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

_rns
HT
393
.W6
W573
1980
WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM





stalte of wi-COIBs;II \   COASTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL4





Lee Sher-an Drey fu                             c/o Room B-i 30
Governo                                                                          I West Wilson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
December 15, 1979



The Honorable Lee Sherman Dreyf us
Governor of the State of Wisconsin
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI   53702


Dear Gover-nor Dreyfus:

It is my pleasure to present the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program's
Report of Activities--1979.

This report, the first since Coastal Management was adopted as a program
of the State of Wisconsin in 1977, describes the program's many and varied
accomplishments brought about through the enthuisiastic participation of
citizens and officials throughout the coastal counties and state government.

When discussion regarding Coastal Management for Wisconsin began nearly five
years ago, it was deter-mined that such a program should be effective, yet
involving the participation of all affected parties; progressive, yet
building on the better implementation of existing laws; and open and honest
in the tradition of Wisconsin government.

I know that I speak for the other members of the Coastal Management Council
when I proudly report that, in our estimation, the program has achieved those
expectations. Small investments in the program, its projects, and in policy
development are now multiplying to yield large returns.

It is in this spirit of optimism and enthusiasm for the future of the
program and Wisconsin'sa Great Lakes coastal resources that I submit this
record of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program to you and to the citizens
of our state.

SincrIy



Hiarvey Grasse, Chairman
Wiisconsin Coastal Management Council
1979 Wisconsin Coastal Management
Council

Harvey Grasse, Chair, Ellison Bay
Jeanrie DeRose, Vice-Chair, Madison
Allen Miller, Executive Secretary
George Berteau, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission
Stephen Born, University of Wisconsin-Extension
Arthur Doll, Department of Natural Resources
Robert Dusenbery, Northwest Regional Planning Commission
George Evenson, Door County
Arne Gausmnann, Department of Transportation
Thomas Gordon, Red Cliff Band of the Lake Superior
Chippewa
Marvin Innes, Saxon
Lawrence Kelly, City of Cudahy
John Kerski, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Cornmission
Arthur Kurtz, Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer
Protection
Dorothy Lagerroos, Citizens Advisory Committee
Sam Livingston, Bad River Band of the Lake Superior
Chippewa
Eileen Mershart, City of Superior
Sharon Metz, State Assembly
Roger Nacker, Department of Business Development
Ella Opitz, Ozaukee County
Edward Parsons, Jr., Public Service Commission
Victoria Potter, Department of Administration
Dale Preston, City of Green Bay
Robert Ragotzkie, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute
Jeannette Rupp, Departmnent of Local Affairs & Development
Ted Seaver, City of Milwaukee
Daniel Trainer, Stevens Point
Jerome VanSistins, State Senate
John Wroblewski, City of Washburn
HG/cal

REi RF  A iVITIES 199




U. - S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NOAA
ap Lake SuperioQOASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
ARLESTON, SC  29405-2413

a)

' 0
.0
'D
CONTENTS
A
g

C.j



(U
-J
Introduction
.......................................
............. 2
Rural Shorelands ........................................... 5
Toxic & Hazardous Substances .................. 8
Erosion & Flood Hazards .............................11
Natural Areas, Parks & Forests, Fisheries .14
Harbors
.......................................
..................17
Public Access
.......................................
..........20
Urban Waterfronts .........................................23
Energy
.......................................
......................26
WCMP Participants ........................................29
Projects and Budgets ....................................30
Special Coastal Areas ...................................31
Acknowledgments and Credits........................
.............................................. Inside Back Cover

. 9s



O            -'
p+-
32~
C)  , ,;



rv"
WISCONSIN COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Property of CSC Library


































K

INTRODUCTION
0
0.5
.0
a-
m

:3 I
(U
I ;
0  k



2 :
!a



I ,
i


f,
r,,L
I

'ti
"To me the sea is a continual miracle,
The fishes that swim-the rocks-the
motion of the waves-the ships with
men in them.
What stranger miracles are there?"

W. Whitman, Miracles
:^ff tS: , ffff:
:D00:f:f::X00 :000 SS: :;-:00B:00SS
::\V0; .;-
-           -           ,;   D;          ;00   SSS;       f  fiX000;;   of  ;ft             ;00S>,  \iN,
............................    S
ffff f .ff f ff, ff:0: ,,

X; S 1 f iCz S;X<;: AN ^z16gS ;Ld qf' Aw b@2Si Ag.U; Rt
One million years ago, they did not exist. Today, it
would be difficult for us to exist without them. They
provide food, water, recreation, and commerce.
With magic allure, they draw us toward them.
They are the Great Lakes-Superior, Michigan,
Huron, Erie, and Ontario-nearly 95,000 square
miles of inland ocean, the largest group of fresh-
water lakes in the world.
Wisconsin's 820 miles of Lake Superior and Lake
Michigan coast exert a tremendous influence-
and drawing power-on the people of the state
and region.
Forty-three percent of the state's population lives
along the coast. Lake-related commerce, from the
large international ports at Superior and Milwau-
kee to the popular playgrounds of Door and
Bayfield Counties, contribute mightily to the state
economy. Residents and visitors alike live, work,
and play on the shoreline.


I : '
.~~~~~~~~ ,I=
f: : :; S I :0;:
f   :	:E :ff	;; ::00:S7ft    :
:,7	0::; fff0;Ca*
im or at
__  Df
2

But our attraction to the Great Lakes coast has
caused problems-serious problems which are
growing worse. Among them:
� Development in shore areas subject to ero-
sion hazards
* Environmental degradation including toxic
contamination and the destruction of
wetlands
* Congested public recreational access and
lack of adequate facilities
* Urban waterfront conflicts and misuse
In recent years, as people pressures have intensi-
fied along Wisconsin's shores, it has become ap-
parent that the coast is not only a blessing, but
also a responsibility.

Developing a Program
0


0
30
co
Two groups were formed in 1974 to fashion the
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program: a gu-
bernatorially-appointed Coastal Coordinating and
Advisory Council involving legislators, local offi-
cials, and representatives of state agencies; and
an independent Citizens Advisory Committee. Be-
tween 1974 and 1977, some 150 citizens and offi-
cials became directly involved in drafting tre Wis-
consin Coastal Management Program (WCMP F)
The Coastal Coordinating and Advisory Council
launched a massive public participation effort in
the fall of 1976 to elicit the views of citizens. Ques-
tionnaires were circulated and 14 public meetings
were held to gather citizen input-prior to the
drafting of the WCMP proposal. Using this input,
the Coordinating and Advisory Council then devel-
oped a proposal, sent it to another round of public
review, and recormmended gubernatorial adoption
and submittal for federal approval in 1977.
The Wisconsin proposal was unique-so unique
that federal officials reviewing the program under
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 almost
Wisconsin has 820 miles of Great Lakes coast
balked at funding it. The WCMP called for no new
legislation and no new superagency to regulate
the coast. Rather, citing the State's long tradition
of strong home rule as well as progressive environ-
mental legislation, Wisconsin approved a program
to:
* Improve enforcement of existing laws;
* Strearnline existing bureaucracy;
* Provide seed money to help get citizen and
government management initiatives off the
ground; and
* Recommend improvements in the existing
state and local management of coastal
resources.
Program Outline
The WCMP seeks to preserve, protect, and wisely
develop the state's coastal resources for this and
succeeding generations. The program focuses its
efforts on special coastal areas and key uses of
coastal land and water resources.
The WCMP addressses eight basic issues:
* Coastal water and air quality;
� Coastal natural areas, wildlife habitat, and
fisheries;
* Coastal erosion and flood hazards;
� Community development;
3

legislators; university representatives; and
citizens.
A Council-appointed Citizens Advisory Comrnittee
monitored initial program implementation and pro-
vided counsel on public participation and educa-
tion efforts. Each of the three coastal regional
planning commissions maintained a citizen and/or
technical advisory task force.

Evolution
The year 1979 capped the continuing evolution of
the WCMP since adoption of the program by the
state two years earlier.
Following a hard look at the prograrm's philosophy
and performance, Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus
reaffirmed the State's commitment to manage its
coastal resources. The Governor's vote of confi-
dence created a revised Coastal Management
Council, currently being appointed, which main-
tains the state-local government partnership in
coastal management.

Performance
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council used
three major tools, in addition to staff coordination
of related programs, to implemnent the WCMP dur-
ing the first two years:
� Distribution of grant funds to coastal
projects;
* Designation of special coastal areas; and
* Recommendation of improvements in state
mnanagement of coastal resources.
In 1978-79, the WCMP used $1.4 million in federal
funds, matched by more than $400,000 in state
and local money, to support 72 projects ranging
from port promotion in Superior and Milwaukee to
fisheries and natural area preservation studies,
park planning, and increased enforcement of zon-
ing laws.
0

0
a.
z
In the current 1979-80 grant year, the program al-
located nearly $1.9 million from federal, state, and
local sources to more than 40 projects. New initia-
tives included: a comprehensive survey of toxic
substances in Great Lakes fish; a public access
and erosion management study in Milwaukee
Counity; and development of land use ordinances
for erosion hazard areas.
Over 95 special coastal areas (SCAs) were desig-
nated by the Council. These areas contain impor-
tant and unique natural, scientific, recreational,
historic, economic resources; areas of high ero-
sion hazard; and approved sites of future power
plants. Upon designation, the Council entered into
an agreement with the respective state or local
agency to guarantee that the area will be managed
according to agreed upon policies.
Streamline the water regulation permit review pro-
cess. Provide public funds for shore erosion pro-
tection only if there are commensurate public ben-
efits. Year-round navigation, as proposed, should
not be supported by Wisconsin. The state needs
to provide coordination and assistance to commu-
nity harbor dredging efforts. These are but a few of
the Council's recommendations for improving
state and local mnanagement of coastal resources.
Citizens become involved in the management of
coastal resources
* Economic development;
* Energy impacts;
*0 Governmental coordination; and
0 Public involvement.
The WCMP has five overall objectives:
*Improving the implementation and enforce-
ment of existing policies and programs af-
fecting key coastal uses and designated
areas;
*Coordination of existing policies and
activities;
*Strengthening local governmnent capabilities
to initiate and continue effective coastal
management;
*Advocacy of the wise and balanced use of
the coastal environment; and
* Increasing public awareness of the coasts
and opportunities for citizen participation in
coastal decision-making.
A 29-mernber Wisconsin Coastal Management
Council, created by Executive Order, headed the
program through the first years of implementation.
Members incilude local, state, and tribal officials;

4
0


a.
r_
-5
To preserve, protect, and wisely develop Wisconsin's
coastal resources . ..

o                                                                                                                 RURAL SHORELANDS







rc.                                 ,,       :.~!'0 ;: '."' �-: ;:             ;-"By the shores of Gitchee
Gumee . . .
..l~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1!           I            -  BBeat the clear and sunny wa.ter,
Beat the shining Big Sea Water"

l  | S  _ 2;xaa  g 4 :S   ~- <~~~~~ ~H. Longfellow, Hiawatha







Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts are undergoing
transformation. The majority of the
State's shore-
1|11;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~           ~line is still undeveloped-50% overall and nearly
three quarters of Lake Superior. But
people pres-
E   , r�~ ~ ~ ~   ~ ~ ~ .;                           .sures are demanding more and more prime lake-
;~. "I~s~J~shore property for homes, businesses, and
industry.

