Chapter 1

1.10(3)(f) (f) The robin (turdus migratorius) is the state bird.

1.10(3)(g) (g) The muskellunge (Esox masquinongy masquinongy Mitchell) is the state fish.

1.10(3)(h) (h) The badger (taxidea taxus) is the state animal.

1.10(3)(i) (i) The dairy cow (bos taurus) is the state domestic animal.

1.10(3)(j) (j) The white-tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus) is the state wildlife animal.

1.10(3)(k) (k) The American water spaniel is the state dog.

1.10(3)(L) (L) The honey bee (apis mellifera) is the state insect.

1.10(3)(m) (m) The trilobite (calymene celebra) is the state fossil.

1.10(3)(n) (n) Galena (lead sulfide) is the state mineral.

1.10(3)(o) (o) Red granite is the state rock.

1.10(3)(p) (p) Antigo silt loam (typic glossoboralf) is the state soil.

1.10(3)(r) (r) The cranberry (vaccinium macrocarpon) is the state fruit.

1.10(3)(s) (s) The tartan whose thread count is described in this paragraph is the state tartan. The thread count for the state tartan shall begin with 44 threads of muted blue, followed by 6 threads of scarlet, 4 threads of muted blue, 6 threads of gray, 28 threads of black, 40 threads of dark green, 4 threads of dark yellow, 40 threads of dark green, 28 threads of black, 22 threads of muted blue, and 12 threads of dark brown, at which point the weave reverses, going through 22 threads of muted blue, and continuing the sequence in reverse order until the weave reaches the beginning point of 44 threads of muted blue, at which point the weave reverses again.

1.10(3)(t) (t) The kringle is the state pastry.

1.10(3)(u) (u) Cheese is the state dairy product.

1.10(3)(v) (v) Ginseng is the state herb.

1.10(4) (4) The Wisconsin Blue Book shall include the information contained in this section concerning the state song, ballad, waltz, dance, beverage, tree, grain, flower, bird, fish, animal, domestic animal, wildlife animal, dog, insect, fossil, mineral, rock, soil, fruit, tartan, pastry, dairy product, and herb.

1.10 History History: 1971 c. 14, 129, 167, 228, 307; 1977 c. 326; 1983 a. 33; 1985 a. 162, 295, 332; 1987 a. 279; 1989 a. 162; 1993 a. 411; 1999 a. 83, 186; 2001 a. 16; 2003 a. 174, 321; 2007 a. 217; 2013 a. 20; 2017 a. 8, 86.

1.11 1.11 Governmental consideration of environmental impact. The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible:

1.11(1) (1) The policies and regulations shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this section and chapter 274, laws of 1971, section 1; and

1.11(2) (2) All agencies of the state shall:

1.11(2)(c) (c) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement, substantially following the guidelines issued by the United States council on environmental quality under P.L. 91-190, 42 USC 4331, by the responsible official on:

1.11(2)(c)1. 1. The environmental impact of the proposed action;

1.11(2)(c)2. 2. Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;

1.11(2)(c)3. 3. Alternatives to the proposed action;

1.11(2)(c)4. 4. The relationship between local short-term uses of the human environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity;

1.11(2)(c)5. 5. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented; and

1.11(2)(c)6. 6. Such statement shall also contain details of the beneficial aspects of the proposed project, both short term and long term, and the economic advantages and disadvantages of the proposal.

1.11(2)(d) (d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any agency which has jurisdiction or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards shall be made available to the governor, the department of natural resources and to the public. Every proposal other than for legislation shall receive a public hearing before a final decision is made. Holding a public hearing as required by another statute fulfills this section. If no public hearing is otherwise required, the responsible agency shall hold the hearing in the area affected. Notice of the hearing shall be given by publishing a class 1 notice, under ch. 985, at least 15 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper covering the affected area. If the proposal has statewide significance, notice shall be published in the official state newspaper;

1.11(2)(e) (e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;

1.11(2)(h) (h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of resource-oriented projects.

1.11(2)(j) (j) Annually, no later than September 15, submit a report to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature for distribution to the legislature under s. 13.172 (2), including the number of proposed actions for which the agency conducted an assessment of whether an impact statement was required under par. (c) and the number of impact statements prepared under par. (c).

1.11(4) (4) Nothing in this section affects the specific statutory obligations of any agency:

1.11(4)(a) (a) To comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality;

1.11(4)(b) (b) To coordinate or consult with any other state or federal agency; or

1.11(4)(c) (c) To act, or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations or certification of any other state or federal agency.

1.11(5) (5) The policies and goals set forth in this section are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of agencies.

1.11 History History: 1971 c. 274; 1973 c. 204; 1979 c. 89, 262; 1985 a. 29, 332; 1991 a. 273; 1993 a. 184, 213; 2001 a. 103.

