Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 CONTENTS
Foreword ...... 1 Governor Scott McCallum Why Coastal Management? ...... 2 James M. Langdon Coastal Hazards ...... 4 Alberto Vargas and David Hart Wisconsin Commercial Ports . . . . .7 Dean R. Haen Great Lakes Challenges ...... 8 Secretary Darrell Bazzell Managing the Bad River of Lake Superior ...... 10 Rae Ann Maday Protecting Coastal Wetlands on the Door Peninsula ...... 12 Cate Harrington Wisconsin Coastal Population Trends ...... 14 Donald R. Harrier 2002 Wisconsin Coastal Management Grants ...... 16 Acknowledgements ...... 20
On the Cover Newport State Park in Door County features eleven miles of Lake Michigan shoreline. FOREWORD Governor Scott McCallum
Water is an integral part of the lives of It is for these reasons that I place a high priority on Invasive plants and aquatic animals pose a Wisconsinites. Our history, culture, ecology and protecting the Great Lakes for this and succeeding significant risk to the Great Lakes and our inland economy are rooted in our lakes, rivers and generations. I am pleased to report that we are waters. For that reason, I appointed Lt. Gov. streams. No water bodies are more significant to making significant progress on several fronts. Margaret Farrow to lead a Governor’s Advisory our well-being than the Great Lakes. Task Force on Invasive Species. It evaluated the In May 2001, I signed into law a severity of invasives in Wisconsin and developed a Welcome to the inaugural Wisconsin landmark wetland protection bill. plan to combat the introduction and spread of Great Lakes Chronicle. This and future Wisconsin was the first state to non-indigenous species. editions are intended to promote respond to a United States Supreme public awareness of Wisconsin Great Court decision that narrowed the In March 2002, my administration provided local Lakes issues, provide a vehicle for water and wetland areas subject to and state agencies with nearly $7 million of experts to educate public policy and federal regulation. Today, Wisconsin federal coastal management funds to protect our opinion leaders, and create a protects precious isolated wetlands – Great Lakes shoreline. historical record of Great Lakes events including many in coastal areas – I invite all Wisconsinites to join me in pressing and perspectives. from being dredged or filled. forward with a full Great Lakes agenda. Together, The importance of the Great Lakes cannot be In June 2001, I added my signature to the Great we will restore fragile coastal areas, enhance water overstated. They are diverse ecosystems that Lakes Charter Annex. This agreement between quality, improve the environmental and economic provide habitat for aquatic animals and clean Great Lakes states and provinces strengthens our well-being of the coasts and meet future water for millions of persons. They connect ability to manage water resources and sets a challenges to the prosperity of the Great Lakes. Wisconsin farmers and manufacturers with global framework for water diversion standards. Enjoy Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle, and markets, and citizens and visitors alike with In August 2001, I signed legislation banning oil thank you for your commitment to the Great unique recreational opportunities. and gas drilling on the Great Lakes. While Lakes and Wisconsin. adequate energy resources are crucial, we must not pursue opportunities at the expense of the largest surface fresh water source in the world.
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 1 Coastal management WHY COASTAL MANAGEMENT? fosters balance between James M. Langdon development and natural Coastal communities attract complex concen- The fifteen Wisconsin counties along Lakes trations of commerce and foreign trade, inter- Superior and Michigan comprise 19% of the resource protection. modal transportation systems and population. state’s total area and 37% of its population.2 If left They are home to sensitive and diverse terrestrial unmanaged, pressures from coastal population and aquatic ecosystems and marine centered growth would degrade water quality and wetlands, recreation. In addition, their special place exposes reduce sensitive habitats and limit opportunities these communities to shoreline and maritime for access to public waters. Coastal management hazards not typically found inland. fosters balance between development and natural resource protection through various means. The federal government recognized these unique characteristics when it established the Coastal Financial Assistance. Coastal management grants Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). encourage the protection and wise use of shoreline Congress declared it was in the national interest to resources and increase the public’s opportunity to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to enjoy the Great Lakes. The program emphasizes restore or enhance, the resources of the nation’s wetland protection and habitat restoration, coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.1 nonpoint source pollution control and coastal land acquisition. It also promotes education, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric public access, historic preservation and Administration (NOAA) supports state coastal community planning. management programs through financial assistance, technical services and information. This unique Wisconsin’s coastal communities received a state-federal partnership leaves day-to-day significant boost in 2001 when Congress provided management decisions to the 33 states and $5.7 million on a one-time basis for restoration territories with federally approved programs. initiatives. Looking ahead to 2003 and beyond, the WCMP expects to allocate $1.3 million Coastal Management in Wisconsin annually for local projects in the coastal zone. Wisconsin established its Coastal Management Regulation. The CZMA provides state coastal Program (WCMP) in 1978. The program leverages management programs with authority to review the abilities of state agencies, regional planners, proposed federal government activities in the universities and local governments for the coastal zone. These reviews ensure federal actions management of resources along the state’s 820 miles along Wisconsin’s coasts take place in harmony of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior shoreline. with state law and policies. The program also
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 2 develops a sound base of information used by CZMA dollars for project work – not administrative Outlook state and local officials to guide resource overhead – and ensures the program balances The need for effective coastal management management decisions. environmental and economic development objectives. continues. Nationally, some large coastal Research. The University of Wisconsin System is Performance Indicators. In 2001, NOAA selected metropolitan areas are consuming land ten times a national leader in the study of critical coastal the WCMP as one of five state programs to develop as fast as they are adding new residents. If today’s issues. Recent research addressed shoreline recommended performance indicators for CZMA land consumption trends continue, more than one erosion, invasive species, coastal restoration and programs nationwide. Aided by this experience, the quarter of the coast’s acreage will be developed by water quality. Coastal management connects local WCMP will monitor the health of Wisconsin’s 2025 – up from 14 percent in 1997.3 government with academic research to improve coastal zone by tracking wetland acreage, slope Policy leaders are paying close attention to such the Great Lakes environment. recession rates and other critical measures. projections. Congress is poised to reauthorize the Education. Great Lakes protection and Diverse Coastal Leadership CZMA in 2002, thus reaffirming its commitment to preservation require the involvement of an the nation’s coastal resources. In addition, the U.S. enlightened citizenry. Coastal management A multidisciplinary council representing local Commission on Ocean Policy will recommend a informs the public of coastal issues and increases governments, the Legislature, academia, state national policy on oceanic and coastal issues by 2003. opportunities for citizen participation in decisions agencies, Indian tribes and the public plays an Wisconsin must blend the expertise of state and affecting Lakes Superior and Michigan. active role in coastal management issues. The Wisconsin Coastal Management Council local stakeholders with federal funding and Coastal Network. As a networked program in the (WCMC) – a governor-appointed body – sets technical assistance to maintain equilibrium Wisconsin Department of Administration, the WCMP policies and direction, establishes annual between ecosystem protection and anticipated WCMP acts as a facilitator among state agencies, funding priorities and recommends grants to state development. Coastal management will continue local governments, regional planning commissions and local projects. The WCMC provides coastal to play an important role in preserving the and others in the management of shoreline stakeholders a forum for discussion of emerging resources of our Great Lakes. resources. This method of organization maximizes and critical issues. James M. Langdon is Director of the Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations, Wisconsin Department of Administration. He can be reached at (608) 261-7520 or [email protected].