i ';~~~~~~~~                                                                                          ~~ ~~'|~~~~~~~~~  ~Over 80% of the coast in southeastern Wisconsin
is already filled with urban and
residential develop-
ment. More than half of the State's shores
along
Green Bay and northern Lake Michigan are
either
urbanized  or have  nonagricultural  rural
development.
No    t t hat development is inherently bad at all
times
in all places. But uncontrolled and unwise
develop-
m eit has historically led to increased
water pollu-
tion, destruction of shore cover and
natural
 b     eauty, acceleration of shore
erosion, destruction
of fish spawning grounds and wildlife
habitat, and
la host of other environmental and
recreational ac-
cess problems.
~       ~~~~~nuty
5

grams, to resolve administrative difficulties, and to
assist in prosecution of violators. To date, all
coastal county programs have been inventoried
and several contacts have been made with each
county to discuss areas of needed assistance. In
addition, WCMP-funded water regulatory person-
nel in each district have spent a portion of their
time monitoring floodplain-shoreland amend-
ments, variances, and special exceptions.
Training sessions for county zoning administra-
tors, district attorneys, boards of adjustment and
planning and zoning committees have begun. The
1979 Wisconsin County Code Administrators
spring conference featured a special session on
coastal problems for zoning administrators. Addi-
tional sessions with other professionals are
planned and a shoreland-floodplain guidebook
has been developed. Additional educational
materials and methods have been put together as
a result of another WCMP project, UW-Exten-
sion's Training for Local Resource Professionals.
Prior to initiation of the project, few Great Lakes
shoreland zoning ordinances gave special consid-
eration to coastal shore erosion concerns. While
inland lakes and streams also have shore
problems, they are not caused by forces nearly as
powerful as the Great Lakes. For example, 13 foot
waves strong enough to move a large concrete
block weighing 2600 tons can be expected off Mil-
waukee about once a year.
Coastal shoreland ordinances have now been ex-
amined, and many local officials are interested in
revising the ordinances to reflect the special
coastal conditions. These conditions are de-
scribed in other WCMP supported studies which
document the nature and extent of shore erosion
along the coast. Future WCMP efforts also include
development of model ordinance provisions to
cope with shore erosion problems.
In part through these efforts, Douglas County on
Lake Superior recently became the first county to
update its shoreland zoning ordinance to reflect
the special coastal erosion conditions.
Water Regulation

Wise construction on the coast sometimes means
protecting the lakes from people as well as people
from the lakes. Wisconsin has regulatory pro-
grams covering such activities as dredging and
building docks.
However, along Wisconsin's coast, where there is
a considerable amount of construction activity,
regulations weren't always enforced. And water
regulations aren't much good if they aren't
enforced.
In order to provide better enforcernent, the WCMP
agreed to support a two-year demonstration of
additional water regulatory staff in each of three
DNR coastal district offices.
Moist shoreland zoning ordinances did not consider
coastal erosion conditions
0R
0
0-

.0
.0
0

cc

0
2
Shoreland Management

In 1966, the Wisconsin legislature passed a com-
prehensive state law to control shoreland develop-
ment problems. All counties in the state have
adopted shoreland zoning, subdivision controls,
and sanitary codes which apply to all lands within
1,000 feet of a lake or 300 feet of a stream in unin-
corporated areas. On the coast, this includes the
shoreline of 14 of the 15 coastal counties.
DNR Technical Assistance in Floodplain-Shore-
land Matters, a WCMP project now in its second
year, sought to improve the agency's implementa-
tion of the state shoreland and floodplain manage-
ment laws as applied to the coast. The objectives
of the project were to increase contact and assist-
ance to county programs, provide training of local
officials in the law and its administration, and im-
prove ordinance sensitivity to the Lunique problems
of the Great Lakes.
Prior to initiation of the project, the Department of
Natural Resources admittedly had insufficient staff
to conduct effective monitoring of county pro-
Imnproved permitting should prevent unwise or illegal
shoreline structures
6

Jim" Purinton Photo
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources, and Nasawaupee
officials all got together to agree in concept where
the bulkhead line should be along the lakeshore.
Eventual bulkhead line establishment should clar-
ify legal recognition of public ownership of low-ly-
ing shore areas along the town's coast. It should
also slow down eutrophication of the wetlands and
prevent further encroachment into ecologically
sensitive Sawyer Harbor.

Tribal Lands
Together, the Red Cliff and Bad River Bands of the
Lake Superior Chippewa control nearly one-third
of Wisconsin's Lake Superior coast. Through a de-
sire for cooperation expressed early in the devel-
opment of the WCMP, Wisconsin's program is one
of the few to have developed rapport with the sov-
ereign Indian people.
Through a special grant made available to only
Great Lakes tribes, the Red Cliff began a two-year
project to work on ordinance development and
code enforcement for the protection of tribal
coastal resources. To date, updated shoreland
management and conservation codes have been
drafted for tribal review, and a tribal enforcement
and judicial system has been investigated.
The Bad River project had the objective to estab-
lish proper fish and game controls and to enhance
their walleye hatchery operation. The tribe drafted
conservaton codes and improved the hatchery op-
eration through purchase of equipment and tech-
nical assistance in fish handling techniques.
Although tribes are not required to cooperate
with state coastal management programs, Red
Cliff Tribal Planner Harry Jensen attributes the co-
operative working relationship to common pur-
pose. "There's not much room for argument. The
goals are pretty well matched. And the program
has really given us an opportunity that wasn't
there before."
So far, the biggest improvement has been reduc-
tion in the time it takes a citizen to get a permit for
a water-related construction project. In the Mari-
nette district office, that processing period has
been cut from 60 to 16 days.
That's good news for both the permit applicants
and their neighbors. Many times in the past, peo-
ple would get tired of waiting for permit approval
and go ahead with the building of illegal and often
unwise structures, or with filling operations. Fre-
quently such projects meant more problems for
neighbors down the coast where erosion would be
accelerated.
The three new investigators have also been able to
assist local governments in their jobs of enforcing
shoreland and floodplain regulations. Newly per-
mitted projects have also been inspected to as-
sess environmental effects and to make sure they
are being done according to state law. Surveil-
lance and investigation of unauthorized projects
have also increased.
At the end of the two year project, the impact of
the additional staff will be thoroughly evaluated. If
the experiment continues to be successful, it may
inspire the permanent hiring of additional district
staff.

Town Projects

Two rural coastal towns received WCMP assist-
ance to deal with their particular problems.
The Town of Lakeside in lDouglas County evalu-
ated management policies available to the town to
control population growth, economy, transporta-
tion, housing, and special coastal conditions. The
resulting policy plan has since been adopted and
paved the way for Douglas County's update of the
shoreland zoning ordinance.
In a letter to the Coastal Management Council, Eu-
gene Davidson, Lakeside Town Chairman, stated
that his town formed a committee of residents to
Management of rural shorelands can prevent future
problems
work on the project. "This local input of citizens
and town officials has helped to promote a bond
between the town, the WCMP Task Force, and the
Council. Without local input, there will be no CMP
in Wisconsin."
In Door County, the Town of Nasawaupee pre-
pared a shoreline inventory and land use plan
which included the identification of a bulkhead
line. A bulkhead line establishes the legal bounda-
ries between private shoreland and public jurisdic-
tion of the lake. Rapidly developing areas like
Nasawaupee find bulkhead lines advantageous
because they tell the local property owner just
where he can or cannot conduct filling operations
or build a structure without a permit.
Although the proposed bulkhead line has not yet
been adopted by the Town, a remarkable blend of
multi-level governmental cooperation brought it
this far. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
7

o~ _~ =TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES











0,1
E
"Water, water everywhere. Nor any drop to
o.~~~~~~ -i:                                      ~~~~~~~~~  . ~.!��                  drink.
Coleridge, Rime of the Ancient Mariner









onme snt5i oU~o     AgancoE @rdG "c~ wNo right-minded person would intentionally con-
-   Dspos                               rron CO,         itpOt 9  e	taminate his own drinking water or dump poison
fb:!  +bt r)e-esrud,@dE P_ A.k	ties, industries, have used the Great Lakes-in-
tentionally or unintentionally-as a disposal for
T     rIn c;e of  ~E   11&e~ rhri U-S.  S fetNtoxic and hazardous wastes in spite of
the fact that
40  Cr.N,761.-FOrDsoso  I#Pnfe r ener cthe lakes are a source of drinking water and food
for hundreds of thousands of people.
Robert Sugarman, U.S. head of the International
dh~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U                                                  00 g ^;Joint Commission, recently announced that unless
we act decisively and quickly, we can write off the
:E;                                                                          l| i :*iI  t  , h~
~esrit ~u~,~AOf~'  '~ intohisW flower Great Lakes as a source of food and water.
The upper Great Lakes-Superior, Michigan, and
Huron-are not far behind.
- _.S�r  1;rm  1   i1.   -It is now hazardous to eat more than one meal a
week of two of the most popular Lake Michigan
sport fish-lake trout and salmon-because of
high levels of PCBs  (polychlorinated biphenyls)
found in the fish. Pregnant and lactating women
are warned not to eat any of the fish at all. A highly
8

toxic substance manufactured between 1929 and
1977, PCBs have been found to cause cancer in
animals.
PCBs accumulate in fish after making their way
into the lakes in runoff, sewage, industrial wastes,
and air pollution. Most large fish in the lake now
contain more than the 5 parts per million limit cur-
rently recommended for human consumption. Al-
though the manufacture, use, and distribution of
POBs is now outlawed, experts predict that the
substance will remain in the lake ecosystem at
hazardous levels for at least a decade.
The effect of municipal sewage effluent on drinking
water from Lake Michigan is also a source of con-
cern. A number of Wisconsin communities and in-
dustrial plants use the lake or one of its tributaries
as the depository for their wastes. The City of Mil-
waukee, for exarnple, has dumped raw sewage
into Lake Michigan during heavy rainfalls when the
capacity of treatment facilities has been sur-
passed. Sued by the City of Chicago, which
claimed the wastes eventually were swept down
the Illinois coast, Milwaukee now is undertaking an
expensive public works project to upgrade the
sewerage treatment facilities.
Despite these problems, several Wisconsin com-
munities-including Cudahy, Green Bay, Keno-
sha, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, North Shore, Oak
Greek, Port Washington, Racine, Sheboygan,
South Milwaukee and Two Rivers-draw their
drinking water from Lake Michigan.
Pollution has reached levels critical enough to
force beach closings in some cities. Green Bay
was forced to close one of its public beaches per-
manently several years ago to keep people from
swimming in polluted water. These incidents have
made the poisoning of the lakes an issue of major
concern to Wisconsin citizens. In a WOMP ques-
tionnaire circulated statewide in 1976, water pollu-
tion was the No. I concern cited by citizens.
.2
0~
z
High POB levels in the Sheboygan River made the ne-ed for a comprehensive survey uncomfortably clear
Toxic and Hazardous Substances
Survey
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are considered
the villains in most minds; but this new study will
look for 15 other hazardous substances as well.
Dr. Thomas Sheffy, DNR chemist and project coor-
dinator, states that one of the prirmary goals of the
study will be to identify which tributary streams are
contaminated with toxic wastes.
"We really don't have a complete record of which
tributary streamns have high PCB levels," he
observes.
He will find out by taking fish samples frorm 60 lo-
cations on or near Wisconsin's Michigan-Superior
Chemicals in Lake Michigan and Lake Superior
are nothing new. While we've been aware of iso-
lated problems for quite some time, the state has
never made a comprehensive study of the scope
of toxic contamination in Lakes Michigan and Su-
perior and their tributary streams. Now, thanks for
a $1 18,000 grant frorm the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program, the Department of Natural
Resources will try to get a more complete picture
of the overall problem.
9

in Wisconsin were primarily trouble-shooting af-
fairs dealing with one particular crisis. In 1968,
1970, and 1978, surveys were made of pesticides
and heavy metals in Wisconsin fish, but very few
samples were taken on or near the Great Lakes. In
1978 extremely high levels of PGBs were found in
fish from the Sheboygan River, and the need for a
comprehensive, broadbased toxic study became
uncomfortably apparent. The Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program grant will enable the DNR
to do just that. Sheff y expects to see the first fruits
of this survey in June of 1980.
"I don't think we have mother-lodes of toxic sub-
stances that are going to kill people or devastate
cornmunities," says Sheffy. "But too many times
we've reacted only after higher levels of poisons
have been found. This survey might allow us to nip
some problems in the bud."

