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

    WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    SECTION 306

    GRANT NO, NA84AA-D-.CZ030

    PROGRESS REPORT

    JANUARY 1 - MARCH 31, 1985

    Property of CSC Library

    u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    NOAA
    COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
    2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
    CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

    4-,
    3:

    N

    i=
    ZIDa

    r-
    P
    _0""
    App",

    *E
    �ii$consin Coastal   ..naogement  Program	_FarWCMPStaf uU
     roject Summary	il
     . . R : APR 1 6  S19e4

    .-:]- Title:                                   Aency or Govrenmenr an ACCr.rs:
    �Chequamegon Bay/Kakagon Slough	Bad River Band of Lake Superior
    Walleye Assessment	Chippewa Indians '
    P.O. Box 39
    e3oDurtsonr  Twelve ( 12) t"       Odanah, WI  54861

    ---Je: T�be:                                   PrinciPal Staff Contact:           Teie.hane Number
    Fred VandaVenter, Fisheries Biol 715!682-
    9119
    : fW ICAtnre SCAMa naqemm A f t	Person aurhorized to rKweve tunas:
    -0 1npmlent Stat Mnag	Joe Corbine, Tribal Chairman   I 715/682-
    4212
    ornwnsrra"ion	SiCnarte of R:on uonrzed toa rceie tfunr:
     [o o.- Great Lakes' Commercial Fisheries

    -=RIEF PROJECT D.SCtIPTICN:
    -Conservation enforcement without conservation planning and scientific direction
    runs the
    -risk of being regulation without rationale.  To date little is known about
    Chequamegon
    .Bay/Kakagcn Slough migratory Walleye populations, thereby making regulation of
    this re-
    --source a fragmented effort.  The Band is proposing to use a system of creel
    census, Fin
    ---Clip Surveys, and Scale Sampling Techniques to analyze this resource.

    %TWWHAT 00 YOU WVANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPUSH JMAJCR OBJECTIVES1)
    i Determine migrational patterns of Walleye in the Chequamegon Bay/Kakagon System.
    Develop a scientific data base to assess Walleye population levels in the
    Chequamegonr
    ;	Bay/Kakagon System.
    C.	Improve the cooperative efforts among Tribal fishermen and sports fishermen
    through
    educational workshops.

    - WHATWILL BSE THE SPECIFIC ENO PRCOUCTS OF THE OROJECT?
    Formalized recommendations to both Tribal and State Governments to protect the
    Chequamegon
    Bay/Kakagon Sloughs Walleye population.

     1MOW WILL THE PROJECr IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    1. Assess important regional fishing resources.
    2.  Create an information base that will be available to .form a scientific basis for
    intergovernmental agreement.
    3.  Reduce sport/commercial fishing conflict.

    gtitOSET SUMMARY.                               TOTAL COST5 38 ,

    ADDENDUM
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Progress Report
    I                 For WCMP Staff Use
    WCMP Pr,jecc Number:

    Date Received:

    .-CM 4(5/80)
    Submit this Progress Report to:  Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:	Purchase Order Number:
    Chequamegon Bay/Kakagon Slough Walleye	ADE-00176
    Assessment
    Project Duration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:               To:
    12 (12) months	10/1/84	12/31/84
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    Great Lakes Commercial Fisheries	5. 805.79	58%
    Improve S	CA Management SCA Number Match spent to date:	% of budgeted funds
    []Improve SCA Management SCA Number,4                                              242	2
    [  Implement State Law                               4
    [ CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)                                       Signature of project manager:
    oDemonstration                                                                                  Q4        Qg        -

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    Major Objectives
    1.  Completion of a walleye stock assessment.
    2. Development of migrational patterns and data to compare with surveys and
    historical data.
    3. Improve cooperation efforts among both Tribal fishermen and Sportsfishermen
    *          through education workshops.

    f Scopes: Data Collection Methodologies:

    1. C.P.E.
    2. Mark and Recapture

    In either methodology the fish will be examined and various parameters analyzed.
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    The purchase of a boat, motor, and trailer was one, but not the only activity to date.
    Upon the hiring of a Fisheries Technician on October 15, the Technician received train-
    ing on various techniques to obtain samples and necessary data for the up-coming walleye
    assessment field season. The Technician was also directed to conduct an inventory of
    equipment and equipment needs. This was not done to simply inventory equipment at the
    hatchery. We did not, however, want to duplicate equipment already possessed. The Tech-
    nician ordered the equipment needed. Some of our major purchases will include portable
    incubation units known as "Big Redds" and an air compressor, needed for incubation unit
    operation.

    The Technician then received training in scale sample analysis from the Tribal Biologist.
    *cale samples from walleye from the previous year's collection were examined. The Tech-
    l'"nician was instructed as to the procedure of data entry into a computer system. This is
    for statistical analysis, not simply data retrieval. A statistical analysis report and
    comparison to available biStorical data is pending.

    c

     2. Progress-cont'd:

    A workplan was developed to encompass Objectives #1 and #2 (walleye stock assessment and
    migrational patterns).  Methodologies are also described (see Attachment A; Workplan:
    zt-gging Study).  Also enclosed is a sample of the type of jaw tag to be utilized in the
    =ITagging operation.

    In addition, on Objective #3, the Tribal Biologist and Coastal Zone Technician met with
    State and Red Cliff biologists to determine informational needs from each agency, and set
    up a system of sharing pertinent data on the walleye and other fisheries resources of
    :- Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior.

    4. impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    i
    .           ..  .

    :

    Signe of persotho receive funds:

    Please  use  additiora l pes  if neces s ary.i
    *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ae

    ATTACHMENT A

    Work Plan: Tagging Study

    Introduct ion

    The Bad River Fishery Department has
    maintained a walleye
    hatchery on the Kakagon River for the past tine
    years.  Hatchery
    personnel use fyke and gill nets to capture
    walleye moving into
    the Kakagon Slough and up the river to spawn.
    Following capture,
    mature fish are spawned, eggs fertilized, held in
    hatchery jars,
    and eventually released back into the Kakagon
    River as fry. In
    1985 the hatchery operation will begin using two
    1-acre rearing
    pondstoraise fry to the fingerling stage.  Fish
    stocked as 2-3"
    fingerlings should have a better-chance for
    survival than recently
    hatched fry.

    Tagging Study

    Another project that has been developed for
    1985 is a walleye
    tagging study. All walleye captured during
    spawning operations
    will receive a jaw tag and be released "after
    spawn is removed.
    Objectives of the study are:

    1) to determine movement and distribution
    of tagged fish.

    2) to develop a system for collecting
    biological data from
    fish netted during hatchery operations.

    3)  to determine catch rates for fyke and
    gill nets during
    a walleye spawning run.

    4) to determine population characteristics
    (number, mortality,
    growth, age structure) of walleye
    spawning in the Kakagon
    River.

    Methods

    Spawning walleye will be taken with fyke
    and gill nets. A
    total of 6-8 fyke nets and 6-8.. gill nets will
    be checked for net
    characteristics (i.e. mesh, hanging ratio),
    marked with an identi-
    fying number, and fished daily beginning at "ice
    out". Fyke nets
    will be checked once each morning while gill nets
    will be lifted
    daily at approximately 12 hour intervals. A catch
    form will be
    filled out each time a net is checked and the
    following informa-
    tion recorded for all walleye: length, weight,
    sex, girth, tag
    number, scale envelope number, and recapture
    number. Species and

    number of fish caught incidentally will also be
    recorded, as
    well as gear type, date and location of set.

    Walleye will be marked with a metal jaw tag
    which will be
    inscribed with an individual tag number, the name
    "Bad River,"
    and the word "Reward". All immature walleye will
    be released
    following tagging; the larger, mature fish will
    be released
    after spawn is collected.

    A reward/lottery system has been planned to
    provide
    incentive for sport and commercial fishermen  to
    return tags.
    Each returned tag will be worth $1.00 and the tag
    placed in a
    jar.  At the end of the year (around December 15)
    three tags
    will be drawn and prizes of $50, $75 and $100
    awarded. Posters
    explaining the objectives of the study, the
    reward system, and
    the information needed will be developed and
    distributed to
    select businesses in communities surrbunding
    Chequamegon Bay.
    In addition newspaper articles e-xplaining the
    study will be
    published.

    Following the recapture period, walleye
    numbers will be
    estimated and characteristics of the spawning
    stock described
    (i.e. sex ratio, age structure, growth rate).
    Tagging of
    spawning walleye should continue during Spring in
    1986 and 1987.
    With fish tagged for three consecutive years and
    with recaptures
    during two successive spawning seasons (1986 &
    87), more extensive
    statistics describing the walleye population
    (i.e. total mor-
    tality, annual variation in numbers) can be made.

    CATCH FORM
    DATE
    .    LOCATION

    GEAR TYPE (check proper square)

    FYKE NET
    E          Ei         E    [E
    / 51   j 7I
    TIME NET LIFTED
    WATER TEMP.
    GILL NET
    El	16
    F3	141
    	-
    75 4 1	1 56 1

    F32]
    F5
    EL
    CREW
    Walleye information only:

    Length	Weight
    (centimeters)	(pounds)
    Scale recapture
    Girth	Tag	envelop      Tag
    Sex   (centimeters)	Number	Number   Number

    I~~~~~~~
    I
    r
    0
    Total Number
    Species
    Total Number
    Species

    4X
    c 4
    ou

    c-4

    For WCMP Staff Use
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    WCMP PFriact Numbe,
    Progress Report
    CM4(5/80)                        ;~~~                ;~;:
    lorc-imt this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coatal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:	Purchase Order Number:
    Chequamegon Bay/Kakagon Slough Walleye	ADE-00176
    Assessment
    Project Duration in MONTHS:                    Report Period From:  To:
    Twelve (12) months                               12/31/84                4/5/85
    Project Type (Check one or more):              CMP funds spent to date:	%of budgeted funds:
    Great Lakes Commercial Fisheries	I   58%
    o" Improve SCA Management SCA Number         Match spent to date:	of budgeted funds
    O" Implement State Law	I   42%
    O' CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)	Signature of roject managr:	F.A. Vande  Venter
    Cl Demonstration	'-tf.jUk&kU~ QJbXFisheries Biologist

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    Major Objectives:

    1.  Completion of a walleye population assessment.
    2. Development of movement and distribution pattern for comparisons with historical
    1.  data.
    Improve cooperation efforts among various user groups through educational workshops.

    I Scopes:  Data Collection Methodologies:

    1. C.P.E.
    2. Mark and Recapture

    In either methodology; the fish will be examined and various parameters examined

    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:

    Further preparations have been made for the spring spawning run, which is anticipated in
    mid-April. As for work in the field, the Fisheries Technician, with the assistance of the
    Bad River Fish Hatchery Crew, has constructed twelve (12) nets in which to capture walleye
    for the tagging operation. Various aspects of the gear, such as hanging ratio, mesh sizes,
    length, and depth, have been observed and recorded. The nets have been numbered and marked,
    as complete and correct data collection is one of the most important aspects of the operation.
    A test net has been set in the Kakagon Sloughs to observe piscatory activity. To date, male
    northern pike have moved into the Sloughs, a preliminary to northern pike spawning. The fe-
    males will follow shortly (as the water temperature now is approximately 35�F). Shortly af-
    ter the pike spawn, mature adult walleye will enter the Sloughs (as the water temperature
    approaches 42�F) to spawn. Boat, motor, nets, and equipment, are all prepared in anticip-
    ation of the run. Jaw-tags have arrived and the Technician has been instructed as to their
    *application. The Technician has been orientated to all aspects of the operation, with com-
    plete and correct data collection as the major focal point.
    A revised workplan and reporting forms have been prepared and are attached to this report.
    The workplan explains in detail the field operation and data retrieval (reward/lottery) svs-

    Progress continued:
    -tem. Also attached is a draft copy of the proposed poster to advertise the study. The pos-
    ter is in the process of revision and a final version will be available in several days. The
    * oster will be displayed throughout the Chequamegon Bay area.
    Notice of Intent to Apply for Project Funds sent to Jayson
    It was sent Express Mail and should have reached him by
    Also attached is a copy of a
    Chung, WCMNP on March 13, 1985.
    the March 15th deadline.
    4. Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:
    I None to date.
    Signalure of person au1ho;jze.	r- Tece ve fund<

    ................                   ...I          _  :* :
    	s    ../--'

    WORK PLAN: KAKAGON RIVER TAGGING STUDY
    INTRODUCTION

    The Bad River Fishery Department (BRFD) has rmaintained a
    walleye hatchery on the Kakagon river since 1975.  Hatchery
    personnel use fyke and gill nets to capture walleye mo.ving f-orn
    Chequamegon Bay into the Kakagon river to spawn.  Follc, wirng
    capture mature fish are spawned, eggs are fertilized and placed
    in hatchery jars. Eventually walleye are released back into the
    river as fry.  In 1985 two i-acre rearing ponds will be used to
    raise fry to the fingerling stage.  Fish stocked as 2-4"
    fingerlings should have a better chance for survival than
    recently hatched fry.
    In addition to regular hatchery duties for 1985, BRFD
    employees will participate in a study to tag all walleye captured
    during Spring netting. This study has been developed by
    biologists with the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife commissior,
    (GLIFWC) and BRFD. Objectives of the study are:

    1.	to determine movement and distribution of tagged fish;

    2.	to determine population characteristics (number,
    mortality, age structure, growth) of walleye spawning in the
    Kakagon river;

    3.  to develop a system to collect statistical data on netted
    fish for describing and reporting annual hatchery catch;

    4.  to determine catch rates, selectivity, mctrtality, and
    biological characteristics (length, sex, weight, girth) of
    walleye caught in various mesh gill nets.

    The last objective describes information of interest to
    GLIFWC biologists. These data may be useful in further
    calibrating a Walleye Population Model (Busiahn and Poff, ir,
    prep) which has been developed, in, part, to predict the impact of
    gill netting or,   walleye populations.

    METHOD

    Spaw-,irng walleye will be takeni with fyke and gill rets. A
    total of 6-8 fyke nets arid 10-i2 cill rnets will be checked for
    net characterit    ics   (mes-h, har,gir,g ratio, depth, ler,gth) , ard
    mar-ked with anr identification nulmber.  Nets will be fished daily
    inl -the Kakagon river begirning ar4ound "ice out".  Fyke nets will
    be checked once each mo,rning while gill nets will be lifted at
    -p:p-, ximately 1E hour intei-vals (7 AF  and 7 PM).  A Catch For,i
    *-.   be fi led c;iut Each tjirie a n,e' is checked and the fo ,I-lwir:g

    infO,-rmation recorded: length, girth, sex, weight, tag number,
    scale envelope nurnber, gear, net nurmlber, date,
    loccatior, of set,
    and species and number of fish caught inciderntally.
    Scale
    samples will be collected for all walleye; a dorsal spine
    will be
    rermol:ved fr-omr all walleye o,ver 15".
    All live walleye will be marked with a metal jaw tag
    which
    will be inscribed with an individual tag number, the name
    "Bad
    River", and the word "Reward".  All immrlature fish will
    be
    released following tagging.  Mature fish will be
    tranr,sferred to
    holding cages near the hatchery and held until r-ipe.  If
    a fish
    dies ir, a haolding cage, either prior to or after spawn
    take, the
    tag number must be recorded on a Hatchery Record Fo-rm.
    In
    addition, the tag number- of all fish that are spawned and released
    must be reco,,rded on this same form. A new form should be filled
    out daily. All fish whose tag number is rinot listed or, the Hatchery
    Record Form will be considered "rict released".
    A reward/lottery system has been planned to provide
    incentive for sport and cormmercial fishermen to returrn tags.
    Eacth tag will be w,orth $3.00.  Al11 returned tags will be
    placed ir, a jar.  At the end of the fishing seasor, (around
    Dec.ember 15) three tags will be drawn and prizes of $50, $75, and
    $100 awarded.  Posters explaining the objectives of the study,
    the reward system, and the in,forrmation rneeded for tagged fish,
    will be developed arid distributed to select businesses inr,
    communities surrounding Chequarnegon Bay.  In addition, riewspaDer
    articles explaining the study will be published
    periodically.
    Select bait shops will be contacted and asked to accept
    tags fr,,om
    angler caught fish.

    DATA ANIALYSIS

    Statistical and biological characteristics of the
    Spring
    catch will be stored on the GLIFWC computer.	Dorsal spirie and
    scale samples will be aged by ERFD personnel.	Number, length,
    weight, sex, girth, mortality, and age of walleye will be
    described.  Catch rate and selectivity of gill nets will
    be
    det erm irned.
    Following the recapture period, walleye numbers
    will be
    estimated and characteristics of the spawnirng stock
    described
    (sex ratio,, age structure, growth rate).  Tagging of spawninr
    walleye should continue during Spring ir, 1986 and 1987.  Wi.th
    fish tanged fo-r three conrsecutive years ar,d with recaptures
    during two1 successi VE Espawninrg seasons (198  & 198'37), mlore
    externsive statistics   esc ribin. the walleye populatiior (total
    mcrtality, anrn-ual variati-, l  in numbers) will be
    deterrnined.

    PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT

    Pe:"rs.nrrel assigrned to the Bad River Hatchery
    will set riets
    sard colle t all data.  P person, E, _,j be apDnointed to.
    review catc-

    forms daily; collection of biological data must be accurate and
    consistent. Ano,,ther person should be in charge of ensuring that
    the Hatchery Record Form is filled out properly each day.  All
    tagged fish must be accounted for.
    Fish tags, posters descrtibing the study, and
    furidirig for the
    reward/lottery system are the responsibility of the BRFD.
    GLIFWC
    personnel will assist in developing the poster for the
    reward/lottery systerm, irn describing and marking all riets aria
    will provide training ir, collecting data, measuririg fish, and
    fastenirng tags.  GLIFWC biologists will also assist in data
    analysis anrd report preparation, A Summary Report should be
    drafted by September I with a Final Report completed by November
    1, l985.

    Prepared by- Neil Kmiecik
    Revised: 3/e0/85

    CATCH FORM
    TIME NET LIFTED
    WATER TEMP.

    GILL NET
    F7	F167
    	781
    @ 52 1     1 54 E	1 .567	1
    DATE
    LOCATION

    GEAR TYPE (check proper square)

    FYKE NET

    [El E	[E5-1  [:1:7
    n LZZ31	11IT;
    CREW
    Walleye information only:
    Scale      Recapture
    Length     Girth	Weight	Tag	envelope	Tag
    (centimeters)	(pounds)    Sex	Number	Number	Number

    O

    *    H     Species          Total Number          Species          Total Number

    ou

    oU0
    'I _   _
    ,.1-  r

    DATE
    Page Number
    NAME
    HATCHERY REPORT FORM
    FISH WAS ALIVE

    - - - - - - -  - - - -  - - - ---    - 1.
    FISH WAS RELEASED

    _ _ _ _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
    TAG NUMBER

    __________________
    SEX OF FISH
    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    -MALE:	FEMLE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE

    MALE	FEMALE
    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES
    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO
    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES

    YES
    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO

    NO
    ___________     MALE    FEMALE        YES       NO        YES      NO

    INSTRUCTIONS:    A separate form must be filled out each day.
    Er,ter the tag number ar,d circle the  correct answers for all fish
    kept at the hatchery.   Ir,formation rmust be recorded for all fish
    that are spawnried ar,nd released, for all fish that die either
    before or after spawning, anrd for all fish that are kept.

    WISCONSIN COASTAL MRNRGEMENT
    PROGRAM
    Notice of Intent to Apply for Project Funds
    .- Agency or Government and
    Address:

    BAD RIVER BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR
    CHIPPEWA INDIANS
    P.O. BOX 39
    ODANAH, WI 54861
    Project Title:

    HATCHERY MODERNIZATION
    Principal Contact and Phone Number:
    JOE CORBINE, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN
    (715) 682-4212
    BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
    The Bad River Band has operated a fish hatchery since 1975 and planted
    19,771,000 walleye fry into the Bad River and Kakagon Sloughs. Un-
    fortunately, the hatchery's obsolete belljar method restricts survival
    rates to 20%.
    To increase the Band's restocking efforts, three (3) new rearing ponds
    have been constructed thereby expanding the hatchery's capacity from
    raising fry to fingerlings. The Band is requesting Coastal Zone funds
    to install a new air compression system which yields survivial rates
    of 85%. The system has been installed on the Leech Lake Reservation
    and proven highly successful to date. By installing an air compress-
    ion (five "Big Redds", one air compressor) system and extending the
    hatchery building, the Tribe can increase the number of walleye fry
    hatched from 7.25 million to 17 million fry annually.
    ESTIMATED COST OF
    PROJECT:
    $55,000.00 WCMP PORTION: $25,000.00
    WILL THE PROJECT ADDRESS A WCMP PRIORITY
    AREA?
    WHICH AREA(S)?:
    PROTECTION OF NATURAL AREAS - WALLEYE POPULATIONS OF THE KAKAGON
    AND BAD RIVER SLOUGHS
    WHAT ARE THE MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF THIS PROJECT, AND HOW WILL THE PROJECT
    IMPROVE
    MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?
    The major objective of this project is to protect and enhance the
    walleye and northern pike populations of the Bad River and Kakagon
    Sloughs and Chequamegon Bay. Modernization of the Bad River Hatchery
    will increase walleye restocking efforts by 42% annually.
    This notice of Intent should be completed and returned by 15 March 1985 to:
    Jayson Chung, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Department of Administration,
    Post Office Box 7864, Madison, Wisconsin 53707; (608)267-7982. This is not a formal
    project application.

    *.. - PROJECT TITLE.-
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    flAN'MBER;
    Chequameqon BaylKakagon
    Slough Valley
    Bad River Chippewa flndians
    Fred Vande
    Venter
    P.O. Box .39
    Odanah, RI
    54861
    .(715) 682-
    9119
    CONTRACT NUMIBER:
    85004-851.1
    PURCHASE ORDER NO-.
    ADE-00176
    PROJECT NUMfBER:   146-
    726
    APE 22
    95
    PROS. REPORT DUE:
    JUtL 5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE:
    SEPT 5 85
    --- -CURRENT AS
    OF-.
    CATAGG
    RY-
    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    YTDIBU148
    ET
    REI?4BURSIBLECOT
    1. PERSONNEL	2760.00
    11094.88
    2. FRWINES	501.48
    	15619.5
    3. CgtNTRACTS	0.00.
    4. EOUIPMENT	4400.00
    51 SUPPL IES	1-39.33
    6. TRAVEL	500.00
    7. PRINTING
    0.72	12
    S. OTHER	300.00
    9T N D  R EC T294
    15750.
    00
    I2835
    '. 00
    0.0
    0
    11195.
    00
    22,40
    .00
    500.0
    0l
    boo.
    00
    300.00
    50131.00
    0.70
    0. 55
    -
    0.00
    0.39
    0.06
    t. O
    .00
    1.
    00
    0.59a
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    32,021.20
    210929.156 33433.00
    0.5
    4
    CM?P RE1,18URSEMENT:
    1892.08 12139.14

    u -LOCAL  MIATCH:
    1370.12  8790.42

     iiconsin Coastal Macnaeament Programn
    eroject Summary
    -M2 flir. 12l
    For WYCMP Stiat Us
    PVOIoct NuMarON

    File Numnb:.
    Oat Ac         R  1 6 1M&4 - -
    -"wol TitLe:                            Agrt otr GoQerrnmoent Irq Acrm:
    Specific Site Design	Mayor James Mattson
    _  Washburn Fishermrans Park	City of Washburn
    ==O=urstzon:	119 Washington Averue
    Washburn, Wisconsin 54891
    ...s. "z  Type:                              PrinciOl Stff CrntXac:  'T4elone Numo.r
    -- ;  .�. .- , Mayor James Mattson	1-715-373-5440

    .----a ~	SCA Manr4gmre SS A *Vs r ?CA - ya  r  -r-roS!:;Pon authorizi to rcv hr turas:	IT,t,oneNumber
    C3 -lM	SC V knr.&e SU- L       "          Mayor James Mattson	11-715-373-5440
    ...	Imor.t Sui:. LU
    - -	on n-.    .   .nrin                   Signature of Po. n-a-d toriv,e lunc:
    _  C aO;rfu ,: ,

    �-- EF PROJECT DESC. IPTC1 N:
    --he City of W.ashburn has completed a Co -lan, A Waterfront Master Plan and has
    ==successfully implemented a Harbor/Marina whnich resulted from that effort.  The major re-
    =-zaining item is Fishermen's Park, which is located on a waterfront pier adjacent to the
    -=arina/Harbor project.

    .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .                            -'             .     ,
    3VXAT DO YOU WANTTHE PROJECT TO ACCOMPI:SH IFMAJOR OSJECTIVES  .
    =_~--Major Objective is to provide improved public access to Lake Superior and to provide
    -V - 1ate recreation space along the Chequamegon Bay Shoreline for residents and visitors
    i-ke.
    implementation of the Waterfront Master Plan.
    I
     .                          -,
    complete
    =Provide for
    .	.'        -..
    .	..                      . .. - .	. .     . '.
    .	-
    ..            ~ .        . . . .:                   ' -.':.'''  .~  ..

    !I'IAT WtLL SE TMIE SPEC~.FIC EN0 PRC]:IUCTS OF THE PROJ[ECT?
    =Preparation of specific design plans and preparation of construction drawings
    2z-MAN'S Park.

    . ~ ~~~- .   .�           . �
    for FISH-
    -Submission of construction plans and drawings to LAWCON or other appropriate sources of
    assistance.

    f:Construction of FISHE.RMEN'S PARK.
    SGOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    -zAproval of this proposal will result in increased public access to Lake Superior. The
    _park will increase people's appreciation of Chequamegon Bay and its scenic resource.
    _-any individuals who cannot afford a boat capable of sailing on Lake Superior will have
    zthe opportunity to share in its scenic quality in a highly developed environment.

    LtUOGE?T SU~4UsaA.:                             TOTALCOSTS   7,150.00

    7
    r

    ~
    -

    ~

    F
    o
    r

    W
    C
    M
    P

    S
    t
    a
    f
    f

    U
    s
    e
    Wisconsin Coastal Managenment Program
    WCMP Pis1scl Numhar
    I
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    z

    /

    '
    -
    -

    Progress Report
    Date Received:

    AD.CM 415/80)
    Submil this Progress Report to  Wisconsin Dept of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    P
    u
    r
    c
    h
    a
    s
    e

    O
    r
    d
    e
    r

    N
    u
    m
    b
    e
    r
    :
    Proect Title: Specific Site Design
    ADE-00177
    Washburn Fishermen's  Park

    Project Duration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:       To:
    Six	January 1, 1985	April 15,  1985
    Prolect Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    $
    4
    6
    3
    5

    3
    0

    ,

    9
    9

    7
    %
    M
    a
    t
    c
    h

    s
    p
    e
    r
    l
    t

    t
    o

    d
    a
    t
    e
    %

    o
    f

    b
    u
    d
    g
    e
    t
    e
    d

    f
    u
    n
    d
    s
    9lmprove SCA Management SCA Number Public Access
    Match spent to date:          % of budgeted funds
    $

    2
    4
    9
    5

    9
    3

    9
    9

    7
    %
    El Implement State Law                                        2
    O Implement State Law	~~~~~~~~~Signature oJf prelect manager:
    O CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Projct)	Signature (if project M)anager
    aOemcn-sraxtion TJames Mattson, kayor

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):

    - The major objective is to provide improved
    public access to Lake Superior and to
    provide adequate recreation space along the
    Chequamegon Bay shoreline for
    residents and visitors alike.