1 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 2 Demographic Services Center,Wisconsin Department of Administration. 2001. 2001 Official Population Estimates. 3 Beach, D. 2002. Coastal Sprawl: The Effects of Urban Design on Aquatic Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington,Virginia.
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 3 Reducing economic and COASTAL HAZARDS environmental losses from Alberto Vargas, Ph.D. and David Hart, Ph.D. variable lake levels must People are strongly attracted to the coast as a place Bayfield County to Wisconsin Point in Douglas to work, relax and live. Coastal areas were County and from the eastern border of Iron involve improved local historically settled because of their role in the County to the White River in Ashland County.1 transportation of goods, military protection and land use planning to the production of food and energy. In recent Lake Levels minimize erosion risks to decades, coastal areas have attracted development Coastal flooding along low-lying sections of the for their aesthetic characteristics – as a scenic Great Lakes results from long-term increases in lakeshore development. location to live and recreate. Unfortunately, water levels or short-term storm surges and wind development along the coast is also subject to a set-up. Water levels in the Great Lakes fluctuate variety of natural hazards. The major natural on both a seasonal and long-term basis. hazards associated with Wisconsin’s Great Lakes Seasonally, the lowest levels occur during the shoreline are erosion and flooding. winter – following evaporative losses in the fall Coastal Erosion and winter – when much of the precipitation is held on land as snow and ice. The highest Coastal erosion occurs naturally when land is lost seasonal levels are usually during the summer. due to wave action and surface runoff. As waves Long-term variation of lake levels depends on strike the shore and return to the lake, they carry precipitation and evaporation trends in the Great sediment along the shore in a process known as Lakes watershed. The water volume of the Great littoral drift. High water levels and strong winds Lakes is large and outflow from natural outlets is and waves expose new land surfaces to wave limited. Flow regulation structures exist at the action and erosion. Erosion at the toe of outlets from Lakes Ontario and Superior. vulnerable slopes destabilizes them and results in However, structure size and the need to regulate massive slumps of soil farther up the slope. water levels for multiple interests, including Surface and ground water flow resulting from shipping, limit their influence. heavy rainfall and the freezing and thawing of ice Recent periods of high lake levels on Lake also cause slope erosion. In general, the erodible Michigan include 1972-76, 1983-87 and 1996- sections of the Lake Michigan shore occur from 98. Since 1999, water levels on Lakes Michigan the Illinois state line to the Sturgeon Bay Canal, and Superior have been low. Areas on Lake northeastern Brown County and smaller segments Michigan vulnerable to coastal flooding include of bays and clay banks. On Lake Superior, erosive southern Kenosha County, northern Ozaukee and high clay bluffs stretch from Bark Point in southern Sheboygan Counties, the western shore
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 4 of Green Bay, and low-lying river mouths in shoreland zoning jurisdiction of Lake Michigan in urban areas. Vulnerable Lake Superior areas Door County totaled over $1.9 billion in 1999.3 include sections of the City of Superior and In addition, smaller homes along the coast are coastal estuaries. Shoreland and riverine power, being replaced with much larger homes. sewage treatment, water pumping and industrial Finally, urban infrastructure may be vulnerable to plants, grain elevators, communication tunnels, damage from high lake levels. Public works storm sewer outlets and other infrastructure are facilities and industrial plants sited many years ago also vulnerable when lake levels exceed the levels incorporated design standards that are no longer for which these facilities were designed. adequate. Another illustration of the vulnerability Impact of Coastal Erosion of public infrastructure to bluff erosion is County Trunk Highway LS in northern Sheboygan Coastal erosion and flooding cause millions of County (see photo). A one-mile stretch of the (WDNR) and Wisconsin Emergency dollars of damage to coastal property and highway is in jeopardy of being lost, and one Management (WEM) formed a Coastal Hazards structures. Storms and high lake levels in 1987 segment is only six feet from the edge of the bluff. Work Group to provide technical assistance and resulted in $16 million of documented damage to coordinate state resources. public facilities alone. Experts speculate, however, Managing for Hazards The Work Group determined that improved that future damage may be even higher due to Managing for hazards is a priority of many coastal information was the most important factor in increased coastal development. stakeholders. The Wisconsin Coastal Management managing for coastal hazards. To that end, a Most of the highly assessed land in Door County Program (WCMP), University of Wisconsin Sea multi-year strategy is being implemented to assist is along the coast. The assessed value of land and Grant Institute, State Cartographer’s Office, in developing the coastal hazards policy: improvements that intersect the 1000-foot Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources • Update and integrate information and methods 3.0 in a geographic information system (GIS) Lake Levels, 1918-20002 compatible format. 2.0 Feet Above and Below Period Average • Develop a comprehensive education program 1.0 regarding erosion rates and flood-prone areas