Municipal Water Intakes
Although Wisconsin has strong water quality laws,
protecting the Great Lakes from poisons is no
easy matter. In the interwoven ecosystem, even air
pollution ends up as water pollution. Estimates are
that 25 percent of all the particles in the air along
the coasts end up in the lakes. POBs vaporized or
incinerated end up as "PCB rain," a poisonous at-
mospheric fallout c-ontaminating the lakes. Other
air pollutants produce "acid rain," already causing
problems in some of the state's inland lakes. The
poisoning of the lakes promnises fo be a problem of
lasting concern for the state and region.
1-1FISH SAMPLING
LOCATIONS ON LAKES~
MICHIGAN, SUPERIOR,
AND MAJOR TRIB-
UfARY STREAMS


0



0

(V
0 _J
08
0
a.
z
0
coast. Over half of thoso spots are one to two
miles upstream in major tributaries of the two
lakes. Twenty-one are nearshore locations 4 to 5
miles from the coast, where most commercial and
sport fishing takes place. Finally, seven spots are
offshore stations where Sheffy hopes to get an idea
of the extent of toxic contamination in the lakes.
The benefits of this project will be wide ranging.
After the DNR has evaluated the fish stock, com-
mercial fishermen can be advised on which areas
of the lake are the most likely to provide a high
quality, uncontaminated catch. The sources of
contamination will be more readily identifiable and
corrective measures can be taken quickly. The
public will be informed, through a variety of media,
about potentially dangerous waterways and how
to avoid them.
As Sheffy notes: "There is a possibility we could
change the fish consumption advisory it we find a
new problem area."
Earlier studies of water-based toxic contarmination
Another $10,000 is being used by WCMP to learn
more about drinking water dangers for Great
Lakes commnunities. Are pollutants threatening
water supplies? If so, what can be done about
them? How do we make sure lakewater drinkers
are protected by adequate warning systems in
case toxic substances appear?
According to Phil Utic, general manager of the
Green Bay Water Department and past chairman
of the American Waterworks Association, there
are several potential pollution sources which
would cause trouble for Great Lakes water sup-
plies-among them nuclear power plants, indus-
trial and municipal wastes and spills from Great
Lakes ships. The study, performned by a private
firm, will analyze lake currents, winds, tempera-
tures, level fluctuations and tributaries to find out
how these factors influence the mnovement of pol-
lutants. "We enjoy a good water supply from Lake
Michigan," says Utic. "We'd like to make sure it
stays that way."
Toxic substances threaten sport and commercial fish-
ing and water supplies.
10

2                                                                                   ~~~~~~~~~~EROSION AND FLOOD
HAZARDS





"Roll on, thou deep and dark-blue
Ocean, roll!
Ton thousan fleets sweep over thee
in vain;
Man marks the earth with ruin, his control
Stops with the shore
Byron, Childe Harold







The beauty and utility of the Great Lakes have in-
spired a great deal of coastal construction in Wis-
consin. Municipalities, industries, small busi-
nesses, and homeowners have all been drawn to
coastal locations. But, as the Biblical admonition
warns, there are problems with building on sand.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,'
the eroding action of the Great Lakes caused $20
million in property damages in Wisconsin between
1972 and 1976. In some places, homes, busi-
nesses, and public facilities were jeopardized as
the land on which they are located was eaten
away. Trying to combat the problem, the govern-
ment spent $10 million in erosion control struc-
tures during the same four year period. Property
owners themselves spend hundreds of thousands
more.
Kenosha County's Carol Beach, the most critical
erosion area along Wisconsin's Lake Michigan
shore, has receded an estimated 1,200 feet in the
11

last 100 years. In Racine County, nearly 5 million
cubic feet of bluff have been lost each year be-
tween 1968 and 1976. These kinds of statistics
continue throughout the coast and translate into
serious personal problems for shore property
owners.
Government agencies and landowners have tried
to deal with erosion by building erosion-control
structures. But the structures are expensive (up to
$500 per linear foot of coast) and temporary.
Flooding is also a concern along the west and
south shores of Green Bay. In the past, serious
flooding has caused hazards to safety as well as
property damage.

Wisconsin Shore Erosion Plan and
Council Policy Recommendations
"The tool kit for dealing with shore erosion is quite
large and varied," according to Stephen Born of
the University of Wisconsin-Extension. "There are
some innovative things you can do and there are
some traditional approaches you sometimes must
fall back on. But each particular solution needs to
be tailor-made by the individual ccornmunities and
riparians."
Born is co-author of Wisconsin's Shore Erosion
Plan.-An Appraisal of0Options and Strategies. The
report is the culmination of several years of WCMP
efforts to understand the problems and process of
shoreline erosion and to develop comprehensive
public policy alternatives geared toward damage
reduction.
Since the inception of the WCMP, coastal ripari-
ans and local officials have consistently ranked
shore erosion as a top concern. Although public
interest was high at that time, scientific under-
standing of Wisconsin's Great Lakes shore erosion
problem was low.
As a result, the WCMP embarked on the multi-year
effort, following the framework and timetable of
the Shore Erosion Study Plan of 1974. During the

0
~

0





-co
Coastwatch observors monitor shoreline changes
following few years, a wealth of geologic and other
technical data was assembled by scientists from a
number of state agencies and university
departments.
The picture painted by these studies reinforced
the basic premise that shore erosion is a complex,
natural process which is difficult, if not impossible,
to arrest. Darnage reduction is attainable along the
Great Lakes shoreline; effective, permanent ero-
sion control is not.
The Eroslon Plan lays out the two basic ap-
proaches to shore erosion damage reduction.
Structural measures-erecting physical works like
breakwaters, revetments, and seawells-are very
costly, sometimes ineffective or even detrimental if
improperly designed or placed, and need frequent
maintenance or replacement. They are, however,
one of the few alternatives available to protect
homes and other structures built too close to re-
ceding shores.
In undeveloped areas, non-structural solutions like
setbacks and other land use regulations can be ef-
fective in reducing future erosion damages by pre-
cluding development in areas sure to erode during
the life of the home or building. Application of
other non-structural techniques like acquisition,
relocation and hazards disclosure can also mini-
mize erosion damage.
Beginning in November, 1978, the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Council moved the discus-
sion one step further by addressing the question:
What should the state and local government's role
be in reducing shore erosion damages?
In late January, 1979, the Council adopted princi-
ples which stressed the use of preventative, non-
structural solutions wherever possible. Further,
public funds should only be applied to the extent
that there would be commensurate public
benefits.
By March, the Council requested the Department
of Natural Resources to review administrative pro-
cedures for permnitting shore structure construc-
tion. Erosion hazard public information and disclo-
sure programs were outlined. Local governments
were encouraged to map erosion hazard areas
and update shoreland zoning ordinances
accordingly.
The several years from problem identification to
Council adoption of a recommended shore ero-
12

A bit more fundamental is the work being done on
the Duck and Trout Creeks by the Oneida Tribe.
Detailed plans for the management of the flood-
plains within the reservation have been developed
based on new surveys and existing data. As a di-
rect result of the studies, zoning ordinances are
being drafted which center more on resource pres-
ervation than its development.
But according to Oneida Tribe Planner Carl Ras-
mussen, some development has already hurt the
area. "Lot lines are going up to and through the
creeks. No public recreation areas were
considered."
The Oneida Tribe is marshalling all available re-
sources at hand to protect the Duck and Trout
Creek floodplains and manage their development.
An unexpected byproduct of the Tribe's recent
work was the discovery of two species of endan-
gered and threatened turtles within the floodplain.
With information like this, the Oneidas will be able
to protect valuable wildlife habitat, as well as
scenic and recreational areas as part of compre-
hensive floodplain management.
sion policy for the state was an arduous, exacting
process. From data needs to policy analysis, the
WCMP pursued an answer where no other state
agency felt a responsibility.
Perhaps understanding the nature of Great Lakes
shore erosion was as significant as formulating
policy. For in the end, the policy stance of the
Council merely respects what one WCMP project
consultant calls "the power and presence of the
lakes."

Coastwatch

Severe erosion of Lake Michigan bluffs in Racine
County may be caused more by rainfall than by
wave action, according to early data gathered by
volunteer observers.
The observers, participants in the Racine County
Coastwatch Program now in its second year of
WCMP funding, have been collecting information
about precipitation, wave height, period, and di-
rection at 11 stations since September, 1978.
Both daily and weekly information is recorded and
referred for analysis to Phil Keillor, a coastal engi-
neer with the UW Sea Grant Institute.
Most of the monitoring stations reported active
erosion occurring with some bluffs receding as
much as ten feet, according to Keillor. Although
both waves and rainfall have had an effect, the
data refutes the commonly-held hypothesis that
high waves are the primary cause when the banks
erode in huge chunks.
The Coastwatch Project promises to have impor-
tant results for both Racine County and scientists.
For one thing, it identifies how important ground
water is in causing bluff recession in Racine
County. The Racine County Planning and Zoning
Department, local Coastwatch co-sponsor, should
find the information helpful in planning sites that
will not aggravate drainage into critical erosion
areas.
According to Barbara Burke-Griffin, Coastwatch
Director, "You can develop a program with volun-
teers and get good reliable information." All ob-
servers were trained before going to the shore with
tape measures, rain gauges, cameras, and data
sheets. While monitoring wasn't stressed during
the severe winter months, the enthusiastic
coastwatchers still made their daily observations
60 to 100% of the time.
The second year of the project should clarify and
confirm the results of the first. If the present suc-
cessful course is continued, Coastwatch should tie
in nicely with other shore erosion research and
may soon help Racine County deal with its reced-
ing coastline.

