl! I lifill Ill if I fill I I I I HIM If fill 11 fill If 1 1 fill HIM J. 1-:41 H'ifilipl I; tz. Q9 1-1, Illuffluillf it it I litimitut HIM fflilt I it I 1 11 Ili 1 11 1111111 It I IIIIIIIIT I ITTTT 11ITTIN Ili - 11111 1.. 1 11 FTF I rrrF- TT ill I IIIIIII it IIIIIIIII I Ill I liM it ]fill I I Hill 11 1 I I Hill If I If I flU1111 It hd! :Awki z ------ ni z HIH a 4 AM ll 1,11111 111111H111111 Ill Hill I I 1 11 '111`1111 111111111 11 1 fill[ 11 Ill fill - . 11- .- 11 MUM 11 fill 11 il _111111hil 'fill photograph interpretation by the University of Masschusetts under the Massachusetts Map-Down project. Possible wetland areas based on these background data sources were then transferred to the one hundred twenty 100 scale town base maps by referring to the original data source to minimize transferring errors, and to delineate boundaries using the greatest degree of control that was possible. The 100 scale maps, each having the four boundaries of possible wetland areas, became the field base maps. The maps acted as field guides which identified where wetland situations might possibly occur. Each possible area was then investigated in the field by an interdisciplinary team involving a geologist and an ecologist, both well versed in wetlands identification. One team was utilized for the entire field study to insure consistency in techniques, and to insure the team's familiarity with all wetlands, such that relative judgements as to various wetland values could be made on a town-wide basis. A detailed wetland plant species list was developed by IEP in consultation with established authorities to identify and delineate boundaries based on the wetland categories contained in Wetland boundary delineation. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40, as amended. The various wetland The wetlands and the boundarqy about each area communities, such as bogs, swamps, wet meadows were identified in the field and plotted on each of and marshes, contain characteristic plant species, the 100 scale field base maps using land navigation some of which are identified within the law. These instruments and techniques. The boundary was vegetative communities reflect hydrologic also delineated in the field on 600 scale air conditions within the soil strata, which are caused photographs which were viewed stereoscopically by water being at or near the ground surface for a and compared with the maps. The combination of significant part of the growing season of wetland detailed field base maps, high resolution stereo air plants. Where vegetation did not exist or was photos and easily recognized ground control greatly altered, wetland soils were mapped. features allowed extreme accuracy in the location of wetland boundaries on the base maps. Final wetland maps were prepared as clear overlays for each of the 120 town base maps. A report on each identified and numbered wetland area or system was written to include a listing of the plant species found within the wetland, its category according to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, its geologic and hydrologic occurance, and a discussion of its individual and town-wide relative ecological and hydrological value and sensitivity. Finally, a regulatory program was developed to insure adequate protection of the town's valuable wetland resources. After an intensive survey and analysis of wetlands protection ordinances in eastern Massachusetts communities, a wetland zoning by-law amendment was written which was appropriate to the Town of Concord and which responded to the values and sensitivities of Wetland mapping. wetands identified by the field survey. -167- Town of Concord .'It. ......... . Ac"s F 1* T I WETLANDS lciDinc. 1,rt))ccj Type: Review of Projects for idministrative Agencies in inany cases, local, county and state agencies charged with the protection Of wetlands do not have the expertise or ability to determine the impacts of proposed projects upon wetland functions and resources. In other cases, these agencies may desire that the wetlands of counties 01" towns be formally mapped, often times with appropriate bylaws written as well. In still other cases, agencies may need assistance in the cnforcernent of existing wetland regulations. IEP has completed over 200 wetland projects for government agencies. These projects have ranged from small project site reviews of wetland issues to A town-wide and countyrwide wetland mapping and assessment of wetland functions. Many of 440. A.6 411141.1"f these cases have resulted in administrative 6 hearings and court testimony in which IEP staff embers have prov@fded critical evidence. IEP has Replication of a wetland. successfully served as a mediator between m developers and administrative agencies. This process involves the identification of significant Project Type: Welland Management and wetland issues, focusing on these wetland issues RepRication through scientific scrutiny, and finding a solution The continued loss of wetland areas hasresulted in that best meets the goals of both parties. regulations requiring replacement of filled wetlands by construction of new in kind wetlands.. In order to replicate a wetland in kind, the wet] and that is to be replaced must first be inventoried an d WETLAND INVENTORY REPORT its functions understood. Only then can a' ' new wetland be designed to replicate the old 448 wedand. Critical to designing a 'new wetland is.a PROJECT NUMBER thorough understanding of the hydrology of the', WETLAND NUMBER B-2 proposed wetland. Detailed data must be obtained FLIGHT, PHOTO NUMBER(S) 6-46 concerning predicted groundwater and surface water hydrology prior to selection of the vegetative MAP NUMBER(S) community plantings. In some cases, the new wetland may be designed to have greater functions ,ACREAGE than the previously existing wetland. An in kind wetland can be managed to increase its functions, ACREAGE PERCENT for example, to increase its flood storage potential WET MEADOW or wildlife habitat. IEP has worked on a large number of studies where wetland replication or SHALLOW MARSH management has been conducted. To conduct DEEP MARSH these studies, an interdisciplinary team of SHRUB SWAMP geologists, engineers and biologists is commonly I J.13 WOODED SWAMP used. The goal of all of these projects has been to BOG create better wetlands than those which are proposed to be lost. In addition, IEP personnel OTHER have performed construction inspections to insure TOTAL that the construction work is properly carried out. Many of these projects have been co 'riducted to comply with state wetland regulations. -169- Project Type: Wetland Education and Research Wetland ecosystems and the way in which they function of wetlands and establish wetland values. function are generally poorly understood by Much of this data has been published and scientists, the public and regulatory agencies. presented at professional meetings by IEP staff Many different vegetative and hydrogeologic members. In addition, since 1975, IEP staff wetland types occur in nature, and some aspects of members have continuously given classes in wetland science, wetland hydrology for example, wetland science and wetland education. These have been inadequately studied. Statutes and classes have ranged from high school to college regulations futher compound the complexity of level, including classes for the Army Corps of wetlands by creating legal definitions which do Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Society not always relate to wetlands as observed in the of Wetland Scientists, state regulatory agencies, field. Furthermore, many of the values and and and various environmental organizations. IEP functions ascribed to wetlands may not actually assisted the Wetlands Division of the occur within a specific wetland. IEP has Massachusetts Department of Environmental conducted a number of projects which have Quality Engineering in preparing and presenting generated research data concerning wetland more than twenty classes on the new vegetation, surface water hydrology, groundwater Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act geology, nutrient removal, and the relationship of Regulations. IEP prides itself in its oral and wetlands to surface water and groundwater graphic presentations to provide information on quantity and quality. One focus has been 1EP's wetland science. research in developing models to predict the TIME WETLAND TIME Physical Factors Biological Factors IN OUT DISCHARGE = Cubic feet per second. TIME = Hours. Cross-section illustrating "perched" water table (local aquifer) conditions. WETLAND ORGANICS "DRY HOLE" VADOUS ZONE "Unsaturated" WATER TABLE Saturated Zone Reviewing wetland issues with landowner. Educational graphics. -170- Project: Feasibility Study of Wetland Disposal of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Client: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Water Resources Commission Division of Water Pollution Control "In line with federal and state regulations to restore and maintain the quality of the Nation's waters, an increasing amount of effort has been devoted toward finding innovative and efficient means of treating wastewater. All too often, economic considerations prohibit extensive utilization of advanced wastewater treatment To investigate this concept thoroughly, IEP made systems which are designed to achieve maximum full use of its interdisciplinary capabilities. A nutrient removal. The result, in Massachusetts, is study team was created consisting of an a situation where the large majority of secondarily environmental planner, ecologist, geologist treated wastewater is discharged into the hydrologist, biologist and engineer. Together they Commonwealth's streams and rivers with nutrient outlined a series of tasks to be completed levels frequently sufficient to accelerate responsive to the client's schedule. eutrophication in some of these waters. A variety of alternatives exist, or are arising through current Task 1 was designed to identify those inland and experimental investigation, which might provide coastal wetlands within the Commonwealth of economic and efficient nutrient removal of this Massachusetts which might have the secondarily treated wastewater effluent. environmental potential to serve as sites for acceptance of secondarily treated wastewater The use of wetland ecosystems in this capacity is effluent. To accomplish this, all relevant data was an alternative which has been receiving increased collected and reviewed so as to formulate an consideration. The growing number of understanding of wetland component functions investigators in this field,and indeed the existence under various conditions. Data was also collected of functioning systems, attests to the potential of on all municipal wastewater treatment plants using wetlands for increased renovation of having discharge permits within Massachusetts. wastewater...Suffice it to state at present that the Waste loads and distance from acceptable wetland results of investigations throughout this country, situations were primary criteria used in evaluating Canada and Europe have suggested that wetland whether or not the natural filter concept should be disposal of wastewater has potential. further examined. Thus, a preliminary evaluation of treatment plant-wetland system combinations The results of many of these studies, however, was made in terms of potential research usage. Of indicate that geologic, hydrologic, and climatic, the 108 original candidate treatment plant conditions strongly influence the fate of locations, twenty-one required more detailed wastewater or simulated nutrient additions in examination. wetlands. Obviously, these conditions vary greatly between geographic areas, and direct application of the results of other investigations is not often possible. Given the sensitive nature of the proposed project, a very systematic and controlled approach was envisioned to assess the feasibility of utilizing wetland treatment systems within the environmental conditions specific to Massachusetts. In October 1977, the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC) commissioned an 18 month study designed to fully examine the concept and its implementation in the Commonwealth." Excert from Executive Summary-Feasibility Study of Wetland Disposal TREATMENT PLANT - WETLAND of Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent by IEP, SYSTEM STUDY CANDIDATES ~52qN~8qW~92qA Inc., 1979. -171- Pounds per Acre per Day is- 10- UPTAKE 5- 2.7 4-- 6 5 @ mip - - - - - - ----2.6 Mean 0- miatanw RELEASE 5- ..4 2 Rate per A Acre/Day Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 of Deep Marsh Early Mid Late Fall & Early Growing Growing Growing Early Mid Spring Season Season Season Winter Winter B 38 37 40- 1 3@ - 33 30- 25- UPTAKE 20- - - - - - - - - - - 20.8 mean Uptake 15- Rate 10 per 10 - Acre/Day of Shrub 5- 2.8 Swamp 0 - 5 - RELEASE A BOD B BOD Uptake & Release Rates Uptake & Release Rates; Stations 1 to 3 Stations 1 to 2 A FEASIBILITY STUDY: WETLAND DISPOSAL OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT CLIENT: MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CQ"TRQL CONTRACTOR: IER INC. WAYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS Task 2 involved focusing more specifically on these twenty-one locations to determine the two best sites, one inland and one coastal, for implementation of a pilot project. This required intensive consolidation of existing data on each area's geology, hydrology and ecology, as well as cultural considerations such as town zoning by- laws, wetland ownership or existing use and other sensitivities. Subsequent to this was the development and implementation of field investigative procedures. Each area was the subject of detailed field work involving examination of those wetland components identified through the literature as having significance in influencing wetland renovating capacity. Hydrologic considerations, including flow conditions, retention-detention times, flooding periodicity and the ability to accurately model an area's hydrologic budget were most important. Sediments and vegetative communities were also characterized. Considereation of each area for use as a pilot project was then finalized with respect to the various constraints and advantages provided by each situation. To complement this evaluation process, Task 3 involved the development and implementation of a monitoring program in an actual field situation involving wetland disposal of secondarily treated wastewater effluent. The objective of this monitoring program was to provide information on how a wetland system might function within the environmental constraints present in Massachusetts. For this purpose,MDWPC selected a site at the US Fish and Wildlife Service Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Concord, Massachusetts, where secondarily treated effluent was being discharged into the Upper Pool section of the Refuge. The monitoring program made fu11 use of IEP capabilities in the areas of hydrologic modeling, water quality testing and analysis, sediment quality testing, monitoring of invertebrate populations, and characterization of the vegetative community. As a result of this systematic initial investigation, it appeared that conditions in Westborough and Ipswich, Massachusetts were most suitable for pilot project treatment plants. However, IEP determined that the use of only one or two wetlands in a pilot project would produce information specific only to those wetland situations. Therefore, IEP recommended that all existing situations in the state be monitored where wastewater is being discharged into vegetated wetlands. This would assist in determining those natural wetland conditions which contribute to the renovating efficiency of wetland systems in the Wetland evaluation. region. -173- Even more importantly, IEP recommended the creation of artificial wetlands in the abandoned sewage lagoons at the Spencer, Massachusetts wastewater treatment facility. Each artificial wetland would be varied in terms of its influence upon the nutrient dynamics of wetland systems as a whole. This would enable the implementation of a monitoring program to determine the characteristics most desirable for wastewater renovation within Massachusetts. ~4qOd~ Limited Pilot Project A full-scale artificial wetlands system facility is at Spencer, Massachusetts currently in the process of being designed for Spencer based upon IEP's findings and recommendations. Such a wetlands system has been identified as the most cost-effective solution Through implementation of this full-scale for the seasonal removal of nutrients from wetlands system and the monitoring of existing Spencer's wastewater effluent. Once the wetland treatment plant-wetland discharge characteristics, system is in operation, a monitoring program will comparisons of economic and renovating be instituted which will allow for the collection efficiencies between various wetland conditions and analysis of all relevant environmental data. can be made. In this way, the most feasible, efficient and environmentally sound course of action will be identified for the Town of Spencer and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. VACUUM ASSISTED SLUDGE DRYING BEDS FILTRATE DEWATERED SLUDGE TO LANDFILL (OR AGRICULTURAL LAND APPLICATION IN FUTURE) SEPTAGE CHEMICAL CONDITIONING (OPTIONAL) FLOW SEPTAGE METERING AEROBIC DIGESTION RECEIVING/ BLENDING SUPERNATANT SCUM REMOVAL STATIONARY COARSE & FINE SCREENS ACTIVATED SLUDGE UNDERDRAINED SEASONAL ARTIFICIAL WETLAND POLISHING SECONDARY CLARIFIER WASTEWATEFR PCSF PUMPS MECHANICAL CIKORINATION/ RAW METERING WASTEWATER INFLUENT OUTFALL FINE CUMBER GRIT CASCADE SCREEN CHAMBER AERATION POST AERATION WET WELL GRIT PUMP (OPTIONAL) CENTRIFUGAL GRIT SANDY MINERAL SEPARATOR ADDITION SECONDARY (PHOSPHOROUS CLARIFIER (OPTIONAL) REMOVAL) CLASSIFIER CHEMICAL FEED PH CONTROL MINERAL STORAGE/ UNDERDRAINAGE RIVER GRIT TO LANDFILL MIXING RETURN MILE SEVEN FLOW METERING FINE CLIMBER WET WELL SCREEN 1. * DEN0TES PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OVERFLOW WASTEWATER PUMPS Town of Spencer, Massachusetts Municipal Wastewater Facilities Plan, March 1983 Prepared by Cullinan Engineering Co., Inc. iep inc -174- @c Din c. Cimsulting Environmental Scientists * Geology and Groundwater Science e Hydrology * Wetland Mapping and Evaluation 9 Terrestrial and Aquatic Biology * Environmental Planning and Engineering S22 W22660 Broadway Suite 3C Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186 (414) 542-2733 Corporate Office 6 Maple Street PO Box 780 Northborough, Massachusetts 01532., (617) 393-8558 (617) 890-2130 Branch Office PO Box 384 Sunderland, Massachusetts 01375 Printed 1984 -175- EXHIBIT 4 1970 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL MAP KENCISH 23 E. sheel 80) 114 EIMC2 .7.4 32 j rn 13 a I P e@, Na le kv If A T Af fill DO 174 U V4 .I, S IPI; Ji -.A I 'At Ah HP 8 4 HeA I WnA -Sf SsI3 yi M) 0 u hA .1F U lop r AtA a (Joins upper right) -171- R. 23 E. (joins "@Vcij-lcrf) S 1), A AtA t I Ali Cw tin B IN@' @VnA Iz 1.11 G ''A t@h all -129, IFTI 7 Na. /* J4 U11002 Fo K" M Jkl F o GnA Of GI Of GnA 4) Be- 0) 1 X. Sfh 0 N A A GnA @ 4K., F\ t G f I, J Zj -Wn@ I I tir / I i L 7-0 All Inv y nA A so Wn@ G1 A 11 State 1.14 '1, GnAl LA K 10, COUNTY ILLINOIS 78- EXHIBIT 5 RECOMENDATION BY: CHIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH CITIZENS COMMITTEE CONCERNING NEW INFORMATION NEEDS -179- Several areas of study are required to supplement the existing information. The categories of new information needs include scientific, economic, and political information. There are six primary categories of new information needs: 1) botanical, hydrological, and soils investigations of wetlands; 2) Botanical and hydrological investigations of prairies; 3) Endangered and threatened species survey; 4) Compatability of development with preservation in adjacent lands; 5) Effectiveness of preservation status of currently protected Chiwaukee prairie; 6) Economic consequences of preservation versus development in terms of jobs, tax revenues, and multiplier effects. The new information should be compared to the existing data 5 -180- to correct inaccuracies and fill gaps. Estimated levels of effort, methods, and suggestions on who should collect the new information are presented in Section III. 1. Wetlands Studies The biological, hydrological, and soils investigations of the wetlands in the project area would focus on the key indicators that define the existence and quality of these land cover types. The definition of wetlands is based on the occurrence of characteristic plant species, soils, and moisture regimes. Preliminary investigations of the study area indicated that many of the areas mapped as "wetland" lacked the necessary key indicators. True wetlands in the area include deep marshes, shallow marshes and low prairie. Deep marshes and shallow marshes are not difficult to define in that they are typically covered wi th surface water or obviously saturated near the surface. The vegetation is composed predominately of fairly distinctive hydrophytes such as sedges, rushes, and cattail. Low prairies are more difficult to define because their indicator species include some grasses which, when observed by someone other than an expert botanist or when viewed on an aerial photograph, will appear similar to the grass-dominated mesic prairie. A diagnostic and universal indicator species within the low prairie of the study area is prairie cordgrass (Spartina pectinata). Closely associated with the prairie 6 Editor's note: Page 7 of this Exhibit was not submitted. -181- are not wetlands now, nor have they been wetlands historically. The studies described in Section III of this document will provide the necessary information on the occurrence and distribution of indicator plant species, wetland soils, and water table levels to accurately delineate true wetlands in the area. The functional value of the wetlands for flood control and water quality and the scientific value of the wetlands as pristine ecosystems will also be determined. Not all wetlands are worthy of preservation simply by virtue of being "wet land". 2. Prairie Studies. An apparent motivation for zoning much of the area for conservancy is the occurrence of virgin prairie vegetation. The Nature Conservancy has purchased and deeded to the state a large tract called the Chiwaukee Prairie and an active fund drive is currently directed toward purchasing other lots of undisturbed prairie in the area. Because the occurrence of virgin prairie politically affects the zoning decision, the true extent and quality of virgin prairie must be mapped. As with wetlands, virgin prairies are characterized by the occurrence of "indicator species". However, the decision of whether an area that contains many prairie indicator species is in fact undisturbed and worthy of preservation depends more on disturbance indicator species than on the prairie indicator species. The reason is simple: truly undisturbed prairie, dominated by prairie species and lacking "disturbophytes" is 8 -182- very rare. Disturbed areas that have been recolonized by prairie indicator species through succession, but which contain many "disturbophytes" are very common. Preliminary investigation of the study area indicated that large tracts of grassland showed signs of severe disturbance. Canada bluegrass (Poa compressa),Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and red top (Agrostis stolonifera) are key indicator species of disturbance. These species dominated the composition of some grassland areas which local residents stated were areas that the Sierra Club and Nature Conservancy have identified as virgin prairie worthy of preservation. In fact, the virgin prairie in much of this area was replaced by an 18-hole golf course 60 years ago. The golf course was abandoned approximately 50 years ago. During this 50 years many prairie speciies have reestablished and the area has the appearance of a prairie. However, the predominance of disturbance indicator species is evidence of the true history of the area. This abandoned golf course is an example of grassland in the area which appears to be prairie but is not worthy of preservation. Preliminary investigations of the area also confirmed the existence of parcels of virgin prairie worthy of preservation. Other grasslands are somewhere in between in terms of quality because disturbance indicator species have heavily invaded the native unbroken sod due to past uses of the prairie (grazing or mowing perhaps) . 9 -183- A botanical survey, as described in Section III of this document, would accuarately delineate and distinguish the areas of highest quality prairie (undisurbed sod/absence of disturbophytes), from low quality prairie (unturned sod/heavy invsion of disturbophytes), and historically destroyed prairie (dominance by disturbophytes/prairie species reestablishing). 3. Endangered and Threatened Species Survey Another important factor for determining if an area is worthy of preservation is the presence of officially designated endangered or threatened species. Such species are reported to occur in places within the study area. These species are rare usually because they are sensitive to disturbance, and very little land has been left undisturbed. Because undisturbed parcels of prairie and wetlands are within the study area, the occurrence of some endangered or threatened species would be expected. A biological survey of the area to identify the occurrences and distribution of endangered or threatened species must be performed to ensure that areas lacking such species and lacking other significant natural values are not unreasonably prohibited from development and, conversely, that such species are not threatened by development where they do occur. The requirements for a survey of endangered or threatened species are described in Section III of this document. 10 -184- 4. Compatibility of Preservation and Development Preservation of worthy parcels of wetland and prairie should be compatible with development of other lands in the study area. The potential for impact on undiSturbed prairies or wetlands from development would be dependent on the following factors: 1) Direct disturbance of soil and vegetation by surface perturbation; 2) Direct changes in surface hydrology by drainage or impoundment 3) Indirect changes in ground water gydrology by withdrawal of well water 4) Casual disturbances by increased pedestrian or off-road vehicle traffic because of higher densiity population in area. The studies already described above for the biology and hydrology of the wetlands and prairies will provide the necessary information to properly plan avoidance of such impacts. Direct disturbance to soils, vegetation, and hydrology of areas worthy of preservation can be avoided simply by knowing where these areas are and zoning them accordingly. This would not be "spot" zoning if the standards for preservation are applied uniformly throughout the study area. Surface drainage can be determined and upgradient or downgradient changes in drainage that would affect a preserved area could be zoned against while still allowing development of 11 -185- upgradient or downgradient areas. The development could simply be required to preserve the existing topography. Effects of wellwater withdrawal can also probably be mitigated. Primary sources of groundwater recharge in the area must be identified. Possibly, the groundwater regime is so dominated by Lake Michigan that the water table cannot be depressed significantly by domestic wellwater use in the study area. If the aquifer is recharged from inshore, the installation of water mains from Kenosha may be a solution to eliminate the need for water wells. Control of pedestrian or off-road vehicle traffic on nature preserves can probably be handled the same as for the current preserves in the' area. Fencing, posting notices, and barricading access points are typical measures. In addition, the ridge and swale landform inherently discourages access because of the parallel zones of wetland swales between the upland ridges. The density of residential development permitted by zoning should be studied to optimize the compatibility of development with preservation. Single family residences on large lots should probably be acceptable. Although bringing sewer and water systems into the area creates the capacity for widespread development, that capacity does not necessarily have to be realized and can be controlled with proper zoning. The immediate shoreline zone is already largely developed. Where the shoreline is undeveloped, erosion 12 -186- ~0 and loss of shore line is proceeding unchecked. Limited development along the shoreline and inland on lands not worthy of preservation would probably lead to greater shoreline protection measures which ultimately could protect the inland lands worthy of preservation. A sewer system to serve areas along the shoreline and some contiguous inland parcels could probably be constructed from Kenosha through already developed areas along the shore without disturbing pristine areas. Considering the length of time it could take to enact zoning, and the number of individual septic systems and holding tanks that could be built in the meantime, the environment might be better protected by a sewer and water system in the context of restrictive single-family zoning. 5. Effectiveness of Preservation The costs versus the benefits of preserving the general study area must be evaluated before a zoning decision is made. Obviously preservation of natural areas has some benefits: protection of gene pools, scientific values, and natural heritage. However, just as development should be carefully controlled to prevent loss of these benefits, the preservation efforts should also be carefully controlled and monitored to determine if they are successful. If the preservation benefits are eventually lost despite the prohibition of development, the worst possible situation will have occurred. Landowners will have lost their development 13 -187- values and the general public will have lost the natural values. The need for the study of the effectiveness of preservation efforts is prompted by observations of the Chiwaukee Prairie preserve during preliminary investigations of the study area. The preserve is heavily invaded by white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), a noxious weed, and exotic grasses. This evidence suggests that the prairie preserve is being "overmanaged" by those charged with protecting it. This same phenomenon of sweetclover invading a prairie preserve has been observed before when prescribed burning was used too frequently and at unnaturally regular intervals. This overmanagement does not allow native prairie species to compete effectively with exotic species. If this study shows that management activities to "protect" the existing natural areas are ineffective, the benefits ascribed to preservation zoning must be weighed accordingly. 6. Economic Consequences Zoning will ultimately be adopted by the county and/or township. The economic effects of the zoning will also ultimately be felt by the county and township. A study of the economic effects of preservation versus development must be considered in the planning process. Preservation of the study area will probably initially reduce the assessed value of undeveloped and developed land and effectively freeze this value. The allowance of even partial 14 -188- development of the area will enhance the value of those properties eligible for development and, when developed, those properties will obviously greatly increase in value. The effects; on county and township tax revenues must be considered. The determination must recognize that this tax differential will exist far into the future. The probability of protected lands being deeded to a tax exempt entity should also be factored into the study. Other economic considerations involve the services, jobs, and materials purchased by home builders and homewoners and the jobs and sales revenues of the marina. -189- Appendix E-2 CROSETTO AND VASH LAW OFFICES, s.c. JOHN CR6SETTO BERNARD R. VASH October 23, 1984 Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Management Planning Program Lance Junior High School Meeting I am John Crosetto, a member of the law firm of Crosetto &,Vash, S.C.. We have been retained by the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc., to make sure that whatever is done to their property in the Chiwaukee Prairie- Carol Beach area be within the law. The questions which are before you are com- plicated and controversial. You have devoted much time and energy to laudable .ends: The protection of valuable land and water interests while balancing the concerns of private land owners. In these difficult proceedings, my role as attorney for the Citizens Organization will be legally to stop any rezoning of the Chiwaukee- Carol Beach area: 1. Which would legally deprive the citizen-property owners of the area of the use of their property without just compensation, and Which would deprive them of certain uses of their property through zoning which was based on erroneous facts and illegal proceedings. 7.lie Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization has asked my law firm, and we intend to use every legal means available to us to see that our client has its interests protected4 and to see that all governmental agencies concerned go through the legally required decision making process fairly and justly, using accurate facts and legal. procedures. What we hope to accomplish tonight is to point out to you some of the problems with the proposed zoning plan: We believe that the present plan is flawed because it incorporates zoning which is unconstitutional and which is based.on err- oneous facts. Furthermore, the procedures used both to create and to support the plan in its present form are subject to serious legal and factual questions. If the plan in its present form is adopted, the county and state can be certain of expensive and time-consuming litigation by, among others, the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization. PROBLEMS IN THE EXISTING CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE-CAROL BEACH ZONING PLAN 1. The Pr'oposed Conservancy District Zoning Ordinance is Unconstitutional. If the county or state adopts the proposed conser vancy zoning district, the limitations on the property owners will be so severe as to deprive them of All practical value in the use or marketability of their real estate. In reality, the property owners will have had their property taken from them without having been justly compensated for the lost value due to the imposition of the conservancy 2424 63rd St. Kenosha, Wi. 53140 (414) 654-2151 _190- 'Constitutional law, property owners cannot zoning. Under present State and U. S.@ have their property taken from them without just and timely compensation. Conse- quently, there are substantial legal questions which can and will be raised about the constitutionality of the proposed conservancy district zoning which would make the county and the state governments liable in money damage to any affected pro- perty owaers for their lost property value as well. as the costs of litigation. As I have said, the Constitutions of both the United States and Wisconsin prohibit the taking of property without just compensation. The United States Suprome Court in San Diego Gas and Electric Company v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621 (1981), arly suggested that any governmental action, including zoning, rule mak- ing or other regulatory action, which deprives an owner of property of all or most of the owner's interest in the property without just compensation would violate the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Wisconsin case law, particularly the 2nd District of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which is our judicial district, in the case of State ex rel. Nagawicka .Is. Corp. v. Delafield, 117 Wis. 2d 23, 27, 343 N.W. 2d 816 (Ct. Appeals, 1993) has recognized and continues to recognize that zoning [email protected] severely restricts the use to which private property owners can put their property will be deemed an unconstitutional taking of property from an owner. The Nagawicka court said: The zoning of property is a legitimate municipal device to control land use and obtain orderly community development. However, when zoning classifications restrict the enjoy- ment of property to such an extent that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose, a taking without due proces s occurs. The Nagawicka court goes on to say that it is not within the police power of 'the city to force land to stay in its natural state without going through con- demnation procedures. Legal questions and actions are presently being litigated in Kenosha County Circuit Court, for example, Baum, et al., v. Town of Somers, 84-CV-847, challenging the constitutionality of the conservancy district zoning ordinances previously passed by Kenosha County. On July 13, 1983, the Town of Somers rezoned four parcels of real estate from "industrial" to C-1, a low-land resource con servancy. Four lawsuits were filed,by property owners of the rezoned parcels. Legal proceed- ings are now scheduled to determine whether or not there was "inverse condemnation," i.e., 'a "taking" of property by zoning without just compensation paid by the town to the property owners. If the Town of Somers is found to be liable and if the Kenosha County Court rules that there has been a taking without compensation, then, pursuant to 'San Die2o Gas, supra, and the Nagawicka case, the "government entity must pay just compensation for the period commencing on the date the regulation first affected the 'taking,' and.ending on the date the government entity chooses to rescind.or otherwise amend the regulation," and the zoning ordinance will be deemed unconstitutional. L -2- _191- Litigation to determine the legality of conservancy zoning is expensive and time consuming. With litigation aiready being instituted against a portion of the conservancy district zoning ordinance, it does not seem wise for the Technical and Citizen,Advisory Committee tonight@tto adopt a zoning plan-which incorporates the illegally flawed zoning categories, Most assuredly, the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization will authorize and start additional litigation IT 'and wilen the present Cliiwaukee Prairie-Carol, Beach zoning plan in its present state is adopted by the county or the state. At this time, we, therefore,.request that you adopt the proposed Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach zoning plan so that we can avoid the costs and expense of addi- tional litigation. If the advisory committee decides to adopt policies to keep the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach land in its natural state, then it should recommend that the county or state attempt to purchase the land from the private property owners. Zoning cannot legally be used as a means to Ipreserve land in a way which limits private owner usage to a substantial degree. 2. Wetlands Map -- Procedural Irregularities and.Erroneous Factual Bases. Any zoning plan for the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach area cannot be finalized or approved without an accurate map which shows what areas need to be conserved and preserved as wetlands. The process for determining a wetlands map which is to be approved by the state government and used by the county in instituting county ordinances is outlined in NR 115 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. The Code requires the county zoning agency to hold a public hearing to solicit public comments on preliminary drafts of wetlands inventory maps. At this time, it is uncertain as to whether or not the county zoning agency has held a public hearing to solicit comment on a preliminary draft of a wetlands inventory map for this area. Further- more, according to the Wisconsin Administrative Code, the Department of Natural Resources is,required to meet with the county zoning agency after the county's public hearing to review the map in order to discuss map,inaccuracies. The Department shall, if necessary, at department expense, consult available soil survey ma ps and shall conduct onsight inspections if appropriate in order to evaluate the county's recommen- dations. Eventually, the Department of Natural Resources will have to prepare and adopt a final Wisconsin wetlands inventory map which is to be used as the basis for county or state shoreland and wetlands zoning ordinances. At this time, the Depart- ment of Natural Resources has not adopted a final wetlands inventory map for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. Because there are substantial questions as to whether or not the county zoning agency and the Department of Natural Resources have followed the correct Wisconsin Administrative procedures in developing and adopting a wetlands map, any zoning plan which incorporates a non-final wetlands map may be subject to legal challenge. It is well established in Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutional law.that governmental actions can be overturned by courts when the procedures used are in and of themselves illegal or contrary to administrative procedures. The Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee can avoid certain challenges to any Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach zoning plan on these stated issues ifit adopts a plan after a wetlands map has been correctly adopted and drawn up. It does not make sense to spend the time and energy to debate the validity of a zoning plan when the zoning plan itself may be based on factually incorrect or incomplete information or information that has not been acquired through proper procedures. -3- -199- The Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Org;nization has substantial questions and objec- tions tQ both the factual accuracy of Ne preliminary wetlands map used to support the zoning proposal under consideration as well as the procedures used by the South- eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in the formation of the zoning plan. During the course of this hearing, various people will speak and articulate,some of their objections as to how the Regional Planning Commission defines wetlands and to the factual accuracy of the Commissionis on-field studies which identified wetlands areas. At this time, the extent to which there is agreement with the determiniations and procedures used by' the Regional Planning Commission is uncertain because it is unclear as to how the Soi atheastern Regional Planning Commission de- signated the wetlands areas currently identified in the zoning plan before you. If the proper administrative procedure's will be used to formulate any final wetlands map and if we will be given access to the Southeastern Regional Planning Commission's field notes and onsight evaluations of the land within Chiwaukee Prairie and Carol Beach, some, if not all, of the potential disputes may be avoided. In any event, my client expects and we will see to it that the property owners in the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area be treated fairly and lawfully. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, CROSETTO & VASH, S.C. By lf-l@n Crosetto JC/lmw -4- _193- Appendix E-3 October 23, 1984 STATEMENT OF WARREN J. BUCHANAN JR. My name is Warren J. Buchanan, Jr. I am a professional consultant in environmental sciences and have been in this profession for 12 years. I have .an undergraduate degree in botany and a masters degree from the University of Wisconsin - Madison Institute for Environmental Studies in land resources. My research specialty in graduate schooi was the use of aerial photographs for mapping wetlands. I have performed ecological assessments of many wetlands in Wisconsin both as part of my graduate research and as an environmental consultant. I have participated in a seminar at the University of Wisconsin on wetl9nd systems and presented original research on the response of wetlands to disturbances'. I became involved in this ptoject at the invitation of the Chiwaukee - Carol Beach Citizens organization because they said they were concerned about inaccuracies in the wetland maps being used as a basis for planning the zoning oftheir land. nt They agreed to pay me by the hour to visit the area, make an independent judgeme whether or not inaccuracies existed, and recommend any studies to rectify the .situation, if necessary. 1",visited the area this August and qualitatively studied several areas which were mapped by SEWRPC as wetland. one area in particular that I concentrated on was tfie area south of 116th Street and west of Ist Court which the residents claimed was historically a golf course. I observed many areas of upland dominated by introduced grasses which were obviously not wetland and had little ecological value. Based on these observations, I recommended further detailed studies of the, area. These included vegetation, soils, and hydrology studies. The definition of wetlands As used by the state and most experts includes all three of these'factors. Another motivation in commending further studies is that I also observed that other parts of the project area support very rare and valuable eco logical communities including wetlands. Although the existing wetland map Was obviously inaccurate for planning purposes, it was also obvious that some areas worthy of preservation are present and an accurate map was necessary to protect them, Along with protecting the interests of the land owners. . Based on my recommendations the Homeowners hired IEP, an environmental consulting firm.which specializes in wetland mapping, to check a sample of the project area. IEP checked three different areas totalling 17 acres. They used the.definition of wetland specified by Wisconsin State Statute and based their mapping decisions on bo-;-h soils and plant indicator species. I have reviewed their report and believe it is technically sound and unbiased. In the first sample area they found that 80% of the area mapped as wetland by SEWRPC was incorrect. In.the second area 50% was incorrect, and in the third area 40% was incorrect. SEWRPC itself, as a result of the appeal of the owners of 296 lots, came back and checked them in the field. Most of these lots are 1/2 acre lots so this represents a sample of approximately 150 acres or about 8% of the study area. Of these 150 acres checked, SEWRPC reduced the net wetland acredge by 71 acres. This was the result of 35 acres of wetlands being incorrectly omitted and 106 acres being incorrectly included in the original map. These numbers suggest that nearly all of the area checked was incorrect in one way or another. The results of thiss am ple check strongly supports my recommendation that a detailed field investigation be performed to accurately map the entire study area. It is worth noting that my investigation, IEP's investigation, and SEWRPC's own field check consistently find significant bias toward overstating wetland. I believe that SEWRPC recognizes that the definition of wetlands and uplands in this area is difficult. I notice that in the notes of the September 6, 1984 Sixth Meeting of the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee, the following information was presented by SEWRPC: IlIt was the clear understanding of all wetland mapping and regulatory personnel that such areas would require special consideration in the regulatory process. Specifically parcels proposed for development in the EZKs area-would necessarily be field investigated on a case-by-case basis and a determination made as to the occurrence of any dune top or swale conditions present on the parcel of concern." Well these landowners are proposing to develop this area and their interests as wel I as the interests of those wanting to preserve worthy areas would be served best by such a case-by-case investigation. In conclusion, my observation, the studies by IEP, and the rechecking by SEWRPC of 296 lots have shown significant errors in tl@e wetland map. There is no doubt that the only fair way to rectify these inaccuracies is for an independent unbiased expert to resurvey the area accompanied by a member of SE:WRPC's staff. Ajjp@@nalx _.t-4 CHEWAUKEE PRAIRIE 1984 OCT. 23RD THIS PRARIE STARTED THE BEGINNING OF TIME, AND LIKE ALL GOOD iTHINGS IN LIFE) WEILL MAKi,@ IT BETTER OR WILL WE?) RAY FELTON 2513 HAMILTON AVE. RACINE WI. i'M A DIRECTOR FOR4ISCONSIN WILD- LIFE FEDERATION, THIS IS A STATE WIDE ORGANIZATION AND I WAS.GIVEN PERMISSION TO REPRESENT THEM ON OCT. 6TH IN STEVENS POINT, I AM ALSO PRLIDENT OF THE WISCONSIN SPORTSMAN'S ASSOCIATION AND THE AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THEM ON ALL- ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE IS GRANTED IN JANUARY. THIS PRAIRIE AND BEACH AREA IS 1825 ACRES. A VERY THREATENED PIECE OF PROPERTY AT THE EDGE OF. THE LARGEST POPULATION IN WIS. THIS MAKES ANY LAND THAT LOOKS USABLE ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOPERS HOUSING OR INDUSTRY. WE KNOW WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANY OF US HAVE BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO GIVE ANY IMPUT AS AN ENVIRONMENTALISTZ. A PRAIRIE OF SAND, EVEN A FOO T PRINT WILL LEAVE ITS MARK. THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKEIS: IF WE GO ALONG WITH THIS PLAN 1. THE MARINA TO EXPAND 114TO THE WET LANDS. NOT ONLY LOSE OF WETLAND IT WILL MEAN MORE ROADS, HEAVY 1l-QUIP- MENT TO BUILD, EVEN AFTER BUILT THERE IS THE OIL AND SALT TO@CONTEND dITH,. PLUS THE RUN OFF. 20 WIS 0 ELECT@ CO. 40OFT. CORRIDOR NO RESTRICTIONS) LEAVING ThvM TO DO AS THEY WIL /@VASTE WATER PLANT TO EXPAND AND THEYIWILL) 4. OVER L/13. KEN SHA i HALF TO BE OPENED FOR DEVELOPMENT. 5. THE ONE THAT HAS ME TROUBLED ALSO THE POPULATION T_Q 4260. 6, SEWERS AND UTILITIES TO ALL ]@EVELOPMEgTS ALL OF THIS M A K.1 GFOOT PRINTS IN THE SANDO IF WE DON' ON ANYTHING ELSE WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND LIKE A BULLET, LEAVING A GUNA ONCE WE DISTURB THIS JAND WE CAN NEVER GET IT@BACK. I HAVE NO AXE TO GRIND WITH DEVELOPERS, BUT WE HAVE LOST TOO MUCH OF WHAT WE HAVE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. IF THERE IS ANY CONSTRUCTION SEWERS$ ROADS, FOOTINGS, IT WILL CHANGE THE WATER LEVEL IN THE WET LANDS. IN 1930 A GOLF COURSE WAS BUILT AND WENT OUT.IN 1940. IT'S OVER 40 YEARS AND THERE 'IS STILL SIGNS OF IT THERE. -196- Appendix E-5 KETTLE MORAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. 10/22/84 To Whom It May Concern: My board had directed me to enter a statement of support for the preservation of Chiwaukee Prairie; given the information that I have read I would support the CPR Preservation Plan as submitted. To follow on the developmental effects upon the Prairie I cannot accept the Development-Preservation Plan alternative submitted by the technical and citizen advising comm. of May, 1984. Although I realize that, it may happen that compromise may be necessary if the Prairie is to be saved. My major support, however, lies with the CPR Preservation Plan. I would, therefore, request that the Chiwaukee Prairie pres not be developed as proposed bases on for owe, the May, 1983 checkover report that points out rather clearly that development on or near the -197- KETTLE MORAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. Chiwaukee Prairie area will: ---- Have a serious hydrogolical effect on the Prairie (this could have a negaative impact on the plant species endangered or threatened). ---- By development (ditches, roads, sewers, sump pumps in homes etc.) that the water level in the Prairie area will be seriously effected by either a rise or fall in water table levels. ---- That the marina expansion not be allowed for onshore or nearshore environmental disturbance reasons. ---- Construction projects could impact the Prairie by both lowering (roads, ditches) -198- KETTLE MORAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. or raising (shore projects), the level of groundwater, this could have serious long range consequences on the Prairie. Furthermore, development near the Prairie or through it will tend to draw down water levels or increase them. This will change the ecology of the area, which would destroy the ecological balance in the area... Finally, I would like to take an appropriate quote from the sewpac summary and conclusion on this project....the preservation and protection of the natural resources in this area is complicated by the fact that a large portion of the area has been platted for urban development. Despite past construction activities, wetland and prairie features have persisted in many areas, and the natural resource values of much of the area remains intact. -199- KETTLE MORAINE AUDUBON SOCIETY, INC. the CPR Preservation Plan, I believe, offers a sensible, viable alternative to proposals to this point. Ecologically, Chiwaukee should be preserved for all to enjoy - now and in the future. Economically, the development of the area can not be justified. Therefore, I hope this gathering will decide to save Chiwaukee, not destroy it. I would conclude that after having read as much material as is possible, and thinking of the people involved that the Prairie should be protected after all their efforts and the history of the area. How thoughtless to cancel it out, that this prairie area, in a region of this nation which counted itself among the thousands, now stands almost alone. E. Nelson Conservation Chr. Kmas -200- Appendix E-6 Testimony ReFarding The Chiwauk@e-Prairie-Carol Beach Land Use Plan Lance Jr. High School Kenosha, Wisconsin October 23, 1984 C. Gregory McAndrews 8860 First Avenue Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 414: 694-8295 I'm testifying in favor of the comromise plan developed over the last three years by the Technical and Ldvisory Committee, with some modifications. This plan represents a compromise between the many valid interests described in the plan. lulould like to reinforce the plan's acknowledgment that all properties set aside for environmental, recreational, or scientific reasons will be purchased from their owners at an appropriate price. Any deviation from this principle would make the plan unacceptable and in my opinion, subject to legal challenge. I would like to further reinforce the utilization of a reasonable time limit for the acquisition of properties to occur. I feel five years is a reasonable length of time. There are, however, several modifications I would suggest that the Technical &divsory Committee consider in the final Chiwaukee-Pra irie-Carol Beach Land Use Plan. 1. There has been much discussion regarding the -state-wide significance of the properties included in the Area set aside for environmental, recreational, and scientific'reasons. The plan calls for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to include the cost of purchasing these.properties within a five year period if these properties have not been purchased by the Nature Conservancy, Kenosha County, or the Town of Pleasant Prairie. The appropriation of this money will ultimately be the decision of the State Legislature which represents the interests of the entire state of 'Wisconsin. Therefore, if the State Legislature, upon careful consideration -201- -2- of the Department of Natural Resources' budget, decides not to appropriate sufficient money for the purchases called for in this plan, we can only conclude that these properties are not of state-wide signi ficance. There- fore, the plan should be amended to provide that if the Nature Conservancy, Kenosha County, Town of Pleasant Prairie, or the Department of Natural Resources cannot purchase the properties identified for preservation for environmental, recreational, or scientific reasons; these properties should revert to their original zoning at the end of thefive year time. Possibly the plan should call for a gradual rezoning of properties, for example, a property would be rezoned only when it can be purchased by the Nature Conservancy, or other such agency. 