Table of Contents i

List of Tables iii

List of Figures vii

Acknowledgements iii

Douglas County Land Use Plan Vision Statement ix

I. HISTORICAL SUMMARY 1

II. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Introduction 3

Topography 4

Geology & Soils 5

Climate 11

Land Type Association and Habitat 13

Common Plant Communities 13

Wildlife 19

Endangered and Threatened Species 19

Waters 26

Douglas County Lake & River Classification Plan 29

Classification List 38

Outstanding & Exceptional Resource Waters 42

Rivers 42

303(D) List of Waters Not Currently Meeting Water Quality Standards 47

Coaster Waters 47

Floodplains 47

Wetlands 48

Groundwater 50

Douglas County Critical Resource Inventory 53

 

III. POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Introduction 57

Historical Population & Projections 57

Age Distribution & Demographic Trends 58

Household, Employment & Income Characteristics 68

Overall Employment Profile 70

Income Characteristics 72

Educational Characteristics 72

 

IV. HOUSING

Introduction 75

Overall Housing Summary 75

Housing Occupancy Characteristics 81

Housing Density 83

Housing Stock 93

Housing Value 95

Housing Trends 97

 

Introduction 101

General Roadway Characteristics 101

Commuter Traffic 113

Recreational Trails 114

Rail Transport 115

Bus Service 115

Airports 116

Great Lakes Transport 116

Summary 117

 

Introduction 119

Existing Conditions 119

Changes & Trends in Land Ownership 123

Existing Land Use & Zoning 135

Summary 146

 

Introduction 147

Preliminary Plan Statement 147

Goal, Objective and Action Statements 152

 

Introduction 161

Key Educational Needs 161

Implementation Plan 161

 

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS & IMPLEMENTATION

Introduction 165

Broad Area Proposed Land Use 165

Recommendations for Unincorporated Towns 172

Resource Protection and Development Guidelines 187

Conclusion 195

 

 

Table 1: Forest Type by Square Mile 12

Table 2: Habitat Types and their Dominant Species 13

Table 3: Generalized Land Cover Categories 17

Table 4: Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species in Douglas County 22

Table 5: Full Development Potential at Minimum Lot Width 32

Table 6: Lake Surface Area and Vulnerability Scoring 34

Table 7: Lake Size and Vulnerability Scoring 34

Table 8: Lake Type and Vulnerability Scoring 35

Table 9: Watershed Size and Vulnerability Scoring 35

Table 10: Shoreland Development Factors (SDF) and Vulnerability Scoring 36

Table 11: Density and Vulnerability Scoring 36

Table 12: Overall Vulnerability Ranking 36

Table 13: Lot Widths and Structural Setbacks in Recreational Residential Districts 37

Table 14: Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters 42

Table 15: River and Stream Ranking 43

Table 16: 303(D) Waters Not Meeting Quality Standards 47

Table 17: Wetland Acreage 48

 

Table 68: Primary and Secondary Development Nodes 170

Figure 1: Douglas County 6

Figure 2: Topography 7

Figure 3: Shaded Relief with Highways, Hydrography and Wetlands 8

Figure 4: Douglas County Bedrock 9

Figure 5: Soil Association by Sub-Order 10

Figure 6: Land Type Association 14

Figure 7: Habitat Type by Land Type Association 15

Figure 8: Douglas County Land Cover 18

Figure 9: Watersheds 27

Figure 10: Hydrography 28

Figure 11: Relationship of Lake Size to Development Pressure 31

Figure 12: Relationship of Lake Shape to Development Pressure 31

Figure 13: Wetlands 49

Figure 14: Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Model 51

Figure 15: Depth to Groundwater 52

Figure 16A: Critical Resource Inventory 54

Figure 16B: Critical Resource Inventory Legend 55

 

Figure 17: Historical Population, 1950-2000; Projections, 2000-2020 59

Figure 18: Douglas County Age and Male/Female Distribution, 1980 & 1990 60

Figure 19: Change in Inhabitants Age 24 and Under, 1980 to 1990 63

Figure 20: Change in Inhabitants Age 65 and Over, 1980 to 1990 63

Figure 21: Population Density, 1990 64

Figure 22: Population Density, 2000 65

Figure 23: Change in Population by Municipal Division, 1950-2000 69

Figure 24: Projected Change in Population by Municipal Division, 2000-2020 69

 

Figure 25: Housing Density, 1940-1990 84

Figure 26: Total Housing Units Per Square Mile, 2000 85

Figure 27: Projected Total Housing Units Per Square Mile, 2020 85

Figure 28: Occupied Housing Units Per Square Mile, 2000 87

Figure 29: Projected Occupied Housing Units Per Square Mile, 2020 87

Figure 30: Total Housing Unit Density by Census Block, 1990 89

Figure 31: Emergency 911 Structure 90

 

Figure 32: Seasonal Housing Unit Density by Census Block, 1990 91

Figure 33: Seasonal Housing Units Per Square Mile, 2000 93

Figure 34: Projected Seasonal Housing Units Per Square Mile, 2020 93

Figure 35: Change in Seasonal Housing Units, 1990-2000 94

Figure 36: Projected Change in Seasonal Housing Units, 2000-2020 94

Figure 37: Douglas County Functional Roadway Systems 102

Figure 38: Average Daily Traffic on USH 53, 1966-1996 109

Figure 39: Average Daily Traffic on USH 2, 1966-1996 109

Figure 40: Average Daily Traffic on STH 35, 1966-1996 110

Figure 41: Average Daily Traffic on STH 27, 1966-1996 110

Figure 42: Average Daily Traffic on STH 105, 1966-1996 111

Figure 43: Average Daily Traffic on STH 13, 1966-1996 111

Figure 44: Average Daily Traffic on Selected County Highways, 1966-1996 111

 