Brown County Floodplain Work
Floodplain management is the topic of two WCMP
studies in Brown County. Both studies center on
developing planning and enforcement tools neces-
sary for intelligent floodplain management
decisions.
Twenty detailed topographic maps of the Town of
Suamico produced by the Brown County Shore-
land-Sanitary Code Administrator's Office will en-
able the County to precisely determine the flood-
plain and delineate conservancy zones. The great
accuracy and detail of the maps will make zoning
regulation easier.
The maps have also been a real boon to local gov-
ernment agencies, including the county planning
commission, the surveyor, and the county highway
commission. Because the area is floodprone, de-
velopers have also taken an interest in the maps.
With these new maps, Brown County and the
Town of Suamico have an invaluable tool for plan-
ning development and enforcing zoning. As
Michael Casey, Assistant County Zoning Adminis-
trator noted, "When you get these maps, you
wonder how you got by without them. They're re-
ally Cadillac stuff!"
C
O

0.
I0

:0
r_

o
ruvuuullg Is a special concern in the southern Green
Bay area
13

NATURAL AREAS,
PARKS AND FORESTS,
FISHERIES





"Ican assure you I like n7oe country, as I have
wherein we wintered: for what ever a man could
desire was to De had in great plenty, viz. staggs,
fishes in abundance .  ."
P. Radisson, 1650s








Wisconsin's landscape has experienced dramatic
changes in the century and a half since intensive
settlement began. Today, little remains of the orig-
inal communities of plants and animals which
formed in Wisconsin following the retreat of the
last glaciers. Only scattered natural area sites
have escaped white man's exploitation or have
sufficiently recovered to show few traces of formner
disturbance.
Coastal natural areas, including forests, bluffs,
sand dunes, fens, bogs, and marshland, are in in-
creasingly tenuous positions. These rermnants of a
former ecosystem are benchmarks for assessing
the impact of human activities. They also fre-
quently provide important habitat for endangered
or threatened animal species and can accommno-
date conservation and nature study education.
Wisconsin's Great Lakes coasts contain nearly
150 remaining natural areas, according to a 1976
WCMP inventory carried out by the Scientific
Areas Preservation Council. Of the 49 natural area
14

Presently, Great Lakes sport fishing is flourishing.
Control of the sea lamprey, introduction of
salmon, and extensive federal and state stocking
programs have rejuvenated what was an ailing
sport and industry. Toxic contamination, however,
brings a specter of gloom to an otherwise rose-
colored horizon.

Green Bay West Shore Wetlands
At one time the western shores of Green Bay were
laced with 9,600 acres of marshes, rich in wildlife,
and tempting to the early morning hunters who
came over from the city of Green Bay.
But the pressure of economics and population
took their toll on these "waste lands." By 1975,
over 60 percent of these coastal marshes were lost
to dredging or filling operations. With them went
the ducks that used to feed on the wild rice, sev-
eral other species of birds, and many of the fish
that spawned there.
Even in their reduced state, however, the west
shore marshes comprise most of the remaining
wetlands on the Wisconsin shores of Lakes Michi-
gan and Superior, and they continue to be attrac-
tive to wildlife.
To ensure that these remaining valuable lands are
not lost to development, the Department of Natu-
ral Resources, working with a grant from the Wis-
consin Coastal Management Program, has put to-
gether a plan identifying wildlife habitat areas.
According to Dan Olson, DNR area wildlife man-
ager, the 10-year plan stresses the extreme impor-
tance of the marshes and how they relate to the
quality of life in Green Bay.
"The public is beginning to realize the ecological
values of the marshes," he says. "Not only do they
support the wildlife, but they also sponge up po-
tential floodwaters, filter run-off water before it runs
into the bay, and provides prime recreation
opportunities."
The west shore shelters two of only four known
American colonies of the double-crested cormo-
rant-on Wisconsin's endangered list. The endan-
gered Forster's tern finds sanctuary here as do mi-
grating whistling swans and mallards, blue-winged
teal, Canada geese, and various shore birds like
the snipe. Northern pike, perch, walleye pike, and
small mouth bass spawn in the marshes.
Carol Cutshall, coastal planner for the Bay-Lake
Regional Planning Commission, explains "We
needed an acquisition plan. There's been so much
destruction of wetlands here that it'll soon be too
late to save any of them." She further notes that
one benefit to the local communities will be the
money saved; preserved lands will not need water
and sewer systems.
While the DNR continues its plans to protect wild-
life and fish habitat before conflicting land uses de-
velop, the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commis-
sion has proposed a complementary project.
Their plan is to coordinate various ongoing studies
in the wetland areas with the assistance of a
WCMP grant. Transportation, energy, economic
development, and local concerns, as well as the
wildlife and recreation values, will be examined
and discussed. One outgrowth could be local zon-
ing to protect critical areas--loth an alternative
and a complement to state land acquisition.
With state, local, and citizen cooperation, the last
remaining coastal marshes can be spared.

Coastal Park Planning

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
provided seed money to several coastal communi-
ties to aid in planning for development of coastal
parks.
Racine County received $34,000 to conduct four
studies which will shape acquisition, development
and erosion protection for Cliffside Park and adja-
cent Lake Michigan shorelands in the rapidly ur-
Green Bay's West Shore contains most of the remain-
ing wetlands on Wisconsin's coast
sites of statewide or greater significance, only 20
were protected as State Scientific Areas. Another
80 sites were found to still be extremely valuable
as regional or local educational areas or environ-
mental corridors. These were in various stages of
protection or threat from development.
Coastal parks presently provide the majority of
recreational facilities along Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline. One national lakeshore, 11 state
parks, two state forests, many state fish and wild-
life areas, and many local parks dot the shoreline.
Even though these public recreation areas ac-
count for about 15% of the coast, projections
show that these are inadequate to meet bur-
geoning public demand. Some areas need better
facilities, other areas need to be enlarged, and still
others need better management of crowds and
facilities.
Wisconsin's Great Lakes fishery has had a check-
ered history plagued with drastic man-induced
changes in fish populations. In recent years, the
commercial fishing industry has been particularly
hard hit by sea lamprey attacks and high levels of
DDT and PCBs in Lake Michigan. Lake trout and
other species, only beginning to recover from the
sea lamprey problem, have now been rendered
unmarketable due to PCB levels.
15

UW Marine Studies Center Photo
ings have involved dumping truck loads of fish at
spots along the shore-off piers and jetties and
near the mouths of rivers.
Scientists-among them the UW limnologist Ross
Horrall-point out that conditions in those areas
are not suitable for lake trout spawning, or for egg
and fry survival.
Working under contract for the DNR, UW divers
made four detailed reef surveys in 1978 in Lakes
Michigan and Superior.
On underwater vehicles, they patrolled over 30
miles of reefs, taking pictures and notes of the reef
substrate. They recorded the thickness of rubble
beds, size and type of rock, algae cover, silt depo-
sition, number of possible trout egg and fry
predators, and depth of water-all factors that
could influence the success of spawning trout.
This work, supported by the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program, continued in 1979 with
surveys of four new reefs. The goal, says ocean-
ographer J. Phillip Keillor, is to single out those
areas where the bottom seems most suitable for
trout spawning and egg survival so the DNR can
plant fish there.
According to Ron Poff of the DNR Fish Manage-
ment Bureau, the studies will be used to guide a
nurmber of future efforts. When the data has been
analyzed, it will help determine where stocking
should be focused. Shoals in need of improvement
could become targets for sediment cleaning or
predator control projects,
And some of the most promising reefs could be-
come the nucleus of refuges, where fishing is re-
stricted to provide a sanctuary for the trout. At the
rmoment, there is only one such sanctuary in Wis-
consin's Lake Superior waters.
"These areas are critical to the goal of establishing
a self-sustaining trout population," says Poff. "It
we can accomplish that goal, we will have re-es-
tablished an important commercial industry and a
popular source of recreation on the coasts."
banizing Town of Caledonia just north of the City
of Racine.
An inventory of the area found a diversity of eco-
systems, some of which have unique regional fea-
tures and which may contain rare or endangered
species. The erosion study recommended a full
range of bluff toe and face protection, as well as
bluff dewatering, for imperiled reaches of the
shoreline. The feasibility of establishing emer-
gency rescue access over the steep bluff edge was
examined at three locations along the 2.5 miles of
lakeshore. And with completion of a recreation ac-
tivity planning effort, the package is now complete
for county and town action.
Iron County received $16,600 for three projects
geared to increase public recreational access and
use of the county's coastline. One project pre-
pared site plan alternatives to address the recrea-
tional demands and physical and environmental
characteristics of Saxon Harbor Park. A second
investigated the location of the Flambeau Trail and
associated historical resources near Saxon Harbor
in order to identify the starting point of the famous
trading route to Wisconsin's interior. A third pro-
vided a plan for the development of a limited use
recreational corridor to Saxon Harbor from the
major highway.
With a total grant of $16,250 from the WCMP, the
City of Ashland developed plans for a coastal trail
along the city's waterfront; for the redevelopment
of Prentice Park, the largest community park on
Chequamegon Bay; and for the investigation of
the removal of exposed and submerged piles
which inhibit beneficial waterfront development.
The City of Bayfield rehabilitated its four city parks
with a $6,000 WCMP grant. And with a $2,400 in-
vestment, a site plan was developed for enhancing
the recreational use of the Clover Town Park, thus
improving public access to Lake Superior.
Rehabilitating native trout fisheries is the goal of un-
derwater surveys.


Great Lakes Reefs and Shoals

Lake trout were once hardy natives of Lake Michi-
gan and the lake's foremost predators; today, the
only lake trout in Lake Michigan are those put
there through human effort.
With the help of a grant from the WCMP, scientists
at the UW-Madison and the Department of Natural
Resources are now probing for explanations for
the trout's breeding failure.
They feel part of the answer may lie with the char-
acter of the sites where the fish-until recently-
had been planted. Lake trout are thought to be-
come imprinted to certain areas as young fish and
then return to these specific areas, as adults, to
spawn.
However, in the past, state and federal fish plant-
16

8	'
HARBORS








;    ~ ;~;';i?  '*  ;":	,    ;;";,                R.
Emerson, Society and Solitude. Civilization









0                                                                                             : __I     "The mosat advanced narbtions are historical  de-


who nitieas to the
interior.
vRe mote trad        in
g       settlements
became regional
,,              i         i M | . i )trade and
manufacturing centers. More recently,
those same harbors
burst with an ever-
expanding
.~;  ~fleet of recreational
vessels.
TW	Wisconsin's 23 Great
Lakes ports still maintain the
---~	tradition of providing
water-borne commerce and
transportation. The
giants-Superior,
Milwaukee,
Green Bay,
Manitowoc, and
Kewaunee-are each
responsible for
shipping at least
500,000 tons an-
nually. But these
commercial harbors
range widely
in activity: Superior
ships about 35 million
tons of
taconite ore, coal, and
farm products
annually,
while small fishing
harbors like
Cornucopia and
Suamico confine their
commercial activity to
sev-
eral thousand pounds
of fish.
..........�~~~~~~~ ,""-- ..11~  ~.~,~:In addition to these commercial harbors, Wiscon-
,'"'+':~  ~'                            0                             :;X94 E. >,;, Y sin has at least a
dozen ports-of-call which cater
exclusively to the
recreational boater. All
told, 47
,  .  marinas
located throughout the
15 coastal coun-