2. 1 questioned the extension of the environmental corridor north of 90th St. Since more than one half of the narrow neck of land between 8th Avenue and 4th Avenue at 90th Street has been filled with inert clay from.the city of Kenosha's recent sewer separation program, there is less than 200 feet of land that has any environmental value left at all. Since an environmental corridor requires a.minimum of 200 feet, the land north of 90th Street does not meet this minimum criterion. 3. Although this plan considers the loss in revenue to the town of Pleasant Prairie, and Kenosha County due to removal of these properties from the tax base, the plan fails to address the loss of revenue from income tax of potential.residents and the maintenance costs to the state of Wiscons in, Kenosha Coun ty,-and Town of Pleasant Prairie which will result from setting aside the large number of properties for environmental, recreational, and scientific reasons indicated in the plan. I would like to see the plan consider a projection of state income tax which will be lost if further development of the Chiwaukee-Prairie-Carol Beach area is restricted. I -202- -3- would also like to see the plan project maintenance costs for such items as increased police protection, the development and maintenance of parking areas, trails, and other improvements which will be necessary if these properties will achieve their environmental, recreational, .,and scientific objectives as indicated in the plan. I thank the Technical Advisox@-Committee for the opportunity of addressing these concerns which I have regarding the Chiwaukee-Prairie-Carol'Beach Land Use Plan. @-203- Appendix E-7 of @- F0,6 L @ TESTIMONY PRESENT-ED AT SEWRPC HEARING, OCTOBER 23, 1984, KENOSHA, WISCONSIN, 7PM, BY BERNICE BENEDICT POPELKA, 845 S. SILVERBROOK DRIVE, WEST BEND, WISCONSIN. I have been involved with environmental preservation since 1961---seven years in the Chicago area and sixteen years in' Wisconsin. My accomplishments include sUch projects as creating public awareness of water pollution &the hazards of spraying DDT.' preservation of two prairies and the setting aside of a school forest for environmental education. I returned to school in 1972 and received my bachelor degree in botany at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I am currently president of the Kettle Moraine Audubon Society, which has 450 members from Dodge, Washington, and Waukesha Counties. In the 1960's I worked three long years to preserve Peacock Prairie. During that time I became acquainted with the people who were struggling to save Chiwaukee Prairie. Chiwaukee Prairie at that time was of the same high quality as Peacock. It still is. Today Chiwaukee Prairie has many groups and citizens concerned about preservation of this rare and valued ecological unit of wetlands, prairie, dunes and swales and great variety of plants and animals. When I started, there was just a small group. Tonight we are fortunate to have at least one governmental agency speaking out on behalf of Chiwau4ee. Itis indeed unfortunate that the agency responsible for good long range planning has not seen fit to truly speak out in defense of this valuable natural land. Hundreds of people, not only from the Midwest, but also other parts of the U.S., have come to appreciate Chiwaukee Prairie in the past. Many of them do not yet even know that our planning agency, SEWRPC, intends to reduce this ecological unit to a-mere garden surrounded by city. I have told people who live in Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota, and all parts of Wisconsin, and they are shock ed beyond belief that such destruction could happen to a rare and valuable place they once visited. SEWRPC can not compromise Chiwaukee Prairie away and retain a clear conscience that they have done their duty for posterity. Indeed, the compromise plan now espoused is an irresponsible act not reinforced with sufficient facts, but with politics. This plan is biased; it is unfair to the natural 264 iU/Z_J/d4 Hrg. Bernice k,opelKa area, indi rectly unfair to the landowners (although most of them presently appear unaware of that), and unfair to our future generations. Indeed, this plan is not even a compromise. The SEWRPC Techttical and Advisory Committee (TAC), first of all, is not a fair committee. How many people abstain from voting because they are representatives of agencies? What, exactly, does the stated League of Women Voters' position say, and does the Committee member who claims, to represent League truly belong to League and know what that position is? Further- more', Wallace Piroyan, a voting member of the-Committee, shows his willingness to pursue emotions, not facts as evidenced.in his gue,st editorial in the Kenosha News of September 4. He says, "Chiwaukee Prairie is not a 10,000-year-old virgin prairie. It is an abandoned 18-hole golf course that was in operation from 1923 to 1932." 1 have also witnessed his bksed remarks, possibly unfounded, at the last Committee meeting. Mr. Kurt Bauer has also revealed his willingness to be swayed by,politics. In his letter to the Public Intervenor he demonstrates heavy leaning on the positions of the TAC without fully seeking out facts. Perhaps he is also swayed by politics. In his letter to the Public Intervenor, page 6, dated September 19, 1984, he says, "In summary, the Commission staff believes that the plan, as rresented to the advisory committee, is sound and in the public interest, broadly defined. The plan is, in fact, a proposed compromise between inherently conflicting, but legitimate, objectives. Despite its compromise nature, the Commission staff believes that the plan performs well both from an urban develop- ment and an environmental protection viewpoint." Dr. Douglas S. Cherkauer, Consulting Hydrologist, in his Septe mber, 1984, "Review of the Potential for Ground Water Impacts from Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of Chiwaukee Prairie," says, "All agencies involved in the discussions on the site have worked with surprisingly little real information. Some have been quick to make assertions that the planned actions will do no harm when they have no quantitatAve data on which to base that claim. ...... Furthermore any statemeft to the effect that development of -205- 10/23/84 Hrg- -3- Bernice Popelka a part of the study area will have no, or only minor, impact on areas to be preserved is without scientific basis .... It is the role of a regulatory agency to require that adequate information be provided to assess possible impacts before approving the plan." The TAC has not held anyhearings, and yet Mr. Bauer has his leanings. Is this the way we whittle away at valuable natural areas? I urge you to do your homework, SEWRPC. Study all aspects of this natural area. Study and seriously consider Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition's alternative proposal. Study and seriously consider Dr. Cherkauer's paper on the hydrology and soils of this ecological unit.' Over these many years I have witnessed or taken part in the battlesfought and won to save the Indiana Sand Dunes, Peacock Prairie and Markham 'Prairie. These were hard,bitterly-fought ,battles that started with only a handful of people interested in preservation. Surely, with all the evident support and value placed on Chiwaukee Prairie this place must be preserved. Surely the citizens of Wisconsin and the Midwest deserve better than the positions taken by Kurt Bauer and TAC. I urge SEWRPC to do what is ultimately right for this growing megopolisv--save this valued green spot, this earth's environment, this island that the people will some day thank you for. Appendix E-8 October 22, 1964 Stephen H. Barasch 8616 2nd Avenue Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140, SWRPC D,N,R* Madison, Wisconsin Dear sir or madam: Please be advised that we are the owners of the-following parcels within the study area: 40123-184-0660 Lot 17 Block 49 Carol Beach Estates Unit.No. 5-A. 40123-203-0320 'Lot 18 Block 35, Carol Beach Estates Unit No. 4. 40123-172-0052 Lot L Se-Sub Lot I Block I Carol Beach Estates Unit W We ne7er received any written notice nor did we see any published notice that our .land was proposed to be in the wetlands. we therefore had no opportunity to challenge this or to have our lots tested. We protest this unfair treatment and ask that our lots be tested and that there status as wetlands be reexamined. Sinc rely, Steph n H s Nancy-M Barasch -207- Statement of Stephen H. Barasch-October 23, 19B4 I have been a resident and property owner within the study area for over 12 years. We appreciate the natural beauty of the area and wouldn't like to see it overdeveloped or spoiled. Until the recent SWPPC hearings I had always sympathized with environmental and conservationist causes. My naive optimism soon dissipated in the face of the government's callous disregard for the individual rights of the study area's residents and property owners. Although conservation is :,undeniably a public good, it must not be achieved by disregarding the rights of the minority. Conservation costs must be borne by the public as a whole; private property rights must not be violated to achieve a public good. The end does not justify the means. The so-called "compromise" suggested by Kurt Bauer at the last hearing on this subject, was that instead of just having their land zoned unbuildable, property owners would first have the chance to sell their lots to D.N.R. voluntarily, but still under the threat of being zoned unbuildable. This is essentially a form of illegal condemnation; also because there are phony "voluntary" sales. It denies property owners the Pight to receive payment offered and still have court,appeal if he or she believes the price is below fair market value. D.N.R. is demanding a period of five years to gather the funds to purchase such property, denying the promptness of due process required in legal condemnation. In the meantime the property cannot be sold to anyone else because these proceedings h ave clouded the title and made it unmarketable. Property owners would also be required to pay taxes on their lots while they await payment from D.N.R. It it impossible to regard these so-called voluntary sales as anything else but a form of illegal condemnation. Another unfair situation is the current low level of fair market values. There has been a systematic effort by certain state and county officials to perpetuate the myth that the land in the study area was mostly unbuildable and that septic holding tanks were substandard, expensive and ortherwise undesir-- able. In point of fact, most of the lots are indeed buildable, but without conventional basements. Such slab on grade construction techniques are used extensively in warmer climates with high water.tables. our climate only requires four-foot deep foundation walls with footings below the slab at an additional cost of only two or three thousand dollars. Far from being undesirable, septic holding tanks actually disturb the surrounding soil less than soil filtration methods. Their initial cost is two or three thousand dollars less than any other system. It is true there are pumping charges, but for an average family they are probably only about 50% more than standard city sewer and water charges. Although it is unlikely a large-scale development will.take place with holding tanks, there has been greater acceptance of them as a permanent septic system by both homeowners and lending institutions. Were it not for the threat of conservancy zoning this greater acceptance of holding tanks would have caused values to increase. The plan as it exists now violates the civil and property rights of the lot owners because it denies them condemnation by due process guaranteed by Wisconsin Statutes and the Federal Constitution. I believe that the following amendments be included in the plan so that it might truly be a compromise: 1. All land must be acquired by condemnation. This may mean that.D.N.R. must obtain legislative approval as well as funds. (The present plan is merely designed to cloud title, making it impossible to sell the land, and in effect giving D.N.R. a five-year option to buy without making it pay for such an option.) 2. The area to be acquired by D.N.R. by condemnation should be limited to what it now has funds t If it wants more land later, it can ask p acquire. the legislature to condemn it when it has the funds. The logical choice would be a more narrow corridor connecting the original Chiwaukee Prairie -south of 116th Street and the dunes adjacent to the City of Kenosha sewage treatment.plant. The corridor could be expanded east And west from the Chicago Northwestern right of way. 3. No single-family residences shall be condemned, nor:shall any construction in pro_qressbe condemned- 4. No existing public roads-should be vacated until all condemnations have- been.finalized. 5. No single-family residences shall be moved. 6. Construction of single-family residences is not incompatible with conservation. Special land use zoning could be passed restricting landscaping, paved drive ways, incompatible species of plant life, etc. This type of restriction has not been proposed for the urban areas in the ve plan. The reason this idea may no0occurred to the planners is because and/pflwersi they are more'preoccuppied with acquiring park land an w th conservation. 7. Lot owners shall have the right to build homes on their lots, unless they are served with notice of condemnation. Payment in full to be required within three months of notice. If payment is not made within three months, the lot owner shall again have the right to build and if construction starts, the lot may not thereafter be condemned. B. Sewer expansion shall be limited to Sheridan Road and the Trident Marina. -209- if this limitation makes the expansion uneconomical then it should be abandoned. No residential areas are to be sewered. Many lots would have to use holding tanks, but this method is the most desirable environmentally. The extra pumping cost and inconvenience is not prohibitive and it is a price many people are willing to pay to live in a less developed natural area. The use of holding tanks will also keep the development pace low by use of free market factors rather than government coercion. Und6r the present plan, as soon as urban areas are ?g@gblyu sewered they w e lly developed within a year with more housing units than have been built south of 91st Street in the past thirty years!) ever 9. No multi-family residential use shall/be allowed anywhere in the study area. f 6 Appendix E-9 WARZYN ENGINEERING INC Engineers & Sc@bnfists - F-rivironmental - Geological - Civil - StnjMrall - Geotechnical - Chernical/Materials Testing - Soil Borings - Surveying 1409 EMIL STREET. P.O. BOX 953a, MADISON. WIS. $3715 - TEL. (6M) 257-4648 WIS. TOLL FREE NO. 800-362-5005 October 19, 1984 C 11128 MEMORANDUM To: Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, and Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Land Use Management Planning Program From: Robert W. Trefz, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of our client, Trident Marina, to set forth some comments and observations concerning the "Recom- mended Land Use Plan - Chapter V", "Plan Implementation - Chapter VI", and "Summary and Conclusions - Chapter VIV along with the September, 1984 paper by Douglas S. Cherkauer, consulting hydrologist, entitled "Review of Potential for Groundwater Impacts From Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of Chiwaukee Prairie". These comments, while in many instances may apply to much of the study area, are directed primarily at the Trident Marina area, the proposed future expansion area in the vicinity of Trident Marina, and its immediate vicinity. This area can generally be described as bounded on the west by the railroad right-of-way, on the north by 122nd Street, on the east by Lake Michigan and on the South by the Wisconsin-Illinois State line. _211- MEMORANDUM -2- VIL-LUUlto Lj, L,v@ C 11128 In general, we agree with the basic goals and philosophies as expressed in the "Recommended Land Use Plan", et al. and with the comments concerning potential for groundwater impacts as described by Douglas Cherkauer in his referenced paper. We also concur with the requests and recommendations concerning the "Recommended Land Use Plan", et al. reported in the minutes of the September 6, 1984 Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee meeting particularly as it relates to Mr. Knetzer's co ncerns relative to access from Sheridan Road to the Trident Marina area and the need for adequate utility services to this area. The proposed text revisions as indicated on page 5 of the minutes appear to be appropriate. We do have some concerns relative to the Cherkauer report inasmuch as that report was prepared without benefit of specific on-site information and consequently may, in many instances, misrepresent the magnitude of these potential impacts. Although Mr. Cherkauer acknowledges the inadequacy of information available to him and therefore states that specific responses cannot be developed, he does attempt to indicate numerous reasons for opposition of proposed development in the area. He further indicates an advocacy of delaying approval of the proposed plan pending further studies. We are unaware of the extent of information available to Cherkauer or the extent to which he sought to Obtain such information. We certainly concur that before specific plans for construction are implemented, it is necessary that the area be fully investigated, analyzed, and appropriate design developed so as to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the proposed development. We WARZYN ENGINEERING INC -212- MEMORANDUM uctuoer no, LIJ64 C 11128 feel, however, that such investigations, analysis and design should be per- formed on a project specific basis and that such in depth studies performed as part of a planning function, such as this, would be inappropriate. Warzyn Engineering has performed some preliminary site specific investigations and analyses and has reviewed other available geological and hydrogeological data as was available through the U.S Geological Survey offices and other sources. We acknowledge that as part of more detailed studies and design development for the Trident project, significant additional investigations a.nd analyses would be warranted. .We currently believe that the shallow aquifer immediately underlying the ground surface consists primarily of a shallow sandy stratum extending o nly to a depth of approximately 10 feet. At that depth, a siltier, much more dense stratum is encountered wh ich wou Id tend to significantly restrict the vertical component of groundwater flow. The sands in this shallow water-bearing stratum have permeabilities of approximately 1 x 10-3 to 3 x 10-3 cm/sec. Consequently, because of this level of permeability, a relatively free flow of groundwater through this stratum is expected. The horizontal component of groundwater flow is easterly towards Lake Michigan with the groundwater surface pitching downwards towards the lake at a rate of approximately 1/3 of one percent to 1/2 of one percent. WARZYN rl"JOINEERING INC MEMORANDUM -4- October 19, 1984 C 11128 Existing wells located in the vicinity generally draw from much deeper lime- stone (silurian dolomite) aquifers. Wells are usually 90 to 135 feet deep and are cased to rock. These wells are used primarily for single family residential purposes. Test capacities are typically @10 gpm. Consequently, because of their depth and low rates of pumping, the impact of these wells on the shallow water-bearing stratum is probably very insignificant. We would anticipate that the area will continue to be served by this type of relatively low capacity, deep, water supply wells. Consequently, future impacts to the shallow water-bearing stratum resulting from these wells should not be significant. In order to attempt to put into perspective the quantitative impacts of various features wbich could affect the shallow water-bearing stratum, we have prepared some estimates based on certain developmental assumptions. Within the area previously described, annual precipitation should result in a recharge to this shallow water-bearing stratum at an average rate of approx- imately 233,000 gallons/day, based on an infiltration rate of.15 inches per year. Obviously this rate of recharge-will vary significantly from day to day during the year. This recharge rate neglects what could be quite sig- nificant amounts of groundwater which would flow into the stratum from up- gradient locations. in comparison, it is estimated that the total discharge from existing septic system wastewater tile fields would contribute only approximately 4,000 gallons/day or less than 1.7% of the total recharge to the stratum. This volume is based on a discharge rate of 100 gallons per capita. If sanitary WARZYN ENGINEERING INC -214 MEMORANDUM -5- UCLOuer ij, i@its,4 C 11128 sewers were installed in the area, and if the sewer lines were installed in such a way so that leakage was at the maximum rate of 200 gallons per day' per inch diameter of pipe allowed by Administrative Code, potential infiltration or exfiltration from Such sewers would only amount to approximately 1,200 gallons/day or less than 112 of one percent of the recharge to the stratum. Some concern has been expressed that the installation of shore protection along the Lake Michigan shoreline would have an adverse effect on the Water levels in the shallow water-bearing stratum. It is not currently anticipated that the entire Lake Michigan shoreline, throughout the study area, would receive shore protection. Furthermore, there are many methods of shore protection which could be provided Which will have minimal impact on the flow of groundwater. Since any such shore protection would probably be located at least 800 feet away from those natural areas identified as warranting protection, and because the sandy soils of the stratum permit relatively free flow of groundwater, it is highly unlikely that even the most flow restrictive types of shoreline protection would result in measurable impacts to the groundwater level in the areas designated for preservation. Furthermore, since the construction of such shoreline protection requires regulatory approval., it would be reasonable to expect that the potential for such impacts would be considered as part of the review process preceding the granting of such approvals. Concer n has also been expressed that sewer construction through the area would have a significant adverse effect on the shallow water-bearing st ratum Although we acknowledge that careless or abusive construction techniques could cause such a result, we again contend that since such construction is WARZYN ENGINEERING INC -2 15- MEMORANDUM -6- October 19, 1984 C 11128 subject to regulatory agency review and approval, and because numerous well. established@construction techniques are available which can significantly reduce the short-term construction related impacts to local groundwater condition, such construction should not have a significant adverse environ- mental impact on this area. Long-term impacts to this stratum which might result from the existence of such sewers can be mitigated by utilizing back- filling materials similar to the adjoining stratum and/or constructing barriers within the trench to control the flow of groundwater in a longitudinal direction along the pipelines. Roadways requiring upgrading, reconstruction, or relocation, can be constructed through areas of significant environmental concern in such a manner so as to minimize the impacts on the local groundwater flow patterns. A variety of construction techniques to accomplish this are available, including the in- stallation of equalizing pipes, utilization of geotechnical fabrics and drain systems,.etc. Consequently, we feel that such construction can be accomplished in a manner so as to not significantly alter the local groundwater flow patterns. We do feel that expansion of the marina basin would probably result in local drawdown. of the surrounding groundwater table unless design provisions were made to control the groundwater flow in this area. We do expect to incorporate appropriate design considerations so as to maintain desired groundwater levels in sensitive environmental areas in the vicinity of the marina expansion. We have used such techniques successfully in numerous other applications and are confident that they can be applied equally successfully at Trident Marina. WARZYN ENGINEERING INC MEMORANDUM -7- October 19, 1984 C 11128 Site development work in the vicinity of the existing Trident Marina would undoubtedly require the placement of additional fill in the development area. There Should be more than an adequate supply of such fill materials resulting from proposed basin expansion. Fill material utilized for this purpose -is anticipated to be of a sandy nature, thereby causing minimal change in the ability to support surface water infiltration and therefore, Should not significantly affect the groundwater flow of the area. The installation of parking lots and other developed surface areas associated with expansion of the Trident Marina facility is expected to have some impact on recharge to the shallow water-bearing stratum. If deemed appropriate, design techniques can be incorporated into the work Which will allow surface water infiltration from these areas to be optimized. Such concepts as the util-1zation of permeable surfacing materials for these areas would be considered. The impact of snow and ice control on area roadways is also of concern. If emphasis is placed on the improving and upgrading of existing roadways,@or the construction of new roadways to replaced abandoned and removed roadways, rather than the construction of additional roadways, the total length of roadway to be maintained in safe winter driving condition can be minimized. Winter roadway maintenance program management can be established in such.a manner so as to minimize the amount of deicing chemicals applied to pavements in this area. Such techniques have proven very effective in many areas throughout Wisconsin in reducing chemical content of surface waters and shallow groundwater strata. WARZYr*J ENGINEERI@G INC -217- MEMORANDUM -8- October 19, 1984 C 11128 It is our recommendation that this plan be adopted in its present fo rm, incorporating appropriate corrective language modifications as may be needed, consis tent with recommendations as outlined in the previously referenced minutes of the September 6, 1984 committee meeting. We further recommend that provisions be made to review and approve specific project proposals for those areas designated as developable, in order to establish that such develop- ment proposals will be implemented in a manner consistent with the objectives of this plan: the preservatives of significant natural environmental zones. Decisions relating to proposed development should be made in a mannercon- sistent wit,h the plan and with the concept of preserving significant natural resources. RWT/blc,, [blc-46-41 WARZYN ENGINEERING INC -218- Appendix E-10 statement for Public Hearing on the Land Use Management Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area, October 23, 1984. The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area is a unique and priceless natural resource for residents throughout Southeastern Wisconsin and, indeed, throughout the state. As Director of the Wehr Nature Center, I have taken many groups to the Chiwaukee Prairie as part of the environmental education programs offered by the Center. At the Wehr Nature Center, we have a few acres of restored prairie but, in no way, can we duplicate the diversity and abundance of flora and fauna that nature has produced over thousands of years at the Chiwaukee Prairie. As one specific example, our sparse spring flora pales in comparison with that of Chiwaukee Prairie. Moreover, to my knowledge, there is no other area in the state outside of Chiwaukee, Prairie with a unique swell and swale topography enabling both dry-loving and wet- loving prairie plants to grow in close proximity. This great diversity of flora, including both threatened and endangered species, makes Chiwaukee the richest prairie remnant in the state, with nearly 350-400 species of plants. In addition, it harbors over 100 speices of breeding birds. We simply do not have the knowledge to recreate this complex ecosystem elsewhere in the state. For these reasons, I fully support the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition's preservation plan which aims to preserve homeowner's rights, as well as tine natural resources of the area. One of my greatest objections to the plan of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission is the proposed sewer development and expansion (including that of the Trident Marina) east of Chiwaukee Prairie. The whole water structure of the prairie will be drastically altered. Dr. Douglas Cherkauer, a geologist of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, cites this development as having one of the, greatest potential negative impacts on the prairie* All of the already preserved prairie acreage, designated as a Wisconsin state scientific area and a National Natural Landmark, will lose much of its present diversity and wildlife value should this occur. I also object to the expansion site for the Kenosha Sewage Treatment Plant es pecially since alternative parcels are available which will not threaten the Kenosha sand dunes. In addition, as the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition's plan suggests, any utility corridor for the Wisconsin Electric Power Company should be subject to the stipulations that no permanent buildings be constructed and no herbicides be used in the corridor. In conclusion, I believe we have an obligation to consider the Chiwaukee Prairie- Carol Beach area in terms of the residents of all of this region and, in@fact, of th,-_ entire state. Chapter VII of the SEWRPC Report states that there are four areas of statewide significance and three areas of regionwide significance within the study area. We have an opportunity here to establish a park or preserve akin to the Illinois Beach State Park with its nature preserves and wild- life refuges. There is precious little of Wisconsin's original prairie and wet- lands remaining and we owe it to ourselves and our posterity to preserve@this outstanding relic area - a small fraction of the millions of acres which once were our heritage. ,Mariette Nowak Director, Wehr Nature Center 5998 Sycamore St. Greendale, WI. 53129 _219- Appendix' E-11 LaE c i@', "Cl-41 Lc b/L 7LI. PA rf Aovezrs ry r.,-- A 5. pa,@. 53 e,,,?Z Lkk@, -53405 141@,2 IS-4;1-3 21e-4@ lea", (61 JW12 R-4 4V3 u -220- .1 /,F f,3 yd3 /Cc) 4 /67 @w x @ 4,x 7 V1 3rLiq 106U ltq qj- 3- 1 T 4 Sr. 2 1- U10 31 'Yov a-ivn d ye@e- er Y6 f .5-34 oL 7 S-3yol IE@ SC -221- WAUKESHA COUNTY Appendix E-12 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION LEAGUE October 23, 1984 Statement for Public Hearing Land Use Management Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie- Carol Beach Area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie Speaker: Jerrine Osenga, representing WEAL (Waukesha County Environmental Action League) WEAL suppo~qtts the Environmental Corridor Plan connecting and thus helping to preserve the Kenosha County's Carol Beach and Chiwaukee Prairie Areas. WEAL applauds the State's "Advisory" Regional Planning Commission's assistance in this long range planning that will make possible the preservation of these state and nationally significant natural resource lands. HOWEVER, WEAL views with skepticism and is apalled at SEWRPC's proposal to allow filling of wetlands as part of planned recommended land use as described in Chap- ter V of Report no. 88, dated 8-24-84. I refer to allowing expansion into wetlands by: 1. proposed additional urban development with sewer service extension, 2. proposed sewer plant expansion into wetlands owned by WEPCO which was denied by DNR in 1975, 3. proposed expansion of Trident Marina into the complex of the Chiwaukee Prairie Preservation Area of National Significance, 4. proposed widening of the WFPOO Utility Corridor into Kenosha's Sand Dunes Area of National Significance. Is this planned filling of wetlands not influencing the Regulatory Agencies to compromise their legislative mandate to protect the wetlands. WEAL is expecting our Regulatory Agencies to safeguard the future of our state's wetlands as well as our precious natural areas of significance. -222- Appendix E-13 JDX,,9,1 4j A;2 UL, AIV e V67- 4s 7@,O. /7@@X 77W,4.7- XLZI TO 0"-@ 1441 lo9-,? lo-9 4-1/16L 6z- /W-c -T v 6 1,3 7-19 /,t -V ,-1277 To /V/,97 6"1 et-, Hs- cc. 6o 7,Y jw-/ 6 7 -223- Appendix E-14- 73 7' @1@ 224- Appendix E-15 Statement for Public Hearing on the Land Use Management Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area Of Wisconsin's original two million acres of prairie,, only a fraction about a thousandth - remains. One of the richest and most diverse remnants is the Chiwaukee Prairie area. It is a gem of regional and national significance - a State Scientific Area as well as a National Natural Landmark. For this reason, I must object to the plans for sewer systems to accommodate the suburban expansions and the expansion of the Trident Marina east of the Chiwaukee Prairie. Geologist Dr. Douglas Cherkauer of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee has cited sewers and the other impacts of this expansion as having the second greatest negative impact on the Prairie. (The greatest impact would be development west of the prairie., which is not as yet planned.) Also, I object to the proposed expansion of the Kenosha Sewage Treatment plant which would threaten an excellent sand dunes area, Parcels just west and south of the plant could be used instead. Please reconsider your plans and help preserve this relatively small but precious fraction of our natural heritage. We have so little yet existing in Southeastern Wisconsin. 01 David J. Nowak 5998 Sycamore Street Greendale, WI. -53129 Citizen of Southeastern Wisconsin -225- Appendix E-16 IV ,Oka dv4o 4 au 44AV X/v' 0, 4ll, 71, 4./ Ae yoo( E- 17 4 WISCONSIN METRO AUDUBON SOCIETY October 22, 1984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187 Gcntlemen: T'-e Board of Directors of Wisconsin Metro Audubon Society support tiale Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition preservation plan. This plan works for the.existing property owners and most importantly preserves the prairie. We feel that the SE14RPC TAC pIlan is insufficient in its attem* to satisfy the existing landowners and the prairie. Sincerely, President 27- Appendix E-18 Wisconsin ElectricPOWER COMPANY 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046, MILWAUKEE, W1 53 201 0ctober 22, 1984 Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187 Dear Mr. Bauer: Re: Recommended Land Use Management Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie Carol Beach Area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie This letter, submitted for Wisconsin Electric Power Company, contains its comments on the above land use management plan. Wisconsin Electric is the largest single owner of property affected by the aforesaid land use management plan and has had a representative on.-the drafting committee. Early in the discussion leading to the adoption of the plan, we, through our representative, raised a continuing objection .(the basis of which is set forth below) to any plan which greatly changed our future ability to use our property. Because of the makeup and structure of the plan study group, however, this objection was never acted upon. While we thereafter participated in the formulation of the plan, it was with the understanding that our objection to the under- lying concept of the plan had not been abandoned or waived. Turning to the recommended plan, our objection centers on the pervasive appropriation of the potential for develop- ment of our property which would result from adoption of the plan. This property, it must be recalled, was acquired as subdivision lots or under zoning which permitted a multitude of uses; is property upon which Wisconsin Electric has paid taxes for many years based upon assessments premised on this nonrestrictive zoning; and is property the shoreline of which was improved at substantial Company expense to prevent erosion from substantially reducing its size and value. -228- Kurt W. Bauer -2- 10/22/84 Throughout the development of the plan it has been apparent that our property, for no reason other than it is a large assembled undeveloped parcel, was going to be singled out for special treatment. The ultimate result of this special treatment is to leave Wisconsin Electric with title to land having little.if any economic value. It seems to us funda- mentally wrong to use rezoning to take property for environmental preservation" when the major reason for such p"reservation is that similar neighboring properties have previously been developed. This is not zoning pursuant to a coherent plan for the community but rather a form of reverse spot zoning and an expropriation of the property of the last de-v-eloping property owner. Because we believe that implementation of the plan, as it affects Wisconsin Electric Power Company property, would work an expropriation of our property rather than a permissible exercise of the police power, we must oppose it. Very truly yours, RI HARD P. ROUSE Legislative Counsel RPR/df IeHARD P.@ROI -229- Appendix E-19 State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Carro# D. Besadny Secretafy BOX 7921 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53707 IN REPLY REFER TO: 8250 Mr. Kurt W. Bauer Executive Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187 Dear Mr. Bauer: The Department of Natural Resources has completed it's review of the preliminary draft recommended land use management plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. The Department's comments on the plan are provided herein. We request that these comments be included in the official record of comments received at the publ ic hearin g scheduled for October 23, 1984. Chapter V 1. On page 7, it is noted that 812 acres of the study area are recommended for inclusion in the open space preservation area. The open space preservation area is described as a continuous corridor extending from the Kenosha Sand Dunes on the north end to the Chiwaukee Prairie on the south end of the study area. However, review of Map 3, page 10, shows two utility corridors are located within the northern portion of the preservation area. The proposed utility corridor for the WEPCO Pleasant Prairie power plant results in a break in this continuous corridor. This is a significant departure from the original objectives of the planning effort. One of these objectives was to provide a continuous corridor from the Kenosha Sand Dunes to the State line to ensure species interaction and gene pool transfer between these two areas. The recommended plan does not fully achieve this objective since disturbance within the utility corridor could potentially interrupt species flow. In addition, the utility corridor along 7th Avenue effectively isolates a small portion of the open space preservation area between 7th Avenue and the railroad right-of-way. The Department recognizes it is the extent of modification and the periodicity of reconstruction/maintenance that will determine the impact of the corridors on species interaction. Nonetheless, the Department disagrees with the conclusion on page 7 that a continuous corridor is provided for in the plan. -236- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Di rector 2. 2. On page 10, the proposed acreages of land to be included in the above referenced utility easements should be identified. 3. On page 10, reference is made to Table 3 - A Summary of Wetlands Preservation under the Recommended Plan. It is stated that the plan would preserve 565 acres or 87% of all wetlands which are significant by virtue of providing the important functions listed in Chapter NR 115 Wisconsin Administrative Code. These significant wetlands are refer;ed to in the plan documents as "special value wetlands". On page 13 i ,t is noted that the remaining special value wetlands would not be preserved. This section should indicate the amount of significant wetlands within the shoreland zone that would not be preserved under the plan. Chapter NR 115.05(2)(e)4., Wisconsin Administrative Code, states: "...a county shall not rezone a shoreland-wetland zoning district, or portion thereof, if the proposed rezoning may result in a significant adverse impact upon any of the..." seven criteria listed. Therefore, all significant wetlands within the shoreland zone must be included in the open space preservation area and the plan should beadjusted to reflect this. The Department does not believe this requirement is inconsistent with the concept of a compromise plan. The Department has maintained throughout this planning process that some wetlands, including wetlands in the shoreland zone, may be excluded from preservation. The Department has also maintained that by law all wetlands within the shoreland zone that are significant under NR 115 must be preserved. Since one purpose of the land use plan is to provide the County with the basis for a wetland rezoning proposal under NR 115, it is imperative that the plan reflect the requirements of the law. In addition, on page 13 in the first full paragraph, it states that "the special value wetlands which would not be preserved are typically isolated froni, or located on the periphery of, other special value wetlands." It seems that the excluded significant wetlands on the periphery of other significant wetlands should logically be included in the open space preservation area. 4. On pages 13 through 15, the plan proposes two utility corridors within the open space preservation area. We have estimated that the north-south corridor east of 7th Avenue encompasses approximately 25 acres of significant wetlands. The east-west corridor north of 85th Street encompasses a total of 12 acres, of which 8.5 acres are significant wetlands, and 3.5 acres are upland. In total, the utility corridors represent an estimated 35.2 acres (overlap by 1.8 acres) or 4.3%.of the open space preservation area. The need for the north-south corridor is not apparent. Utility lines are typically located along existing streets. The establishment of a special utility corridor in a high value natural area such as the Kenosha Sand Dunes is not essential and, therefore, is not justified. Although the plan recommends that work involving the utility lines include restoration of the land to natural conditions, there is no guarantee such restoration -231- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 3. will occur. In addition, the plan notes on page 13 that the north-south corridor is intended to accommodate installation and servicing of utilities for the study area and "...to other portions of the southeastern area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie." Under this scenario, the frequency and degree of disturbance is likely to be much greater and more destructive. The east-west corridor, north of 85th Street, is intended to allow servicing of the water intake and discharge lines for the Pleasant Prairie power plant. The existing corridor is 75 feet wide. Even with the installation of additional water intake and discharge lines as suggested on page 15, a maximum corridor width of 150 feet, twice the existing width, would seem adequate. Please note, however, that even this 150 foot wide corridor is nota documented need for the twenty year horizon of the plan. In summary, while NR 115.05(2)(c)10. establishes utility corridors as a permitted use in a shoreland wetland zone provided no practical alternative exists and construction minimizes wetland impacts, deletion of.these corridors from regulatory jurisdiction is not necessary and not acceptable from the Department's perspective. Thus, the need for, and size of, these utility corridors should be re-evaluated in light of these concerns and those stipulated in comments #1 and 7. 5. On page 15, the plan notes that the open space preservation area includes a drainageway north of 115th Street between 3rd Avenue and Lake Michigan. The discussion in the plan implies that the amount of the drainageway included in the open space preservation area could be reduced by placing culverts or other alterations in the drainageway, The Department is co6cerned about the implications of a recommendation that replaces the natural floodwater management functions provided by wetlands with man-made alterations. The alteration of drainageways also has implications for local groundwater recharge/discharge and vegetative community composition. In addition, there is no discussion in the plan of the flood hazard area extending from the old golf course to the marina. 6. On page 16, the recommended plan proposes that 36 acres located west of lst Court and north of the State line, be reserved for expansion of the Trident Marina. This land is included in the urban area. It is estimated that 17 acres of this land is comprised of significant wetlands. Expansion of the marina into any significant wetlands within the shoreland zone is unacceptable for the reasons specified previously in comment # 3. In addition, portions of the marina expansion area contain the endangered plant species smooth phlox and the threatened white-fringed prairie orchid. Loss of this habitat area is a serious negative effect of the plan which has not been considered. We suggest that the recommended plan be reviewed to reconsider the need for 36 acres for marina expansion and to redefine the area set aside for that purpose. 232- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 4. In addition, on page 17 the plan suggests that if the marina development is not underway in five years, lands should be redesignated as part of the open space preservation area. In the Department's view, the lands proposed for marina expansion should initially be included in the preservation area. Designation of this land as part of the urban area increases the potential for unauthorized alteration or disturbance of the area and loss of its natural values. Under such circumstances, redesignation to open space preservation area in five years may be impractical if the marina does not expand. Designation of this area as urban at this time without specific plans for marina expansion also increases the threat of indirect disturbance of the Chiwaukee Prairie Scientific Area due to its close proximity. 7. On page 17, the plan proposes that 18 acres of lands within the Kenosha. Sand Dunes be set aside for future expansion of the Kenosha Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The land in question is a Natural Area 1 and contains significant wetlands, although only a small portion is within the shoreland zone. The plan states that currently there is no additional area for future expansion at the present site, and that the only direction in which the WWTP could expand is to the south. The existing WWTP is currently being upgraded and expanded with th e improvements scheduled to be operational by February 19, 1985. This present plant expansion is designed to handle Kenosha's wastewater treatment needs through the year 2000, with a design capacity to serve,a population equivalent of 135,000 persons. Preliminary population projections by the Wisconsin Department of Administration-Demographic Services Center estimate the population of the Kenosha planning area to be 100,072 in the year 2000, or approximately 35,000 less than the WWTP capacity. By the year 2010, a further decline in population to 97,566 is projected by the Demographic Services Center. Thus, at this point in time, a decreasing demand for wastewater treatment is projected for the Kenosha planning area. The Dep artment is opposed to setting aside the 18 acres as urban land for expansion of the WWTP. Based on a review of the current situation, there is no demonstrated need for inclusion of the 18 acres for expansion in the land use plan. The need for WWTP expansion is not likely to occur until considerably beyond the planning horizon of the land use plan. At this time, it is impossible to evaluate the performance and useful, life of the newly expanded WWTP to establish a documented need for expansion. Should minor adjustments or improvements to the plant be required during the 20 year planning period (or beyond), there are currently five acres of vacant land at the current site of the WWTP to accommodate them. Additionally, there has been no consideration of other potential expansion sites that are not currently connected to the WWTP, e.g., vacant lands to the west. Since the 18 acres in question are part of an NA-1 area including some significant wetlands, the lands should be designated as open space preservation area in the land use plan. -233- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 5. Finally, designating the land as urban area does not distinguish the future optional use of the site for WWTP expansion from such uses as housing, industry, or commercial development. Should expansion of the WWTP into the area in question be proven the most feasible alternative at some future time, a plan amendment could be considered and the area rezoned. Preservation of the land for that contingency can be effected more adequately under the open space preservation designation than under the urban use designation where competing uses may supercede WWTP expansion. In concluding our concerns for the land use plan's impact on the Kenosha Sand Dunes Natural Area, we note that while the impacts of the utility corridors or the expansion of the Kenosha WWTP may not individually destroy the entire value of the natural area, the combined effects of these land use changes will have a significant cumulative impact on it. 8. Population, housing and sewer service areas are discussed on page 18. The plan identifies an ultimate population of 4,260 persons based on the plan development recommendations. The population was derived using the number of vacant lots. NR 121.05(2)(c)3 requires that population forecasting methodologies used by designated planning agencies for sewer service areas be consistent with Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA) approved standards. The method used in the plan is not the same procedure used for previous water quality management activities, which has been approved by WDOA. Therefore, population projections used in the plan should be discussed with WDQA. 9. On page 18, the plan proposes that during the 20 year planning period public sanitary sewer service be extended to all urban areas in the study area. Chapter NR 121.05(2)(g)2, Wisconsin Administrative Code, states that 10 year service area boundaries may also be included in addition to the 20 year boundary. Given the unique and sensitive character of the natural resources in the study area, the Department strongly suggests that staging or phasing of sewer service to the study area be considered in the plan. At the present time, the effects on the preservation area of sewering the urban areas is not well understood but such effects may be substantial. By phasing in sewer service to less sensitive areas and/or areas clearly in need of sewers due to failing septic systems, the effects on the preservation area can be monitored. Phasing sewer service also ensures that public resources are only committed to improvements justified by population growth. 