0.0 directed at the public, government officials and the private sector. -1.0 • Develop an institutional framework to improve Lake Michigan -2.0 Lake Superior regulatory mechanisms and local mitigation efforts. -3.0 1998 1993 1988 1983 1978 1973 1968 1963 1958 1953 1948 1943 1938 1933 1928 1923 1918 Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 5 Since the mid-1970s, the WCMP and its partners than responding to – natural hazards in the state. determining lake levels, although regulation of have sought ways to address the issue of coastal The WCMP and its partners are doing their part outflows at Superior and Ontario has some hazards. An important legacy of this early work is to support local mitigation plans that include influence. However, reducing economic and the publication of a model ordinance and a state coastal hazards as an important element. environmental losses from variable lake levels must plan to deal with coastal erosion. About half of involve improved local land use planning to In addition, a long-term project to assess the Wisconsin’s coastal counties and a handful of minimize erosion risks to lakeshore development. economic impact of fluctuating water levels in the municipalities have adopted some type of provision Great Lakes is being coordinated by the Army Wisconsin’s Great Lakes coast is a privileged area to regulate construction near the shoreline. Corps of Engineers, Detroit District. In cooperation of extreme natural beauty that ought to be The official state policy for all shoreline with the University of Wisconsin, WCMP, WDNR, protected for the enjoyment of this and future development in Wisconsin specifies a 75-foot private consultants and State of Michigan agencies, generations. setback from the ordinary high water mark set the Corps has organized the Lake Michigan David Hart is GIS Specialist for the University of Wisconsin- primarily for environmental and scenic beauty Potential Damages Study (LMPDS). Madison Sea Grant Institute. He can be reached at protection. However, this setback is not always (608) 263-5534 or [email protected]. Alberto Vargas is The objective of the LMPDS is to create a appropriate to prevent damage from coastal Natural Hazards Coordinator for the Wisconsin Coastal modeling procedure and engineering-management erosion in the Great Lakes. One priority for the Management Program. He can be reached at (608) 261-6349 tool for estimating economic effects of lake level or [email protected]. Work Group is to assist coastal municipalities and changes and related social, environmental and regional planning commissions to agree upon 1 Springman, Roger, and Stephen M. Born. 1979. Wisconsin’s Shore cultural impacts. The LMPDS modeling appropriate shoreline development provisions that Erosion Plan: An Appraisal of Options and Strategies. Madison, approaches are expected to be the framework for WI: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. Pp. 6-11. minimize potential damages due to coastal erosion. 2 The graph of lake levels fluctuation was built using data from the economic assessments for each of the other Great U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District Hazards Mitigation Lakes. It is also intended to be a forum for (http://huron.lre.usace.army.mil/levels/hmpglv.html) concerted information system development 3 Hart, David. 2000. Building a Horizontally and Vertically Integrated Coastal GIS Using Local Governmental Spatial Data:The Case of The Work Group also contributed to the inclusion between international, federal, state and local Coastal Erosion Hazards on the Lake Michigan Coast of of coastal hazards in the State Hazards Mitigation governance about the resource base that is Wisconsin. PhD Dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Plan, coordinated by WEM. This plan, which is 4 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District; commonly shared. (http://huron.lre.usace.army.mil/coastal/LMPDS/index.html) in the process of receiving Federal Emergency Several state and local benefits should result from Management Agency (FEMA) approval, sets the The authors thank Phillip J. Keillor, UW Sea Grant Institute, and framework for the development and implementation the LMPDS project, including better tools to Marie Strum, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for their assistance. of mitigation measures aimed at preventing – rather predict lakeshore erosion and improved availability of erosion data. Nature has the greatest role in
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 6 Waterborne transportation WISCONSIN COMMERCIAL PORTS is the safest and most Dean R. Haen environmentally friendly Wisconsin accesses world markets through 15 For example, at least 16 million tons of coal per year commercial ports located along Lake Superior, are loaded onto ships at Superior for transport to means of transporting cargo. Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. The eastern Great Lakes ports. This avoids many ports of Wisconsin transport over 40 million trainloads of coal destined for Detroit Edison metric tons of cargo annually. The cargo consists facilities that would otherwise travel rail routes of coal, grain, cement, steel, iron ore, liquid through Wisconsin. Transporting via water avoids asphalt, limestone, pig iron, salt, fuel oil, wood the consumption of an estimated 32 million gallons pulp and many other important commodities that of fuel and the release of 5,120 tons of exhaust are valued at over $7 billion dollars each year. The emissions annually. Additionally, waterborne larger ports of Superior, Milwaukee and Green transportation reduces the number of at-grade Bay have an annual economic impact of over railroad crossing events with cars and trucks. $200 million dollars within their local economies. Even though ports support an economical and Wisconsin ports are critical to our state’s transpor- environmentally responsible mode of tation system and serve as multi-modal links that transportation, there is an immediate need for move cargo throughout the state. Wisconsin as a long-range sustainability planning. Land use whole benefits from the port industry. surrounding existing ports has shifted from Commodities moved through ports are essential predominately industrial and commercial uses to for our state’s power plants, paper mills, manufac- conflicting residential and recreational uses that turers, farmers, governments and consumers. threaten or impede the operation of port facilities. As a result, many coastal communities no longer Waterborne transportation is the safest and most serve as operating commercial ports. environmentally friendly means of transporting cargo. Fuel consumption and emissions are The overall loss of commercial ports increases substantially reduced when cargoes are Wisconsin’s dependency on our remaining ports. transported by ship rather than rail or truck. These ports must be commercially active if our A modal shift from water to trucks or railcars state is to maintain its economic stability. would alter our quality of life in Wisconsin. Dean R. Haen is Port Manager of the Brown County Port & Solid Waste Department (Port of Green Bay) and President of the Wisconsin Commercial Ports Association. He can be reached at (920) 492-4950 or [email protected].
