Wisconsin Coastal Management Program amendments, 1978 draft for public review

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

Coastal Zone .. a: ;
Information rB l , .
Center

WISCONSIN
COASTAL MANAGEMENT
-t' PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
1978

DRAFT
FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW

July 1978

Q _
a *

9 38 WISCONSIN
.C6
W57COASTAL M A AGEME
1 978 COASTAL MVIA NAGEM~E NT

WISCONSIN

COASTAL MANAGEMENT

PROGRAM AMENDMENTS

1978

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
DRAFT CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413
FOR
PUBLIC REVIEW

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Office of State Planning & Energy
Department of Administration

JULY 1978

The preparation of this report was financed in part
through a Program Development Grant under the Coastal
Zone Management Act, administered by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

Property of CSC Library

WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM AMENDMENTS
1978

Table of Contents

Page No.

Request for Comments ........................................ i

Summary of the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program .......................................... iii

I. Chapter 305(b)(7): Shorefront Access
and Protection Planning .....................................

II. Chapter 305(b)(8): Energy Facility
Planning Process ............................................4

III. Chapter 305(b)(9): Shore Erosion/
Mitigation Planning Process ................................. 112

IV. Amendments to the State of Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program and Final
Environmental Impact Statement .............................. 137

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

Draft 1978 Amendments Report to

the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council requests public review and
comment of the Draft 1978 Amendments to the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program. The Council will consider public comments before submittal of
the 1978 Amendments to the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

The U.S. Department of Commerce formally approved the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program on May 22, 1978. Pursuant to Congressional amendments
in 1976 to the Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583, coastal states
must amend their programs by October 1, 1978, to adequately consider
Shorefront Access and Protection, Energy Facility Planning and Shoreline
Erosion. These are Sections 305 (b) (7), (8) and (9) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act as amended. The requirements for these amendments
are explained in the Federal Register of March 1, 1978, 15 CFR 923.25,
.14 and .26 respectively. The draft report on the amendments also
explains the federal requirements.

Comments on these Draft 1978 Amendments have been requested from the
same Federal, State and local agencies and other interested individuals
who received the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program for review during
the fall 1977 and winter 1978.

Public hearing on the Draft Amendments will be held by the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program at:

Senate Hearing Room 421 South
State Capitol
Madison, Wisconsin

on Monday, August 21, 1978
from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.

The thirty day review period and the formal hearing record period will
close on August 22, 1978. Please submit written comments to the following
address. Additional copies of the Draft 1978 Amendments Report are
available from:

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Attn: Allen H. Miller, Program Manager
Room B-130
1 West Wilson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
Phone: 608/266-3687

Copies of the Draft 1978 Amendments to the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program were distributed to:

Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
State document library centers
Coastal local public libraries
Legislative Reference Bureau
Wisconsin Congressional Delegation
Wisconsin Local Officials in Coastal Counties:
County Board Chairmen
Mayors
Village Presidents
Town Chairmen
Tribal Chairmen
Members of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council and Citizens
Advisory Committee
Members of the Coastal Regional Task Forces
Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission
Northwest Regional Planning Commission
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Coastal County Planning Commission
State Agency Heads and WCMP Working Contacts
National and State Special Interest Groups including port directors
Federal Agency Heads and WCMP Working Contacts
Great Lakes Coastal Management Program Managers

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program was reviewed under the National
and Wisconsin Environmental Policy Acts (NEPA and WEPA) in fall 1977-
winter 1978. Amendments to approved state coastal management programs
must also comply with NEPA. The determination of whether an environmental
impact statement is needed will be made by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management, NOAA, after the submittal due date of October 1, 1978. The
basis of the decision will be whether these amendments will result in
significantly different environmental impacts from those of the already
approved management program. Comments on the need for an environmental
impact statement on these amendments are also welcomed.

SUMMARY OF THE WISCONSIN

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM*

Wisconsin borders two of the largest bodies of freshwater in the world-
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. The 620 miles of shoreline and the
6.5 million acres of Great Lakes in the state carry not only advantages,
but responsibilities and problems as well.

* ~~The coastal issues facing citizens and their state and local government
are many and diverse:

- Water quality - Lake level regulation
- Shore erosion - Great Lakes fisheries
- Protection of - Urban shore uses
natural areas - Economic development
- Public recreational - Power plant siting
access - Shoreland blight
- Port development - Air quality

The Great Lakes are important to all Wisconsin citizens. The 43% of the
state's population that lives in counties adjacent to the Great Lakes
especially looks to them for food, fresh water, transportation, industry,
jobs, and recreation.

WISCONSIN'S NEW FOCUS ON ITS COASTAL AREAS

The assistance provided under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act has
enabled the State of Wisconsin to direct its attention in a comprehensive
and coordinated manner towards its coastal areas. The Wisconsin coastlines
contain some of the most valuable resources of the state and some of its
most severe problems.

While Wisconsin has a long historical commitment to the proper use of its
resources, which is reflected in both strong legislation and judicial
opinions, no single state or local group looked at the coasts and the
Great Lakes and provided a clear overall policy direction for their future.
No existing agency coordinated the many programs which address the Great
Lakes coastal problems.

Now as a result of the development of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
over a three year period of extensive public involvement, there are new specific
policies and goals of the state which focus on the coastal areas. There is a
new organizational structure designed to coordinate and administer the state
program objectives. Also, there are added capabilities for improving program
enforcement, implementation, and management. These new major features are
outlined below.

*Pages 8-14 of the State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final
Environmental Impact Statement.

COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM

1. Objectives & Policies

The Coastal Management Program is based on the following concepts:

o The Great Lakes are a major local, state and Federal resource
o improved management coordination are the most important needs
o Existing laws provide adequate state authority to manage the
resource
o No new regulatory agency is needed

The overall goal of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program is:.

To preserve, protect, develop and where possible, to
restore or enhance the resources of Wisconsin's coastal
area for this and succeeding generations, with govern-
mental coordination and public involvement, giving due
consideration to the linkages and impacts to resources
of inland areas.

a. Five objectives are proposed for the program:

o To improve the implementation and enforcement of
existing state regulatory and management policies
and programs affecting key coastal uses and areas;
o To improve the coordination of existing policies and
activities of governmental units and planning agencies
on matters affecting key coastal uses and areas;
o To strengthen local governmental capabilities to initiate
and continue effective coastal management consistent with
identified state standards and criteria;
o To provide a strong voice to advocate the wise and
balanced use of the coastal environment and the recogni-
tion in Federal, state, and local policies of the unique-
ness of the coastal environment;
o To increase public awareness and opportunity for citizens
to participate in decisions affecting the Great Lakes resources.

b. Policies of the Program

On October 7, 1977, the Governor of Wisconsin signed Executive Order No. 49
(Attachment I). The Order formally established several critical elements
of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program; with respect to programmatic
policies the Governor directed that the Wisconsin coastal program will
initially concentrate on seven major areas. They are:

o Improve the quality and management of the air and water resources
of the coastal areas;
o Conserve and enhance the natural land and water resources;
o Mitigate property damage and risks to public health and safety
caused from erosion and flooding;
o Ensure the orderly and balanced development of coastal communities;
o Stimulate desirable economic development that broadens the coastal
area economy and to encourage the designation and reservation of
areas of significance to activities requiring a coastal location;

o Ensure intergovernmental communication, cooperation and
coordination in all aspects of coastal management;
o Provide citizens with full opportunities for early and
continuous involvement in coastal management through
effective communication and participation.

2. Organization and Management Structure

The recently signed Executive Order also formally sets in place integral
features of the Wisconsin coastal program's organization and management
structure.

a. The creation of a new Coastal Management Council

The establishment of the Council was for the purpose of having
a state level group make basic coastal program decisions and to
provide for a balance and coordination of many diverse state
interests. The 29-member Coastal Management Council will be
composed of:

- State legislators - Tribal governments
- Local officials - State agency representatives
- Citizens - University of Wisconsin
representatives

The Coastal Management Council will perform the specific functions of:

o Oversight of state agency implementation and compliance
o Policy development and recommendation of state coastal goals
o Designation of key coastal areas and uses
o Assurance of consideration of national interest
o Serve as an interagency conflict resolution forum
o Oversight of financial assistance
o Oversight of demonstration grant program
o Oversight of technical assistance
o Continued coastal advocacy and public education
o Coordination of all above functions
o Approval of program budget
o Approval of Coastal Management Program and periodic revisions

All state agencies, while being consistent with their statutory
responsibilities, are now required as a result of the Executive Order
to cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the Coastal Management
Council and act consistently with adopted state coastal policies.

b. Creation of a new Citizens Advisory Committee

Executive Order No. 49 provides the authority for the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Council to establish a Citizens Advisory Committee. The
Committee, composed of 27 members, will be a separate, independently-staffed

entity, with representation from a variety of coastal interests
along the entire shoreline. Specific areas of concern for this
group include monitoring initial implementation of the program
and public education and participation.

The rolesof the Council and the Committee will be annually evaluated
to assess their continued value and need.

C. Designation of a Lead Agency

The Wisconsin Office of State Planning and Energy, Department of
Administration, has been designated by the Governor to be the lead
agency for the implementation of the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program. It will also be the agency to receive and administer grants
for the program, and it will act as staff to the Council.

3. Implementation

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program has developed several techniques
to ensure that the program's objectives and policies are implemented.
Among the wide array of implementing mechanisms are the following:

a. Strong Legislative Mandate

The foremost factor in the state's capability of implementing its
coastal management program is the strong statutory authority which
presently exists in the state and upon which the program's-goals
and policies rest. Thirty existing statutory mandates are incorporated
into the program in order to manage uses subject to the program. Major
examples of these legislative enactments are,

o 959.971 - Wisconsin Water Resources Development Act, which
requires the adoption of local shoreland regulations
in unincorporated areas of the state in accordance
with state standards
Chap. 147 - The Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System
which adopts and enforces the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972
o Chap. 144 - State legislation which establishes among other
things state regulatory authority for air and water
quality, septic systems, garbage and refuse disposal,
metallic mining, and solid waste disposal
o Chaps. - State legislation which regulates the placement of
30-31 structures and deposits in navigable waters and
shoreline alterations
o 914.011 &- Which broadly outline the executive authority of
16.54 the Governor
o Chaps. - Involve state authority for administration and regula-
84-86 tion of highway construction, access, maintenance, etc.

o Chap. 236 - Imposes state standards and review of subdivision
and platting of lands in Wisconsin

In order to implement the program's objective and policies, the
following elements will, as a result of the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program, provide effective coordination and improved
enforceability of the above statutory authority and other relevant
legislative enactments.

b. Executive Order No. 49

The Governor of Wisconsin has the responsibility of executing the
laws of the state. Through the issuance of the Executive Order the
Governor has directed that all state agencies comply with the seven
state coastal policies all of which have statutory basis.

C. Interagency Agreements

The interagency agreements between the Coastal Council, the lead
state agency and the various state agencies that will be carrying
out significant responsibilities in the coastal area serve to further
delineate the responsibilities of the agencies under the Wisconsin
Program. The agreements tie together procedurally the respective
state agency's statutory authority, the policies of the coastal
management program and the mechanics of its implementation. The
Coastal Management Council and the lead state agency have entered
into separate agreements with the Department of Natural Resources,
Department of Transportation and the Public Service Commission. In
all cases the agreements include a requirement that the agency consider
the national interest in the planning and siting of facilities of
greater than local concern. The agreements are in Attachment I.

d. The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council

The functions of the Council with respect to program implementation
have been outlined above under organization and management structure 2.a.

e. Increased Monitoring Capability

As a result of financial assistance provided through the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program to the state DNR it will:

- have an increased capability to review amendments, variances,
and special exceptions to the local shoreland ordinances to
assure that they continue to be in compliance with the policies
of the program;

- have greater capability in monitoring and enforcing DNR permit
requirements.

The tracking mechanisms supplied by the interagency agreements will
facilitate the monitoring of compliance with adopted policies by the
Council and the lead agency.

vii

As a result of the development of concise state coastal policies,
those reviewers using existing review processes (e.g., A-95,
NEPA, WEPA) will have a clearer benchmark to evaluate projected
activities within or impacting on the coastal area.

f. Geographic Area of Management Concern (GAMC)

The Coastal Management Program includes a process for identifying
and designating key areas and for providing program funding to
improve their management. As a condition for designation the
GAMC must be managed in accordance with state coastal management
policies including those sectors of incorporated areas of the state
that have been nominated by the local government and designated by
the Council.

g. Consistency with the Wisconsin Program

With the implementation of the proposed Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program the various levels of government will be expected to carry
out certain actions in accordance with the policies of the program.

(1.) Local level

o In unincorporated areas, counties are required to meet the
provisions of the Wisconsin Water Resources Development Act
and implement the state regulations. These local ordinances
are a part of the proposed management program for Wisconsin.
All amendments, variances, and special exceptions are subject
to review and approval by the DNR. As a result of directives
of Executive Order No. 49 the DNR must insure in its review
of proposed changes to the ordinances that the changes are
in compliance with the state coastal management policies.
o The GAMG process is another method for achieving local action
consistency with the program. All sites and work programs
nominated by local government and designated by the Council
must be consistent with overall program policies including
those located within incorporated areas.
o All program "managed uses" apply throughout the coastal area
including incorporated areas.
o Once the Wisconsin Public Service Commission issues a
certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, under the
Power Plant Siting Act, local governments may not exclude
the approved utility activities for that site.

(2.) State level

Consistency of state agency actions will be effectuated through
six processes:

o Since the coastal management policies enumerated in Executive
Order No. 49 are based on state law, violations of coastal
policies would also be a statutory violation, thereby making
available the administrative and judicial remedies discussed
below;

viii

o The Executive Order additionally directs that they act in
accordance with the coastal policies;
o The interagency agreement structure;
o The Council's review and monitoring procedures which will
rely in part on the A-95, NEPA and WEPA processes;
o The GAMC designation and funding processes;
o Financial and technical assistance to achieve coordination
and consistency.

(3.) Federal level

Consistency of Federal actions with the Wisconsin Program will
be monitored through:

o The A-95, WEPA, and NEPA processes for Federal activities
(including development projects) and Federal assistance to
state and local governments affecting the coastal zone and;
o Review of consistency certifications submitted by applicants
(excluding Federal agency applicants) for Federal permits and
licenses directly affecting the coastal zone.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council will serve as the lead
agency for coordinating the state' s review of these Federal actions.

The criteria which Wisconsin will use in evaluating Federal actions
for consistency with the Wisconsin Program are:

o Consistency with state coastal policies, state approved
county shoreland ordinances, and state approved floodplain
ordinances;
o Consistency with specific management policies for designated
state managed GAMIC's;
o Opportunity for full public participation in the activity
development project, grant, or financial assistance.

ix.

SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING:

Compliance with Section 305(b)(7)
Federal Requirements

Joan Gasperow

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

for

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

DRAFT

Chapter 305(b)(7)

SHOREFRONT ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING

Table of Contents

Page No.

Preface.1.........................

I. Procedure for Assessing Public Areas
Requiring Access or Protection..1............

A. Summary - Outlines of Planning
Procedures ......................

B. Detailed Information . .................3

1. Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Program.......4

2. Feasibility Studies............... 7

3. Harbor Planning .................

4. Wisconsin Harbors of Refuge Law......... 9

II. Beach Definition .......................10

III. Enforceable State Policies ..................11

IV. Designation of Shorefront Areas as Geographic
Areas of Management Concern ................39

V. Legal Authorities, Funding Programs, and
Other Techniques to Meet Management Needs .........41

A. Legal Authorities...................41

B. Funding Programs ...................41

C. Other Techniques....................42

1. GANG Management Agreements............42

2. Master Planning Process .............42

PREFACE

To fulfill the requirements of subsection 305(b)(7) of the 1976 amendments
to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Wisconsin's Coastal Program
must Include a planning process that can identify public shorefront areas
appropriate for increased access and/or protection.

There are five elements which must be included in the shorefront access
and protection planning process:

"(1) a procedure for assessing public areas requiring access or protection;

(2) a definition of the term "beach" and an identification of public
areas meeting that definition;

(3) articulation of State enforceable policies pertaining to shorefront
access and protection;

(4) a method for designating shorefront areas as areas of particular
concern (either as a class or a specific sites) for preservation
or restoration, if appropriate; and

(5) an identification of legal authorities, funding programs and
other techniques that can be used to meet management needs."

-923.25 Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41

Like %any aspects of the federal requirements for a Coastal Management Program,
Wisconsin has ongoing program and policies which serve to fulfill the requirements
for shorefront access and protection planning. This paper documents Wisconsin's
compliance with the federal requirements cited above. The text describes
Wisconsin's ongoing efforts in relation to federal rules.

I. Procedure for Assessing Public Areas Requiring Access or Protection

A. Summary of Shorefront Access and Protection Planning Process

The provision of shorefront access and resource protection is considered
to be the responsibility of both state and local units of government
in Wisconsin. To meet this responsibility, planning procedures are
already in existence which fulfill the federal requirements specified
by subsection 305(b)(7). Local units of government plan for shorefront
access and protection by participating in the Outdoor Recreation Program.
State government involvement is primarily through the procedures for
feasibility studies for project acquisition and development by the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The federal government is
also involved by assisting local units of government with harbor planning.

The existing procedures for the Outdoor Recreation Program by local
units of government, feasibility studies by the DNR and harbor planning
by the U.S. Corps of Engineers are briefly outlined below. More detailed
information on these planning programs and procedures, including eligible
activities, funding priorities and how these procedures meet the federal
rules (15 CFR 923.25(c)), are described in Part IB of this report.

New planning procedures for state assistance to local units of government
for harbors of refuge will be established during the summer of 1978.
These new procedures are a result of legislation signed in April 1978.
The legislation is described at the end of Part IB of this report.

OUTLINES OF PLANNING PROCEDURES

Outdoor Recreation Program

1. Local unit of government develops a Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan which includes:

a. inventory of existing public facilities;

b. anticipated demand for future use of facilities;

c. capability and suitability of existing areas to support increased
access;

d. description of appropriate types of access and/or protection
in light of government and public preferences, resource capabilities
and priorities; and

e. identification of specific projects

2. Local government officially approves the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan

3. DNR reviews plan to establish eligibility to receive LAWCON and ORAP
funds.

4. Eligible unit of government contacts DNR Recreation Aids Specialist
to discuss a potential project.
5. Recreation Aids Specialist meets with local officials at the proposed
project site to discuss merits of project in relation to community
needs, state policy and availability of funds.

6. Environmental impact assessment is prepared which considers primary
and secondary impacts of project such as transportation requirements.

7. Local government works with Recreation Aids Specialist to submit application
for funds, only if funding is likely to be approved.

8. Local government agrees to all contract provisions to receive LAWCON/ORAP
funding and submits project for A-95 review.

9. Funding is approved by DNR Office of Intergovernmental Programs.

10. Local government undertakes approved project, maintains cost records,
submits billings to DNR.

11. Recreation Aids Specialist inspects project and arranges for funds
to be paid.

Feasibility Studies for Project Acquisition and Development

1. Preliminary proposal

2. Approval of proposed project by the Natural Resources Board

3. Feasibility Study for proposed project - evaluates current and projected
needs in terms of:

a. existing state, local and regional plans

b. preservation of the resource

C. resource potential for recreation activities

d. criteria for each type of use

4. Approval of feasibility study by Natural Resources Board and Governor
and authorization to undertake Environmental Impact Assessment process
and master planning process.

5. Final approval of project by Natural Resources Board and Governor.

6. Project acquisition and development begins.

Harbor Planning

1. Expression of local interest and support for a harbor project

2. Reconnaissance Study by the U.S. Corps of Engineers

3. Detailed feasibility study includes evaluation of physical, environmental,
economic, transportation, and engineering impacts of a harbor project

4. Development of plans and specifications by the U.S. Corps of Engineers

B. Detailed Information on Shorefront Access and Protection Planning
Procedures

A procedure for assessing public areas requiring access or protection
is required under the Federal Shorefront Access and Protection Planning
Rules (15 CPR 923.25(a)(1)). The Federal rules state that the procedure
should consider:

(a) supply of existing public facilities and areas (including
public recreation areas, scenic natural areas, threatened
floral/faunal habitat, wetlands, bluffs, islands, historic,
cultural or archeological artifacts, urban waterfronts,
etc.);

(b) anticipated demand for future use of facilities (especially
the recreation needs of urban residents, as well as environmental,
esthetic or ecological preservation, protection of public
use benefits, preservation of islands, and maintaining the
value of existing public shorefront access facilities);

(d) description of appropriate types of access and/or protection
in light of government and public preferences, resource
capabilities and priorities (considering lateral and perpendicular
physical access and visual access).

The purpose of the planning procedure is to develop a method which
will allow for the eventual identification of specific areas of more
than local concern for which provision of access through acquisition
will be appropriate during program implementation. The rules further
suggest that the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and the
procedures for geographic areas of management concern be used to fulfill
these requirements.

The Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Program, Feasibility-Studies for proposed
project acquisition and development by the DNR, planning for harbor access
under programs sponsored by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and DNR, and the
new Wisconsin Harbors of Refuge Law will now be discussed as to their relation
to the federal guidelines. Additional state policies and funding sources
for shorefront access and protection are presented in parts III and V, respectively.

Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Program

The purpose of the Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation Program is "to promote,
encourage, coordinate and implement a comprehensive long-range plan to
acquire, maintain and develop for public use those areas of the state best
adapted to the development of a comprehensive system of state and local
outdoor recreation facilities and services in all fields, . . . , and to
facilitate and encourage the fullest public use thereof.

The outdoor recreation program is established as a continuing program to
financially assist the state and local agency outdoor recreation program,
including . . . public access, state park and forest recreation areas, fish
and game habitat areas . . . highway scenic easements, state aids for local
governmental parks and other outdoor recreational facilities, acquisition
and development, state aids for county forest recreation areas development,
related historic sites, . . . recreational planning . ." (Section 23.30,
(1) and (2), Wis. Stats.).

Funding for this program is provided by the Federal Land and Water Conservation
Program (LAWCON) and the State Outdoor Resources Action Plan Program (ORAP).
The Outdoor Recreation Program is implemented under the provisions of Chapter
NR 50, Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Units of governments must meet certain planning requirements to be eligible
for LAWCON and ORAP funds. The applicants are required to submit a comprehensive
outdoor recreation plan for their area to the Department of Natural Resources
which conforms to the state outdoor recreation plan; or applicants may qualify
for eligibility if proposed projects are identified in approved plans of higher
units of government (NR 50.03(1) and (4), Wis. Adm. Code). The State Outdoor
Recreation Plan identifies state priorities for project by type and geographically.

Guidance for the creation of an acceptable outdoor recreation plan for county and
local units of government is provided by the Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Planning.

It is recommended that the plan include the following sections:

1. Introduction - a description of the goals, scope and authority of the
planning effort;

2. Summary - plan highlights including outstanding recommendations;

3. General characteristics of the plan area - including demographic informa-
tion, transportation data, basic recreational resources, etc.;

4. Supply - including an inventory of all publicly and privately owned
recreation areas and associated facilities available for public use,
an assessment of the physical condition of these facilities,
deficiencies of these areas, recreation areas outside the plan area
that have a significant impact on the area, and potential recreation
areas;

5. Recreation needs - a description of unsatisfied recreational demands by
residents and nonresidents; and

6. Action program - a proposal to overcome the deficiencies in the recrea-
tional facilities of that municipality.

The six sections of this plan consider the required elements for shorefront
access planning (supply, demand, capability/suitability of existing areas,
description of appropriate types of additional facilities, and identification
of specific access sites for which acquisition is appropriate).

The comprehensive outdoor recreation plan must project a recreation program
for a minimum of five years. The plan must be formally approved by the
municipality before eligibility for program funding can be established.
Formal approval by a local unit of government entails some degree of public
participation as required by an official action of any governing or administra-
tive body in Wisconsin, such as public notice of meetings, open meetings, and
publication of meeting proceedings. Revision of the'plan must follow the same
approval procedures as the original plan.

Many general provisions of the administration of Outdoor Recreation Program
Grants and State Aids are relevant to the federal requirements for shorefront
access and protection planning. The federal requirements suggest that the
state consider such factors as environmental, esthetic or ecological preserva-
tion. Environmental quality is deemed to be essential and ,shall be preserved
and enhanced by the Outdoor Recreation Program (NR 50.05(1), Wis. Adm. Code).

The federal rules require that the planning process include a description of
appropriate types of access and protection taking into account governmental
and public preferences, resource capabilities and priorities. This requirement
is partially met by the Recreation Needs and Action Program sections of the
comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan of a municipality. The requirement is
also fulfilled by provisions in the Administrative Rules for the Outdoor
Recreation Program which includes a listing of the types of projects which can
be funded. Eligible projects fall into two categories: land acquisition and
development. . A

Land acquisition projects eligible for assistance include: (1) areas with
frontage on rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries and reservoirs that will provide
water-based public recreation opportunities; (2) areas that provide special
recreation opportunities such as flood plains, wetlands and areas adjacent to
scenic highways; (3) natural areas and preserves and outstanding scenic areas
where the objective is to preserve the scenic or natural areas, including areas
of physical or biological importance and wildlife areas. These areas must be
open to the general public for outdoor recreation use to the extent that the
natural attributes of the areas will not be seriously impaired or lost; (4)
land within urban areas for day use picnic areas . . . ; (5) land for recreation
trails (NR 50.05(4), Wis. Adm. Code). Acquisition of lands which provide public
access to navigable waters by means of water, road, trail or otherwise through
the privilege of crossing public or private lands without involving trespass, is
also eligible (NR 50.08(4)(a), Wis. Adm. Code).

Development projects eligible for assistance include: 1) observation and
sight-seeing facilities such as overlooks, turnouts and trails; 2) boating
facilities, such as launching ramps and docks; 3) picnic facilities; 4)
camping facilities; 5) swimming, bathing and water sport facilities including
beaches . . .; 6) fishing and hunting facilities, such as trails and fishing
piers; 7) urban recreation areas; supporting facilities, including entrance
and circulation roads, utility and sanitation systems, erosion control work,
parking areas, toilet buildings,-and interpretive facilities where there
is permanent professional naturalist staff and the facilities are on the
land being used for nature interpretation; 8) renovation or development
of an existing facility; 9) beautification of an area, such as . . . cleaning
and restoration of areas which have been exploited, polluted, littered etc.,
.; 10) initial dredging for swimming beaches and boat launching ramps
where it is necessary to make the area useable (NR 50.05(7), Wis. Admin
Code). In addition to these general types of development projects, public
access site development projects generally include parking areas, boat launching
ramps and may include safety, health and protection of the area as well
as the facilities required for the use of the area (NR 50.08(4)(b), Wis.
Admin. Code).

Priorities are given to projects which meet urban needs (an additional consideration
under the federal requirements for shorefront access planning), to activities
of the general public 6ver those for a limited group, to basic over elaborate
facilities, to participant over spectator type facilities, to projects not
having other public or private funds available to them, where a scarcity
of recreation land exists, and to,#aquisition over development. Projects
which may enhance or preserve a'Mtural beauty are encouraged (NR 50.06(4),
Wis. Admin. Code). The 1977 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation specifies
additional priority considerations including public access to the Great
Lakes.

In addition to these general guidelines, the primary objective of the state
access aid program is to provide public access where needed and none exists.
Where access exists but is inadequate, improvement will be considered as
a lower priority. Each access project must have a demonstrable public interest
and need (NR 1.92(6), Wis. Admin Code). Priority is given to large lakes
greater than 1000 acres of surface area and important stream sytems (NR 50.08(5),
Wis. Admin. Code).

After establishing eligibility to receive funds under the Outdoor Recreation
Program a municipality meets with the DNR District Recreation Aids Specialist
to discuss the merits of a potential project in light of community and state
needs, state policy and priorities, and availability of funds. An environmental
impact assessment is conducted for each project which evaluates the primary
and secondary impacts including factors such as transportation requirements.
To minimize bureaucratic procedures, applications are prepared only for
those projects which are likely to receive funding.

The level of funding available to local units of government for planning,
acquisition and development is limited and highly competitive. The LAWCON
and ORAP funds are divided between counties, state agencies and contingency
funds. State agencies receive 40% of the funds. Counties receive 40% of
the funds. The contingency fund is the remaining 20% of the allocation.
Of the 40% allocated to counties, 30% is divided on an equal basis and 70%
is divided on the basis of population. Thus a relatively small amount of
the funding is available to the Lake Superior Counties.

Perhaps one of the most constructive roles that the Coastal Program can
play with respect to providing public access and protection is to cover
some of the costs associated with LAWCON/ORAP project planning. Although
many of the project planning costs such as feasibility studies, site planning
and engineering services are reimbursable items under LAWCON/ORAP funding,
these expenditures can use a large amount of money which could better be
used for acquisition and development. Acquisition and development funds
aren't currently available through the Coastal Program. The submission
of refined project proposals could enhance the opportunity for coastal projects
to receive a larger share of a county's allocation.

Feasibility Studies by the Department of Natural Resources

A different planning procedure is used by the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) in developing proposals for land acquisition and development of facilities.
A preliminary proposal is introduced for consideration by the Natural Resources
Board. If the Board is interested in the project it will authorize the
preparation of a feasibility study. The feasibility study is used to factually
determine the need, desirability and suitability of a given area for DNR
property establishment. Consideration is given in the plan to the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan and all other DNR plans, the services
provided by private enterprise, and to the responsibilities of local units
of government. Potential projectR are rated for the type of use they will
receive, such as Wildlife, Fisheries (including access), Recreation, State
Forests, State Parks, Wild Resources, and Scientific Areas, and Abandoned
Railroad Grades. Examples of the criteria used to rate particular types
of areas are given below.

