Jesse SchombergCindy HagleyDiane DesotelleUniversity of Minnesota Sea Grant

Sue O’HalloranUniversity of Wisconsin Extension

Building Superior Coastal Communities

Jesse SchombergCindy HagleyDiane DesotelleUniversity of Minnesota Sea Grant

Sue O’HalloranUniversity of Wisconsin Extension

Editors: Sharon Moen and Marie ZhuikovGraphic Designer: Nick ZlonisInformation Specialist: Debbie Bowen

Photography –cover: Minnesota Sea Grantfollowing page (top, middle): Minnesota Sea Grantfollowing page (bottom): USDA Forest Servicepage 3: Minnesota Sea Grantpage 4 (trout image): USDA page 5: Minnesota Pollution Control Agencypage 10 (second and third from top), 15:

University of Minnesota Metropolitain DesignCenter

page 16: University of Minnesota Extension Servicepage 23 (rain garden): Superior Wastewater

Treatment Plantpage 23 (poplar condos): Wayne Seidelpage 24 (flower): Leaning Pine Native

Landscapingpage 24 (barn): Bayfield Regional Conservancypage 25: Minnesota Land Trust

Product number: WQ 42006

For additional copies, contact:

Minnesota Sea Grant2305 East 5th StreetDuluth, MN 55812-1445

Phone: (218) 726-8106Fax: (218) 726-6556seagr@d.umn.eduwww.seagrant.umn.edu

Minnesota Sea Grant is funded by the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration andthe University of Minnesota.

The University of Minnesota is committed to thepolicy that all persons shall have equal accessto its programs, facilities, and employmentwithout regard to race, color, creed, religion,national origin, sex, age, marital status, disabili-ty, public assistance status, veteran status, orsexual orientation.

This project was funded in part under theCoastal Zone Management Act, by NOAA’sOffice of Ocean and Coastal ResourceManagement, in conjunction with Minnesota’sLake Superior Coastal Program, and theUSEPA’s Office of Smart Growth

Many thanks to Wayne Seidel, Christine Ostern,Fitz Fitzgerald, and Ruth Oppedahl for helpreviewing this document.

Building Superior Coastal Communities

1

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A Superior Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Following Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Watch the Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Take Charge of the Future . . . . . . 10

A Visit to “Clearwater” . . . . . . . . . 11

Conservation Design . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Local Examples of Innovation . . . 22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Online Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction

Submerged under saltwater…layered withlava…scoured by mile-high glaciers…the histo-ry of the landscape of the Lake Superior regionis as varied and colorful as the progression ofseasons across its current cloak of temperateforest. Lake Superior, born of ancient GlacialLake Duluth whose old shoreline can be foundhigh on the ridges of the North Shore, haschanged over time, also: species have waxedand waned; peoples have come and gone;water levels have risen and fallen. Whether bynatural or human forces, a common theme forthe Lake Superior watershed is change.

There are many things we still do not fully com-prehend, but humans are at a point in thisdynamic history where we have an unprece-dented understanding of the natural environ-ment, and an ability to predict the conse-quences of the alterations we make to it.Knowledge coupled with foresight gives us themeans to create and evaluate options for pro-tecting our resources as our communities growand the environment changes.

Changes to this region and its human popula-tion are inevitable. It is our hope that this bookwill give you a better understanding of howthese changes may affect your community andLake Superior, and provide you with ideas andtools to help your community plan for thesechanges.

2

What makes the Western Lake Superior regionsuch a desirable place to visit, live and raise afamily? Many opinion surveys1 have supportedwhat most of us, if asked, would put on a list:

• Spectacular natural beauty

• Superb outdoor recreational opportunities

• Healthy woods, lakes, and streams where wecan hunt, fish, and explore

• Strong sense of community

• Abundant natural resources supporting aneconomy partially built on mining, forestry,recreation, and tourism.

As more people discover the Northland, ourchallenge is to plan for a future that accommo-dates growth and a healthy economy while pro-tecting the high quality environment that makesthis a superior place.

When we think of Lake Superior, we often thinkin superlatives – coldest, deepest, biggest –with good reason. Lake Superior, the largestlake in the world by area, holds a staggering10% of the world’s increasingly precious freshwater.2 The enormity of the lake and smallnumbers of people living in its western basinmake it tempting to think that our activitieshave little or no impact. Not so! This giant of alake is surprisingly sensitive to disturbance.Equally sensitive to disturbance, the land sur-rounding Lake Superior involves steep streamslopes, thin and infertile soils, easily erodedsandstone bluffs and stream channels, andfragile coastal wetlands.

To understand why the Lake Superior Water-shed (right) is so susceptible, we need to lookback in time. The region has a fiery past, and ithas a frozen one – lava flowing over a billionyears ago cooled into thick layers of basalt,which glaciers sculpted into cliffs and groundinto sand. Thousands of years later, roughly28% of Lake Superior's U.S. shoreline contin-ues to exist as cliffs and exposed bedrock.Sandy glacial deposits have become theApostle Islands and Bayfield Peninsula inWisconsin. Large lakes left by retreating gla-ciers deposited the red and grey clays thatcover the South Shore of the lake. These claysoils line the ecologically important wetlandsthat cover 14% of Lake Superior’s U.S. coast-line, mostly on the South Shore.3

Consider the following:

• It takes 191 years for the tremendous volumeof water in Lake Superior to be refreshed fromrainfall and inflows. This means that pollutantscan remain in the lake for a very long time.

• Lake Superior, cold and low in nutrients, can-not support as much or as many differentkinds of plant and animal life as can the otherGreat Lakes.

• Most of Lake Superior is very deep, makingthe water rimming the “nearshore” even morevaluable. These warmer shallows support thefood web, especially on the wetland-richSouth Shore, where they provide high qualitynursery habitat and spawning grounds forfish.

A Superior Place

3

Lake Size g 31,700 miles2

Watershed Size g 49,300 miles2

Volume g 3,000,000,000,000,000 gallons

Deepest Point g 1,332 feet

Average Water Temperature g 40°F

Lake SuperiorWatershed Canada

Wisconsin

Ashland

Thunder Bay

Sault Ste. MarieMarquette

Marathon

Duluth

Michigan

Lake Superior

Minnesota

Covered primarily by temperate forests, theLake Superior Watershed rests on shallowbedrock. Heavy clay soils, and steep gradi-ents make it susceptible to human impacts.

Watershed — an area of land that drainsto a particular lake or stream; watershedscan be defined at various scales (forexample, the Lake Superior Watershedcontains thousands of smaller water-sheds, each draining to a particular lakeor stream).

4

Impacts

Human activities within the Lake SuperiorWatershed have frequently harmed water quality,both currently and historically. In some ways,we are still living with the legacy of past landuse activities.

As Europeans settled the region in the mid1800's, the Lake Superior Watershed—lands,streams, and wetlands—dramatically changed.Logging and farming removed much of the for-est cover, which resulted in an increase in the

Impact What Does it Do?

