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
Who am I
Why is this rule here
What caused the rule to come around
This is no longer the typical shoreline, this is more and more the exception to “normal”

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

3. Lake quality & economics: Is there a connection?
David, Elizabeth L. Lakeshore property values: a guide to public investment in recreation. Water Resources Research, 4(4): Study of 2131 tracts of land on 60 lakes man made by damming a river. Found water pollution contributed 2-4% of land property value.
“More polluted lakes have less valuable property than do cleaner lakes.”
E.L. David, Water Resources Research, 1968

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.

5. Enjoying healthy lakes & rivers: Part of who we are in WI

6. Healthy shorelands make healthy lakes and higher property values
Healthy watersheds make healthy lakes and higher property values
The quality of our lakes and streams is ultimately a reflection of how we use and maintain our land.
A watershed is the land area that drains to a lake or stream. Waterfront property owners, inland residents, recreational users, agricultural producers and other businesses all can play a positive role in maintaining and improving the water quality of our lakes and streams.
How will shoreland stewardship practices affect your pocketbook? A recent study of over 1000 waterfront properties in Minnesota found that when all other factors were equal, properties on lakes with clearer water commanded significantly higher property prices.[1] In other words, people prefer clean water and will pay more to live on lakes with better water quality. What you and your neighbors do to sustain or improve water quality will improve resale potential. On the other hand, if water quality is degraded, lower property values may result.
This publication was developed for people who live on developed waterfront lots. It describes three opportunities to protect your property investment:
[1] Krysel, Charles et al. June Lakeshore property values and water quality: Evidence from property sales in the Mississippi headwaters region.
Healthy shorelands make healthy lakes and higher property values

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).

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!
Comments recorded, reviewed & summarized. Utilized to develop current rule. Between public listening session, public hearings and public comment period over 50,000 comments received total.

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, 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
Comments recorded, reviewed & summarized. Utilized to develop current rule. Between public listening session, public hearings and public comment period over 50,000 comments received total.

10. Counties going beyond 1968 law
Counties recognized inadequacies
Adopted higher standards
“New” ideas
16 counties have impervious surface stds
27 counties have shoreland mitigation
All blue and green counties have higher standards than NR 115
Map by Wisconsin Lakes

11. What standards have stayed the same?
Lot sizes
Shoreland setbacks
Shoreland buffer sizes
The goal of proposed revisions to NR 115 is to balance public rights to fishing and hunting, water quality and natural scenic beauty on lakes and streams with private property rights

12. What standards have changed & why?
Shoreline buffers
Impervious surface limits
More flexibility for nonconforming principal structures
Mitigation requirements

13. Shoreline buffers 1968 law New NR 115 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”
The first 35 feet from the OHWM is the most critical location for all three program objectives. Without better protection levels in this small zone we will see continued rapid degradation of the public rights and resource values.
The balance is struck on existing properties by not mandating any changes in how properties are currently maintained. This is a long-term code therefore as properties make improvements that require permitting the way the property is used may have to change to meet the minimum standards. This is a personal choice that will be made over time.

14. Stronger buffer language because
Greater understanding of buffers/native plants and what they do…compared to lawns. Bluegrass circled.

15. Minimum buffer size stayed at 35 feet

16. Adapted From: Wisconsin DNR
18x 5x 6x
Phosphorus Inputs
Runoff Volume
Sediment Inputs 4x
If we look at an undeveloped lakeshore lot based on a model simulation we understand that generally:
there is a natural, baseline amount of stormwater, phosphorus, and sediment that enters the lake from that property.
If you took the same lot and put a small, primitive cabin on it, leaving most of the vegetation intact,
the amount of water runoff and phosphorus stays about the same, but sediment inputs from that lot increase by a factor of 4.
Now, if you intensely develop that lot, removing much of the native vegetation and adding large amounts of impervious surface,
Runoff volume increases by 5 times, phosphorus increases by 6 times, and there is 18 TIMES MORE SEDIMENT going into the lake as compared with an undeveloped lot of the same size.
And remember, sediment is not only a pollutant in and of itself, it is the vehicle for pathogens, heavy metals, and nutrients.
NOW, if this house on the right was the only house on the lake, its overall impact on the lake would most likely be negligible… But that’s not often the case, which means we are very concerned about a phenomenon we call…
This is based on WI DNR slide show (‘Margin of Error’) graphic. – this does not include P inputs from septic systems – surface runoff only.
be careful here…do the current zoning laws allow this? Things were actually worse in the 60s before we had zoning.
Adapted From: Wisconsin DNR

17. Effects of impervious surfaces
A strong national economy, growth in discretionary income and jobs that allow us to work away from our office have set in motion some exceptional circumstances. This trend has been building since World War II, but the impact has been particularly dramatic over the past three decades. So many people want to live away from cities and near the water that the demand is driving property prices sky-high. (Waupaca Chain of Lakes)
In some northern counties, property values have increased as much as 400% in the past five years. In Vilas County, shoreland selling for $225 per foot of shoreline in 1990 is going for more than $1500 today. In 1973, a 10 bedroom, 6 bath resort with 200 feet of frontage on the great Manitowish Chain in Vilas County had a $45K asking price.
Effects of impervious surfaces
Erosion
More pollutants entering water
Increased algae growth
Fewer fish & insect species