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 7 Despite major success in GREAT LAKES CHALLENGES cleaning and restoring the Secretary Darrell Bazzell
Great lakes over the past Many homeowners are following a trend of However, contaminated bottom sediments installing backyard ponds to enjoy the benefits of continue to release harmful chemicals, and fish few decades, there remains water. As they care for their ponds, they soon consumption advisories are still issued for learn the importance of maintaining the mini- portions of the Great Lakes and some tributaries. the need for continuing ecosystem they have created. If a particular The State of Wisconsin has made it a priority to element of the system gets out of balance, it attention and care. clean up contaminated sediments. Several actions affects everything from water quality to the from completing cleanup plans to active survival of plants and fish. The job of managing remediation are underway along Wisconsin’s the system is one that never ends. coasts. Experience tells us that the job of cleanup The same lessons apply to the Great Lakes is costly, difficult and more expensive than ecosystems. Despite major success in cleaning and prevention measures. Progress is being made and restoring the Great Lakes over the past few we are confident of further improvement to the decades, there remains the need for continuing Great Lakes as more implementation occurs. attention and care. Remediation of contaminated sediment and the problems associated with Invasive Species invasive species represent two major areas of Since 1810, more than 140 species of fish, plants, current effort. invertebrates, algae and pathogens have been Contaminated Sediments introduced into the Great Lakes. The spread and impacts of invasive species – especially aquatic Contaminated sediment is part of the legacy of exotics – pose a second challenge to the Great Lakes. past discharges that deposited harmful chemicals Many exotic species threaten the diversity or such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the abundance of native species, the ecological stability Great Lakes and their tributaries. Of the 42 Great of aquatic habitats and recreational activities. Lakes Areas of Concern, 40 areas – including the Invaders take over new waters because their natural Fox, Sheboygan, Menominee, St. Louis and predators are not present, and native species are Milwaukee Rivers in Wisconsin – have problems not able to hide from them, compete with them or associated with contaminated sediment. fight back. Once in Lakes Michigan and Superior, Wisconsin has seen tremendous improvements in many of these species can be inadvertently water quality by eliminating pollution sources. transported into Wisconsin’s inland waters.
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 8 Several aquatic invasive species were initially increase. Zebra mussels also illustrate the ecological The Wisconsin Legislature enacted regulations introduced to the Great Lakes through the ballast impacts of aquatic exotics. These invaders aimed at reducing their spread. These new rules – water of ships and by migrating from the ocean reproduce and spread rapidly, consume microscopic which took effect in May 2002 – prohibit via man-made canals. Additionally, recreational plants and animals, affect the food web and launching a boat, trailer or boating equipment in boating, sport fish stocking and accidental releases decimate native clam/mussel populations. navigable waters if aquatic plants are attached or if associated with the aquaculture industry, a law enforcement officer has reason to believe Aquatic exotics can also affect the recreational uses aquarium trade, bait businesses and horticultural that zebra mussels are attached. The Department of a water body. Eurasian water milfoil displaces practices continue the introduction and spread of received $300,000 funding from the state for native aquatic plants and forms thick mats that aquatic exotics. initiatives including a watercraft inspection interfere with boating, swimming and fishing. program and a campaign to inform boaters of the Once aquatic invasive species become established In response to problems caused by aquatic new regulations and instruct them on how to in a water body, they are difficult to manage and invasive species, Governor McCallum established clean their boats properly. nearly impossible to eliminate. For these reasons, a Task Force on Invasive Species in July 2001 to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources address the invasive species problem in Wisconsin focuses on teaching people to prevent the spread and create guidelines for future efforts. In its final of exotic species. The goal is to change boaters’ report to the Governor in January 2002, the Task behavior by educating them on their role in Force recommended: maintaining clean waters. The Department’s message is “Clean Boats, Clean Waters.” • The statutory creation of a statewide invasive species program to combat the introduction and There are many reasons to care about aquatic spread of invasive species. exotics and support efforts to stop their spread. Even the smallest aquatic invasive species can have • The creation of an Invasive Species Council to big economic impacts. Zebra mussels attach to oversee the state program and communicate and As part of the next budget cycle, the Department virtually any available surface – including boats – coordinate activities among state agencies. seeks additional funding to implement the and have been known to clog water intake pipes. • The establishment of a program director that recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force. Large water users in the Great Lakes, including would serve as Wisconsin’s point person on For more information on aquatic invasive species, municipalities and industries, spent about $120 invasive species. contact Ron Martin at (608) 266-9270 or Mandy million from 1989 to 1994 to combat the spread Beall at (608) 267-3531. of zebra mussels. As this species continues to • The implementation of regional ballast water spread, the cost to raw water users will continue to regulations and promotion of a Great Lakes Darrell Bazzell is Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of regional invasive species strategy. Natural Resources. He can be reached at (608) 266-2121 or [email protected].
