COUNTY LAKE CLASSIFICATION AND PROTECTION GRANTS

INTRODUCTION

Resource classification is a common environmental management tool. While Wisconsin has classified lakes for some purposes, for the most part, it treats lakes the same in addressing shoreland development and recreational surface uses. Recent events have generated considerable interest and activity in classifying lakes for these purposes at the local level.

BACKGROUND

In 1983 Wascott Township, Douglas Co. approved a three-tier lake classification system, similar to Minnesota's (established in 1976), to support more protective shoreland development standards. In 1994, Douglas County, with WDNR lake grant assistance, established a "wild lakes" class in response to a sudden increase in rezoning requests and whole lake development proposals. Subsequently, several other northern counties initiated similar projects driven by similar concerns. By 1997, the lake grant programs had provided over a half million dollars in assistance to counties and towns for various shoreland and land use management projects, some involving lake classification, all aimed at lake protection. Demand for this assistance continued to rise.

In response, the 1997 budget bill added $700,000 to the lake protection grant program (chap. 281.69 stats.) to support county projects and provide technical and educational support. Two new types of lake protection grants were created: 1). Lake Classification Projects providing counties 75% state funding up to $50,000 per grant to "classify lakes by use and implement protection activities for the lakes based on their classification." And, 2). Lake Classification Technical Assistance Projects providing up to $200,000 per grant to nonprofit corporations to "provide educational and technical assistance .... to local units of government and lake management organizations that will participate in a lake classification project"

Essentially a financial incentive program, the new legislation does not provide counties with any expanded authority over the management of lakes. It allows counties to voluntarily classify lakes within the context of overall guidelines established by the department.

STATUS

The new appropriation was put to use funding new projects under existing grant authority while formal rules for classification projects were being developed. (See the attachment for a comprehensive list of projects underway).

Rule-making. A work group including representatives from lake associations and county government was formed in December 1997. Draft rules, primarily addressing financial and administrative aspects of the grant program, were developed and public hearings held in June '98. The Natural Resources Board approved a final rule in September setting up a May 1, '99 grant application deadline.

Technical Assistance Grants. These grants recognize that a statewide voluntary lake classification program requires substantial resources if it is to succeed. As noted, the department continued to fund classification projects as lake protection ordinance projects. Unfortunately, these projects are proceeding without the benefit of the technical assistance funds because there is no existing administrative framework in place for awarding this type of grant. While the rule will make it possible to award a grant for technical assistance by mid -'99, the department is pursuing an alternative to award these funds through a request for proposals (RFP) process yet this Fall.

In the meantime, technical assistance has been provided by UW Extension (notably Mike Dresen), department staff and project funded consultants. In l997, the department awarded a local water quality aide (LWQA) grant to the Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWRPC), which has provided critical technical assistance in that region.

RESULTS SO FAR

To date 24 counties, and several townships, have undertaken a landuse-based, lake protection project, although not all have utilized lake classification. In general, classification projects have applied a variation of the three-tier Minnesota classification scheme described below. Most counties have included provisions to allow a lake to move to a more restrictive classification if additional information is provided supporting the request. Some counties have taken a phased approach while others are very comprehensive, accounting for the wide variation in financial assistance listed in the attachment.

General Development Lakes: Lakes with a high to moderate existing density of development that are more tolerant of development and use impacts or are already so fully developed that changes to shoreland zoning will have minimal effect. These lakes are assigned the least restrictive set of standards, but not less than current state law. Management strategies for these lakes may include programs for restoring shoreland buffers and other lost functions.

Transitional or Intermediate Lakes: Intended as a protection or conservation category for lakes with moderate shore and surface use to prevent transition to higher development densities and uses that may be allowed under current state minimums. Recreationally, whole lake use restrictions may apply but more typically are best suited for categorical time of day, or area use specific zoning.

Natural Environment Lakes or Wild Lakes: Intended to preserve and enhance high resource values by protecting them from inappropriate or overly dense development and use that can occur under current state standards. Shoreland management strategies include the most restrictive development standards and are good candidates for permanent protection measure such as purchasing easements or acquisition. Potential recreational strategies may include no wake or no motor restrictions. Many of these lakes already fall under the state no wake minimum of 50 acres. NWRPC reports that 70% of the lakes (50% of lake surface area) in its 10 county area fall into this category.

ISSUES AHEAD

Technical and Educational Support. Project activity has far exceeded the state's support capacity. The department needs to address this issue in work planning and priority setting and improve its response to local needs. The award of a technical assistance grant will help, but a thorough assessment of needs and a coordinated effort is needed.

Recreational Use Designation. The new lake classification legislation clearly was created to address issues other than zoning. Demand for managing surface use conflicts is high. A major flaw in the law is that counties lack the authority to regulate lake use but are listed as the only eligible recipient of a lake classification grant. There are potential conflicts with the public trust doctrine. Since the process and efforts at classification for zoning is well underway, attention should turn to developing support for surface use classification. This will require broad coalitions and much more concentrated effort.

Consistency. Each county needs the flexibility to develop their own classification system to address their local conditions. Land use is a local issue and counties do not want prescribed outcomes mandated by the state. To some degree the "horse is out of the barn" in that there will be a myriad of rules and differing classification schemes across the state. For example a "Class 1 " lake may not mean the same thing in different counties. However, there is considerable commonality among counties and the variations are often subtle. We need a strategy to work toward consistency or at least a system to track, convert and relate systems to common features, terminology and management objectives on a statewide basis while allowing for local flexibility.

Enforcement. One impediment to better environmental protection through shoreland zoning is adequate and consistent enforcement. The public often cites poor enforcement of existing rules when presented with new regulatory proposals. However, many counties are finding classification can streamline and make enforcement more efficient and easier to administer. While subsequent grants can be used to provide implementation assistance e.g. education, training, evaluation of new classification and regulatory schemes, additional steps should be taken to acknowledge the burden placed on counties in providing for protection of "state" waters.

Economic Impacts. Realtors and others have questioned the economic impact of countywide lake classifications and rezoning issues. Work is underway through UW Extension with these interest groups to study these issues. This activity needs to be expedited so that factual information is available to counties during project development and decision-making.

ATTACHMENT
COUNTY LAKE PROTECTION PROJECT STATUS
09/98