10. Pages 19 through 21, the land use plan identifies certain road segments along which sewer service would be provided to only one side of the road. A review of Map 1 and Map 3 indicate that there are certain areas involving significant wetlands within the shoreland area for which sewer service is proposed on both sides of the road. Specifically, these areas are: An area south of 91st Place and west of lst Avenue; an area south of 90th Street and west of 3rd Avenue; and an area between 108th Street -234- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 6. and 109th Street, west of Ist Avenue. These areas should be reconsidered for prese rvation, particularly in light of comment # 3 above, as they are are identified as high quality wetland with very few currently developed lots. 11. The first full paragraph on page 21 suggests that the 30 homes remaining within the open space preservation area could be considered for sewering at the time a sewer system is installed to serve the surrounding urban areas. This is unacceptable. Under NR 121, the open space preservation area would be considered the primary environmental corridor for the study area. Lands within the environmental corridor are to be excluded from sewer service. The suggestion that these homes be sewered is in direct conflict with the premise that the open space preservation area should remain in its natural state. For example, sand or other porous backfill used in buried utility installations is likely to dewater some wetland areas unless special construction techniques are employed. In addition, providing sewer service to these scattered houses is not likely to be cost effective and therefore could induce additional @ development within the open space preservation area through private lateral connections in order to lower the overall costs to the individual homeowners. This is environmentally unacceptable and is not in,keoping with the principal of a compromise plan. 12. Pages 22 through 23 discuss road access to the Trident Marina and existing residences south of 116th Street. The plan proposes that access continue to be provided via 116th Street. In the event that an alternative access route is necessary, the plan indicates that dn east-west access road along 12,2nd Street would be preferable to an access route along the State line. We concur with the recommendation that access be provided via 116th Street. An alternative access routes along the existing 122nd Street corridor would require detailed evaluation and is beyond the scope of this plan. An alternative access route along 128th Street would not be permitted use under NR 115 Shoreland Zoning criteria. This matter will have to be fully evaluated as part of any plans for expansion of the Trident Marina. 13. A review of Map 3 indicates that sewer service lines would extend along portions of Ist Avenue, which are considered to be a high erosion.hazard ,areas. It is imperative that this plan identify the fact that these sewers, in addition to the road, will eventually erode into Lake Michigan unless substantial public funds are spent to control shoreline erosion. (Note: In 1979, these costs were estimated by WDOA to vary from $150 to $350 per linear foot to provide intermediate to long-term shore, protection.) The benefits of such expenditures would be realized by a few private citizens at a substantial cost to the public. -235- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 7. Chapter VI 1. On page 2, the plan discusses the responsibility of local level agencies. Since the City of Kenosha could potentially annex portions of the study area at some future time, the City should be included in this section. The plan should also note that the City will eventually be required to adopt wetland protection ordinances under NR. 117. Any annexation that may occur will retain existing County Shoreland/Wetland Zoning. 2. A discussion of open space acquisition begins on page 6. While the Department agrees in concept with the acquisition of valuable natural resource lands, acquisition by the Department or other public or private groups is only a recommendation of the plan. The Department would welcome,the opportunity to discuss an acquisition program with the Commission, Town, and County, nonetheless, inclusion of this recommendation in the plan does not commit any private or public agency to acquisition. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that any acquisition by the Department forthcoming from this plan would result from the Department's interest in, and long standing practice of, acquiring valuable and scarce natural resource lands. Acquisition of natural resource lands does not exempt the County from shoreland zoning requirements under Section 59.971 of the Wisconsin Statutes, and NR 115, Wisconsin Administrative Code. Any natural area acquisition forthcoming from this plan is not to be interpreted as being required by the application of the statutorily mandated statewide shoreland zoning. requirements. '3. On page 6, paragraph 2, the plan should note that the County and Town have the responsibility to seek out sources of acquisition funds other than from the Nature Conservancy and the Department of Natural Resources.. 4. On page 9, the plan recommends that open space acquisition occur over a five year period beginning in 1985. It is unrealistic to set a five year acquisition horizon in the plan. Past experience in land acquisition by the Department has shown that acquisition of the lands in question over the 20 year planning period is a much more reasonable recommendation. The fact that many individual property owners will be involved in negotiating sales will significantly extend the acquisition period beyond five years, particularly as the acquisition proposal is based on a willing seller-willing buyer situation. 5. On page 10 it is noted that the acquisition of existing homes within the open space preservation area is not proposed in the plan, however, such acquisition is not precluded by the plan either. The estimated costs of acquiring these developed lots should be noted in the plan for information purposes. 6. A discussion of zoning as a means of implementing the recommended plan begins on page 13. The plan recommends that a new C-3 Conservancy District be established for the open space preservation area. The -236- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 8. permitted uses identified for the C-3 district appear to meet the requirements of Chapter NR 115 for open space preservation areas ,involving wetlands within the shoreland zone. However, the provisions of the proposed C-3 Conservancy District do not specify prohibited uses, a provision which is necessary under Chapter NR 115 for shoreland-wetlands Also a review of Map 2 shows a substantial portion of the shoreland z@ne in residential zoning. Review of the proposed residential zoning districts (R-3. R-5,.R-6) under the general county zoning ordinance reveals that the provision of such districts does not fully meet the requirements for zoning of shoreland areas as specified in Chapter NR 115.05(3). Therefore, the general county zoning ordinance would have to be revised to include all of the provisions required by Chapter NR 115. 7. On page 19 it is stated that the area reserved for the Kenosha WWTP would be placed in the C-3 District until expansion was required. While we agree with this proposal, it is inconsistent with including this land in the urban area as discussed in Chapter V of the land use plan. Concluding Remarks In conclusion, the recommended plan as presented in the preliminary draft could not be approved. The Department cannot legally approve a plan which does not comply with existing statutes and administrative rules. The miost serious problem in this regard is the recommendations concerning shoreland wetla'nds as explained in the previous comments. Other issues raised in our comments reflect ongoing concerns which the Department has identified throughout the planning process. We recognize that the plan attempts to reach a compromise between conflicting interests in the study area. We also recognize, however, that at the onset of this planning process in 1980 a substantial majority of the lands east of the C&N Railroad tracks were desi nated as primary environmental corridor (as shown in Map 13 of Chapter II?, and as such were protected from sewering and its attendant development. We believe that modification of the plan to address the concerns expressed in our comments would not substantially alter the plan to invalidate the compromise. Rather, we believe our comments; encourage a cautious approach to development of portions of the study area while i.nsuring preservation of other portions. Such an approach is warranted given the natural resources present in the area and the substantial public and private costs likely to be incurred in order to achieve plan implementation. Finally, we wish to commend the Technical Advisory Committee and the Commission staff for their efforts in producing this plan. The issues addressed in the plan are diverse, and at times are the focus of directly conflicting interests. In many areas, the plan successfully bridged these conflicts and recommended a course of action that all interested parties can abide,by. Despite our conclusion that the plan, as it is now presented, is -237- Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director 9. not approvable, we believe that an approvable compromise plan is close to realization. Recognizing that such a plan, if approved by the Department, is advisory in nature (particularly regarding the proposed acquisition portion of, the plan), it nonetheless would provide a common framework from which all interested and affected government and private parties can work. Sincere y. Lym n Wible, Administrator Division of Environmental Standards George Meter , AdmiA strator Division of Enforcement 3398U cc: WDNR - Southeast District All Bureaus Z,ere.' V)e n -238- Appendix F MATERIALS SUBMITTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING Appendix F-1 RECEIVED OCT 2 5 19b4 SEWRPQ /b@ S, 57, tA,;, R C S& 10AW241 A4ej _-e_a 71-@ -239- 5 17Z4 va-@ -240- Appendix F-2 LAKELAND LIDLIBON SOCIETY, INC. October 20, 1984 1!1'r. Kurt W. Bauer RECEIVED .@,'xecutive Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional P. 0. Box 769 Planning Commission OCT 2 5 1984 916 North East Avenue SEWRPC Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187 Dear Sir: Re: Land Use Management Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie SEWRPC Planning Report N. 88 Preliminary Draf t Lakeland Audubon Society, a chapter of National Audubon Society appreciates the opportunity to offer written comments of this Land Use Plan. I was told in the Waukesha office or October llth that written comments would be accepted. The following comments of this Land Use Plan are given because of our concern about the Impending threats to the Chiwaukee Prairie area. This Is an area where our Audubon members have visited often to study and enjoy birds, wildlife, and the rare and numerous plants and wildflowers found there. Each visit has been a "lift to our spirits." We visited at various times throughout the growing season of the year .... each different ... each some surprise. It Is an area such as we can see nowhere else in Wisconsin, and that hosts one of the:fewer than 100 Calcareous fens known in the entire United States. It is a high value habitat and the only non-disturbed Palco Indian Site in Wisconsin. In early spring we can see the vivid blooms of the marsh marigolds, and later, we catch our breath at the sight of the rare, white fringed orchids in their Incomparable natural splendor, Will all this be lost to growth and urban sprawl? Here lies 1800 acres of irreplaceable beautiful Virgin. prairiet unchanged since the glacial age growing only native species. According to the Wisconsin State Board of Soil & Water Conservation, wetlands have a special value in densely populated areas. They serve as natural reservoirs for flood water storaget reduce peak flows in creeks and trap potentially P.O. BOX 473 ELKHORN, WISCONSIN 53121 -241- -2- polluting sediments and nutrients. This area is part of the Lake Michigan Basin that represents Wisconsin's most extreme situation In terms of water use and water problems which are related to water quality. According to the Board, 'The area has been markedly degraded through the Impact of human acti- viti6s, such as sewage treatment plants, sewer overflows, private septic waste disposal systems add urban stormwater runoff. Half of the basin Is covered by soils unsuitable for septic systems." In their study of 1980, they stated further that Wetlands provide aesthetic values, Intangibles derived from the presence of open space that contains natural flora and fauna which are essential to the contentment of the human "Inner person." Are we going to ignore the facts and con- clusions in this entire study? I don't know whether any of our wetland areas can long withstand the pressures of land speculation and urban sprawl and all It Involves or whether people can long withstand the increase in taxes, over-priced housing, and expensive new sewer systems. MORE GROWTH soon may not be the answer for quality of life for it may Involve soon the quality of water on which ALL life depends...not just the flora and fauna. I agree with Orville Schell who wrote: "Progress, growth, development ne redefinition. They need to be rescued from the.destroyers." Why must this historically, ecologically, and aesthetically valuable beautiful prairie be sacrificed? Some things man can preserve In a museum, but NOT a wetland area. Its entire purpose and function would be lost forever. Often decisions are made by those with little knowledge of the environmental fact of the interdependency of nature. Threats to the water systems .... threaten every man for he cannot live .or survive witho ut CLEAN water. As Russell Peterson,, Pres. of National Audubon has said, OWhenever human activities dirty the air, foul the water, and disrupt the land, we add to the accumulation of pollution that over the long run reduces the quality of EVERYONE'S LIFE.* We cannot preserve a prairie or a wetland while at the same time have activities, such as drainage and heavy construction, that destroy its ecological ,systems. Secondly, I'm concerned that a Committee of (20) persons (TAC) changed and amended SEWRFC1s original plan without any input from the public. A Committee that consisted of City and County supervisors, government agencies, utility representatives,, landowners, and developers. I am concerned that a PLAN with great environmental Importance such as Chiwaukee Prairie was without'environmental representation except the Nature Con- servancy. This Committee made decisions with little expertise about an environmentally sensitive area. This Committee has worked on a plan that contains MAJOR environmental, biological, and hydrological laws. Meetings were held that gave "no voicer to any environmentalist. Even though Lakeland Audubon has contributed to The Nature Conservancy to aid In preserva- tion of this unique area, this apparently is not enough for it Is now seriously threatened by development on all sides. -242- -3- Thirdly,, this plan Involves a Wisconsin environmental law ..... The Wetland Zoning Law. The Shoreland Zoning Law is part of the WATER RESOURCES ACT of 1966-, Its purpose Is to prevent and control water pollution, protect spawning grounds and fish, etc . . . to control building sites and land use . . . to preserve the natural beauty etc.* The zoning to be done by the County "is to be based on Wetlands Inventory MAPS." The Maps to be done by the Regional Planning Commission with the DNR to set standards, such as 300 ft from a river or 1,000 ft from a lake, there will be NO buildings or construction. Wisconsin Administrative Code 14H 115 (to map Wetlands) was put Into effect In 1978 but with r,,,.o protection, thus rules were adopted and revision was made in June, 1978 and became a LAW ..... November 1. 1980. This most certainly applies to any Land Use Plan in- volving Ch1waukee Prairie. I believe that NR 115 should be stricly enforced. This COULD be a test case. This Prairie Is CRITICAL because of statewide and even national signifi- cance and as a habitat of several endangered species. If this law cannot be sustained here, and breaks down under development Interest and demands for sewer service extensions, prospects for statewide WETLAND PROTECTION under NR 115 Is seriously undermined and In jeopardy! . How can (under this law) an extension of the Trident Marina to 500 slips, new breakwater structuresq new access road, and a four story HOTEL with 225 rooms be justified? To name only one portion of this plan ..... THE MAPS by which. the County sets up the Zoning SHOULD REMAIN AS DRAWN by the Regional Planning Commission originally. This law Is of@ major importance to both our surface and ground water T)re- servation. The first thing In the process of adoption of this plan was to CHANGE the Wetlands Zoning Map. Why spend re- sources and a vast amount of time to set up this Mapping-Sys- tem and then the FIRST development Idea that appears .... change the map to suit the situation ... or perhaps to suit the *special @nterest groups." Furthermore, I am concerned that I was unable to secure a copy of the ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT. "Not completed,* I:was told. A DECISION on this plan should NOT be made until the public (and the Committee) has access to an EIS. I under- stand the DNR promised by August lst and I believe that It applies to this case. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 requires an EIS written for all actions that include Federal agencies,and having significant Impacts on the environ- ment. And manditory,in cases that Involve "unique aspects of an area such as wetlands . . . or ecological critical areas, where endangered or threatened species exist or their k,,tabitats." And an EIS "must be made available to the public at,'least (15) days in advance of a hearing ... 0 "An agency MAY NOTImake a decision on.proposed action until at least 90 days after the release of the draft EIS.0 And as of October 15th..* ... NO EIS was available! To add to my concerns, I found that according to -243- -4- Dr. Douglas Cherkauer, geologist, has reviewed the hydro- geological system In and around Chiwaukee Prairie. He states assertions have been made that the planned actions will do no harm ..... when NO QUANTITATIVE DATA EXISTS on which to base this claim. That is, the available data Is NOT adequate. In my opinion, this is a major flaw In the Plan. He states there will be disruption of the flow system and water quality by surface development. And that It WILL have a negative Impact on the areas to be preserved as wetland/prairle/environmental corridor. He says that only description information from SEWRPC exists. Therefore, and I agree, that any statement on Impact Is without scientific basis. This area, according to Dr. Cherkauer Is a self -con- tained ground water system and the flow Is from west to east. Septic systems discharge into this system. In shallow systems, ground water and surface water flow systems are really ONE. Any disruption, such as ditching or roadbeds will cause a change. He points.out that no Information on construction methods exist In the plan and the impacts from construction on a prairie such as this, mostly wet prairie could be great. He says that any development on the west (not In the plan) Is the greatest danger while development to the east offers the second greatest danger to the prairie. This Is In the plan. He concludes that more data must be available before any acceptance of the plan. As he words It, "Chtwaukee Prairie is a very hydrological vulnerable area." You state (Chap V. Page 7) that the plan attempts to accomodate significant additional urban development with the area, while AT THE SAME TIME preserviRg the most Important natural features of the area. Can this ACTUALLY be accom- plished without sacrificing the ecological patterns of the wetlands ..... of the prairie ..... and of the dunes? on reading your plan I noted that after several years of work, on May 39 19849 a compromise Plan...."Development- preservation alternative".....was selected by the Technical and Citizen Advisory Committee. The Committee requested a revision of the Wetland Inventory Map, as mentioned before in my comments. The degree of development being planned is so extensive as to jeopardize The Prairie Area that Is being preserved.. I read very little material on how and WHY to save a precious resource such as Chiwaukee Prairie. According to the revision, 71 acres of the wetland area was decreased, critical plant habitat was reduced 13 acres,, significant wetland area was reduced by 64 acres, prairie area was re- duced by 32 acres. I did not find the reason why. You project a triple increase in both housing developments and population.....serious impacts on this area In the future. You allow 851 acres for urban development, "most single family units." This is vague, in my opinion. Later you state some commercial and institutional. How much is some? How much Is most? You also state "multiple family"south of 91st street. This only Increases the density for the area. I do approve of allowing existing homes to,remain. -244- -5- My overall opinion Is that this Is not a plan on *how to preserve a valuable resource area." This is a plan on HOW TO DEVELOP an area such as this. This Is a plan on HOW TO PLEASE county agencies, developers, utilities, and apecial Interest parties, such as the Trident Marina ex- pansion with the 225 room hotel. Where Is this actually to be located? This Is a plan on WHAT TO DO with drainage problems In a Wetlands area and sand and erosion problems in a beach area to make development Possible* This is Tplan on HOW TO PUT A CITY IN A WETLAND AREA. First, it Is necessary to "drain!*, ditch, and install,sewers to get rid of the water to accomodate the structures and the necessary roadways. These are negative Impacts on any wetland area. This Is the same process the Park Service did in Yellowstone Park. First, they built a campground in a forest area ..... then they cut down all the trees for the safety of the campers. Why not another location In the first place? This is a plan on HOW TO DESTROY CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE. The encroachments are too many and too foreign to the natural ecology of a Wetland area. The construction necessary to implement this plan, alone, could damage this sensitive area of Wetlands, Dunesq Wildlife habitat, and Prairie beyond any repair or restoration. I think the entire plan should be re-thought and re- rtudied and should include the knowledgeable concerns of the onvironmentalist and the basic data requested by Dr. Cherkauer &nd the information from the Environmental Impact Statement 1'@efore ANY DECISION ..... any final decision is made. In 197?, The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission stated: .*The natural resource base of an area Is a primary determinant of its development potential and Its ability to provide a pleasant and habitable environment for, all forms of 11fe. Thus, the preservationg protectiong and wise use of the natural resource base Is of vital Importance to sound social and economical development, as well as to the preservation of environmental quality in that area." This is an excellent summation of my comments.00*00 I couldn't word it any better! Sincerely yours9 _e Helen Kluge, Conservation Chairi Lakeland Audubon Society Comments approved by: Mary Ann Harkins, President of Lakeland Audubon Society MRS. HELEN KLUGE 119 S. WASHINGTON -245- EIAHom, WIS. 53121 Appendix F-3 RECEIVED Mr. Kurt Bauer 5 1984 October 23. 1984 S.E.W.R.P.C. SEWRM 2060 Manitowoc Rd. #9 P.O. Box 769 Green Bay, WI 54302 Old Courthouse Waukesha, WI 53187 Dear Mr. Bauer: I am writing to you to express my concern about the development planned for Chiwaukee Prairie. I grew up in Kenosha and travelled to Chiwaukee Prairie as a youngster. There, I learned how important this remnant of original prairie was, how fragile the ecology of these areas are, and why "kids like me" should appreciate the uniqueness of. it. This area was my first introduction to nature and the concepts of conservation. Now, I hear they want to build, cover it up with asphalt, and greatly reduce its size. When I heard this I felt that I lost a little bit of myself--a friend, a memory, a sunny day with a group of children who got an early education about conservation ...... Things change I guess. I learn now that the Trident marina wants to expand. More people who live in Illinois need places to put their boats and a hotel and convention center is needed to bring in the all important tax revenues. Other folks want to build on the land they paid so dearly for. Everyone wants to be by the lake. The soil is very sandy there and wetlands may be filled. The people then demand decent roads, sewer, and water connecti.ons. The sewers and roads then attract more people and greater demands are made to develop the adjacent properties. Kids with minibikes will continue to tear up the nature trails and loss of the prairie from encroachment along its edges will cause a loss of some species and decrease the diversity of the life in the prairie. The increase in the amount of groundwater mining will alter water tables and paving of roads will alter the regenerative capacities of the underlying aquifer. This could .result in the total destruction of this valuable natural resource. Although I understand the personal motives of those who want to build or otherwise use their property, I ask myself "Is this the best alternate use of this resource?". I would say that for people like myself and for future generations, overdevelopment will sacrifice the greater good for the more directly measurable benefits of a few. The option to develop this land will preclude the use of this land for a natural area, so we must be very sure of our assessment of the best use of the land for all of us. For those of us who have seen the praririe and believe it is a vital resource for the nation, state, and region, the loss of this area would be great. I can only hope that funds can be raised by the Nature Conservancy or the State to obtain enough of this land to maintain this wondrous place. It.must be preserved intact in order to preserve its genetic integrity and assure that others can look and marvel at what remains o+,Wisconsin's virgin prairie. -246- My children may some day ask to see a prairie. Do I tell them that some people decided to build homes over it, simply becau-F.;e it was in their way and in spite of the knowledge that it is a rare prairie remnant? Or do I tell them that people saw past. their own noses in order to preserve something for people they could never know or meet? The question will be answered, but I wish that my children and other children can have what was such a wonderful experience for me and have an opportunity to understand the sacrifices that someone made in their behalf, to save Chiwakee Prairie. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment an the subject. I feel strongly about this. I would also like to ask that 'someone look into declaring the entire parcel a scientific study area or some other like mechanism, in order to allow for greater protection of the parcel. Sincerely, Jeffrey D. Myers J *ef --f @rl -247- Appendix F-4 October 25, 1984 Kurt Bauer, Executive Secretary RECEIVED SE Wis. Regional Planning Commission 916 N.East Avenue OCT 2 6 1984 Waukesha, Wis- 53187 Greetings: SEWRPC I attended the public hearing on Chiwaukee-Carol Beach development plans October 23 and am submitting my comments in writing. I have been a Wisconsin resident over 45 years. My husband and I built our home in the city of Racine about 20 years ago. First: I wish to register objection to those who heckled a Racine teacher at the hearing, saying I'Go Back to Racine". Racine and Kenosha are not separate communities, but are linked inseparably by economic, cultural and educational ties. Hundreds of Kenosha people work in Racine and Racine people work in Kenosha. For example, our eldest son is a security guard at Carthage College and our daughter and son- in-law drive for a trucking firm which makes frequent deliveries and pick-ups at Kenosha factories and warehouses. My husband golfs at several Kenosha County courses. We attend Kenosha Symphony concerts and sing with the combined orchestras in the Racine-Kenosha Community Chorus. Our daughter and youngest son (who is serving in the air force) enjoyed competing with Kenosha school athletes. Many Racine-Kenosha churches like ours belong to the same district, our peoples attend Parkside together, shop at each othergs malls and patronize restaurants in both counties. We share the same weather systems, air pollution problems, and lakeshore. Our Racine-Kenosha Sierra Group has about a third of its membership in Kenosha County, a third in the city of Racine, and a third in other nearby communities. I . How can we not be concerned about developments in our neighborse environment? My husband and I have even experienced fears similar to those of Carol Beach families, when twice in five years we built a home in a beautiful natural area, only to find state maps which proposed to send a freeway through our backyard. We understand what they are going through. Secondi I would like to endorse the maximum preservation concept presented in the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue coalition plan. I heard 25 speakers...both residents and non-residentse..say they loved and wished to preserve the beauty of the natural prairie. I share the alarm expressed by 15 speakers over damage to the ecology of the prairie which would result from proposed development of sewers, roads, utility expansion, and increasing the number of homes from 500 to 1500- Most of allp I protest the reckless development pland of Trident Marinal!! There is no possible way the prairie can exist if dredging, filling, pavements and large buildings are installed as they, propose. Shoreline alterations can cause erosion far south into Illinois, where they are already.blaming Wisconsin for loss of beaches along their dunes and prairie* Who knows what it would do to the Carol Beach residents along the Wisconsin lakeshore? Please consider Professor Cherkauer"s warnings most seriously, concerning the wide range of effects on water systems of all the proposed construction* When highway improvements were made near us on Green Bay Rd. and Spring Street, residents found six feet of water accumulating intheir yards, and no one would accept responsibility for the damage* We also have friends on Chickory Road# who finally succeeded in draining their, wetland lot, only to have insufficient water in their well. Obviously, expert advice and supervision must accompany Chiwaukee development plans to protect both the prairie and the residents. -248- Finallys I deplore the threats which were heard concerning financial loss to residents of Carol Beach. Home owners deserve protection of their assets. However, those who bought large number of lots hoping to make a profit when taxpayers provided necessary improvements, should realize that land speculation involves risk. There is no money-back guarnatee necessary for themi although I believe some states allow a tax write-off when such land is donated to the stateo I appreciate the difficulty of drawi ng up plans for Chiwaukee-Carol Beach areao I hope those who attended the hearing will continue to work for A compromise which protects both the prairie and home owners* Thank you very mucho Sincerely yours, AIZ4. /r@ Mrs. John Berge 1529 Crabapple Drive Racine, Wis- 53405 copies sent to Wallace Piroyan, Cm. Carol Beach Citizens Carroll Besadny, Seco Wis* DNR -249- Appendix F-5 6646 3rd Av., Kenosha, WI. 53140 10-26-84 Please give careful consideration to the alternative plan suggested by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coaligion headed by Mary Ellen Johnson. We don't want the wetland destroyed. Sincerely, RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1984 SEWRPC Appendix F-6 J. E. SH"FRON & Assmiatese Inc. 8440 Sheridan Road e (414) 654-3506 e Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 REALTOR' October 26, 1984 RECEIVED OCT 2 91984 SEWRPC SEWRPC 916 N. East Ave. Waukesha, Wi. 53187-1607 Gentlemen: I am pleased to make the following statement in addition to the statement that I made at your meeting.. Being the developers of Carol Beach Estate, every time a news article appears about the activities of your committee we get telephone calls, personal visits at our office, letters from property owners at Carol Beach Estate on all your activities. Property owners are in doubt about the results of your committee activities. I don't blame the people for being scared.and do think that you should be more explicit in your activites so people can under- stand your objectives. When people come to me requesting information obout your committee I tell them not to worry about it as I feel that your committee will not do anything that will hurt the value of the property in Carol Beach Estates. As I stated at the meeting thet Carol Beach Estates is far from being a "wet land". If anything it is a dry land and you activities hurt the property owners and you should stop this. Sincer yor, J. . Shaffron JES:sk s@ REALTORS@ Developers* Builders -251- RECEIVED Appendix F-7 OCT 29 1984 2114 Van Hise Ave. Madison, Wis. 53705 SEWRPC October 23, 1984 Southeastern Wis. Reg. Plan Commission Courthouse, Waukesha, Wis. Re: Comment on SEWRPC's recent plan for land use management in the Chiwaukee, Kenosha, and Carol Beach area, Wisconsin. I am out of state until late November and could not attend the October 23 hearing,and request these comments be added to that record. Chiwaukee Praire and the scattered remnants north and south along Lake Michigan is a national treasure. A large number of people have made a considerable investment in purchase of lands in the area in order to preserve this treasure, for all time. Thus we doubly have an investment to protect. I feel that with enough information, which is not yet available, it wi11 be possible to mesh moderate private development in the area and still protect this fragile natural area. My own studies of wetlands, especially of fens and wet prairies, indicate that they are extremely sensitive to hydrologic conditions and reflect a special set of same which are not yet fully understood. I have also had considerable experien- ce with developments in wetland areas and conclude that people do not understand water movement even on the surface and that current planning and construction pro- cedures are not sensitive to hydrologic needs and often create serious and costly problems not only for natural resources but for adjacent landowners by causing flood- ing, erosion, alteration of well water quality, and so on. It is time to develop wiser guidelines for developments to eliminate these undesirable hazards and costs which are not borne by those responsible. A bonding system ought to be required to insure better performance but until the hydrologic regimes and systems are better un- derstood such requirements are meaningless. Chiwaukee is an important place to begin such studies and tests since the accomodation of private land users and important natural resources must be found. In view of these threats to the prairie resources, the property values of adjacent landowners and homeowners,and the budgets of town and county governments must bail out the injured parties when mistakes are made, it is reasonable to ask that no plans be approved and no construction begun in the area untill adequate hydrologic studies are completed. That includes developments, roads, utility corridors, sewage plant plans, and marinas proposed in the area. I understand from a preliminary report that such a hydrologic study would not take very long - probably having to extend through two full years to span seasonal and year-to-year variation. The study should include areas north and south of Kenosha and southward into adjacent northern Illin- ois where these prairie relics exist. In addition to this study, I urge that when final plans to guide development are made up and approved, based on the results of the hydrologic studies,and estimated impacts of each alternative weighed, there be a continuing monitoring program established in the protected prairie and wetland areas such that any further changes in their water flow patterns and levels be measureable so that mitigative corrective measures can be taken when necessary. Funding for such a study should be provided on a partnership basis with input from government and de- velopment interests alike. A fund set aside for emergency mitigative efforts would perhaps be helpful as well. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, James H. Zimmerman Consulting Ecologist and Lecturer Univ. Wis. Dept. Landscape Architecture -252- Appendix F-8 Joan Lutz Kuckkahn 1517 S. Sherwood Drive New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 phone 414-786-7872 CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE PUBLIC HEARING Kurt Bauer, Executive Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commiss.ion 916 N. East Avenue Wa!:kesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607 Octobe r 29, 1984 Dear Mr. Bauer, I am writing to you regarding the land use management plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie. Please include my comments in your public hearing minu tes (of,October 23, 1984). I am in favor of the maximum preservation plan. I took a course in native plant communities at UW-Madison in the 70's. As part of the course, we visited Chiwaukee Prairie. I can still recall feeling awestruck by the beauty of the area, as our professor identified rare plants and explained the ecology of this unusual community. Since then, I have returned a number of.t.imes, and supported the Nature Conservancy in theirefforts to buy more land there. I hope that future development does not encroach needlessly on this paradise. Sincerely, Joan Lut Kuckkahn -253- Appefidix F-9 RECEIVED 01 4P J@tatr of lVisronsin OCT 31.1984 SEWRPC Kathleen M. Falk Bronson C. La Follette Public Intervenor A fforney General (608) 266-1350 Ed Garvey 123 West Washington Avenue October 30, 1984 Deputy Attorney General Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7857 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857 Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 916 North East Avenue Post Office Box 769 Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-0769 Dear-Mr. Bauer: Enclosed please find our written comments on the draft plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area in Kenosha County, Wisconsin. These comments supplement our oral testimony at the October 23 public hearing. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Kadleleen M. Falk KMF:sjs Wisconsin Public Intervenor Enclosure cc w/enc.: Carroll D. Besadny/DNR Secretary Allen K. Shea/DNR/WRM The Hon. John D. Bilotti/Mayor-City of Kenosha Donald H. Wruck/Chairman-Town of Pleasant Prairie Gilbert J. Dosemagen/Kenosha County Executive Wallace Piroyan/Carol Beach Homeowners Association Donald Conley/Trident Marina Developer Robert W. Trefz/Warzyn Engineering, Inc. Senator Joseph,Strohl Senator John J. Maurer Representative Joseph F. Andrea Representative John Antaramian -254- RECEIVED OCT 3 11984 --OMMENTS OF WISCONSIN PUB LIC INTERVENOR SEWRPC submitted to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission October 30, 1984 The Wisconsin Public Intervenor is an assistant attorney general appointed by the Attorney General and directed by the statutes to intervene on behalf of "public rights" where natural resources are at stake. We file these comments because of our concern over the unusually important resources of local, state and national significance at stake in the Chiwaukee Prairie area of Kenosha County. There are few spots in Wisconsin where there are as many, or as precious, natural resources than in the Chiwaukee Prairie area. To highlight just a few here: There are about 250 acres of, according to the U. S. Department of the Interior, "exceptionally, fine and diverse," ridge and swale prairie, one of the best remaining prairies in the Great Lakes region. __83 acres of the prairie were declared a National Natural Landmark in 1974; in addition, the state has officially recognized here two natural areas of statewide significance and -two areas of regional significancer including, one scientific area" (a natural area is land so little modified, or sufficiently recovered from human activity that it contains intact native plant and animal communities. repre sentative of pre-settlementlandscape). -255- --The prairie hosts over two dozen rare, endangered or threatened species of plants and animals; over 400 plant species are found in the prairie and 76 animal species use the prairie in one season alone, enjoying 300 acres of high Value habitat. --There are about 700 acres of wetlands and one-half mile of sand dunes along Lake Michigan. (The high sandy ridge bordering on the west of wha@ was once the shoreline of glacial Lake@ Michigan. As the lake receded over the centuries, old beaches left undulating ridges and swales.) --There are 9 known archeological sites in the area, and possibly others,. that contain, according to the State Historical Society, extensive and "extremely significant" deposits of the only nondisturbed Paleo-Indian site in Wisconsin, allowing a "unique opportunity. to study the cultural history and settlement patterns of people living around 200 BC - 1200 AD. It is for very good reason that in 1980 SEWRPC mapped much of. this entire area as an "environmental corridor" to be preserved as "open space." SEWRPC's own report, "Refining the Delineation of Environmental Corridors in Southeastern Wisconsin" by Bruce Rubin and Gerald Emmerich, Jr., summarizes best the need for protected corridors: Because of the interacting and interdependent relationship in the wetland complex. between hydrology, topography, ener gy and nutrient flow, destruction of part of the corridor one "may lead to a chain reaction of -2- -256- deterioration and destruction." SEWRPC Technical Report, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 1 (March 1981). This whole issue arose years ago when the town first proposed to sewer the area surrounding much of this study area. However, because 1300 of the 1800 acres in the area are designated "environmental corridor" under the 1980 and still existing SEWRPC plan, wholesale sewering of the area would not be permitted by the DNR. SEWRPC's wise recommendation in 1980 ought to be remembered in 1984: Implementation of the recommendation to preserve and protect the primary environmental corridor lands along the Lake Michigan shoreline south of the City of Kenosha in the Town of Pleasant Prairie is particularly important because of the features encompassed within this corridor. The preservation and protection of this environmental corridor is complicated by the fact that a large portion of this corridor was platted as 'early as 1921 for urban development. As a result of this platting activity, urban streets were constructed and some houses were built within the corridor. Despite such construction activity, however, the wetland and prairie features have persisted because of the wet soils and other developmental limitations within these primary environmental corridor lands, and, thus, the area remains one of the outstanding natural resource areas in southeastern Wisconsin. The proposed plan recommends that no further urban development 'be @ermitted to occur in the environmental corridorr and that the remaining resource features be protected initially through public land use regulation, and ultimately through public acquisition. A Park and Open Space Plan for the Kenosha Planning District, Kenosha, Wisconsin," SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning@ Report #41, December 1980, emphasis added. In light of this, why are we here today, only a fe w years later, reviewing a new plan that is drastically different from the one that exists now? -3- -257- Four major threats are on the horizon already. There may be more in the future. In our opinion, the new plan prepared by SEWRPC caves in on every single one o f the four major development threats that could hurt this area. Wesay this, not out of a knee-jerk reaction to the planning process that has occurred, but because of what experts in hydrology, wetlands, soils, history and archeology have told us this plan will do to the important resources at stake. Looking first at hydrology, our office retained the services of Professor Douglas A. Cherkauer, Department of Geologic Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He testified for us at the public hearing on October 23. Our testimony is based in part on his technical review of SEWRPC's plan and his conclusion that "it is premature to maintain that development will not seriously impact the Chiwaukee Prairie." We provided SEWRPC with Professor Cherkauer's' report earlier this month, as soon as it was available to us. Other scientists have reviewed the plan as well, and concur with Professor Cherkauerls conclusions. For example, Professor Calvin DeWitt, a wetlands ecologist of the University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental Studies, reviewed the plan and-gave his expert opinion: .Although the Plan gives recognition to plant communities and wetland plant associations,, including those of a critical nature, it fails to connect these to their vital and crucial survival linkage: groundwater and surface water. Wetiand communities of any type, rare or common, are determined by water regime. Hydrology is the crucial consideration in any management plan for wetlands, since they are by definition "wet lands." [Mlanagement of the -4- -258- hydrology is crucial to the management of a wetland. A wetlands/wet prairie/beach plan is of necessity a hydrological plan. This points up the major deficiency in the Plan in its draft of 8/24/84. The deficiency in the Plan is that it is in no way a hydrological plan. Since plant communities, both common and rare, are determined by the hydrology, a hydrological plan for the immediate and surrounding region is crucial for the survival and persistence of any or all of the areas in the . presence of development. A wetland management plan without consideration of hydrology is like a plan for agriculture without consideration of soil. See October 22, 1984, letter attached. Finally, with respect to history and archeology, the expert opinion is consistent with Professors Cherkauer and DeWitt. The State Historical Society concluded: We would like to reemphasize the archeological importance of the study area. It may be as special for its cultural resources as for its vegetation. Once the true extent of its archeological resources is knownt evaluations of impact and conservation plans can be developed .... and: Our initial impression is that virtually no consideration has been given to the area's cultural resources. See October 4, 1984 letter attached. With this in mind, we look first at the problems. with the plan, and second, where we are in the whole decisionmaking process. First, Trident Marina proposes to expand its facilitAes and construct a 250-unit hotel-convention center in the sou theast corner of the prairie area. The project requires about that 30 acres of wetlands be dredged for a new inland harbor and about 3-5 acres of the existing harbor be @filled. Also, a breakwater -5- -259- of undisclosed size would be built out onto Lake Michigan. The plan does not even mention these dredging and fill plans much less does it calculate what effect this massive dredging project will do to the prairie immediately north and west of the project. In addition, not.only does the proposed expansion area contain two endangered species, bu t according to Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staff, this "would result in the loss of significant wetlands within the shoreland area." What is more, it will be extremely difficult to transpo rt the many persons expected to use the marina across or around the heart of the prairie without causing substantial injury, either directly by vehicle traffic or indirectly by development pressure. The SEWRPC plan extends an invitation to the marina to pave an additional road straight through the National Natural Landmark on 122nd Street in future years should traffic flow to the hotel- convention center warrant it. According to Trident Marina's consultant, either this invitation will be taken up or a road will be built through the prairie areas at the state line. Any road through the prairie would introduce road salt, oil, gasoline and lead pollution to the area. The introduction of these pollutants, especially road salt, into the National Natural Landmark area, can result in the destruction of vegetation that is intolerant to increased salt concentrations, and thus destroy the significance of the landmark area. Putting a road along the state line could cause significant adverse impact to the hydrology of the area and to possible nesting habitat of the endangered Forster's tern and the sandhill crane. Neither site -6- -260- is a satisfactory option. Finally, visitor use from Trident's Convention Center on an area already stressed from a threefold increase in sewered development may cause significant adverse impacts on the remaining open space areas--open space areas that are.intended to be preserved in their natural condition. Secondf the Kenosha proposed sewage treatment plant (STP) expansion threatens the Kenosha sand dunes. The plan authorizes additional expansion of the plant in future years, should it be necessary, in wetlands and in the sand dunes, a unique natural area which the SEWRPC plan concedes contains "important plant habitat." No effort is made in the plan to find a reasonable alternative short of destroying wetlands and sand dunes.. Third, Wisconsin Electric Power Company, which currently owns land south of the proposed STP, has requested approval to carve out a corridor running east-west through an area which would otherwise be designated "open space" under the plan. The plan endorses this threat even though no need for the corridor is state d in the plan. Also, the plan places. no restrictions.onthe use of the corridor, such as restricting use of chemicals. or ot.her potential harm effects to the surrounding prairie, sand dunes and wetland areas. Fourth, the proposed sewers and subdivision development threaten the prairie. Under the plan, most of the area surrounding the National Natural Landmark will be sewered, increasing the number of homes in the area by almost threefold Sewering the area, and its subsequent develo pment, are the most severe threat to the prairie. The excavation and dewatering -7- -261- necessary to install the sewers will harm the surrounding areas. Once the area is sewered and the number of homes tripled, this new development changes the hydrology of the area. Dewatering can cause permanent changes to the area if sufficient desiccation occurs to he sediments and/or vegetation. If the vegetation is stressed enough by , the dewatering, it may not recover. Subsidence may occur in the sediments depending on how much water is removed. Once the soil structure is changed by the removal of too much water, compaction in the soil can occur causing instability. This issue is not adequately addressed in the plan. Another aspect of the sewer issue that warrants serious discussion is the large economic price tag. Accord ing to the plan, the total price tag on public improvements for the area, water, sewers, roads, and stormwater drainage is $14,411,000. If there are approximately 1500 homes in the area, as the plan states should be the case, the total cost per home is approximately $10,000. Homeowners must be willing to pay for the public improvements proposed. Are landowners willing and able to spend that much on top of building costs and the cost of sump pumps and drain tiles? The economic feasib ility of this plan is questionable at best. We were amazed that given the amount of study that has gone into. preparing the plan, and the commitment of SEWRPC staff to protecting the resources at stake, that the plan endorses every single one of the four major threats to the prairie. In summary, the plan is not a "compromise" plan as we expected would occur. -8- -262- What is next in this whole decisionmaking process? Many, many steps must yet occur. First, a hydrology study of the area is a vital necessity. According to the scientific experts, Professor Cherkauer, Professor DeWitt and the State Historical Society, for examples, such a study is an absolute minimum. As Professor DeWitt concluded: ... I would judge that this proposed project has great potential for seriously altering the nature and structures of the natural vegetation. Lack of good hydrological data for the site makes it impossible to predict these impacts in any detail. At the very least, a hydrological study should be made ?f the site and the aquifer and watershed in which 'it is contained, prior to initiating the proposed development. Such a study would be directed at the impacts of the current proposals for development. At best, a detailed and careful analysis should be made at such a scale that it would allow protection of the valuable natural resource in perpetuity while allowing -compatible land uses in the vicinity. October 22, 1984 letter. Professor Cherkauer's analysis should be taken to heart by SEWRPC: Without site specific information on the hydrogeological conditions and specific development plans, it is premature to maintain that development will not seriously impact the Chiwaukee Prairie. Cited above are many operations which will modify various aspects of the flow and water quality systems. The distances to which these impacts will extend beyond the development project are unknown to all parties because of the absence of data. It remains the responsibility of the planners and planning agency to demonstrate in a precise fashion that the proposed plan will not adversely,impact the Chiwaukee Prairie. It is the role of a regulatory agency to require that adequate information be provided to assess possible impacts before approving the plan. The hydrologic information needed could be readily obtained in a fairly short period of time. However, the planners and developers have not yet done so. Until they do, the plan should -9- -263- be held in abeyance. Acceptance at this time would be irresponsible reliance 'on hydrologic generalities in a hydrologically vulnerable area. Likewise,. the State Historical Society urged an in-depth archeological study before any decisions are made: Perhaps analysis of such resources was not. in the scope or the planning s 'tudy. This oversight can be remedied by a systematic archeological survey of the are, comparable in scope to the wetlands and vegetation studies. The purpose would be the same--to improve the data base for the study area, allowing better informed decisions to be made. Our ongoing regional archeology project, for southeastern Wisconsinip conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, might be able to assist in such an effort. While we know that several archeological sites exist in the study area, we do not know their number exact locations, or current conditions. The f igure of nine known sites reflects only those sites reported to the State Historical Society over the years; the actual numbers of sites probably is higher. This lack of detailed information on the resource base makes it difficult to assess the archeological impacts of the recommended land use plan. If a thorough area-wide survey is not conducted, at least the areas of new construction mentioned in the plan should be surveyed or archeological sites. Such areas include the utilities corridors, the sewage treatment plant and marina expansion areas, and the areas designated for residential development. See October 4 letter. Second, town and county officials need to review the plan to determine its acceptability for environmental and economic reasons. Third, by law, the Wisconsin DNR has numerous decisions to make here. DNR must first review, and then approve or. reject, the new SEWRPC plan or any parts of it; it must review and approve, or reject, the wetland mapping designations, as,well as -264- the county's shoreland ordin ance (DNR cannot, by law, permit development of an area mapped wetland); it must review and approve, or reject, specific permit applications for sewers, drinking wells, certain road construction and development; it must prepare, release, and obtain public comment on an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the entire ar ea and development proposals. There is also the matter of compliance with Wisconsin's endangered species statute. This Wisconsin law requires the state to assume responsibility for conserving endangered plants "to assure their continued survival and propa gation for the aesthetic, recreational and scientific purposes of future generations." Sec. 29.414 (1) , Stats. The st atute further states that preservation of endangered species is ."of highest importance" and "urges all persons and agencies to fU."lly consider all decisions in this light." Id. One of the reasons Chiwaukee Prairie is a state 'scientific area and a National Natural Landmark is because of the prairie's unique plantlife. Of the over 400 species of plants and other animals identified in the prairie, 12 species are included on the Wisconsin Endangered and Threatened Species list. Development near the prairie may result in the obliteration of these species. Indeed, from a state perspective alone, much work and analysis must still be done. Finally, there is the role of the federal government. Several federal agencies have authority here. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has jurisdiction over the area and must look at the wetland values destroyed -265- before issuing a permit for any filling activity. In a very unusual step, the Corps has studied the. area and, prior to receiving any permit application, made an advance decision that the area is "unsuitable" for fill activities. The Corps' decision could not have been any clearer: "The public is advised that it is probable that the Corps will deny Section 404 permits to discharge fill or dredged materials in these waters or wetland areas." See, Public Notice dated August 13, 1984, "Advance Identification of Sites Unsuitable for Discharge of Dredged & Fill Material." An advance indication that Corps 404 permits are not suitable for the area should have been given more weight in the planning process here, given that the plans have apparently little chance of approval by the Corps. Also, where dredg ing is proposed, as for example under Trident Marina's proposal, the Corps has jurisdiction for waters and wetlands below the ordinary high water mark. Next is the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the Clean Water Act Section 404(c), EPA can veto any. Corps permit where there may be an "unacceptable adverse effect" on wildlife areas. Because the U.S. EPA co-authored the Corps' Advance Determination, it can be expected that the EPA will not look favorably at permit applications. Federal law also protects valuable historic and archeological sites in the area. The State Historical Society of Wisconsin stated that these values may be as important here as the environmental values: -12- -266- We would like to reemphasize the archeological importance of the study area. It may be as special for its cultural resources as for its vegetation. Once the true extent of its archeological resources is known, evaluations of impact and conservation plans can be developed. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that special consideration be given to areas of historical and archeological significance. According to the State Historical Society, SEWRPC has not done this. In an October 4, 1984 letter, the State Historical Society summarized its review of the plan: Our initial impression is that virtually no consideration has been given to the area's cultural resources. The Historical Society of Wisconsin reached exactly the same conclusion about the historical and archeological values of the area (as Professor Cherkauer did about the hydrology of the area) that there simply is not enough information on which to conclude the plan is sound. The Historical Society stated: While we know that several archeological sites exist in the study area, we do not know their number, exact locations, or current conditions. The figure of nine known sites reflects only those sites reported to the State Historical Society over the years; the actual number of sites probably is higher. This lack of detailed information on the resource base makes it difficult to assess the archeological impacts of the recommended land use plan. If a thorough area-wide survey is not conducted, at least the areas of new @construction mentioned in the plan should be surveyed of Archeological sites. Such areas include the utilities corridors, the sewage treatment plant and marina expansion areas, and the areas designated for residential development. Id. -13- -267- In conclusion, we urge that the plan not be adopted as it is. Studies need to be done that address the effects of the plan on hydrology, soils and the archeological sites in the area. We also urge more specificity in the plan regarding Trident Marina's proposed expansion and its effects on the surrounding wetlands and endangered species. Finally, the plan should be evaluated given the realistic expectations that needed government permits are unlikely to be issued. Thank you for considering our comments. Respectfully submitted by, Margaret R. Wetzel Public Intervenor Clinical Intern Kathleen M. Falk Wisconsin Public Intervenor -14- -268- Appendix F-10 Gunter Hartung RECEIVED 12158 - lst.Ct, Kenosha, Wi.53140 OCT 3 1984 Oct.29.84 SEWRPC SEWRPC 916 N.East Ave. Waukesha, Wi.53187-1607 I live here since 1963 and also have a Lot out there in the Prairie since 1956 and I believe that the Prairie is not the same any more then it was once, even a stranger could notice that that from the once talked flowerworld not much beauty is left and the shoreline is comming mighty closer and looks uglyer with every month so high mounting the rocks who must constantly be replaced and I can just see how much beauty that 'Land use Management Plan' contribut to that area. But did same one from that advisery commitee directet the attention to that Zion Addison A-Plant how much damage from there is the Prairie tratening with all is inhabitants including the human health, of course we are farer away as our neighbores accros the border - Winthrop Harbor - from that danger breathing Plant, but there is now a Park area and no homes any more. sincerely -269- Appendix F-11 RECEIVED NOV 0 1 1984 --SEWRPC e@ @V- scpnsin October 30, 1984 Dear Mr.. Bauer, The ChAwaukee Prairie is one of the finest and largest prairies In the Midwest. To allow housing, roads and ond other development into this already fragile area would be a real detriment to anyone who values prairies and what they have meant to our nations history. There are nearly 500 different plants, eighteen of which are endangered. Theank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J, azro_ Ardelle S. Alton Appendix F-12 RECEIVED C' 3 19 8 4 SEWRPC -A@ C)x- lc@ll JQ- 0-ts vx@ 4@ ,:9F C3.- IX. -271- Appendix F-13 RECEIVED TR33/dd-2 NOV 0 1 1984 SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION CARD SEWRPC Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Land Use Management Plan Public Hearing October 23, 1984 Please fill in the infonuation below if you would like to speak at this public hearing. Return this card to the hearing desk at the front of the auditorium. Name (please print): Address: Representing: -272- -Ee@ -273- Appiendix F-14 RECEIVED NOV 0 1 1984 SEWRPC October 30, 1984 Mr. Kurt Bauer S.E.W.R.P.0, P.O. Box 769 91d Court House Waukesha, 'di. 53187 Re: To protect the Oh,waukee Prairie Dear Sir: The Prairie is a rare National resource which must be preserved. The Prairie should be preserved in-its entirety so that Its ecosystem can survive, we believe, In this particular case, The public interest must outweigh private interests. Considering the fact that this prairie offers'a rare opportunity to preserve so many natural resources it should remain in its natural state, Sincerely, P.S. We had a similar situation in Green Bay a few years ago & decided not.to,develop the area--- to leave the area In its natural states oc:.Governor Earl-Madison Carroll Besadny, Sec'ry-DNR, Madison -274- Appendix F-15 RECEIVED N'OV 0 1 1564 SEWRPC AAL- cc, 4ze," cw 5 172 -275@ Append ix F- 16 RECEIVED NIOV 0 1 1984 SEWRPC 3 /Y 7 OIL AA9-- a-,a- a,-jA ae"g.@ cto q- X4@jt O-eJL6@ a4 -276- Appendix F-17 41 BECEIVED NOV 0 11984 PC wz@ Ir 71?"-" 71@ aA -279- CC -280- 10 .01 --------- - - -281- -282- For GOD so loved the world thug HE gave HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in HIM should not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3:16 JESUS LOVES YOU JESUS LONGS TO BE YOUR SAVIOUR REPENT Ask HIM to forgive your sins, and come Five in your heart. HE will, and THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD will come live in your heart. The ANGELS IN HEAVEN will rejoice, and your name will be written in the LAMBS BOOK OF LIFE IN HEAVEN. You will have ETERNAL LIFE, and Wend ETERNITY IN HEAVEN WITH JESUS, in- stead of hell with the devil. JESUS SHED HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD ON THE CROSS for the remission of our sins. Those who accept HIM AS THEIR SAVIOUR will have eternal life. Those who rood HIM AS THEIR SAVIOUR, will Wend eternity in hall, with the devil, and have ever- lasting torment, pain, weeping, wailing, brashing of teeth, eternal fire, unquenchi- ble thirst, suffering forever, and ever and ever. Accept JESUS AS YOUR SAVIOUR TODAY, and spend Eternity with JESUS. JESUS DIED for our sins. GOD BLESS YOU, VIRNIA LUNDSKOW JESUS IS RISEN, HE'S seated at the right band of GOD. Someday HE'S C0MING AGAIN to take those who have accepted HIM AS THEIR SAVIOUR to HEAVEN to spend ETERNITY WITH HIM. PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME "Jesus Never Fails" -283- Appendix F-18 12140 2123rd RECEIVED LBristol,SI 53104 NOV 0 2 1984 Oct. 31,1984 Dear Mr. Bauer, SEWRPO With scarcity comes value. If you're a Cub fan, you've just been reminded of that. You know that Rick Sutcliffe has a talent for pitching a baseball that is very scarce. Because of this, he can demand and receive millions of dollars. Two hundred years ago, areas like Chiwaukee Prairie were abundant, There must have been many wetland -prairies along the shore of Lake ich- igan. Today, areas like Chiwaukee Prairie have become exceedingly scarce, With scarcity comes value. Yichael J. Gallagher, the National'Landmarks Coordinator of the National '3ark -ervice, Midwest Reg _,ion, was quoted by the Kenosha News as saying,"Tt (Chiwaukee Prairie) is the best wet prairie in Wisconsin and on the shores of Lake Yichigan." The ---'.Irairle is used by 5 colleges, 2 museums, and. 8 universities: including the University of fiisconsin in Yadison and Northwestern University in @vanston. If there were better . quality prairies in Illinois, would Northwestern people travel the extra miles to use Chiwaukee? Now a land use management plan has been made for the Chiwaukee Prairie- Carol L3ea.ch Study Area. In many ways the plan is thoughtful.I feel that the needs of homeowners have been met and most of the high quality prairie seems to be Dreserved. But, I am worried about the possible development of the Trident Yarina. The idea of reopening and paving 122nd Street appals me. This 'goes right through the heart of the Chiwaukee Prairie. I even object to this on economic grounds. Yore than 901% of the users of Trident Nlarina are from Illinois. Why should the people of Wisconsin pay for a roadway to an "Illinois" marina? .I also have a question about the proposed buy up of open space preser- vation areas by the DNR. 'Will the DNR follow through on the advice of the plan to buy up theso areas?Can they make such a committment? If they can, the plan sounds quite good to me. If they can't, it would seem that there would.be tremendous pressure to develop open space preservation areas if sewer lines are put through to serve the people in the surrounding urban also question whether the plan treats the owners,of undeveloped oT..)en space nreservation lots fairly. They bought platted lots. It seems to rr.e that a fair settlement would give them their money back. To do this, the --)urcY-,ase',')rice and nurchase date could be looked up. That'fi 'gure could be adjusted to today's dollar values. Then tax records could be checked. Each year's tax payment could be corrected to present-day dollar values. '91y adding each year's corrected tax payment to the corrected purchase price, you would know how much money each property owner actually spent on his land. This sum could then be returned. to the property owner as a fair ,nurchase price. I have no idea of what these sums would add u-o to,.but it strikes me as fair comDensation for these property owners. I definitely favor -oreservation of the Chiwaukee Prairie. I worry that development at the edges of the Prairie will lead to a situation of imbalance in the water supply to the -73rairie- a situation that could lead to the ?rairie's demise. 3E'9RPC seems to have taken on an impossible job- the job of forginr a comnromise between the dpvelopment and preservation interests in the@ Chiwaukee -F)rairie-Carol Beach Study Area. I honestly cannot figure out why the homeowners don't back your plan. As an environmentalist, I basically -284- worry about the expansion of Trident Marina, changes in the Prairie's water suDnly caused by development near or through the Prairie, and whether the DNR and/or Nature Conservancy have the money available to'buy up the open space preservation areas so as to truly preserve them. I do not see your plan as unreasonable. But I do urge you to evaluate whether the plan totally protects the Chiwaukee Prairie from the three concerns I just mentioned, The only kind of plan I can support is one that truly protects the unique habitat that is Chiwaukee Prairie. Sincerely, CJ44,@- Richard Christiansen Appendix F-19 RECEIVED NOV 0 2 1984 Lisa Conley SEWRPC 516 Lac La Belle Dr. Oconomowoc, WI 53066 Kurt Bauer Octob er 31,1984 SEWRPC P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187-1607 Dear Mr. Bauer; I was unable to attend the public hearing on the Chiwaukee Prairie issue, but would like to add my comments to the testimony. This prairie is, you know, a vaulable and irreplacable community. The high water table also makes difficult to develop. While I understand SEWRPC's desire for compromise, I cannot agree with providing services to this area which wi I I encourage further development. The same money could be spent undeveloping the area, and we would all be much richer for it. Individuals should not be allowed to profit from land uses detrimental to the public interest. I urge you to consider supporting the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition's Dian, as presented at the hearing. Sincerely, Lisa Conley -286- Appendix F-20 INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Instructional Program University of Wisconsin-Madison 70 Science Hall, 550 North Paik St. Madison, Wisconsin 53706 9 Telephone: 608-263-1796 0.ctober 31, 1984 RECEIVED NOV 0 2 7984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional SEWRPC Planning Commission 916 North East Avenue Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187 ;ear Members of the Commission: I., am submitting the enclosed letter of October 22, 1 984 to the Wisconsin Public Intervenor to your Commission as my comments on the hydrology and vegetational impacts relevant to proposed development in the vicinity of Chiwaukee Prairie. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, @@alvin DeWitt Professor CDW:nl Enclosure -287- INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Instructional Program University of Wisconsin-Madison 70 Science Ha 1[, 550 North Park Madison, Wisconsin 53706 Telephone: 608-263-1796 October 22, 1984 Ms. Kathleen Falk Wisconsin Public intervenor Wisconsin Department of Justice P.O. Box 7857 Madison, W1 53707-7857 Dear Attorney Falk: In response to your letter of October 10, 1984, and from my expertise as a wetlands ecologist, I would like to comment on the hydrology and vegetational impacts related to proposed development in the vicinity of Chiwaukee Prairie, as described in the Preliminary Draft (B/24/84) for Committee Review, Community Assistance Planning Report No. 88, 'A Land Use Management Plan fo the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area of the Town of Pleasant Prairie, Chapter V. Recommended Land Use Management Planu (In this letter I refer to this document as the Plan.) Although the Plan gives recognition to plant communities and wetland plant associations, including those of a critical nature, it fails to connect these .to their vital and crucial survival linkage: groundwater and surface water. Wetland communities of any type, rare or common, are determined by water regime. Hydrology is the crucial consideration in any management plan for wetlands, since they are by definition 'wet lands.m Until recently, hydrology was not considered in most wetland and wet priarie planning efforts; it rarely has been considered by ecologists generally or wetlands ecologists specifically.. The reasons for this are many,,buit include the fact that the conduct of studies in hydrology requires the background of a physical/ mathematical scientist. a background which most biologists and ecologists do not have. And the physical hydrology requires an awareness of the sensitivity of wetland community types to soil surf ace/groundwater table relationships, an awareness which most physical hydrologists do not have, due to their lack of training in the biological sciences. The result has been a distressing lack of hydrological information in wetlands management plans generally. Yet management of the hydrology is crucial to the management of a wetland. A wetlands/wet prairie/beach plan is of necessity a hydrological plan. This points up the major deficiency in the Plan in its draft.of 8/24/84. The deficiency in the Plan is that it is in no way a hydrological plan. Since plant communities, both common and rare, are determined by the hydrology, a hydrological plan for the immediate and surrounding region is crucial for the survival and persistence of any or all of the areas in the presence of development. A wetland management plan without consideration of hydrology is like a plan for agriculture without consideration of soil. -288- October 22, 1984 Page 2 I appreciate the fact that a consulting hydrologist was asked to do an initial assessment of the hydrological considerations at the request of the Department of Justice. I have reviewed the analysis of Douglas S. Cherkauer, Consulting Hydrologist. entitled 'Review of the Potential for Groundwater Impacts from Proposed Developments in the Vicinity of Chiwaukee Prairie." I have no reason to question the hydrological analysis he presents. To augment his-analysis, I would like to make the following further observations. Plant species which inhabit wetlnd environments have a very critical relationship to the water table. In fact it is the presence of the water table at or near the soil surface which allows wetland plants to persist. Moreover, different species of wetland plants have different requirements for soil surface to water table depth with some requiring moderate aeration of the re@,ot zone and others requiring submission of the true root zone. The consequences of the specific requirements of wetland plant species is that they are strongly affected by changes in water table. Although the usual daily and seasonal changes are of the type to which these species are generally adapted, unusual changes and/or permanent changes which persist from season to season will result in the loss of the species present and their replacement. Impacts upon water table which permanently lower its level will result in a shift from wetland vegetation toward upland vegetation. the degree to which this occurs being determined by the degree of water table drops. WIth this as background, and based upon the assessment of ground wat6e impacts presented by Douglas Cherkauer, I would judge that this proposed project has great potential for seriously altering the nature and structures of the natural vegetation. Lack of good hydrological data for the site makes it impossible to predict these impacts in any detail. At the very least, a hydrological study should be made of the site and the aquiferand watershed in which it is contained, prior to initiating the propos ed development. Such a study would be directed at the impacts of the current proposals for development. At best,.a detailed and careful.analysis should be made at such a scale that it would allow protection of the .valuable natural resource in perpetuity while allowing compatible land uses in the vIcinity. Such a study would allow the Chiwaukee Prairie to persist as an evriching remnant of the natural landscape. Sincerely-yours, Calvin DeWitt Professor CDWml -289- Appendix F-21 November 1, 1984 Hoy Nature Club HECEIVED Eugene Dunk, Pres. NOV 0 2 1984 1636 Quincy Ave. Racine., Wis. 53405 SEWRPC Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Ex. Dir. SEWRPC 916 North East Avenue P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, Wis. 53187-1607 Dear Mr. Bauer: At the public hearin g on October 23 held by SEWRPC to receive comment on their land use management plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area some of our members spoke in support of maximum preservation of the prairie. The board of the Hoy Nature Club wishes to reaffirm that support. In addition we wish to express ourstrong approval of the plan presented by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition which is based on reasonable treatment of existing property owners, and maximum preservation of the prairie. We feel that the Chiwaukee Prairie is a unique and wonderful place with its rich variety of plants and animals several of which are endangered. In 1965 when development threatened Chiwaukee for the second time several of.our members worked with the Nature Conservancy to make the initial purchase of land. We have raised money for several additional lots in succeeding years. Just recently we received $100. from a Racine Kiwanis Club which *e hope to supplement with our own funds in the near future to buy another lot. Our interest in the Chiwaukee Prairie is deep-rooted like the prairie plants we hope to preserve. .We recommend that it be saved with all its beauty and its scientific value for future generations. Sincerely, Eugdene Dunk, Pres. .-290- Appendix F-22 Richard A. Harthun 212 Westwood Drive Burlington, WI 53105 RECEIVED Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission NOV 0 2 1984 916 North East Avenue Waukesha, W1 53187-1607 SEWRPO Dear Commission Members: I very much appreciated the public hearing held on October 23rd concerning the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach issue. Rather than make a public statement at that meeting, I preferred to provide written comments due to the importance of this matter. I sincerely hope that you consider my comments when preparing your final plan for this area. Being a long-time environmentalist and supporter of environmental and wildlife causes, I was very impressed with your comments in the Land Use Summary Management Plan which was passed out at the October 23rd hearing. I had the distinct impression that the Commission members realized the importance of preserving this rare and unique wildlife habitat * Because, in these modern times, protection of environmentally unique areas is so often overshadowed by "progress" and urban development, I feel that the full preservation of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area is of prime importance. I-wish to inform the Commission that I strongly favor and believe in a plan based on maximum preservation of the entire area. I further request that no additional development be allowed. I believe that this is the only, plan that should be accepted for the following reasons. At one time, appraximately 50% of the entire state of Wisconsin was covered by prairie; now, only a mere 1% of that remains. As you know, the Chiwaukee Prairie is the best remaining example of virgin prairie remaining in this part of the state. To develop even a part of this remaining example would be morally wrong. In addition, the vast area of wetlands found in this area is fast becoming rare in this part of the state, and is crucial to both the unique wildlife and plantlife which now flourishes here - living things which have every right to exist as we do. Wetlands are not appropriate areas for development, and so should be preserved for future generations. Throughout the state, man is developing lands for his own personal wants at an apalling rate (witness Door County, where miles of pristine Lake Michigan coastline has fallen victim to condominuims in just the last few years). It is therefore even more crucial that the Chiwaukee Prairie - Carol Beach area be preserved as ar,'example of original Wisconsin wilderness. I was very concerned at the public hearing that many individuals present did not appear to understand the real importance of preserving this unique area, especially the land developer and Pleasant Prairie alderman who seemed to have little concern for the plight of our natural environment. I feel one of the major reasons for this is the Reagan administration, which has de-emphasized the importance of preservation at the sake of economic development. This trend is dangerous for the future of America, and it is my hope that ultimately all Americans will realize the importance of preserving our national heritage. On a local level, we are now faced with just such an issue, the preservation of Chiwaukee Prairie. I therefore favor the maximum preservation of the entire area, both lowlands and uplands', and strongly oppose any additional development. I feel @291- that the existing homeowners should be allowed to remain. But if they are willing to sell, they should be paid more than the fair market value for their homes. In addition, funds should be made available to reimburse them for any additional mortgage interest rates which they may have to obtain. All underdeveloped lots should be purchased from the owners at a fair market value. Present at the October 23rd meeting were members of various wildlife and environmental groups, including myself, who expressed personal concern for this unique area. If the funding required for both land and home purchases would exceed that available from the state, could not these environmental groups be approached along with possible corporate sponsors to make up any differences? I sincerely believe that most of the membership would contribute to such a cause; to "put their money where their mouths are." I feel that this idea merits your consideration.. A successful program of this type would certainly be a model for land preservation issues in other areas. As brought out in the hearing, many people unfortunately view environmentalists as troublemakers who don't care about people but only care about animals and nature. But as Russell W. Peterson, President of the National Audubon Society, wrote in the November issue of Audubon, environmentalists ask more probing questions because they understand that everything is interconnectede Whenever human activities dirty the air, foul the water, and disrupt the land, we add to an accumulation of pollution that over the*long run reduces the quality of everyone's life. This understanding is what makes environmentalists an unusual group. They see and understand the big picture, and want politicians with vision, too. Nature has stocked this country generously, and they want our leaders to appreciate the wonder and beauty of natural resources as well as the material riches they provide. It is my hope that the Commissioners share this viewpoint, and understand the necessity of preserving this rare and unique area. Thank you very much for considering my comments. I will look forward to your ultimate management plan for this area. Sincerely, 6/6, FAt Richard A. Harthun RAH/sh -292- Appendix F-23 + + j J- s 4@7 @o oo@ RECEIVED NOV 0 2 19 84 lot- SEWRPC. A0.4 r OR PC J- -74, -293- 47- -*Z4 4Z, 57 -294- Appendix F-24 Carl J.Hujet 1217 Gross Av. Greerr Bay, Wis. 54304 RECEIVED 10/30/84 Mr. Kurt Bauer, NOV 0 2 1984 S.E.W.R.P.C. SEWRPC Dear Mr. Bauer, I wish to go on record as tv an opponant to the development of the Chiwaukee Praire. I won't waste your time as well as my own by going into detail as to why Ioppose your agencies Plan for this irreplacable praire. For I am sure, others have already done so. Thank you for Taking the time to read this. Sincerely, -295- Appendix F-25 JANET H. LUTZE RECEIVED 2465 N. MARYLAND AVE. 0204 MILWAUKEE. WI 53211 NOV 0 2 1984 a-eu C-Av,@-e /3axA@ck"/ SEWRPC 17 @-le 2, 'f-) 4y 140 -296- Appendix F-26 October 31, 11984 RECEIVED Dear Mr. Bauer, Director NOV 0 2 1984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, SEWRPO I have attended most of the SFWRPC hearings on the hiwaukee Prairie- Carol Beach study area. I have also read. the information provided by SEWRPC and other sources on prairies and wetlands. I found it interesting that at the October 23rd public hearing only 17 homeowners were present to give their comments. There were also about the same. number of conservationists, from all over the state, who spoke out for protecting the prairie and wetlands. The prairie and wetlands in Chiwaukee Prairie are a stat-e heritage. This entire section of the state used to be prairie. The remaining prairie is vulnerable and should be protected by the state for all the citizens of Wisconsin. If the homeowners in the town of Pleasant Prairie have their way and obtain sewering and development, there will be no prairie left in Pleasant Prairie. Professor Cherkauer's water flow report predicts that suburban development to the west and to the east of the prairie will affect the water dynamics in the area in such a way:as to negatively impact the prairie. Environmental im- pact of development in this area must be studied further. Little by little, piece by piece, this prairie remnant will be robbe'd of its size and viability if development is allowed. Therefore, I do not think any of the undeveloped lots should be developed, nor should expensive sewering be under- taken to the developed lots. The owners of the platted, undeveloped lots should be fairly compensated by the state if they want to sell (not everyone may wish to sell. I know there are people who have bought lots in Chiwaukee so that they are not developed.). I also think it is important to remember that land purchase is speculative, and noone who buys land is guaranteed he will make a profit. In today's economy, there are many homes in the Racine/Kenosha area on the.market that are not selling. To sacrifice the wetlands and prairie in Chiwaukee for additional development is poor planning. To provide wetlands and prairie for a business C. venture as shakey as the Trident Marina is wasteful. I do not envy you your task. It is obvious to me that .you and other state members of the committee have put alot of time and work into this problem. Though I do not agree with your proposed plan, I do appreciate your composure and efforts. Sincerely, Lynda Manning, 7000 Brook Road, ,Franksville, Wi. 53126 -297- Appendix F-27 October 319 1984 Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director RECEIVED Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 916 North East Avenue NOV 0 2 1984 P.O. Box 769 ,Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-0769 SEWRPC Dear Mr. Bauer: As one concerned for the future of Chiwaukee Prairie I particularly object to the plan to enlarge Trident Marina. Am I correct in the impression that Trident plans to squeeze in its dredging and filling activities adjacent to the finest area of prairie under a blanket permit to be issued for all urban areas by the Army Corps of Engineers under Section 4049. Thisis blatant disregard for both the literal wording and. the spirit of this regulation, The thirty-acre dredging and filling operation envisioned by Trident would wreak irrevocable damage on the prairie. It is certain to affect the flow of both surface and groundwater and to have adverse effects on fragile plants. The noise of bulldozers, construction, heavy,traffic, etc. would be traumatic andpossibly fatal for any wildlife in the area. The peace and quiet of the residents in this area, who presumably chose to live here because ,they like the country atmosphere, would be destroyed. Obviously some sewers will be needed in the study are&, but their extent should be the subject of further ,research. Alternative methods of dealing with failing septic tanks sould be given careful consideration. I hope the Town of Pleasant Prairie will not be too eager to increase their tax base and pay for their sewers by allowing the construction of Trident--a dubious venture in any case as it has not proved financially viable up to the present. Building this expanded marina. would be a case of trading the birthright of Kenosha and Wisconsin citizens for the proverbial mess of porridge. ,rpincerel rs. Jean McGraw 5827 Cambridge Circle #8 c. to K. Falk Racine 53406 Appendix F-28 RECEIVED NOV 0 2 1984 SEWRPC 1121 Perry Avenue Racine, WI 53406 October 31, 1984 Mr. Kurt Bauer,, Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 916 North East Avenue Post Office Box 769 V@'aukesba, Wisconsin 53187-0769 Dear Mr. Bauer: Enclosed@are the signatures to the petition supporting the. Cbiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Plan. This petition supports my oral testimony at the October 23 public bearing. I hope that my testimony was not misinterpreted by the commission. I believe that fundamental to the success of the plan property owners and homeowners rights be guranteeded. Thank you for your consideration on our.comments. incerely, Mary Ann Ortmayer Enclosure -299- ~0 THE CPR PRESERVATION PLAN The Ch~qiwaukee Prairie. Rescue Coal it ~qio~t~v_~has. found. the present ~qSEWRPC TAC plan ~.~_~'u~~#~qva~c~ce~8qP~_~qab~qT~- Ie. Therefore, we are compelled t~6qo~qof~qfer ~qA~-~@~s~qq --0 r plan Is based on-two principles:,"' a rea~s~qon~ab~qle~~:~@~@~0qa~0qt~qt~4qe- ~4qXJ ~I ~4qO~A~A ,~,-~', ~~ ~2q0"~" ~u reas~ona~qb ~-~qe~- t~qt~'e~q@~jtm~ent o~qf ~qe~'~qX~'~qi~s~8q0~qn~qS~,~,propert~qy owners~,~.~.and maximum pre- ~s~er~v~a~qti~o~qn of the prairie. To s~afe~qg~ua~'~rd property a~nd~"~qho~qm'~e'~o~'~qw~qher~'rights~,~we~.propose: 1) 'th~at~n~e exis~qt'~qi~n~'~qS ~0qKous~qes be razed, moved, or condemned 2) that the DNR and/or private ~qcr~qganizations~2p~ke reason- able guarantees that if property owners wish to sell, ~m~cneys will be available for purchase. that.such purchases ~of~,-property be made at an equ~qi table market value that WEPCO be granted the asked for utility corridor easement, with the'stipula~qti~on that no permanent build- in~qgs be placed on ~6q6e corridor and no herbicides be used in the area. To ~qs~q6fe~q�~q6~qa~'rd~~'the natural r~qes~0qour~'c~e~qs~, of -'the'.- area,-, we.,. propose;*, 1) that the 18 acre wet~ql~qand site immediately adjacent to t~qhe~Kenos~qha Sewage Treatment P~ql~qant.~no~qt be reserved for possible expansion, b~q9t~,that other areas nearby be con- ~s~qi~qd~qered for any future plant expansion. 2) that sewer service not be extended~ast of the railroad ...tracks ~q3) that no new road be built through the prairie to service Trident Marina, and that unnecessary existing roads~throu~qg~q@ the entire study area be.abandoned and the area restored to w~etlan~qd/prair~qle. 4) that nc new lands be put aside for expansion of Trident ~qmar~l~-n~qa ~68q0 that all unoccupied land within the 1,~4q325 acre study area be zoned C-3 (c~4qo~8qqs~4qprvancy~6q)~q,. ~6q@~2qs~q'30~8q6~q- INTRODUCTION The Chiwaukee Prairic Rescue Coalition is a non-profit organization of individuals and groups, with state-wide membership. Its purpose is to ,)rotcct from development the natural ecological community of plants and animals known as the Chiwaukee Prairie-,Carol Beach study area. The 1825 acre site is now seriously threatened by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) plans. To allay the numerous false or unfounded clahris being circulated among area residents,-the following answers have been prepared by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !SN'T.THERE ENOUGH LAND PRESERVED ALREADY? T14E NATURE CONSERVANCY .,@.LREADV HAS ACQUIRED 150 ACRES OF A TARGETED 225. The Nature Conservancy's present holdings are just a small relic of. what once was. But if the 1,825 acres of the study area are protected, the area would be the most important swell-and-swale prairie in the; Great Lakes Region.. The prairie @.osts over 400 native plants and 76 animal species. It is home to over two dozen rare, endangered or threatened species of plants and animals. It is one of the outstanding natural resource areas in i:he United States. In addition, there are 9 valuable archaeological sites in the area. SOME PEOPLE HAVE CLAIMEV THAT TWO BIOLOGISTS TOURING THE AREA HAVE NOT FOUNIV PLANTS OF ANV GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. Unti I these purported biologists step forth, Identify themselves, cffer evidence to the scientific.world that the area is nct significant, and thereby lay their reputations as biologists before the scientific com- munity, the claim can be dismissed as unfounded. P'scientist olust be willing to hold his claims up to public scrutiny. It is significant that nc scientist hasstepped forward tc mzke the claim heinG circulated by laymen in the area. -301- WHY CAN'T THOSE WHO VALUE PRAIRIE PLANTS JUST COLLECT SEEDS AND PLANT THEM ELSEWHERE? Seeds from areas adjacent to the nature Conservancy's holdings (where seed-collecting is not permitted) have been collected for planting else- where. But planted in other habitats, seeds often do not survive. The rare or endangered ones in particular need the unique habitat found at Chiwaukee. They are endangered because habitat elsewhere has been destroyed. Even though many plants do survive individually elsewhere, the entire ecological community of plant and animal species cannot simply be trans- ported. The University of Wisconsin at Madison has been trying for 50 years to restore Curtis Prairie. University experts recently ad- mitted the experiment had not yet been successful, and now estimate it will take 1,000 years to cecome a true prairie. WHY DOESN'T CPR-COALITION ACCEPT THE DECISIONS OF SEWRPC'S TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE? ISN'T THE EMERGING COMPROMISE FAIR? The value of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach wetlands-prairie complex is so great for the people of Wisconsin and the nation that preservation is essential. Compromise must take the form of compensating landowners in a fair way. WASN'T THE COMMITTEE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT A SPECTRUM OF INTERESTS? While there are representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Nature Conservancy serving on the Technical and Advisory Committee, they officially represent their organizations. Each has limited his remarks to the role his agency can play in administering the area. Nor have en- vironmentalists been permitted to testify at committee hearings. WHY ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SO CONCERNED? WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM? Environmentalists have no monetary or political advantage to gain beyond the satisfaction of knowing that they are preserving and protecting natural resources of great value for the state and nation. By contrast, individuals who plan to develop lots in the area hope to make a lot of money, once Kenosha County taxpayers have subsidized the construction of a sewer system. DON'T PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY? Property rights are only limited rights. You do not have the right to do something on your property that would harm your neighbor. You do not have the right to destroy a natural resource protected under federal or state law. The general welfare takes precedence over any individual property rights in case of conflict. -302- For example, it is illegal to shoot a bald eagle or a songbird on your property; health codes require the repair of a failing septic system; buildin codes dictate how you may build your house; setback codes limit how close to property lines you may place buildings. in short, property "rights" are limited. WOULDN'T PRESERVING THE PRAIRIE-WETLANDS COST THE TAXPAYER A LOT OF MONEY, WHEREAS WITH DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER TAXPAYER WOULD DECREASE? If the prairie-wetlands are preserved and individual landowners compensated. by the state, the cost would be borne throughout Wisconsin. If, on the other hand, the area is developed under SEWRPC's plan,total costs for sani- tary sewer, water supply, local street improvements, and stormwater drain- age would come to $14,411,000. Add to this $4,400,000 for shoreland erosion control for areas to be developed, and costs to local taxpayers to service the proposed 1,460 housing units would be $18,811,000. EVEN, IF HOMEOWNERS ARE PERMITTED TO KEEP THEIR HOUSES, WON'T PROPERTY VALUES GO D0WN IF THE NATURAL AREAS ARE PRESERVED AS PRAIRIE-WETLAND? This rumor is based on a misconception about what makes property valuable. Real estate dealers generally find that the existence of an adjacent park makes the value of homes go up rather than down because potential buyers know that their Investment is protected from unsightly development next door. In addition, having a park adjacent to one's property gives one all the advantages of an estate without the cost of maintaining it. One of the reasons"the present Carol Beach area remains an attractive place to live is just because of the open space about it. WHY ARE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY'S HOLDINGS PERIODICALLY BURNED? ISN"T THIS DESTROYING THE VERY THING THEY CLAIM TO CHERISH? Burning is the way prairies are naturally maintained. Invading wood shrubs and non-native plants, are killed; native prairie plants resprCLt from their extensive root systems. Native prairie animals have natural mecha- nisms for surviving: retreating to burrows, taking to the air, or running to a river or wetland. WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? WASN'T THIS AREA ONCE A GOLF COURSE? In the Southeast corner of the study, area, near the present Trident Marine, a 9-hole golf course was built in, the 1930's. In the 1940's the golf course was abandoned; it had seldom been usable because of standing water. This small proportion of the total 1,825 acres in the study area was able to re-establish itself because of a good surrounding seed source. As of 1981, according to a study made by the Nature Conservancy, "the recovery appears to be about 50 to 75%." -303- y ekc- eT @___ - ------------- -------- -- -------------- - ------ - - ------- (C - '76 vt, 3 --- - ------- - ---------- - -- S5 .00, .. ...... ... -- -- ---- ---- - ......... .. ---- - - --------- THE CPR PRESERVATION PLAN The Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue (CPR) Coalition has found the present SEWRPC TAC plan unacceptable. Therefore, we are compelled to offer a reasonable alternative. Our plan is based on two principles: reasonable treatment of existing property owners, and maximum pre- servation of the prairie. To safeguard property and homeowner rights, we propose: 1) that nc exisiting houses. be razed, moved, or condemned 2) that the DNR and/or private organizations make reason- able guarantees that if property owners wish to sell, moneys will be available for purchase. 3) that such purchases of property be made at an equitable market value 4) that WEPCO be granted the asked for utility corridor easement, with the stipulation that no permanent build- ings be placed on the corridor and no herbicides be used in the area. To safeguard the natural resources of the area, we propose: 1) that the 18 acre wetland site immediately adjacent to the Kenosha Sewage Treatment Plant not be reserved for possible expansion, but that other areas nearby be con-, sidered for any future plant expansion. 2) that sewer service not be extended east of the railroad tracks that no new road be built through the prairie' to service Trident Marine, and that unnecessary existing roads through the entire study area be abandoned and the area restored to wetland/prairie. 4) that no new lands be put aside for expansion of Trident Marina that all unoccupied land within the 1,825 acre study area be zoned C-3 (conservancy). -305- INTRODUCTION The Chi waukee Prairie Rescue Coalition Is a non-profit organization of individuals and groups, with state-wide membership. Its purpose is to protect from development the natural ecological community of plants and animals known as the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach study area. The 1825 acre site is now seriously threatened by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) plans. To allay the numerous false or unfounded claims being circulated among area residents, the following answers have been prepared by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ISN'T THERE ENOUGH LAND PRE.SERVED ALREADY? THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ALREADY HA, ACQ,UIRED 1.40 ACRES OF A TARGETED 24-5. The Nature Conservancy's present holdings are just a small relic of what'once was. But if the 1,825 acres of the study area are protected, .the area would be the most Important swell-and-swale prairie in the &reat Lakes Region. The prairiet-osts over 400 native plants and 76 animal species. I t is horne to over two dozen rare,, endangered or threatened species of plants and animals. It is one of the outstanding natural resource areas in the United States. In addition, there are 9 valuable archaeological sites in the area. SOME PEOPLE HAVE CLAIMEV THAT TWO BIOLOGISTS TOURING THE AREA HAVE NOT FOUND PLANTS OF ANY GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. Until 'these purported biologists step forth, identify themselves, cffer evidence to the scientific world that the area is not significant, and. thereby lay their reputations as biologists before the scientific com- munity, the claim can bc dismissed as unfounded. A scientist atust be willing to hold his claims up to public scrutiny. Itis significant that nc scientist hasstepped forward tc meke the claim beinG circulated by laymen in the area. WHY CANT THOSE WHO VALUE PRAIRIE PLANTS JUST COLLECT SEEDS AND PLANT THEM ELSEWHERE? Seeds from areas adjacent to the Nature Conservancy's holdings (where seed-collecting is not permitted) have been collected for planting else- where. But planted in other habitats, seeds often do not survive. The rare or endangered ones in particular need the unique habitat found at Chiwaukee. They are endangered because habitat elsewhere has been destroyed. Even though many plants do survive individually elsewhere,the entire ecological community of plant and an1mal species cannot.simply be trans- ported. The University of Wisconsin at Madison has been trying for 50 years to restore Curtis Prairie University experts recently ad- m1tted the experiment had not yet been successful, and now estimate It will take 1,000 years to become:a true prairie. WHY DOESN'T CPR-COALITION ACCEPT THE DECISI0NS OF SEWRPC'S TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE? ISN'T THE EMERGING COMPROMISE FAIR? value of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach wetlands-prairie complex is so great for the people of Wisconsin and the natior that preservation Is essential. Compromise must.take the form of compensating landowners in a fair way. WASN'T THE COMMIITTEE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT A SPECTRUM OF INTERESTS? While there are rep representative from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources and the Nature Conservancy serving on the Technical and Advisory Committee, they officially represent their organizations. Each has limited his remarks to the role his agency can play in administering the area. Nor have en- vironmentalist been permitted to testify at committee hearings. WHY ARE ENVIRONMENTALIST SO CONCERNED? WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM? Environmentalists have no monetary or political advantage to gain beyond the satisfaction of knowing that they are preserving and protecting natural resources of great value for the state and nation. By contrast, individuals who plan to develop lots in the area hope to make a lot of money, once. Kenosha.County taxpayers have subsidized the construction of. a sewer system. DON'T PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TOW WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY? Property rights arc only limited rights. You do not have the right to do something on your property that would harm your neighbor. You do not have the right to destroy a natural resource protected under federal or state law. The general welfare takes precedence over any individual property rights in case of conflict. For example, it is illegal to shoot a bald eagle or a songbird on your property; health codes require the repair of a failing septic system; building codes dictate how you may build your house; setback codes limit how close to property lines you may place buildings. In short, property "rights" are limited. WOULDN'T PRESERVING THE PRAIRIE-WETLANDS COST THE TAXPAYER A LOT OF MONEY, WHEREAS WITH DEVELOPMENT, COSTS PER TAXPAVER WOULD DECREASE? by the state, the cost would be borne throughout Wisconsin. If, an the If the prairie-wetlands are preserved and individual landowners compensated other hand, the area is developed under SEWRPC's plan,total costs for sani- tary sewer, water supply, local street Improvements, and stormwater drain- age would come to $14,411,000. Add to this $4,400,000 for shoreland erosion control for areas to be developed, and costs to local taxpayers to service the proposed 1,460 housing units would be $18,811,000. EVEN IF HOMEOWNERS ARE PERMITTED TO KEEP THEIR HOUSES. WONT PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN IF THE NATURAL AREAS ARE PRESERVED AS PRAIRIE-WETLAND? This, rumor is based on a misconception about what makes property valuable. Real estate dealers generally find that the existance of an adjacent park makes the value of homes go up rather than down because potential buyers know that their Investment is protected from unsightly development next door. In addition, having a park adjacent to ones property gives one all the advantages of an estate without the cost of maintaining it. One of the reasons the present Carol Beach area remains an attractive place to live is just because of the open space about it. WHY ARE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY'S HOLDINGS PERIODICALLY BURNED? ISN'T THIS DESTROWING THE VERY THING THEY CLAIM T0 CHERISH? Burning is the way prairies are naturally maintained. Invading wood shrubs and non-native plants are killed; native prairie plants resprout from their extensive root systems. Native prairie animals have natural mecha- nisms for surviving: retreating to burrows, taking to the air, or running to a river or wetland. WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? WASN'T THIS AREA ONCE A GOLF COURSE? In the Southeast corner of the study area, near the present Trident Marina, a 9-hole golf course was built in the 1930's. In the 1940s the golf course was, abandoned; it had seldom been usable because of standing water. This small proportion of the total 1,825 acres in the study area was able to re -establish itself because of a good surrounding seed source. As of 198l according to a study made by the Nature Conservancy, "the recovery appears to be about 50 to 75%. OMC g 1PIA, 4 1,1111' A .