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 9 The Bad River Tribe MANAGING THE BAD RIVER OF LAKE SUPERIOR has made great strides Rae Ann Maday in protecting resources The Treaty of September 30, 1854 between the Quality Specialist, Wetlands Specialist, Water United States Government and the Bad River Resources Specialist, Water Resources Technician, for today and seven Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians GIS Specialist and two Conservation Wardens. The established the original boundaries of the Bad Department staff are involved in many projects generations hence. River Indian Reservation. The 125,000-acre within their respective disciplines. Reservation is located in parts of Ashland and Iron Counties in northern Wisconsin. Water Resources Approximately 77% of the Reservation is forested, The Water Resources Office is responsible for 11% consists of wetlands and sloughs, and the developing the qualitative and quantitative remainder is covered by farmland, residential standards for water resources on the Reservation. communities and roads. Once these projects are complete, the Bad River The Reservation has approximately 40 miles of Tribe will have a complete picture of the water Lake Superior shoreline and over 100 miles of resources on the Reservation. The following navigable rivers and streams flowing into Lake projects are an example of the type of research Superior via the Bad, White, Marengo and necessary to accomplish this goal. Kakagon Rivers. Approximately 200 acres of • Baseline water quality monitoring began in Reservation land are on Madeline Island, the only 1997 with the five-year baseline completed in Apostle Island not included in the Apostle Islands July, 2002. Sampling is done at 22 different sites National Lakeshore. At the mouth of the Kakagon on Reservation waters. The parameters and Bad Rivers is the most extensive, least monitored in the field are temperature, dissolved disturbed, fully functioning estuary on the south oxygen, conductivity and pH. Additional tests shore of Lake Superior. The Kakagon and Bad are conducted in the tribal water lab to River Sloughs are hosts to the largest wild rice beds determine hardness, dissolved solids, total solids, in the state, long considered an asset by the tribe. turbidity, phosphate, nitrate, fecal coliform and The Bad River Band has a Natural Resources E.coli. Although the preliminary results show Department that consists of 16 fulltime and 15 fairly clean water, there is concern about seasonal employees. The fulltime staff includes a elevated levels of fecal coliform. Natural Resources Manager, Fisheries Specialist, • Macroinvertebrate monitoring was begun in Lake Superior Fishery Specialist, Wildlife Specialist, 1998. Analytical metrics used include Forestry Technician, Watershed Coordinator, Air Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), taxa richness,
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 10 Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Tricoptera (EPT) Another fish that is significant to the Bad River is A number of wildlife resources are monitored richness, percent EPT, percent dominance and the lake sturgeon. Only three rivers in United annually on the Bad River Reservation, and many percent chironomids. The five-year baseline of States waters of Lake Superior support a self- are related to coastal issues. Presently monitored invertebrate data will be reached in 2003. The sustaining population of lake sturgeon. In 2001, are wetland and riparian raptors – bald eagle, indicator species so far suggest that the waters an intense monitoring program was begun to merlin and northern harriers. Also monitored are on the Reservation are healthy. estimate the population of this species. many other wetland and riparian avian species including colonial birds (e.g., great blue herons, • A wetland nutrient investigation just completed Integrated Resources black tern), piping plover, trumpeter swan and the first year of a five-year study. Management Plan other waterfowl. • A five-year sloughs flow study began in 2000. In April 2001, the Bad River Tribal Council Important near shore mammals related to the No results are yet available. formally adopted an Integrated Resources aquatic food chain or those that exhibit aquatic- Fish Hatchery Management Plan (IRMP). The goal of the terrestrial food chain linkages – such as river otter, IRMP is to maintain a diversity of forest types mink, beaver and muskrat – are monitored on a The Bad River Tribe owns and operates a fish within the Reservation while protecting and periodic basis. Many of the Tribe’s monitoring hatchery established in 1975. The fishery is a improving water quality. The management programs were initiated through Wisconsin highly valued resource to tribal members for principles promote sustainability of the resource Coastal Management Program funding. cultural, social, subsistence and recreational while establishing a buffer along riparian areas. purposes. Although Reservation waters are hosts Timber harvesting has a long history on the Air Quality to many species of fish, the walleye is the one reservation and has promoted extensive aspen The latest program added to the Natural Resources most valued by the membership. Therefore, the regeneration. In order to maintain biodiversity on Department is the Air Quality Program. Initiated fish hatchery focuses on raising walleye for the Reservation, the Tribe has made a priority of in November 2000, monitoring is done on an restocking into the Kakagon and Bad Rivers. promoting old growth and reseeding of white arduous six-day schedule using a PM10 monitor. A In 2001, the fish hatchery received a grant to pines in areas that have recently been harvested. five-year baseline study will be completed in 2005. replace worn and outdated equipment. The grant The Bad River Tribe has made great strides in also allowed for the purchase and installation of protecting resources for today and seven 40 solar panels and a wind generator. The generations hence. improvements greatly enhance the economic efficiency of the hatchery, and will help to Rae Ann Maday is Watershed Coordinator for the Natural replenish a resource used heavily by both Resources Department of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians . She can be reached at (715) 682-7123 members and nonmembers. or [email protected].
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 11 PROTECTING COASTAL WETLANDS Door County is home ON THE DOOR PENINSULA to the greatest number Cate Harrington of rare plants and Caressed by the waters of Lake Michigan to the and federal agencies, we focus the majority of our east and Green Bay to the west, the Door time and resources on protecting wetlands along animals in Wisconsin. Peninsula is a slender piece of land than juts 80 the Lake Michigan coast. miles into Lake Michigan. Its nearly 250 miles of The places where the Conservancy works include shoreline, sheltered bays, sand beaches, towering the Mink River Estuary on Rowley’s Bay, the area bluffs and inland lakes attract thousands of around Mud Lake, The Ridges Sanctuary and visitors each year. North Bay, the north end of Kangaroo Lake, and The Nature Conservancy was drawn to the the diverse complex of wetlands between Cave peninsula 40 years ago to protect the natural features Point and the Sturgeon Bay ship canal. of this special place that is home to the greatest number of rare plants and animals in Wisconsin. Unique Geology Affects Water Flow Stand on Toft Point and one can see or hear nine Because of the peninsula’s unique geology, it is a different warblers singing. In the deep shade of fragile place and wetlands are particularly vulnerable. the white cedars, one will find wild orchids – with The Door Peninsula is underlain by a portion of names like ram’s head, showy lady, dragon mouth the Niagara Escarpment, a rock formation that and Hooker’s – growing in sunlit patches. The dwarf arcs around the northern shores of Lakes lake iris and dune thistle are found only in the Great Michigan and Huron from West Union, Iowa, to Lakes area. Moreover, the world’s largest remaining Albany, New York. population of the endangered Hine’s emerald Much of the escarpment is underground, but rises dragonfly depends on marshes and sedge meadows above the surface at certain locations including fed by the calcium-rich waters of the peninsula. very prominently along the Green Bay side of the Focus on Coastal Wetlands peninsula. Because this side of the peninsula tends to be higher than the Lake Michigan side, surface In 1962, the Conservancy made a loan to The water also tends to drain from the peninsula Ridges Sanctuary to preserve a critical parcel of toward the lakeside. The rock that forms the coastal wetland. Today, we continue work with escarpment is dolomite – it is hard, brittle and multiple partners and communities to protect very porous due to the many holes and cracks this special place. As a result of planning in April within the rock. 2000 by Conservancy staff, other conservation When snow melts or rain hits the ground on the organizations, the academic community and state peninsula, some of the water runs off the surface
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 12 and into nearby streams to be carried to the lake. Strength in Numbers To maintain the health and diversity of the Another portion of the water is captured by soil peninsula’s wetlands and restore those that have Many conservation organizations and public and vegetation. Where soils are thin, as they are in been degraded, more information is needed. The agencies are working to conserve the wetlands and northern Door County, more of the water travels Conservancy is funding a research study by a other natural features of the Door Peninsula. through the soil and down into bedrock. Because University of Wisconsin-Green Bay graduate Groups including The Nature Conservancy, the the rock tends to be porous, water travels quickly student at the Shivering Sands Preserve east of Door County Land Trust (DCLT), The Ridges to the lake or into wetlands via springs. Sturgeon Bay that will provide vital information. Sanctuary, Door County, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Effect of Pollution on Wetlands Service and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) collaborate to address threats Where water goes, pollution follows. Oil, salt and to the peninsula’s wetlands and other natural other chemicals on roads, driveways and other features. Land acquisition, conservation impervious surfaces end up in the water. Water is easements, education and outreach, and research at risk from pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers are some of the methods employed. applied to lawns, golf courses and roadsides. Acid pollutants in the air from automobiles and Together and separately, The Nature Conservancy, manufacturing plants and waste from failed septic DCLT, The Ridges Sanctuary and the WDNR systems threaten water. That water flows into have received a North American Wetlands streams, the bedrock, underground aquifers, Conservation Act grant and four Coastal Wetlands wetlands and the lake. Planning, Protection and Restoration Act grants from the federal government totaling $2.62 Migratory birds that use the wetlands as stopover million. The partners will use this money and feeding sites during migration are impacted by match raised through private fundraising to buy pollution, as are frogs, turtles and fish that feed and and protect wetlands along the Lake Michigan When the study is completed in December 2003, breed there. Additional nutrients added to the shoreline of Door County and in the Grand we plan to make this information available to wetlands can change the type of vegetation found Traverse Islands located at the end of the peninsula. Door County conservation and planning there. What was once a wetland dominated by departments, local township governments, the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program grants sedges and bulrushes may eventually become a WDNR and other interested parties. The Ridges fund other partner efforts to 1) communicate the cattail marsh, a plant community not unique to the Sanctuary also conducts studies to gather baseline importance of protecting wetlands in Door County area. While we know that the federally endangered information about water flow at the sanctuary. Hine’s emerald dragonfly uses the wetlands unique to local government officials and private landowners to the Door Peninsula, we do not know how it will and 2) address threats that non-native invasive plants Cate Harrington is Director of Communications & Outreach like purple loosestrife pose to wetlands and other for The Nature Conservancy-Wisconsin Chapter. She can be respond if those wetlands change. reached at (608) 251-8140 or [email protected]. native plant communities on the peninsula.
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 13 The Southeastern Lake WISCONSIN COASTAL POPULATION TRENDS Michigan region remains Donald R. Harrier the most significant The rates of population growth in Wisconsin coastal Mixed Migration Trends During 1970s counties varied by location since 1970. This article During the 1970s, Wisconsin experienced a driver of population examines population trends in Wisconsin’s coastal population increase of 6.51 percent. Natural increase zone during the preceding three decades and factors (births minus deaths) during this decade was 277,693 trends in Wisconsin’s that led to growth and contraction. persons and net in-migration was only 10,128 coastal counties. Most Coastal Counties Gain persons. In addition, Wisconsin followed a national trend called the “rural renaissance” when growth in Between 1970 and 2000, Wisconsin’s total popula- smaller communities oupaced more urban areas. tion grew by 945,854 persons, or 21.4 percent. The 15 Wisconsin coastal counties collectively gained Wisconsin’s coastal counties’ decreased by nearly 78,000 persons, or 4.1 percent, from 1970 to 2000. 33,000 persons or 1.71 percent during the same period. Milwaukee County led the decline with a Ozaukee County grew fastest during the period at migration loss of nearly 155,000 persons. The 51.1 percent. Brown County added the most remaining coastal counties experienced net in- population with 68,000 new residents. Milwaukee migration of about 7,000 persons. County both declined most rapidly (10.8 percent) and lost the most residents (114,000). Only The seventies saw population change vary widely Milwaukee and Douglas Counties lost population between the three coastal areas (Table 1). The during the thirty-year period. Lake Superior region showed an increase of 2.69 percent. The population of the Bay-Lake region The Bay-Lake counties (Marinette, Oconto, Brown, outpaced the state average with a 7.85 percent Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc and Sheboygan) grew increase. These were in contrast to a decline of fastest from 1970-2000 at 112,000 persons and 25.6 4.95 percent in the Southeastern region. percent. Lake Superior counties (Douglas, Bayfield, Ashland and Iron) grew at a modest 3.0 percent Table 1 – Population Rates During the 1970s and 2,400 residents. The Southeastern counties Natural Net Total (Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Racine and Kenosha) Region Increase (%) Migration (%) Change (%) declined by 2.6 percent and 37,000 persons. Lake Superior 1.98 0.71 2.69 Milwaukee County’s experience tends to skew Bay-Lake 6.46 1.39 7.85 overall coastal population trends. Coastal counties Southeastern 6.12 -11.07 -4.95 exclusive of Milwaukee grew by 192,000 persons, Coastal Counties 6.02 -7.73 -1.71 or 22.3 percent, over the thirty-year period. That Wisconsin 6.29 0.23 6.51 rate of growth outpaced the statewide trend.