    - Provide for complete implementation of the
    Waterfront "faster Plan.

    2 Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accompishing objectives during this reporting period:
    The City Plan Commission, Park Board and City
    Council have approved the
    design alternative and phasing plan. The City
    will attemDt to secure funds
    to construct the project. Because of costs the
    project is divided into
    phases.

    This is the final progress report.

    Five copies of the Project Report and the
    approved design alternative
    are being forwarded under separate cover.

    3, ProblemsI/Conlerns (IssueS, ptoject, or admlnlstrat!ve conce nsi:
    None
    4.  Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal resicents:
    The City and its residents consider completing the construction
    *   of Fishermen's Park a high and important priority.

    The City will seek financing for the oroject from state and federal
    sources as funds may become available.

    This effort has had a positive and constructive effect
    on our Community.
    Signature of person authorized to receive funds:

    ~7PROJECT
    TITLE:
    -- TONTRACTOR:
    EP.QJECT
    MANAGER:
    Washburn Fisherman's
    Part
    City of Washburn
    Dennis Van Hoof
    201 Second St.
    Ashland. WI 54806
    (7151 682-2395
    Specific Site Desion

    CONTRACT ULMBER: 85004-
    851.2
    PURCHASE ORDER fO: ADE-
    00177
    PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    FEB 14 85                  PROB. REPORT DUE:
    FINAL REPORT DUE: JUNE
    5 85
    Efl]RRENT AS
    OF:
    TTATESOR
    Y
    IXNvOICE    YTO
    BUDGET
    YTD/BUDG
    ET
    3P.~EIMtBURSABLE COISTS
    1. PERSONNEL	0.00	0.00
    2. FRINGES	0.00	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS        5441.90  7131.23  7150.00	1.00
    4. EQUJIPNENT	0.00	0.00
    =i. SUPPLIES	0.00	0.00
    :6. TRAVEL	0.00	0.00
    7. PRINTINR	0.00	0.00
    B. OTHER	0.00	0.00
    9. INDIRECT	0.00	0.00
    5441.90  7131.23
    7150.00
    o
    TOTALS
    1.0
    0
    , CHP ?REIMBURSEMENT: 3537.24
    4635.30
    LOCAL MATCH:        1904.67
    2495.93

    Vsisconsin Coastal  h. nagement Program
    . roject Summary

    tfv. 1217mi
    For WCMP Stal  Ut. -:
     rojit Numoe':
    i 23
    Fib NutmAr:	=11 g
    ItDell	APR  1 6 194

    Waterfront Management Plan:
    - Northwest Regional Planning Commission
    _._Mhe Town of Port Wing, Clover aid Bell;      302 Walnut St
    302 Walnut St.
    --_ayfield County, Wisconsin                    Spooner,  I	54801
    Spooner, WI	54801
    -t Ourutson:        TttO1 *r   momftK

    * -oa Typ                                    Pe.ncpv Staff Conta:	I,i�rton. NumDbr
    Mark Mueller, Ex. Director	1715-635-2197

    .1~~ .~..'  Imorola seA ~n~             Prn a utthorizrto rS.vA IunSiP:	Teitiron  Numoer
    0--  a rJt1Zmm su.            -! 715-635-2197
    -0 =aDttrition                     -.- Sinortari Qf Parnon ugtonzad to1c.sive fawe
    _ C Otai.r:

    .RI EF PROJECT OESCRIPTION:
    z_Prepare a waterfront management plan for three south seore coastal towns:  Port Wing,
    =:Rerbster and Cornucopia.  Each of these three communities have extensive shoreline areas
    �--that could be community assets but are underutilized.  Unique environmental areas; boreal
    --forests, slough and shoreline standstone cliffs need to be preserved and protected while
    --numerous opportunities exist in less sensitive areas for increased public recreational
    =-se, commercial and residential development.
    =-IHAT DO YOU WANT THE PROJECTTO ACCOMPISH IMAJOR OBJECTIVESI?
    - Identification of environmentally sensitive areas and public use areas.
    ,'*entification of unioue historical-cultural resources of the waterfronts.
    r --*Tmprove management and use of the 20 miles of shoreline within the three towns.
    --Enhance the economy and well being of town and shoreline residents by improving utilization
    of unique resources in an environmentally sensitive manner.
    Prepare site development plans for commercial-recreational use of the waterfront.
    Allow for preservation of unique environmental features.
    SH ATWILL BE THE SPECIFIC END PROOUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    =-The project will result in a Town management guide which will include analysis of previous
    _waterfront and shoreline economic activity.  At a minimum, the implementation section will
    -:include specific recommendations for waterfront improvements which will assist economic
    =_development and activity.  The implementation section will also include recommendations
    ::for specific site improvements at each marina as well as landuses which surround it.
    r-Changes and improvements in local regulatory ordinances will be recommended, if appropriate.

    -NOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:

    =-The management of 20 miles of Lake Superior shoreline will improve. Economic activity may
    -_increase for local residents when passive tourism activiteis are implemented. At the same
    -time unique environmental resources will be properly managed and proected.

    *I SUOGET SIJI.IMAAY*	,TOTAL COSTS      $19,230                            J
    ]BUCGET ~ ~ ~   ~     ~     ~    ~ ~ ~~	COSTARV     S

    I For WCMP Staff Use
    WCMP Project Number:

    Iate Received:
    9ate Received
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    a              Progress Report

    AD-CM 4(51801
    I
    -_-
    Submit this Progress Report to:  Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison. WI 53702
    Project Title: Waterfront Management Plan: The Towns  Purchase Order Number:
    of Port Wing, Clover and Bell: Bayfield           ADE-00178
    trnllntv U; ct-n"anc
    Project Ouration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:  To:
    12	1/1/85	3/31/85
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:

    O Improve SCA Management SCA Number	Match spent to date:	% of budgeted funds
    I Implement State Law
    Signature of pjjc/rangr/   ,
    O CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)       Sgnature of bjecanage
    ODemonstration
    Urban Waterfront Revitalization  --
    1. Objectives of Project (as contractedJ):
    -Identification of environmentally sensitive and public use areas
    -Identification of unique historical/cultural resources of the waterfronts.
    -.Improve management and use of the 20 miles of shoreline within the three towns.
    .-Enhance the economy and well being of town and shoreline residents by improving utilizatioT,
    of unique resources in an environmentally sensitive manner.
    -Prepare site development plans for commercial/recreational use of the waterfront.
     -Allow for preservation of unique environmental resources.
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    Periodic meetings have been held with each of the communities.
    Preapplications for the 1885-86 grant cycle were prepared for the communities of Bell
    Town and Clover Town.
    Resource maps in preparation.
    Data Collection 80 % complete
    Analysis completed for; population, physical resources, transportation, economy/taxation,
    municipal cost structure, environmentally sensitive areas, public use areas, local needs.
    Analysis in preparation for: historical and cultural areas
    Site development plans in preparation

    3. Problems/Cdncerns (Issues, project, or administrative concerns):

    Project extension has been applied for. Final site designs depend upon boater demand
    data yet to be supplied by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
    4. Impactthusfar, ifany, of the project on the shoreline, costai resources, or coastal residents:

    .  Local officials continue to be educated through the planning process.
    Town of Bell recently hosted the Lake Superior Task Force with good local attendance.
     use additional pages if necessary.

    TITLE:

    !ROJECT
    MANAGER:
    Wing, Clover,  ell

    CINTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    851.3
    PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00178
    PROJECT NUMBER:    146-
    726
    Waterfront Not Plan:
    Port
    NWRPC
    Mark Mueller
    302 Walnut Street
    Spooner, VI 54801
    (715) 635-2197
    =IUJRRENT AS
    OF:
    FEB 14
    85
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85

    t

    I
    v-
    5;
    :- ATEGORY
    INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET
    YTD/BUD6ET

    T;rrEIMBUiRSABLE COSTS
    I. PERSONNEL	787.04	1387.30	7661.00
    	0.18
    2. FRINGES	294.42	530.50	3013.00
    	0.18
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00	2500.00	0.00
    4. EQUIPMENT	0.00	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00	500.00	0.00
    6. TROAVEL           137.57	190.95	450.00	0.42
    7. PRINTING	0.00	500.00	0.00
    8. OTHER	0.00	0.00
    9. INDIRECT         536.68	932.44  4606.00	0.20
    IUIBTTHL
    S
    1755.71 30411.1? 19230AH
    . .Lb

    c *EIMBURSEMENT
    :
    ~~ OCAL MATER.
    1141.21
    1976.77
    614.50
    1064.42

    -4

    -consTin Cocstfl M agement Progrcm  I
    oje'ct Sumrmary   '

    -`7 --~o                       , !
    ~~~e*	fWC"PlffLw
    W	oCtM, f1/ L   ,,

    F,

    Pus                 ^ __,W

    oA~ctnp'.<P:%3 0
    -cT4r :                           .. -;            oT t:  c, ,tem.u:
    z--h Creek Waterfront Master Plan Study         Town of Gibraltar
    Fish Creek, WI  54212

    4-5       Iz	1'

    � Tyxc	RtlYDI( SU1( CD~L� P7   Sutat Cnai1i.a
    Mfr. Raymond Slaby, Jr.'Chairman	(414)868-3qO3
    _:, mrmAopf"Was5_. .          -C zt                                                    NW M-,oV ^Otofl   iu *Tu'V:	�a
    Same
    -_ IImO*fef: L�te Lraw
    c-  ~Continuation of  'Mnap,r.     t      n         .  vr
    for Fish Creek Harbor" (1Q8n)
    __= oR.J.::r.c E:,RPT,:   The project would provide gu ance and implement cion   commendat ions for
    --r.rolling vehicular and pedestrian access in and aeound the harbor arMa, preserve the coastal
    '-idor and associated environmentally -sensitive areas and provide a framework for controlling
    t-ure residential and commercial growth associated with the recreational opportunities provided
    =-the harbor.                                                                 -                  -

    ;. DC YO,J VA  TWE ROJET. TO ACTO.LJSH EMAJOR OCJ.:tVESL?            - --
    -   . ec:ive of the study would be to provide a master plan and implementation recommendations
    erve the unique coastal qualities of Fish Creek, provide smooth pedestrian and vehicul'ar
    .sement around the waterfront, yet provide for orderly future residential and commercial growth.

    -m4rT Wil  EE THE SFZECIFI: END PRODUCTS OF THE PROJE'7?
    :e end product will be a planning document that will guide the decision-making for the residents
    f Fish Creek and the Town of Gibraltar, relative to future development and public improvements
    ifecting the harbor area.

    CM WILL THnE_ PROJEt. IMAROVE MANAG EMENT OF WISONSINS CA.S:
    nme project will serve co protect the community's coastline from over development, provide
    =proved public access and pedestrian and vehicular traffic movement around the harbor area.

    LvD'F- SUo.LD=v.  CU, rtUNS S    5200                     .F., E'T SAnf 5    2800               .	T- AL COST S   8000
    r-c-wIET  S-IME5	'TC
    -8, Lva 7-j

    I                   For WCMP Staff Use                       I
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program                                              IWCMP Pioject Numhar:

    DPate Received:[
    Progress Report
    IDateReceived

    OM 4(5/80)
    Submit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:                                                                Purchase Order Number:
    ee66--e--4p~  - oc)  7I

    I

    I
    I
    Project Duration in MONTHS:
    /O /z/
    Report Period From:
    To:     //              -   '
    Projec.t Type (Check one or more):	CMPihds spent to date| %                      u

    O	Improve SCA Management SCA Number	Match Spent to date:-                    % of budgeted funds    -
    a	Implement State Law
    C	CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)                                       Signature of project manager:
    O Demonstration                                                        pc                                             mne

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):

    2.Thorhgg                                                           ts re
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objective during this reporting period:

    \/

    HOWARD NEEDOLES TAMMEN & BERGENDOFF

    FISH CREEK TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY
    FISH CREEK, WISCONSIN

    PROGRESS REPORT NO. 5                      THROUGH
    FEBRUARY 15, 1985

    The Fish Creek Traffic and Parking Study continues to be
    in the
    winter layover. The project will be initiated in spring
    with a
    public information meeting scheduled for May.

    HOWARD NEEDLE-S TAMVMEN & BERGENDOFF
    FISH CREEK TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY
    FISH CREEK, WISCONSIN

    PROGRESS REPORT NO. 6                         THROUGH
    MARCH 29, 1985

    The Fish Greek Traffic and Parking Study continues to
    be in the
    winter layover. A letter identifying initial
    impressions of the
    traffic and parking problems and potential improvements
    was
    prepared and submitted to Paul Woerfel on March 15,
    1985. The
    first public information meeting is tentatively planned
    for May.
    A definite time, date and place will be selected
    shortly.

    The project is 6% complete.

    m ,Ak
    "PRUJECT TITLE:
    -ONTRACTOR:
    , PROJECT
    1ANAGER:
    Fish Creek Waterfront Naster Plan Study
    Town of Gibraltar
    Raymond Slady	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    851.4
    Fish Creek. WI  54212	PUREHASE ORDER NU: ADE-
    00179
    1414) 866-3903	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    --- CURRENT AS
    OF:
    DEC 12
    84
    PROS. REPORT DUE: APR 5
    85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: FED
    15 85
    CATEGO
    RY
    INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET
    YTD/BUDGET

    REInBURSA8LE COSTS
    I. PERSONNEL	0.00	0.00
    2. FRINGES	0.00	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS        310.00	310.00
    6200.00	0.05 -
    4. EQUIPNENT	0.00	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00	0,00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00	0.00
    7. PRINTING	0.00	0.00
    8. OTHER             90.00	90.00
    1800.00	0.05
    9. INDIRECT	0.00	0.00

    -  U;TOT?1LS          400.00	400.00  8000.00	0.05
    CNP REINBURSEMENT:
    	260.0
    0
    LOCAL MATCH:
    	140.0
    0
    260.0
    0
    140.0
    0

    rar V !iZ72UF[f~~ n*li�e~
    -  isconsia                                 -       -     _ -          _-
    :2 ;~~et   L�' ''  .,
    'f~~~~~~ i                    Fal
    ; isconsin Coastal l.~. --.,
    .v                .   .:     f t . NirNutA.:
    Dr WCMP Staff tJs
    _a_ _
    3Project Summary
    2   IR,. 12J79. )
    i*Fi Numt:    . / f
    1         ;ae ncnPFR 1 6 1984

    =- vJois ThitI4: A. lncy or Govrrnment ar A(ddr.e:
    Village of Howard
    /piublic Access & Improerent on road end                Recreation Department
    2456 Glendale Ave
    0rot.urstlon:            2       ~ns                    Green Bay, WI   54303

    J- 9iJCtIT�:                                        PrInci'al Staff Contact:	_Teimgonne Num.er
    Marianne Pigeon	4/r4497-4482
    {-7- fm pn~rovgscA ~ ni t sea t                 Pr,on lutlnor,i:d to recsiv /unas: (/[jC, 'Cij	TlsTonono Number
    Bettie Farr	497-4477
    01 oamSignatumn of anon aumorand to reive func:
    Public Access  Improvements

    RtEF- PROJECT DESCRIPTIQN:
    This project proposal would-be  to develop  a site specific. plan for
    an already used fishing hole at the end of a public road and to make
    improvements  to accomodate the high usage.

    mm,ATr IO YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPUSH IMAJOR OBJECTIVES)?

    'O~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The project should:  1)  Increase recreational opportunities for the
    community. 2) Enhance the natural beauty of the shore. 3) Control
    over erosion and shoreline damage through regular up-keep.  4)  Eliminate
    the launching of.boats where no ramp is provided.  5): Eliminate the
    parking problem. 6) Obtain access to the bay.

    rWi,AT WILL. E THE SPECIFIC AND PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?

    The end results expected from this proposal would be a well groomed
    passive park area along the shore with several benches for shore fishing,
    waste receptacles, and portable toilets., The site specific plan would
    detail future acquisition of land for parking facilities and layout a
    boat ramp and dock for access to the Duck Creek River which leads out:
    to the Bay of Green Bay.

    SIOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPAROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:

    This project would ease  the congestion of boaters trying to launch
    boats at the Howard Memorial boat landing and eliminate the launching
    of boats in non-designated areas where no ramps are provided. It will
    _ also improve the looks of the shore line by providing regular maintenance
    services and shift the fishing usage to designated areas.

    fIUOGET 5UMMA9Y                                      tOTALcosTs  4,250.00
    IUOGET SUMMARY.

    ~r ~Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    For WCMP Staff Use
    WCMP Prolect Number:
    2,67�
    Date Received:
    Progress Report
    FINAL

    AilCM 4(5/80)
    ZW   it this Progress Report to:  Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 5370u
    -firoject Title:                                Purchase Order Number:
    Public Access and Improvement oni
    Road End - Village of Howard                              ADA-00180
    ---Project Duration in MONTHS:                   Report Period From:	To:
    3 months                        Final Report	February 22. 1985
    --roject Type (Check one or more):              CMP funds spent to date:  of budgeted funds:
    1300.00              65
    O Imprve SCA Management SCA Number.  Match spent to date:  % of budgeted funds
    []Improve SCA Management SCA Number
    O Implement State Law                               700.00 35
    0 CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project        Signature of proanager:
    o Demonstration

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):           -      /

    . ?            '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    West and East Deerfield Avenues, which lie parallel to State Trunk Highway
    41/141 provide access across private properties to the mouth of Duck Creek
    at its confluence with Green Bay. Both roads dead-end at the shores of the
    river and are popular areas for shoreline fishing, the launching of small
    boats, as well as ice fishing during winter months.  There are no boat
    launching facilities at either location.

    *   The Village of Howard has designated this area as a need in its current
    Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan and has included it in its 5 year
    action plan.

    The Village will provide a site specific plan of the area which will include'
    plans for a launching ramp, dock area, and parking facilities.

    -. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    Final completion of the project has been accomplished. Enclosed are copies of
    a Site Plan for West Deerfield Avenue, which includes a natural wetland area,
    nature trails, shoreline wood pier with railings, a dock, a launch ramp,
    a picnic area, a light post, a parking area with wood post barriers and a
    location for a portable toilet.
    A schedule of cost estimates has been completed for the site plan.

    An analysis was done on both East and West Deerfield as a proposed recreation site.
    The recommendation is to concentrate development on West Deerfield and leave East
    Deerfield as a "natural area".

    * -rendering has also been provided to show the proposed improvements.

    VILLAGE -OF HOWARD  2456 GLENDALE AVENUE
    BROWN COUNTY
    PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENT    GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 54303

    Village of Howard WCNP Grant
    Project No.: 85004-851.5
    Purchase Order No.:  ADE-00180

    RE: FINAL REPORT Public Access and Improvement on Road End
     OALS AND
    - OBJECTIVES
    I believe that the goals and objectives of this proposal can
    be accomplished by following the recommendations of the site
    plan provided by this grant.
    1) Increase the recreation opportunities for the community.
    Opportunities will increase due to the easy access and increased
    parking areas; access-for handicapped to fishing or passive
    recreat�on areas by provision of the piers and shoreline benches;
    increase usage due to launch facilities.

    2) Enhance the natural beauty of the shoreline.
    The shoreline xwill be maintained on a regular basis and land-
    scaping improvements will be made to improve aesthetics.

    3) Control erosion and shoreline damage through regular upkeep.
    Erosion will be controlled by shifting the fishing and area usage
    to designated areas & regular maintefiance, and upkeep of the area.

    4) Eliminate the launching of boats where there are no ramps.
    Erosion control will be established where now we have the spinning
    of car wheels and launching of boats from any location at the
    road'end.

    5) Eliminate parking problem.
    There would be a specific area to park cars and trailers.

    6) Obtain access to the bay.
    By establishing a launch area boaters in a light craft could
    get on the the Duck Creek River and make their way out to the
    :'Bay of Green Bay.
    I believe -that the end product proposed in this grant has been
    accomplished. The site specific plan provides details on parking
    facilities and a layout for a boat ramp and dock facilities.
    In.addition cost estimates, a rendering of the location, and East
    and West Deerfield recommendations have been provided.
    .....END PRODUCT

    VILLAGE OF HOWARD
    7-I--MPROVE MANAGE-
    V_MENT TO COASTS
    This project would ease congestion of boaters trying to launch
    at HowairMemorial Park and eliminate the launching of boats in
    non-designated areas. It would also improve the looks of the
    shoreline by regular maintenance and by shifting the usage to
    designated areas.
    In addition to the above stated improvements we again have to
    address the improved aesthetics, erosion control, community
    awareness, and regular maintenance of the area.

    MARIANNE PIGEON
    Project Manager
    O i

    I 0

    VILLAGE OF HOWARD 2456
    GLENDALE AVENUE
    B
    R
    O
    W
    N

    C
    O
    U
    N
    T
    Y
    PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
    GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 54303

    Village of Howard WCMP Grant
    Project No.: 85004-851.5
    Purchase Order No.: ADE-00180

    RE: PROGRAM EVALUATION

    The benefits of this project to coastal management
    are within
    the confines of proper planning.  Being allowed
    to assess and
    analyze the project areafor the suitability of
    recreation
    facilities and then preparing a site specific
    plan with details
    and recommendaticas for the area assure for the
    future good
    management of the coastline. I believe that this has been
    accomplished and that the next step in the planning process
    may begin. Proper planning is essential to avoid poor
    planning
    and mismanagement.

    As far as any improvements to the subgranting process go, I just
    have a few comments. I thought that the initial application
    process was easy to comprehend and fill out. I always received
    swift communication replys and good follow up
    from the WCNP office
    staff. I think that this program is a good
    service and was
    certainly a help for my planning of future
    facilities for the
    Deerfield road end.

    I did not like the form used for invoicing.
    Everytime I had to
    fill out the form I confused myself. Even though
    instructions
    were established in the initial documents I still
    filled out
    the forms wrong. I always put our invoice numbers
    in the invoice
    column instead of the amount of the request. I
    also was not
    sure whether you. required copies of the invoices to-'be included
    with the request form or not. The PAID TO DATE section at the
    lower section of the form also confused me.
    Should it be .00
    paid to date in the WCMP column if we have not
    already been
    reimbursed by your department and place the total
    amount paid
    to date in the match column since we have paid
    the entire bill
    to date? These were the questions that I have
    encountered.

    Over all I feel that the program is well
    administered and was
    well received by our department.

    MARIANNE PIGEON
    Project Manager

    . ~
    -  N
    ~vli 1.1of *rd  WCM4P Grant
    Project No.: 85004-851.5
    Purchase Order N6.: ADE-00180
    &OAIO)
    I
    --_o
    ed
    '? 0

    J,4V,  kl, ~

    C	a	I	O                     I
    ~	k	~
    l	Y	6III/	L	(	A
    6 2 4 0 - '~'&
    ~
    11 ..

    q-     ~7r b d
    L ~	r
    c/.         a    ogh          # A	7~
    &_ _Ieo Ad-eW6

    ."\      "
    4;6 ?_Ille6
    . I
    19?ls-
    ,0 q.

    '98.4 46e242r@
    q6__-
    .V11age of Ward WCHP Grant
    Project No.: 85004-851.5
    Purchase Order No.: ADE-00180

    4_                       41*'
    '1**'
    t   '1'

    r -.
    V

    U

    -"*4'      A

    2"
    ,rt '

    _.44	_  .34;
    .34	*_4
    *,4r_..	is

    _A_&	� �
    _            I'  ''

    V/es+  bee,zfi tid                         LI
    e,dt  Dcrcl-&ielcfis*
    t

    15? L?"_/-
    o�4c)t,66/L'c 2~ /
    At~~~~~~~~

    pt
    14'
    eaw(sfr  4OA2.1
    I" nedJ&eC2
    dhy'4&_

    I

    *1
    p
    U

    'I

    A,
    [9
    i
    -
    :
    1
    1
    t
    i

    r
    I
    1
    ,I

    i

    I
    i
    i

    i

    * ~	~	�: -                              .. ~. $n;L7' WfAC
    4	..1~� **'	.	cb61 riJ�-r.

    4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

    Ki_A

    -"-                                                                                                                                                    - -   -  j c i .

    -4~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~�- .� ,-'-- --                -	i�,
    tJ	l:	-.� -

    Mr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'"	~'~"

    ~~ �- �:,,I �..                                                                    ,,�E;           �~~~~~~~~~~cc�.m~~~~,IL i~~~ic11;~~~~5~~'A.-.
    PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT
    DEERFIELD
    WVEST
    Village of Howard, WI
    ~ '-    .j.    .  ;. .  �w_ .   .

    Village of Howard WMlF Grant
    Project No.: 85004-851.5
    Purchase Order No.: AOE-00180

    i~~~~~~~~1 I

    -	1	,

    -1	-
    I

    I

    I
    4

    I

    III
    I

    I
    II

    I

    iI

    I

    i

    I
    I

    I
    i
    t

    I

    I

    i

    i
    I

    i

    I
    _r  +  _;ir'  -v
    7' Se'
    -i                4-

    .;7A'
    _*72     _'-  .�:tv:        -_
    _ 11 -
    . .- lloz_
    I .. N-_
    _
    o
    -ci.

    4'

    .4..  ..      -                 't_*"*__,	- . - -.

    $ - -                -7__>  _                                            7_' -44--_	-

    �4

    I, * 4 .-_ - ._

    *
    ~~~~~~~
    ~~~~A.~~~
    ~~~

    ,,  ISITE   PLAN

    DEERFIELD AVENUE
    W    I  r-- FILL AREA
    N

    ,,,,..~ .   ,~,.,.I,, ,,,,
    .;fiPf4 - -          i ,, .  .. t*GRAVEL
    SCALE- I" 50'
    .~ .5  -"/- . 0 ,.-	,:r."~-, ,.    AUTO/TRAILER

      . ............-...2  ..........	.. A	NOTES:

    ~'A. ,    .' '	A	-	I. PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED FROM DNR-PLACING
    	, ,  *   60	,	d  FILL, RAMP AND DOCK CONSTRUCTION.
    ,' ......,' '" '* ~'"    '	=	2. DREDGING MAY BE NECESSARY FOR BOAT RAMP.
    PERMITS WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED.
    -' A'4..	- .>. "I""    '--'.~  �'. . o
    .14.I	V	M A*;|.t5v^@NE -P^v>ag@s s ,4 A-. o.AD 3. DUE TO LIMITED PARKING, ONE 20' WIDE RAMP
    Ae'.� .. '  A *"~..-",..           O                                 IS RECOMMENDED.
    n	-""'.' A.A-". A,,4 A4~r......... s <s         _ ,^ .1 .ILI  . /'     4. TWO - THREE PICNIC TABLES AND GRILL
    *A, k	'	.  .'A .A.,, A- ..- WOOD	POST
    ,- ,,, =,.,A ,,,"-	WOOD POST.                           COULD BE PROVIDED.
    .l. '-~~ . XH ~.- K�U.~'".,.~,,<'BARR IERS
    .4 ^,.. *4,  A'.vKA-   ..:       ' BARRIERS                             5. PICNIC TABLES, GRILLS AND BENCHES IF
    ...." ~,,~, ~,,   ,,, ~	DESIREABLE. SHOULD BE ANCHORED
    '~ A'4 '    ,:" -TzSt	IN PLACE.
    RABLE
     PORTABOILE               6. HANDICAPPED ACCESS  SHOULD BE PROVIDED
    TO BOTH PI,ERS.
    )E WOOD PIER    �            o                 -
    LING  -AUNCH
    RAMP P    ICNIC

    3,-4 MINIMUM DEPTH
    AT END OF RAMP

    DOCK
    Foth & Van Dyke
     lnSineenind Archiecula  Div
    2737 5. Ridge Rod
    G. O. Bo, 19012
    GCren By. Wisconin S437-9012
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~119-K
    NATURAL
    AREA
    WETLAND

    R TL

    '4-

    NATURE TRAILS
     sri
    WITH RAIL

    :               :                A .  I.,
    VILLAGE OF HOWARD
    DEERFIELD PARK (DUCK CREEK)
    CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES*
     Boat Ramp (20' x 50', Concrete)

    Piers (Wood construction, 8' x 245')

    Parking Lot (9,000 sq. ft., fill, gravel)

     Lighting - boat ramp (Wooden pole, merc. vapor fixt.)
    $ 4,500

    $35,000

    $ 4,500

    $ 3,500
    II
     Miscellaneous Improvements
    Picnic tables (anchored) 2 @ 330 Ea.
    Grill (anchored) $70 Ea.
    Barrier Posts (6" x 6")

    -    TOTAL
     4
    $	660
    $	70
    * $
    	45
    0

    $48,680
    t
    * Costs do not include engineering nor costs associated with
    obtaining various permits.

