( ) Ripples

Volume 6
Spring 2011
((
( (
(
(
(
Ripples
Issue No. 1
)
)
) )
)
)
)
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association’s Newsletter
OCLRA’s Mission: to protect and preserve the quality and riparian habitat of the
inland waters of Oneida County.
President’s Message
Bob Martini, OCLRA President
Winters in the Northwoods are long. This last one was EXTRA L-O-N-G! There were 93 days where
the HIGH for the day was below freezing. On the plus side there were only 36 days with a low temperature below zero. We had snow in frequent abundance. The first snow fell on October 21, 2010 and we
tallied 92 inches of the white stuff for the season. We experienced 104 days with at least a trace of
snow – compared to the historical average of 40 days.
With winter behind us and the ice off of the waters, we again turn our attention to an activity critical to
the protection and preservation of our waters – preventing or controlling aquatic invasive species (AIS).
To facilitate this objective on a county-wide basis, Oneida County has recently hired a new AIS Coordinator to replace Lawrence Eslinger who resigned in December of 2010.
Michele Sadauskas is presently a limited term employee pending County Board authorization of a fulltime position for an AIS Coordinator. She has had to ―hit the ground running‖ since many of the tasks
begun by Lawrence remain undone. Michele graduated from the University of Wisconsin College of
Natural Resources at Stevens Point with degrees in forest management and biology. Her classes included many credit hours in aquatic ecosystems – ranging from limnology to watershed management.
You can reach her at 715-365-2750 or by e-mail at msadausdas@co.oneida.wi.us.
All of the counties in Wisconsin are required to modify their shoreland protection ordinances by February
1, 2012, to comply with the state’s revised Shoreland Protection Program approved early this year.
Since July of 2010, OCLRA has worked diligently to provide input to the County’s Planning & Zoning
Committee and the County Board of Supervisors on shoreland protection ―best practices.‖ To that end,
OCLRA directors have attended all of the P&Z Committee’s meetings where revisions to the County’s
Shoreland Protection Ordinance (SPO) have been on the Committee’s agenda.
Our efforts have included: Proposing the formation of a Shoreland Resources Advisory Committee (SRAC) to be made up of unpaid volunteers representing the principal stakeholders in the welfare
and protection of Oneida County’s waters. The purpose of the SRAC would have been to identify desirable and appropriate changes to the county’s SPO. This advisory committee concept was patterned
after the very successful approach employed by Bayfield and Langlade Counties in revising their respective shoreland protection ordinances. Despite the fact that the SRAC would serve at no cost to the
Oneida County and could provide valuable insight into desirable SPO provisions, it was rejected by the
County Board of Supervisors.
OCLRA encouraged the County to apply for grants available from the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources. These grants were made available by the WDNR to help fund the costs of SPO
revisions. The Board of Supervisors chose not to apply for these available grants because ―they might
have strings attached.‖
Continued on Page 2
Page
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
OCLRA encouraged the P&Z Committee to include a waterway classification system in the revised SPO. Waterway classification is a system of categorizing lakes, rivers and streams by their
unique characteristics – and the sensitivity of their waters to development. Nineteen other counties in
Wisconsin currently have a waterway classification system in place. Oneida County’s original SPO
passed in 2000 did include a waterway classification system. The SPO was revised in 2001 to remove
the waterway classification provision.
OCLRA believes that waterway classification is a fundamental element of protecting the shorelands and waters
of Oneida County. Nevertheless, this recommendation
was rejected by the P&Z Committee. In a recent unanimous decision by the P&Z committee, a remnant of the
old lake classification code (from 2000) was removed
which provided more protection to lakes of less than
50acres. Oneida County has 1,132 lakes of which 938 are lass than 50 acres. This means that an existing more protective shoreline protection provision will be removed for more than 80% of Oneida
County's lakes! This change results in a severe reduction in the protection provided to our waterways
by allowing unrestricted development on lakes of 50 acres or less.
“. . .an existing more protective
shoreline protection provision will
be removed for more than 80% of
Oneida County's lakes!”
OCLRA encouraged the P&Z Committee to consider the successful provisions and practices of
other Wisconsin counties rich in water resources. These include Ashland, Bayfield, Langlade and
Lincoln Counties. The P&Z Committee rejected this recommendation on the basis that there was nothing new to be learned from what other counties were doing.
