Chapter 3 Tables - Door County Wetlands Report

Table 3-1 Issues with Current Wetland Protection Efforts in Door County
Issue identified during interview	% of all respondents identifying as an issue	Stakeholder group(s)¹ and intensity²
Regulations too complicated to understand	95	High (all groups)
Inadequate enforcement by the Corps	80	High (county, state, citizen1)
Inaccurate maps and different delineations	80	High (county) Moderate (all others)
Political constraints connected to development	78	High (citizen1, elected officials)
Inadequate communication between agencies	65	Moderate (county, state, federal, citizen1&2)
Lack of public understanding of wetlands	65	Moderate (all groups)
Inadequate resources (lack of time, funds)	45	High (federal) Moderate (state and citizen1)
Inadequate enforcement by local government	30	Moderate (all groups)
Lack of technical competence of some staff	25	Low (all groups)
Lack of enforcement authority for DNR	25	High (citizen1) Moderate (state)
Overly zealous or unfair enforcement	15	High (citizen2)
Not enough long-range planning/focus	10	High (all groups)

n=55

¹ Groupings were made as follows: staff from all federal agencies, federal; staff from all state agencies, state; staff from all county agencies, county; county and local elected officials, elected officials; citizens who identify themselves as environmentalists and/or environmental group members, citizen1; citizens who identify themselves as property owners and/or developers, citizen2.

² Intensity is determined by the number of times an interviewee identified the issue as important. If an issue was mentioned four times or more, it was recorded as high; two or three times as moderate; once as low. These rankings were averaged for the stakeholder group.

Table 3-2 Strategies for Protecting Wetlands in Door County
Solutions identified during interviews	% of all respondents identifying as a solution¹
Increase public awareness of wetlands through education	90
Create a single location for regulatory processes associated with development in a wetland	80
Pursue financial incentives/permanent acquisition of wetlands	75
Establish a wetlands citizen advisory board	65
Eliminate wetland zoning districts OR improve the maps	50
Improve public communication	45
Increase agency interaction and cooperation	45
Identify important wetlands in need of protection	45
Pursue a Special Area Management Plan or a Programmatic General Permit from the Corps	35
Encourage towns to adopt county comprehensive zoning	30
Increase enforcement authority of the DNR	20
Protect prior converted wetlands on farm property	15

Table 3-3: Examples of wetland scenarios in Door County

Alternative 1: Proposed project located in a zoned town and a mapped wetland.

Town: Obtain a building permit (if required by town).
County: Since the project is located within a mapped wetland, the project will automatically be denied. However, the property may petition for rezoning if there is upland on the property.
DNR and the Corps will review the petition. Building must meet setback provisions.

Alternative 2: Proposed project located in a zoned town and in an unmapped wetland.

Town: Obtain a building permit (if required by town).
County: Obtain a county zoning permit. Meet setbacks requirements.
Corps: Should property owner decide to build, he/she will need to have a determination made by the Corps regarding the presence of a wetland. If the Corps finds a wetland in the area, the property owner must obtain a permit for discharge of dredge or fill into a wetland.
DNR: Will grant, deny or waive water quality certification.

Alternative 3: Proposed project located in an unzoned town, in a mapped wetland, and in shoreland (note: since the area is shoreland, it is zoned). Follow Alternative 1.

Alternative 4: Proposed project located in an unzoned town and in a mapped wetland, but not within shoreland.

Town: Obtain a building permit (if required by town).
County: No action required.
Corps: Obtain a permit for discharge of dredge or fill into a wetland.
DNR: Will grant, deny or waive water quality certification.

Alternative 5: Proposed project located in an unzoned town and in shoreland, but in an unmapped wetland. Follow Alternative 2.

Alternative 6: Proposed project located in an unzoned town and an unmapped wetland, but not within shoreland. Follow Alternative 4.

Alternative 7: Proposed project located within a village or city and within a wetland.

Village/City: Obtain necessary building permits.
County: No action required.
Corps: Obtain a permit for discharge of dredge or fill into a wetland.
DNR: Will grant, deny or waive water quality certification.

Alternative 8: Proposed project is a land disturbance activity located in a zoned area located in a wetland (mapped or unmapped).

County: If more than 2,000 square feet of earth will be disturbed, a land disturbance permit is required. However, land disturbance permits are not issued for wetlands. If less than 2,000 square feet of earth will be disturbed, the county has no recourse to protect the wetland.
Corps: Obtain a permit for discharge of dredge or fill into a wetland.
DNR: Will grant, deny or waive water quality certification.