| Developing an efficient and effective wetland protection program in Door County |
Chapter 5 Tables
| Table 5-1 Evaluating Regulatory Strategies1 |
||||||
| Strategy | Political Acceptability2 |
Administrative Feasibility3 |
Regulatory Maze Reduced4 |
Potential to Protect Wetlands | Economic Feasibility5 | Technical Capacity6 |
| Develop a SAMP | Moderate | Low | High | High | Low | High |
| Apply for a GP | Low | Low | High | Moderate | Moderate | High |
| Reduce conflict with the wetland maps7 | High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | High | Moderate |
| Increase shoreland-wetland authority7 | Low | Moderate | Low | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate |
| Adopt a general wetland ordinance7 | Low | Moderate | Moderate | High | High | High |
| Encourage towns to adopt county zoning or other protection | Moderate |
Low |
Moderate |
High |
High |
High |
| Encourage state to pass wetlands law | Low | High | Low | Moderate | High | Moderate |
1 For each criterion, a ranking of "High" is the best. |
2 "Political Acceptability" is defined as how much support citizens and local elected officials are likely to have for the strategy. |
3 "Administrative Feasibility" is defined as the amount of administrative burdens associated with the strategy (the higher the burden, the lower the administrative feasibility). |
4 "Regulatory Maze Reduced" is defined as how much the regulatory processes would be simplified for citizens. |
5 "Economic Feasibility" is defined by cost (the lower the costs, the higher the economic feasibility). |
6 "Technical Capacity" is defined as the presence of needed expertise to implement the strategy. |
7 Indicates that observable results could be obtained in one year. |
Table 5-2 |
||||||
| Strategy | Political Acceptability2 |
Administrative Feasibility3 |
Regulatory Maze Reduced4 |
Potential to Protect Wetlands | Economic Feasibility5 | Technical Capacity6 |
| Public communication7 | High | High | High | Low | High | High |
| Increase public education7 | High | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | High | High |
| Interagency working group and single contact7 | High | High | High | Moderate | Moderate | High |
| Foster local government wetland protection | Moderate | Moderate | Low | High | High | High |
| Coordinate wetland and critical area protection | High | Moderate | Low | High | Moderate | High |
| Create advisory board7 | High | High | Moderate | Moderate | High | High |
| Create wetlands guides7 | High | Moderate | High | Moderate | High | High |
| Pursue wetland acquisition programs | Moderate | Low | Low | High | Low | Moderate |
1 For each criterion, a ranking of "High" is the best. |
2 "Political Acceptability" is defined as how much support citizens and local elected officials are likely to have for the strategy. |
3 "Administrative Feasibility" is defined as the amount of administrative burdens associated with the strategy (the higher the burden, the lower the administrative feasibility). |
4 "Regulatory Maze Reduced" is defined as how much the regulatory processes would be simplified for citizens. |
5 "Economic Feasibility" is defined by cost (the lower the costs, the higher the economic feasibility). |
6 "Technical Capacity" is defined as the presence of needed expertise to implement the strategy. |
7 Indicates that observable results could be obtained in one year. |