Figure 45: Land Ownership 120

Figure 46: Publicly Managed Lands 121

Figure 47: Prime Agricultural Lands 132

Figure 48: Proposed Prime Agricultural Lands 133

Figure 49: Prime Agricultural Lands (Parcels >35 Acres; Taxed as Agriculture) 134

Figure 50: Property Tax Classification by Parcel 137

Figure 51: Zoning Districts 139

Figure 52: Growth Management Factors 143

Figure 53: Solid Waste Management Facilities 145

 

Special recognition is due the members of the Douglas County Board and the Douglas County Zoning Committee who had the foresight to take the first steps toward managing the future of their county.

Doug Finn, Chairman

Therese Hooper, Vice-Chairman

David Olson, First Vice-Chairman

Keith Allen, Second vice-Chairman

Jean Longenecker, Chairman

Anthony Coletta

James Connor, Past Chairman

Pat Cosgrove (Past Member)

Doug Finn (Past Member)

Bill Eckman

Carol Johnson

Jerry Waterman

This project would not be possible without the dedication of the following Douglas County officials and citizens who were appointed by the County Board to serve on the Land Use Planning Committee. This group provided invaluable input into designing the survey, implementing project objectives, encouraging citizen input and making recommendations on how the information gathered should be used to guide the County's development.

Robert Kallstrom, Chair

Jean Longnecker, Vice Chair

Deana Bates

Herb Bruce

Bruce Ciske

Don Garner-Gerhardt

Wes Johnson

Hank Kryger

Kay McKenzie

Paul Pinkoski

David Schnell

Dennis Smet

Richard Smith

Brad Theien

The following individuals provided technical assistance for the plan:

Stephen Andrews, Project Manager Northwest Regional Planning Commission

Jeff Maas, Community Planner & Principal Author Northwest Regional Planning Commission

Lance Frost, GIS Specialist Northwest Regional Planning Commission

Fred Goold, Landscape Architect Northwest Regional Planning Commission

Richard Schneider, Environmental Planner Northwest Regional Planning Commission

Dena Ryan Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Dan Peterson Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Ted Smith Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Dr. Don Hinman Center for Economic Development, UW-Superior

Geoffrey Wendorf Douglas County UW-Extension

Dianne Caffrey Douglas County Land Records Officer

Dick Moore Douglas County Forest Administrator

Steve Rannenberg Douglas County Zoning Administrator

Linda Saarela Douglas County Clerks Office

Sandy Schultz Douglas County Conservationist

Keith Wiley Douglas County Zoning Office

The technical assistance team gratefully acknowledges previous planning work completed by various Douglas County departments. This planning process has relied heavily and borrowed freely from that work.

Finally, Douglas County wishes to acknowledge the Wisconsin Coastal Management Grants Program that provided a portion of the necessary funds for the planning project.

The Brule-St. Croix waterway network that cuts diagonally across Douglas County was a vital link between Lake Superior and the Mississippi Basin. These two rivers were connected by the Brule-St. Croix Portage (today in the Town of Solon Springs) were used extensively by both indigenous peoples and Europeans.

The acceleration of the fur trade brought increased French presence to the area in the form of trade outposts, forts and Christian missions. A thread of the French legacy remains in Douglas County and across Wisconsin in a variety of French-influenced place names.

French rule came to an end in 1763 as New France fell to British control under the Treaty of Paris. The United States assumed control of the region in 1783 and perpetuated the fur trade begun by the French and British. Indigenous control of the area began to erode as increased white settlement took place throughout the upper Midwest. The Ojibwe title to the region was extinguished through a series of treaties in the 1840s that enabled settlers to move northward.

La Pointe County was created in 1845 in the northern portion Wisconsin Territory out of what encompassed all of present day Bayfield and Douglas counties and the northeastern counties of what was to become the State of Minnesota up to the modern Canadian border. Wisconsin achieved statehood on May 29, 1848 and government surveys were begun in the county in 1852 and completed by 1860. Douglas County itself was created from La Pointe County (renamed Bayfield County in 1866) on February 9, 1854. Douglas County originally extended as far south as the Namakagon River, but was adjusted first in 1856 and again to its present dimensions by 1864 with the creation of Burnett County.

The first Douglas County courthouse was built in 1871 and the present courthouse completed and occupied in March of 1920. It is an excellent example of the Beaux Arts style of architecture and is constructed of select Bedford blue cut stone and Pavanazza marble.

Land development policies, explicit or implicit, that are meant to accommodate growth plans and policies for land use location, roadways, sewer/water and extensions of municipal infrastructure. Land development must be based upon and be compatible with certain natural resource considerations that support or hinder land use activities. Natural resources are defined and identified as physiographic, geologic, vegetative, and hydrologic characteristics. Consideration of natural resource elements should shape, structure, and provide the pattern for land development and related activities.

