[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
STATE
OF
WVISCONSIN

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

NEEDS ASSESSMENT
AND
MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY
WISCONSIN
COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
HT              PROGRAM
393
W6
S7
1992

NEEDS ASSESSMENT,

MULTI"YEAR STRATEGy



December 1, 1992




rropcrty of CCC  Library


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

STATE OF WISCONSIN
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUbnqARY                                       I

WETLANDS I

Characterization of the Issue I
Characterization of Existing Programs	3
Programmatic Objectives	7
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Wetland Program	13

PUBLIC ACCESS	32

Characterization of the Issue	32
Characterization of Existing Programs	33
Programmatic Objectives	35
Strategy for the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Public Access Program	39

CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS	44

Characterization of the Issue	44
Characterization of Existing Programs	45
Programmatic Objectives	46
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Cumulative
and Secondary Impact Program	51

NONPOINT SOURCE	64

Characterization of the issue	64
Characterization of Existing Programs	66
Programmatic Objectives	71
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Nonpoint
Source Pollution Program	74

CON TAMKINA TED SEDIMFNTS	76

Characterization of the issue	76
Characterization of Existing Programs	78
Programmatic Objectives	81
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Contaminated
Sediments Program	84

NATURAL HAZARDS	85

Characterization of the Issue	85
Characterization of Existing Programs	86
Programmatic Objectives	89
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Natural Hazards
Program                                               93

98
SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Characterization of the Issue	98
Characterization of Existing Programs	98
Programmatic Objectives	99
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Special Area
Management Planning Program	100

ENERGY AND GOVERNMENT FACILITY SITING	105

Characterization of the Issue	105
Characterization of Existing Programs	106
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Energy and
Government Facility Siting Program	108

MARINE DEBRIS	109
Characterization of the Issue	109
Characterization of Existing Programs	109
Strategy for Wisconsin's Coastal Marine Debris
Program                                               110

EXECUTIV'E SUMMARY
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) completed a Needs
Assessment regarding coastal issues on Lake Michigan and Lake
Superior. The assessment dealt with a thorough evaluation of the
following areas, which are the national priority issues:
wetlands,   coastal  hazards,   public  access,   cumulative  and
secondary impacts of development, non-point source pollution,
contaminated  sediments,   natural  hazards,   special  area  of
management planning, energy and government facilities siting
activities and marine debris. The needs assessment process
included establishing technical work groups to review the issue
areas, and conducting public meetings to openly discuss the
topics.

Based on the outcome of the needs assessment, the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program developed a multi-year strategy for
the Program which addresses the most important needs in
Wisconsin's coasts. The Program will focus its efforts on
wetlands protection, public access issues and cumulative and
secondary impacts of development. Non-point source pollution,
contaminated sediments, natural hazards, and special area of
management planning are addressed as they relate to cumulative
and secondary impacts and wetlands.

The strategy includes Section 306 and Section 309 funding
sources. Section 306 concentrates on implementation of the core
activities of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, while
Section 309 is to be used to make significant improvements or
changes to the implementation of the Program.

Under wetland protection, the WCMP will concentrate efforts on
the following issues: activities related to monitoring and
enforcement of state and local regulatory efforts, educational
activities,	adoption	of  local  zoning	ordinances,   wetland
restoration	programs,	etc.   Under public	access  issues,  the
Program will concentrate efforts on the development of a long
range coastal public access plan, and the implementation of
selected public access projects. Regarding cumulative and
secondary impacts, efforts will be concentrated on non-point
source pollution control activities, contaminated sediments and
associated water quality problems, model comprehensive ordinances
addressing stormwater, nonpoint source pollution, wetlands,
erosion, waterways management, etc.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council (WCMC) recognizes its
priority responsibility is to protect and preserve the wetlands
and  funding  decisions  will  be  made  accordingly.    Ensuring
compliance with this core authority will be pursued through a
number of different strategies including enforcement, permit
monitoring, education, zoning, encouraging ownership and well as
subjecting the public to the proper usage and appreciation by
making our overall coastal zone more accessible to the public.

Although the WCMC will proceed in the aforementioned manner to
ensure mutual priorities (NOAA/OCRM and Wisconsin's) are
T

adequately addressed, a long term WCMC goal is for Wisconsin's
Coastal Program to become more balanced (e. g. 30% of program
budget for wetland activities; 35% f or public access projects;
and, the remaining 35% on cumulative and secondary impacts).
Current   reality,   however,   require   flexibility  as  actual
percentage allocation of funds will be "driven" by established
priority needs, proposals received, and the degree to which the
core activities of the Program are addressed.
II

Fiscal and Technical Needs Documentation
The current state budget is balanced, as mandated by the state
constitution. State statute also requires that a reserve be
maintained. The agency which implements most of the Coastal
Management Programn's enforceable policies is the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). The WDNR is asking for
increases in staffing and funding for the Water Regulation and
Zoning Program in their current state budget request. That
budget has not yet been presented to the state legislature. The
funding increases will be from segregated funds (fees) and/or
program revenue. However, the funding requests do not cover the
proposed 309 projects.

The technical knowledge and skills needed to carry out the
proposed projects are available through local units of
government, state agencies, Wisconsin colleges and universities,
regional planning commissions and private, non-profit
organizations. The WCMP will develop a request for proposals
from these sources to perform the work tasks outlined in this
strategy.
ITI

WETLANDS



LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES

1. Protection, restoration or enhancement of existing coastal
wetlands base or creation of new coastal wetlands [Coastal
Zone Management Act, s. 309(a)(1)];

2. Maintain safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control
water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic
life; control building sites, placement of structures and land
uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty [Wisconsin.
Statutes., s. 144.26];

3. Avoid or minimize adverse effects on wetlands due to actions
over which the Department of Natural Resources has regulatory
or management authority and to maintain, enhance and restore
wetland values [NR 1.95, refer. to Wisconsin. Statutes., s.
144.025, 1.11 and 23.09, 29.02];

4. Protect, preserve, restore and enhance the quality of waters
in wetlands and other waters of the state influenced by
wetlands [NR 103].


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

Filling, draining or otherwise altering wetlands can degrade
water quality, decrease fish and wildlife habitats, populations
and diversity, increase flooding and shoreline erosion, and
affect groundwater quality and quantity. Rare plants and animals
frequently live in wetlands. Wetlands are often the last
remaining open spaces in urban areas.

An estimated 50% of the wetlands that originally covered
Wisconsin have been lost. Losses may be up to 90% in
Southeastern Wisconsin. Wetlands continue to be filled, drained
and altered each year.

Wisconsin has a framaework of laws and programs to prevent
continued loss and to restore some wetlands. Yet wetland losses
continue because some activities and some wetlands are not
covered by existing laws, and because of insufficient resources
to enforce the laws and carry out programs as designed.

Extent and Type of Wisconsin Wetlands: Wisconsin currently has
approximately 5.3 million acres of wetlands. About 25% of those
wetlands are in the 15 counties adjacent to the Great Lakes
mostly in the northwestern and northeastern part of the state.

There are four categories of wetlands and a variety of
subcategories throughout Wisconsin as well as in the coastal
zone. The four categories are:
I

*Open water- marshes: Herbaceous plants growing entirely on or
in a water body;
*Wet meadow wetlands: Herbaceous plants which stand above the
surface of the water or soil;
*Scrub/shrub wetlands: Composed of woody plants less than 20
feet tall; and,
*Forested wetlands: Woody plants taller than 20 feet.

Two unique types of wetlands occur only within Wisconsin's
coastal zone. These are:

* Red clay complex wetlands: Comnposed of small areas of
intermingled wet and dry red clay soils. They occur mainly on
old lake plains adjoining Lake Superior.
* Ridge and swale complexes:- Landfoarms occurring mainly along
the Lake Michigan coast, where narrow beach ridges (strand
lines) were formed parallel to the shore as the water in Lake
Michigan receded during post-glacial times. Depressions
(swales) between the beach ridges contain wetland vegetation,
but the ridges themselves are dry.

Trends and Threats: Pre-settlement wetland acreage estimates f or
Wisconsin, based on the original government land surveys of the
early 1800's and modern soil surveys, show that approximately 10
million acres of wetlands were present prior to settlement.
While Wisconsin has no comprehensive data base on losses or
threats to wetlands in the coastal zone, statewide estimates are
available through the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) -- a
mapping project authorized by the state legislature. Based on
aerial photography done for the Inventory from 1978-79, experts
estimate that approximately 5.3 million acres of wetlands remain
in the state -- representing a loss of about 47% of original
wetland acreage.

Wetland losses continue, but it is difficult to determine how
many acres of wetlands have been lost since the first wetland
inventory. The maps are being updated very slowly, on about a
20-year cycle. Until maps are updated, there is nothing with
which to compare the original survey. However, some efforts have
been made to estimate the extent of wetland loss. The
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) has
determined that wetland losses in its seven-county region for a
recent 15-year period (1970-85) amounted to 4,010 acres, and that
the rate of loss has accelerated. The commission has not fully
analyzed the data, but believes the increased loss rate is due to
accelerated drainage (possibly in response to anticipated
stronger wetland protection legislation) and increased
development pressures.
2

In addition, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
has completed a study of Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Section
404 individual wetland permit decisions made in Wisconsin from
1982 to August, 1990. The study shows wetland losses of
approximately 11,800 acres statewide. Annual wetland losses
during 1989-90 were a 220% increase over average annual wetland
losses during the period 1982-89. Wetland losses are probably
higher than this study indicates. A comparison of the DNR permit
study and the SEWRPC study shows actual wetland losses to be at
least 337% more than that revealed by the permit study for the
SEWRPC region.
A DNR study of Section 404 individual permits from 1982 to 1986
indicates the types of threats to wetlands. of the 9,249 acres
lost statewide during that period, 54% of those acres were lost
due to cranberry culture, 11% from development and 10% from
agriculture. Since cranberry culture is not a major factor in
the loss of coastal wetlands, the main pressures on the coast are
from development and agriculture. The study did not include
historic losses or losses due to drainage.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Three major state regulatory programs are intended to prevent
harmful wetland alterations. The DNR issues permits for
activities in waterways (Chapters 30 & 31). In addition, local
governments are required to adopt wetland zoning for corridors
along waterways with DNR assistance and oversight (Shoreland and
Wetland Zoning). DNR staff comment on federal wetland fill
permit applications determine if permits can be issued based on
compliance with water quality standards (Section 401 of the
Federal Clean Water Act, NRlO3, and NR299).
The major federal wetland protection program is the Section 404
permit program administered jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Based on an evaluation of its wetland programs and other factors,
Wisconsin has declined to assume the Section 404 program.

On the restoration side, DNR wildlife specialists guide property
owners in promoting wildlife use of wetlands and in taking
advantage of various land management incentive programs. Major
acquisition and incentive programs include the Stewardship
Program at the state level, and Swampbuster, Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetlands aeserve Program and other provisions of the
Federal Farm Bill.
The WCMP is a "networked" program. The Department of
Administration which administers the Coastal Program does not
enforce the laws that make up the state's coastal policies.
Therefore, the Coastal Program relies on the agencies that do
have enforcement responsibilities within the state, primarily the
Department of Natural Resources. The Council's staff, however,
3

is responsible for seeing that a comprehensive strategy for
coastal wetlands is implemented through the distribution of
resources to various state and local agencies and other groups
with expertise in the coastal area.
The following is a discussion of the current regulatory programs
that the WCMP tracks for both federal consistency purposes and
for opportunities to supplement or enhance their implemnentation.

I. REGULATORY PROGRAMS
A. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Naviaable Waters Protection (Chaoter. 30 & 31, Statutes.).
Regulates construction and waterway alteration in and adjacent to
navigable waters, including dams, filling, water diversion,
grading, and dredging. Alteration of non-navigable waterways.,
such as dredging, is also regulated.
Shoreland and Wetland Zonina' Oversicyht (Ss. 59.971, 61,351&
62.231, Statutes.). State law requires that counties, villages
and cities regulate activities in wetlands adjacent to navigable
waters ("shorelands"). State law requires DNR to provide
technical assistance to local zoning officials, oversight of
local decisions, and set minimum general development & wetland
protection standards for shorelands adjacent to navigable waters.
The regulations are administered by local government.
"Shorelands" means lands within the following distances from the
ordinary high-water mark of navigable waters: 1,000 feet from a
lake, pond or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream or to
the landward side of the flood plain, whichever distance is
greater. DNR is responsible for technical assistance to local
governments and general oversight of the programs. All
development (broadly defined) in mapped areas requires a permit.
Uses are generally restricted to open space or those related to
wetland functions. Other uses require re-zoning if a
determination of insignificant wetland value can be made.
Wate-r Oualitv Ce-rtification (S 401 Federal Clean Water Act, NR
103, & NIR 299). Certifies whether Corps federal permits are
consistent with state wetland water quality standards. Corps may
not issue permits if water quality certification is denied.

Floodpglain Zonina' Over'siaTht (S. 87.30, Statutes. and NR 116.22)
Counties, Cities and Villaa4es (S. 87.30, Statutes., & NR 116).
State law requires that local goverrnnents regulate development in
areas subject to flooding (often including wetlands) to prevent
loss of life and property damage. Statute requires DNR to provide
technical assistance to local zoning officials, oversee local
decisions, approve local floodplain zoning ordinances, and assist
municipalities in enforcing those ordinances.
4

Sewer Service Area Planninc Oversiaht (S. 144.025(1)-(2), 147.25,
Statutes. NR 121. DNR delegates work activities, and provides
funding and technical assistance to local planning agencies for
the development of sewer service area plans. These plans become
effective upon DNR approval.
ThreatenedlEndangered Soecies (S. 29.415, Statutes.). Protects
habitat for endangered species.
Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (WWI) (S. 23.32, Statutes.).
Classifies and maps wetlands 2 acres and larger throughout the
state. WWI maps are the basis for many federal, state and local
wetland regulatory programs.
B. Local Zoning

Shoreland and Wetland Zoninc:  Counties (S.59.971, Statutes. & NR
115;. Regulates general development & activities in wetlands in
corridors adjacent to navigable waters ("shorelands"). May
comment on state and federal permit applications.

Shoreland and Wetland Zoninc:  Villacres & Cities (Ss.61.351 &
62.231, Statutes. & NR 117). Regulates activities in wetlands
adjacent to navigable waters ("shorelands"). May comment on state
and federal permit applications.

FloodDlain Zoninc:  Counties, Cities and Villaces (S. 87.30,
Statutes., & NR 116). Regulates development in areas subject to
flooding (often including wetlands) to prevent loss of life and
property damage.
Sewer Service Area Plannincr (S. 144.025(l})-(2). 147.25, Statutes.
& NR 121). As part of the development of statewide water quality
management plans, DNR contracts with local planning agencies to
develop sewer service area plans to protect water quality,
encourage cost-effective methods for sewer extensions, and
protect environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands.
Local governments have the option to adopt the sewer service
plans as part of their zoning ordinances.

Comprehensive and Other Zonina (Ss. 59.97, 61.35 & 62.23 and
Chapter. 91, Statutes.). Regulates a wide range of land uses to
protect public health, safety & welfare, and offer wetland
protection.

C. Federal
Clean Water Act (S.404). COE and EPA Regulates discharges to
"waters of the U.S." including filling of wetlands. Pre-approved
"general" or "nationwide" permits may be available for specific
minor activities. Compensatory mitigation is only accepted for
unavoidable losses under federal program.
5

Rivers & IHarbors Act (S. 10). COE Regulates most activities in
major "navigable waters of the U.S." including the Great Lakes
and most major river systems.


II. ACQUISITION AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

Aayriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS).
Administers 1985 and 1990 federal Farm Bills, which make
agricultural producers who alter wetlands ineligible for federal
farm program benefits.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS). SCS field offices in most
counties conduct wetland inventories and make wetland
determination for the Swampbuster provisions of federal Farm
Bills. SCS wetland maps identify wetlands in agricultural
regions based on presence of hydric soils and eligibility for
federal farm program benefits.

Stewardshiv Proa-rain. Provides $25 million annually for 10 years
to DNR for conservation land acquisition, property development,
and local conservation aids. Some projects include wetlands.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Main federal agency
involved in wetland acquisition. Nine FWS field offices in
Wisconsin assist with wetland restoration plans and management
questions. The FWS field office in Green Bay also reviews
federal 404 permit applications and related mitigation plans.

Pitm-an-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act. Provides federal
funds to states for the acquisition of lands to enhance wildlife
habitat.

DincTell-Johnson SiDort Fish Restoration Act. Provides federal
funds to states for the acquisition of lands to improve fisheries
management.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Lawcon,). Provides federal
funding for acquisition of outdoor recreational and open space
areas.

Private Accquisition Efforts. Several environmental organizations
have worked in coordination with state, federal and local
agencies to acquire wetlands for protection. Examples are Ducks
Unlimited, Natural Resources Foundation of Wisconsin, and The
Nature Conservancy.


III. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Wetland protection in Wisconsin has improved within the last
year, especially with the adoption of wetland water quality
standards, Administrative Rule NR 103. Unfortunately, even with
these standards, wetland losses in Wisconsin continue to increase
6

and regulatory effectiveness is difficult to achieve and
maintain.
Wetland protection in Wisconsin is at the state and local levels
and studies show that problems are experienced at both. Local
zoning administrators note problems of inadequate staff size and
a lack of resources to train staff in wetland recognition,
identifying wetland boundaries, and understanding what
regulations are applicable. Problems identified by state and
local staff include: confusion due to differing requirements in
federal, state and local regulations; hindered wetland protection
because of limited resources; and a lack of procedural guidance,
technical training, and public information.
Specifically, a study of compliance in the state demonstrated
that during 1988, over a seven county area, 56% of permitted
activities were carried out according to permit conditions.
Those conditions which were most commonly not met were erosion
control, followed by extra fill or extra construction.
The general public also experiences problems associated with
current levels and types of wetland protection. Applicants
requesting a permit to alter a wetland say that often they are
unaware of which conditions require a permit and which permits
are needed. For wetland advocates, problems were listed such as
increasing losses and decreasing quality of wetlands due to a
lack of understanding of regulations and a lack of an effective
enforcement presence.
The following section outlines the needs identified by a
workgroup of state and local officials and the input offered by
the public to improve the effectiveness of the existing programs.
It is organized according to the types of activities that could
be funded by the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program
established under section 309 of the 1990 reauthorization of the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZNA).

PROGRAM14ATIC OBJECTIVES
I. PROTECT AND PRESERVE EXISTING LEVELS OF WETLANDS ACREAGE AND
F-UNCTIONS FROM DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUIMUATIVE ADVERSE
IMPACTS, BY DEVELOPING OR IMPROVING REGULATORY PROGRAMS.

The WCMP needs to expand existing regulatory programs. Local
Shoreland-wetland Zoning Programs (NR 115 and 117) which
currently protect wetlands in corridors adjacent to navigable
waters, apply to only approximately 50% of Wisconsin's remaining
wetlands. Water quality standards also only apply in corridors
adjacent to navigable waters.
Need: Legislation to expand current shoreland wetland
regulatory jurisdiction to include all mapped wetlands.
This expansion would build on existing state/local
7

partnership, integrate wetland decisions with other local
land use controls, and elimainate complex jurisdictional
determinations,. Particular attention should be paid to
unique wetland types (for example, calcareous fens) which
should be protected regardless of size.
The WCMP needs to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement
programs at the state and local levels by: A) Supporting
efforts to characterize wetland problems; B) Improving voluntary
compliance; C) Supporting local regulatory efforts; and D)
supporting state regulatory efforts.

A. Support Ef forts to Characterize Wetland Problems

As mentioned in the introduction, the annual losses of wetland
acreage has increased dramatically during the 1989-90 time period
-- a 220 to 337% increase over the average losses from 1982-89.
In order to prevent further losses, it will be important to know
what areas are losing wetlands at the fastest rate and then
determine the major causes for the losses. Seven of the 15
coastal counties are subject to high development pressure, seven
are subject to a medium level of pressure. Only one has had
little pressure. An inventory of existing wetlands is critically
needed.
Detailed maps of the State's wetlands are also the regulatory map
base for locally administered shoreland wetland protection
programs and the State Water Regulation Permit Programns. In
order to more accurately characterize the status of coastal
wetlands and to improve state and local regulatory efforts,
Wisconsin must deal with the following issues.
Needs: * Update and digitize Wisconsin Wetland Inventory maps
for coastal counties on a ten-year cycle;
* Perform analysis of existing data to determine coastal
wetland losses and threats;
* Develop a data base to analyze losses associated with
federal, state, and local permits easily and routinely,
including interima or temporary conversions, e.g. some
roads and plowed lands;
* Publicize Wetland Inventory map availability; and,
* Analyze the demographic trends in coastal communities
to better understand the development pressures in those
areas in relation to their impact on coastal wetlands.
B. Improve Voluntary Compliance
Most permit applicants know little about the requirements of
Wisconsin's wetland protection programs. Those who know about
the requirements often find them, particularly the state
requirements, confusing. A recent DNR survey of permit
applicants revealed that people had various misconceptions about
which agency they needed to see for a permit. Everyone knew they
needed a DNR permit, half knew they needed a local permit and few
8

knew they needed a Corps permit. in addition, many applicants do
not know who to contact for the permits or how to design their
projects. Some written materials are available, but they are
either not updated often enough or are not delivered effectively.
Need:  A comprehensive outreach program is needed to inform the
public of the need to protect wetlands, especially in the
coastal zone. This can be accomplished through
developing or updating a series of brochures focusing on
common types of development activities around the
shoreland and explaining what agencies need to be
contacted for each type of activity, what permits are
needed, the steps in the process and where to go for
help. A series of information videos and slide shows on
wetland and shoreland zoning regulations should also be
developed for use at lake association meetings, real
estate conventions, banking association meetings, etc.
Finally, an effective distribution strategy for outreach
materials must be developed.

