The much-heralded and controversial Wetlands Reform Bill was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker on February 29, 2012 as 2011 Wisconsin Act 118 (the Act). It first applies to permit applications submitted on or after July 1, 2012.
Like any other legislative proposal that tries to find the balance between environmental protection and economic development, this law has its supporters and detractors.
From the Governor, upon signing the bill:
“Preserving and protecting Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources while encouraging sustainable economic growth is an important task,” said Governor Scott Walker. “The bill I signed into law today balances these two interests and reforms the way the state regulates wetlands. I am confident this pro-growth, pro-environmental law will allow the state to protect our resources while providing a pathway to economic development. I would like to thank State Senator Neal Kedzie and Representative Jeff Mursau for providing leadership on this issue.”
From the Wisconsin Wetlands Association (2/29/12 press release):
“This bill passed without the endorsement of a single leader from the wetland professional community or any major statewide sportsmen's or environmental group,” said Executive Director Tracy Hames. “People need jobs, but they need wetlands too,” he added, “that is if they want flood protection, clean water, and more and better ducks.”Hames also emphasized that Wisconsin citizens could no longer rely on the state to protect the wetlands in their community. “It’s now up to the people of the state to get involved, speak up, and look out for the wetlands where they live.”
From Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (2/15/12 press release):
Wetland regulation reforms that passed the state Senate early today will protect the environment, foster expanded wetlands, and promote job creation, WMC said Wednesday. “The wetland reforms are common sense legislation that will protect our environment while promoting job creation,” said Scott Manley, WMC director of environmental policy.
From 77th Assembly District Democrat State Representative Brett Hulsey (2/29/12 press release):
The Governor signed Senate Bill 368, called the “Flood our Families Act” because it will increase flood risks to Wisconsin families, home and business owners.
“The Flood our Families Act means more Wisconsin homes and families will be at risk from flooding,” said State Rep. Brett Hulsey. “Allowing more people to build in wetlands today creates more flood victims and disaster costs tomorrow.”
From the Dairy Business Association (DBA) (2/29/12 press release):
DBA praises Governor Scott Walker for signing Senate Bill 368, commonly referred to as the Wetlands Bill. This new law streamlines the wetland permitting process for dairy farmers expanding their operation by creating statutory timelines and allowing better use of wetland mitigation.
“This new law greatly enhances the wetlands permitting program by providing dairy producers consistency, and assures that the environment will remain protected while growing Wisconsin’s $26.5 billion dollar industry,” commented Laurie Fischer, DBA Executive Director. “In the past, wetland permits have taken years to obtain, resulting in lost business opportunities and jobs for the State of Wisconsin.”
In brief, the new law creates a single wetland permit program in Wis. Stat. s. 281.36 which:
General permits are used frequently in other DNR regulatory programs, but are new to DNR’s tool kit for regulation of wetland fill. In contrast to individual permits which are tailored specifically for a given project, general permits apply to a category of activities that meet certain criteria. A general permit is somewhat like a rule in that it imposes the same requirements on any project that meets the general permit criteria. The purposes of general permits are to establish standardized conditions applicable to similar types of projects for uniformity and to reduce paperwork to expedite permit processing.
to treat or dispose of hazardous/toxic waste, if the fill is not hazardous/toxic; or
for temporary access and dewatering
b. Prohibited fills
As part of a wetland general permit, DNR may prohibit fill into any of the following:
Wetland general permits are subject to public notice and comment and the opportunity for public hearing prior to issuance. Once issued, a wetland general permit is valid for five years and may be renewed, modified or revoked by the Department.
To proceed under the authorization of a general wetland permit, unless DNR waives this requirement in the general permit itself, the permit applicant must give DNR at least 30 days notice of intent to proceed with an explanation of how the project qualifies for the wetland general permit. This is similar to the Corps “reporting general permits” for wetland fill – which require notice to the Corps before proceeding. DNR has 30 days to either advise the permit applicant that an individual permit is needed or that DNR needs additional information to be certain the project is eligible for the wetland general permit; if DNR does neither of those things, the wetland fill is considered to be authorized under the wetland general permit and the permittee is then obligated to conduct the project consistent with the general permit requirements. If adverse weather conditions prevent DNR from conducting its site inspection within the 30 day period, DNR may give the permit applicant notice that it needs additional time and must then complete the inspection as soon as weather conditions permit.