The protection of certain natural resources is necessary for the welfare of both people and the environment. By allowing natural processes, such as the hydrologic cycle/system, to function without impediment, property, water supply, and environment are protected. The protection of natural resources also preserves important ecological communities. Certain natural resources have more than merely aesthetic and leisure-time activity values. They are essential to long-term human survival and the preservation of life, health, and general welfare. As such, the protection and/or management of these natural resources clearly are in the public interest. Thus, the analysis of those natural resources found within the study area is done for the purpose of directing development away from those areas not intrinsically suitable for a particular use and given the physical characteristics found within the study area, to at least guide development in a direction that is least disruptive. Many studies have been done to achieve this end, including the following reports that are hereby incorporated by reference.

Douglas County Farmland Preservation Plan

Douglas County Solid Waste Management Plan

Douglas County Ten Year Forest Plan

Douglas County Highway Improvement Plan

Douglas County Plan for Outdoor Recreation

WDNR Douglas County Report on Surface Water Resources

WDNR Lake Superior Basin Report

WDNR St. Croix River Basin Report

WDNR Northwest Sands Landscape Level Management Plan

Douglas County Red Clay Project

Douglas County Nemadji River Basin Project

Douglas County Critical Resource Information Program

Note: The Douglas County Land Use Plan is designated for the unincorporated areas (the towns) of Douglas County. The City of Superior, and the incorporated villages of Poplar, Lake Nebagamon, Solon Springs, Superior and Oliver are not included in this plan. These incorporated entities administer their own zoning, whereas zoning and land use controls in the unincorporated towns are administered by Douglas County. The incorporated units are responsible for creating and adopting their own land use plan, comprehensive plans or master plans as they see fit.

Douglas County is divided between two of the five geographical provinces of Wisconsin. The Lake Superior Lowland Province covers the northern part of the county, that area formerly occupied by Lake Superior. The boundary closely coincides with the topographic boundary provided by the escarpments at the juncture of the Lake Superior sandstone with the older igneous rocks. In topography, it consists of a clay plain interrupted with moraine hills. The Northern Highland Province occupies that area south of the highest abandoned beach line of Lake Superior. About 70 percent of Douglas County falls within the Northern Highland Province, while the other 30 percent is part of the basin of the Lake Superior Lowland. Figure 3 illustrates the county in shaded relief with the hydrography, roadway networks and wetland areas.

The landscape of Douglas County varies greatly from north to south. The Lake Superior Lowland which adjoins Lake Superior consists of a clay plain about 10 to 20 miles wide and slopes gently from the Superior escarpment to the lake. Short, swift streams flowing north into Lake Superior have cut deep V-shaped valleys below the plain. During the glacial period, the Lake Superior Lowland was submerged under glacial Lake Superior and red clay was deposited on the old lakebed.

The Superior escarpment, or Douglas Copper Range, is probably the most noticeable geologic feature in Douglas County. It extends east-west across the county from the Bayfield County line to Foxboro and, in some places, rises 350 to 400 feet above the lowlands. It is not a continuous bedrock range but is divided into three main ridges by the streams which cross it. These streams have cut deep gorges and have many rapids and falls where they drop from the hard rock of the escarpment to the soft clays and sandstones of the lowland. Pattison State Park, 11 miles south of Superior, includes two such falls. Big Manitou Falls on the Black River, the highest waterfall in Wisconsin with a 165-foot drop, is located on the cataract of the Superior escarpment. Little Manitou Falls, a second waterfall having a 30-foot vertical drop, is located about one mile upstream from Big Manitou Falls. Other waterfalls created by the Superior escarpment are located on Balsam, Miller, and Copper Creeks and the Amnicon River at Amnicon Falls State Park.

FIGURE 1: DOUGLAS COUNTY

FIGURE 2: TOPOGRAPHY

FIGURE 3: SHADED RELIEF

FIGURE 4: BEDROCK GEOLOGY

FIGURE 5: SOIL ASSOCIATION BY SUBORDER

The groundwater in this area is extremely poor in carbonates and nutrients and reflects the low solubility of these overlying sandy soils. The topography is level to slightly rolling, and numerous lakes are located in the glacial sags and depressions of the area.

Glacial upland soils are found in the central and southwestern part of the county. These are the most extensive of all county soils and make up about one-half of the total county area. These soils consist of a heterogeneous mass of stones, silt loams, and red clays and belong to the same Wisconsin stage of glaciation. This glacial till varies from a few feet to several hundred feet in thickness and overlays a base of traprock. Lakes, swamps, and marshes are common in the depressions of this rough and hilly topography. In the extreme southeastern portion of the county, there are gray-brown loam soils, which are similar to the rolling, reddish-brown loams of the southwest part of the county.

Two other soils of Douglas County are the peat soils of the bogs, resulting from the accumulation of grass, sedge, leaves, and moss in poorly drained areas and the muck soils, resulting from the accumulation of organic and mineral matter in marshes and other wetlands. Exposed bedrock appears at the surface in only a few places.

Other geological characteristics that greatly affect water quality in landlocked lakes are the pitted nature of the underlying bedrock and the random, impervious clay pockets in the glacial till. The acidic nature of the soils, along with stabilized water levels, create ideal conditions for encroaching bogs which form in these depressions. The presence of 65 acid bog lakes with their characteristic types of vegetation is evidence of this condition.

