Slide #1.

The New Shoreland Zoning Rule (NR 115): What Does It Mean For Your County? Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board Forum April 4, 2011 Lynn Markham Center for Land Use Education, UW-Stevens Point
More slides like this


Slide #2.

Outline for this session 1) Why care about shoreland zoning?  Economics of water lake and river protection  Fishing, swimming, etc. 2) What standards have changed and when do counties need to implement them
More slides like this


Slide #3.

Lake quality & economics: Is there a connection? “More polluted lakes have less valuable property than do cleaner lakes.” E.L. David, Water Resources Research, 1968
More slides like this


Slide #4.

Water quality & economics A study of over 1200 waterfront properties in Minnesota found when water clarity changed by 3 feet changes in property prices for these lakes are in the magnitude of tens of thousands to millions of dollars. Krysel et al, 2003.
More slides like this


Slide #5.

Enjoying healthy lakes & rivers: Part of who we are in WI
More slides like this


Slide #6.

Healthy shorelands make healthy lakes and higher
More slides like this


Slide #7.

Shoreland zoning history  June 1966, Water Resources Act passed  Legislature gave DNR general supervision over WI waters including a statewide shoreland zoning program for all unincorporated areas.  Deadline for county adoption of an ordinance was January 1, 1968.  By 1971, all counties had adopted and were administering a shoreland ordinance.  1980: NR115 amended to create minimum shoreland-wetland standards  Applied to cities and villages in 1981 through legislative directive (NR117).
More slides like this


Slide #8.

NR 115 Revision Efforts  2002: 28-member Advisory Committee formed to identify and discuss resource specific issues.  Included county reps and reps from public and private sector.  2003: 8 Public listening sessions on initial concepts  2005: First proposal taken to 11 public hearings and public comment period  1,200 comments during the public hearings & over 11,000 comments during the public comment period.  2007: 8 public hearings and public comment period  727 comments during public hearings & 1,654 additional comments during the public comment period.  Over 14,000 comments!
More slides like this


Slide #9.

NR 115 Revision Efforts Fall 2009 – Consensus on proposed rule by Realtors Assn, Builders Assn, WI Lakes and River Alliance. Legislative hearings. Approved by the WI Natural Resources Board. Feb. 1, 2010- Final rule went into effect setting minimum standards. Counties may adopt more protective standards. Feb. 1, 2012 – Counties need revised shoreland ordinances to meet new rule. 40counties have started revising their shoreland ordinances: zoning committee discussions to revise ordinances, open houses & public presentations Buffalo County Board passed their revised shoreland ordinance on March 1, 2011 Other counties have submitted their draft ordinances to the DNR for review
More slides like this


Slide #10.

Counties going beyond 1968 law Counties recognized inadequacies Adopted higher standards “New” ideas 16 counties have impervious surface stds 27 counties have mitigation Mapshoreland by Wisconsin Lakes
More slides like this


Slide #11.

What standards have stayed the same? Lot sizes Shoreland setbacks Shoreland buffer sizes
More slides like this


Slide #12.

What standards have changed & why? Shoreline buffers Impervious surface limits More flexibility for nonconforming principal structures Mitigation requirements
More slides like this


Slide #13.

Shoreline buffers 1968 law First 35 foot no clear-cut zone  No definition for clear-cut New NR 115 First 35 feet, no vegetation removal except  Access and viewing corridors  Shoreline restoration activities & invasive species control  Dead, dying or diseased when replaced with native vegetation  Sound forestry practices on larger tracts of land  Where mowing currently occurs counties may allow “keep what you have”
More slides like this


Slide #14.

Stronger buffer language because Greater understanding of buffers/native plants and what they do… compared to lawns. Bluegrass circled.
More slides like this


Slide #15.

Minimum buffer size stayed at 35 feet Recommended Shoreline Buffer Widths A Research Summary Nutrient control 13-141 Stormw ater runoff control 49-148 Fecal bacteria 76-302 Sediment control 10-401 Wildlif e habitat 33-657 0 200 300 400 500 35 ft. 100 NR115 Range of recommended buffer w idths in f eet based on (x) studies buffer Review of 52 U.S. studies by Aquatic Resource Consultants, Seattle WA 600 700
More slides like this


Slide #16.