Increased RunoffLand alterations increase the rate andamount of runoff from the watershed

Causes flooding, carries pollutants,erodes stream channel and banks, anddestroys stream habitat

Excessive SedimentDirt and sand washing from pavedsurfaces or eroding from banks anddisturbed ground accompanies storm-water runoff and increased stream flows

Smothers aquatic habitat, depletesoxygen, reduces water clarity, and car-ries nutrients and toxic contaminants

Increased NutrientsExcess fertilizers on lawns or fields,failing septic systems, and animalwaste add nitrogen and phosphorous

Stimulates excessive algae and aquaticplant growth, lowers dissolved oxygenlevels, degrades aesthetics and nativeaquatic life

Increased Water TemperatureWarmer water running off of impervioussurfaces, removal of streamside vegeta-tion, and reduction in groundwater flowscauses streams to become warmer

Harmful to trout and other cold waterspecies, promotes spread of invasivespecies and excessive algae andaquatic plant growth, reduces dis-solved oxygen levels in water

BacteriaUndesirable microorganisms can enterwaters through failing septic systems,sewer overflows, and animal (includingpet) waste

Some are harmful to humans, untreat-ed waste can cause numerous dis-eases

Toxic Contaminants/Heavy MetalsMercury, pesticides and herbicides,industrial by-products (i.e. dioxin),cleaning compounds, and leaking vehi-cle fluids poison waters

Harmful to humans and aquatic life atfairly low levels; many resist breakdownand some accumulate in animal tis-sues, and can lead to mutations or dis-eases

volume and velocity of water entering streams.Stream channels changed – erosion increasedin upper reaches while sedimentation increaseddownstream. One Wisconsin study suggestssediment loads increased five-fold due todeforestation during this time.4 Gravel beds,required for fish spawning and home to aquaticinsects, were filled in with these fine sediments.Streams in our area remain sensitive to erosion,partly because of the damage that occurred inthe 1800's.4

5

Red clay sediment from the Nemadji Riverempties into Lake Superior. The Nemadji andother streams were heavily impacted by landclearing activities around the turn of thecentury, which destabilized the stream chan-nels, rendering them even more susceptibleto erosion from increased runoff.

The forests that grew back along much of LakeSuperior’s shore helped stabilize the soil, butland clearing, roads, and new construction con-tinue to quickly usher water into streams, oftencarrying pollutants and causing erosion.Stormwater also warms as it flows across hotpavement, sometimes enough to increasestream temperatures to degrees that canreduce or eliminate habitat for cold water fishspecies, such as trout. We also see rapidshoreline erosion along parts of the LakeSuperior coast, with some measurements sug-gesting shoreline losses exceeding 3 feet peryear in certain locations.5 Shoreline erosiondepends on soils, slope, wave action, and atleast two things we can control:

• Vegetative cover, and

• Shoreline stability

As homes and roads are built near the coast, thestability of the shoreline can be reduced becauseof increased runoff and the loss of vegetation.

Another human impact is an increase in nutri-ents reaching Lake Superior, its streams, andwetlands, resulting in excess algae or aquaticplants. Nutrient-poor environments like LakeSuperior are especially sensitive to added nutri-ents from the watershed, as is evident to any-one who has slipped on algae-covered rocksalong a Lake Superior shore. Most of our activi-ties on land contribute plenty of hitchhikingnutrients, whether from failing septic systems,fertilizer, pet wastes, or other sources.

Summer runoff from impervious surfaces,such as roads, parking lots, or rooftops, canbe much warmer than stream water andaffect stream temperatures. We can see thisimpact in monitoring data for Tischer Creekin Duluth. After 1.4 inches of rain fell on theTischer Creek watershed on Aug 3, 2005 (airtemp: 73° F), the stream temperature jumped10° F in less than 30 minutes at the streammonitoring site, which lies below significantimpervious surfaces that drain into TischerCreek through the storm sewer system.(Data from www.lakesuperiorstreams.org)

Algae growing in Amity Creek in Duluth, MN.Excessive algal growth like this indicatesincreased nutrients in the stream.

Tischer Creek Temperatures – August 3, 2005

1.2”

0.2” Optimum temperaturerange for brook trout

Upper temperaturelimit for brook trout

1 PM 3 PM 5 PM 7 PM 9 PM 11 PM50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Str

eam

Tem

per

atur

e(°

F)

Rainfall Stream Temperature

Following Trends

As we look toward the future, Lake Superior’scitizens and policy makers have a difficultassignment – to make land use decisions that:

• Consider the natural sensitivity of the LakeSuperior Basin’s environment

• Minimize the negative impact on naturalresources from increasing development andpopulation growth

• Maintain or improve the cultural and environ-mental qualities that people find attractive

At a community level, making thoughtful deci-sions necessitates an understanding of recenttrends and projections for our region’s demo-graphics, economies, and environmental quality.

We live in one of the less populated areas ofMinnesota and Wisconsin…but for how long?Minnesota and Wisconsin state demographerstell us we can expect to see growth in ourcoastal counties over the next 25-30 years,6with popular locations like Cook Countyexpected to add over 2,600 new residents by2030. With large areas of Lake Superior’scoastal counties in public ownership (particular-ly away from the lake), development pressurewill likely remain greatest along the coast.

6

Changes in Population and Housing6 (right)

Minnesota and Wisconsin demographershave tallied past population and housing

changes, and have predicted future popula-tion changes for this region. Past trendsshow significant growth over the last 15

years, with expectations for continuedgrowth in most of the region. The projec-

tions do not estimate increases in seasonalor recreational use, such as summer homesor condominiums. Values listed beneath the

bars are the total number of people and totalnumber of housing units by county. Between1990 and 2030, Cook County’s population isexpected to have more than doubled. 2004

housing data were estimated by the U.S.Census Bureau.

However, inland areas are not exempt fromdevelopment pressure. For example, the highridgeline on the North Shore and lands adjacentto the South Shore wetlands are coveted realestate. Adding roads and buildings increasesthe quantity and velocity of water flowing overthe land, and this can increase erosion ratesand destabilize the bluffs. Development alongbluffs or ridgelines also changes our visualimage of Lake Superior’s coast, and is of con-cern to many residents1 as views of unfrag-mented forestlands become interrupted withhomes, driveways, or towers.

Large land sales from timber, mining, andpower company holdings are another trendlinked to increasing development pressure andescalating land values. Natural resource man-agers estimate that nearly one million acres oflarge, undeveloped parcels of Minnesota forestspreviously open to the public are at risk ofbeing sold to investment companies, whichoften divide and re-sell the land. Subdivisionalong with the smaller tracts of private land thatare being built upon could reduce the areaavailable for recreation, fragment wildlife habitat,and increase the pressure on water resources.7

Ownership was summarized for both theentire area of the county that lies within the

Lake Superior Watershed and for all areas ofland within 1 km (0.62 miles) of the Lake

Superior shoreline. (right)

Who owns the watershed?