    Foth   &   Van   Dyke
    Engineering/Architectural Division

    G
    r
    e
    e
    n

    B
    a
    y
    ,

    W
    I
    J
    a
    n
    u
    a
    r
    y

    3
    0
    ,

    1
    9
    8
    5

    Village of Howard
    Park & Recreation Dept.
    *  2466 Glendale Ave.
    Green Bay, WI 54303

    Attn: Mary Pigeon

    Re:' Deerfield East and West

    Dear Mary:

    We have completed our review and analysis of
    both Deerfield East and West f or
    proposed recreation sites. Based on this
    analysis, we feel there may be several
    potential problems in developing ]Deerfield
    East. Due to the limited amount of
    public right-of-way,.~ need for extensive
    clearing and grubbina, and very poor
    soils for construction, we feel that the Villa-
    e's fu-nds and grant money could
    best be used for the develop-ment of Deerfield
    West. Deerfield East should be
    left as a "natural area", possibly with some
    limited trail development.

    Efforts should be concentrated on improving
    Deerfield West, an area that is
    currently very popular among boaters and
    fisherman alike. We have provided
    *you with a site plan and rendering to show the
    proposed improvements.

    We hope they will be useful to the Village, and
    wish you success with this project.

    If we can be of any further assistance please
    contact our office.

    Sincerely,

    FOTH & VAN DYKE

    *	ary11~lkich
    *	lanner

    GMS;dkb

    cc: John M. Maas

    *    - Environmental/Lab
    	Architectural	Site
    Development
    *Waste Treatment
    	Electrical/
    Mechanical
    	Transportat
    ion
    *     ~~Utility Svsterns
    	Commercial/industrial
    	Geotechnical

    Our Reputation Is Built On One
    Project ... Yours

    Foti;'& Van Dyke and Associates Inc.  -2737 S. Ridge Road  -P. 0. Box 19012 -
    Green Bay, WI 54307-9012  -414/497-2500

    MZ-'TI9JECT
    TITLE:
    -	CONTRACTOR:
    L-	PROJECT
    MANAGER:
    Public Access and Improvement on Road End
    Village of Howard
    Marianne Pigeon	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    851.5
    2456 Glendale Ave.	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    0018O
    Green Bay, WI   54303	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    (414) 497-4482
    -    CURRENT AS OF:    HAR 6
    85
    PRO6, REPORT
    DUE:
    FINAL REPORT
    DUE:
    .   CATEGORY
    '
    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    YTI)IBUD
    GET
    --

    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1, PERSONNEL         1006.23  2000.00  2000.00
    	1.00
    2. FRINGES	0.00	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00	0.00
    4. EQUIPMENT	0.00.	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00	0.00
    7. PRINTING	0.00	0.00
    8. OTHER	0.00	0.00
    9. INDIRECT	0.00	0.0
    __________________----_____________________________________---
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    is
    1006.23 2000.00
    2000.00
    1.00
    CMP REIMBURSEMENT:	654.05
    	1300,00
    LOCAL MATCH:	352.18	700.00

    =i-consin Coastal Management Programri                                   FowcPru
    Projea Number:
     oiject Summary	Fil Numbsr:

    -IRt. t21791	Gt Ri,vd:
    APR l 1 (in.*
     Title:                                       Agancy or Govrnmlnt a,na Acaress:
    -~estern Lake Superior/South Shore	Northwest Reginnal Planning Commission
    t=ecreation Boating and Harbor Facility	302 Walnut Street
    r=3.  Our.,ion:  twelve	Spooner, Wisconsin 54801

    =at T�YV:                                      Pri:nc:l Stiaf Cant.c-:           Ticlohane Numoar
    Dennis Van Hoof         .-715-682-2395
    ~-fl~ ~momvr SCA MlnrCmm~ SCA #             Penawn authorized to receive furios:	Telehaone Number
    M ark "lueller, Exe. Director	L-715-635-2197
    rl ODerfltrstiao Urban                      Signaturn of Person autorz,md to riv funds:
    _Ibn    Urban Waterfront Revitalization

    BIlEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:                             /
    =z-The Lake Superior south shore, Wisconsin, from Barker's Island in Superior to Saxon Harbor
    A-n Iron County, extends over a 200 mile  distance and includes a chain of 12 public and
    -private harbors and safe refugres.  Recreational boating is increasing in western Lake
    z--uperior and the harbors and marinas are attractors of recreational, commercial and
    --residential development.

    SPW4Ar 0O YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OSJECTIVESI?
    *-- *ing private and public marina owners together to discuss mutual interests and concerns.
     -dentify interests in harbor/marina expansion for each facility.
    -- Describe the boater safety and economic improvements which may result from development
    or expansion.
    _ - Identify the quality and condition of each of the existing south shore harbors.
    -- Describe the historic and present economic constraints.
    D-- Develop a system to allocate the boat slip demand between facilities.

    a3AATWILL BE THE SPECtFIC ENO PROOUCTS Of THE PROJECT?
    -A report which describes information and analysis presented above.  If the process is
    - successful it could avoid "over building" of marina facilities which would wind up
    being underutilized and a waste of financial resources and it could make significant
    =contributions to the economic well being in numerous communities along the Lake Superior
    = south shore.

    .MWtWtLL THE PROJECT IMNPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST7:
    The value of small harbors to the local economy will be documented.  The imDacts of small harbo r
    -develooment will be adequatelv described in a manner where citizens will have information
    =about harbor impacts available when making decisions concerning small harbors.  The nublic
     and local government officials will have the ooDortunitv to look at small harbor develonment
    :I, jregion-wide context.  Boating organizations and harbor operators will have an oooortunitv
     rk with each other in managing their facilities.

    1UOGET SUMMAy-                                     rOTAL COST   36,923

    L ;A - L!;'-,,;A" OF
    STATE E..'ISG,'
    APR 1 8 1985
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Progress Report

    AO-CM 4(5/801
    For WCMP Staff Use
    WCMP Proiect Number:

    Ipat Received:
    Submit this Progress Reoort to:  Wisconsin DeOt. of Administration
    Office of Coatl Managmemnt
    101 S. Webter Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title: WSe'.aeS1ro/OC                                oePurchase Order Number:
    P'itiEWestern Lake Superior/South Shore
    Recreation Boating and Harbor
    rnl 0 4 t     n-_.-                                                   aDEA0 181
    Proiject Ouration in MONTHS:	Reort Period From:              To
    12	1/1/85	3/31/85
    Project Typa (Check one or morel:	CMP funds smntto tdate:	% of budgeted funds

    improve SCA Management SrCA Number________	Mach sent to dat:	% of budgeted funds
    O Implement State Law
    Cl CEIP (coami Energy Impact Project )                                  Signatur a e: manar:
     Demonstration	C/       i
    Urban Waterfront Revitalization	c  L.;/ sL
    1. Objective of Proiject (as contractad):
    -Bring private and public marina owners together to discuss mutual interests and concerns.
    -Identify interests in harbor/marina expansion for each facility
    -Describe boater safety and economic improvements which may result from development/expans:
    -Identify the quality and condition of each of the existing south shore harbors.
    -Describe the historic and present economic constraints.
    -Develop a system to allocate the boat slip demand between facilities.
    ion.
    2. Thoroughly discuss progret made toward accomplishing objectirv  during this reporting priod:
    Cooperative data collection program continuing,
    Available engineering designs collected.
    Air photos of facilities have been secured.
    Analysis of income multipliers for economic effects on communities in progress.

    3. FroblemstCdncnms (Issues, project, or administrative concerns):
    Project extension has been applied for. Further analysis and recommendations depend upon
    as yet uncompleted boater demand analysis by U.S. Corps of Engineers.
    A 1 -.           U..    I9_   -        - -1---- -                                    -              -                             -
    4
    AM
    impact thus far, it any, of the project on the shorliine, coastal rasources. or comatal residents:

    NONE
    Signature of person authorized to receive funds:
    /  ' I

    Please use additional pages if necessary.

    4-:-
    ;^-'PROJECT
    TITLE:
    -- CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MAWAGER:
    western Lake nichigan's Shore Rec
    Boatina/Harbor
    NWRPC             Facility Demand
    Dennis Van Hoof	CONTRACT RUNBER:  85004-
    851.7
    201 Second Street	PURCHASE-ORDER NO: ADE-
    00181
    Ashland. WI   54806	PROJECT NUnDER:   146-
    726
    CURRENT AS OF:	FEB 14 85

    -  It eY	INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAHL REPORT DUE:
    SEPT 5 85

    YTOiBUDGET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	534.02	534.02 17409.00	0.03
    2. FRINGES	207.65	407.65	6847.00	0.03
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00	0.00	0.00
    4. EOUIPMENT	0.00	0.00	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00	400.00	0.00
    6. TRAVEL            95.90	95.90	500.00
    	0.19
    7. PRINTING	0.00	500.00	0.00
    B. OTHER       -	0.00	800.00	0.00
    9. INDIRECT         364.98	364.98 10467.00
    	0.03
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    1202.55 1202.55
    36923.00
    0.0
    3
    CMP REIMBURSEMENT:
    781.66
    LOCAL MATCH:
    420.89
    781.6
    6
    420.8
    9

    : .-              . --
    :Wisconsin Coastal- .inoagement Program
    =Project Summary

    ;-^ 2 !R. 12/79
    N
    For WCMP Sraff Ure
    Projec Nunmber:
    Fil Numbt:           -
    Oa Ro  :dAPR  16 1ig
    *-jic Title:	Agency ar Government ano Acarea:
    NORTH-SLIP REDEVELOPMENT	CITY OF PORT WASHINGTON
    100 W. Grand Ave.'
    rroject Ourn,ton:                                Port Washington, Wi. 53074
    .-%
     -Pjecrc Type:

    C  Ifm: rovSCA Ma e-gerr-t SC4A
    a Impmnrtr Surt Law
    - -  DCm nsarion               -6 -kvttd
    - C :tt,: .  nt:   <:e   Mo  t-   ' r-;.t .r_
    Principl Staft Contact:                        Teilephone Number
    Steve Stanleton/Citv Admin. (414)2284-S5R5
    Person authorizae to rceve funcs:	Teleone Numoer
    Steve Stapleton	Same
    Sigureinv of;"outm1or_d to rcisi Sef:
     a<;0X~ ,;e
    3RI RO    I
    The rehabilitation of 500 feet of lakeshore land on the west
    edge of the City's North-Slip. This project will provide a reconstructed�<
    pedestrian walkway with safety hand-rails,park benches, landscaping,and
    designated fishing areas. This is a site specific plan designed to
    compliment the city's existing Comprehensive Plan through the rehab-
    ilitation of a former industrial area used as the right-of-way for the old
    interurban railway.
    rWHATDa Yau WANT TiE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OBJECTIVES)?
    This project will accomplishment of the following objectives:
    *   1. Improve access to Lake Michigan.
    *. 2. Increase pedestrian safety.
    3. Provide a safe and pleasant atomosphere for fishing.
    4. Add beauty to the natural beauty of Lake Michigan.

    1WHAT WILL SE THE SPECI FC ENO PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    The specific end.product of the project is a final report containing
    a preliminary feasibility study and engineering design outlining the
    available cost-effective solutions for upgrading the North-Slip.
    3IOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    This project fits the 1984-85 Coastal Management Priority-C,rehbilitation
    of urban waterfronts. This plan will provide for safe pedestrian access
    and improved fishing on the Lake Michigan coast in the city limits.This
    area is being redevelopment in accordance with the city's comprehensive
    plan as part of the phased development of formerly industrial used land
    on the lakefront into public access uses.

    _UDGET SUMMARY-                        TOTALCOSTS 9,000

    F
    o
    r

    W
    C
    M
    P

    S
    t
    a
    f
    f

    U
    s
    e
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

    WCMP Project Numher
    Progress Report

    I
    -CM 4(5/80)
    Qbmit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street. 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:                                    Purchase Order Number:
    North Slip Redevelopment                        ADE-
    00182

    Project Duration in MONTHS:
    	R
    eport Period From:  To:
    8 months
    	J
    anuary 5, 1985
    	A
    ugust 15, 1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):
    	C
    MP funds spent to date:

    % of budgeted funds:
    $
    3
    6
    0

    4
    6

    6

    2
    %
    I' Improve SCA Management SCA Number           Match spent to date:
    	o
    f budgeted funds
    ol Implement State Law                            $194.09
    	6.
    2%
    o CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)         Signature of project manaer:
    ODemonstration

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):                /              /
    The objectives of this project are that the City of Port Washington
    staff will be
    responsible for developing the planning and
    engineering design proposal, interviewing
    consultants and awarding and monitoring completion of
    the redevelopment of the North
    Slip area into an aesthetic pedestrian walkway.

    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during
    this reporting period:

    The progress by the City Staff up to this point has
    been the continued developme'nt and
    rewriting of the proposal, reviewing the proposals
    submitted by the perspective
    consultants and writing recommendations to the
    governing body for awarding of the
    contract. The North Slip Development Project contract
    was awarded and approved by
    the Common Council on April 16, 1985, to Warzyn
    Engineering Incorporated.

    v. Problems/Concerns (Issues, project, or administrative concernsl:

    None.
    0

    4.	Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    *	None.
    Signature of person authorized to pre ifve  nds

    Please use additional pages if n-p(essary.

    4:  ,              .

    .         j
    PROJECT
    TITLE:
    7    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    nANAGER:
    North-SIip
    Redevelopient
    City of Port
    washinaton
    Steve Stapleton
    100 West Grant Ave,
    Port Washinaton, WI
    53074
    (414) 284-5585
    CONTRACT NUMBER: 85004-
    851.8
    PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00182
    PROJECT NUMBER:   146-726
    7-CURRENT AS OF:    APRIL
    30 85
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: AUG
    15 85
    -    CATEGORY
    INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET
    YTDIBUDGET
    ""I"---'---'---I------"""I'--'_~"
    ----------------------------------------
    .-1-  REIMBD"URABLE
    COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL
    2. FRINGES
    3. CONTRACTS
    4. EQUIPMENT
    5. SUPPLIES
    6. TRAVEL
    7. PRINTING
    OTHER
    ONDIRECT
    214.36	393.85
    11
    70.74	155.20
    0.00
    74
    0.00
    2.50     2.50
    0.00
    3.00     3.00
    0.00
    0.00
    1
    4
    4
    132.00	0.35
    -
    142.00	0.35
    100.00	0.00
    0.00
    10.00
    0.25
    0.00
    16.00
    0.19
    0.00
    0.00
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    290.60   554.55
    9000.00
    0.06
    __  CNP REIMBURSEMENT:
    	188.8
    9
    LOCAL MATCH:
    	101.7
    1
    360.4
    6
    194.0
    9

    IIa  .                    -6                                                                                                                                                                              :
    =isconsin Cocastal hcncagement Progrcnm-.
    --.ie ct Summcry

    R. I2.r9! '
    For WCMP Sratt UW
    Proc Nwmrioe:    v   -/ 7
    File Nutmw-               6
    OaeRwiAPR  16 1St_4

     T'i~~tNl-'b: ~ ~Agency cr Govfnmenr arn Accra:
    7=essment of Lake Michigan Yellow Perch   . Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources
    sheries                                  -    Box 7921
    Madison, WI  53707                  . .
    -  Oum.an:        1         ; mm

    T: New                                        Pnnpll Satt Conm:	T      Numor
    Lee Kernen	1267-7502

    SCtIfU:- ,Se*	Pm, Iutonl to rSmC  hn:	TMeoahrwn Numoer
    ~-;llmcllmmSrxrr              .	Bruce Braun	266-2I97
     .- -:-- Si;   of Prcn uonard to rec  funI,

    hL-e  I~~/
    Wisconsin waters of Lake Michigan (excluding
    Green Bay)
    plan which would allow annual sustained harvest
    for
    -iEF PROJECrT ESC;C:IPTICN:
    _ssessment of yellow perch stocks
    in
    -zith the development of a
    management
    =he commercial and sport-
    fisheries.

    .. . �                            . .

    my4-IO YOU WAXTflTE PROIJECTTO ACCOMPUSH I4MAJR OCECTE�VES. .
    -z. escribe perch population characteristics.
    j Assess low profile commercial perch gill nets for effectiveness in lowering
    incidental salmonid catch.
    :3.  Develop management plan to allow sustained annual harvest.
    :4. Collect information on other shoreline fish species caught during perch
    surveys.
    MHATWI LiL ES TE SPECFIC ENO PROOUCIS OF THE PROJECT?
    -1. A good data base and sampling scheme will be established for Lake Michigan
    perch.
    -2.	Lake Michigan yellow perch management plan.
    -3.	An established data base on other shoreline fish species, especially in
    urban areas.
    =4. Reduced incidental catch of salmonids in commercial perch harvest.

    MOWWILL THE PROJECr IMPRO'CE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSINIS COASr'-
    -Project should lay the ground work for viable commercial and sport perch fisheries
    on
    :Lake Michigan through a management plan designed to be responsive to today's
    and
    zfuture demands.

    L.-u  T.   "Aq                 '-TOTALCOST I    25,7no0
    -kl. OOE' SLIcemAY.

    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Progress Report

    D-CM 4(5/80)
    Submit  this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    I                 For WCMP Staff Use
    WCMP Prioict Number:

    Date Received:
    II
    Project Title: As s e s s me n t  of  Lake  Mi chi gan                           Purchase Order Number:
    'eIlow Perch Fisheries
    ADE-001 83

    Project Duration in MONTHS:                                                      Report Period From:               To:
    12                                                   January 1 - March	31, 1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	96 of budgeted funds:

    El Improve SCA Management SCA Number	Match spent to date-	Of budgeted funds
    El implement State Law
    C CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)                                       Signature of project manager:
    [ Demonstration

    Y
    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    1.	Describe perch population characteristics
    2.	Assess low profile commercial perch gill nets for effectiveness in lowering
    incidental salmonid catch
    3.	Develop management plan to allow sustained harvest
    4.	Collect information on other shoreline fish species caught during perch
    surveys

    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    Completed compilation of commercial perch catch statistics for calender 1984
    for Lake Michigan from Kewaunee to Kenosha.  Harvest was 265,000 pounds, up
    70% from 1983 level.  CPE (catch per unit effort) figures indicate an expansio
    of the catchable perch population at least as far north as Manitowoc County.
    CPE's have increased on the average from 17.3 lbs/1000 ft gill net in 1982 to
    29.6 in 1984. Commercial gill net effort for perch (in 1000's ft.) has in-
    creased from 2710 in 1982 to 8968 in 1984.  Preliminary aging of commercially
    caught perch indicates that approximately 80% of the 1984 harvest was comprise
    of age 4+-fish from the 1980 year class.
    Fifty five percent of the commercial perch gill nets used in 1984 were esti-
    mated to be low profile (-24 meshes deep).  These nets caught significantly
    fewer salmonids incidentally.  Only 1.9 lake trout (the predominant incident-
    ally caught salmonid) per 1000 ft. net were caught in low profile nets on the
    average in 1984 where/deeper nets caught 5.2 per 1000 ft.  An estimated 11,000
    fewer lake trout would have not had to be handled had 100% of the perch gill
    nets been low profile.
    3.  Preliminary compilation of 1984 perch creel census figures estimate that
    240,000 perch were caught and 180,000 were kept by sport anglers in the Mil-
    waukee area, amounting to a harvest of approximately 60,000 pounds in this

    3. Problems/Concerns (issues, project, or administrative concerns):

    No si gni fi cant concerns.
    4. Impact thus far, if any, of the projeat on the sho-reline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    0    ~No direct measurable impact thus far.
    Signature of person authorized to receive funds:
    Please use additional pages if necessary.

    Progres,s (cont.)

    3.  area. Harvests at least half this size
    are believed to have occured
    in Racine and Kenosha. Sport harvests
    in ports north of Milwaukee
    are believed to be much smaller.
    4.  Conducted 16 graded mesh gill net
    lifts for perch population assessment
    off of Sheboygan, Milwaukee and
    Racine. Data has yet to be analyzed.
    5.  Monitored 18 commercial perc[i lifts
    during the quarter for age and sex
    composition of the catch and
    incidental salmonid catch.
    6.  Participated in a review of the Lake
    Michigan salmonid creel census
    program in an effort to expand the
    data collection to allow lakewide
    estimates of perch sport harvest.
    7.  Gave presentations on status of perch
    project to 5 sportsman's groups
    and one commercial group.

    :-_ t.JbECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    -::- PROJECT
    MANAGER:
    AssessAent of Lk Nich Yellaw Perch Fisheries
    WDNR
    Lee Kernan	CONTRACT NUMBER:
    85004-851.9
    Box 7921	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00183
    Madison, NI   53707	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    (608) 267-7502
    El CURRENT AS
    OF:
    APR 2 85                     PROG. REPORT
    DUE: JUL 5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    _    CATEGORY
    INVOICE    YTO
    BUDGET
    YTD/BUDG
    ET
    _
    _ _ == ==__===================-=-======================__=====
    REIMBURSABLE
    1. PERSONNEL	5091.02	5091.02	6700.00	0.76
    2. FRINGES	1018.20	1018.20	1350.00	0.75
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00	4000.00	0.00
    4. EOUIPMENT	0.00	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	1457.72	1696.71	7300.00	0,23-
    6. TRAVEL	443.37	1100.4-	3800.00	0.29
    7. PRINTING	0.00	0.00
    8. OTHER	0.00	0.00
    9. INDIRECT	1943.34	1943.34  2550.00	0.76
    - __  -----  -    ---  -	------  -    ----------- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  --- -  - - - ---
    SUBTOTA
    LS

    9953.65 10849.75
    25700.00
    0.4
    2
    C#MP REIBURSEMENT: 6469.87
    	7052.3
    4
    LOCAL MATCH:        3483.78
    	3797.4
    1
    l

    A
    mlisconsin Coastal - anagement Program	P                                  ojctu,
    ",_olec  Su mmary	Fiec Number;
    n  c>; e C t S 13 m  m  s: r y	F i~~~~~~~~~~~Dte Numetev(: ,~  9
    *'=2 ((Rev. 12/791	D3ta Recujivec:  .
    'RPR 1f`;   ll.
    *-lctt Title:                                                 Agency or Government and Addrss:
    '_phralm Coastal Management Plag                 Village of Ephraim
    Ephraim, WI  ,Z
    OLdrxxation:       t
    z in12   ~months

    --o!ect Type:                             .	Principal Staff Contect:	Telephone Number
    -.�~~~ ~ -':~ .	William D. Chaudoir	1(414) 743-
    5511
    -  Improve SCA Management SCA	Person authorized to receive funcs:	Tlphone Nue
    [ lmplement State Law	Keith Krist	414  8;4-29q31
    -   Demonstraxion   cl,-Ik	Signature of Person authorized to receive funds:

    -ItEF PROJECT LDESCRIPTiON:
    This project will aid in the preparation of a coastal management plan for the Village of
    -Ephraim. The project area is the coastal area in the central business area of the village.
    Within this area there are pressures for development which will threaten public access to
    -the waterfront, deplete open space, and disturb the delicate surface water runoff system
    serving the coastal area. A long-range coastal plan will. provide for informed decisions
    -that will protect the valuable natural resource base and preserve public access to the
    waterfront.
    -WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OBJECTIVES}?
    T!mmajor objectives of this project are to preserve and improve:  (a) public access to
    Waterfront, (b) coastal area open space, and Cc)_ the sensitive drainage system serving
    -_the coastal area.

    -WHAT WILL EE THE SPECIFIC END PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    The measurable end products of this project will be a report with. supporting documentation
    -and maps which address the public access, open space and drainage needs of the Ephraim
    -coastal area.
    o .. .

    L OW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    This project will improve management of the Ephraim coastal area'by providing decision
    --makers with information necessary to properly manage and protect Ephraim coastal resources.
    This project will aid in writing zoning ordinance, the identification of lands for public
    acquisition or protective easements, plans for the improvement of public lands and identi-
    jOtion  of other techniques to preserve and improve the natural resource base.

    [BUDGET SUMMARY CMP FUNDS S ' c;,fl -I RECIPIENT SHARE S I  _;O("l{      TOTAL COSTS  10 _ f00i

    I       ..For WCMP Staff Use                   I
    WCMP Pf illovi N umenr'

    Date Received:
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Progress Report
    AD.CM 45180I)
    Submit this Progress Report to:  Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastel Management
    101 S. Webster Street. 7th Floor
    Madison. WI 53702
    Project Title:	Purchase Order Number:
    Ephraim Coastal Management Plan	ADE-00184
    Project Duration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:               To:
    October 1984	March 31, 1985
    Proljec't Type (Check one or more):                                              CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    0
    0
    O	Improav SCA Management SCA Number                                         Match spent to date:                     % of budgeted funds
    O	imnplement State Law                                                                 $393.41                                  11%
    Signature o0 project manager:
    O	CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)  '                                                    r
    O	Demonstration                                                                   |

    I. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    The major objectives of this project are to preserve and improve:  a) public
    access to
    the waterfront, b) coastal area open space, and c) the sensitive drainage system
    serving
    the coastal area.

    2  Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    a) The Village Board appointed a Coastal Management Study Committee to
    participate in
    the development of the Ephraim Coastal Management Plan. The Committee is made
    uD
    of Village Board, Plan Committee, and citizen members,
    b)  On January 28, 1984, the committee interviewed Mr. Brian Vandewalle of
    Stockham and
    Vandewalle Planning Consultants to provide assistance to the village in the
    develop-
    ment of the Plan.
    c)  The committee,project manager and legal council worked with the consultant
    to develoD
    an acceptable scope of services.
    *  d)
    The Village Board approved a contract with Stockham and Vandewalle for
    assistance in
    the preparation of the Ephraim Coastal Management Plan.
    e) The project manager and consultant are assembling information and background
    data
    to be used in the study.
    f) The consultant is planning a trip to Ephraim to observe current drainage and
    surface
    water runoff patterns when the snow melt occurs,

    3. P1otIjmsJCQlncSrn lIssue. projet. or edmlnistratiw cuncuI nil
    ic
    None.

    4.  Impact thus far. if any.o- the project on the shoreline, coastal  resources.  or coastal residents:

    No significant impact to date.
    . I�

    -  -   .   -             I            z

    I .

