Full Text
Douglas County Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030 Prepared by: Northwest Regional Planning Commission Adopted: December 17th, 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Acknowledgements Douglas County Comprehensive Planning Committee Carol Johnson, Chair Sherry Amys Jane Aklam Nick Baker Mary Lou Bergman Janet Dalbec Gaye Erkel Ted Griggs Susan Hendrickson Dennis Hill Brian Johnson Brigid Lindquist Lee Gilbertson James Larson Kathleen Proctor Gates Patricia Schanen Jim Streveler Brad Theien David Thomas Sandy Waletzko Advisory Representatives Steve R oning Jason K. L Planning annenberg, Douglas County Z aumann, Northwest Regional Jason, Serck, City of Superior Others Sue O’Hall Extension oran, UWS Lake Superior Research Institute/UW‐ Amy Eliot, UWS Lake Superior Research Institute Project funded in part through a grant from the Wisconsin Department of Administration. ---PAGE BREAK--- i Table of Contents PAGE 1. ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES CHAPTER INTRODUCTION HISTORICAL POPULATION Historical summary (1855-1940) Population, 1950 to the Present Douglas County Population Change from 1990 to 2000 AGE DISTRIBUTION & DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Summary of Changes in Population & Age Distribution Factors affecting Population and Demographic Change Key Population Indicators PROJECTED POPULATION HOUSEHOLD, EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Households Household Projections Household Size EMPLOYMENT PROFILE Occupations Employers Commuting and Worker Flow Data INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Median Income and Poverty Level Household and Family Income EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS School Enrollment and Educational Attainment 2. HOUSING INTRODUCTION HOUSING VISION HOUSING PROFILE Number of Housing Units Occupancy Characteristics Subsidized Housing and Assisted Living Seasonal/Recreational Housing Housing supply Housing Types Age of Housing Stock Year Structure Built Structural Characteristics Heating Fuel Plumbing Facilities Housing Costs Housing Affordability Property Taxes HOUSING DEMAND Projected Housing Demand HOUSING DENSITY ---PAGE BREAK--- ii 3. TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION TRANSPORTATION VISION Existing Road System Traffic Counts Increased Traffic Volume Pavement Rating Future Road Improvements General Transportation Aids Traffic Safety Corridor Congestion Nodal development Trails Railroads Commercial Trucking Transit Transportation Facilities for the Elderly and Disabled Air Transportation Airport Improvements Bicycling & Walking Commercial Ports Transportation Plans & Programs Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Summary 4. UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITES INTRODUCTION UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES VISION UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROFILE On-site Wastewater Treatment Sanitary Sewer Services Storm Water Management Water Water Service Solid Waste Disposal Licensed Solid Waste Transfer Facilities Recycling Natural Gas Service Pipelines Pipeline Expansion Projects Communications Wireless Communication Towers and Antennae Electric Power Supply Electric Infrastructure Government Facilities County Facilities Town Facilities City & Village Facilities Government Services Administrative Department Douglas County Child Support Agency Douglas County Circuit Court ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Clerk of Courts Corporation Council County Clerk County Treasurer District Attorney Emergency Management University of Wisconsin – Cooperative Finance Department Forestry Department Highway Department Human Resources Department Health & Human Services Department Information Services Sheriff’s Department Judicial Court Commissioner Land Conservation Department Land Records Department Medical Planning and Zoning Department Probate Office Real Property Lister Recycling Department Register of Deeds Veterans Service Office Schools School District Planning Higher Education University of Wisconsin-Superior Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College – Superior Campus Health Care Facilities Home Health Care Trauma Care Facilities Adult Day Care Adult Family Homes Community Based Residential Nursing Homes Ambulance Service (EMS) Childcare Facilities Police, Fire and Rescue Facilities Police E-911 System Hazardous Materials Incident Response Fire Libraries Parks and Recreation Facilities County Recreational Areas Town Recreation Areas Golfing Downhill Skiing Target Shooting and Rifle, Paintball, and Archery Ranges Boat Landings Recreational Trails Hiking Trails Ski Trails ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Snowmobile Trails ATV Trails Horseback Riding Trails Water Trails Cemeteries Utilities & Community Facilities Needs Assessment 5. AGRICULTURAL, CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION NATURAL RESOURCES VISION TOPOGRAPHY SLOPE ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES GEOLOGY AND SOILS CLIMATE LAND TYPE ASSOCIATIONS & HABITATS COMMON PLANT COMMUNITIES FOREST RESOURCES County Forest State Forest Lands School and Community Forest Lands Town and Municipal Forest Lands Private Industrial Forest Land Cover Types WILDLIFE RESOURCES Critical Resources and Habitats Wisconsin’s Wildlife Action Plan PUBLIC CONSERVATION LANDS Legacy Places St. Louis Estuary and Pokegema Wetlands Wisconsin Point Nemadji River and Wetlands Middle River Contact Bois Brule River Eau Claire River Namekagon-Brule Barrens Empire and Belden Swamps Manitou Falls - Black River Upper Tamarack and Spruce Rivers Chase Creek Highway 2 Grasslands Lower Totagatic River St. Croix River Western Lake Superior Drowned River Mouths Solon Springs Sharptail Barrens Black Lake Bog Brule River Boreal Forest Brule Glacial Spillway Dwight's Point and Pokegama WetlandS Belden Swamp Buckley Creek and Barrens Erickson Creek Forest and Wetlands Nemadji River Floodplain Forest Big Manitou Falls and Gorge ---PAGE BREAK--- v Motts Ravine Brule Rush Lake Bear Beach Pokegama Carnegie Wetlands Empire Swamp Blueberry Swamp Flat Lake Goose Lake SURFACE WATERS WATERSHEDS OUTSTANDING AND EXCEPTIONAL RESOURCE WATERS INLAND LAKES Lake Types Water Quality Biological Components Physical Characteristics Physical Characteristics Fisheries and Habitat Impaired Waters Lake Superior Shoreline Types Lake Superior Watershed Coastal Public Access COASTAL HAZARDS Bluff erosion Lake Levels WETLANDS Priority Coastal Black Lake Bog* Belden Swamp* Mud Lake Bog/Ericson Lake Nemadji River Bottoms Pokegama-Carnegie Wetlands* Red River Breaks/St. Louis River Marshes Oliver Superior Municipal Forest Superior Airport/Hill Avenue Wetlands/South Superior Triangle Nemadji River Marshes Wisconsin Point-Allouez Bay Marshes* Divide Brule Spillway* GROUNDWATER METALLIC AND NONMETALLIC MINERAL RESOURCES Metallic Mineral Current Status Regulations Non-Metallic Mineral Resources Current Status Regulations CULTURAL & SCENIC RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES VISION Historic Resources Introduction Archaeological Sites and Cemeteries ---PAGE BREAK--- vi Archaeological Sites and Cemeteries in Douglas County Where are archaeological sites going to be located? Cemeteries, Burial Mounds, and Other Burials How do we know which archaeological sites need preservation? Protection of Important Archaeological Sites How are archaeological sites and cemeteries identified and evaluated? The National and State Register of Historic Places Wisconsin Architecture and Heritage Inventory SCENIC AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Number of Farms Douglas County Agricultural Crops and Commodities Prime Farmland Douglas County Forest Products Industry Forest Products Industry Output Douglas County Forest Dependence on Agriculture 6. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION ECONOMIC DEVEOPMENT VISION LABOR FORCE ECONOMIC BASE Employment by Industry Douglas County Businesses Local Area Employment Projections Worker Commuter Patterns ATTRACTING AND RETAINING BUSINESS AND INDUSTY SuperiorLife Technology Zone Program Workforce Development Business Development Assistance Access to Financing and Venture Capital PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES & OPPORTUNITES Quality of Life Tourism Impact to the Local Economy Redevelopment Sites Economic Development Programs and Organizations FEDERAL PROGRAMS Economic Development Administration USDA Wisconsin Rural Development STATE PROGRAMS Wisconsin Department of Commerce Wisconsin Departments of Tourism and Commerce Wisconsin Department of Transportation REGIONAL PROGRAMS Northwest Regional Planning Commission Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation SuperiorLife Technology Zone Program LOCAL PROGRAMS & RESOURCES The Development Association, Inc. Northeast Entrepreneur Fund OTHER PROGRAMS ---PAGE BREAK--- vii 7. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION INTRODUCTION INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION VISION Introduction Jurisdictional Authority County Relationship to Internal, Adjacent and Overlapping Jurisdictions Douglas County Intergovernmental Relationships Local Units of Government Adjoining Counties School Districts Technical Colleges Metropolitan Planning Organization Relationship to State Agencies Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Wisconsin Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Commerce Wisconsin Department of Administration Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Wisconsin Department of Revenue Wisconsin Department of Emergency Management Wisconsin Historical Society Regional Government Northwest Regional Planning Commission Federal Government Non-Governmental Organizations Resource and Conservation Development International Trade, Business and Economic Development Council for Northwest Wisconsin The Lake Superior Binational Program Great Lakes Commission International Joint Commission The International Joint Commission (IJC) Inventory of Existing Plans and Agreements Existing Plans Plans of Adjoining Jurisdictions Plan Consistency Existing Agreements Existing and Potential Conflicts Process for Resolving Conflicts Implementation Tools Cooperative Planning Sharing Plans with Other Jurisdictions Meeting with Adjoining Jurisdictions Cooperating with Services Trading Services Renting Equipment from Neighboring Communities Contracting Sharing of Municipal Staff Consolidation of Services Joint use of Facilities Creating a Special Purpose District Joint Purchase of Supplies and Equipment Cooperating with Regulations Zoning Land Division Ordinances ---PAGE BREAK--- viii Official Cooperating with Boundaries Annexation Detachment Incorporation Consolidation Intergovernmental Agreements 8. LAND USE INTRODUCTION LAND USE VISION LAND OWNERSHIP Public lands Federal lands State County lands Municipal lands Industrial forest lands Private lands TRENDS IN LAND ASSESSMENT Agriculture Douglas County Douglas County Commercial Douglas County Manufacturing Douglas County Forest LAND USE REGULATION Introduction Comprehensive Zoning Zoning Districts Zoning changes Rezoning Trends Subdivision Regulation Douglas County Floodplain Zoning Ordinance Local Zoning Authority Private Sewage Ordinance Non-Metallic Mining Reclamation Ordinance EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Map LAND SUPPLY Environmental Factors Existing Development Public Utility Access Undeveloped Land Land prices Land Use Conflicts Contaminated Sites Closed Landfills LAND DEMAND Residential Land Demand Commercial Land Demand ---PAGE BREAK--- ix Industrial Land Demand Agricultural Land Demand FUTURE LAND USE Future Land Use Maps 9. IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION Actions that must be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 9-1 Plan Adoption and Amendment 9-1 Public Plan Review and Adoption of the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan Future Amendments or Plan Updates Rationale for Plan Revisions or Updates INTERPRETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Role of the Planning Commission County Planning Committee How to Use the Implementation Activities Plan Implementation Zoning Amendments Consistency with Town Plans Consistency between Plan Elements Consistency between Municipalities Land Use Planning Tools Regulatory Tools ZONING General Zoning Extraterritorial Zoning and Plat Review (cities & villages) Official Mapping Sign Regulations Erosion and Stormwater Control Ordinances Historic Preservation Building Codes Design Review Regulations Sanitary System Regulations Subdivision Regulations Subdivision Design Lighting Controls NON-REGULATORY APPROACHES Conservation Easements Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Transfer of Development Rights Acquisition Best Management Practices FISCAL TOOLS Capital Improvements Program Impact Fees Tax Incremental Finance Special Assessments Intergovernmental Cooperation GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES Action Plan ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES HOUSING TRANSPORTATION UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- x AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES NATURAL RESOURCES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION LAND USE PLAN IMPLEMENTATION APPENDICES Adoption Ordinance A Future Land Use Categories B Issues and Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats C Conflict Resolution Process D Public Participation Plan E Survey Results F INDEX OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Douglas County Historical Population 1855-1940 Figure 1.2: Douglas County Population Density by Census Blocks, 1990 & 2000 Figure 1.3: Age & Male Female Population Distribution 1980-2000 Figure 1.4: Douglas County Population Change 1950-2000 & Figure 1.5: Travel Time to Work, Employed Persons in Douglas County Figure 1.6: Educational Attainment, Douglas County Figure 2.1: Permanent vs. Seasonal Home distribution -Census 2000, Douglas County MCD’s Figure 2.2: Douglas County Housing Density, 1940-2000 Figure2.3: Douglas County Housing Density Based on E-911 Data Figure 2.4: Owner-Occupied and Seasonal Housing Unit Density Comparisons, 1990 & 2000 Figure 3.1: Bicycling Conditions in Douglas County Figure 3.2: Corridors 2020 Routes Figure 4.1: Douglas County Natural Gas Service Territory Figure 4.2: Douglas County Telephone Exchanges Figure 4.3: Wireless Communication Towers Figure 4.4: Electric Utility Service Areas Figure 4.5: Douglas County School Districts Figure 4.6: WDNR Fire Response Units Figure 5.1: Douglas County Basins Figure 5.2: Douglas County Watersheds (HUC 5) Figure 5.3: Shoreline Types, City of Superior Figure 5.4: Shoreline Types, Superior to Bayfield Figure 5.5: Coastal Public Access, City of Superior Figure 5.6: Coastal Public Access, City of Superior to Bayfield County Line Figure 5.7: Douglas County Well Depths Figure 7.1: Douglas County, Regional Framework Figure 7.2: Wisconsin Technical College Districts Figure 7.3: WDNR Regions Figure 7.4: WisDOT Regions Figure 7.5: Wisconsin Emergency Management Regions Figure 7.6: Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions Figure 7.7: Wisconsin Resource Conservation and Development Areas Figure 8.1: Tax Parcel Classification, Douglas County Figure 8.2: Tax Classification Acreage, Douglas County Figure 8.3: Agricultural Property Assessment- Parcels ---PAGE BREAK--- xi Figure8.4: Agricultural Property Assessment - Acreage Figure 8.5: Residential Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.6: Residential Property Assessment – Acreage Figure 8.7: Commercial Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.8: Commercial Property Assessment – Acreage Figure 8.9: Manufacturing Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.10: Manufacturing Property Assessment – Acreage Figure 8.11: Forest Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.12: Forest Property Assessment – Acreage Figure 8.13: Existing Land Use Categories Figure 8.14: Contaminated and Cleaned Up Sites Figure 8.15: Closed Landfills INDEX OF TABLES Table 1.1: Douglas County, Population: 1950-2000 Table 1.2: Douglas County (including the City of Superior) Demographic Change: 1980-1990 Table 1.3: Demographic Change in Douglas County, 1990-2000 Table 1.4 : Douglas County Population Projections Table 1.5 : Douglas County Household Characteristics, Table 1.6 : Douglas County Household Projections Table 1.7: Average Household Size 2000-2030 Table 1.8: Douglas County Employment & Wage Distribution by Industry, 2006 Table 1.9: Prominent Public and Private Sector Employers in Douglas County, Table 1.10: Methods of Travel to Work, Douglas County Table 1.11: Place of Work, 2000 Table 1.12: Median Income, 2000 Table 1.13: 2000 Household and Family Income, Douglas County Table 1.14: Educational Enrollment, 2000 Table 2.1: Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Table 2.2: Occupancy Characteristics by MCD, 2000 Table 2.3: Housing Occupancy (Percent of Total Housing Units, 1980-2000) Table 2.4: Seasonal Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Table 2.5: Housing Types by Minor Civil Division Table 2.6: Age of Housing Stock, Douglas County Table2. 7: Housing Age by Minor Civil Division Table 2.8: Number of Rooms per Dwelling by Minor Civil Division Table 2.9: Number of Bedrooms per Dwelling by Minor Civil Division Table 2.10: Home Heating Fuel, Occupied Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Table 2.11: Plumbing Facilities, Total Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Table 2.12: Douglas County Municipal Sewer and Wastewater Systems Table 2.13: Housing Costs, 2000 Census Table 2.14: Income and Housing Affordability Table 2.15: Housing Value, 2000 Census Table 2.16: 1998-2007 Home Sales Data Table2. 17: 2006 Property Tax Rates and Estimated Tax Burden for Median Value Homes Table 2.18: Permit History, Year Round Housing Units Table 2.19: Permit History, Seasonal Housing Units Table 2.20: Average Annual Housing Demand Based on Long Term (1995-2007) Permit Data, Towns Table 2.21: Housing Unit Projections, 2010-2030 Table 2.22: Land Area & Housing Density, 1980-2030 Table 3.1: Roadway Miles by Type and Jurisdiction, Douglas County Table 3.2: Functional Classification System Table 3.3: AADT on Selected Sites in Douglas County, 1975-2005 Table 3.4: AADT on Selected sites of County Trunk Highways, 1996-2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- xii Table 3.5: Future Road Improvements, Douglas County Table 3.6: General Transportation Aids Table 3.7: 2008 Douglas County GTA Payments Table 3.8: Vehicular Crash Counts on Selected Highways Table 3.9: Douglas County Airports-Airfields Table 3.10: Applicable Local, State, Regional, and other Transportation Plans including: Table 4.1: Recycling Drop-off Sites, Douglas County Table 4.2: Transmission Lines, Douglas County Table 4.3: Douglas County Schools Table 4.4: 1997-2008 Total Student Enrollments by School District Table 4.5: 1997-2008 Total Student Enrollments by School (Public and Table 4.6: Licensed Adult Family Homes, Douglas County Table 4.7: Licensed Community Based Residential Facilities Douglas Table 4.8: Licensed Nursing Homes, Douglas County Table 4.9: Licensed Childcare Facilities, Douglas County Table 4.10: Fire Departments, Douglas County Table 4.11: Boat Landings, Douglas County Table 4.12: Cemeteries, Douglas County Table 4.13: Douglas County Utilities and Community Facilities Table 5.1: Habitat Types and Their Dominant Species, Douglas County Table 5.2: Forest Acreage by Municipality Table 5.3: DNR Managed Lands, Douglas County Table 5.4: Registered School Forests, Douglas County Table 5.5: Town-owned Lands, Douglas County Table 5.6: Managed Forest Law and Forest Crop Law Program Lands, Douglas County Table 5.7: Land Cover, Douglas County Table 5.8: Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species & Natural Communities in Douglas County Table 5.9: Species of Concern, Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan Table 5.10: Watershed Statistics, Douglas County Table 5.11: Outstanding (ORW) and Exceptional Resource Waters (ERW), Douglas County Table 5.12: Lake Acres and Shorelines Miles, Douglas County Table 5.13: Stream Physical Data, Douglas County Table 5.14: Trout Stream Class Miles, Douglas County Table 5.15: Impaired Waters without approved excluding those with impairments caused by atmospheric deposition of mercury, Douglas County Table 5.16: Waters Impaired by Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury, Douglas County Table 5.17: Proposed 2008 Additions to Impaired Waters List, Douglas County Table 5.18: Lake Superior Shoreline Types, Douglas County Table 5.19: Wetland Types by Minor Civil Division Table 5.20: Former Metallic Mining Sites and Prospects, Douglas County Table 5.21: Non-Metallic Mineral Resources, Douglas County Table 5.22: Archaeological Sites & Cemeteries in Douglas County Table 5.23: Wisconsin National Register of Historic Places, Douglas County Table 5.24: AHI, Douglas County Table 5.25: Douglas County Farms, 1920-2000 Table 5.26: Trends in Farm Numbers, Douglas County Towns Table 5.27: Agricultural Crops and Commodities, 2002 Table 5.28: Douglas County Forest Timber Sales Revenue, 1997 – 2007 Table 5.29: Douglas County Forest Severance Payments to Local Municipalities, 2007 Table 5.30: Dependence on Agriculture in 2000, Douglas County Table 6.1: General Characteristics of the Population Table 6.2: 2006 Top Ten Non-Farm Industry Groups in Douglas County (Employed labor force) Table 6.3: 2006 Ranked NAICS Douglas County Industries (Public & Private Non-Farm) Table 6.4: Ranked Top 20 Employers in Douglas County (Public and Private) Table 6.5: Ranked Top 20 Private Industries by 3-Digit NAICS Code (2006) ---PAGE BREAK--- xiii Table 6.6: Northwest Region Employment Projections (by Occupation) 2004-2014 Table 6.7: Local Area Employment Projections to 2030 Table 6.8: NORTHWEST REGION OCCUPATION PROJECTIONS: 2010 Table 6.9: Douglas County Commuting Patterns, 2000 Table 6.10: Douglas County Tourism Expenditures Table 7.1: Inventory of Existing Plans of Overlapping Jurisdictions Table 7.2: Inventory of Existing Plans of Adjoining Jurisdictions Table 7.3: Jurisdictions Having Authority to Approve Subdivision Plats Table 7.4: Distinguishing between Intergovernmental Agreement Types Table 8.1: Douglas County Parcels by Owner Classification Table 8.2: Percent Public and Private Land Ownership Table 8.3: Douglas County Agricultural Assessments, 1978-2008 Table 8.4: Douglas County Property Assessment- Residential Real Estate Class, 1978-2000 Table 8.5: Douglas County Property Assessment- Commercial Real Estate Class, 1978-2008 Table 8.6: Douglas County Property Assessment- Manufacturing Real Estate Class, 1978-2008 Table 8.7: Douglas County Property Assessment- Forest Real Estate Class, 1978-2008 Table 8.8: Douglas County Zoning Districts Table 8.9: Douglas County Zoning Districts (for unincorporated areas only) Table 8.10: Re-zones Granted in the Unincorporated Towns: 1999-2007 Table 8.11: Zoning Petitions Granted by Zoning District, 1999-2007 Table 8.12: Douglas County Shoreland Class Development Standards – Dimensional Requirements Table 8.13: Existing Land Use, Towns Table 8.14: Development Constraints, Douglas County Table 8.15: Average per Acre Cost of Undeveloped Rural Land (May 2008 MLS Listings), Table 8.16: Contaminated Properties and Other Activities Related to the Investigation and Cleanup of Contaminated Soil or Groundwater in Douglas County Database) Table 8.17: Forecast Residential Land Demand, Towns Table 8.18: Forecast Commercial Land Demand, Towns Table 8.19: Forecast Industrial Land Demand, Towns Table 8.20: Forecast Agricultural Land Demand, Towns Table 8.21: Town Future Land Use Categories and Desired Minimum Lot Sizes Table 9.1: Recommended Plan Revision Schedule Table 9.2: Creating a Planning Commission INDEX OF MAPS Map 3.1 Functional Class Map 3.2 Annual Daily Traffic Map 3.3 PASER & Surface Type Map 4.1 Uilities & Community Facilites Map 4.2 Parks & Recreation Map 5.1 Topography Map 5.2 Slope Map 5.3. Soil Texture Map 5.4 Soil Limitations for Dwellings with Basements Map 5.5 Hydric Soils Map 5.6 Land Cover Map 5.7 Natural Heritage Inventory Map 5.8 Legacy Places Map 5.9 Surface Water Resources Map 5.10 Watersheds Map 5.11 Outstanding Resource Waters/Exceptional Resource Waters Map 5.12 Trout Streams Map 5.13 Wetlands ---PAGE BREAK--- xiv Map 5.14 Priority Coastal Wetlands Map 5.15 Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility Map 5.16 Aquatic Invasive Species Map 5.17 Prime Farmlands Map 8.1 Land Ownership Map 8.2 Zoning Map 8.3 Existing Land Use Map 8.4 Environmental Constraints Map 8.5 Future Land Use – Amnicon Map 8.6 Future Land Use – Bennett Map 8.7 Future Land Use – Brule Map 8.8 Future Land Use – Cloverland Map 8.9 Future Land Use – Dairyland Map 8.10 Future Land Use – Gordon Map 8.11 Future Land Use - Hawthorne Map 8.12 Future Land Use – Highland Map 8.13 Land Use – Lakeside Map 8.14 Future Land Use – Maple Map 8.15 Future Land Use – Oakland Map 8.16 Future Land Use – Parkland Map 8.17 Future Land Use – Solon Springs Map 8.18 Future Land Use – Summit Map 8.19 Future Land Use – Superior Map 8.20 Future Land Use – Wascott (East) Map 8.21 Future Land Use – Wascott (West) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-1 INTRODUCTION Population is an important contributing factor to both the pattern of settlement and development of a municipal unit. Significant increases or decreases in the number of inhabitants, along with the characteristics of income, education, and age, will impact economic development, land use, transportation, and use of public and private services. Examining past changes and present conditions of the population enhances the ability to prepare for and understand the future. HISTORICAL POPULATION Historical summary (1855-1940) Since its creation by the state legislature in 1854, Douglas County has experienced periods of population growth and decline. In its first 30 years of existence, the county’s total population did not exceed 3,000 inhabitants. The introduction of railroads into the county in the 1880s, coupled with the development of mining and timber resources in the area, and establishment of the port at Duluth-Superior brought in numerous settlers resulting in a period of growth peaking in 1920. With the exception of an increase in 1940, the county’s population has been in a gradual decline since 1920. Figure 1.1 below displays the county’s historical population from 1855 to 1940. Between 1950 and 1990, Douglas County’s population has declined steadily at an average rate of 2.7 percent per decade. By 2000, the county’s population rebounded, growing 3.7 percent since the 1990 census. Figure 1.1: Douglas County Historical Population 1855-1940 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-2 Population, 1950 to the Present By the mid 1900’s Douglas County’s population had stabilized. For a period of 20 years (1930- 1950), the county’s population fluctuated less than 2 percent. The period between 1950 an 2000 showed a gradual decline to a 100 year low of 43,287. Population change at the local level did not necessarily mirror that occurring at a countywide scale. With some exceptions, Towns in Douglas County generally increased in population between 1950 and 2000. The Town’s of Wascott, Oakland and Solon Springs more than doubled during this period, while the Town’s of Dairlyland, Cloverland, Brule and Parkland lost population. Population change was also notable in the Villages of Douglas County. Between 1950 and 2000, each of the county’s five villages gained population. The population of the Village of Lake Nebagamon grew nearly threefold, far outpacing the growth rates of the other four villages. In terms of population, the City of Superior is the largest municipality in Douglas County. The City is situated within a metropolitan area (Metropolitan Statistical Area) that includes the 86,918 residents of Duluth, Minnesota. In 2000, the city’s population of 27,368 accounted for 63.2 percent of the countywide population. The city’s population, relative to that of the county has been declining on average of about 2.5 percent per year over the past 50 years. Between 1950 and 2000, the City of Superior lost nearly 8,000 residents, or 22 percent of its population. The loss of population can be explained, in part, to an economic downturn from the 60’s through the early 80’s. It is also likely that population loss in the city is also attributable to out-migration into the surrounding communities and rural areas of Douglas County. At the same time the city was losing population; many adjoining and outlying communities were growing. Currently, the most influential factors affecting population change in Douglas County are net migration and natural change (births, deaths). Between 2000 and 2004, the county experienced a net migration rate of 0.5 percent, which was lower than the both the overall statewide average and the average for Wisconsin’s metropolitan counties. The rate of natural increase during this period was 0.4 percent, which was also significantly lower than the statewide and Wisconsin metropolitan county averages. In 2006, the county’s fertility rate1 Historical (1950-2000) population statistics for Douglas County are presented in Table 1.1. of 55.2 was lower than the surrounding counties and the less than the statewide average of 63.4. Over the past 15 years, the countywide fertility rate has generally been declining, meaning fewer residents are having babies. If this trend continues, future growth as a result of natural increase will likely continue to diminish. Additional factors for the overall decrease in population of Douglas County in the past 40 years may also include the following: abandonment of local agricultural concerns for other work—as is evidenced by the dwindling number of farms in the county—as well as the general decline in employment associated with the Port of Duluth-Superior, railroad transport, and manufacturing since the 1970’s. 1 Number of live births per 1,000 women (aged 15-44 years) ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-3 Table 1.1: Douglas County, Population: 1950-2000 Source: US Census Bureau Municipality 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Percent Change 1950-2000 Towns T Amnicon 623 657 898 916 929 1,074 +72% T Bennett 412 325 333 501 525 622 +51% T Brule 660 575 497 544 527 591 -10% T Cloverland 355 343 255 263 246 247 -30% T Dairyland 368 256 233 258 222 186 -49% T Gordon 572 389 416 627 553 645 +13% T Hawthorne 704 578 677 902 1,049 1,045 +48% T Highland 140 147 156 190 207 245 +75% T Lakeside 438 480 514 572 569 609 +39% T Maple 604 575 608 685 667 649 T Oakland 530 636 624 938 993 1,144 +116% T Parkland 1,313 1,531 1,523 1,496 1,326 1,240 T Solon Springs 395 367 471 553 619 807 +104% T Summit 823 841 905 1,057 1,009 1,042 +27% T Superior 1,311 1,530 1,743 2,065 1,911 2,058 +57% T Wascott 284 268 301 511 535 714 +151% Total unincorporated 9,532 9,498 10,154 12,078 11,887 12,918 +36% Villages V Lake Nebagamon 340 346 523 780 900 1,015 +198% V Oliver 210 222 210 253 265 358 +70% V Poplar 489 475 455 569 516 552 +13% V Solon Springs 480 530 598 590 575 576 +20% V Superior 339 374 476 580 481 500 +47% City C Superior 35,325 33,563 32,237 29,511 27,134 27,368 -22% Total incorporated 37,183 35,510 34,499 32,343 29,871 30,369 -18% County Douglas County 46,715 45,008 44,657 44,421 41,758 43,287 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-4 Population Change from 1990 to 2000 Comparison of the census block data shown in Figure 1.2 reveals the following generalized population trends: Population growth is occurring in the rural towns along the major road corridors including Parkland, Bennett, Solon Springs, Oakland and the Town of Superior. This growth is due primarily to the increase in rural residents commuting to the Duluth-Superior metropolitan area for work. Other areas of expansion include the lake areas. This trend is fueled primarily by a conversion of seasonal homes to permanent year-round residences. Also notable is the densification occurring within the incorporated units of Oliver, Lake Nebagamon and Poplar as municipal services (primarily sewer) are developed and enhanced. As is shown, much of Douglas County also has a low population density—at twenty persons per square mile or less—with higher densities found along the inland lakeshore areas, along major roadways, and within the incorporated villages and the City of Superior. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-5 Figure 1.2: Douglas County Population Density by Census Blocks, 1990 & 2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-6 AGE DISTRIBUTION & DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS Summary of Changes in Population & Age Distribution In the decade from 1990 to 2000, the US Census reported an increase of 1,529 inhabitants in Douglas County, or 3.7 percent growth in population. This increase, however, was not uniform to all age groups within the county. The greatest changes for specific age groups (in absolute numbers) for the decade were an increase in persons aged 35 to 54 (2,930), a decrease in persons aged 25 to 34 (-1,056), and a decrease in persons aged 14 and under (-609). Table 1.2 details the demographic changes encountered by Douglas County for the decade between 1990 and 2000. Figure 1.3 makes use of population pyramids to graphically depict the age and male/female distribution of Douglas County in 1980, 1990 and 2000. Table 1.3 provides an overview of demographic change with key segments of Douglas County’s population base. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-7 Figure 1.3: Age & Male Female Population Distribution 1980-2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-8 Table 1.2: Douglas County (including the City of Superior) Demographic Change: 1980-1990 Age category Change in Absolute Numbers: 1980-1990 Percent Change: 1980-1990 85 and over +289 +55.4% 75 to 84 +390 +19.6% 65 to 74 -248 -6.4% 55 to 64 -850 -18.9% 45 to 54 -63 -1.5% 35 to 44 +1995 +46.8% 25 to 34 -614 -8.8% 15 to 24 -2660 -31.5% 5 to 14 -424 -6.4% Under 5 -478 -14.5% Selected age categories All inhabitants over 75 +679 +26.9% All inhabitants over 65 +431 +6.8% All inhabitants 45 to 64 -913 -20.4% All inhabitants under 24 -3562 -19.5% All inhabitants under 14 -902 -9.2% Source: Calculated from US Census Bureau data Factors affecting Population and Demographic Change Douglas County is experiencing trends common to other counties in the northern portion of Wisconsin: • A stable population of elderly (age 75 and over) inhabitants who remain having family or other ties to the area; • An influx of 35 to 44 year olds who are generally well educated, without children or with few children and seek a tranquil setting to reside or start businesses; • An out-migration of retired individuals (aged 55 to 74) who have spent their work careers in the area but seek to retire elsewhere and maintain their residence as a seasonal home; • An in-migration of retired individuals (aged 55 to 74) who have spent their working career elsewhere and are now establishing a residence in the county or converting their summer home or seasonal dwelling into a permanent residence; • A decrease in infants born into or moving with families into the county; • An overall decrease in persons between the ages of 15 and 24 within the rural portions of Douglas County, as this age group is most likely to seek employment and/or educational opportunities elsewhere. These demographic changes are by no means uniform throughout all municipal units of the county, as several municipal units deviate from countywide trends. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-9 Table 1.3: Demographic Change in Douglas County, 1990-2000 Source: Calculated from US Census Bureau data Working Age Population (18 to 62) School age Population (17 and under) College Age Population (18 to 24) Post-Retirement Age Population (62+) MUNICIPALITY 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change Towns Amnicon 517 639 23.6% 304 333 9.5% 57 72 26.3% 108 102 -5.6% Bennett 290 347 19.7% 165 189 14.5% 31 36 16.1% 70 86 22.9% Brule 291 332 14.1% 130 160 23.1% 26 24 -7.7% 106 99 -6.6% Cloverland 137 138 0.7% 68 71 4.4% 15 18 20.0% 41 38 -7.3% Dairyland 126 120 -4.8% 64 25 -60.9% 15 8 -46.7% 32 41 28.1% Gordon 304 371 22.0% 116 127 9.5% 23 32 39.1% 133 147 10.5% Hawthorne 518 553 6.8% 315 288 -8.6% 58 55 -5.2% 216 204 -5.6% Highland 111 131 18.0% 40 37 -7.5% 13 9 -30.8% 56 77 37.5% Lakeside 286 364 27.3% 182 162 -11.0% 28 37 32.1% 101 83 -17.8% Maple 383 387 1.0% 180 153 -15.0% 64 31 -51.6% 104 109 4.8% Oakland 592 706 19.3% 289 288 -0.3% 65 87 33.8% 112 150 33.9% Parkland 764 751 -1.7% 356 318 -10.7% 116 88 -24.1% 206 171 -17.0% Solon Springs 328 452 37.8% 151 191 26.5% 25 51 104.0% 140 164 17.1% Summit 587 649 10.6% 272 257 -5.5% 69 58 -15.9% 150 136 -9.3% Superior 1167 1273 9.1% 502 536 6.8% 166 128 -22.9% 242 249 2.9% Wascott 297 399 34.3% 72 99 37.5% 48 30 -37.5% 166 216 30.1% Villages Lake Nebagamon 481 574 19.3% 253 259 2.4% 55 41 -25.5% 166 182 9.6% Oliver 155 207 33.5% 85 108 27.1% 23 22 -4.3% 25 43 72.0% Poplar 288 309 7.3% 160 162 1.3% 39 21 -46.2% 68 81 19.1% Solon Springs 284 324 14.1% 133 123 -7.5% 32 41 28.1% 158 129 -18.4% Superior 286 297 3.8% 114 105 -7.9% 40 42 5.0% 81 98 21.0% City Superior 14,938 16,457 10.2% 6,730 6,211 -7.7% 3,037 3,518 15.8% 5,466 4,700 -14.0% County Total Douglas County 23,130 25,780 11.5% 10,681 10,202 -4.5% 4045 4449 10.0% 7,947 7,305 -8.1% ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-10 Key Population Indicators Between 1990 and 2000: • Eight of the county’s sixteen towns experienced a decline in school age children (Dairlyand, Hawthorne, Highland, Lakeside, Maple, Oakland, Parkland and Summit) The City of Superior saw a decrease 519, or 2.5 percent, in school-age children. Solon Springs is the only village to have lost individuals in this age class. • With the exceptions of the Town’s of Dairyland and Parkland, all municipalities added individuals to the “working age” age class of 18-62. Several municipalities experienced sizable increases in this age class, including the Town of Solon Springs (+37.8 percent), Town of Wascott (+34.3 percent) and the Village of Oliver (+33.5 percent) • The post-retirement age population (aged 62+) declined in nine of the county’s twenty-two municipalities. The towns of Bennett, Dairyland, Gordon, Highland, Oakland, solon Springs and Wascott experienced double-digit increases in this age class. The Villages of Superior, Poplar and Oliver also saw sizable increases in their post-retirement age populations. PROJECTED POPULATION Population projections represent estimates of future population change based on historical population change. Actual future population growth will be based on many social and economic factors. It is important to recognize that unforeseen events may cause dramatic deviations from the projected future values. Population projections for Douglas County municipalities are shown in Table 1.4. Douglas County population projections for the years 2005-2025 were developed by the Wisconsin Department of Administration (WDOA). These figures were based on past and current population trends and other demographic factors such as natural change (births, deaths) and population migration trends. Various models were examined during the planning process; however the WDOA model most closely represented current population estimates and trends occurring at the local level. Projections for the years 2025- 2030 were developed by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-11 Table 1.4 : Douglas County Population Projections Municipality 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Towns Amnicon 1,074 1,134 1,196 1,259 1,322 1,378 1,386 Bennett 622 658 696 734 772 806 811 Brule 591 624 658 693 727 758 762 Cloverland 247 245 244 243 241 239 240 Dairyland 186 181 177 172 167 162 163 Gordon 645 700 756 813 870 922 927 Hawthorne 1,045 1,079 1,115 1,152 1,188 1,218 1,225 Highland 245 272 299 327 354 380 382 Lakeside 609 630 651 673 695 713 717 Maple 649 659 671 683 694 702 706 Oakland 1,144 1,217 1,292 1,369 1,445 1,513 1,522 Parkland 1,240 1,218 1,198 1,178 1,157 1,130 1,137 Solon Springs 807 886 966 1,048 1,129 1,205 1,212 Summit 1,042 1,062 1,084 1,107 1,128 1,144 1,151 Superior 2,058 2,157 2,260 2,366 2,470 2,561 2,576 Wascott 714 786 860 935 1,009 1,079 1,085 Villages Lake Nebagamon 1,015 1,061 1,109 1,159 1,207 1,249 1,256 Oliver 358 400 443 486 529 570 573 Poplar 552 561 570 580 590 596 599 Solon Springs 576 578 580 583 585 585 588 Superior 500 528 558 587 617 643 647 City Superior 27,368 27,337 27,351 27,385 27,385 27,240 27,397 County Total Douglas County 43,287 43,973 44,734 45,532 46,281 46,793 47,062 Source: Wisconsin Department of Administration (2000-2025), (2030) ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-12 Figure 1.4: Douglas County Population Change 1950-2000 & 2000-2030 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-13 Figure1.4 illustrates population changes in the individual municipal divisions of the county for the periods from 1950 to 1990 and projected population change from 2000-2030. The period between 1950 and 2000 saw growth in all but five municipal divisions. The largest increases occurred in the Village of Lake Nebagamon and the Towns of Amnicon, Bennett, Hawthorne, Highland, Solon Springs, Superior, and Wascott. This period saw declines in the City of Superior, and the Towns of Brule, Cloverland, Parkland, and Dairyland. Population projections to 2030 indicate strong growth in the rural towns of southern and eastern Douglas County. It is within these communities where most of the desirable lakefront and recreational property is found. The trend of seasonal/recreational home conversion to primary residences will be a driving force in the population increase in these areas. Additionally, it is expected that there will be continued strong population growth in the communities adjoining the City of Superior. With the exception of the Town of Parkland, each adjoining and nearby municipality is expected experience positive population growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-14 HOUSEHOLD, EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Households An analysis of the households in the county helps to establish a generalized understanding of the lives of the county’s inhabitants and an insight into community life. Understanding household composition and condition is essential in assessing future needs of the county’s inhabitants. Key characteristics of households in the Douglas County are presented in Table 1.5. Table 1. 