Private lands tend to be more concen-trated along the shore than other areasof the watershed. In some western LakeSuperior counties, up to 96% of theshoreline (areas within 1 km of the lake)is privately owned (St. Louis, Douglas).

Source: 1990 Great Lakes Ownership Database,Lake Superior Decision Support Project, NaturalResources Research Institute.

7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Cook Lake St. Louis Douglas Bayfield Ashland Iron

% more residents (1990-2005)

% more housing units (1990-2004)

projected population increase (2005-2030)

1

46%48%

20%

15%

10%7% 7%

2% 3%5%

3%

12% 12%9%

4%

9%

-5%

12%14%

3%-1%

4

Population Changes 1990-2005, Housing Unit Changes 1990-2004 and Population Projections 2005-2030

1842 863 2640 995 463 1700 4637 2415 14,950 2112 606 -583 1658 1286 541 598 776 1466 769 732 -368

14%

46%

35%

75%

50%

96%

74%

96%

66%

94%

55% 51%

55%

86%

% private land within the watershed

% private land within 1km of the shore

privately owned landsCook

Lake

St. Louis

Douglas BayfieldAshland Iron

A Comparison of % Private Land Ownership Along the Coast of Lake Superiorvs. Watershed-wide for Each County

Watch the Indicators

Scientists have discovered that you can get agood idea of how land use activities areimpacting water quality and quantity in ourlakes, streams, and wetlands by looking atwhat’s happening in the watershed. Threeenvironmental indicators used to predict landuse impacts on water quality at the scale of awatershed are:

• forest cover,

• water storage, and

• impervious surfaces.

With the help of computers and maps, each ofthese indicators can be measured or otherwiseassessed at different points in time (both pastand present), and can be predicted for thefuture. Development trend data, local zoningordinances, forestry practices, and othersources of information are used for these analy-ses. This kind of modeling can be useful to seewhat might lie ahead for our own communitiesand the Western Lake Superior Watershed.

8

Forest Cover:

What is this? The coniferous and deciduousforests that have dominated the Lake SuperiorBasin since the retreat of the glaciers play a keyrole in determining how much water runs off theland.

What does it do? As rain falls, the first thing ithits is often the leaf of a tree. Anyone who hasstood under a tree during a rainstorm knowsthat leaves can hold water: up to a half inch ofrainfall or more, actually.8 As rain starts tricklingthrough to the ground, the forest floor, with allthe old leaves and detritus, retains up to about4/10ths of an inch.8 Between the leaves andfloor, the forest can hold almost an inch of rain,but we’re not done! The roots of a tree, as theymove through the soil, create tiny pathways forwater to infiltrate into the ground (especiallyimportant in clay soils). These roots also helphold soil in place and prevent erosion.

What are the effects? Research on the histori-cal conditions along Fish Creek near Ashlandsuggests that the removal of forest cover led tofive times more sediment in the stream andfloods that were three times larger than aver-age. The effects are still evident in destabilizedbanks.4 Other projects in Minnesota andWisconsin have found that when “older” trees(trees at least 10-20 years) are removed frommore than half of the watershed, water qualitysuffers from increased sediment, nutrients, andwarmer temperatures,9,10 degrading habitat forfish and other aquatic organisms.

Environmental indicator — a qualitymeasured to assess the condition ofsome aspect of an ecosystem. A goodindicator is relatively easy and inexpen-sive to measure and gives a clear signalof condition. Environmental indicators canprovide early warning signals of environ-mental problems, allowing these prob-lems to be solved before they becomesevere and more expensive or impossibleto fix. (from glei.nrri.umn.edu)

Water Storage/Wetlands:

What is this? Storage in a watershed refers toanything that holds (or stores) water, such aslakes, ponds, streams, and, of critical impor-tance, wetlands. Some watersheds naturallyhave little storage, and some have more.

What do they do? Rainfall that reaches theground and starts running off is “stored” on thelandscape and kept from running immediatelydownstream. As the water is detained, sedi-ments drop out, nutrients and some other pol-lutants can be taken up or transformed byplants or bacteria, some of the water evapo-rates back to the atmosphere, and some caninfiltrate into the ground to become groundwa-ter. Wetlands are also critical habitat for manybirds, frogs, and other organisms.

What are the effects? When wetlands andother storage structures drop below 5-10% ofthe watershed area, Minnesota and Wisconsinresearchers have found significantly larger floodevents, more erosion, and more sediment andnutrients flowing downstream. Wetlands havealso been shown to reduce bacteria and met-als, such as lead, in downstream waters.11

9

Impervious Surfaces:

What is this? Impervious surfaces, such asrooftops, parking lots, gravel or paved roads,and sidewalks do not allow water to infiltratethrough them.

What do they do? Impervious surfaces providea surface for the accumulation of pollutants(such as dirt, oil, or grass clippings), prevent therecharge of groundwater and the natural pro-cessing of pollutants that can happen when incontact with soil and plants, may significantlywarm the water that flows across them, andmay provide an express route for runoff directlyinto nearby waterways. Impervious surfaces donot absorb water, and almost all of the rainfallruns off very quickly.

What are the effects? As surfaces becomeless permeable, they increase runoff, carryaccumulated pollutants, cause higher watervelocities, produce larger flood peaks, andcreate more erosion downstream. Less waterreturning to the ground may reduce the ground-water that feeds streams with cool water duringhot or dry periods, which is critical for maintain-ing trout populations. Impacts to water qualitybecome more apparent as the percent ofimpervious surfaces in a watershed increases to5-10% of the area; once 25% of the watershedis covered by impervious surfaces, severedegradation should be expected unless signifi-cant stormwater controls are implemented.12

A Note About Wetlands — Not all wet-lands are always wet! Some might be dryfor most or all of the year, and many havetrees or shrubs such as white cedar, blackash, alder, dogwood, or willow. Whileknowing your trees can help, defining awetland often requires the skills of a pro-fessional wetland delineator. Wetlands areofficially defined as having wetlands soils,wetland vegetation, and standing water orsaturated soils for at least part of the year.

Take Charge of the Future

As more people discover the beauty and qualityof life in this unique part of the world, what canWestern Lake Superior communities do toretain the region's environmental, aesthetic, andcultural qualities?

Getting Started

Most proactive communities develop a compre-hensive land use plan, containing a vision andgoals to guide development within the commu-nity, along with recommended strategies to helpthe community reach its goals. These strategiestypically include laws, such as zoning and sub-division ordinances, but may also include edu-cation and incentives, which are often forgotten.