1
7

pers and producing printed literature. Through
subscription to a statistical service, the port is also
able to calculate exactly what shipments would
have cost shippers if they had used the Port of
Milwaukee.
Already, the WCMP's concern for port enhance-
ment has brought praise. John Seefeldt, Green
Bay Port Director notes "Since coastal manage-
ment got into this area, it's brought funding that
was never there before."
Superior Port Director James McCarville agrees.
"Due to the efforts of the Coastal Program, for the
first time the Port of Superior has the credibility it
needs in the city."
One of the most important offshoots of the
WCMP's interest in commercial ports was the for-
mation of the Wisconsin Council of Great Lakes
Ports. By providing a forum for the port directors
of the four major commercial harbors and repre-
sentatives of the Department of Business Develop-
ment, the Department of Transportation, and the
WCMP, this group has realized coordination-not
competition-among the ports.
This cooperation among the ports is viewed as a
major accomplishment. "There has never been a
"Our mission for existence," says James Haskell,
Deputy Director of the Port of Milwaukee, "is to
provide transportation economies for Wisconsin
manufacturers. If we can save them money on
shipping costs, they can use it for development."
Milwaukee, largest general cargo port in the state,
has gauged a substantial interest in their facilities
from a recent questionnaire funded by the Wiscon-
sin Coastal Management Program in cooperation
with the State Department of Business Develop-
ment. Haskell is particularly pleased that a number
of the favorable responses also came from north-
ern Illinois.
While Milwaukee is looking for new port custom-
ers, so are the ports of Green Bay and Superior.
Green Bay has recently completed a WCMP-
funded study of the use of the harbor area to iden-
tify those areas which are particularly suited for
heavy industrial use. The study recommended de-
velopment of the Bay Port industrial park to allow
large ships to unload there rather than farther up
the Fox River. The improved harbor capabilities
should make the port more attractive to shippers
or for waterbased industrial development.
The Port of Superior, like Milwaukee, is concen-
trating on comprehensive planning and advertising
to achieve "maximum utilization of the harbor."
According to Nick Baker, president of the Superior
Board of Harbor Commissioners, they are now im-
plementing recommendations of their harbor land
use and management plan.
In addition, Superior has been promoting its ad-
vantages through advertising in Duluth, Milwau-
kee, and Superior newspapers. A recent Seaway
Reviewcontained a 28-page section of advertise-
ments and articles outlining the advantages of all
Wisconsin Great Lakes ports for both domestic
and foreign trade.
Milwaukee, in particular, is concentrating on pro-
motion. Besides advertising in national publica-
tions, they are updating a port film aimed at ship-
0
Q.

E
-

a.
'5
Wisconsin's commercial harbors want to capture
larger shares of midwest shipping
ties have berths for over 3,200 recreational craft,
according to a 1977 WCMP study carried out by
the UWEX-Recreational Resources Center. By
1980, an estimated 50,000 boaters will use these
marinas and an additional 160 boat ramp sites on
the average summer weekend day.
In 1966, the former Wisconsin Department of Re-
source Development noted that "Port and harbor
development in Wisconsin will remain a responsi-
bility of local government. There is very little need
for intrusion from the state level, aside from provid-
ing some advice and assistance to communities
who are unable to regularly draw upon such advice
and assistance from other sources."
By 1979, the situation has dramatically changed.
Harbors are no longer just local issues. Harbor
maintenance, planning, and development costs
have grown beyond the means of local govern-
ments. And the impacts of port activities are state
and even region-wide.
Commercial Port Enhancement
Wisconsin's major Great Lakes ports have em-
barked on programs to capture larger shares of
Midwest shipping.

0
a.


(1D
cc
Wisconsin Great Lakes ports serve the interior of the
nation
18

UW Sea Grant Institute Photo
coordinated approach to the problems of Wiscon-
sin's ports," says McCarville.
The Wisconsin Council of Great Lakes Ports has
already made its presence known. The Council
was one of several strong supporters of the re-
cently enacted legislation which provides for a
state financial assistance program for port mainte-
nance and dredging.

Recreational Harbors

The WCMP has also been interested in the present
and future needs of Great Lakes recreational
harbors.
Two studies funded by the WCMP explored the sit-
uation facing coastal recreational harbors. Eco-
nomic Impact and Aleeds of Wisconsin'~s Great
Lakes Boaters (1 976) documented the demands
made by boaters on marinas and boat ramps, as
well as boaters' irnpact on local economies. De-
mand and Supply of Recreation (1977) predicted
that between 1970 and 1990 the 15 coastal coun-
ties will experience a 200 % jump in the number of
boaters using the lakes.
The WCMP has also been eager to assist commu-
nities where other assistance has not been forth-
coming. Local governments received front-end
money for planning, which has, in turn, made them
eligible for other construction monies.
.In 1978-79, the WOMP funded a breakwater im-
provement study for the South Share Park area of
Milwaukee County; a study of onshore boat harbor
and marina facilities needed by the city of Port
Washington for their marina development; and the
plans for a Breakwater Park for the City of Oconto.
Prior WCMP efforts include waterfront plans for
Washburn and Ashland.
The WCMP will also help communities assess ex-
isting recreational facilities to maximize their use.
The City of Racine received a $15,000 WCMP
grant to develop a management plan for its harbor
Council Policy Recommendations

In addition to funding harbor projects, the WOMP
has also been active in assisting in the develop-
ment of state policy as it concerns the Great Lakes
harbors.
In 1977, the Coastal Management Council sup-
ported efforts of the Departments of transporta-
tion and Justice, as well as the Governor's Office,
to block abandonment of the cross-Lake Michigan
rail and car ferry service.
More recently, the Council urged the Governor to
oppose the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers propo-
sal for year-round navigation on the Great Lakes
system. While supporting the concept of ex-
tending the season for several weeks to facilitate
overseas shipments, the Council resolution re-
quested clarification of potential costs to the state,
further investigation of environmental impacts,
and revl,,w of alternative means to increase the
navir,ition capacity of the Great Lakes system.
The latest Coastal Management C,o,,,ncil action
came in September, 1979 and concerned the is-
sue of harbor dredging. Council attention to the is-
sue began about a year earlier with discussion of
various views of state and federal policies regard-
ing dredged material disposal. During the course
of Council study, a shift in federal policy was iden-
tified and impacts on mid-size and smaller ports
were documented.
Final recommendations called for a state agency
to coordinate the evaluation, classification, sched-
uling, and funding of harbor maintenance projects
for local governments with the federal govern-
ment; the identification and approval of on-land or
contained sites for disposal of dredged materials;
greater federal appropriation to reduce the back-
log of maintenance dredging in Wisconsin harbors;
and assessment of sand by-passing and beach
nourishment techniques.
Over 50,000 Great Lakes boaters crowd the 47 mari-
nas and 160 boat ramps on the average weekend day.
which is now becoming predominantly recrea-
tional. Likewise, the City of Kenosha will re-ex-
amine its recreational and commercial harbor fa-
cilities with a $26,000 WCMP grant for a Harbor
Master Plan. In a parallel effort to make the best
use of existing facilities, the WCMP has funded a
marina management training program through the
UWEX-Recreational Resources Center.
19

PUBLIC ACCESS





"The sea doth wash away all human i/lls"
Euripedes









There are only nine inches of Great Lakes coast for
each Wisconsin resident.
Obviously, we are not all interested in visiting the
coast at the same time. But existing facilities are
often overwhelmed with overflow crowds of those
of us who do make the trip.
The shoreline is a very limited resource, and many
different activities-economic,  historic, natural,
recreational, residential, municipal-are all com-
peting for their place on the coast.
All along the Great Lakes, the pressures for new
and better recreational facilities are intensifying.
Of thirteen coastal communities surveyed in 1977,
ten reported overcrowded boating facilities. Seven
complained of overtaxed fishing facilities. Between
1970 and 1990, Great Lakes boating is expected
'p�-  : '1~~i~ ":~-~F ';;"'  ";�to grow by 210 percent, fishing and hiking by
C$;   -  - ^"" ~about 150 percent, camping by 133 percent, and
sightseeing by 115 percent.
'~;" ~ :~~~~ ~.uk	rra-it~~~~~~~~S, ince only 15%  of Wisconsin's coasts are cur-
!::~ *	""'~   '  '�~i ~~~~~rently in public ownership and, therefore accessi-
ble for public access, the pressures of increased
i~.1 .'- -; '1 ..                                                                                        recreational demands, concerns for
equity, and
campaigns to upgrade facilities are sure to provide
a major coastal challenge for the 1980s.
20

Kemper Center

























The Milwaukee Community Saili

parking spaces wide enough to accormmodate
vans with wheelchair lifts.
Stepan says that other plans include renovation
and restoration of the Kemper buildings including
the elegant Durkee mansion, built in 1850 as the
home of the original owner. They will become a
cultural center housing meeting rooms, class-
rooms, art studios, and museum space. Funds for
the work will come from private contributions.
Rather than being just a passive open space, the
Kemper Center invites neighborhood participation
of all kinds. "We're trying to get involved with as
many community groups as possible," states St e-
pan. Nine local service organizations are actively
working on projects.
Already the Kemper project is proving to be a suc-
cess. It has won two state prizes and wider recog-
nition from the National Association of County
Boards. But more importantly, it has enabled the
local community to get in touch with their lake-
shore in a beautiful setting.
Re cycling is a method of conserving natural re-
sources and saving energy.
In Kenosha, Wisconsin, a community of involved
citizens has expanded the meaning of recycling to
include adaption of historic resources and im-
provement of public recreational access.
Kemper Hall, an internationally known school for
girls, closed its doors in 1975, after more than 100
years of operation. The campus, consisting of ten
buildings and 1 1 landscaped acres, was put up for
sale. Located on the shore of Lake Michigan, in
the City of Kenosha, the site provides a coastal lo-
cation, tennis courts, playing fields, walkways, and
gardens.
Interested citizens in Kenosha recognized the
unique features of the national historic site and de-
cided to recycle Kemper Hall into a public facility.
They formed Kemper Center, Incorporated, a non-
profit organization whose purpose was to work
with local governments towards purchase and de-
velopment of the site for public benefit.
The Kemper property is now Kenosha County's
seventh park, administered for the county by Kem-
per Center, Inc., since purchase in 1977.
In early 1978, the Kemper organization began its
efforts to provide the community with lakefront
recreation, cultural activities, and historic preser-
vation-a little bit for everybody-thanks to a
grant from the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program. Terrn Stepan was hired as a full-time di-
rector and immediately involved local community
groups. The grant also provided a feasibility study
and design for the public fishing pier to be accessi-
ble to the elderly and handicapped, as well as long
range planning.
Construction of the 150-foot pier should begin in
Spring, 1980. The facility will run parallel to the
shoreline along part of the Kermper Center's 1,500
feet of Lake Michigan frontage. Nearby will be
ling Center officially broke ground in fall, 1979
Milwaukee Community Sailing Center
How often does $6,000 and a good idea lead to
over a third of a miflion dollar investment?
Three years ago, the Wisconsin Coastal Manage-
ment Council received an inquiry from a coalition
of Milwaukee community groups who were inter-
ested in increasing middle and lower income par-
ticipation in Great Lakes recreation-especially
sailing. The community groups, brought together
by the Mayor's Office, wanted to set up a commu-
nity sailing center mnodeled after a successful ven-
ture in Boston and similar to ones at college carm-
puses across the nation. Adults could join and sail
the.boats owned by the non-profit organization.
Youth instruction, perhaps even appealing to the
low income and minority kids in ciose proximity to
Milwaukee's waterfront, would be provided for a
nominal fee, and would use the boats and equip-
ment at non-peak periods. After initial start-up
costs, the center would be self-supporting.
21