Criteria for Fishery Access Areas -

a. Anticipated public use of the proposed area
h'. Ranking area for needs according to NR 1.90, Wis. Adm. Code
C. Explanation of need
d. General proposal for Lake Management (especially for inland lakes)

Criteria for Recreation Areas-

a. Area is environmentally adaptable to intensive recreation uses
b. Located so as to provide regional recreational opportunities
for urban areas
C. Transportation now available or potentially available to provide
access to the area
d. Area meets regional and statewide needs
e. Area is accessible to large numbers of potential users

Costs for the proposed project acquisition, development, operation and maintenance,
local attitudes, adjacent land uses, ownership, zoning, pollution problems,
and alternatives are also discussed.

The completed feasibility study must be approved within the DNR, the Secretary's
Office and then submitted to the Natural Resources Board. If the Board
approves the feasibility study, it is forwarded to the Governor for approval,
the Environmental Impact Assessment Process is initiated, public hearings
are held, the project land appraisal is completed, and the Master Plan is
developed. Approvals by the Board and Governor are preliminary, pending
completion of the property master plan and environmental impact process.

Harbor Planning

The need for harbors of refuge and marinas along Wisconsin's Great Lakes
shoreline has been documented in numerous studies (see Neuman, 1976, Public
Access to the Great Lakes, Wis. DNR, for a summary of these studies). The
development of harbors is primarily limited by the adequacy of sites and
the availability of funding. Recognizing these limitations, current harbor
planning is directed toward detailed feasibility studies initiated after
local cooperation for funding is expressed.

The Preliminary Feasibility Report on Harbors Between Kenosha and Kewaunee
is an example of one of the studies establishing needs for harboring access.
The report was prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and quantifies
the need for recreational boating facilities in the study areas; quantifies
the capacity of existing facilities to satisfy the needs, develops and analyzes
alternatives to satisfy the remaining needs; identifies the costs, benefits
and other significant adverse and beneficial impacts of the alternatives
considered; specifies the cost sharing and division of responsibilities
between federal and nonfederal interests for the actual development of harbors
(under section 107 of the 1960 Rivers and Harbors Act); and concludes that
more detailed investigation of individual harbor sites is necessary before
harbor development can proceed. Detailed feasibility studies will only
be conducted if the local government body provides preliminary assurances
of local cooperation and interest in developing the harbor, if a project
is recommended after detailed study.

To expedite the development of small craft harbors by the U.S. Corps of
Engineers and local units of government, the Department of Natural Resources
obtained a grant from the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission to prepare
detailed feasibility studies for Ashland, Cornucopia, Port Wing and Kewaunee.
These studies provide information on environmental, economic, physical,
transportation and engineering aspects of small craft harbor development.

Section 107 of the 1960 Rivers and Harbors Act provides authority for the
Army Corps of Engineers to develop and construct small navigation projects
that have not already been specifically authorized by Congress. These projects
are a Joint venture between the Army Corps of Engineers and the local unit
of government. A project is undertaken only after the Corps receives assurance
that the local unit of government will cooperate and meet its share of
the costs. A reconnaissance study, followed by a detailed feasibility study,
is prepared before actual engineering plans and specifications are developed.

9
'Wisconsin Harbors Refuge Law

New legislation relating to shorefront access planning was signed into law
in April 1978. Chapter 274, Laws of 1977 creates a Wisconsin Waterways
Commission and establishes programs for financial and technical assistance
to local governments for the development of recreational facilities. The
Waterways Commission will:

1. Study the need for recreational boating facilities and boating
safety programs;

2. Study the engineering, economic and environmental feasibility
of proposed projects;

3. Establish a priority list for proposed projects; and

4. Approve DNR actions In developing and administering the financial
assistance programs.

Planning procedures for the Implementation of this program will be established
during the summer of 1978.

II. Beach Definition

Federal regulations require definition of the term "beach" to aid in the
identification of those existing public beach areas requiring further access
and/or protection as part of the State's Coastal Management Program (15 CFR 923.25(a)(2)).
For the purpose of this program, beach will be defined very broadly as land
adjacent to a body of water. Under this broad definition, both sand and
nonsand areas are included. The Wisconsin Great Lakes shoreline includes
a variety of physical elements: bluffs or unconsolidated materials, bedrock
outcroppings, wetlands and sandy areas. Since many of these areas have
environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological and cultural
values, a broad definition is necessary. Islands are also included in this
definition.

Public areas which meet this broad definition of beach include state owned
lands adjacent to the Great Lakes and its estuaries, other shorelands in
public ownership, and areas which are covered by easements to provide access
to the Great Lakes and its estuaries by the public. Since the physical
characteristics and public values of beach areas are unique, physical 'oundaries
of each beach area can only be defined on an individual case-by-case basis.

Lands between the OHWM and the water's edge are not considered to be public
areas. These areas have been interpreted by the Wisconsin �upreme Court
to be exclusively for riparian use (Doemel v. Jantz, 180 Wis. 225'.

Beach is broadly defined as land adjacent to a body of water to meet the
full spectrum of Wisconsin's access and protection needs (ramp, harboring,
shore, pier and visual access, protection of wetlands, fish and wildlife
habitat, erosion hazards, cultural, historical, aesthetic, recreational,
ecological, and environmental values). Under this definition essentially
the entire Wisconsin Great Lakes shoreline, whether an urban waterfront,
a wetland, or a forested area on a bluff overlooking Lake Superior, is potentially
eligible to meet the needs of the public for access and protection. It
will be the responsibility of local units of government and authorized state
agencies to meet these needs by utilizing the procedures described herein.
The broad definition of beach as land adjacent to a body of water without
delineating a landward boundary provides flexibility to Wisconsin in meeting
the Coastal Management Program objectives in the coming years. Under this
definition the current policy of case-by-case definition of access area
boundaries is possible. However, the option remains under this definition
for future legislative action which would redefine the state access policy
towards acquisition of a public right-of-way corridor along the Great Lakes
shoreline.

III. Enforceable State Policies

Articulation of enforceable State policies pertaining to shorefront access
and protection is required under the Federal Shorefront Access and Protection
Planning Rules (15 CFR 923.25(a)(3)).

The federal guidelines define shorefront access and protection to include
physical access (beaches, trails, parking facilities, ferry services, etc.),
visual access (waysides, zoning restrictions, etc.), environmental esthetic
or ecological preservation (protection from overuse, mitigation of erosion,
etc.), protection of public use benefits (recreational, historic or cultural
uses), preservation of islands, and other protection necessary to maintain
environmental, recreational, historic, esthetic, ecological or cultural
values of existing public shorefront attractions (CFR 923.25(c)).

All of these issues are closely related to the overall goal of the Wisconsin
Coastal Program. The goal is directed towards coastal area preservation,
protection, development, restoration and enhancement.

This goal is supported by existing state policies. These policies and consideration
of the national interest are explained in the State of Wisconsin Coastal
Zone Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. The following
inventory of coastal policies is taken directly from the aforementioned
document. The policies are grouped into seven issues: (1) coastal water
and air quality; (2) coastal natural areas, wildlife habitat, and fisheries;
(3) erosion and flood hazard areas; (4) community developmentl (5) economic
development; (6) governmental interrelationships; and (7) public involvement.

Listed with each issue are general policies, specific policies citing statutory
authorities, and relation to the implementation of the Coastal Program including
Managed Uses; Geographic Areas of Management Concern, and other Program
Activities.

COASTAL ISSUES, POLICIES, AND RELATED GAMC'S AND MANAGED USES

ISSUE 1: COASTAL WATER AND AIR QUALITY

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
1. CoasalWtGeneral Policies:
. Coastal Water i.0 The state policy on coastal water quality
and Air Quality shall be to improve the quality and manage-
ment of the waters of the coastal area;
to restore the chemical, physical and bi6-
logical integrity of its waters; to pro-
tect public health, safeguard aquatic life
and scenic and ecological values; and to
enhance the domestic, municipal, recre-
tional, industrial, agricultural and other
uses of water. The state policy on coastal
air quality shall be to improve the quality
of the air resource through restricting
any new air contaminant source and re-
stricting the discharge of hazardous
pollutants.

Specific Issues: Specific Policies:
1. The Great Lakes are 1.1 The elimination of the discharge of pol- Water Based
used for disposal of lutants to water shall be the long-range 1 h. Discharges of effluents
industrial, shipping goal of the state. (Federal Water Pollu- into coastal waters.
and municipal wastes. tion Control Act Ammendments of 1972, (Wis. Stats. Section
Non-point sources of P.L. 92-500 and Wis. Stats. Section 147.02, 147.015, 147.02
pollution, such as 147.01(1)(a)). (3), and Wis. Admin. Code
agricultural runoff, 1.2 An interim goal is the protection and NR 102, 103, 104, 200,
runoff from construe- propagation of fish and wildlife and the 217, and 221 to 297).
tion sites, sedimen- maintenance of water quality to allow 1 i. Placing refuse in coast-
tation and shore recreation in and on the water to be al waters. (Wis. Stats.
erosion, compound achieved by 1983. (Wis. Stats. Section Section 29.288 and 29.29
water quality problems. 147.01(1)(b)). (3) and Chapter 144).
1.3 Discharges of effluents, including indus- Land Based
trial, municipal and agricultural wastes, 2 c. Siting electrical gener-
into any waters of the state shall not ating and high voltage
be allowed if they exceed federal and transmission facilities.
state water quality standards. (Wis. (Wis. Stats. Section
Stats. Sections 147.015(3) and 147.02, 196.491(3)(d)4).
and Wis. Admin. Code NR 221 to 297). 2 d. Constructing sewer and
1.4 Disposal in the waters of the state of water utility facilities.
certain defined pollutants shall be re- (Wis. Stats. Section
stricted. (Wis. Stats. Section 147.015 144.04 and Wis. Admin.
(3), 147.02(1), 29.288 and 29.29). Code NR 108.04 and 110).
1.5 Water quality standards for rivers empty-
ing into the Great Lakes shall be as high
as is practicable. (Wis. Stats. Section
144.025).

ISSUE 1: COASTAL WATER AND AIR QUALITY (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

1.6 Uunicipalities shall provide, at a minimum,
secondary treatment and effluent disinfec-
tion. (1972 P. L. 92-500, Wis. Stats.
Section 147.04(3)(a) and Wis. Admin. Code
NR 102.04).
1.7 Phosphorus removal from sewage shall be re-
quired in municipalities with 2,500 people
or more that discharge treated water into
Lakes Michigan and Superior and their trib-
utaries. (Wis. Admin. Code NR 102.04).
1.8 Sewer extensions shall be allowed only where
adequate treatment capacity exists. (Wis.
Admin. Code NR 110.05).
1.9 Thermal discharges shall not raise the receiv-
ing water temperatures more than 3 F above
the existing natural temperature at the
boundry of mixing zones. (Wis. Admin. Code
NR 102.05).

2. The increasing presence 1.10 The discharge of toxic pollutants in Water Based
of toxic substances in toxic amounts shall be prohibited. (Wis. 1 h. Discharges of effluents
the Great Lakes is emerg- Stats. Section 147.01(1)(c)). into coastal waters.
ing as a serious water 1.11 Discharge of inorganic mercury compounds (Wis. Stats. Sections
quality problem and and metallic mercury to the waters of the 147.02, 147.015(13),
health hazard. state shall be regulated and restricted. 147.02(3), and Wis.
(Wis. Stats. Section 144.423 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 102,
Admin. Code NR 100.02). 103, 104, 200, 217, and
1.12 The sale, distribution, storage, use and 221 to 297).
disposal of pesticides shall be regulated Land Based
to protect the public from injury and wild 2 p. Using pesticides. (Wis.
animals from serious hazard. (Wis. Stats. Stats. Sections 15.195(1),
Sections 94.69 and 29.29(4)). 29.29(4), 94.69, 140.77,
134.67, and Wis. Admin.
Code AG 29 and NR 80).

LO.

ISSUE 1: COASTAL WATER AND AIR QUALITY (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

3. Inadequate or malfunc- 1.13 Lots not served by public sewer shall have Land Based
tioning private waste area and width restrictions. Based on 2 e. Using private waste
or septic systems have soil tests, area for one sewage absorp- treatment and disposal
created another water tion field and area for one replacement facilities. (Wis. Stats.
quality problem and system shall be provided. Location of Sections 60.315 and
have caused localized septic tanks near navigable waters shall 145.045, and Wis. Admin.
public health problems. be restricted. (Wis. Stats. Chapter 236, Code H 62.20 and NR 113).
and Wis. Admin. Code H 62.20, 65, and 2 1. Platting subdivisions
NR 115). that create 5 or more
lots of 1� acres or less.
(Wis. Stats, Chapter 236
and Wis. Admin. Code
H 65).

4. A number of coastal 1.14 The state shall establish, administer and Water Based
communities rely on the maintain a safe drinking water program no 1 J. Obtaining drinking water.
Great Lakes for their less stringent than the requirements of (Wis. Stats. Sections
water supply. However, the safe drinking act of 1974, P.L. 93-523. 144.025(2)(e), 144.04,
increasing urbanization (Wis. Stats. Section 144.025(2)(t)). 147.02, 162.01 and
and industrialization 196.02(1), and Wis Admin.
threaten municipal water Code NR 111 and 112).
supplies by making the Land Based
water unsafe for con- 2 o. Obtaining drinking water.
sumption. (Wis. Stats. Sections
144.025(2)(e), 144.04,
147.02, 162.01 and
196.02(1), and Wis. Admin.
Code NR 111 and 112).

5. High water quality, (Increased pollution and, in some areas erosion and siltation, affect the use of the Great Lakes as a
including its aesthe- recreational resource; see the first Issues and Problems section in this Issue area for the related
tic qualities, must be policy statements, managed uses and GAMC's).
maintained to allow
recreational use of
the Great Lakes to
continue.

ISSUE 1: COASTAL WATER AND AIR QUALITY (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES I RELATED GAMC's

6. Summertime ozone 1.15 No new air contaminant source shall be Land Based
concentrations and the permitted to be constructed, installed or 2 n. Emitting air pollutants
emission of sulfer into established which directly or indirectly from point sources. (Wis.
the air are Wisconsin's emits air contaminants that make the air Stats. Sections 144.30(1)
primary air quality injurious to health, harmful for commercial and (2) 144.30 to 144.46,
problems. or recreational use or deleterious to fish, and NR 154 and 155).
7. The level of particu- bird, animal or plant life, without comply-
lates suspended in the ing with federal and state air quality
air is recognized as a standards. (Wis. Stats. Sections 144.30
prilripal statewide air and .39 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 154 and
quality problem. 155).
8. Air quality affects 1.16 Hazardous pollutants shall not be dis-
water quality, in that charged into the ambient air in such
up to 25% of the parti- quantity, concentration or duratign as
cles in air will settle to be injureous to human health and plant
out or be washed by or animal life. (Wis. Admin. Code
rain into the Great NR 154 and 155).
Lakes.

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
1.17 The program will provide financial assis-
tance to improve implementation and enforce-
ment on existing water and air quality
programs where gaps or weaknesses are
identified, with emphasis on (a) on-site
waste disposal; (b) disposal of hazardous
substances; (c) disposal of dredge spoils;
and (d) coordination and air quality monitor-
ing.
1.18 The program will encourage consideration
of water, air and noise pollution in the
development of plans and proposals for
program funding.
1.19 The program will perform advocacy functions
in monitoring and reviewing changes and
additions in water and air quality programs
and regulations which impact on coastal
resources and people.
1.20 The program will support public awareness
and research of (a) factors affecting Great
Lakes water quality and supply, with
emphasis on the trans-lake shipment of oil
and other energy resources; (b) the unique
climatic characteristics and limitations
of coastal air resources; (c) air as a
transmitter of pollutants to Great Lake
waters, and (d) the impact of noise on the
natural, cultural, and social environment.

ISSUE 2: NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITATS AND FISHERIES

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED'GAMC's
General Policies
2.0 The policy of the state is to conserve
2. Natural Areas, and enhance the natural land and water
Wildlife Habitats resources of the State by:
and Fisheries
a. Designating and managing special areas
of the State, including scientific
areas, state parks, state forests,
state wildlife areas, so as to protect
and enhance fish and wildlife habitat,
forest resources, lakes and streams,
recreation resources, and endangered
plant and animal species;
b. Providing special management attention
to the conservation and enhancement of
Great Lakes Fisheries resources, by
conducting fish rearing, fish stocking,
and fisheries research programs; by
regulating sport and commercial fish-
ing; by designating certain portions
of the Great Lakes as fish habitat
protection areas;
c. Ensuring that the following activities
that are engaged in or are subject to
regulation by state agencies are con-
ducted so as to minimize the destruc-
tion or degradation -of coastal wetlands
and to preserve the natural and benefi-
cial values of coastal wetlands and
the public interest therein. These
activities include: 1) the acquisi-
tion, management and disposition of
state lands and facilities; 2) con-
struction activities assisted by or
directly undertaken by state agencies;
and 3) regulation of land and water
uses in coastal wetland areas.

ISSUE 2: NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITATS AND FISHERIES (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
Specific Issues: Specific Policies:
. Coastal natural areas, 2.1 State scientific areas, designated for Land Based 1) Areas of significant
which include forests, purposes of scientific research, teaching 2 m. Using rural shorelines. natural, scientific,
lakes, streams, swamps, of conservation and natural history, (Wis. Stats. Sections or historical value.
bogs, and marshlands, preservation of biotic communities and 59.971, 144.26 and Wis. 5) Areas for preservation
are in an increasingly archeological sites, shall be disturbed Admin. Code NR 115). are those natural,
tenuous position. The as little as possible. (Wis. Stats. scientific, historic,
problem is particularly Section 23.27 and Wis. Admin. Code and cultural areas
acute on Lake Michigan, NR 45.23). whose unique values
where development 2.2 State parks are to be established for warrant preservation.
threatens to invade the public recreation and education. These
few extensive natural parks will be managed to protect these
areas lbft. The same values and their most logical employment
pressures threaten and greatest usefulness. (Wis. Stats.
some of the state's Section 27.01(1) and (2)).
coastal farmlands. 2.3 State forests shall be primarily used for
silviculture and growing of recurring
forest crops. Recognizing the value of
multiple use, they can be designated also
for preservation with natural areas
receiving a high degree of protection or
for recreation with appropriate facil-
ities. (Wis. Stats. Section 28.04).
2.4 Taxation of agricultural land and undevel-
oped land need not be uniform. Farmland
shall be eligible for tax credits through
an approved farmland preservation agree-
meht if there is local adoption of approv-
ed farmland preservation plans and/or
approved exclusive agricultural zoning
ordinances meeting state standards.
(Article VIII, Sec. I of the Wis. Con-
stitution, Wis. Stats. Section 71.09(11),
and Chapter 91).
2.13 Natural areas are protected through man-
datory county shoreland regulation stand-
ards and criteria for unincorporated
areas. Building development and uses are
limited, special use permits are restrict-
ed to qualified activities, and tree
cutting regulations are applicable for
those areas designated as wetlands. (Wis.
Admin. Code NR 115). Also see Issue Area
4--Community Development.

ISSUE 2 : NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITATS AND FISHERIES (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

2. Coastal vegetation and In addition to thie above: Water based
estuaries provide wild- 2.5 Hunting is prohilbited in state parks ex- 1 h. Discharges of effluents 1) Areas of significant
life habitats that are cept for selective game management of deer. into coastal waters. natural, scientific,
increasingly threatened (Wis. Admin. Code NR 10.27). (Wis. Stats. Sections or historical value.
by pressures similar 2.6 State wildlife areas shall be managed for 147.015(13), 147.02, 5) Areas for preservation
to those that threaten wildlife habitat and public hunting. (Wis. 147.25 and Wis. Admin. are those natural,
natural areas. Stats. Section 23.09(2)(d)3). Code NR 102, 103, 104, scientific, historic,
2.7 Thle sale, processing and distribution of 200, 217, and 221 to and cultural areas
fish, wildlife and plant life designated 297). whose unique values
by the state and/or the U.S. as endangered, Land Based warrant preservation.
native and foreign species is prohibited. 2 m. Using rural shorelines.
(Wis. Admin. Code NR 27). (Wis. Stats. Sections
2.13 Habitat areas are protected through manda- 59.971, 144.26, and
tory county shoreland regulation standards Wis. Admin. Code NR
and criteria for unincorporated areas. 115).
Building development and uses are limited,
special use permits are restricted to
qualified activities, and tree cutting reg-
ulations are applicable for those areas
designated as wetlands. (Wis. Admin. Code
NR 115). Also see Issue Area 4--Community
Development.

3. Great Lakes fisheries 2.8 Special regulations are applicable to des- Water Based 1) Areas of significant
are endangered due to ignated state trout streams. (Wis. Stats. 1 k. Harvesting fish for natural, scientific,
poor water quality and Section 30.19 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 102). commerce or sport. or historical value.
the presence of toxic 2.9 State fish management areas shall be desig- (Wis. Stats. Sections 5) Areas for preservation
substances. There is nated and managed to assure protection and 29.01, 29.085, 29.09, are those natural,
also a need for ade- perpetuation of all species, foster and 29.30 and 29.33, and scientific, historic,
quate protection of promote the preservation of required habi- Wis. Admin. Code NR and cultural areas
spawning grounds. tat for all species. (Wis. Admin. Code 20). whose unique values
NR 1.01). warrant preservation.
2.10 State fish management easements shall pro-
vide public access for public fishing. A
permit will be required in these areas for
removal of trees, shrubs, altering topog-
raphy and erecting new structures. (Wis.
Stats. Section 23.09(2)(d)).
2.11 The state shall create and maintain a
sport fishery through programs of fish
breeding, rearing, and stocking, and re-
sources research. (Wis. Stats. Section
23.09 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.01).

ISSUE 2: NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITATS AND FISHERIES (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAM~C'S

2.12 Sport and commercial fishing shall be
regulated and commercial fishing shall
be prohibited in designated state fish
refuges. (Wis. Stats. Section 29.085,
29.14, 29.145, 29.166, 29.30, 29.33,
and 29.36 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 26.23).

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
2.14 The program will provide financial assis-
tance to improve the implementation and
enforcement of existing programs which
manage uses with a significant impact on
the coastal environment where gaps or
weaknesses are identified. Particular
attention would be given to Great Lakes
fisheries resources, coastal wetlands,
and other areas of natural and scientific
value.
2.15 The program will support local and state
agency efforts to identify and designate
areas of significant natural and scienti-
fic value and develop specific management
policies for each area.
2.16 The program will provide financial and
technical assistance to state and local
agencies to implement the specific
management policies for these designated
areas.
2.17 The program will support the accelerated
collection of data on soils, geology,
hydrology, topography, and other where
needed for coastal management decisions.
2.18 The program will support public awareness
and education efforts tied to areas of
significant natural and scientific value.

ISSUE 3: COASTAL EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
N)
o

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
General Policies:
3. Coastal Erosion and 3.0 It is the state's policy to mitigate
Flood Hazard Areas risks to public health and safety and
risks of property damage in areas subject
to natural hazards by:

a. Providing that all development in
areas subject to serious flooding
will not materially alter the natural
capacity of the lake or river so that
the magnitude of floods will be inten-
sified, or expose citizens to hazards
or cause future public expenditures
for flood disaster relief.
b. Regulating those earth moving, devege-
tation, and construction activities
now reviewed by State agencies so as
not to accelerate the rate of shore-
line erosion or bluff recession.

Specific Issues: Specific Policies:
1. A number of shore 3.Z Within unincorporated areas a setback of Water Based
properties have 75 ft. from the ordinary high water mark 1 g. Placing structures upon 3) Hazard areas are
suffered and are shall be required, unless an existing the bed of the Great those areas prone to
facing severe prop- development pattern exists. (Wis. Stats. Lakes or other navig- sever erosion and/or
erty damage due to Sections 54.971 and 144.26, and Wis. Admin. able coastal water. flooding that may im-
shore erosion. Code NR 115). (Wis. Stats. Section pose danger to public
2. Shore erosion and 3.5 Rip rap or other similar material for pro- 30.12(1) and (2)). use or substantial
sedimentation can tecting stream banks or lake shore from Land Based immediate or future
damage lake aes- erosion shall not materially impair navi- 2 a. Grading or removing top public costs.
thetics, may damage gation or damage fish and game habitat. soils which disturbs
fish habitat and may (Wis. Stats. Section 30.12(2)(b)). 10,000 sq. feet or more
increase water treat- of the banks of the
ment maintenance Great Lakes or other
and dredging costs. navigable coastal water.
(Wis. Stats. Sections
30.19 and 144.30(9)).
2 m. Using rural shorelands.
(Wis. Stats. Sections
59.971 and 144.26, and
Wis. Admin. Code NR 115).

ISSUE 3: COASTAL EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

3. Flooding is a serious 3.1 Counties, cities and villages shall adopt Land Based 3) Hazard areas are
concern along the west reasonable and effective flood plain 2 b. Placing structures in those areas prone to
and south shores of zoning ordinances for tinse parts of their flood prone areas. sever erosion and/or
Green Bay. Serious jurisdiction subject to serious flood (Wis. Stats. Section flooding that may
flooding has caused damage. These ordinances shall provide 87.30 and Wis. Admin. impose danger to
localized hazards to that no buildings be constructed in Code NR 116). public use or substan-
safety as well as floodways and that inconsistent develop- 2 m. Using rural shorelands. tial immediate or
property damage. ment be prohibited in flood plains. (Wis. Stats. Sections future public costs.
(Wis. Stats. Section 87.30 and Wis. Admin. 59.971 and 144.26, and
Code NR 116). Wis. Admin. Code 115).
3.2 Within unincorporated areas a setback of
75 ft. from the ordinary high water mark
shall be required, unless an existing
development pattern exists. (Wis. Stats.
Sections 54.971 and 144.26, and Wis.
Admin. Code NR 115).
3.3 Solid waste disposal sites and facilities
are prohibited in floodplains and within
the jurisdiction of shoreland regulations.
(Wis.: Stats. Section 144.045 and Wis.
Admin. Code NR 115).
3.4 Subdivision plats, buildings, structures,
roads, sanitary or other facilities which
are reviewed by state agencies and which
are in existing and potential flood hazard
areas shall be prevented from exposing
citizens to unnecessary hazards or cause
future public expenditures for flood
disaster relief. (Executive Order No. 67).

4. Fluctuating lake Control of lakes is beyond the reach of any state program and can only be addressed in a limited sense by
levels, increasing international bodies. (See coastal program activities).
erosion during
periods of high water,
is one of Wisconsin's
most visible coastal
problems.

ISSUE 3: COASTAL EROSION AND F~LOOD HAZARD AREAS (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS _____RELATED POLICY STTMNSRELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GA�IC's
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
3.6 The program shall support local and state
efforts to identify and designate hazard
areas as areas of special management con-
cern and develop specific management pol-
icies for each and shall provide financial
and technical assistance to local and
state agencies to implement those policies
for designated areas.
3.7 The program shall support research and
public education on the dangers associated
with these hazards in the form of technical
analysis of data, and recommendations for
structural and non-structural alternatives
to alleviate erosion impacts, coordinating
fully with the 11W-Sea Grant College Pro-
gram, the Wisconsin Geologic and Natural
History Survey, and the Department of
Natural Resources and soil and water con-
servation districts.
3.8 The program shall advocate and coordin-
ate Wisconsin concerns about flood and
erosion hazards with the Flood Insurance
Administration of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.

ISSUE 4: COMM]UNITY DEVELOPMENT

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
General Policies:
4. Community 4.0 The state's policy on coastal community
Development development shall be to ensure the orderly
and balanced development of coastal commu-
nities, giving full consideration to econ-
omic, ecological, human resource, cultural,
historic, recreational, aesthetic values,
and existing and future needs by:

a. Requiring local ordinances that ensure
the efficient use, conservation, devel-
opment and protection of the state's
coastal resources in rural areas;
b. Ensuring that subdivisions are laid
out in an orderly fashion, are properly
surveyed, and make adequate provision
of public access to coastal waters;
c. Ensuring that the state's significant
historic, archetectural and archeolog-
ical resources are identified, recog-
nized and protected in all state activ-
ities and that efforts are undertaken
to ameliorate any potential advese
effects caused by state action.
d. Designating and aiding in the restora-
tion of blighted water front areas so
as to protect and enhance public safety,
aesthetics, and economic well-being;
e. Acquiring additional recreational lands
in heavily populated areas of the state;
and
f. Ensuring that shoreland alterations
are not detrimental to fish and wild-
life habitat, navigation, flood flow
capacity or the public interest.

ISSUE 4: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)
p.

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
Specific Issues: Specific Policies:
1. There is a need for 4.1 All coastal coatties shall adopt and Land Based
balanced community enforce management programs for all un- 2 a. Grading or removing top
growth to reduce waste- incorporated coastal shorelands. These soil which disturbs
ful sprawl development, programs shall: maintain safe and health- 10,000 sq. ft. or more
assure the adequate ful conditions; prevent and control water of the banks of the Great
provision of community pollution; protect fish and aquatic life, Lakes or other navigable
services and protect particularly spawning grounds, control coastal water. (Wis.
aesth&tic values. This land uses, placement of structures, and Stats. Sections 30.19
need is particularly building sites; reserve and protect and 144.30(a)).
strong in rural, shore cover; and protect natural beauty. 2 1. Platting subdivisions
largely undeveloped (Wis. Stats. Sections 59.971 and 144.26 that create five or more
,areas, and Wis. Admin. Code NR 115). lots of 1� acres or less.
4.2 All subdivisions creating five or more (Wis. Stats. Chapter 236).
lots of one and one-half acres or less 2 m. Using rural shorelines.
within a five year period shall meet (Wis. 'Stats. Sections
state standards on surveying, lot size 59.971, 144.26 and Wis.
and street width and connections. (Wis. Admin. Code NR 115).
Stats. Chapter 236, and Wis. Admin. Codes
LAD 1,2, H 65, and By 33).
4.3 Grading or exposing top soil in excess
of 10,000 sq. feet on the banks of any
body of navigable water shall not be per-
mitted if it contaminates or renders un-
clean or impure the air, land or waters
of the state, is deleterious to fish,
bird, animal or plant life or habitat,
or materially injures the rights of
riparian owners. (Wis. Stats. Sections
30.19 and 144.30(a)).