    I '7"t'S  .'-                                                     I                        -- ,.-      -   -,

    9.
    Sign-ature of person authorized to receive funds:

    ,   -  'A' .!;'-"    I    .... .. - a "

    k

    27tJECT TITLE:
    - -  CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MANAGER:
    Ephrais Coastal Management Plan
    Village of Ephrais
    Williaff Chaudoir	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    851.10
    Court House	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00184
    Sturgeon Bay, WI  54235	PROJECT NUMBER:
    146-726
    (414) 743-5511
    CIIRRENT AS OFF:
    APR 4 85
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    --  CATEEORY
    INVOICE    YTR
    BUDGET
    YTDIBUDG
    ET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	0.00	0.00
    2. FRINGES	0.00	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00  8250.00	0.00
    4. EQUIPMENT	0.00	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00	0.00
    1. PRINRTING	0.00	0.00
    8. OTHER              393.41	393.41
    1750.00	0.22
    9. INDIRECT	0.00	0.00
    SUBTOTALS

    CMP
    REf'BURSEMENT-
    LOCAL MATCH:
    393.41   T93.41
    10000.00
    0.0
    4
    393.41   393.41

    :V isconsin Coastaol thnagement Program
    eroject Summary
    �  "--2 ;"ev. IV7T
    Fot WCMP Stfft Usa
    Pr4isct Numoe:

    File Number:          /&
    O1te ReIved:
    A. A    1 6.
    �l
    AER 1 6 13_4
    "- olea  Titl.:
    Milwaukee County Coastline topo-
    -=graphic Mapping Project-Cities of Cudahy
    zand Milwaukee
    I .
    Agncy or Gaovqrnment ana Aadr,m:
    Southeastern WisconsiL Regional Plan
    916 N. East Avenue
    Waukesha, Wisconsin     53186
    Commission
     lMe=  Ounraon:
    12

    -?oIt" Type:                                                   Pnncl6 Statf Coniact:	Principal	Telaonene Numoer
    Donald M.  Reed,	Bioloeist	(414)547-6721
    imor Imro  SCA Manmagment SCA 4
    IOI atton La     tsuw              -Kurt W. Bauer.  Executive  Directo  (A14)547-6721
    ~- QOenons-ttion                                            Signatur of Penon auor,ze,, to rc,l.e funcs:

    E CT DESCRIPTION:
    2ilEF PROJECT 3ESClIPTION:
    The production of large-scale topographic maps for 1.50 square miles of unmapped area along
    A--.5 miles of Lake Michigan coastline in the Cities of Cudahy and Milwaukee.

    rNWATOO YOU WANT THE PROJECT- T ACCOMPLISH MAJCaR OBJCflTVESI?

    _ roduction of large-scale topographic maps to be used for better regulation, management
    _i_td planning of Lake Michigan shoreline land and water uses.

    -M!AT?WILL BE THE SPECIFIC ENO PRODUCTS OF THE PROjECT?

    -Large-scale (1" = 100', two-foot contour interval) topographic mapping of 4.5 miles of
    -Milwaukee County shoreline.

    ,
    =NOWWILLTHE PROJECT MPqOVEMANAGEMENTOF WISCONSIN'S COAST7: The provision of large-scale topographic
    -mapping along the remaining unmapped portions of the Milwaukee County Lake Michigan shore-
    line will improve coastal management by providing a planning and management "tool" to
    enable local, regional, state and federal units and agencies of government to better deter-
    -mne shoreline erosion and accretion rates; ordinary high water levels; coastal wetlands;
    =specific flood and shoreline erosion hazard zones; and location, designing and construction
    nc0~raints of shoreline protection structures. In addition, the provision of large-scale
    W--raphic maps will assist local, state, and federal agencies of government, regulate and
    -,,force existing ordinances and laws pertaining to coastal uses.

    IBUOGET SUuuMMAR                                TOTALCOSTS 36,760
    ,,
    e
    F
    i

    For WCMP Staff Use
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    WCMP Pr,jiect Number

    Date Received:
    C 4                  Progress Report

    W-CM 4(5/80)
    Submit this Progress Report to:   Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:  Milwaukee  County  Coastline  Topo-                           Purchase Order Number:
    graphic Mapping Project Cities of Cudahy and                                                            ADE-
    00185
    Milwaukee
    Project Duration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:              To:
    12 months	January 1, 1985	March 31, 1985
    Project Type ICheck one or more):                                             CMP funds spent to date:	f %of budgeted funds:
    $18,390                                      100%
    55 Improve SCA Management SCA Number                                       Match spen t|  date:                   % of budgeted funds
    1	implement State Law                                                        S18. 780                                     10 ]0%
    O	CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)                                   Signature o             ager:       /
    O	DemonstrationtracintX                                                                     ed):

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    Product of 1" = 100' scale, 2' contour interval topographic maps
    Standards for 1.50 square miles of unmapped area along 4.5 miles
    Cities of Cudahy and Milwaukee.
    to National Map Accuracy
    of coastline in the
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:

    Topographic map compilation was completed and checked. The project was completed during
    this quarter.

    3. Problems/Concerns
    '/
    (issues, project, or administrative concerns):
    None

    4. Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    * None

    z A*
    I - .                               .    .    .           -    -
    Signature]of  person authorized to receive funds:

    Please use additional pages if necessary.

    TTTLE;
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MANABER:
    nilw Co. Topo
    Mapping:
    SEWRPC
    Den Reed
    916 N. East Avenue
    Waukesha, WI   53186
    (414) 547-6721
    Cudahv, M1iw Coastlines

    CONTRACT NUIMER:  85004-
    851.11
    PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00185
    PROJECT NUNBER:   146-
    726
    CURRENT AS
    OF:

    CATEGORY
    APR 4
    85
    PROD. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    YTDIDUDG
    ET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	1020.05	1320.00	1320,00
    	1.00
    2. FRINGES	552.76	680.O0	680.00	1.00
    3. CONTRACTS	15750.80 33235.00 33235.00	1.00
    4. EOUIPNENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00
    7. PRINTING	0.00
    S. OTHER	316.67	325.00	325.00	1.00
    9. INDIRECT	925.03	1200.00	1200.00
    	1.00
    SUIJBTALS       15565.31 36760.00
    36760900
    1.0
    0
    CNP REIMBURSEMENT: 9282.66
    18980.00
    LOCAL MATCH:       9292.66 18380.00
    _
    i
    9
    1

    I�- `_�
    =Visconsin Coastal N.,unagement Program
     roiect  Su             mmcry	File Numier

    -2 IRv. 12179)	Oate avd;

    1ro'lc TiTle.	Agency ar Gowrnmenf arn Accre:
    :ZED CLIFF COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM	RED CLIFF TRIBAL COUNCIL
    P.O. BOX 529
    .'o=i'c Ourtion:     12      r.onxs	BAYFIELD, WI  54814

    --="mjoe TyDp:	Princgal Staft Contact:	ITeWlnone Numner
    RAYMOND DEPERRY	715/779-5805
    0- CO]rov, CA Mane rwgm SUCA $	Plun authozs so r.cr t funbs:	TeIlenone Numoor
    CZ Impemoni Statet w	ALLAN BUTTERFIELD	715/779-5805
    Cl Osionrnrntion	sujalnr of Phdson Amtnor:ztd to mvive funds:
    _ Other: Develop TriBal Codes & Regulations	t     ,' t ' e;o4,  (
    JOSEPH BRESETTE. TRIBRA, CParTParT
    3RIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
    :Continuation of previous program goals and objectives for the Red Cliff Tribe to allow
    -adequate input to agencies for the protection of the Treaty Rights of the Tribe, to
    :zdevelop ordinances pertaining to management of Natural Resources and Coastal Management
    _-olicy.

    W-HAT DO YOU WAN TTHE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH IMAJCR OBJECTIVESI?

    _ as the liaison between Tribal Council, communitv members, outside agencies to
    -provide technical assistance pertaiining to r_eClati6ns and pr6tection of Treaty
    _Rights, research, develop, update and recommend ordinance changes on Red Cliff
    _Conservation Code and assist Tribal Council to further develop legal authority
    ._f Red Cliff Tribe.

    1WHATWILL 9E THE SPECIFIC END PR5OOfUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    zUiderstanding of issues pertaining to the Treaty Rights and programs administered
    by the Red Cliff Tribe, upgrade present level of Tribal Court status, training_3Df
    -cersonnel to effectively and efficiently handle cases and combination of Tribal
    -Departments/Programs ror improvement of services, dissemination of information,
    zmanagement and admi-nisraion-for-prot-ectionr6f Treaty Rights.

    -NOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    :Through regulations developed for protection of approximately 26 miles of Coast/
    :Shoreline on Lake Superior within boundaries of the Red Cliff Indian Reservation.

    -8UDOGET SUMMARY-                                     TOTALCOSTS 6380.o0Q                                 I
    _

    F
    o
    r

    W
    C
    M
    P

    S
    t
    a
    f
    f

    U
    s
    e
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    WCMP Pr-ject NumhMr

    I
    w
    c
    M
    P

    P
    R
    e
    c
    e
    i

    N
    v
    m
    b
    e
    :
    Progress Report
    Date Received:

    -CM  4(5180i )un	,
    ,, ,    (
    Submit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration	-
    -'':=R,FGY
    Office of Coastal Management
    APR 1   1985
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:                                              Purchase Order Number:

    Red Cliff Coastal Manaqement
    ADE 00186
    Project Duration in MONTHS:
    	Report Period From:       To:
    Twelve	Jan.  1.  1985
    	Mar.  31    1 9R
    Project Type (Check one or more):
    	CMP funds spent to date:
    	96 of budgeted funds:

    O Improve SCA Management SCA Number.. Match spent to date:
    	% of budgeted funds
    [ Implement State Law
    O CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)                   Signature of project manager:
    rE Demonstration

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):

    I.	Cardinate ard attd rrnetigs Frtainir to the preervaticn of ociasl rascurs.

    II.	Revi_e  anrd tate  rdina, ard rErm                r
    ts fcr Tribal Cart.
    Tm.	Seek Prnlrr-lt flrlirg fcr the ervaticn cf treaty rihtS.

    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:

    I.   his proF am has ab-led   the Red Cliff Tibe to have available the services of a
    legal regulatary
    analyst at 6 or 7 cncil reetirns, at to ccnfets deling
    with the preervaticn of Irian fishirg
    issces, and at rgtiation sessicns with the NR arnd
    the Bad River Tribe.  The greatest stride frward
    in this prooess has perhaps ben the Participaticn of
    representatives of the DNR, Red Cliff ard Bad
    River in discLssicns of oxperative ard effective law
    e  rCnent efforts in Lake Suqerior.  It is
    thrcuih this proxess that e hpe    to achieve a joint
    mnamagent agrement tD serce- the coe which
    has been in place for four years.
    II.  The analyst has draft     ed pr s  astituticnal
    amirdrnts providirg a clearer statement of the
    jurisdiction of the  tr:ie in the Lake Sueriarc fishery and other
    treaty waters.
    Wcrkirg with the Fisheries Deartrent, Legal
    Dep?rtment ard Law Enforchrent, the analyst has worked
    e t secure reedEd euipnnt thrcuh this program ard to
    seaure fudirg fcr these dqarbTmts on a nare
    peranent basis.

    3. Problems/Concerns (Issues, project, or administrative concerns):

    Mihere have been faxz sEria:s carns with the ptorair.  Q- is lack of rescaLrs sarh as cturtrxm
    faci itie ad equiprmt, and fisheries departrEnt eipnert auc as adeqmte radio. This prcgram
    prwi(J  an arswx tn sme lart tnt all dfic-nies.  'The sT�asis of tie prcgran n secLanrirg
    pamarairt fundirg has coatrdilou   to soluticas. 'The seccxd rrfjor ca-rn  has bIe  lack of
    utilizaticof ct  coastal resources caiad e, such as irrerssirg narina facilities necessary for
    the exnmic grcwfth of the Tcabe.  A third a-nKim has been unficrturate mEdia focn cn thee Voi4tg
    -  (11sion, ard irncrrec ard n-dsleaduig statTents fran t eipess regrdirM the Tribal Caurt.
    We have aTbarkeid cn a prcgrm to alter these in am=trrae pertcpticns.  A fcurth cmxr has bIee
    in arrargirig fcr aroultirg and speci    ainilt for orurt staff in crd nrntirg cde violatiam

    4. Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:
    -  0The  mject has had a palJ1e inpct na- oastal residEnts ad reasrcu .  'The erly part of 1985 has
    - brcu4it rEw e4Uipnet tD the Triabal Ccurt, ard has providf  aedrraits for arxiultaticn and
    I rcm-erdaticrs an fie use cf cTrrputers in the rmanag t ard qparaticn of the coIrt. In aiaiticn,
    the Caxit has qDgr:   its axtrdated Editiaon of fabral ard state 1-*s, and oairt persel have
    par-tcipated in training sessicns in Irdian law with state judgs ard in the adninisttraticn of
    off-reservatin lams with triJoall x-ads.  Each of these acnMplishrnits, teha4L  relatively
    2rsigiificant  alcrie, point allctively tNzrd iirrn=sirg expertise ard resposibi-lity in the
    anaairnt ard cperation of the crut as an integral factor in ltle preservaticn of cDastal

    , .4 .'

    I*

    _     -     .1       .         ,              -    .      . 7 .   .

    - -1 -	~       ~ 1 -        ---     -                    I      .   - - --               .----r   -i
    i	. ,                                                                                                          1

    I

    - I  .    -
    : :

    I- ;--�-;1�-

    -,-...- �
    -; I
    Signature of person authorized to receive funds:
    ~~-~x, -"u '."
    Please use additional pages if necessary.

    PROJECT TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    Li   PROJECT
    tANASER:
    Red Cliff Coastal Manaqement Pruarat
    Red Cliff Tribal Council
    Thomas Gordon	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    851.12
    P?O. Box  529	PURCHASE ORDER NG: ADE-
    00186
    Bayfield, NI   54814	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    1715) 779-5805
    7    CURRENT A.S
    OF:
    APR 22
    85
    PROG. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    - CATEGORY
    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    YTDIBUDB
    ET

    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    i.
    PERSONNEL
    2. FRINGES
    CONTRAC
    TS

    ,SUPP
    LIES
    6. TRAVEL
    7. PRINTING
    8. OTHER
    9.
    INDIRECT
    2998.08 14490.40
    32504.00
    457.70  1831.36  5884.00
    0.00
    555.56	2777.76
    	5800.00
    7.45	40.72	500.00
    326.00	996.00	3000.00
    28.60	55.70	500.00
    962.86	2787.94
    10330.00
    361.40	1500.45
    5282.00
    0.45
    0.31

    0.4
    8
    0.0
    8
    0.33
    0.1
    1
    0.2
    7
    0.28
    SUBTOTALS      5597.65 24480.33
    63800.00

    CHP RE'IMBURSEMENIT: 3638.47
    15,476.71
    LOCAL MATCH:       1959.18  9003.62
    0.38

    =Visconsin Coastal &.inagement Program

    -6                                                         eFject Numbe:
    9roject Summary                                               ,Filtember:.

    -.NOM-2 R(Rev. 121791)                                          DO  Reci ve d:
    APR 12 1984
    '--'~'~le Title	Agen or Government an� Aacrem:
    Waterfront Management Plan for the Village	Village of Cleveland
    of Cleveland, Manitowoc County, WI	334 E. Washington Ave.
    o_---xr aOum,aln:       12	Cleveland, WI  53015
    ?QIncOuratirgn	Attn:  Mr. Robert Wagner, Village President
    -r"JlZ- T�VP:	Princial Scaff Contmrc:	Tlehonae Nume.r
    Robert Wagner	F14-693-8675
    .=-. [ Ingrate SCA P.a;emenr SCA 9          Persn authorlzed to reeive funas:	T lohone Numoer
    _I tmorve SCA Mina.ineit SCA                   Tiebert Wagner
     Imple SCmae LSA	Robert Wagner                     14-693-8675
    _0 Oemongtrst'on	Signature of Pernon aumor,zed to rnciv funds:
    _ fOthr: Urban Waterfront Renewal

    C--RIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
    -	The study will develop a waterfront management plan to include inventory of existing
    _	facilities and use, and the evaluation of potential developments to enhance recreational
    -	and commercial opportunities.         -

    rWHATOO YOU WANTTHE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OBJECTIVES)?
    1. To focus upon the waterfrcntdetailing a portion of the 1976 Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
    _ i To establish priorities for improvements to existing and potential public access along
    V  the waterway.
    3. To increase waterfront related recreational opportunities for the public.
    4. To coordinate public and private development opportunity of the waterfront.
    5. To protect and attract wildlife to the watershed.

    -WHAT WILL 9E THE SPECIFIC ENO PROOUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    A comprehensive waterfront management plan to be used to enchance recreational and
    commercial opportunities.  The plan will increase community-awareness and involvement
    of the waterfront and will act as a guide in controlling development.

    --OW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    The plan will inspire more awareness and care for the waterfront.  The result is a better
    reilization of the waterfront's value and coastal management priorities.

    GIUOGET SUUMMARY.                                     TOTAL COST S 8.000
    ,4co
    .. .~ 00

    3RD QUARTER
    WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT
    PROGRAM
    PROGRESS REPORT
    VILLAGE OF CLEVELAND, MANITOWOC
    COUNTY

    The following activities were completed during the
    3rd
    quarter of the grant period:

    Meetings between Commission staff and
    the Citizens
    Committee were held on January 22,
    February 26 and
    March 26, 1985. At the January 22nd
    meeting, the
    various citizen committees that were
    formed as
    part of the planning process reported
    their
    findings. Information that was
    discussed
    included: the maintenance of the
    historical and
    aesthetic features found in Hika;
    erosion control;
    promotion of commercial activities;
    improvement to
    the fish and wildlife habitat of the
    area; and
    addressing the need for improved
    boating and
    recreational facilities.

    As a result of thse citizen meetings,
    Commission
    staff further refined a series of
    resource maps
    ana completed a detailed analysis of
    each of the
    maps for inclusion in the plan
    document.
    Information which was mapped and
    analyzed for the
    study area includes land use, natural
    areas,
    topography, erosion, public utilities,
    highway
    classification, historic/aesthetic
    features,
    recreational facilities, and future
    land use and
    zoning scheme.I
    For the February 26th meeting, the
    Commission
    staff prepared a series of detailed
    alternative
    plans for the waterfront area.
    Specific
    improvements that were identified
    include: making
    low-cost improvements to the existing
    Village
    Park; acquisition of vacant areas to
    the north and
    southwest of the existing park for
    parking and/or
    other waterfront related activities;
    dredging of
    Centerville Creek; construction of a
    new boat ramp
    on the Creek; construction of a
    lakefront walkway
    system; and construction of a
    breakwater system.

    At the March 26th meeting, Commission
    staff and
    the Citizen's Committee conducted a
    walking tour
    of the waterfront area. Specific
    problem areas
    such as shoreline erosion, creek bank
    slumping,
    dam, vacant areas and boat ramp
    facilities were
    inspected and later discussed.

    Commission staff prepared a phasing
    program and
    preliminary cost estimates for the
    proposed

    improvements to the Cleveland waterfront area. In
    addition, State and Federal grant programs that
    are available as possible funding sources for
    these improvements were identified.

    -	PROJECT
    TITLE:
    -T	CONTRACTOR:
    E-- PROJECT
    MANASER:
    waterfront
    Maniaesent-Plan
    Village of Cleveland
    Robert Wagner
    334 E. Washington
    Ave.
    Cleveland, WI   53015
    (414) 693-86?5
    CONTRACT NUMBER: 85004-
    851.13
    PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00187
    PROJECT NUMBER:   146-726
    -  CURRENT
    AS.OF:
    APR 30 85
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    CATEGOR
    Y
    INVOICE    YTO   BUDGET
    YTDIBUDGET

    ------ -------          =============--=            ----======
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	0.00
    2. FRINGES	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS        2315.40  5200.00  5200.00
    1.00
    4. EQUIPMENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00
    7,. PRINTING	0.00
    B. OTHER	0.00
    * I.DIRECT	1645.75  2800.00      0.59
    _    --                            ------------------------------
    SUBTOTALS        2315.40  6845.75
    8000.00
    0.86
    ' CMP REIMBURSEMENT: 2315.40
    500.00
    LOCAL KATCH:          0.00
    1645.75

    W' isconsin Cocstal MJunCelement Program                                 ForWCP5StafUs
    Pr-,if= Numtw:
    joiject Summary                                                 Ij.Iumo  <Y
    1 (RI.t1)R 2 51 tI?4

    wtl Thire;                     .goncy of Go.or nment  nc Aacrwta:
    -Superior Harbor Natural Resources               Northvwest Regional Planning Commission
    -inhancement Project	Metropolitan Interstate Committee
    aOurw,ton:           !2   -	302 Walnut
    Spooner, WI  54801
    writ- Ty4:                                     PreiMnrtt Sf Cont'ct:	|Tri.ncn: Number
    Tom Davis	218) 722-5545
    *'-   Imr    l	s. *                     Prt"on autnoriz;. tO rI,t4v1 fun's;:  .Telenon Ntumoer
     'Jf'ml"Jt ''A ,a;"""t	SCA J
    Cl 1flrwrnnSitatSeLj                          Charles Tollander.  Chairm.t15) 635-2197
    $1gnaurv 9f i ~rsn  nmoc Zd to n �ve f nam:
    o -   ,-t t Urban Waterfront

    - mREF PRQOECTaDSCAIPTCON: The project wi I l develop site-specific m,anagement/en:hancement pians for at
    -ast two of the parcels in the lower Superior Harbor which have been identified as
    important
    -ural resources areas in the harbor Comprehensive Plan.  Thle resource values and issues associate
    -th all natural resources parcels in the lower harbor will be examined and summarized.  This
    rfonmation will be used to select at least two of these key parcels for wihich specific management
    "ans will be developed.  The site-specific plans will also include recommended mYechanisms and
    -rategies for implementation.  Emphasis will be placed on enhancement type activities as well
    as
    -intenance of pregnent resource values. These site-specific plans will be (continued-see att.)
    W  Or a YOU WANTTHE PROJECT TO ACCOMPtJSH iMAO4IR O<8ECTIVESI?
    Selop site-specific management plans and recommendations for at least two sites in the
    lower
    *.perior Harbor which have been identified as important natural resources parcels or
    potential
    enhancement sites in the harbor Comprehensive Plan.
    Formulate strategies/mechanisms to implement the site-specific plans developed.
    - Maintain and improve essential natural resource values in the lower developed portion of
    the
    harbor.

    -- WAnTWi[.LsETHESPECZFIC'-NOPRODUCT' OPFTHEPROJEc'? A report vhich will include a summary of the values
    snd issues associated with key natural resources parcels in the lowJer Superior Harbor and
    site-
    -.ecific plans. for managing at least two of these sites.  Tihe site-specific plans will include
    =-ngineerinq and design data, estimated costs of implementation, and recommendations as to
    how
    -o achieve implementation. The report also will include or reference all records of various
    mublic participation activities associated with the project.

    -owWtLL TE PROJECT MPROVE MnANAGE^MENT OP W,SCONSIN'S COAST7: It will develop si te-speci fi c plans for
    -important natural resources areas which will implement the existing Cor,mprehensive Plan for the
    -harbor.  Implementation of the site plans will heln maintain and/or enhance vital fish and
    wildlife areas in the lower, developed harbor where there is an urgent need to do so.  It
    -therefore will also help assure that those natural resources vital to the maintenance or
    e1.sion of the recreation potential of the harbor are conserved.

    ;/-~

    BUOCCoT SUMUARY-                                        TOTAL COST S   $ 24.077

    I|~ ~          For WCMP Staff Use
    WNCMP Project Numbar
    I     14.  -72cI
    ~Iate Received:
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Progress Report  ApRv9

    M    4(5/80)
    Submit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street. 7th Floor
    Madison, Wl 53702
    Project Title:                                                Purchase Order Number:
    Superior 'iarbor llatural  F.esources Enhancement                  ADIl
    Pro.iect
    Project Duration in MONTHS:                                   Report Period From:        To:
    January  1, 1985	March  31, 1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    X Urban Waterfront	8520.48	d6%
    G Improve SCA Management SCA Number	Match spent to date:	% of budgeted funds
    O Implement State Law	5028.52	56%
    'l CEIP (Coastal Energy Imoact Project)	Signature of p7ject manager:
    O Demonstration	e ,-  -

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    1.   Develop site-specific management plans and recommendations  for at least two
    sites  in
    the lower Superior Harbor which have been identified as important natural
    resources
    parcels or potential enhancement sites in the harbor Comprehensive Plan.
    2.	Formulate strategies/mechanisms	to implement the site-specific plans
    developed.
    o	Maintain and improve essential	natural  resource values  in the lower
    develoned 'ortion
     of the harbor.

    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    1.  Completed draft of key habitat sites in harbor with outline of pronosed
    nanage!lent
    plans.
    2.  CQntacted engineering firms regarding work on project.  Firm will be hired
    in next
    quarter.
    3.  Continued to conduct meetings with Superior and 'UDNR staff.  Discussions
    focused on
    key habitat sites, management options and potential replacempent actions.

    /I/

    .      Problems/Concerns tissues, project, or administrative concerns):

    N/A                                 .-

    r

    - 4. Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents;

    N/A

    -  --        - -----_-                          -
    Signature of person authorized to receive funds:
    I /44   Ad 1ieY

    -'- PROJECT TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MANA6ER:
    Superior Harbor gatural Resources Enhancement
    NWRPCIMIC
    Too Davis	CONTRACT NUMBER:
    85004151.14
    302 Walnut Street	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00168
    Spooner, WI   54801	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-726
    (218] 722-5545
    - CURRENT AS OF:    MAY 1
    85
    PROG. REPORT DUE: JUL 5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT 5
    85
    CATE6O
    RY
    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDBET
    YTDIBUDG
    ET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	738.02	6387.42 10389.00	0.61
    2. FRINEES	303.35	2599.5i	4145.00	0.63
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00	2000.00	0.00
    4. EQUIPKENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00	275.00	0.00
    7  PRINTING	0.00	25.00	0.00
    *,  ITHER	0.Oo
    ..INDIRECT         544.11  4562.07  7243.00      0.63
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    1590.48 13549.00
    24077.00
    0.5
    6
    UMP REIMBURSEMENT:	995.64
    	8481.67
    LOCAL MATCH:	594.84
    	5067.33

    r
    =isconsin Coastal It,  .agement Program                           '; f'o,     cs.u        .-,
    "RlO. Numer:
    =roje ct Summary
    .FileNuum..

    M2 . Rw . 1217[Rev.
    0'"","'"~:  APR  13
    984

    -=J�t Titie:	Agency or Govrnment ana Aacrn:
    Alternate Marina Plan, Sheboygan,	City of Sheboygan
    --i scons in	City Hall             *
    828 Center Avenue
     Our:on:  8  ot	Sheboygan, Wi scons i n  53081

    ~ie T"yp:	PrirnOa Staff Contacr:           CTlone Nume:
    Frank J. Paquette, Dept. of Cit

    . InrovI SCA M.nqaegnt SCA ~    n~,f	P-ron authorizI lot rece,ve luncs: WLm Vt  i Ji,lCll  L.	TleDgnone Numder
    .: .. Imlo,en.Stea Lw	R. W. Suscha, t avor	414-459-3317
    li O montnrzion      l          nJ J	Signture of eerson autnorzed to reeli funcs:
    ~Othe: (tns:                                                     rsa '. : 'C a    -.