The trail was a "real commnunity effort," according
to Merila. Working from a WCMP-funded plan, lo-
cal citizens donated materials and pitched in with
volunteer labor, constructing footbridges and
stairs and clearing the way for the sawdust-cov-
ered path. A large part of the credit for directing
the work, says Merila, goes to Janice Norlin and
Williamn Robinson, but dozens of others donated
hours of work.
The recently-completed trail is only one of several
waterfront projects receiving widespread commu-
nity support in Washburn. About a year ago, the
city got WCMP funding to hire a full-time park di-
rector for what was supposed to be a six-month
period. But the park recreation and education pro-
gram was so successful that the city decided to
continue it on a year-round basis.
Another WCMP grant has made possible a new
design for West End Park. Plans were recently
comnpleted that will emphasize the park's lake-
share character through landscaping and natural
vegetation.
At some time in the future, according to Mayor
Merila, local citizens hope to be able to extend the
lakeside trail another half mile to link it with Memo-
rial Park. The city is also exploring ways to develop
a marina. All of these projects are components of
the WCMP suipported Washbuirn Waterfront Plan,
the official beginning of the community's love affair
with its coast.
The first roadblock was the perception that sailing
was a sport only enjoyed by the well-to-do. The
$6,000 national demonstration project, funded by
the Coastal Management Program, refuted that
myth, as well as providing basic organizational and
planning needs.
Late in the summer of 1976, a pilot sailing instruc-
tion program was a huge success. With the assist-
ance of the YWCA, UW-Milwaukee Sailing Club,
and the American Red Cross, 132 persons each
received 16 hours of land school and on-the-water
sailing instruction at the cost of one dollar each.
More than 40 had to be turned away. Nearly 40 %
were from low-income and minority families.
"That was the easy part," says Ted Seaver, Presi-
dent of the Milwaukee Community Sailing Center,
Inc. "We still had to go about building a perma-
nent organization, negotiating for a permanent site
along Milwaukee's harbor, and then recruiting do-
nations and mermbers so we'd have some boats to
sail and some people to sail with."
As the grant ran out, private sources were inter-
ested in providing funds for boats and equip-
ment-if a permanent site could be established. A
boat show exhibit showed great potential for gen-
erating members-once the program was opera-
tional. And the county, owner of most of the public
recreational lakefront, would consider leasing an
area to the MCSC, Inc.-once the group had a
successful track record. Catch-22.
A breakthrough finally came with the county.
"They agreed to develop a dry sailing facility to
help alleviate boat launch ramp congestion in
trade for our managing the facility on a lease ar-
rangement," says Seaver. "We would get our fa-
cility, and the county could share in its success."
Since then, architect's plans have been drawn, the
ground was broken in late October and most im-
portantly, the Milwaukee County Board of Supervi-
sors recently committed funds to complete devel-
opment of the site.

22
"Now we're just about ready to go," says Seaver.
"The support we've been getting is tremendous."
In addition to over $350,000 in county commit-
ments, donations have already come frorn the
who's who of Milwaukee foundations and inter-
ested sailors in law firms, accounting offices, and
electrical contracting firms.
"With a little luck, we'll be ready for some activities
next summer," Seaver explained. "Know any kids
who want to learn to sail?"
Liz Buskin Photo
Dozens of citizens pitched in to create their lakeshore
trail

Washburn Parks and Trail
From Washburn you can get a terrific view of Lake
Superior-it you can get to the lakeshore. That
used to be a problem in this small Bayfield County
community. But now, thanks to the enthusiastic
efforts of some Washburn citizens and the Wiscon-
sin Coastal Management Program, getting that
view is a lot easier.
A rustic, one-mile hiking trail from West End Park
along the lake now gives easy access. Mayor Edith
Merila says that the trail makes Washburn feel like
the lakefront city it is, not "just a town that could
be anywhere."

URBAN WATERFRONTS






"All the rivers run into the sea;
yet the sea is not full"
Ecclesiastes 1, 7








Thirty-three incorporated communities dot Wis-
consin's Great Lakes coasts.
The shoreline of the typical Wisconsin coastal
community is used for many purposes-residen-
tial, commercial, industrial, recreational.
Some of the typical community's commercial, in-
dustrial, and recreational uses are dependent on
the waterfront location. The economic livelihood of
1 % to 96 % of the community's work force is tied
directly to the fact that the town is on the Great
Lakes. Marinas, boat ramps, beaches and
lakefront parks are often congested.
Other uses like homes, restaurants, and lodging
facilities also vie for lakeshore locations. Tourism is
a large industry for many coastal communities,
and the Great Lakes resources are the star
attractions.
Natural, physical, and ecological features are also
part of the coastal waterfront. Sometimes, these
features add to the community's attraction like the
hillside setting of Bayfield or Ephraim. Sometimes
they provide ecological or environmental func-
23

tions, like Green Say's wetlands. Sometimes they
cause concern, like the eroding lakeshore bluffs of
many southern Lake Michigan communities.
And there are areas of most Wisconsin coastal wa-
terfronts that are remnants of the past, sometimes
to be cherished and preserved as valued historical
resources, sometimes to be revitalized and rebuilt
to meet tomorrow's needs today.
The challenge facing all Wisconsin communities is
the same: Is precious waterfront land being allo-
cated among the competing uses efficiently, fairly,
and in the best interest of the community and its
future development? Are valuable environmental
and historic resources being protected while rec-
reational and economic demands are mnet?
The waterfronts of Wisconsin's 33 coastal com-
munities are complex and dynamic areas. In all
cases, the hedge against future problems-or
even disaster-is a plan for balanced growth and
protection today.
Superior
What do you do when you're in Wisconsin's largest
port and still growing? When you want to attract
more coastal industry but still preserve your sensi-
tive ecological, scenic and recreational resources?
You might start by taking a comprehensive look at
your coast, by planning for economic growth and
port development where it can best be accommo-
dated, while at the same time ensuring the preser-
vation of your community's recreational and envi-
ronmental areas. It's a big order, but that's what
the City of Superior has done over the past few
years with the assistance of the WCMP.
As its first step, the city adopted its part of the Du-
luth-Superior Harbor Plan, developed by the Met-
ropolitan Interstate Committee with joint funding
from the Wisconsin and Minnesota Coastal Man-
agement Programs. The city then began upgrad-
ing its port development efforts. To this end, Jim
McCarville was hired as Port Director.
McCarville is a tireless booster of the harbor's fu-
ture. "I'm optimistic because I believe in this!" he
says. He certainly has reason. Already 45% of all
U.S. seaway exports move through Duluth-
Superior.
During the past year, four specific areas of the har-
bor were targeted for further study. Superior is a
major Great Lakes port. Last year they shipped a
record 7 million tons of grain. Skyrocketing oil
prices are turning the city into an ever more impor-
tant transshipment point for Western coal.
To encourage this development, the WCMP
granted the Superior Harbor Commission $21,937
to prornote the effective marketing of waterfront
industrial use of the port facilities. The immnediate
response to this promotion has been positive. A
few ads placed in the Seaway Review elicited no
fewer than 77 inquiries from prospective clients.
Recreational access to the Superior Municipal For-
est has always been limited; just a dirt road which
is impassable in the winter. With a $10,000 WOMP
0
0-
CO
Cs
Wisconsin Point natural area in Superior
grant, the city has produced a master plan for the
forests long-term recreational development. In-
cluded are plans for camping areas, scenic drives,
walking, equestrian and snowmobile trails, and an
18-hole golf course.
Despite the scope of the plan, city planner William
Lehmann supports gradual development. "Our
philosophy is not that these things will be done to-
day or next year, but maybe in 10 or 20 years."
With help from the University of Wisconsin-Supe-
rior and a WCMP grant, the city developed a day-
use plan for Wisconsin Point which, when imple-
mented, will protect the area's natural vegetation
and wildlife.
Some of those darnaged resources have already
begun to bounce back thanks to the WOMP
funded park manager. He was responsible for the
placement of a large number of wooden stumps
designed to block recreational access to the point.
Vegetation is beginning to return to the areas
where the posts still stand.
Things are looking up for Wisconsin Point. Ac-
cording to Dr. Rudy Koch of the University of Wis-
consin-Superior, " If we can get it restricted to day-
use, then we've come a long way."
Likewise, things are looking up for the wise use
and protection of Superior's coastal resources.
02
0

0.
m
.s



.0
co
Superior's waterfront inoludes berths for 1000-foot
bulk carriers
24

0
a.

Q

0
.2
industry and a passive historical fishing village on
Rodgers Street. Two Rivers has also completed a
plan for all city-owned property adjacent to the
lake. According to City Inspector Marvin Now,
"Some of these things have been neglected for
years. I'm very much impressed with the things
we've been able to do."
The City of Oconto has just received designs for a
much needed small boat harbor. In addition to im-
proved recreational boating, the new harbor will
enhance the support and commercial fishing po-
tential of the area. Included in the plans are a small
boat marina, toilet facilities, holding tank dump
station, sheet piling, breakwater widening, and
road surfacing. Implementation of this design will
lead to better use of coastal resources and signifi-
cantly irnproved commercial development.
Algoma has just cornpleted a wide-ranging study
designed to establish a basic management plan
for the city's harbor, increase public access to the
lakefront, preserve the historic fishing shanties in
the area and establish the necessary ordinances
to carry it all out. With such a report in hand, the
city has the basis for discussion of rational devel-
opment of its lakeshore resources.
In a similar move, Sturgeon Bay has just com-
pleted a Coastal Management Plan which includes
recommended steps for business, residential and
recreational development. The study identifies
which areas of the city should be the subjects of
economic revitalization efforts and offers concrete
suggest ions on just how each parcel of property
should be used.
A plan or a study is basically an expensive piece of
paper.. By itself, it cannot keep a beach from
washing away, or cause a harbor to suddenly ap-
pear. But when a community seriously considers
the recommendations in a study, a good deal can
be done. The information and suggestions in all of
these reports will assist each community in making
good decisions on the best use of its unique indus-
trial, residential, and coastal environments.
Algoma is one of several coastal communities looking at its waterfront
Northeastern Wisconsin Communities

Six northeastern Wisconsin cities are taking a hard
look at their shoreline managerment thanks to a to-
tal of $120,933 in grants from the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program. While each proj-
ect is tailored to the needs of the individual com-
munity, they all have in common the desire to im-
prove their coastal management by encouraging
conservation and reasonable development.
Sheboygan is developing a plan for the acquisition
and management of Pigeon River shorelands from
Evergreen Park to the mouth of the river at Lake
Michigan. With this, the city will eventually estab-
lish a public preserve for the protection of fish, wa-
terfowl, smail animals and their natural habitats.
The report will define exactly what lands are to be
purchased, determine suitable public access, and
establish what city actions will be necessary to
carry out these proposals.
The City of Manitowoc is engaged in a study which
will contain an inventory of all property ownership
and current use, a plan for erosion control, and an
outline for public acquisition of environmnentally-
sensitive areas along the river-front and Lake
Michigan shoreline. Acting on these proposals,
Manitowoc can expect better management of its
public recreation areas and enhanced use of the
cormmercial harbor properties.
In an effort to strengthen its coastal management
program, the City of Two Rivers is studying its har-
bor and lakeshore planning. Of particular interest
is the city's attempt to identify and resolve possi-
ble conflicts between the active commercial fishing
25