#sj, IT" "04 04 -33- Ol -7-7 7r - . .... 7@7 777: 77 09- THE CPR PRESERVATION PLAN The Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue (CPR) Coalition has found the present SEWRPC TAC plan unacceptable. Therefore, we are compelled to offer a reasonable alternative. Our plan is based on two principles: reasonable treatment of existing property owners, and maximum pre- servation of the prairle. To safeguard property and homeowner rights, we propose: that no existing houses be razed, moved, or condemned 1) that no existing houses be razed, moved, or codemned 2) that the DNR and/or private organizations make reason- able guarantees that if property owners wish to sell, mcneys will be available for purchase. that such purchases of property be made at an equitable market value that WEPCO be granted the asked for utility corridor easement, with the stipulation that no permanent build- ings be placed on the corridor and no herbicides be used in the area. To safeguard the natural resources of the area we propose: 1) that the 18 acre wetland site Immediately adjacent to. the Kenosha Sewage Treatment Plant NOT be reserved for possible expansion, but that other areas nearby be con- sidered for any future plant expansion. 2) that sewer service not be extended east of the railroad tracks 3) that no) new road be built through the prairie to service Trident Marina, and that unnecessary existing roads through wetland/prairie. 4) that no new lands be put aside for expansion of Trident Marina that all unoccupied land within the 1,825 acre study area be zoned. C-3 (conservancy). -310- INTRODUCTION The Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition is a non-profit orginization of individuals and groups, with state-wide membership. Its purpose is to protect front development the natural ecological community of plants and animals known as the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach study area. The 1825 acre site is now seriously threatened by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) plans. To allay the numerous false or unfounded claims being circulated among area residents, the following answers have been prepared by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ISN'T THERE ENOUGH LAND PRESERVED ALREADY? THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ALREADY HASS ACQUIRED 150 ACRES OF A TARGETED 225. The Nature Conservancy's present holdings are just a small relic of. what once was. But if the 1,825 acres of the study area are protected, the area would be. the most important swell-and-swale prairie in the Great Lakes Region. The prairie hosts over 400 native plants and 76 animal species. It is home to over two dozen rare, endangered or threatened species of plants and animals. It is one of the outstanding natural resource areas in, the United States. In addition, there are 9 valuable archaeological sites in the area. SOME PEOPLE HAVE CLAIMED THAT TWO BIOLOGISTS TOURING THE AREA HAVE NOT FOUND PLANTS OF ANY GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. Until these purported biologists step forth, Identify themselves, offer evidence to the scientific world that the area is not significant, and thereby lay their reputations as biologists before the scientific com- munity, the claim can be dismissed as unfounded. A scientist must be willing to hold his claims up to public scrutiny. It is significant that nc scientist has stepped forward tc make the claim being circulated by laymen in the area. -311- WHY CAN'T THOSE WHO VALUE PRAIRIE PLANTS JUST COLLECT SEEDS AND PLANT THEM ELSEWHERE? Seeds from areas adjacent to the Nature Conservancy's holdings (where seed collecting, is not permitted) have been collected for planting else- where. But planted in other habitats, seeds often do not survive. The rare or endangered ones in particular need the unique habitat found at Chiwaukee. They are endangered because habitat elsewhere has been destroyed. Even though many plants do survive individually elsewhere, the cntire ecological community of plant and animal species cannot simply be trans- ported. The University of Wisconsin at Madison has been trying for 50 years to restore Curtis Prairie. University experts recently ad- mitted the experiment had not yet been successful, and now estimate it will take 1,000 years to become a true prairie. WHY DOESN'T CPR-COALITION ACCEPT THE DECISIONS OF SEWRPC'S TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE? ISN'T THE EMERGING COMPROMISE FAIR? The value of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach wetlands-prairie complex Is so great for the people of Wisconsin and the natior that preservation Is essential'. Compromise must take the form of compensating landowners in a fair way. WASN'T THE C0MMITEE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT A SPECTRUM OF INTERESTS? While. there are representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Nature Conservancy serving on the Technical and. Advisory Committee, they officially represent their organizations. Each has limited his remarks to the role his agency can play in administering the area. Nor have en- virenmentalists been permitted to testify at committee hearings. WHY ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SO CONCERNED? WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM? Environmentalists have no monetary or political advantage to gain beyond the satisfaction of knowing that they are preserving and protecting natural resources of great value, for the state and nation. By contrast, individuals who plan to develop lots in the area hope to make a lot of money, once Kenosha, County taxpayers have subsldized the construction of a sewer system. DON'T PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR OWN PRPOPERTY? Property rights are only limited rights. You do not have,the right to do something on your property that would harm your neighbor. You do not have the right to destroy a natural resouce protected under federal or state law. The general welfare takes precedence over any individual property rights in case of conflict. -312- For example, it is illegal to shoot a bald eagle or a songbird on your property; health codes require the repair of a failing septic system; building codes dictate how you may build your house; setback codes limit how close to property lines you may place buildings. In short, property "rights" are limited. WOULDN'T PRESERVING THE PRAIRIE-WETLANDS COST THE TAXPAYER A LOT OF MONEY, WHEREAS WITH DEVELOPMENT, COSTS PER TAXPAYER WOULD DECREASE? If the prairie-wetlands are preserved and Individual landowners compensated by the state, the cost would be borne throughout Wisconsin. If, on the other hand, the area is developed under SEWRPC's plan,total costs for sani- tary sewer, water supply,. local street Improvements, and stormwater drain- age would come to $14,411,000. Add to this $4,400,000 for shoreland erosion control for areas to be developed, and costs to local taxpayers to service the proposed 1,460 housing units would be $18,8ll,0OO. EVEN IF HOMEOWNERS ARE PERM1TTED TO KEEP THEIR HOUSES, WON'T PROPERTY VALUES, GO DOWN IF THE NATURAL AREAS ARE PRESERVED AS PRAIRIE-WETLAND? This rumor is based on a misconception about what makes property valuable. Real estate dealers generally find that the existance of an adjacent park makes the value of homes So at. rather than down because potential buyers know that their Investment Is protected from unsightly development next door. In addition, having a park adjacent to one's property gives one all the advantages of an estate without the cost of maintaining It. One of the reasons the present Carol Beach area remains an attractive place to live is just because of the open space about it. WHY ARE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY'S HOLDINGS PERIODICALLY BURNED? ISN'T THIS DESTROYING THE VERY THING THEY CLAIM TO CHERISH? Burning is the way prairies are naturally maintained. Invading wood shrubs and non-native plants are killed; native prairie plants resprout from their extensive root systems. Native praire animals, have natural mecha- nisms for surviving: retreating to burrows, taking to the air, or running to a river or wetland. WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? WASN'T THIS AREA ONCE A GOLF COURSE? ln the Southeast corner of the study area, near the present Trident Marina, a 9-hole golf course was built in the 1930's. In the 1940's the golf course was abandoned- it had seldom been,usable because of standing water. This small proportion of the total 1,825 acres in the study area was able to re-establish itself because of a good surrounding seed source. As of 1981, according to a study made by the Naturc Conservancy, "the recovery appears to be about 50 to 75%" - ---------- - - -------- . ...... .. . - ------------ 06@ - - - -------- - - ------- ------- ---- 16J4 Appendix F-29 RECEIVED November 1, 1984 NOV 0 2 1984 SEWRPC Mr. Kart W. Bauer S.E.W. Regional Planning Commission 916 N. East Avenue Waukesha, WI 53187 RE: S.E.W.R.P.C. Public Hearing October 23, 1984 Proposed land use management plan for Chiwaukee, Carol Beach - Rezoning Platted Upland lots 1 93, 94 and 95 Chiwaukee Sub. Kenosha, WI. Property Owners Mr. &.Mrs. Wallace & Fahima Piroyan Dear Mr. Bauer: ,We reque st that this statement become part of record for S.E.W.R.P.C. October 23, 1984 Public Hearing and hereby protest the rezoning of the above mentioned parcels of land for following reasons: 1. All three parcels are considered to be upland accordin to your Biologist, Mr. Don Reed and also confirmed by two independent Senior Biologists, Mr. Denis Lowrey from I.E.P., Inc. and Mr. Warren J. Buchanan, Jr. All three parcels are disturbed plowed, seeded and have hundreds of Evergreens, Fruit trees etc., and confirmed beyond doubt to have no significant scientific or wild life habitat value. They also have been visited and inspected by the Director of Nature Conservation and fourteen local, state and federal officials. 2. Each one of these three lots is one full acre. (100'x400') They were platted in 1922 zoned single family. The soil test was performed on October 6, 1984 and inspected by the Kenosha Country Zoning Soil Expert to have a ground water table of 68"-70" inches (A water table of 56" inches is for conventional septic system 24" inches for required mound system). 3. The proposed plan calls for a new road on Lot #93 across from my present home which is pajrt@,of a 29 year mortgage collateral. As you are aware, due to sever lake, erosion most Savings and Loan institutions do not extend long term loans unless the owner owns the property across the road, and is willing to include it as part of collateral@ (reason given is that in the event of and uncontrollable erosion Home owner could remove his house). This was recommended to me in the past by the Kenosha County Zoning, DNR, Army Corps to be the best alternative to shore erosion problem. -315- Page 2 4. The proposed plan will provide Sanita ry Sewer to the .property on the east of Ist avenue, but not to the seven privately owned lots (#91,92,93,94,95,96 and 97) on the west side-of 1st avenue making the cost of future sanitary sewer for the area impractical and extremely expensive. I feel the adoption of the proposed plan to rezone upland will deprive my family of the usage of my property as it was intended by' Kenosha Country Zoning for 62 years. The proposed road on my property will devaluate my present home causing economic lose and hardship. Therefore; I request that the proposed plan be amended to incorporate the above mentioned facts. @If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Wallace Piroy@@ 11745 1st Avenue Kenosha, WI 53140 cc: Mr. Gilbert J. Dosemagen Mr. Donald H. Wruck Mr. Frank Volpinesta The Honorable Joseph Andrea Mr. James Fonk The Honorable Joseph A. Strohl Mr..Thomas W. Terwall The Honorable John Antaramian -316- 1701 ffinth Street Appendix F-30 Green Bay. Wisconsin 54M4 ...... .. -------- Telephone 414-499.9W9 DENNIS PRUSIK RECEIVED 1701 NINTH SMET Dennis L. Prusik GREEN B", WISCONSW 54304 NOV 0 2 1984 commercial artwork, Illustrations, photography. custorojewel, Y. individually designed wedding bands andjew,.Iry repair. SEWRPC A@w@- z3qz@ :5@ C, W, k, P C, 0 --:Z-Ai --72> Pew h@ -0 Ax@ 46 tzz,7@ '4@@ 9@vt-'A- 41-" Ile- 4 s- 7 lob&e-e- vr> J@a*L'L- Gobi, e-4111t@ Iva .4 C 141-" -317- Appendix F- 31 RECEIVED To: NOV, 0 2 1984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission SEWRPC 916 h. East Avenue Vi'aukesha, Viisconsin 53187-6721 Subject: Comwnts brepared for presentation at the hearing in Kenosha on October 23, 1984, on the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Study Area Land Use Management Plan My hame is Jennette Schroeder. I was., I think number 46 on the list of people wanting to address the hearing. I decided., rather than extend the length of the hearing,, to write my comments to the Commission. bly interest is in the Preservation of Chiwaukee Prairie.. and that interest springs from the prairie's beauty,, its existence as an open space, its value as an educational resource., and its function in the preservation of a biotic community. Others have spoken of the beauty of the prairie, tis value as an educational resource, and I believe also of its value as an open area. in a region of increasingly dense urbanization. I would like to comment on its value as a reservoir of indigenous plant and animal species. The prairie is one reservoir among others all over the world which,, al- thought they constitute only a tiny fraction of the world's area, are of incalculable value as plant and animal habitats wherein a diversity of species is aakintained. '14hy is diversity essential? American farmers need new strains of wheat every five to fifteen years to rplace those in use, which in our single-crop agriculture, can be destroyed when a relatively slight change in crop conditions permits an isect or disease ro reach epidemic proportions. There is also a con- stant search all over the world for plant substances useful in the treat- ment of disease, Before the year 1600 A.D., species became extinct at a rate very close to the rate of development of new species. At the present time., the rate of extinction is between 40 and 400 times the rate in that earlier time. hatural reas provide a genetic reservoir from which plants can be developed for may uses., of which the two examples above are examples. The key is "diversity".'J* and Chiwaukee im Prairie is an area rich in diversity. `ii hi a biotic community., each individual species of pl t in ant or animal lives in a com_.-@lex relationship with the others., so that loss of one species dLminishes the health of the entire community. To maintain this diversity., protection of the habitat is necessary. The health of the biotic coamunity and its maintenance depeend not only on factors such as soil., water and topo- graphy but also on the extent of the area protected, because reduction of the area beyond a given point so reduces the numbers of individuals of each species that maintenance of the cpecies itself declines, These comments are offered in the knowledge that their use in the dvelop- ment or the modification of the land use management plan now under consi- ationmust be correlated with the requirements of other types of uses; and I must defer to experts for the development of specific requirements for preservation of the prairie in terms of zoning., maintenance of optimum surface and soil water conditions. limitation of mass and concentration fo buildings, limitation of both land and water vehicular traffic, and limi- 2. Comments or, Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Land Use magagement 1@lan Jennette Schroeder tation of noise, all with respect to the maintenance of the biotic diversity of the.prairie area, I do urge consideration of the preservation of the prairie in all its diversity as a matter of primary Liportance. Thank you for your consideration of' my comments. I'm sorry there are so many typographical errors - the time is short. I do appreciate the opportunity to present my comments. -7Jennette Schroeder 1413 College Avenue Racfne 'Wisconsin 53403 -319- Appendix F-32 RECEIVED NOV 0 3 1984 John L. Arkema 6265 N. Cicero Avenue SEWRPO Chicago, Illinois 60646 Phonet 1-312-685-0912 October 31, 1984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 916 N. East Avenue Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607 Subject: Chivaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Study Area Dear Sire: I am the owner of Lot Twelve(12) in Block Thirty.-four(34) in Carol Beach Estates, Unit Four(4) Kenosha Countyq Kenosha, Wisconsin. I purchased my lot on September 4. 1955,, as an investment with future plans to build a house on the property. Unfortunatelyq circumstances prevented accomplishing this, but I never lost eight of the goal. As I was making preliminary plans to build a solar home this year, I learned, just last April, through the efforts of the Chivaukee- Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc., that the Department of Nat- .ural Resources could take away my property rights, I am not a local resident and was not aware of these plans, Neither Kenosha County, nor any other State or Local Government Office in- formede& i f the affect this action would have on my investment,-al- though my name and current mailing address as property owner is known. The County Assessor's Office has automatically compounded my land val- uation at 4% per year since 1955, and I have paid a total of $1,046 in Real Estate Taxes to date. I have paid the Taxes quietly and in good faith. At least once each year, and sometimes more often,, I have driven to Carol Beach and walked on my land and have never found water on the surface. It is high, dry, and flat and is not a "wetland". It@will not require dredging or filling to develop,- The threat of declaring my land a "wetland" places an unjust hard- ship on me. I firmly believe in oonser7ation, ecology, preservation, etc., and try to practice my beliefs as best I can, but at this late date, I cannot afford to sacrifice vq investment without reimburse.- ment at full capitalization, I did not purchase to speculate on market value. If I had that in mind, I would have sold out twenty years ago. I kept the property for an investment to develop. -320- 2 My purchase price and the interest payments, costs, and yearly Real Estate Tax p@:tyments, fully capitalized make my land worth $15,000 to me. Property values have been unfairly depressed because of this long drawn out uncertainty. I will expect full compensation on my investment, regardless of present market value if I am forced, th- rough rezoning,, to lose the property rights I thought I purchased in 1955. I am unwilling to accept lesst Respectfully, John L. Arkema cc: Governor Anthony S. Earl Senator Joseph Strohl Carroll Besadny, Secretary, Dept. of Natural Resources Kenosha County Planning and Zoning Administration James Fonk, Supervisor, Kenosha County Don Wruck, Chairman, Town of Pleasant Prairie Wallace Piroyan, Chairman, Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Org. Voice of the People, Kenosha News -321- Appendix F-33 RECEIVED NOV o 3 1984 November 1, 1984 SEWRPC Mr. Kurt Bauer, South East Wis. Regional Planning Commission Reference: Chiwaukee Prairie, I attend the recent hearing in Kenosha on Chiwaukee Prairie, and wish to add to the testimony of those who fear that the Prairie will be damaged by development.. I have been at the Prairie when classes of students from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, were there, with their magnifying glasses and texts, studying the plants. Since Madison has its own Prairie*- manmade* as best man can - I became even more aware that Chiwaukee Praimb--has something unique. Save it for us. Sincerely, Rhoda Dadian 53 A recent newspaper item quoted Aldo Leopold as saying it would take 50 years to make a prairie. But biologists from UW-Madison, considering their experience in prairie making, have predicted it more likely take a thousand years. MW322- Appendix F-34 SIERRA CLUB JOHN MUIR CHAPTER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE 20101 60TH Street Bristol, WI 53104 414 857-7209 November 2,1984 Kurt Bauer RECEIVED Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 916 N. East Avenue NOV 0 3 1984 Waukesha, WI 53187-1607 Dear Mr, Bauer: SEWRPC We offer these comments in addition to the oral testim ony Presented at the Public hearing on October 23. We wish to convey the spirit of our Position regarding Preservation of the natural areas in the study area. Because we are still trying to work out some differences of opinion both the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition and the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizen's Organization Inc would like to have more time to submit detailed comments on the Plan. Another letter regarding that request for an extension is being mailed under a separate cover. I will herein summarize my oral testimony which I Presented' at the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Plan hearing October 23 In addition I will elaborate on certain Points, and add other comments. I would begin by saying that from the beginning of -my involvement, in the spring of 1982, 1 have endeavored to understand the Planning Process.- I have attemPted to conform my words and actions to my understanding of the Process. I have learned alot from my observations of the Advisory Committee meetings, and from reading the documents generated by the, Planning Projects. I appreciate the work-that the Regional Planning Commission has done, "and almost without exception, I believe I understand each' decision the Commission made. While I strongly disagree with certain aspects of the Plan I would criticize only the Plan, and not the Planners. The only exception to that is the staff's handling of the structure of the TAC Committee, which I will comment on further below. While some residents have exPressed their desire to see the neighborhood transformed into the "urban enclaves" described in the SEWRPC Plan, it would be logical, to expect that some residents have an intense devotion to the Present open character of their neighborhood. Indeed, such an opinion was exPressed in a letter Prinited in the "Kenosha- News", January 31, 1984. Signed "A Concerned -01- -323- ProPerty Owner" the letter reads in Part: My husband, two sons. and I live out in Carol Beach a couple of blocks from the Lake. We love it oat here and what we have isn't much, but it's ours, We love raising, our bogs out here because its so free and open... Having "grown uP in a rural environment in the Town of Bristol, I believe I understand exactly what the author of that letter meant when she said that they love raising their family there because it is "so free and open". As long as I live.1 will' be grateful to my Parents for Providing my siblings and me with a very natural, rural environment, especially during my "formative years". Furthermore, it.has been my experience over the years that, generally speaking, in the United States of America, PeoPle live where they want to live. If People want to live in a city, they find a Place to live in a city. People Who want to live in the countrygside will eventually find a Place in a -rural setting... I have observed that People who choose to live in rural areas have very strong feelings about the advantages of country living relative to urban living. I see four basic groups, or tyes,of homeowner in Crol Beach. They are: Unit "W"; Unit 1; the Lakeshore; and the rest whose homes are relatively sParselqg scattered throughout the study area. Residents of Units and "W" already live in urban enclaves, and therefore have close neighbors. Similarly, the attraction of the Lakeshore has resulted in those residents having close neighbors. In contrasting rural and urban neighborhoods, I Place those three. categories together, compared to the rest of Carol Beach, which Would best decribed as being relatively rural. It seems safe to assume that there' are others in the rural neighborhood who share the view of the "Concerned ProPerty Owner that they went to the trouble to move or.build a house there because of the Present rural character of the neighborhood. (However not having heard much from those PeoPle it is difficult to determine what Percentage would like to see the-rural character of the neighborhood remain unchanted). It seems useful to sPeculate about why that Point-of-v was not heard more during the Planning Process. First, we know that the homeowners in the Studs Area have never been "of one mind". It was well-Publicized that. the Carol Beach Estates ProPerty Owners Association and the. Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization,- Inc found mans areas of disagreement. I believe that the rural residents voices were, lost in the confusion of the controversy. Second, it would be logical to ask why those who like the rural character of their. neighborhood did not organize, or othewise make themselves "heard. Third, ..the Sierra Club feels obliged to object to the wag the SEWRPC staff handled the structuring of the TAC Committee. -02- -324- The first Point is self-exPlanatory. There have been widely differing opinions among the residents of the study area. Since neither Property owners association exPressed the viewPoint of the rural residents, the rural advocates were faced with the -choice of organizing themselves ,or not being rePresented. The answer to the second Point is not so obvious. Why haven"t we heard more from the residents who like the character of the rural Part of the study area? The first thing that comes to mind is the Psychology of the tyPe of individual who likes to live in a rural area. Part of the attraction for many is the relative Peace and solitude afforded by the distance between dwellings. People who Place a high value on Peace and solitude find that some close neighbors have a tendency to be a nuisance. Another way to Put it- is that rural PeoPle tend, to be indePendent tyPes, who do not tend to organize easily or well. I would add that I observed that the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Organization, Inc (C-CBOI either did not understand the Plan and the Planning Process, or else they deliberately disseminated misinformation. In any case, there. was much confusion evident in the minds of Property owners, and many had obviously been mislead. From that observation, I deduce that many rural home owners thought that their interests were being rePresented by the leaders of the C-CBCOI. For examPle, desPite the obvious wording of the Plan, and, all the assurances. by the Regional Planning Commission and the DNR some People to this day still Seems to think that their homes will be condemned. I blame the C-CBCOI for that misaPPrehension. The effect on the rural home owners seems. to have 'been that they sPent their time and energy Worrying about a "red herring", when they could have been worrying 'about the real issues of housing density in the rural areas and the-high cost of caPital imProvements. Because of the time sPent worrying about non-issues, the ranks of the C-CBCOI grew with citizens who had in effect been "duPed". I would guess that urban Planning is far more common than rural Planning (zoning notwithstanding). While Urban residen'ts frequently get together to decide the fate of urban neighborhoods, few, if any, rural Planning endeavors have ever come to my attention. The tendency among rural residents is to "sit back" and watch farmland, fields and woods succumb -to Subdivisions. Residents of the countryside tend to feel powerless to Prevent ProPerty owners from making "big bucks: by Selling -rural oPen sPace: areas to develoPers. Organizations such as the Sierra Club are beginning to Point out that unless comPrehensive Planning is imPosed all over, the open sPace which remains will dwindle toward the vanishing Point.The Point is that, while most rural residents greatly Prefer to live in the countryside, and want very much for the character of their neighborhoods to remain unchanged,. they do not, for various reasons take it uPon themselves to endeavor to Place restrictions on the use of their neighbors land. They form, therefore, and rely on regional Planning Commissions, to Provide relatively obJective external, guidance in the handling., of the difficult, Problem of land-use Planning. That brings us to the third Point mentioned above,, the way -03- -325- the SEWRPC staff set uP the TAC Committee. It is aPParent to us that the staff did not carefully analyze the PrinciPal forces at work in the study area. The Sierra Club Made a formal request to be included in the Planning Process,but our, request was ignored. We hoPe that, if a serious attemPt was made to include rePresentatives of all interest, the magnitude of the staff's, oversight was evident at. the. hearing on October 23. Since the Sierra Club was denied a voice and a vote on the TAC Committee, after, having identified ourselves to the Planning Commission, it is easy to understand why the rural interests in -Carol Beach were not rePresented on the Committee. Another way of saying it would be that the rural interests had develoPed no Political "clout. I certainly understand the Problems you faced in trying to reconcile all them oPPosing viewPoints. Although keePing large segments of the rural areas fundamentally unchanged is certainly a legitimate aPProach to Planning, the Political difficulty of Preventing new home construction in the rural areas has obviousy been enormous. We feel however, that those Problems are not insurmountable. It aPPears to me that to simPlify your task, or PerhaPs in your estimation early on, to make your task Possible... you ignored the rural interests completely, and made the Plan "black and white", with urban enclaves and oPen sPace Preservation (assuming the eventual acquisition of the homes in the environmental corridor). We feel that the Plan in its Present form is nowhere near as sound as it could eventually be. We have many reasons for stating that, some of which I will enumerate below. I trust that my colleagues will have commented on. the other reasons we have A which wil1 suPPort significant charges in the Plan. For environmental and economic reasons, we hold that the- extension of sewer, service to all of the urban enclaves delineated in the Plan would result in several disasters. In our aPProach to the Plan, sewer service should be extended only,to the existing urban enclaves, namely Unit "W" and Unit 1. Generally sPeaking, the rural areas should remain rural. The planning Process should be dedicated to working out a a detailed Plan for the rural areas, involving Present home owners, ProPerty owners, and conservationists. The objective would be to establish a maximum housing density aPProPriate to a rural area, which would be agreeable to all. We would rely heavily on scientific criteria and allow building only. on buildable" lots in the rural areas. While this could be a "Planner's nightmare". we think that the SEWRPC could assist in the formation of a local Planning commission, to enable the Regional Planning Commission to eventually be finished with its role in the Process. We have generated many suggestions, some of which seem eminently worhy of consideration. For example, we would begin by requesting that little or no further construction were to occur east of the railroad tracks. We would ProPose at least two . -04- -326- rural densities, one for east of the tracks and one for the areas west of the tracks. In all rural areas, there would be a "diligence" requirement, similar to that expressed in the Plan for Trident marina, that if construction did not begin prior to a specified deadline, then that lot would never be developed. Because land is frequently traded, i.e. bought and sold we think it is at least a realistic possibility that owners of buildable lots in the rural areas east of the tracks could be Persuaded to sell, and purchase another lot in one of the rural areas west of the tracks. Some present or future entity of government could arbitrate and arrange the transactions. We would like to see an "inventory" of the wishes and intentions of the owners of undeveloped lots in the rural areas of Carol Beach. While it would be a big task, the results would go far toward creating a plan for the area which would make virtually everyone happy. We think it is realistic that the Planning Commission would be able to enlist some volunteer help to accomplish that goal. We Predict that three categories would emerge from such a census. 1). Those who would be happy to be rid of their property for the right price. 2). Those who would retain ownership to preserve the natural state. 3). Those who have seriously intended to build on their property. In category 3, there would be at least two subcategories, those with buildable lots, and those with wet lots. Of those with buildable lots, we could expect that some could be persuaded to build elsewhere in th study area. Of those with wet lots we could expect that some would be eager to find buildable lots elsewhere in the study area. It would seem reasonable to insist that no one be permitted to build on a wet lot in the rural areas. The plan would permit only owners of record to build, and would deny building permits to "tract developers". It may seem that all this would be a great deal of trouble to go to. The land "trading" idea might require a computer program to act as a "Clearinghouse" for willing buyers and sellers, and to keep track of desities in the rural areas. We think that the computer science division at UW-Parkside could be persuaded to take on that challenge. Parkside does have a "mission" to play an active role in community affairs. In our estimation such a comprehensive detailed Planning effort for the rural areas would be well worth the time and energy entailed. I recall your saying early in the planning process words to the effect that you wanted a good plan from a planning perspective. We think that our suggestions for modification of the draft plan would go far toward achieving the consensus that -05- -327- you seek. find we think that the adoption of our modifications. would result in a Plan which you as a Planner could justifiably take great Pride in. Again, we aPPreciate your attention, and look forward to working with you in the future. Respectfully, David H. Hewitt Conservation Committee Co-chair John Muir ChaPter (Wisconsin) Sierra Club cc: Public Intervenor Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizen's Organization, Inc. Chiwaukee Prairie-Rescue Coalition -06- -328- Appendix F-35 wot, ott,31, 190 Mr. Kur+ F 0. BOX -70 RECEIVED Waukesha, wi 5@) 8-7 NOV o 31984 %.f SEWRPe% DW SEWWC &UM6Er-S T)-djr4,5 are an infer)) colromponenf oFaur &Wml ande-tdiurol e-es+mblh@h a+ Mos@ smc)// ri4a?t,. 1he mally receml e#brts -k r of Pr4r,@ (sacA as a-t U;V-6qF-Pt8" amd 4E Bal BfctcA LOdlife 5anclvarr) A.S14X @6 V@'E Aoa@ @hO@ prairies M @0 peWle. 1j, however tnUch rhore in jc!ne 4v1*44 lqor-to ol f Commoll 5tAS& @b Prexepve, &@s+ih3 Pm1r*1c--r, WWPI -Ab @r@ k -Vend 4e- yreaf &MOUY05 or 41m,e and 6(pr-F refdec( VO Mcrev-le are65 0( prc;iric -1-@*kets mamymamy YeOr.5 40 makC Onl hecdway asid 4c-,c, fralmenfs S@;// A)Ck- A! Or . Mat diversil of plan*5 and an)'mals v(-Aal /o *e-wrcA and YAC very essence- of a pro irie No w we, are- -roded a;44 6pporiundy -A eAer pm5erve Cr allow -Ae- skp-by-sj@p olisfrucfien of @A. (@hlwaukte Nirie 14 -me Aadwesf wht@k mof only 4 ihe 4hesf qvafi)@ ri (Af IhehdF-S Pro' 'e OFI@-c e Ah OfAer L)a luab It ri atuml 1'fajurgs cqc a@h(@A I'm sure YOU cW au"PE 74 7@01ilc /-@ reT jit-@cd 4 ke of -SkY0--Wtd0-, ter*nal and na*OA'al % 6 So. rec nized, @N3"i-f(MACE. At Ift-Si Otriain PW41 @As id" @1 o-fid / -6E I , a -s oKany afhers do) Awf A& /I One of YA05E cases u)hcrE ypa can /0-s6 owi ir you aton,4 pro4ecl -A C'pitrify of At- )rt @fmtral, I am oppamd A #F- governmepd lakth@hnd j4pom priva-k ownf-* wAG hove- li'ved Am- jGr Aamy yE&s , coheAfr I @- be io-ror pa rks o r ofe ve lojonte n I . Am d in A e ca sE cei @v@u -329- ftairlij Aom- who kave a/Pmdy hul7A hames. Moedd h e Ollowe@ /a IIV'e Af-re. Aitoev O.Se- of Ae cwners @Y, m 4e 0 of UjIdevelotodd Proirlt leis .0,0 m1i S&j -At &,adcr redion,011 '1A V.W O@CAd PrI IVO* df Pe*erl Rlikoujh / sympoAzz wtM Aese people, Me- hEs7l adim we td cl be & je'l@d rv n ds. >4 pupth a; E AE lomd 0 a- A t i- p r') C Cl Ar PUrposE5, OF preSerWhviti Spee-ificaliv Me ae-cess road easenvsnt d-cross #e PNII"rie 4& Propoced Wifity corridor -P COI-Sca,ms1n@ Gectrt@ 120(verComponl.) arICI Ae fxhnst@n or zmer //r& A #atkd OW-as _vJvuld &vt be- allowed. -At Im Offtkuc+t@e qHF-rWives -Fr 6vamy"10A, -Meafmenf- planf should be pur-sued, aKd 4he paposed AoIEI. mnvp,Mio@ &Afar V #e marina ahould n&- te. pem;Mid at-Ae. evense c@f #P, at@*t maft@ ie'hkres 4nd emdaxjtrE4$F6es. AAy Olevelopmenf surrmndin 'y Oe paitif, zhoald & 06,0rolle4 -So #Af j'+ dD-Os Ofdt mrit'vely irvaO /he umMr Jbible ancl vromd=ftr ayA Surfoct Wafer PAMS Whid Aa& @AP- arEO period orl yov Pm Sorry your pubbi mpal r Ofevelopftg@ Owl Loat .5o Aorf-. lhdt- meaes 4 hardEr 41or no,"-/scal PeOPIC 4 fl@d out ujw@s rr ik 4tr4 4 o)r'h on 4rmed le&y j OF1 I e*rs.s.st Aell'r eon cerm s, AM cur &Acerm3 qre JuSli f 7ed and ishoWd W A 1tv'coi elva I Lveokt as Aose a@ loical people- if to I mo re w e@hf a swe- mpment a- 6roaa@_r) 101- Arm inimi% /+ is @w bad VW Ae F@@jri;e; tim-o pletfied aAd parcels wd ;-\ Aepasf, bij.+ pow gal-we- reeqdr%t&_ Ae- jm@orknm -330- Ancbin &n@ A@4 Ae mIS'i4b!s &T#e p4rcov- shoulql he, mulfif*id 16d4y. WE mnmi (VOinus A -suce-umb k Olevel*mW Pre-$Sure's -#O-t #Yedlell our *&C4/ IvAcrdl pkees - 7Acy can noi- he replaced, P/ea,5e do wf. @Aove.) Ae- Value of Ae (hiwavkv& ftairle az a na4urad lardwrk. 6re" &q, W1 :5q.--so3 Grov, Aohony Car) Mr. Cari-oll bo-sacliNy -331- Appendix--F-36 43 -&v44a4& A@l t4A a- to i4,q A A4 A- -332- Appendix F-37 324 116th Street Kenosha, W1 53140 November 1, 1984 RECEIVED Mr. Kurt W. Bauer Exe(.--utive Director NOV 0 3 1984 Sout.heastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commision. P.O. Box 769 SEWRPC Waukesha, W1 53187 Dear Mr. Bauer, I am writing as a citizen rather than as a member of the Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee for Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach to request that the lot immediately west of my home be removed from preservation and proposed purchase by DNR since the lot contains my well and has been mapped as upland. Thank you. Sincerely, LaVerne Kulisek -333- Appendix F-38 L a RECOvED NOV 0 3 1984 D e CL SEWRPC 10 U-61 ea r t-14 ),rL e 0- kL A Q Fit Qla rc@ 0 v a_ eo-r V, C L')'YYN YvL t. ct" ea P- h4e -te ,e P a- U-. Pa u S Lk 0 c) -)LIT -334- Appendix F-39 Wisconsin WETLANDS Association Room 31-32 111 King Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 tel. 6o8-256-o565 October 31, 1984 RECEVED Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director NOV o 3 1984 Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission SEWRPC 916 North East Avenue P.b. Box 769 Waukesha, WI 53187-0769 Dear Mr. Bauer: The Wisconsin Wetlands Association Board is submitting this letter in.regard to the SEWRPC recommended land use management plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. We are in opposition to the proposed plan because: (1) we feel it would fail to preserve the ecological integrity of the prairie-wetland complex; and (2) the precedent-setting non-compliance with existing Wisconsin Administrative Rules (NR115). The Chiwaukee Prairie wetland-prairie complex is the largest remaining example of swell-and-swale prairie in the Great Lakes Region. It is a priceless gem, recognized nationally by its designation as a National Natural Landmark, and the people of Wisconsin should be proud of its existence. BuT., the people should take greater pride in their efforts as responsible ciLizens to preserve unique natural resources of the State for future geyterations. The citizens of Wisconsin can take no credit for the formation of the wetland-prairie complex, but we.can take pride in our wisdom and efforts in preserving such an area. one argument for allowing development of the-area is that the rights of the people who purchased lands platted in the 1930's should not be denied. We ask why a mistake made many years ago should be perpetuated when new information and knowledge is now available that makes the earlier decision appear inappropriate. Isn't it wise for society to learn from its mistakes? The fact that few of the lots have been developed due to high water indicates that development here is inappropriate. The lands are not going to dry out unless mechanisms for draining the area are installed. Not only will these require upkeep, for which government assistance will, of course, be requested, but drainage will interfere with hydrologic functions in other parts of the ecosystem. Obviously everything fits together quite well now what does not fit is human development and habitation. Allowing housing development in this area will require government, through public dollars, to subsidize the interest of a few. We feel the full cost of development should be paid for by those who directly benefit, not by public dollars. Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land ... Aldo Leopold -335- Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director October 31, 1984 Development in the are a will also increase the cost of managing the small parcels of natural area preserved. more time, money, work and knowledge are required to restore and preserve small parcels of natural communities when their habitats and functions have been obliterated. We are opposed to the proposed actions which will segment and negatively impact the ecosystem, such as: (1) The proposed WEPCO utility corridor which will bisect the environmental corridor; (2) The upgrading and expansion of roads cutting through the prairie; (3) The expansion of Trident Marina into endangered species habitat; and (4) The extension of sewers through areas designated as environmental corridors. we would also like to point out that the science of prairie, and especially wetland, restoration is in its infancy. This was discussed recently by national and international experts on restoration ecology in Madison. The goal of restoring lands to their original conditions is admirable, but rarely, if ever, achievable. Therefore, this goal should not be accepted as a rational for destroying a natural ecosystem. It took over 10,000 years for the unique prairie at Chiwaukee to be formed. A few simple zoning changes and drainage ditches could destroy what remains of the natural Lake Michigan shoreline. The neighboring State of Illinois-has preserved her portion of the 'prairie. It is ironic that Illinois, with its much greater development pressures could have greater foresight than the "conservation-minded" State of Wisconsin. In conclusion, we would urge you to revise the land use management plan so that large tracts of the sw6ll-and-swale ecosystem be preserved intact and so that development activities surrounding the area do not disrupt the ecological integrity of the ecosystem. Sincerely, Deanne M. Lovely, Chair for the Wisconsin Wetlands Association Board -336- Appendix F-40 RECEIVED NOV 0 3 1984 SEWRPC La' L4 A)f 33@- Appendix F-41 RECEIVED NOV () 3 1984 SEWRPO (t j I am writing with concern about the proposed plan by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SP.-JRPC) to develop the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Study Area. In reading some literature about the whole situation, it appears to me that if the proposed plan for development goes thr6ugh, Chiwaukee Prairie will turn into another one of those names of places that are used as examples of how man's invasion of another area caused devastati ng and irreversible impacts upon the animal and plant life living there. How long will it take for man to learn from the many.mistakes he's already made, and worse yet, how many more of these mistakes can he afford to make? TIT ell you have a chance right now with Chiwaukee Prairie to prove t. that you weren't ignorant of those past mistakes, and that you realized before it was too late that the prairie, as it exists now, is a rare natural resource, and therefore should be preserved in its existing unaltered state. It's always said we need to think of future generations, of our children and grandchildren, and of bow our current actions will affect them and others as well. True, but don't we also owe something to the animals and plants currently living on earth? Don't they deserve some rights too, mainly the right to live on and prosper without the constant threat of man? There are 480 native plant species (18 of which are endangered or threatened in Wisconsin) and 76 animal species living on the Chiwaukee Prairie right now, and can't we for once say it's more important to preserve the prairie for that reason among others because we know full well that you can construct your buildings else where, but once the prairie is gone, it's gone forever. (1) _338- The idea of preserving small portions of the prairie will not work either because the size of an ecosystem preserve is very important to long term stability--small islands of the remaining prairie will deteriorate as the genetic diversity of their species narrows, and individuals will be lost without successful reproduction. I am proposing that the Chiwaukee Prairie be purchased for the purpose of permanent preservation. Everyone, not just the select fewt deserve the right to enjoy and learn from the @rairie as it is. Please, don't take that right away! Jdrt4 Appendix F-42 THE WISCONSIN GARDEN CLUB FEDERATION RECEIVED NOV 0 5 1984 SEWRPC November 2. 1984 Mr. Kurt W. Bauer, Executive Director Southeastern WI Regional Planning Commission 916 N. East Avenue Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187 1607 Dear Mr. Bauer; The Wisconsin Garden Club,.' Federation, comprised of 2,463 members in 118 clubs, has recognized that CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE, a unique scientific area, as one of Its priorities for preservation. The Federation as well as many Individual clubs have supported Chiwaukee Prairie financially during the last eight years. Chiwaukee Prairie with Its most valuable plant and animal communities unlike any other in the state of Wisconsin or the midwest, is beckon- I'ng the help of every conscienclous preservationist, so that its smili.ng flora an.d wavi,nq grasses remain to be seen foran eternity. The Wisconsin Garden Club Federation is appealing to the advisory committee of SEWRPC to consider and re-consider the following pro- posals: 1) Opposition of Trident Marina's development both in dredging 30 acres of prairie and the construction of a hotel convention center. 2) Abandonment of the.East-West vehicular traffic through the prairie at 122nd Street. 3) The direct and indirect destruction of the prairiei Its water qualityi pollution, damaging the ecosystem if the sewer development plans materialize. The Wisconsin Garden Club.. Federation (W.G.C.F.) would like to re- emphasize the Importance of this nationally publicized prairie and its future fate. Sincerely, Genevieve J. @rema, Land-Trust Chairman Wisconsin Garden Club- Federation -340- Appendix F-43 U-7 Y4- F- A) S- 3 a 40 D /"q/n NOV o 51984 SEWRPC -19L. E P 1 v A4::t tA@ AAL; -341-, Appendix G MATERIALS SUBMITTED AFTER CLOSING DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING BUT BEFORE PUBLICATION OF MINUTES -Ap@endlx G--l RECEIVED s A5 w R Pc@ NOV (1'61984 A-4 -W-e @e Appendix G-2 RECEIVED Eugene Potente Jr. NOV 0 6 1984 6634 - 3rd Avenue Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 SEWRPC Nov. 2, 1984 S. Eas tn,Wis cons in, Planning Commission Waukesha, WI 5318 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As the owner of property in the Chiwaukee area of Pleasant Prairie in Kenosha County I wish to tell you of my objections to the contemplated program to reserve this area. I can well under'stand the needs to conser.ve our natural prairie area but some of the land which your program wishes to set aside from free use really does not conform to the requirements for this kind of land. Secondly, the entire plan as I understand it provides that the owners continue to be saddled with the taxes on the land while at the same being prevented from utilizing it for any purpose which might defray their tax costs. Finally I understand that it would be the aim of the Commission not to attempt to purchase the land at a fair price but to maintain the land as it now is purely at the expense of the unfortunate owners. At the very most, I under- stand, it would be the aim of the Commission to pay a minimal price far below market value in the event that any purchase would be made. I sympathize with the aims of your program but it. should not be pursued at the expense of individual property owners whose land would*, in effect, be confiscated. A ank you, Eu he Pote e, Jr. ank you' Ug r E he Pote?te, Jr." -344- Appendix G-3 RECEIVED NOV 0 7 1984 SEWRPC Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition PC Box 152 Franksville, WI Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission PO Box 769 Wayukesh, WI 53187-1607 Dear Mr. Bauer: On behalf of the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition, I submit the following comments as a supplement to the oral testimony our members provided at the Southeastern Wisconsin. Regional Planning Commission's public hearing on Its land- use plan for Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach. The Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition consists of individuals and groups who have become deeply concerned that the interests of the people of the state and the nation In Preserving the natural resources of the area, have not been adequately repre- sented in the planning process. As you know, we strongly, object to the plan in Its Present form. However, please be assured that we appreciate the effort and dedication to professional principles of planning that you and your staff have exhibited. We applaud your efforts to develop a zoning category within which natural resources would be Protected. And we recognize that some decisions that we consider bad have been motivated by your desire to develop a compromise Position between preservation end development. What we primarily object to is the basic set of premise s which provide the starting point for the study. The position of town officials from Pleasant Prairie has been well represented at the outset. But we hold that the interests of the people,of the state of Wisconsin and of the nation lie In preserving the valuable natural. resources of the area, and that these interests have not been given adequate weight at the beginning. This fundamental neglect.of the public interest has shaped the outcome of the entire study, giving It a pro-development bias. For example, the plan which SEWRPC designated "maximum preservation" is in fact not that at all; it would Permit considerable develop- ment. Further, the notions of "fair" and compromise" are. weighted on the side of development, through failure to repre- Sent at the outset the broader Interests for preservation. -34 2 A first principle In deciding what to do about the area must acknowledge the irreplaceble value of the wetland-prairie ecologica1 community,with Its 400 species of native plants, And its rare and endangered plants and animals; and that It is In the public Interest to preserve this natural resource. The area supports this diverse population because of its unqiue topograhy, with Its ridges and swales. The topography provides the requisite diversity of habitat. To preserve the species requires preserving the habitat, not only in terms of leaving the land itself free of human encroachment, but also in terms of seeing that the existing, ground and surface water conditions remain undisturbed. If it is acknowledged that the ecological community of the area must be saved, it follows that many plans must take into consider- ation the Impact of proposed development. In dealling with a fragile natural community. one cannot simply say, "Development here; preservation there. Human encroachment does not stop at a, line designated on a map. Dirt and plant debris from a building site spill over onto adjacent land; herbicides and pesticides applied to lawns run off onto adjascent natural areas; children play beyond their family lawn edges; road salt leaches into wetlands; paving prevents water from seepinqS Into the soil ... These are not certainties, to be sure. But we cannnot r1sk the experiment to see If the prairie will survive in spite of develop.