It is clear from the discussions of SPO revisions in the P&Z Committee meetings that the Committee’s
intent is to draft a SPO that is in minimal compliance with the state’s Shoreland Protection Program.
This intended approach is verified by public statements made by Committee members and certain members of the Board of Supervisors. The bottom line is that the revision process being followed by the P&Z
Committee is extremely shortsighted because they are not looking at the ―big picture‖ – the desired objective of protecting Oneida County’s precious water resources. As a result the end product will be the
bare minimum necessary to meet the provisions of the
state’s Shoreland Protection Program. To incorporate On the positive side, the P&Z Committee has, on several occasions,
the conditions necessary to preserve and protect the
waters of Oneida County the final SPO must recogchosen a more protective option on
nize their importance to the County’s economic, recminor points discussed for revision.
reational and aesthetic values.
OCLRA will continue to attend P&Z Committee meetings and will continue to introduce best practice
concepts into the discussions. Our goal is to have a positive impact on the final SPO draft.
Public hearings on the SPO draft will be held later this summer and this fall. I encourage our members
to become familiar with the provisions of the SPO draft and to attend the public hearings. Our waters
are far too precious to accept a ―watered-down‖ version of a Shoreland Protection Ordinance.
OCLRA's annual meeting will be held on June 11th at Nicolet College from 9 am to noon in the theater.
The educational program following our short business meeting will include a presentation by an expert
from the University of Wisconsin – Madison Department of Real Estate Management that will summarize
the extensive research they have conducted on the effect of lake quality on shoreline property values in
northern Wisconsin. Also on the agenda will be Tom Blake, Regional Shoreland Specialist, who is responsible for shoreline protection for the WDNR in 26 northern Wisconsin counties. Tom will discuss
how to best protect lake quality ( and therefore shoreline property values) by properly designing and enforcing shoreland protection ordinances. These two speakers will show how strong shoreland zoning
and property values are related. I'm sure the Q&A discussion session will be lively and informative.
Continued on Page 3.
Page 2
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
OCLRA now has member lake associations, individuals and governmental units representing more than
5,000 families and individuals. This aggregate body of people who care about the protection and preservation of our waters gives us more clout when advocating for Oneida County waters. Our goals are to
protect and preserve the lakes and rivers of Oneida County by educating our members and their respective memberships, advocating for our waters before the various political jurisdictions, and serving the
needs and guidance of our members. Let us know how we can help you.
Bob Martini, President
Save the Date! OCLRA Annual Meeting June 11, 2011!
OCLRA’s 2011 Annual Meeting will be held on June 11, 2011 in the Learning Resource Center of Nicolet College in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.
Meeting Agenda
8:30 AM — 9:00 AM:
Registration
9:00 AM — 9:45 AM
Business Meeting
Roll Call — Connie Anderson, Secretary
Reading/Approval of Annual Meeting Minutes of June 19, 2010
Financial Report — Rob Hagge, Treasurer
President’s Report — Bob Martini
Nominating Committee Report — Connie Anderson
Unfinished Business
New Business
Nominations to the Board of Directors
Election of Directors
Membership Open Forum
Adjournment
9:45 AM — 10:00 AM Break
10:00 AM — 10:45 AM
Special Presentation: ―The Impact of Lake Quality on
Property Values‖
10:45 AM — 11:30 AM
Special Presentation: ―Shoreland Zoning Code Revisions
Under NR 115‖
11:30 AM — Noon Open Forum: speakers’ question & answer session
Nicolet College’s Campus is located one mile south of Rhinelander just off of Hwy G. Take Hwy G south
from US Hwy 8. Look for the Nicolet College sign and entrance on the west side of Hwy G
(approximately 0.7 miles south of the Hwy 8 and Hwy G intersection). The LRC is building #5 on campus. Follow the entrance road down a hill and turn to the right. The LRC is located on the left side of
the road across from a large parking area. We hope to see you there!
Page 3
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
State of Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board
Forum on County Implementation of the State’s
Revised Shoreland Protection Program
Summary prepared by Robert Mott, OCLRA Vice President
The state Land and Water Conservation Board convened a forum at the Marathon County Library on
April 4, 2011 to hear presentations on the day-to-day workings of shoreland zoning. Tom Rudolph, a
member of the Oneida County Board of Supervisors and the state Land and Water Conservation Board,
convened this important forum.
The state’s Shoreland Protection rule, as revised, was enacted to:
Provide for the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions and prevent and control water
pollution;
Protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life;
Control building sites, placement of structures and land uses; and
Preserve and restore shoreland vegetation and natural scenic beauty.