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 14 Out-Migration in Much of the 1980s Rebound of Migration in the 1990s Although population growth was slower in the coastal counties than for the state, the increase During the 1980s, state population grew by only During the 1990s, Wisconsin’s population was still significant. The coastal counties added 3.96 percent. Although natural increase was increased by a robust 9.65 percent. The decade nearly 85,000 persons or 4.44 percent during the 313,123, net migration showed a loss of nearly experienced the smallest natural increase of the nineties. They collectively suffered out-migration 127,000 persons. Most of the state’s out-migration 30-year period because of fewer births and a larger of more than 25,000 persons, again led by occurred during the deep recession of the early number of deaths. However, the most significant Milwaukee County. and mid 1980s. trend during the 1990s was a turnaround in migration with 228,219 more people moving into Milwaukee County alone experienced net out- Conclusion the state than moving out. migration of over 75,000 for the period. Only Wisconsin’s population increased by 21.4 percent three of the 15 coastal counties (Brown, Marinette The impact of natural increase and positive net between 1970 and 2000, but Wisconsin’s coastal and Ozaukee) experienced net in-migration migration yielded the greatest increase of the three counties increased by only 4.1 percent. Slower during the eighties. However, natural increase was decades. In fact, the 1990s were the second fastest growth in the coastal counties reduced their share significant enough that the coastal counties gained growing decade in the state’s history, only trailing of the state’s total population from 43.3 percent nearly 26,000 persons during the decade. the 1950s. in 1970 to just over 37 percent in 2000. Again, population change differed among the three All three regions experienced population growth Much of the lower population increase of the regions (Table 2). The Lake Superior region lost during the decade (Table 3). The Bay-Lake region coastal area resulted from the decline of 4.32 percent of its population from 1980-1990, set the pace at 11.18 percent, the Lake Superior Milwaukee County’s population during 30-year while the Bay-Lake region increased by 4.72 region increased by 4.86 percent and the period. Without Milwaukee County’s figures, percent. The Southeastern region experienced Southeastern region grew at a modest 1.91 percent Wisconsin’s coastal counties grew by a more only a marginal gain of 0.53 percent. Each region in spite of a nearly 9 percent decline in Milwaukee robust 22.3 percent from 1970 to 2000. experienced natural increase and out-migration. County population. Today, over two-thirds of Wisconsin’s coastal Table 2 – Population Rates During the 1980s Table 3 – Population Rates During the 1990s counties’ population reside in the Southeastern Natural Net Total Natural Net Total region, 28 percent in the Bay-Lake region and just Region Increase (%) Migration (%) ChangeRegion (%) Increase (%) Migration (%) Change4 (%)percent in the Lake Superior region. The Lake Superior 2.76 -7.07 -4.32Lake Superior 0.05 4.81 4.86Southeastern region, and Milwaukee County in Bay-Lake 6.45 -1.73 4.72Bay-Lake 4.27 6.91 11.18particular, remains the most significant driver of Southeastern 7.27 -6.74 0.53Southeastern 6.63 -4.72 1.91population trends in Wisconsin’s coastal counties.
Coastal Counties 6.87 -5.5 1.37Coastal Counties 5.75 -1.32 4.44Donald R. Harrier is Section Chief of the Demographic Services Wisconsin 6.65 -2.7 3.96Wisconsin 4.98 4.67 9.65Center, Wisconsin Department of Administration. He can be reached at (608) 267-2705 or [email protected].
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 15 2002 WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANTS Editors Note
Now in its twenty-fifth year, the Wisconsin Project Name Coastal Management Program (WCMP) brings Grantee together citizens and public officials to address WCMP Award the special opportunities and challenges found at Project Type the shores of our two Great Lakes. The WCMP Ashland County coordinates and magnifies the energy of coastal citizens through education, issue analysis, policy St. Claire Avenue Storm Sewer development and targeted financial assistance. City of Ashland The list that follows identifies projects that $112,462 received WCMP funding support of $6.6 million Stormwater Controls in 2002. Ballou Creek Streambank and Trout Habitat Town of Morse Stroll, drive, sail or bike even a short distance along $37,275 the shore of Lake Michigan or Lake Superior and Stormwater Controls you will see an accomplishment of the WCMP. That lovely water-side walkway, convenient access Comprehensive Plan Update point, recreational harbor, secluded glen or thriving City of Ashland marsh probably benefited from a study, land $20,000 purchase or guideline supported by the WCMP. Land Use & Community Planning Madeline Island Geographic Information System The WCMP promotes sound management of our Madeline Island Wilderness Preserve, Inc. coastal waters and adjoining natural and $12,280 community resources. In turn, the program helps Land Use & Community Planning establish conditions that attract people, support new businesses and enhance the quality of life. Bayfield County This publication highlights just a few of Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment today’s coastal issues and management efforts of Trout Unlimited importance to Wisconsin. We hope to bring $97,000 more to your attention in future Wisconsin Great Nonpoint Source Pollution Lakes Chronicles. Sioux/Onion River Coastal Wetland Initiative Inland Sea Society $20,000 Wetland Protection
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 16 Recession Rate Outreach 2020 Comprehensive Plan Kewaunee County Bayfield County Town of Gibraltar $11,590 $18,950 Zoning Ordinance Rewrite Land Use & Community Planning Land Use & Community Planning Town of Pierce $2,000 Waterfront Plan Invasive Species Strategic Plan Partnership Land Use & Community Planning City of Bayfield Door County Soil & Water Conservation Dept. $4,000 $13,500 Kenosha County Land Use & Community Planning Education Chiwaukee Prairie State Natural Area Brown County Fish Creek Watershed Study Program Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Town of Gibraltar $100,000 Riverfront Redevelopment $5,000 Acquisition Village of Ashwaubenon Nonpoint Source Pollution $78,080 Manitowoc County Public Access Douglas County Point Creek Watershed Initiative Door County Newton Creek Sediment Remediation Manitowoc County Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $800,000 Removal of Deteriorating Solid Structures $300,000 Acquisition Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Contaminated Site $125,000 Marinette County Habitat Restoration South Superior Wet Detention Pond City of Superior Public Works Boom Landing Aquatic Plant Management Program $150,000 City of Marinette City of Sturgeon Bay Stormwater Controls $91,708 $99,100 Public Access Nonpoint Source Pollution Oliver Marsh Douglas County Forestry Department Stephenson Island Access and Parking Lot Shore Sites for Waterweed Operation $90,000 City of Marinette City of Sturgeon Bay Park & Recreation Dept. Acquisition $64,200 $31,000 Public Access Public Access Billings Park Launch/Riverfront Trail City of Superior Parks & Recreation Dept. Marinette County Coastal Resource Identification Sunset Park Walkway $25,000 Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission City of Sturgeon Bay Public Access $16,100 $20,000 Land Use & Community Planning Public Access