A Missing Link

Conducting a natural resource inventory (NRI)before decisions are made about where devel-opment should be concentrated is an often-neglected aspect of community planning.Looking carefully at the natural resources inyour community with assistance from naturalresource experts helps determine what theresources encompass and how sensitive theyare. This information helps the communitydetermine areas that are:

• not suitable for development (e.g., wetlands,highly erodible lands, critical areas for wildlifehabitat or water quality protection)

• desirable for scenery or recreation (e.g.,parks, open spaces, or “viewsheds”)

• most appropriate for residential or commercialdevelopment (e.g., adequate soils for septics,proximity to utilities, main roads, or communi-ty centers)

• most suitable for natural resource-based uses(e.g., wild rice or maple syrup production,forestry, agriculture)

10

Relationship Between% Imperviousness and Water Quality

Stream Degradation

%W

ater

shed

Imp

ervi

ous

ness

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Degraded

Impacted

Protected

Natural Resource Inventory — a natu-ral resource inventory and assessmentidentifies and prioritizes the naturalresources that a community needs tomanage through its comprehensive planand operational strategies.13 See theMinnesota Department of NaturalResources’ Guide to Using NaturalResources Information atwww.dnr.state.mn.us/nrig.

As imperviousness in a watershed increases,more and more water that had infiltrated intothe ground or evaporated becomes directsurface runoff into nearby waterways.

Natural Ground Cover

10-20% ImperviousSurface

35-50% ImperviousSurface

10 % Runoff

20 % Runoff

30 % Runoff

50% Infiltration

42% Infiltration

35% Infiltration

40% Evapo-transpiration

38% Evapo-transpiration

35% Evapo-transpiration

The simulated Lake Superior community of“Clearwater” is anticipating the development ofan 80-acre parcel to accommodate growthpressures from second homebuyers andtelecommuters looking to move to the woods.Even though the community is hoping to grow,community members are also concerned aboutthe potential changes, and Clearwater’s leadersare reexamining their comprehensive plan; thistime, they are starting with a natural resourceinventory (above).

11

A close look at the natural resources on thislargely undeveloped parcel reveals a combina-tion of sensitive areas (wetlands, steep slopes,a trout stream), heavy clay soils where on-sitewastewater systems are problematic, scenicnatural features, and areas valuable for naturalresource management or wildlife habitat (sugarmaples, mature and unfragmented forests).

Wetlands (important forhabitat, water quality,flood protection)

Mature forests (habitat,water quality, scenery)

Heavy clay soils(septics, infiltration difficult)

Steep clay banks(sensitive to erosion)

Steep slopes along lowerstream(sensitive to disturbance)

Sugar maple ridgeline(sugarbush, views) Brook trout stream

(recreation)

Bedrock outcrop(scenic spot)

Coastal wetland at river mouth (important for habitat, water quality)

Existing unfragmentedforestlands (habitat, timber supply, water quality)

A Visit to “Clearwater”

Clearwater Natural Resource Inventory

Comprehensive Land Use Plan — oftenreferred to as a comprehensive plan, or‘comp plan’ for short, this document isthe basic foundation for local planning. Itlays out a community's vision and priori-ties and describes where, how, and insome cases when development willoccur. Comprehensive plans stipulate theultimate goals and the rules of the game:efficient transportation, adequate employ-ment, affordable and adequate housing,community and individual pride, andaccess to clean air, water and openspace. For more information, seewww.mnplan.state.mn.us/pdf/2002/UnderConstruction.pdf.

Planning Revisited

Clearwater leaders asked themselves whethertheir current community plans and associatedordinances would promote land use decisionson this 80-acre parcel that fit their community’svision and goals.

Clearwater’s first comprehensive plan containedthe following vision:

Clearwater desires to be a community that iswell managed, oriented towards the well-beingof its citizens, and in balance with its manynatural amenities.

Some of the goals written to help achieve theirvision included:

12

Forest Management

Single Family Residential:2 acre (no sewer/water)

Single Family Residential:1 acre (with sewer/water)

Suburban Residential:5 acre (no sewer/water)

Resort Commercial5 acre

Goal: Promote responsible developmentthroughout Clearwater to allow for use of theland while protecting environmental resources,green space, and quality of life.

Goal: Protect, enhance, or preserve naturalareas and scenic vistas when appropriate andachievable.

Goal: Clearwater’s natural, coastal, and agricul-tural areas are considered when development isproposed.

Their vision and goals demonstrate that thiscommunity values its natural environment andis seeking to balance economic developmentwith maintaining a quality environment.

Current zoning map, listing minimum lot sizes for residential areas.

A Hard Question

Zoning ordinances are one of the tools commu-nities use to achieve their visions and goals, soClearwater leaders next examined the zoningestablished for this parcel (above left). The zon-ing map reveals a mix of potential uses, rangingfrom 1- to 5-acre single family lots (many with-out access to municipal water and wastewatercollection), a small resort/commercial zone, andlimited forest management lands.

Clearwater leaders asked themselves a hardquestion – given what they learned from thenatural resource inventory about sensitive andhighly valued natural features, does the existingzoning truly help meet the vision and goals intheir community’s comprehensive plan?

13

As an exercise, they pretended that a developerapproached them with an intent to build thearea out to capacity. They generated a mapbased on the maximum developmentClearwater's ordinances would allow (a build-out map) and superimposed it on the naturalresource inventory (above). This new map pro-vided a way for them to look at potential envi-ronmental impacts, projected infrastructureneeds, or potential impacts on viewsheds,recreational opportunities, or other characteris-tics the community considers important.

Build-out map over the natural features.

When they shared this map at a public meeting,almost everyone noticed the loss of access tomany of the area’s most prized natural features.

“Since I was a kid I’ve fished thatstream," said one old-timer. "Will I stillhave access to it? How will the develop-ment affect the trout?”

“When they prepare the land for develop-ment, is there any way to keep fromclearing off all the mature sugar maplesthat my grandparents tapped?” askedanother.

“That land’s been managed for timberfor years; will there be any left? What’sgoing to happen to that stand of maturewhite pines?” inquired one other long-time resident.

Other concerns were voiced, such as possiblewater quality impacts, loss of scenic views ofthe maple–covered ridge as homes were built,loss of traditional hunting areas and trails, anderosion potential along Lake Superior andClearwater Creek. On the other hand, commu-nity members recognized the importance ofeconomic growth and community vitality, andthey wanted their community to grow. Therewere questions about the tax base, the costs of

14

Zoning District 1 acre 2 acre 5 acre Resort

# Homes 18 9 4 11

% Impervious 13% 10% 7% 4-40%+

Public Roads (ft) 1,896 1,463 637 none

providing services to this new development,and whether the existing utilities could handlethe increased strain.