1.11 Cross-reference Cross-reference: See also chs. NR 150, PSC 4, TCS 4, and Trans 400 and ss. Adm 60.01, ATCP 3.07, DOC 335.01, DHS 18.01, NR 2.085, and SPS 301.01, Wis. adm. code.

1.11 Annotation The Wisconsin Environmental Protection Act, while not creating a public trust analogous to the public trust in the state’s navigable waters, recognizes an interest sufficient to grant a person standing to question compliance with its provisions when it is alleged that agency action will harm the environment in the area where the person resides. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 69 Wis. 2d 1, 230 N.W.2d 243 (1975). But see Friends of the Black River Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342, 19-0299.

1.11 Annotation Counties are not “agencies of the state” within the meaning of sub. (2) (c). Robinson v. Kunach, 76 Wis. 2d 436, 251 N.W.2d 449 (1977).

1.11 Annotation Sub. (2) (e) is applicable to proceedings involving authorization of priority systems for the curtailment of natural gas service. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 161, 255 N.W.2d 917 (1977).

1.11 Annotation On judicial review of a state agency’s decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement, the agency has the burden of producing a reviewable record reflecting a preliminary factual investigation into relevant areas of environmental concern and of showing a reasonable determination based on the same. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 79 Wis. 2d 409, 256 N.W.2d 149 (1977).

1.11 Annotation The lack of a Department of Natural Resources prepared environmental impact statement did not invalidate a department order to close a landfill site. Holtz & Krause, Inc. v. DNR, 85 Wis. 2d 198, 270 N.W.2d 409 (1978).

1.11 Annotation The Department of Natural Resources’ decision to limit the scope of a threshold decision to consideration of the impact of a segment of a proposed sewer interceptor was reasonable when the segment had: 1) independent utility; 2) a main purpose of fulfilling a local need; 3) logical termini; and 4) construction of the first segment did not compel construction of the second segment. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 94 Wis. 2d 263, 288 N.W.2d 168 (Ct. App. 1979).

1.11 Annotation An agency determination that an environmental impact statement was adequately prepared is reviewed under s. 227.20 [now s. 227.57]. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 98 Wis. 2d 682, 298 N.W.2d 205 (Ct. App. 1980).

1.11 Annotation The court erred in finding that this section applied to the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations’ code compliance review procedure. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DILHR, 104 Wis. 2d 640, 312 N.W.2d 749 (1981).

1.11 Annotation An order establishing depreciation rates for a utility’s nuclear plant did not require an environmental impact statement. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. PSC, 105 Wis. 2d 457, 313 N.W.2d 863 (Ct. App. 1981).

1.11 Annotation Standing to challenge a final environmental impact statement requires that the agency decision directly cause injury to the interest of the petitioner, which must be an interest recognized by law. Fox v. DHSS, 112 Wis. 2d 514, 334 N.W.2d 532 (1983).

1.11 Annotation An environmental impact statement is not required when the project will have minor impacts on the environment but will have possible socio-economic impacts. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 340 N.W.2d 722 (1983).

1.11 Annotation While the indirect secondary environmental effects may be influential in the content of an environmental impact statement, they are not necessarily controlling in determining the threshold question of whether an environmental impact statement is to be prepared. The presence of significant indirect effects or cumulative effects only increases the need for an environmental impact statement. Their presence alone does not require an environmental impact statement. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc. v. DNR, 115 Wis. 2d 381, 340 N.W.2d 722 (1983). But see Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2021 WI 26, 396 Wis. 2d 69, 955 N.W.2d 793, 18-1239.

1.11 Annotation Increased traffic congestion was a sufficient allegation of injury to acquire standing to challenge a final environmental impact statement. Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club v. DHSS, 130 Wis. 2d 56, 387 N.W.2d 245 (1986).

1.11 Annotation When a state action did not come within an action type listed in Department of Administration rules, an environmental assessment was required. A determination following an assessment that an environmental impact statement was not required for a building constructed for the state by a private developer under a lease/purchase agreement was reasonable under the circumstances. Larsen v. Munz Corp., 167 Wis. 2d 583, 482 N.W.2d 332 (1992).

1.11 Annotation The test as to whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) should be conducted is one of reasonableness and good faith. When conditions for approval that compensate for any adverse environmental impacts are imposed, the statutory threshold of significant environmental impact is not crossed, and no EIS is required. State ex rel. Boehm v. DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993).

1.11 Annotation Section 227.42 (1) does not grant a right to a contested case hearing regarding the need for an environmental impact statement. North Lake Management District v. DNR, 182 Wis. 2d 500, 513 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1994).

1.11 Annotation When the legislature has selected a specific project site, consideration of alternative sites is too remote and speculative and not reasonably related to the proposed project. Shoreline Park Preservation, Inc. v. DOA, 195 Wis. 2d 750, 537 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-2512.

1.11 Annotation Discussing the burden of proving the adequacy of an environmental impact statement. Citizens’ Utility Board v. PSC, 211 Wis. 2d 537, 565 N.W.2d 554 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-0867.