2. The increasing eco- 4.4 The State Historical Society shall engage Land Based 1) Areas of significant
nomic and physical in a comprehensive program of historic 2 f. Developing state natural, scientific,
development of the preservation for the education, inspiration owned facilites. (Wis. or historical value.
coastal area is and enrichment of citizens. This program Stats. Section 13.48, 5) Areas for preservation
threatening to alter shall include preparation of a state 20.710, 20.924 and are those natural,
or destroy areas of historical plan, provision of technical Chapter 18). scientific, historic,
historic, cultural, assistance to local governments, and and cultural areas
and archeological conduct a survey to identify and document whose unique values
significance; still historic properties. (Wis. Stats. Section warrant preservation.
other areas face 44.22). 6) Areas for restoration
continued decay as are those areas that
a result of neglect. should be restored to
an earlier or improved
condition.

ISSUE 4: COI0UNITY DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

4.5 The state long-range public building
program shall recognize the importance
of historic properties and may include
a program of preservation and restoration
of those historic properties under state
control. (Wis. Stats. Section 44.22).
4.6 The State Historical Society shall review
and comment upon the actions of any state
agency that may have an adverse effect
upon historic properties, and shall seek
the amelioration of any adverse effects.
(Wis. Stats. Sections 1.11 and 44.22).

3. In some communities 4.7 State aesthetic resources shall be Land Based 6) Areas for restoration
waterfronts suffer protected and enhanced through the regu- 2 q. Using outdoor adver- are those areas that
from safety hazards lation of billboards, the screening of tising. (Wis. Stats. should be restored to
and blight due to junkyards, the purchae of scenic ease- Sections 86.19, 86.191 an earlier or improved
obsolescent struc- ments, the development of parkways, and and 84.30). condition.
tures or waterfront the establishment and operation of a
deterioration. Rustic Roads program. (Wis. Stats.
Sections 83.42, 84.09, 84.105, 84.30
and 84.31).

4. The demand for 4.8 Public access of at least 60 feet width Land Based 1) Areas of significant
public access to the shall be provided at not less than one- 2 1. Platting subdivisions natural, scientific,
lakes has outstripped half mile intervals by all subdivisions that create five or or historical value.
the supply, especially abutting navigable lakes or streams. more lots of 1� acres
in urban areas. There Once provided, public access to navig- or less. (Wis. Stats.
is a need for expanded able waters shall not be discontinued Chapter 236).
and improved recrea- without state approval. (Wis. Stats.
tional facilities and Sections 80.41 and 236.16(3)).
services. 4.9 The state shall establish a state park
system and shall give principal emphasis
to the acquisition of recreational lands
in the heavily populated areas of the
state and in places readily accessible
to such areas. (Wis. Stats. Sections 23.09,
23.091, 27.01 and Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.04).
4.10 Local communities shall be encouraged to
provide local recreational and educational
opportunities. (Wis. Stats. Section 23.30).

ISSUE 4: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)

iSSES AND PROBIEMS .RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED AMC's

Community develop- 4.3 Grading or exposing top soil in excess of Water Based
ment frequently re- 10,000 sq. feet on the banks of any body 1 a. Removing materials from 2) Areas especially
quires shoreland of navigable water shall not be permitted lake beds. (Wis. Stats. suited for water
alterations. If if it contaminates or renders unclean or Sections 30.20(2)(a) and related economic
not properly carried impure the air, land or waters of the (c)). development.
out, such activities state or makes the same injurious to 1 b. Mining of metallic miner-
may disturb water public health or harmful for commercial als. (Wis. Stats. Sec-
quality, disrupt or recreational use, is deleterious to tions 144.80 to .94,
fish and wildlife fish, bird, animal or plant life or 24.39 and Wis. Admin.
habitats, obstruct habitat, or materially injures the rights Code NR 130 and 131).
navigation or in- of riparian owner. (Wis. Stats. Sections 1 c. Enlarging the course of
crease shore erosion 30.19 and 144.30(a)). a Great Lake or other
rates. 4.11 Dredging, filling, placing structures navigable coastal water.
upon, and removing materials from the (Wis. Stats. Section
bed of navigable waters shall not be 30.19).
allowed if it damages the public interest, 1 d. Constructing an artifi-
is deleterious to fish or game habitat, cial waterway within
materially obstructs navigation or reduces 500 feet of a Great Lake
effective flood flow capacity. (Wis. or other navigable coast-
Stats. Sections 30.12 and 30.20). al water. (Wis. Stats.
4.12 Enlarging the course of a navigable Section 30.19(1)(a)).
water, constructing an artificial water- 1 e. Connecting an artificial
way, canal, ditch, lagoon,pond, lake or waterway to a Great Lake
similar waterway or connecting an artifi- or other navigable
cial waterway with an existing body of coastal water. (Wis.
navigable water shall not be allowed if Stats. Section 30.19(1)
it damages the public's interest in the (b)).
waters, is deleterious to fish or game 1 f. Depositing any materials
habitat, materially obstructs naviga- in the Great Lakes or
tion, or reduces effective flood flow other navigable coastal
capacity. (Wis. Stats. Section 30.19). water. (Wis. Stats. Sec-
tions 30.12 and 30.11(2)).
1 g. Placing any structures
upon the bed of the Great
Lakes or other navigable
coastal water. (Wis.Stats.
Sections 30.12(1) and (2)).
Land Based
2 a. Grading or removing top
soil which disturbs 10,000
sq. feet or more of the
banks of the Great Lakes
or other navigable coast-
al water. (Wis. Stats.
Sections 30.19 and 144.
30(9)).

ISSUE 4: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

4.13 The program will provide financial and
technical assistance to local governments
to improve their coastal management capabil-
ities, with emphasis on staff training,
ordinance revision, data collection and
analysis, and county shoreland zoning.
4.14 The program will provide financial assis-
tance to local governments to implement
the specific management policies of desig-
nated areas.
4.15 The program will support local govern-
mental efforts to identify and designate
areas of significant natural, recreational,
scientific, cultural, or historic value and
develop specific management, preservation
or restoration policies for each area, with
emphasis on recreation access and blight.
This effort will be coordinated with the
program referenced in policy 4.4.
4.16 The program will support public aware-
ness and involvement in resolving local
community coastal problems, with emphasis
on the special needs of, or barriers to,
low-income, elderly, handicapped, and
minority groups in coastal plans and
proposals.

ISSUE 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

cm
ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC'~.
General Policies:
5. Economic 5.0 The state's policy on economic develop-
Development ment shall be to stimulate desirable econ-
omic development that broadens the coastal
area economy and to encourage the designa-
tion and reservation of areas of signifi-
cance to activities requiring a coastal
location by:

a. Providing special planning, manage-
ment and promotional attention to
Great Lakes port and transportation
issues;
b. Coordinating, stimulating and pro-
moting the orderly and environmentally
sound provision of business and
tourism facilities; and
c. Managing the planning for and siting
of electrical generating and trans-
mission facilities so as to ensure
protection of water quality, public
and riparian rights and orderly land
use.

Snecific Issues: Specific Policies:
� There is a concern 5.1 The state shall promote business and 1) Areas of signif-
in many coastal com- industrial development so as to icant natural,
munities for balanced brwaden and strengthen the state's recreational,
and increased economic economy. (Wis. Stats. Sections 560.03 scientific, or
development, which and 560.23). historical value.
.is not solely depen- 5.2 The state shall locate and maintain in- 2) Areas especially
dent on resources formation on prime industrial sites. suited for water
and recreation- (Wis. Stats, Section 560.23). related economic
tourism and is com- 5.4 The state shall promote travel to Wis- development.
patible with the consin's scenic, historic, natural,
local environment, agricultural, educational, and recre-
the labor force, ational attractions. (Wis. Stats.
local economic needs, Section 560.23).
and existing facil- 5.5 The orderly and ecologically sound
ities. development of commercial tourist
facilities shall be coordinated and
stimulated by the state. (Wis. Stats.
Section 560.23(1)(f)).

ISSUE 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

5.12 The state shall prepare and maintain
contingency plans for responding to
critical energy shortages so that when
the shortages occur, they can be dealt
with quickly and effectively. (Wis.
Stats. Section 16.95).

Competition for shore 5.2 The state shall locate and maintain Land Based 2) Areas especially
property can exclude information on prime industrial sites. 2 c. Siting of electrical suited for water
those uses that can (Wis. Stats. Section 560.23). generating and high related economic
only be sited at 5.6 The state shall protect forests from voltage transmission development.
the water's edge. destruction and premature cutting facilities. (Wis. 3) Areas approved as
The relatively few through planned development and sound Stats. Section 196.491). power plant sites.
areas which meet forestry practice, giving full recog-
the special needs nition to the concept of multiple use
of harbors need to assure maximum public benefits.
to be set aside for (Wis. Stats. Secion 28.04, 28.11 and
these uses. While 77.01).
few shoreland uses 5.7 The state shall provide tax relief to
are exclusive, many those agricultural areas subject to
are incompatible approved local exclusive agricultural
with surrounding zoning or subject to farmland preser-
uses and with the vation contracts. (Wis. Stats. Section
capability of the 71.09(11) and Chapter 91).
land, air, and 5.11 Once a state permit for construction
water to support of, electrical generating or transmission
them. Adequate con- facilities has been issued, local ordin-
sideration must be ances shall not preclude or inhibit the
given to the impact installation or utilization of the
of losing unique facility. (Wis. Stats. Section 196.491).
agricultural, mining,
and forestry lands
and conversion of
areas especially
suited to other
uses.

ISSUE 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

3. A number of the 5.3 The state shall promote a balanced trans- Land Based
state's ports and portation system that includes highway, 2 h. Laying out, altering, or 2) Areas especially
harbors have been rail, water travel and other facilities discontinuing highways. suited for water
declining or stag- adequate to meet public needs. (Wis. 2 i. Disturbing bridges. (Wis. related economic
nating. Since Stats. Sections 85.02, 194.02, 195.199, Stats. Section 86.07 and development.
they are important and Chapter 196). Wis. Admin. Code NR 320).
to the economic 5.8 The state will formulate and coordinate 2 J. Abandoning any rail line
well-being of Wis- a program of port planning, promotion, or service. (Wis. Stats.
consin, they should and development. (Wis. Stats. Sections Section 195.199).
be maintained, 560.03 and 560.04). 2 k. Constructing or establish-
modernized and pro- 5.9 Buoys and beacons necessary for free ing a new airport. (Wis.
moted.' navigation shall not be unlawfully Stats. Section 114.134).
disturbed or interfered with. (Wis.
Stats. Sections 30.15 and 30.17).

4. The potential dis- 5.3 The state shall promote a balanced trans-
continuation of portation system that includes highway,
cross-lake ferry rail, water travel and other facilities
service would in- adequate to meet public needs. (Wis.
crease shipping Stats. Sections 85.02, 194.02 195.199,
rates and reduce and Chapter 196).
tourism.

5. The shoreline is 5.10 The state shall require advance planning Land Based 4) Areas approved as
attractive for for and shall regulate the siting of 2 c. Siting of electrical power plant sites.
power plant sites. electirical generating and transmission generating and high
The local economic facilities. (Wis. Stats. Sections 30.025 voltage transmission
impact of power and 196.491 and Wis. Admin. Code PSC 111). facilities. (Wis.
plant location 5.11 Once a state permit for construction of State. Section 196.491).
can be significant. electrical generating or transmission
facilities has been issued, local ordi-
nances shall not preclude or inhibit the
installation or utilization of the
facility. (Wis. Stats. Section 196.491).
5.12 The state shall prepare and maintain con-
tingency plans for responding to critical
energy shortages so that when the shortages
occur, they can be dealt with quickly and
effectively. (Wis. Stats Section 16.95).

ISSUE 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
5.13 The program will seek to improve the im-
plementation and enforcement of existing
state regulatory and management programs
which influence the economic well-being
of citizens along the Great Lakes.
5.14 The program will provide financial assis-
tance to state and local agencies to imple-
ment the specific management policies of
designated economic areas and improve the
implementation of existing programs to
broaden the economic base of communities
with desirable diversifications of industry
and to effectively manage coastal land and
water resources which influence community
development.
5.15 The program will seek to improve the
coordination of policies which affect the
economies of coastal areas.
5.16 The program will support state and local
government efforts to (1) identify and
designate areas especially suited for
water-related economic development and
power plant sites approved through the
power plant siting process of the Public
Service Commission and (2) develop specific
management policies for each.
5.17 The program will support local government
efforts that consider in their coastal
plans and programs the concept that water-
front locations be kept available for
activities which need such locations and
that unnecessary development not consume
coastal resources particularly suited to
other uses.
5.18 The program will support local government
efforts to locate new coastal development
adjacent to existing areas which can pro-
vide adequate public services.
5.19 The program will advocate the role of the
Great Lakes ports both within the state
and at the national level.
5.20 The program will support research and
public education about the economic base
of coastal areas.

ISSUE 6: GOVERNMENTAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
6. Government General Policies:
Interrelationships 6.0 The state policy on government inter-
relationships shall be to ensure inter-
governmental communication, cooperation
and coordination on all aspects of coastal
management through:

a. Creating and operating an interagency,
intergovernmental Coastal Management
Council with representation from all
directly affected agencies and levels
of government and citizens within the
state;
b. Creating and maintaining technical/
citizen committees to ensure coor-
dination of specific projects and
programs;
c. Maintaining a workable system of inter-
agency reviews and comments on coastal
program activities. and
d. Requiring state and federal agencies to,
through the clearinghouse process or
other appropriate mechanism, consult with
and obtain comments of other agencies with
respect to any significant environmental
impact involved in their major actions.
Specific Issues: Specific Policies:
1. There are many programs 6.1 A Tlisconsin Coastal Management Council will
and laws, spread among be created with representation from state
many agencies and levels agencies, local governments, tribal govern-
of government, that apply ments, the University System and the public
to the coastal area. to oversee program operations and activities.
There is a strong need (Chapter II, Organization for Program
for improved coordina- Implementation).
tion and communication 6.2 The state shall evaluate the plans of all
on specific programs state agencies, identify both duplication
and projects, especially and program gaps in the plans and measure
at the policy level. the agency plans with the state goals en-
acted by the Governor and the legislature.
(Wis. Stats. Section 16.95).

ISSUE 6: GOVERNMENTAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

6.3 Structural reorganization of state govern-
ment shall be a continuing process, with
the goals of assuring responsiveness to
popular control, improved public under-
standing of government, and efficient and
effective administration of state policies,
including improved management and coordina-
tion of state services and elimination of
overlapping activities. (Wis. Stats. Sec-
tion 15.001 and 16.001).
6.4 All state agencies shall prepare detailed
statements on the environmental and economic
impacts of all major actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment. Prior to making such statements the
agency shall consult with any other agency
that has jurisdiction or special expertise
with respect to any environmental impact
involved. (Wis. Stats. Section 1.11).

There is a strong 6.5 All agencies shall study, develop and
concern about the describe appropriate alternatives to
paperwork and time- their actions referenced in policy 6.4
consuming procedures that involve unresolved conflicts con-
that accompany many cerning alternative uses of available
government pro- resources. (Wis. Stats. Section 1.11).
grams. A need has See 6.11 of program activities.
been suggested for
streamlined pro-
cedures and a clear-
inghouse for in-
formation on reg-
ulatory programs.

ISSUE 6: GOVERNMENTAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS (CONT.)

ISSUES AND) P'ROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

3. (ivea Wiseoosin's 6.6 The state shall foster closer cooper-
'home-rule status' ation and coordination between state and
citizens and local local government and encourage a pattern
governments are of state-local relationships that facili-
concerned in main- tates effective development and utiliza-
taining a degree tion of state and local resources in meet-
of local control ing citizen needs. (Wis. Stats. Section
in governmental 22.03).
decision-making. 6.7 State agencies and localities shall mutually
Even citizens who cooperate to enhance the quality, manage-
favor a strong ment and protection of the state's air,
state coastal man- land, and water resources. (Wis. Stats.
agement program Section 144.31).
are concerned
that actual im-
plementation takes
place as close to
the local level
as possible.

4. The Great Lakes See 6.12 of the program activities.
remain an under-
represented "national
coast" at the federal
level, added as an
afterthought in the
final stages of
passage of the 1972
federal Coastal
Zone Management
Act.

FROGiA ACTiVVIT E
6.8 The program will use exlstng review processes
(A-95, NEPA, and WEPA) to ensure coordination
of federal, state, and local policies and
programs.
6.9 The program will improve coordination with
adjacent Great Lakes states and federal agen-
cies with continuing programs affecting Lakes
Michigan and Superior.
6.10 The program will improve information flow and
coordination of policies related to key coast-
al areas and uses and with emphasis on stream-
ling procedures and eliminating duplication or
conflicting efforts.

ISSUE 6: GOVERNMENTAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS I RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's

6.11 The program will support tribal govern-
ments in their efforts in coastal
management.
6.12 The program will perform advocacy functions
in seeking increased policy recognition
of the Great Lakes in policy by all levels
of government, with emphasis on the federal
level.

ISSUE 7: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAHC's
General Policies:
7. Public 7.0 The state's policy on public involvement
Involvement shall be to provide citizens with full
opportunities for early and continuous
involvement in coastal management through
effective communication and participation.

Specific Issues: Specific Policies:
1. There is a need for 7.1 The public shall be entitled to the
increased public fullest and most complete information
awareness and under- regarding the affairs of government,
standing of coastal compatible with the conduct of govern-
issues: There is ment business. To this end, all meet-
also a need for pro- ings of all state and local governments
vision of adecuate shall be preceded by public notice,
information on the shall be open to the public, and shall
scope of coastal be held in places reasonably accessible
issues and options to members of the public. (Wis. Stats.
for addressing Sections 19.81 and 19.83).
those issues. 7.2 Any person may, with proper care, examine
and copy any official property and records.
(Wis. Stats. Section 19.21).
7.3 The state shall establish a citizens
environmental council to educate and
advise the general public for the purpose
of facilitating effective public aware-
ness on environmental activities. (Wis.
Stats. Section 144.76).

2. There is a need 7.4 The Department of Natural Resources shall,
for increasing upon the verified complaint of six or
and improving more citizens, hold a public hearing relat-
the opportuni- ing to any alleged or potential environ-
ties of citizens mental pollution. The alleged or potential
and public in- pollution shall be served with notice of
terest groups the hearing and the department shall,
to effectively within 90 days after the hearing, issue
participate in findings of fact, conclusions of law and
governmental order. (Wis. Stats. Section 144.537).
decision-making 7.5 The state shall establish and provide for a
on coastal issues. "public intervenor" in the Department of
Justice with responsibility and authority
to intervene in proceedings where necessary
to protect public rights in waters or other
natural resources. (Wis. Stats. Section
165.07 and Part IV, Appendix H of this
proposal).

ISSUE 7: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (CONT.)

ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED POLICY STATEMENTS RELATED MANAGED USES RELATED GAMC's
~AUTUIbMAsllVITlI~=
7.6 The program shall create a broad State
Citizens Advisory Committee, with indepen-
dent staffing, to monitor program implemen-
tation and to develop, recommend and sponsor
public information, education, and partici-
pation programs. (See Section II. C. Organ-
ization).
7.7 The program shall create regional coastal
task forces to facilitate full participation
in the program on continuing basis by in-
terested local parties. (See Section II.
C. Organization).
7.8 The program shall support public education
and awareness of coastal issues and broadly
disseminate program materials.
7.9 The program shall provide appropriate forums
to involve and educate citizens on projects
and programs which have a significant or
controversial impact on coastal resources;
subject those projects and programs to public
scrutiny and discussion; and make recommend-
ations concerning such projects and programs
to appropriate governmental agencies.
7.10 The program will encourage program partic-
ipants to hold public informational meetings
and involve citizens and technical members
in issue study, problem identification,
proposal development and decision-making.

-4

39
IV. Designation of Shorefront Areas as Geographic
Areas of Management Concern

The current process for designating Geographic Areas of Management Concern
(GAMC) is described in the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final
Environmental Impact Statement. The process provides a method for designating
shorefront areas as GAMC which is a federal requirement (15 CFR 923.25(a)(4)).

Eligibility for GAMC designation is based upon qualifying under one of the six
categories of areas established by Wisconsin, demonstration of direct relation-
ship to the area to the Great Lakes, location within the Coastal Program
boundaries, and existence of clear management policy for the area which is
consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the coastal program.

The six GAMC categories include:

1. Areas of significant natural, recreation, scientific or historic value;

2. Areas especially suited for water related economic development;

3. Hazard areas relating to erosion or flooding;

4. Areas approved as power plant sites;

5. Areas for preservation; and

6. Areas of restoration.

Most shorefront access or protection areas would fit into the first category,
thus the area may be eligible for GAMC designation.

A GAMC must have a direct relationship to the Great Lakes. This relationship
may be physical, social, or economic. Most shorefront areas which provide
protection, physical access (lateral or perpendicular) or visual access have
a physical relationship to the Great Lakes.

Location within the Coastal Program boundaries is an easily met requirement
for shorefront access and protection areas, particularly since preference
is given to those areas located on the immediate shore or within the water.

The existence of a clear management policy consistent with the policies and
goals of the coastal program is perhaps the most important prerequisite for
GAMC designation because it is the basis for a GAMC receiving funding. Since
protection, enhancement, development, and recreational use of shorefront areas
are among the general policies articulated by the Coastal Program, management
policies for shorefront access and protection areas can qualify. The managing
agency must demonstrate that it has the ability and authority to carry out the
management policy and agree to carry out the stated policy before an area is
designated GAKC. Designation of an area as a GAMC results in eligibility of
the managing body to receive financial and technical assistance to assist in
the implementation of the approved management policies for the area.

The requirement of a clear management policy associated with GAMC designation
for a period of one to three years provides a mechanism for continuing refinement
and implementation of necessary management techniques. This will be discussed
in greater detail in the fifth section of this report.

In the initial GAMC designations, areas were designated either by class
or specific site. Examples of class designation include nomination of all
state wildlife areas within six miles of the shore of Lake Michigan and
Lake Superior by the Department of Natural Resources and nomination of all
unincorporated county shorelands 1000 feet landward of the Ordinary High
Water Mark of Lake Michigan by Sheboygan County.

A class designation is particularly useful for the purpose of giving recognition
to a large area or a management policy which applies to a large area. Class
designation also saves a managing body from excess paper work both in the
nomination procedure and later administration of the GAMC. It is suggested
that a class designation should be made only by the single managing body
that has authority over the included areas. Designation of a class of areas
by multiple agencies would complicate the management agreement between the
Coastal Council and the managing body. Possible classes of areas related
to shorefront access or protection include but are not limited to: boat
ramps, docks, harbors, swimming beaches, piers, breakwaters, waysides, overlooks,
etc.

Examples of initial site GAMC designation included Virmond Park in Ozaukee
County. Site designation should be used when that is the only site within
a particular class for which the managing body is responsible or the particular
site is in need of specific management assistance.

Specific details of the Wisconsin GAMC nomination procedure can be found
in the program document.

V. Legal Authorities, Funding Programs and Other Techniques to Meet
Management Needs

Federal requirements for Shorefront Access and Protection Planning include
an identification of legal authorities, funding programs and other techniques
that can be used to meet management needs (15 CFR 923.25(a)(5)).

Wisconsin's response to this requirement is described below.

A. Legal Authorities

The identification of legal authorities is incorporated into Part III of
this report.

B. Funding Programs

Some funding program information is provided in Part I of this report.
Information on additional funding sources is not provided in detail, since
the availability of funding for various purposes often changes. Instead
of listing all potential funding programs, the applicant is directed to
the following reference materials and resource people to learn about funding
opportunities and eligibility requirements:

1. Directory of State and Federal Recreation-Related Financial
Assistance Programs for Local Recreation Departments in Wisconsin -
this directory is prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior -
Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service in cooperation
with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. It provides
information on the following types of programs:

a. Federal and State acquisition and development programs such as LAWCON
and Local Park Aids:

b. General operation and maintenance programs such as federally subsidized
employment programs;

c. Planning programs such as Federal HUD '701' planning assistance;

d. Water-related programs such as small beach erosion control projects;

e. Trail-related programs, such as federal aid to highway programs;

f. Fish and Wildlife-related programs such as the state wildlife habitat
aid program; and

g. Other special purpose programs such as the Wisconsin federal property
program.

42
Revisions of this directory are made as necessary and are sent to directory
recipients. Copies may be obtained from the Heritage, Conservation and
Recreation Service USDI, Federal Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107.

2. Recreation Aid Programs Newsletter - this newsletter is published
twice a year and provides updated information on eligibility
and funding levels for LAWCON, ORAP, and other special funding
programs administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. The newsletter is available from the Office of Intergovernmental
Programs - Bureau of Aid Programs, Box 7921, Madison, Wisconsin
53707.

3. Recreation Aids Specialists may be contacted at the District
Offices of the Department of Natural Recources to assist applicants
seeking funding for access and resource protection needs.

C. Other Techniques

Other techniques which can be used to meet the management needs of shorefront
access and protection areas include methods which provide for continuing
refinement and implementation of necessary management practices. Methods
include GAMC management agreements and Master Planning for properties managed
by the Department of Natural Resources which are described below.

1. GAMC Management Agreements

As mentioned in Section IV, a GAMC may be designated for a period of one
to three years and receive funding for management activities. The GAMC
designation is accompanied by an agreement between the Coastal Council and
the managing agency for the area to be managed according to specific policies.
At the end of the period for which the area has been designated, the Coastal
Management Council may consider the area for redesignation by reviewing
management policies and implementation activities for the area. If the
management policies and implementation techniques require refinement, a
new management agreement may be negotiated, prior to redesignation and consideration
for future funding.

2. Master Planning Process

The purpose of the Master Plannino process is to ensure sound, long-range,
comprehensive master planning of all Department of Natural Resources lands
of significant public use or interest. The master planning process consists
of two parts: the Master Plan and the Implementation Plan.

The Master Plan reflects the public interest in all ecologic, economic and
social benefits that may be derived from the property, consistent with its
natural resource capabilities and the statutes under which it was acquired.

The Master Plan is prepared for the ultimate expansion and development of
the property. It is scheduled to be reviewed every 10 years. The Master
Plan includes: Information and goals and objectives of the property;,management
policies which direct or limit the acquisition, development and operation
of the property; resource capabilities of the area describing the potential
for providing other management opportunities; resource management problems
including present and anticipated resource protection and development difficulties;
long range resources, recreation needs and justifications; analysis of management
alternatives; and a recommended management program which should be updated
as goals and objectives of the property are changed.

The Implementation Plan is prepared after the'Natural Resources Board approves
the Master Plan. The Implementation Plan is a schedule of actions and their
costs for at least six years. Estimates and priorities are made for two
years followed by tentative estimates for the next four years. These estimates
are updated biennially. The Implementation Plan includes priorities and
plan for acquisition, development, operations and maintenance of the property.

ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS

Compliance with Section 305(b)(8)
Federal Requirements

Teresa Danovich

Office of State Planning & Energy
Department of Administration

for

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

DRAFT

Chapter 305(b) (8)

ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS

Table of Contents
Page no.

1. Existing and Proposed Energy Facilities
Along the Wisconsin Coastline ................45

2. Articulation of State Policies................65

3. Procedures for Site Suitability ...............71

4. Public Participation and Inclusion of
the National Interest in the Energy
Facility Siting Process ...................81

5. Techniques to Meet Management Needs .............85

Appendix A: CEIP - Section 308(c) Planning Inventory ......87

Appendix B: Additional Proposed Coastal Energy
Facilities Suggested by the Office
of State Planning and Energy ............92

Appendix C: Cooperative Agreement for Environmental
Assessment of Major Electric Generating
Facilities .....................93

Appendix D: CEIP Background Information and
Intrastate Allocation Process............101

ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS

Section I. Existing and Proposed Energy Facilities Along the Wisconsin Coastline

A. Introduction

Recognizing the unique character of our nation's coastal areas, Congress
enacted the Coastal Zone 'Management Act in 1972. Coastal waters are
used for commerical fishing, shipping, drinking water supply, condenser
cooling, recreation, aesthetic pleasure, and industrial discharges. This
Act responds to the intense pressure placed upon coastal areas and
affirms their importance.

The Act states that there is a "national interest in the effective manage-
ment, beneficial use, protection and development of the coastal zone."I
The states were given the primary responsibility for developing coastal
management programs. Local governments and federal agencies were con-
sulted during the planning process. In May 1978, Wisconsin received
approval of its coastal management program.

In 1976, The Coastal Zone Management Act was substantially amended to
include a planning process for (1) access to public coastal areas, (2)
energy facilities, and (3) shoreline erosion, to be completed by October,
1978. In order to fulfill the conditions of section 305(b)(8) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act,Wisconsin is required to establish a
coastal energy planning process. The subject of this section, namely,
Ian identification of energy facilities which are likely to locate in,
or which may signigicantly affect, the coastal zone", is the first part
of the process.

The term "energy facility" is defined in section 931.91 of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Rules and Regulations (43
FR 7552). It includes any equipment or facility used:

(1) In the exploration for, or the development, production
conversion, storage, transfer, processing, or trans-
portation of, any energy resource; or
(2) For the manufacture, production, or assembly of
equipment, machinery, products, or devices, which are
involved in the above activities.

However, for the State of Wisconsin, this term can be defined in a more
narrow sense because Wisconsin does not possess any known reserves of
oil, natural gas, or coal either inland or off its coast-2' The energy
facilities pertinent to Wisconsin include electric generating plants and
associated transmission facilities, petroleum refineries, oil storage
facilities, and transportation systems for oil, gas, and coal. Each of
these categories will be treated separately.

*Footnotes are at the end of each section
*Figures and Tables are at the end of the section.