Mr. Rudolph noted that the state has charged each county to revise its shoreland zoning ordinance to
agree with the minimum standards set forth in the state’s revised Shoreland Protection Program (NR
115) approved by the legislature in early 2011. These revisions must be completed and the revised ordinance implemented by February 1, 2012. In response to this
More than 30 Wisconsin counties
state mandate the Oneida County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution asking the State of Wisconsin to repeal
have instituted ordinances more
the revised NR 115 and return to the previous version.
protective of their shorelands than
the state’s requirements. Oneida
The first speaker, Lynn Markham, Shoreland Land Use SpeCounty is not one of them.
cialist, UW Extension, UW Stevens Point, pointed out that
since 1998 more than 30 Wisconsin counties have reviewed
the 1966 state Shoreland Protection rules and felt that they did not offer adequate protection for their
lakes and rivers. These forward thinking counties revised their ordinances to improve protection for their
waterways well before the state enacted its revised Shoreland Protection rules. Most of these counties
used a lakes classification system to protect more sensitive waters.
Lake Water Quality and Property Economics
A Minnesota study was cited that documented that a drop in a lake’s water clarity by three feet resulted
in a decrease in property values by tens of thousands of dollars.
History of the Revisions to the State’s1966 Shoreland Protection statutes
Began in 2002 with 28 member Advisory Committee
Over 25 listening and comment sessions were held statewide
Over 14,000 public comments logged
New county ordinances need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and in place by February 1, 2012
Shoreland Buffer Zone
The purpose of a vegetative shoreland buffer zone is to protect water quality, fish and wildlife habitat
and natural scenic beauty, and to promote preservation and restoration of native vegetation. Without a
minimal buffer zone, six to seven times the nutrients from shore properties would enter the lake. For
example, one pound of phosphorus will produce 500 pounds of algae in a water body. Existing properties do not have to put in a buffer zone unless the homeowner rebuilds, adds square footage, remodels,
or makes other changes to the building footprint.
Continued on Page 5.
Page 4
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
Impervious Surfaces
The purpose of setting impervious surface standards is to protect water quality and fish and wildlife habitat and to protect against pollution of navigable waters. The state’s Shoreland Protection rules limit the
impervious surface of a lot within 300 feet of the ordinary high water mark to 15% of the lot size. Concerns regarding impervious surfaces voiced at the forum included warmer water runoff negatively impacting cold water fish; runoff sediments clogging fish spawning beds; and sediment-clouded water reducing the feeding success of sight-feeding predator fish.
Oneida County has one of the weakest shoreland protection ordinances in the state. This despite the fact that
the county has the second most lakes and waterway resources. The county’s relatively strong SPO which became
effective in 2000 was systematically dismantled from 2001
through 2006 by 40 amendments.
History of Oneida County’s Zoning
Karl Jennrich, Director of Oneida County’s Planning & Zoning Department, outlined the history of property zoning in Oneida County:
In 1933 Oneida County was the first county in Wisconsin to establish zoning regulations
The original reason for property zoning in Oneida County was to prevent people from building in outlying areas and thus reduce the costs of associated road building, snowplowing,
bus services, etc.
In November 1970 the county established its first Shoreland Protection Ordinance
In 1994 the county obtained a state grant to revise and update its 1966 ordinance
The county held 70 meetings to obtain public input into the proposed ordinance.
In 2000 revised Shoreland Protection Ordinance went into effect. This revised SPO included a lake classification system. The lake classification system was removed by amendment in 2001.
From 2001 through 2006 the SPO was systematically dismantled by some 40 amendments
that peeled back the restrictions contained in the SPO.
To date the P&Z Committee has met 14 times to revise its SPO to agree with the state’s
revised Shoreland Protection rules.
OCLRA’s Comments on Oneida County’s SPO Revision Process
Bob Martini, OCLRA’s President, discussed the importance of a strong SPO and OCLRA’s efforts to influence Oneida County’s SPO draft:
The OCLRA was formed so that more than 5,000 lake association members in Oneida
County could speak with one voice. This group seeks to influence area government to protect water resources.
There are over 1,100 lakes and rivers in Oneida County and up to 70% of local tax revenue
comes from shoreland property supporting government functions in Oneida County.
