281.36(12)(d)1.1. The department, by rule, may charge a supplemental fee that is in addition to a fee charged under this subsection if all of the following apply: 281.36(12)(d)1.a.a. The applicant requests in writing that the decision on the application be issued within a time period that is shorter than the time limit promulgated under subd. 2. for the decision. 281.36(12)(d)1.b.b. The department verifies that it will be able to comply with the request. 281.36(12)(d)2.2. If the department promulgates a rule under subd. 1., the rule shall contain a time limit for making decisions on the application. 281.36(12m)(12m) Local regulation of nonfederal or artificial wetlands. A local government may not enact an ordinance or adopt a resolution regulating a matter regulated under sub. (3n) (d) 1. or (3r) (a) (intro.) or (am), with respect to a discharge exempt from permitting requirements under sub. (4n) (b) or (c), or a matter regulated under sub. (4n). If a local government has in effect on March 30, 2018, an ordinance or resolution regulating nonfederal wetlands or artificial wetlands, the ordinance or resolution does not apply and may not be enforced. 281.36(13)(a)(a) Whoever is concerned in the commission of a violation of this section for which a forfeiture is imposed is a principal and may be charged and found in violation although he or she did not directly commit the violation and although the person who directly committed it has not been found in violation. 281.36(13)(b)(b) A person is concerned in the commission of the violation if the person does any of the following: 281.36(13)(b)3.3. Is a party to a conspiracy with another to commit the violation or advises, hires, counsels, or otherwise procures any person to commit it. 281.36(13m)(13m) Report to legislature. No later than January 31, 2003, and no later than January 31 of each subsequent odd-numbered year, the department shall submit to the legislature under s. 13.172 (2) a report that provides an analysis of the impact of the implementation of mitigation on wetland resources and on the issuance of permits or other approvals under ss. 59.692, 61.351, 61.353, 62.231, 62.233, 87.30, 281.11 to 281.47 or 281.49 to 281.85 or ch. 30, 31, 283, 289, 291, 292, 293, 295, or 299. The department shall include in its report a discussion of proposals and projects under the property development grant program under s. 23.099. 281.36(14)(a)(a) Except as provided in par. (b), any person who violates any provision of this section shall forfeit not less than $100 nor more than $10,000 for the first offense and shall forfeit not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 upon being found in violation of the same offense a 2nd or subsequent time. 281.36(14)(b)(b) Any person who violates a wetland general permit issued under sub. (3g) shall forfeit not less than $10 nor more than $500 for the first offense and shall forfeit not less than $50 nor more than $500 upon being found in violation of the same offense a 2nd or subsequent time. 281.36(14)(c)(c) A violation of any condition contained in a wetland general permit issued under sub. (3g) is a violation of the statute under which the general permit was issued. 281.36(14)(d)(d) In addition to the forfeitures specified under pars. (a) and (b), a court may order a defendant to abate any nuisance, restore a natural resource, or take, or refrain from taking, any other action as necessary to eliminate or minimize any environmental damage caused by the defendant. 281.36(14)(e)(e) Each day of a continuing violation is a separate offense. 281.36(14)(f)(f) The department may follow the procedures for the issuance of a citation under ss. 23.50 to 23.99 to collect a forfeiture for a violation of this section. 281.36 HistoryHistory: 2001 a. 6; 2005 a. 253; 2011 a. 118, ss. 43, 45 to 47, 49 to 55, 57 to 118, 122, 123, 127 to 137, 141; 2013 a. 1, 20, 69, 80; 2013 a. 151 s. 27; 2013 a. 166 s. 77; 2013 a. 168, 173; 2015 a. 387; 2017 a. 21, 58, 59, 115, 118, 183; 2017 a. 365 s. 112; 2019 a. 59; 2023 a. 111. 281.36 Cross-referenceCross-reference: See also chs. NR 300, 351, 352, and 353, Wis. adm. code. 281.36 AnnotationOnce a violation of sub. (2) (a) [now sub. (3b) (b)] is proven, Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654 (1998), sets forth a rebuttable presumption that the court should grant an injunction. The state is not required to prove particular instances of environmental harm to obtain an injunction. Once a violation is proven, it is the defendant who must establish compelling equitable reasons not to grant injunctive relief. State v. CGIP Lake Partners, LLP, 2013 WI App 122, 351 Wis. 2d 100, 839 N.W.2d 136, 12-2346. 281.36 AnnotationSub. (3n) (b) 5. requires that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) consider the net positive or negative environmental impact of a proposed project before deciding to issue a wetland-fill permit. This consideration is necessary for DNR to meet the mandate in sub. (3n) (c) 3. that it may issue a wetland-fill permit only if it determines that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In this case, the permit stated that DNR lacked sufficient information to enable it to assess the proposed project’s net positive or negative environmental impact. Accordingly, DNR improperly issued the permit without being able to consider the proposed project’s net positive or negative environmental impact, contrary to sub. (3n) (b) 5. Meteor Timber, LLC v. Division of Hearings & Appeals, 2022 WI App 5, 400 Wis. 2d 451, 969 N.W.2d 746, 20-1869. 281.36 AnnotationThe legislature has set a tight timeline for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to process a wetland-fill permit application, and the legislature has mandated that at the end of that timeline DNR must decide to issue or deny the permit and explain in the case of a denial why the permit does not meet statutory standards or is incomplete. The applicant in this case pointed to no statutory language authorizing DNR to issue a permit if it had not received sufficient information within that timeline. In that situation, the legislature has provided that DNR must deny the permit as incomplete, and the applicant may seek administrative and judicial review of that denial or submit a new application with all necessary information. Meteor Timber, LLC v. Division of Hearings & Appeals, 2022 WI App 5, 400 Wis. 2d 451, 969 N.W.2d 746, 20-1869. 281.36 AnnotationSub. (3n) (b) and (c) requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to consider the entirety of a proposed project when addressing a wetland individual permit, not just the wetlands within the proposed project. By its plain meaning, sub. (3n) (c) instructs DNR to determine whether a proposed project will result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functional values and water quality and whether the proposed project will result in other significant adverse environmental consequences. That review necessarily requires DNR to consider impacts beyond the physical footprint of directly impacted wetlands. For example, DNR must consider potential secondary impacts to wetland functional values and the net positive or negative environmental impact of the proposed project. Kohler Co. v. DNR, 2024 WI App 2, 410 Wis. 2d 433, 3 N.W.3d 172, 21-1187. 281.36 AnnotationWisconsin’s Wetland Reform Act. Kent & Lamb. Wis. Law. Feb. 2013.
281.37281.37 Wetland mitigation grant program.