B. Existing Steam-Electric Generating Plants and Transmission Facilities

Ten major inland power plant sites are presently located in Wisconsin
with a total of 2,861 megawatts (MW) generating capacity; ten major
coastal power plants are located along Wisconsin's coastline generating
5,404 megawatts of electrical energy. Figure 1 displays the location
of the steam electric generating power plants over 50 megawatts in
Wisconsin. Figures 2 and 3 outline the coastal transmission lines.3
Table I lists the generating capacity of coastal power plants and Table
2 displays the thermal discharges of Wisconsin' s coastal power plants.

C. Petroleum Refineries4

One crude oil refinery is located in Superior, Wisconsin; it is owned
by the Murphy Oil Corporation. In 1977, it operated at a capacity of
35,000 barrels per day (bbl/day); however, it has an optimum capacity for
45,000 bbl/day. Crude oil varies according to sulfur content, viscosity, and
amount of impurities; therefore, oil refineries are constructed to
handle one type of crude oil. The equipment used at the Murphy Oil
Refinery is best suited to handle Canadian crude oil; however, Canadian
exports have declined steadily.

By the end of 1979, the amount of Canadian crude oil that the refinery
can obtain will be too small for plant operation unless some type of
vigorous exchange program with other refineries using Canadian crude
oil can be implemented. Currrently, the Murphy Oil Corporation is only
attempting to maintain its refinery operation and is not planning any
expansion of its terminal or of its refinery.

D. Oil Storage Facilities

A total of 32 oil terminals are located in Wisconsin' s fifteen coastal
counties. In 1973, the Lakehead Pipeline Company proposed that a refined
products terminal be constructed in the Duluth-Superior Harbor. However,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied the permit in March, 1977 because
the Superior area would only benefit temporarily from construction of the
facility. Few individuals would obtain long-term employment and the
risk to the environment from tanker traffic would increase.

E. Liquified Natural Gas Facilities5

Three small liquified natural gas storage facilities are situated in
Wisconsin (Table 3). One of these facilities is located within one mile
of the Lake Michigan shoreline. There are no plans for expansion and
the number of facilities will probably remain constant for the next
five years.

F. Transportation Systems for Oil, Gas, and Coal

Wisconsin imports all of its oil and natural gas supply. The major
routes for natural gas and oil pipelines are diagrammed in Figures 4
and 5. Several Wisconsin Great Lake ports also handle petroleum products
and coal. Tables 4 and 5 display amounts shipped during the year 1970-1975.

G. Other Energy-Related Facilities

Most of the proposed or expanding energy facilities are projections of
future growth patterns of the energy industries situated in Wisconsin.
Other energy facilities which are not likely to locate in, or significantly
affect, the coastal zone include:

(1) Power Plants

(a) Direct solar energy

Solar energy for heating and cooling homes is appli-
cable to most Wisconsin areas; however, using direct
solar energy for centralized power plants is not
applicable to Wisconsin.

(b) Wind power

The greatest potential for using wind power in
Wisconsin exists in agricultural areas with adequate
wind speeds and along the coastal areas; however,
none of the Wisconsin electric utilities are presently
planning wind-driven centralized power plants.

Not applicable to Wisconsin.

(2) Electric storage facilities6

The University of Wisconsin is presently studying a high
energy electric storage facility. The experiment is
designed to assess the technical feasibility of storing
electricity during night hours and releasing it during
peak hours. Although several areas in Wisconsin are
being examined and one site is located near the coast,
the economic feasibility and environmental impacts have
not yet been addressed. Furthermore, even if the project
is successful,construction would not commence within
the next 15 years.

(3) Coal gasification plants

A possibility exists for changing coal into low- and
medium-BTU gas. In Wisconsin this could be feasible
if two conditions were met: a) a larg~e demand for
natural gas existed within a six to eight mile radius;
and b) this demand was constant. However, questions
of economics must be addressed. Presently, none of
the Wisconsin companies are planning this type of energy
facility.

(4) Uranium enrichment or a nuclear fuel processing facility7

Although some uranium deposits have been discovered in
Wisconsin, it is low grade ore and mining may not be
economically viable. These deposits are not located in
coastal counties. Plans for constructing a uranium
enrichment or processing facility are not being considered.

(5) Facilities to separate oil, water, and gas

Not applicable to Wisconsin. No known deposits of oil
or gas exist in Wisconsin.

(6) Drilling rigs, platforms, subsea completions, and subsea
production systems

Not applicable to Wisconsin. Such facilities are involved
with offshore drilling.

(7) Construction yards for platforms and exploration rigs,
pipecoating yards, bases supporting platforms and pipeline
installation, and crew and supply bases.

Not applicable to Wisconsin. Such facilities are
involved with offshore drilling.

(8) Oil and gas storage facilities

(a) Salt Domes

No salt domes exist in Wisconsin

(b) Granitic caverns

One natural gas storage facility exists in a crystal
cavern in Minnesota; however, Wisconsin does not
have any underground storage facilities.

Although natural gas is stored underground in Paleozoic
formations in northern Illinois,there is no evidence
that Wisconsin will store natural gas in sub-surface
facilities in the future. Geologic investigations
have discovered that Wisconsin rock formations are not
favorable.

(9) Marine pipeline system including pressure source, gathering
lines, pipeline, intermediate pressure boosting facilities,
and associated landfill sites.

Not applicable to Wisconsin. Such facilities are involved
with offshore drilling.

(10) Oil and gas processing facilities

Not applicable to Wisconsin. Such facilities are usually
situated near the point of production.

(11) Transportation facilities for tankers

Not applicable to Wisconsin. NOAA Regulation 931.19(12)
specifies that such facilities must be involved with outer
continental shelf energy facilities.

(12) Facilities including deepwater ports, for the transfer of
petroleum

Although three Wisconsin ports are considered "deepwater"
ports for the Great Lakes, an ocean deepwater port is
dredged to a depth of at least 40 feet. The International
Joint Commission standard for the depth of Superior,
Green Bay, and Milwaukee harbors is 27 feet. However,
specific Congressional authorization determines the actual
depth for each Wisconsin harbor.

(13) Facilities for geopressurized gas

Not applicable to Wisconsin. Refers to production
facilities.

H. New or Expanding Coastal Energy Facilities

Within the next several years, eleven energy-related facilities are planned
for construction along the Wisconsin coastal areas. Four of these are
expanding facilities; seven are new sites. The Coastal Energy Impact
Program Inventory lists these facilities in Appendices A and B. Appendix
A is composed of those projects which were included on the federal NOAA
list; additional projects suggested by the Office of State Planning and
Energy are described in Appendix B. The majority of these facilities
are electric generating plants. The new transmission lines associated
with these plants are listed in Table 6.

The Wisconsin electric utilities submit electric demand forecasts to the
Wisconsin Public Service Commission in the advance plan process. This
process is explained in further detail in Section III.B.(l. The 1976
advance plan projections for electric energy are shown in Table 7.
Table 8 corresponds to the proposed facilities required to meet the
electric forecasts.

The Great Lakes Transmission Line Company is planning a natural gas
pipeline. This new line would essentially parallel the present lines
located in Douglas, Bayfield, and Ashland Counties. Land is available
in Superior, Wisconsin for another coal transshipment facility. The
proposed facility would transport larger amounts of western coal to
eastern states in addition to the existing facility that began operation
in 1976. Potential dock expansion in the Green Bay area is being
considered by another company.

1. Conclusion

Numerous energy facilities are located along Wisconsin's shoreline. The
most visible ones are electric generating plants which comprise half of
the proposed energy facilities. Because of the potential increase in
use of western low-sulfur coal by utilities in eastern states, it
may become necessary to construct new coal transshipment facilities to
meet this need. Such facilities are not only of local interest, but also
form part of the growing national public concern to supply the nation's
energy resources.

Footnotes

(Section I)

1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, P.L. 92-583, Section 302(a).

2. Energy Facility Siting in the Great Lakes Coastal Zone, Great Lakes Basin
Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 14, 1977, page 303.

3. Figure 2 is adapted from 1976 Advance Plan, Wisconsin Upper Michigan Systems,
filed with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, Madison, Wisconsin,
Exhibits 2.32-2.42. Figure 3 is adapted from 1976 Advance Plan, Western
Wisconsin Utilities, filed with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission,
Madison, Wisconsin, Exhibit IV, Sheet 1.

4. Telephone conversation with Mr. Dave Thomas, Plant Manager, Murphy Oil
Refinery, Superior, Wisconsin, November 4, 1977.

5. Survey and Description of the Data Base: Natural Gas Supply and End-Use
in Wisconsin (unpublished draft), Ralph B. Hostetler, Wisconsin Office
of State Planning and Energy, Madison, Wisconsin, December 1977.

6. Telephone conversation with Professor Haimson, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin, March 29, 1978,

7. Telephone conversation with Mr. John Williams, Wisconsin Public Service
Commission, Madison, Wisconsin, March 21, 1978.

8. Telephone conversation with Mr. Ron Hennings, University of Wisconsin-
Extension, Geological Survey, Madison, Wisconsin, March 23, 1978.

Table 1: Existing Major Steam - Electric Generating Stations Along the Coast of Wisconsin

Capacity Number Date of Initial
Power Plant County Town MW* Type of Fuel of Units Operation

Bay Front Ashland Ashland 82 coal 6 oldest 1917
newest 1960

Pulliam Brown Green Bay 393 coal, oil 8 oldest 1926
newest 1964

Kewaunee Kewaunee Carl ton 560 nuclear 1 1974

Point Beach Manitowoc Two Creeks 1,068 nuclear, oil 2 1970, 1972

Manitowoc Manitowoc Manitowoc 70 coal 4 oldest 1941
newest 1964

Edgewater Sheboygan Sheboygan 477 coal 4 oldest 1931
newest 1969

Port Washington Ozaukee Port Washington 420 coal, oil 6 oldest 1935
newest 1950

Vall1ey Milwaukee Milwaukee 275 coal, oil 3 1968, 1969

Lakeside Milwaukee St. Francis 347 oil, natural gas 14 oldest 1920
newest 1930

Oak Creek Milwaukee Oak Creek 1,712 coal, natural gas 9 oldest 1953
newest 1967

*The figures are taken from Inventory of Power Plants in the U.S., U.S. Department of Energy ,Office of Utility
Project Operations, Washington D.C., December, 1977. U
The rating corresponds to the one assigned by the generator manufacturer appearing on the unit nameplate. -

TABLE 2: THERMAL DISCHARGES FROM MAJOR COASTAL STEAM-ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS1

Number of Number of Total
Days per Outfalls Total Cooling Discharge Total Thermal
Year with Discharging Water Volume in Temperature- BTU Load in
Power Plant Lake or Thermal Cooling Million Gallons All Outfalls Millions of BTU's
(MW) Water Body Discharge Water per Day (Effluent)(�F) per Day
Max. Avg. Max. Avg. Max. Avg.

Bay Front Superior 365 2 31.8 21.8 115.0 60.4 5,932 2,320
(82)

Pulliam Green Bay 365 1 484.9 263.4 95.0 66.0 46,731 26,515
(393)

Kewaunee Michigan 365 1 593.0 545.7 88.0 56.6 112,316 66,533
(560)

Point Beach Michigan 365 3 1348.4 1130.2 93.5 68.7 187,721 133,001
(1068)

Manitowoc 2Michigan 365 2 65.4 21.2 90.0 62.2
(70)

Edgewater Michigan 365 4 332.9 182.7 88.0 67.5 51,100 28,805
(477)

Port (420) Michigan 344 2 964.5 490.3 85.6 52.3 118,894 25,832
Washington

Valley Tributary 365 2 156.8 145.1 114.0 80.4 44,718 25,542
(275) of Lake
Michigan-
Menomonee
River Canal
1-3/4 mi.

Lakeside Michigan 165 4 799.5 296.3 83.0 57.5 50,561 19,136
(347)

Oak Creek Michigan 365 6 3594.4 1547.9 86.0 55.2 129,364 91,525
(1712)

1. Source: CY 1977, NR 101 Effluent Reports, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
2. The figures for the Manitowoc power plant are taken from WPDES permit data, CY 1977,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

TABLE 3 5

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS STORAGE
FACILITIES IN WISCONSIN

Total
Storage
Vol ume Date of Initial
Company Location MMcf* Operation

Northern States
Power Company Eau Claire 270 1969

Northern States
Power Company La Crosse 130 1969

Wisconsin Natural
Gas Company Oak Creek 256 1965

*mmcf = million standard cubic feet

TABLE 4: PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN TONS (SHIPMENTS)

HARBORS 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Duluth-Superior Gasoline 81,061 121,287 68,521 84,560 71,220 88,033
Distillate fuel oil 196,465 231,409 207,979 170,875 177,662 175,497
Residual fuel oil 15,904 51,977 55,729 72,182 18,968 none
Petroleum Coke 8,107 none none 6,600 12,186 19,340

Green Bay Gasoline 95,914 92,116 73,607 92,557 16,186 13,111
Distillate 144,776 121,707 83,939 149,178 88,658 96,229
Residual 50,142 66,053 37,140 43,700 27,032 36,726

Kewaunee Gasoline '1,000 15,276 14,014 7,120 5,113 4,387
Distillate '1,000 15,586 9,850 4,537 8,117 5,169

Two Rivers Gasoline 31,385 34,732 40,732 13,911 none none
Distillate 70,072 54,585 53,659 59,277 25,011 none

Sheboygan Gasoline none none none none 34,529 59,851
Distillate 34,399 33,491 25,889 39,128 43,930 53,696
Residual 2,484 4,222 none none 5,294 31,471
Petroleum Coke none none none 8,200 28,650 16,400

Port Washington Gasoline 109,387 104,515 92,801 114,169 98,572 114,787
Distillate 57,260 64,191 57,111 49,069 31,311 25,240

Milwaukee Gasoline 460,090 340,456 355,610 460,951 289,050 266,051
Distillate 325,978 253,298 299,166 223,438 173,263 140,280
Residual 133,465 74,605 37,869 84,248 6,838 (Canada) 46513
66,197 (domestic)) 46,513
Petroleum Coke 32,543 59,220 26,287 25,821 12,328 10,948

Racine Gasoline 27,459 32,731 32,641 28,995 24,536 24,973
Distillate 50,451 47,104 48,986 42,022 46,111 48,873

1 Figures taken from Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 1970-1975, Part 3, Waterways and
Harbors, Great Lakes, Department of Army, Corps of Engineers

TABLE 5: COAL IN TONS (SHIPMENTS AND RECEIPTS)1

HARBORS 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Superior-Duluth 1,816,125 1,199,999 905,748 1,532,502 1,713,131 2,219,893

Ashland 356,263 282,332 237,529 315,217 290,722 247,786

Marinette-Menominee 106,008 73,970 68,771 69,841 49,822 65,477

Green Bay 1,890,072 1,762,316 1,894,246 1,681,872 1,605,840 1,589,621

Kewaunee 6,789 7,387 3,048 2,290 5,008 41,000

Manitowoc 191,111 144,497 132,478 147,750 116,307 124,580

Sheboygan 92,981 77,632 115,803 84,231 none 66,427

Port Washington 1,023,143 734,937 567,293 706,434 546,446 736,867

Milwaukee 1,672,294 1,203,172 1,213,023 1,143,523 900,282 862,140

Oak Creek 1,218,167 874,120 920,766 300,738 none none

Racine 10,280 none none none none none

Figures taken from Waterborne Commerce of the United States, Calendar Years 1970-1975, Part 3
Waterways and Harbors, Great Lakes, Department of Army, Corps of Engineers.

TABLE 6: NEW COASTAL TRANSMISSION LINES1

Distance
Location Length from
Underground Lines KV of Line Shoreline Year

1. Custer Terminal to Shorewood
Substation 138 3.5 miles 1 mile 1977

2. NW from Everett Substation 138 .6 miles 1 mile 1980

3. SW from Everett Substation 138 .7 miles 1 mile 1980

4. W of Everett Substation 138 1.6 miles 1 mile 1986

Overhead Lines

1. On or adjacent to
Pleasant Prairie site 345 3 miles 5-2 miles 1980

2. Pleasant Prairie to Kenosha 138 8 miles 5-2 miles 1980

3. Oak Creek to Muskego 138 12.6 miles 14-0 miles 1982

4. Oak Creek to St. Francis 138 13 miles 0 miles 1982

5. Whitefish Bay to Bayside
2 lines parallel to each other 345 each 4 miles 8-2 miles 1982

6. Port Washington to Belgium
Substation 138 12 miles 5-1 mile 1983
7. Belgium Substation to
Sheboygan 138 24 miles 5-0 miles 1986

1
Wisconsin Electric Power Company is proposing all these lines as part of their advance plan,
July 1976.

TABLE 7

EXPECTED ELECTRIC LOADS UNDER VARIOUS
GROWTH RATES
(MEGAWATTS OF PEAK DEMAND)

Eastern Wisconsin Utilities Western Wisconsin Utilities
Utility Utility
Year 2% Forecast 6% 2% 4% Forecast

1976 5,522 5,522 5,522 902 902 902
1977 5,632 6,071 5,853 920 938 949
1978 5,745 6,410 6,205 938 976 1,028
1979 5,860 6,751 6,577 957 1,015 1,090
1980 5,977 7,117 6,971 976 1,055 1,184
1981 6,097 7,494 7,390 996 1,097 1,279
1982 6,219 7,871 7,833 1,016 1,141 1,376
1983 6,343 8,213 8,303 1,036 1,187 1,466
1984 6,470 8,683 8,802 1,057 1,234 1,550
1985 6,594 9.117 9,330 1,078 1,283 1,645
1986 6,731 9,558 9,889 1,100 1,335 1,735
1987 6,866 10,007 10,483 1,122 1,388 1,815
1988 7,003 10,490 11,112 1,144 1,444 1,904
1989 7,143 10,989 11,779 1,167 1,501 1,996
1990 7,286 11,515 12,485 1,190 1,561 2,079

Source: Assessment of the 1976 Advance Plan for Future
Electric Power Facilities, Wisconsin Public Service
Commission, Madison, Wisconsin, February, 1977,
Table 4.

TABLE 8 PROPOSED FUTURE ELECTRIC GENERATION PLANTS IN

WISCONSIN AS OF 1977

PLANNED
DATE OF CAPACITY GENERATION
OPERATION COMPANY (MW) METHOD LOCATION
1978 Wisconsin Power & Light* 527 Coal Columbia

1979 Dairyland Cooperative 350 Coal Alma
Northwestern Wisconsin Elect. 7 Oil Unsited
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 54 Oil Germantown
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 53 Oil Germantown
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 53 Oil Germantown
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 53 Oil Germantown

1980 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 580 Coal Pleasant Prairie

1982 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 580 Coal Pleasant Prairie
Northwestern Wisconsin Elect. 10 Oil Unsited
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. 300 Coal Weston
1983 Wisconsin Power and Light 400 Coal Edgewater

1984 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 400 Coal Koshkonong
Northern States Power Co.* 1100 Nuclear Tyrone
Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 50 Oil Unsited

1985 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 400 Coal Koshkonong
1986 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. 50 Oil Unsited
Wisconsin Public Service Corp. 300 Coal Weston

1987 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.* 900 Nuclear Haven
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.* 50 Oil Turbine Haven

1989 Wisconsin Electric Power Co.* 900 Nuclear Haven

Mote: Capacity figures are nominal net output capacity.

*Principle owner and operator listed--ownership shared with other
companies.
**Some plant siting locations are tentative, and alternative sites
are being considered.

Sources: Federal Energy Administration, Inventory of Power Plants
in the United States. 1977.

Data Revisions from Wisconsin Public Service Commission.
Latest update: August 1977.

) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(208)

Pula ewounee

~~re~~~~ch Isiand ~ ~ ~ ait
(180)~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~(0

French Islandee
(180) ~ ~ (93 Laesdge(34
enca C~~~~~~ olubak Creek
(425)~ ~ ~ ocie (123 P 1712

(289.5)275

*Blockhawk (50)

GUBF I Mailr Power Plants in Wisconsin (net capability, MW)

1Sr

Itt 11~--W COASTAL TRANSMISSION LINES

K jj ~~Manitowoc

II / Sheboygan

Ozaukee

L a ke
i~~I ~~~r MXi c hi a an

I ~~Milwaukee

r1~~.II liii ~TRANSMISSION LINES

I I' -. _____ - ~~69-115 k V

1*1 Racine - ~~~138-230 kV
\I Ij~~~~~~I ~345 kV

I ji' Kenosha Mls30

FIGURE 2a: Existing Transmission Lines Along the
Lake Michigan Coastline (South)

rine t t e ~~L TRANSMISSION LINES1

Oconto~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

g~~~~~~/ ~

Lake

//Kewauneei'
- .. -~~ / -- TRANSMISSION LINES

-69-115 kV

138-230 kV

~~~~~~~~~34kV

0 30
Miles
II Manitowoc

FIGURE 2b: Existing Transmission Lines Along the
Lake Michigan Coastline (North)

COASTAL TRANSMISSION LINES

.TRANSMISSION LINES

�-- -- 69-115 kV

0 30

Miles

:: :.::..:: *: , Q S' /

~ -::::::::::

Douglas Bayfield

FIGURE 3: E xisting Transmission Lines Along the Lake Superior Coastline

FIGURE 3: Existing Transmission Lines Along the Lake Superior Coastline

AVF

J - - - - - - - - - -

SURN

PRICC

LINCOL

TiNGLACE
LOP

W&UPACA
FFALO TA[MpEAL
E U LL auTA

JACKSON

JUMEAU DAMS WAUSHARA Aro LUMET

posit 4'.

%� MAtOLIEPE]GREEN LA*E

A F
.A%
E like Ir

JU la ume

body" 1?4"4 &*6 RIC-L AMC

JEFFERSON E

.........................

FIGURE 4: Natural Gas Pipelines in Wisconsin

Source: Wisconsin Department of Business Development

frtLipk3 oil PLfi -

~~~ S~~~~AY FI LI)

11 11TY M
*ASHAU\ ~~~~~~ PRICE

SARIEON RSlK
LI~~~~~~S ILI(NCOL

AYLOR OO
C PPEWA g
S' CR01r IDUNN

Wi1IiinyC C-c. CLARK
~ooODI]~ua ns DDEIDDnocioflDE DrI1D ooo�
E7131313131301300130131~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~00

TLO T RE NPE A TINII

JUNEAU ANS AusIar W*NNEBAC.O J&ALUMET
YONROE

Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, 1977. (GREW ~~*
Eucl s')1�

R*D*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0D

SAUrK c D ODGE~

RIC-LAND~~~~ilrue

FIGURE 5: Petroleum Pipelines in Wisconsin

Source: Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations,
Bureau of Petroleum Inspection, 1977.

65
Section II: Articulation of State Policies

A. Introduction

The 305(b)(8) energy facility planning process also requires an toarticulation
of State policies for managing energy facilities and their impacts, in-
cluding a clear articulation of policies regarding conditions that may
be imposed on site location and facility development." This section
describes numerous Wisconsin policies documented in the State of Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.1
The footnotes reference the exact pages in the coastal program publication.

A policy is a general statement of a purpose set out for achievement by
a governmental unit. This section deals with state policies which are
printed in public documents and which have been approved by the Wisconsin
Legislature. The policies in this section are broad, general statements.
Specific objectives and the implementation of these policies are reserved
for the following sections. The policies cited are categorized under
subject matter headings.

B. Environmental Quality

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act expresses a strong statement of
overall environmental concern for activities occurring in Wisconsin.

The purposes of this act are to declare a policy which will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and
his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or
eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stim-
ulate health and welfare of man; and to enrich the under-
standing of the important ecological systems and natural
resources.

Chapter 274, Laws of 1971, State of Wisconsin, 1971 Assembly
Bill 875

The Conservation Act, which was originally passed in 1923 and subsequently
amended, also states Wisconsin's intentions to preserve natural resources.

The purpose of this section is to provide an adequate and
flexible system for the protection, development and use of
forests, fish and game, lakes, streams, plant life, flowers
and other outdoor resources in this state.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 23.09(1)2

Several policy statements concern water quality.

The department of natural resources shall serve as the central
unit of state government to protect, maintain and improve the
quality and management of the waters of the state, ground and
surface, public and private.... .In order to achieve the policy
objectives of this act it is the express policy of the state

66
to mobilize governmental effort and resources at all
levels, state, federal and local, allocating such effort
and resources to accomplish the greatest result for the
people of the state asa whole. Because of the importance
of Lakes Superior and Michigan and Green Bay as vast water
resource reservoirs, water quality standards for those
rivers emptying into Lakes Superior and Michigan and Green
Bay shall be as high as is practicable.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.025(1)3

It is the policy of this state to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of its waters
to protect public health, safeguard fish and aquatic life
and scenic and ecological values, and to enhance the
domestic, municipal, recreational, industrial, agricultural,
and other uses of water. In order to achieve this policy,
the legislature declares that:

(a) It is the goal of the state of Wisconsin to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the
waters of the state by 1985;
(b) It is also the goal of the state of Wisconsin
that, wherever attainable, an interim goal
of water quality which provides for the protec-
tion and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the water be achieved by 1983;
(c) It is also the policy of the state of Wisconsin
that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic
amounts be prohibited.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 147.01(1)4

Specific laws on shoreline zoning further safeguard Wisconsin waters.

To aid in the fullfillment of the state's role as trustee
of its navigable waters and to promote public health,
safety, convenience and general welfare, it is declared
to be in the public interest to make studies, establish
policies, make plans and authorize municipal shoreland
zoning regulations for the efficient use, conservation,
development and protection of this state's water resources.
The regulations shall relate to lands under, abutting or
lying close to navigable waters. The purposes of the
regulations shall be to further the maintenance of safe
and healthful conditions; prevent and control water
pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic
life; control building sites, placement of structures and
land uses and reserve shore cover and natural beauty.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.26(1)5

To effect the purposes of s. 144.26 and to promote the
public health, safety and general welfare, counties may,
by ordinance., . . zone all lands (referred to herein as
shorelands) in their unincorporated areas within the
following distances from the normal highwater evaluation
of navigable waters . . . : 1,000 feet from a lake, pond
or flowage; 300 feet from a river or stream or to the
landward side of the flood plain, whichever distance is
greater.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 59.971(1) 6

The Wisconsin Legislature delegated specific powers to the Department
of Natural Resources regarding air quality.

The department shall: (a) Prepare and develop one or more
comprehensive plans for the prevention, abatement and control
of air pollution in this state. The department thereafter
shall be responsible for the revision and implementation of
such plans.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.36(l)(a)

The Wisconsin Administrative Code on Air Pollution Control explains the
basic objectives and policies for the Department of Natural Resources's
rules.

The objectives of these rules are to maintain standards of
air quality at a level which will provide adequate protection
to public health and welfare, and to prevent detrimental effect
on property and environment.

It shall be the policy of the department to seek reasonable
uniformity among local air pollution control ordinances in
order to make the statewide comprehensive program more effective
and less complicated for all persons concerned.

Wisconsin Administrative Code.' Department of Natural Resources
154, Foreword7

C. Recreation

The state's Outdoor Recreation Program is established in a general statement
of policy.

The purpose of this section is to promote, encourage,,
coordinate and implement a comprehensive long-range plan
to acquire, maintain and develop for public use those
areas of the state best adapted to the development of a
comprehensive system of state and local outdoor recreation
facilities and services in all fields, including, without
limitation because of enumeration, parks, forests, camping
grounds, fishing and hunting grounds, related historical
sites, highway scenic easements and local recreation programs,
except spectator sports, and to facilitate and encourage
the fullest public use thereof.

68 ~Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 23.30(1)8

D. Economic Development

The Department of Business Development promotes business and industry in
Wisconsin. The following statements express the general policy of the
department.

The functions of the department of business development
shall be of an advisory, informational, coordinative and
promotional nature. Through research, planning, and
promotion it shall foster the growth and diversification
of the economy of the state ....

The department shall promote and provide assistance to
commercial, industrial and recreational development and
expansion; facilitate the establishment of small and
minority business enterprises; encourage creation of
jobs in urban and rural depressed areas in the state;
coordinate state public and private economic development
plans; encourage cooperation between financial institu-
tions and businessmen to encourage commercial, industrial
and recreational business expansion in Wisconsin; and
develop a state economic development policy.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 560.01(1) (2)

E. Public Utilities

The Public Service Commission regulates the utilities in Wisconsin. The
major policy statements concerning the management of energy facilities
and the planning process for resolving conflicts are discussed in Section
III under "Electric power plants and associated transmission lines." The
following statement outlines the basic mandate for electric utilities.

Every public utility is required to furnish reasonably
adequate service and facilities. The charge made by any
public utility for any heat, light, water or power
produced, transmitted, delivered or furnished or for
any telephone message conveyed or for any service
rendered or to be rendered in connection therewith shall
be reasonable and just, and every unjust or unreasonable
charge for such service is prohibited and declared unlawful.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 196.03(1)

F. Enrg

Through policy statements Wisconsin recognizes the importance of conservation
and the need for an overall planning process. The Department of Administration
houses the Office of State Planning and Energy and this office performs
the coastal management, land use, and energy planning for the state.

All agencies of the state shall, to the fullest extent
possible, investigate and consider the conservation of
energy resources as an important factor when making any
major decision which law and rules permit them to make

and which significantly affects energy usage.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 100.195

The department shall, through a system of comprehensive
long-range planning, promote the development and the
maximum wise use of the energy, natural and human
resources of the state.

Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 16.95

Footnotes

(Section II)

1. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Washington,
D.C., March, 1978.

2. Ibid., page 110-111, Specific Policies #2.6 and 2. 11 under Coastal
Natural Areas, Wildlife Habitat and Fisheries, and page 118 Specific
Policy #4.9 under Community Development.