Douglas County has a humid, continental type of climate. This means that the county has long, cold winters with rather short, moderately warm summers. However, this climate is modified somewhat by the tempering influence of Lake Superior and by local variations in topography. Lake Superior acts as a large storage basin for heat (or cold) and thus tends to increase the number of frost-free days along the lake, but it also acts as a coolant during the summer. As a consequence, the extreme northern part of the county adjoining Lake Superior has longer growing seasons, cooler summers and slightly more precipitation than is found in the southern part of the county. The 140 to 160 days growing season along the lake is as long as the growing season in the extreme southern counties of Wisconsin.

Annual precipitation (32.1 inches) averages slightly more than the state average (31.0). Of the total annual average precipitation received, about 18.6 inches runs off into stream drainage systems. About 60 percent of the rainfall comes in spring and summer, with an average of 8 inches in March, April, and May and 11 inches in June, July, and August. June is the rainiest month and February is the driest. Mean snowfall in inches varies from 50 near Solon Springs to around 40 along the lake with snow blanketing the ground approximately 120 days in northern Wisconsin. The Duluth-Superior harbor is usually icebound from December until April; but Lake Superior itself normally does not completely freeze over.

Douglas County is one of the largest counties in the state and also one of the most heavily forested. Over three quarters of the land area of Douglas County is forested. Large blocks of these forested areas are in a single ownership class, either county forest land or land controlled by paper companies. In addition, the soils of Douglas County in many parts of the county are very suitable for tree growth, more so than for agricultural crop production. This combination of factors results in a forest resource ideally suited for commercial wood and fiber production. A band of light sandy soils, approximately 10 to 12 miles wide, extending from south central Douglas County to east central Douglas County contains most of the pine acreage of the county. North of this band smaller areas of loamy soils and wetland or bog soils contain hardwoods and spruce-fir species, respectively. Aspen and birch predominate in the remainder of the county.

As mentioned previously, 79.8 percent of Douglas County is forested land. According to a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources survey, of the 1,065 square miles of commercial forest in Douglas County, the present forest types are ranked as follows (square miles of each type):

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

The forest vegetation of Douglas County is diverse and includes many of the upland and lowland forest plant communities found elsewhere across northern Wisconsin. These forest communities result from the soils, climate, disturbance, fire history, and other natural forces that occur here. Several forest plant communities are dominant here and account for a large portion of the forested landscape:

The southern range of the true Boreal forest exists in the clay region of northern Douglas County. This community is commonly associated with shade-tolerant, long-lived species of spruce, fir, white cedar, tamarack, and white pine and associated hardwoods of white birch, aspen, and red maple. Here, past and present agricultural practices often exemplify successful stages whereby spruce, fir, and tag alder begin to invade abandoned farm fields.

FIGURE 6: LAND TYPE ASSOCIATIONS

FIGURE 7: HABITIAT TYPE BY LAND TYPE ASSOCIATIONS

Western and central Douglas County is predominated by this biological community. This community contains mixed deciduous and coniferous forests. This community is characterized as a climax habitat type, which is predominantly sugar maple. However, the drier conditions do not allow the sugar maple to develop to its full potential. Therefore, the more shade-intolerant species such as yellow birch, white ash, oak, and white pine will dominate the climax habitat type. Red oak and white pine show excellent growth if they occupy a dominant crown position.

This biological community is similar to the Northern Forest community. However, limited depth of soil and exposed rock outcroppings of the Penokee Range identify this community. This community lacks the well-drained soils of the Northern Forest community and supports those species more adapted to drier conditions. Habitat fertility enables a wide range of species to exist.

This biological community is associated with jack pine, scrub oak, aspen, and red pine dominating glacial outwash sand plains. The climax forest will ultimately be red pine on the mesic sands; and scrub oak and jack pine will climax on the drier, nutrient-poor sands. Therefore, a climax forest would be a patchwork of trees, associated shrubs, and openings throughout.

The absence of trees and large shrubs and the dominance of small upland shrubs characterize the grassland community.

These communities are characterized by soils or substrate, which is periodically saturated or covered by water and further identified by vegetation types and water quality.

These communities include springs, ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers. These communities are also characterized by water quality.

Figure 8 illustrates the broad land cover types of Douglas County in five categories including, urban/developed, forest, agricultural open space, wetlands and open water. The following table describes the area of each land cover category.

Source: The figures above were calculated from the WISCLAND land cover dataset. The source data for WISCLAND were acquired from the nation-wide MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium) acquisition of dual data Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) primarily from 1992. Data is provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

FIGURE 8: GENERALIZED LAND COVER

The Douglas County Forest is habitat for a variety of species of bird, mammal, reptiles, amphibian, and insect life. Each species or group of associated species does best under different conditions related to the forest types and management within each biological community found on the county forest.

Many plant and insect species also occur on the forest; but unlike vertebrate wildlife species, no complete list is available as an inventory of insect species or native flora found on the forest. At this time, it is safe to comment that there are hundreds of individual species of insects as well as lichens, mosses, grasses, ferns, shrubs, and tree species that occur in the forest. Collectively these mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, and plant species comprise the wildlife habitat of the forest.