Runoff Volume Phosphorus Inputs Sediment Inputs Adapted From: Wisconsin DNR 4x 5x 6x 18x
More slides like this


Slide #17.

Effects of impervious surfaces Erosion More pollutants entering water Increased algae growth Fewer fish & insect species
More slides like this


Slide #18.

8-12% Greater than 12% Less than 8% Increasing impervious surface in the watershed Decreasing number of fish & fish species Fish found in streams when impervious surface in the watershed was: Less than 8% 8 - 12% Iowa darter Black crappie Channel catfish Yellow perch Rock bass Hornyhead chub Sand shiner Southern redbelly dace Golden shiner Northern pike Largemouth bass Bluntnose minnow Johnny darter Common shiner Golden shiner Northern pike Largemouth bass Bluntnose minnow Johnny darter Common shiner Creek chub Fathead minnow Green sunfish White sucker Brook stickleback Creek chub Fathead minnow Green sunfish White sucker Brook stickleback Greater than 12% 2008 study of 164 WI lakes found the same trend Creek chub Fathead minnow Green sunfish White sucker Brook stickleback Wang et al. 2000
More slides like this


Slide #19.

Impervious surface standards What is an impervious surface?  An area that releases all or a majority of the precipitation that falls on it.  Includes rooftops, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, etc. What are the geographical boundaries of this standard?  Applies to property within 300-feet of any waterway What is the standard? Keep what you have Up to 15% impervious no permit is needed Between 15% - 30% ok with a permit and mitigation
More slides like this


Slide #20.

Impervious Surface Example 15% of 20,000 sq. ft. lot 1500 sq. ft. house footprint 740 sq. ft. garage 660 sq. ft. driveway 100 sq. ft. sidewalk 3000 sq. ft. total
More slides like this


Slide #21.

Nonconforming Principal Structures Nonconforming structure is An existing structure that was lawfully placed when constructed but that does not comply with the required water setback Known in some counties as “legal, pre-existing structures” NR 115 provides increased flexibility for nonconforming structures in exchange for mitigation: Vertical expansion Horizontal and/or vertical expansion beyond the shoreline setback Replacement or relocation
More slides like this










Slide #26.

Shoreland mitigation Definition “balancing measures that are designed, implemented and function to restore natural functions and values that are otherwise lost through development and human activities What natural functions? Water quality, near-shore aquatic habitat, upland wildlife habitat and natural scenic beauty Mitigation is triggered by  Increasing impervious surfaces over 15%  Expanding nonconforming structures
More slides like this


Slide #27.

Shoreland mitigation A menu approach is common in 21 counties with mitigation Example Mitigation practice Points Buffer restoration 35 feet from OHWM 3 points Buffer restoration 10 feet from OHWM 1 point Rain garden to capture runoff 1 point Removing accessory structures less than 75’ from OHWM 1-3 points Narrowing viewing corridor 1 point Reducing shoreland lighting 1 point Removing shoreline structures such as firepits, beaches 1 point Other practices agreed to by zoning administrator Up to 2 points
More slides like this


Slide #28.

Resources to help with shoreland ordinance revisions County zoning staff with 5-15 years of experience with impervious surface standards & mitigation WI County Code Administrators NR 115 revisions guidebook Draft on-line & presented at WCCA conference last week Final version within 2 weeks
More slides like this


Slide #29.

Resources to help with shoreland ordinance revisions Compilation of counties’ ordinance language for mitigation and impervious surface www.wisconsinlakes.org/policy/pdf/CountyImp vSurfaceMitigationOrdinanceExamples.pdf UW-Extension educational assistance: written materials, posters, presentations $5K grants from DNR for ordinance revisions
More slides like this


Slide #30.

Summary Healthy, natural shorelands provide healthy lakes with good fishing and higher property values 30 counties revised their shoreland ordinances to more effectively protect lakes and rivers from 1995-2005 Counties need to revise their shoreland ordinances to comply with NR 115 by February 1, 2012 40 counties have started revising their shoreland ordinances to comply with NR 115 Assistance is available through experienced
More slides like this


Slide #31.

Comments, questions?? Lynn Markham Land Use Specialist [email protected] u 715.346.3879 NR 115 administrative rule http://legis.wisconsin.g ov /rsb/code/nr/nr115. pdf
More slides like this