With the help of local natural resource experts,they found out that except for some shorelandareas, potentially all of the mature forest couldbe removed under existing zoning laws. In addi-tion, impervious surfaces would increase by upto 13% in the residential areas and some of thewetlands (even though they’re protected byregulations) could be lost to roads, homes, andencroaching lawns. These changes would leadto increased runoff, which would carry nutri-ents, sediment, and other pollutants, andpotentially warm the waters of the troutstreams. This, plus increased erosion from con-struction near streams and wetlands, couldimpact fish habitat in the streams and in thecoastal wetlands and nearshore areas of LakeSuperior. The existing high-quality forest habi-tats would be fragmented, reducing habitat forimportant local wildlife and reducing availabletimberlands for traditional activities such as log-ging, maple sugaring, hiking, and hunting. Inaddition, remaining open space could be limit-ed to a 5-acre swath of public forest, therewould be no access to the lakeshore, anddevelopment along ridgelines could alter viewsfrom the lake and the road.

Build-Out Results for a Few Key Indicators, by Zoning District

15

Moment of Truth

As potential impacts accumulated, communityleaders looked back on the question theystarted with:

Does the existing zoning truly help meet thevision and goals in their comprehensive plan?

For this 80-acre parcel at least, the answerwas, “Maybe not.”

The community concerns raised by this map-ping exercise caused Clearwater leaders tomodify their vision and goals, wording them tobe more specific and adding action items asfollows:

Vision: Clearwater desires to be a communitythat is well managed, oriented towards the well-being of its citizens, and in balance with itsmany natural amenities promotes economically,environmentally, and socially responsiblegrowth, while maintaining its natural amenitiesand cultural resources for future generations.

Goal: Promote responsible innovative develop-ment throughout Clearwater to allow forresponsible use of the land while protectingenvironmental resources, green space, andquality of life.

Action Item: Develop codes to encourageflexibility in approaches to housing (e.g., den-sity credits, cluster developments) that willresult in more green/public space while main-taining overall development densities.

Goal: Protect, enhance, or preserve importantnatural areas and scenic vistas when appropri-ate and achievable as each new developmentis considered.

Action Item: Identify priority conservationareas, considering natural, recreational, andscenic values.

Action item: Discourage development thatimpacts priority conservation areas, and pro-vide incentives for development that protectsthese areas.

Goal: Clearwater’s natural, coastal, and agricul-tural areas are considered when development isproposed preserved, protected, restored, andenhanced using principles of sustainabilityand sound environmental science.

Action Item: Preserve the functional integrityof all natural drainage courses from impactsdue to increased stormwater runoff throughacquisition of drainage easements and otherinterventions as needed.

With their updated vision and goals in mind,they again examined the zoning for the 80-acreparcel asking, “Is there a better way to developthis parcel? Can we protect the resources iden-tified in the Natural Resource Inventory and stillencourage economically viable development?”

16

A Fresh Look

Spurred by the action items, the leaders decid-ed to start over, first by marking their priorityconservation areas on their Natural ResourceInventory (right). They shaded in:

• areas unsuitable for development or alreadyprotected (wetlands, stream corridors, coastalwetlands, steep clay banks)

• areas difficult or expensive to develop proper-ly (clay soils, steep slopes)

• land uses they wanted to retain (maple sugarforest, unfragmented forest for timber har-vesting, recreation, and wildlife habitat)

• land that they wanted to keep accessible toeveryone (bedrock cliffs overlooking LakeSuperior)

Then, they drew up a conceptual plan for theparcel. Could developers build on the parcel insuch a way that they would be able to sellenough home sites to make a profit? Aftersome careful thought, consultation withexperts, and community meetings, they cameup with a new plan:

1. Leave the commercial zoning in place butadd additional setback requirements fromthe lake, limit vegetation clearing, andrequire additional stormwater treatment.They reasoned that these changes would stillallow commercial development but limit distur-bance of the sensitive clay banks on the east-ern shore along Lake Superior, and would stillprovide the developer with prime views of thelake. They did not want to lose the economicpotential that commercial zoning would bring.

2. Maintain the northeast quadrant in forestmanagement. The community realized thatretaining this whole quadrant in forests, ratherthan dividing it up, would meet several of theircomprehensive plan goals by keeping intact alarge parcel of green space, providing wildlifehabitat, protecting Lake Superior water quality,and allowing for continued sustainable timberharvesting.

3. Encourage developers to use an innova-tive approach to laying out home sites calledconservation design. With this approach, thesame number of (or sometimes more) homespossible under the old zoning are built onsmaller lots outside of the priority conservationareas. The remaining land is placed under con-servation easement and typically managed by ahomeowner’s association as green space.

To meet septic requirements in the unseweredarea, the use of a community septic area wasproposed. By dedicating land for waste man-agement, the developers would then have achoice of clustering individual systems or hav-ing a community treatment system installed.Either choice made it possible for individual lotsto be smaller and for more efficient manage-ment of wastes. (To learn more about communi-ty septic options, see www.septic.umn.edu.)

17

Ridgeline

Mature forestsSteep slopes

Wetlands

Stream buffers

Conservation easements — legalagreements between a landowner and aland trust or government agency. Theagreements allow property owners tolimit or prohibit development on theirland. Conservation easements are per-manent and run with the title so that allfuture owners of the land are bound bythe original agreement. Conservationeasements can benefit the landowner byreducing property taxes, and can benefitthe community by maintaining publicamenities.

Interested in planning for your community'sfuture? NEMO, the Nonpoint Education forMunicipal Officials program, can provide youand your town with information and tools tomanage development while protecting the natu-ral resources of your community. ContactNorthland NEMO: www.northlandnemo.org.

Jesse Schomberg Minnesota Sea Grant: 218-726-6182

Sue O’HalloranUniversity of Wisconsin Extension: 715-394-8525

Important conservation areas

18

Conservation Design

Typically homes and natural features aren’t thefirst considerations in the land developmentprocess. Developers start by drawing in roadsand lot lines. When considering conservationdesign, outlining the natural features comesfirst, and finding great spots for the homescomes next. Conservation design usually fol-lows these steps:

1. Identify open spaces to be protected. Thisincludes primary conservation areas, such aswetlands where development is restricted, andsecondary conservation areas where develop-ment is allowed but discouraged. The remaininglands are the buildable areas.

2. Locate homes within buildable areas.Although the total number of homes can bedetermined in several ways, it is often set byhow many could be built under traditional zon-ing ordinances. Homes are often sited to maxi-mize views and connections with open spaces,and also to minimize impervious surfaces.

3. Locate streets and trails. Remember to addtrails! Trails can be the perfect option to con-nect neighborhoods, or to connect adjacentopen spaces.

4. Draw lot lines around the homes. Keepinglots sizes between 1/3 to 1/2 of the base zon-ing’s “minimum lot size” will maintain a highvalue for all the homes while reducing impervi-ous surfaces, road lengths, land clearing, andutility extension costs.

To learn more about conservation design, readRandall Arendt’s book “Growing Greener," andvisit the Minnesota Land Trust Web site atwww.mnland.org.