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 17 Milwaukee County Lake Michigan Beach Water Quality Sheboygan County City of Milwaukee Health Department Kilbourn Landing $20,800 Reiss Coal Site City of Milwaukee Education City of Sheboygan $1,168,016 $101,250 Contaminated Site Milwaukee Rivers Outreach Program Contaminated Site Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Coastal Vision-Restoration Plan $10,000 Milwaukee River Basin Wetland and Springhead Port of Milwaukee Education Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $300,000 $80,000 Stormwater Controls Ozaukee County Acquisition Fitzsimmons Road Woods Lion’s Den Gorge Natural Area Coastwide City of Franklin Ozaukee County Land & Water Conservation $155,000 $404,000 Technical Assistance to Local Governments Acquisition Acquisition Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $207,179 Milwaukee River Watershed Corridor Plan Huiras Lake Wetland Restoration Technical Assistance and Outreach Friends of Milwaukee’s Rivers Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $69,880 $127,830 Coastal Wetland Inventory Land Use & Community Planning Acquisition Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $52,111 Oak Creek Wetlands Racine County Technical Assistance and Outreach MMSD/City of Oak Creek $63,895 Pike River Restoration Planting Information to Restore Coastal Resources Acquisition Mount Pleasant Stormwater Utility District Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $387,375 $38,000 Milwaukee River Riverwalk Habitat Restoration Education Historic Third Ward Association $40,000 Pike River Mapping Purple Loosestrife Bio-Control Program Expansion Public Access Mount Pleasant Storm Water Utility District Wisconsin Wetlands Association $25,000 $33,845 Menomonee River Valley Sustainable Design Land Use & Community Planning Wetland Protection Sixteenth Street Community Health Center $25,000 Land Use & Community Planning
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 18 Cruise Wisconsin’s Harbor Towns State Natural Area Wetland Restoration in Bayfield, Bay-Lake Region Wisconsin Harbor Towns Association, Inc. Door, Kenosha, Ozaukee and Sheboygan Counties $26,000 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Assistance for Coastal Restoration Public Access $202,404 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Habitat Restoration $26,000 Coastal County Buffer Initiative Project Wetland Protection Great Lakes Nonpoint Abatement Coalition Lake Superior Region $20,000 Assistance to Local Government Nonpoint Source Pollution Lake Superior South Shore Fish and Wildlife Area Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources $25,000 Future of Wisconsin’s North Coast $200,000 Technical Assistance and Outreach Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Acquisition $18,172 Harbor Study Update Education Lake Superior Basin Subwatersheds Analysis Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission ABDI Land Conservation Dept. $25,000 Managing Runoff from Homes & Small Businesses $50,957 Land Use & Community Planning Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Nonpoint Source Pollution $17,900 Northern Lake Michigan Basin Conservation Education Lake Superior NEMO Program Gathering Waters Conservancy University of Wisconsin-Superior $24,500 Managing Runoff Changes $24,775 Land Use & Community Planning Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Education $17,362 Technical Assistance Education Building Partnerships for the Lake Superior Basin Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission ABDI Land Conservation Dept. $10,500 Multiple Counties $18,333 Technical Assistance and Outreach Nonpoint Source Pollution West Shore Habitat Protection and Restoration in Southeast Region Marinette, Oconto and Brown Counties Chequamegon Bay NERR Designation Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources UW-Extension Technical Assistance $501,493 $18,121 Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission Acquisition Wetland Protection $13,000 Technical Assistance and Outreach Staff Assistance Northwest Regional Planning Commission $10,000 Technical Assistance and Outreach
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 19 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) in the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) publishes Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle. The WCMP welcomes but is not responsible for the opinions expressed by contributing authors.
Wisconsin Coastal Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Management Council Scott McCallum Jack Culley, Chair, Superior Governor Bill Wiesmueller, Vice Chair, Oostburg George Lightbourn Lt. Gov. Margaret A. Farrow Secretary, DOA Mary Carrington, Racine Brian A. Schimming Administrator, Division of Housing and Erik Christensen, University of Intergovernmental Relations, DOA Wisconsin-Milwaukee James M. Langdon George Evenson, Sturgeon Bay Director, Bureau of Intergovernmental Relations, DOA Francis M. Fennessy, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Dea Larsen Converse Section Chief, WCMP Ellen Fisher, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Mike Friis Nonpoint Pollution & Public Access Coordinator, State Representative Scott Gunderson WCMP Betty Palkowski, Port of Milwaukee Alberto Vargas Donald K. Stitt, Grafton Natural Hazards Coordinator, WCMP Travis Olson Wetland Protection & Land Use Planning Editor Coordinator, WCMP Thomas M. Krauskopf Geoffrey M. Gyrisco Deputy Administrator, Division of Housing and Coastal Restoration Analyst, WCMP Intergovernmental Relations, DOA
Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 20 Photographs Wisconsin Coastal Page, Image, Photographer Management Program 101 East Wilson Street Cover, Newport State Park, Princely Nesadurai PO Box 8944 Contents, Big Bay State Park, Robert Queen Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8944 (608) 267-7988 1, Gov. Scott McCallum, Governor’s Press Office www.coastal.wisconsin.gov 2, Kewaunee Lighthouse, C. Swinehart [email protected] 3, Peninsula State Park, Princely Nesadurai 4, Point Beach State Forest, Princely Nesadurai 5, Sheboygan Co. Highway LS, Kevin Fermanich 7, Green Bay Harbor, Wisconsin Department of Transportation 7, Ship at Superior Harbor, Jerry Bielicki Financial assistance for this project was provided 8, Harrington Beach State Park, Princely by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Nesadurai as amended, administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National 9, Zebra Mussels, Wisconsin Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Resources pursuant to Grant #NA17OZ1144 and the 10, Nesting Eagle, Don Simonelli Wisconsin Coastal Management Program. 11, Sloughs Monitoring, Rae Ann Maday The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, 12, Shivering Sands, Gerald H. Emmerich, Jr. part of the Wisconsin Department of 13, North Bay, Gerald H. Emmerich, Jr. Administration, was established in 1978 to preserve, protect and manage the resources of 14, Milwaukee River, Lake Michigan Federation the Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coastline 16, Lake Michigan, D. Tomaszewski for this and future generations. 20, Lake Superior, R. Beltran 21, Lake Michigan, D. Tomaszewski
DOA-9743P 8/2002 Wisconsin Great Lakes Chronicle 2002 | page 21