3. Ibid., page 106, Specific Policy #1.5 under Coastal Water and Air Quality.

4. Ibid., page 105-106, Specific Policies #1.1, 1.2, and 1.10 under Coastal
Water and Air Quality.

5. Ibid., page 117, Specific Policy #4.1 under Community Development.

6. Ibid., page 111, Specific Policy #2.13 under Coastal Natural Areas, Wildlife
Habitat and Fisheries.

7. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Washington,
D.C., October, 1977, page 389.

8. State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement, op. cit., page 118, Specific Policy #4.10 under
Community Development.

7 1
Section III: Procedures for Site Suitability

A. Introduction

The next segment of the 305(b) (8) process deals with "a procedure for
assessing the suitability of sites for such facilities." Energy f a-
cilities are located along the coast for shipping, condenser cooling,
and discharging wastes. Provided that specific performance standards
are met, energy facilities can be located along the coasts.

Table 9 displays the zoning and ownership in incorporated Wisconsin
coastal communities.1 Approximately 21% of the Wisconsin coast is
zoned for industrial use and energy facilities may be located in these
areas. However, certain areas along the coastline may be reserved for
specific purposes such as state parks or coastal geographic areas of
management concern. Energy facilitites may be precluded from these sites
depending upon the management policy.

Wisconsin has enacted special legislation for siting electric generating
facilities and transmission lines as opposed to other types of energy-
related facilities. As noted previously, Wisconsin has no known re-
serves of oil, natural gas, or coal. Therefore, electricity is the
only form of energy presently produced in Wisconsin. The largest energy
complexes in the state are centralized electric generating stations.

The bulk of Wisconsin' s energy supply is imported from other states; and
Wisconsin relies on a highly structured network of transportation routes.
Aside from electric generating power plants and one petroleum refinery,
Wisconsin receives energy resources via pipelines, railroads, ships and
trucks. The major natural gas and petroleum pipelines are interstate
ones;2 therefore, they are regulated on the federal level. However,
Wisconsin has enacted numerous statutes regulating various aspects of
energy-related facilities. The following paragraphs list these require-
ments. The Wisconsin siting procedures are described according to each
type of activity: production, storage, processing, and transportation.

1B. Electric Power Plants and Associated Transmission Lines

In the 1940's the Public Service Commission (PSC) was first empowered
with the authority to issue permits for electric utility construction.
However, in 1975 a new power plant siting law was enacted.3 This law
broadened the scope of issues relating to s ite selection and formulated
a long-range planning process for approval of electric generating facil-
ities and high-voltage transmission lines. The long-range planning
process is termed "advance plans," and the individual power plant con-
struction permit is labeled "certificate of public convenience and
necessity". Each procedure is discussed separately.

(1) Advance Plans

In the summer of every even numbered year each electric
utility is required to file an advance plan with the
Public Service Commission.4 Each plan must include:

1) Electric utility forecasts for the next 20-year period
2) Planned system expansion

TABLE 9: ZONING and OWNERSHIP IN INCORPORATED WISCONS IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES

ZONI~~N G O W N ERSH8I P

.- C C Id 4) 4-I~~~~4 4) .'. M~~I
~~ d~ - 0 ~ ~~- 0 L - L u ~42 S-
a)~~~~~~~~~~4 M #C la
0 Id 4) .- 00.. >4 0'O4) 'a kn ~ .00 4
E-. :dJA4 04 -
C ~~~ I.. n 4-' ..- .-.Id C '~~~~~~~~~~6.1/ 08.5 20) 4) 10) 3 ( 0
Kenosha~~~~ 4.9 944) Il0 0 ~- 4. - *'.0 ' - I on-cr C >--La-- *z 0
Racine 4.5 25.0* 2.1 16L.7.- 56 . 100 680 .a)- 32' 10 10. C).C 0.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0. " AE C0 Ila U .. C~ 4.) .0S '0 - 4- , *)
North Bay .08 1) fl -) - '0 4- 10 C'~ 1. -M 41 0ou - W'- "-0
Oak~~~~~0 Creek 4- - - 00. .- 10 270 I- 7 2 . 0'0 WN 'r T A0

Kenoshy 2.6 -4 - 4. - 93. - 1. - 100 61.1 18. 20. 100 '.D.'M..4) ~ .-
Racine 4.5 25.0 2.1 16.7 - - - 56.2 100 68.0 32.0 100 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~21 - U a,1
Sot. Fran c i .983710.6 - 36. 3- - - - - 1 0.0 - 7 10.0 100
Wind Point 2.5 100.0 - - - - - - - 100 23.1 - 76.9 100 -- .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.! - 30, -- -- U ,
MilaukCeek 1 1 .5 74 - 100.7 - - - - 100 5 7.0 4- 38.6 100 0 0-0 U
Shorthe woode 3.2 96.7 13. - - 8 . - - - 100 75.3 - 95.7 100 aUV) "-4- 004-'M -
WCudis ahy 2.7 B9. - - -. 82 1.8 - 8- 100 2 10.4 - 78- 100 W
M0 41~~~~~~~
Bast rnid 2 1. 31.6 - 368 1. - - - - 1203.0 - 70 . 958.0 100 4--I.
Milwaukee 11.4 74.3 - 25.7 - - - ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~- - 100 57.3 6.7 38.0 100 ,ou--' 4).
Moequond 1.1 910.7 - - - 8. - 4 0083 - 1710W
Fox Point 2.7 100.0 - - - - - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~100 4 7.9 - 52.1 100 0- W - (U
Port Washington 3.0 - 19.4 29.0 12.9 38.7 a) --V - 10 79 - 5.110L Ua

Ashland 8.5 13.7 15.0 71.3 - - - - - 100 No~ avai1able V_ S_3 3t 4
Washburn 3.75 16.7 - - - - 3.6 79.7 - 100 54.7 - 45.3 100 a .o 0-0 .
Bayfield 1.3 - 47.9 - - 11.0 - 16.4 24.7 100 17.2 - 82.8 ]OD M o*L-' C
Superior 20.8 52.5 - 33.3 - - - - 14.2 0AGO0 60.4 - 39.6 100 E -W Z'
0.OM
Sheboygan 5.5 0. 3 - 18.8 - - - 80.9 - I100 82.0 - 18.0 100 1/C1 U(u
Manitowoc 3.2 30.1 - 19.4 - - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~50.5 - 100 65.0 3.3 31.7 100 -WL.
Two Rivers 3.3 20.9 6.7 7.8 - 31.0 - 32.6 - 100 81.8 .. 18.2 100 4-1 0. D= -0 I .-. )~
Marinette 3.3 11.1 - 18.6 - 70.3 - - - 100 4.1 - 95.9 100 M 0C;W4 >2 4)1/
*Oconto 3.2 100.0 - 1.0 - - - - - 1060.0 4.7 35.3 100 E-E' ~~,.O-.
Green Bay 10.37 27.6 1 1.0 1.0 5.8', 4.3 37.7 11.6 100 88.2 - 11.8 100 :3 I= M 4i : ~0J;/ L.
Ephraim 4.5 Not available - - 100.0 100 -'2 .-
Sturgeon Bay 8.6 47.0 6.1 26.2 - - 9.2 11.4 - - 6.7 - 93.9 100 GO 'k'n: L .
Cleveland 1.3 55.2 - 3.4 - 6.9 34.5 - - 100 - - 100.0 100 - Ow w4 10 .0 ML -V4). L'OI. 4'O L-
Howard 5.1 Not available - 10. 10WL3
Kewaunee 2.3 49.4 1.2 49.4 - - - - - 100 - 100.0 1 ] D O ' ))0 .4'0~ "
Algoma 2.6 42.1 2.6 10.5 - - I 8;5 26.3 - 100 20.3 - 79.7 100 4
Sister Bay 2.6 58.1 27.C - - - 14.9 - - 100 - - 100.0 100 ,MMr
Egg Harbor 5.3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~Not avai able - - - 100.0 100 >

4-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

* re IY. Use Ier.&,;:'. .not, zonirg percentage~

73
3) System alternatives
4) Specific proposed and alternative generation sites for
those major facililites whose construction is planned
within three years
5) Proposed and alternative transmission line routes
6) Research programs
7) Conservation and load management programs
8) Regional associations and
9) Supplemental information necessary for a detailed
evaluation of the plan.5

A copy of each advance plan must be filed with the following
state agencies:

1) Department of Administration
2) Department of Business Development
3) Department of Health and Social Services
4) Department of Justice
5) Department of Local Affairs and Development
6) Department of Natural Resources
7) Department of Transportation
8) Each regional planning commission.6

Those agencies receiving a copy of the plans are required
to comment on any permits or approvals required by the
agency, the areas in which the plans coordinate or conflict
with the agency's plans, and the environmental impacts of
the plan. The Public Service Commission must prepare a
single environmental assessment on all the utilities' ad-
vanced plans and discuss the generic issues.

Hearings are held in those areas significantly affected by
facilities proposed for construction in the following three
years and in other Wisconsin localities. The Commission is
obliged to either approve or deny each plan within 18 months
after it is filed except for the first advance plan. A plan
shall be approved if, upon the hearing record and written
comments submitted, the Commission determines that the plan:

1. Will provide for a reasonably adequate supply of
electrical energy to meet the needs of the public
during the planning period;
2. Is in the public interest when considering
engineering, economic, health, safety, reliability,
efficiency and environmental factors and alternate
methods of generation or sources of supply;
3. Is reasonably coordinated with long-range plans
and policies of other agencies or that a reasonable
effort has been made to coordinate with such plans
and policies; and
4. Provides for programs wh~ch discourage inefficient
and excessive power use.

(2) Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

Any person wishing to construct an electric generator over 12

74 megawatts or a high-voltage transmission line over 100 kilovolts
must obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity
from the Public Service Commission. A certificate cannot be
issued until all pre-construction permits from the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources are granted. The following
list constitutes a general order of events in the decision-
making process for issuing a permit for siting a power plant:

a) The utility files an application;
b) The Public Service Commission and Department of Natural
Resources staffs jointly prepare a Preliminary Environ-
mental Report (PER);
c) The PER is distributed for public review;
d) The staffs prepare an environmental impact statement(EIS);
e) Public hearings are held in the vicinity on the
application and EIS;
f) Adjudicatory hearings are held, a record of the tran-
script is obtained, and briefs are filed;
g) Preparation of recommendations;
h) The Commission issues an order.

The length of time required for each step is outlined in Appendix C.

The Public Service Commission must grant a certificate to
applicants of a proposed power plant or transmission line if:

1. The proposed facility is in substantial compliance with
the most recent advance plan filed . . .except if the
commission . . . finds that the need for the facilities
or lines could not have been reasonably foreseen by the
utility at the time of the filing of its most recent
advance plan approved by the commission.
2. The proposed facility is necessary to satisfy the
reasonable needs of the public for an adequate supply
of electric energy.
3. The design and location or route is in the public
interest considering alternative sources of supply,
alternative locations or routes, individual hardships,
engineering, economic, safety, reliability, and environ-
mental factors.
4. The proposed facility will not have undue adverse impact
on other environmental values such as, but not limited
to, ecological balance, public health and welfare, his-
toric sites, geological formations, the aesthetics of
land and water and recreational use.
5. The proposed facility complies with the criteria
under the public utilities code relating to:

(a) Efficiency of service
(b) Non-inflation of rate base, and
(c) Cost of service.

6. The proposed facility will not unreasonably inter-
fere with the orderly land use and development plans
for the area involved.8

(3) Environmental Regulations

On April 28, 1972, the Wisconsin Legislature passed the Wisconsin
Environmental Policy Act (WEPA). The Act required that environ-
mental impact statements must be written by state agencies on
major actions, which may significantly affect the environment.9
An additional law specified that an environmental impact report
may be required by the Department of Natural Resources on those
projects which exceed forty acres or the estimated costs are
greater than $25,000.10

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act is modeled after the federal
law. The differences are that state agencies must include details
of the beneficial aspects, economic advantages, and economic dis-
advantages of the proposed project, and a public hearing must
be held on the environmental impact statement.

On July 21, 1973, the Wisconsin Legislature adopted a Water Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES).I1 The purpose of
the law is to eliminate the unabated pollution of Wisconsin
waters. The goal is to eliminate water pollutants by 1985. An
interim water quality goal, preserving fish and wildlife, is
established for 1983. The Department of Natural Resources holds
authority to issue permits. An application is approved if the
wastes meet effluent limitations, standards of performance for
new sources, and federal or state water quality standards. Any
facility expansion or design changes that discharge additional
wastes must be reported to the Department of Natural Resources.

Wisconsin statutes include other environmental regulations con-
cerning water quality,12 the construction of strW tures on the
beds of lake and rivers,1 effluent limitations, diversion of
surplus15 and non-surplus water,16 floodplain and shoreline
zoning,17 changinf9the course of a stream, 18 excavations near
navigable wawrs, removal of bed material from a stream or
lake bottom, air quality, 21 hazardous waste disposal,22 in-
dustrial wastew er treatment facilities,23 establishment of
bulkhead lines, ~kand high capacity wells.25 Many of these laws
are encountered when siting a power plant.

C. Natural Gas and Oil Storage Facilities

At the present time, no underground storage facilities are located in
Wisconsin. Natural gas is stored in several other states and is usually
pumped into nonproductive old gas wells and then drawn out when needed.
When a company proposes to drill rock formations to test their feasibility
to store natural gas, the Wisconsin Public Service Commission must
be notified.

Three small liquid natural gas facilities are located in Wisconsin.
A certificate is required from the Public Service Commission prior
to construction. If the activity significantly affects the environment,
an environmental impact statement is prepared.

76 Oil storage facilities are regulated on the federal and state levels.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) writes environmental
impact statements for very large oil facilities; however, the agency
is mainly concerned with preventing oil spills. The Environmental
Protection Agency has instituted a program which requires each oil
storage facility to prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Counter-
measure Plan. The plan must be approved by a professional engineer
and filed with the agency. If a major spill occurs, the plan must
be amended to prevent future similar problems. The U.S. Coast Guard
has the major clean-up responsibility for oil spills on the Great Lakes,
and this agency frequently inspects the oil terminals. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers controls permits for dredging.

The lead state agency for regulating oil storage facilities is the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. A WPDES permit must be
obtained if the facility discharges any effluents into Wisconsin
waters. The Department of Natural Resources also regulates air
emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Wisconsin Department of
Indus~ry, Labor and Human Relations implements the Flammable Liquids
Code. 6A fire prevention permit is necessary for tanks holding
more than 8,000 gallons. Facilities are required to meet certain
specifications and obtain special safety equipment. The municipal
fire departments check the storage tanks for compliance with the
Flammable Liquids Code at least twice a year. Compliance with
county shoreline zoning ordinances is also required.

D. Processing Facilities - Oil Refineries

One oil refinery operates in Superior, Wisconsin. The most recent
proposal for another oil refinery occurred in 1974. The Kickapoo
Oil company planned to construct and operate a facility near Oxford,
Wisconsin in Marquette County.Z The Department of Natural Resources
published a preliminaty environmental report, and it was determined
that the refinery could not meet the air quality standards. An
environmental impact statement was not prepared. Due to the crude
oil situation, new oil refineries are not expected to be constructed
in Wisconsin. Canadian crude oil exports are declining.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets air emission and waste-
water effluent standards for petroleum refineries. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources administers various laws that influence
the siting of an oil refinery. The facility must comply with air con-
taminant source standards. A Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit must also be obtained. Plans for the installation of
a wastewater treatment facility and high capacity wells must also
be approved by the Department of Natural Resources. These regulatory
functions require that the Department of Natural Resources be the lead
state agency and prepare an environmental impact statement on the project.

The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations has jurisdiction
under the Flammable Liquids Code. This state agency reviews the faci-
lity's construction plans. If any access permits are required, the
Wisconsin Department of Transportation has jurisdiction.

E. Transportation Facilities

(1) Natural gas pipelines

The large natural gas pipeline that serve Wisconsin are
constructed by pipeline companies which sell natural gas
wholesale. Since these pipelines pass through several
states, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department
of Energy, authorizes the rates, construction activities,
and overall safety requirements. The federal Department
of Transportation (DOT) also regulates some safety matters.
This federal jurisdiction stems from the Natural Gas Act
that was enacted in 1938.

Wisconsin laws mainly regulate intrastate lines such as inter-
city natural gas distribution lines. The Public Service
Commission is empowered with the rights to allow construction
of the facility and condemnation of property; it also sets
safety requirements and economic rates. Natural gas dis-
tribution lines need a certificate to construct depending
on the size of the project. The anticipated expenditures
must also exceed 2% of the annual operating revenue of the
utility.

Activities regulated by state agencies require some type
of Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act review if significant
environmental consequences result from the facility. The
Department of Natural Resources permit must be obtained for
distribution lines that cross a waterway. The Wisconsin
Department of Transportation deals with distribution lines
at highway crossings. Information relating to safety, in-
terference with highway traffic, proposed method of construc-
tion, and maintenance plans is required before a determination
is made on the issuance of a permit.

The bulk of Wisconsin's new gas lines, however, are gas
distribution systems and gas hook-ups to individual
customers. The Wisconsin Adminstrative Code sets construction
standards for safety. Each distribution company promul-
gates its own rules in compliance with state standards.
When a company is first established, these rules must be ap-
proved by the Public Service Commission.

(2) Petroleum Pipelines

As with natural gas pipelines, petroleum pipelines are usually
interstate and are regulated by the Department of Energy
(DOE). The Department of Energy is considered the lead
federal agency for preparing environmental impact statements,
and Wisconsin agencies are asked to review these statements.
The federal Department of Transportation sets and enforces
safety standards under the Federal Pipeline Transportation
Act. The Environmental Protection Agency' s major concerns are
with preventing oil spills. The Interstate Commerce Com-
mission sets rates for interstate petroleum pipelines.

78 Since petroleum pipeline companies are not classified as
"lutilities", the Wisconsin Public Service Commission has
little jurisdiction compared to its authority over natural
gas distribution. However, the company must still obtain
approval from the Public Service Commission to condemn
property. The lead Wisconsin agency for petroleum lines is
the Department of Natural Resources. If the distribution
line crosses a navigable stream, a Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources permit is required. A discharge permit
is needed prior to any hydrostatic testing. The Wisconsin
Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations sets
fire safety specifications, and the Wisconsin Department
of Transportation has jurisdiction over permits for crossing
highways.

(3) Coal Transshipment Facilities

The lead federal agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
with jurisdiction over dredging permits. The U.S. Coast
Guard inspects the vessels with the purpose of safeguarding
against hazards to navigation. Coal dust levels from these
facilities are set by Clean Air Act standards, and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources enforces these
regulations. For any point source discharges, a WPDES per-
mit must be obtained. The company must also comply with
county shoreline zoning ordinances. Incorporated areas
may have local jurisdiction, such as the City of Milwaukee
which passed siting regulations for facilities that may
create a safety problem or pose a hazard to public health
or property.

F. Conclusion

Applicable federal, state, and local procedures adequately assess the
suitability of sites for energy facilities in Wisconsin. The advance
plan process resolves conflicts between various interests such as the
regional need for energy, alternative systems for generation, alternative
fuel sources and supply, techniques for reducing energy demand, and
alternative plant sites. The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act pro-
cedures evaluate the environmental suitability of sites and compare the
proposed site to other alternative locations. Performance standards
for specific energy facilities have been established for air emissions
and waste effluents. These standards must be compiled with irrespec-
tive of a facility's coastal or inland location. Numerous other statutes
relating to coastal areas safeguard navigability, water resources, shore-
line aesthetic values, and facilities constructed in areas prone to flooding.

Footnotes

(Section III)

1. Land Use and Coastal Management in Wisconsin Coastal Municipalities, David
W. Owens and Michelle Rothenberg, Wisconsin Office of State Planning and
Energy, Madison, Wisconsin, January, 1978, Table 2, p. 28.

2. Interstate pipelines usually refer to those lines which directly link into
the source of production. However, in this document, interstate pipelines
refer to those major lines connected with other states' pipelines.

3. Chapter 68, Laws of 1975, State of Wisconsin, 1975 Assembly Bill 463.

4. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Public Service Commission 111.10.

5. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Public Service Commission 111.12-111.21.

6. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 196,491(2)(b)(1-8).

7. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 196.491(2)(i); and State of Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Washington, D.C., March, 1978, p. 123, Specific
Policy #5.10 under Economic Development.

8. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 196.491(3)(d).

9. Chapter 274, Laws of 1971, State of Wisconsin, 1971 Assembly Bill 875.

10. Chapter 273, Laws of 1971, State of Wisconsin, 1971 Assembly Bill 873.

11. Chapter 74, Laws of 1973, State of Wisconsin, 1973 Assembly Bill 128.

12. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 147 and Wisconsin Administrative Code, Department
of Natural Resources 102-104; and State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p. 105, Specific
Policies #1.3 and 1.4 under Coastal Water and Air Quality.

13. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 30.12; and State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p.118. Specific
Policy #4.11 under Community Development.

14. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Department of Natural Resources 290.

15. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 31.14.

16. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 30.18.

17. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.26 and 59.971; and State of Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p.111,
Specific Policy #2.13 under Coastal Natural Areas, Wildlife Habitat and
Fisheries.

80
18. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 30.195.

19. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 30.19; and State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p. 117,
Specific Policy #4.3 under Community Development.

20. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 30.20; and State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p.118, Specific
Policy #4.11 under Community Development.

21. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.39; and State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, op. cit., p.107, Specific
Policy #1.15 under Coastal Water and Air Quality.

22. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.43 and 144.44.

23. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.04.

24. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 30.11.

25. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 144.025.

26. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Department of Industry Labor and Human
Relations 8.

27. Preliminary Environmental Report for the Proposed Kickapoo Oil Refining
Company, Inc., Oil Refinery, Marquette County, Wisconsin, Wisconsin De-
partment of Natural Resources staff, Madison, Wisconsin, October, 1974.

Section IV. Public Participation and Inclusion of the National Interest in the
Energy Facility Siting Process1

A. Introduction

The next requirement of the energy facility siting amendment to the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972 is concerned with an "identification of how
interested and affected public and private parties may be involved in
the planning process, and a discussion of the means for continued considera-
tion of the national interest, in the planning for and siting of energy
facilities that are necessary to meet more than local requirements, after
program approval."

The public is involved with the planning process mainly during each agency's
public hearings. These hearings are held according to the agency's
procedures. The national interest concerns are addressed by the federal
agencies and in various state agencies. The federal agencies' jurisdiction
stems from federal laws and official legal actions. Section III describes in
greater detail the extent of federal jurisdiction in the energy siting process.
The state agencies consider the national interest also according to the
agency's procedures.

B. Public Participation

The two major state actions concerning energy- facilities' siting are the
Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act procedures and the advance plan process.
The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for protecting and
maintaining air and water quality. In most of the Wisconsin energy
facilities sitings, this department is the lead state agency and implements
the Act. The Wisconsin Public Service Commission holds the authority for
issuing permits for electric power plants and the advance siting process.

(1) Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act Procedures
Executive Order Number 26 establishes guidelines for
state agencies implementing the Wisconsin Environmental
Policy Act. The lead agency prepares a Preliminary
Environmental Report on the project. The report is
circulated for a 45-day review period, with state, federal,
and local agencies and the public. The comments received
are then used by the lead state agency in developing an
environmental impact statement.

The statement is circulated for a 30-day review period to
the public and commenting agencies. A public hearing is
held on the environmental impact statement and interested
and affected public and private parties may voice their
opinions. The final step in this procedure is the de-
cision of the lead agency to approve or deny the proposed
action.

(2) Advance Plans

The Wisconsin utilities submitted their first advance
plan in July, 1976. An environmental impact assessment
was prepared by the Public Service Commission and
Department of Natural Resources staffs. Informational
hearings were held throughout the state and specifically
in those areas where a facility was being planned for
construction within the next three years. The hearings
were open to the public and were attended by interested
groups and affected citizens.

Adjudicatory hearings were scheduled mainly in Madison,
Wisconsin. Interested citizens could ask questions and
cross-examine the witnesses. Upon a written 10 day
notice, an individual or group could become a party to
the proceeding and submit testimony for the record.
This procedure allows any interested or affected public
and private group to become involved in the planning
process.

The public hearings on the 1976 advance plan are now
officially closed and the Commission will reach a
decision on the plan in the next few months. Their
decision will affect the future Wisconsin electric
capacity and will determine whether coal or nuclear
plants will be constructed. A recent Public Service
Commission ruling stated that the utilities will not be
required to submit their next advance plan until six
months after a decision is issued on the first plan.
During subsequent advance plans the scope of the
hearing may be limited to those topics previously not
discussed.

C. National Interest

This section discusses the means for continued consideration of the national
interest in the planning for and siting of energy facilities that are
necessary to meet more than local requirements. Environmental regulations
and the advance plans incorporate the national interest into the decision-
making process. However, in certain situations it may be in the national
interest not to site an energy facility.

(1) Environmental regulations

The Environmental Protection Agency sets standards for air
and water quality in all regions of the U.S. This
federal agency also issues the air emission levels for
specific types of energy facilities. These levels have
precluded the use of high-sulfur coal in electric power
plants in some areas. This policy, which stems from a
national interest in air quality, created a greater
demand for low-sulfur coal. This type of coal is
abundant in the western states; therefore, it must be
transported to eastern states.

Coal is transported by rail, truck, or barge. A new
coal transshipment facility was located in Superior,
Wisconsin to transfer the coal from unit trains to
barges. The coal was then shipped to eastern states
for use by the electric utilities. In this manner
the national interest was considered in the planning
for and siting of energy facilities. The Superior
coal transshipment facility was constructed to meet
more than local requirements. Likewise similar faci-
lities may be planned depending upon the future
demand for western coal. Revisions in the air
quality regulations will influence the economics of
transporting western coal to eastern states.

(2) Advance plans

The advance plan process of the Wisconsin Public Service
Commission incorporates the regional pools' and electric
reliability council's projections of reserve require-
ments for electric demand forecasts. The Mid-America
Interpool Network, the regional power pool for the
eastern Wisconsin utilities, and the Mid-Continent Area
Reliability Coordinating Agreement, the regional power
pool for the western Wisconsin utilities, were both
discussed at the proceedings. By statute the Public
Service Commission is required to determine whether
the plan "will provide a reasonably adequate supply of
electrical energy to meet the needs of the public
during the planning period.",2 This statement furnishes
an assurance that regional and national interest
concerns will continue to be included in the advance
plan process.

Technical review comments requested a discussion of nuclear
power plants and the waste management problems. During
the advance plan proceeding, questions on nuclear versus
coal-fired power plants were discussed at length. Experts
testified on all aspects of the facilities. One study
* ~~~~~noted that cost comparisons of nuclear and coal-fired power
plants were equivalent.3 Representatives of the U.S.
General Accounting Office stated that a special fund
* ~~~~~should be set aside for decommissioning a nuclear power
plant.4 Another person pointed out that the federal
government has repeatedly experienced problems finding
a site for burying the nuclear wastes and the resolution
of the waste management question is continually lengthened.5

In this situation the Public Service-Commission may
decide to rule in the advance plan process that no new
nuclear plants may be constructed until the waste
disposal question is answered. The national interest,
as expressed by various public agencies, may consider
that conservation and coal-fired power plants are

preferred plans rather than constructing nuclear
facilities. Certain groups within the private sector
may feel it is necessary to construct nuclear power
plants because of local requirements, however, it may
not be in the national interest.

Footnotes

(Section IV)

1. The information contained in this section does not include the procedures
of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. These procedures have
previously been documented in the State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.

2. Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 196.491 (2)(c).

3. Public Service Commission Advance Plans, Docket Number 05-EP-1, Exhibit
Number 52, Sergeant and Lundy Report.

4. Ibid., Exhibit Number 119, Report to the Congress, Cleaning Up the Remains
of Nuclear Facilities--A Multibillion Dollar Problem, U.S. General
Accounting Office.

5. Ibid., Testimony of Terry R. Lash, February 16, 1978.

Section V. Techniques to Meet Management Needs

A. Introduction

The fifth element of the energy facility planning process includes
Ilan identification of legal authorities and management techniques
that will be used to implement state policies and procedures."
Several authorities currently exist in Wisconsin for implementing
state policies and procedures. The Wisconsin Legislature delegates
responsibilities to State agencies; the agencies institute their
own rules and enter into agreements for cooperating with other
state agencies' procedures. Management techniques which assess the
impacts of Wisconsin energy facilities include the Wisconsin
Environmental Policy Act procedures, the designation of Geographic
Areas of Management Concern, and the Coastal Energy Impact Program.

B. Legal Authorities

The state policies and procedures listed in Section II are carried
out by state agencies. Their authority stems from the Wisconsin
Statutes and is further delineated in the Wisconsin Administrative
Code. These policies are implemented in the daily procedures
followed by each agency. Section III describes in detail how
certain policies are incorporated into the energy facilities siting
process. The roles of the Office of State Planning and Energy and
the Coastal Management Council are explained in the program document.'

Interagency agreements exist on behalf of the Coastal-Management Council
between the Department of Administration and the Public Service Coin-
mission, the Department of Administration and the Department of Natural
Resources, and the Department of Administration and the Department of
Transportation. These agreements are displayed in Attachment Number I
to the State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement. The agreements are used to help resolve con-
flicting considerations such as the need for energy transportation as
opposed to wetlands conservation. They formalize compliance by state
agencies with the coastal management goals and policies.

C. Management Techniques

The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act process describes the proposed
action; environment affected; probable impact of the proposed action
on the environment; alternatives to the proposed action; probable
adverse impacts which cannot be avoided; relationship between
local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity; and irreversible and ir-
retrievable commitments of resources.. The lead agency prepares
the environmental impact statement and uses it as one of the items
considered in denying or approving an action.

The process for designating Geographic Areas of Management Concern
(GAMC's) is discussed in the program document.2 Six categories
of areas may be designated: 1) significant natural, recreational,
scientific or historical value; 2) hazard; 3) water related economic
development; 4) future power plant sites; 5) preservation; and 6) re-
storation. These key coastal geographic areas are singled out because
of their unique character. The coastal management program aids the

86
governmental units who will be managing the areas to set up definite
management goals and implement those goals.