The Shoreland Protection Ordinance of Oneida County has been altered from a strong protection document that existed in 2000 through many piecemeal amendments to a greatly
weakened document today.
Continued on Page 6.
Page 5
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
The chronology of OCLRA’s efforts to aid the Planning and Zoning Committee in its task of rewriting the
Shoreland Zoning ordinances to agree with NR 115 were described by Mr. Martini:
OCLRA recommended an equal role for the Land and Water Conservation Committee with
the Planning & Zoning Committee in rewriting the Shoreland Protection Ordinance. This recommendation was voted down 14-5 by the Oneida County Board.
OCLRA offered to develop an advisory committee made up of individuals representing all
vested interests to help rewrite the ordinance. The County Board declined the offer.
OCLRA recommended that the County apply for grants available from the WDNR to help
fund the costs of SPO revision. The County Board declined.
The P & Z Committee recommended and the County Board approved a resolution that
called for the state to repeal NR115 and return to the previous version.
OCLRA Directors have attended all of the SPO drafting sessions held by the P & Z committee. OCLRA Directors have offered information and reaction to the changes proposed in
these drafting sessions based on known ―best practices‖ from other Wisconsin counties.
OCLRA suggested that the committee develop a philosophy and goals to guide it through
the revision. This happened and has helped focus the discussion.
OCLRA developed and provided the committee with a matrix of issues to focus and inform
the group in their efforts at revision. This information appeared to be well received.
The P&Z Committee’s current plans call for three listening sessions to be held at the end of
the process. OCLRA has recommended that some hearings be held before the draft SPO is
completed.
Langlade County’s Shoreland Protection Ordinance Revision Process
Langlade County’s views on the process of revising shoreland protection ordinances were provided by
Becky Frisch, Director of Langlade County’s Land Records and Regulations Department:
Langlade County revised its current shoreland protection code starting in 1996.
They formed a Shoreland Resources Advisory Committee made up of representatives of
each of the main stakeholder groups in water quality and shoreland protection. The SRAC
identified two main problems:
Overdevelopment of lakes’ shoreland
The lack of restrictions on undeveloped lakes
To address these two main problems, a lake classification system for all lakes was instituted.
A detailed booklet showing main shoreland rules and explaining why the rules were implemented was prepared and distributed to the public.
The key to Langlade County’s success in implementing its SPO is that anytime a permit is
required the landowner must restore water quality, habitat, and the natural beauty function
of the shoreland buffer area. These requirements are reinforced by periodic inspections to
insure that the work has been done.
Bayfield County’s Shoreland Protection Ordinance Revision Process
Bayfield County’s views on the process of revising shoreland protection ordinances were provided by
Karl Kastrosky, Director of Bayfield County’s Land Records and Regulations Department:
The state’s shoreland protection rules needed revision. The key to public acceptance is to
educate the public on the reasons for the update. Enforcement of the resulting ordinance is
equally important.
Mr. Kastrosky expressed surprise that Oneida County was operating ―in a vacuum‖ in revising its Shoreland Protection Ordinance.
It was clear from the comments by Bayfield and Langlade Counties that public and stakeholder
involvement in the revision process had prevented the problems experienced by Oneida County.
Page 6
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
The Major Issues in Shoreland Protection
OCLRA directors analyzed the state’s revised Shoreland Protection Program and provided the P&Z
Committee with a matrix of the issues; the state’s required compliance and the rationale for the state’s
requirement; and suggested alternative protective practices. The information provided by OCLRA in that
matrix is provided below.
Impervious Surfaces
Definition: An area that releases as runoff all or a majority of the precipitation that falls on it. It excludes frozen soil but includes rooftops, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots and streets unless specifically designed, constructed, and maintained to be pervious.
Rationale for Regulating: Impervious surfaces don't allow water to infiltrate into the ground naturally,
thereby creating high water flows which cause flooding and/or erosion, increasing sediments in lakes
and streams. Fine sediment can transport naturally occurring nutrients such as phosphorous that can
have an adverse effect on water quality. Minimizing impervious surfaces on a shoreland lot reduces the
potential for runoff.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: The program restricts the amount of
impervious surface to 15% on all lots within 300 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of any
navigable water. The program does permit a maximum of 30% impervious surface if mitigation (see
elsewhere) is completed.