    :IEF PROJECT OEZCRiPTION:
    nhe City of Sheboygan proposes to develop an alternate engineering and planning study for
    =hne construction ef rubble breakwaters in the Sheboygan outer harbor.  An alternate design
    3s necessary in the likely event that a currently proposed containment vessel (now designed
    =o provide protection for a.planned marina) is no longer feasible because of contamination
    =f river dredgings intended to fill the vessel.

    EAT 00 YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OBJECTIVESI?
    -roect will:
    --'tther and analyze all existing reports,. correspondence and plans relative to the outer
    or.
    2) provide computer modeling of wave action within outer and inner harbors.
    -3) determine design and configuration of alternate protective breakwaters.
    -) describe configuration of landside marina facilities.
    S) prepare a feasible marina master plan.

    IHATWILL BE THE SPECIFIC END PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?

    3n alternate marina master plan will be developed for the outer harbor, protected by
    3upplementary breakwaters rather than a containment vessel.

    OBMOWILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    It will allow the City of Sheboygan, a major Wisconsin city on the Great Lakes, to fully
    zutilize its existing harbor for recreation, in addition to shipping, by providing a
    :protected marina site.

    1.
    v
    I
    F

    .I

    Vf

    t.,
    II
    I

    I.
    r,

    1

    BauoGET SUMMARYCH1P$14,300  Recipient share $7, 70PTALCOSTS  22.000                               I

    PROGRESS REPORT NOT RECE IVE D BY OUR

    OFFICE. UPON RECEIPT IT WILL BE

    FORWARDED TO YOUR OFFICE.

    ---P-JECT TITLE:
    CETRACiOR: .
    - PROJECT
    MANABER.
    Alternate Marina
    Plan
    City of Shabovyan
    Frank Paquette
    City Hall, l28
    Center
    Shebaygan, NI
    53081
    (414) 459-3777
    CONTRACT NUMBER: 85004-
    851.16
    Ave. PURCHASE ORDER ND: ADE-
    00187
    PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    CURRENT AS
    OF:
    PROD. REPORT DUE: JAN
    5 95
    FINAL REPORT DUE: AUS
    5 85
    CATE6O
    RY
    INVOICE    YTO   BUD GET
    YTDIBUJOET

    REIMBUIRSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	0.00
    27  FRINGES	0.00
    * KOITRACTS	0.00 22000.00      0.00
    WJIPMEnT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    b. TRAVEL	0.00
    7. PRINTING	0.00
    It OTHER	0.00
    9. INDIRECT	0.00
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    0.00    0.00
    22000.00
    0.0
    0
    0.00
    	0.0
    0
    0.00
    	0.0
    0
    CMP
    REIMBURSEMENT:
    LOCAL MATCH:

    WirSconsin Cocas?tc   r Fancgement rrogsrm  -
    'Project Summr cry                                         e	*

    :A- P 4 IRlw. R1ie 11'mw *	,w: /pi

    Milwaukee River Basin Accelerated Nonpoint	Department of Natural Resources
    Source Assessment Project	P.O. Box 7921
    Madison, WI  53707

    *Jon Konrad	(608)266  9
    Joh'n Konrad	(608)266-1956
    Bruce Braun
    1(608)266-2197
    m    twwa SA mw-wr we A

    Accelerated assessment of the urban and rural nonpoint sources of water
    pollution in the
    five watersheds of the Milwaukee River Basin.  These.sources contribute a
    substantial
    amount of pollutants to the Milwaukee River Estuary and the near-shore waters of
    Lake
    Michigan.  The inventories and analysis of information will be conducted jointly
    by a
    consortium of counties and the DNR       with assistance from other State and
    Federal
    agencies.  This project is being coordinated with a number of UDR programs being
    focused
    Into the Milwaukee River Basin.
    w-ATOO YOU WA r THgI Ps.jICT ~TO AC-3,PUH Shus QA Uoscnlw -Ii
    iThis application applies only to the urban inventory and assessment aspects of
    this'
    .project. The primary objectives of this aspect are to:
    1.	Determine the location and extent or critical urban land uses;
    '2.	identify and apply appropriate assessment methods; and
    :3.	develop engineering design criteria for structural and nonstructural stormwater
    management oDractices

    Completed inventories and analysis of urban land areas.  The results will be
    summarized in the priority watershed plans.

     WIblL ?'I  rMlOJECt iMprOVl IMI4uAIME? OF WSCOD45114S CASST
    The project will accelerate improvenment in the water quality of the Milwaukee River
    Estuary and the near-shore waters of Lake Michigan.

    Iuuoor' StJM"dAIV                             TOtaL cO:5rS  69.230

    For WCMP Staff Use
    WOMP PR-oiec Numbed   r: :-':  /, / I"/

    Date Received:
    II
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    Progress Report

    f-D-CM 4(5/80)
    I
    Submit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison. WI 53702
    Project Title:                                                          Purchase Order Number:
    Milwaukee River Basin Accelerated
    ADE-00190
    Nonpoint Source Assessment
    Project Duration in MONTHS:                                             Report Period From: To:
    January  15,  1985	April  15,  1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):                                       CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:

    Match spent to  d a te: %of budgeted funds
    [] Improve SCA Management SCA Number                                 Match spent to date:
    El Implement State Law
    El CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)
    C"]Demonstration                        S

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    The primary objectives of the urban inventory-and assessment activities are to:
    l) determine the location and extent of critical urban land uses; 2) identify and
    apply appropriate assessment methods; and 3) develop engineering design criteria
    for structural and nonstructural stormwater management practices.
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    The urban runoff controls "Manual of Practice" has been completed and
    includes the
    engineering design criteria for both structural and nonstructural stormwater
    management
    practices. The design criteria are specifically linked to performance. Many
    example
    problems are included to help size the controls for specific conditions.

    3. Problems/Concerns  (issues, project, or administrative concerns):
    There are no current major project problems identified. The onset of snow
    in
    Milwaukee caused us to postpone the completion of the experimental design
    sample
    collection. Because of the need to complete the "Manual of Practice" and the
    Model
    *    ordinance, this activity has not been restarted.  The urban runoff model
    modifications
    for Milwaukee has also not been completed as yet.
    4. Imrpact thus far, if anry, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastalI residents:

    As stated in the previous progress report, the future use of currently
    evaluated
    management practices may have some important future impacts on the coasta?
    resources
    and residents.
    Signature of person authorizedi to receive funds:
    Please use additional pages if necessary,

    T-PROJECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACTORt
    PROJECT
    M]INAGER:
    gilw River Basin
    Monpoint
    ONDR
    John Konrad
    P.O. Box 7921
    Kadison, WI   53707
    (608) 266-1956
    Source Assessaent

    CONTRACT NUMBER: 85004-
    851.17
    PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    001?0
    PROJECT NUMBER:   146-726
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85

    YTDIBU06ET
    - CURRENT AS
    OF:

    CATEGORY
    APR 22 85

    INVOICE    YTD
    BUBDET
    "'-"----"---'-"'"----"-------'----
    '---------'--'--
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	11917.44 29215.23
    40753.00
    2. FRINGES	3038.94	7449.87
    10400.00
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00
    4. EgUIPMENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00  1766.0
    &pR INTING	0.00
    rOTHER	0.00
    9. INDIRECT         4757.62 11663.15
    16281.00
    0.7
    2
    0.7
    2

    0.0
    0

    0.7
    2
    SUBTOTALS      19714.00 48328.25
    69230.00

    CMP REIMBURSEMENT:12814.10 31413.36
    LOCAL MATCH:       6899.90 16914.89
    0.7
    0

    I'Tsconsin Coastal k..nagement Program  '.w
     roject Summary

    ~2 tre. 12-'3

    e: Title:	A   Dor Ga vrnm ert rc Acrm:
    Harbor Resources '4anagement Initiative
    	Department of Natural Desources
    P.8

    Bo
    x
    79
    21	101 S'. Webster St.
    w
    1a
    di
    so
    n,
    I'
    I	53707

    -argr Tvo4:                  *                  Pnnc- Scraf Cont5- uc:                   n
    We
    lvi
    n ,l
    ber
    s	267-7414
    ..M r!ui,	jurc1umS             54A t St:^. J ..Pwo o.thl o to "  huno:    m	.umw
    :~	__.-c Ima,,~~
    Bruce Braun                     1266-2197

    I.EF PRCOJECT	Cil'TON: O         '-
    The Harbor Resources Management
    Initiative will promote
    intergovernmental study
    =-nd public discussion of new methods for
    deciding future maintenance and develop-
    -nt of Wisconsin's Great Lakes harbors.
    Using its established intergovernmental
    e=-lationships and its experience with
    comprehensive water-based transportation
    --anning (GREAT-Mississippi River),  WR&Z
    staff will carefully review current harbor
    mlanning efforts and outline and promote
    discussion of alternative decision making
    -^thods.
    SWNAT 00 YOU WANT TE FPOJ ECTTO AC CMPUSH tMAOR 0-!,CTI VES?
    The major objectives of the Harbor
    Resources Vanagement Initiative are-
    -':Tao increase information and options
    availahle to Great Lakes communities for
    long
    ;-_- planning of harbor maintenance and
    development
    -To reduce state-local and interagency
    confrorTtation resulting from frequent
    crisis
    7ecision making about regulation of harbor
    projects
    -To improve understanding of potential
    environmental impacts of harbor
    maintenance
    2tnd development activities.

    A&T WILL SE TSE SPEC:FIC ENO PRODUCTS OF SH'E PROJECT"
    During 1984-85, we expect to:
    -Present alternative decision making
    methods, including brief descriptions of
    legal
    ur institutional changes and scientific
    studies needed;
    *Design forum for interagency and public
    discussion of alternatives.

    OM WILL TME PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEME!NT OF WiSCONSIN'S CoAst:
    Sound economic and environmental decisions can
    seldom be made with in-
    =omplete information or in confrontational
    situations.  Both the local economic and
    environmental stakes in Great Lakes harbor
    decisions have risen.  By improving the
    i-formation base, increasing the range of
    options and reducing confrontation,
    ;iecision makers can better accomodate the
    economic, environmental and social
    aspects of Great Lakes harbor maintenance and
    development.

    t~sOGET $UlU1AIv-. TOTrAL COSTS 4.
    |
    SUMMARY-
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~

    I For WCMP Staff Use I
    IWCMP Prolact Number

    Date Received:
    I.
    Wisconsin Coasial kMnaogenmont Program
    Procres s Report

    -CM 4(5180)
    Submit this Progress Report to:  Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:                                                       Purchase Order Number:
    DNR Harbor Resources
    Management  Initiative	ADE  - 00047

    Project Duration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:	To:
    January  1	-	April  5,  1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:

    ol Improve SCA Management SCA Number	Match spent to date:	of budgeted funds
    O Implement State Law
    C CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)	Si r	of project anager:
    O~~~~~~~~~ Demonstration	+	~i     ~(~       ~: \  iY) '^  '

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    To increase information and options available to Great Lakes communities for
    long-term planning of harbor maintenance and development.

    To reduce state-local and interagency confrontation resulting from frequent
    crisis decision making about regulation of harbor projects.

     To  improve  understanding  of  potential  environmental  impacts  of harbor  main-
    tenance and development activities.
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    The Department of Natural Resources has continued working on evaluating
    sampling and testing procedures for the characterization of dredged materials.
    The DNR research committee has continued to meet and has given preliminary
    consideration to the physical and chemical characterization of dredge
    materails. Pre-dredge coring and sampling at both dredge and disposal sites
    includes the adequate testing of the sample from both sets and the identifi-
    cation and distribution of chemical constituents by bulk sediment analysis,
    elutriate analysis, bioassessment and other analysis. All are being
    thoroughly researched and discussed. Also, sediment contamirant ranges to be
    used to classify sediments from the Great Lakes have been developed in initial
    draft.

    /
    8
    3. Problems/Concerns  (Issues, project, or administrative concerns):
    There is a definite need for more research on
    bioassessment.  The Department
    of Natural Resources has the laboratory space
    and supervisory staff with
    expertise to perform.additional testing and
    evaluation.  The DNR would, how-.
    ever, need additional funds and support staff
    to perform the necessary
    laboratory testing and research. Outside
    research capability may be avail-
    able through cooperative agencies. Criteria,
    costs and time factors would
    need to be addressed. Presently, cumulative
    effects of organic contaminants
    are a main source of concern. Synergistic
    effects of over 800 organic
    compounds found in the Great Lakes is largely
    unknown.

    -A draft outline of alternatives for Great Lakes
    harbor community maintenance
    planning has been prepared. Concepts for
    revised dredged material disposal
    legislation have been agreed upon within DNR
    and a first draft of proposed
    legislation for internal staff review is in
    progress. Currently, in-water
    disposal of dredged materials is not permitted
    by the State of Wisconsin.
    The development of interim disposal criteria to
    provide an environmentally
    safe and acceptable procedure with legally
    acceptable legislation will be a
    major work element during the next 18 to 24
    months. The public appears to
    be more understanding of the need for
    environmentally acceptable conditions,
    materials and standards for the reuse of dredge
    materials.

    Impact thus far, if any of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    It will be necessary to further refine,
    compare and standardize bioassessment
    process and techniques.  Finally, discussions
    for identifying, recommending
    and approving dredge disposal options are part
    of the project's continued
    work effort in order to insure the continued
    high quality of the Great Lakes
    water resource.

    1'                                                             '

    S
    i
    g
    n
    a
    t
    u
    r
    e

    o
    f

    p
    e
    r
    s
    o
    n

    a
    u
    t
    h
    o
    r
    i
    z
    e
    d

    t
    o

    r
    e
    c
    e
    i
    v
    e

    f
    u
    n
    d
    s
    :

    PROJECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    T    PRBJECT
    MANAGER:
    Harbor Resources Mgt Initiative
    NONR
    Nel  1lbers	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    851.18
    P?O. Box 7921	PURCHASE ORDER HO: ADE-
    00047
    Madison, 9I  53707	PROJECT NUNBER:   146-726
    (6081 267-7414
    CURRENT AS OF:	APR 2 85

    CATEGORY	INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JUL 5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85

    YTD/BUDGET
    ""'-'-------"'-"----'--"-"-'------
    -----------I---------------------r-----i
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    .1 PERSONNEL	11915.48 19259.26 28452.00
    2. FRINGES	3038.44	4911.09
    7255.00
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00
    4. EgUIPMENT	0.00
    SUPPLIES	0.00	364.00
    WTRAVEL               328.99	705.25
    	1000.00
    7  PRINTINE	0.00
    8. OTHER	173.29   800.00
    9. INDIRECT        4756.84  7688.58
    11359.00
    0.6
    8
    0.68

    0.00
    0.7
    1

    0.22
    0.68
    SUBTOTALS       20039.775 32737.47 49230.00

    7    CH?P REI1BURSEMENT: 13025.84 21279.36
    LOCAL MATCH:        7013.91 11458.1.1
    0.66

    Wisconsin Coastal t. .Wnagement Program	s  ,
    ePoect Numor:	/
    :roject Summary	File Nums:	j
    Vt	1bat.R.crni2X"".l,~u1.	.~~ .R 161984
    Support of the SEWRPC Staff and	. G       t	Aa
    ,echnical and Citizens Advisory Committee on	Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Plan Commissic
    -~=astal Management in Southeastern Wisconsin	Old Courthouse Building
    _U;jecDurZtIo.:         12	P.O. Box 769
    Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607
    - lvo t Tyge:                                 Prsnrcoai Staf Coniact:	Tei.cfone Numot*r
    Donald M. Reed	1(414)547-6721
    5 I'rat 5SCA Min a.'ent SCA ~ .....	Person ,utnorlzedto  aeivq tunas:	Telsnne Numcer
    -   o= [ Implain$Sta:eSaw	Kurt W. Bauer	K414)547-6721
    C OsnnstwtonSi;natu7 of Penon autnonztd so ric ii funds:
    g Orth: Ponl4Assistance

    -ERIEF PRO.1CT OESCIlPTICN:
    The SEWRPC staff and Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee on Coastal Management in
    -Southeastern Winconsin will continue.to provide technical assistance concerning coastal
    issues and problems; review, comment on, and propose studies and projects which address
    -- coastal issues identified for southeastern Wisconsin; and provide information on coastal
    --.issues of areawide concern.

    W W4AT OO YOU WANTTHE PROJECTTO ACCOMPLISH iMAJOR OBJECTIVESI?
    _   Technical Assistance and Re-ional Analysis: The Commission staff will continue to provide
    _ technical assistance to federal, state, and member local units and agencies of government
    operating in the coastal area; review of coastal development proposals; assist in the
    preparation or revision of coastal development plans and zoning ordinances; and provide
    coordination and assistance, as appropriate, to member local units and agencies of gov-
    ernment in meeting state and federal regulatory requirements. The Commission will con-
    tinue to provide staff to the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program to assist the Coastal
    Management Council with such activities as project monitoring; coordination of coastal
    Corit. on attached sheet.
    W HAT WILL 3E TIE SPECIFIC END PR,OUCTS OF THE PROJECT?.
    1. Improved implementation of federal, state, and local regulations in the coastal area.
    2. Improved coordination between state-federal agencies and local units of government and
    other interested parties in implementing coastal-related activities.
    3. Continued assistance to local units of government concerning the implementation of the
    Wisconsin Coastal lIanagement Program.
    4. Increased awareness on the part of public officials and citizens concerning implementa-
    tion of the Coastal Management Program's objectives and policies.
    5. Increased input from local officials and the public into the implementation of coastal
    pro,amse
    ~ -HoWWLL'rsTHE RbJFCT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    1. Provide guidance and assistance in the conduct of the Coastal Management Program in
    southeastern Wisconsin.
    2. Development of increased public awareness and opportunities for citizen participation in
    Implementing the Coastal Management Program in southeastern Wisconsin.
     Improve the coordination of existing Coastal Management Program policies and activities.
    -ei_Improve implementation and enforcement of existing policies and programs.

    IStOGEr SUMMARY.                               TOTAL COST s 40. 000

    on

    t

    For WCMP Staff Use
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    WCMP Piolact Numbe,

     Date Received:
    I .
    Progress Report

    -C,M4(5/80)

    Submit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison. WI 53702
    Project Title:                                                                   Purchase Order Number:
    SEWRPC Support in WCMP                                                                      ADE-00060

    Project Duration in MONTHS:                                                      Report Period From:               To:
    ~Continuing           ~January 1, 1985	March 31, 1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    x Program Administration	$16,275	81 percent
    O  Improve SCA Management SCA Number.. Match spto date:                                                      I	% of budgeted funds
    o Implement State Law	$16, /V	81 percent
    O	CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Pproject)	Signrtnager:
    a	Demonstration                                                                    7J7n                         r

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):

    1. Technical Assistance
    2. Regional Analysis
    3. Public Outreach

    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    See Attachment.

    T
    *  3. Problems/Concerns (Issues, project, or administrative concerns):
    None
    [ .
    I   I

    It
    .-

    0 ' . .

    . , .

    _
    *_ t=- > *

    .. X,

    .                    .
    - -

    : .:

    0 j S

    4. Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    Improved awareness of coastal issues, problems, and the Wisconsin Coastal Management
    Program in southeastern Wisconsin.  Improved management of coastal problems in
    southeastern Wisconsin.

    -- . L

    -.                                                                                 -_  ~  -                                      ~       -~

    I
    I

    i
    i
    I
    i
    I

    i
    I
    i

    ---=I:-:-�; -1 --- - -�----_----L-C--.C-'L.--- I__=

    L- _-i--_il

    - ---;
    --__-_iic_--i

    -iS_I_ ___--L II_
    ::-
    Signature of person ;..�horized to receive funds:

    ,e addithonal races   i nleces;ar'.

    H0201A-J
    ATTACHMENT TO WCMP PROGRESS REPORT

    2. During this quarter, the Commission staff continued to assist with the
    implementationIof the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program in the following
    program areas:

    IA. Environmental Corridors:  No activity to report during this quarter.

    B. Coastal Wetlands:  Work continued on the preparation of a shoreland-
    wetland zoning ordinance and maps for Ozaukee County during this
    quarter. Additional wetland field inspections necessary for the prep-
    aration of the final Ozaukee County Wetland Inventory maps were con-
    ducted by the Commission staff on January 14, 1985. (Also see Item 4A).

    C. Erosion Hazards:  No activity to report during this quarter (Also see
    Item 3A).

    D. Coastal Natural Areas:  No activity to report during this quarter.

    E. Coastal Wildlife Habitats:  Technical assistance was provided to the
    Town of Caledonia Park Commission concerning the preparation of a
    wildlife management plan for the Nicholson Wildlife Center located in
    the Town of Caledonia, Raci-ne County.

    2A. State Clearinghouse Reviews: A total of 36 Clearinghouse reviews were
    conducted by the Commission staff in the coastal area during this
    quarter. Reviews included Community Action Program grants (7) from
    Milwakee Public Schools (City of Milwaukee), Milwaukee Area American
    India-n Manpower (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, and Racine Counties),
    United Migrant Opportunity Services (Statewide), 'La Clinica de los
    Campesinos, Inc. (including Ozaukee County), Milwaukee County Office
    on Aging (Milwaukee County), National Urban League (Kenosha, Milwaukee,
    and Racine Counties), and the Wisconsin Department of Health and
    Social Services (Statewide); a Community Development Program grant (I)
    from the General Services Administration (City of Milwaukee); Conser-
    vation grants (8) from the Department of Natural Resources (statewide)
    and the Department of Administration (statewide); Law Enforcement
    Administration grants (2) from the Wisconsin Council on Criminal
    Justice (statewide); Sewerage Facility Program grants (3) from the
    North Park Sanitary District (Racine County), City of Racine Water and
    Wastewater Utility, and the Crestview Sanitary District (Racine
    County); and Transportation Facilities grants (15) from the American
    Red Cross (City of Milwaukee), Kenosha Achievement Center, Inc.
    (Kenos'ha County), The Threshold, Inc. (including Ozaukee County),
    Elder Care 'Line, Inc. (Milwaukee County), Community Learning Center
    (City of Port Washington), Curative Rehabilitatio-n Center (Milwaukee
    County), Goodwill Rehabilitation Center (Milwaukee County), City of
    Kenosha, Kenosha County, City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Racine
    County, Wisconsin Department of Transportation (Town of Somers), and
    the Center for Urban Transportation Studies (City of Milwaukee).
    IIncludes work conducted under other Commission programs.

    -2-
    B. Consistancy Reviews: (See Items 2A and 2C).

    C. Sanitary Sewer Extensions: During this quarter, the Commission staf f
    reviewed nine sewer extension requests relative to development pro-
    posals in the coastal area from the City of Kenosha and Towns of
    Pleasant Prairie and Somers in Kenosha County; City of Oak Creek in
    Milwaukee County; City of Port Washington and the Village of Belgium
    in Ozaukee County; and the Town of Mt. Pleasant in Racine County.

    3A. St. Francis-Lakeside Power Plant Land Use Plan:  The Commission staff
    met with the City of St. Francis Common Council on February 18, 1985,
    to present the findings of the coastal zone land use management and
    shoreline erosion control plan.

    B. Shorewood-N'atural Areas/Park:   No activity  to report during this
    quarter.

    4A. Kenosha County Wetlands Mapping/Ordinances:  A meeting of the Commis-
    sion's Technical aud Citizens Advisory Committee for the Chiwaukee
    Prairie-Carol Beach Land Use Management Planning Program was held on
    January 15, 1985, to review the findings of the October 23, 1984
    public hearing and the revised land use management plan. The Committee
    acted to adopt the plan at that meeting. Subsequently, the Commission
    acted to adopt the plan on March 11, 1985, as an amendment to the
    regional land use and water quality management plan.

    The Commission staff also assisted the Wisconsin Department of Natural
    Resources with wetland field inspections for the preparation of the
    final Kenosha County Wetland Inventory Maps on March 28, 1985.

    Finally, technical assistance was provided to the Kenosha County
    Corporation Couinsel on March 27 and 29, 1985, concerning the values
    and fu-nctions of the wetland located on the Easterday, et al parcel in
    U.S. Public Land Survey Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 22 East,
    Town of Somers, Ke-nosha County.

    5A. Coordination--Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee:    Selected
    members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee
    on Coastal Management in Southeastern Wisconsin participated on the
    advisory committee meeting for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach land
    use planning program held during this quarter.

    B. Coordination-Federal/State/Local:  No activity to report during this
    quarter.

    6.  Preparation of Funding Proposals--Area Recipients:    During   this
    quarter, the Commission staff assisted the Village of Shorewood on
    January 15, 1985, and the Milwaukee County Parks, Recreation and Cul-
    ture Department on March 4 and 6, 1985, in preparing notices of intent
    to apply for Wisconsin Coastal Management Program funds.

    -3-
    7A. Coastal Wetlands--Section 307:  The Commission staff reviewed the
    Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District's revised artificial re-ef
    mitigation plan submitted to the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of
    Engineers, during this quarter.

    8A. Technical and Citizens Advisory Committee:    (See   Item   4A).

    B. Technical Reports: During this quarter, the Commission published
    SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 88, A Land Use Manage-
    ment Plan for the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach Area of the Town of
    Pleasant Prairie, Kenosha County, Wisconsin, and Volume 25, No. 2 of
    the SEWRPC Newsletter, March-April 1985, devoted entirely to the
    Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach land use plan.

    C. Public Informational LMeetings: No activity to report during this
    quarter.

    D. Public and Interest Group Meetings. The Commission staff met with
    representatives of the Chiwaukee Prairie Rescue Coalition on January 8,
    1985, to discuss acquisition priorities in the Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol
    Beach study area. In addition, the Commission staff made a presenta-
    tion to the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Land Resources Forum,
    concerniug urban wetland preservation and the Chiwaukee Prairie on
    March 13, 1985.

    Support of SEI4RPC in Coastal Management
    SEWRPC
    Don Reed	CONTRACT NUMBER:  65004-
    852.1
    P.O. Box 769	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00060
    Waukesha, 9I  53187-1607	PROJECT NUMBER:
    101-726
    (414) 547-6721
    E    -PROJECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    71-PRIIJECT
    IiANAGER:,
    CURREUT AS
    OF:
    APR 22 85
    PRO6. REPORT DUE: JUL 5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT 5
    85
    CATEGO
    RY
    INVUICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    YTDIBBU
    DGET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    I  .PERSONNEL	1395.49 15519.50 16185.00	0.96
    2. FRINGES	598.07	6607.47  7020,00	0.94
    3. CONTRACTS	0.00
    f. EGUIPMENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    iTRAVEL                49.00	449.25	50D.00
    	0.90
    RINTING	500.00	500.00	1.00
    OTHER	0.00
    9. INDIRECT          942.48 12459.06 15795.00
    0.79
    SUBTOT
    ALS
    2985.04 35535.28 40000.00
    0.89
    CMP REIN.BURSEMENT: 1492.52
    17767.64
    LOCAL HATCH:        1492.52
    17767.64

     isconsin Coastal hN.-nagement
    Program	_-
    j	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~Project Nurnimr:
    roject Summary

    3cl-2 (Fil. 1V72eu
    A
    P
    R

    1
    6

    p
    9
    8
    4
    T.tte: Northwest Regional Planning Comm.    Agnv 4t Government ana
    AdOrh:
    No
    rt
    hw
    es
    t
    Re
    gi
    on
    al
    Pl
    an
    ni
    ng
    Co
    mm
    is
    si
    on
    =:_iBasic) Support for the Wis. Cqastal
    3
    0
    2
    W
    4
    a
    l
    n
    u
    t
    S
    t
    r
    e
    e
    t
    ,
    ?Pm;ageentProgram
    S
    n
    o
    o
    n
    e
    r
    ,
    W
    i
    s
    c
    o
    n
    s
    i
    n
    5
    4
    8
    0
    1
    -=  Ourat,on:   Lwelve
    rm3nth!