Each type of plant community is important because of the habitat it provides to wildlife. Some types are more important to the wildlife resource because they are both abundant and use by many species such as jack pine, aspen, or northern pin oak. Types of lesser abundance such as white pine, northern red oak, upland brush, spruce-fir, swamp conifer, and grass openings are also important because they may provide the only breeding habitat available for some species or offer a critical habitat type that is needed seasonally.

ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

A listing of endangered resources that are present on county-owned lands is available from the Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI). NHI is a database of rare, threatened, and endangered species and natural communities throughout Wisconsin. The following list is a summary of information regarding endangered land resources from NHI.

A second growth white cedar and black ash swamp along the banks of the St. Croix River. Though young, the stand contains a diverse herbaceous layer including several orchid species. Last observed in 1994.

This fern species of special concern is rare in its range from Labrador to Ontario south to Vermont and Wisconsin. It is found in a variety of habitats (meadows, riverbanks, sand dunes, and deep woods), and it is found in soils ranging from acid to circumneutral. One population was discovered in a maple-basswood forest in 1979.

This 2200-acre site is an exceptional resource. Identified natural communities are soft bog lake, northern wet forest, northern sedge meadow, open bog, and shrub-carr. Several species of concern are found at Black Lake Bog including LeConte's Sparrow, Northern Harrier, Timber Wolf, Lake Darner, and Green-striped Darner. Last inspection was in 1992.

This huge wetland complex is an exceptional and unique resource in Douglas County. The large size and muskeg-like vegetation of this bog is not duplicated anywhere else in northwest Wisconsin. Portions are thinly vegetated with stunted black spruce and tamarack over ericaceous shrubs. Other parts are quite open with wire-leaved sedges and big birch dominating. Healthy populations of jutta arctic butterfly, LeConte's Sparrow, Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, and Northern Harrier have been identified on the bog. Last surveyed in 1989.

This lake is a small soft water bog lake that forms the headwaters of Moose River. The lake is fringed with alder and bog birch. Surrounding the fringe is a black spruce and tamarack bog. Last inspected in 1994.

A small area of older red pines located north of the Amnicon River. Last inventoried in 1979.

This area is a diverse assemblage of different community types. The remoteness of the communities along with relative absence of recent disturbance elevates this area to a significant natural feature. The completeness of species assemblages in each community and their juxtaposition to each other makes this area unique in all of Wisconsin. Communities represented are open bog, northern wet forest, northern wet-mesic forest, northern hardwood swamp, northern sedge meadow, northern dry-mesic forest, boreal forest, and northern mesic forest. With an exceptional assemblage of natural communities within close proximity, diverse assemblages of species including rare species are possible. There are populations of several rare species found at this site. The bog and sedge meadow harbor populations of 15 special concern species: Three-toed Woodpecker, Great Gray Owl, Boreal Chickadee, Connecticut Warbler, LeConte's Sparrow, Bobolink, Northern Harrier, Sedge Wren, Dragon's Mouth Orchid, Freija Fritillary, Frigga Fritillary, Bog Fritillary, and the only location in Wisconsin for the Titania Fritillary. The denser conifers harbor Cape May Warbler and Swainson's Thrush. The mesic forest has two nesting pairs of the state-threatened Red-shouldered Hawk and the most westerly known population of Black-throated Blue Warbler. In the boreal forest an individual plant of the state-endangered Small Pyrola was discovered. Last inventoried in 1994.

A ten-acre stand of boreal forest with an overstory of red and white pine located north of the Amnicon River. Fire and past harvests were noted. Last inventories in 1982.

Located south of the Amnicon River and west of Erickson Creek. Scattered islands of pine are present in the large open bog. Dominants are red and white pine with characteristic understory plants present. Last observed in 1980.

This 13-acre, soft water bog lake is surrounded by 22 acres of spruce and tamarack forest. The shoreline is a floating bog mat. Boreal birds utilize the area for breeding. Last inventoried in 1994. Part of the area is in private ownership.

A series of rounded exposures of igneous rock. The north slope has a series of vertical cliffs that contain the state's largest population of fragrant fern, a species of special concern.

This floodplain forest along the banks of the Nemadji River contains a diverse flora including many canopy tree species. Large diameter silver maple, swamp white oak, basswood, white cedar, white spruce, and three species of ash are present. The spring flora is rich and mesic. Four state-threatened wood turtles were present in May. Last inventoried in 1994.

The creek is a slow, soft, cold water stream flowing from a spring pond, 4.5 miles to the St. Croix River. Most of the stream flows through swamp conifers composed of black spruce, tamarack, balsam fir, white cedar, and alder. The uplands to the east were burned in a forest fire in 1977. Pine barrens have reformed after the fire. Dominant trees are slow growing jack pine and Hill's oak. The barrens are nearly free of invasive exotic species. Plant and animal species composition indicate a diverse barrens community. Several new county records were found in the inventory. Barrens butterflies of special concern are dusted skipper, cobweb skipper, Henry's elfin, hoary elfin, coral hairstreak, striped hairstreak, and gorgone checkerspot. Last inventoried in 1994.

A shallow, soft water seepage lake with a fluctuating shoreline. The bottom is composed of muck and sand. Sedges and rushes dominate vegetation. Last inventoried in 1994.

A soft water seepage lake with a fluctuating shoreline. Sedge and rushes are the most common plants and 20 acres of sedge meadow adjoins the lake. Last inventoried in 1994.