1

2

3

4

Economic Advantages of ConservationDesign (as compared to traditionalsubdivision development)14

Construction Costs Reduced 10-33%

Lot Premiums Increased by 25-30%

Appreciation Rates have been shown toincrease 12% faster over 20 years

Conventional Development:

Making It Work

Clearwater leaders had the task of ensuringthat natural and community resources wereprotected along with economic interests. Theywanted their community to grow, and now theyhad a plan for how they wanted it to grow: whatwere the tools they needed to make sure ithappened?

• Education – Encouraging and teaching indi-viduals or businesses to act consistently withthe goals, and why they are important for thecommunity.

• Incentives – Promote compliance with thegoals by providing tax breaks, fee reductions,technical assistance, density credits, or otherbenefits.

• Regulation – Modifying land use ordinances,which require individuals or businesses to actconsistently with the goal.

Clearwater decided that education would be akey component of implementing their new plan.Teaching people new ways to consider andmanage their land preserves individual propertyrights while maintaining the quality of theresources. Education also helps residentsunderstand why regulations are necessary toprotect water quality, maintain viewsheds, etc.,and can alleviate confusion over new rules.

Community leaders also looked at incentives toencourage landowners to participate. They setup technical assistance programs, started aprogram to purchase development rights inimportant or sensitive areas, and allowed thetransfer of development rights from areas des-ignated as sensitive, open space, or criticalhabitat to areas more suitable for development.These incentive-based programs generatecommunity green space and unfragmentedhabitat, while benefiting landowners throughdirect compensation or tax breaks. Participantsstill own their land and can continue traditionaluses such as logging, agriculture, or recreation.

While education and incentives go a long wayin making a community’s plan work, new andchanged regulations were required inClearwater. Their existing Planned UnitDevelopment ordinance didn’t adequately pro-mote clustered development or protect impor-tant resources. Their shoreland developmentstandards didn’t include performance standardsfor runoff, and they had no ordinances for

19

stormwater runoff or sediment and erosion con-trol. Clearwater leaders wanted to make surethe rules were fair and clear.

Note that model ordinances for communitiesare available from Northland NEMO, along witha program to help your community understandhow ordinances work, and how to make surethey’re tailored to fit your community’s needs.Visit www.northlandnemo.org.

Clearwater understood that they weren’t thefirst community to face these challenges. Asthey looked around the region, they foundexamples where communities and businesseshad successfully used innovative ways to dealwith development concerns. Some of theseexamples can be found starting on page 22.

Purchased development rights (PDR) —voluntary legal agreements that allowowners of land meeting certain criteria tosell the right to develop their property toa governmental unit or nonprofit organi-zation. A conservation easement isplaced on this land and the agreement isrecorded on the property title, limiting thefuture of the land to agriculture, logging,or other open space uses.

Transfer of development rights (TDR) —Rights enabled by a local or regionalordinance. TDR ordinances create asending area, or preservation area; and areceiving, or higher density, area.Landowners in the sending area receivedevelopment right credits, which theycan sell in exchange for not developingtheir land. Real estate developers canthen purchase development right creditsand use them to increase existing orplanned densities in the receiving areas.

Land acquisition — Used when landown-ers want to conserve their land by sellingor donating it outright to a public agency,and when acquisition meets a publicinterest need (such as public access orpublic management of an environmental-ly sensitive area). Both public and privatefunds are used in land acquisitions.

So how did the changes that Clearwatermade affect the 80-acre parcel?

The Transfer of Development Rights Programallowed the community to maintain the entirenortheast corner as forestland managed for tim-ber, and move the three homes that could havebeen built there to the other side of the river,where the homes would be denser but closer tocommunity services.

The owner of the lot between the river and thecommercial area agreed to sell her develop-ment rights to the land along the river and nearthe coastal wetland to the community, thus pro-tecting the steep banks along the river.

The commercial resort area remained much thesame, but increased setbacks protected theshoreline. Reduced height restrictions allowedthe builders to build "up" instead of "out,"which reduced building footprints. A more com-pact design required fewer roads. Innovativestormwater approaches treated the runoff andprotected the steep clay slopes from eroding.

Zoning changes de-coupled density from lotsize, and required smaller lots but retained theoverall number of houses. This allowed devel-opers options in designing their sites and madeit easier to protect sensitive resources.

North of the road, where sewer and water sys-tems existed, development was concentratedalong the side of the ridge, so the homes wouldhave fantastic views and the sugar maples onthe ridge top would be left.

Other homes were arranged to maximize viewsand access to open space, and to maintainwetlands and stream buffers.

Instead of curbs and gutters, rain gardens andvegetated swales were used to treat and infil-trate the runoff on-site, making sure the wet-lands and Clearwater Creek remained clean.

South of the road, a community septic areaallowed the homes to be clustered on smallerlots near the road to minimize impact to themature forest and wetlands, and avoid thesteep banks along Clearwater Creek. Runoffwas treated in two bioretention areas, to makesure that pollution and excess runoff didn’t getinto the creek.

In both developments, the open space was putinto a conservation easement and managed bythe homeowner’s association.

20

The developers were allowed to build twoadditional homes in exchange for guaranteeingpublic access through the open spaces in theeasement agreement. All Clearwater residentscan have access to Lookout Rock and thelakeshore, Clearwater Creek, and Maple Ridge,which may enhance inland property values15.Even with the bonus lots and transfer of lotsfrom the eastern side of the creek, the amountof impervious surface was 3-5% less by usingconservation design, and 50% fewer new roadswere required, reducing plowing, school bus,and maintenance costs for the community.

When the community presented this map to thepublic, there were still concerns (some wishedfor less development overall, some wantedmore), but most of the issues raised previouslywere addressed, and the community realizedthat their plan, this time, would help Clearwaterachieve its vision to be well managed, orientedtowards the well-being of its citizens, and pro-moting economically, environmentally, andsocially responsible growth, while maintainingits natural amenities and cultural resources forfuture generations.

Thanks for visitingClearwater!

The community of Clearwater was able toconserve more of their natural resources byadjusting the land use plan.

Bioretention – shallow, landscapeddepressions commonly located in parkinglot islands or within small pockets in resi-dential areas that receive stormwater runoff.