For individual wetland permits, the new law made several key changes. The requirement to “avoid, minimize and mitigate” wetland impacts is still the law and the process still calls for an analysis of practicable alternatives. However, the definition of “practicable” is revised and expanded, the scope of the analysis of practicable alternatives in certain circumstances is narrowed, the factors and standards DNR is to use are more clearly articulated, and increased opportunities for mitigation are provided.
Section 40 CFR 230.10(a) (2) defines “practicable alternatives” as those alternatives that are "available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes." This is the definition the Corps uses and Wisconsin has used a nearly identical definition in Wis. Admin. Code NR 103 “Water Quality Standards for Wetlands” since its enactment in 1991:
NR 103.07(2) “Practicable alternatives” means available and capable of being implemented after taking into consideration cost, available technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
The Act revised and expanded that definition so that it now reads as follows (revisions are shown in italics):
Wis. Stat. s. 281.36(1)(cp) “Practicable” means reasonably available and capable of being implemented after taking into consideration cost, site availability, available technology, logistics, and proximity of the proposed project site, in light of the overall purpose and scope of the project.
These revisions to the definition of “practicable” are consistent with other elements of the Act, described below, which limit the review of alternatives to the site or adjacent property and take the scope of the project into consideration in evaluating environmental impacts.
Importantly, in connection with the expanded definition of “practicable”, in certain circumstances the geographic scope of the PAA review has been narrowed. DNR’s review is limited to practicable alternatives located at the site and adjacent to the site if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed project:
c. Factors and standards
DNR’s overall obligation is to review the PAA to determine the alternative that
DNR is to consider the following factors, in determining the impacts to wetland functional values:
Based on that analysis, DNR is to make a finding that the project complies with water quality standards and the individual wetland permit may be issued if it finds all of the following apply:
Also new with this Act, mitigation is now required as part of any individual wetland permit and is considered as part of the permit application.
During the development of the legislation, the role of mitigation in the permit process was the subject of much heated debate. Bill opponents characterized early drafts as essentially giving away permits in return for promises to buy mitigation credits. In partial response, language was added to the bill to specifically state that an applicant is not entitled to a permit in exchange for conducting mitigation.
Under the law before the Act, permit applicants found it difficult, if not impossible, to engage DNR in consideration of mitigation as part of the permit evaluation. The “avoid, minimize, mitigate” analysis rarely reached the point of discussion about mitigation. As a result of the Act, mitigation is a required element of any wetland fill proposal subject to an individual wetland permit. All individual wetland permits must require mitigation on a ratio consistent with federal regulations but at a minimum of 1.2:1 acres. Mitigation may be through any of the following methods:
The first and second methods are the preferred methods as designated by the Act.
e. Procedures and timing
To address timing concerns, the Act establishes the following mandatory time frames for DNR action on the permit application:
DNR’s decision to either deny or issue an individual wetland permit is subject to challenge via administrative (contested case) hearing and judicial review in the Circuit Court. The procedures and timeframes are consistent with those that apply to DNR permits issued under Wis. Stat. ch. 30 for individual permits that affect navigable waterways. See our Client Alert on those statutory revisions made as a part of 2003 Wisconsin Act 118.
The Governor signed the law on February 29, 2012 but it first applies to permit applications submitted on or after July 1, 2012. The Legislature provided a delayed effective date to enable DNR to update application materials, develop guidance documents, train staff and conduct outreach to consultants and property owners.
A significant unanswered question at this point is how the Corps will respond. The Corps has jurisdiction over federal wetlands and testified to certain concerns about the legislation before the Senate and Assembly committees. Many of those concerns appear to have been addressed through amendments. However, the Corps’ concern about limiting the practicable alternatives review to the site and property adjacent to the site for certain projects did not lead to elimination of that element of the legislation; nor is it clear how the Corps will view the expanded definition of “practicable” or that the Corps’ concerns about the scope of the area considered for mitigation were fully addressed. While permit applicants may find the DNR permit process more straight-forward than in the past, if the Corps objects to individual wetland permits issued by DNR for fill in federal jurisdictional wetlands, a key goal of the legislation may not be realized.
 281.36(3g)(f); 281.36(3g)(fm); 281.36(3g)(g)
 281.36(3g) (h)
 281.36(3m)(b); 281.36(3n)(a)
 Initial applicability/effective date Sections 145 and 146