- ment. We no longer have other prairies to preserve the gene pool. We as human beings have alreadv destroyed a1most all the rest., With, endangered species in particular It cannot be argued: Eliminating these individuals doesn't matter because there Are other individuals over there. A species becomes endangered when tne number of individuals drops to such a low level that any further reductions would result In extinction of the species. With endangered species, compromise" cannot take the form of permitting any of the individuals to be destroyed. We realize that your office Is concerned with land-use p1annning, while environmental impact is handled by the DNR. But as you know an EIS is given with , respect to some plan or other, and thus far, SEWRPC has not provided a true "maximum preservation" plan which starts from the premise that the prairie community in the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area must be preserved, and then looks to see how much,if any,development can be permitted& without jeopardizing the survival of this ecological community. The Chiwakee Prairie Rescue Coalition has prepared a list of features which a true maximum preservation plan should include. At the October 23 hearing, Richard Marcinak outlined these for the Commission. I enclose a summary of our Preservation plan for your consideration. How these principles would translate to mapping details should In most cases be clear. What to do about badly disturbed lots north of 116th street are matters, to be worked out once the broad pattern of preservation Is agreed upon. -346- 3 We realize that many of the pro-development features of SEWRPC's plan are dictated by your perception that fair treatment of landowners in the area requires that development be permitted. We do not deny that compromise is essential. But the value of the wetlands-prairie complex in Its present condition Is so great that compromise can only take the form of compensating lotowners In some fair way, but not In permitting them to develop their land to the detriment of the prairie. The Commission should stop defining compromise" as preservation vs development, and start defining It as preservation. with fair compensation. All sides are agreed that owners of houses In the area should be permitted to stay unless they are willing to sell to an agency representing the public Interest for preservation. The issue turns on the undeveloped land, both platted and unplatted. The Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition (CPR Coalition) believes that fairness dictates that lots in the area to be preserved should be purchased. The task is to work out an acceptable formu- la for establishing a fair but not exorbitant price,and then to find some public or private agency to buy the land at the estab- lished price. Owners of unplatted land. to be preserved under a true maximum preservation plan fall In a different category, since here the County has never been privy to an assumption that the land was buildable. Rezoning to protect the natural resources can be compatible with continued ownership of the land by private interests since some activities would continue to be acceptable. However, here too, compromise may dictate purcnase or some change In tax status for landowners. I would like to remind the Ccmmission that most of the wetlands In the area are protected under federal section 404 or state NR115. The people of the state of Wisconsin, through their legislators, have already indicated their desire to preserve the wetlands protected under NR115.We are glad that you have recognized the extent of the area needing protection. In a letter to the Public Intervenor, dated September 19, 1984, you describe ". the ChiwauKee Prairie-Carol Beach area, where the resource base requiring protection is comprised of complexly lnterrelated uplands and wetland." you also note that "the wetland regulatory framework out In place at the federal and state levels ... remains inadequate to protect the resources found In the Chiwaukee Prairie- Carol Beach area. " We, agree with you in your assessment of the value of the resources and the extent of coverage under existing wetlands law. But we believe that from these premises it follows that valuable uplands not protected under wetland law also ought to be protected through zoning regulations. Any attempt to exchange land protected under 404 or NR115 for uplands not protected smacks of trying to circumvent existing law. Valuable uplands should. be protected in addition to wetlands already protected, not in p1ace of wet- lands already protected. 4 A further assumption about the area has been made from the beginning; namely, that only those landowners listed on the tax roles have a stake in the plans for the area. Please bear in mind that anyone who has given money to the Nature Conservancy specifica11y to buy land In Chiwaukee Prairie has committed him- self financially to preservtion of the area. The Nature Conser- vancy has been perceived as some monolithic organization with money to buy land. The money the Conservancy uses comes from thousands of contributors who also have a stake In the plan. The points made in this letter can be summarized: 1) The Interests of the state and nation have not been adequntely represented in SEWRPC's revised preservation/dvelop- ment plan. 2) The plan is biassed In favor of development because of initial failure to give weight to the public interest for preser- vation. 3) The ecological wetland prairie complex ought to be pre- served so that It can survive intact, without loss of species. 4) Any development which endangers the survival of that ecclogica1 community should not be permitted In the plans for the area. (This may require further hydrogeolocgical studies.) 5) A true maximum preservation plan should be offered by SEWRPC for an EIS and public consideration. As a start on determining what a true preservation plan would Involve, the CPR Coalition offers its outline plan for the area. 7)"Compromise"has been erroneously define'" for the area. Compromise should take the form of reimbursing landowners or giving them, tax breaks, rather than permitting development. 8) Wetlands already protected under NRI15 and Section 404 should not be sacrificed to "compromise,"in order to preserve other lands. Instead, wetlands already protected shouid continue to be protected, while valuable uplands should also be protected through local zoning and/or purchase. 9) The Interests of members of the Nature Conservancy or other individuals who have donated money to buy lots In Chiwau- kee Prairie through the Nature Conservancy should also be taken Into consideration. In this letter, I have not addressed the matter of costs of development for each landowner in the area costs promise to be -348- unreasonably high for the less affluent ones, nor the nagging problem of failing septic systems. There are alternatives to sewering. However one thing is clear:If the population density of the area is increased through development, the problem of sewage disposal will increase, not decrease. Thank you for giving us a chance to be heard. If you would like to discuss the above matters or any others with representatives from our CPR-Coalition, we should be happy to arrange a meeting., Sincerely yours Mary/Ellen Johnson,Chair Chiwaukee Pra1rie Rescue Coalition ENC CC: members of CPR-Coalition DNR County of Kenosha Town of Pleasant Prairie Public Intervenor -349- THE CPR PRESERVATION PLAN The Chiwaukee Prairit, Rescue (CPR) Coalition has found the present SEWRPC TAC plan unacceptable. Therefore, we are compelled to offer a reasonable alternative. Our plan is based on two principles: reasonable treotment of existing property owners,, and. maximum pre- ser aticn of the prairie. To safeguard property and homeowner rights, we propose: 1) that ne existing houses be razed, moved, or condemned 2) ttiat the DNR and/or private crganizations make reason- able guarantees that if property owners wish to sell, moneys wi 11 be available for-purchase. 3) that such purchases of property be made at an equitable market value that WEPCO be granted the asked for utility corridor easement, with the stipulation that no permanent build- ings be placed on the corridor and no herbicides be used in the arezi. To safeguard the natural resources of the area, we propose: 1) that the 18 acre wetland site immediately adjacent to the Kenosha Sewage Treatment Plant not be reserved for possible expansion-, but that other areas nearby be con- sidered for,any future plant expansion. 2'; that sewer service not be extended east of the railroad tracks that no new road be built through the prairie to service Trident Marine, and that unnecessary existing roads throuq@ the entire study area.be abandoned and the area restored tio: wetland/prairie. 4) that nc new lands be-put aside for expansion of Trident Marina S) that all unoccupied land within the 1,825 acre study area be zoned C-3 (conservancy). -350- INTRODUCTION The Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition is a non-profit organization of individuals and groups, with state-wide membership. Its purpose is to protect from development the natural ecological community of plants and animals known as the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach study area. The 1825 acre site is now seriously threatened by Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission's (SEWRPC) plans. To allay the numerous false or unfounded claims being circulated among area residents, the following answers have been prepared by the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ISN'T THERE ENOUGH LAND PRESERVED ALREADY? THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ALREADY HAS ACQUIRED 150 ACRES OF A TARGETED 225. The Nature Conservancy's present holdings are just a small relic of what once was. But if the 1,825 acres of the study area are protected, the area would be the most Important swell-and-swale prairie in the Great Lakes Region. The prairie,hosts over 400 native plants and 76 animal species. It is home to over two dozen rare, endangered or threatened species of plants and animals. It is one of the outstanding natural resource areas in the United States. In addition, there are 9 valuable archaeological sites in the area. SOME PEOPLE HAVE CLAIMED THAT TWO BIOLOGISTS TOURING THE AREA HAVE NOT FOUND PLANTS OF ANY GREAT SIGNIFICANCE. Until these purported biologists step forth, Identify themselves, offer evidence to the scientific world that the area is not significant, and thereby lay their reputations as biologists before the scientific com- munity the claim can be dismissed as unfounded. A scientist must be willing to hold his claims up to public scrutiny. lt is significant that nc scientist has stepped forward to make the claim being circulated by laymen in the area. -351- WHY CAN'T THOSE WHO VALUE PRAIRIE PLANTS JUST COLLECT SEEDS AND PLANT THEM ELSEWHERE? Seeds from areas adjacent to the Nature Conservancy's holdings (where seed-collecting is no permitted) have been collected for planting else-.. where. But planted in other habitats, seeds often do not survive. The rare or endangered ones in particular need the unique habitat found at Chiwaukee. They are endangered because habitat elsewhere has been destroyed. Even though many plants do survive individually elsewhere, the entire ecological community of plant and animal species cannot simply be trans- ported, The University of Wisconsin at Madison has been trying for 50 years to restore Curtis Prairie. University experts recently ad- mitted the experiment had not yet been successful and now estimate It will take 1,000 years to become a true prairie. WHY DOESN'T CPR-COALITION ACCEPT THE DECISIONS OF SEWRPCS TECHNICAL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE? ISN'T THE EMERGING; COMPROMISE FAIR? The value of the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach wetlands-prairie complex is so great for the people of Wisconsin and the nation that preservation is,essential. Compromise must take the form of compensating landowners in fair way. WASN'T THE C0MITTEE CHOSEN TO REPRESENT A SPECTRUM OF INTERESTS? While there are representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Nature Conservancy serving on the Technical and Advisory Committee, they officially represent their organizations. Each has limited his remarks to the role his agency can play in administering the area. Nor have en- vironmentalists been permitted to testify at committee hearings. WHY ARE ENVIRONMENTALISTS SO CONCERNED? WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM? Environmentalists have no monetary or political advantage to gain beyond the satisfaction of knowing that they are preserving and protecting natural resources of great value for the state and nation. By contrast, individuals who plan to develop lots in the area hope to make a lot of money, once Kenosha County taxpayers have subsidized the construction of a sewer system. DON'T PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY? Property rights are only limited rights. You do not have the right,to do something on your property that would harm your neighbor. You do not have the right to destroy a natural resource protected under federal or state law. The general welfare takes precedence over,any individual property rights in case of conflict. For example, it is illegal to shoot a bald eagle or a songbird on ycur- property; health codes require the repair of a failing septic system; building codes dictate how you may build your house; setback codes limit how close to property lines you may place buildings. In short, property "rights" are limited. WOULDN'T PRESERVING THE PRAIRIE-WETLANDS COST THE TAXPAYER A LOT OF MONEY, WHEREAS WITH DEVELOPMENT, COSTS PER TAXPAYER WOULD DECREASE? If the prairie-wetlands are preserved and individual landowners compensated. by the state, the cost would he borne throughout Wisconsin. If, on the other hand, the area is developed under SEWRPC's plan,total costs for sani- tary sewer, water supply, local street Improvements, and stomwater drain- age would come to $14,411,000. Add to this $4,400,060 for shoreland erosion control for areas to be developed, and costs to local taxpayers to service the proposed 1,460 housing units would be $18,801,0OO. EVEN, IF HOMEOWNERS ARE PERMITTED TO KEEP THEIR HOUSES, WON'T PROPERTY VALUES GO DOWN IF THE NATURAL AREAS ARE PRESERVED AS PRAIRIE-WETLAND? This rumor is based on a,misconception about what makes property valuable. Real estate dealers generally find that the existance of an adjacent park makes the value of homes go up. rather than down because potential buyers know that their investment Is protected from unsightly development next door. In addition, having & park adjacent to one's property gives cne all the advantages of,an estate without the cost of maintaining it. One of the reasons the present Carol Beach area remains an attractive place to live is just because of the open space about it. WHY ARE THE NATURE CONSERVANCY'S HOLDINGS PERIODICALLV BURNED? ISN'T THIS DESTROYING THE VERY THING THEY CLAIM Burning is the way prairies are naturally maintained. Invading wood shrubs and non-native plants are killed; native prairie plants resprout from their extensive root system. Native prairie animals have natural. mecha- nisms for surviving: retreating to burrows,-taking to the air, or running to a river or wetland. WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? WASN'T THIS AREA ONCE A GOLF COURSE? In the Southeast corner of the study area, near the present Trident Marina, a 9-hole golf course was built in the 1930's. In the 1940's the golf course was abandoned; It had seldom been usable because of standing water. This small proportion of the total 1,825 acres in the study area was, able to re-establish itself because of a good surrounding seed source. As of 1981, according to a study made by the Nature Conservancy,"the recovery appears to be about 50 to 75%." -353- Appendix G-4 RECEIVED NOV 0 7 19814 0'/ Al, vem bw If$ Pfokr- Afr. EA149;- SEWRPC A w Lek' 6@-I@kjell 04"d" @,@'7 le R, P. at@,a 4 ka 1191zq. Q1 -Ovtl.5, A 1-,e a /S 1/0 (LA tl 11 /c 6e C-A U o 4:- jLj wA,c,4 pp, v,'C-& r qop spect-e-5 akd '?@(v A*' I jue 5fe c V-S at'140( 14, "L9 s he X@ c eZ j'-e-4M Ld, V* 1, 5q .0 J,,t ac/Qo",@e @w a td cte @e a 6-,41 c PX -354- Appendix G-5 RECEIVED Bernice C. Maert NOV 0 7 1984 N77 W12477 Fond du Lac Ave. SEWRPC Menomonee Falls, Wis. 53051 November 4, 1984 Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director SEWRPC Old Courthouse p.0. Box 769 Waukesha, Wis- 53186 Dear Mr. Bauer: I have become aware of the threat to Chiwaukee Prairie by development interests. May I point out to you the significance of this small reminant of what was once a great Prairie. There are many natural resources in the area which are of great value and should not be lost to development. Chiwaukee Prairie is one of the best of the few remaining areas of wet-mesic tall grass prairie in the Great Lakes region. Among its 400 native plant species are 18 of which are endangered or threatened. 76 animal species make the Prairie their home. We just preserve this priceless and rare jewel as a heritage for the ge Inerations to come. It would be shortsighted indeed on our part to lose this fragile and irreplaceable area to development interests* Please do not let this tiny remnant of unique and increasingly-rare ecosystem go the way of the passenger pigeon. Extinction is Forever. Sincerely, Bernice Maertz Appendix G-6 IST wieceiVED NOV 081984 SEVVRPC -356- Appendix G-7 FiECEIVED NOV 0 8 1984 SEWRPC CA, Ulu, ell) L c /2 -357- Appendix G-8 November 6, 1984 RECEIVED 184 Mr. Kurt Bauer, Director NOV o 9 19 SEWRPC SEWRPC Old Courthouse P.O. Box 769 Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186 Dear Mr. Bauer: I am writing to you with the request to reconsider the SEWRPC plans for the development of the Chiwaukee Prairie in Kenosha County. This area is far too valuable to be lost to.the bulldozer. A list of potential losses if the SEWRPC plan is accepted would include: a virgin wet-mesic tallgrass prairie remnant containing 400 native plant species, including 18 endangered or threatened species. This prairie remnant is one of the best remaining in the Great Lakes region and is therefore a much valued natural asset. SEWRPC plans would increase traffic through this area, disrupting its fragile ecosystem. As you know, the tallgrass prairie once stretched for millions of acres in the vast midwest. Now all that is left are these few patches like the Chiwaukee Prairie. The Chiwaukee Prairie is now a natural treasure and must be protected if not for today's gene- ration, but more importantly, tomorrow's. I would like to think that our progenitors will thank us for our foresiftedness rather than curse us for our shortsightedness! Thank you for your time, and again please reconsider. Sincerely, Kevin Niebauer 1202 First Avenue #5 Grafton, Wisconsin 53024 KN/ez -358- Appendix H NEWSPAPER ARTICLES PERTAINING TO CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE-CAROL BEACH LAND USE MANAGEMENT PLAN EDITOR'S NOTE: The first three articles presented herein are from the files of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, and are included to provide background and historical information about the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach area. The remaining articles are those that have been published since the incertion of the planning effort for the area in 1982. Dreams oo,,f a City for Millionaires I Went on Rocks in the Depression 't's now highway 32. was named Edithton beach. The In 1919, a Chica;o group ne- Mrs. Edith Rockefeller 'The 1,800 acres had only a name was the result of a S5,000 gotiated'I to purchase @the land few farms. It had scub oaks' contest won by a La Porte (Ind.) for $131,000. The group said it McCormick Planned swamps and mostly sand with '@ man who remembered Mrs. Mc- planned to revive Mrs. McCor- light covering of soil. But the Cormick's first name. I mick's dream for a model city. a Model Community lake gave it a natural attraction, There were some other de- The plans never developed. In and its undeveloped state made velopments as the prosperou.s 1943, 845 of the acres were used South of Kenosha it ideal for planning. 1920's moved along. A few as an antia.4craft. training site. Mrs. McCormick had begun roads were built, one Icadi lig By ROGIM W. MITILER life on the right side of the from the big arch; here and State Park Sought Of The Journal Staff tracks. The daughter of John there a brid-e was constructed; The Kenosha County Conser- Kenosha, Wis. A Rocke- D. Rockefeller, sr., she was giv- surveyors sc-rutinized the land. vation club showed the next in- feller can drealn big; and that's en 40 million dollars by her The town was going to retain terest in February, 1946, when just what,Mrs. Edith Rockefel- father. She was married to the lake front property. It was it urged the state to buy the ler McCormick did. Harold Fowler McCormick of to have a downtown, a g o I f Mrs. McCormick's dream was the McCormick reaper family. Course, model playgrounds and land for a statepark. But a for a model city on the lake in 1912, they built the Vilia arnple school facilities. Mrs. Mc. Chicago group headed by Jo- shore smith of here. It was to Turicum with 15 bathrooms on; Cormick was to control the ar- seph E. S h a f f r o n_ purchased' be limited to millionaires. The 193 unencumbered acres in chilectural scheme. The down- big drearn proved n bi- night- Lake Forest, 111. The cost of the town buildings were to be half 1 00 acres of the "second rnzare for rnziiy who ?iad in- house was 5 million dollars. timbered, old English style. Evanston" on Nov. 13, 1946, and promptly d u b b e d it the %,ested in her'venture. Mrs. McCormick had suffered Creditors Lined Up Carol Beach estates. That was rnore than 10 years a nervous breakdown in 1912 ' Beach firm used a"o. Today Ole dream is alive and met Dr. Carl Jung, flic Swiss The dream faded slowly and The Care, 6 - e of the original roads that for hundreds cl residents of the psychiatrist. Jung Nvas quite a all but vanished when the crash on 0 of 1929 cut into the ranks of Mrs. McCormick had built as area. But it's riot being fulfilled m%'stic. Mrs. McCormick liked b%, millionaires. Most of the hi's rri-vsticism. For the next Chicag-o's millionair@,s. Mrs. Me. an access tP its office. Farther Cormick died in 1932, leaving south on highway 32 a cluster homes in the area would be nine ,years, she spent much of in built, as if in the shacks by Mrs. McCormick's hel' time in SvitzcrIand as estate of $1,500,000, When of homes was standards. But then Mrs. Me- Jung's pupil. her creditors got done lining up middle of a citv. The homes 6 they claimed they were due 16 are not pretentious, but the Cormick once lived in a house A rch 'Was Milit million dollars. lake is near bv and the children 211 miles south that had 44 rooms and 15 bathrooms. Returning to the United The Villa TUricurn. the Me- have plenty of romping room. States in 1921, she was accom- Cormicks' five million dollar At last count, Carol Beach She first bared her dream in home, was sold at auction in estates had 264 houses. An ad- 1924. She purch;sed 1,550 acres panied by Edwin D. Krenn, a 1947 for $206,366, including joining subdivision to the' South of land that bad been the Schuy- Swiss architect with a ven for S160,366 in tax lions. Mrs. Me- contained a; other 23 houses. ler Van Ingen estate@ for $1,500 - it 000. She later added land t@ Buddhism. Krenn, also a lung Cormick had lived in the house Road houses, motels and even give her 3,800 .9cres. pupil, wris later to be her part- only sparingly. The 193 unen- a commercial amusement park ner in the development at Ke- cumbered acres were to be for children are strung along Ideal ftr Planning nosha. It wis also in 1921 that broken up into a subdivision. highway 32. In the subdivision, The 1.800 acres extended the Rockefeller oil and McCor- The ownership of the I and the roads 'are usually potted. from just south-of the Kenosha mick reaper interests parted carried into the courts with a Many of the unkept lots hide city limits to the Illinois state ways, with Mrs. McCormick get- foreclosure suit. The case went "for sale" signs. The beaches line, a distance of five miles. ting a divorce. all the waY to the state supreme are laced with rocks, beer cans The eastern border is Lake Mrs. McCormick's plans for court in 1936. In 1937, the Ke- and broken bottles. Michigan. The western edge, the model city did get off the nosha county sheriff had the nearly a mile from the lake, was ground: A big arch was put final say on the land. It was then highway 41, the main Chi- across highway 32 proclaiming sold for S186,000 plus back @cago, Milwaukee traffic route., the development. The project taxes. THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL an ancient forest in our Area By RUTH HAMMOND the land. decided recently to Kenosha News Staff Writer my Research Center, Forest Indian Campsite shore up the lakefront with Products Laboratory, Madison, Further up on the beach his- Southport sand dunes. For boulders. Wis.; the Geochronology Labo- toric revelations of a different many Kenoshans, both old and Now the lake-bordering ratory of the U.S. Geological bluffs. from which children young. these words conjure up type have been made. Artifacts Survey: and the University of such as arrow points fire- memories of a desolate, close- once jumped, landing tumbled Wisconsin - Parkside. cracked igneous rocks, ham- t o-n a t u r e beach, of sand- and sunbaked on the beach The most recent studies by merstones. and sinkers give mounds with grassy crewcuts, below. are encased in a jumble people outside of Kenosha were evidence that early Indians of a place where earth and of rocks. A tall crane, imple- done two years ago by the Mil- used this area as a campsite. l~kcand sky visually fuse Into ment of destruction, imposes waukee Museum. According to Sander. the In- a n incredible, ever-changing on the skyline at the southern Evidence Uncovered. dians would migrate here dur- landscape. tip of the dune area. a flat- Exposure has been especially Ing the summer"months to fish The dunes a visitor saw one tened, leveled topography in its prevalent during this past a nd hunt. This annual migra- day were never the same the wake. - spring. Constant storms tion dates as far back ago as next day. for with the wander- The new1y laid rocks have vealed and then covered more 5,0O00 years. up until the 1700's.. ings of the wind from its gen- done evidence of the buried forest. T h e dunes area provided tlest puffs of breeze to its mig- vorite play area. They have plenty of materials for the na- htiest blasts, came the wander- also inhibited further studies on In April, four closly located tive Americans to work with stumps, embedded in a 12-inch ing of the dunes. geologically and archeologically Cattails from the nearby Lake action also modified the important materials. laver of black humus prairie were used for weaving landscape. In the past 10 For the past 12 years, violent ovelies a strata of clay, ap mats and huts. Waterworn years, path-changing' currents wave action along the shore ppeared. The Four. identified as rocks helped fashion imple- have nibbled at the beach until has been uncovering roots and three red oak and one elm. ments such as axes, spears,. w h a t was once a straight ranged from 12to 15 inches in and arrowheads. Pottery was branches of trees, carbon-dated shoreline has become a bowl. to be about 6.340 years old diameter and were one foot formed from clay located along s h a p e d curve between two plus or minus 300 years. Em- high. the lake. Broken rock, flakes of points half a mile apart. bedded in a clay bank. these These stumps are no longer chert. and other stone refuse These send-sucking currents trees probably grew during the visible, since constant modi can still be found at the former have exposed geological his- last interglacial stage and were fication of the shoreline has re- workshop site. fory uncovering remnants of a buried during a temporary covered them. while at the Wisconsin's climate was, too same time exposing other logs. harsh for the Indians during buried forest believed to be, readvance of the ice sheet. more than 6000 years old. Phil Sander. local naturalist Entiembed by glacial debris. the winter. so they would mi- Approximayly 75feet Of and conservationist, has made the sample logs are spongy grate to the south or west shoreline were overcome bv the several discoveries along the and black. Identified as. hard- every fall. The dune area pro- rising lake level at Southport beach, some of which have wood. their discovery has been vides 2 route for migrating an- dunes in recent years: at least been studied by state gologi- paralleled by geologists to the imals as well. In the past. as 25 feet of this has been lost in cal socities, Wave crosion ex- discovery of a softwood forest at present, hawks; and monarch the past few stormy months. posed the first specimens of in Two Creeks. Wis., dated as butterflies fly south along the Man Brought Changes entombed wood in 1961. after 11,400 years old. thermal air currents caused by But the most dramatic which Robert Black, a Univer- Analyzation of the logs re- the lake. changes in this haven (which sity of Wisconsin professor of veals not only Wisconsin's pre- Vehicles Destroy Dunes extends south from 80th St. to glacial geology, look samples historic tree life but also its While deterioration cannot 86th St. between Lake Mich- for further studies. plant life. since pollen threaten the rich history of the igan and 7th Ave.) were pre- Since then, the area has been maintained in the logs can be Southerport dunes. it does threat- cipitated by man, not nature. viewed and analyzed by Kcn- studied in order to discover the en the preservation and knowl- In order to halt further deterio- neth Dearolf, director of the types of vegetation abundant edge of that history. Even the ration of the beach. the Wis- Kenosha Museum; R.C. Koep during the Pleistocene geologi- foredunes, although not affect- consin Electric Co., which owns pen, a botanist at Wood Anato- cal epoch. 6,0O0 years ago. ed by the shore-bouldering nec- L AKE MICHIGAN WIND NO SOIL LITTLESOIL WET PRAIRIE 9TH AVE STORM FOREDUNE COTTONWOOD BEACH GRASSES & SHRUBS OAK DUNE 6000 YEARS 8000 YEARS -360- 4 V Remnant of a buried forest, this stump is one 15 inches in diameter and were one foot high. of several uncovered by wave ciosion at The stump pictured above was identified as Southport sand dunes last sprng. More than a red oak. Since the picture was taken, wave 6,000 years old, the stumps ranged from 12 to action has re-buried the stumps. esary to stop beach erosion, tion to peel away the sand have fallen victim to cycl es above it, samples must be at- and dune buggies which tear tained by digging down into the away the dune reeds, beach area. grass, wild rye, and wheat grass that stabilize the mounds. Dunes Will Return of sand. The dunes obliterated by the This needless destruction Of. crane are no, lost forever ei- nature bothers Sander infinitely ther. Wind action will shift the more than the,preventitive s a n d i n t o mounds again; bouldering of the shoreline. For breezes will drop seeds from ------ although he regrets that the dune grass to the west, and the lake-bordering bluffs had to be piles of sand will be stabilized destroyed, the only alternative once more; with leaves of the --he could see was to have all binding grasses regenerating the dunes, perhaps all the way themselves each time the wind to 7th Ave,, absorbed by the re-buries them with sand. rising lake. Within five of 10 years, the Fortunately. the buried forest dunes will once again dot the Is not entirely lost to further shore, for while man may be research. However now, in- able loput it down a bit. na- stead of waiting for wave ac- ture still has the upper hand. KENOSHA NEWS -361- Caml Be Dream ero es th shoreline By EMILY THAYER An artist's rendition of the pro- later developed as modest homes. ' Staff Writer posed resort portrays Edlthton and named after his daughter Carol In the early 1900s the sandy strip of Beach as a model city, with a golf "It was an interesting deal, fascInat. Lake Michigan frontage nestled be- course, playgrounds, schools and old ing. tween the Kenosha city limits and English style downtown buildings. "We anticipated profits and it did' the northern border of Illinois was Undoubt(,dly It was to be a resort for turn out to be profitable. The land '.nothing innrr thnn sand dunes with (hose ni ill lonalre-acqunintances of developed just as we had antici- a few scrub onks on It." Edith Rockefeller McCormick. pated." Youngilers of the World War I era But little more than an arch across For seven years the land remained played along the shores, hunting Indi- Highway 32 proclaiming Edlthton undeveloped, 845 acres used as an an relics and "skinny-dipping down Beach, and a few roads leading to the anti-aircraft training site during past 75th Street, below the second sandy clunes, was accomplished World War II. But World War 11 fence." before the stock market crash of 29 brought many changes, and one of In the months of September and reduced the heiress' millions. Three them was Shaffron's move to October the swamplands become years later McCormick died, owing Kenosha. "infested with owls" and the young her creditors $10 million. A realtor with 25 years experience, teen-agers, would-be hunters, whose For the next seven years the title Shaffron took over management of brothers and hilhers were In the to Edithton Beach, Inc. was- passed the land and made plans to develop It trenches or France, shot at the owls among various trustees, perhaps with homes. with rifles, recalled Kenosha native mllilonalre-acquaintances of the late The development was not to be a Milton Steinmetz. McCormick. "second Evanston" as the Milwau- In 1924, a wealthy, recently- On Nov. 1, 1939 three attorneys, kee Journal reported In 1062. "1 divorced heir to the millions of John among them Kenosha attorney David Immediately stopped that Idea be- D. Rockefeller Sr., Edith Rock- Phillips, filed articles of Incorpora- cause In my opinion It was not a good efeller McCormick, developed In- Uon with the Kenosha. County Reg- Idea," recalled Shalfron. "It was too ter"t in the unoccupied land once Ister of Deeds, representing a "Chi- great of a distance to be considered a Inhabited by the Potawatoml Indi- cago syndicate of businessmen" with suburb of Chicago," 1. 1 ans. tentative plans for development of Edithton Beach, associated with On May 5, 1924 McCormick Edithton Beach. the lofty dreams and pronounced purchased 1,5.% ncres of the virgin 'While the plans for development of failure of a wealthy Idealist, was land from the Schuyler Van Ingen the lakeshore frontage, which "suc- renamed Carol Beach Estates by estate. Van lngvn, recalled Steln- cumbed to the onslaught of the de- Shattron, whose daughter Carol was Dec. born the day Shaffron assumed man- T-netz, lost five of big children on pression In the early 1930s," were not agement. 30, 19M, In the Chicago fire of the made public, the attorneys "in- Iroquois Thealre. Several other dicated Intensive activity ... for -"The name of Edithton didn't do us daughters. however, married and Alection of new life" into the area, any good," explained Shaffron. "So I lived In Kenosha. reported the Kenosha Evening News. gave Carol $10 for the use of her McCormick, a woman accustomed 1'he Chicago businessmen who name." I to the luxury of a 45-room mansion In were to later develop EdIthton Beach Berore homes were constructed the northern Chicago suburb of Lake Into a residential community of 1,500 however, Kenosha conservationists Forest, Ill., made'the total purchase people had little on their minds other @and historians become interested In of 1,800 acres with lofty dreams, than fishing, the day they decided to the land for use as a state park, and On October 12, 1924, McCormick purchase-1,200 of the acres. urged citizen support of such an announced that she planned to de- Realtor Joseph Shaffron, then a endeavour. velop the land as a "mllllona re Chicago resident, was vacationing In ". . the preservation of this resort," at a cost of $15 million. northern Wisconsin In Manitowlsh unique stretch of shoreline would be And as the 1920's brought prosper- Waters with eight business as- a great contribution to the cultural d Ity to Kenosha, a growing toWn of sociates, when he closed the deal resources of the state," wrote 40,000 which moved to the rank of the over the telephone with Phillips. Kenosha Historical and Art Museum third most populous Wisconsin city, "We only looked at the land be- Curator Norbert Roeder. "Here . . . .McCormick began developinig_her..- cause It was offered to us," said we can still catch a glimpse of what "mil lionalre resort," dubbing It Ed- Shaffron of the land which was to be those first settlers saw as they ithton Beach. -362- 4:' K Ilk A .4 lit Is A.@ 7 A.. ]@_t' i 1i@@ IL ARIISI S 0'N,L1'r1ON OF 711L FUTURE DEVELOPmEN'r KHENN 0 DA-ro. i..., 93o N. A--. 1*111CAU0 19209 artist drawing depicts what was to become. the millionaire resort of Edithto'n Beach. The dream never materialtziM. 7, V, I it A 7- "::I 4A e@ N5 , FL 7T Kenosha News photo by J. Martin Roche Street throu Carol Beach shoWs what dev relopment actually took place 9 crossed through southern Wiscon- a four percent Interest rate. called Shaf fron. "We had an average. sin." "We first anticipated it as a re- loss of 800 feet along the three-and-@ . Accessibility of highway, rall or sort," Shaffron said, "Within three one-half miles of lake frontage. We water, "Ideal" bathing conditions, years we knew It would be per- :.spent a lot of money and fought with adjoining woodlands and the need for manent." I the government to. do something aiwho)esome outdoor recreatlo@ In It wasn't until the 19509 that about It." natural surroundings" for the urban Kenosha residents began purchasing Government Interest In the erod- and industrial population were cited the homes, diminishing Shaffron's Ing southern Wisconsin shoreline was as recreational values of the 1,277 and his associates' criginal plans of a minimal however, and Shaffron in- acres assessed at $107.51 per acre. private resort for Chicagoans seek-, vested his own money In developing a -,! - ". . _. by pu'tting a. great deal of Ing a summer have i. method of preventing erosion. effort into (this) our results will be a By the early 19fOs, Carol Beach "I was Interested In the property success," wrote Racine City Planner Estates had been developed with 265 and wanted to save It," said Shaffron Floyd 'Carlson* In April ID46, "We houses, and commercial develop- of his brittle against the timeless cannot take the attitude of 'let some- ment had sprung up along Highway erosion problem. one else do It.' 32. Two hundred acres 'had been The 1,5W residents of Carol Beach Effort put forth by the Kenosha developed as Indusirial park and an Estates today live In an area rich County Conservation Club and city additional 200 had been given to the with history, and while a child and county of flclalg was unsuccessful township of Pleasant Prairie for use playing along the shoreline may not however, and within 10 years eleven as a park. I find Indian arrowheads, a trace of units of houses stood on the once- Devel6pment In the '409 and '509 McCormick's "millionaire city" Is vIrgin prairies. had Its snags, however, the most evident by remaining foundations of The newly-developed homes In the serious being that of erosion of the the 1920's-era buildings, hidden late 1940's were sold primarily to shoreline. It was t. problem which amon@ the remaining prAIrIe Chicago area residents, many of Shaffron and his associates were grasses. whom were World War 11 veterans unaware ot at die time of.purchase. who bought the fiomes with a loan at "it was a major 'Oioblem." re-.. N-EWS -364- 0 Ne@w o@@4@i7j@l_ans _6 @_i___x_P___a_nd marina Kraosha - The financially trou. marina, which has about 200 boat. The marina previously was owned bled'Trident Marina has a new own- slips. and operated Py Marina Enterprises, er with plans for expansion. Plans for'expansion of .the marina a partnership in which Mort Shear and development of related reaw- was majority owner and Conley had The marina on the Lake Michigan tional and touM facilities will be a minority Interest. shore in the Town of Pleasant Prairie announced within the next few south of Kenosha has been acquired months. he said.- McHinry Savings & Loan held the by. First Trident Corp., owned first mortgage on the marina and b First Trident completed acquisition sought to sell the property In a mort-. Donald Conley, a Chicago (111.) att6r! ney, a spokesman for the -firm said of the marim by purchasing the fom @gage foreclosure proceeding. To pro- Tuesday. closure rights of McHenry Savhw.& tect Its interest In the property, Mari- Loan Association for..$M,OW and na Enterprises filed for reorganiza- He said First Trident Intends to agreeing to pay,the.@marlas credl. tion under Chapter 11 of the Bank- expand operations-apd add jobs at the..-,,. tors In full. ruptcy Act THE MILWAUKEE SENTINEL -Stu'dy"grou'D 10'.develop pattern Cho ukee urban, ou@ :ba an;c By ARLENE JENSEN environmental qualities and which- all wetlands are not equal," said Staff Writer should be served by sanitary sewers.. Morrissey, "but this area has high PLEASANT PRAIRIE - It is Philip Evenson,,,assistant director quality wetlands." possible to create a balance between of, the Southeastern Wisconsin Re- The Department of Natural Re- environment and development in the gional Planning'Commission, said sources will concentrate on defining Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach the study area is anchored by two a developable wetland, said Sharon area, George Melcher told a study important natural resource areas: Meier, DNR planning analyst, and committed Wednesday. .1 1 the Kenosha sand dunes on the north continue to study those @areas that "We hive an environmental -cor- and Chiwaukee Prairie on the south. are available for development. ridor." sa id Melcher, "but we also An environmental corridor connect s "The committee should keep In have lirban enclaves. It all has to be the two, he said. mind that a major sewer problem .tied into a logical, balanced pat- Evenson asked all groups to list exists in the area," said Thomas tern.' their priorities or specific areas of Terwall, Pleasant Prairie side su- Meicher, director of the Keriosha concern in the planning process. pervisor, "and we need to define a County Office of Planning;and Zon- Protection of wildlife habitat Is a sewer service area that can be Ing, Is one of a committee of about priority for the U.S. Fish and Wild- considered cost effective." persons studying Chlwaukee prior life Service, said biologist Ronald 0. Fred Nelson, Kenosha Water to development of a land use man- Spry, not only for animals that I are Utility manager, echoed Terwall's 10 permanent residents but for tran- concern and said, "The sewer, prob- agement, planning program. ,; The@ committee represents feder- sients as well. lern won't be solved by leaving it. il, state and local levels of govern- .@ Spry said America's wetlands are alone." .ment as well as environmental being drained at the rate of 2,000 to ; The Kenosha treatment plant is groups and private citizens. The 3,000 acres per year,' making it just north of the dunes area. I area being studied Is bounded on the difficult for certain species of wa- A major concern of the Town of east ' by Lake Michigan, the terfowl to survive. Pleasant Prairie is providing utili- Wisccnsin-Illinois line on the south, Many migratory birds that nest in ties to the area, said Town Chair- Hlgh%,@,ay 32 and the Chicago and Canada during summer and Louisi- man Donald Wruck "for existing North Western tracks on the west ana during winter use the urban development and residents of i and by 80th Street on the north. Chiwaukee area as a resting place the future." The study area encompasses 1,825 between the two, said Spry. Florence Jensen, a citizen repre- acres or about 8*percent of the total James Morrissey, of the U.S. En- sentative, said, "We dont want the area of the Town . of Pleasant vironmental Protection Agency, environment disturbed. We're here Prairie. said the main thrust of EPA would because it Is a unique area, and we iwa I gh Of primary concern is a plan to be to prevent the degradation of want to keep It that way." identify which portions should be water, The next meeting of the commit, preserved and protected to maintain "EPA has taken the position that tee Is tentatively set for Oct. 6. KENOSHA NEWS September 2, 1982 -365- ke-sid-ents -&-i-fical oLaroposal Zo"V IL urnwaukee-Carol Beach. plan mapped out By ARLENE JENSEN clude Chiwaukee Prairie at the "New roads will have to be built Staff Writer southern end of the study area, and in some areas," said Knetzger, "but PLEASANT PRAIRIE - Pre- the Kenosha sand dunes to the north. where lots have already washed into liminary plans for the future of The two areas will be connected the lake, it might be cheaper for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach by an environmental corridor run- Town of Pleasant Prairie to just let drew criticism Thursday from resi- ning along the railroad tracks but the road go." dents of the area who got their first including two lesser natural re- E.L. Crispell, town engineer, esti- look at a mapping proposal. source areas not previously listed in Mated the total cost of sewer, water The plan sets forth a proposal to the plan. and streets for the entire project preserve natural resource areas, Knetzger said an area halfway area at $12.4 million. provide sewers to residential between, 90th Street and Highway Q Sewers to designated areas would enclaves and promote more in- could qualify as an area worthy of be the most expensive, said Crispell, tensive development along some preservation. It currently contains with a network of pipes and three areas of the lakeshore. seven homes, he said, but a proposal lift stations pumping to an intercep- A special committee of about 20 could be developed to acquire the tor sewer along Sheridan Road. He persons representing federal, state homes and relocate them out of the estimated $5.5 million for'sewers. and local governments and environ- preservation zone. Water service to the area would mental and citizen groups, is study- The Wisconsin Chapter of the Na. cost am additional $4.1 million and ing the area and will make recom- ture Conservancy currently owns necessary road construction $2.8 mendations on future l4nd use. substantial tr4cts of Chiwaukee million. Encompassing 1,825 acres, the Prairie land, but representatives Philip Evenson, assistant director ,--area being studied is located in the said Thursday they "could not raise of the Southeastern Wisconsin Re- eastern P-ortio--n--of the Town-of 10 ifl@iiil* i6r purc: ase miles at-id- gional Planning Commission, urg .ed Pleasant Prairie bounded by Lake miles of land." the audience to view the proposal Michigan on the east, Wisconsin. An area between Tobin Road and "only as a point of beginning. We Illinois line on the south, Highway 32 Highway Q, which is largely un- are looking ahead 10, 15 or 20 years. and the Chicago and North Western developed, is the fourth important Nobody is saying that Pleasant railroad tracks on the west and 80th natural resource area, Knetzger Prairie is coming in tomorrow to Street on the north. said. start building sewers." Carl Salerno, 11731 First Ave., All lakefront lots have lost land to Sharon Meier, planning analyst complained about the conservancy Lake Michigan, said Knetzger. for the Wisconsin Department label on his ldkefront property and "At Tobin Road, the lake is 1,000 Natural Resources, said local gov- said he didn't believe his property feet closer than it was 100 years ago, ernments must draft a plan for contains any endangered plants. and it's not done yet." protection of wetlands. "If they are there, they must be under the fill dirt," he said. Because of the expense to private "If the county and DNR do not property owners for shore protec- agree on those areas that need pro- Stephen Barasch, 8610 Second tion, Knetzger said, that area could tection," said Ms. Meier, "the DNR Ave., said, "The most endangered be proposed for more intensive de- can adopt a policy that the county species is the property owner." velopment such as condominiums will be required to administer." In explaining the mapping pro- along the beach. Commercial de- The map will be available for posal, Russell Knetzger, Pleasant velopers are more financially able review at the Pleasant Prairie Town Prairie planner, said the most sig- to handle the cost of shore protec- Hall until the next committee meet- nificant areas of preservation in- tion, he said. ing, which will be announced later. KENOSffA NEWS October 8, 1982 -366- Chiwsaukee-Carol Beach study challenged V Of 1 -s @.w Ia DNR icia nt @p@OW fi@ne e,..s By 14RLENE JENSEN state and local government repre- people who'say they are willing to Staff Writer sentatives is studying Carol Beach- spend money to fight this thing," he PLEASANT PRAIRIE Chiwaukee Prairie from the state@ said. Kenosha County officials will de- line to the city limits, from Lake "I perceive a general feeling on mand some answers from the Wis- Michigan to Sheridan Road, an area the part of local officials'as well," consin Department of Natural Re- of 1,825 acres. said Even4on. !'They feel that lands. sources before a study of Chiwaukee Committee members hope to' that have alreAdy been subdivided Prairie-Carol Beach continues. come up with a plan that will identi- should be. deve .loped as the market The question most often asked is: fy which portions of the area should indicates." ! Does DNR have the power to place be preserved and protected to main- ITHERE WILL BE pressure 'on already platted land under.the con- tain important environmental quail- both sides of the issue. Evehson fines of shmeland-wetland zoning? ties and which should be served by a predicted pressure from environ- At Tuesday's joint session of town network. of sanitary sewers. mental groups. Fonk promised pres- and county officials, members of the' Evenson said Tuesday.939 acres, sure, in return, frOrn Kenosha resi- Kenosha Covnty Planning and Zon- or 46 percent of the study area, has -dents and officials. ing Commi,t1t.ee voted to have the been defined as wetiand. In outlining a tihie frame for the question researched by the county's "My understanding is that DNR wetland issue, Ev'enson said, "The legal staff, then seek a meeting with' will require you to place all clock begins to run when the DNR C.D. Besadny, DNR chief. wetlands in conservancy zoning, rul- delivers its version of wetland maps The scope of DNR's power will ing out the type of development that to. George - Me-1che_r_.'_'-__ Melcher Is have a'decided impact locally, ac- was once envisioned for *the area," . Kenosha County Director of Plan. cording to Philip Evenson, assistant said Evenson. ning and Zoning. director of the Southeastern Wiscon- County Board Supervisor Wayne Once the maps have been re- sin Regional: Planning Commission, Koessl said he would not vote to ceived, the county, has 90 days to who told the.group, "The clock will change the zoning to conserv ancy. respond, to challen ge the accuracy soon begin tie, run in Kenosha County "UW-Parkside and Bong Recrea- of the mapping process. on shoreland-wetland zoning." tion Area have already been taken Evenson said there is also a pro- Evenson said shoreland zoning at- off the tax rolls of Kenosha County.@. vision for an adO .itional 90 days taches to all !and within 1,000 feet of This could mean another 3�0 mil.., during which the county is required a lake or 30,@. feet of a stream. lion," said Koessl. , i I , @ , t to hold formal public hearings An amendment which passed the "Instead of trying to sitcon"d guess before the maps are declared final Legislature,recently "requires DNR Ile DNR," said Supervisor. James and six months from that date to to require counties to zone wetlands Fonk, "Let's find out ;fi;st: hand adopt zoning to cii,riespond with the for protecti ol A and preservation," he what they intend to do and what kind maps. - said. of jurisdiction they,ha4"' The schedule would place final "The problem is," said Evenson, @Pleasant Prairie Town Chairman adoption well into 1983. Evenson "in an . in@rentory of wetlands Donald Wruck said residents of the said, but If we don't end up with a throughout. the state, Carol Beach area have indicated they are prepar. 