C. Support Local Regulatory Efforts
A recent DNR study found that local zoning programs need
additional resources to get current work done. Local zoning
staff also have problems recognizing wetlands, identifying
wetland boundaries and understanding what is and is not allowed.
DNR is responsible for providing technical assistance to local
zoning programs, but has insufficient staff to perform this
responsibility. Written guidance materials for local zoning
officials are often incomplete or out-of-date. Finally, where
strong wetland protection is supported, the counties are not
always supported by the Department of Natural Resources and the
Corps of Engineers through consistent decisions by all the
agencies. Thus, an applicant for a permit may get conflicting
signals depending an the agency that they contact first.
Needs:  *Develop a program to require minimum professional
standards for local zoning staff and
training/orientation for local decision making boards;
*Provide mapping and study grants to local units of
government administering state wetland regulations.
These grants would be used to enlarge the Wetland
Inventory Maps so that they contain enough detail to
implement zoning requirements;
*Provide grants to local governments for day-to-day
assistance in administering existing state mandated
zoning;
*Provide up-to-date, written reference materials to
provide guidance on the shoreland wetland regulations
to local zoning officials and potential permit
applicants; and,
*Develop a certification program for wetlands
contractors.
9

* Authority requiring a uniform disclosure to accompany
all land use and building permits advising applicants
of environmental and other statewide regulatory
requirements and appropriate contacts.
* A way to insure consistent decisions between all
agencies.

D. Support State Regulatory Efforts

A recent DNR study field checked federal, state and local permits
issued during 1988 in seven counties to determine whether they
were carried out according to specified conditions. Overall, 56%
of permitted activities were carried out according to permit
conditions. Counties led in compliance (75%), followed by the
Corps (57%) and then DNR (45%). Improved monitoring and
enforcement should lead to fewer permit violations. Also,
substantial disincentives are necessary for a credible
enforcement program.

DNR's Bureau of Water Regulation and Zoning has undertaken an
intensive workload analysis. Currently, DNR processes over 4,000
water regulation permits each year not including the local
decisions reviewed. This represents a 10% increase per year over
the last 3 years, yet there have been no staff increases in that
time period.
Needs:  *Authority and funding to enable DNR wardens to assist
local government in enforcement of local wetland
regulations using civil citation procedures. A
mechanism for consultation with local zoning staff
would be necessary to assure technical adequacy of
complaints;
*Authority requiring that full wetland restoration be a
mandatory consequence of violation of wetland
protection laws. Failure to obtain permits where the
project could otherwise be authorized should require a
monetary forfeiture;
*Authority providing for a penalty assessment to be
levied as a percentage of civil forfeitures for
violation of wetland regulations;
*Encourage the development of a streamlined approach to
make mnonitoring efforts more efficient; and,
*Authority requiring the adoption of a statewide
schedule of minimum forfeitures.
*Authority to allow DNR appeal of local wetland re-
zoning decisions to an administrative hearing examiner
with subsequent judicial review of the administrative
record The same procedure should be used for initial
ordinance adoption for noncomplying municipalities.
*Authority to automatically order restoration of an
illegally altered wetland in the case of overturning of
a local decision (DNR should not have to commence a
separate action to compel local enforcement).
a
10

* Authority to make local wetland decisions automatically
void if timely notice of petitions, hearings and
decisions are not provided to DNR.
* Provide adequate fiscal and personnel resources to
ensure quick and thorough permit and local decision
review and follow up monitoring and day-to-day
technical assistance for wetland regulatory and
management programs.

II. INCREASE LEVELS OF WETLAND FUNCTIONS WITHIN EXISTING
DEGRADED WETLANDS BY DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
COMPREHENSIVE WETLANDS RESTORATION PROGRAMS.
The coastal program currently does not have a strategy for
restoring coastal wetlands. Yet, the Department of Natural
Resources has management plans which include restoring or
improving coastal wetlands.
Needs:  *Develop a comprehensive restoration plan for restoring
coastal wetlands. This would include putting together
a workgroup of DNR staff and local government staff to
develop a priority plan for restoring coastal wetlands.
Part of the work of this group would be to explore the
need to expand the Wisconsin COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
boundaries to include significant hydrologically
connected wetlands, if necessary to improve the quality
of the Great Lakes.
*Use the priority plan to: 1) Work with existing
wetland acquisition and management programs to have
them afford a high priority to restoration of the
priority wetlands; and 2) Use public information
projects, and public and professional training projects
to encourage wildlife-wetland restoration to focus on
priority wetland identified in the plan.



III. INCREASE WETLAND ACREAGE AND FUNCTIONS THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF WETLANDS CREATION PROGRAMS.
Land acquisition usually ensures permanent protection of a
wetland. Wetland acquisition should be based on careful wetland
inventories that identify areas meriting priority attention. In
general, they are: 1) Wetlands where all private actions must
be prohibited because of the unique features of the land, such as
habitat for rare and endangered species; 2) Wetlands performing
important natural functions that are subject to development
threats; and 3) Wetlands needed for active public use (e.g.,
recreation or scientific study).

Need: Develop a comprehensive and prioritized wetland
acquisition program that addresses all wetland uses and
functions. The plan should include federal, state,
11

local, and private sources of funding and incorporate
existing plans (for example, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan).

IV. UTILIZE INNOVATIVE TECHNIQ-UES TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION
AND ACQUISITION OF COASTAL WETLANDS.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council is in a unique position
to influence the legislative process in Wisconsin because several
of its members are also members of the state legislature.
Through their efforts, the Council hopes to increase wetland
protection in Wisconsin via the legislative process.
Need: The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council should become
actively involved in supporting legislative measures
which will increase wetland protection. Specifically,
tax laws should be adjusted to provide an incentive to
the landowner to protect wetland property. Wetland
owners paying the same property taxes as owners of
developable land think their property rights are being
violated when not permitted to use the land as they wish.
Unrealistic expectations of a property's development
potential often lead to this situation.
State and local decision makers need to consider the cumulative
impacts of various decisions that directly and indirectly affect
wetlands. Viewed independently, a particular wetland use may not
appear to have serious consequences, but when repeated many times
in an area it can have negative consequences. The cumulative
impacts of projects are often not addressed because it is
difficult to establish the criteria to be considered. Likewise,
the secondary, or indirect effects must be considered before
permitting actions in wetlands.
Needs: * Summarize existing research assessing cumulative and
secondary impacts on wetlands. Determine how to apply
cumulative and secondary impacts analysis to DNR
permitting actions.
* In collaboration with federal, state, and local
governments, and with public input, develop Special
Area Management Plans to provide predictability in
permitting and land use decisions.
Wetlands will never be adequately protected until the public
understands their importance to the environmental and economic
health of Wisconsin. Curriculums on the functions and values of
wetlands should be available for primary and secondary schools.
Courses on wetlands ecology should be available at public
universities. It is particularly important that attorneys,
judges and the land development sector understand the wetland
regulatory programs and the importance of wetlands.
1
2

Need:   Support public information efforts to acquaint citizens
with the important values that wetlands provide. Continue
to encourage environmental ethics and ecological
sciences training as part of primary, secondary,
university and adult education in schools and other
educational institutions. Educational programs should be
developed for attorneys, judges, and the land development
sector.

STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL WETLAND PROGRAM
I. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE
The Wisconsin Great Lakes Needs Assessment identifies problems
such as wetland losses due to inadequate regulatory authority and
lack of resources to implement existing regulations, incomplete
data on wetland losses, confusion for applicants and local
officials regarding when and what regulations are applicable, and
other implementation problems on the state and local levels.
Attendants of the public meetings generally concurred with these
results. The overall consensus at the meetings was that
Wisconsin needs to increase coastal wetland protection.
Based on the needs assessment, the core program funds will be
directed towards: supporting local program implementation;
supporting educational programs for the public; improving state
and local compliance monitoring and enforcement programs;
supporting efforts to characterize wetland problems; and
establishing a comprehensive wetland preservation program.

II. THE CORE PROGRAM PROPOSED'OBJECTIVES
SECTION 306 FUNDING
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program currently supports
compliance monitoring and enforcement programs for wetlands
protection which are located at the state and local levels. WCMP
priorities include implementation of wetland protection at the
local level; local programs which educate citizens and local
officials about wetlands in their area; and wetland protection
through various incentive programs. The WOMP also supports
completion of the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory for the coastal
counties. As a general goal, the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Council supports that at least 30% of 306 funds available for
grants should be spent on the wetlands projects.
13

1) SUPPORT LOCAL PROGRAM IPLEMIENTATION.
Multi-Year Strategy

Goal: Support local implementation by providing reference
materials and guidance for local officials and potential
permit applicants.

FFY 94
Update the Floodplain Zoning Handbook.
FFY 95 - 97
The WCMP will continue to monitor existing regulatory programs at
the state and local levels and fund at least one update or
handbook development project each fiscal year.

Impact of change: The state and local officials implementing
wetland regulatory programs are understaffed. The WCMP can help
assist their program implementation by funding guidance documents
that will help them train their staff and reduce the amount of
time they must spend explaining regulations to applicants. This
assistance can help them stretch their scarce resources further.

Goal: Provide mapping and study grants to local units of
governmaent

FFY 94 - 97
Every fiscal year, the WCMP will provide funding for local units
of government to update their wetland maps or study an issue of
concern to local governments

Impact of change: These grants will .assist local governments in
characterizing the wetlands in their area and thus enhance their
ability to implement local zoning programs.

Goal:   Provide grants to improve local program implementation.

FFY 94 - 97
The WCMP will solicit proposals each fiscal year from local
governments in the coastal counties. The proposal should address
the following implementation areas:
* Adoption of local shoreland wetland ordinances.
ï¿½ Tracking of compliance to permit conditions.

impact of change: Again, this funding opportunity will assist
local governments to implement their local zoning programs by
providing a supplement to their operating budgets to address very
specific issues.
14

2) SUPPORT FOR LOCAL PROGRAMS WHICH EDUCATE CITIZENS
Multi-Year Strategy
FFY 93 - 97
The WCMP will support public information and educational programs
that teach wetland values. The WCMP will solicit projects which
educate citizens each fiscal year and fund at least one project
per year.


3) IXMPROVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMIPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS
Multi-Year Strategy
Goal:   Develop a comprehensive outreach program
FFY 93
Develop/update a brochure for applicants which explains what
agencies to contact, steps in the permit process, and where to go
for help. Develop a distribution strategy for outreach
materials.
FFY 94
Develop/Collect a series of information videos that explain the
need or process for wetland permits. Make the videos available
to local officials and the public.
FFY 95
Develop a slide show for local officials to use at lake
association meetings, etc.
FFY 96
Assess the remaining needs.
Impact of change: The WCMP believes that an understanding of
wetlands by users will help in making informed choices about
alternative uses of wetlands and other'resources. An
understanding of Wetlands by citizens will encourage their
support for increased wetland protection and management.
Goal:  Assure adequate staffing in the DNR for compliance
monitoring in the coastal counties.
FFY 93 - 97
In FFY 91, the WCMP began funding project positions in the DNR to
improve state monitoring of the shorelands-wetland Program at the
State and local levels. In FFY 92, the WCMP continued the funding
for three project positions. In FFY 93 the WCMP will be
increasing its support by funding four project positions in the
DNR to increase service to local governments administering
wetland zoning programs and to increase the level of compliance
monitoring for local and state wetland permit programs.
15

In its state FY 94 budget request, the DNR has requested an
increase in their water regulation and zoning permanent staff to
cover existing staff shortfalls. The Wisconsin Coastal
Management Council will support this request and closely monitor
the outcome in order to evaluate the need to continue WCMP
funding for project positions in future years. The WCMP will
acknowledge the critical importance of effective implementation
of the local shoreland and wetland zoning programs when
performing its evaluation. The WCMP will complemient funding for
monitoring and enforcement depending the level of staffing
required to maintain an effective shoreland wetland program.
Goal: Develop a voluntary certification program for local
officials
FFY 93
Study existing wetland certification programs; study work tasks
of potential participants; determine their needs; develop
standards which must be met by participants prior to
certification; and begin to formulate the program.

FFY 94
Work with the Wisconsin County Code Administrators to pilot the
training portion of the program in a coastal county. Develop a
way to evaluate the success of the program.
FFY 95
Implement the program in all coastal counties. Evaluate the
success of the program using the criteria developed.
FFY 96
Revise the program based on the evaluation findings.
FFY 97
Expand the delivery of the certification program to all of
Wisconsin.
Impact of change: A certification program for local officials
will help them implement their programs more effectively by
providing access to educational programs and providing a
consistent delivery of information to all Wisconsin Counties.


4) SUPPORT EFFORTS TO CHARACTERIZE WETLAND PROBLEMS
Multi-Year Strategy
Goal: Continue program support to the Department of Natural
Resources until the Wisconsin Wetland Inventory is
updated for all coastal counties.
FFY 93
Using reprogrammed money from FFY 92, Department of Natural
Resource staff would complete updating and digitizing Douglas and
16

Bayfield county maps. Gathering data necessary for the updating
process; digitize and process; and make digital maps available
for public use.
FFY 94
Department of Natural Resource staff would update and digitize
Ashland and Iron county maps. Gathering data necessary for the
updating process; digitize and process; and make digitized maps
available for public use.
FFY 95
The Department of Natural Resources would have aerial photos
taken and wetland mapping done for Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Racine and
Kenosha counties. Through a bidding process, the DNR would
contract to have: 1) aerial photos flown for the four counties;
2) the wetlands in each county mapped; and 3) the mapped wetland
data transformed into a form which could be processed into the
DNR's Wisconsin Wetland Inventory.
FFY 96
Department of Natural Resource staff would update Ozaukee,
Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha counties. Gather data necessary
for the updating process; digitize and process; and make
digitized maps available for public use.
FFY 97
Department of Natural Resource staff will finalize the updating
of all coastal counties and compile wetland loss analysis reports
and make digital maps available for public use.
Impact of Change: Once the maps are complete, losses and threats
to coastal wetlands will be documented in a comprehensive and
accessible data base. The Wetland Inventory maps will also be
made available to local regulatory agencies to aid in the
revision and adoption of ordinances in villages, cities and
counties.
Goal: Analyze Demographic Trends
FFY 93-97
The WCMP will analyze the demographic trends in coastal
communities to better understand the types of development
pressures in those areas and their impact on wetlands. This
analysis will allow the WCMP to focus the project proposals to
address very specific problems.
17

5) ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE WETZ?AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM
Multi-Year Strategy

Goal:   Develop a comprehensive wetland preservation prog-ram
similar to the Farmland Preservation Programn. NOTE:
Dates are subject to chanare based on the lecrislative
process.

FFY 94
Monitor the development of legislation. Choose or establish a
work group of WCMP staff, local officials/staff, and DNR staff;
monitor the development of legislation which allows for special
assessments of wetlands and donation of wetlands to the state.

FFY 95
Begin process of passing the legislation. Finalize legislative
recommendations; create a support network; introduce the
legislation; and create a final legislative package.

FFY 96
The legislation would be adopted. Begin implementation process.

Impact of change: A wetland preservation program is a means of
encouraging landowners to preserve, rather than alter, wetlands.
If the incentives for wetland preservation are great enough, it
is conceivable that thousands of acres of wetlands would be
preserved a year. The WCMP decided against developing an
acquisition program because there was not enough funding
available in the program to effectively purchase wetlands, and
there were legal roadblocks to the solicitation of outside funds.
I1
a

III. ENHANCE24ENTS TO THE CORE PROGRAM
SECTION 309 FUNDING
The needs assessment shows that Wisconsin can improve existing
wetland programs in many areas. The Wisconsin Coastal Management
Council considers coastal wetlands as a priority for the program
to address. The following projects represent enhancements to the
core wetlands program that are eligible for 309 Funds.

1) ENHANCE EXISTING REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Multi-Year Strategy
GOAL: LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
Problem Su-mmary: Pre-settlement wetland acreage estimates for
Wisconsin, based on the original government land surveys of the
early 1800's and modern soil surveys, show that approximately 10
million acres of wetlands were present prior to settlement.
Based on aerial photography done for the Wisconsin Wetland
Inventory (WWI) from 1978-79, experts estimate that approximately
5.3 million acres of wetlands remain in the state -- representing
a loss of about 47% of original wetland acreage.
While Wisconsin has major state regulatory programs which are
intended to prevent harm to wetlands, wetland losses continue.
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council has expressed a desire
to become more actively involved in supporting legislative
measures which will provide incentives to protect wetlands.
Specifically, the Council has recognized a need to have the tax
laws adjusted to provide an incentive to the landowner to protect
wetland property. Wetland owners paying the same property taxes
as owners of developable land think their property rights are
being violated when they are not permitted to use the land as
they wish.

Program Change: This program change will result in new statutes
and regulations that will improve the state's ability to achieve
the coastal zone enhancement objectives to protect and preserve
existing levels of wetlands acreage and functions from direct,
indirect and cumulative adverse impacts, by developing or
improving regulatory programs, as well as increasing wetland
acreage and functions through the development and improvement of
wetlands creation programs.
Impact of Change: This program change will result in increased
wetland protection by providing incentives to private owners of
wetlands to keep the wetlands in their natural state. The
current regulatory framework requires permits for activities in
waterways (Chapters 30 & 31) and local ordinances which prevent
and control water pollution, protect spawni.ng grounds, fish and
aquatic life and control placement of structure and land uses and
reserve shore cover and natural beauty. This regulatory approach
1
9

is necessary, however, an incentives approach is also very
effective in protecting and preserving wetlands.

Tasks:
FFY 94-95: Form a workgroup of state and local units of
government and other interested parties to monitor and/or develop
comprehensive wetland legislation. Research the following
legislative initiatives:

- Tax Credit for owners of mapped wetlands
- Other Tax Incentives to preserve wetlands
- Uniform Disclosure during real estate transactions
- Wetland Acquisition Program

Develop a legislative proposal based on the research.

Budgets: FFY 94: .3 FTE = $15,000
FFY 95: .3 FTE = $15,000

Likelihood of Success: The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council
has voiced a strong desire to support legislation to protect
wetlands. Wetland legislation was introduced in the last
legislative session which did not pass. However, there is
continuing interest to pass such legislation by such groups as
the Wetlands Legislative Working Group (sponsored by the Sierra
Club) and the Joint Venture Steering Committee (approved under
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan). The WCMP staff
will work with these existing groups to help promote wetlands
initiatives that are approved by the Council. These efforts, in
conjunction with the proposed project, have a good chance of
producing wetland legislation.

GOAL:   DEVELOP A CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR WETLAND CONSULTANTS
Problem Summary: Wisconsin has a framework of laws and programs
to prevent continued loss and to restore wetlands. Yet wetland
losses continue both because some activities and wetlands are not
covered by existing laws and because of insufficient resources at
the state and local levels to carry out the laws and programs as
designed, much less to improve their implementation.

For example, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
recently performed an intensive workload analysis. Currently,
DNR processes over 4,000 water regulation permits each year, not
including all the local decisions reviewed. This represents a
10% increase per year over the last three years, yet there have
been no staff increases in that time period.

Given these staff shortfalls identified in the needs assessment,
the WCMP has developed a proposal to help stretch current state
and local staff resources. To develop this proposal, WCMP staff
held informal discussions with the DNR field staff to and found
that that much of their time is spent in pre-application
20

conferences in which they assist project applicants to design
their projects according to regulatory requirements. This pre-
application phase can last from one month to a year depending on
the complexity of the project. In a complex permit situation,
such as a project requiring sewer lines for a housing developmnent
or a golf course, the field staff work with the applicant, visit
the site, review proposals, etc. before the application is
submitted. Approximately 50% of one field person's time is spent
on complex applications each year. A certification program would
require that the professional staff who develop the application
for a complex project would have sufficient background to limit
their need for pre-application assistance.

Program Change: This program change will result in mandatory
certification program for professionals who design projects which
will directly or indirectly impact wetlands. Educational
products and testing standards specifically designed to promote
compliance with various permit conditions will be developed. The
specific provisions of the certification program will be
developed in cooperation with other state agencies, local units
of government and other interested parties. The program change
will be either new or revised enforceable authorities or new
guidelines which are formally adopted by the state. Potentially,
the state would have to adopt a new rule which would authorize
the program and specify the agency which would be responsible for
maintaining the program.
Impact of Change: The program change will improve the protection
of Wisconsin's wetlands by enhancing the technical background of
professionals who both design and implement projects which will
directly or indirectly impact wetlands. This will increase
voluntary compliance with wetland regulations because permit
applicants will have a better understanding of the regulations.
The change will potentially allow the state to spend less staff
time in both pre-application meetings and project oversight since
the professionals who work in this area will be better equipped.
This will free state and local staff time for compliance
monitoring/enforcement and other activities.

Tasks:
FFY 94: A consultant will be hired to perform the following
tasks:
* Form a workgroup of state agency and local units of government
staff, and industry representatives and use their guidance to
formulate the specific provisions of the program;
* Study existing wetland certification programs and study work
tasks of potential participants to determine their needs;
* Develop educational materials to assist permit applicants,
materials such as a handbooks, etc.;
* Develop standards which must be met by participants prior to
certification; and
* Develop the mechanism needed to achieve certification (ex.
test, classroom requirements).
21

FFY 95: The consultant will develop a demonstration certification
program in a coastal county to test the educational materials and
the standards. The results will be used to develop specific
authorities or guidelines that will be required to implement the
program.
FFY 96: The consultant will develop the new state authorities or
guidelines as needed to implement the program.

Budgets:  FFY 94:	$47,000 for consultant cost
FFY 95:	$40,000 for consultant cost
FFY 96:	$40,000 for consultant cost

NOTE: The WCMP will issue a request for proposals to develop
the specific budget for these tasks. The request will go out
to local units of government, state agencies, colleges,
universities, regional planning commissions, and private
organizations. An independent technical advisory committee
will assist the WCXP in evaluating project proposals.
Detailed budgets will be submitted to OCRJM after the
consultant is selected.

Likelihood of Success: A certification program that has an
educational component and is developed in cooperation with the
professionals who will be licensed has a good chance of winning
support in the state legislature. Also, since other States have
already developed certification programs similar to the one
proposed here, Wisconsin will be able to learn from their
experience. Finally, the Coastal Council has voted to support
the development of a certification program.