One of the expressed goals for a Wisconsin coastal program activity
is the identification and designation of areas suited for approved
power plant sites.3 Areas would automatically be nominated for GAMYC
designation upon Public Service Commission approval of an advance
plan specifically identifying and analyzing a coastal power plant.
This nomination would follow the normal GAM4C designation procedures.
A clear statement on the proposed management policy and the duration
of the designation should be included. The designation process
would not hinder utility activities approved by the Public Service
Commission and Department of Natural Resources.

Section 308 of the Coastal Zone Management Act creates a Coastal
Energy Impact Program to provide financial assistance to states and
local governments faced with the impacts from energy facilities.
The Coastal Management Program is establishing an Intrastate
Allocation procedure to properly distribute these funds to local
governmental units. A general description of the Coastal Energy
Impact Program and the proposed allocation procedure is included
in Appendix D. The procedure is included with the amendments for
a public review and also must be approved by the Coastal Management
Council. It will be incorporated into the existing coastal man-
agement program funding procedures described in the program document.4

D. Conclusion

The legal authorities and management techniques outlined in this
section, in Section III, and in the coastal management program
document adequately implement the state policies and procedures for
siting coastal energy facilities. These authorities and procedures
assess the needs for energy facilities and aid in mitigating the
impacts from coastal energy facilities. The process is a dynamic
and complex one which responds to conditions in energy demand and
supply.

Footnotes

(Section V)

2. Ibid., p.161-170.

3. Ibid., p.123.

4. Ibid., p. 215-230.

Appendix A: CEIP - SECTION 308(C) PLANNING INVENTORY* 87

October 17, 1977

State: Wisconsin
County: Three Northern Counties
Activity: Transportation and Transfer Facilities
Name: Dakota Transportation System
Location: Douglas, Bayfield, Ashland Counties
Operator: Great Lakes Transmission Company
Faci'lity Type: Major Gas Pipeline

Capacity: 100 Miles/35"

Initial Operating Date: 12/01/81
Construction Start Date: 06/01/81
Construction End Date: 12/01/81

Environmental Impact Statement: No
EIS Status:

Application for
Federal Permit Pending: Yes
Description: FPC-75-283
Federal Permit Obtained: No
Description:

Application for
State Permit Pending: No
Description:
State Permit Obtained: No
Des cri pti on:

Peak Construction Employment: 400
Peak Operating Employment:
Environment Factor: 2
Safety Factor: I
Population Density Code: I
Planning Cost Differential: 1.13

*Appendix A consists of the federal inventory list for Wisconsin, dated October 17,
1977. The federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) prepares a list of plan-
ned coastal energy facilities each year for the state of Wisconsin. The number of
facilities on the inventory contributes to Wisconsin's 308 allotment. This inventory
is derived from previous lists and information from federal regulatory agencies. The
information on this list consists of the best available information at the time it
is distributed. If an environmental impact statement is being prepared but the OCZM
is not aware of this activity, then the inventory would reflect that an environmen-
tal impact statement is not being prepared.

The numerical ranking for environmental considerations and safety considerations is
based on the type of energy facility. All nuclear electric generating plants are
assigned a number of 3 for environmental considerations and 3 for safety considera-
tions. Major gas pipelines are assigned a number of 2 for environmental considera-

tions and I for safety considerations. The population density code is derived
from the location of the proposed facility. The planning cost differential is
an index of the average salary of professional planners in planning agencies
throughout the United States. The OCZM calculates a planning - need factor for
each facility based upon the numerical values assigned to each characteristic.
The sum of the planning - need factors for all of Wisconsin's proposed coastal
energy facilities constitutes Wisconsin's planning need equivalency. The OCZM
allocates the year's available funds according to each coastal state's plan-
ning need equivalency.

State: Wisconsin
County: Sheboygan
Activity: Electric Generating Plant
Name: Edgewater Unit 5
Location: Sheboygan
Operator: Wisconsin Power and Light
Facility Type: Fossil Fuel

Capacity: 400 Megawatts

Initial Operating Date: 01/01/83
Construction Start Date: 01/01/78
Construction End Date: 01/01/83

Environmental Impact Statement: No
EIS Status:

Application for
Federal Permit Pending: Yes
Description: Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary
Air Quality Permit
Federal Permit Obtained: Yes
Description:

Application for
State Permit Pending: Yes
Description: Certificate of Authority
State Permit Obtained: No
Description:

Peak Construction Employment: 530
Peak Operating Employment: 45
Environment Factor: 2
Safety Factor: 1
Population Density Code: I
Planning Cost Differential: 1.13

State: Wisconsin
County: Sheboygan
Activity: Electric Generating Plant
Name: Haven I
Location: Sheboygan
Operator: Wisconsin Power & Light and Wisconsin
Electric Power Company
Facility Type: Nuclear

Capacity: 900 Megawatts

Initial Operating Date: 6/1/87
Construction Start Date: 8/1/81
Construction End Date: 4/1/87

Environmental Impact Statement: No
EIS Status:

Application for
Federal Permit Pending: No
Description:
Federal Permit Obtained: No
Description:

Application for
State Permit Pending: No
Description:
State Permit Obtained: No
Description:

Peak Construction Employment: 750
Peak Operating Employment: 55
Environment Factor: 3
Safety Factor: 3
Population Density Code: 1
Planning Cost Differential: 1.13

State; Wisconsin
County: Sheboygan
Activity, Electric Generating Plant
Name: Haven II
Location: Sheboygan
Operator: Wisconsin Power & Light and Wisconsin
Electric Power Company
Facility Type: Nuclear

Capacity: 900 Megawatts

Initial Operating Date: 12/01/89
Construction Start Date:
Construction End Date:

Environmental Impact Statement:
EIS Status:

Application for
Federal Permit Pending: No
Descri pti on:-
Federal Permit Obtained: No
Description:

Application for
State Permit Pending: No
Description:
State Permit Obtained: No
Descri pti on:-

Peak Construction Employment: 750
Peak Operating Employment: 55
Environment Factor, 3
Safety Factor: 3
Population Density Code: I
Planning Cost Differential: 1.13

Appendix B: Additional Proposed Coastal Energy Facilities Suggested by
the Wisconsin Off'ice of State Planning and Energy for Inclusion on the
Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management Inventory to Determine the
Wisconsin Allocation of Coastal Energy Impact Program Funds

A. Electric Power Plants

1. A 900 MW coal-fired electric generating plant is in the plan-
ning stage near Belgium, Wisconsin (Ozaukee County). Pre-
liminary environmental site work will probably begin in 1978
and an application will be submitted in 1979. The utility
anticipates plant operation in 1984.

2. A 580 NW coal-fired power plant is being constructed in
Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin (Kenosha County). Although it is
located 5 miles inland, the plans call for the use of Lake
Michigan water for cooling purposes. Initial operation is
expected in 1980.

3. A second unit at the Pleasant Prairie site is plannned for an
operating date of 1982.

B. Oil and Natural Gas Storage Facilities

1. One of the gas companies serving Wisconsin has started some
exploratory drilling along the coast. They are testing rock
formations for the possible construction of an underground gas
storage facility. The natural gas storage capacity is de-
pendent upon the test results.

2. An oil terminal along the Wisconsin shoreline is expanding its
facility. They are discussing the construction of a large oil
storage tank.

C. Transportation Systems for Oil, Gas and Coal

1. A new coal transshipment facility is planned for the City of
Superior. A few million tons of coal will be shipped through
this new facility. Construction could begin in 1979.

2. A coal company in Green Bay is discussing the possibility of
expanding its coal handling facility.

Appendix C
Cooperative Agreement Between the
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the
Department of Natural Resources for the
Environmental Assessment of Major Generating Facility Proposals

Definition of Terls

WEPA Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act
(Section 1.11, Wisconsin Statutes)

Power Plant Chapter 68, Laws of 1975
Siting Law (Section 196.491, Wisconsin Statutes)

Wis. Stats. Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Admin.
Code Wisconsin Administrative Code

PSC Public Service Commission

SPERCA Division of Systems Planning, Environmental
Review and Consumer Analysis, PSC

DNR Department of Natural Resources

BEI Bureau of Environmental Impact, DNR

EIR Environmental Impact Report

PER Preliminary Environmental Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

The Public Service Commission and the Department of Natural Resources
are involved in critical decisions regarding major electric generating
facilities in Wisconsin. In order to insure full compliance with the
spirit and intent of WEPA and the Power Plant Siting Law and to maximize
the effectiveness of state agency regulatory review, the PSC and DNR
enter into the following agreement.

-2-
94

I. Scope

This agreement shall apply to all major electric !enerating faci-
lities (20 bnW or greater) including associated transmission line;,
as described in section 196.491, Wis. Stats.

II. Intent

A. Since the PSC has the primary decision responsibility witl
regard to major electric generating facilities, the PSC shall
assume the role of lead agency. It shall be responsible for
minor (non-substantive) editing, collating, production and
distribution of both the PER and EIS. The DNR shall be
responsible for printing the PER and EIS. Each atgency ,;hall
be responsible for specific sections of both the PER and the
final EIS.

B. A PSC and DNR coordinated review procedure and joint development
of PER's and EIS's for major electric generating facilities
shall be established in order to comply with the statutory
requirements of WEPA and the Power Plant Siting Law. These
procedures shall include the following:

1. The exchange of available information regarding utilitiLy
site evaluations for potential power plant proposals
which is of use to both agencies.

2. Development of joint guidelines for the utility's use in
preparing an EIR to satisfy the requirements of Chapter
PSC 111, Wis. Admin. Ccde, and section 23.11(5), Wis.
Stats., and a procedure for requesting additional infor-
mation from the utilities which will coordinate such
requests.

3. Maximum utilization of each agency's staff and expertise
in the development of PER's and EIS's for power plants by
defining each agency's responsibilities.

4. Procedures for exchange of staff expertise at public
hearings and meetings held by each agency.

III. General Procedure

A. Each agency shall notify the other when it becomes aware of a
new major proposal by a utility, if the proposal has not
already been identified through the Power Plant Siting Law's
provision for submittal of Advance Plans by the utilities.

-3-

B. The designated WEPA coordinator of each agency shall starve as
liaison person for the DNR and PSC respectively. A project
coordinator within each agency for each specific project shall
be appointed to:

1. Coordinate that agency's participation in the review of
the project.

2. Expedite the exchange of information between the two
agencies.

3. Resolve any scheduling and coordination problems.

4. Apprise the other agency of all project developments,
through immediate exchange of all appropriate corres-
pondence and other new information, and through notifi-
cation of all scheduled meetings which involve the
applicants. The lead agency shall receive copies of all
correspondence relating to each project and shall maintain
a complete file of such correspondence.

5. Serve as a contact through whom all interagency communi-
cations can be directed and establish guidelines for
direct staff contact where appropriate.

C. The agencies shall direct the utility to prepare a single
report (EIR) including a complete description of the proposed
facility and necessary environmental data to comply with
PSC 111, Wis. Admin. Code and section 23.11, Wis. Stats. The
PSC shall not consider the CPCN application complete until the
EIR has been submitted by the applicant, and reviewed and
considered sufficient by both agencies for development of the
PER. Two copies of the engineering plan filed with the DNR
pursuant to section 196.491(2)(m), Wis. Stats., shall be sent
to the PSC by the DNR project coordinator for informational
purposes. The DNRP shall notify both the PSC and the applicant
of its acceptance of the engineering plan. The DNR project
coordinator shall consult with the PSC project coordinator
prior to the DNR decision regarding pre-certification permits
and approvals in accord with Chapter NR 170, Wis. Admin. Code.

D. The two project coordinators will prepare joint guidelines to
be followed by the applicant in preparing the EIR. In requesting
supplemental information necessary to complete the application,
a letter requesting such information shall be jointly prepared
by the PSC and DNR within one month of the receipt of the
application by PSC, and forwarded to the utility by PSC.
These requests shall identify whatever additional information

-4-

96
is required to develop the PER. Responses to the inquiries
shall be reviewed for adequacy within 3 weeks of their receipt
and the utility notified as to the adequacy of its response.
Efforts to further clarify information should adhere to the
general division of responsibility described in Section ITV,
and thus avoid separate requests of the applicant for similar
information. Following submittal of the CPCN application, all
requests for clarification shall be forwarded through the PSC
project coordinator. When all information is received and
found to be acceptable to the PSC and DNR, the CPCN application
will be considered complete. Following the acceptance of the
CPCN application, a coordinated approach shall be taken by
both agencies in requesting further information.

E. To adhere to the time limits imposed by section 196.491(3)(f)
and (g), a jointly prepared PER shall be released for comment
within 135 days after the application is accepted as complete.
The EIS shall be released within 300 days after the application
is accepted as complete. Other milestones in the review
process shall be met generally as described in Attachment A.

F. A written record of all delays shall be kept by the project
coordinators. A written explanation of any significant delays
shall be prepared by the project coordinator(s) and provided
to the WEPA coordinator and the Commission and the DNR Office
of the Secretary.

G. For each proposal, the PSC and DNR shall jointly develop a
content and agency assignment outline for the PER and EIS.
The outline shall be utilized by each agency as the basis for
refining and further delineating responsibilities within that
agency. This outline shall be developed according to the
guidelines contained in Section IV.

Hi. The preparation of the PER and EIS shall proceed according to
the applicable agency rules and the Governor's Guidelines for
Implementation of WEPA, issued February 1976. Throughout the
preparation of the PER and EIS, each agency shall have final
editorial authority over its portions of the documents, subject
to lead agency non-substantive editorial and publication
responsibilities.

I. Sections of the PER and EIS that are prepared by one agency
but will affect the analyses of the other agency shall be
identified, if possible, when the outline is developed. Typed
draft copies of these sections shall be given to the other
agency upon completion.

-5- 97

J. A minimum and maximum period shall be jointly established for
the internal review of the completed dralt of the PER and ETS,
allowing time to incorporate any necessary revisions into the
documents and to resolve any disagreements. If such disagree-
ments cannot be resolved through cowmxunicaltion between agency
staffs and/or re-evaluation of data, each agency shall have
the right to present its assessment of the other agency's
analysis through a formal review of the published PER or if
necessary through a separate analysis in the body of the
document. All reasonable efforts will be made to avoid the
need for separate analyses of similar subject matter by the
two agencies.

K. PER and EIS summary sheets, the PER announcement sheet and all
notices of public meetings and hearings in which both agencies
are involved shall be prepared jointly. After the need for a
public meeting or hearing has been established, the purpose,
date, time, location and necessary agency participants for
each public meeting and hearing shall be agreed upon by both
agencies if appropriate. Project coordinators should receive
copies of all public meeting and hearing notices.

L. During public hearings on the EIS, each agency shall make its
staff available to answer questions from the public and inter-
venors on those portions of the EIS for which it is responsi-
ble. Interagency questioning shall be avoided whenever possible.

1. Interagency questioning should net be used as a sub-
stitute for normal interagency communication. Wherever
possible, interagency questions should be dealt with
prior to the hearing and responses should be incorporated
in the PER/ETS or in the interagency review comment
process.

2. Where the question was not answered prior to the hearing
through normal interagency communications, or in areas of
unresolved conflict, cross-examination shall be perrmitted.
Under these circumstances, the questions shall be given
to the respective agency staff prior to their testimony
if at all possible so that the subject can be adequately
addressed first through direct examination.

M. The PSC shall provide the DNR with a copy of the CPCN decision
and the DNR shall provide the PSC with copies of all decisions,
permits and approvals that are issued in relation to the
proposal. If the CPCN decision will directly affect any
existing DNR policies or programs, the department shall fully
set forth the expected effects in the EIS, or on the hearing
record and/or through briefs.

-6-
98

IV. Responsibility of Each Agency in Preparing the PER and EIS

In preparing the PER and EIS, each agency recognizes that one
purpose of these documents is to present the PSC and DNR decision-
makers with a factual analysis of the environmental ramifications
of each proposed major electric generating facility. Thus, the P1ER
and EIS shall be issue-oriented and written in a clear, concise
manner.

Responsibility for preparation of specific portions of the PER and
EIS will be determined on the basis of regulatory authority and
available expertise within the agency.

A. The PSC shall prepare those sections of the document which
pertain to the history of the proposal, project need, schedule
and cost, land-use patterns, general land use including
agriculture, industrial, commercial, and residential uses,
transportation and utility usage, economic, social and cultural
considerations, historic and archaeological areas, population,
regional impacts, human health considerations, and system and
site alternatives.

B. The DNR shall be responsible for describing those aspects of
the proposal for which it has permitting authority or regulatory
responsibility, including scientific and natural areas, fish
and wildlife habitat, forestry, recreation, water resources,
air quality, permits for contaminant sources such as solid and
liquid waste disposal, and in-plant and on-site alternatives.
In sections for which DNR is responsible, Commission requirements
for decision-making shall be considered and shall be included
in the document.

Anthotdy.'_iarl, Secretary Date
Department of Natural Resources

Lewis r. Mittness, Executive Secretary Date
Public Service Commission

Attachment A

Milestones in Regulatory Review of Electric Power Plants
(Prior to Complete Application)

Elapsed Time (days)

-- 0 -- Engineering plan submitted

60 DNR identification of all permits
required and all permits required
prior to issuance of CPCN

120 CPCN application submitted

- 150 _- Joint inquiry letter

--.X+150 -- Responses received

X+171 __ Responses checked for adequacy -
further clarification requested

� 2

-- X+Y+171 -- Application complete

X = time utility takes for preliminary response
Y - time utility takes for follow-up response

(Continued)

Attachment A (continued)
Milestones in Regulatory Review of Electric Power Plants
100

Elapsed Time (days)
-- 0 Application complete

-- 90 -- DNR portions of PER submitted to
PSC for final typing
105 Pre-publication review of PER
-- 120 -- PER to printing at DNR

135 PER released - 60-day review begins

-- 195 PER 60-day review ends - EIS
preparation begins

-- 255 DNR portions of EIS submitted to
PSC for final typing
- 270 -- Pre-publication review of EIS
-- 285 '- EIS to printing at DNR
-- 300 -- EIS released

330 Joint hearings initiated

-- 360 -- Joint hearings completed

- 390 PSC transcripts available

-- 480 -- DNR permits issued

540 -- CPCN decision

101
Appendix D:

CEIP Background Information
and Intrastate Allocation Process

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

I. Background Information ................... 103
A. Introduction ........................ 103
B. Federal Administration of CEUP ............... 104
C. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~104
C. Planning Grants ......................
D. Requirements for Establishing an Interstate
Allocation Procedure . . . . ................ 105
E. Conclusion ......................... 106
IT. Official State Policy ................... 106

III. Proposed Criteria for CEIP Applications and a
Procedure for Assessing the Criteria ............. 107
IV. Allocation Process ..................... 109
V. Short Form of CEIP Intrastate Allocation Procedure . . ..... 110
VI. Notification Procedures ................ . . . 110
VII. Summary and Conclusions . . . .... 111

102

103

Section I. Coastal Energy Impact Program Background Information
A. Introduction

The Coastal Energy Impact Program is administered by the federal
Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) according to Section 308
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended. The OCZM
is a subdivision of the Department of Commerce, National
oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This provision of
the law provides financial assistance to states and local govern-
ments to mitigate the impacts resulting from coastal energy de-
velopment. Energy related activities along Wisconsin coastal areas
or affecting the coastal areas are eligible for funding under the
Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP).

Five types of financial assistance are provided under Section
305 (b) (c) (d) :

(1) Planning grants for the consequences of energy facilities,
(2) Loans for new or improved public facilities and services
required as a result of coastal energy activities,
(3) Grants to reduce any unavoidable loss of valuable en-
vironmental or recreational resource,
(4) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development grants, and;
(5) Repayment assistance to coastal states and local govern-
ments experiencing difficulties meeting credit obliga-
tions because the energy activity did not provide the
expected revenue.

Because of the legal language written in the law, certain words
need to be defined and clarified. The language describes what types
of energy projects can be funded. The term "coastal energy activity"
refers to (1) any Outer Continental Shelf energy activity; (2) any
transportation, conversion, treatment, transfer or storage of
liquid natural gas; or (3) any transportation, transfer or storage
of oil, natural gas, or coal (NOAA regulations, Section 931.13,
43 FR 7551). The term "energy facility" means any equipment or
facility which is used primarily: (1) in the exploration for, or
the development, production, conversion, storage, transfer, pro-
cessing or transportation of, any energy resource; or (2) for
the manufacture, production, or assembly of equipment, machinery,
products or devices which are involved in the projects described
in section (1) (NOAA regulations, Section 931.19, 43 FR 7552).

Funding obtained through planning grants, Section 308(c), may be
applied to either coastal energy activities or facilities. However,
the remaining four types of assistance mentioned above may be
distributed solely for coastal energy activities. In particular,
these remaining four types of funds may not be applied to electric
generating plants. In addition, the monies allocated under the
Coastal Energy Impact Program come from two separate sources, the
bulk of which is earmarked for Outer Continental Shelf development.

104

B. Federal Administration of CEIP

The federal OCZM annually distributes a proposed inventory for
the state; it lists the new energy facilities, population change,
and associated permits pending (Appendix A). The Wisconsin Office
of State Planning and Energy (OSPE) reviews the inventory within
45 days and is- allowed to comment and add proposed energy facilities
to the list. Funds are made available according to this inventory
of new coastal energy facilities in the state and according to a
procedure set up by the Office of Coastal Zone Management. The
formula procedure takes into account several parameters including:
environmental and safety considerations, planning cost differences
for various regions of the country, and expected employment of the
facility.

In March, 1977 Wisconsin received the first federal inventory. On
May 16, 1977 Wisconsin was allocated $27,165 for CEIP funding under
Section 308(c) for the fiscal year 1977. Although these funds are
allocated or set aside for Wisconsin, the state must submit an
application explaining how the funds will be used and which pro-
jects will be funded. In order to receive the 1977 funds, the
state must apply prior to August 15, 1978. On October 17, 1977
Wisconsin received the 1978 federal planning inventory (Appendix
A). The Office of State Planning and Energy reviewed the coastal
energy inventory and proposed that additional facilities be in-
cluded (Appendix B). On January 17, 1978 Wisconsin was allocated
$82,283 for fiscal year 1978; the application must be submitted
prior to August 15, 1979. Both of these amounts may only be used
for planning purposes, Section 308(c) funds. Wisconsin did not
receive funding under the other four types of assistance, Section
308(b)(d). OCZM distributed the funds according to the inventory
and the formula procedure described previously.

C. Planning Grants

Section 308(c) grants are designed for the study and planning of
consequences relating to new or expanded energy facilities. These
funds can be applied to various programs:

(a) planning for economic, social, or environmental con-
sequences of new or expanded energy facilities;
(b) analyzing government or private industry siting policies;
(c) devising strategies for the public purchase of land or
for land-use controls upon or near which energy de-
velopment is to take place;
(d) devising methods of protecting recreational ar environ-
mental resources;
(e) conducting studies for maintaining or improving public
safety threatened by the construction or operation of
energy facilities;
(f) conducting analyses required for state or local regulatory
decisions related to energy facilities;

105
(g) performing cost/benefit analyses comparing the con-
sequences of alternative energy facility types or sites;
(h) devising strategies for recovering compensation for
any adverse effects caused by an energy facility;
(i) forecasting employment, population, public facility
and public service needs and costs, and tax and user
fees revenues;
(j) planning for public facilities needed as a result of
the energy activities;
(k) study of and planning for the secondary consequences of
alternative types and sites of public facilities needed
as a result of the energy activities;
(1) study of and planning for the consequences of the phasing
out of energy facilities; and
(in) carrying out projects necessary to administer assistance
under Section 308 (NOAA, Regulations, Section 931.33,
43 FR 7554 - 7555)

The compiled list of eligible planning projects is not considered
to be a comprehensive one; other proposals relating to energy f a-
cilities planning may be funded. Section 308 states that the fi-
nancial assistance is provided "to meet the needs of the coastal
states and local governments in such states resulting from specific
activities involving energy development." Therefore, the funds are
to be used to ameliorate the negative impacts of energy facilities
and not be used in propounding an adversary position to the site.
It is assumed that the facility will be constructed. Likewise,
CEIP funds can not be used to persuade an energy company to locate
a facility in a certain area. Generally, a company must first apply
for a permit.

D. Requirements for Establishing an Intrastate Allocatio n Process

Since Wisconsin has been allocated less than $250,000 in 308 grants
or $2 million in credit assistance, Wisconsin can use a simple
allocation process as explained in NOAA Regulations Section 931.112
(b) (43 FR 7566). The following three elements form the basis
of the Intrastate Allocation Process:

(1) The methods used to determine the priorities for the
needs for financial assistance resulting from coastal
energy activity.
(2) The methods used to evaluate and select projects and
to allocate financial assistance.
(3) The methods used to provide for formal notification
of, direct consultation with, and comments by, affected
State agencies and units of local government in the
allocation of all 308 funds.

Several key questions need to be addressed in this process:

(1) Who determines the needs and sets the priorities? What
method or methods are used to rate, rank or group needs?
(2) Who evaluates and selects proposals? What method or
methods are used to rate, rank or group projects or
activity applications?

106
(3) Who makes the determination about the allocation of 308
funds to individual projects? How are project by pro-
ject financial assistance allocations made?
(4) Who is responsible for notifying, consulting with and
receiving comments from affected state agencies and units
of local government? How are the notification, consul-
tation and comment requirements concerning affected state
agencies and units of local government met?
(5) Who is administratively responsible for tying this together?

Compliance with these three elements and answers to the five key
questions are necessary prior to the reception of CEIP funds. One
state agency must act as the CEIP lead agency responsible for setting
up an Intrastate Allocation Process. This process must provide
guidelines for distributing funds within the state.

E. Conclusion

Section I described the basics of Section 308, one of the amendments
to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A discussion of the
federal administration of CEIP and the method used in allocating
funds was included. Planning grants, the only type of CEIP fi-
nancial assistance available to Wisconsin, were explained. The
legal requirements each coastal state must comply with in order
to apply for the allocated funds were also discussed.

Section II. Official State Policy

This section provides information on Wisconsin's involvement in
the CEIP process. Executive Order Number 49, promulgated by
Acting Governor Schreiber on October 7, 1977, sets forth several
official coastal management policies:

-"1to improve the quality and management of the waters of
the coastal area,
-to conserve and enhance natural land and water resources,
-to mitigate risk to public health and safety,
-to insure the orderly and balanced development of coastal
communities,
-to stimulate desirable economic development . . . and to
encourage the designation and reservation of areas of
significance to activities requiring a coastal location,
-to ensure intergovernmental communication, cooperation,
and coordination in all aspects of coastal management, and
-to provide citizens with full opportunities for early and
continuous involvement in coastal management through
effective communication and participation."

Several policies relate directly to the formulation of the CEIP
Intrastate Allocation Process. Citizen involvement and communication
with various levels of government are important sources of input
for this process. Section VI describes the citizen participation.
State policy also deals directly with the Coastal Energy Impact
Program when encouraging the designation and reservation of areas
of significance to activities requiring a coastal location. Section

107
12(e)(3) of the Executive Order necessitates "managing the planning
for and siting of electric generating and transmission facilities
so as to ensure protection of water quality, public and riparian
rights, and orderly land use." This statement recognizes the
unique nature of electric energy facilities and their particular
association with Wisconsin coastal areas.

In March, 1977, Governor Patrick Lucey officially established the
Office of State Planning and Energy as the lead agency for the
administration of CEIP under Section 931.26(a) of the interim
final regulations dated January 5, 1977, Part III. This designation
was accomplished by a letter to Mr. Robert Knecht, Associate Ad-
ministrator of NOAA. On March 2, 1978 Governor Martin J. Schreiber
reaffirmed this designation (Appendix E). Therefore the Office
of State Planning and Energy is the lead agency for both Sections
305 and 306 coastal management program grants as well as Section
308 CEIP grants. This single agency facilitates coastal management
planning for the state and performs the functions listed in NOAA
Regulations Section 931.26(a)(1)(2)(2) (43 FR 7553-7554). This mode
of operation streamlines the statewide coordination aspects of the
various programs relating to coastal management in Wisconsin.

Section III. Proposed Criteria for CEIP Applications and a Procedure for Assessing
the Criteria

The Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) of Wisconsin's Coastal Manage-
ment Program is required to establish an Intrastate Allocation Process.
The CEIP funds are to be "distributed among units of local government
in amounts which are proportional to need and in a manner which is
equitable and expeditious." (NOAA Regulations Section 931.110,
43 FR 7566). The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program staff is pro-
posing criteria for CEIP allocations to guide the distribution of the
funds (Table 1).

The criteria listed below will be integrated into the funding guide-
lines of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program after public re-
view and OCZM approval:

Table 1: Proposed Criteria for CEIP Grants

A. Major Criteria
1) coastal energy activity/facility determination
(as defined in NOAA Regulations Section 931.13
and 931.19, 43 FR 7551-7553)
2) size and vulnerability of the area*
3) appropriate timing of the proposal to address
the impacts of the facility (urgency or imme-
diacy of need)*
4) consistency with other state policies and with
the Coastal Management Program*

B. Other Criteria
1) compliance with federal regulations and guidelines
2) ability of applicant to carry out proposed study
and previous energy planning involvement

* Existing guidelines from Coastal Management Program funding.

108 3) presence of matching funds*
4) geographic distribution of the proposals*
5) transferability of findings of the project*
6), cost of project and availability of complementary
funds from other state or federal sources*

On July 15, 1977, the federal Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM)
proposed a model for an Intrastate Allocation Process. The proposed
planning grant worksheet included points for the timing of the project
with the permit approval and construction of the facility, environ-
mental characteristics of the site, increases in population resulting
from the new or expanded energy facilities, safety factors for dif-
ferent types of facilities, cost differentials for planning personnel
in various regions of the country, projects proposed on a regional
or county basis, and local government matching funds. Wisconsin
adopted the broad set of criteria listed in Table I rather than use
the complex set of formulas suggested by OCZM. Therefore, Table I
will be the basis for selecting the proposals to be funded. Although
Wisconsin's method is subjective, it seems to address the needs of
the state better than a highly technical formula. The criteria are
established to guide the decision-making process and safeguard it
from bias.