21

Mature Forest

Wetlands &Steep Banks

Co

nser

vati

on

Eas

emen

t

Ridgeline

Increased Setback

Forestland & WetlandsRiver

Wetlands

Conservation design

Zoning District Residental Totals 1 acre 2 acre 5 acre Resort

# HomesWas: 31Now: 33

Was: 18Now: 21

Was: 9Now: 11

Was: 4Now: 1

11

% ImperviousWas: 10%Now: 6%

Was: 13%Now: 9%

Was: 10%Now: 7%

Was: 7%Now: 2%

4-40%+

Public Roads (ft)Was: 3,996Now: 1,903

Was: 1,896Now: 1,050

Was:1,463Now: 853

Was: 637Now: 0

none

Build-Out Results for a Few Key Indicators, by Zoning District

Local Examples of Innovation

• Infiltration and biofiltration projects helpmanage stormwater runoff

• Communities unite to protect open space

• Communities provide education to help peo-ple make better decisions about their lands

• Local business people are willing to take theextra step in making sure their properties arepart of the solution

The Regional Stormwater ProtectionTeam

In a long-term effort to promote community andindividual activities to protect the waters of theregion, 17 cities, townships, counties, stateagencies, universities, and nonprofits in theDuluth-Superior area combined in 2003 to formthe Regional Stormwater Protection Team(RSPT). Their mission: to protect and enhancethe region's shared water resources throughstormwater pollution prevention by providingcoordinated educational programs and techni-cal assistance. To date, they have producedradio and television commercials promotingminimized runoff, developed and distributedbrochures, developed Web-based technicalassistance materials, and hosted a watershedfestival. By working together, they have beenable to pool their resources and reach a largeraudience than they would individually. Look fortheir mascot “Rex the Dog” at local events oron your local television station. For more infor-mation, visit www.lakesuperiorstreams.org/stormwater/rspt.html.

22

Glensheen

The University of Minnesota Duluth's GlensheenMansion is both historically and environmentallyimportant to the region. The arguably hauntedmanor graces the shores of Lake Superior andstraddles the mouth of Tischer Creek, one ofDuluth’s 12 designated trout streams. Its highlyvisible location along Highway 61 (LondonRoad) and its battle with runoff made it a per-fect place to showcase new techniques to pro-tect Lake Superior’s waters.

Runoff from the parking lots was carrying sedi-ments, road salt, and other pollutants right intothe lake, and eroding the banks along thelakeshore. Pieces of the historic property wereliterally being washed into the lake with everyrain. The South St. Louis Soil and WaterConservation District and the Minnesota Boardof Water and Soil Resources joined forces withUMD to try some innovative runoff controlapproaches. They installed two grass swalesthat collect runoff from the parking lot. Theswales slow the water down, allow the water tocool, filter out sediments, and infiltrate some ofthe runoff. Rock check dams slow and filter thewater even more. There’s also a bioretentionponding area that collects water from over two-thirds of the parking lot and holds and filtersmost of the runoff, keeping that water fromrushing straight into the lake. The swales areplanted with native plants, which are not onlybeautiful, but have deep roots that help someof the water infiltrate back into the ground. Thenative plants also require almost no mainte-nance, which will save UMD money in the longrun. According to Dan McClelland, formergrounds manager at Glensheen, “The projectprepares us for the future, when the rest of theparking lot is paved. This will make sure thatwe’re cleaning the additional water as well.”

Superior Rain Gardens

The red clay soils of Superior, Wisconsin, makemanaging stormwater a challenge that requireshelp from local residents. Through their raingarden demonstration program and rain barrel-making workshops, the Superior Waste WaterTreatment Plant (WWTP) is providing importanteducation, resources, and examples to localcitizens to help reduce runoff and pollutantscoming off rooftops, lawns, and driveways.They have planted 5 demonstration rain gar-dens on their property, which trap water run-ning off roofs and lawns.

“The best place to start is our own back yard,”says Bonita Martin, who developed the raingarden demonstration project proposal thatwas funded by the Great Lakes Commission.

Each rain garden is designed to experimentwith different sizes, placements, and construc-tion techniques. One is sized for a residentialyard; students from a nearby school helpedprepare the site with shovels and rakes, andlocal residents got their hands dirty plantingnative species as part of a rain garden work-shop. Native plants have deep roots that breakup the soils to help the water infiltrate fasterand they’re also tough: they can survive thecold winters, clay soils, and deep frost thatmany nonnative species can’t take.

Another successful project was SuperiorWWTP's rain barrel construction workshops.Participants paid a small fee to make-and-taketheir own barrel while learning how rain barrelscan help both Lake Superior and gardens. Theywere able to put on 32 workshops and sold 355rain barrels during the summer and fall of 2004,which could keep up to 18,000 gallons of waterper rainfall from running off. The SuperiorWWTP feels it’s important to set a good exam-ple. “We ought to be practicing what we’repreaching,” said Bonita, and they’re off to agreat start.

23

Poplar River Condominiums

Development on the thin erodible soils,bedrock, and steep slopes of the North Shoreof Lake Superior can be tricky. In 2000, ScottHarrison, president of Lutsen Resort Co., wasworking on developing condominiums along thePoplar River and wanted to design the struc-tures with respect to the environment.

“We’re here for the long haul,” said Scott, whocontacted Wayne Seidel, with the Cook CountySoil and Water Conservation District.

“I worked with Scott on the erosion and sedi-ment control measures for the project, thenknown as Lutsen East (2000-2001)," said Wayne."[Scott] was great to work with and installedmany innovative measures due to the severeslopes and highly erodible soils on the site.”

So why was Scott so interested to see thingsdone well? “It’s the right thing to do,” he said,and “If it costs a little more, that’s OK.” In addi-tion to regular erosion control techniques, thesite features include:

• a stormwater detention basin

• a secondary detention basin created by sim-ply raising the inlet height of a culvert

• flow diverters and gutters on pavement todirect runoff to non-erosive outlets

• rock waterways to convey roof runoff

• a constructed wetland sewage treatmentsystem

La Pointe Stormwater DemonstrationProject

The City of LaPointe, Wisconsin, on scenicMadeline Island, has recognized the importanceof addressing stormwater runoff within theircommunity to protect their shoreline and LakeSuperior. After developing a stormwater man-agement plan for their community that empha-sizes pollution prevention and best manage-ment practices, one of the first activities wasdeveloping a stormwater demonstration projectat Lori’s Store, a local business where stormwa-ter needed to be dealt with. The results of theproject included: developing a grassy area tofilter some roof runoff, routing foot and vehicletraffic away from the grass, paving the parkingarea to reduce dust and sediment runoff, a raingarden that collects and infiltrates the runofffrom half of the roof area, and a device called aSnout© to block debris and oils from flowinginto Lake Superior.

24

Farmland Protection in Bayfield

In 2002, residents of the Town of Bayfield inWisconsin voted to tax themselves to pay for afarmland preservation program that would pur-chase the development rights from willing farm-land owners. The small but growing communitywas concerned about maintaining the ruralcharacteristics and economy unique to theirtown. The program followed a 1995 compre-hensive plan, where the first goal was to "pre-serve productive and potentially productiveagricultural land (with special emphasis given tomicroclimate fruit industry) and to maintain agri-culture as a major economic activity and way oflife." One of the objectives was to "discourageresidential development of potentially produc-tive agricultural land." As of late 2005, the pro-gram had protected over 200 acres of farm andorchards, with about $300,000 coming from thetown coffers, and a similar amount coming fromgrants.