PROJECT OF SPECIAL MERIT FUNDING

1) DEVELOP A PRIORITY WETLAND RESTORATION PROGRAM FOR THE COAST

Multi-Year Strategy

GOAL: DEVELOP A PRIORTTY WETLAND RESTORATTON PLAN

Problem Sumnary: Pre-settlement wetland acreage estimates for
Wisconsin show that approximately 10 million acres of wetlands
were present. Based on aerial photography done for the Wisconsin
WKetland Inventory (WWI) from 1978-79, experts estimate that
approximately 5.3 million acres of wetlands remain in the state-
- representing a loss of about 47% of original wetland acreage.
Losses are continuing, especially in the southeast region, due to
development pressures. The Coastal Council has voted to address
this situation by developing a comprehensive wetland restoration
program.

Major acquisition and restoration programs which operate in the
state include the Stewardship Program at the state level which
provides $25 million annually for ten years to the DNR for
22

conservation land acquisition, property development and local'
conservation aids. Federal programs include the Department of
Interior, Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service wetland restoration and management plans.
Finally, several environmental organizations have worked in
coordination with state, federal and local agencies to acquire
wetlands for restoration and protection.

The Coastal Program currently cannot participate in these
programs since the WCMP does not have background or a plan that
shows the existing wetland resources on the coast in terms of
their priority or need for restoration. Therefore, federal,
state, and private resources are not dedicated in any coherent
way to restoring coastal wetlands. This lack of a management
plan has made it difficult for the state to apply for federal
grants which are directed to restoring coastal wetlands or to
work with private groups to direct their efforts towards the
coast.
Prog-rama Change: This program change will result in new a
Wisconsin coastal wetland restoration programn that will improve
the state's ability to increase levels of wetland functions
within existing degraded wetlands. Specifically, new
guidelines/policy documents or memorandums of understanding
(MOUs) will be formally adopted by the state which will outline
priority restoration areas for Wisconsin's coast. The state will
use the guidelines to focus the efforts of existing wetland
restoration and mitigation programs towards the priority areas
identified on the coast.
Impact of Change: This change will provide the background to
allow Wisconsin to compete on a national level for grants to
restore wetlands. The benefits of restoring degraded coastal
wetlands include improving the water quality of the Great Lakes,
providing habitat for wildlife, and mitigating the effects of
high lake levels. The results of this project will also provide
the technical background necessary to pursue efforts to balance
development pressures with environmental protection, such. as with
Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs). This project is the first
step in expanding the scope of the current Wisconsin Wetland
Program from assisting regulatory programs and developing
educational programs to enhancing existing wetland resources.
Tasks:
FFY 94: A consultant will be hired to perform the following
tasks:
* perform field assessments and other studies to supply a
necessary to identify coastal wetlands that require
restoration;
* produce a report which identifies specific wetlands in the
coastal area which require restoration;
* develop priorities for the restoration work --organized by
coastal counties;
23

*develop specific guidelines or MOUs to implement the
provisions of the report.
Budget:   FFY 94:   $50,000 for consultant cost

NOTE: The WCMP will issue a request for proposals to develop
the specific budget for these tasks. The request will go out
to local units of government, state agencies, colleges,
universities, regional planning commissions, and private
organizations. An independent technical advisory committee
will assist the WCMP in evaluating project proposals.
Detailed budgets will be submitted to OCRM after the
consultant is selected.
Likelihood of Success: Wetland restoration on the coast will
improve the ecological diversity and water quality of the Great
Lakes. Since the priority program will be developed in close
cooperation with other local and state agencies, they will have a
better understanding of the natural resources which require
restoration. As a result of this project, when private and
federal grants become available, they will have a priority
management plan and the reference documents needed to develop
competitive applications. The specific guidelines or MOUs that
result from the project will also ensure that the program is
adopted in the state.

2) UTITLIZE INNOVATIVE TECHNVIQUES TO PROVIDE FOR PROTECTION AND
ACQUITSITION OF WETLANDS
Multi-Year Strategy
GOAL: ANALYZE CUMULATIV'E AND SECONDARY IMPACTS ON WETLANDS
Problem Summary: An estimated 50% of the wetlands that
originally covered Wisconsin have been lost. Losses may be up to
90% in southeastern Wisconsin. While, Wisconsin has a framework
of laws and programs to prevent continued loss, many of them,
such as the Shoreland Wetland Zoning Program and the Chapter 30
and 31 statutes, consider each permit on a case-by-case basis.

The problem with this approach is that State and local decision
makers need to consider the cumulative impacts of various
decisions that directly and indirectly impact wetlands. Viewed
independently, a particular wetland use may not appear to have
serious consequences, but when repeated many times in an area it
can have negative consequences. The cumulative impacts of
projects are often not addressed because it is difficult to
establish the criteria to be considered, and there is no
"substantive reach" built into the rules to allow cumulative
impacts to be considered.
Program Change: The program change will result in either new
enforceable authorities or state guidance that will enhance the
24

state's ability to protect and preserve existing levels of
wetlands acreage and functions from cumulative adverse impacts by
improving regulatory programs.

impact of Change: This change will enhance wetland protection by
allowing an analysis of each individual project to be based on
other current or potential impacts on the resource.

Tasks:
FFY 94: A consultant will be hired to perform the following
tasks:
ï¿½ analyze cumulative impacts trends in the state;
* summarize existing research on cumulative impacts on wetlands;
* develop guidance for standardizing the use of cumulative
impacts analysis on permitting decisions.

Budgret:   FFY 94:   $50,000

NOTE: The WCMP will issue a request for proposals to develop
the specific budget for these tasks. The request will go out
to local units of government, state agencies, colleges,
universities, regional planning commissions, and private
organizations. An independent technical advisory committee
will assist the WCMP in evaluating project proposals.
Detailed budgets will be submitted to OCRX after the
consultant is selected.
Likelihood of Success: The cumulative impacts of many individual
projects are difficult to address when individual permitting
decisions are being made. The summary analysis of cumulative and
secondary impacts on wetlands and developing a method for
consistently applying them to permit actions would increase the
effectiveness of wetland protection in all of Wisconsin,
including the coastal counties. The Department of Natural
Resources is already aware of the problem of cumulative impacts
on wetlands and are developing proposals to begin to address the
issue. The project would greatly assist their efforts to address
the difficult and complex problem of cumulative impacts of case
by case decision making.


SOURCES
Wetland Losses in Wisconsin, DNR Fact sheet. October, 1990.
Simon, Byron Dale, Jr. and Stoerzer, Lois. Section 404 Trackina
Proaram for Corps Individual Permit Decisions in Wisconsin, 1982
to Auaust, 1989. Madison: DNR, September, 1989.
Wyatt, Barbara. Wisconsin Wetland Prioritv Plan, Revised Draft.
Edited by Bonnie Gruber. Madison, DNR, May 23, 1991.
25

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water
Regulation and Zoning. An Assessment of Wisconsin's Wetland
Protection Proarams: Should the State Assume the Federal Wetland
Fill Permit Proaram? Madison: DNR, January, 1991.
Buildina Near Wetlands, the Drv Facts, DNR Fact sheet. Madison:
DNR, August, 1991.

Draft WZ Workload Analvsis. Madison: DNR, February, 1991.

Wisconsin Legislative Council Subcommittee on Wetlands Issues.
Draft Legislation WLCS: 389/1 and 449/1. Madison: March, 1991.
2
6

I FY 94 Goal:  218,442        300o4
Strategy for Wetlands Progrdm
Funding to	Funding to
Locals     %	the State    %

0
0
0

12,975

0                  0

211,000

0

51,000

0

0




Funding to	Funding to
Locals     %	the State    %

30,000

127,000

50,000                  0


50,000
306 Goals
FFY 93   FFY 94   FFY 95   FFY 96   FFY 97   FFY 98
Guidance Document
Mapping/study grant
Implementation grant

Education project

Outreach product

DNR staff positions

Cert program for locals

Wetland Inventory           I

Analyze demographics

Wetland preservation program
12,975

0

211,000

0

51,000
FFY92 funds
0
-NJ
Diff from G
309 Goals
FFY 93   FFY 94   FFY 95   FFY 96   FFY 97   FFY 98

Legislative initiatives

Certification program

Restoration program
(project of special merit)

Analyze cum/sec impacts
(project of special merit)

0	15,000	15,000

0	47,000	40,000    40,000

0	50,000          0
0    50,000
0
Grand Totals
274,975   162,000    55,000    40,000
0
0
All 306 project funding is determined by the Coastal Council, using Strategy Goals.

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Wetlands
SECTION 306 FUNDING

OBJECTIVE: Protect and preserve existing levels of wetlands
acreage and functions from direct, indirect and	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98
cumulative adverse impacts, by developing or	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)
improving regulatory programs.
MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY                                1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Support local program implementation
Goal:  Developl update one guidance document per year             .!.,:....
Goal: Provide one mappinglstudy grant to locals per year                                   .	........
Goal: Provide one local implementation grant per year
Support local programs which educate citizens
Goal: Fund one project per year - chosen by the Council      .              ''..........  :

Improve enforcement and compliance monitoring
programs
Goal: Develop a comprehensive outreach program
- Develop/update a brochure for applicants. Develop
a distribution strategy for outreach materials.
- Develop an information video on permit process               ''i'.
-Develop a slide show for local officials

Goal: Fund staffpositions in the DNRfor compliance
monitoring as needed

Goal: Develop a voluntary certification program for
local officials
- Study existing certification programs
- Pilot test the program in a coastal county                   ....'.
- Implement the program in all coastal counties
-Revise the program as needed
- Expand delivery to all Wisconsin Counties

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Wetlands
SECTION 306 FUNDING

OBJECTIVE: Protect and preserve existing levels of wetlands
acreage and functions from direct, indirect and	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98
cumulative adverse impacts, by developing or	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)
improving regulatory programs.
MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY                                 1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4

Support efforts to characterize wetland problems
Goal Support the Wetland Inventory Project
Digitize Douglas and Bayfield county maps                       __________.
Digitize Ashland and Iron county maps
Aerial photos and mapping done for Ozaukee,                                   ____.__.___
Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha counties
Digitize Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha counties I
Finalize the updating of all coastal counties and
compile wetland loss analysis reports; make maps
available for public use.

Goal: Analyze demographic trends                 '          :                                    :

OBJECTIVE: Increase wetland acreage and functions through
development and improvement of wetlands	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98
creation programs.	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)

MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY	1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4	1	2  3  4
Goal: Establish a comprehensive wetland preservation
program
- Support the development of legislation
- Begin process of passing legislation
- Legislation adopted. Begin implementation.                                                  :.'

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
ENHANCEMENT AREA: Wetlands
SECTION 309 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Protect and preserve existing levels of wetlands
acreage and functions from direct, indirect and	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98
cumulative adverse impacts, by developing or	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)
improving regulatory programs.
MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY                                   1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Goal: Enhance existing regulatory programs.
Promote legislative initiatives:
- Tax credit for wetlands; other incentives for
landowners to keep wetlands in natural state
- Uniform disclosure during real estate transactions
- Wetland Acquisition Program

Tasks:
- Form workgroup to develop legislation proposal
- Support legislative proposal                                                   ___:__
Goal: Support state and local regulatory programs
by developing a mandatory certification program
- Develop the program features                 ...                           -
- Implement demonstration project
- Develop authorities to implement                                                              _______
the program
Co
0

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
ENHANCEMENT AREA: Wetlands
Project of Special Merit Funding

OBJECTIVE: Increase levels of wetland functions within
existing degraded wetlands by developing	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98
and implementing comprehensive wetlands	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)
restoration programs.
1 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Goal: Develop a Priority Wetland Restoration Program
- Produce a Priority Restoration Plan and
a mechanism to implement the plan





OBJECTIVE: Utilize innovative techniques to provide for the	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98
protection and acquisition of coastal wetlands.	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Goal: Analyze Cumulative and Secondary impacts on
wetlands
- Analyze Cumulative impacts trends;
summarize existing research; determine
how to apply cumulative impacts
analysis to pernut decisions

PUBLIC ACCESS


LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES

1. Attaining increased opportunities for public access, taking
into account current and future public access needs, to
coastal areas of recreational, historical, aesthetic,
ecological, or cultural value (Coastal Zone Management Act, S.
309 (a) (3)];

2. Public Access of at least 60 feet width shall be provided at
not less than one-half mile intervals by all subdivisions
abutting navigable lakes or streams. Once provided, public
access to navigable waters shall not be discontinued without
state approval (Wis. Stats. Sections 80.41 and 236.16 (3)3;

3. Providing public access to the waters by the Department of
Natural Resources is a variable requirement based on the
quality of the resource, the space available and levels of use
experienced (Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.90, 1.91 and 1.92];

4. Local communities shall be encouraged to provide local
recreational and educational opportunities (Wis. Stats.
Section 23.301;

5. The State shall establish a state park system and shall give
principal emphasis to the acquisition of recreational lands in
heavily populated areas of the state and in places readily
accessible to such areas (Wis. Stats. Sections 23.09, 23.091,
27.01 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.041.


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

In 1986, the SCORP Recreational Access Study (book VI),
identified four major problems facing recreational water access
in the Great Lakes region, including:
ï¿½ Increasing water pollution
* Insufficient harbors of refuge
* Too many user conflicts (especially among boaters)
* Not enough money for water access

According to the 1991 SCORP plan, "nearly half the people who did
swimming or boating during 12 months in 1989-1990 said crowding
by others doing the same activity sometimes makes their
experience less enjoyable. In the Southeast District, which
includes Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee, Ozaukee and Sheboygan
counties, 52% complained of crowding. Poor quality of the water
was noted by nearly 25% of the boaters and swimmers, and about
25% complained about the quality of beaches, piers, boat
landings, etc"...
3
2

The draft plan places fishing-related needs highest on the list
of needs for Wisconsin's coastal counties. These needs include
fish habitat improvements, fishing piers, and public access to
uncrowded waters. More hiking and walking trails are also needed
in coastal counties, according to the draft plan.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
I. GRANT PROGRAMS
A. Prog-rams administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) rPublic Law 88-5 78
(1964)7. The objective of the program is to encourage creation
and interpretation of high quality, outdoor recreational
opportunities. Approximately $300,000 yearly are spent on the
acquisition of land for public outdoor recreational areas and
preservation of water frontage and open space, and the
development of public outdoor park and recreational areas and
their support facilities. Funding available for inland and
coastal projects.
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (D-J) wallop Be-raux rAct of
Auqust 9 of 1950. P. 64- Stats.-430 as amended 7. Acquisition,
development, renovation and maintenance of motorboat access sites
are the objectives of this $600,000 grant. Most projects involve
the renovation of existing access sites or developing access on
lands already under state or local government ownership. Funding
available for inland and coastal projects.
Rec-reational Boatina Facilities Proctram TS. 30.92, Stats., and NR
77L. $3,800,000 of annual funds are provided to local units of
government for the construction of capital improvements to
provide safe recreational boating facilities on all waters of the
State including the Great Lakes. The program also provides
financial assistance for feasibility studies related to the
development of safe recreational boating facilities. (Facilities
such as ramps and service docks required to gain access to the
water, and structures such as bulkheads and breakwaters necessary
to provide safe water conditions for boaters.) Support facilities
are limited to parking lots, sanitary facilities and security
lighting. Dredging to provide safe water depths for recreational
boating. Funding available for inland and coastal projects.

Aids for the Accyuisition and Develovment of Local Parks rSection
23.09 (20) 7. The purpose is to assist local communities in
acquiring and developing public outdoor recreation areas.
Approximately $1,500,000 yearly are provided for the acquisition
and development of public outdoor recreation areas. Funding
available for inland and coastal projects.
3 3

B. Program Administered by the Wisconsin Departmaent of
Administration

Wisconsin Coastal Manaatement Proctram r Coastal Zone Manacaement Act
of 1972 as amended 7. Approximately $830,000 yearly are provided
to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, to restore or
enhance the resources of Wisconsin's coastal area. The WCMP
funds resource management projects such as wetland protection,
non-point source pollution abatement, natural hazards, low-cost
technical assistance and low-cost public access construction
projects. For the past few years an average of $200,000 yearly
has been spent for construction or enhancement of public access
projects.

II. REGULATORY PROGRAMS

A. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
These programs regulate and control the development of public
access sites. These programs warrant that State environmental
standards are considered prior to the construction or improvement
of public access sites. The programs assure that any public
access sites developed or enhanced do not have a negative impact
on the environment.

Water Reatulation and Zoninay rChapter 30, Stats. Physical
Alterations to Waterwavs. ChaiDte-r 31, Stats. Recaulation of Dams 7.
The objective is the protection of public rights and interest in
surface waters through regulation of proposed alterations of
waterways and adjacent wetlands and upland areas, the protection
of life, health, and property from the effects of floods and
dams, and the identification of wetlands. About $1.8 million
annually are spent on water regulation projects such as the
following: about 2,100 formal permit applications are received
annually and reviewed by program staff; shoreland zoning; dam
safety; flood plain zoning; and wetlands inventory.

Envirornmental Analvsis and Review r Wisconsin Environmental
Protection Act (Chapter 274, Laws of 1971. Section 1.11 Wis.
Stats. )1. It is the DNR's responsibility, through the
environmental analysis and review process, to understand the
envirormental consequences of its actions and to use all
practicable means and measures to create and maintain conditions
under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony and
fulfill the requirements of present and future generations.
Approximately $1 million of funding are provided annually for the
preparation of environmental impact statements; the coordination
and approval of 150 to 300 DNR prepared and publicly reviewed
environmental analyses; and the review of 150 to 200
environmental documents prepared by state and federal agencies.
34

III. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
The programs that deal with funding public access projects in
Wisconsin have been very successful, since public access in the
State is not such an adverse problem as in other parts of the
country. Thanks to the effectiveness of these programns, the state
has promoted access to recreational opportunities for the public
at large. There is a need, however, to continue support for
funding public access projects. The demand for public access
projects is evident. In general, public access grant programs in
the State fund no more than one fifth of the project proposals
received every year. While some of the programs concentrate on
purchasing land and providing basic infrastructure such as
breakwaters, others concentrate on funding recreational
facilities such as swimming pools, ball diamonds and recreational
paths.
Coordination among state agencies has made it possible to share
and appropriately channel appropriately funding activities. The
Coastal Management Program, for example, concentrates on projects
such as fishing piers and waterfront paths in Wisconsin's coastal
zone, while some of the other programs fund the same type of
activities in inland lakes.
Regulatory programs have assured that all the public and private
developments go through a permitting process to assure that
access improvements do not have a negative effect on the natural
resources.

PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES
I.   IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH REGULATORY, STATUTORY AND
LEGAL SYSTEMS.
The Department of Natural Resources, the state agency that
provides most public access sites throughout the State, is
currently developing a state public access policy issue paper
which will cover purchase, development and maintenance of public
access sites to lakes, flowages and streams in Wisconsin. The
goal of the proposed water access policy is to provide and
maintain adequate public access to water consistent with the
public's right to use the waters of the State and the ability of
the resource to provide recreation. A policy paper is currently
under review by the Natural Resources Board. Staff are preparing
legislative and rule changes necessary to implement the policy.
This policy proposal is expected to be developed by December of
1992.
Need: Once the DNR public access policy proposal is approved
and accepted as Wisconsin's public access policy, it
should be implemented to its fullest extent. This may
include: drafting new legislation, revising rules and
35

regulations, purchasing land, development and enhancement
of public access sites, etc.
II. ACQUIRE, IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN PUBLIC ACCESS SITES TO MEET
CURRENT AND FUTURE DEMAND THROUGH THE USE OF INNOVATIVE
FUNDING AND ACQUISITION TECHNIQUES.
Wisconsin already uses many innovative methods to implement
public access. For example, DNR district community services
specialists act as brokers to mix and match federal and state
funds available for public access. (The City of Kewaunee
benefited from five different state and federal programs in
developing its public access facilities.)

Easements have been used as an alternative to outright land
acquisition. In two public access projects funded by the
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (Milwaukee's riverfront
walkway system and Green Bay' s downtown waterfront walkway),
easements were a key to their success.
in Wisconsin, a boat tax is partially used for access funds.
According to a formula based on the number of boats registered in
any given year, some gas tax money goes to the Water Resources
Account which in turn provides funds for DNR's recreational
boating facilities program.
User fees also help fund access sites. According to NR 1.93,
only local governments charging user fees more than the daily
state park entrance fee face any loss of DNR services. DNR is
considering revising this rule.
Even with these innovative funding mechanisms used in Wisconsin,
funding for public access projects is scarce. Grant programs for
public access projects are found to be an effective instrument to
promote and assure public access to recreational opportunities.
Need:   Continue to develop innovative measures to provide for
public access. A new innovative program could identify
potential public access sites currently under private
ownership and-encourage landowners to donate easements.
Signs at the site would acknowledge the landowners'
donation. Another innovative program could encourage
public access on privately owned land through tax
incentives. This "blue belting" strategy, which has been
implemented in Massachusetts, would be especially useful
in urbanized areas where demand for waterfront access is
great.
Need:   Continue support for public access grant programs.
Public access grant programs have proven to be an
effective instrument to encourage the development and
improvement of public access sites. Support for this type
of programs should continue at state and federal levels.
3
6

III. DEVELOP OR ENHANCE A COASTAL PUBLIC ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHICH TAIKES INTO ACCOUNT THE PROVISION OF PUB3LIC ACCESS TO
ALL USERS OF COASTALAREAS OF RECREATIONAL, HISTORICAL
AESTHETIC, ECOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL VALUE.

There is no comprehensive public access management plan for the
coastal zone of Wisconsin. In the past years, federal and state
programs have funded many necessary coastal public access sites;
however, those improvements have not benefited from comprehensive
planning.

Any development of a comprehensive coastal public access
management plan must begin with an inventory of existing sites.
In FFY92, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, with the
assistance of state agencies and local units of government, will
fund the development of a comprehensive coastal public access
guide. This guide will include all waterfront parks, trails,
harbors of refuge, boat ramps and marinas with transient dockage.
This information is the first step in evaluating the availability
of public access sites in the coastal zone. This information will
serve as a valuable tool in estimating future demand for coastal
public access.
A coastal public access management plan would include analysis of
the types of public access sites needed, the types of facilities
required and the necessary levels of funding to meet these needs.
Eventually, this management plan could be incorporated into the
statewide public access plan.

