Section NR 103.08 - Department determinations(1) The department shall review all proposed activities subject to this chapter and shall determine whether the project proponent has shown, based on the factors in sub. (3), if the activities are in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. The department shall, upon request, meet with a project proponent and other interested persons to make a preliminary assessment of the scope for an analysis of alternatives and the potential for compliance with this chapter. (1k)(a) For the purposes of reviewing an application under this chapter, the department may require submission of information consistent with s. NR 299.03(1).(b) The department shall review the application for completeness within 30 days of receipt of the application. The department shall notify the applicant of any additional information reasonably necessary to review the application. An application may not be considered complete until the requirements of the Wisconsin environmental policy act, s. 1.11, Stats., have been met.(c) The applicant shall submit, at any time during the review process, additional information which the department finds to be reasonably necessary for review of the application.(d) The department shall protect as confidential any information, other than effluent data, submitted under this chapter which meets the requirements of s. 283.55(2), Stats., and under s. NR 2.19.(e) For all activities that meet the criteria listed in sub. (4) (c) 3. and that do not require authorization under ch. 30, Stats., the department shall make a decision on an application within 60 working days of receipt of a complete application from the project proponent.(f) The 60 working day limit does not apply if the department determines that weather conditions prevent the department from making a decision in that time frame. (1m) The department may rely upon wetland boundary determinations made by other agencies and consultants. If there is a dispute concerning a wetland boundary delineation, the review of the delineation shall be consistent with the procedures identified in the "Basic Guide to Wisconsin's Wetlands and Their Boundaries" (Wisconsin Department of Administration PUBL-WZ-029-94) as determined by the department. Note: This guide is based upon the "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987" and Final Regional Supplements. Copies of "Basic Guide to Wisconsin's Wetlands and Their Boundaries" may be obtained from Wisconsin Department of Administration, Document Sales Unit, 202 S. Thornton Ave., P.O. Box 7840, Madison, WI 53707-7840.
(2) Wetland functional values and the impact of a proposed activity upon those functional values shall be determined using wetland ecological evaluation methods accepted by the department and appropriate to the affected wetland. The department shall consider available land use studies in its determinations.(3) To protect all present and prospective future uses of wetlands, the following factors shall be considered by the department in making determinations under this section: (a) Wetland dependency of the proposal;(b) Practicable alternatives to the proposal which will avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands and will not result in other significant adverse environmental consequences;(c) Impacts which may result from the activity on the maintenance, protection, restoration or enhancement of standards under s. NR 103.03;(d) Cumulative impacts attributable to the proposed activity which may occur, based upon past or reasonably anticipated impacts on wetland functional values of similar activities in the affected area;(e) Potential secondary impacts on wetland functional values from the proposed activity; and(f) Any potential adverse impacts to wetlands in areas of special natural resource interest as listed in s. NR 103.04.(g) Any potential adverse impact to wetlands in environmentally sensitive areas and environmental corridors identified in areawide water quality management plans.(4)(a) Except as provided in par. (b), (c) or (d), the department shall make a finding that the requirements of this chapter are satisfied if it determines that the project proponent has shown all of the following: 1. No practicable alternative exists which would avoid adverse impacts to wetlands.2. If subd. 1. is met, all practicable measures to minimize adverse impacts to the functional values of the affected wetlands have been taken. 3. If subds. 1. and 2. are met, utilizing the factors in sub. (3) (b) to (g) and considering potential wetland functional values provided by any mitigation project that is part of the subject application, that the activity will not result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functional values, significant adverse impacts to water quality or other significant adverse environmental consequences. (b) For all activities that will adversely affect a wetland in an area of special natural resource interest as listed in s. NR 103.04 or that will adversely affect an area of special natural resource interest, the department may not consider potential functional values provided by any mitigation project that is part of the subject application.(c) For all activities which meet one or more of subd. 1., 2. or 3., the department, utilizing the factors in sub. (3) and considering potential wetland functional values provided by any mitigation project that is part of the subject application, shall make a finding that the requirements of this chapter are satisfied if it determines that the project proponent has shown that the activity will not result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functional values, significant adverse impacts to water quality or other significant adverse environmental consequences. The department may limit the scope of the analysis of alternatives under sub. (3) (b), as determined at the preliminary assessment meeting under sub. (1). 1. The activity is wetland dependent.2. The surface area of the wetland impact, which includes impacts noted in s. NR 103.08(3), is 0.10 acres or less.3. All wetlands that may be affected by an activity are less than one acre in size, located outside a 100-year floodplain, and not any of the following types: b. Ridge and swale complex.c. Wet prairie not dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) to the exclusion of a significant population of native species.d. Ephemeral pond in a wooded setting.e. Sedge meadow or fresh wet meadow not dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) to the exclusion of a significant population of native species and located south of highway 10.f. Bog located south of highway 10.g. Hardwood swamp located south of highway 10.h. Conifer swamp located south of highway 10.i. Cedar swamp located north of highway 10.(d) For cranberry operations, the department, utilizing the factors in sub. (3) (b) to (g), shall make a finding that the requirements of this chapter are satisfied if it determines that the project proponent has shown that the activity will not result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functional values, significant adverse impacts to water quality or other significant adverse environmental consequences. For the purposes of determining whether there is a practicable alternative to a proposed expansion of an existing cranberry operation, the analysis shall be limited to alternatives within the boundaries of the property where the existing cranberry operation is located and on property immediately adjacent to the existing cranberry operation. For new cranberry operations, a practicable alternatives analysis shall be conducted which includes off-site alternatives.(e) Mitigation projects and the use of wetland mitigation banks shall be carried out in accordance with ch. NR 350 and any memorandum of agreement between the department and the United States army corps of engineers that establishes guidelines for mitigation projects and wetland mitigation banks.Wis. Admin. Code Department of Natural Resources NR 103.08
Cr. Register, July, 1991, No. 427, eff. 8-1-91; cr. (1m) and (4) (c), am. (4) (a) 1. and (b), Register, May, 1998, No. 509, eff. 6-1-98; CR 00-164: am. (1) and (3) (b), cr. (1k) and (3) (g), r. and recr. (4), Register January 2002 No. 553, eff. 2-1-02; CR 09-123: am. (1k) (e) Register July 2010 No. 655, eff. 8-1-10.Examples of wetland ecological evaluation methods include, but are not limited to, "Wetland Evaluation Technique" (FHWA/COE), "Wisconsin Wetland Evaluation Methodology", "Hollands-Magee" (IEP/Normandeau), "Minnesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology for the North Central United States" and the "Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Rapid Assessment Method".
Note: Examples of available land use studies include Special Area Management Plans (SAMP), Special Wetland Inventory Studies (SWIS) and Advanced Delineation and Identification Studies (ADID).