'plan that leaves the wetlands intact, stands out." ..ing for,a fight on the issue. 'there will be a confrontation be- A special committee of federal, "I've had a lot ot calls from tween, the county and DNR. f Wk (ie KENOSHA NEWS October 27, 1982 -367- Kenosha prairie go ge@39 DiVR role By Paul G. Hayes Some Kenosha County and "-J Jouruat Science Reporter Town of Pleasant Prairie officials ,,, t7 A gentle prairie that cloaks the have made it plain that they op- I-, % a, southeastern corner of Wisconsin pose efforts to zone the wetlands @4 with elegance each spring may for conservation. become the battleground for the "I'm not in agreement with first major test of the state's new anything that changes our long- range plan," said Gilbert Dosema- wetlands and shorelands zoning act. gen, county administrator. The area in Kenosha County - "Anything that's platted, as far as 1,800 acres in a narrow strip on I'm concerned, should be devel- Lake Michigan's shore from the oped." City of Kenosha's southern Dosemagen said he opposed boundary into Illinois - contains, any zoning that, in effect, would according to some biologists, be "confiscation" of private prop- wetlands and biological commu- erty. And he said the county nities of statewide importance. lacked funds to buy the proper- Some rare and endangered plants ties for preservation. are involved. At the same time, he said, it is For instance, here grows the unlikely that sewers will be ex- largest concentration of white- fringed orchids in the central Midwest, said Don Reed, biologist al.77 .77717 7.7 for the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. But the area also has been plat- ted for years. Hundreds of small sold off in the 1950s for EKE @N'O S H A lots were development as single-family res- 2 idences. Many, on high ground, have homes on them now. Many others remain as undeveloped 80- TOWNOF foot lots. PLEASANT PRAIRIE Now a classic confrontation of lafidowners, local governments .;@ Vft 1&*...@-.:@ operating under restricted budg- Wis F%V ets, environmental groups and the ILLI I State Department of Natural Re- sources is developing. So far the parties remain polite, but the bat- tie lines are becoming fixed. ".X The act that is forcing the issue was the arrival In Kenosha Coun- ty of DNR maps locating impor- Southeast Kenosha County has the largest tant wellandq No one questions tended into the area. Such a sys- that much of the Kenosha County tem would require expensive concentration of white-fringed orchids area is wetland and this is reflect- pumping stations. A lack of sew- in the central Midwest ed on the maps, said James Kurtz, ers might convince some owners director of the DNR's bureau of to sell their lots for preservation, legal services. he said. Even so, Philip C. Evenson, as- The Milwaukee-based utility tion of roads, sewers ana houses, Meeting with DNR sistant director of SEWRPC, said owns 150 acres on the lakeshore and thus, the complete destruc- Under the 1981 Wetlands and that while most of the soils were just south of the City of Kenosha. tion of the natural values. Shor6lands Zoning Act, county unsuitable for septic tanks, sew- It holds a cooling water intake The environmental advocates governments 'must adopt zoning age holding tanks could be in- for the firm's Pleasant Prairie would like the entire area zoned regulations that protect impor- stalled lot by lot. Thus, a lack of power plant to the west. as a conservancy district. During tant wetlands from development sewers alone would not prevent At one time, the firm intended a grace period, present owners or farming, recognize their im- further development. to build a power plant there. could build on their lots but after. portance to wildlife, rare.plant George Melcher. planning and While it has no immediate plans, that period no new homes coul d communities and clean water. zoning administrator for Kenosha. a spokesman said the firm want- be built, the Network suggested. A task force formed by County, said he intended to pro.-- ed to keep thl land for possible Several observers said the case SEWRPC representing all parties pose retaining residential zoning use in the future. was shaping up as a major test of failed to achieve a consensus on for all of the private land in the A coalition of environmental an important new law - one that what to do. Therefore, Kenosha area except, perhaps, for a paicel groups called the Wisconsin Envi- was Intended to protect remain- County officials have asked for a owned by Wisconsin Electric runmertal Network fears that the ing wetlands from drainaie or January meeting with the DNR. Power Co. area is vulnerable to the construc- development. -368- "If the DNR coves in on some The preservation of about 140 one of the fewer than 100 calcar.- of the most important wetlands acres of the Chiwaukee Prairie by eous lens known to exist in the in the state, how can It go to an- the Nature Consmancy In the United States. other county and make a case to area several years ago Is tesdmo- A calcareous fen, said Reed, to protect wetlands that may not be ny to its worth. Ch1waukee to a wetland whose chemistry Is as valuable?" said one. said to be the largest wetland calciurn-based and which grows a Kurtz said,the DNR would fola prairie to survive unchanged distinct community of plants., In- low the intent of the law. since the glacial age that helped cluding, in this case, a lily called "We're not going to be unrea- form it. the False Asphodel, a threatened sonatle, but we're not going to The prairie is unique In that It species in Wisconsin. roll o-ver either," he said grows only native species of plants. Pa-@t of the importance of the According to Reed, SEWRPCs THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL 1,800 acres In question Is scientif. ic. biologist the area also contains December 7, 1982 -369- Chlwaukee Prairie Carol Beach area encompasses homes and vast wetlands along Lake Michigan in Pleasant Prairie. officials to meet with DNR Chiwaukee-Carol Beach future uncertain My ARILENE JENSEN a "less drastic" compromise petitions from a coalition of Forty-six percent of this land Staff Writer plan that would include develop- environmental groups. An ad- has been identified as wetlands Wetlands equal wastelands. ment in some wetlands, con- ministrative rule has all the by DNR although significant That used to be the accepted servancy zoning in others. effect of a state law although it areas have been subdivided and equation. It is a sounder approach is not enacted by the Legisla- there are already many homes Today, though, the ecological fro'm' the standpoint of pro- ture. existing. value of wetlands for protecting fessional planning," Kurt NR-115 requires each county The area is under study by a water quality, wildlife habitat Bauer, Southeastern Wisconsin to protect wetlands, or those special committee of federal, and for flood control is general- Regional Planning Commission portions of wetlands within 1,000 state and local representatives. ly recognized. director, told the local commit- feet of a lake, 300 feet from a The committee hopes to come But what happens when tee Wednesday. stream or to the edge of a up with a plan which will identi- ecological considerations come If the local plan meets with floodplain. fy those portions which should up against the property rights of Besadny's approval, Bauer The special zoning, which be preserved to maintain en- persons own8qin g homes or said, "some wetlands could be counties are required to estab- vironmental qualities and those buildable lots in a designated filled and developed ... with lish and enforce, can limit the which should be served by a wetland area? utility services made available use of such lands. The land- network of sanitary sewers for It is a problem that Kenosha to those areas. There are-other owner may have to show that residential development. County is going to have to face wetlands that should be pre- there will be no environmental MOST LOCAL OFFICIALS in the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol served, but there should be ar- harm caused by the use he plans and property owners believe Beach area. And it could put the rangements made for the for his property. that land already subdivided county between a rock and a purchase of those by the private This may be generally accep- should be excluded from the hard place; between state re' sector. " table to property owners in quirements and the, wishes of The potential confrontation - some areas, but what of the wetlands definition and de- veloped as the market in- area residents. which surely will affect many more than 1,800 acres along dicates, according to In a meeting set. for Friday other areas of the state - has Lake Michigan from the Philip with C.D. Besadny, chief of the its origins in an administrative Kenosha city limits south to the Evenson, assistant director state's Department of Natural rule, NR-115, adopted by the state line, east of Sheridan the Southeastern Wisconsin Re- Resources, the county Planning state Department of Natural Road? gional Planning Commission. and Zoning Committee will seek Resources in 1980 in response to -370- All 72 Wisconsin counties are- frame is involved? hoped to get an agreement eve- required to adopt the provisions "The clock began to run when ryone could live with. We need of NR-115. If they fail to do so, the DNR deliverd (to the coun- to preserve wetlands, but we DNR can adopt a wetlands or- ty) its version of wetlan,d need a balance." dinance for them and require maps," Evenson has said. Planning and Zoning Commit- the county to enforce it. The preliminary map which tee members Wednesday de- shows what DNR considers to cideo to accept Sauer's Oro- Apparently, Kenosha County 'be wetlands' was received by and the rest of Wisconsin will posal seeking DNR approval of have wetlands. zoning whether Melchek last month. a compromise "planning ap- The*county has 90 days from proach" to the wetlands ques- by normal passage of an or- receipt to challenge, the ac- tion. dinance by the County Board or curacy of the preliminary map. Corporation Counsel Frank by. DNR directive.. There is an additional 90-day Volpintesta said the plan is "a In the opinion of Assistant period during which. the county good alternative it would Corporation Counsel N,ancy Van is required to hold formal public allow us to develop our own Allen, if the coun.ty enforces a hearings before the maps are plan, a less drastic one and wetlands zoning ordinance declared final by DN.R. Prom resolve our own p Iroblem." which prohibits or restricts that date, the county will have Melcher agreed, but said business, industrial and residen- six months to adopt zoning to "without private sector money tial uses of the affected areas, correspond with the wetlands attached, the plan would be "the county would be exposed to: mapping, according to Van Al- unfeasible." liability." len. That means it would be the It there is to be wetland zon- That means property owners, end of 1983 before. VAgosha ing," said Volp ,intesta, "the uld have a!.Procedure could sue for damages, she said. County must have iti wetlands plan sho "It is my best predtction,'i zoning ordinance. Brown County for a viable programAo fund the Van Allen said, "that we could will have its ordinance in place purchase of lands that were I early this year and about 30 platted a.long time ago. If you be held liable in every indivia. vary, other counties before year's simply come in and zone, Pjal,case. The facts could end. without compensation, it is con- !rom case to case, depending on @.ndividual property owners, but "We are attempting to solve trary to the law." there is enough risk that the our wetland concerns at a local Friday's meeting with the County. Board should not blindly level," said George Melcher, DNR chief is scheduled, for 10 rezone without considering Kenosha County director of a.m. in Room 021 of the DNR that. planning and zoning, "by estab- offices in the State Office Build- lishing our special Chiwaukee- ing in Madison. It is open to the WHAT KIND OF TIME Carol Beach committee. We public. THE KENOSHA NEWS February 10, 1983 -371- Chiwaukee Prairie could be state vife-,Wands test case By Kelly Donahue features. I'm Iold. If that's the case, of the Joutnal Times they (the state, have to pay for it. Government has to pay for its The Chiwaukee Prairie S Carol misakes." Beach area in southeastern Kenosha Plaris for development collide County could be a test case in the with conservation efforts. state's wetlands mapping debate. ''It's not that we're anti- Kenosha Countv and the conservation ... ibut) we don't know Department of Natural Resources if all wetlands should be are -,struggling to reach a preserved," Volpintesta said. compromise that could result in The Nature Conservancy, a preservation of part of the 1.825 national environmental group with a acres of the Chiwaukee Madison office, bought some prairie environmental corridor. a site sor@e land in a preservation effort. consider to be of prime ecological Volpintesta said the Conservancy importance. should be brought into this." The land extends south of the Kenosha citv limits to the Illinois ''These are alternatives the DNR border. between Lake Michigan and hasn't looked at," he said. Sheridan Road. Brent Haglund. acting director of The move to save wetlands stems the Nature Conservancy, would not from an administrative rule adopted comment on the group's activities bv the DNR in 1980, calling for regarding Chiwaukee. protection of wetlands. Sharon Meier, a planning analvs@- Preserving parts of Chiwaukee with the DNR's bureau of water area is not simple. Some lots in the. resources management. said one Carol Beach area were sold in the issue important to the DNR in the 1920s and '30s. when buyers were Chiwaukee situation is shoreland told the land was zoned residential, zoning requirements. said Frank Volpintesta, Kenosha While 46 percent of the Count), Corporation Counsel. Chiwaukee corridor has been Homes were built on some lots mapped as wetlands. the and others remain vacant. If the department must look carefully to land is declared wetlands and determine if individual lots should preserved. there must be a not be considered wetlands. she provision for compensation for said. owners. he said. Meier said a plan for the area Without compensation . ..... we drawn up by the Southeastern feel the county could be subject to Wisconsin @egional Planning inverse condemnation litigation." Commission. (SEWRPCi for the Volpintesta said. Town of Pleasant Prairie calls Jor But Kenosha Countv, the Town of sanitary sewers. But she said - Pleasant Prairie and the state have sewers can't be installed to ser@e no money to compensate owners. he developments within an said. environmental corridor. "The state says they don't have to In addition. she said with pay these people because they're in development scattered over the a 6d. We need innovative area. it doesn't look like sewers legislation to give tax incentives. or would be "cost effective.- something." Volpintesta said. "The "To go forwai-d, we must agree state is rolling the dice on this on what are the constraints ..... (and'i jeopardizing all their Meier said- programs. Said Volpintesta, -We're just "The area has unique ecological waiting to hear from the DNR. RACINE JOURNAL TIMES February 20, 1983 -372- rairie: @,preservadon ould:,get OP priority" @,The struggle over the- Chi- Environmental Network, a Waukee Prairie Carol Beach coalition of environmental @&va in southeastern Kenosha groups in the area, has set up a County continues, now with the Plan whereby'the entire area IDepartment of Natural @ Resour- can be zoned a conservancy dis- <,es involved because of its rule trict, and under the plah no ex- ItAo0ted in 1980, calling for -pro-, isting homes would be moved or tection of wetlands. destroyed and present, lot own- Not only is preservation of the ers would be given a grace pe- ie threatened by develop- riod during which they could but some lots in the area erect new b,uildings. were bought in the 1920s and '30s A major reason for preserving iffid the buyers were told the Chiwaukee Prairie is that, ffii- 1pnd was zoned residential. lRome of these lots became . sites raculously, it is still there to for homes and if these areas preserve @ a remarkable rem- nant of this area's prairie past. r9pst be given up to protect the, Once gone, whether to "develo _wetlands for preservation the p- I(enosha County Corporation ment" or unalterably changed f7ounsel wants compensation to by draining adjacent land, it is gone forever. Ve property owners made avail- In a relatively compact space', 'able. the area provides examples of This seems reasonable, but' five different types of prairie, e state apparently does not from wet to semi-arid, and in- -have funds for this purpose, nor- cludes 22 rare or endangered 'aoes Kenosha County or the plant species. Naturalists recog- -Town of Pleasant Prairie, in ikhich the land is located. nize this uniqueness and come from all over the world to exam- Adding to the c6nfusion'is- the ine it. 40c,t that some of the prairie It is the home of numerous, - '.1and is owned by The Nature now rare, plant species, as well Conservancy, a national environ- % '*iental group with a Madison of@ as a refuge for bird and animal life. It is also a source of end- fice. Obviously, a meeting of the less delight W those who visit it -Iiiinds is called for to come up to experience the subtle chang@ with an equitable solution. . ing of the seasons on the prairie, - A welcome move to solve the and the view.the area,as the In- dilemma has come from two dians and the first white settlers 8outheastern Wisconsin sena- tors, Joseph Strohl, Racine, and saw it. John Maurer, Kenosha, who They wisely left it alone, rec- ognizing that, it, s greatest value jointly have called on the DNR stems from leaving it as fty to take whatever steps are nec- found it. We hope that native essary to protect the prairie widsom will prevail today. from future,Aevelopment. They note that the Wisconsin Watts the alter native? RACINE JOURNAL TIMES February 23, 1983 -373- Air Im each u see se.wers By JOHN McINTYRE without the Town Board knowing package treatment plant, or they Staff Writer about it, which is virtually always may decide on an interceptor to run PLEASANT PRAIRIE - With the case. north down 7th Avenue and hook-up several Carol Beach Subdivision- Lachman asked how sewer sys- to the city of Kenosha system. Unit I septic systems having been tems are paid for. Mrs. John Wick, 11301 lith Ave., condemned by the county and with "What about vacant lots?" she asked how long it would take to get many others apparently in jeopardy asked. cost estimates from town engineers of condemnation, residents there Terwall said the total cost is whenever residents decide which have decided they want a sanitary broken down to a front footage project they want. sewer system. price, and the more property owners Town Chairman Donald, Wruck Close to 40 such persons appeared involved in the project, the less the said usually such information takes in the Municipal Building Monday cost to each one. three to four months to compile. night in a move that caught the "Then there's a hook-up fee in "And then we would call you," he convening Town Board unawares. addition," he said, "and a user fee said. Board members pointed out that "Had we known you were coming, which is not applicable to the vacant because the petition presentation we could have opened the lot owner because he wouldn't be was not on the agenda, formal board auditorium and met there," Super- using it." action can't be taken until the next visor Thomas Terwall said, some 30 Lachman asked how property meeting in two weeks. minutes into the meeting. owners delinquent in their taxes fit "Then we'll formally accept the Spokesperson Geraldine Lach- in. petition and instruct engineers to man, 1002 111th St., presented the Terwall said after three years, the begin their studies," Terwall said. board with a petition which, she property is sold at auction. Then, he "This is a preliminary step," said, contained considerably more said, state law demands special Wruck said, "and I commend you than 100 signatures. The petition assessments to be paid off first for going ahead and taking action." -asks the board to look @ -into the foll.owed,-,by.p4yo=@_(),f_,.any,.nlQn:tCs_ In other _4CIim _UwAWSM. ___. ;_, possibility of developing a owed the town,,f6ilowed by payment "eed Class B combination community-wide sanitary sewer of the broker's fee. licenses for I Kracker Pub, 12622 system to service Unit 1. "Then, if there's anything left Sheridan Rd.; The Club Cagney's. Francis and Kathleen Brown, over," he said, "it goes to the 6209 Green Bay Rd., and an as-yet -11221 Ilth Ave., wanted to know property owner. " unnamed establishment at 7580 118th why, if their septic system has Terwall also said there is an Ave., agent, Anne M. Speaker of alternative to a sewer system. He Ninety-Four Corp., 744 N. Shoreland obviously been bad for years, they said the Wisconsin Fund will help Ave., Racine. weren't made aware of that when finance repairs to failing on-site -Denied a request to vacate the they bought their home. Mrs. Brown systems. Piela land dedication on 122nd asked why there are no regulations requiring such knowledge to be He said Community Development Street, east of 88th Avenue in the made public. Block Grant funds, federal monies Greenhill Farms Subdivision. administered by the states, can help -Concurred with the recommen- -Why did they allow homes to be pay for part of the system. dation of the town planning com- sold out there three years ago if they The problem there, Terwall said, mission to install a street light at knew of problems?" she asked. is that one of the state's criterion is 65th Street and 62nd Avenue. Terwall said that on new con- per capita income. Throughout - Agreed to send a favorable. struction sites, such information is Southeastern Wisconsin, he said, per recommendation to the Kenosha demanded by law, but there is noth- capita income is usually too high to County Board of Adjustment for a ing in the law requiring such in- qualify for that type of assistance. variance requested by Elverne W. formation in the sale of existing Terwall said the key questions are Pfeifer, 7916 49th Ave., who wants to homes. Neither, he said, is there what type of system is desired and construct a 24-foot by 26-foot garage anything in the law requiring a real how big a surface area will it cover. where a smaller garage now stands. estate agent to come before the He said residents may opt for a The existing garage is 18 inches B ni k board with such information. large community septic system; from his property line instead of the He said that sale took place they may ask the town to provide a 36 inches required by ordinance. KENOSRA NEWS May 24, 1983 -374- Impact study set by DNR forChiwaukee By ARLENE JENSEN local officals of the issues, and to develop alternatives which would PLEASANT PRAIRIE -The avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach The DNR plan noted: "fit the area will be targeted in an environ- coming months,DNR staff mem- mental impact statement being pre- bers working on the project will be pared by the state Department of asking the publicor their ideas ... Natural Resources. comments and suggestions Will be: At a Wednesday meeting of the welcomed throughout. the process." town planning commission, mem- Persons" who. Wish more intorma- bers learned that the decision by tion should write the,DNR at P.O. DNR to conduct the study was made Box 7921,, Madison,Wis., 53707, or for two reasons: because of the telephone 608-266-6673. sensitive and unique environmental In other business, two conditional resources found at Chiwaukee and use permit requests, each seeking because of the controversy that ex- permission to erect a satellite dish, ists over development- or preserva- were reviewed by ,Me. planning tion of the area. board. The area to be studied is bounded Richard Slayton, representing by, 80th Street on the north, Lake Budgetel Inn, 7540 118th Ave., said Michigan.on the east, and the Illi- his firm proposes placing a dish on nois state line on the south. The the northwest corner of the Budgetel western boundary is formed by the parking lot. Chicago and North Western,railroad Slayton said the dish will enable tracks from 80th to 91st streets and the company to, purchase, program- State Highway 32 south to the state ming directly off a, satellite at a line. Jower rate than from a Cable rom- The EIS will form the basis for an, pany. amendment to the arearwide water The request was approved and quality management plan being de- will be sent to the Kenosha County veloped for the Chiwaukee area and, Planning and Zoning Committee for ultimately, a decision on which its Oct. 12 hearing with a favorable areas should be developed and which recommendation. should be preserved. A second request for a satellite The EIS will examine the direct dish came from Lakesbore Taberna- impact of sanitary sewer service cle, 8900 34th Ave, Although the and subsequent housing develop- matter was on the agenda, no repre- ments and the,indirect impact Of sentatives of the church attended housing development,on other com- the meeting, and the matter was ponents of the environment. I tabled. According to the project outline Leland McDonald, 8115 57th Ave., sent to the town, the study has three was seated on the planning com- purposes: to provide a full and ob- mission to replace John Higgens, objective examination of environmen- who resigned because of a move Into tal to inform the public and the city of Kenosha, KENOSHA NEWS October 6, 1983 DNR -375- Clu s to save 0 .Chiwaukee Prairie The Racine-Kenosha Sierra sewer system. For that to be statewide or greater import- Club has fought hard for over a cost-effective, however, a large ance." According to the Wis- year to protect a 1,825 acre and unified area must be ser- consin Scientific Areas Preser- narrow strip of prairie along viced. vation Council, the area is "so Lake Michigan in southern Ken- Over a year ago SEWRPC or- little modified by man's activity, osha County. ganized a committee of inter- or sufficiently recovered from Part of the area is the nat- ested homeowners, civic groups, the effects of such activity, that ionally renowned Chiwaukee and regulatory bodies, hoping it contains intact native plant Prairie, the largest "wet" prairie to facilitate just such large-scale and animal communities be- in the United States that has development. By its third meet- lieved to be representative of remained unchanged since Wis- ing the committee was 6-or-_ the pre-settlement landscape." consin's last glacier receded oughly polarized. For all those reasons, in the 10,000 years ago. After all future committee past six months the Racine-Ken- It's also a State Scientific Area, meetings were indefinitely post- osha Sierra Club has constantly an official National Treasure, poned, the Racine-Kenosha Sier- been in contact with the DNR, and home to 22 rare or en- ra Club sought other avenues SEWRPC, and involved local dangered plant species - includ- to try to protect the prairie. governments, trying to work out ing the densest population of First, it interested the Wisconsin an equitable settlement white-fringed orchids found any- Environmental Network, a coal- The Group considers itis efforts where in the United States. ition of 35 environmental to protect this priceless area The 100 acre Chiwaukee is groups, in protecting the prairie. only a matter of course, fol- under no direct threat, but Then, in concert with the Net- lowing the national Sierra Club's other parts of the 1,825 acres work and the Hoy Nature Club, motto - "to explore, protect, are not so lucky. Kenosha the Sierra Club sent over .200 and enjoy ... our natural re- County and the Town of Pleas- letters to DNR Secretary Carol sources." ant Prairie have been pressuring Besadny, pleading for protec- the Department of Natural Re- tion. Dave Hewitt and Rick sources, claiming that since Marciniak also travelled to RACINE COUNTY much of the land has been Madison to meet with top DNR 32 platted (most a long, long time wetlands experts and elicited 94 - 31- ago), it should be developed. promises of protection by the Presently residential develop- DNR. ment is sparse - 515 homes Now almost a year later a KENOSHA (most clustered in two develop- settlement is nowhere in sight, COUNTY I ments) within the 1,825 acres. snarled by bureaucratic red tape Kenosha And the reason is simple. involving NR 115 and the state- Southeastern Wisconsin Re- wide debate over wetlands. gional Planning Commission But whatever happens, the 158 (SEWRPQ biologists have det- area is worth protection. Wet- ermined 82 percent of the areds lands comprise 46 percent, so soils "have severe or very severe prairie 49 percent of the area. C limitations for residential devel- Of the 345 acres of high-quality 31. opment without public sanitary prairie, less then half are now ,sewer services... protected as part of the Chiw Chiwaukee Unlikely as it may seem, that au'kee Prairie. And small "Dock-_ Prairie is precisely why the conflict ets" of endangered species are ML 32 exists. scattered throughout. X The town and county govern- At the northern end of the ments would like to increase area, the 120 acre Kenosha 131 their tax bases, but the only Sand Dunes, a unique prairie- 9.4 173 way to convince the people to sand dune complex, has been I L L I N 0 1 S build in the area is to supply a designated a "'natural area of ___ 00 b right RA-SCENE October 17, 1983 -376- KENOSHA NEWS November 18, 1983 Wetlands area, or just all wet? By ARLENE JENSEN The club property lies between members of the association, Jensen Staff Writer 84th and 94th streets at the upper said, "If our area becomes a PLEASANT PRAIRIE - Preser- end of the study area which includes wetland preservation area....the vation versus development is the all land from the Kenosha city limits birds, animals and plants will have issue that drew about 90 persons to a to the Illinois state line. Lake Michi- more rights than we do." ~ Thursday meeting with the Depart- gan is the eastern boundary and the Environmentalist Ronald Spry, a ment of Natural Resources. western boundary is formed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The state agency is writing an Chicago and North Western railroad biologist, said a main topic of the environmental impact statement tracks from 80th to 91st streets and EIS should be habitat preservation. concerning Carol Beach-Chiwaukee State Highway 32 continuing south to Several representatives of the Prairie and asked for public com- the state line. Racine-Kenosha Sierra Club, urged ment on the scope of the project. Homeowner Carl Salerno said he that valuable nature areas be given The EIS will form the basis for a agrees with the need to preserve top priority. land use plan being developed for lands of natural value but said he Ugoretz and Sharon Meier, DNR the Chiwaukee area and, ultimately, disputes the need for more con- planning analyst, said the EIS will a decision on the installation of servancy areas. examine the direct impact of sani- sewers. "There is a strong need for ac- tary sewer service and subsequent "The push to develop is at odds curate documentation of just what housing developments and the in- with the push to conserve," said constitutes a wetland," said direct impact of housing develop- Steven Ugoretz, DNR environmen- Salerno. ments on other components of the tal specialist. He noted that a lot listed on state environment. He asked the audience, most of maps as wetland recently passed the After the session, Meier said, them Carol Beach residents, to list percolation test for a septic system. "There are some very basic miscon- issues that should be studied. Gregory McAndrews, 8860 ceptions on the part of residents. John Allen, vice president of the Lakeshore Drive, said issues that They worry that they will lose their Kenosha Towne Club, 8815 Fifth should be studied in the EIS include property rights or have their homes Ave., said he was surprised that the "more clarification of which lands razed. None of those things will study included his firm's 25 acres. are true native prairie and how the happen." He said the club property was land use plan will impact on taxa- The area contains about 400 wasteland before KTC bought it 20 tion." homes and Meier said, "Areas that years ago and undertook a project of Florence Jensen, president of the are already developed will not be development. Carol Beach Property Owners As- identified as wetlands and will not "We dug a pond; we filled and sociation, charged that "the state be subject to the confines of leveled dirt. How could it possibly will use the law to circumvent prop- shoreland zoning. There is a big be considered valuable habitat?" he erty rights." difference between a developed lot asked. In a letter distributed earlier to and an undeveloped one." Chiwaukee-Carol Beach group plans to oppose DNR zoning PLEASANT PRAIRIE - An in- acres of Chiwaukee-Carol Beach The group plans to oppose the formational meeting of the property from residential to con- action on the basis that the need by Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Or- servancy, an action which would the University of Wisconsin and ganization is scheduled for 7:30 to- prohibt construction of new homes, Nature Conservancy for additional acreage is doubtful, most of the area night at the Pleasant Prairie town adding to existing homes if more than hall, according to organization 50 percent of the structure is de- under consideration is not wetland, member Wallace Piroyan, 11745 stroyed. the rare species of plant and wildlife First Ave. can be found in other areas along The organization warns in the Lake Michigan, and residents are According to a release being release that the DNR plans to protecting the area by shoring up circulated by the organization, the render this previously platted sub- the lakefront against erosion. state Department of Natural Re- division valueless and do so without sources plans to rezone about 1,800 compensation to property owners. KENOSHA NEWS January 19, 1984 -377- Chiwaukee - facts or' fraud? Several weeks ago, I attended gerated claim. More than 90 a cocktail and dinner party given percent oif the, few dozen plants by the "Carol Beach Home On- that grow, in Chlwaukee also wers Association." We also saw grow in a ten mile stretch be- movie slides given by a high tween Kenosha @tand Waukegan.' power national conservation 2. The movie tilides had a pic- group obsessed with preserving ture of snaktos,-@iucks and frogs the Chlwaukee Prairie. The rep- supposedly taken in the Prairie. resentative of this group could They are not exclusive to the f;@, V - not tell me why his organization Chiwaukee PrE%Ir1(!. plans to buy 35 homes located in 3. The film, shioWed smokey Chiwaukee subdivision and to high rises in thq bik,, city and told dislocate the residents, The Wis- the audience Werv's the Immi- consin Nature Conservatory al- nent possibllity@ olf Chiwaukee .f ready owns more than 180 acres subdivision haviiig high rises if of the Prairie with tax exempt we d6n't act now'. T'here was no status. Why do they want to take mention of th@e ' fact that Today's guest editorial Is away an additional 3 million Chiwaukee subdivilsion Is zoned ten by Wallace Piroyan, 11745 dollars of assessed property val- single family withno sewer or Lake Shore Drive, a resident of mition from the hands of private water. the Carol Beach area for the owners who are paying taxes. The film did not give the fol-' past four years. A former ac- After reviewing the movie lowing facts: countant, he Is now a screen slides, I was totally shocked by playwright. While living In false claims,. misrepresentation A. Due to: acid rain and pollu- Lake Bluff, Ill., he worked with and the twisting of the truth. tion from Pleasant - Prairie the Sierra Club on -environ- I am a property owner in . Power Plant. the Prairie's re- mental problems. Chiwaukee subdivision who has maining and sensitive plants will lived there for many years. As an diskipiiear within the next 10-15 envirOnmentalist, I have sup- years and be replaced by big and ported many local and national ordinary weeds. arrogant" ruthless organization environmental causes. As a' B. These so-called conserva. whose representatives don't un- screenplay writer and poet who tionists are not fighting against derstand-the environmental and desires seclusion and privacy, I Exxon or Mobil oil but engaged economic problems that we are r,,ave ti-tken thousands of walks in'high pressure and scare tac- facing. tf,irough the Prairie In all four tics against defenseless plain, Instead of saving snakes, frogs se,isons. ordinary folks (some retired) to and conserving weeds, how about I fou@ id the slides about @ I force them to sell their property if we try to conserve and protect Chi%vaukee Prairie to be full of below thejynarke,t value..Thev, people: their hopes, dreams and exag-gerat%--d claims, an insult to are usinge exaggq'rated cfaims, their right to pursue their happi- the intellig ent, and a disg&ce to media hype, taxpayers money, ness :and live In peace In their the true cooservationist. For ex- political arm-twisting to rezone own homes -without. constant ample: and make the property in threat by some elite group of 1. The stat,ement that there are Chlwaukee subdivision self-righteous free-loaders who 400 species of plants exclusively worthless. are exploiting our system and growing In the Chlwaukee Property owners in Chiwaukee threatening the great American Prairie As an, extremely exag- subdivision Are terrified by this dream of home ownership. KENOSHA NEWS January 4, 1984 -378- Carol Beach in Maurer n an.to, cur wetland@,.@ 7onin By ARL ENE JENSEN. his plans that include a meeting with Much of the Thursday meeting Staff Writer DNR chief Carroll Besadny to seek a was given over to the 'task of or- PLEASANT PRAIRIE - State solution to the Pleasant Prairie Is- ganizing the group and -collecting Sen. John Maurer has threatened sue. money for such items as mailing legislative action to force the De- Salerno explained the wetland newsletters to an estimated 2,ODO partment 'of Natural Resources to controversy to the citizen group and property owners. back, off from the wetland zoning advised them to protest wetland The -organization is currently proposed for Carol Beach and classification of their land that A@@_-__-._ -..-... 1. _-_-____ being run by acting chairman Chiwaukee Prairie. wou lace severe restrictions on Wallace Piroyan, 11745 Firs .t Ave. In A telephone interview following its use. st of Directors included Salerno, Myron a meeting of the Chiwaukee-Carol "The DNR has designated mo, Keyes, Juan Marianyl, Michael Beach Citizens Organization Thurs- Chiwaukee and much of Carol Beach Sebetic, Stephen Barasch, Edward day, Maurer said legislation has as wetland," said Salerno, "but it is Ganick, Lavern Kulisek, and Louis been prepa .red that would exclude all based on aerial photos, not actual Szepi, all residents of the area. platted subdivisions from wetland onsIte inspection4," pi t e prqpt or- zoniw, Wetland been de. ganization will include two types of or require compensation to maps have property owners . livered to the county, said.Salerno, members: property owners who will "W6 don't want to change the and can be studied at the Office Of be allowed to vote and 'non-resi- law," said Maurer. "We want the Planning and 2oning in the dents, who can,be associate mern- DNR to be p'ract4cal under the cur- courthouse. Salerno-said residents bers but will have no vote. Annual rent law but it they won't, we will should fill out the "Comment Sheet membership dues a re $10 per per- be forc;@ to seek a change." for Public Review of- Wetland son. Atissue is the future of 1,800 acres Maps" form which demands an on, organizers of the group were of land alon .g the Lake Michigan site inspection of the property in critical of environmentalists who, shoreline from the Kenosha city question. according to Salerno, "have come limits to the Illinois state line and "We're guilty until proven InnO* .. .... from as far away as Florida to tell west to Sheridan Road. Some of the cent here," said Salerno, "and it's us what we can do with our proper- land is residential, some un. not worth the risk." ty-" devel,. Ted, but much of it has been On another issue, Salerno said the At a public hearing in,November, Platted' for subdivisions. Thc DNR is currently preparing group will challenge the claim by several representatives of the an environmental impact statement environmentalists that the Racine-Kenosha Sierra Club urged j Chiwaukee-r-arol Beach area con- that nature areas be given top for the area. Results of tha,t study will be crucial to a decision on which tains 22 species of rare and en- priority in future planning, areas ,should be developed with dan-gered- "plants. -,The DNR said they have no sewers .and which should be pre- Salerno said Maurer will demand intention of taking our homes served in a natural state. that all endangered plants be lo- away," said Salerno, "and I'm giv- cated and identified. Ing them the benefit of the doubt, At Thursday's meeting attended "We're not against protecting but I guarantee you the Sierra Club by about 100 Carol Beach area resi- those areas that legitimately de- and Nature Conservancy Would love dents, Carl Salerno, 11731 First serve protection such as the to do it. Ave., outlined legislation that is to Chiwaukee Prairie itself," said be introduced by Maurer on Jan. 31. Salerno, "but we want to be sure the Maurer commented later about selection process is,accurate." KENOSHA NEWS January 20, 1984 Pi b 9 -379- Carol Beach affected Wetlana' 0 0. leg"is a ion proposed By ARLENE JENSEN clause, Maurer said owners of lots a@nd unique environment of St&ff WrIter zoned welland would not be forced to Chi%%aukee Prairie and because of PLEASANT PRAIRIE Your sell. the controversy that exists over homes are not in jeopardy," State "They (the siate) would have to development or preservation of the Sen. John Maurer told a group of offer you fair market vaiue,- he area. Carol Beach residents Thursday. aid, "but you don't have to ,ell. It's Florence Jensen, asqociation "There will he'no wetland zoning of your choice." president, said Thursday the Impact existing homes. 11 At issue is the future of 1,825 acres studv is scheduled for completion In Maurer told the Carol Beach of land on the Lake Michigan August. Results will be crucial to a Property Owners Association he has shoreline from the Kenosha city decision on which areas should be submitted legislation to prohibit limits to the Illinois border and west developed with sewers and which wetland zoning of subdivisions to Sheridan Road. Some of the land should be preserved In a natural platted before October 1980. is residential and some un- state. Further, %aid Maurer, the state developed, but much of it has al- Jensen urged her group to .. stay will be forced to compensate owners ready been platted for subdivisions. involved; keep the pressure on. of any property which is zoned When an intensive study of the After a review of the issues by wetland. area ' was undertaken in 1992,46 board member Gregory McAn- Senate Bill 582 was introduced percent or &39 acres was tagged drews, association members asked Feb. I and referred to the Senate wetland by DNR definition. . . why their group is not working with Committee on Energy and Environ- Since all wetland in Wisconsin the Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens mental Resources. must be placed in conservancy zon- Organi ' I "We knew it would get the atten- irig, property owners feared restric- 7ation. tion of the Department of Natural lions would be placed on the use of Jensen accused the olb6r group of Resources," said Maurer. "A lot of their land. using. "a shotgun approach. I Dro- people have been upset by the The controversy surrounding pose@c -is task force of both organiza- DNR's rather forceful habit of get- wetland zoning of platted sub- tions, but they said we weren't ting what they want." divisions brought the 1482 study to a mo@-ing fast enough for them .., Agreement has been reached with halt. A preliminary land use plan Michael Sebetic, a board member DNR officials, said Maurer, "and being developed by DNR and the of . the Chiwaukee organization, we expect a written commitment Southeastern Wisconsin Regional urged cooperation between the soon." Planning Commission was groups saying, "Our differences "When you have recorded sub- withdrawn. don't -".m to be that great. Let's divisions approved by the state," he Instead, an environmental impact just come together wid get . some- said, "you can't allow the state to study was ordered by DNR in late thing done." come back later and say they made lq83. Pleasant Prairie officials were Pleasant Prairie Town Chairman a mistake." told the study would be done for two Donald Wruck said *the* groups Asked about the compensation reasons: because of the sensitive should "iron out yoiir differences. You will be much mort effective." is a I t KENOSHA NEWS February 17, 1984 -380- RACINE JOURNAL TIMES 1chiwaukee Prairie February 23, 1984 development consid 6 ered- By Kelly Doretwo three other options call for public @mitary cent of the prairie. About 449 acres would Joumal rimes, sewer service extended to all urban areas _b@ !@Uq and _ery purchased for tlie p, _ _ _pNs C& identified in the plans, the committee said. incluafini'63 housing units, at a cost of -$5.3 PLEASANT PRAIRIE - Four land use The maximum development plan calls million. management plans for Chiwaukee Prairie for development of 1,094 acres, or about 60 The development-preservation plan are under study by an advisory committee j@rce@t ra ._b-an._p r oses. would be a middle ground, the committee- iri . for ur @j_p made.up of citizens and experts. Of the 732 acres of prairie wetlands, said. It calls for 846 acres earmarked,for I Plans Include options for maximum de- about 37 percent would be destroyed under urban use and preservation of about 90 pqr- velopment of the 1,825-acre prairie located this proposal, the committee said. cent of the wetlands. in southeastern Kenosha County, as well, as About 102 acres would be acquired in the The committee will meet again on Tu .es- 'iiaxi-muiti-.,-@7r,ise-r;@it-fo-i@,-,E&mbina-tion dZ-:- public interest and preserved, it said, at a day at 7 p.m. at. the Pleasant Prairie- Nu- velopment-preservation and "no action" cost of $269,000. nicipal Building. alternatives. The maximum preservation option would Excluding the "do nothing" plan, the allow development of 653 acres, or 36 per- Groun to.: air -Chiwaukee future. By ARLENE JENSEN Department of Natural Resources" scious attempt to accommodate sig- Staff writer about 46 percent of the land was nificant additional urban develop- Tour alternative land use develop- defined as wetland. State@ law re- ment within the study area and at ment plans for the Chtwaukee quires that defined wetlands be the same time preserve the most PrArie-Carol Beach area will be placed in conservation zoning; con- important natural features of the. discussed next week by it special sequently, the.original DNR maps area, and a fourth alternative for no committee of about 20 -represent. drew fire from property owners who action. atives of federal, state, and local feared restrictions would be im- Maps based on each of the alter- goverments, environmental and posed on their use of their land. natives for land use development citizen groups and residents. The controversy led to withdrawal may be viewed from now until the The Technical and 'Citizen Ad- of the first plan, and Additional meeting during business hours atthe visory Committee for the studies were conducted. Pleasant Prairie Town Hall, 9915 Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach The four alternative plans to be 39th Ave. Land Use Management Plannin considered Tuesday were developed Committee input will;be sought 9 by the Southeastern Wisconsin Re- Tuesday on the four alternatives, Program will meet at 7 p.m. Tues' gional Planning Commission. Ac- and, after discussion, the committee day@ at the Pleasant Prairie Town cording to Kurt W. Bauer, SEWRPC will be asked to provide direction to executive director, the plans "rep- SEWRPC in drafting recom- The future of 1,825 acres south of resent in concept the entire range of mended plan. the city between Sheridan Road and possibilities available in considering A public hearing will be scheduled Laite . Michigan will be the topic. this matter, this spring for Chiwiukep' Prairie- Soine of.the land has been developed The plans include a maximum Carol Beach area residents and for residential use, some subdivided development alternative, maximum landowners to comment on the ten- bu't still vacant and other portions preservation alternative, a com- tatively recommended plan as Well remain undeveloped. promise development-preservation as measures such as zoning and land .In 1982, after a study by the state alternative that represents a con- acquisition, KENOSHA NEWS February 24, 1984 -381- Uv h ukee Ian KENOSHA NEWS under stu February 29, 1984 By ARLENE JENSEN highest population level and highest "We're at a point where no more staff writer public improvement cost for sewers work can be done until the choice is PLEASANT PRAIRIE - A spe- and streets. ma .de." cial Chlwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach The maximum development plan Kenosha County supervisor committee Tuesday reviewed four would also result in a substantial Wayne Koessl said he was not pre- land use plans for the area, but did loss of natural resource values pared to make a choice. "I want a not reach agreement on any one of within the study area. Of 732 acres review by our own county and town the fou@. of special value wetlands, about 37 boards and a discussion of the im- Instead, they tabled the matter per cent would be destroyed. pacts these plans will have locally." .until April to allow time for review Maximum pre .servation, the 'sec' Meanwhile, Don Reed, SEWRPC by the town and county and to hear ond plan studied, would do just the said he will organize a bus tour for plans for the recently purchased opposite of the first alternative. It the committee to inspect critical Trident Marina near the state line. would allow the lowest level of nature area before the matter is The 20 member Technical and development, on ly 653 acres or 36 decided. Citizen Advisory Committee for the per cent of the study area, the Tom Conley, First Trident Corpo- Chlwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach lowest population and the lowest ration, owners of the marina located Land Use Management Planning public improvement costs. at the southernmost tip of the study Program concluded a three hour As the name implies, the em- area, said his firm will be ready to session with plans to make an on- phasis of the plan would be on discuss specifics of their plan for site inspection of the study area preservation, with nearly all of the divel6prn- ent'whiefi-iffie'group recon- later this spring. 