ENERGY

a-




"Destinedf to be the greatest, the richest, the
most prosperous of all the great, rich, and
prosperous commonwealths which go to make

mightiest republic the world has even seen."
T. Roosevelt on the Great Lakes Area







Wisconsin does not possess any known reserves
of oil, natural gas, or coal either inland or on the
coasts.
Still, Wisconsin's coastal area is important in the
state's overall energy picture. Because a shoreline
location provides ample cooling water, existing
transmission facilities, and the benefits of water-
borne transportation, Wisconsin's Great Lakes
coasts are attractive sites for energy facilities.
Ten coastal power plants currently provide about
60% of the state's total electrical capacity. Six
additional electrical generating units, now on thp
drawing boards, could increase coastal produc-
tion by an additional 80% before the late 1980s.
Twenty-seven oil terminals are located in the
state's fifteen coastal counties. One refinery in Su-
perior handles Canadian crude. One of three small
liquified natural gas storage facilities in the state is
within a mile of Lake Michigan. In addition to ex-
isting natural gas and petroleum pipelines, a major
new pipeline is slated for construction through the
Lake Superior coastal counties in 1981.
26

As eastern utilities increase their, use of low-sulfur
western coal, existing transshipment facilities will
expand and new terminals will be built at Great
Lakes port to transfer the cargo from unit train to
ship. The Superior terminal, already shipping four
million tons per year, plans to double this within
the next two years. A new facility has been pro-
posed for Superior and another for Kewaunee on
Lake Michigan.
In this day and age of conservation and alternative
sources of energy, the coastal area also offers pos-
sibilities for both: traditional electrical generation
through use of non-traditional fuel processed from
solid waste; and solar and wind energy.

Coping with Energy Facility Impacts

How do local government officials assess the im-
pacts of the siting of energy facilities in their
community?
A WOMP supported study by the Bay-Lake Re-
gional Planning Commission hopes to find the an-
swer to that question. By focusing in on recent
Kewaunee and Sheboygan County case studies,
Bay Lake planners hope to assess the process
used by local officials when dealing with utilities
during the planning and construction phases of an
energy facility.
The interaction between local officials and utilities
will be examined with an eye to identifying suc-
cessful methods of conflict resolution. In the end,
planers ought to have a fair idea of local officials'
capabilities to assess and mitigate energy facility
impacts on their communities.
A handbook on energy facilities impacts will also
be developed for local officials. In addition to pro-
viding a general overview of energy facility siting
issues in Wisconsin, the handbook will describe
the legal framework for energy facility siting and
provide case studies of recent coal and nuclear
power plants, transmission lines, coal transship-
ment, and petroleum storage, and other facilities.
02
a
0m
m
'D

.0
0
Low-sulfur western coal travels through Wisconsin ports to eastern utilities

Resource Recovery
A new 400 megawatt coal-fired power plant is
scheduled to begin operation by 1984 in Sheboy-
gan County. Construction and operation of the
plant will be accompanied by impacts like in-
creased noise levels and some deterioration of air
and water quality.
Buit officials in Sheboygan County are looking to
get some positive effects out of the plant's opera-
tion as well.
As far back as 1972, studies commissioned by
Sheboygan County have recommended a Refuse-
Derived Fuel system, accompanied by secondary
materials recovery, as a solution to the county's
critical solid waste disposal problem. In layman's
terms, the county is considering salvaging non-
combustible materials like iron, steel, and aluimi-
num from its solid waste and burning the rest to
make electricity.
The Sheboygan County Board's decision whether
or not to proceed with development of a Refuse-
Derived Fuel system hinges upon assessment of
the environmental and economic impacts of such
a project. Preliminary investigations suggest such
a system would offset some of the negative envi-
ronmental impacts of the plant, and may also pro-
vide economic benefits to the county.
At the-heart of the study is the cost-benefit analy-
sis of the system from the county's viewpoint.
While the county's need for conventional sanitary
landfill space would be reduced, the collection,
separation, and transportation technologies will
require other capital and operational outlays.
If the county is successful in proceeding with its
resource recovery plans, area residents will make
the most of having electrical generating facilities
on their coast.
27

The islanders' interest in wind and solar energy
has been generated by increased demand for
electricity-especially during the summer peak
periods when tourists swell the population to more
than 2600-and the spiralling cost of fuel oil which
has increased by mnore than two and a half times
since 1973.
Rather than expand their present diesel-powered
generators, local residents decided to construct a
submarine cable to the mnainland and buy electric-
ity from the Wisconsin Public Service Company
But that will still be expensive and inadequate fo
peak demands. Over the next dozen years, tour
ism is expected to grow as visitors are attracted t(
the new Grant Traverse Island State Park, to
Washington Island's 17 square miles of undevel-
oped wilderness, and to its recreation beaches.
To solve the problem, the residents are turning to
wind and solar power. The island's coastal cli-
mate, topography, energy dernand, and land use
and building patterns are ideal for such a system.
Over the next 15 months, local officials, with as-
sistance from the State Energy Office, will develop
a Wind and Solar Energy Assessment Plan and a
Community Conservation Plan.
Before anything can be constructed or recom-
mnended, however, further questions must be an-
swered. According to Robert Halstead, State
Coastal Energy Impact Program coordinator,
planners must know exactly what the wind condi-
tions are, where the best locations for wind ma-
chines are, and what type would be most practical
and economical. What will people think of the
noise and the appearance of the machines? What
effects might they have on local insect population
and on migrating birds? The impact of solar en-
ergy systems will be just as thoroughly studied.
Halstead is excited about the community's re-
sponse to the project. A great number of the res-
idents are becoming actively involved and will be
trained to carry out the studies themselves rather
than relying exclusively on outside experts.
0R
0
.Q

a.
'a
0
0
a.
'a
0)

.0
9
The Washington Island project is certain to be of
interest throughout the country as a prototype of
comprehensive community-wide energy action.
"it is one of the most important energy studies in
the state," claims Halstead, "because it goes be-
yond negative impacts of consumption to find a vi-
able energy systern." And, it uses readily avail-
able, inexpensive coastal resources.
Wind generated electricity may return to Washington
Island
Washington Island Alternative Energy
Project
Within the next ten years, you may be able to see
modern windmills dotting the landscape and solar
collectors on most of the buildings-on Washing-
ton Island, Wisconsin.
The Town Board, the Community Action Program
Board of Directors, and the Rural Electrification
Administration have already set the wheels in mo-
tion for a Wisconsin Coastal Management-funded
study of the feasibility of a dispersed solar and
wind energy system.
Actually, windmills are nothing new to this island
located seven miles off the tip of the Door County
Peninsula. They provided a considerable portion
of the island's electricity prior to initiation of the
RlE.A. cooperative in 1945. A recent study of
coastal wind patterns has reaffirmed the practical-
ity of wind-powered generation.
28
0
.0
a.
'D
0)
m
.0
0
The project also includes solar energy and conserva-
tion programs

WCMP PARTICIPANTS
PAST MEMBERS OF THE 1978-79
WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGE-
MENT COUNCIL
Craig Adams, Dept. of Administration
(12/77-2/78)
Larry Brown, Dept. of Local Affairs &
Development (12/77-10/78)
Henry Buffalo, Red Cliff Band of the
Lake Superior Chippewa (12/77-
4/79)
Clarence Cichon, Bad River Band of
the Lake Superior Chippewa (2/
79-9/79)
Marcel Dandeneau, State Assembly
(12/77-11/78)
Michael Monfils, City of Green Say
(12/77-2/78)
Helene Nelson, Dept. of Transporta-
tion (12/77-1/79)
John Oestreicher, Public Service
Commission (12/77-2/79)
Nancy Schreiber, Citizens Advisory
Committee (2/78-2/79)
Richard Seaman, Dept. of Business
Development (12/77-10/78)
John Wilmer, Bad River Band of the
Lake Superior Chippewa (2/78-
10/78)
1979-80 CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Dorothy Lagerroos, Ctiair, Madison
Jean Till, Vice-Chair, Superior
Alice Altemeier, Thiensville
Ellie Chemerow, Kenosha
Steve Kern, Milwaukee
Tom Klein, Ashland
Jean Kreher, Ashland
Elmira Mangum, Madison
Bill Skadden, Sturgeon Bay
Winnifred Smith, Two Rivers
Cora Stencil, Green Bay
WCMP STAFF
Office of Coastal Management, Department of
Administration
Al Miller, Program Manager
Vincent Holness, Project Coordinator
Helen Ledin, Program Assistant
Bob Halstead, CEIP Coordinator
Department of Natural Resources
Mel Albers, WCMP Liaison
Department of Transportation
Phil Winkel, Chief, Urban & Regional
Planning Assistance
UWEX-Environmental Resources Unit
Jim Purinton, Coastal Management
Specialist
Say-Lake Regional Planning Commission
Carol Cutshalf, Coastal Planner
Northwest Regional Planning Commission
Dennis Van Hoof, Coastal Planner
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission
Don Reed, Coastal Program Planner
1978-79 CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Nancy Schreiber, Chair, Sheboygan
Charles Rice, Vice-Chair, Racine
Kemi Atandare, Milwaukee
Ed Bach, Belgium
Hank Bredael, Green Bay
Keith Brooks, Racine
Ellie Chemerow, Kenosha
L. M. Cowley, Iron River
Patrick Doyle, Milwaukee
Elizabeth Felten, Somers
Julie Grinde, Manitowoc
Gerald Haegele, Algoma
Clayton Johnson, Ellison Bay
Richard Johnson, Marinette
Herb Kinney, Hurley
Ron Maday, Odanah
Jim McCarville, Superior
Bill Mosby, Milwaukee
Gene O'Connell, Big Bend
James Phinney, Fox Point
Emmett Rickaby, Oconto
Bill Skadden, Sturgeon Bay
Marie Sladky, Superior
Cora Stencil, Green Bay
Walter Woelfie, Milwaukee
29

WCMP PROJECTS
Cadastre (Racine Co.)
S. Shore Breakwater Study (Milwaukee Co.)
Onshore & Marina Facilities (Pt.
Washington)
Pigeon River Floodplain (Sheboygan)
River & Lakefront (Manitowoc)
Twin River & Lakeshore (Two Rivers)
Coastal Management (Algoma)
Coastal Management (Sturgeon Bay)
Survey and Shoreline Use Plan
(Nasawaupee)
Fish Creek Harbor Plan (Gibraltar)
Southern Green Bay Archaeology (SHSW)
Breakwater Park (Oconto)
Red Arrow Park Beach (Marinette)
Regional Physical Develop. Charac. (BLRPC)
Montreal River Canyons (Iron Co.)
Saxon Harbor-Flambeau Tr.-Cedar Rd. (Iron
Co.)
Plnr.-Trail-Prentice Pk. (Ashland)
Coastal Parks-Trail (Washburn)
City Parks (Bayfield)
Town Park (Clover)
Town Management Policy (Lakeside)
Wisconsin Pt. Mgr.-Municip. Forest (Superior)
V.   Economic Development
Wisconsin Port Promotion (DBD)
Port of Milwaukee (Milwaukee)
Port of Superior (Superior)
Port of Green Bay (Brown Co.)
Foreign Trade Zones (DBD)
Highway 13 Corridor (NWRPC/UWEX/DOT)
Internal Marina Management (UWEX)
Vl.  Government Interrelationships
BLRPC Staff & Task Force (BLRPC)
NWRPC Staff & Task Force (NWRPC)
SEWRPC Staff & Tech. & Cit. Adv. Comm.
(SEWRPC)
DNR Liaison & Support (DNR)
WCMP Participation in GLBC & CSO (DOA)
X
X
X
1978-	1979-
79	80
Project (Sponsor)