The state is not obligated to fund impacts relating to every energy
facility and is also not limited to the facilities listed on the
Wisconsin inventory. If a new coastal energy facility such as a coal
transshipment facility or power plant is being planned and it is
not included on the list, applications still will be received on
the facility. If the need for funding is imminent, projects may be
funded to study the impacts. When the inventory list is compiled
for the following year, the new facility will be proposed for inclusion.

The public has also expressed concern that coastal funds be geo-
graphically distributed throughout Wisconsin' s coastal areas. Because
of unique situations involving the siting of energy facilities, this
goal may not be completely achieved; however, it is included as a
criterion and will be considered when ranking the proposals.

The section entitled "Program Funding" of the State of Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(p.220) identifies coastal energy impact recipients. Specifically
these recipients include general purpose governments (state and local),
the University of Wisconsin, and tribal governments.

''The term 'unit of general purpose local government'
means any political subdivision of any coastal state
or any special entity created by such a state or
subdivision which (in whole or part) is located in,
or has authority over, such state's coastal zone,
and which (A) has authority to levy taxes or
establish and collect user fees, and (B) provides

*Existing guidelines from Coastal Management Program funding.

109
any public facility or public service which is
financed in whole or part by taxes or user fees"
(P.L. 940370, Section 308(1)(3)).

Therefore, according to the Wisconsin coastal program document these
funds may be distributed to various levels of government including
state agencies, county governments, cities, towns, villages, and
tribal governments. However, if a regional planning commission,
consulting firm, federal agency, or environmental group wished to
sponsor a project, the applicant would have to be the county or
some other governmental unit with the ability to collect taxes.

Applicants for ~CEIP funds must indicate if they are aware of any other
source of funds available to implement their proposal. Other sources
should be thoroughly examined before applying for 308 funds, such as
housing and land-use planning funds (HUD 701), community development
funds, Economic Development Administration funds(302), and assistance
from the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission.' Priority will be
given to those energy projects that are not eligible for other pri-
vate, state or federal forms of assistance. The applicant should
also certify that the proposal does not duplicate any existing project.
CEIP federal planning grants may provide up to 80% of the total
proposal's cost.

In conclusion, this section identifies the proposed priorities for
allocating financial assistance to meet the impacts resulting from
coastal energy activities and facilities. These priorities are
consistent with existing guidelines for Wisconsin's Coastal Management
Program funding process.

Section IV. Allocation Process

This section of the Intrastate Allocation Procedure presents a process
for accepting applications for 308 assistance, reviewing the proposals,
and distributing CEIP funds. It is emphasized that the process de-
scribed herein is also consistent with procedures defined in the
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program for other sections of the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act.

A general description of the process is outlined in the flow chart
(Figure 1). All of Wisconsin's coastal areas will be notified that
applications are being accepted for CEIP funds concurrently with the
306 budget procedures. The letter calling for proposals will include:
the deadline for the applications, amou~nt of funding allocated for
each type of assistance, type of projects available for funding,
and the criteria used to rank the projects. The notice will be sent
to local units of governments, state agencies, regional planning
commissions, the University system, tribal councils and others as
appropriate. Assistance from the Regional Planning Commissions or
the Coastal Mianagement Program staff will be available to aid any
potential applicant in applying for funding.

After the completion date for the proposals, the Coastal Management
Program staff will review proposals for eligibility. If a proposal
is clearly not eligible, the applicant and the Council will be notified
of the non-eligibility comment. All other proposals will be trans~-

110 mitted to the regional clearinghouses for review and comment; a
technical review will simultaneously be conducted. After the comment
period the Wisconsin Coastal Management Councilrs Finance Committee
will review the comments and make recommendations to the full Coastal
Management Council for their final approval of the proposed application.
Subsequent to Council approval, the application is sent to the State
A-95 Clearinghouse process for public review. Formal submission
of the grant application to the federal Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment will take place after this public review. OCZM will notify
Wisconsin of the approved grant application 30 days before the be-
ginning of the grant period. Recipients will be notified and the
projects must commence within 90 days of approval.

Each recipient will be obliged to periodically report on the progress
of the funded projects. This reporting process is identical to the
one used for 306 coastal projects. At the termination of the project,
a final report must be submitted to the Coastal Management Council.
Those reports which affect a regulatory decision should be incorporated
into the agency' s formal decision-making process. Recipients would
be expected to supply a copy of the report to the regulatory agency
and could be called upon to testify and be cross-examined on the study.

This procedure would further implement Wisconsin' s Coastal Management
policies by providing a thorough independent evaluation of the project
and by guaranteeing the discussion of coastal issues at public hearings
on energy projects which affect the coastal areas. It would aid in
reducing the adverse consequences resulting from a coastal energy
facility. This procedure would be followed only by those projects
whose findings are transferable.

Section V. Short Form of CEIP Intrastate Allocation Procedure

Since the full allocation process will take nine months from the call
for proposals until the grant approval this procedure can not be
followed for fiscal year 1977 CEIP funds. Therefore, the Office of
State Planning and Energy will submit a proposal for funds to administer
the program and to perform a study of the methods local governments
use in assessing the impacts of energy facilities. A clustering of
facilities in certain counties can be seen by reviewing the state?'s
energy inventory (Appendices A and B). Some funds will be channeled
into these areas to obtain their views on how a county or local govern-
ment assesses the needs of their community when new facilities are
constructed.

The proposal will be explained in greater detail and announced to the
public in the Coastal Newsletter published by the UW-Extension. The
Finance Committee of the Coastal Management Council will review the
proposal and make recommendations to the full Council. Subsequent to
the Coastal Management Council's approval, the application will be
submitted to the federal OCZM. The funds for fiscal year 1978 will
be distributed according to the Allocation Procedure described in
Section IV.

Section VI. Notification Procedures

The Wisconsin Intrastate Allocation Process including the proposed
criteria, method for evaluating and selecting projects, and the

short-form procedure was circulated for a technical review by regional
planning commissions, state agencies and the Office of Coastal Zone
Management in April 1978. This report represents further public review
prior to formal OCZM approval. The CEIP allocation process will be
annually checked by the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council to in-
corporate any additional knowledge concerning the CEIP working pro-
cedures.

Section VII. Summary and Conclusion

The preceding Intrastate Allocation Procedure represents Wisconsin
efforts to comply with the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments
of 1976 and the subsequent administrative regulations. The methodology
for formulating the Intrastate Allocation criteria follows the CEIP
regulations set forth in NOAA Regulations Section 931.122(b) (43 FR 7566).
The proposed Sectioni 308(g)(2) process includes a set of allocation
criteria and a process for distributing CEIP funds in Wisconsin.
Consultation will be made with all affected state agencies and local
units of government as described in the Section VI.

The process described above will become a part of the overall Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program and integrated into existing guidelines.
Overall, this process attempts to implement the basic objective of
the Coastal Energy Impact Program, providing financial assistance to
coastal states and local governments so that the needs resulting from
energy development activities may be met, and maintaining consistency
between Section 308 and other sections of the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act.

112

Funds Allocated
to Wisconsin

Call for
Proposals (9)
a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ CMP Technical
_ Assistance
Received (7)

CMP Staff
IJ Review
Council
--Noti ftIed
Not
lg e Eligible -J
'\ ,E i gi ~ L _ _ . Applicant
Noti fi ed

| Technical | | Clearinghouse
IReview (6)I Review (6)1

IJ~ ~ J Coastal
q Management Council (4)J

Grant Application L Informal ]
Prepared|, OCZM j
'I
A-95 .
0 ~Review (3)

Official Application
|I to OCZM (2)1

| Notification of l
Grant Approval (1)|

| Grant Period (0)

Figure 1: Wisconsin Intrastate Allocation Process

(Numbers) indicate months prior to beginning of grant period.

SHORE EROSION/MITIGATION PLANNING

IN WISCONSIN:

Compliance with Section 305(b)(9)
Federal Requirements

Doris Fischer

Geological & Natural History Survey
University of Wisconsin

for

Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

DRAFT

Chapter 305(b) (9)

SHORE EROSION/MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS

Table of Contents

Page No.

Preface .1.....................

Introduction...................113

I. The Planning Process, In Brief..........113

II. The Planning Process, In Detail:
Its Components and Its Compliance ........117

A. Shoreline Data Gathering and
Analysis ..................117

B. Investigation of Structural
and Nonstructural Alternatives .......121

C. Development of a Framework
for Action .................123

D. Assessment of Technical and
Financial Assistance Sources ........127

E. Coordination of Local, Regional,
and State Shore Damage Mitigation
Policies and Programs............131

Ill. Wisconsin's Compliance, In Summary........133

IV. Footnotes.....................135

PREFACE

In Section 305(b) (9), Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976,
Congress issued the following directive:

"The management program for each coastal state shall include ... a
planning process for (A) assessing the effects of shoreline erosion
(however caused), and (B) studying and evaluating ways to control,
or lessen the impact of, such erosion, and to restore areas ad-
versely affected by such erosion."

Five specific guidelines accompany the Section 305(b)(9) mandate. They
identify those elements which must be included in the shoreline erosion/mitigation
planning process of each state seeking coastal funds. They are listed
below:

"1. A method for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion;
2. Articulation of State policies pertaining to erosion, in-
cluding policies regarding preferences for non-structural,
structural and/or no controls;
3. A method for designation of areas for erosion control, miti-
gation and/or restoration as areas of particular concern or
areas for preservation and restoration, if appropriate;
4. Procedures for managing the effects of erosion, including non-
structural procedures; and
5. An identification of legal authorities, funding programs and
other techniques that can be used to meet management needs."
(923.26a Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 41)

This paper documents Wisconsin's compliance with the federal require-
ments cited above, and its five accompanying guidelines. The text
outlines the shore erosion/mitigation planning process Wisconsin has
developed over the past three years and highlights those particular
activities, whether completed, ongoing, or scheduled, which address the
five specific guidelines. Points of compliance with these guidelines
are identif ied throughout the paper. They are summarized on page 134 in
tabular form,

113

WISCONSIN'S SHORE EROSION/MITIGATION PLANNING PROCESS

Introduction

Shore erosion has long been recognized as a natural hazard endangering
coastal resources, structures, and land uses in Wisconsin. Shore
erosion agents attack the coastal bluffs and beaches of Lakes Michigan
and Superior on a year-round basis. Yet, it is during heavy storms and
high-water periods that the effect of erosive processes is most acute,
and public awareness highest.

No greater threat has been imposed upon Wisconsin's shoreline, in recent
decades, than the particularly severe erosion which occurred during the
1950-52 and 1972-74 high-water periods. Over the course of each period,
shore properties suffered damage and loss estimated in the millions of
dollars;l wildlife habitats, scientific areas, and recreational op-
portunities were also adversely affected. In recognition of persisting
hazard conditions, many local governments and coastal property owners
constructed shore protection structures of various types. Some devices
proved effective, but most did not. As a result, lakeshore residents
and public officials grew frustrated in their attempts to reduce shore
erosion damages. At the same time, they felt increasing pressures to
develop their coastal environment more extensively. A need to assess
the issues of shore erosion in the context of overall coastal land use
was becoming apparent.

By 1974, shore erosion was the #1 concern of Wisconsin shore residents. 2
In view of its commitment to fostering compatible shoreland activities,
Wisconsin's Coastal Management Program became the appropriate coordinator
of shore erosion/mitigation planning efforts in the state. Since 1975,
the Program has been building "in-house" state and local capabilities to
address erosion-related problems. Such a focus has maintained Wisconsin's
tradition of inter-governmental cooperation. It has also guided the
evolution of a shore erosion/mitigation planning process.

The Planning Process, In Brief

Formulation of the Study Plan illustrated in Figure I represented
Wisconsin's first major step in addressing the problems posed by its
eroding shoreline. Shore erosion planning in the state was initially
directed towards the development of a substantial coastal data base and
a subsequent set of options for reducing shore damages in a manner
compatible with existing land uses and environmental conditions.
Information-gathering activities were coordinated by the Shore Erosion
Policy Group (now, Shore Erosion Advisory Committee), a technical
committee created to guide Wisconsin' s overall planning efforts.3

The question of how to translate data into action quickly arose, amongst
coastal researchers, advisors, and citizens alike. With it came a
fuller recognition of the complexity of the shore erosion issue. From
it evolved a more comprehensive planning process.

1975 l 1976 lI 1977

Shore Damage RECESSION
Surveys RECESSION
MEASUREMENT
STUDY

Beach Erosion Studies
Corps of Engineers
INDEX OF RED CLAY
EROSION RELATED PROJECT
PROGRAMS
Shoreline Studies FIELD SURVEY'
-Sea Grant OF EROSION
PROBLEM AREAS
INVENTORY OF
COASTAL EROSION SHORE PROTECTION
BIBLIOGRAPHY STRUCTURES
Shore Structure ANALYSIS OFHORE EROSION PLAN
SHORE EROSION 'SALTERNATIVE Implementation
|STUDY Permit Files NONSTRUCTURAL EROSION PLANS &
A LTE R NATIVES
PUBLIC PERCEPTION Fudig
INDEX OF SURVEY OF EROSION
COASTAL IMAGERIllinois Coastal PROBLEM AREAS
Ililnois Coastal
Erosion Studies ANALYSIS OF ADDITIONAL DATA
PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE NEEDS FOR
ALTERNATIVES ENGINEERING STUDIES
DELINEATION OF
MAP CHART Michigan Shore EROSION PROBLEM
Demonstration AREAS
Program SHORE PROTECTION
MONITORING
PROGRAM
DELINEATION OF
Related Coastal EROSION REACHES
Zone Studies

I STUDY PLAN I IRELATED PROGRAM! IANALYTICAL STUDIESI

INVENTORY I INFORMATION STUDIESI I PLANNING-EVALUATION-SELECTIONI

-.
- li3lt~c\. f Wisconsin Shore Erosion Study Plan

Source: Shore Erosion - A Study Plan.

115

Wisconsin has broadened its shore erosion planning focus to include five
principal components. In Table 1, these components have been stated in
terms of needs -- that is, what has Wisconsin needed to know and do in
order to move towards the goal of shore damage reduction? Such needs
are being addressed in a five-stage planning process, also summarized in
Table 1.

By 1974, it was well-recognized that erosion of bluffs and beaches was
occurring more rapidly in some areas alon~g Wisconsin' s coast than
others. It had also become evident that where land use was most in-
tensive, shore damages were highest. But the shore erosion-related
information available in the State was insufficient 4as a basis for
identifying appropriate hazard mitigation measures.4 Wisconsin needed
to know more about the shore erosion process itself, more about its
vulnerable shoreline, and more about the range of feasible solutions
which might be successfully applied to problem areas.

Initial planning emphasis, thus, was on (1) gathering shoreline data and
(2) investigating those structural and nonstructural measures which
could reduce the damaging effects of erosive forces upon shore properties
or facilities. Although such information regarding shore erosion
problems and potential solutions is proving an invaluable resource,
Wisconsin state and local decision-makers have needed additional support
In order to select, establish, and maintain effective shore damage
reduction programs. Subsequently, attention has turned to (3) developing
a framework for action, whether it be collectively or individually
undertaken. This framework is based upon the translation of existing
state and local shore erosion-related policies into guidelines and the
application of these guidelines to a generalized planning process for
shore damage reduction programs. Shore erosion/mitigation planning
efforts are also currently focused on expanding the existing body of
coastal data and (4) examining the array of available technical and
financial assistance sources.

Future planning emphasis is directed towards (5) coordinating public and
private sector shore damage reduction activities and refining them, such
that they enhance the overall future of Wisconsin's .coastal area. To
this end, the planning process will be strengthened by the ongoing
assessment of shoreline conditions, the articulation and implementation
of further state and local policies -- of a regulatory and incentive
nature -- and the clarification of agency and government roles and
responsibilities. Wisconsin' s need to make its shore damage mitigation
efforts as efficient and effective as possible will therefore be ad-
dressed.

Table 1. Wisconsin Moves Toward Shore Damage Reduction: 1975 - 1978 and Beyond.

State and Local A Planning Process 1975 1976 1977 1978 Major Planning Activities
Needs to Address Needs

1. Need to evaluate A. Shoreline data 1. Geotechnical studies.
extent and nature gathering and 2. Shoreline damage survey.
of shore erosion analysis. 3. Priority rapking of criti-
in Wisconsin's X X X X cal reaches.
coastal area. 4. Delineation of erosion
hazard districts.

2. Need to know B. Investigation of 1. Evaluation of structural
what can be Structural and solutions.
done to reduce Non structural 2. Evaluation of nonstruc-
shore damage. Alternatives. tural solutions.
X X X 3. Evaluation of compen-
sation avenues.
1. Analysis of state and local
3. Need to know C. Development of erosion-related policies.
how to select a Framework for 2. Translation of policies
damage reduction Action. into guidelines and imple-
option(s), then X X mentation strategies.
how to proceed. 3. Development of decision
making process.
4. Need to tap D. Assessment of 1. Identification of exis-
available Technical ting aid programs.
sources of and Financial X X 2. Compensation study.
assistance. Assistance
Sources.

5. Need to make E. Coordination 1. Clarified agency and
shore damage of state and government roles and
reduction local shore X responsibilities.
programs as damage re- 2. Coastal Management
effective as duction poli- Council leadership.
possible. cies and 3. Great Lakes shore
programs. erosion information and
assistance program.

117

The Planning Process, In Detail: Its Components and Its Compliance

Wisconsin's shore erosion/mitigation planning process can be further
characterized by the research, analytical, and administrative activities
of its five principal components (A-E). The following pages discuss
these activities, list the erosion-related documents produced thus far
(Appendices A-E), and highlight the compliance of such efforts with the
federal requirements (FR#l-.#5).

A. Shoreline data gathering and analysis.

During 1975 and 1976, shoreline surveys of various types were under-
taken. Inventories of natural areas, fish and wildlife habitats, and
historic sites provided information regarding some valuable resources of
Wisconsin's coastal area. Patterns of shoreland use, ownership, and
zoning were also identified. Aerial photographs of Lake Michigan and
Lake Superior shores were acquired from several regional, state, and
federal agencies, and from actual flights along the Wisconsin coast.
The photos enabled coastal researchers to observe the condition of
existing shore protection structures, and to locate them on shoreline
base maps. They served as well to identify those sites (1) where
slumps, slides, and seepages gave evidence of the erosive effects of
gravity, winds, and waves upon coastal bluffs, and (2) where littoral
drift processes had either carved away or supplemented beach areas,
often adjacent to shore protection structures. The imagery files also
provided the data base needed to undertake a shore recession measurement
study. Short term rates for the Lake Michigan shore were calculated and
then mapped along with older, long-term measurements.5

Estimations of bluff heights and beach widths were made from U.S.
topographical maps, and the information was added to the shoreline base
maps. Perceptions of coastal residents regarding the shore erosion
issue were obtained during three regional workshops. Citizens iden-
tified the areas of severe erosion with which they were familiar and
thereby contributed to the ultimate determination of which shores were
eroding at a critical rate. In addition, pilot study .findings of a
larger Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Survey revealed the extent and
location of land and property losses which occurred during 1972-74 in
three of Wisconsin's5 coastal counties.6

The acquisition and analysis of basic shoreline data facilitated a
designation of reaches and an identification of coastal stretches most
vulnerable to erosion. A ranking of Lake Michigan's shoreline reaches
according to their conditions of erodibility wag made. Figure 2 locates
these reaches and prioritizes them, from the most severe erosion problem
area (Priority #1) to the least severe (Priority #32). This listing
provided the basis for an extensive geotechnical study of the Lake
Michigan coastline during the summer of 1976. Field investigations were
most thorough where shore erosion posed a formidable threat to coastal
residences, buildings, and public facilities.' Detailed descriptions of
126 miles of coastline were made. The effects of erosion upon unpro-
tected, somewhat protected, and well-armored shores were noted. Avail-
ability of such data led to the development of a shore protection

118

FIGURE 2: LAKE MICHIGAN REACHES:
THEIR LOCATION AND THEIR PRIORITY
AS EROSION PROBLEM AREAS

LIST OF LAKE MICHIGAN

STATE
OF / / - Grid Miles
WISCONSIN N-S
Priority Reach Cumulative
Totals

k ~1 1 4.5
Michian 2 12 11.1
Shoreline 3 6 15.7
4 7 18.5
5 11 21.1
6 10 27.7
7 13 32.9
8 18B 37.9
9 3 43.9
10 5 46.9
[COUNTY REACH #| 11 8 52.7
12 16 55.7
j~1 ~ 13 17 59.2
14 14 60.2
MANITOWOC 24-25-26 15 15 63.7
27-28-29-30 16 27 67.2
17 24 70.7
18 18A 72.7
18-19-20 19 19 74.9
21-22-23 20 25 80.8
21 29 83.1
22 22 85.5
23 23 90.0
OZAUKEE 11-12-13 24 18 93.0
14-15-16-17 221 96.5
25 21 96.5
26 26 99.5
27 30 104.1
MILWAUKEE 7-8-9-10 28 2 107.1
29 4 110.4
30 28 116.0
RACINE 4-5-6 31 20 119.0
KENOSHA 1-2-3 32 9 126.0

Source: Shore Erosion Study Technical Report

1 19

structure inventory. It also supported subsequent planning efforts by
Wisconsin to identify feasible structural and nonstructural solutions
which might effectively be applied to its erodible shores. And it has
suggested new avenues for coastal research in Wisconsin -- particularly,
the need to monitor coastal conditions at selected sites, the need to
make similar geotechnical investigations of Lake Superior's shore, and
the need to delineate erosion hazard areas and specify their appropriate
use(s). Such needs are being addressed over the next few years.

On the basis of its shoreline data gathering activities -- those com-
pleted, ongoing, and planned -- Wisconsin has fully complied with
Federal Requirement #1, that "...a method for assessing the effects of
shoreline erosion..." be developed. During its initial planning period,
Wisconsin acquired, organized, and mapped much of the shoreline data
necessary to evaluate the major effects of shore erosion upon its Great
Lakes coast. Clearly, land is being lost at a variable rate; buildings,
public utilities, and recreational facilities are endangered; and
natural areas and habitats are threatened.

The State has also been assembling its shore property damage estimates,
its shore protection structure evaluations, its shoreline recession
measurements, and its bluff stability calculations in order to clarify
the cause-and-effect relationships contained in the shore erosion
process. Although land losses during major storm attacks have proven
the most costly of shore erosion effects, Wisconsin's attention to the
shore erosion issue remains comprehensive in scope; that is, all aspects
of the shore erosion process and all effects are being considered.
Extensive property and structure damage during severe coastal storms
represent only one form of shore erosion. Bluff slides and slumps, and
gradual composition changes and recession of coastal bluffs and beaches
are associated with the more cyclic and year-round types of erosion. In
addition, the erosive effects of lake level regulation, shore armorment
placement, and upland management practices are becoming distinguished.

As Wisconsin pieces together the puzzle of its coastal erosion history
and current situation, the benefits of updating information and elabor-
ating upon methodology in the future have become apparent. Yet, as
indicated above, the recent shoreline research has already proven useful
in several specific instances. More generally, it has heightened
Wisconsin's own understanding of the nature and extent of its shore
erosion problem. It has also provided a benchmark from which the state
and local governments can establish procedures for obtaining shoreline
data on an ongoing basis. Finally, the question of how Wisconsin's
shore erosion-related policies and programs might be strengthened has
been raised -- a direct result of the new, often disturbing, coastal
research findings.

120

Appendix A: (Asterisk (*) denotes project received funding support from
the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program.)

* Coastal Water Quality. 1975
* Inventory of Coastal Imagery. 1975
An Analysis of the International Great Lakes Levels Board Report on
Regulation of Great Lakes Water Levels. 1976

- Summary Report.
- Hydrology.
- Navigation.
- Shore Property and Recreation.
- Wetlands, Fisheries and Water Quality.
- Institutions.

* Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Great Lakes. 1976.
Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Survey: Brown, Douglas and Racine
Counties, Wisconsin. Appendix II. 1976
* Natural Area Inventory. Coastal Zone, Wisconsin. 1976.
* Ordinary High Watermark Determinations on Wisconsin's Great Lakes. 1976.
* Preliminary Historic Structures Survey. Wisconsin's Great Lakes
Counties. 1976.
* Shore Erosion - A Bibliography. 1976.
* Shore Erosion - A Study Plan. 1976.
'~ Delineating Great Lakes Shorelines. 1977.
,~ "Shoreline Erosion and Bluff Stability Along Lake Michigan and
Lake Superior Shorelines of Wisconsin," Shore Erosion Study
Technical Report. 1977.
* Technical Report Appendices. 1977.
Shoreland Use in Wisconsin. 1977.
* Wisconsin Coastal Atlas. 1977.

121

B. Investigation of structural and nonstructural alternatives.

Independent shore protection efforts by coastal citizens and local
governments often result in the haphazard application of controls to
what research and field study have now revealed as a system of shore
erosion causes and effects. The benefits of systematically , and
cooperatively, undertaking shore damage reduction activities have become
apparent. In order to foster such coordination, however, Wisconsin
first needed to evaluate the set of alternative solutions. It began to
identify those options which might alleviate the erosion hazard con-
ditions along the shoreline. Specifically, it investigated the costs
and effectiveness of structural protection and the legal and administra-
tive provisions for nonstructural measures.

The range of structural solutions was examined by a Wisconsin engineering
firm, together with coastal planners of the state. Initially, investi-
gations focused upon the coastal processes and their interactions with
current methods of beach accretion, shore armorment, and bluff stabili-
zation. Analyses of existing shore protection works were performed at
nine priority locations along the Wisconsin coast. The structural
devices which had been applied to these nine erosion hazard situations
were assessed for their condition and performance. Such site - specific
studies provided valuable information regarding what shore protection
structures were and weren't "working" under varied geomorphologic con-
ditions.

The logical next step was to develop guidelines for the selection of
structural designs. Again, nine sites -- considered representative of
Wisconsin's major shoreline types -- were chosen for analysis. Temporary,
intermediate, and long-term life solutions were developed for each
site;7 costs of the various structural devices were calculated. Such
efforts confirmed Wisconsin's experience, historically, that structural
protection is a costly means of addressing the problems posed by shore
erosion; they also demonstrated the variation in life effectiveness of
the design alternatives.

Parallel to the study of shore protection structures was an examination
of nonstructural options available to citizens and governments along
Wisconsin' s coastline. Vegetation and upland management practices
gained consideration as viable alternatives to an exclusively structural
armoring of the Great Lakes shore. Existing county land use controls
were identified and assessed for their degree of influence over Great
Lakes shore development pressures. Shoreland zoning regulations were
found particularly applicable to the issue of reducing safety hazards
and property damages along the coast. The value of an erosion hazard
warning system was also identified. In addition, a study of erosion-
related compensation sources examined the extent to which relocation of
buildings away from eroding shores and public or private acquisition of
coastal areas might represent feasible options.

122

A major highlight of the "alternatives" research discussed above is the
distinction between remedial and preventive approaches to shore damage
reduction. Structural procedures would typify the first strategy, while
nonstructural solutions would characterize the second. These two per-
spectives are reflected, in Wisconsin, by different policies and prac-
tices. Their combined and coordinated thrust, however, holds promise of
more effective shore erosion mitigation measures being undertaken by
state and local units of government and by private citizens.

Wisconsin's attention to identifying and developing further "procedures
for managing the effects of erosion including nonstructural procedures",
is ongoing. The array of existing shore damage reduction alternatives
has been studied at great length. Establishment of clear guidelines
upon which to base selection of one or more solutions will be receiving
extensive consideration over the next several months. Compliance with
Federal Requirement #4 is certainly underway.

Appendix B:

* Capabilities of County Land Regulation Programs in the Wisconsin
Coastal Area. 1976.
* Addressing Coastal Erosion Through Flood Plain Zoning -- Is It
Feasible in Wisconsin? 1977. Unpublished.
* Bluff Erosion Control Under Wisconsin Shoreland Zoning Provisions.
1977. Unpublished.
* Great Lakes Shore Erosion Protection - A General Review with Case
Studies. 1977.
* Some Non-structural Alternatives for the Reduction of Shore Damage.
1977.
* Feasibility of-Compensation for Man-induced Shore Erosion. 1978.
- Summary Report.
- Legal and Administrative Options for Compensation.
- Relation of Human Activities to Shore Erosion.
* Great Lakes Shore Erosion Protection - Structural Design Examples.
1978.

123

C. Development of a framework for action.

While Wisconsin's shoreline conditions and options for site-specific
shore damage reduction efforts undergo continued assessment, the ques-
tion of how overall shore damage reduction can actually be achieved has
become more pressing. With coastal data now more available and alter-
native solutions somewhat clarified, guidelines regarding program
selection and implementation have become necessary.

The third component of Wisconsin' s shore erosion/mitigation planning
process is the development of a framework for action at both the state
and local level. Principles upon which the framework is based derive
from interpretations of not only recent shoreline studies, but also
existing shore erosion-related state and local policies and programs.
Research findings have been discussed in the previous two sections; the
pertinent state laws are listed below:8

1. Within unincorporated areas a setback of 75 ft. from the ordinary
high water mark shall be required, unless an existing development
pattern exists. (See Wis. Stats. Sections 59.971 and 144.26, and
Wis. Admin. Code NR 115.)

2. It is unlawful to deposit any material or to place any structure in9
navigable waters without a permit. (See Wis. Stats. Section 30.l2(l) .)