1.11 Annotation It was reasonable to suspend the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement and the corresponding comment period when legislatively imposed time constraints could not have been met if they were not suspended. Responsible Use of Rural & Agricultural Land v. PSC, 2000 WI 129, 239 Wis. 2d 660, 619 N.W.2d 888, 99-2430.

1.11 Annotation A court must assess an environmental impact statement (EIS) in light of the rule of reason, which requires an EIS to furnish only such information as appears to be reasonably necessary under the circumstances for evaluation of the project rather than to be so all-encompassing in scope that the task of preparing it would become either fruitless or well nigh impossible. While reasonable alternatives are to be considered, every potentiality need not be evaluated. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.

1.11 Annotation The environmental impact statement is an informational tool that does not compel a particular decision by the agency or prevent the agency from concluding that other values outweigh the environmental consequences of a proposed action. Clean Wisconsin, Inc. v. PSC, 2005 WI 93, 282 Wis. 2d 250, 700 N.W.2d 768, 04-3179.

1.11 Annotation In Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Inc., 115 Wis. 2d 381 (1983), the court held that alone, the alleged non-environmental effects of the project did not necessitate an environmental impact statement (EIS). However, that holding does not undermine the principle that indirect environmental effects may on their own become “significant” and necessitate an EIS. Applegate-Bader Farm, LLC v. DOR, 2021 WI 26, 396 Wis. 2d 69, 955 N.W.2d 793, 18-1239.

1.11 Annotation Agency Decisionmaking Under the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. Hanson. 1977 WLR 111.

1.12 1.12 State energy policy.

1.12(1) (1) Definitions. In this section:

1.12(1)(a) (a) “Local governmental unit” has the meaning given in s. 19.42 (7u).

1.12(1)(b) (b) “State agency” means an office, department, agency, institution of higher education, the legislature, a legislative service agency, the courts, a judicial branch agency, an association, society, or other body in state government that is created or authorized to be created by the constitution or by law, for which appropriations are made by law, excluding the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.

1.12(2) (2) Conservation policy. A state agency or local governmental unit shall investigate and consider the maximum conservation of energy resources as an important factor when making any major decision that would significantly affect energy usage.

1.12(3) (3) Goals.

1.12(3)(a) (a) Energy efficiency. It is the goal of the state to reduce the ratio of energy consumption to economic activity in the state.

1.12(3)(b) (b) Renewable energy resources. It is the goal of the state that, to the extent that it is cost-effective and technically feasible, all new installed capacity for electric generation in the state be based on renewable energy resources, including hydroelectric, wood, wind, solar, refuse, agricultural and biomass energy resources.

1.12(3)(c) (c) Afforestation. It is the goal of the state to ensure a future supply of wood fuel and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide by increasing the forested areas of the state.

1.12(4) (4) Priorities. In meeting energy demands, the policy of the state is that, to the extent cost-effective and technically feasible, options be considered based on the following priorities, in the order listed:

1.12(4)(a) (a) Energy conservation and efficiency.

1.12(4)(b) (b) Noncombustible renewable energy resources.

1.12(4)(c) (c) Combustible renewable energy resources.

1.12(4)(cm) (cm) Advanced nuclear energy using a reactor design or amended reactor design approved after December 31, 2010, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1.12(4)(d) (d) Nonrenewable combustible energy resources, in the order listed:

1.12(4)(d)1. 1. Natural gas.

1.12(4)(d)2. 2. Oil or coal with a sulphur content of less than 1 percent.

1.12(4)(d)3. 3. All other carbon-based fuels.

1.12(5) (5) Meeting energy demands.

1.12(5)(a) (a) In designing all new and replacement energy projects, a state agency or local governmental unit shall rely to the greatest extent feasible on energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources, if the energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy resources are cost-effective and technically feasible and do not have unacceptable environmental impacts.

1.12(5)(b) (b) To the greatest extent cost-effective and technically feasible, a state agency or local governmental unit shall design all new and replacement energy projects following the priorities listed in sub. (4).

1.12(6) (6) Siting of electric transmission facilities. In the siting of new electric transmission facilities, including high-voltage transmission lines, as defined in s. 196.491 (1) (f), it is the policy of this state that, to the greatest extent feasible that is consistent with economic and engineering considerations, reliability of the electric system, and protection of the environment, the following corridors should be utilized in the following order of priority:

1.12(6)(a) (a) Existing utility corridors.

1.12(6)(b) (b) Highway and railroad corridors.

1.12(6)(c) (c) Recreational trails, to the extent that the facilities may be constructed below ground and that the facilities do not significantly impact environmentally sensitive areas.

1.12(6)(d) (d) New corridors.

1.12 History History: 1977 c. 29; 1993 a. 414; 2003 a. 89; 2005 a. 74; 2011 a. 7; 2013 a. 20; 2015 a. 344.