Alternative Protective Practices: Design and implement a water management plan acceptable to the
P&Z Department staff. A well-defined mitigation plan can allow options, permitting flexibility (which
might include a shoreline buffer, run-off diversions or rain gardens). Set maximum square footage and/
or 15% whichever greater (4,500 square feet) with no more than 15% within 300 feet of OHWM.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
Setbacks/”Averaging”
Definition: A specified distance that a structure must be set back from the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) or from the side lot line.
Rationale for Regulating: Shoreline and side lot setbacks will protect vegetated buffer zones, reduce
runoff into the waterway, create a better view of the water from the home, separate structures from each
other allowing for greater privacy, screen structures when viewed from the water, reduce effects of prevailing winds by leaving a windscreen of vegetation and reduce noise levels.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: The ordinary setbacks of 75 feet from
the OHWM is mandated with only a few exceptions (described elsewhere under boat houses, walkways,
lifts, etc.) A reduced setback (averaging) procedure is described for new principal residence structures
proposed for an area with an existing development pattern. The adjacent lot structures used for averaging must be within 250 ft of the proposed structure and may not be reduced to less than 35 ft from the
OHWM.
Alternative Protective Practices: A well-defined mitigation plan can allow options, permitting flexibility
(which might include a shoreline buffer, run-off diversions or rain gardens). Lake classification systems
often have setbacks of 75, 100 and 125 feet based upon the protective needs of the water body. Consider allowing no averaging for setbacks from OHWM.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
Page 7
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
Mitigation
Definition: Mitigation means balancing measures that are designed, implemented and function to restore natural functions and values that are otherwise lost through development and human activities.
Rationale for Regulation: In exchange for permitting an addition to a legal pre-existing structure, mitigation is required to restore the natural values of a shoreline. The goal of these mitigation requirements
is to restore the benefits of a healthy, functioning buffer zone. Benefits of mitigation include:
A shoreline rich in diverse vegetation to curb runoff and enhance wildlife habitat.
A shoreline where structures blend in with natural surroundings thereby enhancing aesthetic
appearance.
An upgraded wastewater treatment system that meets water quality standards.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: The County shall issue a permit that
requires a mitigation plan that shall be approved by the County and implemented by the property owner
by a date specified in the permit. The mitigation plan shall include enforceable obligations of the property owner to establish mitigation measures that the County determines are adequate to offset the impact of the permitted expansion on water quality, near-shore aquatic habitat, upland habitat, and natural
scenic beauty. The mitigation measures shall be proportional to the amount of impacts of the replaced
or relocated structure being permitted. The obligations of the property owner shall be evidenced by an
instrument recorded in the office of the County Register of Deeds.
Alternative Protective Practices: Require shoreland restoration plans for all new permitted construction sites. Do not permit exceptions for new construction inside the 75 ft setback. Require that the
waste water treatment system be upgraded to code. A well-defined mitigation plan can allow options,
permitting flexibility (which might include a shoreline buffer, run-off diversions or rain gardens).
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
Non-Conforming Structures/Lots
Definition: Structures or properties that exist when a new ordinance takes effect and the structures/lots
do not conform to the articles of the new ordinance are considered "non-conforming."
Rationale for Regulation: The standards for legal pre-existing structures recognize the need to allow
for some improvement to structures while not allowing major construction that would result in replacement of structures that do not meet setback and other shoreland standards. Development that does not
meet current shoreland development standards can be detrimental to water quality due to runoff pollution, can negatively affect the vegetative protection area, or can create a shoreline where structures are
likely to be visible from the water. By minimizing building expansions while allowing for reasonable use
of the structure, the waterway is protected.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: Conditions of replacement/relocation:
Use has not been discontinued for a period of 12 months or more.
No other location is available on the property
No portion of new structure can be located closer to the OHWM than current structure and is
at least 35 feet from OHWM.
A mitigation plan (see elsewhere) must be approved and implemented by a specified date.
Vertical expansion is allowed if at 35 feet from OHWM, has not had discontinued use for 12
months, cannot be taller than 35 feet, and mitigation is required.
Horizontal expansion is allowed if structure is 35 feet from OHWM and meets the 75 foot
setback and has not had discontinued use for 12 months.
May expand landward, horizontally or vertically.
Continued on Page 9.
Page 8
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
Non-Conforming Structures/Lots (continued)
Alternative Protective Practices: Allow ordinary maintenance and repair. Require non-conforming
accessory structures not in legal setback area to be removed as part of permit process. Allow no expansion closer to the water than landward façade of existing structure within 75 feet of the OHWM. Restrict
total area allowed in new additions. Lake classification systems would allow for varying allowances.