The reach of the St. Croix a few miles up and down stream from the Highway T bridge has significant populations of rare species including the state-endangered pygmy snaketail dragonfly, the state-threatened gilt darter, and Blanding's turtle and special concern species, the rapids clubtail dragonfly.

This boreal species was not known to occur in Wisconsin until 1994, when two populations were discovered. One is on DNR land along the Brule River. The other is on Douglas County land east of the St. Croix. Both locations are found in seeps in white cedar swamps. The species will definitely be considered a species of special concern and should be a candidate for endangered status. Further investigations need to be conducted to determine the extent of the populations and their habitat requirements. The Douglas County list of threatened and endangered species of plants animals and insects is listed in the following table.

Endangered: continued existence in Wisconsin is in jeopardy.

Threatened: appears likely, within the foreseeable future, to become endangered.

Special Concern: species for which some problem of abundance or distribution is suspected but not yet proven.

Rule: protected or regulated by state or federal legislation or policy; neither endangered nor threatened.

* indicates: A candidate for federal listing.

** indicates: Federally Endangered or Threatened.

Last Revised: June 1998

Of the total of 432 lakes (155 named, 277 unnamed) in the county, natural lakes account for 82 percent of the area, while 18 percent are impounded, or flowage waters. Most of the lakes are small, with 283, or 66 percent, being less than ten acres, and these lakes comprise only a fraction (5 percent) of the total surface area of the county lakes. There are 22 lakes and impoundments over 100 acres in size that comprise 68 percent of the total surface acreage of the county. St. Croix Flowage has a surface water area of 1,912.7 acres and is the largest lake in Douglas County. Lake depths vary considerably, from shallow ponds to deeper bog and seepage lakes with their characteristic steep-sloping shores. Bardon (Whitefish) Lake, with a maximum depth of 102 feet, is the deepest lake in Douglas County and the tenth deepest lake in Wisconsin.

The lakes of Douglas County fall into four main types when classified by water source and chemistry: hard water drainage, soft water drainage, hard water seepage, and soft water seepage lakes. In addition to these four main classes, three other subtypes of lakes have been added for more descriptive purposes. They are acid bog lakes, alkaline bog lakes, and spring ponds. The most common type of lake in Douglas County is the soft water seepage lake.

FIGURE 9: WATERSHEDS

FIGURE 10: HYDROGRAPHY

Local units of government in Wisconsin are charged with regulating land uses to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, and they are encouraged to formulate policies and plans toward that end in advance. In carrying out this responsibility, a major emphasis is usually placed on resource protection--fostering the wise use of waters, agricultural and forest lands, minerals, and other natural resources. Often the strength of resource--based land use programs, particularly when challenged in a court of law, can be traced rather directly to the degree to which the locality has linked its resource policies, plans, and regulations to available natural resource data.

The following plan shows one-way land use programs may be grounded to the statistical information that exists for Wisconsin's water resources at the local level. The same method of regulating according to prior resource classification can be applied using different data sources in the case of other natural resources such as agricultural, forest, and mineral-bearing lands. Three general ingredients comprise the method: 1) a rationale, 2) a classification scheme, and 3) a regulatory program.

This plan focuses solely on classifying the surface water resource. Similar detailed data for streams and rivers does exist and can be built into local land use programs in basically the same way.

The regulatory program discussed later will pertain directly to the local zoning power on shorelands. A full-blown carrying-capacity approach could utilize the resource classification scheme for local surface water use regulations as well.

Once the classification system has been devised it can be used for various purposes, zoning and non-zoning (e.g., surface water use regulations) alike. Also, the system can provide a basis for dealing not only with routine and typical development proposals, but with such atypical and non-routine matters as PUDs, conditional uses, rezonings, back-lot developments, resort conversions, etc.

There are two major reasons for utilizing this approach. First, lakes constitute important environmental and economic (recreation) resources in Wisconsin. Second, with a reasonable amount of time and effort, it is possible to devise a local program more sensitive to an individual lake resource than is the minimum statewide standard in Wisconsin.

On the first reason, water resource importance, ten counties of northwest Wisconsin contain approximately 4 percent of the state population, but contain almost 25 percent (more than 400 square miles) of the states' inland water acreage. This includes nearly 6,000 lakes that are unevenly distributed according to basic indicators such as size, shape, and geography. More than two-thirds of the lakes are small, less than 25 acres in size, and about 50 lakes are 600 or more acres. Similarly, the breakdown for lake shape shows that while about half the lakes are fairly regular ("round") and the other half are less regular (elongated) more than 350 lakes are highly irregularly shaped..

Recent trends in permanent and transient population movement, such as the so-called rural residency turnaround (in-migration) and changing recreational travel patterns, also affect localities throughout the north differently and unevenly. But, in general, these trends have resulted in substantial pressures for lake-related development and have contributed to the need for more systematic management and growth studies such as this carrying-capacity plan.

A brief look at two simple and fundamental lake characteristics, size and shape, provides an orientation to a problem with Wisconsin's minimum state standard approach for land uses in shorelands. Figure 11 shows two lakes of identical shape, but different size, super imposed on each other. Little Round Lake covers 50 water surface acres, while Big Round Lake encompasses 200 acres,. If we were to measure the shoreline length we would discover that, although Big Round has four times the surface water acreage, its shoreline is only twice the length of Little Round. Figure 12 on the other hand, shows two lakes of identical size (50 water surface acres, like Little Round), but different shapes--Long Lake and Round Lake. In spite of the fact that they have the same water surface area, Long Lake has 60 percent more shoreline length. Therefore, it is potentially subject to much greater development and recreation user pressure, per water surface acre (WSA), than is Round Lake.