5 : Douglas County Household Characteristics, 2000 Total Percent of all households TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 17,808 100.0% 1-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS 5315 29.8% 1 person household, male householder 2391 13.4% 1 person household, female householder 2924 16.4% 1 person household with householder age 65 and over 2129 12.0% 1 person household with householder age 64 or younger 3186 17.9% 2 OR MORE PERSON HOUSEHOLDS 12493 70.2% Family Households 11280 63.3% Married couple families 8745 49.1% Married couple families with related children 3552 19.9% Female householder, no husband present 1800 10.1% Female householder, no husband present, with related children 1213 6.8% Female householder, no husband present, with no related children 587 3.3% 2 persons in household 6245 35.1% 3 persons in household 2727 15.3% 4 persons in household 2202 12.4% 5 persons in household 911 5.1% 6 persons in household 283 1.6% 7 or more persons in household 125 0.7% Non-family Households 6528 36.7% Male householder 3125 17.5% Female householder 3403 19.1% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-15 According to the Census Bureau, A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements The 2000 Census identified 17,808 households in Douglas County in an increase of 8.8 percent from 1990. Of the 2000 total, 5,315 (29.8 percent) are identified as one person households, while 12,493 (70.1 percent) are identified as having two or more persons. Of all households, 11,280 (63.3 percent) are reported as family households and 6,528 (36.7 percent) are reported as non-family households. In 2000, 1,293 individuals were housed in group quarters in the county, of which 585 were housed in an institutional setting. Of all county households, just over 80 percent are composed of three persons or less, and nearly 12 percent of all households are comprised of one individual age 65 or over, the following table reveals in more detail the composition and characteristics of households in the county from the 2000 Census. Detailed household characteristics for Douglas County are shown in Table 1.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-16 Household Projections Table 1.6 : Douglas County Household Projections Municipality 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Towns Amnicon 364 393 424 451 478 503 530 Bennett 224 242 262 280 297 313 331 Brule 244 264 284 303 320 337 355 Cloverland 94 95 97 97 97 98 98 Dairyland 87 87 86 85 83 81 80 Gordon 298 331 365 397 429 458 490 Hawthorne 338 357 378 396 413 425 443 Highland 107 122 136 151 165 179 194 Lakeside 226 239 253 264 275 284 295 Maple 277 288 300 308 316 323 331 Oakland 425 464 502 538 573 605 641 Parkland 463 466 468 465 461 454 451 Solon Springs 334 375 418 458 499 537 578 Summit 418 436 455 469 483 495 509 Superior 764 820 877 929 979 1,024 1,075 Wascott 295 332 373 411 448 481 519 Villages Lake Nebagamon 428 459 489 517 543 567 594 Oliver 127 145 164 183 200 218 236 Poplar 209 217 225 232 238 243 250 Solon Springs 268 275 282 287 290 294 298 Superior village 209 226 244 260 275 289 304 City Superior 11,609 11,881 12,138 12,316 12,439 12,466 12,617 County Total Douglas County 17,808 18,514 19,220 19,797 20,301 20,674 21,214 Source: Wisconsin Department of Administration 2000-2025, 2030 By 2030, the number of households in Douglas County is projected to increase by 19.1 percent, over the census total of 17,808 in 2000. With the exceptions of the Town’s of Parkland and Dairyland, each municipality is projected to have an increase in households over the planning period. The most notable increases are projected for the Town’s of Highland (+80.8 percent), Gordon (+64.4 percent) and the Village of Oliver (+85.8 percent). As a whole, rural towns are expected to have a greater proportional increase in households over the villages and the City of Superior. This projected rise will be fueled primarily by a decline in the average household size. Household projections for Douglas County municipalities are depicted in Table 1.6. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-17 Household Size Table 1. 7: Average Household Size 2000-2030 Municipality 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Towns Amnicon 3.16 2.96 3.00 2.89 2.82 2.79 2.77 2.74 2.62 Bennett 2.98 2.84 2.80 2.72 2.66 2.62 2.60 2.58 2.45 Brule 2.52 2.41 2.40 2.36 2.32 2.29 2.27 2.25 2.15 Cloverland 2.92 2.65 2.60 2.58 2.52 2.51 2.48 2.44 2.45 Dairyland 3.19 2.55 2.10 2.08 2.06 2.02 2.01 2.00 2.04 Gordon 2.63 2.29 2.20 2.11 2.07 2.05 2.03 2.01 1.89 Hawthorne 2.96 2.92 2.80 3.02 2.95 2.91 2.88 2.87 2.77 Highland 2.53 2.30 2.30 2.23 2.20 2.17 2.15 2.12 1.97 Lakeside 3.16 2.80 2.70 2.64 2.57 2.55 2.53 2.51 2.43 Maple 2.98 2.66 2.30 2.29 2.24 2.22 2.20 2.17 2.13 Oakland 3.06 2.86 2.70 2.62 2.57 2.54 2.52 2.50 2.37 Parkland 3.07 2.81 2.70 2.61 2.56 2.53 2.51 2.49 2.52 Solon Springs 2.56 2.47 2.40 2.36 2.31 2.29 2.26 2.24 2.10 Summit 2.93 2.67 2.50 2.44 2.38 2.36 2.34 2.31 2.26 Superior 3.15 2.77 2.70 2.63 2.58 2.55 2.52 2.50 2.40 Wascott 2.47 2.21 2.20 2.37 2.31 2.27 2.25 2.24 2.09 Villages Lake Nebagamon 2.74 2.65 2.40 2.31 2.27 2.24 2.22 2.20 2.11 Oliver 2.94 2.94 2.80 2.76 2.70 2.66 2.65 2.61 2.43 Poplar 3.21 2.77 2.60 2.59 2.53 2.50 2.48 2.45 2.40 Solon Springs 2.73 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.06 2.03 2.02 1.99 1.97 Superior village 2.97 2.56 2.40 2.34 2.29 2.26 2.24 2.22 2.13 City Superior 2.46 2.36 2.30 2.30 2.25 2.22 2.20 2.19 2.17 County Total Douglas County 2.60 2.46 2.40 2.38 2.33 2.30 2.28 2.26 2.22 Source: US Census Bureau 1980-2000, 2000-2030 Average household size refers to the average number of people living together in a single dwelling unit. Like many Wisconsin Counties, the average household size in Douglas County is declining. Reasons for this decline include lower birth rates and increased divorce rates, along with increased longevity resulting in higher number of one-person senior households. The Wisconsin Department of Administration estimates that the average household size in Wisconsin will decline to around 2.3 persons per household by the year 2030. At the current rate of decline, the average household size in Douglas County would be below 2.3 by 2030. Household projections for all municipalities in Douglas County are depicted in Table 1.7. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-18 EMPLOYMENT PROFILE The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development identifies a total civilian labor force of 23,053 of which 21,898 are employed and 1,155 are unemployed, yielding an unemployment rate of 5.0 percent as of November 2006. The 2008 unemployment rate is nearly double that of the late 1990’s. Occupations The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) identified transportation/material moving, office/administrative support and sales/related as the top three employment categories in the county in 2006. Table 1.8 illustrates the composition of Douglas County’s workforce in 2006. Table 1.8: Douglas County Employment & Wage Distribution by Industry, 2006 Occupational category Annual Average Employment Percent Total Employment Average Annual Wage Trade, Transportation, Utilities 4,605 30.1% $33,231 Education & Health 3,351 21.9% $31,852 Leisure & Hospitality 2,242 14.7% $10,207 Manufacturing 1,219 8.0% $42,471 Public Administration 954 6.2% $38,914 Professional & Business Services 797 5.2% $27,571 Construction 790 5.2% $43,229 Other Services 654 4.3% $20,469 Financial Activities 525 3.4% $30,229 Information 115 0.8% $30,351 Natural Resources 48 0.3% $21,817 Total Nonfarm 15,300 100% $22,011 Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-19 Employers The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development identifies the School District of Superior, University of Wisconsin-Superior and Wal-Mart as Douglas County’s top three employers. Table 1.9 displays the county’s top ten employers in 2006. Table 1.9: Prominent Public and Private Sector Employers in Douglas County, 2006 Employer Product or Service Number of Employees School District of Superior Elementary & Secondary Schools 500-999 University of Wisconsin Superior Colleges & Universities 250-499 Wal-Mart Discount Department Stores 250-499 Halvor Lines General Freight Trucking 250-499 Douglas County Executive & Legislative Offices 250-499 City of Superior Executive & Legislative Offices 250-499 School District of Maple Elementary & Secondary Schools 250-499 Jeff Foster Trucking General Freight Trucking 100-249 Super One Foods Supermarkets & Grocery Stores 100-249 Murphy Oil USA Inc. Petroleum Refineries 100-249 Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Bureau of Workforce Training, June 2007 Commuting and Worker Flow Data Table 1.10: Methods of Travel to Work, Douglas County Method of Travel to Work Total Car, truck, van 18,474 Drove alone 16,321 Carpool 2,153 Public transportation 300 Bus or trolley bus 251 Subway or elevated 18 Taxicab 31 Bicycle 37 Walked 870 Other means 153 Worked at home 489 Source: US Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-20 Table 1.11: Place of Work, 2000 Municipality Worked in minor civil division of residence Worked outside minor civil division of residence Worked at Home Towns T Amnicon 56 427 18 T Bennett 29 263 9 T Brule 47 213 12 T Cloverland 21 85 18 T Dairyland 14 75 5 T Gordon 39 175 11 T Hawthorne 42 395 18 T Highland 22 62 9 T Lakeside 11 269 11 T Maple 37 252 11 T Oakland 23 551 12 T Parkland 66 556 24 T Solon Springs 78 285 11 T Summit 43 493 6 T Superior 140 917 9 T Wascott 45 220 13 V Lake Nebagamon 76 403 17 Villages V Oliver 17 145 6 V Poplar 95 195 22 V Solon Springs 98 149 16 V Superior 38 211 27 City C Superior 7,804 5,141 204 Douglas County 8,841 11,482 489 Source: US Census Bureau As shown in Table 1.10, most employed persons in Douglas County commuted to work via personal automobile. Table 1.11 reveals that most employed persons commuted to work at locations outside of their municipality of residence. As indicated in Figure 1.5, more than one-half of employed persons in Douglas County have work-related commutes of 20 minutes or less. ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-21 Figure 1.5: Travel Time to Work, Employed Persons in Douglas County ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-22 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Median Income and Poverty Level The 2000 Census reports a median household income of $35,226, and a median family income of $43,813 for Douglas County. These figures are below the state and national figures, as is indicated in Table 1.13. Table 1.12: Median Income, 2000 Municipal Unit Median Household Income Median Family Income Per Capita Income Percent Persons Living at or Below Poverty Level Towns Amnicon $ 48,654 $ 53,235 $ 16,968 4.8% Bennett $ 40,313 $ 49,063 $ 18,335 7.7% Brule $ 35,972 $ 40,078 $ 14,620 12.4% Cloverland $ 35,000 $ 36,250 $ 16,220 7.5% Dairyland $ 35,313 $ 48,333 $ 18,155 9.0% Gordon $ 34,412 $ 35,972 $ 18,065 8.0% Hawthorne $ 44,856 $ 50,313 $ 16,855 7.0% Highland $ 41,071 $ 45,417 $ 20,163 11.2% Lakeside $ 42,125 $ 45,625 $ 17,309 8.2% Maple $ 35,781 $ 39,375 $ 16,828 4.7% Oakland $ 46,528 $ 51,563 $ 18,489 5.4% Parkland $ 40,804 $ 43,375 $ 17,090 4.7% Solon Springs $ 42,300 $ 45,156 $ 19,561 9.0% Summit $ 42,386 $ 46,771 $ 18,275 7.0% Superior $ 48,833 $ 51,090 $ 18,775 3.8% Wascott $ 40,714 $ 48,409 $ 18,165 8.6% Villages Lake Nebagamon $ 48,333 $ 59,792 $ 23,665 5.1% Oliver $ 41,750 $ 45,250 $ 19,527 8.3% Poplar $ 41,406 $ 51,406 $ 18,218 8.7% Solon Springs $ 30,250 $ 46,875 $ 16,807 10.6% Superior village $ 42,778 $ 50,385 $ 20,328 3.8% City Superior $ 31,921 $ 41,093 $ 17,253 13.4% County, State & National Douglas County $ 35,226 $ 43,813 $ 17,638 11.0% State of Wisconsin $ 43,791 $ 52,911 $ 21,271 8.7% United States $ 41,994 $ 50,046 $ 21,587 12.4% Source: US Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-23 Additionally, Douglas County’s per capita income was identified as below state and national levels, while its percentage of persons at or below poverty level was 26 percent higher than the state rate, but lower than the national rate. Household and Family Income Of the county’s 16,374 households, just over one-third (33.5 percent) report an annual income of below $15,000, while just over one-fourth (26.8 percent) reported an annual household income of $35,000 or greater. Table 1.14 below offers a detailed breakdown of annual income for both families and households in Douglas County. Table 1.13: 2000 Household and Family Income, Douglas County Annual Income Number of Families Percent of all Families Number of Households Percent of all Households Less than $10,000 2 1.5% 53 20.9% $10,000 to $14,999 9 6.7% 16 6.3% $15,000 to $24,999 13 9.7% 41 16.1% $25,000 to $34,999 18 13.4% 34 13.4% $35,000 to $49,999 32 23.9% 35 13.8% Over $50,000 60 44.8% 75 29.5% Total 134 100.0% 254 100.0% Source: US Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-24 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS School Enrollment and Educational Attainment The 2000 Census identifies 11,211 persons aged 3 and over enrolled in an educational facility in Douglas County (Table 1.15). Of this total, 7,878 (70.2 percent) are enrolled in elementary or high school (K-12), 2,491 (22.2 percent) are enrolled in college and 614 (5.4 percent) are enrolled in pre-primary programs. The 2000 Census identified 85.8 percent of all county residents over age 25 as having at least a high school diploma, while 18.2 percent of residents possessed a bachelor’s degree or higher. Figure 1.6 details the highest level of education attained by Douglas County residents over age 25 and over. Table 1.14: Educational Enrollment, 2000 Public school Private School Preschool Kindergarten Grades 1-4 Grades 5-8 Grades 9-12 College Undergraduate Graduate School Towns Amnicon 252 15 9 19 76 87 76 36 6 Bennett 121 28 7 9 53 34 46 24 8 Brule 140 2 12 8 64 35 23 21 2 Cloverland 54 6 0 6 13 20 21 3 0 Dairyland 13 0 0 5 6 0 2 2 0 Gordon 64 4 5 13 28 15 7 26 2 Hawthorne 197 23 26 15 50 76 53 24 0 Highland 27 0 2 0 17 8 0 0 0 Lakeside 121 15 0 9 36 40 51 18 9 Maple 126 2 8 6 27 41 46 8 8 Oakland 193 43 7 19 52 64 94 44 2 Parkland 261 33 15 16 79 107 77 37 2 Solon Springs 184 2 21 16 42 33 74 20 0 Summit 222 6 6 13 85 58 66 36 9 Superior 396 58 22 29 142 129 132 73 11 Wascott 114 0 6 4 25 37 42 19 8 Villages Lake Nebagamon 219 16 10 21 69 67 68 20 13 Oliver 78 8 6 0 22 31 27 4 0 Poplar 133 6 10 10 30 47 42 18 2 Solon Springs 102 4 7 6 29 32 32 19 0 Superior village 54 8 6 4 13 14 25 8 4 City Superior 4,423 719 429 352 1,180 1,461 1,720 2,031 142 County Total Douglas County 7,494 998 614 580 2,138 2,436 2,724 2,491 228 Source: US Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- Demographics Chapter 1-25 Figure 1.6: Educational Attainment, Douglas County ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-1 INTRODUCTION An adequate supply of affordable housing is a cornerstone of every successful community. The ability of a community to address the demand for housing is a key to its economic viability and to the well being of its inhabitants. By identifying changes in the numbers and types of housing units and other housing and economic characteristics, we are able to predict future housing needs. HOUSING VISION Key Vision Ideas • Elderly housing crucial/mini- communities/assisted living options Green and energy efficient homes - contractors involved Villages centers for housing needs – infrastructure put in place Housing options – large – affordable for all – financial planning assistance available – low income – not Habitat type program organized/operational Second homes will be less attainable Global warming implications – movement to northern climates Tax implications – funding options HOUSING PROFILE Number of Housing Units According to the US Census, Douglas County reported a total of 20,356 housing units in 2000, which represented a 20.6 percent increase from 1970. In the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000, a total of 3,474 housing units were added to the county, 3,259 (93.8%) of which were added in the decade between 1970 and 1980. Countywide, housing growth was stagnant in the 1980’s and 1990’s, although some communities did experience notable growth. During the 1990’s several Towns saw double- digit percent decreases in housing units, while the county as a whole lost 254 housing units, or 1 percent of the total number of units. Douglas County was the only county in the northwest region1 1 Planning Region which includes: Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor and Washburn Counties , to experience a decline in housing units during the 1990’s. “In 2030 Douglas County has an adequate supply of affordable housing county-wide across income levels and age groups. Recognizing natural barriers to expansion, high density development is encouraged where infrastructure and business already exist. The need to preserve large tracts of land for agricultural, forestry, wildlife, and recreational use is part of making housing location decisions. Construction of new homes and transformation of older neighborhood and communities promote and support energy efficiency and conservation. Population growth will drive the need for new and improved housing.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-2 The period from 1970 to 1980 marked the largest increase in housing units in the past thirty years, with all units of government in the county reporting substantial increases. Unincorporated towns reported an increase of 39.9 percent, while the incorporated villages and the City of Superior reported a more modest growth rate of 11.3 percent. Growth of total housing units slowed substantially between 1980 and 1990 in the county with four municipalities reporting slight decreases in total units. In the period from 1980 to 1990, the unincorporated units maintained an average increase of 10.2 percent while the incorporated units sustained a slight loss, decreasing by 1.5 percent. The most substantial increases in housing units for the decade between 1980 and 1990 were reported in the Towns of Hawthorne, Solon Springs, Gordon and the Village of Oliver, with decreases reported in the Town of Parkland, the Villages of Poplar and Superior and the City of Superior. During the 1990’s, half of the towns in Douglas County experienced sharp declines in numbers of housing units. During this same period, the incorporated units actually grew by 4.6 percent. Total housing units from 1970 through 2000 are illustrated Table 2.1. Housing occupancy characteristics for all Douglas County municipalities is shown in Table 2.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-3 Table 2.1: Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Municipal Unit 1970 1980 1990 2000 Percent Change 1970- 1980 Percent Change 1980- 1990 Percent Change 1990- 2000 Towns Amnicon 239 323 347 383 35 7 10 Bennett 262 297 322 297 14 8 8 Brule 286 365 403 270 28 10 (-33) Cloverland 100 125 139 111 25 11 (-20) Dairyland 175 249 269 139 42 8 (-48) Gordon 373 689 804 471 85 17 (-41) Hawthorne 221 327 422 399 48 29 Highland 167 253 287 169 52 13 (-41) Lakeside 190 244 255 264 28 5 4 Maple 206 267 269 303 30 1 13 Oakland 343 450 498 541 31 11 9 Parkland 382 496 470 480 30 2 Solon Springs 404 486 587 477 20 21 (-19) Summit 432 536 551 561 24 3 2 Superior 513 723 769 794 41 6 3 Wascott 459 816 933 806 78 14 (-14) Total unincorporated 4,752 6,646 7,325 6,465 40 10 (-12) Villages Lake Nebagamon 454 646 717 746 42 11 4 Oliver 68 88 102 128 29 16 25 Poplar 142 210 203 222 48 9 Solon Springs 340 361 384 389 6 6 1 Superior village 129 202 195 210 5 8 City Superior 10,997 11,988 11,684 12,196 9 4 Total incorporated 12,130 13,495 13,285 13,891 11 5 County Total Douglas County 16,882 20,141 20,610 20,356 19 2 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF1, ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-4 Occupancy Characteristics Table 2.2: Occupancy Characteristics by MCD, 2000 Occupied housing units The Census identifies 17,808 occupied housing units in Douglas County in 2000. Of these, 12,850 (72.2 percent) are found in the county’s incorporated areas, with 11,609 (65.2 percent of total occupied dwellings) found within the City of Superior. Owner occupied units Owner occupied housing is the predominate form of housing in Douglas County. Owner occupied housing units are primarily single- family homes. The Census identified 12,704 (62.4 percent of all occupied housing units) as owner occupied in 2000. Renter occupied units The Census reports 5,104 renter occupied units in the county in 2000. Overall, rental units comprise about ¼ of the housing units countywide. Rental occupied housing unit counts are generally higher in the incorporated communities, where there are more apartments, townhomes and other rental properties. Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF1 Municipal Unit Total Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant Towns Amnicon 383 329 35 19 Bennett 297 211 13 73 Brule 270 205 39 26 Cloverland 111 81 13 17 Dairyland 139 82 5 52 Gordon 471 254 44 173 Hawthorne 399 319 19 61 Highland 169 97 10 62 Lakeside 264 210 16 38 Maple 303 242 35 26 Oakland 541 408 17 116 Parkland 480 430 33 17 Solon Springs 477 294 40 143 Summit 561 390 28 143 Superior 794 707 57 30 Wascott 806 282 13 511 Total unincorp. 6,465 4541 417 1,507 Villages Lake Nebagamon 746 347 81 318 Oliver 128 108 19 1 Poplar 222 177 32 13 Solon Springs 389 201 67 121 Superior village 210 171 38 1 City Superior 12,196 7,159 4,450 587 Total incorporated 13,891 8,163 4,687 1,041 County Total Douglas County 20,356 12,704 5,104 2,548 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-5 Table 2.3: Housing Occupancy (Percent of Total Housing Units, 1980-2000) Owner-Occupied Housing Renter-Occupied Housing Towns 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 Amnicon 83% 81% 86% 7% 11% 9% Bennett 51% 50% 71% 6% 7% 4% Brule 51% 44% 76% 8% 11% 14% Cloverland 68% 56% 73% 4% 5% 12% Dairyland 31% 31% 59% 2% 1% 4% Gordon 31% 27% 54% 3% 3% 9% Hawthorne 69% 62% 80% 12% 13% 5% Highland 25% 31% 57% 5% 4% 6% Lakeside 68% 72% 80% 6% 10% 6% Maple 77% 80% 80% 9% 10% 12% Oakland 64% 65% 75% 4% 5% 3% Parkland 84% 84% 90% 7% 10% 7% Solon Springs 38% 36% 62% 7% 6% 8% Summit 59% 65% 70% 8% 5% 5% Superior 82% 82% 89% 8% 8% 7% Wascott 19% 20% 35% 3% 2% 2% Villages L. Nebagamon 39% 39% 47% 5% 9% 11% Oliver 91% 62% 84% 7% 20% 15% Poplar 68% 68% 80% 17% 22% 14% Solon Springs 48% 46% 52% 12% 17% 17% Superior V. 76% 76% 81% 20% 23% 18% City Superior 60% 58% 59% 35% 37% 36% County Total Douglas Co. 58% 55% 62% 24% 24% 25% Table 2.3 illustrates changes in housing occupancy occurring in Douglas County between 1980 and 2000. Several communities showed a general decline in seasonal housing units between 1980 and 2000. This change was often coupled with an increase in housing occupancy (owner-occupied and renter- occupied). These statistics may be indicative of a trend in the conversion of seasonal and recreational housing the permanent, year-round residences. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-6 Subsidized Housing and Assisted Living The Superior Housing Authority currently maintains 464 housing units in the City of Superior and administers the countywide Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Voucher program. This program enables county residents to secure a dwelling with fixed rent from private housing stock. In March of 2009, there were 153 HUD Section 8 Vouchers in use throughout Douglas County. To be eligible for the program, a household's gross annual income must be less than 50 percent of the county median income by household size. Voucher recipients pay approximately 30 percent of their adjusted income towards rent and the Section 8 Voucher pays the remaining balance. Catholic Charities, Inc., an organization affiliated locally with the Diocese of Superior, offers housing counseling services to residents in 16 counties of north central and northwestern Wisconsin. Housing services provided by the Housing Counseling Program include education and pre-purchase counseling, credit repair counseling, emergency housing counseling and crisis management, post purchase counseling delinquency, default and foreclosure prevention, reverse mortgage counseling, tenant/landlord dispute mitigation, down payment assistance counseling and fair housing education and counseling. Seasonal/Recreational Housing The 2000 Census identifies 2,548 vacant housing units in Douglas County, with 1,744 (8.6 percent of total housing units) designated for seasonal and/or recreational use. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of seasonal housing units in Douglas County declined by over 40 percent. This statistic may be somewhat misleading, however, since it is likely that a portion of this change can be attributable to the conversion of pre-existing seasonal dwellings to permanent residences. Census data shows that during this same period the number of owner- occupied housing units increased 11.5 percent from 11,390 to 12,704. The distribution of permanent and seasonal homes, as reported in the 2000 Census, is shown in Figure 2.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-7 Figure 2.1: Permanent vs. Seasonal Home distribution -Census 2000, Douglas County MCD’s ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-8 Table 2.4: Seasonal Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Municipal Unit 1980 1990 2000 Percent of Total Units 1980 Percent of Total Units 1990 Percent of Total Units 2000 Towns Amnicon 8 15 6 2.5% 4.3% 1.6% Bennett 101 107 62 34.0% 33.2% 20.9% Brule 124 161 17 34.0% 40.0% 6.3% Cloverland 4 37 11 3.2% 26.6% 9.9% Dairyland 125 161 47 50.2% 59.9% 33.8% Gordon 364 514 159 52.8% 63.9% 33.8% Hawthorne 9 60 30 2.8% 14.2% 7.5% Highland 174 186 57 68.8% 64.8% 33.7% Lakeside 18 42 31 7.4% 16.5% 11.7% Maple 8 10 16 3.0% 3.7% 5.3% Oakland 126 127 103 28.0% 25.5% 19.0% Parkland 16 7 4 3.2% 1.5% 0.8% Solon Springs 241 320 125 49.6% 54.5% 26.2% Summit 147 134 123 27.4% 24.3% 21.9% Superior 25 24 16 3.5% 3.1% 2.0% Wascott 452 675 495 55.4% 72.3% 61.4% Total unincorp. 1,942 2,580 1,302 29.2% 35.2% 20.1% Villages Lake Nebagamon 242 345 294 37.5% 48.1% 39.4% Oliver 1 3 1 1.1% 2.9% 0.8% Poplar 1 7 3 0.5% 3.4% 1.4% Solon Springs 120 116 102 33.2% 30.2% 26.2% Superior village 0 14 1 0.0% 7.2% 0.5% City Superior 6 17 41 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% Total incorporated 370 502 442 2.7% 3.8% 3.2% County Total Douglas County 2,312 3,082 1,744 11.5% 15.0% 8.6% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF1, Seasonal homes in Douglas County are concentrated primarily in areas with access to lakes or in wooded seclusion. In the Towns of Dairyland, Gordon, Highland and Wascott and the Village of Lake Nebagamon, seasonal homes accounted for 30.0 percent or more of all housing units in 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-9 HOUSING SUPPLY Housing Types Table 2.5: Housing Types by Minor Civil Division Type (units) 1, Unit Detached 1, Unit Attached 2 3 or 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 or more Mobile home Boat, RV, van, etc. Towns Amnicon 318 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 55 2 Bennett 321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 Brule 200 3 3 5 9 0 0 0 35 0 Cloverland 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 Dairyland 169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 Gordon 349 0 6 0 10 0 0 0 38 0 Hawthorne 299 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 Highland 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 Lakeside 236 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 32 2 Maple 236 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 65 0 Oakland 471 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 Parkland 412 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 Solon Springs 374 9 5 0 0 15 0 0 48 2 Summit 448 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 Superior 711 5 1 8 0 0 0 0 66 0 Wascott 712 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 58 5 Villages L.Nebagamon 722 2 2 11 0 4 18 0 52 0 Oliver 87 0 2 0 8 0 0 0 28 0 Poplar 190 4 2 12 0 0 0 0 14 2 Solon Springs 311 0 12 7 11 16 0 0 40 0 Superior V. 180 4 6 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 City Superior 7,643 147 1,037 811 748 460 311 481 534 30 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 Of the 20,356 total housing units identified in the SF3 sample data 14,627 (71.9 percent) are identified as 1-unit detached, 193 (0.9 percent) as 1-unit, attached, 1,942 (9.5 percent) as having 2 to 4 attached units, 795 (3.9 percent) as having 5 to 9 attached units and 1,306 (6.4 percent) as having 10 or more attached units. Additionally, 1,493 units (7.3 percent of total units) are identified as mobile home, trailer, or other housing type. A single unit detached structure is a one-unit structure detached from any other house while an single-unit attached structure has one or more walls extending from ground to roof separating it from adjoining structures. Multi-unit structures include duplexes, triplexes, apartment complexes and other complexes where several housing units are contained within single building. Housing types are depicted in Table 2.5. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-10 Age of Housing Stock The 2000 U.S. Census reports that 11.3 percent of all housing units in Douglas County were constructed between 1990 and 2000, while 44.2 percent were constructed between 1940 and 1980 and 35.4 percent constructed before 1939. Tables 2.6-2.7 provide detail about the age of the county’s housing stock. Table 2.6: Age of Housing Stock, Douglas County YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Number of Structures Percentage of All Structures 1990 to 2000 2,296 11.3% 1980 to 1990 1,851 9.1% 1970 to 1979 3,354 16.5% 1960 to 1969 1,886 9.3% 1950 to 1959 1,984 9.7% 1940 to 1949 1,772 8.7% 1939 or earlier 7,213 35.4% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-11 Table2. 7: Housing Age by Minor Civil Division Year Built Built 1990 to 2000 Built 1980 to 1989 Built 1970 to 1979 Built 1960 to 1969 Built 1950 to 1959 Built 1940 to 1949 Built 1939 or earlier Towns Amnicon 18% 13% 22% 11% 6% 6% 23% Bennett 17% 9% 19% 14% 12% 5% 24% Brule 19% 10% 22% 9% 9% 8% 23% Cloverland 14% 8% 10% 18% 14% 16% 20% Dairyland 29% 12% 14% 8% 6% 16% 15% Gordon 21% 12% 23% 13% 8% 5% 18% Hawthorne 19% 20% 16% 10% 7% 6% 20% Highland 32% 13% 38% 7% 2% 3% 4% Lakeside 16% 12% 14% 14% 12% 8% 24% Maple 12% 10% 23% 10% 12% 9% 24% Oakland 18% 12% 20% 11% 11% 8% 21% Parkland 11% 8% 22% 9% 14% 17% 20% Solon Springs 23% 11% 22% 11% 7% 4% 22% Summit 14% 11% 23% 14% 9% 9% 19% Superior 13% 12% 27% 13% 12% 6% 18% Wascott 27% 18% 18% 6% 14% 1% 17% Villages L.Nebagamon 18% 12% 19% 9% 7% 10% 26% Oliver 24% 10% 26% 8% 7% 5% 20% Poplar 13% 9% 25% 10% 15% 3% 25% Solon Springs 13% 10% 11% 16% 10% 11% 30% Superior village 14% 7% 27% 15% 5% 9% 22% City Superior 7% 7% 14% 8% 10% 10% 45% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 As indicated in Table 2.7, the age of housing stock varies by jurisdiction. Countywide, the median age of housing stock is 51 years. On a percentage basis, Douglas County has more aged housing stock than any other county in the northwest region of Wisconsin. Older housing units are of concern due to the fact that these dwellings generally require more repair and maintenance than newer dwellings. While some older dwellings may be historically significant and may contribute to the unique architecture and character of the area, some have not had the investment in rehabilitation and repair needed to keep these structures viable. Deteriorating housing stock can lead to blighted areas, increased vacancy rates and, ultimately, population loss. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-12 Structural Characteristics Table 2.8: Number of Rooms per Dwelling by Minor Civil Division Percent of Dwellings with Specified Number of Rooms Rooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 + Towns Amnicon 0.0% 1.1% 3.4% 10.1% 26.3% 31.6% 10.9% 8.8% 8.0% Bennett 0.0% 3.2% 7.2% 21.8% 21.0% 20.4% 16.1% 6.3% 4.0% Brule 0.0% 5.5% 7.8% 18.8% 26.7% 17.6% 11.4% 9.4% 2.7% Cloverland 0.0% 0.0% 11.0% 10.1% 34.9% 19.3% 14.7% 10.1% 0.0% Dairyland 5.3% 14.4% 11.7% 23.9% 16.0% 12.8% 3.7% 11.2% 1.1% Gordon 2.0% 6.5% 8.9% 24.1% 25.6% 15.4% 9.7% 6.2% 1.7% Hawthorne 2.6% 0.0% 4.6% 16.4% 20.5% 21.3% 15.6% 5.8% 13.3% Highland 2.2% 6.6% 16.0% 18.8% 29.3% 14.4% 4.4% 3.3% 5.0% Lakeside 4.4% 0.7% 2.2% 15.1% 16.5% 27.6% 18.8% 8.8% 5.9% Maple 0.7% 3.9% 6.9% 12.8% 37.4% 16.1% 10.2% 6.2% 5.9% Oakland 0.9% 4.3% 3.0% 18.3% 22.2% 25.9% 12.0% 5.2% 8.1% Parkland 0.0% 1.2% 1.2% 16.2% 28.3% 23.0% 17.5% 8.2% 4.3% Solon Springs 1.8% 2.2% 10.4% 24.3% 21.6% 18.1% 11.0% 6.4% 4.2% Summit 0.0% 3.2% 10.9% 21.3% 24.7% 16.3% 11.6% 5.5% 6.4% Superior 0.3% 2.0% 2.4% 13.3% 26.7% 21.2% 13.7% 11.6% 8.8% Wascott 1.7% 5.5% 12.2% 20.8% 17.2% 20.5% 11.0% 5.4% 5.6% Villages Lake Nebagamon 0.7% 3.5% 6.3% 22.2% 20.8% 18.0% 13.4% 7.3% 7.8% Oliver 0.0% 4.0% 0.0% 20.8% 31.2% 19.2% 8.8% 6.4% 9.6% Poplar 1.8% 0.0% 3.6% 12.1% 20.5% 23.2% 13.8% 11.2% 13.8% Solon Springs 1.3% 6.0% 8.1% 19.9% 23.4% 19.1% 15.9% 2.5% 3.8% Superior village 0.0% 3.0% 1.5% 18.7% 24.1% 23.2% 9.4% 11.8% 8.4% City Superior 1.0% 5.3% 10.2% 15.2% 20.8% 20.9% 14.4% 7.8% 4.4% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 The Census statistics depicting the percent of dwelling units with specified number of total rooms is shown in Table 2.8. On average, most homes in Douglas County have between 4 and 6 total rooms. The countywide median number of rooms per dwelling is 5.4. The 2000 Census identifies about one-half (48 percent) of all housing units have two or fewer bedrooms while the remaining units (52 percent) have three or more bedrooms. The Census statistics depicting the number of bedrooms per dwelling is shown in Table2.9. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-13 Table 2.9: Number of Bedrooms per Dwelling by Minor Civil Division Bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more Towns Amnicon 0.5% 4.2% 21.2% 60.2% 12.2% 1.6% Bennett 1.1% 11.5% 35.3% 40.2% 9.5% 2.3% Brule 0.0% 13.7% 33.7% 40.8% 10.6% 1.2% Cloverland 0.0% 8.3% 36.7% 37.6% 14.7% 2.8% Dairyland 6.4% 20.7% 40.4% 27.7% 2.1% 2.7% Gordon 2.0% 13.6% 45.9% 32.3% 6.2% 0.0% Hawthorne 2.6% 4.9% 32.6% 46.7% 10.4% 2.9% Highland 5.0% 18.2% 35.9% 38.7% 2.2% 0.0% Lakeside 4.4% 5.1% 26.8% 46.3% 14.7% 2.6% Maple 0.7% 13.4% 27.9% 45.9% 12.1% 0.0% Oakland 0.9% 9.4% 34.1% 40.7% 13.5% 1.3% Parkland 0.0% 2.5% 28.3% 56.3% 10.1% 2.9% Solon Springs 2.6% 16.3% 38.0% 31.6% 8.6% 2.9% Summit 2.7% 10.9% 39.9% 37.9% 8.2% 0.4% Superior 1.0% 4.4% 29.0% 47.5% 14.8% 3.3% Wascott 1.7% 13.5% 40.9% 32.1% 10.7% 1.2% Villages Lake Nebagamon 0.7% 10.1% 37.9% 38.6% 10.0% 2.7% Oliver 2.4% 1.6% 27.2% 52.8% 13.6% 2.4% Poplar 1.8% 4.9% 25.4% 37.9% 22.8% 7.1% Solon Springs 2.3% 13.1% 41.1% 34.5% 9.1% 0.0% Superior village 0.0% 4.4% 29.6% 49.3% 15.8% 1.0% City Superior 1.9% 16.2% 31.6% 38.0% 11.2% 1.2% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-14 Heating Fuel Table 2.10: Home Heating Fuel, Occupied Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Heating Fuel Utility gas Bottled, tank, or LP gas Electricity Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. Coal or coke Wood Solar energy Other fuel No fuel used Towns Amnicon 8% 52% 6% 21% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% Bennett 14% 45% 3% 15% 0% 23% 0% 0% 0% Brule 22% 46% 6% 14% 0% 9% 0% 2% 0% Cloverland 0% 42% 6% 31% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0% Dairyland 2% 45% 8% 11% 0% 34% 0% 0% 0% Gordon 1% 64% 10% 9% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% Hawthorne 8% 65% 0% 13% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% Highland 2% 72% 0% 13% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% Lakeside 1% 59% 0% 21% 0% 18% 0% 1% 0% Maple 19% 47% 1% 16% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% Oakland 3% 57% 7% 17% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% Parkland 31% 31% 5% 23% 0% 9% 1% 0% 0% Solon Springs 15% 51% 8% 14% 0% 13% 0% 0% 1% Summit 1% 47% 10% 26% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% Superior 10% 39% 12% 31% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% Wascott 1% 70% 7% 9% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% Total unincorp. 10% 50% 7% 19% 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% Villages Lake Nebagamon 50% 27% 10% 9% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Oliver 0% 48% 14% 34% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% Poplar 17% 53% 4% 17% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% Solon Springs 21% 44% 13% 18% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% Superior village 64% 6% 8% 20% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% City Superior 71% 3% 12% 13% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% Total incorp. 67% 6% 12% 13% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% County Total Douglas County 51% 18% 10% 15% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 Of the county’s 17,808 occupied housing units, nearly 70 percent are identified as using utility gas, bottled, tank, or LP gas as their primary source of heat. Table 2.10 illustrates in detail the type heating fuel in use by Douglas County’s occupied housing units. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-15 Plumbing Facilities Table 2.11: Plumbing Facilities, Total Housing Units by Minor Civil Division Of the 20,356 total housing units in Douglas County, 570 (3 percent) were identified as lacking complete plumbing facilities. Complete plumbing facilities are defined as hot and cold piped water, a bath- tub or shower, and a flush toilet. Water Access Most of Douglas County’s rural areas do not have access to municipal water systems and rely on individual wells for their water supply. The Villages and City of Superior have municipal wells, which supply water for household needs in these communities. According to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources data, there are currently 2,520 private wells in Douglas County, and 12 municipal wells. Sewer Access Most rural towns in the county do not have access to sewage and waste water systems and rely on holding tanks, drain fields, and private septic systems for waste disposal. At present, all incorporated municipal units of government in Douglas County have sewer and wastewater systems in place and, in several instances, extend their systems to adjoining, unincorporated units of government. Table 2.12 summarizes sewer and wastewater treatment systems currently in use in Douglas County. Plumbing Facilities Complete plumbing Lacking complete plumbing Towns Amnicon 98% 2% Bennett 89% 11% Brule 95% 5% Cloverland 88% 12% Dairyland 67% 33% Gordon 94% 6% Hawthorne 96% 4% Highland 93% 7% Lakeside 88% 12% Maple 92% 8% Oakland 92% 8% Parkland 99% 1% Solon Springs 96% 4% Summit 90% 10% Superior 97% 3% Wascott 87% 13% Total unincorporated 92% 8% Villages Lake Nebagamon 99% 1% Oliver 100% 0% Poplar 95% 5% Solon Springs 99% 1% Superior village 100% 0% City Superior 100% 0% Total incorporated 99% 1% County Total Douglas County 97% 3% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-16 Table 2.12: Douglas County Municipal Sewer and Wastewater Systems MUNICIPAL SYSTEMS Location Type of system Present Status (C ) Superior Collection & treatment Combined sewage treatment and stormwater utility, planned expansion to annexed area and Town of Parkland (there is no connection with Superior Collection & treatment Serves entire Village of Superior. Expanded ponds in 2005 Oliver Collection only Wastewater is pumped through force main under St. Louis River for treatment in Duluth through the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District facilities. Poplar Collection & treatment Most incorporated areas are served. The system presently serves residential, commercial and industrial concerns. Also serves high school. Lake Nebagamon Collection & treatment System does not cover all of the incorporated area, south shore of lake not on system at present time, completed westward expansion in Summer 2000 Solon Springs Collection & treatment System covers all incorporated area and adjoining areas of the Town of Solon Springs; north end and eastern shore of Lake St. Croix on the system through the Upper St. Croix Sanitary District Gordon Collection only Gordon, jct. Of US 53 and CTH connected to Solon Springs system Brule Collection & treatment System presently covers the node of Brule at the junction of STH 27 and USH 2; system is in use for residential and commercial collection and has additional capacity available. PRIVATE SYSTEMS Location Type of system Present Status Superior Treatment plant Duluth, Winnipeg, and Pacific Railroad maintains a facility at the end of Pokegema Rd. that collects oil, industrial and sanitary wastes for treatment Lakeside Collection & treatment Camp Amnicon maintains a private system for its facility Maple Collection & treatment The School District of Maple maintains collection and treatment system for its elementary and middle school. High school facilities currently connected to Poplar. The potential exists to link the system with the Poplar municipal system. Amnicon Collection & treatment The Middle River Health Facility has its own collection and treatment system Superior (Murphy Oil) Collection & treatment Murphy Oil maintains a system for their physical plant and grounds; focus is on industrial collection and treatment. Source: Department of Natural Resources, Wastewater Management Division ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-17 Housing Costs Table 2.13: Housing Costs, 2000 Census Municipal Unit Median Housing Value Homes with a Mortgage Median Owner Costs2 Median Owner Costs 3 Median Owner Costs as a % of Household Income1 Median Owner Costs as a % of Household Income2 Median Gross Rent Median Gross Rent as a % of Household Income Towns Amnicon $79,700 186 $687 $236 13.6% 9.9% $463 15.8% Bennett $82,300 130 $790 $275 18.8% 9.9% $575 12.5% Brule $73,300 119 $673 $234 18.9% 9.9% $406 31.3% Cloverland $74,200 44 $750 $275 30.0% 9.9% $275 37.5% Dairyland $45,600 39 $750 $165 14.2% 9.9% $0 0.0% Gordon $69,600 137 $680 $218 22.2% 9.9% $539 16.9% Hawthorne $70,700 213 $725 $225 15.8% 9.9% $675 27.5% Highland $97,300 63 $850 $267 20.0% 9.9% $0 0.0% Lakeside $78,900 140 $733 $254 18.3% 9.9% $425 45.0% Maple $66,700 131 $625 $198 16.9% 12.5% $525 30.6% Oakland $77,600 253 $739 $233 13.9% 9.9% $513 25.5% Parkland $71,800 263 $700 $230 20.0% 9.9% $608 37.5% Solon Springs $89,700 185 $833 $321 20.7% 9.9% $400 26.9% Summit $77,400 206 $793 $288 21.2% 10.0% $288 9.9% Superior $88,100 455 $805 $239 18.9% 9.9% $480 21.5% Wascott $120,000 138 $1,043 $339 23.5% 13.5% $408 13.5% Villages L.Nebagamon $113,500 245 $953 $380 19.7% 10.1% $423 26.8% Oliver $72,900 66 $864 $342 23.9% 9.9% $475 24.5% Poplar $84,500 117 $756 $314 20.8% 13.6% $461 17.5% Solon Springs $62,500 120 $693 $236 18.2% 14.6% $415 29.1% Superior village $80,000 91 $723 $321 17.2% 9.9% $384 23.8% City Superior $63,900 4210 $732 $279 19.4% 10.8% $406 23.3% County Total Douglas County $70,800 7551 $745 $277 19.3% 10.4% $411 23.5% Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File SF3 Housing Affordability The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing as “houses, mobile homes, apartments, or condominiums available for rent or purchase at 30 percent or less of annual 2 Mortgaged housing units. Selected owner costs are the sum of payments for mortgages, deeds of trust, contracts to 3 Housing units which are not mortgaged ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-18 income.” HUD defines income levels by percentage of median income (MI) for a municipality. According to the 2000 US Census, the median household income in Douglas County was $35,266. Table 2.14: Income and Housing Affordability MHI= Median Household Income Extremely Low Income Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Municipal Unit MHI 30 % MHI Max Cost at 30 % MHI 50% MHI Max Cost at 50 % MHI 80% MHI Max Cost at 80 % MHI 95 % MHI Max Cost at 95 % MHI Towns Amnicon $48,654 $14,596 $365 $24,327 $608 $38,923 $973 $46,221 $1,156 Bennett $40,313 $12,094 $302 $20,157 $504 $32,250 $806 $38,297 $957 Brule $35,972 $10,792 $270 $17,986 $450 $28,778 $719 $34,173 $854 Cloverland $35,000 $10,500 $263 $17,500 $438 $28,000 $700 $33,250 $831 Dairyland $35,313 $10,594 $265 $17,657 $441 $28,250 $706 $33,547 $839 Gordon $34,412 $10,324 $258 $17,206 $430 $27,530 $688 $32,691 $817 Hawthorne $44,856 $13,457 $336 $22,428 $561 $35,885 $897 $42,613 $1,065 Highland $41,071 $12,321 $308 $20,536 $513 $32,857 $821 $39,017 $975 Lakeside $42,125 $12,638 $316 $21,063 $527 $33,700 $843 $40,019 $1,000 Maple $35,781 $10,734 $268 $17,891 $447 $28,625 $716 $33,992 $850 Oakland $46,528 $13,958 $349 $23,264 $582 $37,222 $931 $44,202 $1,105 Parkland $40,804 $12,241 $306 $20,402 $510 $32,643 $816 $38,764 $969 Solon Springs $42,300 $12,690 $317 $21,150 $529 $33,840 $846 $40,185 $1,005 Summit $42,386 $12,716 $318 $21,193 $530 $33,909 $848 $40,267 $1,007 Superior $48,833 $14,650 $366 $24,417 $610 $39,066 $977 $46,391 $1,160 Wascott $40,714 $12,214 $305 $20,357 $509 $32,571 $814 $38,678 $967 Villages L.Nebagamon $48,333 $14,500 $362 $24,167 $604 $38,666 $967 $45,916 $1,148 Oliver $41,750 $12,525 $313 $20,875 $522 $33,400 $835 $39,663 $992 Poplar $41,406 $12,422 $311 $20,703 $518 $33,125 $828 $39,336 $983 Solon Springs $30,250 $9,075 $227 $15,125 $378 $24,200 $605 $28,738 $718 Superior V. $42,778 $12,833 $321 $21,389 $535 $34,222 $856 $40,639 $1,016 City Superior $31,921 $9,576 $239 $15,961 $399 $25,537 $638 $30,325 $758 County Total Douglas Co. $35,226 $10,568 $264 $17,613 $440 $28,181 $705 $33,465 $837 Table 2.14 depicts estimated housing affordability based on percent median income. The cost statistic is based on expenditures of 30 % of the total household income (example: household in the Town of Amnicon earning $14,596 per year could afford a housing cost of up to $365). Total household incomes up to 80% (extremely low to low income) of the median household income are generally considered to have the greatest financial challenges with respect to housing affordability. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-19 A Douglas County family earning the median household income of $35,226 (2000 median household income) would have about $881 (30% of income) per month to cover housing-related costs. In 2000, the median-priced home in Douglas County was valued at $70,800, while the median housing costs were $745 per month. The median rental cost per month was $411. Based on this simple formula it can be concluded that owner-occupied housing was generally affordable in 2000. This assumption does not necessarily reflect indications provided by other data or the general perceptions of those who live and own property in Douglas County. Table 2.15: Housing Value, 2000 Census MCD Total Surveyed Less than $10,000 $10,000- $29,999 $30,000- $49,999 $50,000- $79,999 $80,000- $124,999 $125,000 $174,999 $175,000- $249,999 $250,000 + Towns Amnicon 322 0 9 56 97 113 35 12 0 Bennett 224 2 13 37 57 61 37 13 4 Brule 187 5 14 37 55 40 29 2 5 Cloverland 81 0 8 10 26 13 5 4 15 Dairyland 92 8 9 36 22 13 0 4 0 Gordon 225 2 24 39 57 51 31 16 5 Hawthorne 312 3 25 69 85 79 32 13 6 Highland 101 0 9 2 16 44 22 0 8 Lakeside 223 4 21 27 62 75 27 7 0 Maple 252 5 35 49 72 59 26 3 3 Oakland 399 2 21 65 122 121 47 10 11 Parkland 447 16 34 83 146 111 42 10 5 Solon Springs 309 0 16 37 46 140 40 14 16 Summit 401 9 24 79 99 127 43 14 6 Superior 693 2 13 83 159 293 107 31 5 Wascott 269 0 5 19 35 82 37 45 46 Villages L.Nebagamon 359 2 14 15 59 117 65 60 27 Oliver 106 0 7 20 36 25 13 2 3 Poplar 177 0 0 28 51 64 17 13 4 Solon Springs 204 0 26 48 64 47 16 0 3 Superior V. 170 4 0 29 52 55 26 0 4 City Superior 7,177 270 481 1,703 2,430 1,476 538 196 83 Source: 2000 Census, STF 3 In 2000, 84.3 percent of households in Douglas County spent less than 30 percent of their income for housing costs, while over 60 percent of all houses were valued at $80,000 or less. Renters are generally spending much more of their income on housing than homeowners, indicating a potential need for less expensive rental units. Table 2.15 presents data on the value of specified housing units in Douglas County in 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-20 Table 2.16: 1998-2007 Home Sales Data According to data from the Wisconsin Association of Realtors (WRA), the annual number of home sales in Douglas County has been declining since the late 1990’s (Table 2.16). The decline in sales is also coupled with a three-fold increase in the median sale price of homes in the county between 1998 and 2007. During this period, Douglas County home selling prices increased by an average of 15.4% per year. In order to afford a home at the median selling price in the 3rd Quarter of 2007, a family would have to earn at least $38,7254 year. Source: Wisconsin Realtors Association 4 Source: WRA Mortgage Calculator (www.wra.org) Number of Home Sales Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD 2007 17 32 23 2006 14 27 31 28 100 2005 7 39 32 24 91 2004 12 30 37 40 119 2003 17 26 33 24 100 2002 - - 43 24 67 2001 63 91 33 0 - 2000 76 0 124 98 393 1999 64 98 108 90 360 1998 35 94 117 91 337 Median Sale Price Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 YTD 2007 $156,700 $140,000 $155,600 2006 $100,000 $177,300 $170,000 $130,000 $155,000 2005 $0 $157,100 $115,000 $113,300 $130,000 2004 $80,000 $142,600 $142,000 $140,000 $132,000 2003 $110,000 $140,000 $154,300 $130,000 $132,000 2002 - - $112,500 $140,000 $128,900 2001 $74,600 $76,200 $81,100 - - 2000 $54,400 $0 $67,400 $65,400 $64,300 1999 $62,200 $60,600 $63,500 $58,000 $61,300 1998 $54,200 $49,100 $58,200 $59,000 $54,900 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-21 Property Taxes Property taxes can have a significant impact on housing affordability. Home ownership can be put out of reach of low-income families who otherwise may be able to afford a $600 per month mortgage payment, but cannot afford the additional $100 per month in property taxes. Real estate taxes are based on assessed value of the property multiplied by the equalized ratio, and the mill rate (dollars in tax paid per thousand dollars of property value). Table 2.17 shows the 2006 property tax rates for each Douglas County municipality along with the estimated tax burden for the median value home within each jurisdiction. By basing property tax estimates on the countywide median home value ($70,800), rather than the jurisdictional median as depicted in Table 2.14, a generalized tax burden comparison can be made between jurisdictions. In 2006, the City of Superior had the highest property Table2. 17: 2006 Property Tax Rates and Estimated Tax Burden for Median Value Homes tax rate, while the Town of Amnicon had the lowest. Municipal Unit 2006 Ratio 2006 Mill Rate Est. 2006 Tax Median Value Home Est. 2006 Tax (Median Sale Home) 2006 Rank Towns Amnicon 0.6602 17.73 $933 $1,821 21 Bennett 0.9284 17.56 $1,342 $2,537 4 Brule 0.8420 16.46 $1,016 $2,157 12 Cloverland 0.5712 28.04 $1,188 $2,492 5 Dairyland 0.8462 12.50 $482 $1,646 22 Gordon 0.6075 26.85 $1,135 $2,538 3 Hawthorne 0.8435 14.07 $839 $1,847 19 Highland 0.7155 16.55 $1,152 $1,843 20 Lakeside 0.8000 15.44 $975 $1,922 17 Maple 0.8030 15.66 $839 $1,957 16 Oakland 0.9540 15.41 $1,141 $2,287 10 Parkland 1.1055 13.31 $1,056 $2,290 9 Solon Springs 0.6752 22.00 $1,332 $2,311 8 Summit 0.6939 18.75 $1,007 $2,024 14 Superior 0.7124 17.97 $1,128 $1,992 15 Wascott 0.5875 20.66 $1,457 $1,889 18 Villages L.Nebagamon 0.7301 19.27 $1,597 $2,189 11 Oliver 1.0622 15.07 $1,167 $2,491 6 Poplar 0.9103 14.87 $1,144 $2,106 13 Solon Springs 0.9077 19.93 $1,131 $2,815 2 Superior 0.6974 22.90 $1,278 $2,485 7 City Superior 0.9851 19.34 $1,217 $2,964 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-22 HOUSING DEMAND Table 2.18: Permit History, Year Round Housing Units YEAR-ROUND HOUSING UNITS Municipal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Towns Amnicon 14 16 11 7 8 11 19 10 15 14 8 9 9 Bennett 6 6 2 5 5 6 3 5 3 7 4 5 6 Brule 12 6 4 7 7 8 4 4 2 10 1 4 2 Cloverland 2 3 2 3 1 0 2 2 4 4 1 2 1 Dairyland 1 1 2 3 2 4 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 Gordon 3 7 4 2 5 6 10 8 13 8 6 6 3 Hawthorne 8 7 15 7 15 13 15 12 10 7 7 9 6 Highland 6 5 3 2 7 5 1 5 1 4 1 6 5 Lakeside 5 4 10 8 1 10 10 8 8 12 8 4 4 Maple 8 5 2 5 4 9 8 9 5 8 6 5 3 Oakland 10 12 8 10 10 9 12 12 13 11 10 10 5 Parkland 8 8 6 5 6 9 8 9 3 16 8 7 6 Solon Springs 6 12 10 8 5 13 9 9 6 14 13 15 7 Summit 17 3 14 12 8 13 6 6 9 14 7 9 6 Superior 12 10 14 7 13 17 22 18 18 28 9 14 5 Wascott 13 8 8 8 9 8 11 4 6 2 2 3 6 Villages L.Nebagamon 10 19 14 7 10 12 26 n/a n/a n/a 15 12 7 Oliver n/a n/a n/a 4 11 0 0 0 5 7 5 0 2 Poplar 3 0 5 3 3 0 3 8 4 6 2 9 n/a Solon Springs 3 0 2 6 7 8 1 8 5 5 1 0 1 Superior 0 2 0 1 20 5 4 4 13 8 2 5 n/a City Superior 27 35 28 43 42 28 52 26 37 30 39 31 30 County Total Douglas Co. 174 169 164 163 199 194 228 168 181 218 158 166 115 Source: Douglas County Zoning Department data, Villages, City of Superior Historical housing permit data for Douglas County is shown in Table 2.18. This data shows the number of permits issued by Douglas County and local units of government for the construction of year-round housing units between 1995 and 2007. During this time period an average 177 permits were issued countywide annually. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-23 Table 2.19: Permit History, Seasonal Housing Units SEASONAL HOUSING UNITS Municipal 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Towns Amnicon 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Bennett 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 Brule 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 Cloverland 3 1 1 0 1 0 2 3 2 0 0 2 0 Dairyland 5 7 6 10 7 9 4 9 7 7 3 7 4 Gordon 4 10 7 5 7 7 6 10 12 12 16 12 5 Hawthorne 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 3 Highland 6 1 3 3 5 3 4 1 5 2 3 0 1 Lakeside 3 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 Maple 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Oakland 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 4 4 1 0 0 2 Parkland 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Solon Springs 6 4 4 6 2 7 5 5 3 10 3 5 3 Summit 1 3 2 4 1 2 3 5 2 4 2 2 2 Superior 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 4 0 1 0 7 3 Wascott 15 13 10 28 18 14 8 21 31 16 13 14 8 Villages L.Nebagamon 0 0 0 0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Oliver n/a n/a n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poplar 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Solon Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Superior 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Superior n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a County Total Douglas Co. 52 45 37 61 50 53 38 66 77 60 43 52 36 Source: Douglas County Zoning Department data, Villages (N/A indicates data is unavailable) Table 2.19 shows the number of permits issued by Douglas County and local governmental units for the construction of seasonal housing units between 1995 and 2007. During this period an average of 52 permits were issued each year countywide. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-24 Table 2.20: Average Annual Housing Demand Based on Long Term (1995-2007) Permit Data, Towns Average Annual Demand for Year- Round Housing Units Average Annual Demand for Seasonal Housing Units Average Annual Total Housing Demand T. Amnicon 11.6 0.2 11.8 T. Bennett 4.9 1.0 5.9 T Brule 5.7 1.8 7.4 T Cloverland 1.7 1.2 2.9 T Dairyland 1.7 6.5 8.2 T Gordon 6.2 8.7 14.9 T Hawthorne 9.3 1.0 10.3 T Highland 3.4 2.8 6.3 T Lakeside 5.9 0.8 6.7 T Maple 5.4 0.2 5.6 T Oakland 9.8 1.8 11.5 T Parkland 6.9 0.3 7.3 T Solon Springs 8.9 4.8 13.7 T Summit 9.1 2.5 11.6 T Superior 14.5 1.5 16.0 T Wascott 7.0 16.1 23.1 All Towns 176.7 51.5 228.2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-25 Projected Housing Demand Table 2.21: Housing Unit Projections, 2010-2030 Year Round Housing Units Seasonal Housing Units Municipal Unit 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Towns Amnicon 364 463 513 563 612 662 6 8 9 10 11 13 Bennett 224 264 284 304 325 345 62 72 77 82 87 92 Brule 244 279 297 314 332 349 17 37 47 57 67 77 Cloverland 94 110 117 125 133 141 11 22 28 33 39 44 Dairyland 87 86 85 83 81 80 47 79 95 111 127 143 Gordon 298 336 355 374 392 411 159 256 304 352 401 449 Hawthorne 338 424 466 509 552 595 30 41 47 52 58 63 Highland 107 140 157 174 190 207 57 83 95 108 121 134 Lakeside 226 285 315 345 374 404 31 37 39 42 45 48 Maple 277 325 349 373 398 422 16 18 19 20 22 23 Oakland 425 514 559 603 648 692 103 122 131 141 150 160 Parkland 463 520 549 578 606 635 4 7 9 11 12 14 Solon Springs 334 426 471 517 563 609 125 172 195 218 242 265 Summit 418 488 522 557 592 627 123 149 161 174 187 200 Superior 764 896 962 1,028 1,095 1,161 16 38 49 60 72 83 Wascott 295 321 335 348 361 374 495 651 728 806 884 962 Villages L. Nebagamon 428 472 515 559 602 646 294 325 355 385 415 445 Oliver 127 144 160 177 194 210 1 1 1 1 1 1 Poplar 209 229 249 269 289 309 3 3 3 3 3 3 Solon Springs 268 286 304 322 340 358 102 103 104 105 106 107 Superior 209 240 256 271 287 302 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Superior 12,196 12,276 12,316 12,357 12,397 12,437 41 41 41 42 42 42 County Total Douglas Co. 18,395 19,524 20,136 20,750 21,363 21,976 1,703 2,266 2,538 2,814 3,093 3,369 Housing unit projections are tools used by governmental units to allocate lands to accommodate future growth and development. Projections also enable communities to prepare for future public services and facilities demands for sewer, water, fire and police protection, and other public services. It is important to note that these figures are only estimates for planning purposes and should be used only as general guidelines. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-26 The housing unit projections were developed by applying average annual growth rates for both permanent and seasonal housing units derived from analysis of historical construction permit data. Estimates of annual housing unit losses, derived from Department of Administration Housing Survey data, also were factored into the model. The housing unit projection model used in Douglas County is based on the following simple assumptions: 1) Annual housing growth rates will consistent with the 10-year average 2) Annual housing loss rates will remain consistent with the 5-year average As is indicated in the population section of this plan, Douglas County is expected to increase in population through the year 2030. The total number of housing units is also expected to increase over this period. The central factors which could influence change in the county’s future housing structure include seasonal home construction variables, demographic changes and the availability of economic opportunities. In 2000, Douglas County recorded 20,356 units. A countywide total of 25,345 units (permanent and seasonal) are forecast by the year 2030. The projected growth of 24.5 percent means that an average of 166 new units could be added to the county’s housing stock each year. It is expected that seasonal housing growth will continue to represent a large part of the overall housing stock in many Douglas County communities. Overall the relative proportion of seasonal to permanent housing is expected to increase from 9.3 percent in 2000 to 13.3 percent in 2030. HOUSING DENSITY Figure 2.2 indicates Douglas County’s position in total housing unit density for the 60-year period from 1940 to 2000. The data, displayed by federal census block, reveals the pattern of housing development for the Counties of Douglas, Bayfield, Burnett, Washburn, and Polk in Wisconsin, and the Counties of Chisago and Pine in Minnesota. While Douglas County does not show the same dramatic density growth as its neighboring counties to the south, the overall trend is clear; housing density has increased markedly since 1940 as second-home construction has flourished and permanent residents have moved out into the rural areas. Table 2.22 depicts housing unit density statistics for Douglas County municipalities from 1980 through 2030. As indicated by the data, the average countywide housing unit density is projected to increase from 15.5 units per square mile in to 2000 to 19.4 units per square mile by 2030. ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-27 Table 2.22: Land Area & Housing Density, 1980-2030 AREA (SQ. MI.) TOTAL HOUSING UNITS PER SQUARE MILE Total area Land area* 19801 19901 20001 20102 20202 20302 T Amnicon 39.1 39.1 8.3 8.9 9.8 12.1 14.7 17.3 T Bennett 48.3 47.5 6.2 6.8 6.3 7.1 8.1 9.2 T Brule 55.9 55.7 6.5 7.2 4.8 5.7 6.7 7.7 T Cloverland 46.2 46.2 2.7 3.0 2.4 2.8 3.4 4.0 T Dairyland 140.8 140.2 1.8 1.9 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.0 T Gordon 157.4 151.8 4.5 5.3 3.1 3.9 4.8 5.7 T Hawthorne 46.2 45.6 7.2 9.3 8.8 10.2 12.3 14.4 T Highland 78.1 76.5 3.3 3.8 2.2 2.9 3.7 4.5 T Lakeside 39.9 39.9 6.1 6.4 6.6 8.1 9.7 11.3 T Maple 32.1 32.1 8.3 8.4 9.4 10.7 12.3 13.8 T Oakland 65.0 63.9 7.0 7.8 8.5 10.0 11.6 13.3 T Parkland 35.5 35.5 14.0 13.2 13.5 14.9 16.6 18.3 T Solon Springs 84.5 83.0 5.8 7.1 5.7 7.2 8.9 10.5 T Summit 147.6 146.6 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.3 5.0 5.6 T Superior 107.8 106.2 6.8 7.2 7.5 8.8 10.3 11.7 T Wascott 141.1 133.0 6.1 7.0 6.1 7.3 8.7 10.0 Total Unincorp. 1265.5 1242.8 5.3 5.9 5.2 6.2 7.3 8.5 V Lake Nebagamon 14.3 12.7 50.9 56.5 58.7 62.8 74.3 85.9 V Oliver 2.1 2 44 51 64.0 72.5 89.0 105.5 V Poplar 11.9 11.9 17.6 17.1 18.7 19.5 22.9 26.2 V Solon Springs 2.3 1.6 225.6 240 243.1 243.1 266.9 290.6 V Superior 1.2 1.2 168.3 162.5 175.0 200.8 226.7 252.5 C Superior 55.4 36.9 324.8 316.6 330.5 333.8 336.0 338.2 Total incorporated 87.2 66.3 203.5 200.4 209.5 213.0 218.6 224.1 Douglas County 1480 1309.3 15.4 15.7 15.5 16.7 18.0 19.4 Source: US Census Bureau & WRPC projections 1US Census Bureau 2 Projections * Minus surface waters ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-28 Figure 2.2: Douglas County Housing Density, 1940-2000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-29 Figure 2.3 illustrates housing unit density based on E-911 structure data. The map clearly reveals the pattern of development within the incorporated units, and unincorporated units along lakeshore and riverfront property. Of note, sizeable areas of the county have eight or fewer housing units per square mile (darkest green color). Figure2.3: Douglas County Housing Density Based on E-911 Data ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LOWEST DENSITY HIGHEST DENSITY ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-30 Figure 2.4: Owner-Occupied and Seasonal Housing Unit Density Comparisons, 1990 & 2000 1990 Seasonal Housing Unit Density (Units Per Square Mile) 1990 Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Density (Units Per Square Mile) 2000 Owner-Occupied Housing Unit Density (Units Per Square Mile) 1990 Census Blocks Owner-Occupied Housing Units Per Square Mile 0 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 > 50 2000 Census Blocks Owner-Occupied Housing Units Per Square Mile 0 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 > 50 1990 Census Blocks Seasonal Housing Units Per Square Mile 0 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 > 50 2000 Seasonal Housing Unit Density (Units Per Square Mile) 2000 Census Blocks Seasonal Housing Units Per Square Mile 0 1 - 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 25 26 - 50 > 50 ---PAGE BREAK--- Housing Chapter 2-31 Figure 2.4 depicts the 1990 and 2000 density of seasonal and owner-occupied housing units by Census blocks. The upper graphics clearly show a general reduction in seasonal housing unit density across most municipalities in Douglas County. Between 1990 and 2000, the total number of housing units declined in eight of Douglas County’s sixteen towns. The lower concentration of seasonal housing is also likely the result of human demographic trends. Over the decade 1990-2000, many homes which were classified as “seasonal, recreational or occasional use” in the 1990 census were likely converted to year-round, housing units, thus were reclassified as “owner- occupied” housing units in the 2000 Census. This shift is a direct result of the conversion of recreational homes to permanent homes as individuals either move or retire and permanently occupy their formerly seasonal homes. Areas most desirable for seasonal home construction in terms of privacy, aesthetic quality, and natural beauty are often remote, lacking municipal sewer and water service. The increased growth of seasonal and permanent units in these areas may eventually require the development of infrastructure such as municipal sewer and water for maintaining water quality, abating pollution, minimizing the impacts of erosion, overuse, and aesthetic damage. The lower graphics, which represent changes in owner-occupied housing unit density, show a general increase in overall owner-occupied housing units. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-1 “Based on projection of highway maintenance, construction and rising fuel costs, Douglas County prioritizes federal and state, along with evaluated county roads that are maintained for our transportation system. Programs are developed for easier connection for ride share including a database, strategically-based parking areas for ride share vehicles as well as pick- up/drop-off for expanded bus services. A network of multi-use trails are developed with abandoned railroads also integrating bike trails with the re-construction of present highways integrating cost effective (compacted materials) in the development of trails.” INTRODUCTION The relationship between transportation and land use is a symbiotic one. Growth requires access and likewise, access promotes growth. In Douglas County, rural development would be extremely limited, or non-existent, without rural transportation access. As changing values have shifted our focus away from urban areas and into the suburban and rural outlying lands, more pressure has been placed on the existing transportation system along with increasing demand to improve access, mobility and transit options. In addition to the changing social values associated with development, the nature of commuting has evolved. No longer do we necessarily live near where we work. In fact, for those in the rural areas commuting to a job outside of their community of residence is the rule, not the exception. The automobile has made it relatively easy, and up until recently, relatively cheap, to drive long distances for work and pleasure. The combined impacts of building rural transportation infrastructure along with the increased usage and required maintenance place a significant financial burden on county and local town governments. In responding to the transportation challenges, local governmental units essentially have two options, continue to expand transportation infrastructure and access at significant costs, or adopt growth policies to reduce sprawl and to promote efficiency. TRANSPORTATION VISION With governmental units currently facing serious financial challenges and with the increasing financial burden associated with transportation system maintenance and development, many communities may simply not be able to afford to continue current practices into the future. The integration of transportation planning with broader land use planning is not only critical to reducing costs, but also to enhancing the quality, livability and character of both urban and rural communities. A good transportation system supports the growing economy of Douglas County, which provides opportunities for its residents and visitors. These opportunities enhance the county’s standard of living. Of particular importance in rural counties is the road system, since it is the largest component of the transportation system. Therefore, it generally has the greatest direct input and investment by the County and local units of government. The transportation element will review the existing types of transportation choices in the county, as well as identify any/all the applicable local, state, and regional transportation plans affecting Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-2 Existing Road System Douglas County’s road system is the largest component of its overall transportation network. Local roads also account for the highest transportation-related costs to government, and ultimately to taxpayers. The predominant mode of travel within the county is the motor vehicle. Motor vehicle transit is accommodated via an extensive, interconnected network of town, county, federal and state highways. Douglas County’s roadway network is represented by over 2,000 miles of roads and streets. The bulk of roadways in the county are local roads and streets, which are maintained by local units of government (towns, villages, and city). Several major roadways bisect the county including federal highways (US) 2 and 53, State Trunk Highway’s (STH) 13, 27, 35 and 105; along with several County Trunk Highways (CTH). These high- volume roadways support the bulk of the traffic volume within the county. Douglas County is linked to St. Louis County, Minnesota via three bridges which cross the St. Louis River estuary, including the Blatnik Bridge (US 53 & I-535, City of Superior), the Richard I. Bong Memorial Bridge (US 2, City of Superior) and the combined rail/auto Oliver Bridge (STH 105, Village of Oliver). ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-3 Table 3.1: Roadway Miles by Type and Jurisdiction, Douglas County Rural counties like Douglas County tend to have a high number of road miles per person. Because there are more miles of road per person in rural areas than urban areas and therefore fewer resources to devote to maintaining each mile, the level of maintenance that is acceptable to residents may be lower because their maintenance costs per capita are higher. In Douglas County, the Towns of Dairyland and Municipality County Federal Local State Total Road Miles 2000 Pop. Miles per Person (Total ) Towns T Amnicon 16.5 17.3 48.8 0.1 82.6 1,074 0.08 T Bennett 18.9 5.0 45.3 0 69.2 622 0.11 T Brule 17.6 5.6 72.7 4.1 99.9 591 0.17 T Cloverland 3.0 0 44.7 13.4 61.1 247 0.25 T Dairyland 14.3 0 77.6 14.2 106.1 186 0.57 T Gordon 36.7 5.1 145.7 0 187.5 645 0.29 T Hawthorne 20.6 6.7 44.7 0.0 72.1 1,045 0.07 T Highland 15.7 0 110.3 11.5 137.4 245 0.56 T Lakeside 5.6 0 50.3 9.2 65.2 609 0.11 T Maple 15.1 4.2 39.1 2.4 60.8 649 0.09 T Oakland 19.1 0 60.0 0 79.1 1,144 0.07 T Parkland 21.3 9.0 31.1 2.5 63.9 1,240 0.05 T Solon Springs 22.7 6.5 93.8 0 123.0 807 0.15 T Summit 23.7 0 85.4 12.4 121.5 1,042 0.12 T Superior 39.7 0 75.7 11.8 127.2 2,058 0.06 T Wascott 24.3 6.2 200.9 0 231.5 714 0.32 Total unincorporated 314.8 65.6 1,226.1 81.6 1,688.1 12,918 0.13 Villages V Lake Nebagamon 9.8 0 29.4 0 39.2 1,015 0.04 V Oliver 1.8 0 5.3 1.4 8.5 358 0.02 V Poplar 6.1 4.3 26.8 0 37.2 552 0.07 V Solon Springs 3.5 1.0 14.6 0 19.2 576 0.03 V Superior 0 0 5.7 1.2 7.0 500 0.01 City C Superior 0.0 15.2 189.0 7.8 212.0 27,368 0.01 Total incorporated 21.2 20.5 270.8 10.4 323.1 30,369 0.01 County Douglas County 336.2 86.2 1,496.8 92.1 2,011.3 43,287 0.05 ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-4 Highland have the most local road miles per capita. For these municipalities, the per person costs of maintaining roads is higher than other municipalities in Douglas County. Douglas County roadway mileage characteristics by jurisdiction are shown in Table 3.1. Roadways in Douglas County are categorized by a functional classification system based on the level of service the roadways provide in carrying vehicular traffic. The classification system consists of four classes, which include principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors (major/minor), and local roads. Table 3.2 and Map 3.1 illustrate the functional classification system in Douglas County. Table3.2: Functional Classification System Municipality Principal Arterials (Miles) Collector (Miles) Local Roads (Miles) TOTAL (Miles) Towns T Amnicon 11.62 12.77 50.43 74.82 T Bennett 0 10.32 52.62 62.94 T Brule 5.60 15.58 72.31 96.60 T Cloverland 0 1.00 43.83 58.41 T Dairyland 0 14.28 80.48 108.9 T Gordon 4.85 49.35 139.0 193.2 T Hawthorne 10.42 16.01 49.06 75.49 T Highland 0 15.09 106.0 132.6 T Lakeside 0 3.00 51.86 64.07 T Maple 4.22 11.04 45.50 63.17 T Oakland 0 21.71 57.64 79.35 T Parkland 4.70 18.79 33.81 60.14 T Solon Springs 6.43 24.72 91.96 123.1 T Summit 0 29.43 81.47 123.2 T Superior 0 40.42 73.12 124.8 T Wascott 5.37 31.48 194.0 230.9 Total unincorporated 53.21 314.99 1,223. 33 1,672. 09 Villages V Lake 0 10.75 28.75 39.50 V Oliver 0 1.53 5.47 8.48 V Poplar 2.94 4.67 27.45 35.06 V Solon Springs 1.01 3.92 14.03 18.96 V Superior 1.25 0 6.34 7.59 City C Superior 17.91 22.93 146.5 207.1 Total 23.11 43.8 228.5 316.7 County Douglas County 76.32 358.79 1,451. 1,988. Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, District 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-5 Principal & minor arterials - Provide connections between cities and regions, move large volumes of traffic on reasonably direct routes, and provide mobility of traffic with limited land access points. Collectors (major & minor) - Collector roads generally provide major and/or minor connections within a community, link local roads to arterial roads, and provide equal access for movement and property. Local Roads -Local roads handle the least amount of traffic volume, but provide direct access to private property. Traffic Counts The volume of traffic on Douglas County roadways typically corresponds to the road’s functional classification, with principal arterials generally receiving the highest volume and local roads and streets, the lowest. Analysis of historical traffic count data indicates that traffic volumes on Douglas County’s roadways have steadily increased over the past 30 years. Table 3.3 documents the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data collected by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation on Douglas County highways for the 30-year period between 1975 and 2005. AADT is defined as the total volume of vehicle traffic in both directions of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days. Increased Traffic Volume As is indicated in Table 3.3 traffic volume has increased throughout Douglas County over the past three decades, with some roadways now experiencing nearly double the traffic load today as they did in 1975. The increase in average daily traffic over the past 30 years can be attributed to three main factors. First, many of the rural towns in the county have grown substantially in population (see Demographics Chapter) especially those towns within commuting distance (approximately 30 miles of less) to the cities of Duluth and Superior. Secondly, many of the rural towns have seen a significant increase in seasonal homes constructed since 1975. With many seasonal property owners residing outside of Douglas County, their travel to and from their summer home’s contributes to the overall traffic volume. Finally, the increased traffic is a result of individuals making more car trips. Until recently, relatively affordable fuel costs have resulted in more reliance on the automobile as a device of convenience. In addition to the increase in personal commuting for work, people have increased the number of trips they take to go shopping, run errands, recreate and participate in activities. Lack of a countywide system of public transportation or passenger rail service also contributes to elevated traffic volumes on public roadways. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-6 Table 3.3: AADT on Selected Sites in Douglas County, 1975-2005 AADT on Selected Sites of USH 53, 1975-2005 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 Site 1 2,550 4,730 2,600 3,000 3,770 3170 4000 5400 5,700 6,200 5,500 Site 2 2,850 4,020 3,500 3,320 3,850 3,590 4,100 5,600 6,000 7,500 6,800 Site 3 4,510 4,530 9,670 9,230 9,910 9,870 9,780(a) 11,400 13,700 12,200 13,800 Site 1: just S of jct. with CTH & at Gordon Site 2: just S of jct. with CTH (Bennett Twp.) Site 3: 1 mi. NW of jct. with USH 2 1990 AADT on Selected Sites of USH 2, 1975-2005 Site 4 3,460 3,500 3,530 3,540 3,500 3,750 4,100 5,000 5,300 5,000 3,900 Site 5 5,350 5,130 5,130 5,900 5,130 6,200 6,800 6,500 7,300 7,200 Site 4: ½ mi. W of Bayfield/Douglas Co. line Site 5: Poplar’s western village limits, ½ mi. E of Wentworth AADT on Selected sites of STH 35, 1975-2005 Site 6 620 900 680 580 750 580 870 900 960 1,000 1,000 Site 7 820 1220 1,310 940 1,240 1,140 1,100 950 1,600 1,500 1,500 Site 8 3,890 5,580 5,150 5,190 5,020 5,950 5,950(c) 5,950(d) 7,800 7,000 6,400 Site 6: just S of jct. with CTH at Cozy Corners Site 7: ½ mi. S of jct. with CTH “BB” Site 8: southern boundary of the Village of Superior, 1¼ mi. S of jct. with STH 105 1990 ADT , 1993 AADT AADT on Selected sites of STH 27, 1975-2005 Site 9 720 860 650 670 84 640 950 950 1,000 830 830(a) Site 10 500 550 550 440 390 Site 9: just S of jct. with USH 2 at Brule Site 10: 2 miles N of jct. with CTH 2005 AADT AADT on Selected sites of STH 105, 1975-2005 Site 11 1,770 1,800 2,050 2,100 2,020 1,980 1,980(a) 1,800 2,000 2,400 2,400 Site 11: just E of jct. with CTH in the Village of Oliver 1979 AADT 2005 AADT AADT on Selected sites of STH 13, 1975-2005 Site 12 600 720 490 380 620 530 400 490 720 650 650 Site 13 720 1,140 780 660 1,000 990 840 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Site 14 1020 2,080 1,050 1,410 1,380 1,000 1,900 2,100 1,800 1,800(b) Site 12: just W of jct. with CTH Site 13: just E of jct. with CTH Site 14: 1 ½ mi. W of jct. with CTH & 2005 AADT Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Volume Data, 1975-2005 Average daily traffic volume (ADT) on select local roads in Douglas County is depicted in Map 3.