I.   Water and Air Quality
Hydrologic-Water Quality Tools (SEWRPC)
Municipal Water Intakes (DOA)
Toxic Substances Survey (DNR)
II.  Natural Areas, Wildlife Habitat,
Fisheries
Green Bay West Shore Wetlands (DNR)
Green Bay West Shore Wetlands (BLRPC)
Natural & Scientific Areas (DNR)
Woodland Dunes (Manitowoc Co.)
Wisconsin Point (Superior)
Bay Beach Sanctuary (Green Bay)
Great Lakes Reefs & Shoals (DNR/Sea
Grant)
Offshore Fish Species (DNR)
Brule River Anadromous Fishery (DNR)
Bad River Fisheries (Bad River Tribe)
III.  Erosion &  Flood Hazards
Erosion Plan (UWEX)
Lake Superior Geotechnical Study (UWEX)
Stratigraphy & Geotechnical Study (UW-
Madison)
Erosion Hazard Ordinances (UWEX)
Shoreland-Floodplain Program (DNR)
Water Regulation Permits (DNR)
Duck-Trout Creeks (Oneida Tribe)
Coastal Parks (Racine Co./Caledonia)
Coastal Management (Red Cliff Tribe)
Bender to Grant Park (Milwaukee Co.)
Topo Mapping (Suamico)
Kenosha Co. Topo (SEWRPC)
IV.  Community Development
Resource Professionals Training (UWEX)
Kemper Center (Kenosha Co.)
Harbor Facilities Plan (Kenosha)
Port Management Plan (Racine/Racine Co.)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X

X
X
X

X

X
X
X

X
X



X
X
X
X
X

X


X
X
X
X



X



X
X


X




X

X
X
X
X

X
X

X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30

SPECIAL COASTAL AREAS (SCAs)
VII. Public Involvement
Coastwatch (Racine Co.)
Green Bay Area Program (Green Bay)
Magazine Section (DNR)
Lake Superior Report (NWRPC)
Citizens Advisory Committee (UWEX)
VIII. Energy Impact
Local Govt. & Energy Fac. Impacts (DOA/
BLRPC)
Resource Recovery (Sheboygan Co.)
Solar & Wind Energy (DOA/Wash. Is.)
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
Special Coastal Areas contain important natural, scientific, recreational,
historic, or economic resources. Local governments and state agencies
nominate SCAs for Coastal Management Council consideration. Upon
designation, the Council enters into an agreement with the nominating
agency to guarantee management of the area according to defined policies.
x
KENOSHA
COUNTY



RACINE
COUNTY
Chiwaukee Prairie State Scientific Area (DNR)
Kemper Center (Kenosha County)
L. Michigan Shoreline: 44th St. to 61st St. (City of
Kenosha)
Alford Pk., Pennoyer Pk., Pike R. Floodplain (City of
Kenosha)
Sander's Pk. Hardwood Forest State Scientific Area
(DNR)
Lakeshore & Freshwater Estuary Pks. (City of Racine)
Renack-Polack Woods State Scientific Area (DNR)
Cliffside Pk. & L. Michigan Area (Twn. of Caledonia &
Racine County)
Lakeshore Pks: Bender, Grant, Warnimont, Sheridan,
Bayview, South Shore, Juneau, McKinley, Lake, Big
Bay, & Doctors (Milwaukee County)
Milwaukee Harbor: South Harbor Tract (City of
Milwaukee)
Submerged Land Along Lakeshore (Milwaukee
County)
Fairy Chasm State Scientific Area (DNR)
Virmond Pk. (Ozaukee County)
Boat Harbor & Marina (City of Port Washington)
Harrington Beach State Park (DNR)
Cedar Grove Ornithological Station and Kohler Pk.
Dunes State Scientific Areas (DNR)
Unincorporated Lakeshore Area (Sheboygan County)
City Shoreline (City of Sheboygan)
Pigeon R. Floodplain (City of Sheboygan & Sheboy-
gan County)
Kohler-Andrae State Park (DNR)
x
x
PROGRAM BUDGET TOTALS*
1978-79   1979-80
I. Coastal Water & Air Quality
II. Coastal Natural Areas, Wildlife Habitat
& Fisheries
Ill. Coastal Erosion & Flood Hazards
IV. Coastal Community Development
V. Coastal Economic Development
VI. Coastal Energy Impact
VII. Government Interrelationships
VIII. Public Involvement
IX. Administration & Council Support
$ 40,700	$135,000
276,630	251,100
285,890
492,070
312,150
32,920
206,900
68,950
164,600
255,740
208,220
369,860
100,000
240,240
124,140
213,600
MILWAUKEE
COUNTY
$1,880,810 $1,897,950
*Primarily federal funds granted to the WCMP through the Coastal Zone
Management Act as administered by the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration; matched with
state and local dollars and in-kind contributions.
OZAUKEE
COUNTY


SHEBOYGAN
COUNTY
31

OCONTO
COUNTY


MARINETTE
COUNTY


DOUGLAS
COUNTY
BAYFIELD
COUNTY













ASHLAND
COUNTY
City Breakwater & Park (City of Oconto)
Copper Culture Mounds State Park (DNR)
Green Bay Shores & Pensaukee Marsh State Wildlife
Area (DNR)
Charles Pond State Wildlife & Scientific Area (DNR)
Red Arrow Pk. (City of Marinette)
Peshtigo State Wildlife Area (DNR)
Little R. State Fish Management Area (DNR)
Seagull Bar State Wildlife and Scientific Area (DNR)
Harbor & Waterfront (City of Superior)
Brule R. State Pk. (DNR)
Harbor of Refuge (Town of Port Wing)
Town Pk. (Town of Clover)
Bark Pt. Landing (Town of Clover)
Cornucopia Marina & Park (Town of Bell)
Lost Creek Slough (Town of Bell)
Red Cliff Reservation (Red Cliff Band of the Lake Supe-
rior Chippewa)
City Parks: Dalrymple, Bathing Beach, Memorial, &
East Pier (City of Bayfield)
City of Bayfield (City of Bayfield)
City Waterfront (City of Washburn)
Fish Greek Slough, Big Sioux R., Bayfield Hatchery, &
Lost Greek State Fish Management Areas (DNR)
Lake Superior & Raspberry Bay Public Access (DNR)
Bark Bay State Scientiflc Area (DNR)
Flag R. State Wildlife & Fish Management Area (DNR)
Reef and Shoal Areas (DNR)
MANITO WOC
COUNTY





KEWAUNEE
COUNTY


DOOR
COUNTY














BROWN
COUNTY
Coastal Floodplains, Shoreland, & Conservancy Areas

(Manitowoc County)

City Waterfront (City of Manitowoc)

Woodland Dunes (Manitowoc County)
Point Beach Ridges, Wilderness Ridge, & Two Greeks
Buried Forest State Scientific Areas (DNR)

Point Beach State Forest (DNR)

Harbor, Lake, & River Fronts (City of Two Rivers)


Kewaunee Marsh & Little Scarboro Wildlife and Fish
Management Areas (DNR)

City Shoreline (Algoma)

Ahnapee State Trail (DNR)

County Park System: Baileys Harbor Ridges, Cave
Point, Chaudoir's Dock, Claflin Memorial, Door Bluff,
Eastside, Ellison Bluff, Forestville Dam, Frank E. Mur-

phy, Lyle-Harter-Matter Sanctuary, Meridian, Robert

LaSalle, & Sugar Greek (Door County)

Fish Creek Harbor (Town of Gibraltar)
Town Shorefront (Town of Nasawaupee)

Schuyler Creek & Strawberry Creek State Fish Man-

agement Areas (DNR)

Ridges Sanctuary, Tofts Pt., Conifer Hardwoods, Jack-

son Harbor, Beech Forest & Cedar Forest State Sci-

entific Areas (DNR)
Mud Lake & Sister Islands State Wildlife and Scientific
Areas (DNR)

Gardner Swamp State Wildlife Area (DNR)
Ahnapee State Trail (DNR)
Whitefish Bay Dunes, Peninsula, Potawatomi, Rock Is-
land, & Newport State Parks (DNR)

Reef & Shoal Areas (DNR)


Towns of Scott & Green Bay Shorelands (Brown

County)

Cofrin Arboretum (UW-Green Bay)
City Waterfront (City of Green Bay)
Heritage Hill State Park (DNR)

Duck Creek Area (Brown County & Village of Howard)

Duck Creek Area (Oneida Tribe & Brown County)
Town of Suamico Shorefront (Brown County)

Long Tail Point & Sensiba State Wildlife Areas (DNR)
City Waterfront (City of Ashland)

Big Bay State Park (DNR)

Cat Island, Gull Island, & Michigan
(DNR)
Sand Cut Fish Refuge (DNR)

Tribal Lands (Bad River Band of the

Chippewa)
Island Shoals





Lake Superior
IRON
COUNTY
County Forest North of US 2 (Iron County)

Saxon Harbor Pk. & Marina (Iron County)

Montreal R. Canyons (Iron County)
2500-3J0028-80
32

"Whenever / find myself grim about the mouth,
Whenever it is a damp, grizzly November in my
Soul,
And especially when it requires strong moral
principle to prevent me from methodically
knocking people's hats off,
-Then / account it high time to got to sea!"
H. Melville, Moby Dick
i
1
CREDITS


EDITOR
Jim Purinton, UWEX-Environmental Resources
Unit
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS:
The following wrote original pieces which were
used in part or in whole for this publication: Bill
Becker, for the Department of Natural Resources;
Gail Gawenda, UWEX-Environmental Resources
Unit; Helen Ledin, Office of Coastal Management,
Department of Administration; Mark Morris,
UWEX-Environmental Resources Unit; Jim
Purinton, UWEX-Environmental Resources Unit;
Linda Weimer, UW Sea Grant Institute.
COVER PHOTO CREDITS:
Alice Kaufman-front upper right, back lower
left
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Thanks to the many WOMP project sponsors who
helped us to tell the story of WOMP accomplish-
ments; to all those who contributed photos for the
pubiication; and to Steve Born, Jeanne DeRose,
Harvey Grasse, Dorothy Lagerroos, and the
WCMP Staff for assistance in reviewing early
drafts.
Northwest Regional Planning Commission-front

upper rniddle

Jim Purinton-front lower middle, back upper

left, back lower middle,
back upper right

UW Marine Studies Center-front lower right
This report was published by the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program, Office of Coastal
Management, Wisconsin Department of Adminis-
tration, with financial assistance through the fed-

eral Coastal Zone Management Act as adminis-
tered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management,
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

4






3 6668 14106 3257
-WSCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
!Office of Coastal Management, Department of Administration,
101 South Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin  53702