    :=;a TyDe:                                   Prinp;al Staff Contm:  .Telegtons Numbaer
    Denn
    is
    Van
    Hoof	1I-715-682-2395
    , Perion
    authorizd
    wo
    ripsv,e
    fun4s:	TuI.Onn NUmOe
    inv'otr"SCA Mafnalgmet SCA                    ' lark 'fueller, Executive
    DirectolI-715-635-?1q7
    -_-L. Im[#n,nt State Law
    -j OumonZtr2t&~inmunitv                     Scgnater of Person aumonz.," tO rac/e fund:
    UJ Ommunitv          Ssistance-a/

    -EFPROJErCT OESCRIP TION:The NUPC will provide
    continuing'assistance to local units of government
    _mth implementation of coastal management plans and the
    development of new plans for improved
    ,.se of the unique coastal natural and economic resources.
    Assistance will be provided to
    0ommunities in the use of existing state and federal
    programs.  In the tradition of the
    successful state-local partnership, staff will assist the
    Wisconsin Coastal Management
    _-ouncil in developing its annual program, carrying out
    adopted policies and monitoring of
    _iederal programs which are underway or completed.

    ';AT DO YOU WANTTHE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OaJE!CTVES)?
    ,-Wise and balanced use of the coastal environment in a
    manner that provides.for reasonable
    e	omic and recreational development in an
    environmentally sound manner in the Northwest
    W	Superior region of Wisconsin.
    r_--rovide improved planning, management and implementation
    services to coastal units of
    _-government which allows for intelligent decision-making
    by citizens and local officials.
    -Assist local governments with identifying and taking
    advantage of coastal opportunities.
    -Continue coordination between local, state and federal
    officials to address coastal
    zelated problems and opportunities.
    - Provide planning and management skills aimed at giving
    local government better opportunities
    -to manage coastal resources with local resources.
    THATWILL SE THE SPECIFIC ENO P,QODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    JWUPC staff will assist lakeshore communities in the
    northwest coastal region in implementing
    waterfront plans.  Implementation may take the form of
    local ordinances; proposals for
    development projects that are site specific with the
    public and/or private sector; coordin-
    ation with local, state or federal programs which may
    assist and networking with state
    programs where appropriate. The tool that will be applied
    will be determined on planning
    and implementation efforts in each community as well as
    the need, desire and willingness
    to proceed.

    OWWILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN�S COAST?:
    Communities in the Lake Superior area recognize the value
    of their respective waterfronts.
    -hese efforts, or proposed efforts have been and are
    discussed in each city, county and
    a number of towns. No waterfront plans existed in 1978.
    Waterfront plans now exist in
    each city, Bayfield, Ashland and Iron Counties and
    several towns. Implementation of these
    elans have been highly successful in some communities.
    While much has been accomplished,
    more needs to be done. All waterfront plans are
    consistent with Wisconsin Coastal
    io-* ment Policy.

    UoGE? SUMMAR-                                 TOTAL COSTS  $40,00

    For WCMP Staff Use
    aMPe PRlecrNumbe:             ..
    II
    Date Received:
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    *CM 415180)  Progress Report

    Submit this Progress Report to: Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street. 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title: Northwest Regional Planning CommissiC �{urchase Order Number:
    Basic Support for the Wisconsin                                                 ADE-00210
    Coastal Management Pro,ram
    Project Duration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:             To:
    Twelve	January 1. 1985	Anril 1. 1985
    Project Type (Check one or more):	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    Community Assistance
    CoImpronit  Assistanagement SCANumberMatch spent to date:                                                     % of budgeted funds
    El I] mprove SCA Managemnent SCA Number
    C] Implement State Law
    El Implement State Lavv  ~~~~~~~Signature of project manager:
    El CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)
    C  Demonstration

    1. Objectives of Project (as contracted):
    Wise and balanced use of the coastal environment in a manKr that provides for reasonable
    economic and recreational development in an environmentally sound manner in the Northwest
    Laker Superior region of Wisconsin.
    Provide improved planning, management and implementation services to coastal units of
    government which allows for intelligent decision-making by citizens and local officials.

    *Assist local governments with indentifying and taking advantage of coastal opportunities.

    Continue coordination between local, state and federal officials to address coastal
    related problems and opportunities.

    Provide planning and management skills aimed at giving local government better
    opportunities to manage coastal resources with local resources.
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    Work with the Bayfield, Ashland and Washburn Planning Commissions on regulatory
    ordinances continues. The Bayfield and Ashland zoning ordinances are being revised.
    A study recently completed in Washburn will lead to preservation of twelve acres of
    waterfront recreation land. Work has also started in Washburn to review a proposed
    waterfront housing project. Ashland, Ashland County, Cornucopia and Washburn have
    been assisted with preparation and submission of coastal management pre-applications.

    The Lake Superior Coastal Task Force held a meeting early in April. Discussion
    centered around the wide range of issues still needing to be addressed in the
    Lake Superior area.

    The probability of an Ashland marina and significant waterfront improvements continues
    to increase.  Local banks have given a letter of credit to a hotel developer provided
    the City can obtain grant funds to construct a marina. Preliminary applications have
    been filed with two federal agencies.

    3. Problems/Concerns (Issues, project, or administrative concerns):

    is

    ,                                ,- ..             .

    fl.                 .                             .n

    0

    4. Impact thus far, if any, of the project on the shoreline, coastal resources, or coastal residents:

    ,     X       ,    _      *       -            -                  ,'
    ...

    .-7

    . - - _,
    ISignaturl Pesf  pes author  zed

    Please use additional pag'es iif necessary./

    ZT PROJECT TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    NANAGER:
    NWRPC Support in Coastal ?fanagement
    NWRFPC
    Dennis Van Hoof	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    852.2
    201 Second St.	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00210
    Ashland, NI   54806	PROJECT NUMBER:   101-
    726
    1715) 682-2395
    CURRENT AS
    OF:

    CATEGORY
    FED 14
    85
    PROB. REPORT DUE: JUL
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    INVOICE    YTD- BUDGET
    YTDIEUDSET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    I.
    PERSONNEL
    2.
    FRINGE5S
    3.
    CONTRACTS
    A&     QIPMENT
    UPPLIES
    6. TFAVEL
    7.
    PRINTIN1G
    8. OTHER
    9.
    INDIRECT
    4497.11	9248.98
    19002.00
    1667.?9	3536.81
    7473.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0. 01
    515.52  1064.37
    2100.00
    0.00
    201.50
    3083.50  6216.45
    11425.00
    O.4
    9
    0.4
    7

    0.5
    1
    b
    0.5
    4
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    9764.03 20268.11
    40000.00
    0.5
    1
    CNP REIMBURSEMENT: 4882.02
    10134.06
    LOCAL MATCH:      4882.02
    10134.06

    _.,_ -..__.        u,g~emenz. rrogramn
    -roject Summary

    U.CD=.2 IRe. 12739)

    ...rat Astlacy or aGo-rLnernt
    .    ormunity Assistance                        Bay-Lake Re(
    t ant Aoarm:
    gional Planning
    Commnission
    WGB
    WI   54302
    S.E. 450,
    U1
    Green
    Bay, !
    twrxoia Ountrln:
    12        mcmhx
    ~-~.roj.i 7vpg                                                       PrinKaf  Staf	COntct:	Te lahono NumD  r
    Robert	L.  Fisher	1414-465-
    2135
    p'ona au-Tonad to rlacmw fur-ls:	Trettonomm Numte
    OIMS C AmaCnnhImma t S #                                            RRalph  M;,BerQman	1414-465-2135
     ho                                                              Siagr,u of Aston oau on ri   tcii   nd:
    E  O.r: Local  Assistance/Coordination r
    � FEF PROJECsT DESCPIPTION:                            Q               U
    Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission (BLRPC) has provided local assistance and coor-
    dination of coastal program efforts in the region since 1974.  Seven of the
    fifteen
    Wisconsin coastal counties are located in the Bay-Lake region. The major
    emphasis
    during this contract year will be to continue to provide technical assistance to
    coastal communities within the region and to continue to provide
    coordination between
    local, state and federal governments on specific.coastal' issues.
    1*HA DOO YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLSH (MAJOR OBJEC7TVESI?
    1.  To provide technical assistance to local units of government on coastal
    plans,
    zoning, and development proposals.
    *    To coordinate local/state and federal involvement with the coastal
    program
    activities.
    .                                                  .             .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ..  .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    IT WILL BE THIE SPECIFIC ENO PROCIUCTS OCF THE PROJECT?
    1.	Development of local plans and zoning ordinances.
    2.	Specific waterfront development designs.
    3.	Implementation of coastal studies by local, state and federal
    governments.
    4.	Coastal management articles in the Bay-Lake newsletter and annual
    report.

    OW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSINS COAST?:
    To improve local government management capabilities of coastal resources.
    _To improve the ongoing state coastal program activities in the region.

    omGET sUMMARv. CMP 520.000; BLPRC $20,000        roTALcoss 40,000
    7 ,_          -. .

    For WCMP Staff Use
    Wisconsin Coastal Management
    Program
    WCMP Pi,iicr Numhri

    Date Received:
    I
    Progress Report

    *CM 4(5/801
    Submit this Progress Report to:  Wisconsin Dept. of Administration
    Office of Coastal Management
    101 S. Webster Street, 7th Floor
    Madison, WI 53702
    Project Title:                                                                     Purchase Order Number:
    Bay-Lake Activities in Support of Coastal
    Management Program
    ADE-00045
    Project Ouration in MONTHS:	Report Period From:	To:
    12	January 1, 1985	March 31, 1985
    Project Type (Check one or morel:	CMP funds spent to date:	% of budgeted funds:
    $14,924.67	1
    75%
    a	Improve SCA Management SCA Number	Match spent to date:	% of budgeted funds
    [	Implement State Law	$14,924.68
    75%
    O	CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Project)	Signature of p    r      o             ///A/   /
    Demonstration
     ommunl ty Assistance d:                                                      ..
    I. Objectives of Project (as contractedl;
    See Attachment
    A
    2. Thoroughly discuss progress made toward accomplishing objectives during this reporting period:
    See Attachment B

    3. Problems/Concerns (lssues, project, or administrative concerns):

     None

    . 3 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ~~~~~-~ .   ...

    .~	.L

    .~.               .            .	.   ..

    4. Impact thus far, if any,'of the project on the shoreline, coastal re-sources, or coastal residents:
    Continued local citizen and local governmental  involvement in coastal
    management program activities.
    Initiated local study efforts related to coastal matters, particularly
    dredging, waterfront plans, harbor studies, in Suamico and Algoma.
    Inventory of harbor improvement needs in the region for future program
    assistance.
    �    Information distribution on coastal program Notice of Intent to File for
    proje7ts.1	..
    pr.et  . .  . ..	. ..                       ....

    > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

    i._                   .
    Please use additional pages if necessary.

    ATTACMENT 'A"
    BAY-LAKE REGIONAL PLANNING CCMTZSSION
    ADDENDUM TO SCOPE OF SERVICES
    (Letter from Ra1lh Bergamni -Maw A,1.84)
    v.
    -4-
    -

    -1..Assist in speci-ieTtichnic;l.;reas. to include'
    . Dred,e maLterial.disposal
    a. Harbor  improvements

    C. Local Planning	and    ~                            ---   -
    2, Revi em- of develoP	aof s-4-incli d-e---I-----
    a. State clearing house revie~&--
    b. Upon request of coamaniti-i --
    r:..:3. Assisi, in prep.araLion of pi;ns in co;tsll -counties and
    munici"                                     e  aorts -tw incita=e
    a, Ma'rinette/Peshtigo- land use-plan
    b, Ocounto- habor and publ-cI access-plan
    c. Kewaunee- waterfront pltn

    d. Two Rivers- waterfront rehabilitation plan
    hl, Ianitofwo- update of comprehensive Plan
    . Doolr Countw- corpfehensive Plan
    4. Assist in prepar-ation of regulatorw tools in all coastal counties
    and municipalities upon recuest. Anticihate efforts to includ~e!
    a. Sister Baw- zoning ordinance/waterfront district
    b. Kewaunee- zoning ordnnce/w;ierfront district

    d, Hiarine8tte/?ehtijo- zoning ordinance
    *   Perfava coordination.functions betwien levels of govegnnent,
    at Technical Advisorm Coamittee
    bo Suamico- dvedging/disposal
    es Green BRy- dredging/disposal
    6s Assist in Preparation of fundin:  roposals in all coastal counties
    and coaniunities upon reauest# Anticipated efforts to includet

    . I
    .c�W
    _--
    r

    pa. Preparation or studw  proposals and consult-nt selection Tor area
    F-ecipients  TVCtPfundinE
    b.Oconfo- Publ'3. harbor
    7% Coorbdinate and assist in meet.ini s    r  ularors renuire'gienL; in
    all coastal counties-and comaur.,Ues,
    8. Provide information on c ;stal-issues.
    4, Raw-Late Neuslet tr- -
    b, Public informational meet-ings .. -    -
    c. 3;w-Lt;K CAnnual -Report -.    .

    '- ""'"^ ^'''''---''`
    I-. L;, -.� �.-��_ -.
    .ur:
    "' `~" --
    - fY --- Z ��

    " �--

    �^
    _''

     .1            :         -   - n                        .   .        .

    .90&k-
    ,W

    - ~   ~           ~           ~          ~          - --. %..  .4.*.  --  ---..-        ..   .

    -~ ~           -.       .    .
    .	.	__
    .	_           - -

    * 7-

    ATTACHMENT B
    3RD QUARTER 1984-1985
    COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
    January 1, 1985 - March 31, 1985

    la. Commission staff met three times during this quarter with the
    Town
    of Suamico Harbor Commission to discuss the status of the
    dredging
    for Suamico River.
    Staff completed review of the Corps of Engineers Letter
    Report
    and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Confined
    Disposal
    Facility for Green Bay.
    lb. Staff met four times with the City of Algoma Harbor Commission
    initiating the harbor area planning services. Inventories,
    maps
    and initial text material for the plan were completed during
    the
    quarter.
    Staff completed 50 percent of the field inventory of the
    Regional
    Harbor Study to assist individual harbor communities with
    their
    planning projects.
    ic. The Commission provided data and coastal management grant
    assistance
    information to-the communities in the region.
    2a. The Commission continued Executive Order 12372 reviews of
    projects
    and proposals that may impact upon the coastal area of the
    region.
    The following projects were reviewed and approved during this
    quarter.
    * Resource Conservation and Development - WDNR, Statewide
    Rural Forestry Assistance - WDNR, Statewide
    * Urban Forestry - WDNR, Statewide
    * P.L. 566 Watershed Program - WDNR, Statewide
    LAWCON Funding Harbor Park - City of Kewaunee
    * Wisconsin Coastal Management Program - WDOA
    LAWCON Funding Voyageur Park - City of De Pere
    3a. The Commission staff continues to meet with government
    officials in
    the Marinette/Peshtigo area reviewing planning and
    development
    concerns.
    The final technical design of the industrial park area was
    com-
    pleted for the Marinette County Development Committee.
    A contract was signed with the City of Marinette regarding
    long-
    range planning, particularly waterfront related planning to
    update
    industrial and commercial development potentials and to
    review
    zoning and development controls.

    3b. The land use and development trends in
    the Oconto harbor were
    inventoried and mapped.
    3d. Staff reviewed technical planning
    proposals for the City of Two
    Rivers rehabilitation plan.
    3f. Staff initiated review of the initial
    draft proposal for the Door
    County Comprehensive Plan.
    4a. Staff updated the Village of Sister Bay
    Zoning Map.
    4b. Staff continued technical assistance on
    the Kewaunee waterfront
    development projects.
    4d. Commission staff began the update of the
    Marinette and Peshtigo
    zonina ordinances and other reaulatory
    devi ces per the request of
    the local unit of government (See UaT)
    5b. Staff met three times with the Suamico
    Harbor Committee regarding
    the dredging activities and disposal
    needs for the harbor.
    6a. Commission staff met three times with the
    Village of Cleveland for
    discussion of alternative waterfront
    plans and alternative Hika
    Park designs.
    A selected alternative for waterfront
    and park site development
    will be chosen after the public hearing
    scheduled for April 1985.
    7a. Not applicable.
    8c. Commission staff prepared the draft 1984
    Annual Report materials
    for review by the Commission and local
    and state governmental
    units. A portion of the 1984 Annual
    Report relates to the Coastal
    Management Program. Major elements
    contained in the draft relate
    to continued involvement with the State
    Coastal Council, continued
    community technical assistance and
    strengthened state/local partner-
    ship on program issues, agency
    coordination and Future of the Bay
    activities.
    The document will be formally approved
    at the June 1985 Commission
    meeting.

    .1 -0 .
    PROJECT
    Ti
    -7
    CONTRACTOR
    PROJECT
    nM
    TLE: D ay-Lake Support in
    R:    . BLRPC
    MAS6ER: Bob Fisher
    S.E. 450, IJW-Green
    B
    Green Bay, #I
    5430
    (4141 465-2135
    Coastal ganagement

    CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    052.3
    ay	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00045
    3	PROJECT NUMBER:   101-726
    --_' CURRENT AS
    OF:
    APR 22 05
    PROG. REPORT DUE: JUL 5
    85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85
    CATEOUR
    Y
    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    YTD!GBUDG
    ET
    REIMBURSHBLE COSTS
    1.
    PERSONNEL
    2. FRINGES
    3.
    CONTRACTS
    4.
    ERUIPRENT
    ,&SUPPLIES
    WPAVEL
    7.
    PRINTING
    B. OTHER
    9.
    INDIRECT
    1725.38 14170.27
    22579.20
    667.72  6037922
    7585.20
    0.00
    0.00
    81.00
    535.81
    282.85
    287.26 1626.24
    902.37 7113.95
    10250.80
    O.6
    3
    0.8
    0

    0.69
    SUBTOTALS       3582.73 29849.34
    40415.20
    0.7
    4
    CMP REIMBURSEMENT: 1791.37
    14924.67
    LOCAL MATCH:       1791.37
    14924.67

    Wisconsin Coastal Management  Program                                      For WCMP Staff Ue
    Project Number:

    roject Summary	Fil Numw:

    -CM-2 (Rev. 12/1791	Date Received:

    Project Title:                                  Agency or Government and Addres:
    Bureau of Coastal Management
    Coastal Management Program Staff and	Department of Administration
    Administrative SuDDort	101 S. Webster St., P.0. Box 7864
    Projec Ouration:    12       rmnts	Madison, WI 53707

    Project Type:	Principal Staff Contact:	Telephone Number
    Roy Christianson	266-7257
     Imrote SCA Management SCA 4                 Person authorized to receive funds:	Telehone Number
    MImpement State              La Doris Hanson	T
    [] Impkm~lAt Sutt LJW
    C Deonstrtion                                Signature of Person authorized to receive funds:
    E Othr:  Administrt ion

    BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
    To provide for staffing and administrative support to the Council and program.

    WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH (MAJOR OBJECTIVES)?
     overall program management
    - preparation of grant applications and contracts
    - quality and fiscal control of approved projects
    - analysis of Great Lakes issues
    - coordination with federal activities
    - liaison with state agencies and local and tribal coastal governments
    - provision of staff support for Council activities

    WHAT WILL BE THE SPECIFIC END PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?

    The end products include:
    - periodic fiscal and evaluation reports on budgeted tasks and contracts
    - Coastal Management Council documents as needed to fulfill Council functions
    - statewide public information on coastal issues and the Program.

    HOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    The Bureau of Coastal Management in the Department of Administration is the lead
    agency to solicit, receive and administer federal funds for the WCMP and to provide
    administrative, technical and logistical support to the Council in performance of its
    functions.

    IBUDGET SUMMARY                                     TOTAL COST S  $203,00 0.00

    WCMP Policy
    Analysis
    Activities
    October 1, 1984 - March
    31, 1985

    a) Water Use
    WCMP staff participated in making
    revisions to drafts of the
    Great Lakes Charter and the final
    report of the Water
    Diversions Task Force to the
    Council of Great Lakes Governors.
    WCMP staff also helped inform the
    public and interest groups
    about the Charter. Staff attended
    task force meetings in
    October, November, and December,
    1984, and January, 1985. The
    Charter was signed by the eight
    gov-ernors ahd two premie-rs of
    the Great Lakes region in February,
    1985.
    After the Charter signing, the WCOP
    coordinated and
    participated in drafting state
    legislation on water diversions
    and consumptive uses. WCMP and
    other Department of
    Administration staff met frequently
    with Department of Natural
    Resources officials to develop the
    bill. Potential key
    sponsors of the bill in the
    legislature were contacted and
    briefed on the bill. The bill is
    now in the final drafting
    stage.

    b) Coal Transportation (see memo from
    Bob Halstead to Bill Brah)

    c) Great Lakes Navigation
    Work in this area has focused on
    the examination of the effect
    of navigation cost-sharing/user-fee
    proposals on Wisconsin.
    WCMP convened meetings with the
    Departments of Natural
    Resources and Transportation to
    discuss the state's position
    on cost-sharing proposals and
    coordinate efforts to collect
    data on navigation and other water
    project spending in
    Wisconsin, the Great Lakes region,
    and the nation. The WCMP
    considers the Great Lakes
    Commission (GLC) a possible arena
    for developing a regional strategy
    to influence cost-sharing
    legislation; consequently, WCMP
    staff have participated in GLC
    conference calls and talked with
    GLC staff to try to stimulate
    timely GLC analysis of the issue.
    Wisconsin favors basing a
    position on navigation cost-sharing
    on a comprehensive
    analysis of the flow of federal
    funding to various regions of
    the nation for water projects of
    all kinds. WCMP staff helped
    prepare Wisconsin's representatives
    on the GLC for the GLC's
    semi-annual meeting in March,
    1985.

    d) Great Lakes Water Quality - Impact
    of Direct Drainage
    WCMP has cancelled the project
    which would have formed the
    basis for analysis of this issue.
    The project was a
    Significant Improvement task, but
    is not needed to meet WCMP's
    required budget allocation to
    significant improvements.

    1

    Please see correspondence dated April 1, 1985, for further
    discussion of WCMP Significant Improvement Task budgeted
    funds.

    e) Dredging/ Dredged Material Disposal
    WCMP staff has participated in discussions with Department of
    Natural Resources (DNR) pertaining. to procedures and rules for
    beach nourishment as a routine practice, and has reviewed DNR
    reports, memos and dredging policy committee meeting notes
    pertaining to the DNR policy toward beach nourishment. WCMP
    staff has participated in discussionfs with the DNR pertaining
    to specific Wisconsin harbor dredging activities, and has
    monitored and reviewed proposed Wisconsin harbor dredging
    projects and dredging permit applications. WCMP staff has
    participated in local dredging activity meetings (see memo
    from Tanace Matthiesen to Coastal Staff). WCMP staff has also
    reviewed drafts of DNR proposed dredging legislation.
    f) Estuarine and Marine Sanctuaries
    Following preliminary work in developing a strategy for the
    protection of the Mink River Estuary in Door County, the
    Nature Conservancy has moved ahead rapidly with acquisition of
    parcels in that area. Because of staff vacancies for several
    months, WCMP activity has been limited to a monitoring role.
    2

    L  !1 r                                      t .. /~J

    f Y:1    r
    .S%stte ogf
    tEj6r=r9~8r s:
    <:;AnGhony S Enrd
    Department of
    Administratio
    n Seorery

    101 South
    Webster
    Street �
    Madison.
    Wisconsin
    53702
    Mailing
    Address:
    P
    o
    s
    t

    O
    f
    f
    l
    i
    c
    e

    B
    o
    x

    7
    8
    6
    4
    *M~arch 7, 1985
    Madison. WI 53707-7864

    Mr. James Fish, Executive Director
    Great Lakes Comm-iss,ion
    2200 Bonisteel Boulevard
    Ann Arbor, MI  4.8109

    Dear Jim:

    It is my understanding that as a result
    of a conference call
    earlier this vweek, the Commission staff
    is moving ahead on
    the analysis of the various components
    of the user fee/cost-
    sharing issue.  Wisconsin's
    understanding of what work will
    be completed by the Commission's staff
    over the next two
    weeks is attached.

    As you know, I have been quite concerned
    about the lack of
    progress to date on this issue, since it
    is one of the top
    two priorities of the Commission.  At
    the Ccnmoission
    lacetings in May and October of last
    year, I indicated titat
    the Great Lakes Region had an
    "opportunity" to influencu
    federal initiatives on water project
    financing if tihe
    necessary analysis was completed, we
    were able to develop a
    unified position, and we acted in a
    timely fashion.

    Wisconsin's perspective on tills matter
    has been that major
    proposals to reduce the federal deficit
    would be offered in
    1985' and that our region .might
    position itself to assist in
    this effort and at the same time promote
    a more regionally
    neutral financing policy for water
    projects.  In short, we
    might be instrumental in reducing or
    eliminating our
    region's subsidy of major western and
    southern water
    projects and gain the economic benefits
    from a lower federal
    deficit.

    While Congress and the Reagan
    administration are considering
    various proposals for reducing the
    deficit which include
    wate: project financing strategies,
    Commission staff have
    yet to complete the necessary analysis
    that would establish
    whether a Great Lakes position on this
    matter is possible

    Mr. James Fish
    Marchi 7, 1985
    2
    and if so, what form it should take. The completion of the
    analysis and development of options by the Commission staff
    is absolutely essen'tial if the Commission expects to have
    any influence on the current lIegislation in Congress.

    Your effort in getting this work completed would be
    appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to
    call me.or Carol Cutshal,.

    Sincerely,

    Peter V. McAvoy
    cc: Commissioners

    *

    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    1
    X -.-

    ATTACH
    MENT

    An analysis of the -cost-sharing/user fee
    issue by GLC staff
    will include: a characterization of recent
    trends in
    federal water project financing (i.e.,
    which states are
    winners and losers); a summary of the
    provisions of
    important federal legisl-ation and an
    analysis of h,.w and
    where the federal funds a.re to be distri-
    buted; and a
    presentation of options based on this work
    to guide
    subsequent discussion of the issue by the
    Commission.

    Recent trends in federal water project
    funding

    The key question to be answered by
    examining such trends is,
    "Who pays, and who benefits?"  GLC staff
    will track total
    and per capita water project expenditures
    over recent years
    in each state of the coun'try by thle
    Corps, the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the Soil Conservation
    Service, Fmi}A rural water
    programs, and the EPA, and also identify
    hlow the different
    types of projects are financed.

    Summary and analysis of proposed
    legislation

    The key provisions of the major cost-
    sharing and user fee
    proposals (HRG,S366, S534, HR46, HR50)
    will be summarized in
    readily comparable form; and the amounts,
    types, and
    locations of proposed projects should be
    tallied.
    Initiatives in the President's budget will
    also be compared
    with the Congressional bills. In order to
    develop a
    comprehlensive picture of proposed water
    project spending,
    staff will also summarize any relevant
    legislation affecting
    the Bureau of Reclamation and the EPA.