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-7 Table 3.4: AADT on Selected sites of County Trunk Highways, 1996-2005 1996 1999 2002 2005 CTH Site 1: ½ mi. N of jct. with CTH at Four Corners Superior) 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,400 Site 2: ½ mi. N of jct. with CTH , 5½ mi. N of Four Corners Superior) 2,200 2,200 900 2,300 Site 3: ½ mi. S of jct. with CTH Superior) 1,100 1,100 680 790 CTH Site 4: ¼ mi. W of jct. with USH 53 Hawthorne) 1,800 940 1,400 1,400 Site 5: 1 mi. E of jct. with CTH Hawthorne) 1,400 1,400 2,000 2,000 CTH “BB” Site 6: ½ mi. W of jct. with STH 35 Summit) 860 470 400 400 CTH Site 7: ½ mi. N of jct. with CTH Oakland) 1,000 930 960 960 CTH Site 8: ½ mi. W of jct. with USH 53 Gordon) 490 270 270 270 CTH Site 9: ½ mi. W of jct. with USH 53 Wascott) 790 670 570 570 Site 10: ½ mi. E of jct. with STH 35 Dairyland) 270 450 320 320 CTH Site 11: ½ mi. E of jct. W USH 53 at Gordon Gordon) 1,000 1,000 910 910 Site 12: 2¼ mi. W of jct. W USH 53 at Gordon Gordon) 330 420 540 540 Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Highway Traffic Volume Data, 1996-2005 Pavement Rating The Douglas County Highway Department assess the physical condition of all highways under its jurisdiction biennially, using the Pavement Surface Evaluation Rating (PASER) system, and reports the results of the assessment to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in accordance with §86.302(2). PASER road surface ratings are depicted in Map 3.3. Future Road Improvements Roadway improvements and maintenance are essential for providing safe routes that can sustain vehicular traffic. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation prepares a six- year improvement program that identifies improvement projects needed statewide, while the Douglas County Highway Department prepares a roadway management plan identifying needed improvements on highways maintained by Douglas County. Table 3.5 indicates scheduled improvements for Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-8 Table 3.5: Future Road Improvements, Douglas County HWY Year Title Miles Cost Work Type 2 09-11 USH 53 Interchange - Poplar 5.33 $4,000,000- $4,999,999 RECST 2 09-11 Wentworth - Brule 3.16 $1,000,000- $1,999,999 27 09-11 Hayward - Brule 2.66 $1,000,000- $1,999,999 RECOND 27 09-11 Hayward – Brule Road 14.14 $3,000,000- $3,999,999 RECOND 35 09-11 DMI RR Railroad Overhead 0.00 $100,000- $249,999 35 09-11 Superior – Dairyland 7.32 $500,000- $749,999 RESURF 53 09-11 Superior – Solon Springs 0.01 $100,000- $249,[PHONE REDACTED] Oliver Bridge – BN RR 4.35 $750,000- $999,999 RESURF Source: 2006-2011 Six Year Highway Improvement Program (Feb. 2006 snapshot) RECST- Reconstruction, Pavement Replacement, RECOND- Reconditioning, Bridge Maintenance, RESURF- Resurfacing, Bridge Rehabilitation General Transportation Aids The General Transportation Aids (GTA) program is the second largest line item in the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) budget and returns to local governments roughly 30% of all state-collected transportation revenues. Under this program, 1,923 local governments (all counties, cities, villages, and towns) receive payments based on local road mileage and aidable local costs. Table 3.6 details GTA funds distributed to Douglas County between 2003 and 2008, while Table 3.7 lists GTA for Douglas County municipalities from 2003 to 2008. Table 3.6: General Transportation Aids 2003-2008 2003 $838,888.19 2004 $847,701.94 2005 $882,934.96 2006 $903,965.79 2007 $957,537.79 2008 $1,031,382.73 ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-9 Table3.7: 2008 Douglas County GTA Payments Municipality GTA Total Towns Town of Amnicon $92,538.36 Town of Bennett $85,887.96 Town of Brule $136,587.48 Town of Cloverland $79,813.02 Town of Dairyland $152,647.82 Town of Gordon $282,138.52 Town of Hawthorne $86,553.00 Town of Highland $194,032.33 Town of Lakeside $96,939.36 Town of Maple $82,386.72 Town of Oakland $117,907.68 Town of Parkland $60,851.16 Town of Solon Springs $183,942.24 Town of Summit $170,661.00 Town of Superior $143,022.72 Town of Wascott $393,312.48 Villages Village of Lake Nebagamon $56,958.72 Village of Oliver $10,699.32 Village of Poplar $52,205.64 Village of Solon Springs $34,909.24 Village of Superior $13,266.72 City City of Superior $1,302,132.59 County Douglas County $1,031,382.73 Source: WisDOT ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-10 Crash Location 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 USH 2 169 171 181 140 135 118 USH 53 90 108 102 112 77 75 STH 13 4 10 7 12 6 8 STH 27 2 0 2 2 2 1 STH 35 127 105 89 82 117 85 STH 105 9 4 8 6 4 4 Total 401 398 389 354 341 291 Source: Wisconsin Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory Traffic Safety Analysis of accident data is important because it can help identify areas where roadway hazards may exist. While the frequency, location of, and causes of motor vehicle crashes tend to correlate directly with traffic volume, the design, condition of the road and unforeseen circumstances may also have an impact on the accident rate. Traffic accidents recorded for Douglas County ranged from deer collisions to hitting mailboxes and utility poles. Table 3.8, displays the number of reported crashes from 2002-2007. Table 3.8: Vehicular Crash Counts on Selected Highways Corridor Congestion The Wisconsin State Highway Plan 2020 identifies areas of potential congestion on statewide highway corridors if no capacity expansion projects were to take place in the coming 20 years. The report indicates that most of Douglas County’s corridors will remain un-congested for the coming 20-year period. Areas within the county expected to increase in congestion include the following: • Moderate congestion predicted for US 2 from its junction with US 53 in the Town of Amnicon to the hamlet of Wentworth, four miles to the east; • Moderate congestion predicted for US 2 from its intersection with STH 27 at Brule through its entire length in Bayfield County to the City of Ashland in Ashland County • Severe and extreme congestion are predicted for the entire of US 2 & 53 and STH 35 within the municipal limits of the City of Superior Nodal development Completion of the four-lane of US 53 project in the late 1990’s required bypassing the communities and hamlets through which the former two-lane route passed. The areas through which the new four-lane route passes—either on the edges or through these communities—has created potential sites for high-visibility commercial and industrial development. The most likely candidates for this nodal development include the following: • The intersection with CTH at Wascott (has a restaurant) • The intersection with CTH & at Gordon (commercial and residential hamlet) • The intersection with CTH in the Town of Gordon (has one restaurant) • The intersection with CTH at Solon Springs (has gas station, municipal garage) ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-11 • The intersection with CTH at Bennett (has one automotive repair business and the town hall) • The intersection with CTH at Hawthorne (commercial hamlet) • The segment running parallel to CTH in the Town of Hawthorne (a few residences in place) Of the sites listed above, two junctions have access to municipal sewer systems. The first, at the intersection of CTH in the hamlet of Gordon which is connected to the Village of Solon Springs municipal system and the second at the junction with CTH in the Village of Solon Springs. Access to sewer makes these sites more desirable for potential commercial or industrial developments. Care should be taken in future developments of these nodal sites that the buildings, advertising, signage, and overall site design encourage the retention of “northwoods” character. To discourage the proliferation of corporate “franchise” architecture and inappropriate signage, municipalities along the US 53 corridor should encourage a set of building designs, color scheme, and signage that suggests an aesthetic continuity with the surrounding landscape and serves to invite the traveler beyond the highway node and into the community. Municipalities along the corridor would also benefit by providing a tax incentive or matching funds for businesses that undertake aesthetically pleasing commercial designs. The Douglas County Zoning Office, in conjunction with the State of Wisconsin Department of Transportation, issues permits for the construction of billboard signage and advertising along state and federal highway corridors in the county. The Douglas County Zoning Office also issues the permits for signage along county and local roads. Provisions 5.1 through 5.4 of Section 5 of the county’s zoning code set the specific criteria regarding size, lighting, and distance from roadway and govern the placement of signage along Douglas County’s road corridors. Specifically, billboard signs along the new four-lane corridor of US 53 must be in areas zoned for commercial or industrial property. At present, only four such sites exist, all located between Solon Springs and the Washburn County line. Of the 40-mile stretch of US 53 through Douglas County, only 3,200 feet is currently zoned for the placement of billboards. With the new US 53 corridor complete, there may be additional desire by businesses and land owners to have parcels rezoned for the addition of new billboards. Trails Residents and visitors to Douglas County have access to numerous all-season, multi- use recreational trails. These trails provide transportation and recreational use to pedestrians and cyclists in the spring, summer, and autumn and access to snowmobiles, and on some trails to all- terrain vehicles, during the winter months. Major trails in Douglas County include the Tri-County Corridor, the Gandy Dancer Trail, the Saunders State Trail, and the Wild Rivers Trail. Map 4.2 illustrates the county’s primary trail network. This trail links Douglas, Bayfield, and Ashland Counties connecting the City of Superior to the City of Ashland on Chequamegon Bay. The Tri-County Corridor is paved with limestone and follows the abandoned Northern Pacific rail grade. Tri-County Corridor ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-12 The Gandy Dancer follows the abandoned Soo Line rail grade through the northwestern portion of the county. The Gandy Dancer connects the City of Superior to the City of St. Croix Falls in Polk County. The trail exits Douglas County approximately four miles south of the hamlet of Foxboro on the Minnesota border and re-enters Wisconsin in Burnett County. From the Superior to Danbury the trail is surfaced with its original cinder base while from Danbury to its terminus at St. Croix Falls the trail is surface with crushed and compacted limestone. Gandy Dancer State Trail Beginning in Superior, this trail bisects the Town of Superior diagonally in the county’s extreme northwestern corner. Following the abandoned Soo Line rail grade, the trail exits the county and enters Minnesota approximately one mile south of the intersection of county highways and Saunders State Trail Connects the City of Rice Lake, Barron County, to the west of South Range and follows another abandoned Soo Line rail grade. There are plans in the future to extend this trail northward to the City of Superior. Wild Rivers Trail In addition to the trails listed above, Douglas County has an expansive network of secondary trails covering hundreds of miles that cross through county forest land, private industrial forests, and in some cases private landholdings. These trails are in use primarily in the winter months for snowmobiling and ATV use and are generally maintained by local snowmobile clubs. Many of these trails serve as connectors between the major trails outlined above. Railroads In the early part of the 20th Century, Douglas County had an expansive network of rail systems, with nearly every community in the county linked by passenger rail service. Railway networks reached their peak in the county between 1903 and 1910 when even the most remote regions of the county had rail links in place. These systems were in many cases temporary lines used to transport timber to mills in Duluth, Superior, and elsewhere. Numerous nationwide rail systems terminated in Duluth-Superior—a key international transshipment point— supplying international ships with cargoes of grain, iron ore, and coal and taking on goods and materials delivered through the port. The years from 1950 through 2000 have seen the reduction of rail transport in favor of overland trucking operations and the subsequent abandonment and removal and/or conversion of most of the rail system in the county. Four freight lines still operate through the county: Burlington Northern- Santa Fe, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific (Soo Line), and the Duluth-Missabe- Iron Range line. None of these lines provide passenger service and the nearest passenger rail service is available in Minneapolis-St. Paul through Amtrak. There has been discussion in recent years about the renewal of passenger rail service between the Twin and the Twin Ports. Commercial Trucking In Wisconsin, most freight (tonnage) is transported by commercial truck. In Douglas County, commercial trucking is an important facet of the intermodal freight system, and critical to the movement of cargo into and out of the port at Superior. State designated long truck routes include State Highway 35 and US Highway’s 2 & 53. State Highways ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-13 105, 13 and 27 are designated as 65’ restricted truck routes (48' trailer, 43' king pin to rear axle, no double bottoms). Transit Public transportation in Douglas County is limited. Douglas County is served by the Greyhound Bus Line, through its terminal in Duluth, Minnesota. The only line serving Douglas County runs along USH 2 from Duluth, Minnesota to St. Ignace, Michigan. A number of taxi services are also available. They include Allied Taxi, Badger Taxi, Bayside Taxi, Call Me A Cab, Courtesy Cab Co. and Stride / DTA. The City of Superior has access to intra-city mass transit through the Duluth Transit Authority. The DTA maintains numerous bus routes through several commercial and residential areas of the city and links Superior with Duluth. Transportation Facilities for the Elderly and Disabled This Aging Resource Center for Douglas County offers transportation services to those aged 60 and older. The Specialized Van Transportation Program provides curb to curb transportation services for people who are age 60 and over, or people with a medical disability (vans are handicapped accessible). Specialized Van Transportation provides rides to medical appointments, personal appointments, banking or shopping, visit family and friends, or to run errands in town. Participants who need assistance are required to have another person escort them to their appointment, and that person may ride free of charge. The Aging Resource Center’s Volunteer Driver Escort Program utilizes volunteers who use their own vehicles to provide transportation throughout Douglas County. This program also provides transportation to Duluth, Minnesota (for medical purposes only). The program is designed for those individuals who need minimal assistance, are ambulatory, and are at least 60 years of age. If individuals are under the age of 60, and disabled, with no other means of transportation; the program tries to accommodate their transportation needs depending on the situation and availability of volunteer drivers. Volunteer drivers do not stay with participants at their destinations. It is a door to door service. Transportation services are also available for rural residents of Douglas County, who are aged 60 years and older. A van, located in Solon Springs, Wisconsin, is available Monday through Friday for transportation to Spooner, Hayward and the Twin Ports. Pick- up service is only available within a limited radius of Solon Springs. There is a nominal charge for these services (currently $15 to Hayward, Spooner or Superior, $20 to Duluth). The Special Transit RIDE, or STRIDE, is a dial- a-ride transportation service for qualified persons with disabilities living in the twin ports that are unable to ride regular Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) buses. STRIDE service is provided within 3/4 mile of regular DTA routes in the City of Superior. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-14 Air Transportation There are no airports with commercial air passenger service in Douglas County. The nearest airport providing regular scheduled passenger flights to domestic and international destinations is the Duluth International Airport. At present, there are seven airports-airfields registered with the WI Bureau of Aeronautics in Douglas County, two of which are open to the public. Table 3.9 contains a complete inventory of airports and airfields in Douglas County. Table 3.9: Douglas County Airports-Airfields Airport/Airfield Municipality Status Carlson's Superior Private (abandoned) Cedar Island Highland Private Degerman Field, LLC Highland Private Elm Field Parkland Private (closed) Freeman Farm South Range Private Minnesuing Field Lake Nebagamon Private Richard I. Bong Superior Public Solon Springs Solon Springs Public Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Airport Improvements The Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Aeronautics Five- Year Airport Improvement Program details planned improvements to airports around the state. Both municipal airports in Douglas County, Richard I Bong Airport and the Solon Springs Municipal Airport are scheduled for improvements between 2008 and 2012. The Richard I. Bong Airport has eleven projects listed totaling $3,344,681.00. The Solon Springs Municipal Airport has three projects slated, totaling $1,700,000.00. Bicycling & Walking Bicycling and walking play an important role in Wisconsin’s transportation system. Many individuals rely on or choose these forms of travel as their main means of transportation. According to a WisDOT statewide survey, nearly 8% of all trips were being completed by bicycling and walking. Because of the rural nature of Douglas County, the primary focus of bicycling is related to recreation. Recent WisDOT survey data shows that 48% of Wisconsin adults bike for recreation. According to WisDOT, only .18% residents bike to work in Douglas County. The Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin, with information provided by WisDOT, created a series of bicycle maps highlighting the most favorable bicycling conditions by county (Figure 3.1). These maps also identify bicycle trails, mountain bike facilities, and provide contacts for local bicycle route information. Town roads are not rated for their bicycling conditions but are identified with their road names and surface type. Richard I. Bong Airport ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-15 As with bicycling, pedestrian travel as a form of transportation in Douglas County is conducted as a recreational activity. There are designated trails throughout the county that accommodate pedestrian travel. Rural Douglas County has limited pedestrian infrastructure. Sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and crosswalks are commonly associated with urban communities but seldom found in the less densely populated rural areas. Most foot traffic in the rural areas is considered recreational, either for exercise or pleasure. The relative distance from rural residences to the jobs, goods, and services located within the incorporated communities precludes most pedestrian commuting. Even in cases where pedestrian commuting is feasible, seasonal weather conditions make this choice of travel extremely difficult. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-16 Figure 3.1: Bicycling Conditions in Douglas County Source: Wisconsin Department of Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-17 Commercial Ports Douglas County is home to one-half of the largest port on the Great Lakes. The combined Port of Duluth-Superior, ranked 18th nationally in total cargo volume, is located at the western end of Lake Superior. Development of the port at Duluth-Superior closely followed the development and exploitation of the timber and mineral resources in northeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin in the mid-1870s. The port grew as grain, particularly wheat, production moved westward into western Minnesota and the Dakotas. The port of Duluth-Superior is located 2,342 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, just under seven days sailing time. Primary cargoes shipped out from the port include iron ore, coal, and grain and the largest cargoes received are limestone, used in road construction and chemical applications, and salt. The port handles an average of 40 million metric tons of cargo annually, worth approximately $2 billion dollars. The combined port at Duluth-Superior has 49 miles of waterfront, 19 square miles of land and water in the naturally protected harbor, and 17 miles of dredged channels and is able to accommodate vessels up to 1,100 ft. in length, 105 ft. beam, and 32 ft. draft. The port has access to domestic and international markets through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. Port facilities include six multi-purpose bulk terminals, two ore docks, one coal dock, one general cargo distribution center, and five grain elevators with a 55,000,000 bushel grain silo capacity. The shipping season generally extends from ice breakup in mid- March to freeze up to late December or early January. Ice conditions and ice breaking capability help extend the shipping season. The largest Great Lakes marina in Douglas County is the Barker’s Island Marina in the City of Superior, providing slips for small to medium-sized, private sail vessels and a launch site for private sport and pleasure craft on Lake Superior. The U.S. Coast Guard operates a station in Duluth, Minnesota which is the home port of the Coast Guard Cutter Alder. Alder's primary missions are aids to navigation (AtoN), ice breaking, law enforcement (LE), and search and rescue (SAR). ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-18 Transportation Plans & Programs There are a number of state, regional and county agencies that have developed and adopted various transportation plans or programs for roadways and infrastructure under their responsibility. In an effort to be consistent and cooperative with adjacent and overlapping jurisdictions, the following state, regional, and county plans applicable to Douglas County are listed in Table 3.10. Figure 3.2: Corridors 2020 Routes The State of Wisconsin has developed several transportation plans which may impact Douglas County. Corridors 2020 is a part of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s long-range highway improvement plan designed to provide essential links to key employment and population centers throughout the state. Under Corridors 2020, US Highway 53 is considered a “backbone route”, a key multi- lane route which connects major population and economic centers and provides economic links to national and international markets. US Highway 2 is classified as a Corridors 2020 “connector route”, or a major highway which connects communities and regional economic centers to Corridors 2020 backbone routes. The Wisconsin State Highway 2020 Plan (SHP) is a 21-year plan for Wisconsin’s State Highway Trunk System. The plan predicts severe to extreme congestion levels on US 2/53 and State Highway 35 in the City of Superior by 2020, with moderate congestion forecast for US 2 from Poplar to State Highway 53. In an effort to reduce potential future congestion and improve mobility, the SHP recommends The SHP identifies a potential major highway improvement project on US Highway 2 between US Highway 53 and the City of Ashland in Ashland County. Other future implementation projects may impact Douglas County. In general, the SHP gives highest priority to pavement and bridge preservation improvements, safety improvements, the completion of Corridors 2020 Backbone routes and bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Wisconsin State Bicycle Plan integrates bicycling into comprehensive state transportation planning. The plan encourages and promotes the use of cycling as a means of transportation throughout the State of Wisconsin. As highlighted previously in this chapter, the State Bicycle Plan identifies bicycle routes (areas with favorable conditions for bicycling). The plan also contains a series of policies and programs to improve bicycling conditions in the state. The Wisconsin State Airport System Plan 2020 determines the number, location, and type of aviation facilities required to adequately serve the state’s aviation needs over a 21-year planning period, 2000 Source: WisDOT ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-19 through 2020. The plan defines the State Airport System and establishes the current and future role of each airport in the system. Furthermore, the plan forecasts the level of public investment needed to meet federal and state requirements and to meet projected future demand. The Wisconsin Pedestrian Policy Plan 2020 guides policies, programs, and efforts on pedestrian transportation through the year 2020. It provides a statewide framework to increase walking and to promote pedestrian safety. The plan establishes goals, objectives, and actions regarding the provision of pedestrian accommodations that could be implemented. The plan also serves to help communities identify actions they can take to establish pedestrian travel as a viable, convenient, and safe transportation choice throughout Wisconsin The Wisconsin Department of Transportation has begun to draft a long- range transportation plan through the year 2030. Connections 2030 will set forth a broad vision, as well as strategies and policies for all the state’s transportation modes: highways, rail, air, water, pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and local roads. The planning efforts undertaken as part of the Wisconsin State Rail Plan 2020 will be rolled into the Connections 2030 process. Connections 2030 identifies two multimodal corridors which include Douglas County. The 100-mile Lake Superior Corridor is part of an important passenger and freight corridor between Michigan and points to the east into Canada, Duluth-Superior, northern Minnesota and much of western Canada. This corridor contains the major rail/water intermodal connections at the Twin Ports of Duluth-Superior and provides access to the tourism/recreational resources of the southern Lake Superior region. The 150-mile Peace Memorial Corridor stretches from Duluth-Superior southward to Interstate 94. This corridor is part of a major passenger and freight corridor that links southern Wisconsin and Chicago, and Duluth-Superior, northern Minnesota, and much of western Canada. It contains the major rail/water intermodal connections at the Duluth- Superior port and provides economic links between the population centers to the south and the recreation and tourism areas of northwestern Wisconsin. ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-20 Table 3.10: Applicable Local, State, Regional, and other Transportation Plans including: Type of Plans Local Plans State Plans Regional Plans Transportation corridor plans Duluth-Superior Area Truck Route Study TRANSLINKS 21 Corridors 2020 Connections 2030 Access and Mobility for People & Freight 2030 County highway functional and jurisdictional studies Superior Thoroughfare Plan WI State Highway Plan 2020 Urban area transportation plans Superior Thoroughfare Plan Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Bikeways Implementation Plan Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Pedestrian Plan Rural area transportation plans Douglas County Airport master plans WI State Airport System Plan 2020 Rail Plans Metropolitan Rail Study Rail Issues & Opportunities Report Other Plans Safe Routes to School in Superior WI Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 WI Pedestrian Policy Plan 2020 ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Chapter 3-21 Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council The Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Interstate Council (MIC) is the designated bi-state Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Duluth-Superior metropolitan planning area. The MIC was created in 1975 under a joint agreement between the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC) in Duluth, Minnesota and the Northwest Regional Planning Commission in Spooner, Wisconsin. The MIC’s planning jurisdiction the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Planning Area extends from the census-defined Duluth-Superior Urbanized Area out to the first ring of non-urbanized townships. In Wisconsin this includes the City of Superior, the towns of Lakeside, Parkland and Superior and the villages of Oliver and Superior. Summary Douglas County and the State of Wisconsin have worked to develop an efficient, safe, and effective transport system for Douglas County businesses, residents and visitors. Continued understanding of how the transportation networks are used, in concert with improvements to roadways, airports, trail systems, and port facilities, are necessary to keep the county’s transportation system in excellent condition. Increased usage of transportation systems, coupled with the projected increases in population and seasonal visitors, provides evidence that the county needs to examine the capacity of its existing system and make provisions for increased use in coming 20 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 3.1 Functional Class 0 10 20 5 Miles IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 53 35 13 13 35 105 35 27 23 KJ K KJ A KJ B KJ Y KJ A KJ T KJ D KJ B KJ P KJ B KJ S KJ E KJ W KJ Y KJ AA KJ H KJ B KJ L KJ C KJ F KJ FF KJ M KJ O KJ A KJ Z KJ L KJ E KJ U KJ E KJ V KJ BB KJ T KJ G KJ C KJ Y KJ UU KJ P ´ Functional Class Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Urban Collector Local Road Local Street ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 3.2 Average Daily Traffic 0 10 20 5 Miles IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 53 35 13 13 35 105 35 27 23 KJ K KJ A KJ B KJ Y KJ A KJ T KJ D KJ B KJ P KJ B KJ S KJ E KJ W KJ Y KJ AA KJ H KJ B KJ L KJ C KJ F KJ FF KJ M KJ O KJ A KJ Z KJ L KJ E KJ U KJ E KJ V KJ BB KJ T KJ G KJ C KJ Y KJ UU KJ P Average Daily Traffic (Local Roads) 0 - 320 321 - 960 961 - 2250 2251 - 5300 5301 - 16260 ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 3.3 Paser 0 10 20 5 Miles IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 53 35 13 13 35 105 35 27 23 KJ K KJ A KJ B KJ Y KJ A KJ T KJ D KJ B KJ P KJ B KJ S KJ E KJ W KJ Y KJ AA KJ H KJ B KJ L KJ C KJ F KJ FF KJ M KJ O KJ A KJ Z KJ L KJ U KJ E KJ V KJ BB KJ T KJ G KJ E KJ C KJ Y KJ UU KJ P Surface Type Asphalt Brick Concrete Gravel Unimproved Earth Sealcoat Data Unavailable Asphalt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unimproved 1 2 3 4 Gravel/Sealcoat 1 2 3 4 5 ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-1 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter INTRODUCTION Access to public utilities, services and facilities can greatly influence growth and development patterns. Public utilities such as basic municipal gas, sewer and water are often necessary to support high-density development. In the absence of these services, concentrated development and uncontrolled use has the potential to create environmental and economic problems. With the general exception of power and communications infrastructure, public utilities rarely extend into the rural areas of Douglas County. Costs and efficiency are the two factors which generally limit the extension of these utilities into rural areas. The provision of the power can influence the development pattern, as individual homeowners are often responsible for bearing costs for extending the grid to serve their individual properties. All county residents rely on protective and emergency services such as police, fire and emergency medical transport services. Provision of these types of services can be especially challenging for a large rural county. Because these services are generally centralized within the incorporated communities, there are much higher service costs and longer response times associated with rural service. Oakland Town Hall UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES VISION “In 2030, Douglas County has facilitated development of a network of high quality, efficient public facilities. Through cooperation and collaboration, local units of government and utility providers work together to provide services across jurisdictional boundaries.” “Sewer and water services are provided within established and planned growth areas that effectively reduce the impacts of sprawl development into the rural portions of the county. An exceptional education system provides opportunities for lifelong learning. Douglas County residents retain their youth, families, seniors, and disadvantaged, and promote facilities and activities aimed at improved community quality.” “Utilities meet affordable standards for environmental and investment opportunities.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-2 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROFILE On-site Wastewater Treatment Most residences and businesses in rural Douglas County rely on private on-site wastewater treatment systems, or POWTS. These systems rely on soil to absorb and clarify the effluent from septic tanks. A soil evaluation conducted by a state licensed Certified Soil Tester is required before a POWTS system may be installed. The evaluation identifies all the elements necessary for the future design and installation of the system such as type, size, depth and location on the property. Sanitary system plans must be approved by Douglas County before a land use permit will be issued for construction of a new dwelling. Sanitary Sewer Services Most of the land area within the incorporated communities of Douglas County is served by a municipal wastewater collection and treatment system. In these types of systems, wastewater generated by homes and businesses is transported through underground sanitary sewer pipes to a treatment facility. Municipal sewer service is currently available in the City of Superior and the Villages of Superior, Oliver, Poplar, Lake Nebagamon and Solon Springs. The Village of Oliver system is collection only, with effluent pumped under the St. Louis River for treatment in Duluth, MN at facilities operated by the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District A portion of the Town of Gordon, between US Highway 53 and CTH is connected to the Solon Springs system, while the Brule Sanitary District serves 118 accounts in the unincorporated community of Brule. Presently there are five privately owned and operated wastewater treatment plants (WPDES Wastewater Permit Holders) within Douglas County. The Duluth, Winnipeg, and Pacific Railroad operates a treatment system for processing oil, industrial and sanitary wastes in the Town of Superior. Private collection/treatment systems serve Camp Amnicon (Town of Lakeside), Northwestern Elementary and High School (Town of Maple), the Middle River Health Facility (Town of Amnicon) and the Murphy Oil facilities in the City of Superior. Storm Water Management Stormwater management facilities include structural and non-structural practices intended to manage the volume, rate, and quality of stormwater runoff. Structural practices include detention and retention basins, open channels, storm sewers, pipes, and infiltration structures. Non-structural practices include vegetative buffers, swales and the use of wetlands and streams for urban runoff water quality control. The management and regulation of stormwater is divided among federal, state, county, and local governments depending on the status of incorporation and size and the activities affecting stormwater. Towns that have a population of less than 10,000 and are not included in a priority watershed are not required to obtain municipal stormwater discharge permits under Administrative Code NR 216. A rural stormwater management system to control and manage runoff (curb and gutter type systems) is not currently in place in Douglas County. With the exception of culverts used to drain water below roads, Towns generally have limited stormwater management infrastructure. Wisconsin communities can undertake a number of activities to help control nonpoint source pollution. These activities include promoting awareness through education programs to increase landowners’ knowledge of nonpoint source pollution issues and conservation practices they can apply to reduce pollution, providing training opportunities for local officials and road supervisors to address ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-3 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter runoff from rural roads, promoting awareness of “best management practices” (BMPs) related to the protection of water quality, and undertaking stormwater management planning. The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program provides grant funding for non-point source pollution control to communities within the Coastal Zone of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. Water Supply While public water systems are available in the incorporated communities, virtually all rural households in Douglas County rely on groundwater for their household water supply. The potable water supply is adequate to meet current demand and quality is generally very good with the exception of localized areas where excessive mineral content, hardness, and high iron concentrations are present. To access groundwater, homes and businesses in rural Douglas County rely on wells drilled into aquifers for their water supply. Well depths vary from less than 50 feet to more than 500 feet, depending upon the depth of the water table. Shallow wells are generally more vulnerable to contamination from septic tanks, leaking underground storage tanks and agricultural chemicals. Areas with porous or sandy soils and shallow groundwater depths are most vulnerable to contamination. These conditions are prevalent in the barrens area of southeastern Douglas County. Clay soils, like those found along the south shore clay plain, can slow the infiltration of contaminants. Information on contaminated sites in Douglas County can be found in the Agricultural, Cultural and Natural Resources Chapter. Solid Waste Disposal Prior to 1969, solid waste management in Douglas County consisted primarily of individual hauling to unsupervised open dumps and on- site disposal by property owners. In 1969, all landfill operations were required to be licensed as sanitary landfills. Under Wisconsin’s Solid Waste Management Program and federal solid waste regulations, poorly located or improperly operated facilities were closed and new facilities were required to meet design and operational standards. In 2008, the only licensed sanitary landfill in Douglas County was the City of Superior Moccasin Mike Landfill off of U.S. Highways 2 and 53 in City of Superior. It is estimated that the Moccasin Mike Landfill has the capacity to handle additional waste for another 15 years. In the future, the landfill could be expanded or a new landfill could be developed. If a new landfill were to be built, a suitable location must first be identified. Douglas County does not contract or provide for solid waste collection. Each local municipality contracts with independent service providers for collection services. The primary service providers to Douglas County include Waste Management of Minnesota, Allied Waste Services, GT Sanitation and Nordic Waste Services. Solid waste collection services in the City of Superior are provided by the city, with disposal in the Moccasin Mike Landfill. Curbside solid waste collection services are not available in the Village of Solon Springs. Village residents and businesses are responsible for transporting solid waste to the transfer station located at 