Allow flexible proposals that move toward the overriding goals and principles expressed in the purpose
of the ordinance.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
View Corridor/Buffer Zone/Shoreline Restoration
Definition: Buffer zone is a 35 foot area back from OHWM where natural vegetation is allowed to grow.
--View corridor is an area of access to the water body through the buffer zone (35 feet from OHWM)
where trees and shrubs may be removed. The reverse (shoreline restoration) is the return of a barren
shoreline area to a natural buffer zone.
Rationale for Regulation: Preserving layers of trees, shrubs and groundcover plants will help control
runoff from buildings and impervious surfaces and provide food, cover and nesting sites for birds and
wildlife. The three layers also screen the cottage or house when viewed from the water, creating privacy.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: A view corridor can be created by removing trees and shrubs in the vegetative buffer zone provided the combined width on a riparian lot may
not exceed the lesser of 30 percent of the shoreline frontage or 200 feet. The property must maintain a
35 foot buffer zone from the OHWM and prohibits removal of vegetation. (The county may allow removal to manage exotic or invasive species, damaged vegetation, vegetation to control disease, or
vegetation creating imminent safety hazards, providing the vegetation removed be replaced by replanting in the same area as son as practicable.)
Alternative Protective Practices: none recommended.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: Oneida County’s current SPO is congruent with the
minimum state requirements.
Soil Disturbance/Grading
Definition: Any moving of soil or other surface material during or after construction on a riparian lot.
Rationale for Regulation: Plants and trees help hold soil and prevent erosion, especially on steep
slopes. Removing them as you construct your home increases the chance for soil erosion. Soil erosion
can lead to structural damage, reduces soil fertility, and harms lakes and rivers by causing excess sedimentation, killing aquatic bottom life, and disrupting spawning. The sediment, with accompanying nutrients, leads to algal blooms, decreases lake depth, and reduces aesthetic appeal.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: filling, grading, dredging, ditching and
excavating may be permitted but only in accordance with numerous other state and federal statutes.
Any soil disturbance or grading allowed must be done in manner designed to minimize erosion, sedimentation and impairment of fish and wildlife habitat and natural scenic beauty.
Alternative Protective Practices: Require erosion control practices for all construction and/or soil disturbance activities. Require conditional use permits for all soil disturbance activities. Prohibit disturbance on severely sloped lots.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
Page 9
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
Lot Size
Definition: Usually the minimal lot size that would allow development of dwellings for human habitation.
Often described in width dimensions and total square footage.
Rationale for Regulation: Lot size guidelines are closely tied to the impervious surface guidelines.
The larger the lot size, the more flexibility is provided to the property owner to avoid any environmental
problems.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: "Sewered lot" - minimum width 65 feet
and 10,000 square feet. "Unsewered lots" (lots not served by public sanitary sewer) shall have a minimum average width of 100 feet and a minimum area of 20,000 square feet. Substandard lots (lots legal
when created but not legal with current requirements) can be used as a building site under certain conditions:
lot has never been reconfigured or combined with another lot
lot has never been developed with a structure on adjacent lot
lot meets all other ordinance requirements.
Alternative Protective Practices: Define minimal width dimensions as perpendicular to side lot lines
and not following the curve of the OHWM. Make minimum lot size dimensions larger especially within a
lake classification system.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
Boathouses/Shelters/Docks
Definitions: A permanent structure used for the storage of watercraft and associated materials and
includes all structures which are totally enclosed, have roofs or walls or any combination of these structural parts.
Rationale for Regulation: Excess number of structures or unduly large structures add visual clutter to
the shoreland from the water and can interfere with the positive effects of a continuous buffer zone.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: Boathouses located entirely above the
OHWM and entirely within the access and viewing corridor that do not contain plumbing and are not
used for human habitation are exempted from shoreland setback. Boathouses used for human habitation and the construction or placing of boathouses beyond the OHWM of navigable waters shall be prohibited.
Alternative Protective Practices: Prohibit construction of any new boathouses. Lake classification
systems would allow for varying boathouse regulations.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: Oneida County’s current SPO is congruent with the
minimum state requirements.
Wetlands
Definition: Those areas where water is at, near or above the land surface long enough to be capable of
supporting aquatic or hydrophytic vegetation, and which have soil indication of wet condition. A shoreland-wetland zoning district is a zoning district created as a part of a county shoreland zoning ordinance
comprised of shorelands that are designated as wetlands on the Wisconsin wetland inventory maps prepared by the DNR.