Need: Develop a comprehensive public access management plan to
assure future public access along Wisconsin's Great Lakes
coasts. The plan should be based on a thorough inventory
of existing public access sites and should take into
consideration current and future needs.


Wisconsin does not have a sign system to highlight public access
sites or to indicate specific facilities available at each site.
Signage is left to local governments.

Need: Develop a uniform state sign system to designate public
access facilities throughout Wisconsin. A uniform state
sign system would al low people to easily identify public
access sites. The same sign system would be used
throughout the state.

Barrier free access for persons with disabilities is a priority
in Wisconsin. While new state public access sites meet
guidelines designed to provide access to all, Wisconsin has not
yet developed administrative standards for handicapped access.
Federal agencies and the State Organization of Boating Access
(SOBA) are developing standards that will ensure access to
37

recreational facilities for persons with disabilities, but they
have not yet finalized them.
Need:   Develop a state policy and implementing standards that
will provide handicapped access to all new, and when
possible, to existing public access facilities.
implementing access standards for the handicapped would
assure that everyone has the same access opportunities to
recreational facilities.

IV. MINIMIZE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS OF PUBLIC ACCESS ON
COASTAL RESO'URCES AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THROUGH
APPROPRIATE PROTECTION MEASURES.
Public access decisions of the Department of Natural Resources
are subject to DNR's environmental assessment process, which
considers impacts of proposals on: historical and archaeological
resources, wetlands and floodplains, socioeconomic resources,'
scenic values, cumulative decisions and other environmental
factors.
An environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement
is an effective tool to assess the environmental consequences of
a project. Many times, however, it is a lengthy process and
could perhaps be shortened without sacrificing effectiveness.
Need:   Develop a streamlined environmental assessment system for
evaluating proposed public access sites. This system
would help make an easy environmental evaluation of the
proposed improvements to a site and determine that the
proposed improvements do not represent an environmental
hazard to the site.
38

STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL PUB3LIC ACCESS PROGRAM
I. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program found that there is a
need for public access along Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts. This
need was highlighted during four public hearings held in the
needs assessment process. At these hearings, the public and
municipality officials expressed their concern regarding the need
for new and improved public access to the waterfronts of
Wisconsin's coast.

There is a need for the development of a long range coastal
public access plan to assure future public access to the coast of
Wisconsin, especially to those areas where pressure for public
access is greater. Handicapped accessibility and an appropriate
signage system throughout the State will enhance public access
use of the Great Lakes.


II. THE CORE PROGRAM PROPOSED OBJECTIVES

SECTION 306 FUNDING

For the past years, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program has
provided funding to coastal communities for the expansion,
improvement or new development of public access sites along the
Great Lakes coasts. Based on the need for public access
improvements, the Coastal Management Program will selectively
consider funding public access projects.

Environmental protection is a major concern of the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program. In an effort to link this ilmportant
component of the program with public access projects, the coastal
program will give higher consideration to those public access
applications whose sponsors have adopted wetland zoning
ordinances.

As a general goal, Wisconsin Coastal Management Council suggests
that about 35% of funds available for grants should be spent on
public access projects. This goal is flexible depending on the
quality of the proposals, and need for public access in the area.
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council would consider public
access vis a vis the other issue areas in the WCMP strategy when
defining priorities in funding allocation decisions.


1) PROVITDE FUNDING TO LOCAL UNITTS OF GOVERNMENT TO It PROVE OR
DEVELOP COASTAL PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH LOW-COST CONSTRUCTION
PUBLXC ACCESS PROJECTS
Low-cost construction projects have helped local units of
government to improve and develop needed public access along
Wisconsin's coast. Continuation of these public access projects
39

will help local units of government defray the cost of these
improvements.
Multi-Year Strategy
Goal: Fund improvement or development of coastal public access
projects.

FFY 93-FFY 97
Accept proposals from local units of government.
The Coastal Management Program will accept proposals from coastal
communities for public access, low-cost construction projects.
Assessment of proposals on technical merits.
The proposals will be given to a technical committee to be ranked
according to need and merit.
Funding decisions by the Coastal Council.
After the projects are ranked, Coastal Management Program staff
will present them to the Council. The Council will select
projects for funding.
Monitoring of projects.
Projects selected will be monitored for compliance with
specifications.
Funding allocations.
Funding allocations will be made according to the following
matching grant program:
Project's Total Cost       Matching Program
* $30,000         WCMP -  50%
Local - 50%
* $30,000         WCMP -  40%
Local - 60%
Impact of Change: Funding low-cost construction projects will
help alleviate the need for public access. Problems of
overcrowding will be eliminated and higher quality access will be
available to all users. Also, continued public access funding
will help the economy of many Wisconsin coastal communities.

SOURCES
SCORP Recreational Access Studv. Book VI. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. January, 1986.
Wisconsin Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,
Wisconsin DNR. Draft June 1991.
40

State and Federal Financial Assistance Proarrams Administered by
the Devartment of Natural Resources Fiscal Year 1989-1991.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, 1989.

Recreational Boatina Facilities Proaram, Chapter NR 7. Department
of Natural Resources. Register, January, 1989, No. 397.

Administration of Outdoor Recreation Proaram Grants and State
Aids, Chapter NR 50. Department of Natural Resources, Register,
April, 1984, No. 340.

NavicTable Waters, Harbors and Navicration, Chapter 30. 89-90
Wisconsin Statutes.

Environmental Analvsis and Review Procedures for DeDartment
Actions, Chapter NR 150. Department of Natural Resources.
Register, January, 1987, No. 373

Wisconsin Coastal Manaarement Proaram for the Great Lakes 1987
Update. Department of Administration. July 9, 1987.
41

Strategy for Public Access Program
IFY94Goal:  173,182       35-A
Project
306 Goals	FFY 93    FFY 94    FFY 95    FFY 96    FFY 97    FFY 98	Totals

Low Cost & Wtrfrnt Proj's	138,000	138,000





Diff from Goal                           173,182   173,182   173,182    173,182   173,182
Funding to	Funding to
Locals     %	the State    %

138,000




u.a.ooo .0d.V'Wï¿½A%
19
All 306 project funding is determined by the Coastal Council, using Strategy Goals.

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Public Access
SECTION 306 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Provide funding to local units of government to improve or
develop coastal public access through low cost construction	FFY 93	FFY 94        FFY 95        FFY 96	FFY 97
public access projects.	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)	(By Quarter)

MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY	1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4
Goal: Fund improvement or development of coastal public access
projects
Accept proposals from local units of government
Assessment of proposals on technical merits
Funding decisions by the Coastal Council
Monitoring of projects

ENHANCEMENT AREA: Public Access
SECTION 309 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Develop a comprehensive long-term coastal public access
plan, to assure future public access to Wisconsin's Great	FFY 94        FFY 95        FFY 96        FFY 97        FFY 98
Lakes coast.	(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)

MULTI-YEAR STRATEGY	1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Goal: Completion of a public access data base
Establish work group
Define methodology for analyzing inofrmation
Preparation of information necessary to develop the plan
Goal: Completion of a long-term public access development plan
Develop a long-term access development plan
Set priorities for coastal public access
Means for implementing the plan

CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS


LiEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVS
Development and adoption of procedures to assess, consider, and
control cumulative and secondary impacts of coastal growth and
development, including the collective effect of various
individual uses or activities on coastal resources, such as
coastal wetlands and fishery resources. [Coastal Zone Management
Act, Section 309]


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

The Council of Envirornmental Quality's regulations for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) define
cumaulative impacts as:

... the impact on the environment which results from the
Incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
pr-esent and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) o-r person undertakes
such actions. Cumulative impacts can r-esult from
individually minor but collectively significant actions
taking place over a period of time.
For example, a single person's decision to litter may seem like a
minor, independent decision, unless viewed in the context that
thousands of others may be making the same decision. Similarly,
in coastal regions, the regional effects from many individual
decisions must be considered.

Secondary effects are the indirect consequences of actions and
policies. For example, the primary impact from sewer extension
miay be loss of open space, but important secondary effects
include increased urban runoff, loss of coastal habitat,
decreased access, and congestion.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program considers cumulative
effects and secondary impacts analysis to be both a tool to
assist in the management of resources, such as wetlands, as well
an issue area that considers the problems of water quality,
overcrowding, and habitat and open space loss in urbanized
coastal areas.

As a tool, cumulative effect and secondary impact analysis will
be incorporated into existing management practices to consider
comprehensive and long-term impacts. For example, it will be
used to consider the cumulative effects of individual activities
upon wetlands. A detailed characterization and description of
wetland issues and objectives and how this tool will be used is
given in the Wetland Assessment section.
44

As an issue area, this section considers the cumulative impacts
and secondary effects of coastal urbanization on Great Lake water
quality. Nonpoint urban runoff and storm sewer discharge are
significant sources of water pollution.
Treated as separate issues, but also addressed as subparts of
this issue are nonpoint source pollution and contaminated
sediments. These issues will be addressed generally within this
section but have also been analyzed individually in following
sections. Funding for nonpoint source pollution abatement and
contaminated sediment issues will be provided under the broad
category of cumulative and secondary impacts.


CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

I. STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Generally, few state or local agencies use procedures that
consider cumulative and secondary impacts. Most state programs
consider only the impacts of individual decisions on the
individual resources or concerns which they regulate. Few local
governments consider cumulative and secondary impacts because
they lack resources or jurisdiction. Some state and local
programs that do address some aspects of cumulative and secondary
impacts are sewer service area planning, non-point source
pollution abatement, and shoreland zoning.
Sewer service area plans are regional plans to determine the
service area of treatment facilities, the location of sewer
lines, and the necessary capacity of treatment plants. These
plans are prepared by the regional planning commissions and
sewage districts, and must be approved by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources. The plans are important because
of their influence on the location and density of urban
development. Without addition to existing sewer service areas or
the creation of new facilities, increased development of
significant density is generally not possible. However, when DNR
reviews sewer service development, it examines only water quality
impacts of sewer service area changes and does not consider the
impacts of growth on other public services, on congestion or the
like.
Xuch nonpoint source pollution is the result of development and
urbanization. The Department of Natural Resources nonpoint
source pollution programs are designed to reduce pollution from
existing sources, rather than reduce the cumulative impacts of
new or proposed sources.
Likewise, while development of some wetlands require a permit,
the permit process does not consider the impacts of issuing many
different permits in an area.
45

II. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Two of Wisconsin's largest metropolitan areas, Milwaukee and
Green Bay are located along Great Lakes coasts, and many other
regions experiencing development pressure are located along the
coast. Managing growth is important not only for areas currently
undergoing growing, but also for regions of low growth to plan
for potential future growth pressure. Development in coastal
areas creates a number of problems.

First, increased runoff from developed and rural areas decreases
the water quality of coastal waterways and the Great Lakes.
Storm water collects oils, chemicals, soils, trash, road salt and
other waste from paved surfaces, agricultural fields, and
construction and earth-moving activities increase the amount of
sediment in rivers and the Great Lakes.

Second, as communities urbanize, open space and coastal habitats
are lost and existing habitats suffer loss of quality. The
extent of these losses may not even be realized by local
decision-makers who consider consequences to their own
jurisdiction rather than area-wide.

Third, urban development leads to increased runoff from paved and
built land, which can cause storm water flooding. Paved surfaces
collect more water and transport it more quickly, causing higher
and faster peaking floods. Floods can endanger people and
property, and the general increase in runoff will increase
erosion along coastal waterways.

Finally, as cities grow, waterfront access and recreational
facilities become overcrowded as land available for public use
becomes more and more limited and as more and more people want to
use the coastline. As coastal areas continue to become
urbanized, the cumulative and secondary impacts of this
development must be considered.


PROGRAMM(ATIC OBJECTIVES
I. INCREASE THE AWARENESS OF CUMUILATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACTS
The public is generally unaware of all the cumulative impacts and
problems caused by coastal development. Some of these problems
include the impacts on water quality and coastal habitat from
existing development, and the impacts of future development.
Need: There needs to be additional support for public
information and education initiatives. This is
particularly true in those areas where continued urban
development is perceived to be damaging to the
environment. Additionally, public awareness of issues
related to potential problems from developmental
activities should be enhanced. Local government
4
6

regulatory staff and decision makers, and the public must
be continually informed of the increased understanding of
cumulative and secondary impacts.

The general public is not familiar with the term "nonpoint
source" and not well aware of the water quality problems caused
by nonpoint sources. In addition, the Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Program may have far reaching impacts on
local units of government.
Need: Raise citizen awareness by educating the public about the
types of nonpoint sources and their control, and
publicizing the programs available. The WCMP could
develop or assist in developing newsletters or seminars
so that the general public will understand what programs
are being developed or implemented.
There is also a need to conduct public awareness and
involvement activities when developing the Coastal
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program and other
nonpoint source initiatives in the coastal areas.

The issue of contaminated sediment management is constantly
placed before coastal citizens and communities in many forms,
fish advisories; dredging proposals, either maintenance or new
work; locating dredged disposal sites and alternatives for
disposal. In all of these activities, additional information
concerning the degree of contaminated and the potential effects
of the sediment material on the ecosystem should be available to
citizens, representatives of local governments, and others who
are involved in the decision making process.
Additionally, it is critically important that dredging sponsors
(normally local governments) become more knowledgeable about the
types of sediment testing that is required to process dredging
permit applications, regulatory monitoring requirements during
the period of construction, and the future direction of both
state and federal regulations concerning this activity.
Needs: Currently, there is inadequate federal information
available to the citizens and local authorities in
coastal areas with sediment contamination. Citizens need
to be informed of potential risks, warned about problem
areas, and informed of actions being taken. Authorities
from local governments and ports or harbors need to be
informed about state and federal actions, regulatory
changes, and new information or procedures for dealing
with contaminated sediments.
4
7

II. DEVELOP, REVISE OR ENHANCE PROCEDURES OR POLICIES TO PROVIDE
CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY 11MPACT MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING.

A. Local Government Assistance

Local governments often inadequately consider impacts of regional
urbanization and sprawl on water quality, coastal natural
resources such as coastal habitats, wetlands, and other open
space. This is especially true when they make individual
decisions which together can have serious impacts. Local units
of government can take steps towards the understanding of the
cumulative and secondary impacts problem. Through staff
education and training efforts the local regulatory staff, zoning
administrators, local planning commissioners, and board of
adjustment members can make more effective decisions related to
cumulative and secondary impacts. Through studies, management
plans and ordinance adoption and/or revision, communities can
become more effective managers of the concerns related to
cumulative and secondary impacts.

Need:   Local government regulatory staff, planning and building
inspection officials, should be provided with seminars to
learn about cumulative impacts of development decisions.
Consideration should be given toward the creation of a
certification program for staff and local officials.
information and education efforts identified above should
analyze impacts of growth on a watershed basis. Local
units of government, particularly cities and villages,
need to manage both quality and quantity of storm water
discharge to receiving streams, wetlands and coastal
waters. Local ordinances adoption and/or revision are
likely needed to provide for proper storm water
management.


Besides problems of awareness, local governments often do not
have the data, information, or staff to address cumulative and
secondary impact issues. Also the limited jurisdiction of
cities, towns and villages means they are unable to address the
issue on a regional scale.
Need:   Regional meetings should be established to consider
cumulative and secondary impacts of development in
specific coastal areas that encompass multiple political
jurisdictions. Additional resources should be provided
to fund local and regional land use inventories and plans
in coastal areas that would be used to consider
cumulative and secondary impacts. GIS data should be
shared between state and local governments. Finally,
consideration should be given to adoption and/or revision
of ordinances, regulations and codes to help local
governiments establish a framework for decision-making.
48

Farmers, developers, municipal officials, and other clients
and/or applicants are generally unaware of all the nonpoint
source pollution impacts and problems caused by coastal and urban
development. Some of these problems include the impacts on water
quality and coastal habitat from existing development, and the
impacts of future development.

Need:   There should be additional support for information and
education initiatives. This is particularly true in
those areas where continued urban development is
perceived to be damaging to the environment.
Additionally, public awareness of issues related to
potential problems from developmental activities should
be enhanced.
Once the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is
approved, there needs to be training of local government
agencies in the understanding and implementation of the
program.

B. State Program Enhancement
No state procedures exist for evaluating both secondary effects
and cumulative impacts. Some activities, such as nonpoint source
pollution, sewer service area planning, storm water planning, and
infrastructure decision-making, address the direct impacts, but
most do not adequately consider cumulative impacts and none
consider secondary effects. Furthermore, there is inadequate
state and regional oversight of local decision-making.
Needs: State programs and statutes must be reviewed to determine
if consideration of cumulative impacts and secondary
effects should be incorporated, and to determine the
possible need for creation and/or revision of legislation
requiring analysis of cumulative impacts and secondary
effects.
Sewer service area planning procedures and policies must
be examined to determine if impacts other than just water
quality should be addressed. Additional staffing may be
needed to assist in the coordinated review process of
permits and projects to allow consideration of multiple
impacts rather then single resource impacts. Also,
additional staffing may be needed to examine impacts from
construction of new highways and enlargement of existing
highways, and to assist in areas of fast growth or
intense user conflict.
Changes are needed to Wisc. Stat.144 to allow the DNR to
continue cost share funding of storm water management
practices which are being implemented to meet permit
requirements. Changes are also needed to Wisc. Stat. 147
to provide a more straight forward definition of storm
4
9

water, and to allow a more efficient mechanism to issue
permits for discharges of storm water. Regulations will
need to be promulgated to formally adopt the federal
storm water regulations, aLnd additional water quality
standards for storm water flows will be developed and
codified.
Local units of government - particularly cities and
villages - need to manage both the quality and quantity
of storm water discharge to receiving streams, wetlands
and coastal waters. Local ordinances are likely needed
to provide for proper storm water management.

Development of Best Management Practices for controlling
contaminated storm water discharges must also be
initiated.
Lastly, additional staff to develop and administer a
permit fee program to fund administrative costs of a
storm water permit program may be needed.

Determining the quality of material to be dredged is a
complicated technical process. Regulatory organizations approach
testing requirements from slightly different perspectives; thus,
project applicants receive different guidance in sediment
sampling and testing requirements for specific project proposals.
These differences can be regionalized due, in part, to the
decentralization of regulatory agencies. The establishment of
specific quantifiable testing protocols would greatly aid
potential project applicants in developing information that is
needed to evaluate a specific proposal.
Needs: To determine a course of action for handling contaminated
sediments in Wisconsin harbors and streams, the state
needs to develop an approach to analyze sediments and
assess the human risk of contaminated sediments. This
includes developing statewide procedures for evaluating
contaminated sites. The Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) has begun to develop a triad approach program to
address these gaps, and continued work is needed to
complete the three elements of this approach.
In addition to testing procedures and protocols, there is
an on-going need to broaden information an background
levels of chemical concentrations in areas which have had
little development pressures. A fuller understanding of
upland concentrations of elements can provide baseline
information related to the type of dredging and disposal
which are needed.
Each of these needs are an attempt to quantify type of
management which is needed to safely dispose of dredged
material without degrading water quality or allowing for
50

the ingestion of contaminants into the food chain. The
specific needs are discussed in the contaminated
sediments section.


III. ADOPT AND 11MPLEZ{ENT PROGRAMS THAT DEAL WITH CUMULATIVE AND
SECOANDARY IMPACTS.
The non-point source pollution and contaminated sediments
progr-ams already in place in Wisconsin would continue to be
implemented. These programs are discussed in further detail in
the non-point source, and contaminated sediments sections.
STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMPACT
PROGRAM
I. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE
Along certain stretches of Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts,
especially the Milwaukee and Green Bay areas, cumulative and
secondary impacts are felt strongly. Unfortunately, cumulative
and secondary impacts can not be attributed to a single activity
and must be addressed by managing many components. Urban
development, nonpoint source pollution, contaminated sediments,
natural hazards, and other urban and rural activities which alter
natural conditions all need to be considered. Therefore, to
adequately address cumulative and secondary impacts, the
Wisconsin Coastal Program has decided to address many of these
issues under this broader context.
Controlling cumulative and secondary impacts was a concern shown
in the needs assessment. The needs assessment discussed the lack
of consideration for cumulative and secondary impacts in current
regulations.

II. THE CORE PROGRAM PROPOSED OBJECTIVES
SECTION 306 FUNDING
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program provided past funding
for envirormental issues which would have otherwise resulted in.
cumulative and secondary impacts. However, this is the first time
all of the issues have been grouped under this broad category.
Specifically, the WCM Council feels that nonpoint source
pollution and contaminated sediments should be addressed. The
nonpoint source issue can best be addressed by meeting the
requirements of Section 6217,. Similarly, the contaminated
sediments issue can be addressed by developing a program for
regulating dredging and disposal, based on sediment quality
criteria.
Many other issues also result in cumulative and secondary
impacts. It would be too costly and time consuming to address
51

each individually, therefore the WCMP feels that providing data
and technical assistance as well as local education, would be a
way of addressing cumulative and secondary impacts and recommends
setting a strategy which creates tools to address these issues
within existing regulations.
The WCM Council decided that to address all of these issues, a
goal of 35% of total section 306 funding or the amount available
after public access and wetlands are addressed, will go to
cumulative and secondary impacts.
Currently, local and state regulations addressing cumulative and
secondary impacts are ineffective. As noted in the needs
assessment, there is a lack of CSI analysis in local planning as
well as in state permitting and other decisions. The WCMP
recommends, based on the findings of the assessment and public
meetings, that local comprehensive ordinances addressing
individual components of cumulative and secondary impacts be
established.