11903 S Holly Lucius Road. Solid waste disposal is only available to village residents as well as residents of the Town of Solon Springs. The village has a contract with Allied Waste Industries (formerly BFI) for waste collection from the transfer station. Allied Waste operates Lake Area Landfill near Sarona, Wisconsin. Licensed Solid Waste Transfer Facilities Solid waste transfer facilities are facilities where municipal solid waste is unloaded from collection vehicles and briefly held while it is reloaded onto larger long-distance transport vehicles for shipment to landfills or other treatment or disposal facilities. Waste may be stored at these sites for up to 24 hours. There ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-4 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter are currently two licensed solid waste transfer facilities in Douglas County. The Town of Wascott jointly owns and operates a transfer station for garbage disposal with the Town of Gordon. The Gordon/Wascott transfer station is located at the intersection of St. Croix Road and County Highway Y. Property owners in both towns can dispose of household garbage at the site. The facility is maintained and operated using local property tax funds. While exempt from state licensure requirements1, the Gordon-Wascott facility must comply with state-mandated performance standards and closure requirements2 1 NR 502.07(2) 2 NR 502.04 and and . Always Available Roll Off Services Inc 1021 Garfield Ave Superior, WI 54880 Waste Type(s) Handled Solon Springs Solid Waste Facility 11903 S Holly Lucius Rd Solon Springs, WI 54873 Demolition Refuse Waste Type(s) Handled Demolition Garbage Refuse Wood matter ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-5 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Recycling Douglas County provides recycling for the entire county, except the City of Superior. The county contracts with Waste Management of Minnesota (WM) for curbside household collection in the town’s of Amincon, Cloverland, Hawthorne, Oakland, and the Villages of Lake Nebagamon, Poplar, Oliver and Superior. Douglas County also has a contract with WM for collection and transport of recyclables from the various drop-off locations across the county identified in Table 4.1. The County pays for all of the drop-off hauling costs for recycling while the curbside costs are split between the County and either the resident or the local municipality. For curbside recycling provided through Waste Management, recyclable materials are generally collected every other week3 3 Collection in the Town of Cloverland is once a month . There are currently 11 recycling drop-off sites located across Douglas County (Table 4.1). Each site accepts recyclable materials from all rural residents of Douglas County. Several sites also collect additional materials from their own community residents. Table 4.1: Recycling Drop-off Sites, Douglas County Site Bennett Brule Dairyland Gordon &Wascott Highland Lakeside Maple Parkland Solon Springs Summit Recycle America Alliance ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-6 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Natural Gas Service The Superior Water, Light & Power Company based in Superior (SWL&P) provides natural gas service to rural Douglas County. SWL&P has 12,000 natural gas customers in 15 municipalities across Douglas County. Gas service extensions within the service territory are based on customer demand. Customers pay costs associated with extending gas service to their homes and business. The existing natural gas service territory is shown below in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Douglas County Natural Gas Service Territory Pipelines Northern Natural Gas (NNG) is based in Omaha, Nebraska, and operates an interstate natural gas pipeline extending from the Permian Basin in Texas to the Upper Midwest. NNG has three pipeline segments in Douglas County The Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company operates a high-pressure natural gas pipeline that bisects the northern third of the county. operates an extensive network of natural gas pipelines extending from western Canada’s natural gas basin to major industrial and market centers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and eastern Canada. A portion of the 3,100 mile Lakehead Pipeline system extends across Douglas County and into the City of Superior. Enbridge Energy Partners, LP owns and operates the U.S. segments of the Lakehead Pipeline, one of the largest crude oil pipelines in the world. The Murphy Oil refinery at Superior is directly linked to the Lakehead line. From Superior the northern route of the Lakehead Pipline extends easterly across northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to its terminus at Sarnia, Ontario. The southern route extends southeasterly from Superior to Chicago across lower Michigan to Sarnia. Pipeline Expansion Projects Enbridge recently completed the initial stage of an expansion of the southern mainline access. The expansion adds and additional 150,000 barrel per day (bpd) capacity through the construction of 321 miles of new line along the Lakehead System route between Superior and Delavan, WI. The proposed “Southern Lights Project” includes the construction of a new pipeline between Chicago and Edmonton, Alberta. The proposed line would pass directly through Douglas County. The new line would transport light hydrocarbons from U.S. refineries to petroleum producers in western Canada. These light hydrocarbons, referred to as diluent, are used to dilute heavy crude oil (and bitumen- a tar-like oil) to a consistency that is thin enough to be transported by pipeline. Enbridge’s proposed “Alberta Clipper” crude oil pipeline would add 1,000 miles of new line between Hardisty, Alberta, and Superior, Wisconsin. The line would increase initial capacity by 450,000 bpd, with ultimate capacity of up to 800,000 bpd available. This project is expected to begin in mid-2009 with the line in service by mid-2010. Both expansion projects identified by Enbridge will primarily utilize existing utility corridors. Natural Gas Service Territory ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-7 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Enbridge is also in the preliminary stages of a construction project to add 5 tanks to its tank farm at the Superior tank farm and terminal. In the future, 15-20 additional tanks could be added if the Murphy Oil expansion moves forward. COMMUNICATIONS Telephone Service Traditionally, telephone communication involved the transmission of analog signals over a network of copper wire connecting individual telephones. Many service providers have replaced their copper wire networks with fiber optic and coaxial cables. Fiber optic technology offers improved speed, capacity, clarity of signal and security over traditional copper technology. CenturyTel, Inc. and the Chequamegon Telephone Cooperative provide local telephone service in Douglas County. Long distance service is available through both local and national carriers. Figure 4.2 shows the Douglas County telephone exchange boundaries color coded by the serving company. Figure 4.2: Telephone Exchanges Wireless Communication Figure 4.3: Wireless Communication Towers Wireless communication infrastructure includes broadcast communication towers, cellular towers and land-based mobile facilities. Radio broadcast technology is point to multi-point or a signal from a station to a large number of receivers. The physical capacity of the electromagnetic spectrum limits the number of frequencies available to broadcasters. Cellular technology is based on a short-range network of cell sites, each with a fixed base transceiver station that communicates with wireless users. Because of their portability, cellular phones have become a critical communication tool for both personal and business users. Cellular phone service coverage varies across the county but is generally available within the incorporated communities and along primary transportation corridors. Cellular coverage in the outlying areas can be spotty depending on the service provider, proximity to towers and terrain. Personal communications services (PCS) technology is also wireless and is similar to cellular Superior Iron River Gordon Dairyland Barnes Solon Springs Bennett Lake Nebagamon Maple Unassigned Territory Poplar Mont du Lac Minong CenturyTel, Inc. Chequamegon Telephone Co-op Unassigned Territory Poplar Radio (AM & FM) Microwave & Cellular Land Mobile ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-8 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter technology although it operates on a network of small cells and uses a higher frequency in the spectrum to transmit data in a digital data. PCS service in Douglas County is currently available in Superior and the surrounding vicinity. Microwave communication involves the transmission of analog or digital signals using a series of microwave towers. Land mobile radio systems (LMRS) are used by companies, local governments, and other organizations to meet a wide range of communication requirements, including coordination of people and materials, important safety and security needs, and rapid response in times of emergencies. Land mobile services currently operate in the VHF and UHF portions of the radio spectrum. Existing wireless communication towers in Douglas County are shown in Figure 4.3. Towers and Antennae The height of wireless communications towers generally range from 20 to 400 feet in order to be taller than trees, buildings and other obstructions. Required height is generally proportional to a combination of the distance antennas can cover and the service demand within their radius. Towers can be freestanding monopole or lattice structures or anchored to the ground using guyed wires. Antennas are placed on the tower structures or attached to other tall objects such as buildings, water towers or utility poles. The Douglas County Zoning Ordinance establishes a building height limit of 35 feet, which applies to all zoning districts except I-1 Industrial (60 feet). The construction of any structure in excess of 35 feet in height requires a conditional use permit. Chapter 8.8 of the Douglas County Zoning Ordinance regulates the location, siting, design and construction of wireless communication facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-9 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Electric Power Supply Figure 4.4: Electric Utility Service Areas As depicted in figure 4.4, Douglas County is served by four electric utility service providers. Minnesota-based East Central Energy (ECE) provides electric service to 51,000 members in east-central Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin, including parts of western Douglas County. Much of the central and eastern areas of the county are served by Dahlberg Light & Power Co (DL&P). DL&P is an investor-owned electric utility based in Solon Springs, which serves approximately 11,000 customers in Douglas, Bayfield and Washburn counties of northwestern Wisconsin. The Superior Water, Light & Power Co. (SWL&P), based in Superior, provides electric service to 14,000 customers in the City of Superior and adjacent areas. The far northeastern corner of the county is served by Bayfield Electric Cooperative, based in Iron River. There are currently no plans for major electric utility expansion in Douglas County. Electric service is extended to new customers on an as-needed basis. DAHLBERG LIGHT & POWER CO. EAST CENTRAL ENERGY COOPERATIVE SUPERIOR WATER, LIGHT & POWER CO. BAYFIELD ELECTRIC COOOERATIVE EAST CENTRAL ENERGY COOPERATIVE ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-10 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Electric Infrastructure Typically, power transmission is between the power plant and a substation near a populated area. In Douglas County there are four substations, each located in the City of Superior. There are eight major electric transmission lines in Douglas County, with operational voltages ranging from 115Kv to 345Kv. Electricity distribution is the delivery from the substation to the consumers. The county has an extensive network of distribution lines located along or under public highways or private lands pursuant to leases and easements with landowners and governmental jurisdictions. Table 4.2: Transmission Lines, Douglas County Name Voltage (Kv) Arrowhead-Weston 345 Winter-Stinson Line 115 Hibbard-Winter Line 115 Gary-Stinson Line 115 Ino-Superior Line 115 Lakehead Tap 115 Lakehead Pipeline 115 Ino-Superior Line 115 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-11 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Government Facilities General government facilities include city halls, county courthouses, and other local general government administration buildings. County Facilities The primary county government facilities are the Douglas County Courthouse located at 1313 Belknap Street and the Government Center located at 1316 North 14th Street, both in the City of Superior. Other county facilities include the County Forestry Department office in the Village of Solon Springs and the County Highway Facility located at 7417 South County Road E in the Town of Hawthorne. There are also four garage/tool house sites located throughout the County, including sites at Dairyland (State Trunk Highway 35), Gordon (County Trunk Highway Maple (CTH FF), and Pattison Park (Manitou Valley Road). The Douglas County Courthouse was built during the year 1919, and was occupied in March, 1920. It was extensively remodeled in 1996. Completed in 2003, the Douglas County Government Center is a joint city-county complex housing Administration, Human Resources and Health & Human Services offices and law enforcement centers for the City of Superior and Douglas County. The county’s 219-bed jail is also located within the Government Center. Town Facilities The principal administrative buildings of town government are the town halls. Town Address City Town Of Amnicon 8985 E US Highway 2 South Range, WI 54874 Town Of Bennett 9215 E County Road L Bennett, WI 54873 Town Of Brule 5814 S Maple St Brule, WI 54820 Town Of Cloverland 2763 S State Road 13 Maple, WI 54854 Town Of Dairyland 15208 S State Road 35 Dairyland WI 54830 Town Of Gordon P.O. Box 68 Gordon, WI 54838 Town Of Hawthorne 7242 E Crossover Road South Range, WI 54874 Town Of Highland 9360 S County Road S Lake Nebagmon, WI 54849 Town Of Lakeside 3196 S Poplar River Rd Poplar, WI 54864 Town Of Maple 11037 E US Highway 2 Maple ,WI 54854 Town Of Oakland 6410 S County Road B South Range, WI 54874 Town Of Parkland 6221 E Veterans Dr South Range, WI 54874 Town Of Solon Springs 11407 S Cemetery Rd Solon Springs, WI 54873-0275 Town Of Summit 2731 E Milchesky Rd Foxboro, WI 54836 Town Of Superior 4917 S State Road 35 Superior, WI 54880 Town Of Wascott P.O. Box 159 Wascott, WI 54890 Source: ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-12 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter City & Village Facilities Municipality Address City Village Of Superior 6702 Ogden Av Superior, WI 54880 Village Of Solon Springs 11523 S Business Hwy 53 Solon Springs, WI 54873 Village Of Poplar 4932 S Village Rd Poplar, WI 54864 Village Of Oliver 2125 E State St Superior, WI 54880 Village Of Lake Nebagamon 11596 E Waterfront Dr Lake Nebagamon, WI City of Superior - City Hall 1316 N 14th St Superior, WI 54880 Source: ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-13 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter GOVERNMENT SERVICES Administrative Department The County Administrator oversees the daily operations of the county and provides supervision to department managers, Human Resources, and Risk Management, including hiring and terminations. The Administrator also acts as liaison and coordinator of County Board activities and implements Board directives, as well as being responsive to the concerns of the taxpayers and media. Douglas County Child Support Agency The Douglas County Child Support Agency has eight child support investigators and two support staff. Agency responsibilities include the establishment of paternity in non-marital cases, enforcement of child support orders pursuant to divorce or legal separations through the court system. CSA will also pursue child support upon request where no action for divorce has been initiated by either party. Douglas County Circuit Court Douglas County is part of the 10th Judicial District, which covers 13 counties in northwestern Wisconsin. There are two trial courts that handle the caseload for Douglas County. The two branches share the caseload according to a rotation plan approved by the judges. Large claims, civil actions, family law cases and all forfeitures are divided equally. One court takes all misdemeanors and the other felonies, which they rotate every few years. Branch 1 handles all probate litigation, guardianships, and mental commitments, while Branch II handles juvenile cases. Clerk of Courts The Clerk of Courts provides clerical, record- keeping, accounting, and administrative services to the Court system. The Clerk of Courts handles family, civil, small claims, criminal, traffic, and ordinance violation files and collects fines for traffic citations, ordinance infractions and criminal cases. Corporation Counsel The Corporation Counsel is the attorney for the county government. The Corporation Counsel represents the county in civil legal matters or makes appropriate recommendations for representation. This office advises the County Board in matters of legal concern including open meetings and parliamentary procedure, and generally represents the county interests as the County Board deems necessary. The duties of the Corporation Counsel, as conferred by State Statute and the County Board, are limited to civil matters affecting Douglas County or any of its departments. The Corporation Counsel must attend all meetings of the County Board and its committees, when requested. The Corporation Counsel represents the Douglas County Child Support Enforcement Agency and gives legal advice to all other units of county government. County Clerk The County Clerk is a constitutional officer who is elected every two years. The Clerk’s chief duty is to act as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, keeping official minutes and records of the Board and committees, maintaining county ordinance book, and performing all other duties required by law or by the Board in connection with its meetings and transactions. The County Clerk is the Election Commissioner for the county, which involves preparation and distribution of ballots, publishing of election notices, tallying of ballots on election night and canvassing of the final results of all federal, state, county and judicial elections within the county, and certifying the results to the State Elections Board. The County Clerk also maintains the county’s web site. The County Clerk maintains an inventory of county-owned land and is in charge of all land sales; issues marriage licenses; is a Passport Acceptance Agent; and supervises Central Supply, which processes office supply purchase ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-14 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter orders and provides photocopying and postage metering services to all county departments. County Treasurer The County Treasurer collects real estate property taxes. The County Treasurer receives all monies from all sources belonging to the county, and all other monies, which by statute or county ordinance are directed to be paid to the treasurer, and receives payment of delinquent property taxes or the redemption of land subject to a tax certificate. District Attorney The District Attorney is a constitutional office, elected every four years by the voters of Douglas County. The duties of the District Attorney include the prosecution of criminal matters including: felonies, misdemeanors, and forfeiture actions, violations of the traffic code; making initial decisions to prosecute; appearing at all hearings involved in these areas of responsibility; and serving as a resource for law enforcement agencies in the county. Emergency Management The mission of Douglas County Emergency Management is to utilize effective planning, training, and coordination to continually develop the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities of the county’s cities, villages, and townships for emergencies resulting from all hazards. Emergency Management operates the county’s 911 Dispatch Center and is the custodian of the county’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. University of Wisconsin – Cooperative Extension With an office in each Wisconsin county, Cooperative Extension develops practical educational programs tailored to local needs and based on university knowledge and research. County-based Extension educators are University of Wisconsin faculty and staff who are experts in agriculture and agribusiness, community and economic development, natural resources, family living and youth development. Finance Department The Finance Department's primary purpose is to develop, implement and administer an efficient financial system to accurately provide financial information that accounts for and identifies all the financial resources of the county. The Finance Department maintains the County's financial records in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Government Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting guidelines; and provides financial reporting and management services essential to the effective operation of county government. The Finance Department provides internal auditing services and assistance to the various county departments. Additional responsibilities include development of cash management procedures, supervision of the County's insurance operations between the county and agent, implementation and maintenance of a fixed asset grouping of accounts and review of records pertaining to physical assets, and development and implementation of financial projects. The Finance Department works closely with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and other state departments, local agencies, and County departments, in meeting all of the County reporting requirements. Forestry Department The primary responsibility of the Douglas County Forestry Department is to, on behalf of Douglas County residents, provide stewardship to forest resources, develop and maintain recreational opportunities, and serve as an informational resource to the public. The Forestry Department manages the largest County Forest in the State of Wisconsin. Timber harvesting operations on County Forest lands generates over $2 million in revenue annually. Ten percent of forest harvest revenue is paid to towns in Douglas County based upon the percentage of County forest land within their boundaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-15 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Highway Department The Highway Department has charge, under the direction of the Highway Committee, of all the county trunk highways in the county. It is the duty of the Department to do, or have done, all necessary engineering and make all necessary examinations for the establishment, construction, improvement and maintenance of highways. The Highway Department main facility is located in Hawthorne, with four garage/tool house sites located throughout the County. The Department also provides services to towns and villages such as paving, chip sealing, brushing and drainage activities. During the winter months, the Department is responsible for snow plowing, ice control and sanding operations. Human Resources Department The Human Resources Department exists to support and provide the human resources services to the managers, employees, County Board, and general public; and to ensure compliance with all relevant laws; to consult and guide individuals in the nature of their work; to negotiate, develop, monitor, implement, and oversee contracts, employment services, benefits, training, and policies and procedures. Health & Human Services Department Douglas County Department of Health and Human Services promotes the health, safety, and well-being of individuals and families by providing a coordinated continuum of services for eligible county residents. Douglas County Health and Human Services has five service areas. Economic Support administers the medical assistance and food shares programs. Human Services provides child protective services, juvenile court intake screening and supervision, family and adult services, including foster care and services to the frail elderly, and programs for the mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and drug and alcohol abuse. Environmental Health provides a variety of programs aimed at identifying, controlling, and preventing environmental health hazards in the community. Public Health protects people's health and safety by preventing and controlling disease and injuries and providing public education programs. Information Services Department The Douglas County Information Services Department, in conjunction with the City of Superior Data Processing Department, provides computerized services for the departments in the county and the city. Departments have direct access to the data with their own computers. The computer system provides the county with a means to carry out many tasks that at one time were done manually. Current computerized applications include accounting, payroll, Register of Deeds, tax collections, imaging, telephone systems, GIS mapping, emergency dispatch, web site and others. Sheriff’s Department The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services for rural towns in Douglas County and to the Villages of Oliver and Superior through intergovernmental agreements. The Department also oversees operation of the county’s 219-bed jail facility. Judicial Court Commissioner The Judicial Court Commissioner for Douglas County is appointed by the two Circuit Court judges. The Court Commissioner position exists to perform certain judiciary duties as mandated by statute. The core purpose of the Commissioner position is to independently, fairly, and impartially handle matters and resolve contested litigation cases that appear before the court. Land Conservation Department The Douglas County Land Conservation Department (LCD) operates under the direction of the Land Conservation Committee (LCC). The LCD and LCC are responsible for administration of soil and water conservation programs and for providing technical assistance and conservation education. Chapter 92 of the Wisconsin Statutes requires all counties to have an LCC and ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-16 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter establishes the following duties and responsibilities, Establish goals and standards for conservation of soil and water resources Provide for cost-sharing, technical assistance, and educational programs to conserve soil and water resources Encourage coordinated soil and water conservation planning and program implementation Enable the regulation of harmful land use and land management practices by county ordinance Preparation of a Land and Water Resource Management Plan Land Records Department The Douglas County Land Records Department provides access to land-related data of properties in the county and provides copies, as requested, for a fee. Information includes original government surveys, retracement land surveys, public land survey monumentation records, tax parcel maps, aerial photography, and land ownership data. Services provided include digital mapping data, parcel maps, aerial photography, wetland and soils data, plat book sales, etc. The County Surveyor serves as the Land Information Officer (LIO) and is the county's representative with the Wisconsin Land Information Program (WLIP). Medical Examiner The Douglas County Medical Examiner’s Office provides death investigation services to Douglas County. The Department is responsible for conducting examination and reporting on the medical investigation of all known or suspected homicides, suicides, accidental death; medically-unattended death and death that might constitute a threat to the public health and safety. Planning and Zoning Department The Planning and Zoning Department administers county land use and zoning ordinances, provides technical assistance to various elected and appointed committees and boards, and serves as an information source to the public regarding policies and procedures. The Department also issues land use, sanitary and nonmetallic mining reclamation permits. Probate Office The Douglas County Probate Office is responsible for maintaining and updating files regarding probate of estates, guardianships, protective placements, adoptions and mental commitments. This is a statutory office with the position of Register in Probate filled by judicial appointment. Real Property Lister Duties of the Real Property Lister include preparation and maintenance of accurate ownership and description information for all parcels of real property in Douglas County (except City of Superior). The Real Property Lister also provides various information on parcels of real property in Douglas County for the use by district assessors, city, villages, town clerks, town treasurers, county departments, and any other person or organization requiring that information. Recycling Department The Douglas County Recycling Department is a single person part-time office. The Department oversees the county’s recycling program, negotiates and administers recycling contracts with vendors and coordinates public education. The Douglas County Recycling Coordinator is also the City of Superior Recycling Coordinator. Register of Deeds The Office of the Register of Deeds records, scans, and compiles an index of real estate documents, corporation papers and military discharges; records informal probate instruments; files and keeps an index of financing statements; maintains motor vehicle lien index; collects the real estate transfer tax; and performs such other functions as provided, pursuant to Sections 59.51, 69.23 and other pertinent sections of the Wisconsin Statute. The ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-17 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Register of Deeds also records vital records such as birth, death and marriage certificates. Veterans Service Office The Douglas County Veterans Service Office assists active military personnel, National Guard, Reservists, retirees, veterans, and their families with obtaining local, state and federal benefits. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-18 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter MAPLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERIOR SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTHWOODS SCHOOL DISTRICT WEBSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT SOLON SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUMMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT Schools There are three school districts located entirely within Douglas County (Maple, Solon Springs, and Superior). Districts from adjoining counties extend into the southern part of the county (Northwoods, Webster and Drummond School Districts). Total student enrollments in the Solon Springs and Superior School Districts decreased by 12.3 percent between 1997 and 2008. Conversely, student enrollments in the Maple School District increased by 7.5 during the same period. Douglas County school districts are shown in Figure 4.5. Table 4.3 contains an inventory of public and private schools in Douglas County. Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 provide enrollment statistics. Figure 4.5: Douglas County School Districts Table4.3: Douglas County Schools School Name Address City Grades Type Northwestern Elem. 10499 E US Highway 2 Poplar PK-5 Public Northwestern M.S. 10555 E US Highway 2 Poplar 6-8 Public Northwestern H.S. 4751 S County Road F Maple 9-12 Public Solon Springs School 8993 E Baldwin Ave Solon Springs PK-12 Public Bryant Elem. 1423 Central Ave Superior PK-5 Public Cooper Elem. 1807 Missouri Ave Superior PK-5 Public Four Corners Elem. 4465 E County Road B Superior PK-5 Public Great Lakes Elem. 129 N 28th St E Superior PK-5 Public Lake Superior Elem. 6200 E 3rd St Superior PK-5 Public Northern Lights Elem. 1201 N 28th St Superior PK-5 Public Superior M.S 3626 Hammond Avenue Superior 6-8 Public Superior H.S. 2600 Catlin Ave Superior 9-12 Public Cathedral School 1419 Baxter Ave Superior PK-8 Private Maranatha Academy 4916 S State Road 35 Superior PK-12 Private Twin Ports Baptist School 208 52nd Ave E Superior K-12 Private UW - Superior 1800 Grand Ave Superior 4 year Public WITC Superior 600 N 21st St Superior 2 year Public ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-19 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Table 4.4: 1997-2008 Total Student Enrollments by School District Student Enrollment – Districts Within Douglas County District 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Maple 1,357 1,346 1,343 1,385 1,388 1,391 1,368 1,399 1,337 1,415 1,454 1,459 Solon Springs 402 378 374 389 400 383 374 356 292 350 345 341 Superior 5,683 5,594 5,397 5,211 5,170 5,055 5,063 4,938 4,822 4,768 5,007 4,993 District Student Enrollment – Districts Outside of Douglas County Northwood 383 390 406 421 412 406 441 447 495 445 432 435 Drummond 596 606 586 605 582 577 561 561 552 519 512 499 Webster 813 787 780 779 778 764 756 749 724 752 736 773 Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Table 4.5: 1997-2008 Total Student Enrollments by School (Public and Private) School Name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Northwestern Elem. * * 495 507 530 539 491 495 475 504 509 510 Northwestern M.S. 324 328 317 329 312 306 309 353 328 354 357 330 Northwestern H.S. 430 401 418 435 427 437 426 417 387 413 450 475 Solon Springs School 402 378 374 389 400 383 374 356 292 350 345 341 Bryant Elem. 479 476 478 494 496 463 398 322 329 346 358 345 Cooper Elem. 462 497 463 434 443 438 389 317 303 309 302 321 Four Corners Elem. 370 354 332 319 328 342 308 232 229 232 252 249 Great Lakes Elem. 455 462 456 450 439 427 433 384 375 361 405 366 Lake Superior Elem. 290 294 275 270 289 254 265 196 179 188 178 191 Northern Lights Elem. * * * * * * 645 643 628 625 834 881 Superior M.S 488 469 476 446 406 [PHONE REDACTED] 1137 1070 1027 1013 Superior H.S. 1906 1841 1740 1647 1646 1638 1712 1651 1642 1637 1651 1627 Cathedral School * 413 386 386 362 335 335 293 275 277 267 270 Maranatha Academy * 118 145 135 132 139 129 144 112 114 103 88 Twin Ports Baptist School * 19 * 14 19 22 28 33 * * 24 25 Source: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction School District Planning The Solon Springs School District anticipates stable or declining enrollment over the next 10 years. Accordingly, the District has no immediate plans for expansion of facilities. The school building was constructed in the late 1960s, with several improvements over the past 10-15 years. Future events such as the potential Murphy Oil expansion may result in increasing enrollment and necessitate expansion of facilities. In 2006, voters in the Maple School District in Douglas and Bayfield Counties approved a $33 million school construction, remodeling and maintenance referendum. Facility improvements were needed in order to respond to increasing District enrollment. Remodeling projects at the Northwestern Middle School and Iron River Elementary were completed in 2007 and an expansion project at Northwestern High School is estimated to be completed in late 2009. The District operates on a 5-year planning cycle. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-20 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter The Superior School District recently completed rebuilding projects at Northern Lights Elementary School and the Superior Middle School. No additional facilities improvement or expansion projects are currently planned. The District operates on a 10-year facilities planning cycle. Higher Education University of Wisconsin-Superior The University of Wisconsin-Superior is the only comprehensive campus in the UW System serving the 11 counties of northern Wisconsin. UW-Superior is designated Wisconsin’s Public Liberal Arts College, reflecting the university’s mission to provide students with a liberal arts education that prepares them to be active citizens, strong employees and individuals prepared for lifelong learning. The majority of the university’s students come from the surrounding region, but the campus also draws students from throughout Wisconsin, the U.S., and from countries around the world. The campus offers specialized training and research through the Transportation Research Center; freshwater research conducted through the Lake Superior Research Institute; business and entrepreneur assistance offered by the Small Business Development Center; and community and regional development support through the Northern Center for Community and Economic Development. UW-Superior has a Six-Year Physical Development Plan, which is updated every two years as required by Wisconsin’s biennial capital budget process. Scheduled improvements to University facilities include: Construction of a new academic building (Swenson Hall, estimated completion in 2010) Jim Dan Hill library renovation (in process, estimated completion 6/2010) Athletic field development Rothwell Student Center reconstruction (in process) Demolition of Sundquist and McCaskill Halls (2009-2011) Barstow Science Hall renovation and addition (2009-2011) Old Main renovation (2009-2011) Expansion of the North Campus Parking Lot (2009-2011) Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College – Superior Campus The Superior Campus is one of four in the Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College (WITC) system. WITC-Superior offers 28 programs in associate degree and one- and two-year technical diplomas in business, health and service, personal and community service and trade and technical. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-21 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter HEALTH CARE FACILITIES Home Health Care A home health agency is an organization that provides part-time and intermittent skilled nursing and other therapeutic services on a visiting basis to persons in their homes. The only state licensed home health agency in Douglas County is The Dove, Inc., located in the City of Superior. Hospitals The only licensed hospital in Douglas County is the St. Mary’s Hospital of Superior, an affiliate of the St. Mary’s Duluth Clinic Health System (SMDC). Trauma Care Facilities Wisconsin's integrated system of trauma care requires the identification of hospitals as trauma care facilities by using the Level I, II, III, IV or "unclassified" structure. Douglas County currently has no designated trauma care facilities; however, these services are available in nearby Duluth, Minnesota. Adult Day Care Adult day care programs provide the elderly and other adults with services when their caregivers are at work or need relief. There is one licensed adult day care facility in Douglas County. Operated by Northwest Wisconsin Community Services Agency, Memory Lane Adult Day Care Services in Superior provides assisted living services to those suffering from dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Adult Family Homes Adult family homes are places where three or four adults who are not related to the operator reside and receive care, treatment or services that are above the level of room and board and that may include up to 7 hours per week of nursing care per resident. There are eight licensed adult family homes in Douglas County (Table 4.6) Table 4.6: Licensed Adult Family Homes, Douglas County Facility Name Address Gender Cap Brule Country Companions 5677 S Pine St, Brule WI 54820 M-F 4 Innovative Living Inc Ogden House 1420 E 5th St, Superior WI 54880 M 3 John II House 3010 E 4th St, Superior WI 54880 M 4 Missouri Gardens 2347 Missouri Avenue, Superior WI 54880 M-F 4 Pearl House Ltd 6128 Ogden Avenue, Superior WI 54880 M-F 4 Rem Wisconsin III Inc - Hammond 1406 North 31st Street, Superior WI 54880 M-F 4 Wisconsin House 3625 N 20th St, Superior WI 54880 F 4 Woodview 6001 E 3rd St, Superior WI 54880 M-F 4 Source: Wisconsin Department of Health Services Community Based Residential Facilities Community based residential facilities are places where five or more unrelated people live together in a community setting. Typically, services provided include room and board, supervision, support services, and may include up to 3 hours of nursing care per week. Licensed CBRF facilities in Douglas County are listed in Table 4.7. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-22 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Table 4. 7: Licensed Community Based Residential Facilities Douglas County Facility Name Address Gender Cap Cypress House CBRF 1415 Cypress Ave, Superior WI 54880 M-F 6 Deer Haven 3105 Cumming Ave, Superior WI 54880 M-F 6 Faxon House CBRF 1212 Faxon St, Superior WI 54880 M-F 7 Harborview CBRF 910 E 5th St, Superior WI 54880 M-F 6 Harmony House II 7613 John Ave, Superior WI 54880 M-F 8 Harmony KC LKLC 7615 John Ave, Superior WI 54880 M-F 8 HRC Residential Chem. Dependency 1500 N 34th St #600, Superior WI 54880 M-F 20 Mckenzie Manor 3317 North 21st Street, Superior WI 54880 M-F 7 Mountain View Home 3319 N 16th Street, Superior WI 54880 M-F 6 Northern Residence 6857 S County Rd E, Hawthorne WI 54842 M-F 7 REM Wisconsin III Inc 21st Street 3901 N 21st Street, Superior WI 54880 M-F 6 REM Wisconsin III Inc Belknap 3706 Belknap St, Superior WI 54880 M-F 6 Stardusk House 7619 John Ave, Superior WI 54880 M-F 8 Tradewinds Residence Inc 1601 N 16th St, Superior WI 54880 M-F 20 Source: Wisconsin Department of Health Services Nursing Homes Nursing homes are care facilities that offer a protective, therapeutic environment for those who need rehabilitation or can no longer live independently. In Wisconsin, nursing homes are licensed by the Department of Health and Family Services. Currently, there are four licensed nursing homes in Douglas County (Table 4.8). Table 4.8: Licensed Nursing Homes, Douglas County Facility Address Beds Villa Marina Health and Rehab Center 35 N 28th St, Superior WI 54880 72 St Francis Park Health and Rehab 1800 New York Ave, Superior WI 54880 168 Middle River Health Care Center 8274 E San Rd, Hawthorne WI 54842 102 Golden Living Center-Superior 1612 N 37th St, Superior WI 54880 90 Source: Wisconsin Department of Health Services Ambulance Service (EMS) In Wisconsin ambulance service providers are licensed by the Department of Health Services (DHS). There are currently three licensed ambulance service providers in Douglas County. Gold Cross currently has an ambulance station in Hawthorne while the Gordon-Wascott Emergency Medical Service has two fully- equipped ambulances based in Gordon. Luke’s One ambulance service is based in Duluth, Minnesota. Medical helicopter services are provided by St. Luke's Hospital of Duluth (Luke’s One) and St. Mary's Duluth Clinic of Duluth (LifeFlight). These service providers work in conjunction with local ambulance providers and local responders to transport critically ill or injured patients to hospitals. Gold Cross Ambulance Service Inc 4505 W Michigan St Duluth, MN 56302 License Level: EMT-Paramedic ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-23 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Gordon-Wascott Emergency Medical Service 14511 S Hwy 53 Gordon, WI 54838 License Level: EMT-Intermediate Technician Luke's One 1419 N 46th St Superior, WI 54880 License Level: EMT-Paramedic Childcare Facilities Wisconsin law requires anyone caring for four or more children, unrelated to the provider, under the age of 7 years, to be licensed by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families (DCF). There are two main categories of licensed care: Family Childcare, (up to eight children in care at any one time) and Group Childcare, (9 or more children in care at any one time). Day camp is another type of licensed program that is seasonal and oriented to the out-of-doors. Within Douglas County, there are 40 licensed day care facilities (21 group, 18 family, and 1-day camp). An inventory of licensed childcare facilities in Douglas County is provided in Table 4.9. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-24 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Table 4.9: Licensed Childcare Facilities, Douglas County Name Address City Type Cabbage Patch (The) 6212 Ogden Ave Superior Family Cindy Campbell's Day Care 3103 Lamborn Ave Superior Family Cindy's Petite Playmates 2440 Oakes Ave Superior Family Deb's Children Center 1204 Harrison St Superior Family Fotoula's Family Day Care 1707 Hughitt Ave Superior Family Jack and Jill's Family Day Care 919 N 21st St Superior Family Kid-Mit-Ment 1117 Hughitt Ave Superior Family Kinder Quest Family Child Care Ctr. 2440 Maryland Ave Superior Family Kreative Kids Child Care & Presch 920 23rd Ave E Superior Family Mickey Mouse Playhouse 516 Baxter Ave Superior Family Oasis Kare Learning Center 3927 E Fourth St Superior Family Precious Angels Day Care 2910 N 21st St Superior Family Tender Loving Care 2006 Hammond Ave Superior Family Children's Corner Day Care Ctr. 2231 Catlin Ave Superior Group Family Forum Head Start Center #1 1500 N 34th St Superior Group Family Forum Head Start Ctr. #2 518 Grand Ave Superior Group Happy Hearts Day Care Inc. 3605 E 2nd St Superior Group New Horizons Children's Ctr. 1209 N 7th St Superior Group Noah's Ark Day Care Ctr. 1625 N 59th St Superior Group Noah's Ark Day Care 1531 Hughitt Ave Superior Group Shell's Daycare Inc 1500 N 34th St # 100 Superior Group Superior Children's Center 2416 Hill Ave Superior Group University Children's Center 1610 Catlin Ave Superior Group YMCA Latchkey - Bryant Elem 1423 Central Ave Superior Group YMCA Latchkey-Cooper Elem Sch 1807 Missouri Ave Superior Group YMCA Latchkey-Four Corners Sch 4465 E Cty Trunk B Superior Group YMCA Latchkey-Great Lakes Elm Sch 129 N 28th St E Superior Group YMCA Latchkey-Northern Lights Elem 1201 N 28th St Superior Group YMCA Preschool and Child Care Ctr 2231 Catlin Ave # 12 Superior Group YMCA Shooting Stars 9 N 21st St Superior Group Family Forum Head Start Ctr #4 5613 S Hill Dr Brule Group Superior-Douglas Cty YMCA Camp 7751 Cty Rd S Lake Nebagamon Day Camp Lynn's Home Sweet Home 10917 E Us Hwy 2 Maple Family Maple Family Day Care 11419 E Estness Rd Maple Family Little Angels Daycare 5319 S Maple Rd Poplar Family Little Footsteps 5344 Balsam Dr Poplar Family Carolyn's Corner 4233 S Cty Rd P Poplar Group Little Lambs Preschool 5161 S Cty Rd P Poplar Group Mary's Care Bear Center 9052 E Baldwin Ave Solon Springs Family Source: Wisconsin Department of Children & Families ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-25 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter POLICE, FIRE AND RESCUE FACILITIES Police The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department provides full law enforcement services to Douglas County. Services provided by the Department include patrols (response, traffic enforcement), investigative services (criminal investigations, crime scene, evidence, etc.) civil process services (subpoenas, warrants, etc.) and jail services (incarceration of inmates). The Douglas County Sheriff's Department has a full – time staff of 85 employees, with an additional six part-time positions and a 19-person volunteer search and rescue squad. The Village of Solon Springs has shared police services with the Town of Solon Springs. The Solon Springs Police Department consists of a single officer who works 35 hours per week. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services to Villages of Superior, Oliver. The Village of Lake Nebagamon has a constable who is responsible for the enforcement of village ordinances. E-911 System Douglas County has had a 911 system in place since the mid-1990s. In 2005, the county applied for and received funding for a Wireless Enhanced 911 Services grant from the Wisconsin Public Services Commission (PSC). Wireless Enhanced 911 enables emergency dispatchers to pinpoint exact locations where wireless calls are made. Without this technology, dispatchers must obtain the location of a wireless caller verbally. In many instances, callers cannot give their exact location because they are too sick, too injured or they simply do not know their exact location. The system was fully implemented in February of 2007. The county has developed specialized mapping tools such as geo-coded roads to assist in identifying a caller’s location. Emergency calls (landline and wireless) placed from locations in Douglas County are received at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), located in the basement of the Government Center in Superior. Emergency calls placed directly to the State Patrol or the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources goes directly to those dispatch centers during business hours or to the county PSAP during nights and weekends. Because the system relies on coverage provided by private, commercial wireless carriers, some areas of the county may lack coverage. There are a limited number of wireless towers in Douglas County, and a limited coverage area depending upon carrier used, phone, terrain and other conditions. The E-911 system will also work with voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. In spring of 2008, the U.S. Senate passed a bill requiring all VoIP service providers, of all types, including software-based services, to offer 911 and E911 services to their subscribers. Hazardous Materials Incident Response A regional hazardous materials (Level A) response team is located in Superior. A Regional Response Team may be activated for an incident involving a hazardous materials spill, leak, explosion, injury or the potential of immediate threat to life, the environment, or property. The Regional or "Level A" Teams respond to the most serious of spills and releases requiring the highest level of skin and respiratory protective gear. This includes all chemical, biological, or radiological emergencies. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-26 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Fire Figure 4.6: WDNR Fire Response Units Rural towns in Douglas County rely on local volunteer fire departments for structural fire suppression (Table 4.10). Wildland fire suppression is the responsibility of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). WDNR has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with each rural fire department in Douglas County. The WDNR also has a MOU with the Douglas County Forestry Department (DCFD) and is responsible for the suppression of all wildland fires and the protection of any improvements threatened by forest fires on County Forest lands. Douglas County and local volunteer fire departments provide manpower and equipment as requested by WDNR to assist in fighting forest fires. Wildland fire detection is also the responsibility of the WDNR. Douglas County is located within an Intensive Protection Area, the WDNR fire protection area that includes the most heavily forested and highest-risk areas of the state. Intensive Protection Areas have more DNR fire suppression resources and ranger stations than do other areas of the state. As shown above in Figure 4.6, there are four WDNR Fire Response Units (FRUs) designated in Douglas County. FRUs are designated by the DNR Forest Protection Bureau and define the area and equipment for which the personnel at a ranger station are responsible. Table 4.10: Fire Departments, Douglas County Fire Department Physical Address City Amnicon Volunteer Fire Department 8985 E Hwy 2 South Range Bennett Volunteer Fire Department 8869 S County Rd E Solon Springs Brule Fire Department 5766 S County Rd H Brule Cloverland Volunteer Fire Department 12967 E State Highway 13 Brule Dairyland Fire Department 2787 E Town Rd TT Dairyland Gordon Volunteer Fire Department 9925 E County Rd Y Gordon Hawthorne Volunteer Fire Department 7227 S Town Hall Rd Hawthorne Highland Twp Volunteer Fire Department 9360 S County Highway S Solon Springs Lake Nebagamon Fire Department 11528 E 1st Street North Lake Nebagamon Lakeside Fire Department 3196 S Poplar River Rd Poplar Maple Fire Department 4778 S Gonchorek Rd Maple Oakland Volunteer Fire Department 6588 S County Road K South Range Parkland Fire Department 6251 E South Range Poplar Fire Department 4941 S Village Rd Poplar Solon Springs Fire Department 9083 E Baldwin Ave Solon Springs Summit Volunteer Fire Department 2538 E County Rd BB Foxboro Superior Fire Department 3326 Tower Ave Superior Superior Town Volunteer Fire Department 6997 S Hwy 35 Superior Wascott Fire Department 7607 E County Rd T Wascott Source: Wisconsin Department of Commerce: Safety and Buildings Division BRULE GORDON PATTISON BARNES ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-27 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter LIBRARIES There are three public libraries located in Douglas County. The largest facility is the Superior Public Library, which is located at 1530 Tower Avenue in the City of Superior. The Superior Public Library is open every day, except Sundays. The Imogene McGrath Memorial Library, located at 1168 E Hwy. B in the Village of Lake Nebagamon, is open on Wednesdays from 2 pm to 7 pm. The Joan Salmen Public Library is located in the basement of the Solon Springs Village Hall. The library is staffed with a part-time (Mon 2 pm-7 pm and Thur. 9:30 am-2:30 pm) librarian from the Superior Public Library. All three libraries are members of the Northern Waters Library Service (NWLS), a regional consortium which serves its member public libraries within its service area. The NWLS operates the Merlin online shared library catalog of NWLS member libraries. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES County Recreational Areas County-owned recreation areas are classified (1-5) based on use and type. Class 1 areas have well-developed facilities and most accommodate overnight camping. These areas serve as the backbone of the countywide outdoor recreation system. These sites permit overnight camping. Class 2 areas are lesser developed day-use facilities. Class 3 recreational areas include all county-owned lands lying within the “riverway zone” (within 412’) along the St. Croix River and all State Natural/Scientific Areas on county-owned property. Class 4 areas include all designated trails (snowmobile, all-terrain vehicle, cross- country ski, multiple-use, hunter, walker) on county-owned lands or lands on which the County has obtained easements or agreements for trail use. Class 5 areas include all county- owned lands not designated as Class 1, 2, 3 or 4. Mooney Dam Park (Class 1) Mooney Dam Park is approximately 38 acres in size and located 11 miles east of Gordon on CTH on Lower Eau Claire Lake. It provides 11 campsites, several picnic sites with grills and an improved boat landing and pit toilets. Administration and maintenance of the park consists of general supervision and camper registration handled by one seasonal lead worker and one seasonal helper. They split their time with Gordon Dam Park. Gordon Dam Park (Class 1) Gordon Dam Park is 80 acres in size and located on the St. Croix Flowage approximately seven miles west of Gordon and STH 53 on CTH There are 33 campsites, 15 picnic sites and an improved boating facility, swimming beach, and trails. Grills, a picnic shelter, outdoor toilets, and a parking area are also located in the park. There is an overnight camping fee. A dumping station for RV vehicles exists within one mile of the park. The park is for day visitors, overnight camping, starting point for trips, fishing, boating, picnicking, nature walks, swimming, sight seeing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-28 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Lucius Woods County Park (Class 1) Lucius Woods is a 41-acre park located in the Village of Solon Springs on Business Hwy 53. The park contains an excellent beach for swimming, camping and picnicking sites, some handicap accessible, hiking trails through the pine forest, and a carry-in for canoes. Boating, water-skiing, fishing, and snowmobiling are also available activities on St. Croix Lake. The Lucius Woods Performing Arts Center is located in the park and is home to a variety of summer performances. One seasonal lead worker and two seasonal helpers, who are at Lucius Woods 95 percent of the time, handle administration. Douglas County Wildlife Area (Bird Sanctuary) (Class 1) The area is located three miles north of Gordon, five miles from Solon Springs and one-half mile west of STH 53 on CTH The area was formerly a glacial lakebed. A system of trails runs throughout the area. Grouse winter in the Gordon Bog, which is a lower, protected area east of STH 53 along the river. The Douglas County Sharp-Tailed Grouse Area is classified as a Wisconsin State Scientific Area. National dog field trial championships take place here. A facility known as the “Bird Sanctuary Clubhouse” is located in this area and is used for field trials and has kennels, stables, and horse corrals available for rent through the Douglas County Forestry Department. Anna-Gene County Park (Class 2) This day-use area at Lyman Lake is 256 acres in size and located in the Town of Oakland. The picnic area has 11 picnic tables and grills and a children’s playground. The attractive cedar bathhouse contains restrooms and changing rooms. The paved entrance road is lined with large rocks and leads to a paved and designated 64-car parking lot. Camping is not allowed in the park. A system of trails is located in the wooded area from the parking lot to the lake and a boat ramp is located outside the entrance gate. A dock exists at the boat landing. Three seasonal helpers handle maintenance. They split their time between all the county park facilities and primarily go to boat landings and day-use parks. Lake Minnesuing County Park and Lake Minnesuing Boat Landing (Class 2) This swimming and picnic day-use area is approximately 30 acres in size and located in the Town of Bennett on the north side of Lake Minnesuing. The nicely shaded picnic area has six tables, four grills, two trash receptacles, and a pump. There is a 100-foot sandy beach and restrooms across old CTH The boat landing area on Lake Minnesuing is approximately 18 acres in size and is located in the Town of Hawthorne. It is located off CTH approximately ¼ mile west of Lake Minnesuing County Park. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-29 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Park Creek Pond Youth Fishing Area (Class 2) The Park Creek Pond Youth Fishing Area is an 11-acre pond located just west of Business 53 adjacent to the Douglas County Forestry Department in the Village of Solon Springs. Children under the age of 14 can use this facility. This is a cooperative effort between the county, village, and Town of Solon Springs. Brook trout are the only existing species in the pond. It is stocked as needed. Benches and picnic tables adjacent to the county forestry building on the north side of the pond are available. Long Lake County Park (Class 2) Long Lake County Park is three acres in size and is a day-use area located in the Town of Solon Springs. Activities include fishing and swimming. Facilities include picnic tables, grills, and restrooms. Bear Lake Special Use Lands (Class 2) 240 acre county-owned public recreation site adjoining Bear Lake (Tozer Lake) in the Town of Summit. Access via Bear Lake Road. No facilities or amenities. Activities include swimming, fishing and picnicking. Bass Lake County Park (Class 2) Bass Lake County Park is approximately two acres in size and is a day- use area located in the Town of Solon Springs. Activities include fishing and swimming. Facilities include picnic tables, grills, and restrooms. Lyman Lake Boat Landing (Class 2) Lyman Lake Boat Landing is located in the Town of Oakland and has no facilities. North Flowage Boat Landing (Class 2) North Flowage Boat Landing is located in the Town of Gordon and is approximately two acres in size. At the boat landing, facilities include a concrete boat landing with dock, restrooms (vault), Americans with Disabilities Act compliant parking, trap rock parking lot, and gravel road. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-30 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Town Recreation Areas Golfing Several excellent golf courses are located throughout Douglas County providing recreational opportunities to the amateur and experienced golfers. The following is a list of golf courses in Douglas County. Forest Point GC - 9 holes (Town of Gordon) Norwood GC - 9 holes (Town of Hawthorne) Hidden Greens N GC - 18 holes (Town of Solon Springs) Pattison Park GC - 9 holes (Town of Superior) Bottens Green Acres - 9 holes (Village of Lake Nebagamon) Poplar GC - 9 holes (Village of Poplar) Nemadji GC - 36 holes (City of Superior) Fire Hill GC - 9 holes Downhill Skiing Mont du Lac, located on STH 23, is the only ski area in Douglas County, offering skiing, snowboarding, and tubing. It has seven runs, with the longest being 2,400 feet and is accessible by chair lift and tow rope. At approximately 80 acres in size, it is accessible via STH 23. Outside Douglas County, Spirit Mountain in Duluth, Minnesota, also provides downhill skiing, snowboarding, and tubing facilities. Target Shooting and Rifle, Paintball, and Archery Ranges A number of facilities are located throughout Douglas County that provide target, trap, rifle shooting, archery, and paintball experiences. Ambridge Gun Club, sign on CTH in Parkland Township Aurora Ouisconsin Outdoors Club in Oakland Township Douglas County Rifle Club, Inc., near CTH Parkland George Constance Sr. Memorial Rifle Range on STH 2, near Superior Fort Douglas Shooting Center in Parkland Township Hall’s Trap Club, trap shooting facility on CTH Town of Superior, including two lighted trap houses Hawthorne Trap and Wildlife Club, just off CTH Superior Firepower, paintball range in the Town of Superior Superior Municipal Archery Range, City of Superior Superior Trap and Gun Club, Town of Superior near STH 35 Gordon Rifle Range off County Road Y east of hamlet of Gordon ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-31 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Boat Landings There are 56 boat landings in Douglas County (Table 4.11). These sites range from well-developed access points with amenities and paved launch ramps to rustic unimproved ‘carry-in’ type launches. Table 4.11: Boat Landings, Douglas County Name Water Body Type* Municipality Minong Flowage Access Minong Flowage ? T. Wascott Little Sand Lake Access Little Sand Lake P T. Wascott Lake Minnesung Access Lake Minnesuing P T. Hawthorne Lyman Lake Access Lyman Lake G T. Oakland Leader Lake Access Leader Lake ? T. Wascott Whitefish Lake Access Whitefish Lake/Bardon Lake P T. Wascott Upper Saint Croix Lake Upper Saint Croix Lake ? V. Solon Springs Arrowhead Fishing Pier Saint Louis River P C. Superior Amnicon River Access Amnicon River P T. Lakeside Nebagamon Lake Access Lake Nebagamon P V. L. Nebagamon Allouex Bay Launch Allouez Bay G C. Superior Barkers Island Access Superior Bay P C. Superior Loonsfoot Landing Lake Superior And Superior Bay P C. Superior Amnicon River Access Amnicon River U T. Oakland Dowling Lake Access Dowling Lake G T. Oakland Lake Minnesuing Access Lake Minnesuing G T. Bennett Lake Minnesuing Access Lake Minnesuing U T. Bennett Beauregard Lake Access Beauregard Lake P T. Highland Upper Ox Lake Access Upper Ox Lake G T. Gordon Simms Lake Access Simms Lake ? T. Gordon Red Lake Access Red Lake G T. Wascott Pocket Access Pocket U T. Wascott St. Croix Lake Canoe Launce Upper Saint Croix Lake ? T. Solon Springs Upper St. Croix Lake Access Upper Saint Croix Lake ? V. Solon Springs Upper St. Croix Lake Access Upper Saint Croix Lake P V. Solon Springs Upper St. Croix Lake Access Upper Saint Croix Lake G V. Solon Springs Gordon Dam Access Saint Croix Flowage P T. Gordon Saint Croix Flowage Access Saint Croix Flowage P T. Gordon Lake Access Lake P T. Wascott Bond Lake Access Bond Lake G T. Wascott Radigan Flowage Access Radigan Flowage G T. Dairyland Cranberry Lake Access Cranberry Lake Access P T. Wascott Two Mile Lake Access Two Mile Lake ? T. Wascott Rock Lake Access Rock Lake ? T. Highland Long Lake Access Long Lake ? T. Solon Springs Bass Lake Access Bass Lake ? T. Solon Springs ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-32 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Name Water Body Type* Municipality Upper St. Croix Lake Access Upper Saint Croix Lake ? V. Solon Springs Stone Bridge Canoe Access Bois Brule River ? T. Highland Interfalls Lake Access Interfalls Lake ? T. Superior Billings Park Access Saint Louis River P C. Superior Nemadji River Access Nemadji River U C. Superior Wisconsin Point Launch Allouez Bay P C. Superior Bois Brule River Mouth Access Bois Brule River G T. Cloverland Highway 13 Canoe Landing Bois Brule River G T. Cloverland Highway 2 Canoe Landing Boise Brule River ? T. Brule Winneboujou Canoe Launch Boise Brule River ? T. Brule Upper St. Croix Lake Access Upper Saint Croix Lake P T. Solon Springs Sajac Memorial Park Access Saint Louis River P T. Superior Lyman Lake Access Lyman Lake G T. Oakland Amnicon Lake Access Amnicon Lake P T. Summit Pokegama River Access Pokegama River U C. Superior Pine Tree Canoe Landing Bois Brule River ? T. Brule Copper Range Campground Bois Brule River ? T. Brule Bois Brule Canoe Landing Bois Brule River ? T. Brule Stone Chimney Launch Bois Brule River U T. Solon Springs County Road P Landing West Fork Bois Brule River ? Solon Springs Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources *P=Paved, G=Gravel, U=Unimproved, ?=Unknown ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-33 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter RECREATIONAL TRAILS Hiking Trails Hiking possibilities are abundant throughout Douglas County’s vast and scenic forested areas, public lands, and county forestland. The North Country Trail through Douglas County provides excellent hiking opportunities. Several day-use nature trails are available in Douglas County. Most are provided within Amnicon and Pattison State Parks and within the Brule River State Forest. Additionally, the City of Superior provides trails in the city and the Superior Municipal Forest. The Douglas County Wildlife Area, more commonly known as the Bird Sanctuary, has a hunter-walking trail system. The primary hiking trails in Douglas County include: Brule - St. Croix Portage Trail (1.9 miles) Brule - St. Croix Lake Trail (26 miles) North Country Trail (4,000 miles, 90.6 miles in Douglas County) Empire Grade Trail (27 miles) Old Stagecoach Trail Ski Trails There are approximately 51.2 miles (82.4 km) of groomed cross-country ski trails in Douglas County. Trails are groomed for classical, skating or both styles. In addition to the groomed trails, public lands provide many opportunities for backcountry skiing. Superior Municipal Forest, City of Superior (28 km or17.3 miles) Afterhours Cross Country Ski Trails, Brule River State Forest (22.5 km or 14.0 miles) Pattison State Park Trails, Town of Superior (15.3 km or 9.5 miles) Douglas County Ski Trails, Town of Solon Springs (16.6 km or 10.3 miles) Snowmobile Trails Douglas County provides hundreds of miles of snowmobile trails. Over 300 miles of state- funded trails, club trails, and Brule River State Forest Trails contribute to the countywide network of excellent groomed trails. In addition to the 300 miles of the Douglas County trail system, the Tri- County Corridor is available for snowmobile use. Some of the longer snowmobile trails in Douglas County include: Tri-County Corridor Trail (60+ miles Ashland to Superior) Wild Rivers Trail (96 miles, 39.2 miles in Douglas County) Gandy Dancer State Trail (98 miles, 19 miles in Douglas County) The Brule State Forest Trail (26 miles) ATV Trails Douglas County forestlands provide 304 miles of winter-use only ATV trails. An additional 79.5 miles of summer use ATV trails use portions of the Saunders Grade, Gandy Dancer and Wild Rivers Trails. Horseback Riding Trails Town roads, public land roads, and old logging trails offer numerous trail opportunities in Douglas County. Bridle trails are located near Lake Nebagamon on CTH The Brule State Park has no developed horse trails. However, horseback riding is allowed on all undeveloped areas of the state forest. Persons can ride on the entire length of the Tri-County Corridor, 8.4 miles of the Saunders Trail, 17.6 miles of the Gandy Dancer Trail, and all of the Wild Rivers Trail in Douglas County. Trails exist in the Bird Sanctuary with trailhead stables and corrals located at the clubhouse. This area has the potential to be developed as a major horseback trail facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-34 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter Water Trails Water trails are boat routes suitable for small watercraft such as canoes and kayaks. Like conventional trails, water trails are recreational corridors between specific locations. The mapped trails are comprised of access points, boat launches, day use sites, points-of-interest, and sometimes campsites. Established water trail routes in Douglas County include: Bois Brule River Water Trail St. Croix River Trail Eau Claire River Trail Lake Superior Water Trail CEMETERIES Table 4.12: Cemeteries, Douglas County Cemetery Name Municipality Bennett Cemetery Town of Bennett Blueberry Cemetery Town of Maple Calvary Cemetery City of Superior Covenant Cemetery Town of Dairyland Dairyland Cemetery Town of Dairyland Ever Rest Cemetery Town of Brule Evergreen Cemetery Town of Solon Springs Faith Lutheran/Apostolic Lutheran Cemetery Town of Maple Gordon Memorial Cemetery Town of Gordon Graceland Cemetery Town of Superior Greenwood Cemetery Town of Superior Hebrew Cemetery Town of Superior Highland Memorial Cemetery Town of Highland Lake Nebagamon Cemetery Village of Lake Nebagamon Lakeside Cemetery Town of Lakeside Lutheran Cemetery Town of Bennett Nemadji Cemetery City of Superior Parkview Cemetery Town of Hawthorne Pine Ridge Cemetery Town of Brule Poplar Cemetery Village of Poplar Poplar Creek Cemetery Town of Superior Rest Haven Cemetery Town of Cloverland Riverhill Cemetery Town of Dairyland Riverside Cemetery Town of Superior Saint Francis Cemetery City of Superior St. Pius X Cemetery Village of Solon Springs St. Williams Cemetery Town of Superior Summit Cemetery Town of Summit Wascott Cemetery Town of Wascott Woodlawn Cemetery Town of Parkland ---PAGE BREAK--- 4-35 Utilities & Community Facilities Chapter NEEDS ASSESSMENT Table 4.13 depicts an approximate timetable that forecasts the need to expand, rehabilitate or improve exiting utilities and facilities and/or develop new facilities. The assessment considers whether each of the listed utilities and public facilities will be adequate throughout the 20-year planning period based on ten-year increments. Table 4.13: Douglas County Utilities and Community Facilities Assessment Recommendation Adequate Rehab Improve New 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 2010 2020 2030 Government Center – Offices Government Center – County Jail Courthouse Highway Department Main Facility - Hawthorne Highway Department Garage -Dairyland Highway Department Garage -Gordon Highway Department Garage -Gordon Highway Department Garage -Maple Highway Department Garage –Pattison Park Forestry Office –Solon Springs Police Protection Services County Parks Recycling Services Sanitary Sewer Service Stormwater Management Water Supply Onsite Wastewater Treatment Technology Telecommunication Facilities Power plants and Transmission Lines Cemeteries Health Care Facilities Child Care Facilities Fire Rescue Libraries Schools ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 4.1 Utilities 0 10 20 5 Miles Electric Providers Bayfield Electric Cooperative Dahlberg Light & Power CO. Head of the Lakes Electrice Cooperative Superior Water, Light & Power Co. Xcel Energy li Cellular/Microwave Tower a Substations Pipeline Transmission Line Sanitary District ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 535 IJ 53 IJ 2 35 27 13 23 105 KJ V KJ E KJ O KJ C KJ A KJ L KJ B KJ D KJ UU KJ S KJ BB KJ Z KJ FF KJ Y KJ W KJ AA KJ H KJ K KJ F KJ M KJ U KJ G KJ P KJ T Amnicon Falls S.P. Gordon Dam C.P. Lucius Woods C.P. Bass Lake C.P. Mooney Dam C.P. Anna-Gene C.P. Lake Minnesuing C.P. Pattison Falls S.P. Long Lake C.P. Park Creek Youth Fishing Bear Lake Special Use Lands Douglas County Map 4.2 Parks and Recreation 0 10 20 5 Miles ´ Trails North County Trail Cross County Ski Trail Snowmobile Trail Winter ATV trails ATV Route Recreational Points of Interest Bird Sanctuary Campground County Park Golf Course State Park Swimming Wayside Boat Access ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐1 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter INTRODUCTION The protection of natural resources is necessary for the welfare of both people and the environment. By allowing natural processes, such as the hydrologic system, to function without impediment, property, water supply, and the 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 management of these resources clearly are in the public interest. Thus, the analysis of those natural resources found within the planning area is done for the purpose of directing development away from those areas not intrinsically suitable for a particular use, or to at least guide development in a direction that is least disruptive. NATURAL RESOURCES VISION “Douglas County works to preserve the natural aspect of county lands, thinking always of balancing uses and protecting the environment. The county is known throughout the state as a leading steward of healthy forests and clean waters. The county is also known as a leader in protecting Lake Superior, a body of fresh water that is of paramount national and global importance by 2030. All uses of natural resources are carefully aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. The vision for natural resources in Douglas County includes: y Being a state leader in protecting and conserving water resources—from Lake Superior to inland lakes to streams and wetlands—by meeting and often exceeding state guidelines. y Incorporating state‐of‐the‐art prevention and management of invasive species on land and in waters. y Managing county forests lands in a best‐practice, sustainable manner, while retaining the distinction of having the largest county‐owned forest in Wisconsin. y Planning all development to protect natural resources by directing growth away from sensitive areas. y Maintaining and protecting public access to natural resources.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐2 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter TOPOGRAPHY Douglas County is located in the far northwestern corner of Wisconsin along the southwestern shores of Lake Superior. Douglas County borders Bayfield, Washburn and Burnett Counties in Wisconsin and Pine, Carlton and St. Louis Counties in Minnesota. The county is 1,342 square miles in size. Topographically, Douglas County varies from nearly level, swampy lowlands to gently sloping and rolling uplands. The lowest elevation in the county is approximately 602 feet above sea level at the Lake Superior shore. In some areas along the shore, the bluff rises abruptly to heights of 60 feet or more above lake level. From the shore, elevation rises to nearly 1,200 feet above sea level along the Superior escarpment. Across the middle of the county, elevation generally ranges from 1,200‐1,300 feet. The highest elevation in the county is 1,369 feet at Summit Hill in the Town of Summit. Douglas County is divided between two of the five geographical provinces of Wisconsin. The Lake Superior Lowlands, which cover the northern part of the county, encompass an area formerly occupied by Glacial Lake Duluth. The Superior escarpment marks the boundary between the Lake Superior Lowlands and the Northern Highlands geographic province to the south. About 70 percent of Douglas County falls within the Northern Highland Province. The Superior escarpment, or Douglas Copper Range, is probably the most noticeable geologic feature within the county. This east‐west ridge extends across the county from the Bayfield County line to Foxboro and, in some places, rises 350 to 400 feet above the lowlands to the north. The escarpment is not a continuous bedrock range but is divided into three main ridges by the streams which dissect it. These streams have cut deep gorges and have many rapids and falls where they drop from the hard rock of the escarpment into the soft clays and sandstones of the lowlands. Pattison State Park, 11 miles south of Superior, includes two such falls. At 165 feet, Big Manitou Falls on the Black River is the highest waterfall in Wisconsin. This spectacular waterfall is located on the cataract of the Superior escarpment. Little Manitou Falls, which has 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. The Continental Divide that separates the St. Lawrence (Lake Superior) and Mississippi River drainage systems passes through the middle of Douglas County. The major drainage streams which lie north of the divide and empty into Lake Superior, are, from east to west, the Bois Brule, Poplar, Middle, Amnicon, Nemadji, and St. Louis Rivers. The St. Croix, Totagatic, and Upper Tamarack Rivers drain the southern part of the county. Streams and their 147 connecting lakes have a total direct drainage area of 1,010.4 square miles, or 75.2 percent, of the county’s land surface area. Of this amount, 705.7 square miles drains directly into Lake Superior. The drainage areas of 284 landlocked lakes account for 84.7 square miles of surface drainage, or 6.3 percent, while land areas that have no permanent surface waters account for 246.9 square miles, or 18.4 percent, of the 1,342 square mile county area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐3 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter The landscape of Douglas County varies greatly from north to south. The Lake Superior Lowlands consists of a 10‐20 mile wide clay plain wide which slopes gently upward from Lake Superior to the escarpment. Short, swift streams flowing north into Lake Superior have cut deep V‐shaped valleys below the plain. During the glacial period, the Lake Superior Lowlands were submerged under Glacial Lake Duluth and red clay was deposited on the old lakebed. Topographic relief is depicted in Map 5.1. SLOPE The steepest slopes in Douglas County are found along the flanks of rivers and streams; particularly along Lake Superior tributary streams of the clay plain. Steep slopes also occur along the bluffs overlooking Lake Superior. Prominent steep slopes occur along, and adjacent to the St. Louis River and the Red River in the Town of Superior. Steep slopes are also common along the Nemadji, Amnicon, Middle, St. Croix and Brule Rivers, as well as Pearson, Bardon, Hanson, Miller, Haukkala, Mud, Clear and Balsam Creeks. Steep slopes on the highly erosive soils of the clay plain are of particular concern. When wet, the red clay soils tend to lose stability, which can result in land subsidence and slumping. In 2002, seven properties in the Village of Oliver were affected by severe land subsidence along the St. Louis River. Bluff erosion and slumping dump fine sediments into south shore streams which gives their waters a distinct reddish color following rain events and melting of the winter snowpack. Slumping also affects the bluffs on the shores of Lake Superior. This is particularly problematic along the clay bluffs stretching from Superior into western Bayfield County, where some homes and properties are threatened by the continually receding bluffs. Soil erosion from land disturbing activities and subsequent development can disturb natural land cover and land surfaces resulting in a change of run‐off patterns that may have a detrimental effect on water quality and uses. Land disturbing activities and future development need to be strictly monitored to avoid damage to other properties and to sensitive natural areas. As a general rule, slopes in excess of 20 percent are of greatest concern for any land disturbing activity. Steep slopes do not necessarily preclude all forms of development; although, costly engineering and site preparation/mitigation measures are often required in order to minimize potential adverse impacts. Potential problems associated with development of excessively sloping lands include erosion and slope stability. GIS‐derived percent slope is shown in Map 5.