732 acres of special value wetland venes in April. The area includes 1,825 acres im- preserved. Organizers of the Chiwaukee- mediately south of the Kenosha city The development-preservation Carol Beach Citizens Organization, limits, from the Lake Michigan plan stands as a middle ground Inc., said they too will have issues. to shoreline west to Sheridan Road. between the other two extremes and settle before a plan is adopted. The Central issue in the study is according to committee members, Carl Salerno, chairman of the development versus preservation. has the best chance for adoption. citizen group and a member of the Some of the land has been developed Under this alternative, 846 acres, advisory committee, said "We'still for residential use, some already 46 per cent of the study area would haven't seen a list of plants that are .subdivided but still vacant, wfle- be allocated to urban use. Popu- supposedly rare or endangered. We other acres remain undeveloped. lation levels would be significantly want them identified and located." The four plans, developed by higher and public improvement . Salerno was also critical of a map Southeastern Wisconsin Regional costs are estimated at $11.7 million of the 'area defining boundaries of Planning Commission, include a for sewers, water, streets and the land owned by the Nature Con- maximum development alternative, stormwater drainage. servancy, a group dedicated to pres- a maximum preservation alter- The develop ment-preservation ervation. native,'a compromise development- plan would preserve about 90 "The map shows what the Con- preservation alternative and a percent of the special' value servancy would like to own," said fourth alternative, the standard no- wetlands In-the study-a-rea-'and see-- Salerno,@ "and implies that they al- action plan. 300 acres of land acquired in the ready do." At Tuesday's session, the commit- public interest for preservation. Bauer promised the audience of tee 'voted to remove the no-action When the committee concluded its about 60 Carol Beach-Chiwaukee plan from. further consideration. review of the 70 page document, residents they will have an op- I Of the remaining options, the SEWRPC's Kurt Bauer urged mem- portunity to be heard at a public maximum development plan en- bers to settle on a plan they favor. meeting later this spring. visions the highest level of develop- SEWRPC will make no recom- "Once we settle on a plan, we will ment, wi .th 1,094 acres or 60 percent mendations, said Bauer, but will open it up to public comment," he of the study area developed for. wait for the committee choice. said. urban purposes. It also foresees the iwa P dy -382- SEWRPC to recommend compromise Partial Carol Beach development seen By ARLENE JENSEN shore to the Illinois state line. The maximum preservation. Staff Writer western boundary is Sheridan Road. Maximum development would see PLEASANT PRAIRIE - A com- If the compromise plan is ac- about 60 per cent of the area de- promise development-preservation cepted by the committee, SEWRPC veloped for urban purposes and de- plan for Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol will begin to "fine tune the plan. struction of about one-third of the Beach represents the middle We'll start by taking an inventory of special value wetland in the area. ground, Philip C. Evenson said the area, then decide what to do and Maximum preservation would Thursday. how to do it," said Evenson. preserve nearly all of the 742 acres "It would allow a lot of develop- The compromise plan, one of considered of significant value. ment and at the same time satisfy Carl Salerno, representing the the most ardent environmentalist," three currently under study, would Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Or- Evenson told a group of about 60 emphasize preservation of wetlands ganization, Inc., said some lands area residents. with special significance. Less im- classified wetlands by the Depart- portance would be placed on those ment of Natural Resources are not Evenson, of Southeastern Wiscon- wetlands with no identified special really wetlands but may be sin Regional Planning Commission, natural values. buildable lots. described the compromise plan as The number of hourses in the area Salerno noted that wetland maps one that is "still in an embryonic could increase to 1,544 units, triple were drawn from aerial photos, form but it represents our best the current level. The population of shot." "and may not accurately reflect the area could be expected to in- what is or isn't wetland." SEWRPC staff will recommend crease to about 4,491, an increase of He urged property owners to com- acceptance of the compromise plan, 3,099 persons. plete comment sheets that have he said, when the Technical and The plan proposes that an addi- been designed by DNR to allow Citizen Advisory Committee for tional 300 acres be acquired for landowners the opportunity to pro- Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach preservation to add to the 215 pres- test the wetland classification. After meets at 7 p.m, May 3, at the ently owned by the Nature Con- the forms are filled out, the DNR is Pleasant Prairie Town Hall. servancy and the University of required to make an on-site inspec- The TAC committee is completing Wisconsin-Parkside. tion of the property, said Salerno. its study of the 1,825-acre area Public sewer and water would be The comment forms were mailed kn own as Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol extended to all urban areas in the to 2,000 property owners, but Beach. The study area begins at the study area at a capital cost of $11.6 Salerno said persons who did not southern edge of Kenosha and ex- million. receive one should contact the or- tends south along the Lake Michigan Other plans currently being stud- ganization at 11745 First Ave., ied are maximum development and Kenosha, 53140. KENOSHA NEWS April 20, 1984 -383- Developmentaw preservation plan favored for Chi*waukee,. _1` By.ARLENE JENSEK maximum preservation at one end "if southeastern Wisconsin Re- mittee. . Staff Writer - I . of the spectrum and maximum de- gional Planning commission wants Kurt Bauer, SEWRPC executive PLEASAN lT PRAIRIE - After a velopment at the other. to take that on, that's up to them," .director, said, "We will refine the year and a half of study, a special The Oevelopment-preservation she said, "but DNR wan't be a,p4rty plan and come back here wlih a new committee has recommended a plan would preserve about 90 to it. map to describe what we hope will combination development-preserva- percent of the 732 acres of valuable To date, about 75 property owners be the final recommendations.". don plan for the future of IChiwaukee- wetland identified in the study and have request onsite.- inspections of I Bauer urged citizen leaders of Pritirie-Carol Beach. see another 300 acres acquired for their land to determine whether the several Chiwaukee-Carol Beach "Meeting Thursday, the 20-mem- preservation. property is truly wetland as in- groups to "be more factual In "'ur her Technical and Citizen Advisory Using this plan, 4@ percent of the dicated on maps provided by DNR ' dissemination of information." *1 c9m1nittee concluded the first study area would be allocated to Carl Salerno, representing the "You are misleading your people urban use. Public improvements Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Or- with the misinformation contained phase of an exhaustive study of the su water, streets,'and ganization Inc., said the organiza- 0D 1,825.acres south of the Kenosha city ch as sewers, in newsletters," said Bauer. 4@- storm water drainage are estimated tion has mailed about 2,000 comment limits to the state line extending SEWRPC's Philip Evenson pre- from Lake Michigan west to Sher- at $11.7 million. Population levels forms designed by DNR and urges dicted it will take at least a month to id,an Road. would be signi Ificantly higher than at that they be filled out and returned. complete the next phase of the study present. A May 15 deadline has been set for in preparation for a committee re- !The committee meeting drew a .In moving, for adoption of the the return of the form, and persons view. ci6wd of about 100 persons, most of compromise plan, LaVern Kulisek, who wish an onsite inspection should A summary chapter will be . writ- them residents of the area. representing the League of Women file the forms at the Kenosha County ten, said Bauer, and a public hearing The central issue in the study is Voters of Kenosha, recommended office of Planning and 2oning in the scheduled before final adoption. . development versus preservation that existing homes be excluded courthouse. Donald Conley, of First Trident and, ultimately, a decision on the from shoreland zoning. The inspection, to be led by Corp., owners of the marina at1he extension of sewer lines. Some of .. "That's a moot point," said SEWRPC's Donald Reed, will begin. southernmost tip of the study area, toe land has been developed for Sharon Meier, of the Department of Monday on requests already re- said plans are progressing for the ivsidential use; some has been sub- Natural Resources, " since DNR cei-ved. Residents are welcome to new hotel-marina complex. divided but is still vacant while has said from the outset that exist- participate, said Reed, "but bring Conley said his plan is to con- other acres remain undeveloped. . - ing homes would be excluded." your boots." , struct 500 boat slips surrounded by . In voting for the compromise , Meier also objected to a lot-by-lot Meanwhile, the SEWRPC staff four-story hotel wings and conven- plan, the committee chose a middle survey of the area included in will begin fine-tuning the com- tion facilities. He estimated the ground between two extremes with Kulisek's motion. promise plan approved by the com- project at $21 million. KENOSHA NEWS May 4, 1984 Park Service asked to help save Chiwaukee The tate Department of Justice potentially damage the prairie," the public Intervenor. Kathleen M. letter states, Falk, and a coalition of eigbt.en- Also cited are human dis- vironmental and nature organiza- turbances resulting from develop- tions have requested that Chiwaukee ment.' The letter cites the curr .ent Prairie be placed on the National problems of trash dumping, un- Park Service's 1984 "Report on authorized plant digging, flower Damaged and Threatened National picking, snowmobiling and off-road Natural Landmarks.- vehicles as well as ditching and The coalition Is composed of the water level changes in surrounding John Muir Chapter of the Sierra areas which injure the prairie. Club, Kettle Moraine Audubon Soci- "Presumably, this detrimental ety, Kenosha/Racine Chiwaukee activity will only increase as further' Project Committee. Chiwaukee development occurs. resulting in a Prairie Rescue Coalition, Hoy Na- decrease in the quantity of Individ. ture Club, Racine/Kenosha Sierra ual species observed on Chlwaukee Club, Kenosha Woman's Club. and Prairie," the letter states. Four Seasons Garden Club. The request cites the more than Of major concern, according to 400 species of native plants, Includ. the letter to Michael J. Gallagher, ing several rare plants, growing on coordinator of the National Park Chiwaukee Prairie. whith it terms Service. Midwest Region office In "the richest prairie rem nent known Omaha, Nebr., are a proposed sewer In Wisconsin and one of the richest extension planned by the Town of remaining in the nation.- Pleasant Prairie and a hotel-conven- Additional information Is avall. tion center planned by Trident able locally by. contacting David Marina. Hewitt. 20101 60th St., Bristol; Phil "If these plans are realized they Sander. 8026 Seventh Ave., Kenosha, will lead to development adjac@nt to Dorothy McAleer. 9126 32nd Ave.. the landmark (prairie) which could Kenosha, or Genevieve J. Crema. 4123 l8th Ave.. Kenosha. KENOSHA NEWS JU ly 13,1984 -3.85- Chiwaukee facts or fraud II Three years ago in another erty level income was contacted editorial for this newspaper, I and offered $300.00 for her quar- called attention to a group of ter acre lot she bought 33 years single-minded individuals calling ago for $1,150. themselves conservationists who It is important for the public use political lobbying, media and county government to recog- hype and misinformation in an ize the following facts: attempt to depress property val- ues in Chiwaukee Prairie and 1. Chiwaukee Prairie is not a Carol Beach and rip-off more 10,000 year-old virgin prairie. It than 2,000 property owners, is an abandoned 18 hole golf many of whom are senior course that was in operation citizens. Today, they carry out from 1923 to 1932. The Canadian their campaign with greater bluegrass, the well and the vengence. They believe the end sprinkler system can still be justifies the means, that the seen. State Division of Natural Re- sources ought to confiscate 2. There are only 18 en- privately owned, platted land by dangered species of plants in rezoning it conservancy. If that Chiwaukee confirmed by the DNR. Most grow elsewhere in Kenosha News photo fails, they would like the DNR to Wisconsin and. Illinois. Only one Today's guest editorial was use taxpayers' money to acquire plant and no animals are na- the lots and homes at lower than written by Wallace Piroyan, tionally endangered. Many of the market value and remove them prairie flower seeds are avail- 11745 1st Avenue, the founder from the tax rolls. and chairman of the These groups go by different able for sale and can be planted Chiwaukee-Carol Beach on one's own backyard. Citizens Organization, Inc. He names but their purpose is singu- lar - to control as much of the is a graduate of Northwestern area as they can get hold of by 3. Over 200 acres of prairie are University and former busi- already conserved. The need to any means. They have engaged acquire additional land at the ness executive. Racine politician, Senator expense of tax-paying citizens Strohl, who is trying to build his has not been established. political career by interfering in Despite the pressure from the affairs of Kenosha County 4. Aerial wetland maps, pre- and depriving taxpayers of more pared some years ago by the groups outside our community, the decision to rezone these than $25,000,000 of new home DNR, are seriously flawed. The construction and the county of Southeastern Wisconsin Regional platted lands lies with county larger tax base. He, along with Planning Commission has been government. I urge our county officials to seek unbiased con- the tax-supported State Public conducting a field study to revise firmation about the wetland sta- Intervenors Office, have joined the map but their methods are the bandwagon of these groups open to challenge and the scope tus of Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach and to reject the rezoning based on misinformation about of their inventory far too narrow. the scientific value of the area. of uplands simply to satisfy the I have spent seven days with a greed of a few. I ask on behalf of As a property owner and hu- SEWERPC biologist in field in- all the senior citizens who have manitarian, I am appalled and spection to identify 300 lots clas- payed taxes on their properties deeply disturbed by the in- sified as wetlands. A large for over 30 years, and for all the margin of error was discovered young families who scraped to- sensitive tactics used by these organizations. On one occasion, a during these field trips and were gether their savings to buy land 77 year old widow living in a confirmed by an independent and wish to build the home of nursing home with a below pov- biologist. their dreams. KENOSHA NEWS September 4, 1984 -386- Town planners.. recommend more e for e study, By ARLENE JENSEN the. plan is for the county to Line Road, rather than 116th St., as discussed their concerns about the Stall V riter purchas -e six acres of land at a cost proposed. expansion. PLEASANT PRAIRIE - Local of $34,500. Other land targeted for With the plan recommending es- "There is nobody here tonight," be tablishment of a C-3 Natural and he said, "and I think their questions representatives should ask for more open space preservation would time to study a land use plan for purchased by the Wisconsin Depart- Scientific Area Resource Con- have been answered." Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach, hient of Natural Resources and a servancy zone, Knetzger said, "The Koessel said, "Mayer has lived up town planning commission mem- private group, The Nature Con- zone becomes irrelevant after five to every promise he's ever made to bers said Wednesday. servancy. years becausethe land will then be this planning commission and t hi 0 Is 'the plan is.set for review tonight "If the county buys land in Pleu- preserved by public ownership- neighbors." when a special 20-member Techni. ant Prairie," said Koessel, "there An alternative to using the C-3 The motion to recommend the cal and Advisory Committee will ane a lot of other wetlands in this zone is to keep the existing C-1, said rezoning passed unanimously. Ben Hansche's proposal to. change make recommendations for putting county that someone will want us to Khetzger. CC) the plan Into action. The session is buy. "It would keep pressure on the the future path of 93rd St., was set for 7 o'clock at the Pleasant Town planner Russell Knetzger DNR to make the purchases, where- referred to the County' Highway Prairie Town Hall. said his review of the draft turned as the C-3 might make government Committee and the Office of Plan- "The technicians have done their up several areas of concern' to the purchase slower or unnecessary." ning and Zoning, work," said James Fonk, county town, including a plan that would In other action, commission mem- Hansche asked that 93rd St., west super-visor and commission mem- require the town to install sewers at hers voted unanimously,to recom- of Sheridan Rd., be, moved from its ber. "Now it's time for the town and First Avenue and 112th St. mend that the county approve a intended route along the section change of zoning for Manutronics, line, and instead constructed at an county to sit down and talk about "Lake Michigan abuts much of Inc., 9115 26th Ave. angle toward the southeast. what's best for Pleasant Prairie." the road," said Knetzger, "Where it Manutronics . president Roger -In other action, the board tabled "There are a lot of things to does not, too little road remains for Mayer is seeking a change from action on a rezoning request from evaluate," said county supervisor development." urban single family residential to Jack Grossich, McHenry, Ill., for a Wayne Koessel, who also serves on Other items with which. the town limited manufacturing to allow ex- 20 acre parcel at 1-94 and 104th St. the plan commission. "I'll never will take issue are access to Trident pansion of a parking lot on. the west Grossich made a preliminary in- vote a dollar of county money for Marina and zoning during the ac- side of 24th Ave., near his factory. quiry about a potential transient buying land out there." quisition period. Knetzger said Mayer said he met with residen- campground in the area but did not Id, ft -rAcoitimendations in marina access should be along State tial neighbors of his' factory and attend the meeting. KENOSRA NEWS September 6, 1984 ChiwaL&e Ch aukee land KENOSHA NEWS an is tabled September 7, 1984 By ARLENE JENSEN veloped 6r urban use. required for the purchase must be Staff Writer The committee has focused since included in a budget being prepared PLEASANT PRAIRIE - With a August 1982 on 1,825 acres between by DNR secretary Carroll Besadny, roomful of property owners and Sheridan Road and Lake Michigan said Bauer, environmentalists hissing and from the Kenosha city limits south "If the request doesn't go into the scowling over the top of their picket to the Illinois state line. budget for the next biennium, there signs, a land use plan for Chiwaukee The plan recommended at will be no land purchases for the Prairie-Carol Beach was reviewed Thursday's session is described as a next two years," said Bauer. Thursday but not adopted. compromise, midway between max- On the subject of land purchase, On a motion by local represent- imum preservation and maximum Pleasant Prairie Supervisor Thomas atives, the plan was tabled by the development. Terwall said lots to be purchased by Technical and -Citizen Advisory DNR or The Nature Conservancy Committee, which has been study- The proposal envisions that hous- should be valued at 1981 prices plus ing the area for more than two ing in the area would increase from inflation. Once the study is complete years. A delay of 90 days was voted 512 units in 1980 to about 1,460 homes and the land in question placed in a at the conclusion of a three-hour under full development. conservancy zone, the price will be session. The population increase is fore- depressed, said Terwall. "We need time at the local level cast at 4,260 persons compared with Bauer agreed and said the final to understand what adoption of this 1,401 in 1980. text of the plan will be changed to plan means to us," County Super- The urban area would use 851 reflect Terwall's suggestion. visor James Fonk, 22nd District, acres or 47 percent of the study The decision to table the plan left t o I d f e I I o w committee area. Open space preservation the entire matter in limbo. No dates members."We want to re-evaluate, would encompass 812 acres, just were set for committee meetings or re-assess, and re-educate before we over 44 percent. It includes 605 a promised public hearing. Bauer make a final decision." acres, or 81 percent, of all wetlands said further TAC meetings will be Fonk said he expects local meet- in the area. "at the call of the chair." ings to include all interested persons The plan sets forth specifics on Sharon Meier, DNR planning including town and county repre- sanitary sewer, water service, analyst, said the department will sentatives. A public hearing will be streets, and Storm sewers, propo- issue a draft environmental impact included in the process, he said. sing that all be provided to urban statement on Chiwaukee Prairie by Dis@ussion was limited to mem- enclaves. 0 the end of September and conduct a bers of the committee. Residents of The proposal seeks the acquisition public hearing a month later. The the lakeshore community and mem- of 660 lots. The plan recommends TAC recommendation will be used .bers of various environmental that The Nature Conservancy, a as a basis for the EIS proposal, she groups filled the room but were not private non-profit group, purchase said. allowed to participate. 59 acres south of 116th Street. After the meeting, Linda Monroe, Instead, they waved signs bearing According to the plan, the Depart- representing the Public Intervenor's slogans such as "Citizens of Pleas- ment of Natural Resources would Office, Wisconsin Department of ant Prairie . . . endangered species" buy 448 lots encompassing 160 acres Justice, said, "The TAC plan is and "Dump DNR." On the other north of 116th Street. called a middle ground, but it's side of the room were signs which Initially, the plan recommended not." read "Don't Condemn Chiwaukee that Kenosha County buy six acres Monroe said, "There has been no Prairie to Division, Development, for drainage purposes, an idea that consideration given to the wetlands. Deterioration." was squelched by county represent- The plan is environmentally un- Joseph Shaffron, developer and atives. sound and wouldcause significant Carol Beach homeowner, told the George Melcher, director of the damage to wetlands and the natural committee he wanted to speak. - county Office of Planning and Zon- habitat." "If he is allowed to speak, we will, ing, said, "The county has never Wallace Piroyan, Ch1waukee- too," shouted a woman in the au- bought land for drainage, and Carol Beach Citizens Organization, dience. there's no reason to think they will Inc., said his group will call a press TAC Committee chairman Roger do it now. You may as well delete conference early next week to dis- Prange said Shaffron would be al- that item." cuss. a natural resource inventory lowed to speak if the committee Kurt Bauer, executive director of and analysis of land in the area. agreed, but the committee didn't, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Piroyan said his group hired inde- and Shaffron stalked out shouting, Planning Commission, whose staff pendent scientists to conduct a study "You fellows don't know what wrote the text of the plan, said, "If of those lands tagged wetland by you're talking about." you write the county out, you have to DNR and SEWRPC staff members. What they talked about was the write the town in." Piroyan charged there are dis- 1W P I same subject that has consumed two The 90-day delay could have an crepancies between the independent years and countless hours: how impact on the DNR's ability to study and the one done by the public much of the Pleasant Prairie purchase the 160 acres called for in agencies. lakeshore should be preserved in a the plan, Bauer said. The $945.000 natural state and how much de- -388- Official urges rejection Official urges rejection of Chiwaukee projects MADISON, Wis. (UPI) - The unusual geological features such as state Public Intervenor strongly sand dunes and some two dozen rare urged Friday rejection of a plan to or endangered species of plants and allow four developments on the animals. Chiwaukee Prairie in Kenosha Coun- "There are few spots in Wisconsin ty. where they are as many or as Kathleen Falk made her request precious, natural resources than in to the Southeast Wisconsin Regional the Chiwaukee Prairie area," Falk Planning Commission. said, "but the prairie is under at- The plan was developed by the tack. commission staff and "caves in on She said the four proposed de- every single one of the four develop- velopments are a 250-room hotel, ment threats that could hurt" the convention center; possible ex- prairie, Falk said. pansion of the Kenosha sewage Chiwaukee Prairie is an 1,800 acre treatment plant; the Wisconsin area that includes 700 acres of Electric Power Co. request to con- wetland, which she called some of struct a 400-foot corridor and a the best remaining prairie in the propoed sewer and subdivision de- Great Lakes region. She said it has velopment. KENOSHA NEWS September 14, 1984 Agency urged to reject Chiwaukee Prairie plans Madison -UPI- The State Public Chiwaukee Prairie is an 1,800-acre Intervenor on Friday urged rejection area that includes 700 acres of wet- of a plan to allow four developments land, which she called some of the on Chiwaukee Prairie in Kenosha best remaining prairie in the Great County. Lakes region. Kathleen Flak made her request to It has unusual geological features the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. such as sand dunes and two dozen rare or endangered species of plants The plan developed by the and animals, she said. commission "caves in on every The proposed developments are a single one of the four development 250-room hotel and convention cen- threats that could hurt" the prairie, ter; possible expansion of the Keno- she said. "There are few spots in sha sewage treatment plant; a re- Wisconsin where there are as many quest from the Wisconsin Electric things precious, natural resources than Power Co. to construct a 400-foot in the Chiwaukee Prairie area. But corridor; and a propoed sewer and the prairie is under attack." subdivision development. THE MILWAUKEE SENTINEL September,15, 1984 -389- C 'hit for failure to protect prairie By ARLENE JENSEN the prairie in future years In her criticism of the land use Stan Writer kinffic flow- warrant It," plan, Falk said, "the TAC com- Wisconsin's Public Intervenor said Falk. mittee did not have to exist at all. has accused Southeastern 'Wiscon- SEcondly, Falk was critical of a SEWRPC is responsible for com- sin Regional Planning Com- proposed expansion of the ing up with a plan. And that'S mission of caving in on Issues that Kenosha Sewage Treatment really all this. is, a plan, a pro- coul 'd threaten Chiwaukee plant, saying It would threaten the posal." Prairie. .I Kenosha sand dunes. Though the plan is labeled by Kathleen Falk said Friday a The plans is just north of the SEWRPC as a compromise, Falk land use plan prepared by study area, but according to Falk,__ says, "It is no compromise. The SEWRPC "caves, in on every sin- will-tw al-foww'f6--expand "into other side got everything they gle one of the four major develop- the wetlands an sand dunes, a wanted."., ment threats that could hurt the unique natural area." Falk, whose job it is to in- prairie area." Falk said, "it is our position tervene on behalf of public rights The plan, written by SEWRPC that there are several alternative where natural resources are at in sessions with a 20-member spots that are not in wetland. Two stake, said Friday, "There are Technicaland Citizen Advisory parcelsjust west and south of the few spots in Wisconsin where Committee, has been in the hop- plant could be used." there are as many or as precious per for more than two years. It is Plans by Wisconsin Electric natural resources as the Intended to guide the development Power Company for an east-west Chiwaukee Prairie." @f the 1,80o acre area on Pleasant corridor ranked third on Falk's - Falk cites statistics from the Prairie's lakeshore, from the list of environmental threats. The U.S. Department of Interior, Kenosha city limits to the Illinois WEPCo property is at the claiming that Chiwaukee contains ,bqLder. northern edge of the study area, about 250 acres of "exceptionally At a Sept. 6 TAC session, a final and Falk said the corridor would fine and diverse prialre, ridge and draft of the land use plan was run through an area which would swale, one of the best remaining reviewed and tabled without for- otherwise be designated open in the Great Lakes region." mal acceptance by the commit- space. . The area hosts more than two tee. "To open a hole in the north- dozen rare, endangered or Falk, who is weorking with the south environmental corridor for theatened species of plants and Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coali- some future unknown use makes animals, said Falk. "Over 400 tion, a combination of no sense at all," said Falk. plant species are found In the mental groups and individuals, Falk listed sewers and sub- prairie and 76 animal species use said major threats are "*siting division development as the. the prairie in one season alone, only for approvals by government fourth and "possibly most impor- enjoying 300 acres of high value agencies." tant" of the four environmental habitat. She cited expansion plans by concerns. Falk notes -83 acres of the Trident Marina, 12800 First Ave., "Both the direct construction prairie were declared a national a proposal that includes a 250-unit effects on the prairie as well as natural landmark in 1974. In addi- hotel and convention center. "Not the long-term Indirect effects of tion, the state has officially recog- only does the expansion area con- development on the area are ob- nized two natural areas of state- tain two endangered species,", gt.copsidered at all wide significance and two areas Of said Falk, "but according to the' in the plan," she said. regional significan ce. Department of Natural Re- Falk an the Coalition have hired sources, this would result in the Douglas Cherkauer, University of The prairie also inclildes nine loss of ignificant wetlands within Wisconsin-Milwaukee geologist, archeological sites, she said, in- the shoreland area." to study the groundwater ind sur- cluding the only nondisturbed Falk said the increased vehicle face water flow of the prairie. Paleo-Indian site in . Wisconsin, traffic acro 'ss or around the heart Cherkauer will be asked to de- offering a "unique opportunity to of the prairie would cause "sub- termine whether sewers would study the cultural history 'and stantial injury." affect the wate flow through the settlement patterns of -people liv- The committee appears to be prairie. ing around 200 BC to 1200 AID. extending an invitation to the Falk said his report is expected EVv@U marina to pave an additional road in about three weeks. KENOSHA NEWS September 17, 1984 -390- misses the point completely. That's No wonder like saying "Who needs bald eagles there's confusion living in the wild when we can go see them in the zoo?" To the Editor: I don't claim to have all the answers to this complex issue. I After reading a recent guest edito- doubt that anybody does. I respect rial by Mr. Piroyan in the Kenosha Mr. Piroyan's right to his own opin- News, there's little wonder why ion about Chiwaukee Prairie, just as such confusion surrounds the I hope he respects mine. I do, Chiwaukee Prairie issue. Some of however, believe that we all need to his so-called "facts" are seriously base our opinion on the best, most flawed. accurate information available. I He claims that Chiwaukee Prairie call attention to the flaws in Mr. is "not a 10,000-year-old virgin prairie." Instead, he says, "It is an Piroyan's guest editorial only in an attempt to help others develop their abandoned 18-hole golf course that own, informed opinions. was in operation from 1923 to 1932." Michael J. Schneider There was in fact a golf course on Chiwaukee Prairie during that time period, but it only encompassed a very small percentage of the total acreage we call Chiwaukee Prairie. Chiwaukee should To say that the whole of Chiwaukee Prairie was a golf course is not fact, be maintained but exaggeration. The editorial also refers to To the Editor: Chiwaukee Prairie's endangered I am a member of Hoy Nature plant species. Mr. Piroyan states Club and have visited Chiwaukee "there are only 18." I wonder if he'd Prairie every year for the past 10 feel differently if there were, say, years or more. It is a marvelous 20,or 50, or 100? I think probably example of an original prairie not. Whether or not one recognizes unequalled in our state, and perhaps endangered species as important, 18 in the country. We sincerely hope is a significant number of them to be that it can be preserved as the home growing in any concentrated area. of about 400 plant species and refuge Sure, most of them grow in some for various birds and animals. To other places in the Midwest, but that disturb this gem of nature would be doesn't mean we should destroy a serious interference with ecology those that are here. And to suggest of the area. We hope that some way that we might be satisfied by buying can be found to maintain it as it is. seeds of these endangered species Margaret E. Wernecke and planting them in our backyards Racine KENOSHA NEWS September 17, 1984 -391- nds KENOSHA NEWS C e plan September 21, 1984 By ARLENE JENSEN noted, with the unfairness of impos- "Failure to provide for such ex- Staff Writer ing severe land use controls on pansion would be short-sighted in- A draft land use plan for the hundreds of owners of small residen- deed," he said. Chiwaukee Prairie area is a reason- tial lots platted many years ago. Responding to a complaint that able compromise "between in- "in effect," Bauer said, "a gov- the plan recognizes a Wisconsin herently conflicting, but legitimate, ernment system that had, years Electric Power Co. east-west cor- objectives," noted Kurt Bauer, ex- earlier, declared these lots to be ridor through an otherwise open ecutive director of the Southeastern ,suitable for residential development area, Bauer said that the strip al- Wisconsin Regional Planning Com- 44s now about to say that many of ready exists, in -part, to accom- mission. these lots could not be developed for modate maintenance requirements "The plan performs well both any urban use." 1, for water intake and discharge lines from an urban development and As a result, Bauer said, "from the between the lake and the Wisconsin environmental protection view- very beginning, all 'parties con- Electric Power Co. generating plant point," he said. cerned Jwith the plan) recognized 41/2 miles to the west. Bauer was responding to, recent that the preparation of such a plan In response to Falk's concern criticisms from Kathleen Falk, would inevitably involve com- about the effect of sewers which Wisconsin's Public Intervenor, that promise." could be constructed to serve Carol the ChiwAukee plan caves in on Beach, Bauer said "many of the developmental threats to the prairie Bauer said, "It should not be problems that currently plague (the environment. expected, therefore, that the com- area) can be traced to the widely 'rhe proposed plan, written by promise will at once please the most held but erroneous belief that on-site SEWRPC, in conjunction with a ardent environm entalist or the most sewage disposal systems (holding technical and citizens advisory com- ardent development advocate." tanks, septic tanks) can be effec- mittee during the past several If the advisory committee and tively and permanently used to sup- years, is intended to guide develop- SEWRPC were to accept port urban residential develop- ment of 1,800 acres along Pleasant position, Bauer said, "there could be ment." Prairie's shoreline, between the no meaningful compromise. The In summary, Bauer said that the Kenosha city limits and the state planning effort would then fail, and compromise plan would not only line. the narrowly based and - as applied permit urban development but The public intervenor, an assis- to this geographic location - unfair would protect the majority of natu- tant attorney general directed by federal and state wetland regulatory ral resources in the area. state law to intervene on behalf of efforts would prevail." The plan would preserve about 87 the public when natural resources Responding to environmental percent of all significant wetlands, are involved, is working with the threats alleged by Falk, Bauer noted about 84 percent of all upland plant .Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coali- that the draft plan would cut the size habitat, about 76 percent of all wild- tion, a combination of environmen- of a proposed development of a life habitat, about 95 percent of all tal groups and individuals. Trident Marina hotel-conference upland areas having, area;value and CPRC is concerned, Falk wrote in center complex from 43 to 36 acres. @I percent of the prairie lands in the a Sept. 14 letter to SEWRPC, that The loss in terms of significant study area. the draft plan "endorses every sin- wetlands and uplands would be only -"Surely the plan provides reason- gle one of the four major threats to about 4 percent of the entire study able protection of the resource base, the prairie," in short, favoring de- area. given the location of the site, not velopmental over environmental in- Falk had criticized a draft plant only on the fringes of one of the terests. recommendation that an 18 acre large urban areas in the state, the Bauer responded that relatively wetland and dune site south of the Kenosha urbanized area, but in a recent federal and state land use Kenosha sewage treatment plant corridor between two large metro- regulations fail to adequately recog- was reserved for possible expansion politan areas," Bauer concluded. nize, that the Chiwaukee Prairie- of the plant beyond the year 2000. A public hearing on the draft plan Carol Beach is not just wetlands, but Bauer said, that with park and is to be scheduled sometime in late a "complexly inter-related uplands residential land on three sides, even- October. and wetlands," area. iual sewer plant expansion must be SEWRPC is concerned, Bauer to the south. A*-*" EWWU defe hiwaL&e -392- Hopes@ f6 the Coalition propose to rezone this support the efforts and objectives of ro entire area a Conservancy zone by the Nature Conservancy. I also sup- compromise administrative fiat thereby render- port the rights of the property ing the property worthless with no owners and the moral obligation to To the Editor: provision for compensation of the compensate them for any land that As a member of the Pleasant affected property owner. is placed in conservancy. Prairie Town Board, I have followed To his credit, Kurt Bauer of It Is my hope that the Technical the continuing dialogue in these SEWRPC is the only representative Advisory Committee, with the sup- pages concerning the Chiwaukee of a state or federal agency to port of SEWRPC, will be able to Prsirie issue with great interest. I advocate compensating the affected achieve a compromise that is accep- have attended the Technical Ad- property owners during the Techni- table to fair-minded people on all visory Committee meetings and cal Advisory Committee's proceed- sides of this complex is3ue. Less have attempted to maintain objec- ings. intervention on the part of the public tivity in my deliberation of the Donna Peterson grieves for the intervenor would go a JaW way issues involved. nice people who were duped into toward making this a Xalfty. Recent statements in these pages buying land rt-ey were told was Tom TerwaH by the public intervenor and Donna suitable for building when 'area Peterson in her letter to this column farmers have known for more than are misleading and ignore complete- 100 years that it was unsuitable for ly the rights of the property owners growing crops. Since when was the nvolved. Ms. Peterson correctly land's suitability for agriculture a states that neither the public in- criterion for determining its suit- itervenor nor the Chiwaukee Prairie ability for home construction? The Rescue Coalition support the con- fact is that a portion of the study derrriation of privately-held lands to area upon which Ms. Peterson wants PrW,xt Chiwaukee Prairie. Con- all development banned is one of dernnation requires that just cause very few in the entire county that for the acquisition be proven in a meets the stringent, state-mandated court of law and that the properly soil absorption requirements for an owner be compensated at fair mar- on-site septic system. ket value for his property. Rather, I am cognizant of the need to KENOSHA NEWS the public intervenor, the DNR and conserve our natural resources and I September,27, 1984 Cfilwat.&ee h&afing set Oct.. 23 Comments from the public on the said Kurt *.- -bauer, SEWRPC ex- Kenosha County as well as the state proposed land use management plan ecutive director. and federal agencies having land use for Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beath The proposed land use man- regulatory responsibilities in the will be invited at a public hearing agement plan will also be explained area including the state Department Tuesday, Oct. 23, at Lance JunIor at the hearing. of Natural Resources and U.S. Army High School, conducted @Ahe. Following the. hearing, an ad- Corps of Engineers. Southeastern Wisconsin visory committee . to--S,EWIkPC will A draft report despribing the pro- deferrhine-iWIhie -- _--tha, ncluding a plan map, is on Planning Commission' ther any @ nges posal, I The hearing is set for 7 p.m. in the should be made in the plim pres- file at the Pleasant Prairie munici- school auditorium. ented at the hewing and will con- pal building, 9915 39th Ave., and the [email protected] proposed'plan sets forth rec- sider - recommending action on the SEWRPC office, 916 N. East Ave., to _i4e ornmendations. on future open space commission. Waukesha, Wis., 53186. preserva Itiod-urban development If approved by the advisory Corn- @Further information is available 4wiierns, provision. of 'public ser- mittee, SEWRPC will formally by contacting the towwor ISEWRPC including public sanitary *adopt the plan and certify it for office. sewer service, and public_ acquisi- adoption 'or endorsement to the tio'n, of open; space I"d- in. the area, Town of' Pleasant Prairie and KENOSHA NEWS October 23, 1984 -393- Chiwaukee, Carol Beach-gr-OUDS-Ale- a r---d-- Issue meowners, enmronme middle ground between maximum Marina. development and maximum preser- -The plan envisions that: vation of the 1,825-acre study area. v The town and county would Its boundaries are Lake Michigan on apply to the U.S. Army Corps of the east, the Wisconsin-Illinois state Engineers for a collective permit to line on the south, Sheridan Road to fill and develop those wetlands in the west and 80th Street on the the urban development area, thus *13 north. relieving individual landowners of "The plan," said SEWRPC's Phil- that burden. lip Evenson, "would identify those v Housing units I .n the study area open space lands - both wetlands would increase from 500 to 1,500 and uplands - which should be while the population. would increase protected and preserved in the pub- from 1,400 to about 4,300. lic interest and those lands on which v Over a period of time, the town urban growth should be accom- would provide public sanitary sewer By ARLENE JENSEN modat6d, and water service, drainage sys- Staff Writer The plan proposes 803 acres in tems, and new or improved roads in Chiwaukee Prairie is one of the open space preservation and 860 the urban area as needed and as most controversial issues the com- alloted to urban use. finances permit. mission has dealt with in the past 20 Main components of the plan are v All platted land in the urban years, Kurt Bauer told a Kenosha that: area would be zoned for develop- audience Tuesday. v About 641 undeveloped, platted ment and be placed in a residential, Bauer, executive director of lots within the open space preserva- commercial, institutional, or recre- Southeastern Wisconsin Regional tion area would be acouired -at fair - ational district. Planning Commission, conducted market value by thi &@ment of Evenson said the plan "attempts the public hearing on a land use Natural Resources or private re- to lift the cloud of uncertainty which. management plan for the source protection organizations such has for many years surrounded the Chiwaukee 'Prairie-Carol Beach as The Nature Conservancy. area ... would ensure the preserva- area. An additional 20 lots would be tion of valuable plant and animal The session drew 200 persons with acquired by Pleasant Prairie to pre- communities and enhance the the audience about evenly divided serve open drainageways. po@ential for good urban develop- between property owners and repre- v Lands in the open space preser- ment. sentatives of various environmental vation area would be placed in' a Attorney John Crosetto told the groups. About 50 persons com- conservancy zoning district to commission he was hired by the. mented on the plan, which has been *ensure their preservation until Chiwaukee-Carol Beach Citizens Or- on the drawing board for more than purchased. ganization to stop any rezoning that two years. v The 30 existing homes in the will deprive citizens of the use of Bauer said the commission's plan preservation area would be left in their property. is strictly advisory. private ownership to be maintained Crosettto warned, "If the plan is "I want to make It clear, the plan without the restriction of noncon- adopted, you can expect expensive is only our recommendation," said forming use. The plan does not rule and time consuming litigation." Bauer. out acquisition of the 30 homes if Public Intervenor Kathleen Falk If approved, SEWRPC will for- agreement can. be reached between spoke later in response to Crosetto's mally certify the plan for adoption willing sellers and purchasing agen- comments and said, "It looks like or endorsement by the Town of cies. we are reading different plans. I Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha Coun- In the urban development portion have not heard that anyone is,being ty, as well as state and federal of the plan, 47 percent of the alloted kicked out of their homes. We are agencies having land use regulatory 860 acres would be devoted to single U!Lkigg. about what to do with un- responsibilities in the area. Im- family residential use and to limited Aeveloped areas." plementation must still come from commercial and institutional use. In Also representing the home- the town and county, he said. addition, the proposed urban area owners group was Warren Buchanan The plan presented Tuesday is includes land set aside for the pos- Jr., an environmental science con- described as a combination sible expansion of the Kenosha sew- sultant, hired to study the validity of cWdes ho ntalists development-preservation'.. plan, a age treatment plant and Trident wetland mapping in the Chiwaukee -394- area done earlier by the Department of Natural Resources. Buchanan said he concluded the i6ps are inaccurate and further studies are needed. Robert Deutsch, a Carol, Beach property owner, said his property has been designated wetland. "I am further above sea level than the City of Kenosha," said Deutsch. Linda Monroe, . representing the Public. Intervenor's office, also 6titicized the plan which, she said, is "only a compromise between some damaging development and a lot of damaging development." Mary Ellen Johnson, of the waukee, said the ground water data Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coali- contained in the SEWRPC study is tion, said her group finds the com- seriously flawed. He said the plan promise plan unacceptable but has could cause the demise of the offered an alternative plan. The wetland it is trying to protect. CPR plan, said Johnson, is based on Cherkauer, who w ' two principles: reasonable treat- as hired by the ment of existing property owners Public Intervenor's office, said the and maximum preservation of the plan "should be held in abeyance prairie. until the necessary hydrologic in- "Chiwaukee contains 400 species formation is obtained." of rare and endangered species," Bauer said the public hearing said Johnson. "The time to save record will be kept open until Fri- them is now, and to do that, you day, Nov. 2, for written testimony. must preserve the habitat." Persons who wish to add their Professor Douglas Cherkauer, of comments should send letters to the department of geological sci- SEWRPC, 916 N. East Ave., ences, University of Wisconsin-Mil- Waukesha, Wis., 53187-1607. K ENOSHA NEWS October 24, 1984 -395- Chiwaukee Prairie fight could hurt all, planner says By Andy Blankenburg state. Journal Times The SEWRPC compromise plan was attacked for about four hours KENOSHA - Disagreement be- by speakers - some of whom came tween developers and conserva- from Madison and Green Bay -- tionists involved in the Chiwaukee who said provisions of the plan Prairie-Carol Reach land use plan would satisfy neither landowners could cost the groups the land they nor preservationists. are fighting to keep, a state planner Without a plan, Bauer said, own- told a public hearing here Tuesday. ers of about 750 wetland lots in Without a plan that can serve as state-defined shoreland areas will the basis for federal and state ac- have their land zoned for conser- tion,the regulatory process - in- vancy, preventing the development cluding government acquisition of of their lots. land ---- would prevail, said Kurt Also, landowners of government- Bauer, chairman of the Southeast regulated wetland lots will not be Wisconsin Regional Planning Com- allowed to develop their lots with- mission (SEWRPC). out a plan, he said. In the open space preservation The rigid application of the law area of the SEWRPC plan: would permit the state to zone that About 641 undeveloped platted land against development, without lots would be purchased at fair taking into account compensation," Bauer said. market value by the Department of The judicial system probably Natural Resources or private re- source protection organizations. would not provide much help for An additional 20 lots will be ac- those who have had their land taken away, Bauer said. quired by the town of Pleasant Prairie to preserve open drainage- There have been Supreme Court ways. cases in the state of Wisconsin that The existing 30 homes would be have upheld the right of the state to left in private ownership. apply police powers in that way," In the urban development area of he said. the SEWRPC plan: The proposed SEWRPC plan was Pleasant Prairie and Kenosha intended as a compromise between County would apply to the U.S. development and preservation. Army Corps of Engineers for a col- About 47 percent of the Chiwaukee lective permit to fill and develop Prairie's 1,825 acres would be al- wetlands. lowed to develop as an urban area Housing units would increase under the plan, with 44 percent set from the existing 500 to nearly aside as an open space preservation 1,500, with an population increase area. The remaining land would be from the existing 1,400 to about classified as rural or railway right- 4,300. of-way. Pleasant Prairie would provide The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol sanitary sewer service,water sup- Beach area, in the southeastern cor- ply, drainage systems and roads as ner of Kenosha County, is regarded needed. ny naturalists as containing some of Platted land would be zoned the most outstanding prairie and either residential, commercial, in- wetland features remaining in the stitutional or recreational. RACINE JOURNAL TIMES October 24, 1984 -396- Appendix I INDEX TO INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT PRESENTED STATEMENTS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR SENT STATEMENTS OR MATERIALS CONCERNING THE HEARING Name Page AHRENHOERSTER, ROBERT 24, 223 ALLEN, JOHN @32-33 ALTON, ARDELLE S. 270 ARKEMA, JOHN L. 320 BARARSCH, NANCY M. 13, 207 BARASCH, STEPHEN 30-31, 207 BERGE, MRS. JOHN 248 BIALOZYNSKI, LEE 271 BRDECKE, CAROL AND JOHN 272 BUCHANAN, WARREN J. JR. 11-12$ 194 BURNERKEMP, GERALD G. 37 CHERKAUER, DOUGLAS S. 50-51 CHIWAUKEE-CAROL BEACH CITIZENS ORGANIZATION, INC. 73 CHRISTIANSEN, RICHARD 33-34, 284 CONLEY, LISA 286 CREMA, GENEVIEVE 340 CROS ETTO, JOHN 9-11, 190 DAPIAN, RHODA 322 DET-SARTS, GORDON 274 DEUTSCHE, ROBERT 12 DEWITT, CALVIN 287 DOYLE, CATHERINE 356 DRAGULA, SHERRY 239 DUNK, EUGENE 290 FALK, KATHLEEN 16 ' 254 FELTON, RAY 15-16, 196 FISHER, DEN-NIS 47-48 FREW, MINNIE 42 GALBRAITH, LAVONNE E. 275 GANEK, EDWARD R. 18 GIBBS, EILEEN 343 GRAF, CHARLES 21 GRAF, IONE 27 HARTH-UN, RICHARD A. 19, 291 HARTMAN, ANN N. 293 HARTUNG, GUNTER 269 -397- Page HELGREN, HELEN 29, 30 HELGREN, PRESTON 30 HENTER, ANNETTE 45 HEWITT, DAVID H. 29, 323 HOLE, FRANCIS D. 72 HUJET, CARL J. 295 JOHNSON, MARY ELLEN 19, 345 JUSTEN, JAMES A. 49-50 KALLUNKI, SANDRA 329 KENT, DORTHEA H. 250 KLUGE, HELEN 241 KOZLOWSKI, MARGARET 42 KRAMER, MARGARET A. 14-15 KRIMP, STEVEN M. 276 KRZYZEWSKI, PEG AND TONY 332, KUCKKAHN, JOAN LUTZ 253 KULISEK, LAVERNE 52, 333 LACHMAN, GERALDINE 71 LEIGHTON, REBECCA A. 24 ,LENTFER, SUSAN M. 354 LICHTNER, RUGHT GROTENRATH 224 LINDBERG, JACK L. 334 LINDBERG, LINUS R. 334 LOVELY, DEANNE M. 335 LUNDSKOW, VIRGINIA 277 LUTZE, JANET H. 296 MAERTZ, BERNICE C. 355 MANNING, LYNDA 297 MARCINIAK, RICHARD 20 MARIANYI, JUAN J. 39-41 MARQUARDT, CARMELITA 51-52 MCANDREWS, C. G. 26,201 MCGRAW, JEAN 41, 298 MICHETTI, SUSAN 48-49 MONROE, LINDA 17-18 MYERS, JEFFREY D. 246 NELSON, ED 25-26, 197 NIEBAUER, KEVIN L. 358 NOWAK, DAVID 225 NOWAK, MARIETTE 41-42, 219 OLMSTED, JIM 337 ORTMAYER, MARY ANN 38-39, 299 OSENGA, JERRINE 46-47, 222 OTTO, LORRIE 226 OWENS, CAROL 20 -398-. Page PAVLETIC, TERRY 341 PETERSON, DONNA 43-44 PIROYAN, WALLACE 8-9, 49, 315 POPELKA, BERNICE B., 27,.204 POST, JAMES W. 22, 23 POTENTE, EUGENE JR. 344 PRUSIK, DENNIS L. 317 REIS, JIM 227 ROHAN, JOAN 44-45, 220 ROYT, LAURANCE E. 51 SALERNO, CARL 34-35, 52-53 SANDERSON, SHERRY 338 SCHROEDER, JENNETTE 45, 318 SEBETIC, MICHAEL 38 SHAFFRON, JOSEPH 28-29, 251. STROUD, VERA 45-46 TERWALL, THOMAS W. 21-22 TREFZ@,' ROBERT W. 36, 3.7, 211 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (WIBLE, LYMAN AND MEYER, GEORGE) 230 WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (ROUSE, RICHARD P-) WRUCK, DONALD H. 24-25 YOST, G. C. 357 ZIMMERMAN, JAMES H. 252 -399- DATE DUE GAYLORDINO, 2333 3 6668 14108 2695