1) IM1ROVE AWARENESS BY THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL OFFICIALS/STAFF OF
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION, AND CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
ASSOCIATED WITH CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IMIPACTS
Multi-Year Strategy
GOAL: PRODUCE AND DISTRIBUTE AWARENESS INFORMATION
FFY 94
Produce and distribute initial informational materials for
citizen's groups and local government on non-point source
pollution and contaminated sediments, emphasizing its
relationship to cumulative and secondary impacts;
FFY 95
Produce and distribute information for non-point source pollution
GOAL:  CONTINUE TO MONITOR, UPDATE AND DISTRIBUTE  AWARENESS
INFORMATION
FFY 96
Update awareness informational materials for contaminated
sediments
FFY 97
Continue to distribute awareness materials
FFY 98
Update awareness informational materials for non-point source
pollution and contaminated sediments
Impact of Change: The WCMP feels that increasing awareness by
coastal citizens and local officials/staff about cumulative and
52

secondary impacts will help lessen environmental consequences.
Specifically, if citizens are aware that individual actions
cumulatively cause problems, they will be more conscientious.
Also, local officials and staff will be more capable of
controlling and managing impacts at the local level. As the
council has indicated previously, coastal issues are best managed
by local municipalities because they are generally more cognizant
of, and dedicated to, local issues.


2) ADOPT PROGRAM CHANGES NEEDED TO BEET REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION
6217 OF THE COASTAL ZONE ACT REAUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS OF
1990

(Section 6217 requires states with federally-approved coastal
zone management programs to develop coastal nonpoint programs.
Specifically, "the purpose of the program is to develop and
implement technology and water quality-based management measures
for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal
waters".)

Multi-Year Strategy
GOAL:   COMPLETION OF AN EPA AND NOAA APPROVED NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM.
FFY 95
Establish a work group consisting of the DNR and other state
agencies. The work group in concurrence with the WCMP would:
develop and submit a Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatemnent Program
to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
FFY 95
DNR tasks: Make necessary changes in the states current nonpoint
source program.
FFY 96
DNR tasks: Finalize any program changes; submit the program by
November 1995, to EPA and NOAA. for approval.

GOAL:   IMPLEMENT AN APPROVED PROGRAM OR REEVALUATE A NON-
APPROV'ED PROGRAM
FFY 96-98
DNR tasks: Implement an approved program through state agencies,
local governments, and the general public; reevaluate a non-
approved program.
Impact of Change: EPA and NOAA are requiring innovative
approaches to imaplementing the nonpoint source program which will
result in an efficient and equitable workload distribution
between state and local levels. Once the program is approved by
53

EPA and NOAA and implemented, nonpoint source regulatory tasks
will become routine for local and state staff. Overall, Wisconsin
will have stronger environmental protection and restoration
incentives for coastal waters.


3) TO DEAL WITH CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS AND ASSOCIATED WATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS, DEVELOP A PROGRAM FOR REGULATING DREDGING,
DISPOSAL AND OTHER MANAGEKENT ALTERNATIVES, BASED ON SEDIMENT
QUALITY CRITERIA (TRIAD APPROACH)

Multi-Year Strategy

GOAL: OFFICIAL GUIDANCE ON CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS TESTING

FFY 94
Establish a work group consisting of Federal/State/Local
personnel to collect data on contaminated sites. Work group
tasks: collect data on sediment chemistry; conduct lab bioassay;
perform in-field biological studies.
FFY 95
Work group tasks: Experiment with sediment tests; develop
guidance for useable tests by conducting biological and chemical
tests on sediments.

GOAL: COMPLETION OF A CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT DATA BASE
FFY 96
Work group tasks: Finalize the collection of field data; develop
a contaminated sediment data base; develop guidance on dredging
and remediation.
GOAL: COMPLETE GUIDANCE ON MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS.
FFY 97 - 98
Work group tasks: Finalize a guidance on testing sediments based
on the contaminated sediment data, including statewide methods to
conduct sediment quality assessment, and a quality program for
private laboratories; finalize guidance on dredging and
remediation based on the contaminated sediment data; develop
sediment quality criteria based on the contaminated sediment
data.
Impact of Change: Unfortunately, Wisconsin's regulatory
mechanisms for contaminated sediments are not effective. This is
often due to the fact that there is not a clear understanding of
the condition of many contaminated sites. A comprehensive data
base of these sites would allow local and state staff to work
more efficiently at remediating them. Likewise, developing
sediment quality criteria would give regulators a better
understanding of when environmental damage becomes irreversible.
54

The end result of developing a program to manage contaminated
sediments would be stronger envirornmental protection.


4) PROVIDE FUNDING TO LOCAL UNITTS OF GOVERNMENT TO MANAGE AND
PLAN FOR CUMULATIVE AND SECONDARY IM4PACTS THROUGH LOW-COST
PROJECTS, STUDIES AND TRAINING

Low-cost projects, studies and training have helped local units
of government to manage and plan for cumulative and secondary
impacts along Wisconsin's coast. Continuation of projects,
studies and training will help local units of government defray
the cost in controlling cumulative and secondary impacts.

Multi-Year Strategy

GOAL: FUND LOW-COST PROJECTS, STUDIES AND TRAINING

FFY 93-97
Accept proposals from local units of governTaent.
The Coastal Management Program will accept proposals from coastal
communities for projects, studies and training to which address
cumulative and secondary impacts.

Assessment of proposals on technical merits.
The proposals will be given to a technical committee to be ranked
according to need and merit.

Funding decisions by the Coastal Council.
After the projects are ranked, Coastal Management Program staff
will present them to the Council. The Council will select
proposals for funding.


Monitoring of proposals.
Proposal selected will be monitored for comapliance with
specifications.

Impact of Change: Funding low-cost projects, studies and
training will help in the management and planning of cumulative
and secondary impacts. Problems of particular concern for a
community can be controlled, and a higher quality environment
will be available to all. Also, continued cumulative and
secondary impact funding will help contribute to the overall
improvement of Wisconsin's coastal environment.
55

III. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE CORE PROGRAM
SECTION 309 FUNDING

1) DEVELOP TOOLS TO ADDRESS CUTMUlLA TI VE AND SECONDARY IM ACTS
WVHICff CAN BE USED WITHIN EXISTING STATE AND LOCA4LMNGMN
AND REGULATORY PROGRANS

GOAL: DEVELOP A STORK WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE UNDER SECTION
144.266, WISCONSIN STATUTES.

Problem Suimmary: No state procedures exist for evaluating both
secondary effects and cumulative impacts. Present storm water
planning may address the direct impacts, but may not adequately
consider cumulative impacts and never consider secondary effects.
Furthermore, there is inadequate state and regional oversight of
local decision-making.

Local units of government, particularly cities and villages, need
to manage both the quality and quantity of storm water discharge
to receiving streams, wetlands and coastal waters. Ordinances
are needed at the local level to provide for proper storm water
management.
Program Change: The program change would result in a model storm
water management ordinance, based upon the state storm water
management plan, to be prepared in the form of an administrative
rule. The new administrative rule and corresponding state
statute language would become part of the WCMP's specific
policies through a RPI.

Impact of Change: A model storm water management ordinance as
proposed, will ensure that minimum standards for storm water
management regulation at the local level will be conducted on a
consistent manner. The program change will allow state and
regional oversight of local storm water management decision
making. The ordinance would be consistent with the Section 6217
(g) management measures for developing areas, and compatible with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm water
discharge regulations. The ordinance would also incorporate
storm water quantity management, to enhance flood management.

Tasks:
FFY 94: A consultant will be hired to form a workgroup of state
agency staff, local units of government, and other interest
groups. With input from the workgroup, the consultant will
formulate the specific provisions of the program through the
following efforts:
* Develop the ordinance.
* Locate a local unit of government (demonstration community)
for ordinance adoption and implementation.
* Initiate adoption of the ordinance in the demonstration
community.
56

* Initiate activities needed to promote the ordinance.
FFY 95: The consultant will work to finalize adoption of the
ordinance in the demonstration community, and implementation will
take place. The consultant will continue activities needed to
promote the ordinance.
FFY 96: The consultant will provide technical assistance to the
demonstration community for ordinance application. Also,
activities needed to promote the ordinance will be continued.

Budgets:  FFY 94:	$40,000 for consultant cost
FFY 95:	$22,000 for consultant cost
FFY 96:	$22,000 for consultant cost

Note: The WCMP will issue a request for proposals to develop
the specific budget for these tasks. The request will go out
to local units of government, state agencies, colleges,
universities, regional planning commissions, and private
organizations. An independent committee will assist the WCMP
in evaluating project proposals. Detailed budgets will be
submitted to OCRM after the consultant is selected.
Likelihood of success: Section 6217 requires states with
federally-approved coastal zone management programs to develop
coastal nonpoint programs. Since the model storm water
management ordinance is consistent with the section 6217 (g)
management measures, it can enhance more then one part of the
coastal program. Also, specific provisions of the ordinance
would be developed with the involvement of coastal municipalities
and other interest groups, significantly increasing acceptance of
the ordinance. Finally, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council
feels that nonpoint source pollution and contaminated sediments
should be addressed in a manner that will allow for local
government participation.

SOURCES
Wisconsin Coastal Manaaement Procram for the Great Lakes 1987
Update, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

NR 120 - Nonvoint Source Pollution Abatement Proaram, Department
of Natural Resources, November, 1989.

Storm Water Mana(:ement Practices, [Stat.144].
Coastal Zone Manaaement Act, [Section 6217].
Clean Water Act, (Section 319].
Land Manaaement Practices, [Wis. Stats. Ss.92.01-92.14]
Financial and Technical Assistance, [Wis. Stats.,144.24-.25]
5
7

Isl
Strategy for Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Program
IFY94Goal:  173,182        350o/
Project
306 Goals	FFY 93    FFY 94    FFY 95    FFY 96    FFY 97    FFY 98	Totals

Local Projects	61,060	61,060
Nonpoint Source Project	51,990	51,990
Awareness info                       0                                                                   0
Cont Sed Project               43,826                                                               43,826


Diff from Goal                           173,182   173,182   173,182    173,182	173,182


I FY 94 Goal:	90,000  *

Project
6217 Goals	FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96	FFY 97	FFY 98	Totals

Adopt CZMA changes*	51,000	90,000	90,000	90,000	90,000	90,000	501,000



*Assuming that 6217 funding will increase from the FFY 93 $51,000 level to at least $90,000.

Project
309 Goals            FFY 93	FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96    FFY 97    FFY 98	Totals

Stormwater Mgmt Regs                0	40,000	22,000	22,000               0         0	84,000
(project of special merit)






Grand Totals          156,876    40,000    22,000    22,000               0         0      240,876
Funding to	Funding to
Locals    %	the State    %

61,060                 0
51,990
0
0            43,826








Funding to	Funding to
Locals    %	the State	%

0	501,000	100





Funding to	Funding to
Locals    c%	the State    %

0	84,000




ii!~~.J-;.'~'.~4	ï¿½
LU
co
All 306 project funding is determined by the Coastal Council, using Strategy Goals.

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
SECTION 306 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Improve awareness by the public and local officials/staff
of nonpoint source pollution, and contaminated sediments	FFY 94        FFY 95        FFY 96         FFY 97	FFY 98
associated with cumulative sediments.	(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)	(By Quarter)


MUJLTI-YEAR STRATEGY	1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4	1	2  3  4
Goal: Produce and distribute awareness inofrmation
Produce initial comprehensive informational materials on
non-point source poluution and contaminated           sediments  _'_..
Distribute the materials                                                 .        =
Produce additional informational materials on non-point
source poluution                              ..                 ï¿½.:
Distribute the materials                          1'
Goal: Monitor, update and distribute awareness information
Produce additional informational materials on contaminated
sediments                                         ""'.
Distribute the materials

Produce additional informational materials on non-point
source poluntion
Distribute the materials                                            '-"c                                            "      m,,, :

Produce additional informational materials on contaminated
sediments
Distribute the materials                                                                                                   l_
Un
0'

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
SECTION 306 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Adopt program changes needed to meet requirements
of section 6217 of the coastal zone act reauthorization	FFY 94        FFY 95       FFY 96        FFY 97       FFY 98
of 1990	(By Quarter) (By Quaiter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)

MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY	1	2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Goal. Completion of an EPA and NOAA approved Nonpoint
Source Pollution Abatement Program
Establish work group
Develop a Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Program                                                                 ______'___
Make necessary changes in the state's current nonpoint
source program
Finalize any program changes
Submit the program for approval
Goal: Implement an approved program or reevaluate a
nonapproved program
Implement an approved program
Reevaluate a nonapproved program
0

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
SECTION 306 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: To deal with contaminated sediments and associated
water problems, develop a program for regulating	FFY 94        FFY 95        FFY 96        FFY 97        FFY 98
dredging, disposal and other management alternatives,	(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)
based on sediment quality criteria (triad approach)
MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY                                           1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1 2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Goal: Official guidance on contaminated sediment testing
Establish work group
,Collect data on sediment chemistry
Conduct lab bioassay	I7~:' -K".
Perform in-field biological studies	I.i.	" -'~
Experiment with sediment tests	_"___..
Develop guidance for useable tests
Goal: Completion of a contaminated sediment data base
Finalize the collection of field data
Develop a contaminated sediment data base
Develop guidance on dredging and remediation                                                   '~'                   .
Goal: Complete guidance on managing contaminted
sediments
Finalize guidance on testing sediments
Finalize guidance on dredging and remediation                                                          ..                 ..
Develop sediemnt quality criteria

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
CORE PROGRAM AREA: Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
SECTION 306 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Provide funding to local units of government to manage
and plan for cumulative and secondary impacts through	FFY 93        FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96        FFY 97
low-cost projects, studies and training.	(By Quarter) (By Quarter)	(By Quarter)	(By Quarter) (By Quarter)

MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY	1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4	1  2  3  4	1	2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Goal: Fund low-cost projects, studies and training
Accept proposals from local units of government
Assessment of proposals on technical merits         I    '':'"
Funding decisions by the Coastal Council
Monitoring of projects
ON

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
ENHANCEMENT AREA: Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
Section 309 Funding
OBJECTIVE: Develop tools to address cumulative and secondary
impacts which can be used within existing state and	FFY 94       FFY 95       FFY 96       FFY 97        FFY 98
local management and regulatory programs	(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)

MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY	1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Goal: Develop a model storm water management ordinance
under section 144.266, Wisconsin Statutes
Workgroup formed by consultant
Develop the model ordinance
Locate demonstration conununity for model ordinance
adoption and implementation
Initiate adoption of the model ordinance in the
demonstration community
Initiate activities needed to encourage adoption of the
model ordinance in other communities                                  E
Finalize adoption of the model ordinance
Implement the model ordinance in the demonstration
community                                                                      LI'
Continue activities to encourage adoption of the
model ordinance in other communities        .      .       .      .     .      _'___
Provide technical assistance to the demonstration community                           ___:_"__:_:
Continue activities to encourage adoption of the
model ordinance in other communities

NONPOINT SOURCE


LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES

1. Development and implementation of management measures for
nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal
waters. [Coastal Zone Management Act, section 6217 (a)];

2. To restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters.[Clean Water Act, Section
319];

3. The state shall provide financial and technical assistance to
abate point and nonpoint sources of water pollution (Wis.
Stats., ss. 144.24-.25, and NR 120].

4. The state shall halt and reverse pollution of its waters by
soil erosion by administering goals and standards for
conservation of soil and water resources, providing for cost
sharing, technical assistance and educational programs to
improve land management practices, and enabling the regulation
of harmful land use and land management practices (Wis. Stats.
ss. 92 .01-92. 14].


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
of 1990 requires that states with approved coastal zone
management programs develop and implement a Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program. This program will be implemented
through changes to the existing state coastal zone management
program, approved under the Coastal Zone Management Act, and to
the state nonpoint source management program, approved under
section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) will administer the new requirements
jointly.

EPA, in consultation with NOAA, U.S. Fish and wildlife Service,
and other Federal agencies, has published guidance specifying
management measures for controlling sources of nonpoint pollution
in coastal waters. Each state Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program in order to be approvable must provide for the
implementation of the management measures contained in the
federal guidance and must:
a) Identify land uses causing or contributing significantly to a
degradation of coastal waters.
64

b) Identify critical coastal areas within which any new land uses
or substantial expansion of existing land uses will be subject
to the management measures.

c) Modify the State coastal zone boundary to implemaent the needed
management measures.
States must submit to EPA and NOAA. a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program by November 1994. The'Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources with WCMP funding will start to develop
Wisconsin's Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program in
October, 1991.
The International Joint Commission, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and individual states have called for control
of urban and rural nonpoint sources to attain and maintain water
quality goals in the Great Lakes. The water quality concerns are
most significant in the harbors and near shore or coastal waters
where the majority of the recreational and water supply uses
occur. The water quality problems include sedimentation of
harbors, increased turbidity, increased nuisance aquatic plant
growth and bioaccumulation of toxic substances and heavy metals
in fish. Lower Green Bay, for example, is extremely eutrophic;
experiencing heavy algae blooms. These algae blooms cause low
oxygen levels that are detrimental to fish and block light needed
for beneficial aquatic vegetation.
About 1.2 million pounds of phosphorus reach Lower Green Bay
annually. About 60% of the phosphorus is from "uncontrolled"
nonpoint sources. About 20% is from municipal wastewater
treatment plants already removing phosphorus. The remainder is
from industrial and atmospheric sources.
Coastal residents suffer decreased quality of life as a result of
nonpoint source pollution. Their recreational activities are
imapaired and drinking water costs more. The costs to dredge
harbors and properly dispose of the dredged materials fall to
taxpayers nationwide.

The International Joint Commission has identified five areas in
Wisconsin as having the most significant water quality problems.
These Areas of Concern are the Milwaukee River Harbor, the
Sheboygan River Harbor, Lower Green Day, Menominee River Harbor
and the Duluth-Superior Harbor. Remedial Action Plans are being
prepared for each of these locations.

Nonpoint Sources - Nonpoint pollution sources are developed areas
or human activities which contribute significant sources of
sediment, nutrients, bacteria, heavy metals and other pollutants
to water which runs off the land into coastal waters. These
nonpoint sources include:
Agriculture
* Eroding croplands
* Eroding stream banks
6
5

ï¿½ Animal lots with runoff reaching tributary streams
* Fields spread with manure during the winter and early spring
* Lack of proper nutrient and pesticide management

Urban
* Construction sites
* Commercial area streets and parking lots
* Freeways and highways
* Residential streets and lawns

Siliviculture
* Timber harvesting
* Logging roads and stream crossing

While point sources in coastal areas are largely controlled, most
of these nonpoint sources must now be classified as the largest
source of pollutants to coastal waters. Costs to control urban
and rural nonpoint sources in coastal areas exceed $300 million.
Nonpoint source pollution problems are of considerable size on
their own, but also contribute largely to the problems of
cumulative and secondary impacts. Funding from within the
Coastal Management Program will be awarded partly to nonpoint
source projects and partly to projects which address nonpoint
source pollution, but are characterized under the broader heading
of cumulative and secondary impacts. Refer to Cumulative and
Secondary Impacts section.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Wisconsin, through a number of state programs initiated during
the last five to 15 years, is a leader in controlling pollutants
from urban and rural nonpoint sources. Despite the significant
accomplishments of Wisconsin's ongoing efforts, many urban and
rural nonpoint sources contributing pollutants to coastal waters
are not controlled.

Legislation currently being drafted seeks to increase the
magnitude of these programs and increase their effectiveness.
The pending proposal accelerates the start of nonpoint source
control project, increases financial assistance, increases
regulatory authority to control nonpoint sources, mandates
construction site erosion control statewide, requires stepped-up
efforts to encourage excluding cattle from streams, and furthers
nonpoint source controls within drainage districts.

I. STATE PROGRAMS.
A. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Are8awide Water Oualitv Manaaiement Planninai rs.144.025 and 147.25,
Stats. 7. As required by the Clean Water Act, areawide water
66

quality mnanagemnent plans are developed for each of the 22 basins
in Wisconsin.
These plans identify the water quality problems in each basin,
and serve as the basis for selection of watersheds in the basin
for nonpoint source control. Each watershed in the basin is
evaluated and ranked in order to identify waters which are
impacted significantly by nonpoint sources of pollution.
in addition, the Remedial Action Plan (RAP's) are being developed
to address water quality problems in 5 harbors/bays on the Great
Lakes. These RAP's are being developed to address problems
identified by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as an
international effort to clean up the Great Lakes. These plans
have identified the specific problems in these areas of concern
and in the next step, they will identify who should do what, and
when, in order to eliminate the problems. Stormwater runoff and
nonpoint sources of contaminants have been identified as
significant sources of both conventional (BOD5 and suspended
solids) and toxic contaminants in these areas.

Wisconsin Nonr'oint Source Watexr Pollution Abatement Proaram
(Prioritv Watershed Pro lects) TS. 144.25, Stats.l1. The Wisconsin
Nonpoint Source Water Abatement Program, established in 1978
under section 144.25 of the Wisconsin Statutes, provides
educational, financial and technical assistance to control urban
and rural nonpoint sources. The program is administered at the
state level by the Department of Natural Resources, with
involvement of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection in agricultural aspects of the program. The program
is implemented by counties (through their land conservation
departments), cities and villages with state oversight. The
University of Wisconsin - Extension and Soil Conservation Service
are also involved. The program's current base budget is $6.4
million. Funds are used to cost share best management practices
(generally 70%) and support local project staff. Landowners, land
users and municipalities may voluntarily enter into cost share
agreements (generally between the county and the landowner) to
install best management practices needed to control critical
nonpoint sources.

The program is implemented through watershed projects, called
priority watershed projects. Presently, 51 priority watershed
projects, varying in size from less than one square mile to
nearly 300 square miles, have been started. Eighteen of the
projects are in the Great Lakes drainage area.

Construction Site Erosion Control Ordinances (3.144.26, Stats).
Requires the Department of Natural Resources to promote
voluntary, local adoption of construction site erosion control
ordinances. The Department has prepared a model ordinance and a
companion technical handbook. Many coastal communities have
enacted ordinances based on the model ordinance, but enforcement
is lacking.
6
7

NonDoint Source Order (S.144.025, Stats). Provides authority to
the Department of Natural Resources to order control of very
critical urban and rural nonpoint sources, excluding animal waste
sources. This "Bad Actors" law can be used anywhere in the
state. if the order applies to a critical agricultural nonpoint
source, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection may provide technical and financial assistance.