Shoreline Protection in Grand Marais,Minnesota

In the late 1990’s, recognizing that its harborwas a critical community asset and worriedabout overdevelopment, the City of GrandMarais approached the Trust for Public Landand the Minnesota Land Trust to explore waysof protecting this resource. "The City was look-ing ahead, and trying to protect what madethem a unique community," said JaneProhaska, Executive Director of the MinnesotaLand Trust. As a result, the City was able topurchase the old Standard Oil Station andsome other harbor land, and put this land,Sweetheart’s Bluff, and other city-owned shore-land, into a conservation easement. Easementsare designed specifically for each site, and thisone allows the continuation of existing uses(including campground operations) and someexpansion and rebuilding. “The city itself want-ed to leave a legacy to its citizens and protectthe harbor from overdevelopment,” said Jane.The old gas station site is now a waterfrontpark and a main feature of downtown GrandMarais.

25

What Everyone Can Do to ReduceStormwater Pollution

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency suggests:

• Use fertilizer sparingly

• Never dump anything down storm drains

• Vegetate bare spots in your yard

• Compost yard wastes: don’t leave grassclippings or leaves on the street

• Avoid pesticides

• Direct downspouts toward vegetated areas

• Wash your car on the lawn instead of thedriveway or street

• Check your car for fluid leaks, and recycleused motor oil

• Pick up after your pet

• Have your septic tank pumped and the systeminspected regularly

Conclusion

People in the Lake Superior Watershed are dis-tinctly advantaged. Despite the sensitive natureof our environment and increasingly seriouswater quality problems in many areas, theabundance and quality of our water resourcesremain enviable. Consider: The city of Duluthhas over 12 designated trout streams flowingthrough its boundaries! We have the opportuni-ty to protect the integrity of natural resourcesthat other places have lost, and maintain ourreputation as a place of unsurpassed naturalbeauty and clear waters. We can do it, even aswe grow; we can do it and promote economicgrowth in our communities.

Lands protected by conservation easementwith the Minnesota Land Trust in GrandMarais.

References 1. North Shore Survey and Policy Response: AComprehensive Analysis, 2004, Arrowhead RegionalDevelopment Commission.

2. University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program, 2002,Superior Pursuit: Facts about the Greatest GreatLake. Available online at: www.seagrant.umn.edu/tourism/pursuit.html

3. Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP),2004, Lake Superior Binational Program.

4. Fitzpatrick, F.A., J. Knox, and H.E. Whitman, 1999,Effects of historical land-cover changes on floodingand sedimentation, North Fish Creek, Wisconsin.USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4083.

5. Lake Superior Coastal Erosion Public Meetings,Bayfield County, WI: September, 2003. Availableonline at: www.bayfieldcounty.org/landrecords/shore_2002/info_outreach2003.htm

6. US Census Bureau; Minnesota PopulationProjections 2000-2030, Minnesota Planning, 2002,State Demographic Center; Demographic ServicesCenter, Wisconsin Department of Administration,2004.

7. Myers, J., 2006, Breaking up the forest, MinnesotaConservation Volunteer, Jan-Feb issue. Availableonline at: www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/breaking_up.html

8. Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No.37 Design and Construction of Sanitary and StormSewers, 1969 (Reprinted 1974), American Society ofCivil Engineers.

9. Verry, E.S., 2004, Land Fragmentation andImpacts to Streams and Fish in the Central andUpper Midwest, In A Century of Forest and WildlandWatershed Lessons, eds. G. G. Ice and J. D.Stednick, Bethesda, MD., Society of AmericanForesters.

10. Newman, R.M. and N.A. Hemstad, 2002,Influence of local and landscape factors on instreamhabitat and fish communities, completion report to:The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

11. Numerous researchers have shown the effects ofstorage. Two recent studies include: Detenbeck,N.E., V.J. Brady, D.L. Taylor, V.M. Snarski, and S.L.Batterman, 2005, Relationship of stream flow regimein the western Lake Superior basin to watershedtype characteristics, Journal of Hydrology 309: 258-276 and Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J.Neimi, 1990, The cumulative effect of wetlands onstream water quality and quantity, Biogeochemistry10: 105-141.

26

12. For a review of impervious surface studies, seeScheuler, T.T., 1994, The importance of impervious-ness, Watershed Protection Techniques 1:100-111.

13. MN DNR, 2001, Addressing Natural Resources ina Comprehensive Plan. Available online at:files.dnr.state.mn.us/assistance/nrplanning/community/nrchecklists/compplan.pdf

14. Several studies have evaluated the economics ofconservation design. For a recent review, see:Mohamed, R., 2006, The economics of conservationsubdivisions, Urban Affairs Review 41:376-399. For aWisconsin case study, see Farnsworth, C.B., 2003,Conservation design takes hold, Builder Magazine,Oct 2003, p. 244. Available online at: www.builderonline.com

15. Orr, B.D. and J.B. Pickens, 2003, Public Accessto Lake Superior and Attribute Values of ProximateNon-Shoreline Property, J. Great Lakes Res.29(4):616-629.

Online Resources

Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments

Guide to Using Natural Resource Information www.dnr.state.mn.us/nrig

Natural Resources and Their Place WithinComprehensive Planningclean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/compplan/

Planning for Growth

Northland NEMO- Nonpoint Education for MunicipalOfficialswww.northlandnemo.org

Under Construction – Tools and Techniques for LocalPlanning. 2002. Minnesota Planning. www.mnplan.state.mn.us

Community Planning Resourceplanning.lic.wisc.edu/Community_Planning_Resource/CPR_Home.htm

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s SmartGrowth Resourceswww.epa.gov/smartgrowth/

Wisconsin DNR’s Smart Growth Pagednr.wi.gov/org/es/science/landuse/smart/

The Center for Rural Planning www.centerforruralplanning.org

Conservation Design

The Minnesota Land Trustwww.mnland.com

Greener Prospectswww.greenerprospects.com

Stormwater and Nonpoint Pollution

The Minnesota Stormwater Manualwww.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html

The Low Impact Development Centerwww.lid-stormwater.net

Public Education

Regional Stormwater Protection Team: www.lakesuperiorstreams.org/stormwater/rspt.html

Minnesota Water-Let’s Keep it Clean Campaignwww.cleanwatermn.org

University of Wisconsin Extension Water Resources

clean-water.uwex.edu

Incentives: Easements, Transfer or Purchaseof Development Rights

Trust for Public Landwww.tpl.org

Minnesota Land Trustwww.mnland.org

West Wisconsin Land Trust www.wwlt.org

1,000 Friends of Minnesota Land Conservation Toolswww.1000fom.org/conservation.htm

Regulations and Ordinances

Linking Local Ordinances to Water Quality. 2004.Northland NEMO. www.northlandnemo.org

From Policy to Reality: Model Ordinances forSustainable Development. 2000. Minnesota Planning.www.mnplan.state.mn.us

General Resources

Lake Superior Streamswww.lakesuperiorstreams.org

Minnesota Sea Grant Programwww.seagrant.umn.edu