18. Southern redbelly dace
Increasing impervious surface in the watershed
Decreasing number of fish & fish species
Less than 8%
8-12%
Greater than 12%
Fish found in streams when impervious surface in the watershed was:
Less than 8%
8 - 12%
Greater than 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
Creek chub
Fathead minnow
Green sunfish
White sucker
Brook stickleback
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
2008 study of 164 WI lakes found the same trend
From Wang, Lyons et al., JAWRA, 36:5, , 2000
From warmwater streams
. In a study of 164 Wisconsin lakes, researchers found that both the number of fish species and the number of small-bodied intolerant fishes was lower in when there were higher levels of impervious surfaces within 330 ft of the water or within the entire watershed of the lake, when adjusted for lake type and location in the watershed. Intolerant fish are species that are sensitive to diminished water quality, sedimentation, and other forms of habitat degradation. Garrison, Paul et al. Implementation and interpretation of lakes assessment data for the Upper Midwest. Final report to the U.S. EPA. Grant No. X November pp.47-48
Wang et al. 2000

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
Remember that the shoreland zone is 300 ft. from any rive or stream and 1000 ft. from any lake.
Of course, if a property owner wishes to exceed the 30% cap, applying for a variance is an option.
This proposal seeks to halt any further expansions of impervious surfaces while allowing a landowner to have a well maintained usable property in exchange for addressing water quality through approved methods (mitigation). This increases property values and water quality for a positive impact.
Habitat and scenic beauty are challenged by the location of the activity however all reasonable efforts will be made to enhance this right a well.

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

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
The current 50% rule came from the city zoning laws and will continue within those laws and ordinances. When in a shoreland area the water does not care what size and type door you have or the type of window on the structure rather the water cares that the structure is there.
The new proposal significantly reduces the potential variance requests for existing non-conforming structures while holding a higher level of protection for the resource.
In the primary buffer this proposal seeks to halt any further expansions of impervious surfaces while allowing a landowner to have a well maintained usable property in exchange for addressing water quality through approved methods (mitigation). This increases property values and water quality for a positive impact.
In the secondary buffer the same goal is achieved while allowing expansions to the structure landward from the waterbody when impervious limits are not exceeded. This too will demand protection of water quality through approved methods (mitigation).
Habitat and scenic beauty are challenged by the location of the activity however all reasonable efforts will be made to enhance this right a well.

24. For principal structures that extend beyond the water setback, expansion is allowed beyond the water setback is allowed if the impervious surface stds will be met.

25. Principal structures located >35 feet from OHWM may be replaced within the existing building envelope. Mitigation required, including removal of all accessory structures <75’ from OHWM.

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
The current 50% rule came from the city zoning laws and will continue within those laws and ordinances. When in a shoreland area the water does not care what size and type door you have or the type of window on the structure rather the water cares that the structure is there.
The new proposal significantly reduces the potential variance requests for existing non-conforming structures while holding a higher level of protection for the resource.
In the primary buffer this proposal seeks to halt any further expansions of impervious surfaces while allowing a landowner to have a well maintained usable property in exchange for addressing water quality through approved methods (mitigation). This increases property values and water quality for a positive impact.
In the secondary buffer the same goal is achieved while allowing expansions to the structure landward from the waterbody when impervious limits are not exceeded. This too will demand protection of water quality through approved methods (mitigation).
Habitat and scenic beauty are challenged by the location of the activity however all reasonable efforts will be made to enhance this right a well.

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
Removing accessory structures less than 75’ from OHWM
1-3 points
Narrowing viewing corridor
Reducing shoreland lighting
Removing shoreline structures such as firepits, beaches
Other practices agreed to by zoning administrator
Up to 2 points
The current 50% rule came from the city zoning laws and will continue within those laws and ordinances. When in a shoreland area the water does not care what size and type door you have or the type of window on the structure rather the water cares that the structure is there.
The new proposal significantly reduces the potential variance requests for existing non-conforming structures while holding a higher level of protection for the resource.
In the primary buffer this proposal seeks to halt any further expansions of impervious surfaces while allowing a landowner to have a well maintained usable property in exchange for addressing water quality through approved methods (mitigation). This increases property values and water quality for a positive impact.
In the secondary buffer the same goal is achieved while allowing expansions to the structure landward from the waterbody when impervious limits are not exceeded. This too will demand protection of water quality through approved methods (mitigation).
Habitat and scenic beauty are challenged by the location of the activity however all reasonable efforts will be made to enhance this right a well.

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

29. Resources to help with shoreland ordinance revisions
Compilation of counties’ ordinance language for mitigation and impervious surface
UW-Extension educational assistance: written materials, posters, presentations
$5K grants from DNR for ordinance revisions

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
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 zoning staff, WI County Code Administrators, UW-Extension and DNR grants

31. Comments, questions??
Lynn Markham Land Use Specialist
NR 115 administrative rule
/rsb/code/nr/nr115.pdf