[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