Wisconsin Pollution Discharcae Elimination System Proaram, Storm
Water Discharae. The recent Environmental Protection Agency
storm water discharge regulations, now part of the Wisconsin
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program, control nonpoint
sources. Administration of the national program is delegated to
the Department of Natural Resources. Presently, the city of
M~ilwaukee is required to obtain a permit to control urban storm
water pollutant discharges. in addition, thousands of industries
in coastal areas potentially could come under these regulations.

Animal Waste Manaaiement fNR 2437. Provide authority to the
Department of Natural Resources to require operators of animal
waste sites causing a significant water pollution problem to
obtain a permit. In addition, livestock operations of 1000 or
more animal units must obtain a permit. The Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection may provide technical
and financial assistance to the operators.

Shoreland Zonina. Prociram. Wisconsin's shoreland zoning
regulations also are a nonpoint source control mechanism. These
regulations control development within a specified zone along or
around lakes, and navigable streams. The Department of Natural
Resources sets minimum standards that counties, cities and
villages must adopt and enforce. The Department also provides
planning and education assistance, and regulatory oversight. The
planning and education assistance includes furnishing: model
.zoning ordinances; regulatory wetland maps; and program and legal
guidance. Recent additions to the regulations require protection
of wetlands in shoreland zones. (see also section on Local
Zoning)


B. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection

Soil and Water Resource Manaarement (SWRM) Proairam. The SWRM
program provides approximately $3 million annually to counties
to, control soil erosion on agricultural lands, assist drainage
districts in complying with state regulations, properly manage
animal waste, and to judiciously use nutrients and pesticides.
Funds are used for cost sharing control measures with farmers and
supporting county staff.
Farmland P-rese-rvation. Through the use of property tax credits,
the Farmland Preservation Program pursues the goals of protecting
6
8

farmland from development, providing property tax relief and
promoting soil conservation through cross compliance
requirements. SWRM Farmland Preservation Projects assist by
providing funds for county staff to help participating farmers
meet county soil and water conservation standards.

Pesticide Ajoilicator Ce-rtification Proctram. The Pesticide
Applicator Certification Program assures a minimum level of
competence for both private and commercial applicators of
pesticide to minimize the risk for humans, animals and the
environment. Certification program staff work cooperatively with
the University of Wisconsin Extension, which is responsible for
providing training materials and training sessions.

Groundwater Manaatement Plan for Pesticides. Protects Wisconsin
water supplies, including surface water and groundwater, from
pesticide contamination. Under this charge, the DATCP has
prepared rules restricting use of certain compounds such as
atrazine that have been found to contaminate groundwater.

Sustainable Aciriculture Prociram. Researches and promotes
sustainable agriculture by providing funding annually to private
landowners and others for demonstration and research projects.
Acrriculture Clean Sweev. Collects old and unused agricultural
pesticides. A pilot Clean Sweep project was conducted in three
counties, and demonstrated a high need to conduct additional
projects.

C. Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR)
administers three rules related to nonpoint sources of pollution:
erosion control, underground storage tanks, and private sewage
(septic) systems. DILHR is revising ILHR 20 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code to incorporate construction site erosion
control requirements for all one and two family residential
developments. ILHR 10 of the administrative code regulates the
installation, operation and closure of over 140,000 underground
petroleum storage tank systems. DILHR also manages the Petroleum
Environmental Cleanup Fund for the remediation of leaking tank
systems. In 1991, the program processed $24 million in
reimbursement claims. Through its plumbing and platting codes
(ILHR 83, 85 and 88), DILHR is responsible for siting, design,
installation and operation requirements for Wisconsin's 500,000
private sewage systems. Presently, DILHR is addressing nitrate
groundwater standards.
6
9

D. The University of Wisconsin Extension - Cooperative Extension
(UWEX-CE)
Education is a key component of nonpoint source pollution because
actions to reduce pollution are largely voluntary. Education
programs and materials have focused on: watershed management,
solid waste management, domestic water supply and waste disposal,
groundwater protection, lake planning and management, floodplain
and shoreland protection, pesticide fertilizer management,
livestock waste management, and numerous other topics. County
faculty draw on state specialist support to develop and deliver
local programs throughout the state. Activities range from
targeting education support for state funded priority watersheds
to organizing conferences and workshops, and carrying out applied
research and demonstration projects.


E. Local Zoning

Shoreland and Wetland Zonina.: Counties (S.59.9 71. Stats. & NR
115). Regulates general development & activities in wetlands in
corridors adjacent to navigable waters ('tshorelands"). May
comment on state and federal permit applications.

Sho-reland and Wetland Zonina: Villaares & Cities (Ss.61-351 &
62.231. Stats. & NR 117). Regulates activities in wetlands
adjacent to navigable waters ("shorelands't). May comment on
state and federal permit applications.


II. FEDERAL

Clean Wate-r Act, Section 319. Provides funds to states to assess
the need f or nonpoint source control in state lakes, streams,
wetlands and groundwater to achieve the water quality goals and
to prepare and implement a nonpoint source pollution management
program.


III. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Existing nonpoint source pollution abatement programs have been
determined to be inadequate by the federal government and under
s. 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of
1990, states with approved Coastal Management Programs are
required to develop and implement Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Programs.   However, until programs can be developed,
there is a need to accelerate the implementation of current
regulatory programs in order to assure that nonpoint source
pollution issues remain manageable.
7
0

PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES
I. IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF COASTAL    WAES INCLUDING HARBORS, BAYS
AND NEAR SHORE WATERS, BY ACCELERATING THE INSTALLATION OF
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO CONITROL CRITICAL NONPOINT SOURCE
IN COASTAL WATERSHEDS.

To accelerate the installation of best management practices to
control critical nonpoint sources, existing state programs need
to be expanded and enhanced, local government actions need to be
expanded and new federal programs need to be initiated.

A. State Nonpoint Source Water Abatement Program

Presently, there are 18 priority watershed projects (nonpoint
source control projects) in coastal areas being developed, being
implemented or completed. These projects are consistent with
Wisconsin's Section 319 Management Program. At a minimum, 25 to
30 additional priority watershed projects are needed to address
the nonpoint source control needs in coastal watersheds.

Need:  Additional funding is needed to provide financial (cost
sharing), technical and educational assistance for
nonpoint source control in 25 to 30 coastal watersheds.
Cost estimates exceed $100 million.,


B. Local Government Actions

Most nonpoint source control activities are implemented by
counties, cities and villages. County Land Conservation
Departments staff levels are generally insufficient to meet the
work load necessary to deal with the nonpoint source control
needs in a timely manner.

Need:   County department staffing levels need to be increased to
provide technical assistance to farmers for controlling
nonpoint sources in a timely manner. Staff are also
needed to assist farmers in the proper operation and
maintenance of best management practices and to assist in
dealing with changes in farm operation. Specifically,
staff are needed to provide technical assistance to
farmers in additional priority watershed projects and
soil erosion control implementation projects and to
monitor landowner adherence to conservation plans for the
Farmland Preservation Program.


In urban areas, storm water discharges are largely uncontrolled;
resulting in both downstream flooding and stream bank erosion and
discharge of pollutants to coastal waters.

Need: Local units of government - particularly cities and
villages - need to manage both the quality and quantity
7
1

of storm water discharge to receiving streams, wetlands
and coastal waters. Local ordinances are likely needed to
provide for proper storm water management.
C. New federal program initiative - Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Program.
To improve and protect the water quality of coastal waters,
section 6217 of the 1990 Amendments to the Coastal Zone
Management Act requires states to develop Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Programs by November 1994. These programs
must include "enforceable management measures and additional
management measures", and be approved by EPA and NOAA. The
intent of this law is to enhance state and local efforts to
control urban and rural nonpoint sources. It is also the intent
of the law for this Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Program to complement state's Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Programs. (See State Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program.)
Need: I. The Department of Natural Resources, in conjunction
with the Department of Administration, Department of
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, other state
agencies, local units of government and the general
public need to develop a Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Program consistent with the
guidance prepared by EPA and NOAA. As part of this
program development, there is a need to identify how
the best management practices and other management
practices presently used in Wisconsin's program compare
to the "management measures" and "additional management
measures" identified in the EPA and NOAA guidance.
2. Training local agencies of government in the
understanding and implementation of the Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.

II. EXPAND NONPOINT SOURCE REGULATORY AUTHfORITIES AND ENHANCE
ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING REQUIREMENTS.
Historically, farmer and other rural landowner participation in
nonpoint source control programs has been voluntary. Recently,
however, "cross compliance" provisions of the 1985 Farm Bill and
various state laws require nonpoint control in order to be
eligible for benefits. Voluntary participation appears to be
inadequate to provide for protection of coastal waters. For
example, landowner participation levels in priority watershed
projects in coastal areas has varied from less than 25% to over
75%. In projects with low participation levels, the level or
pollutant control is definitely inadequate.
Need: Identify as part of the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Abatement Program what legislative authorities and
programmatic procedures are needed to apply "enforceable
7
2

management measures'" in completing nonpoint source
priority watershed projects.

Eroding construction sites are a major nonpoint source in coastal
areas. A number of coastal cities and counties have enacted
construction site erosion control ordinances based on a
Department of Natural Resources model ordinance. However,
enforcement in these communities is less than adequate.
Need:   Local units of government need to enact construction site
erosion control ordinances. Training and staff support
is also needed for counties, cities and villages to
adequately enforce construction site erosion control
ordinances.

Wisconsin deals with serious livestock waste pollution problems,
pesticide and nutrient contamination, and other significant
agricultural and urban storm water discharge sources under
regulations which require case-by-case documentation of the
deleterious consequences of the polluting activities. This
cumbersome enforcement procedure requires more state agency staff
and more staff training than is available.
Need: Proposed legislation to make specific actions subject to
enforcement without the necessity to prove harm to water
resources.

III. ENHANCE STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS THROUGH GREATER PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT AND RESEARCH.
The general public is not familiar with the term "nonpoint
source" and not well aware of the water quality problems caused
by nonpoint sources. In addition, the Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Program may have far reaching impacts on
local units of government.
Need:   Raise citizen awareness by educating the public about the
types of nonpoint sources and their control, publicizing
the programs available. WCMP could develop or assist in
developing newsletters or seminars so that the general
public will understand what programs are being developed
or implemented.
There is also a need to conduct public awareness and
involvement activities when developing the Coastal
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program and other
nonpoint source initiatives in the coastal areas.

Farmers, developers, municipal officials, and other clients
and/or applicants are generally unaware of all the nonpoint
7
3

source pollution impacts and problems caused by coastal and urban
development. Some of these problems include the impacts on water
quality and coastal habitat from existing development, and the
impacts of future development.
Need:   There should be additional support for information and
education initiatives. This is particularly true in
those areas where continued urban development is
perceived to be damaging to the environment.
Additionally, public awareness of issues related to
potential problems from developmental activities should
be enhanced.

For many aspects of nonpoint source control, additional knowledge
is needed to better focus limited financial and technical
assistance and enhance the overall efficiency of the program.
Need: The coastal nonpoint source program will be requesting
all agencies to identify their research needs so that all
collectively all nonpoint source programs as well as the
coastal program can assist in supporting those needs.

IV. IMPROVE WATER QUALITY MONITORING EFFORTS TO BETTER IDENTIFY
THE LEVEL OF POLLUTANT CONTROL NEEDED TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT
THE QUALITY OF COASTAL WATERS.
There is very limited information on the quality of coastal
waters. The information available may not be adequate to
determine where "additional management measures" required under
the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program will need
to be applied.
Need:  A monitoring strategy for coastal waters needs to be
developed and implemented. This strategy should contain
roles for state and federal agencies (e.g. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, U. S. EPA and NOAA).


STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
PROGRAM

The Work Group recommends a dual thrust approach towards
accelerating nonpoint source control efforts in the coastal
areas. The first thrust is to move ahead, as soon as possible,
with developing the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement
Program as required by s. 6217, Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act.
This is covered under cumulative and secondary impacts.
The second thrust is to continue to foster Wisconsin's efforts to
control nonpoint sources by enhancing state and local government
programs.
74

SOURCES

Wisconsin Coastal Manacrement Proaram for the Great Lakes 1987
Update, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Nr 120 - Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Proaram, Department
Of Natural Resources, November, 1989.
Storm Water Manacrement Practices, [Stat.144].

Coastal Zone Manaaement Act, [Section 6217].

Clean Water Act, [Section 319].

Land Manaaement Practices, [Wis. Stats. Ss.92.01-92.14]

Financial and Technical Assistance, [Wis. Stats.,144.24-.25]
75

CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
LEGISLALTIVE OBJECTIVE

The State of Wisconsin has adopted legislation to maintain safe
and productive water bodies [Pollution Discharge Elimination Wis.
Stats. 147.01], and to provide for effective movement of
commodities through Wisconsin harbors [Wis. Stats. 85.095].

The policy of the state is to improve the quality of the waters
of the state; to restore the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of its waters; to protect public health, safeguard
aquatic life and scenic and ecological values; and to enhance the
domestic, municipal, recreational, industrial, agricultural and
other uses of water. This policy reflects federal provisions of
the Clean Water Act. The role of the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program is to assist in the implementation of this
policy.


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

Sediment contamination is a serious environmental and economic
problem in some coastal areas of Wisconsin. Sediments are
naturally deposited by rivers and streams that empty into the
Great Lakes, but in the past, some of these waterways have
carried toxic materials that have become associated with the
sediments. This situation is especially problematic in the older
industrialized areas of Wisconsin, where toxic materials
discharged into the river and settled to the bottom,
contaminating sediment in river mouths, bays, harbors, estuaries,
and other coastal areas.

Natural processes and human actions stir sediments up. In some
cases, sediments may be able to be treated in place or capped
with clay. However, many ports and harbors must be periodically
dredged to maintain navigation channels, and regardless of
navigation, some places may have to be dredged to maintain
environmental quality. if contaminants are present and
biologically available, they can enter the food chain through
aquatic organisms. This situation poses a threat not only to
fish, birds and other organisms, but also to people who eat fish
and come in contact with contaminated lake water and sediments.

Although there are limitations to our understanding of the
impacts of contaminated sediments, the presence of toxins in
sediments poses a potential threat to the ecosystem and to
humans. For example, reduced populations of mink and cross-
billed (deformed) terns have been noted along industrialized and
developed rivers and harbors. Fish with high levels of PCBs and
other toxic contaminants have been found in the Sheboygan River,
Cedar Creek, the Lower Fox River, and other waterways. Data from
7
6

studies at specific sites in the Great Lakes suggests that
exposure of aquatic organisms, fish and birds to toxic pollutants
has:
a) Decreased the abundance and diversity of certain species
b) Reduced phytoplankton growth (a common source of food for
other organisms)
c) Affected the survival, growth and reproduction of organisms
that live on the lake bottom
d) Affected the ability of fish-eating birds to reproduce
e) Caused birds to decrease defense of nests and have abnormal
incubation behavior
f) Been associated with increased tumor frequencies and
abnormalities
if this data is correct, all of the above effects suggest
impairments to the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and
serve as an early warning indicator of potential hazards to
people. Humans are at the top of the aquatic food chain and
consume substances that have accumulated in the lower levels of
the chain. in other words, if contaminants are present and
available-bottom feeding organisms that contain low levels of
toxins are eaten in large quantities by fish, which then
accumulate the toxins. In turn, humans can accumulate higher
levels of toxins by eating large quantities of fish.
Studies have shown that women who regularly ate fish from Lake
Michigan gave birth to infants with different birth weights,
skull sizes, and motor and behavioral development than children
of women in a control group (group did not eat fish). A study
conducted by the Wisconsin Division of Health in 1984 sampled
blood from sport fishing people statewide f or PCB and DDE (a
pesticide). Those that consumed greater amounts of fish tended
to have higher amounts of PCB and DDE in their blood. In limited
areas, contamination is high enough to pose a human health
hazard. For example, the Sheboygan River and Harbor (a Federal
Superfund site) has PCB contamination of bottom sediment high
enough to be harmful when it comes in contact with skin.
All of these factors are especially important to local
communities and regions that rely on their waterfront areas as
focal points of economic development, recreation and access for
community residents. These areas are not only a scenic and
recreation resource, but harbors and ports in coastal communities
contribute to their economic well being. In some cases," the best
solution may be to leave the sediment in place and/or use in-situ
treatment or capping. In other cases, sediment has to be removed
due to ecological threats or to maintain adequate depths for
navigation.
Removing contaminated sediments is especially problematic,
because the dredged materials must be disposed in appropriate
locations. Due to the many communities that must maintain
navigation channels and the amount of potentially contaminated
7
7

sediment that must be removed, disposal is a significant problem.
The dredged material varies in sediment quality and quantity.
Sediments in smaller and less developed (industrialized) harbors
often can be disposed of in environmentally sound and inexpensive
ways. Sediments in the ports of larger and more industrialized
communities are often contaminated and require special dredging
and disposal techniques, or other treatment. The improper
removal or disposal of contaminated sediments can result in
environmental damage or degradation. Proper action requires an
accurate characterization of the physical, chemical, and
toxicological properties of the sediments and an accurate
identification of appropriate action.
Dredging for navigational p-urposes in Wisconsin Great Lakes
harbors normally involves the removal of over 700,000 cubic yards
of sediment material annually. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) is the major agency directly involved in the initiation and
completion of maintenance dredging in federally-designated
navigation channels. In addition, many local governments and
private harbor facility owners and operators undertake their own
dredging projects. For all dredging projects, questions and
uncertainties arise concerning dredging methods and disposal
because of the potential for contaminants in the sediment.

The contaminated sediment issue is of considerable size on its
own, but it is also a major component in the issue of cumulative
and secondary impacts. Funding from within the Coastal Management
Program will be awarded partly to projects specific to
contaminated sediments and partly to projects addressing
contaminated sediments, but characterized under the broader
heading of cumulative and secondary impacts. Refer to Cumulative
and Secondary Impacts section.


CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
There are no federal or state regulatory standards for disposal
of contaminated dredged material from Great Lake Harbors.
However, several federal and state agencies are in the process of
developing regulatory standards and some funds are available to
finance project implementation.
I. FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Contaminated sediment research is being conducted on the federal
level by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal
agencies. One specific EPA effort has been initiated through the
Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments (ARCS)
program. ARCS has three objectives: 1) To assess the nature and
extent of bottom sediment contamination at selected Great Lakes
Areas of Concern, 2) To evaluate and demonstrate remedial
options, including removal, immobilization and advanced treatment
technologies, as well as the "no action" alternative, and 3) To
provide guidance on the assessment of contaminated sediment
78

problems and the selection of necessary remedial actions in the
areas of concern as well as other Great Lakes locations.
In addition, EPA is currently working with the Army Corps of
Engineers to develop regional guidance for implementing Section
404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, as it applies to the disposal
of Great Lakes sediments into the open water. The guidance will
address not only the Corps' dredging projects, but will also
apply to private dredging projects which are permitted by the
Corps. The guidance, as it is currently being developed, will
have a tiered framework, beginning with existing information,
moving to chemical testing, and then to biological testing. The
EPA and the Corps plan to have a draft document completed in late
Fall 1991, which will be circulated for review. The EPA and the
Corps plan to begin implementing the framework in the Spring of
1992.
other federal efforts are contained in the recently proposed
Great Lakes and Coastal Sediment Assessment and Restoration Act
(Sen. Moynihan) and the Great Lakes Sediment Reduction Act of
1991 (Sen. Glenn). The first act is designed to address the
matter of sediment contamination in the Great Lakes. it would
direct EPA and the COE to develop sediment quality criteria and
would direct the COE to conduct contaminated sediment restoration
projects in certain areas. The second Act is intended to reduce
upstream erosion and runoff of soil and pollution along the Great
Lakes Basin.
Major efforts were taken by Congress in the late 1970's to
establish a system of dredged disposal sites on the Great Lakes.
This program, P.L. 91-611, created confined disposal facilities
(CDF's) in many of the Great Lakes commercial harbors. The
facilities were constructed to have a ten year design capacity
for dredged material. Many of those facilities are now
approaching full capacity; thus, communities are facing the
continued need to dredge harbor areas, but disposal sites for the
material are limited. This program has not been reauthorized.


II. WISCONSIN PROGRAMS

The implementation of state regulatory policies concerning
contaminated sediments rests with the Department of Natural
Resources. Department personnel provide both public and private
dredging sponsors with technical information requirements so that
an adequate evaluation of the method of dredging and disposal
location can be determined. Following the completion of this
process, state permits, if authorized, are issued. Concurrently
with the state permitting process, permits are sought from other
regulatory agencies: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and, if
applicable, local governments.
The development of regulatory standards is a long and complicated
process. The Department of Natural Resources has embarked on a
7
9

sediment triad approach of sediment assessment: 1) bulk
chemistry, 2) laboratory bioassay, and 3) in-field biological
studies. The outcome of this study design will be to provide a
higher degree of certainty in making regulatory decisions
concerning the adequate placement of dredged material. The
information should provide future dredging applicants with
guidance on how regulatory decisions will be made.
To identify sites that are causing impairment of the beneficial
uses of water resources, the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is developing a contaminated sediments inventory
in conjunction with the U.S. EPA. The inventory will identify
contaminated sediment and wetland soil sites that cause or have
some potential to cause impairment of beneficial uses of the
associated water resources. In 1989, the Wisconsin DNR developed
a comprehensive sediment management program and selected a few
sites for clean-up demonstration projects and/or remedial
investigation/feasibility studies (Little take Butte des Mortes,
Starkweather Creek, Cedar Creek). Existing programs with a
partial or full goal of evaluating and remediating contaminated
sediments in the State of Wisconsin include:

a. The Green Bay Mass Balance Project, a multi-agency effort
focusing on the fate of PCBs, dieldrin, cadmium, and lead,
directed by EPA Great Lakes National Program office;
b. The Sheboygan Superfund site investigation where researchers
from UW-Madison have investigated in-situ biodegradation of PCBs;
and,
c. Remedial Action Plans initiated by the International Joint
Commission (IJC) use citizens, and technical advisory committees
to examine and make recommendations for remediation at critical
locations (Milwaukee Harbor Estuary, Green Bay, Sheboygan
River/Harbor, Duluth-Superior, and Menominee-Marinette).
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) offers
funding programs for the development of recreational harbor
facilities; however, maintenance of facilities, such as dredging
shoals at launch sites or marina basins, is outside the scope of
the grant programs. Through the state's Harbor Assistance
Program (Wis Stats. 85.095), Wisconsin's Department of
Transportation (DOT) provides financial assistance to local
governments for the maintenance and development of commercial
ports along the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. The
department can provide up to 80% of the cost of dredging, dredged
material disposal, and the construction and repair of publicly-
owned dock walls and disposal facilities. All eligible projects
must demonstrate an improvement to transportation efficiency, and
project benefits must exceed project costs.

III. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
Although there are a number of existing federal, state, and local
programs which address contaminated sediments, the issue
8
0

continues to lack proper control and handling. Primarily, there
is inadequate information for citizens, local authorities, and
state and local staff on the issues of problem areas, potential
risks, and applicable regulations.
Second, local communities are in need of assistance to develop
and implement regulatory, dredging and disposal plans. Many
communities do not address contaminated sediments and others
address problems on a case by case basis, resulting in
inconsistent regulations.

Finally, before a regulatory framework can be developed, research
needs to be done to determine methods of measuring for
contaminants and assessing risks to humans. The lack of widely
accepted quantifiable testing methods makes establishing
guidelines a difficult process.

PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES
Based on the existing conditions in the State of Wisconsin and
the mechanisms currently in place to address contaminated
sediments, the Work Group identified three programmatic
objectives: Education and information, disposal planning, and
regulatory guidance/standards.

I. INCREASE THE KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
CITIZENS IN COASTAL AREAS
The issue of contaminated sediment management is constantly
placed before coastal citizens and communities in many forms,
fish advisories; dredging proposals, either maintenance or new
work; locating dredged disposal sites and alternatives for
disposal. In all of these activities, additional information
concerning the degree of contaminated and the potential effects
of the sediment material on the ecosystem should be available to
citizens, representatives of local governments, and others who
are involved in the decision making process.
Additionally, it is critically important that dredging sponsors,
normally local governments, become more knowledgeable about the
types of sediment testing that is required to process dredging
permit applications, regulatory monitoring requirements during
the period of construction, and the future direction of both
state and federal regulations concerning this activity.
Needs: Currently, there is inadequate informnation available to
the citizens and local authorities in coastal areas with
sediment contamination. Citizens need to be informed of
potential risks, warned about problem areas, and informed
of actions being taken. Authorities from local
governments and ports or harbors need to be informed
about state and federal actions, regulatory changes, and
81
I

new information or procedures for dealing with
contaminated sediments.

II. PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN THE
DREDGING AND DISPOSAL OF TOXIC SEDIMENTS
The full development and implementation of a regulatory and
disposal program will take many years to implement. In the
meantime, many local governments, ports and marinas will have to
take action to maintain navigation channels and their facilities.
Because of the complexity of sediment removal and disposal,
determining solutions will require the cooperation of many
different state, federal and local agencies.

Needs: The successful implementation of a dredging project(s)
requires cooperation and communication between many
separate partners and institutions. To create a systems
approach to dredging, a committee should be established
to review and convey to port and harbor communities
"leading edge" technological concepts to implement
specific dredging projects. Bringing together diverse
interests early in the planning process can provide a
basis for expedited decision-making, thus, assisting both
the applicant as well as the regulator.
The implementation of dredging planning activities for
specific harbors has the potential of selecting disposal
locations and alternatives from an ecosystems
perspective. Through this process, an estuary would be
reviewed in total for areas of potential disposal
facility siting. These locations, combined with dredged
material quality and quantity, can be used for long-term
planning for disposal site locations. A systems approach
to this issue can utilize recommendations prepared
through the Remedial Action Plan process; thus, allowing
for citizen review and input. Early participation can
lead to a broad based acceptance of the selected disposal
option.

III. DEVELOP A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE REGULATORY GUIDANCE AND
STANDARDS FOR INVESTIGATING, EVALUATING, ASSESSING THE RISKS
OF AND DISPOSING OF CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
A. Triad Approach

Determining the quality of material to be dredged is a
complicated technical process. Regulatory organizations approach
testing requirements from slightly different perspectives; thus,
project applicants receive different guidance in sediment
sampling and testing requirements for specific project proposals.
These differences can be regionalized due, in part, to the
decentralization of regulatory agencies. The establishment of
82

specific quantifiable testing protocols would greatly aid
potential project applicants in developing information that is
needed to evaluate a specific proposal.
Needs: To determine a course of action for handling contaminated
sediments in Wisconsin harbors and streams, the state
needs to develop an approach to analyze sediments and
assess the human risk of contaminated sediments. This
includes developing statewide procedures for evaluating
contaminated sites. The Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) has begun to develop a triad approach program to
address these gaps, and continued work is needed to
complete the three elements of this approach.
In addition to testing protocols, there is an on-going
need to broaden information on background levels of
chemical concentrations in areas which have had little
development pressures. A fuller understanding of upland
concentrations of elements can provide baseline
information related to the type of dredging and disposal
which are needed.

Each of these needs are an attempt to quantify type of
management which is needed to safely dispose of dredged
material without degrading water quality or allowing for
the ingestion of contaminants into the food chain.

B. Sediment Quality Criteria Development
Once a system is in place for investigating sediment
contamination, there are no established procedures for evaluating
the degree of contamination of the sediment. Furthermore, the
effects of contaminated sediments on water quality are not known.
Needs: Criteria and methodology should be developed to calculate
a single index from each of the sediment chemistry,
bioassy, and in-field studies data sets. The single index
will indicate the degree of system degradation due to
contaminants in sediment compared to sites that have not
been affected. Further, there should be continued
sediment investigations to determine critical levels of
sediment contamination that affect water quality.
C. Dredging and Remediation Activities
Although individual remediation plans may be developed for
specific sites, there are no statewide plans or guidelines for
carrying out dredging and remediation activities.
Needs: Statewide guidance for implementation of dredging
projects should be established. This would include
requirements for the utilization of specific technology
83

in the dredging process to limit, to the extent possible,
the impact of the dredging process on the ecosystem.
D. Associated Sediment Management Program Needs
Currently, there are no established programs to oversee the
management of sediment sampling and handling samples. This is
important for assuring the accuracy and quality of data.
Needs: The successful implementation of dredged material
sampling and testing requires adherence to acceptable testing
methods. Establishment of a procedures manual to implement and
complete this process will assist both the applicant and
regulator.

STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN' S COASTAL CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS PROGRAM
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, with the
assistance of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, will
continue to develop a comprehensive contaminated sediment
management program to address the restoration of beneficial uses
of coastal surface waters that have been impaired or damaged by
the presence of contaminated sediments. The activities which
either are being or will be undertaken include: the evaluation
development , and application of sediment quality assessment
procedures; completion of an inventory of contaminated sediment
sites and development of prioritization schemes to select sites
for detailed assessments and remediation; coordination of
contaminated sediment issues for the various management and
regulatory programs (Remedial Action Plans, dredging projects,
Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, State
Environmental Repair); development of general and site-specific
sediment quality standards and criteria for use in decision-
making regarding site remediation, navi gational dredging
projects, and point and nonpoint source control efforts; and
implementation of remedial options at contaminated sediment sites
in Great Lakes Harbors and tributaries. Each of the activities
must also be accompanied by the development of appropriate
guidance documents and public informational materials and the
provision of technical assistance to public parties affected by
contaminated sediments.
SO'URCES
Chat)ter NR 347 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code
Clean Water Act
84

NATURAL HAZARDS


LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES

1. Prevention or significant reduction of threats to life and
destruction of property by eliminating development and
redevelopment in high hazard areas, managing development in
other hazard areas, and anticipating and managing the effects
of potential sea level rise and Great Lakes levels rise
(Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 309(a)(2)].

2. "it is the policy of the state to mitigate risks to public
health and safety and risks to property damage in areas
subject to natural hazards by:
a. Providing that all development in areas subject to serious
flooding will not materially alter the natural capacity of
the lake or river so as to intensify the magnitude of
floods, expose citizens to hazards or cause future public
expenditures for flood disaster relief; and,
b. Regulate those earth moving, de-vegetation, and construction
activities now reviewed by state agencies so as not to
accelerate the rate of shoreline erosion or bluff recession"
[Wisconsin Coastal Management Program 1987 Great Lakes
Program, p. 161.


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

Three primary types of hazards in Great Lake coastal areas are:
1. Erosion of coastal bluffs, banks, beaches and near shore lake
beds;
2. Flooding from upland runoff, high lake levels and storm-
induced surge (temporary water level changes); and,
3. Damage to shoreline structures from storm waves.

Natural coastal hazards such as: earthquakes, hurricanes or
typhoons are not concerns in the Great Lakes.

Natural changes in lake levels are caused by changes in
precipitation, evaporation, and changes in the rate at which
water enters or leaves each lake through connecting channels.
Storms during very high lake levels increases erosion, creating a
significant hazard to coastal properties. in the decade prior to
1986, precipitation throughout the Great Lakes was much greater
than average and evaporation was lower than average. The
combination of these two changes brought record high water levels
in 1985 and 1986. Lake Michigan reached levels not seen since
1886. Even though storms were less severe and less frequent,
never the less Wisconsin experienced $16 million of documented
damage to public facilities and millions more in undocumented
damage to public and private property.
85

The decades of the 1950's, 1970's and 1980's each experienced
higher water levels. Each successive high water period brought
higher waves and greater wave damage to the coast where the lake
bed had been steadily eroding, even during years of modest lake
levels. The combination of these factors has probably
accelerated bluff and bank recession rates, and with each decade
has come more extensive and intensive coastal development.
Consequently, the cost and risks of damage to coastal homes,
businesses and public facilities has risen substantially over the
years. Studies in 1979 and 1989 indicated that the type and
degree of the natural hazard threat varies along the Lake
Michigan and Superior coast. The major types of natural hazard
threats consists of the following:
1. General shore erosion from Kenosha to Sturgeon Bay;
2. Isolated shore erosion from Sturgeon Bay to Green Bay
(individual bays and clay bank areas);
3. Coastal flooding from Green Bay to Marinette; and,
4. General shore erosion from Saxon Harbor to Superior (except
for bedrock areas).
Where shore erosion exists, average recession rates of 2-5 feet
per year are common in bluff areas, and in some sections rates
equaling 10 feet per year have been recorded.

CBARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
I.   REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Local, state, federal and international programs address coastal
hazards. In Wisconsin, four programs address shoreland erosion
and flooding.

A. Local

Shor-elandIFloodvlain Zoninca, Counties with Adooted Zoninai
O.rdinance (Counties, 5.59.97 and 59.971). Counties can establish
recession (erosion and/or bluff/ravine) based setbacks, under a
general zoning or shoreland zoning ordinance, that is more
restrictive than the 75 foot setback required under NR 115. In
Wisconsin, several coastal counties have more restrictive
recession based setbacks in their general zoning ordinances.
Sho.reland/Floodp)lain Zoninay, Counties without AdoiDted Zoninai
O-rdinance (Counties, S.59.9 71). Counties that have no general
zoning ordinance, can establish recession based setbacks under a
shoreland/floodplain zoning ordinances, that is more restrictive
than the 75 foot setback required under NR 115. In Wisconsin,
several coastal counties have more restrictive recession based
setbacks in their shoreland/floodplain zoning ordinances.
8
6

B. State
Sho-reland and Wetland Zonina: Counties (S.59.971, Statutes. & NR
115). Applies to unincorporated (rural) areas. It requires all
counties in the state to adopt zoning and subdivision regulations
for the management of all shorelands. In this zoning
classification, upland development is generally restricted in
type and intensity. Generally, the use of properties in this
classification is limited to passive recreation, agriculture,
parks, boating access locations, and utility crossings. Further,
NR 115 establishes a minimum setback, at 75 feet, from areas
subject to the controls listed in the code.

Sho.reland and Wetland Zoninar: Villaares & Cities (Ss.61Z.351 &
62.231, Statutes. & NR 117). Applies to incorporated areas
within the state (cities, towns and villages). Similar to the
Shoreland Management Program (NR 115), this program requires the
protection of lands within 1,000 feet of a lake or 300 feet of a
stream or river. The major difference between NR 115 and NR 117
is that NR 117 does not establish the 75 foot setback for
development as is required in NR 115.

The Wisconsin Floodolain Manaaiement Proairam (NR 116). Provides a
uniform basis for preparing and implementing floodplain
regulations across the state. Areas potentially subject to
flooding are identified by incorporating mapping information from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The code applies
to "coastal floodplains," defined as areas along the coast of
Lake Michigan or Lake Superior which are inundated by regional
flood and subject to additional hazards due to wave run-up. All
counties, cities and villages are required to adopt and
administer floodplain zoning ordinances that meet the minimum
requirements set up in the code. These requirements include
criteria for establishing and rezoning floodplain districts,
development standards in floodway areas, development standards in
flood fringe areas, standards for nonconforming uses, criterion
for flood proofing, and other requirements.
Charterv 30 Pe-rmit Proar-am. Under Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin
Statutes, the DNR provides technical, planning and training
assistance to counties, cities and villages so they can properly
administer their shoreland, wetland and floodplain ordinances.
Monitoring and compliance is achieved through audits of local
programs and enforcement of violations through local courts or
the Attorney General's office. The DNR works with local
communities to develop mitigation plans to prevent damage from
natural flooding and erosion. The DNR also regulates
construction and waterway alteration in and adjacent to Lakes
Michigan and Superior.
87

II. NON-REGUIATORY PROGRAMS
in addition to the DNR regulatory programs, the Wisconsin
Division of Emergency Government (DEG) is preparing mitigation
plans, public information, and local training to assist in
preparing for and recovery from human-induced or natural
emergencies. The Division of Emergency Government responded to
the 1985-86 water level crisis with public information and damage
assessment activities.
Finally, the Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute's technical expertise
helped identify what information is still needed to determine the
effects of high lake levels on both shore structures and upland
erosion rates. Sea Grant also produced public information
materials for local governments and others on natural coastal
hazards. In 1987 Sea Grant published Coastal Process Handbook -
.Evaluatina the Risks of Floodina and Erosion for Great Lakes
Cac,ital Provexrtv, with assistance from the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program.
The International Joint Commission (IJC), a U.S.- Canadian body
dedicated to Great Lakes concerns, has also been involved in
erosion and flooding issues. The IJC outlined a Phase II, Plan
of Study for the Levels Reference Study Board to update erosion
data, establish benefit/cost ratios for protection of facilities,
and review present regulatory issues. The $6 million study will
also try to develop a method for estimating the probabilities of
future high and low lake levels.

III. EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Even with the existing regulations, Wisconsin has suffered over
the years and continues to suffer from problems associated with
natural hazards. Specifically, regulatory and management
programs are needed for: erosion of coastal bluffs, banks,
beaches and near shore coastal areas; flooding from upland
runoff, high lake levels, and storm-induced surges; and damage to
shoreline structures from stormwaves.
Another significant problem when addressing the issue of natural
hazards is that the degree of the hazards varies along
Wisconsin's coasts, making a management plan for the entire coast
a difficult proposal. Studies addressing the issue on an area
wide, instead of coast wide basis will be needed if coastwide
relief will be possible.
8
8

PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES
I.   DIRECT FUTURE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM HAZARDOUS AREAS
A. General
Current state regulatory policies and programs are designed to
lessen the potential economic losses brought about by hazard
occurrence. To date there has been no information collected or
analysis conducted to assess the existing shoreland policies for
the Green Bay, Lake Michigan or Lake Superior shorelands. It is
not known if the setback requirements in county ordinances have
been adequate or successfully applied and enforced. Also, it is
not known whether setback requirements have had positive or
negative impacts on building location. For example, in the past,
many owners may have used their own judgement and built
buildings farther away from the shoreline than current
regulations require.
Need:   Present shoreland policies (county regulations, and state
policies, programs and regulations) need to be reviewed
to determine effectiveness in the Green Bay, Lake
Michigan or Lake Superior shorelands. The review should
lead to recommendations for changes to present shoreland
policies.

The goal of hazards regulation is to reduce property damage
brought about through a natural erosion process and enhanced by
storm, events. Sea Grant maintains an ongoing public information
and education program about hazards in coastal areas. However
the public is still uninformed about the rationale for new
setback and flood plain regulations. This lack of knowledge is
coupled with a public perception that regulators are acting
arbitrarily toward property owners who were allowed to build
under prior ordinances. Property owners, opposition is aroused,
reducing the effectiveness of the regulations and minimizing
awareness of the issue. Differences in ordinances between
counties, due to varying dates of adoption, gives an appearance
of arbitrariness and further diminishes public support.
Need:   Updated information needs to be presented to coastal
governments and property owners to explain the rationale
for new or revised setback and flood plain regulations,
so that informed decisions on future coastal land uses
can be made.

The potential impact of natural hazards on upland land uses and
structures can be monumental. Besides property owners, many
other people including lenders, realtors, developers, insurance
agents, and prospective buyers are potentially impacted by
damages and liabilities of coastal hazards.
89

Need:  Continual education of those persons and institutions
which are involved in the development process is needed,
so that the full potential of development actions can be
adequately evaluated prior to taking place.

B. Coastal Damiage/Erosion
The existing data on coastal erosion is inadequate for
determining the extent of the problem, the number of people and
structures at risk, and the success or failure of existing
programs. Without this basic background data, standards cannot
be set and regulations cannot be developed for local governments.

Some of the data gaps include:
* Recession rates;
* Damage and risk assessment;
* Effect of human-built structures on coastal erosion;
* improvements in lake level predictive capabilities;
* Comparison of recommended wave run-up criteria with actual
extreme wave run-up;
* Verification of the existence of lake bed erosion (down
cutting) and its significance in rate and extent along the
coast.
Need:  The documentation of baseline information is needed to
adequately determine areas which are susceptible to
natural hazards impacts. There needs to be additional
effort placed on gathering data on erosion rates,
plotting this in this information on current shoreline
maps and determining updated erosion rates.

Recession rate information assembled and published in the mid-
1970's is inadequate because it was incomplete, the recession
rates were too generalized, and the rates understate erosion
because high erosion periods in the 1980's were not included.
The development of new recession rate data will lead to better
evaluation of risks in investing in coastal property, better
decisions about relocating threatened coastal buildings, and a
more accurate determination of adequate construction setbacks.:
Need:  Recession rates on the Great Lakes vary by location, soil
type and other natural items; thus, a constant numerical
setback can provide both under and over protection.
Setback regulations should be variable and based on
natural features for a specific location.

C. Flooding
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps
of Engineers calculated 100-year flood plain zones for most of
9
0

the state. However, many of these zones have not been
transferred to maps, and consequently most communities use
outdated flood plain maps to regulate land use. When neighboring
counties use different maps to regulate flood plain levels, some
property owners and municipalities resist regulation because
neighboring counties use lower, outdated flood plain levels.
implementation is held back because of insufficient state and
local staff, resulting in poor maps, and lack of awareness by the
local officials and the public.
Need: The effective implementation of flood plain maps can only
be conducted through the use of accurate and consistent
maps. All coastal county flood plain maps must be
brought up to date, and be consistent.

I I. PRESERVE AND RESTORE THE PROTECTIVE FUNCTIONS OF NATURAL
SHORELINE FEATURES SUCH AS BEACHES, DUNES AND WETLANDS.
A. General
Structural systems are often used to protect upland improvements.
Structures built to reduce coastal erosion can have adverse
effects on natural shoreline features as well as neighboring
property and structures. Frequently, natural features will
provide adequate protection if left undisturbed. However,
without information and analysis to determine which features
provide adequate protection, policies cannot be developed to make
these determinations.
Need:  Non-structural and structural means for hazards
protection needs to be analyzed in providing the desired
protection to the riparian owner as well as neighboring
properties. Policies should be established to determine
when non-structural or structural means should be used.
Finally there needs to be additional resources committed
to the educational process of gaining community
acceptance of policies.

III. PREVENT OR MINIMIZE THREATS TO EXISTING POPULATIONS AND
PROPERTY FROM BOTH EPISODIC AND CHfRONIC COASTAL HAZARDS.

* A. General
Presently, there is only limited, and out-of-date information
concerning the number of individuals, values of properties, both
private and public, and importance of properties which are
susceptible to hazard impacts.
Need: To adequately protect people and structures in coastal
areas, more information and data is needed on the extent
of the threats and the areas of greatest concern. Also,
9 1

the impacts of hazards on facilities important to local
economies, and public safety need to be determined.

Few communities subject to flooding or erosion have prepared pre-
disaster mitigation plans, and are therefore unprepared to
undertake any measures other than restoration of previous
conditions. After flooding, typically they restore previous
conditions only to find them flooded again. if the community
develops a mitigation plan, rebuilding after a flood may be done
in such a way to prevent future property damage.

Need:   The preparation of local flood mitigation plans.
92

STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN' S COASTAL NATURAL HAZARDS PROGRAM
I. SUMMTARY OF THE ISSUE

Based on preliminary assessments, Wisconsin could pursue a
natural hazards program with two components. The first could
improve the regulatory foundation and the second could assist in
having an effective program.

Initially, Wisconsin shou-1d evaluate and monitor existing
flooding and erosion zoning programs to determine their adequacy
and effectiveness. First, existing county and state setback
regulations and procedures need to be evaluated for
effectiveness. Second, closer monitoring and evaluation of
actions taken under the Shoreland Management Program, the
Shoreland-Wetland Protection Program, the Flood Plain Management
Program, and Chapter 30 should determine effectiveness and
identify necessary changes. From the evaluation, guidelines
would be developed for revising existing shoreland policies
(county regulations, and/or state policies, programs or
regulations). The evaluation of existing flooding and erosion
zoning programs would be conducted through a project of special
merit.