3. Rip rap or other similar material for protecting stream banks or
lake shore from erosion shall not materially impair navigation or
damage fish and game habitat. (See Wis. Stats. Section 30.12(2)(b).)

Such legislative provisions, admittedly, do not comprehensively treat
the range of shore erosion concerns. They have, however, provided
Wisconsin state government -- and, to a lesser degree, local govern-
ments -- with some regulatory authority vis-a-vis shoreland use. Policy
#1, for example, has formed the basis for the state's shoreland manage-
ment standards, with which local governments of unincorporated areas
along the coast must comply. Policies #2 and #3 are major elements of
the state permitting procedure, whereby individuals or governments
intending to build a shore protection device must meet certain con-
struction and maintenance criteria.

In addition to these rather specific policies, Wisconsin's general
direction in addressing its shore erosion concerns has been articulated
by Executive Order #49, issued in October 1977:

"The state policy on natural hazard areas is to mitigate risks to
public health and safety and risks of property damage by:

1. Providing that all development in areas subject to serious
flooding will not materially alter the natural capacity of the
lake or river so as to intensify the magnitude of floods,
expose citizens to hazards, or cause future public expenditures
for flood disaster relief; and

124

2. Regulating those earth moving, devegetation and construction
activities now reviewed by state agencies so as not to ac-
celerate the rate of shoreline erosion or bluff recession."10

As the need for shore erosion/mitigation planning in Wisconsin has
become more widely recognized, both administrative and legal attention
has turned to policy analysis, elaboration, and refinement as integral
parts of the foundation for effective shore damage reduction programs.
A number of shore erosion-related policy areas will be examined in depth
by the Coastal Management Council and various state and local agencies.
Studies will focus, for example, on the status of incorporated areas
vis-a-vis shoreland zoning regulations, the practice of beach nourish-
ment, the state's role in managing its lake beds, and the state's
preference for particular structural and/or nonstructural procedures.
Until official policies become established or redirected as a result of
such topical analyses, Wisconsin will draw upon its existing policy base
and an interim set of guidelines for the development of shore damage
reduction programs. Essentially, the principles listed in Figure 3
interpret the shoreline information that has been gathered thus far.
They are a product of A Shore Erosion Plan for Wisconsin: Appraisal of
Options and Strategies, a forthcoming document which articulates a
number of important considerations upon which decisions regarding future
shore.erosion mitigation activities in the state should be made.

The principles themselves serve to guide the decision-making process
(also developed in the Erosion Plan) by which shore damage reduction
actions may be taken, whether at the state, local or individual level.
This process is diagrammed in Figure 4. Its cyclical format emphasizes
the need for continuous refinement of every shore damage reduction pro-
gram, as new data become available and old policies are revised.

Wisconsin will continuously be defining and redefining its positions
with regard to the numerous aspects of the shore erosion issue. In
continuous manner, then, the state is addressing Federal Requirement #2,
"Articulation of State policies pertaining to erosion, including policies
regarding preferences for -non-structural or structural controls and/or
no controls."

Appendix C: (see page 130).

125
Figure 3.Principles and Guidelines for the Development of Shore Erosion
Damage Reduction Programs in Wisconsin

1. Shore erosion is a complex, natural process which is difficult, if
not impossible, to totally arrest.

2. The planning and implementation of long term solutions must begin
prior to the presence of acute erosion hazards or high water levels.

3. Coastal resources and buildings can only be fully protected when a
total site plan, including the beach, toe, bluff, and upland zones,
is prepared and implemented.

4. Shore erosion damages can be more effectively and efficiently
reduced with cooperative and comprehensive reach planning between
coastal property owners and managers.

5. Structural and nonstructural solutions which do not substantially
remove or reduce erosion hazards over a long period of time should
not be widely encouraged in Wisconsin.

6. No single approach or solution can work everywhere along the
shoreline. All structural and nonstructural solutions have posi-
tive and negative characteristics which should be carefully evalu-
ated prior to implementation.

7. Structural solutions must be cautiously promoted and placed since
many are not only costly and short-lived but, they can also create
adverse impacts upon neighboring properties.

S. The value and use of a site and its buildings, both existing and
projected, should be key determinants in isolating appropriate
types of solutions, and levels of public or private investment.

9. Hazard zones or districts should be precisely identified and in-
corporated into land use plans and codes along Wisconsin's Great
Lakes shoreline. Along undeveloped portions of the shoreline,
every attempt should be made to avoid the placement of buildings
and facilities in these zones or districts.

10. All individuals, governments, and agencies purchasing land along
the shoreline should be cognizant of erosion hazards and any
special siting requirements.

11. Where public funds are utilized to reduce damages or save coastal
resources on private property, the benefits should be commensurate
with the investment.

12. Shore erosion damage reduction programs and plans should be prepared,
implemented, and enforced by those governments and agencies legally
responsible for shoreline planning and management. Supportive
programs and efforts should seek to provide direct information,
assistance, and resources to these agencies and governments.

Source: A Shore Erosion Plan for Wisconsin: Appraisal of Options and
Strategies.

Figure 4 GENERALIZED PLANNING PROCESS FOR DAMAGE REDUCTION PROGRAMS

Storm Events Existing ....Initiation of
High Water Damages ....Policies and Detailed Studies
Laws and Programs Guidelines

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... Inu an

SHORELINE~~~~~~ INTUIG OFFNLSEETO

MONIOREINEGNEDOR APPRUCTUAL AN-'OF COMPREHENSIV

REDUCTION STAEISA LTRTIVS

~~~~(PROBLEM REVALUATION) (PROGRAM IOMPLEMNATION) (PROGRAM ADOPTION)

Cha~~~~~~~~~~~.ngigutw and Porm

Source: A Shore Erosion Plan for Wisconsin:uppriaoftonsadSratege

127

D. Assessment of technical and financial assistance sources.

If state and local capabilities to address the issue of shore erosion in
Wisconsin are to be fully developed, the channels for technical and
financial aid must be identified, and their accessibility insured.
Wisconsin's shore erosion/mitigation planning efforts include attention
to this aspect of shoreland management. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the
federal and state programs which currently provide, or potentially could
provide, assistance 'to Wisconsin governments and private citizens in
their shore damage reduction activities. Most shore erosion-related
support emphasizes the need for planning. Existing funds are clearly
directed towards evaluating shore erosion problem areas and initiating
nonstructural measures of hazard mitigation and resource preservation.
Financing available for structural solutions or as an avenue for compen-
sation is extremely limited.

The Coastal Management Program represents a likely source of assistance
to those Wisconsin communities interested in shore erosion damage re-
duction. Besides channeling its monies towards an expansion of the
state's own shoreline information base, the Program is also funding
shore erosion-related projects of coastal communities, counties, and
regional bodies. That local policy development, plan design, and program
implementation have become a major CMP focus is evidenced by the following
list of future activities, classified under Coastal Issue #3, Coastal
Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas:

Title of 306 Project Proposal Sponsor Subject County(ies)

1. Erosion Control Study Design Racine County/
Town Caledonia Racine

2. Recreation Activity Management Racine County/
Study Town Caledonia Racine

3. Ecological Study Racine County/
Town Caledonia. Racine

4. Lake Access Road Feasibility Racine County/
Study Town Caledonia Racine

5. Duck Creek Flood Plain Management Oneida Tribal
Reservation Brown

6. Coastal Topographic Mapping Town of Suamico Brown

7. Lake Superior Shoreland Wisconsin Geological Lake Superior
Geotechnical Study and Natural History Counties
Survey

8. Great Lakes Shore Erosion Wisconsin Geological Statewide
Information and Assistance and Natural History
Pro gram Survey

9. Shore Erosion Policy Study for Wisconsin Geological Statewide
Local and County Governments and Natural History
Survey

Table 2. Shore Damage Reduction: Primary Sources of Assistance.
co
Federal or Sponsoring Program Target Program Scope
State-Sponsored Agency State County Local Private Technical Financial Program
Program. Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt. Govt. Contact

Beach Erosion U.S. Army X X X X X X Corps District Office:
Control Corps of Chicago-Lake Michigan
Engineers St. Paul-Lake Superior

Hurricane, Tidal Same as
and Flood above. X X X X X X Same as above.
Protection.

Correction of Same as
Federal Navi- above.
gation Project- X X X X X X Same as above.
Induced Shore
Damage

Resources Soil Conservation Soil and Water
Conservation. Service, U.S. X X X X Conservation
Dept. of Agri- District Office.
cul ture.

Agricultural Agricultural ASC Committee; or
Conservation. Stabilization Soil and Water Con-
and Conser- X X X servation District Office.
vation Service
USDA.

Coastal Wisconsin T.A.: WI Geological and
Management Coastal X X X X X X Natural History
Program Management Survey.
Council F.A.: Regional Planning
Commission; Citizens'
Advisory Committee;
or Office of State
Planning and Energy.

Table 3. Shore Damage Reduction: Secondary Sources of Assistance.

Federal or Sponsoring Program Target Program Scope
State-Sponsored Agency State County Local Private Technical Financial Program
Programs Govt. Govt. Govt. Person Assistance Assistance Contact

Resource Conser- Soil Conservation Soil and Water Conservation
vation and De- Service, USDA X X X X X District Office
velopment Pro-
ject Activity

Highway Wisconsin Dept. X X X X Highway District Office.
Improvement. of Transportation

Disaster Loan Small Business Small Business Adminis-
Assistance. Administration. X X tration Regional Office.

Scientific Wisconsin Dept. Scientific Areas Coordinator,
Areas Preser- of Natural X X X X X Wisconsin Department of
vation. Resources. Natural Resources.

Outdoor Re- Same as Above. Wisconsin Department of
sources Action X X X Natural Resources District
Plan (ORAP). Office-Recreational Aid
Specialist.

Land and Water IJ.S. Dept. of
Conservation Interior. X X X X Same as above.
(LAWCON).

Community U.S. Dept. of Regional Planning Commission;
Development Housing & Urban X X X or, Wisconsin Department of
(701). Development Local Affairs and Development.

Water Quality U.S. Environ-
Control (208). mental Protec- X X X X X Wisconsin DNR.
tion Agency.

Technical Upper Great Regional Planning Commission;
Assistance Lakes Regional X X X X or UGLRC headquarters.
Grants. Commission.

130

Wisconsin Coastal Management funds are distributed according to the
priorities which have emerged from the process of designating geographic
areas of management concern. Itself a management technique, the GAMC
procedure has singled out for special consideration, "Hazard areas,
which are those areas.prone to severe erosion and/or flooding that may
impose danger to public use or immediate or future substantial public
costs."11 Erosion control, hazard mitigation, and resource conservation
policies for such areas are guided by a distinction between high and low
priority shoreland uses:

"The highest use priority in these areas would be assigned to those
activities that do not impose immediate or future substantial costs
due to geologic, soil, or flood conditions. Any development
should be so constructed as to avoid creating new hazards or
increasing existing hazards. Uses of the lowest priority include
those activities that are non-water dependent or non-water enhanced,
create new or increase existin5 hazards and result in irretrievable
losses of coastal resources.12

Application of the GAMC process to Wisconsin shore erosion management
has served to provide coastal communities with additional standards for
evaluating their shore damage reduction alternatives. It also fulfills
Federal Requirement #3, "a method for designation of areas for erosion
control, mitigation, and/or restoration as areas of particular concern
or areas for preservation/restoration." And, together with current
attention towards assessing existing and potential technical and finan-
cial assistance sources, it demonstrates W isconsin's partial compliance
with Federal Requirement #5, "an identification of legal authorities,
funding programs and other techniques that can be used to meet manage-
ment needs."

Appendices C and D:

Lake Bed Grants. Great Lakes. 1976
Feasibility of Compensation for Man-Induced Shore Erosion. 1978.
A Shore Erosion Plan For Wisconsin: Appraisal of Options and
Strategies. 1978.

131

E. Coordination of local, regional, and state shore damage mitigation
policies and programs.

The benefits to be gained by coordinating shore damage reduction ac-
tivities have become clear as research continues to point up the system-
like interactions of coastal processes and landforms. Although the
concerns of each shore property owner, whether private or public, are
usually site-specific in nature, if efforts to mitigate damage and/or
reduce erosion are to be efficient and effective, their compatibility
with one another must be insured. A primary objective of Wisconsin' s
shore erosion/mitigation planning process is to accomplish such compatibility.

Future planning emphasis, therefore, will be given to clarifying and
coordinating agency and government responsibilities vis-a-vis existing
and proposed shore damage reduction efforts in Wisconsin. Thus far,
state agencies, together with the U.S..Army Corps of Engineers, have
performed the bulk of coastal research and regulatory activities. Other
agencies (i.e., Soil and Water Conservation Districts and the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service) have developed additional shore erosion informa-
tion and made it available to interested parties, while local govern-
ments have enforced their shoreland-related zoning ordinances to varying
degrees.

Assessment of shoreline conditions, evaluation of existing remedial and
preventive procedures, and refinement of pertinent regulatory policies
have already been highlighted as ongoing elements in Wisconsin' s shore
erosion/mitigation planning process. The first element will involve
primarily those state agencies currently active in coastal data-gathering
and analysis: the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the Sea Grant College
Program, Geology Department, and Engineering Department of the University
of Wisconsin. The latter elements will require leadership from the
Coastal Management Council and implementation support from all its
represented and cooperating agencies and governments: the Wisconsin
Departments of Natural Resources, Transportation and Business Development,
the Public Service Commission, the regional planning commissions, and
the local public officials, to name a few.

Besides these three areas of future planning focus, Wisconsin will
consider a fourth: the development of additional preventive--or incentive--
policies and techniques which can serve to manage further the state's
progress towards its shore damage reduction goal. Again, agencies and
governments at all levels will be involved, whether the particular
incentive program pertains to the establishment of erosion hazard warning
systems or performance standards for erosion hazard districts. These
programs will be targeted towards encouraging coastal localities to
strengthen their own policies and implementation tools with regard to
shore erosion.

132

In light of such anticipated activity, the need to integrate the various
shore damage reduction efforts into a comprehensive strategy becomes
even more apparent. Attention to this need will now dominate shore
erosion/mitigation planning in Wisconsin. To enhance the opportunities
for coordination, evaluation, and refinement of its shore damage reduction
purposes and actions, Wisconsin will be relying especially upon the GAIMC
process as a screening and funding mechanism, and the Coastal Management
Council as an advisory body alert to program weaknesses and needs for
modification. In addition, the Geological Survey's technical assistance
activities will certainly strengthen the lines of communication between
federal, state, regional, and local agencies and governments and develop
further the program implementation capabilities of all parties and
interests involved.

Such an agenda documents well the extent to which Wisconsin has ad-
dressed Federal Requirement #5, "an identification of legal authorities,
funding programs and other techniques that can be used to meet manage-
ment needs." This shore damage reduction planning prospectus also
demonstrates consistency with overall objectives of the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program. In particular, Program goals of making
state regulatory and management policies more effective, coordinating
them with local planning strategies, and strengthening local government
coastal management capabilities are proving directly applicable to the
shore erosion/ mitigation planning process.

Appendix E:

* A Shore Erosion Plan for Wisconsin: Appraisal of Options and
Strategies. 1978.

133

WISCONSIN'S COMPLIANCE, IN SUMMARY.

Over the past three years, shore erosion/mitigation planning activities
in Wisconsin have been coordinated through its Coastal Management
Program. The Program has developed a process for addressing coastal
erosion-related problems, identifying feasible solutions, and implementing
appropriate shore damage reduction plans. The process can be summarized
according to its five principal components. Research, analysis, and
administrative activities of each are preparing the coastal community to
deal effectively with its eroding Great Lakes shoreline. They therefore
serve as general evidence of Wisconsin' s response to Section 305(b)(9)
guidelines, issued in the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of
1976.

Those intervals in Wisconsin's shore erosion/mitigation planning process
which demonstrate compliance with the five federal requirements are
specified in Table 4. During an initial period of shoreline data
gathering and analysis, the state has learned much about the extent and
nature of coastal erosion along its Lake Michigan and Lake Superior
shores. Such projects as geotechnical field study, shore damage esti-
mation, recession rate measurement, and critical reach determination
represent a methodology which has been developed in order to assess the
effects of shore erosion in an ongoing fashion (Federal Requirement #1).
Investigations into the types and costs of various structural and
nonstructural options, including compensation avenues, have provided
some answers to the question of what can and cannot be done to reduce
shore erosion damages. Although procedures for managing erosion effects
have been identified (FR #4), their application to the Wisconsin shore-
line rests upon the decision making process used and subsequent actions
taken by those agencies, governments, and citizens involved in the shore
damage reduction effort. A framework for such actions has been proposed,
based primarily upon the application of existing state and local shore-
land policies (FR #2) and the need for continuous refinement of programs
as new shoreline information becomes available and current policies and
guidelines are revised.

Wisconsin's set of shore erosion management tools is being expanded to
serve better the program implementation and evaluation'needs at all
jurisdictional levels. Currently, the GAM4C process is providing a
mechanism for channeling Coastal Management funds to shoreline stretches
which have been designated as erosion hazard areas and earmarked for an
appropriate hazard mitigation strategy (FR #3). At the same time, other
sources of technical assistance, financial support and relief, and shore
damage reduction incentives are being investigated for their applicability
to the coastal area (FR #5).

Coordination and monitoring of the wide range of shore erosion/mitigation
planning efforts in Wisconsin represent a future focus for the Coastal
Management Council and the staff (Great Lakes shore erosion information
and assistance program) of the Geological and Natural History Survey in
particular (FR #5). In fact, however, all those decision making bodies,
research teams, technical committees, and private individuals involved in
addressing the shore erosion issue are enhancing the state's overall
ability to develop and maintain a high level of efficiency and effective-
ness in accomplishing its shore damage reduction objectives.

134

Table 4

WISCONSIN'S COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL GUIDELINES: A SUMMARY

The following table relates the five specific federal requirements to the
Wisconsin shore erosion/mitigation planning process. The planning component~s)
which addresses each requirement is identified.

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS COMPONENTS OF PLANNING PROCESS

#1 - A method for assessing the A. Shoreline data gathering
effects of shore erosion. and analysis.

#2 - Articulation of State C. Development of a framework
policies. for action.

#3 - A method for designation D. Assessment of technical and
of areas for erosion financial assistance sources.
control, mitigation and/or also
restoration. E. Coordination of local,
regional, and state shore
damage mitigation policies
and programs.

#4 - Procedures for managing B 3. Investigation of structural
erosion effects. and nonstructural alternatives.

#5 - An identification of legal D. (See above)
authorities, funding also
programs, and other manage- E. (See above)
ment techniques.

135

FOOTNOTES

1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has extensively surveyed Wisconsin's
coastal counties in order to estimate the dollar value of damages
and losses suffered during each high water period. Results of the
first survey were reported in Property Damage on the Great Lakes
Resulting from Changes in Lake Levels (1952). The more recent
figures, obtained in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, will appear in the forthcomming Great Lakes
Shoreline Damage Survey.

2. At public meetings and in public perceptions polls, the Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program staff have consistently heard or seen
shore erosion ranked as the #1 or #2 issue amongst shoreland
residents and public officials. As recently as 1976, results of a
widely administered coastal citizens' questionnaire demonstrated
shore erosion's continuing high priority as a coastal concern.

3. The Committee's membership has included:

1) S. Born, University of Wisconsin - Madison; also, Office of
State Planning and Energy.

2) T. Edil, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

3) G. Hedden, Sea Grant Advisory Services.

4) T. Lauf, Department of Natural Resources.

5) D. Mickelson, University of Wisconsin - Madison.

6) A. Miller, Office of State Planning and Energy.

7) M. Ostrom, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

8) G. Pirie, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee.

9) D. Thomas, Office of State Planning and Energy.

10) P. Tychsen, University of Wisconsin - Superior.

Staff coordinator for the Shore Erosion Study is Roger Springman,
Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey.

4. Up until 1975, Wisconsin was relying almost exclusively, for its
shoreline information, upon the earlier research of such federal
and regional agencies as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Great Lakes Basin Commission, the International Joint Commission,
and the International Great Lakes Levels Board.

136

5. Short-term recession rates along Lake Superior are currently being
calculated. In general, Wisconsin's shore erosion planning efforts
have, to date, focused upon the highly developed stretches of Lake
Michigan's coast, where shore erosion poses a more severe threat to
existing land uses.

6. See Great Lakes Shoreline Damage Survey: Brown, Douglas and Racine
Counties, Wisconsin. Appendix II. 1976.

7. The "life" of a structural solution may be considered temporary if
its effect lasts less than 5 years; intermediate, if its effect is
observable for at least 5 years, but not longer than 25 years; and
long-term, if its effect continues beyond 25 years.

8. Laws #1 and #3 are excerpted from State of Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Madison, 1978), p. 114.

9. This specific policy should be added to those currently listed under
"Coastal Issue #3, Coastal Erosion and Flood Hazard Areas" of the
State of Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental
Impact Statement document.

10. This general shore erosion policy statement is consistent with that
reported in the Program Document, p. 113.

11. Ibid, p. 162.

12. Ibid, p. 162.

HL:j lp-6/775758

AMENDMENTS TO THE

STATE OF WISCONSIN

COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Wisconsin Coastal Management Council

DRAFT

137

In addition to the three new planning elements required by the 1976 Amendments,
the following pages list specific additions or amendments to the State of
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Such amendments must comply with the procedures of Section 306(g) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act as amended before they are formally approved
by the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Department
of Commerce.

Amendment items are listed in the order in which they will be inserted into
the Program Document. Additions are underlined and deletions are typed and
marked out with slashes. Tables in the Program Document which provided cross-
referencing of statutes, administrative code and other legal citations are not
included here, but will be accomplished after the amendments are formally ap-
proved. Other refinements may be submitted to the Assistant Administrator by
the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council.

Amendment items #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 15 and 16 are the result of action taken
by the 1977-78 Biennial Session of the Wisconsin State Legislature. These
items represent further clarification of state policy within the seven coastal
issues of the adopted Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. Amendment item
#12 is an additional listing of an existing policy.

Amendment items #1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14 are the result of action taken by
the Natural Resources Board and published in the Wisconsin Administrative
Code. These items represent further clarification of state policy and re-
gulations on public access and wetlands.

Amendment items #18, 19, and 20 are the result of Wisconsin compliance with
305(b) (8), Energy Facility Planning. This amendment to the Funding Allocation
Procedures of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program is further explained
on pages 101-111 of this report.

Amendment item #17 is the result of action taken by the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Council on May 10, 1978. The modification refers to Council
voting procedures on funding decisions.

A refinement, #21, is also listed at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

138

Amendment Page Amendment to the State of Wisconsin Coastal Management
Item No. No. Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter I. Coastal Issues and Policies
I. COASTAL WATER AND AIR QUALITY

#1 105 1.0 The state's policy on coastal water quality is .
to protect public health, safeguard aquatic life and scenic
and ecological values including wetlands;

#2 106 1.5.1 The state shall provide financial and technical
assistance to abate point and non-point source
water pollution. (Wis. Stats. Section 144.24 and
.25).

#3 106 1.7 Phosphorus removal from sewage . . . tributaries and
the sale of cleaning agents and water conditioners
which contain more than 8.7% phosphorus by weight is
prohibited. (See managed use #1 h, Wis. Stats. Section
100.28, and Wis. Admin. Code NR 102.04).

#4 106 1.8 Waste treatment facility plans shall be reviewed and
may be disapproved if they are not in conformance with
any existing approved areawide waste treatment management
plans prepared pursuant to P.L. 92-500 as amended. Sewer
extensions shall be allowed . . .exists. (See managed
use #2 d, Wis. Stats. Section 144.04, and Wis. Admin.
Code NR 110.05).

#5 106 1.9.1 Treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous sub-
stances and solid waste shall be regulated and re-
stricted. Waste generators shall contribute to a
waste management fund to guarantee long-term care
of and environmental repairs to solid and hazardous
waste disposal sites and to make such sites suitable
for other uses. (See Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, P.L. 94-580 and Wis. Stats.
Section 144.41 ff).

#6 106 1.13 Lots not served by public sewer shall have area and
width restrictions. No building permit shall be
approved without septic tank permit approval if
such a permit is necessary. (See . Wis. Stats.
Chapter 236 and Section 66.036, .).

II. COASTAL NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE HABITAT AND FISHERIES

#7 109 2.0.a. Designating and managing special areas . . . streams,
wetlands, . .

#8 109 2.1 State scientific areas shall be designated for
preservation of . . . communities, including wetlands,
(See . . . Wis. Admin. Code NR 45.23 and NR 1.95).

#9 110 2.6 State wildlife areas shall be managed . . . the pri-
mary objectives of wildlife habitat JJ4, public hunting

139

and wetlands protection. (See . . . and Wis. Admin.
Code NR 1.95).

#10 110 2.9 State fish management areas shall be designated and
managed to . . . foster and promote the preservation
of required habitat for all species including wetlands,
� . (See . . . Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.01 and NR 1.95).

#11 111 2.13.1 The Department of Natural Resources shall preserve
and protect wetlands under its management and con-
trol. The Department of Natural Resources shall
use its regulatory authority to minimize adverse
changes in the quality or quantity of the flow
of waters that nourish wetlands, to protect wet-
lands from all environmentally incompatible uses,
activities and substances, and restore wetlands
which were unlawfully altered. (Wis. Admin. Code
NR 1.95).

III. COASTAL EROSION AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS

#12 114 3.5 It is unlawful to deposit any material or to place
any structure in navigable waters without a permit.
Rip rap . . . habitat. (See . . . Wis. Stats. Section
30.12(1) and 30.12(2)(b)).

IV. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

#13 117 4.0.g. Providing assistance programs for recreational
boating facilities and boating safety to remedy
the problems of recreational use of the waters.

#14 118 4.8 Public access . . . approval. Providing public access
to waters by the Department of Natural Resources is
a variable requirement based on the quality of the
resource, the space available and the levels of use
experienced, respecting private rights and developments.
(See . . . and Wis. Admin. Code NR 1.90, 1.91 and 1.92).

#15 118 4.10 Local communities shall be encouraged . . . The state
shall provide technical and financial assistance to
municipalities for the development of recreational
boating facilities. (See . . . and Wis. Stats.
Section 23.30 and 30.92).

V. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

#16 121 5.1 The state shall promote business and industrial de-
velopment . . . and shall authorize the establishment
of foreign trade zones by government bodies and
private corporations. (See . . . and Wis. Stats.
Section 560.03 i4J, .23 and 182.50).

140

Chapter II. Implementing a Coastal Management Program in
Wisconsin

C. Organization for Implementation of the Coastal Manage-
ment Program
3. A new Wisconsin Coastal Management Council

#17 204 First paragraph, delete last sentence, lines 4-7.

D. Program Funding
2. Funding Sources for a Coastal Management Program
-- Coastal Energy Impact Program (Section 308)

//18 218 Delete second sentence: "The provision . . . resource."
Insert in its place:

Five types of financial assistance are provided under
Section 308(b) (c) (d):-

(1) Planning grants for the consequences of energy
facilities,
(2) Loans for new or improved public facilities and
services required as a result of coastal energy
activities,
(3) Grants to reduce any unavoidable loss of valuable
environmental or recreational resource,
(4) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development grants,
and;
(5) Repayment assistance to coastal states and local
governments experiencing difficulties meeting
credit obligations because the energy activity
did not provide the expected revenue.

Planning grants, the only type of CEIP financial assistance
available to Wisconsin, may be applied to either coastal
energy activities or facilities.

3. Eligible Funded Activities and Recipients
a. To improve the implementation. . . of existing.
policies ...
(3) Coastal energy impacts--

#19 220 Delete whole paragraph: "financial assistance is . ..
energy activity."
Insert:

Section 308(c) planning grants are designed for the study
and planning of consequences relating to new or expanded
facilities,. such as:

(a) planning for economic, social, or environmental

141

consequences of new or expanded energy facilities;
(b) analyzing government or private industry siting policies;
(c) devising strategies for the public purchase of land or
for land-use controls upon or near which energy de-
velopment is to take place;
(d) devising methods of protecting recreational or environ-
mental resources;
(e) conducting studies for maintaining or improving public
safety threatened by the construction or operation of
energy facilities;
(f) conducting analyses required for state or local reg-
ulatory decisions related to energy facilities;
(g) performing cost/benefit analyses comparing the con-
sequences of alternative energy facility types or sites;
(h) devising strategies for recovering compensation for
any adverse effects caused by an energy facilityl
(i) forecasting employment, population, public facility
and public service needs and costs, and tax and user
fee revenues;
(j) planning for public facilities needed as a result of
the energy activities;
(k) study of and planning for the secondary consequences of
alternative types and sites of public facilities needed
as a result of the energy activities;
(1) study of and planning for the consequences of the
phasing out of energy facilities; and
(m) carrying out projects necessary to administer assis-
tance under Section 308 (NOAA Regulations, Section
931.33, 43 FR 7554 - 7555)

4. Cqnsiderations in Project Funding

#20 226 Add an additional paragraph at the end of the section,
mid-page.

Major criteria for selection of CEIP projects are:

a) coastal energy activity/facility determination
(as defined in NOAA Regulations Section 931.13
and 931.19, 43 FR 7551-7553)
b) size and vulnerability of the area*
c) appropriate timing of the proposal to address
the impacts of the facility (urgency or imme-
diacy of need)*
d) consistency with other state policies and with
the Coastal Management Program*

Other criteria for CEIP project selection are:

e) compliance with federal regulations and guidelines
f) ability of applicant to carry out proposed study
and previous energy planning involvement
g) presence of matching funds*
h) geographic distribution of the proposals*
i) transferability of findings of the project*
j) cost of project and availability of complementary
funds from other state or federal sources*
*ExistinR guidplnp- frnm Coastal Management Program funding.

142
Chapter III. Federal Government Activities in the
Coastal Area

D. Federal Consistency - Licenses and Permits

#21 242 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

a) -
p+eI�eev Permits and licenses for the
construction and operation of nuclear
facilities. (State permits required).