Table 5 shows how much the water surface area per developed shoreline lot would vary from lake to lake, if we assume that all the lakes in Figure 12 could be fully developed at the state minimum standard of 100 feet per lot at the waterline. To the extent that we can agree that more water surface per lot generally translates into an increased capacity to carry or absorb the resulting impacts of pollution and aesthetic degradation which development imposes, we can conclude that large, regularly-shaped lakes (Big Round) have a greater absorptive capacity than do small, irregularly shaped lakes (Long Lake). And we can see that the use of a state standard (or any across-the-board standard of any dimension) ignores the existence of such variations.

FIGURES 11 & 12

Resource classification schemes range from very simple sortings into several groups based on one or two distinctive characteristics to highly complex divisions derived from interrelating many variables. In the case of lake resources, an extremely simple sort is often suggested in the names of the lakes--Clear Lake vs Mud Lake, Bass or Trout Lakes, Big Spider Lake vs Little Spider Lake, etc. Limnologists, on the other hand, spend much of their time studying all facets of inland waters and classifying them into numerous categories based on lake genesis, geography, and trophic status. What type of classification scheme gets used in a particular situation generally depends on judgments in four fundamental areas:

1. The nature of the resource. Lakes are complex and dynamic systems with highly individual characteristics. They are also systems that interrelate intensively with other ecosystems such as land, air, wildlife, and fisheries, etc. In truth, man's understanding of lakes and their interrelationships falls far short of the ideal and, even within the limits of presently available knowledge, requires such time-consuming and expensive investigation that is possible to establish relatively clear-cut, quantifiable cause and effect linkages only for a selected few demonstration projects. Contrariwise, man's studied observations concerning general lake processes are developed and accurate enough to permit, and even encourage, practical "middle--ground" approaches to management.

 

2. Data availability. Much information exists and can be utilized in classification schemes ranging from the simple to the complex. In Wisconsin, for instance, at least three valuable sources are readily employable for local projects. One source is the Surface Water Resources report, prepared by the Department of Natural Resources, which exists for each county. It contains statistical tables with more than 20 different types of information on each lake in the jurisdiction. Another source is the even more detailed data that DNR keeps stored on computer tapes. This again exists by individual lake within each jurisdiction. And, another important source is the firsthand experience and perceptions which local lake users can bring to bear through their participation in a classification project.

 

3. Intended use. This helps assure relevancy and efficiency. It does not make good sense to classify lake resources into eight groupings if only three divisions are to be used in the local land use program. Likewise, it does not really pay to devote a lot of effort to interrelating 24 different types of information if an interplay of three or four variables will accomplish almost the same result. And it is senseless to use an overly simple classification scheme, like lake names, if not all lake resources are named or if the names are misleading and inaccurately based on subjective and non-verifiable criteria. For instance, many lakes are not named at all; and of the named lakes, only a handful of the names are descriptive. And, among the descriptive names are lakes such as Bass, Bluegill, and Round (shape) may be verifiable, but Red (color) and Snake (shape) may not be. The participants from the jurisdiction, therefore, may play a judgmental role in identifying what is of primary concern to them, what is ultimately desired, and in reviewing alternative classification schemes for solving these problems and meeting their objectives.

 

4. User friendly schemes. The classification scheme is one, hopefully, which can be understood and accepted by those within the locality who must live by it as well as by those who must apply it. This is particularly important for land use programs. If people cannot follow the basic thrust of what is being done and why, they will probably challenge and reject it out of hand.

 

In this classification methodology, the focus is placed on rating lakes according to one basic index, vulnerability. The vulnerability determination amounts to scoring lakes on the basis of their physical parameters such as size, shape, depth, and flush potential. In those cases where additional and reliable qualitative data are available, a quality index may be incorporated as well. The quality determination is derived from scoring lakes according to characteristics of interest to the locality (fish and vegetative types and water quality parameters).

The discussion suggests that what is sought is a scheme which allows a locality to separate its highly vulnerable lake resources from those of lesser vulnerability. The locality can then provide maximum land use protection to lakes that could be expected to benefit most from this type of management. On the other hand, lakes that stand to benefit little from land use measures would receive only minimum protection. And lakes that fall in-between can be managed in accordance with a mid-level or moderate regulatory program. An alternative for these in-between lakes could be to scrutinize them further until a clearer decision concerning their sensitivity can be arrived at. This might mean looking at a new set of data variables (public land ownership and access, existing development, type and distribution of soils) which, for one reason or another had been omitted in the initial classification scheme.

In this example, local participants decided to proceed with a three-tier--maximum-moderate-minimum-classification system. This procedure allows a locality to reserve new data variables for lakes for which a re-classification is requested or for use when the regulatory agency is petitioned for a variance or special exception.

This model classification scheme utilizes a combination of natural resource factors that determine lake vulnerability or sensitivity.

Lake surface area is an important determinant of the ability of a lake to support shoreline development and avoid lake user conflicts. As a general rule, smaller lakes (under 50 acres in size) are more susceptible to environmental degradation and visual impacts resulting from shoreland development and intensive recreational use.