Rationale for Regulation: Wetlands serve as nature's ultimate filters. Their role as buffers in aquatic
ecosystems is immeasurable. Wetlands also serve as vital habitat to many animal and plant species.
Disturbance or destruction of wetland areas has major consequences on lakes and rivers in the entire
watershed area.
Page 10
Continued on Page 11.
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
Wetlands (continued)
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: Counties shall adopt shoreland ordinances that include zoning regulations for shoreland-wetland zoning districts. Procedures are specified
in other state statutes.
.Alternative Protective Practices: Allow wetland enhancement measures to be used as mitigation
(such as conservation easements to prohibit future development in wetlands, restoration of natural water
regimes in degraded wetlands, enhancement of fish or wildlife habitat in wetlands, etc.)
Add wetland protection to the Purpose section of the ordinance (and list the values of wetlands).
Waive or grant without fee, permits for wetland restoration by landowners within a project
funded or authorized by DNR, USFWS, DU, Oneida County, etc.
Allow flexibility to grant permits that do not conform to code but protect or enhance wetland
function.
Define "buildable areas" and designate wetlands as unsuitable for development.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
Height Limits
Definition: Limits imposed on the height of any structures.
Rationale for Regulation: an excessive building height can create a structure out of scale or proportion with the rest of the property or surrounding properties.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: No structure taller than 35 feet within
75 feet of OHWM of any navigable water.
Alternative Protective Practices: No structure taller than 28 feet within 75 feet of OHWM of any navigable water.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: no definitive language has been developed.
The following two items are not addressed in the state’s Shoreland Protection rules, but they are
items that should be considered for incorporation into Oneida County’s Shoreland Protection
Ordinance.
Retaining Walls/Shoreland Protection Structures
Definition: Any shoreland alterations other than maintaining natural buffer strips. This can include any
human activity/structure altering the natural buffer zone on a shore.
Rationale for Regulation: Maintaining natural buffer strips limits the need to alter the shore with a hard
engineered structure. Retaining walls have a negative visual impact and are discouraged because of
their unnatural appearance and high failure rate. In many cases, keeping existing vegetation in place or
supplemental plantings along the shoreline minimizes soil erosion and enhances fish and wildlife habitat.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: This issue is not specifically addressed
in Wisconsin’s Shoreland Protection rules. Removal of trees and shrubs in the vegetative buffer zone to
create access and viewing corridors is allowed but may not exceed the lesser of 30% of the shoreline
frontage or 200 feet. Retaining walls and other structures are not allowed except as approved within a
stringent mitigation plan.
Continued on Page 12.
Page 11
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
Retaining Walls/Shoreland Protection Structures (continued)
Alternative Protective Practices: Rip-rapped or bioengineered structures allowed with DNR permits
only and should require a detailed mitigation plan. Removal of rip-rapped or poorly designed structures
can be a component of a mitigation plan.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: This issue has not been addressed in Oneida County’s
draft SPO.
Shoreland Lighting and Signage
Definition: Artificial lighting / signage from the shore of a riparian lot that is visible over the water.
Rationale for Regulation: Unshaded outdoor lighting and signage placed to be visible from the water
are disruptive to the natural scenery and interfere with the activity of wildlife.
Wisconsin’s Minimum Shoreland Protection Requirements: This issue is not specifically addressed
in Wisconsin’s Shoreland Protection rules.
Alternative Protective Practices: Commercial signs visible from the water should be restricted or prohibited. Exterior lighting should be shielded to provide light to a specific property area.
Oneida County P&Z Committee’s Draft SPO: Oneida County’s current SPO contains outdoor lighting
and signage restrictions.
The C.O.O.L. kids received the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s President’s
Environmental Youth Award for their Clean Our Oneida Lakes project. Bob Martini, President of
OCLRA, presented the award certificates.
Receiving the award from Bob Martini on May 1st were front L-R Brett Knudsen,
Joey Mixis, Ryan Willging and Trevor Ringwelski. Back L-R Adam Piasecki, John
Knudsen, Luke Lenard, Colton Funk, Kyle Lenard, Dylan Smith and Nate Kretlow.
Missing from the photo were Luke Wegehaupt, Simon Martinez, Matt
Kenote, Taylor Fawley, Nate Schoone, Michelle Huttunen and Ben Klosiewski.