    To assess the potential impact of various
    pieces of
    legislation on our region relative to
    other regions and to
    compare this impact with current trends,
    GLC staff will
    apply thie appropriate cost-sharing and
    user fee formulas to
    the projects proposed in the respective
    bills. The breakout
    of how the proposed federal funds are to
    be distributed
    needs to be done on a state-by-state basis
    and then
    aggregated to the appropriate regions. The
    effect of
    proposed financing structures also needs
    to be examined to
    determnine if costs are appropriately
    borne by project
    * w      -neficiaries. '

    2

    Comparison of past trends and proposed legislation

    The analysis of proposed legislation will be
    compared to the
    assessment of recent trends in federal water project
    financing for the purposes of determining if the
    trends are
    continuing or not and what does this portend for the
    Great
    Lakes states and region.

    Options-for discussion

    With the above analyses completed, the Commission
    should be
    in position to consider various options that could
    be
    advanced on behalf of the region in thie
    Congressional debate
    on water project financing. To facilitate this
    discussion,
    staff will present an array of possible options to
    the
    Commission.

    STATE Of: WISCONSIN

    22 February 1985-                          File Pet:
    TO:    Peter McAvoy

    From: Jayson Chung

    Sujct:Geat Lakes Commission Economic Development & Promotion subcommittee
    - conference call

    Thin GLC subcommittee convened by conference call today. Below is a list
    of the major areas covered and some remarks that were of interest (it is
    not a summnary of the meeting).

    1. Priorities

    At. the GLC's semi-annual meeting in March, the Economic Development and
    Transportation committee meeting will focus on two (of the four designated)
    priority issues: users fees and regional e~qui.ty in federal policies. The
    Comimittee meeting will have only two hours to meet, rather than the normal
    *     ~half day.

    2. Economic Trends Review

    An'advisory committee with representatives, from each GLC state has been
    appointed to work with the Federal Reserve Board on the Wisconsin Economy
    Scan type study of the region. A draft should be available to subcommittee
    members in late May or early June.

    3. Industrial Competitiveness

    GLC will look on interestedly. No major industrial policy action expected
    to be passed.

    4. International Trade and Import Competition: Auto industry

    Japan voluntary trade restriction agreement will probably be allowed to lapse.
    Great Lakes legislators are working on quid pro quo deals.

    5. Agricultural Information

    Center for the Great Lakes is just beginning a study on cargo preference
    policies. It will examine the revenue and employment impacts of increases
    of P.L. 480 shipments on the Lakes and provide advice on how to seek
    legislative and regulatory changes. The study should take about 4 months
    to complete.
    AD-75

    22 February 1985
    Peter McAvoy

    6. Other Business

    The Administration may introduce a bill proposing 70% cost-recovery on
    new construction of navigation projects -with no draft limitation.

    draft of Illinois' study examining ad valorem and uniform tonnage user
    fees may be available in about a week. (This study will be the topic of
    some discussion during the March 4th Transportation suhcommittee conference
    call.  Hopefully, we will have time to give it a critical look before the
    call. Do we plan to present findings from our analysis on flows of federal
    funds into and out of Wisconsin at that time?)

    cc: Carol Cutshall
    4

    19 M4arch 1985

    To:  Carol, Peter iM~V"Nr-

    From: Jayson

    Some indications arising from
    conversation with Steve Thorpe on how
    things
    might go at the GLC meeting. (He had
    survey replies fromn MI, MN, ILL.)

    There will  probabl y be stronq sent
    iment to reta in present- GLC resol ut
    ions
    on water project financing, at least on
    deep draft navigation, regardless
    of the amount of enthusiasm-for our
    redefining the scope of the user fee
    issue. It will be important to clarify
    that we are not casting the
    issue strictly in terms of giving up
    something (accepting higher cost
    sharing burden than otherwise necessary)
    to gelt something (a more
    equitable overall water project
    financing system); the commercial
    interests in GLC certainly think this.
    Illinois may suggest that GLC
    stick to trying to achieve a regional
    consensus on just navigation user
    fees as the issue affects the Great
    Lakes and leave the broader, national
    -  W      ~perspective to other arenas, such as IWCP
    or NGA.

    There will also be str-ong sentiment to
    separate Seaway toll elimination
    from navigation user charge issue. Other
    states do not want to see
    toll elimination used as bargaining chip
    in navigation user charge debate.

    As a result of their study, Illinois
    prefers GLC to remain neutral on
    question of ad valorem versus per
    tonnage user fees. Can't see a
    regional consensus arising.

    -STATE OF WVISCONSIN

    *te.	~13 January 1985'                          File Ref:

    To:	Peter MicAvoy  and Roy Christianson

    From:	Jayson Chung

    Subjct: Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach lanA use plan

    I spoke with Don Reed two days ago about Chiwaukee Prairie-Carol Beach.
    The Citizen Advisory Committee to SEWRPC on the CP-CB land use plan
    vote-d 12-2 to approve a revised version of the "recommended plan" that
    SEWRPC had originally submitted to DNR. The "'recommended plan" was a
    compromise between a plan tha-t encouraged much residential development
    of the area and a plan that emphasized maximum preservation. WCMP
    staff had, in comments on the DNR's DEIS, indicated that the "recommended
    plan" failed to adequately protect the remaining prairies and wetlands.
    SEWRPC's revised plan does away with the most. offensive features of the
    "recommended plan-"

    - Expansion of the Trident Marina in the southeast portion
    of the area is not accommodated, nor is the provision of
    a road along the area's southern border to serve the marina.

    - Expansion of the Kenosha sewage treatment plan into the
    northwestern portion of the area is not accommodated.

    - The area al:lotted for WEPCO utility corridors has been trimmed.

    - In the area where most of the valuable lowland natural areas
    exist (i.e., east of the RR tracks), no sewering is provided
    for, except in one tract that is already intensively developed
    and an adjacent strip of intensive shoreline development.

    The adopted revised plan continues to emphasize the "willing buyer/willing
    se-ller" concept for homes that are located in areas marked for preservation
    and that are eventually to be required.

    This plan represents a rather favorable outcome to the CP-CB situation,
    especially considering the extent of development interests represented on
    the Citizen's Advisory Committee. Don Reed is quite pleased. He indicated
    that the DNR has said that it will recomm-end that the DNR board adopt this
    plan as the DNR's master plan for their permitting functions. I also
    understand that the Governor's natural areas acquisition fund initiative
    targets about $1 million for Chiwaukee Prairie.
    A 0-
    75

    STATE OF WISCONSIN

    22 February 1985                         File Ref:

    To:     Peter McAvoy, Al Fish

    - From: Jays on Chung

    :=~ubjct'Continuing DNR information and analysis efforts in support of developing
    water use legislation

    These are some of the things that arose in today's meeting with Al Shea
    and Mike Llewelyn that we should request DNR to continue looking into:

    1. Assess numbers and identities of parties that would be affected by
    proposed permit program. Look into formulas for calculating consumptve use.

    If there really are 3500 irrigators over 2 million gpd, then we need
    to know how that number would be affected by slight shifts in the
    trigger level or by using a formula to calculate consumptive use as
    part of total withdrawal for irrigation.

    We need numbers and identities of non-coastal, non-irrigation water
    users affected by permitting. This should be small, since major users
    are on the GL coasts.

    2. What are the available sources of water use data, and how accurate and
    precise are these sources? (This has been partially answered.)

    We should find out what data the USGS has and whether their estimates
    match Wisconsin's; also look at their data management setup.  .How much
    accuracy and precision will we require (at the outset of our permitting
    program)? This will influence the cost to the State and maybe to users
    of the program (will new or additional meters need to be installed?;
    are sophisticated, individual watershed h55'ologic budgets needed?)

    3. Justification for water use program in terms of existing or past
    water quantity ptoblems and predicted problems. At this point, we
    need to start compiling a list of illustrationis, case histories.

    4. Legal analysis of legislation language and the fonm the legislation is
    to take, if different from our model legislation.

    DNR has informally indicated it would rathier fold this new water use
    program into existing statutes. How would this be done?

    How strict should the standards of review of and requirements for permit
    applications be? How muchi of a burden shiould be pliaced on applicants to
    j9      ~~demonstrate approvability of their applicationis?  (Less now, more later
    when program lhas provided enoughi of a database to start dealing
    knowledgably withi management issues?)
    - - 11

    22-February 1985
    5. Who is going to represent Wisconsin on the Water Resources Management
    Committee?

    DNR staff will probably need to consult with other states to get some
    of the information we need to develop the appropriate legislative
    package here. Might as well determine the formal structure for
    supporting the Committee, whenever it is convened, now.
    c

    MEMORANDUM

    To: Peter MicAvoy

    From: Jayson Chung ~jc-

    Subject: Neil Fulton's recommendation for
    revised feteral legislation for
    diversions and consumptive uses

    In his January 30, 1965, memorandum to -water
    -di0.ersions task force members,
    Neil Fulton proposed federal legislation on Great
    Lakes diversions and
    consumptive uses similar to that introduced in
    the 98t-h,Congress last year.

    The language proposing that NOAA take the lead
    in a study of Great Lakes
    consumptive uses should more explicitly require
    coordination of any federal
    efforts with the data and management system
    being created by the Great Lakes
    states under the Great Lakes charter. Otherwise,
    this language seems
    acceptable.

    The language proposed to provide the Great
    Lakes states with authority to
    regulate diversions out of the region differs from
    the language of the Lipinski
    amendment of last year in that it acknowledges
    the Great Lakes charter and
    purports to complement the charter. While
    Congressional legislation
    supporting the efforts of the Great Lakes states to
    manage Great Lakes water
    resources with ample regard for the continued
    economic and.environmental
    health of the region is to be desired, Illinois'
    proposed language is unpalatable
    for the same reasons as last year's Lipinski
    amendment. As many have pointed
    out, if such legislation is passed, it could cloud
    the issue of who has ultimate
    authority to govern the diversion of Lake
    Michigan water at Chicago. Any
    federal legislation should explicitly recognize the
    continuing jurisdiction of
    the U.S. Supreme Court to govern that diversion.

    Mr. Fulton claims that the proposed language
    logically complements the charter:
    Where the charter establishes 'a framework for
    cooperation among the states
    and two Canadian provinces to manage and
    regulate diversions within their
    iurisdictions," this language will give the Great
    Lakes states the power to
    regulate diversions out of the region. In fact, the
    fit between the charter and
    this proposed language is not good at all.

    2
    The Charter represents the strongest and most prudent agreement the Great
    Lakes region could reach on diversions. Under the charter, for reasons of good
    resource management -as -well as constitutionality, the states agree to regulate
    diversions out of their jurisdictions and within their jurisdictions with the
    same level of scrutiny. To pass federal legislation containing Illinois' proposed
    language would actually undermine the charter---its credibility in the eyes of
    the rest of the country and its forcefulness in driving states' efforts to assess
    and manage water uses;and demands in their own jurisdictions. Any federal
    legislation at this point that does not directly reinforce the charter could
    severely weaken its impact.

    Congress is certainly ~unlikel.y to-approve of a protectionist proposal like
    Illinois', and any attempts by our region's delegations to push such legislation
    will probably generate unnecessary resentment toward the region. It is
    interesting to note that during last year's debate of HR3678, the Omnibus Water
    Bill, some Dry West congressmen got very excited about Section 622, which
    forbade federal study of transferring water out of either the Columbia River
    basin or the Arkansas-River basin, as well the Lipinski amendment, which tried
    to prevent transfers out of the entire Great Lakes region.

    Finally, aside from the substance of Illinois' proposed language, I have
    questions about the constitutionality of the proposed mechanism of requiring
    approval of all the Great Lakes states for a diversion. Can Congress impose
    such joint regulation (in the absence of an interstate compact), which would
    seem to be an abrogation of state sovereignty, on states? I asked Maryann
    Sumi about this, and on first impression she suspected there would be a
    problem. Tim Weston, in Milwaukee on February  I th, objected that this kind of
    arrangement was not allowable.

    I certainly hope that the other states in the region are not of a mind to back
    Illinois' revised proposal.

    -State of Wisconsin
    Department of Administration

    101 Soulb Webster Streel - Madison. Wisconsin 53702  Mailing Address-
    PosO Office Box 7864
    Madison. -WI 53707-7864
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    February 6. 1985

    COASTAL COUNCIL ENDORSES GREAT LAKES CHARTER

    Citing the importance of the Great Lakes to Wisconsin's economic

    and environmental health and a need for regional cooperation to

    effectively manage the Great Lakes, the Wisconsin Coastal Management

    Council recently adopted a resolution endorsing the Great Lakes

    Charter. The charter, a regional and international good-faith

    agreement on managing diversions and consumptive uses of Great Lakes

    water, was developed- by a task force established by the Council of

    Great Lakes Governors. It will be signed by the leaders of the

    region's eight states and two Canadian provinces on February 11. 1985.

    Tom Klein. Chairman of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council

    and Executive. Director of the Sigurd Olson Institute at Northland

    College in Ashland. Wisconsin. said: "We will work with Governor Earl

    to develop legislation and programs that will implement the important

    features of the charter."  The Coastal Management Council is made up

    of representatives of the legislature, state agencies, local

    governments, the University of Wisconsin. citizens, and tribal

    governments. It advises the Governor on Great Lakes issues.
    - more -

    According to Klein. a diversion from any of the Lakes may affect

    water uses and environmental systems throughout the region. For that

    reason. he said. "cooperative efforts to manage the resource as

    outlined In the charter provide the bes-t protection for both the Great

    Lakes and Wisconsin's interests."

    Klein said the charte-r-~marks an historic occasion for resource

    management in the Great Lake-s region. "It Is an Impressive and

    unprecedented achievement for all of the region'-s states and provinces

    to come together and agree on a set of common policies on such a major

    Issue."

    The charter calls for a regional water use data base. provides

    guidance for the particpating governments to regulate proposed water

    diversions and consumptive uses. and sets up a consultation procedure

    among the governments for working out differences.

    "The charter is comprehensive and far-sighted, but ultimate ly

    realistic.".said Klein. "It gives Wisconsin the means to shun the

    crisis-oriented approach In dealing with the diversion and consumptive

    use issues, which potentially could attain enormous proportions in the

    region."

    For more Information on the charter, call: Peter McAvoy.,

    Chairman. Council of Great Lakes Governors Task Force an Water

    Diversions and Great Lakei Institutions. (608) 266-1741; or Pam Wiley,

    Executive Director. Council of Great Lakes Governors. (608) 255-7880.

    e
    Stat
    e of
    Wis
    cons
    in
    Gernor'"
    Department of
    Administratio
    n Seretjarn

    101 South
    Webster
    Streel *
    Madison,
    Wisconsin
    53702
    Mailing
    Address:
    P
    o
    s
    t

    O
    f
    f
    i
    c
    e

    B
    o
    x

    7
    8
    6
    4
    M
    a
    d
    i
    s
    o
    n

    W
    I

    5
    3
    7
    0
    7
    -
    7
    8
    6
    4

    WISCONSIN COASTAL
    MANAGEMENT
    COUNCIL

    - Resolutioninl.support of the
    Great Lakes Charter -

    WHEREAS .the Great Lakes
    are vitally important to the
    historic,
    economic, and environmental health and
    well-being of the State of
    Wisconsin; and

    WHEREAS the future.growth and
    prosperity of Wisconsin is
    becoming ever more dependent upon the
    state's coastal resources; and

    WHEREAS municipal, industrial,
    agricultural, navigational, energy
    producing, and recreational uses of the Great
    Lakes and the integrity of and
    balance among biological-and physical
    components of the Great Lakes
    ecosystem may be harmed by the lowering of
    lake levels; and

    WHEREAS without careful and
    prudent management, future
    development of diversions and consumptive
    uses of Great Lakes water
    resources may produce significant adverse
    economic and environmental
    impacts; and

    WHEREAS, because the waters of
    the Great Lakes Basin are
    interconnected parts of a single hydrologic
    system, disturbances to which
    may have impacts throughout the region, the
    protection and management of
    Great Lakes water resources is an issue of
    regionwide concern; and
    furthermore,

    WHEREAS the Great Lakes
    Charter, developed by a joint effort
    of
    the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
    Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and New
    York, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
    and the Provinces of Ontario and
    Quebec, creates the basis for a unified and
    cooperative regional approach to
    protecting and managing the water resources
    of the Great Lakes Basin; and

    WHEREAS the Great Lakes Charter sets forth principles, policies,
    and programs to manage water diversions and consumptive uses based upon
    sound resource management principles and reflecting current trends in U.S.
    water law; and
    WHEREAS the Great Lakes Charter represents an historic first step
    in instituting a progressive, long-range management strategy for the Great
    Lakes;

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Wisconsin Coastal
    Management Council declares its support for the GeAt Lakes Charter and
    urges Governor Anthony S. Earl to sign the Great Lakes Charter and pledge
    the commitment of the State of Wisconsin to its implementation.

    In testimony of this resolution, I hereunto
    place my signature on this twenty-eighth
    day of January, 1985.
    Thomas Klein, Chairman
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Council

    ,4
    C
    r

    Date:	7 December 1984
    To:	Peter McAvoy
    From:	Jayson Chung
    Subject: MUJCC Critique Of Grea LakeS Charte

    MUCCa critique is not veil-argued and in places is confused. It seems hopeless to try
    to argue points with 1MIICC at this stage, but it is i.mpoiantito pojat out to Governor
    Blan chard's office an d o thefra that may he listening ao.MDC               W
    groups, both within Michigan and in othter tes)xohkyMC  auet&d
    its reading of the Charter are. Below are some commentsx0~fUttig ;points mfide by
    MIJCC in its critique.

    I. MUCC ignores the importance and value of a united M-gional;SM66,dagainst
    diversions and in favor of cooperetive water m xIggerdent. It~ruetthat
    erecting systems to regulate aLnd control diversions,triac-ceptably legitimizes
    diversions stems froma Michigan's unique situation of lying~vhtirely within the
    Basin--and reflects a self-centered and narrow-minded, as well- as self-defeading.
    perspective.
    Bov could MUCC~s stand possibly help Mdichigan to Avoid suffering the detrimenta
    effects of a diversion originating in another jurisdiction? Th~e Charter
    acknowledges that the fates of the Gregt LaLkes states andvpovinees ar tied
    together in this ustter sand gives each somie influence-over..he.actions of the
    others. MUJCC turns its back on tbis systemn of coo De.Ative ocyajgn
    mutual assurance.
    Minimum standards set by the Charter in no way preventiMiclxigan from setting
    stictef standards, or even to ban diversions from Michiggan outright if It so
    chooses. It is plain fact that outright bans are- unconstitutional. If the
    considerable "pover inherent in the people of Michigan (MUCC 4critique. p-W) can
    in some way, after this reality, then nothing in the Charter obstructs such power
    f'rom being exercised. In fact. the ChLwter exremsslv reserves, to each sutat and
    crovinice the covef, to att i-n its own interest usine anv maans.alreadv at its
    disposa.
    The findings recognize that future diversions may have 'significant adverse
    imnpacts" on environment, economny. and public.welfare. The Purpose of the
    Charter is to 'conserve levels gnd flows of the Great L-akes. "Principle III of the
    Charter states, plain and simple, 'that now or increased-diversions,and
    consumptive uses of Great Lakes Basinv'-ater resources ame of serious concern.'
    and that 'diversions of Bdsin vauer resources should not be allowed if individually
    or cumnulatively they would have any significant adverse imp",cts on lake levels.
    in-basin uses, and the Great Lakes-ecosystem.' Thi~s"giv'els .a tro:g.philosophicaI
    underpinning to a protection system-that will prevent new or increased diversions
    to the umaimum extent practicable and reasonable, both from a management
    I
    II
    I
    I

    I
    . I
    I

    I

    I
    December 6, 1984
    :Response to MUCC critique                                                     2

    perspective and a legal-perspective.

    2. It certainly is important to.the defense sytes,as MU1CC realizes, who is responsible
    for demonstrating that the,standards controling-diversions have or have not been
    met. On this point, MUCC's srgumentsare confused and not factual.
    The legislation that the Chtrter'pmromotesdoes-not place 'the primary burden of
    proof of damage to the Great Lakes ... on*those�who would attempt to block
    proposed diversions," sMsflC'fCtims. 'hnttead; it requikes "a demonstration of
    compliance" with the ctitet.  ihsets utin'tstem of stringent positive
    tests--orooonents of a diversion would bear the burden of showina that the
    oroDOsal would not haim :te Greaitai-6rieir current users. Itwould not be
    incumbent on the regu          oityto:       plish the difficult task of proving
    that future needs would -be- pasr,to-ed :P r tto-an example used by the MUCC.
    Rather, someone would hav -tox:how-thhat!vfuture needs would not be impaired--the
    burden works against the proposed diversion.
    The regulating authority wouldbe responsible for making the determination that
    the criteria had or had not been -satisfied. Control of the application process would
    lie with the state, and because, agency administrative determinations enjoy great
    deference in adjudicative a-ens, it would-be extremely difficult for a permit
    applicant to turn the process-tohisaivantage.
    MUCC is concerned about what constitutes a "significant unmitigated impact." The
    terms, it claims, "are ambiguous and the forum for defining them unspecified.'
    The terms are indeed general, but ts;rgenaerity is commonly and effectively used
    in federal and state natural .e_ource law. 'The forum for defining them in the long
    term is the research arenasnd in day-to-day resource management practice the
    administrative agency, a safe place for such a responsibility to reside.
    MUCC misfires when it expresses displeasure over the 'burden of proof' issue.
    MUCC claims that "the three criteria [to limit interbasin diversions] set a threshold
    level of proofs which could not likely be met ...." If this is the case, then
    diversions are not going to be approved. (Where's the beef7)

    3. Although only new diversions over 5 mgd would be .mand,tory subjects of
    regional consultation, nowhere does the Charter imply that states and provinces
    should not review lesser diversions. s MUCC presumes. Also, all of the trigger
    levels are subject to review and adjustment to increase their protective
    effectiveness.

    4. The 'seeking" nature of the consultation process has been discussed long and hard.
    It is the strongest arrangement that the parties can agree to, given the
    non-binding nature of the Charter. MUCCs statements that the Charter
    undermines 'Michigan's principles in opposition to any new diversions' and
    "provides Michigan no new substantive voice in decisions by other states and
    provinces' evidence a serious misreading of the provisions, spirit, and political
    importance of the Charter, for reasons already detailed.

    1esponte to MU1CC critique3

    5 n  .MUCC fernthatthe Chs.rtevould'inevitably prejudice ,federalcourt
    decisions in favor of proposed new or increasd diversions." .md that it--would
    undermiine Mfichigan's strong stance against diversions in theweyes of'a-federal
    court. There is not much left to say except that these feamsare unfounded.-The
    -Reserval;ion of Right-s is cleur and mnewningful. And Michigan 'can erect logal
    -barriers to diversions as strong as it vints; how could the Charfter undertline state

    ~Our'4rgum.ents center on Michigan having the flexibilty to choose hov'eversict a
    44ega dafenset agaiast diver-sions for- itself that it vants, while gAiing formal
    ,pportunities to influence decisions made by other states and provinces.
    My one concern is that Michigan may not feel that the Charter ;learly-permitsAtbis
    flex.ibility. Altough draft of the final report have spoken of Charter-legisative
    recommendations as setting minimum standards, it could be arguedthatthetharter
    iitsl does not unambiguously maske the recommendations in this~vsy. "Minimum
    standurds or similar terms are not used in the Charter. I recall David Dempseyat the
    last Task Force meeting complaining that Michigsan did not vant the Charter to irApty
    that the legislaive standards it recommended vere the best vay to protect the LLkts
    against diversions. This stil seems to be thLe core of the problem.
    . ~~If another amendment to the Charter becomes an acceptable tactic to try to bring
    Mictigan around, a solution might be to iconvey this miinimumnsta-adards" sense
    right in the Charter. The difficulty with attemnpting to explicity provide thi kind of
    flexibitity is the possibility of weakening the iconcept of uniformity of commitment
    throughout the region.
    I

    V.t   1-_x tirA 'I _'i'o  6M
    11/1/84 ~1
    PROPOSED LANGUAGE TO DEFINE THE APPROPRIATE SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS

    TO IMPLEMENT THE GREAT LAKES CHARTER

    The following language could be incorporated into the Charter by
    - including it as the last subsection, which would be entitled "Sequence
    of Implementation Actions," of the section, Implementation of Principles,
    or
    - adding it as a second paragraph under the section, Progress Toward
    Implementation.

    Alternatively, the language in revised form could be incorporated into
    the Task Force's report to the governors and pr~emi,ers.

    The Governors and Premiers recognize that actions to implement

    the principles of this Charter should be undertaken in a sequence

    that efficiently and effectively achieves the Charter's

    purposes, and that, therefore, the various components of the

    Charter would be most appropriately implemented in the

    following order: ,

    - The establishment of the Water Management Technical

    Committee;

    - The development of a common database, and simultaneously,

    the pursuit of state and provincial legislation establishing

    programs to manage the diversion and consumptive use of Basin

    water resources;

    - The initiation of procedures for prior notice and

    consultation at such time as sufficient supporting data

    become available;

    - The development of a Basin water resources management

    program.

    STATE OF WISCONSIN

    23 October 1984i                          File Ref:

    To:	Peter McAvoy

    From:	Jayson Chung

    ;-LSubiect: .Intake Water Co. v. Yellowstone ~River Compact Commission

    Intake's challenge of :an i-nterb~asin diversion provision of the Yellowstone
    River Compact may be of some intere5t for regional efforts to protect the
    Great Lakes, although the pircumstances differ in obvious ways.

    The Yellowstone River Compact;- signed by Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota
    in 1950 and approved by Congress a year later was created primarily to
    protect irrigation interests in the three states.  The compact includes a
    clause that prohibits thie diversion of water out of the river basin unless
    approved by all three signatory states.  Intake had planned to divert water
    at Dawson, Montana, some of which was to be used outside the basin in
    Montana and North Dakota, contrary to the compact.  Intake therefore sought
    * - declaratory relief in the Montana District Court.

    In October, 1583, a three-judge panel dismissed Intake's four-part complaint.
    In response to Intake's claim that the compact placed an unreasonable burden
    on iliterstate commerce, the panel ruled that because the compact had been
    expressly approved by Congress, it was federal, not state, law and thus was
    immune to the Commerce Clause. The panel also ruled that the compact did
    not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as Intake claimed; equal protection
    applies to people, not geographic areas, and setting the river basin as the
    limit for diversions served a legitimate governmental interest.

    Intake had also challenged a Montana law that obstructed interstate diversion
    of Yellowstone River water. This law, however, was repealed before the
    judges heard the case, so this complaint, too, was dismissed.

    This case is being appealed in the Ninth Circuit Court. An assi;stant
    attorney general in Wyoming said that he did not expect any substantial
    changes from the district court's ruling. He also noted that one of the
    *deeper issues opened up by this case is, What is meant when Congress
    ratifies a compact--- is the compact law for all purposes? He conjectured
    that a provision controlling diversions in the manner of the Yellowstone
    Compact in a new compact drawn up now would require specif ic attention and
    approval of Congress to insure survival of constitutional challenge.
    0__

    I

    I
    i
    I

    I
    I
    I
    A

    I
    i

    i
    I
    STATE OF WISCONSIN

    ~ate:	October 1, 1984                         File Ref:

    To':	Peter McAvoy

    From:	Jayson Chung

    Subject	Latest Draft of the Great Lakes Charter

    The most recent version of the Great Lakes Charter drafted by Timothy Weston
    and Karen Sadlier-Brjawn improves over previous drafts.  The specificity of
    earlier drafts by Tim Weston has been retained in this draft, and the superior
    organization of the principles of Karen Sadlier-Brown's previous draft has
    been utilized. Karen Sadlier-Brown's concerns appear to have been smoothly
    incorporated without major changes that,might prove objectionable to other
    Task Force members. The major distinctive features of the latest draft are:

    1. Language referring to "joint exercise" of power, which Karen Sadlier-Brown
    objected to, has been eliminated. At the same time, the commitment to
    cooperative efforts by states and provinces has been posited more
    forcefully by including it in a separate new principle.