The following scoring factors are used to rank lakes based on their surface area. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.

Lake maximum depth is used as a second indicator of vulnerability. Shallower lakes, which do not stratify, have greater circulation of dissolved nutrients that enter the lakes. These lakes tend to have a larger variety of aquatic plant communities that are valuable for a wide range of wildlife and fish. Beds of aquatic plant materials can easily be disturbed by intensive water recreation use and shoreline activities, such as cutting and chemical treatment of aquatic vegetation to create swimming and docking areas.

Shallow lakes are particularly susceptible to nutrient loading and turbidity problems, both of which can be increased by intensive shoreline development and recreational use. In general, shallower lakes are more appropriate for wildlife habitat protection and passive recreation than for motor boating, water skiing, and other more intensive lake uses associated with shoreline development.

The following scoring factors are used to rank lakes based on the maximum depth. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.

In Wisconsin, many of the smaller lakes are seepage lakes formed by groundwater seeping into depressions in the glacial outwash plain. Most of these lakes are "landlocked" and have no external drainage. These lakes are the most vulnerable to premature eutrophication and contamination caused by development in the shoreland zone.

Drainage lakes flow into the surface water system of rivers and streams. These lakes, along with man-made impoundments, possess varying degrees of ability to naturally circulate and flush nutrients and other forms of contaminants, but generally these lakes are less vulnerable to environmental damage than the seepage lakes. A third category of lakes is spring lakes that are fed primarily by natural springs. These lakes have intermediate vulnerability.

The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to lake type. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.

The natural ability of lakes to flush and circulate water is also a function of watershed size, lake volume, and average rainfall. Lakes with larger watersheds tend to have a higher volume of water circulating through them and may have higher flushing rates.

Lakes with smaller watersheds tend to have a lower nutrient input; however, nutrients accumulate because of longer retention times. Generally lakes with smaller watersheds and long retention times are more vulnerable to nutrient loading from activities that occur in the shoreland zone, which is a larger percentage of the total watershed area.

The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to watershed size. The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.

Shoreline development factor (SDF) is a convenient method of expressing the degree of irregularity of the shoreline of a lake compared to the surface area. The SDF ratio is the length of shoreline versus the circumference of a circle having the same surface area as the lake. A perfectly round lake would have a surface area of 1.00. The SDF can never be less than 1.00.

Lakes with a higher SDF have more shoreline in relation to the surface area and thus are more vulnerable to development pressures per linear foot of shoreline that is developed. These lakes can more easily become overdeveloped and are more susceptible to various types of contamination and runoff resulting shoreline development.

The following scoring is used to rank lake vulnerability with respect to the shoreline development factor (SDF). The lower scores indicate greater lake vulnerability.

The existing level of residential density around a lake or on a river is an indicator of a water body's development status. In previous studies such as the Minnesota Classification Scheme and observations of existing conditions on local northern Wisconsin lakes, a development density near 200 feet per structure indicates a high density ratio. This high development density in most cases indicates that the majority of the shoreline is developed and that the potential for additional new single family dwellings is low. A lake with a high development density normally will score high and fall into the category of lakes requiring less development protection measures.

The Regulatory Program. After a locality has worked out its classification scheme, its next (and final) step is to attach to it a regulatory program. There are two basic mechanisms that can be used. The locality can vary the density of development around the lake and/or the distance of development from the lake. As illustrated earlier, the former, varying the distance around the lake, has the effect of assigning greater or lesser amounts of water surface area (or water volume) per lot per lake, depending primarily on a judgement of absorptive carrying-capacity of the water. The latter, varying distance from the lake, was not illustrated earlier, but it has the effect of allowing closer or farther development depending on a judgment that relies primarily on a sense of absorptive carrying-capacity of shoreland adjacent to the lake. In actual fact, the use of either mechanism or both in combination affects the carrying-capacity of a lake's total micro-environment, the water, and the land.

In reality, since lakes are such complex and dynamic systems, no amount of classification-regulatory effort will result in a land use program where one can say with any degree of accuracy how much additional protection one more foot of lot width or setback or 100 more feet for that matter, will provide a given lake resource. Users of the method described in this paper should accept that limitation as fundamental. However, a tier of generalized regulatory levels can be established which will assure that a higher degree of protection will be assigned to more sensitive lakes, while a lower degree will go to less sensitive environments. What the levels might actually be may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction since, to be most effective, they will be based on judgments combining the following ingredients: 1) the locality's wishes: 2) the experience of others (states and localities) with various protective levels: 3) research guidelines for the parameters receiving emphasis in the program; and 4) professional, "political," and public input and common-sense.

Minimum Protection

Amicon

Dowling

Lower Eau Claire

Minnesuing

Minong Flowage

Nebagamon

Upper St. Croix

CLASS 2
Moderate Protection

Maximum Protection

OUTSTANDING AND EXCEPTIONAL RESOURCE WATERS

In 1996 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources developed criteria to use as a basis for nominating waters as Outstanding Resource or Exceptional Resource waters. These are the highest quality waters in the state and receive special protection from the impact of point source wastewater discharges.

The parameters considered in the nomination were water chemistry, sediment quality/benthos, phytoplankton, macrophytes, fish community, and riparian zone habitat.