Next, for the coastal erosion and flooding programs, Wisconsin
should provide technical assistance, information management and
analysis, increased local training and education, increased
public education and awareness, and increased coordination among
state agencies. These activities would be conducted in future
years as part of the WCMP core program.


II. THE CORE PROGRAM PROPOSED OBJECTIVES

SECTION 306 FUNDING

In the past, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program has funded
projects for the study of natural hazards. The funding of these
projects never evolved into a core area for the WCMP. In future
years a technical assistance program that could operate under the
natural hazards core program will allow past funding of natural
hazards projects to resume. Also, the nature of the voluntary
program will provide incentives that will ensure the acceptance
of the technical assistance being provided by the WCMP.

1) Implement a low-cost technical assistance program
GOAL: IMPLEMENT A LOW-COST TECHNICAL ASS ISTANCE PROGRAM FOR
LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT
FFY 95: The WCMP could implement a low-cost technical assistance
program for local governments to provide information management
and analysis, increased local training and education, increased
9 3

public education and awareness, and increased coordination among
state agencies to deal with present shoreland policies.
FFY 96: The WCMP would continue the low cost technical assistance
programf for local governments.

Budgets:  FFY 95:   Amount to be determined by the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Council (Section 306
funding)
FFY 96:   Amount to be determined by the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Council (Section 306
funding)

III. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE CORE PROGRAM

PROJECT OF SPECIAL MERIT
1) Develop a low-cost technical assistance prog-ram

GOAL: DEVELOP A LOW-COST TECHfNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR LOCAL
UNITS OF GOVERNMENT
Problem Summary: To date there has been no information collected
or analysis conducted to assess the existing shoreland policies
for the Green Bay, Lake Michigan or Lake Superior shorelands. It
is not known if the setback requirements in county ordinances
have been adequate or successfully applied and enforced. Also,
it is not known whether setback requirements have had positive or
negative impacts on building location. Present shoreland
policies (county regulations, and state policies, programs and
regulations) need to be reviewed to determine effectiveness in
the Green Bay, Lake Michigan or Lake Superior sh.orelands. The
review should lead to recommendations for changes to present
shore land policies.
Program Change: The program change would result in a new core
area for the WCMP, Natural Hazards, under which low cost
technical assistance will be provided to local units of
government. The program change could result in new or revised
recession based setbacks in general zoning or shoreland/wetland
ordinances, that would be implemented by local units of
government through the low cost technical assistance grants.
Impact of Change: Low cost technical assistance would enable and
ensure that more local units of government adopt or revise
ordinances that are more responsive to coastal natural hazards.

Tasks:
FFY 94: A consultant would conduct a study of present shoreland
policies (county regulations, and state policies, programs and
regulations) and evaluate for effectiveness, and community need.
Based on the study, the consultant would develop a program to
94

* provide technical assistance addressing needs identified by
coastal communities. The needs may include; continual education
of those persons and institutions which are involved in the
development process, protection of upland improvements,
preparation of local flood mitigation plans. The program would
be developed in cooperation with state agency staff, regional
planning commissions, local units of government, and other
interested parties.
Budgets:  FFY 94:   $40,000 for consultant cost

Note: The WCMP will issue a request for proposals to develop
the specific budget for these tasks. The request will go out
to local units of government, state agencies, colleges,
universities, regional planning commissions, and private
organizations. An independent committee will assist the WCMP
in evaluating project proposals. Detailed budgets will be
submitted to OCRM after the consultant is selected.
Likelihood of Success: The availability of low cost technical
assistance to local units of government will greatly increase the
state's chance for developing a workable natural hazards program.
Local governments that show an initiative towards managing their
natural hazards threat will be rewarded, thus providing an
incentive for other local governments to enter the program.
Finally, the WCMC feels that the managing of the natural hazards
threat should be undertaken at the local level, with the
assistance of the WCMP.

SOURCES
Pederal Emeraencv Manaaement Aaencv fFEMA'I. Washington, D.C.
Chapter 22
Department of Militarv Affairs, Division of Emerarencv Government
(sec. 166)
Wisconsin's Shore Erosion Plan: An Appraisal of 0Options and
Stratecries, by Roger Springman and Stephen M. Born, 1979.

A Lake Michiqan Shoreline Erosion Manaarement Plan for Milwaukee
Countv, Wisconsin, prepared by the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission, 1987.
Discussions with Regional Planning Commissions (Bay Lake,
Northwest and Southeastern Wisconsin), and DNR staff
95

Strategy for Hazards Ptogram'
I FY 94 Goal:     0           OOA
Project
306 Goals           FFY 93    FFY 94    FFY 95   FFY 96    FFY 97    FFY 98           Totals

Natural Hazards Program                                                                                0
0
0
0


Diff from Goal                                 0         0         0           0          0

* * Funding for a Natural Hazards Program depends on an Increase in 306 funding.

Project
309 Goals           FFY 93	FFY 94    FFY 95   FFY 96    FFY 97    FFY 98	Totals

Develop model ordinance	40,000	40,000

0




Grand Totals                0    40,000          0         0           0          0       40,000
Funding to	Funding to
Locals     %	the State    %

0
0
o	0
0	0

0q4~~





Funding to	Funding to
Locals     %	the State    %
0
40,000
0
All 306 project funding is determined by the Coastal Council, using Strategy Goals.

TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
ENHANCEMENT AREA: Natural Hazards
PROJECT OF SPECIAL MERIT FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Develop a low-cost technical assistance program for local
units of government to help deal with Natural Hazards            FFY 94       FFY 95        FFY 96        FFY 97        FFY 98
(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)

MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY                                             1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4  1  2  3  4
Goal: Develop a low-cost technical assistance program
Study existing shoreland policies
Based on study, develop the low-cost technical
assistance program
Goal. Implement a lowJ-cost technical assistance program
Implement a low-cost technical assistance program for
local units of government

SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING


LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE

Preparing and implementing special area management plans (sAMYP)
for important coastal areas (coastal zone Management Act, Section
309)


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

The special area management plan (SAMVP) is a comprehensive
planning mechanism that integrates natural resource protection
with sustainable land use practices. The plan contains; detailed
and comprehensive statements of policy, standards and criteria to
guide public and private uses of lands and waters, and
implementation mechanisms for specific areas in the coastal zone.
Special area management planning follows a process of public
consensus building through issue identification and dispute
resolution techniques such as mediation, negotiation and
systematic planning. Special area management planning can be
used as the basic framework in which to resolve future land use
conflicts, as is done in Oregon.

Special area management plans can address development, and
specific environmental concerns, such as wetlands, or general
environmental concerns, such as those of an expanding
metropolitan area. Examples include, Chiwaukee Prairie, a rare
and isolated natural area which is a specific concern, or the
City Superior, where overall environmental protection is a
general concern.


CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS

Wisconsin currently has no formal special area management
planning program, though SAMP's have been conducted in Wisconsin.
The Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach SAMP, located in Kenosha County
in southeastern Wisconsin, is presently being implemented. A
SAMP for the City of Superior, in northwestern Wisconsin, is
presently going through the final stages of development.

Planned Develcomrent Districts in cities and villaaes (61.35 and
62.23(7)(b), Statutes). State statutes allow for the use of
special zoning districts, called planned development districts.
Cities and villages may, with the consent of the owners,
establish planned development districts. The regulations in
these districts are designed to, over a period of time, promote
the maximum benefit from coordinated area site planning,
diversified location of structures and mixed compatible uses.
98

PROGRAMMATIC OBJECTIVES
I. DEVELOP AND INPLEMENT SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR AREAS
OF THE COAST WITH HIGH NATURAL RESO'URCE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
PRESSURES.
Wisconsin currently has no specific guidance for special area
management planning. The WCMP should develop a process by which
SAMPs can be designed and implemented, and criteria established
to identify eligible geographic areas.

Need: The state needs to develop guidelines f or the development
and implementation of special area management plans. The
regional planning commissions, state and federal
agencies, and local units of government could provide
assistance for the development of the SAMP guidelines.
9 9

STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING
PROGRAM

I. SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE

The needs assessment identifies existing SAMPs, and concerns for
which SANPs can be utilized. in particular, SAMPs can be used to
address specific concerns such as wetlands, nonpoint source
pollution and natural hazards. In general, SAMPs can address
broad environmental concerns which may include certain specific
concerns.

SAMPs have already been conducted in Wisconsin. The needs
assessment identified the fact that Wisconsin has no formal SAD4P
mechanism, and no guidelines for developing and implementing
SAMPs. Prior to initiating another SAMP, guidance and criteria
need to be established.


II. THE CORE PROGRAM PROPOSED OBJECTIVES

Wisconsin currently has no core special area management planning
program. The WCMP may provide support for SAMPs to enhance the
other core program areas. Prior to any SAMP support, the WCMP
will need to established guidelines and criteria for SAMPs.


SECTION 309 FUNDING

III. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE CORE PROGRAM

1) Develop guidelines, and initiate a Special Area Management
Plan

GOAL: DEVELOP GUIDELINES AND INITIATE A SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT
PLAN APPLYING THE NEWLY DEVELOPED GUIDANCE

Problem Summnary: Wisconsin currently has no formal special area
management planning program, though SAMP's have been conducted in
Wisconsin. Guidelines do not exist for the SAMP planning
process. Furthermore, there are areas of the state that could
benefit from the SAMP process, including the Ashland area, Door
County, Green Bay - West Shore, and Kewaunee Harbor. Prior to
* initiating another SAMP in Wisconsin, an analysis of the SAMPs
already conducted in the state must be undertaken.
Program Change: The program change will result in guidelines
necessary for a clear description of the SAMP planning process in
Wisconsin. The guidelines will include criteria and procedures
for SAM4Ps that will improve the state's ability to achieve the
enhancement objectives of the WCMP in cumulative and secondary
impacts, and wetlands.
100

Irapact of chanqe: Guidelines for the SAMP process will ensure
that future SAMPs are conducted in a more predictable manner.
The program change will allow a process of public consensus
building through issue identification and dispute resolution
techniques. Also, with guidelines in place, a SAMP will derive
the maximum benefit from coordinated area site planning,
diversified location of structures, and mixed compatible uses.
Prior to initiating another SAMP in Wisconsin, an analysis of the
SAMPs already conducted in the state should be undertaken. From
this analysis, a set of guidelines can be developed, for use in
future SAMPs.

Tasks:
FFY 94: The Wisconsin Coastal Manaqement Council, in cooperation
with the regional planning commissions and applicable federal and
state agencies, would select the location of the Special Area
Management Plan.

FFY 95: A consultant will be hired to form a workgroup of federal
and state agency staff, regional planning commission staff, local
units of government, and other interest groups. With input from
the workgroup, the consultant will formulate the specific
provisions of the program through the following efforts:
* Study the existing SAMPs, and develop guidelines for future
SAMP s
* Develop an inventory of the natural resources, land use, and
infrastructure of the SAMP location.

FFY 96: The consultant, in cooperation with the workqroup, would
complete the inventory of the natural resources, land use, and
infrastructure of the area. Development of Special Area
Management Plan would start.

Budgets:  FFY 94:	No Funding
FFY 95:	$25,000 for consultant cost
FFY 96:	$40,000 for consultant cost

Note: The WCMP will issue a request for proposals to develop
the specific budget for these tasks. The request will go out
to local units of government, state agencies, colleges,
universities, regional planning commissions, and private
organizations. An independent committee will assist the WCMP
in evaluating project proposals. Detailed budgets will be
submitted to OCRM after the consultant is selected.

Likelihood of Success:
The two SAMPs that have occurred in the state will provide a an
excellent basis for developing guidelines for the SAMP process.
Also, several areas along the state's coast are prime targets for
special area management plans, due to the high natural resource
base and development pressure. Finally, the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Council views special area management planning as a
101

tool. to address specific issues such as wetlands, and cumulative
and secondary impacts. Guidelines would help make SAMP funding
decisions more systematic, thus increasing the funding of SAMPs
in the future.

SOURCES
Villages, Chapter 61. Wisconsin Statutes.
Cities, Chapter 62. Wisconsin Statutes.
Oregon Coastal Management Program. An Assessment of Orecron's
Coastal and Ocean Resource Issues and Manaarement CaDabilitv: A
Basis for Needed Procrram Chanares and Federal Coastal Manaarement
309 Prioritv Fundincr Assistance. Salem, OR: OCMP, January,
1992.
102

a.
Strategy for Special Area Mandagement Plans (SAMPs)
Project
309 Goals           FFY 93    FFY 94	FFY 95	FFY 96    FFY 97    FFY 98	Totals

Develop guidance and                          0	25,000	40,000	65,000
implement one SAMP
0


......... .                                                                       . ._
Funding to	Funding to
Locals    %	the State   %

65,000                0

0

..                 I.
H
0
Li
All 306 project funding Is determined by the Coastal Council, using Strategy Goals.

A
TIME LINE FOR GOAL ACHIEVEMENT
ENHANCEMENT AREA: Special Area Management Planning
SECTION 309 FUNDING
OBJECTIVE: Develop guidelines, and design and implement a special
area management plan (SAMP)                                     FFY 94        FFY 95        FFY 96        FFY 97        FFY 98
(By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter) (By Quarter)

MULTI-YEARSTRATEGY                                             1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Goal.' Develop guidelines and initiate development of the SAMP
Select the location of the SAMP               W9.,:,
Workgroup formed by consultant
Study the existing SAMPs
Develop guidelines for use with SAMvPs
Start to develop an inventory of the natural resources,
land use, and infrastructure of the SAMP location
Complete the inventory
Initiate development of the SAMP
H
C)

ENERGY AND GOVERNMENT FACILITY SITING


LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES

Adoption of procedures and enforceable policies to help
facilitate the siting of energy facilities and Government
facilities and energy-related activities and government
activities which may be of greater than local significance
(Coastal Zone Management Act, Section 309]..


CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ISSUE

Goverrnment and especially energy facilities are commonly located
along coastlines to take advantage of transportation access and
abundant supplies of fresh water. Examples of energy facilities
are coal docks, coal transshipment facilities, as well as
nuclear, coal and other power plants; government facilities
include military installations, nuclear waste repositories, and
other buildings and structures.

Currently there is only one proposed energy plant in the process
of being sited; possible sites will be narrowed down to 3 or 4
around the end of 1991. However, Advanced Plans recently
submitted by Wisconsin utility companies forecast 44 new plants
by the year 2010. Thirty-seven of these are smaller size plants
to meet energy demand during periods of peak energy use. Eight
of the facilities, including all of the large plants, are
proposed to be fueled by coal. While the location of these
plants has yet to be determined, the attractiveness of coastal
sites may make plant siting an issue in the future.

There are no known major government facilities currently being
proposed in Wisconsin.

Energy and government facilities have a variety of impacts
depending on the size and type of project. They can impact:
water quality, air quality, coastal habitats, coastal
accessibility, as well as the employment and economic development
of a region.

a Some of the general impacts during construction of large-scale
projects are: changes in land use patterns, deterioration of air
and water quality, loss of vegetation, loss of fish and wildlife
as well as their habitats, community disruption, employment
opportunities, and other secondary economic benefits. Energy
facilities also have visual impacts, may affect regional
transportation (coal and other deliveries), and can have
additional impacts from the development of transportation access
and power transmission lines. The effects of government
facilities vary from potential regional consequences of nuclear
105

waste repositories to localized impacts of buildings and
facilities.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
There are three levels of regulations and laws governing power
plant siting in Wisconsin. This section will briefly describe
the federal level, discuss Wisconsin state mechanisms in detail,
and outline the types of authorities granted to local governments
in Wisconsin.

I. REGULATORY AUTHORITY

A. Federal Authority
The following table briefly outlines the types of projects
regulated at the federal level and the agencies and/or laws that
apply. Some of the federal agencies delegate administration of
their laws and programs to states; consequently some of the
federal programs are administered by Wisconsin state agencies.
Prolects
major projects
affecting human
environment


Projects discharging
waste into air or water

Land disposal of waste



Nuclear Facilities
and associated
facilities

Facilities with
structures in
navigable waters
AcTencies /Laws
National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Impact Statement
administered by various agencies,
depending on project
U.S. Env. Protection Agency
Clean Water and Air Acts

U.S. Env. Protection Agency
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission
license construction and
operation

U.S. A-rmy Corps of Engineers
Clean Water Act Section 404
B.- State Authority
Malor .facilitv sitina. Regulated by the state equivalent to the
National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Clean Air and
Clean Water Acts. These laws provide the same mechanisms as the
federal laws, except that they are carried out by state rather
than federal agencies. The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act
requires an assessmnent of the environmental impacts of major
projects affecting the environment (Environmental Impact
Statements or EIS). The State also regulates air emissions, waste
106

discharge into waterways, and disposal of solid waste through the
Wisconsin's master envirormental quality statute, Chapter 144 of
the Wisconsin Statutes. Chapter 30 of the Wisconsin Statutes
contains authority similar to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In addition to these regulatory mechanisms, the Wisconsin
Department of industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) also
regulates petroleum storage tanks over 8,000 gallons, and
periodically inspects them as a precaution against fire.

Ene.rav-related Facilities. Before a utility can build a power
plant in Wisconsin, approvals are required from state agencies.
These approvals generally fall under the Power Plant Siting Act
(Section 196.491, Wis. Stats.) and the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act (Section 1.11, Wis. Stats). The two major agencies
involved are the Public Service Commission (PSC) and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Utilities must obtain state approval for new power plants through
a two stage process. The first stage is a process called the
Advanced Plan; the second stage is the granting of specific
permits to build a particular plant at a specified location.
During the planning stage, the PSC evaluates the state's future
electric needs. Specific issues include: forecasts of future
electric demand, alternate ways to meet demand, plant types,
plant size, timing of new plants, siting criteria, and lists of
alternative sites.
After planning approval, a utility must obtain construction
approval for a specific proposal. The PSC must issue a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and DNR
must issue a number of related permits. As part of this
construction review, the PSC and the DNR prepare a joint
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS looks at plant
design, impacts of the proposal and alternatives. All of the
factors in the Advance Plan (energy forecasts, available
technologies, alternative ways to meet the load) are checked to
see if any major changes have occurred since the planning level
review. In addition to the EIS, many other types of analyses are
done by both agencies.
The EIS and the results of the other agency evaluations are
presented at public hearings on the proposed power plant. Public
participation is encouraged at those hearings. Following the
hearings, the PSC (Public Service Commission) and the DNR
(Department of Natural Resources) will decide on the various
permits for the project. The PSC may approve the project as
proposed, may reject it or may approve it contingent on many
major changes. The DNR will decide on the issuance of permits
for the project's air pollutant emissions, ash and other solid
waste disposal, water discharges, high capacity wells and any
structures or fills in navigable waters.
I10
7

.f
C. Local Authority
Local government authorities extending to power plant and
government facility siting include zoning regulations and other
ordinances. Municipalities (counties, cities and villages) have
the power to plan for the physical development and zoning within
their jurisdictions. Local planning and zoning maay be useful
guides for agencies and power companies, but local ordinances may
be preempted for the siting of power plants. However, because
there are no comprehensive siting laws for coal docks or
petroleum storage areas, local zoning ordinances can be an
important regulatory tool. Local government ordinances may
require: permits to erect structures on shorelines, permits
needed to fill or dredge shoreline, and occupancy permits
necessary for the occupation of a structure.


STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL ENERGY AND GOVERNMENT FACILITY
SITING PROGRAM
The existing siting procedures in Wisconsin were part of the
original policies approved by the U.S. Department of
Comimerce/NOAA/ Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.
it is the belief of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program that
the existing state policies and procedures are adequate to
facilitate the siting of government and energy-related facilities
which may be of greater than local significance.


SOURCES

Bav Lake RPC Enerav Facilitv lmpact ReDort

Wisconsin Statutes ChaDters 196, 144, 66 (Municipal Law)

Administrative Chapters: NR 150, NR 170, PSC 2, PSC 111, PSC 112

Discussions with PSC and DNR staff

Wisconsin Statewide Joint Plan, 1991, Advance Plan 6, plans filed
with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Bay lake Regional Planning Commission, 1981, Energy Facility
Impacts.
108

MARINE DEBRIS


LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES

Reducing marine debris entering the Nation's coastal and,ocean,
environment by managing uses and apctivities that contribute to
the entry of such debris [Coastal Zone Management Act, Section
309].


CHARACTERTZATION OIF THE ISSUE
Marine debris includes an array of trash and debris from both
land and lake vessels. Types,-of debris include trash, plastic
waste, tires, barrels, fishing line, and wood materials. Land
sources include solid waste disposal sites, storm sewer outfalls,
litter and illegal dumping. Lake vessel sources include fishing,
shipping, passenger, and recreational.

Discussions with officials at state parks on both Lake Superior
and Lake Michigan indicate that marine debris is not a
significant problem. An assistant supervisor at Kohler-Andrea
State Beach near Milwaukee said that their most persistent
problems were with tires and metal drums. Tires appear regularly,
but not in large numbers; most are believed to broken loose from
boats and docks. occasionally, metal 55-gallon drums wash.up,
requiring costly testing and disposal.

Staff at Bradford and Grant County Beaches in the Milwaukee area
also indicated that marine debris was not a significant problem.
A staff person at Grant beach said that waste that does wash onto
the beach, such as cans, coolers, lures and fishing line, appears
to come from boats.

CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
The U.S. Coast Guard is the primary federal agency involved with
the prevention of marine debris. It responds to oil and gas
spills, chemical releases, and retrieves floating barrels. if
there are chemicals in barrels that are retrieved, it will
attempt to determine the source. The Coast Guard also
administers and enforces Annex V of the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

The Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste in the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources handles issues related to waste,
including those that occur along the coastline. This includes
landfill waste, illegal dumping, and medical and infectious
waste. The DNR also administers and monitors discharge of
wastewater and storm water.
109

. A I
.         . i, I _ ".
"A
I -
STRATEGY FOR WISCONSIN'S COASTAL MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM
It is the conclusion of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
that marine debris is not a major problem along the Great Lake
Coasts.  The existing policies and programs for reducing marine
debris are adequate.
I,
-k









DATE DUE
GAYLORD No. 2333
14 I8U
110