    2.  Specifics regarding recommendations for state and provincial legislation
    are retained as in Timothy Westou's previous draft.

    3. There is some new emphasis in a couple of places on state and provincial
    cooperation with federal governments and the IJC. Federal and IJC
    participation in data base building and, specifically,serving on the
    technical committee is provided for.

    4. The Resource Management Plan recommends both cooperative policies on
    consumptive uses, a particular concern of the Canadians, and more
    generally, coordinated policies to guide the management of the Great Lakes
    water resources.

    JC:tab/0477u

    S
    T
    A
    T
    E

    O
    F

    W
    I
    S
    C
    O
    N
    S
    I
    N

    October 1, 1984                           File Ref:
    To.      Peter MeAvoy

    ,From:
    Jason Chung

    Subject.   Ruling on El Paso v. Reynolds

    We have received a copy of District
    Judge Howard C. Bratton's Memorandum
    Opinion on El Paso,v. Reynolds, August
    3, 1984.  A summary of some of the
    important features of the case and a
    brief analysis follows.

    Summary of Major Features

    Judge Bratton ruled that most portions
    of New Mexico's 1983 law governing
    out-of-state transfers of groundwater
    were constitutionally valid.

    The statute requires the State Engineer
    to find that an export of water
    "is not contrary to the conservation of
    water within the state and is not
    otherwise detrimental to the public
    welfare of the citizens of New Mexico"
    before he may approval such an application.
    The statute also directs the
    State Engineer to consider six
    additional factors: 1) the supply of
    water
    available to the State of New Mexico; 2)
    water demands of the State of New
    Mexico; 3) whether there are water
    shortages within the State of New
    Mexico;
    4) whether the water that is the subject
    of the application could feasibly be
    transported to alleviate water shortages
    in the State of New Mexico; 5) the
    supply and sources of water available to
    the applicant in the state where
    the applicant intends to use the water;
    and 6) the demands placed on the
    applicant's supply in the state where
    the applicant intends to use the water.

    The Court ruled that any constitutional
    challenge to these provisions must
    await application of the statute. El
    Paso had claimed that this law facially
    discriminated against water exportation on several grounds.

    New Mexico law regulating in-state and
    out-of-state use of New Mexico
    groundwater requires that both such uses
    "not be contrary to conservation
    of water within the state" and "not
    detrimental to the public welfare of the
    state." Both in-state and out-of-state
    uses, then, appear to be regulated
    evenhandedly. El Paso, however, claimed
    that this evenhandedness was
    superficial, because for in-state uses
    these criteria were meaningless.
    The Court, while allowing that New
    Mexico's past groundwater practices have
    considered all uses equally beneficial
    and have not displayed much concern
    for conservation, found that it could
    not now conclude that the conservation
    and public welfare criteria as applied
    to in-state uses were on their face
    meaningless; in any case, the statute on
    its face did not direct the State
    Engineer to apply them differently to
    out-of-state uses.

    I

    I

    I
    t
    i
    i
    i

    I
    I
    Peter McAvoy
    October 1, 1984
    Page 2

    El Paso also argued that the public welfare and conservation criteria
    exercised i-n the intere-st of New Mexicans we-re i-ntrinsically discriminatory.
    The Court, however, pointed out at length that the Sporhase decision granted
    states a limited preference for their owa citizens to protect their citizens
    from water shortages. 'The Court noted that 'when the State exercises a
    prefe rence for its citizens under the rubric Qf protecting their public
    welfare and economic interests are implicated, the resulting burden on
    interstate commerce must be weighed against the putative, noneconomic local
    benefits." 'Furthermore, "public welfare" could not be simply equated with
    'human survival," and states must be permitted to prefer local usage while
    there is-still water to conserve.

    The six factors that the law requires the State Engineer to consider when
    acting uponL an application ta export groundwater are not applied to ina-state
    uses of groundwater. El Paso charged that this was facial discrimination
    violating the Commerce Clause. The Court ruled that each of the six factors
    helped to determine whether the burdens on commerce Imposed by state
    regulatory decisions were reasonable or unreasonable, and thus consideration
    of these factors did not impermissibly discriminate against interstate
    commerce.

    The Court did rule that the section of the statute requiring that the
    conservation and public welfare criteria and the six factors be applied to
    applications for interstate transfers of existing water rights was
    unconstitutional, because the statute did not require that these criteria and
    factors also be applied to intrastate transfers. In addition, the Court
    struck down as u-nconstitutional a two-year moratorium that the legislature had
    passed on grantiug new appropriations of gToundwater from the aquifers of
    interest in this case.

    There has been no decision yet by either plaintiff or defendant as to whether
    or not to appeal the decision. Also, administrative hearings on El Paso's
    application could take years, and provisions of New Mexico's statute could be
    challenged as applied to specific administrative decisions.

    Analysis

    Judge Bratton's ruling faithfully applied the lessons of Sporhase v. Nebraska
    to the New Mexico groundwater export law. The significance of the El Paso v.
    Reynolds decision is tentative pending appeal to the Supreme Court, but if
    final disposition of the case is the same, then the New Mexico law would serve
    as an example of what individual states can and cannot do under the Court's
    current formulation of water management rights.

    El Paso tried to show that New Mexico's statutory conce-rns for public welfare
    and conservation were just smokescreens for discriminatory practices. The
    Court* however,, upheld the facial legitimacy of these broad criteria. The
    Court also attempted to define to some degree a state's "limited preference'
    for its own citizens' use of available water: Anticipation that there will
    not be enoukh water to meet all future uses is not grounds enough to exercise

    Peter McAvoy
    October 1, 1984
    Page 3

    this preference; on the other hand, 'a state need not wait until a water
    shortage becomes dire. New Mexico's six factors assessing water needs and
    available supply both in New Mexico and in the importing state were also found
    not to be discriminatory.

    The Great Lakes Charter proposes water withdrawal legislation that, like
    the New Mexico statute but with more specific language, would contain public
    welfare and conservation criteria and require consideration of needs and
    supplies in both the exporting area and the importing area. The Great Lakes
    Charter, of course, focuses on the water basin rather than on the state as its
    basic unit of concern; this resource-based approach is expected to further
    bolster future state and provincial legislation against a constitutional
    challenge. It implicitly treats out-of-region and within-region diversions
    evenhandedly.

    One of the Charter's criteria to limit interbasin diversions may be vulnerable
    to eventual challenge by an out-of-region applicant if all of Judge Bratton's
    ruling holds up. This criterion is that a water diversion will not impair the
    ability of the Great Lakes Basin to meet its own "present and future needs."
    "Future needs" may be challenged as too broad and extensive a consideration on
    which to deny a water diversion, at least when measured against a burden on
    interstate commerce.
    t

    I
    I

    I
    I
    i
    1
    !
    I
    !
    i
    i
    _

    i
    I

    I
    1
    4

    i

    i
    i

    i
    i
    I

    I

    i
    I

    I

    I

    iI

    i
    JC:ry/0471u

    (A D-75)

    S
    T
    A
    T
    E

    O
    F

    W
    I
    S
    C
    O
    N
    S
    I
    N

    Date:           1985                               File Ref:

    "' To:
    1Bill Brah

    From: b Halstead

    Subject:
    Progress Report, Coal Transportation Project, October 1, 1984 -
    March 31, 1985

    1. Update of 1982 Coal Transportation Report

    a. Completed revision/update of data
    on 1983 -receipts and shipments.

    b. Began collection of data on 1984
    shipmentzs and deliveries.

    c. Continued monitoring industry
    plans and legislative developments
    affecting Great Lakes coal
    transportation.

    2.  Coal Slurry Pipeline Water Diversion
    and Water Quality Issues

    a.  Continued research on direct
    combugtion of coal water mixtures,
    which
    would reduce the need for
    precombustion dewatering and
    consequently
    reduce the volume of residual
    water which might be discharged.

    b. Continued to monitor development
    of alternative coal slurry carriage
    media, which would reduce the
    need to use water for slurrying.

    c.  Continued to monitor efforts by
    slurry pipeline industry and
    supporters to obtain federal
    and/or state eminent domain
    authority
    for slurry pipelines.

    3.  Potential Hydrocarbon Exploration on the
    Great Lakes

    a.  Monitored oil and gas exploration
    activities in northern Wisconsin,
    including coastal counties along
    Lake Superior.

    b. Began research on previous oil and
    natural gas exploration activities
    in the Great Lakes area.

    4.  Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Reduction
    Cost Study

    a.  Continued to generally provide
    Coastal Management perspective to
    Division of State Energy
    component of the inter-agency
    study.

    b. Identified alternative coal
    purchasing and handling arrangements
    for
    lakeside power plants which
    should be evaluated in utility
    compliance
    plans.

    i
    -i:       Bill Brah
    May 8, 1985

    c. Assisted in development of letter to coal mining companies for survey
    of low sulfur coal prices and availability.

    d.  Assisted in the development of rail, barge, and lake transportation
    cost elements, and in development of transportation cost model to
    determine delivered cost of coal to specific Wisconsin coal users.

    e. Participated in meetings with coal industry and utility
    representatives.

    BH:-ry/2400u

    0!

    -- i                                           :- ~ ' ~ --

    .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    STATE Of WISCONSIN

    Qate: File Ref:
    V           May 14, 1985
    To:
    Coastal Staff
    Tanace Matthiesen(
    From:
    Sheboygan Harbor Dredged Material Disposal Meeting

    Sub/ect:
    The purpose of the meeting was to discuss possible courses of
    action for disposal of a portion of the Sheboygan Harbor.

    Background Information
    The Sheboygan Harbor dredging activities have been divided
    into 3 segments:
    1)  Dredging  of- the  cleanest  of  the  three  areas,   with
    deposition of the dredged material as beach nourishment
    This dredging is scheduled to take place this summer.

    2) Dredging of the sediments near C. Reiss coal dock. These
    sediments were the subject of the meeting on May 8th.
    These sediments were recently found to contain moderate
    levels of PCB. (Oppm < sediments > 50ppm). These sediments
    had been scheduled to be dredged during the summer of 1986.
    3)  'The  most  highly contaminated  material.  There  will be no
    'definite plans for the dredging or disposal of these
    sediments until EPA decides whether or not to include the
    Sheboygan harbor on the Federal Superfund list. This
    decision should be made by the end of July.
    This meeting was held to discuss disposal options for dredged
    material	that	was recently found to be contaminated	with	PCBs
    between	0  and	50  ppm.   Before  the  discovery  of	the	PCB
    contamination, it was planned that the material would be disposed
    of  in  a  planned  industiral park in  Sheboygan.   Due  to  the
    discovery of the PCBs, the representatives of the City of
    Sheboygan were concerned about :
    1)  Whether  the  material could still be  deposited  at  the
    industrial park,
    2)    What  the  liability  would be to  the  city  of  having
    contaminated material on city-owned land, and
    3)    Whether the contaminated material would deter businesses
    from locating in the industrial park.
    Ip~                                          I                                I1
    AD-75

    The DNR representatives stated that the material could still be
    I    ~depasi'ted in the industrial park (Since it  is below 50pprn, it is
    not considered hazardous waste.). However, it would have to be
    1) Above the groundwater table,
    2) Lined, and
    3) Capped and protected from erosion.
    Deed notices would also be required for the sale of any land in
    the industrial park, to inform tbe.purchaser of the presence of
    PCB-contaminated material. There would also be restrictions on
    any  construction  on  the  site,   due  to  the  potential   for
    disturbance of the contaminated material.
    The City representatives were reluctant to continue with the
    planned industrial park site.

    Frank Trcka from the DNR asked if the Wisconsin Power and Light
    (WP&L) Edgewater #5 fly-ash disposal site had been considered.

    The  disposal site has some favorable characteristics.   It is an
    %NR 180' approved site (DNR approved solid waste site), the WP&L
    plant has a direct relationship to the C. Reiss coal dock, the
    plant operators seem to be sensitive .to the community#, and
    it is only 5 miles from the harbor (A distance which seemed
    *     ~acceptable to the Corps of Engineers).
    Howeverg it was mehtioned that there may be some problems due to
    mixing with the fly ash. There is also the question of WP&L's
    liability in this situation.
    The responsibilities of the City and the Corps were discussed. If
    the WP&L site is used, the City would have to pay for any
    financlal arrangement worked out with WP&L (rental of space,
    etc.). If the site is acceptable to the Corps, the Corps will pay
    for transportation of the material to the site and any necessary
    engineering of the WP&L site.
    Representatives from the Corps, the DNR, the City of Sheboygan,
    the EPA, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service agreed that the
    Edgewater #5 site should be considered further. There were no
    representatives from WP&L at the meeting, so the discussion could
    not  be carried any further.   The City of Sheboygan will contact
    WP&L.
    ~Another potential disposal site that was discussed is the Meta-
    Bock property. This land is 3 miles further South west of the
    Edgewater 45 site. It is being considered as a site for the
    county landfill. The entire site is 265 acres, therfore there
    would be room for dredge material disposal regardless of whether
    the County decides to use it for a landfill. One drawback to this
    site is that it is only in the planning stage.
    other issues which were discussed at the meeting:
    2

    The potential- for a confined disposal facility in Sheboygan
    harbor  was  brought  up  by  the  City  representatives.    This
    particular dredging situation does not involve ,enough material
    for a CDP. However, the City wondered whether a CDF might be part
    of   long   term  clean-up  plans  for  the   harbor.   The	EPA
    -	~representative  stated  that  a  CDF  is  unlikely,  due  to	the
    -	~contamination of the material.
    Mr. Voelkel, Chairperson of the Sheboygan -Water Quality Task
    Force, asked for specific contamination limits for various types
    of disposal. The response he received was that disposal decisions
    1-have to be made on a site-by-site basis, and no across-the-board
    contamination limits are used.   Mr.  Voelkel asked this question
    sev-eral times.
    'The dredging of the cleanest segment of the harbor is sch-eduled
    for this summer. The public comment period -for the Wisconsin
    Pollution-Discharge Elimination System permit is underway. If no
    adverse comments are received, the Corps will spend.approximately
    1 month advertising for a contractor. The work will then be
    completed with the material deposited as beach nourishment.
    There was some discussion concerning alternatives for the highly
    polluted  material.   The EPA stated that a good portion  of  the
    material in the area of the highly polluted material is not above
    * - 50 ppm. Therefore, this material could potentially be disposed
    of separately from t~he small amount of material which is over 50
    ppm. The Corps stated that there could be some problems in the
    area of highly polluted material if the highly polluted material
    is below the authorized project depth.
    The US Fish and Wildlife Service is currently developing a bio-
    assessmient technique, which may be useful in determining future
    disposal1 alternatives.

    Mr. Voelkel questioned me after the meeting regarding Coastal
    Management Council priorities and the potential for Sheboygan
    Task  Force  fun ding.  He  stated  that he had  talked  to  Susan
    Mathews,, who indicated that the Council's priorities were in the
    area of low cost construction and NOT in planning. Mr. Voelkel
    was concerned that we were shifting our priorities away from
    planning and toward actual construction.
    I told Mr. Voelkel that we would still probably be doing a dredge
    disposal planning project, but I told him the proj-ect was in a
    preliminary stage and the details had not been worked out. I also
    indicated to Mr. Voelkel that we would not be duplicating the
    efforts of the Harbor Assistance Program, as he feared, because
    we  would  carefully screen projects for other  possible  funding
    *    ~sources.
    Mr. Voelkel is also concerned that the state agencies show
    support for the Sheboygan Water Quality Task Force.   He believes
    that the Task Force will dissolve if they are not helped.
    3

    -11

    :1

    _6::
    Overall, the tone of the meeting was congenial. All of the
    agencies seemed very concerned about Sheboygan's problem and
    willing to cooperate as much as possible.
    Future Action:

    The City will approach WP&L about the,feasibilty of the Edgewater
    15 site. The Corps is going to determine the economic viability
    of the Edgewater #5 site. The DNR is going to put in writing any
    restrictions which would be placed on the industrial park site.
    The EPA is going to try to decide whether confined disposal
    facilities can accept material with greater than 50 ppm PCB
    concentration, and they are going to work on alternatives for
    disposal if the Superfund nomination falls through.

    :_4
    . I
    'I -

    .  -  -       C  ~

    C~~~~~~~~~~

    V  \ .~~~~~~

    : 0
    4

    PROJECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MANAGER:
    Admiriistr at ion
    OOA!Entrov & Coastal Nanaaeqent
    Rov Christianson	CONTRACT NUMBERi:
    953.
    101 S, Webster	PURCHASE ORDER NO:
    P.O. Box 7864	PROJECT NUMBER:
    146-726
    Madison. WI 53707-7864
    CURRENT AS OF:    MAR
    31 85
    FROG. REPORT DUE:
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    58B5
    CATEGORY            INVOICE    YTD    BUDGET
    YTD/BUDGET
    REIMBURSABLE
    COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL
    2. FRENGES
    3. CONTRACTS
    4. EQUIPMENT
    5. SUPPLIES
    6. TRAVEL
    7.
    TELECOMMUNICATION
    ENTAL f'MA.~ I:
    NTEtANCE
    *RiNTING
    i0.OTHER
    11 INDIRECT
    49068.34
    115700.00
    11255.03
    	30000.
    00
    8935.9
    	5000.0
    0
    0,04)	50.00
    259.71	I6000)
    5408. 94
    	10700.
    00
    2186.48
    	2700.0
    0
    49.90
    	2850.0
    0
    108.06
    	5000.0
    0
    20883.05
    	18850.
    00
    4632 44	12-
    050z00
    0I,42
    0,3
    8
    !77

    Ci.
    43
    0i.
    51
    0.8
    1
    I.
    02
    0.0
    2
    1.
    11
    0.
    38
    SLIDTOTA
    L-3
    102687.92
    203500.00

    For WCMP Staff Use
    Project Number:;,

    File Number:

    Oet Receiveld:
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    oject Summary

    -CM-2 (Rev. 12179c

    Project Title:	Agenvcy or Government and Addres:
    BCM-Technical Assistance	Bureau of Coastal Management
    Department of Administration
    101 S. Webster St., 8th Fl.
    Project Duration:  IZ                            P.O. Box 7864
    mQnrhs
    Madison, WI 53707
    Project Type:                                  Principal Staff Contact:	JTel.hone Number
    Roy Christianson	66-7257

    C invrovt SCA Manemient SCA #Peron authorized to receive funds:	Telehon Number
    0LJ~~~~~~ fmsewSA M      SCADoris Hanson
    a Imndmnant State Law
    DElosrt                                   Signature of Pernon authorized to receive funds:
    [] Deeomrntreton
    K~ ~Adminiatration
    Other:

    BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
    To provide budget flexibility to meet short-term immediate needs not foreseen at the time
    of budget preparation.

    WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH IMAJOR OBJECTIVES)?
    The availability of pooled funds will provide:
     (a) short term, timely technical, legal and issue analysis;
    (b) short term, legal analysis related to SCA's and WCMP amendments
    (c) short term graphics or drafting capabilities;

    WHAT WILL BE THE SPECIFIC END PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    The end products will be written reports, memoranda or graphics. The WCMP will
    obtain OOCRM's prior approval for any activity funded over $10,000.

    HOW WILL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST?:
    Based on past experience it is often necessary to provide the Council timely analysis on
    technical issues beyond staff capabilities which are short term in nature and not foreseen
    at the time of budget preparation.  Secondly, many projects are highly dependent on the
    summer season and early start up of those will produce more useful outputs.

    1UDGET SUMMARY                                           TOTAL COST                            _              J

    PROJECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACT5OR:
    PROJECT
    MANAGER:
    Technical Agsistance
    DOA/Energy & Coastal Management
    Roy Christianson	CONTRACT NUMBER:
    853.2
    101 S. Webster	PURCHASE ORDER NO:
    P,O. Box 7864	PROJECT NUMnER:
    146-726
    Madison. WI   53707-7864
    CURRENT AS OF:    MAR
    31 85
    PROE, REPORT
    DUE:
    FINAL REPORT
    DUE:
    CATEGORY            INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET
    YTD!/BUDSET

    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	0,00
    2. FRINGES	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS       11296.50 11296.50 16310,00
    0S69
    4. EQUIPMENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0,00
    7. PRINTING	0.00
    8. OTHER	0.00
    9, INDIRECT	0.00

    SUBTOTALS       11296.50 11296.50 16.10.00
    0.69

    CMP REIMBURSEMENT:
    LOCAL MATCH:

    7:     '      . 1
    --  PROJECT TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MlANAGER:
    Techniral
    Assistance
    [IEX
    Ellen Fisher
    Environ Resaurces
    Ctr.
    216 Ag Hall-1450 Linden
    Nadison, XI   53706
    CONTRACT XWBER:  85004-
    853.21
    PURCHASE ORDER NOg: ADE-
    00452
    Dr PROJECT -NUMSER:   146-726
    CURRENT AS
    OF:

    CATEGORY
    FROG. REPORT DUE: JAN
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: MAR
    1 85

    INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET   YTD/BUDGET
    ---"'-'-------------"--"------^------
    ----------------------------------------
    REINDURSABLE
    COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL
    2. FRINGES
    CONTRACTS
    EgUIPNENT
    SUPPLiES
    6. TRAVEL
    7. PRINTING
    8. OTHER
    9. INDIRECT
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    2000.00
    0.00
    SUBTOTA
    LS
    0.00     0.00
    2000.00
    0.00
    CNP
    REIMBURSEMENT:
    LOCAL lIATCH:

    &

    2f-PROJECT TITLE:
    I -CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    IANAGER:
    Great Lakes Storage Dockwall 1 Dredging
    City of Superior
    Nayar Bruce Hagen	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    853.22
    1407 Hatamnd Ave.	PURCHASE ORDER NO: ADE-
    00024
    Superior, WI   54880	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    CURRENT AS OF:  KlAY 8
    85
    PROG, REPORT
    DUE:
    FINAL REPORT
    DUE:
    INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET
    YTD/BUDGET
    CATE6OR
    Y
    RE19BURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	995.00 1995	.00	1995.00	1.00
    2. FRINGES	598.00	598.00	598.00	1.00
    3. CONTRAIC'TS	8100.00 15000.00 15000.00	1.00
    4. EQUIPNENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL           1000.00	1000.00  1000.00      1.00
    7. PRINTING	0.00
    8. OTHER	0.00
    9. INDIRECT	0.00
    I
    SUBTOTAL
    S
    11693.00 18593.00
    18593.00
    1.00
    --  CNP REINBURSEMENT: 5846.50
    	9296.5
    0
    LOCAL MATCH:       5846.50
    	9296.5
    0

    PROjECT
    TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MANAGER:

    CURRENT AS OF:

    CATEG6RY
    Cantractual
    DOA/Eneroy & Caastal Manaoefhent
    Roy Christianson	CONTRACT NUMBER:  85004-
    853.3
    101 S. Webster St.	PURCHASE ORDER NO:
    P.O. BG   7864	PROJECT NUMBER:   146-
    726
    Vadison, WI   53707-7864
    MAR 31 85

    INVOICE    YTD
    BUDGET
    PROS. REPORT DUE: JAN
    5 85
    FINAL REPORT DUE: SEPT
    5 85

    YTO!BRUDGET
    REIMBURSABLE COSTS
    1. PERSONNEL	0.00
    2. FRINGES	0.00
    3. CONTRACTS                20000.00 41200.00
    0149
    4. EDUIPMENT	0.00
    5. SUPPLIES	0.00
    6. TRAVEL	0.00
    7. PRINTING	0.00
    .  THER	0.00
    NDIRECT	0.00
    SUBTGTT
    ALS
    T000 20000.00
    41200.00
    0. 47

    I*

    For WCMP Staff Use
    Project Number:  f        -

    File Number:

    Date Recived:
    Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
    wroject Summary

    -CIA-2 (Rea. 12/79)
    Project Title:                              Ag   or Go_r *en an  Add
    - sreau orT C'oasLa�L anagement
    Logistical Support for the Wisconsin         Department of Administration
    Department of Administration
    Coastal Management Council and Committees	101 S. Webster St., bth Fl.
    Project Duretion:  12	Madison, WI  53702
    monthi

    Project Type:                               Principal Staff Contact:	Telohone Numor
    Roy Christianson	1266-7257
    Person *4thorized to receive funds:	Telephon Number
    7Imlemen StCA Managrnnt SCA #             Doris Hanson
    O Implmont Suto Lew
    C- impiament State Law Signature of Person authorized to receive funds:
    -Oe1  onttration
    CZ Other:  Administration

    BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
    The Coastal Management Council will hold, at a minimum, four regular meetings located in
    Madison, the Milwaukee area, the Green Bay-North Lake Michigan area, and the Lake Superior
    region. The thirteen mrembers do not receive per diem but are compensated for their travel
    and necessary expenses to attend the mreetings.

    WHAT DO YOU WANT THE PROJECT TO ACCOMPLISH IMAJOR OBJECTIVES)?

    ttendance of Council members at regular and committee mreetings.

    WHAT WILL BE THE SPECIFIC END PRODUCTS OF THE PROJECT?
    The end product of this project is nmember's attendance.

    Their attendance, however, provides the program with direction and policy formulation.
    HOW WI LL THE PROJECT IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF WISCONSIN'S COAST7:
    As described in the WCMP docurent, the organization for implementation consists of a
    decision-making Council, appointed by the Governor and established pursuant to Executive
    Order No. 49 and current Executive Order No. 62.  The Council is mc3ant to be highly visible
    and accessible to the interested public to ensure a responsive and accountable organization.
    One technique used by the Council to assure accessibility is to hold meetings in coastal local(
    X(  d at the state capitol.  The Council uses the Committee structure to evaluate issues before

    BUDGET SUMMARY                                  TOTAL COST S  8,000.00

    PROJECT TITLE:
    CONTRACTOR:
    PROJECT
    MANAGER:

    CURRENT AS
    OFG

    CATEGORY
    Council Louistics
    DOA!Energy & Coastal Mananement
    Rplv Christianson	CONTRACT NUMBER:
    854.1
    101 S. Webster	PURCIAP.SE ORDER
    NO:
    P,O. Bug 7864	PROJECT NUMBER:
    Madison, WI 513707-7864
    MAR! 31
    855
    MPROG. REPORT
    DUE:
    FINAL REPORT
    DUE:
    INVOICE    YTD   BUDGET
    YTD/BUDGET
    ----------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------
    REIMBURSABLE
    COSTS
    I. PERSONNEL
    2. FRINGES
    3. CONTRACTS
    4. EUUIPMENT
    5. SUPPLIES
    6l. TRAVEL
    7. PRINTiNG
    a OTHER
    NDIRECT
    0.00

    0. 00
    0.00
    0. -
    00

    0. 00
    0.009
    (
    0. 00
    80,00. 0
    0.22
    SIIBTDTA
    LS
    TL00  1786.39  800.00
    0  222