Page 12
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
GET THE LEAD OUT!
An editorial from one of our members
With the fishing opener upon us, I’d like to remind fellow anglers that lead in fishing tackle poses a danger to our waterfowl. As we know from news articles on the recalls of children’s toys containing lead
that ingestion of lead can be fatal. The same applies to our feathered friends.
Loons, our endangered Trumpeter Swans and the Bald Eagles are among the species that are impacted. Just one lead sinker can kill a bird. Last year a Pelican Lake eagle succumbed to lead poisoning despite the heroic efforts of Marge Gibson and staff at the Raptor Center.
Bans on lead tackle are proposed across the nation. Large lobbying groups such as Fishing for America
are fighting these challenges to lead based on the cost factor to the fisherman. What they are not telling
you is scientific data exists that supports that our birds do die from lead tackle. Just ask Marge.
What they also are not telling you is that we all have an ethical choice to stop using lead. Lead alternatives include tin, bismuth, steel, tungsten or ceramic. Fleet Farm carries alternative non-lead tackle and
will continue as long as we purchase it. Sure, they are more expensive but if we all replace our lead at a
pace we can afford in the end we will have the greatest reward knowing we are protecting our resources
and that possibly we saved a loon or an osprey or an eagle’s life.
Lori Regni
Pelican Lake
Page 13
Volume 6
Spring 2011
Issue No. 1
WVIC License Review Deadline is June 20, 2011!
The Wisconsin Valley Investment Company (WVIC) is a state and federally licensed company made up
of utilities and paper mills owning dams in the Wisconsin River basin. It controls the water levels of 54
lakes and flowages in the Wisconsin River. It's license duration is 30 years so there is an operational review every five years to identify issues that may change over the life of the license. WVIC has
produced a review document which summarizes operations over the past five years and allows the public to comment. OCLRA has attended the review meetings and has all the WVIC documents. Examples
of the kind of issues covered in the review include flows, lake levels, land management, fish and wildlife
management, AIS control, access and recreation facilities, water quality monitoring, drought management, etc. Lakes managed by WVIC in Oneida County include the Rainbow, Willow and Rice Flowages,
the Minocqua Chain, the Sugar Camp Chain, the Three Lakes Chain, Squirrel Lake, the Pelican River
Chain, and Pickerel Lake. If you are interested in any of these waters you might want to review the
documents. I have copies of all the WVIC reports and will try to explain the process if anyone wishes to
provide comments to WVIC. You can contact me at 715-282-5896 or through e-mail at
kvicmart@newnorth.net.
Bob Martini
Oneida County Lakes and Rivers Association Newsletter
Visit our Website
The OCLRA website is hosted by the Oneida County University of Wisconsin Extension in Rhinelander.
To access our website:
Enter www.OCLRA.org into your Internet browser
When you get to the Blue webpage that says ‖Click of the Link Below,‖ this link will take you
to the Oneida County UW-Extension webpage. There is a sunset at the top of the page and
―Oneida County‖ in big white letters.
Just below the sunset photo is a yellow banner line with a selection of categories. Roll your
mouse pointer over the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT title and you will see a drop-down
menu. ONEIDA COUNTY LAKES AND RIVERS ASSOCIATION is the second item down.
Click on that title and it will take you to the OCLRA page.
Ripples is on our website – read it there. Tell your friends and association
members! Email Ripples to them!
OCLRA’s Board of Directors
Bob Martini, President, 715-282-5896
Bob Mott, VP, 715-487-4212
Connie Anderson, Secretary, 715-282-5798
Rob Hagge, Treasurer, 715-356-9660
Chuck Faber, Ripples Editor and
Director, 715-369-1894
Stephanie Boismenue, Director, 715-365-4040
William Jaeger, Director, 715-277-2493
Jean Roach, Director, 715-487-5449
Norris Ross, Director, 715-546-2250
Jane Wierschem, Director, 715-356-3468
Bob Williams, Director, 715-277-3114
OCLRA is a non-profit organization dedicated to the
protection and preservation of Oneida
County’s lakes and rivers. Our newsletter,
Ripples, is published twice a year. To become an
association or individual member of OCLRA, please
visit our website and complete the Membership Application. Dues are invoiced annually in January.
Dues can be paid by mailing payment to our post
office box at P.O. Box 451, Hazelhurst, WI 54531
Page 14