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐4 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter ECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES Ecological landscapes are broad land areas with unique physical and biological properties. Each landscape has unique ecosystem characteristics such as climate, geology, soils and vegetation. Within Douglas County there are four ecological landscapes, the Lake Superior Coastal Plain, Northwest Lowlands, Northwest Sands and the North Central Forest. The Lake Superior Coastal Plain is Wisconsin’s northernmost landscape and is strongly influenced by the climate‐ moderating effect of Lake Superior. This landscape is underlain by a clay plain which gradually slopes toward Lake Superior. Once heavily forested, the clay plain has been fragmented by agricultural uses. This landscape is also dissected by numerous rivers and streams, including some of the region’s best known trout waters. The Northwest Lowlands of western and central Douglas County consist of large tracts of upland hardwoods and mixed forest with interspersed bogs and peatlands. This region contains the headwaters of many Lake Superior tributary streams and few lakes. In comparison to the other landscapes, there is little human development. The Northwest Sands ecological landscape forms a large pitted outwash plain extending northeasterly from Polk County to the Bayfield Peninsula. This region is characterized by the presence of sandy soils and relatively flat topography. Most of Douglas County’s 431 lakes are found within this landscape, including numerous small kettle lakes. Forest vegetation consists mainly of fire‐adapted conifers (primarily jack pine), northern pin oak and prairie species. Historically, fire was a common occurrence within this landscape and was important in maintaining the open pine barrens. Modern forest management and fire suppression has greatly reduced the role of wildfire in the natural disturbance regime. Land use trends in the sands landscape include increasing rural and shoreline development and fragmentation of the forest landscape for recreational and residential development. In far southeastern Douglas County, there is a transition between the Northwest Sands and the North Central Forest ecological landscape that encompasses much of northern Wisconsin. This region is characterized by rolling terrain with predominantly hardwood upland forests with numerous small lakes and several large rivers. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐5 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter GEOLOGY AND SOILS Ancient (Precambrian) sandstone and igneous bedrock underlie Douglas County. The northern part of the county is underlain with Superior red sandstone, over which is a thick mantle of clay and gravel, forming an artesian slope. igneous rock underlies the southern two‐thirds of the county, with gabbro and basalt outcroppings common along the Superior escarpment and Totagatic River of southeastern Douglas County. Glacial deposits, reaching 200 feet over bedrock in some places, cover most of the county. Those deposits covering the Lake Superior Lowland are generally shallow lake basin deposits; however, deposits in the old buried valley under the St. Louis River are known to have a thickness of nearly 600 feet. A large pitted outwash plain is located in the southeast part of the county. This plain is continuous from Bayfield County down through Douglas County and southward into Washburn and Burnett Counties. The southwestern corner of the county is divided into elongated, narrow watersheds created by gravel eskers deposited during the Wisconsin period of glaciation. Most of these eskers lie in a northeast‐southwest direction. The soils of Douglas County, which greatly affect the chemical characteristics of surface waters, have been derived largely from the weathering of various glacial deposits. These deposits include lake deposits, glacial drift, and glacial stream deposits. Glacial lacustrine or red clay soils are found in the old lake plains adjoining Lake Superior. These clays were laid down under the waters of a larger glacial lake (Glacial Lake Duluth), which once occupied the present‐day Lake Superior basin. These calcareous red clay soils are finely‐textured, resulting in very poorly drainage. Clayey soils cover about one‐fourth of the total county area and overlay large quantities of groundwater. However, the overlying clay deposits effectively prevent this water from reaching the surface as springs and create artesian conditions. The small quantity of water that does reach the surface is usually of high quality and rich in carbonates and nutrients. The pine barrens of southeastern Douglas County have light‐ textured sandy outwash soils. These soils were formed from sands and gravel carried by water from the melting glaciers; and because these deposits were water washed, there is a noted absence of large stones in the area. These acid soils are gray to brown in color and low in humus and nutrients. 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 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. Glacial soils consist of a heterogeneous mass of stones, silt loams, and red clays. 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐6 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Two other prominent 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, creates 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 soil surface texture is shown in Map 5.3. Soil limitations for dwellings with basements are depicted in Map 5.4. Hydric soils, or those which are saturated, flooded or ponded during the growing season are shown in Map 5.5. CLIMATE 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. The lake 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 more precipitation than is found in the southern part of the county. The 140 to 160 day growing season along the lake is as long as the growing season in the extreme southern counties of Wisconsin. Unlike most Wisconsin counties, there can be a notable difference in temperature from north to south within the county. The lake modifies the narrow strip along the shore, which extends from Lake Superior southward to the Superior escarpment, so that summers are cooler and the winters milder than on the upland south of the escarpment. The waters of Lake Superior are much cooler than the land in summer and relatively warmer than the land in late fall and winter. Winds blowing over the water toward the land in summer keep the air cooler; whereas, in fall and winter, winds from the lake tend to raise the air temperatures. However, the influence of the lake does not extend far inland, and southerly winds in summer bring warm days to southern Douglas County. The average annual temperature of Douglas County is 41 degrees Fahrenheit, with recorded extremes being 108 degrees Fahrenheit and –47 degrees Fahrenheit. Annual precipitation (32.1 inches) averages more than the state average (31.0 inches). 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 varies from 50 inches near Solon Springs to around 40 inches along the lake. Snow blankets the ground for 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐7 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter LAND TYPE ASSOCIATIONS & HABITATS Three major land type associations are present in Douglas County, including the Douglas Lake‐Modified Till Plain occupying the northern third of the county, the Pattison and Dairyland Moraine region occupying the central and western areas of the county and the sand barrens of the county’s southeast. Four broad habitat types persist including the Superior Clay Belt (generally corresponding to the Douglas Lake‐Modified Till Plain area), Dry Mesic (generally corresponding to the Pattison‐Dairyland Moraine region) Dry to Dry Mesic (corresponding to the glacial outwash lakes areas in the towns of Highland, Gordon and Wascott) and Dry to Very Dry (generally corresponding to the county’s sand barrens area). Table 5.1 lists the species which dominate each of the principal habitat regions of Douglas County. Table 5.1: Habitat Types and Their Dominant Species, Douglas County Habitat Type Predominant Species Superior Clay Belt AbArSn: Abies balsamea, Acer rubrum, Sanicula (spp.) Dry Mesic ACl: Pinus strobus, Amphicarpa bracteata AVDe: Acer saccharinum, Vacciunium angustifolium, Desmodium glutinosum Dry to Dry Mesic PAm: Pinus strobus, Amphicarpa bracteata PMV‐Po: Pinus strobus, Maiantheum canadense, Vaccinium angustifolium, Quercus ellipsodallis Very Dry to Dry ArQTr: Acer rubrum, Quercus ellipsodallis, Trientalis borealis ArQV‐Sm: Acer rubrum, Quercus rubra,, Vaccinium angustifolium, Smilacina racemosa (variant) QAc: Quercus macrocopa, Arctostaphylos uva‐ursi QGCe: Quercus ellipsodallis, Gaultheria procumbens, Ceanothus americanus ArQTr: Acer rubrum, Quercus ellipsodallis, Trientalis borealis Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐8 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter COMMON PLANT COMMUNITIES The native vegetation of Douglas County is diverse and includes many of the upland and lowland forest plant communities found elsewhere across northern Wisconsin. These communities result from the soils, climate, disturbances, 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: Boreal Forest: 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. Northern Forest: 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. Penokee Range: 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. Pine Barrens: 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. Grassland: The absence of trees and large shrubs and the dominance of small upland shrubs characterize the grassland community. Prominent grassland communities include the non‐native grasslands along US Highway 2 between Ashland and Superior and the mosaic of barrens, grasslands, wetlands and forests associated with the Northwest Sands ecological landscape. North of Gordon along county Highway a jack pine savannah with open grasslands provides habitat for many species of grassland birds, including the sharptail grouse, along many other barrens species. Wetlands and Bogs: These communities are characterized by soils or substrate, which is periodically saturated or ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐9 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter covered by water and further identified by vegetation types and water quality. Aquatic Communities: These communities include springs, ponds, lakes, streams, and rivers. Rivers and streams are bodies of water that continuously move in a single direction. Both are rapidly changing communities. A variety of plants and animals can be found in these ecosystems, including trout and warmwater fish species, aquatic plants animals, reptiles and aquatic insects. Lakes and ponds also support a variety of plant and animal life including fish, aquatic insects, and numerous plant species. The shoreline habitats are vital to the health of aquatic communities. Undisturbed, natural shorelines provide habitat for fish and wildlife, help maintain water quality and protect shorelines from erosion. FOREST RESOURCES There are nearly 470,000 acres of upland forest in Douglas County, with an additional 214,000 acres of forested wetlands and shrublands. Forestlands are important social, environmental and economic resources. Associated values include public recreation and aesthetic values, wildlife habitat, protection of air and water quality and production of timber. Forestlands are also a major component of the overall character of the regional landscape and one of the key characteristics commonly used to define the “northwoods” region of Wisconsin. Douglas County is one of the largest counties in the state and also one of the most heavily forested. Over three quarters of the county’s land area is forested. Large blocks of forestland in a single ownership class, either county forest land or lands controlled by private timber management interests. 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. County Forest At over 262,000 acres in size, Douglas County has the largest County Forest in the State of Wisconsin. These “working forest lands” are vital resources for timber production, wildlife habitat and public outdoor recreation. Management of the Douglas County Forest is the responsibility of the Douglas County Forestry Department. Forest use and management is guided by the Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land‐Use Plan 2006‐ 2020, along with the supporting Douglas County Forest Access Management Plan and Appendixes. County Forest acreage by municipality is shown in Table 5.2. Table 5.2: Forest Acreage by Municipality Source: 2008 Statement of Assessments Municipality Acreage T Bennett 6,595.1 T Brule 6,390.3 T Dairyland 53,449.2 T Gordon 46,496.5 T Hawthorne 5,741.3 T Highland 2,909.3 T Lakeside 40.0 T Maple 3,502.8 T Oakland 12,253.1 T Solon Springs 13,948.1 T Summit 64,072.3 T Superior 5,083.5 T Wascott 41,314.1 V Lake Nebagamon 840.0 Douglas County 262,635.6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐10 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Forest Lands The State of Wisconsin owns and manages nearly 52,000 acres of land in Douglas County. At nearly 41,000 acres in size, the largest tract of state ownership in Douglas County is the Brule River State Forest. Remaining state‐owned acreage is comprised of State Parks, Fisheries and Wildlife Management Areas and State Natural Areas. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources owns and manages Amnicon Falls State Park in the Town of Amnicon and Pattison State Park in the Town of Superior. Lands owned and managed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in Douglas County are shown in Table 5.3. Table 5.3: DNR Managed Lands, Douglas County Source: WDNR GAP Stewardship Data Acres Municipality State Forest Fisheries Areas State Park Wildlife Areas Other Natural Areas Grand Total City of Superior 4.5 4.5 Town of Amnicon 831.7 831.7 Town of Bennett 2,547.8 1.1 90.6 1.5 2,641.0 Town of Brule 12,420.4 12,420.4 Town of Cloverland 7,962.3 162.2 8,124.5 Town of Dairyland 1.1 1.1 Town of Gordon 7.3 35.7 863.0 5.1 911.1 Town of Hawthorne 2.1 102.8 104.9 Town of Highland 10,664.5 10,664.5 Town of Lakeside 0.4 0.4 Town of Oakland 57.4 1.3 58.7 Town of Parkland 118.0 118.0 Town of Solon Springs 5,703.4 12.5 54.2 117.6 5,887.7 Town of Summit 22.6 153.6 78.8 255.0 Town of Superior 6,229.0 2,202.9 8,431.9 Town of Wascott 979.6 180.3 57.9 1.1 1,218.8 V. of Lake Nebagamon 37.0 37.0 Grand Total 40,310.3 6,460.0 3,704.7 980.5 250.9 4.5 51,711.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐11 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter School and Community Forest Lands School and community forest lands include those lands which are registered in the Wisconsin School Forest Program. To be eligible the property must be owned or under legal control lease, easement) of a municipality or school district and have an approved management plan. Registered School Forests in Douglas County are depicted in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Registered School Forests, Douglas County Forest Name Acres Municipality District Gordon School Forest 160 Town of Gordon Northwood School District Rockmount School Forest 57 Town of Amnicon School District of Maple Bong Memorial School Forest 160 Town of Brule School District of Maple Northwestern H.S. Forest 160 Town of Brule School District of Maple Superior School Forest 720 Town of Summit School District of Superior Solon Springs School Forest 80 Town of Solon Springs Solon Springs School District Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Town and Municipal Forest Lands There are nearly 9,000 acres of town‐owned properties in Douglas County. Properties may be open or closed to public access, per town policies. Town‐owned lands in Douglas County are shown in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: Town‐owned Lands, Douglas County Municipality Acres Municipality Acres Town of Amnicon 2,107.4 Town of Maple 126.6 Town of Bennett 53.8 Town of Oakland 117.4 Town of Brule 171.6 Town of Parkland 125.7 Town of Cloverland 115.8 Town of Solon Springs 505.7 Town of Dairyland 2,157.1 Town of Summit 115.0 Town of Gordon 2,191.9 Town of Superior 89.3 Town of Hawthorne 279.9 Town of Wascott 316.1 Town of Highland 35.1 Total 8,943.1 Source: Douglas County Tax Roll ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐12 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Private Industrial Forest Forest management programs such as the Managed Forest Law (MFL) and Forest Crop Law (FCL) programs encourage landowners to manage forests for production of future forest crops by providing tax incentives and benefits to enrollees. Enrollment of forestlands in these provides a reasonable measure of assurance that these lands will continue to be utilized as woodlands and not converted to other uses. The Managed Forest Law replaced the Forest Crop Law in 1985. FCL lands and open MFL lands are open to public access for hunting, fishing, cross‐country skiing, sight‐seeing, and hiking. Wausau Papers and Plum Creek Timberlands hold title to a combined 73,377 acres of lands enrolled in the MFL and FCL programs. Wausau Paper produces fine printing and writing papers, technical specialty papers, and towel and tissue products. Plum Creek Timberlands, a real estate investment trust, is the largest private landholder in the United States. If these large land holdings were sold for private development, traditional public use and access would likely be terminated; and wildlife habitat values greatly diminished through forest fragmentation. Managed Forest Law and Forest Crop Law Program lands in Douglas County are shown in Table 5.6. Table 5.6: Managed Forest Law and Forest Crop Law Program Lands, Douglas County Acres MFL FCL1 Total Municipality Closed Open All Town of Amnicon 49.6 218.9 268.5 Town of Bennett 157.5 4,578.4 239.6 4,975.5 Town of Brule 321.1 233.5 58.4 613.0 Town of Cloverland 406.5 4,736.1 2,259.2 7,401.7 Town of Dairyland 2,292.9 2,470.3 2,828.0 7,591.3 Town of Gordon 1314.0 5,058.6 16,325.0 22,697.7 Town of Hawthorne 142.0 582.0 58.3 782.4 Town of Highland 520.7 19,760.5 1,205.0 21,486.2 Town of Lakeside 315.6 473.3 123.8 912.7 Town of Maple 9.0 110.7 38.6 158.3 Town of Oakland 340.9 3,612.2 3,953.1 Town of Parkland 831.1 67.9 899.0 Town of Solon Springs 1,121.4 3,373.4 8,035.5 12,530.4 Town of Summit 316.4 138.1 118.8 573.2 Town of Superior 246.1 5,344.5 1,108.2 6,698.8 Town of Wascott 1,691.7 14,295.6 1,433.5 17,420.8 Village of Lake Nebagamon 159.0 4.0 163.0 Douglas County 9,404.6 65,821.1 33,899.9 109,125.6 Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1 Includes lands under FCL contracts, FCL was repealed in 1985 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐13 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Land Cover Types The predominant land cover type in Douglas County is aspen, a valuable commercial timber and wildlife habitat species. Mixed broad leaved deciduous forest (oak, maple, birch, balsam poplar, etc.) and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest (red pine, white pine, jack pine, spruce, balsam fir, etc.) are also major upland forest cover types. On the sandy soils of the Pine Barrens to the south and east of the St. Croix River, jack pine is the dominant species. Urban, developed and agricultural lands account for a very small portion of total land cover in Douglas County. Douglas County land cover is shown in Map 5.6. Table 5.7: Land Cover, Douglas County Land Cover Classification Acres Percent of County Urban/developed (high intensity) 5,344 0.66% Urban/developed (low intensity) 3,065 0.38% Agriculture: general 51 0.01% Agriculture: corn 1 0.00% Agriculture: other row crops 107 0.01% Agriculture: forage crops 3,241 0.40% Grassland 84,671 10.43% Forest: jack pine 40,620 5.00% Forest: red pine 19,528 2.41% Forest: mixed / other coniferous 10,689 1.32% Forest: aspen 163,149 20.10% Forest: oak 129 0.02% Forest: northern pin oak 1,500 0.18% Forest: red oak 7,264 0.89% Forest: maple 14,374 1.77% Forest: mixed / other broad leaved deciduous 95,776 11.80% Forest: mixed deciduous/coniferous 116,945 14.41% Open water 17,257 2.13% Wetland: emergent / wet meadow 9,748 1.20% Wetland: lowland shrub 67,832 8.36% Wetland: lowland shrub, broad leaved deciduous 32,998 4.06% Wetland: lowland shrub, broad leaved evergreen 5,466 0.67% Wetland: lowland shrub, needle leaved 30 0.00% Forested wetland: broad leaved deciduous 26,552 3.27% Forested wetland: coniferous 29,828 3.67% Forested wetland: mixed deciduous/coniferous 7,546 0.93% Barren 4,282 0.53% Shrubland 43,833 5.40% TOTAL 811,825 100.00% 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. WILDLIFE RESOURCES ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐14 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter The wildlands of Douglas County provide habitat for a variety of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insect life. Each species or group of associated species does best under different conditions related to the land cover types and management within each biological community. Many plant and insect species also occur; but unlike vertebrate wildlife species, no complete list is available as an inventory of insect species or native flora found in Douglas County. 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 county. Each type of plant community is important because of the habitat it provides to wildlife. Some types are more important to the wildlife resources because they are both abundant and used 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. Critical Resources and Habitats The Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) provides a listing of rare, threatened and endangered species and communities that are known to be present in Douglas County. The following list is a summary of information regarding endangered land resources from the NHI. St. Croix Cedar Swamp 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. Mingan’s Moonwort 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. Black Lake Bog 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. Belden Swamp 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. Moose Lake 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. Amnicon River Pines A small area of older red pines located north of the Amnicon River. Amnicon Boreal Forest ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐15 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter 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 at this site. Erickson Creek Pine Forest Located south of the Amnicon River and west of Erickson Creek. Scattered islands of pine are present in the large open bog. Dominant species include red and white pine with characteristic understory plants present. Ubreitzman Lake Bog 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. Part of the area is in private ownership. Lookout Tower Mound 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. St. Croix River The reach of the St. Croix a few miles up and from the County Trunk Highway bridge has significant populations of rare species including the state‐endangered snaketail dragonfly, the state‐threatened gilt darter, Blanding's turtle and special concern species, the rapids clubtail dragonfly. Lappland Buttercup 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 likely 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. A listing of known threatened and endangered species of plants animals and insects in Douglas County is presented in Table 5.8. Map 5.7 (Natural Heritage Inventory) portrays the generalized location of threatened, endangered and sensitive resources in Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐16 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.8: Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species & Natural Communities in Douglas County PLANTS Common Name Species Name Wisconsin Status1 Adder's‐Tongue Ophioglossum vulgatum var pseudopodum Special Concern American Shore‐Grass Littorella americana Special Concern Arrow‐Leaved Sweet‐Coltsfoot Petasites sagittatus Threatened Autumnal Water‐Starwort Callitriche hermaphroditica Special Concern Brown Beakrush fusca Special Concern Canada Gooseberry Ribes oxyacanthoides Threatened Common Bog Arrow‐Grass Triglochin maritimum Special Concern Crawe Sedge Carex crawei Special Concern Crinkled Hairgrass Deschampsia flexuosa Special Concern Dwarf Milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia Threatened Fairy Slipper Calypso bulbosa Threatened Fir Clubmoss Lycopodium selago Special Concern Floating Marsh‐Marigold Caltha natans Endangered Flodman Thistle Cirsium flodmanii Special Concern Fragrant Fern Dryopteris fragrans remotiuscula Special Concern Ground‐Fir Lycopodium sabinifolium Special Concern Hill's Thistle Cirsium hillii Threatened* Hooker Orchis Platanthera hookeri Special Concern Lapland Buttercup Ranunculus lapponicus Endangered Large‐Flowered Ground‐Cherry Leucophysalis grandiflora Special Concern Large Roundleaf Orchid Platanthera orbiculata Special Concern Large Water‐Starwort Callitriche Threatened Leafy White Orchis Platanthera dilatata Special Concern Lesser Wintergreen Pyrola minor Endangered Marsh Grass‐Of‐Parnassus Parnassia palustris Threatened Marsh Horsetail Equisetum palustre Special Concern Marsh Ragwort Senecio congestus Special Concern Marsh Willow‐Herb Epilobium palustre Special Concern Mingan's Moonwort minganense Special Concern Mountain Cranberry Vaccinium vitis‐idaea ssp minus Endangered Northeastern Bladderwort Utricularia resupinata Special Concern Northern Black Currant Ribes hudsonianum Special Concern Northern Bur‐Reed Sparganium glomeratum Threatened Oregon Woodsia (Tetraploid) Woodsia oregana var cathcartiana Special Concern Purple Clematis Clematis occidentalis Special Concern Richardson Sedge Carex richardsonii Special Concern ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐17 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter PLANTS Common Name Species Name Wisconsin Status1 Rugulose Grape‐Fern rugulosum Special Concern Russet Cotton‐Grass Eriophorum chamissonis Special Concern Seaside Crowfoot Ranunculus cymbalaria Threatened Sheathed Sedge Carex vaginata Special Concern Showy Lady’s ‐Slipper Cypripedium reginae Special Concern Slender Spike‐Rush Eleocharis nitida Special Concern Slim‐Stem Small Reedgrass Calamagrotis stricta Special Concern Small Yellow Lady's‐Slipper Cypripedium parviflorum Special Concern Small Yellow Water Crowfoot Ranunculus gmelinii var hookeri Endangered Sparse‐Flowered Sedge Carex tenuiflora Special Concern Swamp‐Pink Arethusa bulbosa Special Concern Tea‐Leaved Willow Salix planifolia Threatened Torrey’s Bulrush Scirpus torreyi Special Concern Variegated Horsetail Equisetum variegatum Special Concern Vasey Rush Juncus vaseyi Special Concern Veined Meadowrue Thalictrum venulosum Special Concern ANIMALS Common Name Species Name Wisconsin Status1 Taxa American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Special Concern Bird American Wigeon Anas americana Special Concern Bird Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Special Concern** Bird Black Tern Chlidonias niger Special Concern* Bird Black‐Throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens Special Concern Bird Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina Special Concern Bird Caspian Tern Sterna caspia Endangered Bird Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Threatened* Bird Common Tern Sterna hirundo Endangered* Bird Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis Special Concern Bird Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus Special Concern Bird Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Special Concern Bird Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Special Concern Bird Kirtland's Warbler Dendroica kirtlandii Special Concern** Bird Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Special Concern Bird Least Bittern exilus Special Concern Bird Merlin Falco columbarius Special Concern Bird Northern Goshawk Accipter gentilis Special Concern Bird Northern Harrier Circus cyaneaus Special Concern Bird ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐18 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter ANIMALS Common Name Species Name Wisconsin Status1 Taxa Osprey Pandion haliaetus Threatened Bird Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Special Concern Bird Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Endangered** Bird Sharp‐Tailed Grouse Pedioecetes phasianellus Special Concern Bird Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Special Concern Bird Yellow‐Bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris Special Concern Bird A Predaceous Diving Beetle Hydroporus pseudovilis Special Concern Beetle A Tiger Beetle Cicindela patruela patruela Special Concern Beetle Bog Cooper Lycaeena epixanthe Special Concern Butterfly Bog Fritillary Boloria eunomia Special Concern Butterfly Brown Arctic Oeneis Special Concern Butterfly Cobweb Skipper Hesperia metea Special Concern Butterfly Dorcas Copper Lycaena dorcas Special Concern Butterfly Dusted Skipper Atrytonopsis hianna Special Concern Butterfly Freija Fritillary Boloria freija Special Concern Butterfly Frigga Fritillary Boloria frigga Special Concern Butterfly Jutta Arctic Oeneis jutta ascerta Special Concern Butterfly Little Glassy Wing Pompeius verna Special Concern Butterfly Mottled Dusky Wing Erynnis martialis Special Concern Butterfly Purple Lesser Fritillary Boloria titania Special Concern Butterfly Red‐Disked Alpine Erebia discoidalis Special Concern Butterfly Amber‐Winged Spreadwing Lestes eurinus Special Concern Dragonfly Aurora Damselfly Chromagrion conditum Special Concern Dragonfly Black Meadowhawk Sympetrum danae Special Concern Dragonfly Black‐Tipped Darner Aeshna tuberculifera Special Concern Dragonfly Ebony Bog Haunter Williamsonia fletcheri Special Concern Dragonfly Forcipate Emerald Somatochlora forcipata Special Concern Dragonfly Gloyd’s Bluet Enallagma vernale Special Concern Dragonfly Green‐Striped Darner Aeshna verticalis Special Concern Dragonfly Kennedy’s Emerald Somatochlora kennedyi Special Concern Dragonfly Lake Darner Aeshna eremita Special Concern Dragonfly Pronghorned Clubtail Gomphus graslinellus Special Concern Dragonfly Snaketail Ophiogomphus howei Threatened Dragonfly Riffle Snaketail Ophiogomphus carolus Special Concern Dragonfly Ski‐Tailed Emerald Somatochlora elongata Special Concern Dragonfly Zebra Clubtail Stylurus scudderi Special Concern Dragonfly American Eel Anguilla rostrata Special Concern Fish Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanus Special Concern Fish ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐19 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter ANIMALS Common Name Species Name Wisconsin Status1 Taxa Gilt Darter Percina evides Threatened Fish Greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi Threatened* Fish Lake Herring Coregonus artedi Special Concern Fish Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Special Concern* Fish Least Darter Etheostoma microperca Special Concern Fish Southern Brook Lamprey gagei Special Concern Fish Weed Shiner Notropis texanus Special Concern Fish A Bizarre Caddisfly Lepidostoma libum Special Concern Insect Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Spermophilus franklinii Special Concern Mammal Lynx Lynx canadensis Special Concern* Mammal A Caenid Mayfly Caenis youngi Special Concern Mayfly Buck Moth Hemileuca maia Special Concern Moth Newman’s Brocade Meropleon ambifusca Special Concern Moth Elktoe Alasmidonta marginata Special Concern* Mussel Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata Endangered Mussel Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia Special Concern Mussel Four‐Toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum Special Concern Salamander Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Threatened* Turtle Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta Threatened Turtle Natural Communities Important examples of the following natural community types have been found in this county. Although communities are not legally protected, they are critical components of Wisconsin's biodiversity and may provide the habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species. Alder Thicket Bird Rookery Black Spruce Swamp Boreal Forest Dry Cliff Emergent Aquatic Floodplain Forest Great Lakes Beach Hardwood Swamp Interdunal Wetland Interior Beach Lake—Deep, Soft, Seepage Lake Dune Lake—Oxbow Lake‐‐Shallow; Soft; Drainage Lake‐‐Soft Bog Mesic Floodplain Terrace Migratory Bird Site Northern Dry Forest Northern Dry‐Mesic Forest Northern Mesic Forest Northern Sedge Meadow Northern Wet Forest Northern Wet‐Mesic Forest Open Bog Pine Barrens Poor Fen Shrub‐Carr Spring Pond Springs And Spring Runs; Hard Springs And Spring Runs; Soft Stream‐‐Fast; Soft; Cold Tamarack Swamp 1Wisconsin Status: 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐20 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Wisconsin’s Wildlife Action Plan Wisconsin's recently completed Wildlife Action Plan identifies wildlife species that are in greatest need of conservation. Habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation are the key factors threatening nearly all of these species. The plan identifies what habitats (natural communities) they are associated with, and where they are likely to occur throughout the state (Ecological Landscapes). The following tables identify the species of greatest concern within the four ecological landscapes present in Douglas County. Species are listed in Table 5.9 below according to their probability of occurring in each of the four Ecological Landscapes. Table 5.9: Species of Concern, Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan BIRDS Scores: 3 = "Significantly Associated," 2 = "Moderately Associated", and 1 = "Minimally Associated." Species Northwest Lowlands Northwest Sands Lake Superior Clay Plain North Central Forest American Bittern 3 3 3 3 American Black Duck 1 1 1 American Golden Plover 1 2 3 1 American Woodcock 3 3 3 3 Bald Eagle 1 3 3 3 Black Tern 2 3 3 2 Black‐backed Woodpecker 3 3 2 3 Black‐billed Cuckoo 3 3 3 3 Black‐throated Blue Warbler 1 1 3 3 Blue‐winged Teal 2 3 3 1 Blue‐winged Warbler 1 2 Bobolink 2 3 3 2 Boreal Chickadee 2 1 3 Buff‐breasted Sandpiper 3 Brown Thrasher 3 3 3 2 Caspian Tern 1 Canada Warbler 3 2 3 3 Canvasback 1 2 2 2 Common Tern 3 Connecticut Warbler 3 3 1 2 Dickcissel 1 1 1 Dunlin 1 2 3 1 Cerulean Warbler 2 Eastern Meadowlark 1 2 3 1 Field Sparrow 1 3 1 1 Golden‐winged Warbler 3 3 3 3 Grasshopper Sparrow 1 2 1 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐21 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter BIRDS Scores: 3 = "Significantly Associated," 2 = "Moderately Associated", and 1 = "Minimally Associated." Species Northwest Lowlands Northwest Sands Lake Superior Clay Plain North Central Forest Henslow's Sparrow 1 1 1 1 Horned Grebe 1 1 3 1 Hudsonian Godwit 1 2 2 1 Kirtland's Warbler 1 Least Flycatcher 3 3 3 3 Le Conte's Sparrow 3 3 3 Lesser Scaup 1 3 3 3 Louisiana Waterthrush 3 1 Marbled Godwit 1 2 3 1 Nelson's Sharp‐tailed Sparrow 1 3 Northern Goshawk 2 2 3 Northern Harrier 3 3 3 3 Olive‐sided Flycatcher 3 2 2 3 Osprey 2 3 1 3 Peregrine Falcon 3 Piping Plover 3 Red Crossbill 2 3 2 3 Red‐headed Woodpecker 3 1 1 Red‐necked Grebe 2 Red‐shouldered Hawk 1 2 1 3 Rusty Blackbird 2 2 2 2 Sharp‐tailed Grouse 3 2 2 Short‐billed Dowitcher 1 3 3 1 Solitary Sandpiper 2 2 2 2 Spruce Grouse 1 1 3 Trumpeter Swan 1 3 3 3 Upland Sandpiper 3 3 1 Veery 3 3 3 3 Vesper Sparrow 1 3 1 1 Western Meadowlark 1 1 1 1 Whimbrel 1 1 3 1 Whip‐poor‐will 1 3 1 3 Willow Flycatcher 1 1 1 1 Wilson's Phalarope 2 Wood Thrush 2 2 3 3 Yellow Rail 3 2 Yellow‐billed Cuckoo 1 1 1 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐22 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter MAMMALS Scores: 3 = "Significantly Associated," 2 = "Moderately Associated", and 1 = "Minimally Associated." Species Northwest Lowlands Northwest Sands Lake Superior Clay Plain North Central Forest American Marten 2 2 3 Gray Wolf 3 3 3 3 Franklin's Ground Squirrel 1 3 3 Northern Flying Squirrel 3 3 3 3 Hoary Bat 2 1 2 3 Water Shrew 3 3 3 3 Woodland Jumping Mouse 3 2 3 3 Eastern Red Bat 2 1 2 2 Silver‐haired Bat 2 1 2 3 Moose 2 1 2 2 Northern Long‐eared Bat 2 1 2 2 Prairie Vole 1 White‐tailed Jackrabbit 1 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Scores: 3 = "Significantly Associated," 2 = "Moderately Associated", and 1 = "Minimally Associated." Species Northwest Lowlands Northwest Sands Lake Superior Clay Plain North Central Forest Blanding's Turtle 3 1 Boreal Chorus Frog 3 3 3 3 Bullsnake 3 Four‐toed Salamander 3 2 3 3 Mink Frog 3 2 3 3 Wood Turtle 3 3 3 3 Mudpuppy 2 2 3 2 Pickerel Frog 2 2 2 Blanding's Turtle 1 2 1 Northern Prairie Skink 3 Blanding's Turtle 3 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐23 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter FISH Scores: 3 = "Significantly Associated," 2 = "Moderately Associated", and 1 = "Minimally Associated." Species Northwest Lowlands Northwest Sands Lake Superior Clay Plain North Central Forest Blanding's Turtle 3 1 Boreal Chorus Frog 3 3 3 3 Bullsnake 3 American Eel 1 Banded Killifish 3 1 Gilt Darter 3 2 3 Greater Redhorse 3 3 2 Lake Sturgeon 3 2 3 3 Least Darter 3 1 Longear Sunfish 2 3 Pugnose Shiner 3 1 River Redhorse 3 3 Redside Dace 1 Shortjaw Cisco 3 1 Kiyi 3 1 Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources PUBLIC CONSERVATION LANDS Legacy Places Legacy Places are Wisconsin’s most important areas in meeting the state’s conservation and recreation needs for the next 50 years. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources identified 228 Legacy Places statewide in the 2002 report “Wisconsin Land Legacy Report: An Inventory of Places Critical in Meeting Wisconsin’s Future Conservation and Recreation Needs.” The report details 15 Legacy Places occurring within Douglas County. Map 5.8 also depicts the generalized locations of Legacy Places in Douglas County. St. Louis Estuary and Pokegema Wetlands Please refer to State Natural Areas section Wisconsin Point Wisconsin Point is situated along the eastern portion of a sand spit separating Allouez Bay from Lake Superior. The site provides miles of open sand beaches and dunes and small wetlands surrounded by a pine forest. Limited development occurs near the end of the point. About 200 acres of the site is owned by the City of Superior, while DNR owns 9 acres. Both properties are open to public recreation including swimming, biking, bird‐watching and boating. Nemadji River and Wetlands The Nemadji River flows through the glacial sands, tills, and outwash soils of Minnesota before entering the lacustrine red clay plain in Wisconsin. Vegetation is dominated by deciduous species, but is slowly succeeding to conifers and a vegetative pattern more representative of the pre‐settlement period. The river and wetlands drain into Lake Superior near the City of Superior municipal water intake system, which provides service to nearly 30,000 customers. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐24 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Middle River Contact Located in the Town of Lakeside where the Middle River flows over the Superior escarpment, this scenic area contains several waterfalls and unique geologic features. Bois Brule River The Bois Brule River is one of the Midwest’s premiere trout and salmon streams and is widely recognized for its spectacular natural scenery. The spring‐fed upper river slowly meanders though miles of bogs. At Copper Range, the river begins its turbulent 328‐foot decent to Lake Superior, 18 miles to the north. The lower Brule is characterized by cascading whitewater, ledges and a rocky streambed. Much of the river is lies within the Brule River State Forest. The Brule is a popular recreation destination for fishermen, canoeists and kayakers. Hunting, hiking, bird‐watching and skiing are popular activities on the adjoining public forestlands. The unique landscape and vegetation provide habitat for a wide range of plant and animal species, including many rare and/or threatened species. Eau Claire River The Eau Claire River in western Douglas County drains the Eau Claire Chain of Lakes on its 13‐ mile journey to the St. Croix River in the Town of Gordon. A portion of the river below the Eau Claire Lakes supports a resident trout population. Several small, undeveloped and partially developed lakes occur near the river. Namekagon‐Brule Barrens This area is part of a large pine barren community extending from western Bayfield County, southwestward to northern Polk County. Land ownership is a mix public properties and large holdings by private industrial forest companies. This area has high conservation significance as there are opportunities to restore habitat and maintain viable populations of barrens‐associated species, including the sharp‐tailed grouse, Connecticut warbler and upland sandpiper. Most of the lakes in this area which are not under public ownership and many are highly developed. Empire and Belden Swamps Please refer to State Natural Areas section Manitou Falls ‐ Black River The Black River is a high quality water resource which flows through Pattison State Park. The river and surrounding area supports numerous rare and unique species. At 165 feet, Big Manitou Falls is the highest waterfall in Wisconsin and a unique scenic resource. Upper Tamarack and Spruce Rivers The Upper Tamarack and Spruce Rivers originate in the Empire and Belden Swamp in western Douglas County. These rivers, along with Chase Creek, provide a connective linkage between the expansive Douglas County Forest and the St. Croix State Forest across the border in Minnesota. Chase Creek Chase Creek drains the high quality wetlands of southwestern Douglas County. The stream itself supports a diverse aquatic ecosystem, and in conjunction with the Upper Tamarack and Spruce Rivers, provides connectivity between the Douglas County Forest and St. Croix State Forest in Minnesota. This stream is located in one of the most remote and isolated parts of Wisconsin and provides unique recreation opportunities. Highway 2 Grasslands Along US Highway 2 between Ashland and Superior is a series of non‐native grasslands that provide critical habitat for birds, mammals, amphibians and waterfowl. Following human settlement, much of this area was cleared for agriculture; however, only a fraction of these lands are actively farmed. Fallow fields are reverting back to brush and forestlands. Many wetland areas are reverting back to native species or are being restored. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐25 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Lower Totagatic River This high quality warmwater stream is a tributary to the Namekagon River. The river is largely undeveloped and possesses a very wild character. The Totagatic recently was designated as an “Outstanding Resource Water” under Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Designation as a state “Wild River” is currently being sought by the state and a variety of partners. St. Croix River The St. Croix River originates from the spring‐ fed waters of Upper St. Croix Lake. Meandering through the Douglas County Forest, the river flows through dense cedar, tamarack and spruce stands. The upper reach provides habitat for nesting birds and rare plants. Western Lake Superior Drowned River Mouths A drowned river mouth occurs when the lower end of a river is submerged or flooded by encroaching water from Lake Superior. The best examples in Douglas County are found on the Wisconsin side of the St. Louis River estuary. These areas provide critical wetland habitat for migratory and resident birds and spawning habitat for fish. In addition, these areas are home to many rare plants, birds and insects. STATE NATURAL AREAS State Natural Areas (SNA’s) are formally designated sites devoted to scientific research, the teaching of conservation biology and preservation of their natural values and genetic diversity for future generations. A total of 18 SNA’s have been designated within Douglas County. Douglas County SNA’s are shown along with public lands in Map 8.2. Solon Springs Sharptail Barrens (240 acres) T44N‐R12W, Section 11 S ½ NE ¼ SE ¼, Solon Springs Wildlife Area A large pine barrens with scattered clumps of jack pine, Hill’s oak, bur oak and red pine; vegetation characteristic of much of northwestern Wisconsin before human settlement. The barrens are maintained by controlled burning, which provides habitat for wildlife, including the sharp‐tailed grouse. The Solon Springs Sharptail Barrens is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 1968. Black Lake Bog (2200 acres) T45N‐R15W, Sections 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 29 & 30 A large, undisturbed wetland complex of bog lake, open bog, and northern wet forest. The bog and Black Lake form the headwaters of the Black River. Wildlife found on the tract includes waterfowl, great blue heron, beaver, and short‐ eared owl, which may nest in the bog. The area is also within the territory of a pack of timber wolves. Black Lake Bog is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 1985. Brule River Boreal Forest (652 acres) Brule River State Forest, T49N‐R10W, Sections 10, 15, 22, 23 & 27 Remnant boreal forest consisting of mature stands of white pine, white spruce, balsam fir, balsam poplar, and occasionally white cedar, situated along the steep slopes and terraces bordering the Brule River. Boreal forest environment contains many unique plant species and provides habitat for rare animal species, including the bald eagle. The Brule River Boreal Forest is owned by the DNR and was designated a State Natural Area in 2003. Brule Glacial Spillway (2642 acres) Brule River State Forest, T45N‐T11W Sections 3, 4, 8, 9 & 17; T46N‐R10W, Sections 20, 29 & 20; T46N‐R11W Sections 2, 35 & 36 As the glaciers melted and retreated, Lake Superior drained southwestward through the present day Bois Brule and St. Croix River valleys, creating a long, steep‐sided valley which possesses many unique ecological features. Today, the Brule River flows through the valley ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐26 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter northeastward, from its source near Solon Springs, to Lake Superior. Several rare plant species are found within this area, including sedge (Carex vaginata), sparse‐flowered sedge (Carex tenuiflora), and the endangered Lapland buttercup (Ranunculus lapponicus). Nesting bird species include olive‐sided flycatcher, golden‐ crowned kinglet, Lincoln’s sparrow, saw‐whet owl, and black‐backed woodpecker. A rare dargonfly, the zebra clubtail (Stylurus scudderi), is found along this stretch of the river. The Brule Glacial Spillway is owned by the DNR and was designated a State Natural Area in 2003. Dwight's Point and Pokegama Wetlands (3,153 acres) Superior Municipal Forest, T48N‐R14W, Sections 4, 5 & 6; T49N‐R14W, Sections 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 33 This wetland lies at the confluence of the Pokegama & St. Louis Rivers on the west side of the City of Superior. Vegetation includes boreal forest, emergent marsh, and wet clay flats supporting shrub swamp and wet meadow. The upland landscape along the St. Louis River is dissected into into a series of narrow, steep‐ sided ridges, the largest of which is Dwight's Point. The boreal forest landscape, influenced by the climate‐moderating effect of Lake Superior, is one of the best examples of its type in the region. Many plant and bird species which are endemic to boreal habitats are found here. Dwight's Point and Pokegama Wetlands is owned by the City of Superior and was designated a State Natural Area in 1994. Belden Swamp (1,862 acres) T45N‐R14W, Sections 18, 19, 30; T45N‐R15W, Sections 13, 23, 24, 25 & 26 Belden Swamp is a large wetland complex spanning the divide between the Black and Upper Nemadji River watershed and the Upper Tamarack River Watershed. The Belden Swamp forms the headwaters of the Spruce River, which flows south into the Mississippi River watershed; and the Black River, which flows north into the Lake Superior drainage basin. The area features the largest remaining undisturbed open bog in Wisconsin, and also features an extensive muskeg and conifer swamp. The isolated location and lack of development and roads provide habitat for timber wolves. Several rare bird species also occur. Belden Swamp is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 1997 Buckley Creek and Barrens (899 acres) T43N‐R13W, Sections 10, 11, 14 & 15 Buckley Creek flows through a variety of wetland habitats including northern sedge meadow, northern wet forest, alder thicket, streams, and spring pond. Upland habitat includes Pine Barrens and aspen. The wetlands and barrens are ecologically diverse and contain many rare plant and animal species. Many diverse communities of butterflies are also found within this area. Buckley Creek and Barrens is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 1997 Erickson Creek Forest and Wetlands (2,089 acres) T45N‐R13W, Sections 5, 6. T46N‐R13W, Sections 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31 & 32 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 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐27 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter 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. Erickson Creek and Wetlands is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 1997 Nemadji River Floodplain Forest (341 acres) T48N‐R14E, Sections 22, 23, 26 & 27 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 Nemadji River Floodplain Forest is owned by Douglas County as a County Forest Special Use Area and was designated a State Natural Area in 1997. Big Manitou Falls and Gorge (60 acres) Pattison State Park, T47N‐R14W, Section 21 A unique river gorge carved out of both sandstone and basalt. Site also features the impressive Big Manitou Falls, which at 165 feet, is the highest waterfall in Wisconsin and the fourth highest east of the Rocky Mountains. Post glacial erosion of the soft sandstone and clays formed the steep‐sided gorge, exposing the underlying and more resilient basalt rock. Two rare species have been found within the rocky gorge – Oregon woodsia (Woodsia oregana var. cathcartiana) and the mystery vertigo land snail (Vertigo paradoxa). Big Manitou Falls and Gorge is owned by the DNR and was designated a State Natural Area in 2003 Motts Ravine (655 acres) Brule River State Forest, T46N‐R10W, Sections 27, 32, 33 & 34 Mott’s Ravine is a deep depression on the east side of the ridge above the Bois Brule River. The depression lies on an old glacial outwash channel and contains jack pine forest, scrubby Hill’s and bur oak thickets, and small pine barrens remnants. The ravine provides habitat for many plant species, including barrens and prairie species such as big bluestem, prairie brome, bearberry, three‐toothed cinquefoil, sweet‐fern, asters, blazing star, bird’s‐foot violet, pussy‐toes, false dandelion, puccoon, and wood lily. The site is owned by the DNR and was designated as a State Natural Area in 2003. Brule Rush Lake (22 acres) Brule River State Forest, T46N‐R10W, Sections 1 & 12 This small SNA features Brule Rush Lake, a 22‐ acre soft‐water seepage lake with a natural, undeveloped shoreline and a good example of an inland lake beach. This site features an exceptional aquatic invertebrate community. Rare species present include a square‐gilled mayfly (Caenis youngi) and rare crawling water beetle (Haliplus canadensis) Many other uncommon aquatic invertebrates have also been documented. The Brule Rush Lake area was designated as an State Natural Area in 2003 and is the first interior beach designation in the State Natural Areas Program. The property is owned and managed by the DNR. Bear Beach (103 acres) Brule River State Forest, T49N‐R10W, Sections 8, 9 & 18; T49N‐R11W Sections 13, 14 & 22 Located on the western terminus of the Brule River State Forest, Bear Beach features several expansive stretches of undeveloped sand beach along the Lake Superior shore. Within the site are slump clay banks that contain uncommonly ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐28 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter occurring combinations of plants and animals. Uplands above the beach contain paper birch, speckled alder and trembling aspen, along with scattered white spruce, white pine, and balsam fir. This area is used as a foraging and resting site for migratory birds. Bear Beach is owned by the DNR and was designated a State Natural Area in 2003. Pokegama Carnegie Wetlands (1,440 acres) T48N‐R14W, Sections 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21. This area is a shrub wetland complex situated on level clay flats between the Pokegama and Little Pokegama Rivers. The site is the largest and most intact of the red clay wetlands in northwest Wisconsin and supports a tremendous diversity of plant species and large populations of many rare species. Animal species inhabiting the site include amphibians such as the wood frog, spring peeper, green frog, leopard frog eastern gray tree frog, and American toad. Birds present include the yellow warbler, golden‐winged warbler, alder flycatcher, sora, Virginia rail, woodcock, sharp‐ shinned hawk, and common raven. The site is owned by Douglas County and the DNR and was designated a State Natural Area in 2006. Empire Swamp (1,538 acres) Douglas County Forest, T44N‐R13W, Section 6; T44N‐R14W, Sections 1, 2, 3, 11 & 12; T45N‐ R13W, Section 31; T45N‐R14W, Sections 35 & 36. Situated in a remote part of the Douglas County Forest, the Empire Swamp is a large peatland complex at the headwaters of the Tamarack River. The site supports a diverse natural community consisting of including northern sedge meadow, northern wet forest, tamarack swamp, black ash swamp, alder thicket, open bog, and muskeg. This extensive wetland sustains a great diversity of plants and animals, including many rare species. Empire Swamp is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 2007. Blueberry Swamp (558 acres) Douglas County Forest, T47N‐R10W, Sections 7 & 18; T47N‐R11W, Sections 12 & 1 Blueberry swamp forms the headwaters of Blueberry Creek, a tributary to the Bois Brule River. The swamp’s mineral‐rich waters harbor a forest of black ash and white cedar. The swamp supports several rare plant and animal species, including a diverse array of orchids. Because the core of this area remains relatively undisturbed, the site is a valuable ecological reference area, providing a baseline for comparison with other non‐protected areas. The site has also been rated one of the top hardwood swamps in all of northern Wisconsin. Blueberry Swamp is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 2007. Flat Lake (104 acres) T44N‐R11W, Sections 3 & 4 Flat Lake is a shallow, 65‐acre soft‐water seepage lake in south‐central Douglas County. The lake has a fluctuating shoreline and supports both emergent and submergent aquatic vegetation. Because the lake is shallow and lacks a fishery, it is an excellent site to study aquatic invertebrates and plant populations. Trumpeter Swans, the largest native waterfowl species in North America, use the lake and surrounding marsh to nest and fledge their young. Flat Lake is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 2007 Goose Lake (79 acres) Douglas County Forest, T43N‐R10W, Section 10 Goose Lake is an undeveloped 22‐acre 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. Rare and/or uncommon plant and animal species present include American shoreweed (Litorella uniflora), ternate grape fern ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐29 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter rugulosum), common bog arrow‐ grass (Triglochin maritima), and Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Goose Lake is owned by Douglas County and was designated a State Natural Area in 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐30 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter SURFACE WATERS Lakes and rivers are among the most sensitive and valued natural ecosystems in the world. These resources provide critical habitat for fish, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects and a wide range of plant species. The physical, chemical and biological characteristics of surface waters vary across the landscape, resulting in differences in their quality, quantity, hydrology, and their sensitivity or resilience to ecological disturbances. Surface waters are also important recreational and scenic resources. The human attraction to water resources becomes apparent when examining regional land use trends. Housing development, both seasonal and permanent lines the shoreline of many lakes and rivers across northern Wisconsin, including Douglas County. Surface waters are also coming under increasing pressure from recreational uses such as boating, personal watercraft use and fishing. These resources have a limited capacity to absorb human use and development and are extremely sensitive to changes in their watersheds. Small changes in the quality or quantity of water can adversely impact lakes and rivers, along with their associated ecosystems, sometimes irreversibly. It is important that local land use planning consider the potential impacts of land use change on all surface water resources, and that adequate protection be given to ensure the continued viability of these precious resources. Douglas County surface water resources are depicted in Map 5.9. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐31 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter WATERSHEDS Figure 5.1: Douglas County Basins Figure 5.2: Douglas County Watersheds (HUC 5) A watershed is an area of land that drains to a lake or river. Douglas County is divided into two major drainage basins (Figure 5.1), Lake Superior and the Mississippi River. The division splits the county into two nearly equal halves, with the northern half draining to Lake Superior and the southern half draining to the Mississippi River. There are 10 major watersheds (HUC 5) within Douglas County (Figure 5.2). Large watersheds are generally composed of several smaller subwatersheds, which define the drainage area for smaller creeks and streams. Lakesheds are also part of the drainage regime. A lakeshed defines the drainage area for individual lakes and ponds. Subwatershed‐level mapping (HUC 6) has been completed for the Lake Superior Basin. Subwatershed boundaries are depicted along with major county watersheds in Map 5.10. Planning at the watershed scale is appropriate because at this level natural and human actions most directly affect one another. If water quantity or quality is depleted upstream, then users will ultimately feel the impact. It is important to recognize the fact that activities in one part of a watershed, can negatively impact other areas. Watershed level planning helps ensure that the implications of local planning decisions are assessed throughout the watershed and that potential environmental problems are avoided. Watershed statistics by municipality are shown in Table 5.10 . ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐32 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.10: Watershed Statistics, Douglas County LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN Acres Drained % MCD2 MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN Acres Drained % MCD Amnicon and Middle Rivers 184,807.1 St Croix and Eau Claire Rivers 98,780.1 Town of Amnicon 23,646.6 94.5% Town of Bennett 3,193.7 10.3% Town of Bennett 13,040.4 42.2% Town of Dairyland 29,233.1 32.5% Town of Brule 3,974.2 11.1% Town of Gordon 33,328.2 33.1% Town of Cloverland 16,633.1 56.3% Town of Oakland 242.6 0.6% Town of Gordon 4,593.2 4.6% Town of Solon Springs 16,127.8 29.7% Town of Hawthorne 21,963.7 74.4% Town of Summit 236.5 0.3% Town of Lakeside 21,983.4 86.1% Town of Wascott 16,418.3 18.2% Town of Maple 12,782.9 62.3% Upper St Croix and Eau Claire Rivers 122,912.6 Town of Oakland 38,427.3 92.4% Town of Bennett 3,380.2 10.9% Town of Parkland 420.4 1.9% Town of Gordon 61,116.3 60.7% Town of Solon Springs 76.5 0.1% Town of Highland 20,040.0 40.1% Town of Summit 19,133.5 20.3% Town of Solon Springs 29,566.5 54.5% Town of Superior 810.0 1.2% Town of Wascott 7,517.4 8.3% Village of Poplar 7,321.9 95.9% Village of Solon Springs 1,292.2 100.0% Black and Upper Nemadji River 80,349.7 Upper Tamarack River 76,827.4 Town of Dairyland 2.1 0.0% Town of Dairyland 60,767.3 67.5% Town of Summit 59,507.0 63.0% Town of Gordon 563.1 0.6% Town of Superior 20,840.6 30.2% Town of Summit 15,497.0 16.4% Bois Brule River 115,447.9 Totagatic River 66,320.6 Town of Amnicon 350.3 1.4% Town of Gordon 1,101.9 1.1% Town of Bennett 11,286.9 36.5% Town of Wascott 65,218.7 72.2% Town of Brule 31,460.4 88.0% Lower Namekagon River 1,128.2 Town of Cloverland 9,181.7 31.1% Town of Wascott 1,128.2 1.2% Town of Hawthorne 7,566.1 25.6% Town of Highland 29,895.5 59.9% Town of Maple 7,745.8 37.7% Town of Solon Springs 8,469.3 15.6% Village of Lake Nebagamon 9,177.7 100.0% Village of Poplar 314.2 4.1% Iron River 4,042.0 Town of Brule 314.1 0.9% Town of Cloverland 3,727.9 12.6% St Louis and Lower Nemadji River 102,009.8 City of Superior 23,697.8 100.0% Town of Amnicon 1,014.5 4.1% Town of Lakeside 3,537.0 13.9% Town of Oakland 2,899.4 7.0% Town of Parkland 22,296.3 98.1% Town of Summit 21.3 0.0% Town of Superior 46,441.8 67.4% Village of Oliver 1,306.2 100.0% Village of Superior 795.6 100.0% 2 Percent of land area in municipality which is drained by the corresponding watershed ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐33 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter OUTSTANDING AND EXCEPTIONAL RESOURCE WATERS Waters designated as Outstanding or Exceptional Resource Waters provide outstanding recreational opportunities, support valuable fisheries, have unique hydrologic or geologic features, have unique environmental settings, and are not significantly impacted by human activities. These are the highest quality waters in Wisconsin and, under the state’s 1989 anti‐degradation policy, receive special protection from the impact of point source wastewater discharges. Table 5.11 outlines the 66 Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters in Douglas County. These resources are also shown in Map 5.11. Table 5.11: Outstanding (ORW) and Exceptional Resource Waters (ERW), Douglas County Status Portion Name Minor Civil Divisions ERW All Beebe Creek T. Bennett, T Solon Springs ERW All Catlin Creek T. Bennett, T. Solon Springs ORW All Minnesuing Creek T. Bennett, V. Lake Nebagamon ORW All Lake Minnesuing T. Bennett, T. Hawthorne ORW All Kaspar Creek T. Bennett, T. Hawthorne ORW All Wilson Creek T. Bennett, T. Solon Springs ORW All Blueberry Cr T Tributary S17 T47N R10 T. Brule, T. Maple ORW All Creek 17‐11 T47N R10W T. Brule ORW All Creek 17‐9 T47N R10W T. Brule ORW All Creek 21‐8 T47N R10W T. Brule ORW All Creek 21‐9 T47N R10W T. Brule ORW All Creek 29‐11 T47N R10W T. Brule, V. Lake Nebagamon ORW All excluding Brule trout hatchery Bois Brule River T. Brule, T. Cloverland, T. Highland, T. Solon Springs ORW All Trask Creek T. Brule, T. Cloverland ORW All Percival Creek T. Brule ORW All Bois Brule Tributary T47N R10W S35‐2 T. Brule ORW All Bois Brule Tributary T47N R10W S35‐12 T. Brule ORW All Casey Creek T. Brule ORW All Casey Cr Tributary T47N R10W S3‐12 T. Brule ORW All Casey Cr Tributary T47N R10W S4‐8d T. Brule ORW All Casey Cr Tributary T47N R10W S4‐8c T. Brule ORW All Casey Cr Tributary T47N R10W S5‐13 T. Brule ORW All Rocky Run T. Brule ORW All Bois Brule Tributary T47N R10W S11‐10 T. Brule ORW All Little Bois Brule River T. Brule ORW All Sandy Run T. Brule ORW All Bois Brule Tributary T47N R10W S14‐9 T. Brule ORW Down from CTH B Nebagamon Creek T. Brule, V. Lake Nebagamon ORW All Blueberry Creek T. Brule, T. Maple ORW All Creek 21‐11 T47N R10W T. Brule ORW All Bois Brule Tributary T47N R10W S34‐9 T. Brule ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐34 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Status Portion Name Minor Civil Divisions ORW St. Croix flowage to the Burnett County line St. Croix River T. Dairyland, T. Gordon, T. Wascott ORW Upper St. Croix Lake to Gordon Flowage St. Croix River T. Solon Springs, T. Gordon ERW All Bacon Creek T. Dairyland ERW All Arnold Creek T. Gordon ORW All St Croix (Gordon) Flowage T. Gordon, T. Wascott ORW All Lower Eau Claire Lake T. Gordon ORW All Creek 34‐1 T47N R11W T. Hawthorne, V. Lake Nebagamon ORW All Little Steele Lake T. Hawthorne, V. Lake Nebagamon ORW All Steele Lake T. Hawthorne ORW All Hansen Creek T. Hawthorne ORW All Lower Twin Lake T. Hawthorne ORW All McDougal Springs T. Highland ERW All Anderson Creek T. Maple ORW All Upper St Croix Lake T. Solon Springs, V. Solon Springs ERW All St Croix Creek T. Solon Springs ORW All Jerseth Creek T. Solon Springs ORW All Angel Creek T. Solon Springs ORW All West Fork Bois Brule River T. Solon Springs ORW All E Fork Bois Brule River T. Solon Springs ERW All Big Balsam Creek T. Summit ERW All Big Balsam Creek Tributary S23 T. Summit, T. Superior ERW All Empire Creek T. Summit ERW All Little Balsam Creek T. Summit ERW All Big Balsam Tributary T46N R15W T. Summit ERW All Copper Creek Tributary S22 T47 T. Superior ERW All Rock Creek T. Superior ERW All Red River T. Superior ERW All Cranberry Creek & Springs T. Wascott ORW All Bond Lake T. Wascott ORW All Bardon Lake T. Wascott ERW All Potter Creek T. Wascott ORW All Creek 36‐3 T47N R11W Village of Lake Nebagamon ORW All Nebagamon Lake Village of Lake Nebagamon ORW All Creek 35‐4 T47N R11W Village of Lake Nebagamon ORW All Creek 35‐8d T47N R11W Village of Lake Nebagamon ORW All Creek 35‐8b T47N R11W Village of Lake Nebagamon Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐35 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter INLAND LAKES High quality lakes are some of Douglas County’s most valuable natural assets. Lakes provide critical habitat for many species of fish, birds, plants and animals, including many threatened and/or endangered species. Lakes are also places of great natural beauty, which makes them attractive to people. They provide recreational opportunities such as fishing, swimming, and boating, and they enhance the aesthetic quality of the overall landscape. Because of the values we associate with lakes, there is tremendous pressure to develop lake frontage. In the face of ever‐increasing human use and development, retention of ecological and aesthetic values is a challenge facing many northern Wisconsin communities. Douglas County Lake Facts Total number of lakes = 431 Named lakes = 154 Unnamed lakes = 277 Deepest lake = 102 feet, Whitefish Lake Average size of named lakes = 51.6 acres Total miles of shoreline = 513.2 miles Total lake surface area =15170.2 acres Largest inland lake (surface area) = 831.5 acres, Whitefish Lake ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐36 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Lake Types There are three types of lakes found in Douglas County: spring lakes, seepage lakes and drainage lakes. Spring Lakes are natural lakes fed by groundwater, precipitation, and limited runoff. These water bodies have a stream outlet and are usually well buffered against acid rain and contain low to moderate amounts of nutrients. Seepage lakes are natural lakes fed by precipitation, limited runoff, and groundwater. Seepage lakes do not have a stream outlet and are generally acidic, low in nutrients, and susceptible to acid rain. Drainage lakes are lakes fed by streams, precipitation, groundwater, and runoff and are drained by a stream. In drainage lakes the nutrient content is usually high, with water exchange occurring quite rapidly. Water quality in these lakes is variable, depending on runoff and human activity in the watershed. Seepage lakes are the most common lake type in Douglas County. Water Quality In general, Douglas County lakes are low in alkalinity, and thus are considered to have low fertility. The pH range of Douglas County lakes is generally below 7, making the water acid rather than alkaline. Lakes with limited water exchange, or those bordered by boggy wetlands tend to be the most acidic. The low fertility of some Douglas County lakes tends to reduce potential for plant and fish productivity. Light penetration in many lakes is low, particularly in the dark‐stained waters of the acid bog lakes. In clear seepage lakes, more light tends to penetrate deeper in the water column thereby promoting increased planktonic growth and biomass production. Biological Components Douglas County’s lakes provide critical habitat for many wildlife species. The Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) indicates that there are 87 aquatic rare element occurrences (53 animals, 34 plants) and 27 important aquatic natural communities found in the county. In Douglas County, a total of 164 lakes and impoundments support gamefish populations, which include northern pike, walleye, muskellunge, large and smallmouth bass, panfish and trout. Many of the smaller, unnamed lakes support minnow populations, while others are subject to periodic winterkill, a seasonal low oxygen condition which limits fish survival. Lakes provide important habitat for waterfowl species, including mallards, blue‐winged teal, wood ducks, mergansers and others. Migratory species which occasionally occur in Douglas County also rely on lakes for nesting habitat. Lakes also provide habitat for many shorebirds and raptors, including the bald eagle and osprey. Furbearers found in the lakes and wetlands of Douglas County include the beaver, mink, muskrat and otter. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐37 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Physical Characteristics Natural lakes and manmade impoundments account for 15,170 total acres, or 1.9 percent of the total surface area of Douglas County. In addition, there are over 513 miles of lake frontage countywide. Physical characteristics of Douglas County lakes are shown in Table 5.12. Table 5.12: Lake Acres and Shorelines Miles, Douglas County Municipality Acres Miles of Shoreline City of Superior 67.0 10.3 Town of Amnicon 22.1 3.7 Town of Bennett 493.2 15.1 Town of Brule 115.3 11.0 Town of Cloverland 16.2 2.8 Town of Dairyland 320.5 29.4 Town of Gordon 3,450.2 93.7 Town of Hawthorne 355.4 12.6 Town of Highland 1,040.7 56.3 Town of Lakeside 10.0 1.9 Town of Maple 11.1 2.1 Town of Oakland 634.8 18.2 Town of Parkland 14.6 2.7 Town of Solon Springs 1,127.5 37.4 Town of Summit 707.3 27.1 Town of Superior 91.7 12.5 Town of Wascott 5,289.2 147.7 Village of Lake Nebagamon 1,088.5 19.8 Village of Poplar 9.2 0.8 Village of Solon Springs 286.2 6.6 Village of Superior 19.6 1.7 Grand Total 15,170.2 513.2 Source: WDNR GIS Data ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐38 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter RIVERS & STREAMS Douglas County’s high quality rivers and streams are vitally important ecological, scenic and economic resources. From the great coastal estuary at the head of Lake Superior to the tranquil waters of the upper Brule, rivers and streams are some of the most dominant features of the landscape. Stream character varies widely, ranging from fast‐flowing coastal tributaries to the generally slower, meandering waterways found in the county’s southern interior. Some of northwestern Wisconsin’s wildest and most prominent rivers begin their journey in Douglas County, including the St. Croix, Brule, Tamarack and Spruce Rivers. Named Rivers Amnicon River Anderson Creek Arnold Creek Balsam Creek Bardon Creek Bear Creek Beaver Creek Beebe Creek Bergen Creek Black River Blueberry Creek Bluff Creek Bois Brule River Boyles Brook Buckety Creek Buckley Creek Carlson Creek Casey Creek Catlin Creek Chases Brook Clear Creek Cole Creek Copper Creek Cranberry Creek Crawford Creek Crotte Creek Dingle Creek Dutchman Creek East Branch Hay Cr. East Fork Bois Brule R. East Fork Moose River Eau Claire River Empire Creek Ericson Creek Fish Creek Fisher Creek Hansen Creek Hanson Creek Haukkala Creek Haymaker Creek Jerseth Creek Kaspar Creek Lake Creek Leo Creek Little Amnicon River Little Balsam Creek Little Bois Brule River Little Pokegama River Lord Creek Middle River Miller Creek Minnesuing Creek Moose River Morrison Creek Mud Creek Nebagamon Creek Nelson Creek Nemadji River O'Hara Creek Ounce River Park Creek Pearson Creek Percival Creek Pokegama River Poplar River Porcupine Creek Red River Rock Creek Rocky Run Saint Croix Creek Saint Croix River Sandy Run Sheosh Creek Silver Creek Smith Creek Snake Creek Spring Angel Creek Spring Creek Spruce River Stony Brook Thompson Creek Toad Creek Trask Creek Upper Ox Creek Upper Tamarack River Wagner Creek West Branch Hay Cr. West Fork Bois Brule R. Williamson Creek Wilson Creek In addition to the above named rivers and streams, there are numerous unnamed creeks and tributaries. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐39 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Physical Characteristics The continental divide separates Douglas County into two drainage systems, Lake Superior and the Mississippi River. Lands to the north of the divide drain to Lake Superior via a network of high‐gradient coastal tributaries. These streams occur on relatively impervious red clay soils, which results in rapid seasonal and precipitation‐related runoff conditions. Lake Superior tributary streams receive groundwater inputs which are high in both carbonates and nutrients. Streams within the Mississippi River drainage system include those lying roughly in the southern half of the county. These streams tend to a lower gradient than the Lake Superior tributaries and are relatively poor in carbonates and nutrients. The “tea” color characteristic of many of these streams is the result of natural tannins produced in the numerous surrounding wetlands and bogs Table 5.13 reveals the he physical characteristics of Douglas County rivers and streams. Table 5.13: Stream Physical Data, Douglas County Municipality Miles of Intermittent Streams Miles of Perennial Streams Total Stream Miles City of Superior 17.0 27.1 44.1 Town of Amnicon 28.6 61.9 90.5 Town of Bennett 23.4 13.4 36.8 Town of Brule 44.1 42.7 86.8 Town of Cloverland 116.0 11.6 127.6 Town of Dairyland 25.4 108.5 133.9 Town of Gordon 33.6 58.2 91.8 Town of Hawthorne 5.4 45.6 51.0 Town of Highland 7.3 7.0 14.3 Town of Lakeside 58.2 44.6 102.8 Town of Maple 76.0 11.1 87.1 Town of Oakland 19.8 86.1 106.0 Town of Parkland 25.5 85.7 111.2 Town of Solon Springs 55.9 35.7 91.7 Town of Summit 43.1 132.9 176.0 Town of Superior 113.9 155.6 269.5 Town of Wascott 8.8 67.5 76.3 Village of Lake Nebagamon 0.5 8.9 9.4 Village of Oliver 0.9 3.0 3.8 Village of Poplar 20.0 14.0 34.0 Village of Solon Springs 1.1 1.4 2.5 Village of Superior 0.6 1.9 2.5 Douglas County 725.2 1024.4 1749.6 Source: WDNR GIS Data ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐40 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Fisheries and Habitat Douglas County’s rivers and streams support both warmwater and coldwater habitats and fisheries. A unique fishery exists in many of the Lake Superior tributaries, where both inland and lake‐run (anadromous) salmonid species coexist. During the spring through the fall of the year, some tributary streams receive migratory spawning runs of species of trout and salmon from Lake Superior. This unique fishery attracts many anglers to the region in pursuit of brown trout, coho and chinook salmon, and the elusive migratory rainbow trout, the steelhead. Including the Lake Superior streams, Douglas County is home to over 300 miles of trout streams. These streams are considered general environmental indicators of clean water, as trout will not survive in heavily contaminated waters. Table 5.14 portrays trout stream mileage by class and municipality. Class I streams are high quality trout waters that have sufficient natural reproduction to sustain populations of wild trout, at or near carry capacity. Class II streams have some natural reproduction, but not enough to utilize available food and space. Some stocking is usually required to maintain a fishery. Class III streams are marginal trout waters, with no natural reproduction. Different segments of the same stream may be assigned to different stream classes. Douglas County trout streams are shown on Map 5.12. Table 5.14: Trout Stream Class Miles, Douglas County Minor Civil Division Stream Class Miles I II III Total Miles Town of Amnicon 1.8 1.8 Town of Bennett 3.7 3.7 Town of Brule 43.5 6.9 0.8 51.1 Town of Cloverland 10.4 1.3 11.8 Town of Dairyland 2.2 6.1 8.3 Town of Gordon 10.4 8.2 9.4 28.0 Town of Hawthorne 8.3 8.3 Town of Highland 11.5 3.2 14.7 Town of Maple 5.5 5.5 Town of Oakland 5.0 12.5 7.0 24.5 Town of Solon Springs 16.3 11.7 8.0 36.1 Town of Summit 17.8 11.9 17.5 47.3 Town of Superior 10.4 10.1 11.4 31.8 Town of Wascott 5.2 9.6 20.6 35.4 Village of Lake Nebagamon 0.5 0.5 Village of Poplar 1.6 1.6 Village of Solon Springs 1.3 1.1 2.4 Douglas County 142.0 81.9 88.8 312.7 Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐41 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Impaired Waters Under the federal Clean Water Act, every two years, states are required to submit a list of waters determined to be "impaired" to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The list helps develop priorities for restoring the state's waterbodies. Wisconsin submitted its first list in 1996, with the most recent update in 2008 (proposed as on 04/08). Impaired waterways in Douglas County are shown in Table 5.15 and Table 5.16. Proposed additions to the state’s Impaired Waters List are shown in Table 5.17. Table 5.15: Impaired Waters without approved excluding those with impairments caused by atmospheric deposition of mercury, Douglas County Waterbody Description Pollutant Impairment Allouez Bay (St. Louis River AOC) mercury fish consumption advisory Barker's Island Inner Superior) Beach bacteria bacteria Brule River State Forest #2 Superior) Beach bacteria bacteria Brule River State Forest #3 Superior) Beach bacteria bacteria Crawford Creek (St. Louis River AOC) Area of concern aromatic hydrocarbon, creosote aquatic toxicity Crawford Creek tributary (St. Louis River AOC) Area of concern aromatic hydrocarbon, creosote aquatic toxicity Hog Island Inlet (St. Louis River AOC) aromatic hydrocarbon, metals, petroleum aquatic toxicity Newton Creek (St. Louis River AOC) aromatic hydrocarbon, metals, petroleum aquatic toxicity St Louis Bay AOC Area of concern mercury, aromatic hydrocarbon, metals fish consumption advisory, aquatic toxicity St Louis River AOC Area of concern mercury, aromatic hydrocarbon, metals fish consumption advisory, aquatic toxicity Superior Bay (St. Louis River AOC) Area of concern mercury, aromatic hydrocarbon, metals fish consumption advisory, aquatic toxicity Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 3 TMDL – Total maximum Daily Load, implemented through Wisconsin's nonpoint source program. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐42 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.16: Waters Impaired by Atmospheric Deposition of Mercury, Douglas County Waterbody Pollutant Impairment Amnicon Lake mercury fish consumption advisory Lyman Lake mercury fish consumption advisory Minnesuing Lake mercury fish consumption advisory Minong Flowage mercury fish consumption advisory Red Lake mercury fish consumption advisory St. Croix Flowage mercury fish consumption advisory Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Table 5.17: Proposed 2008 Additions to Impaired Waters List, Douglas County Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Waterbody Local Name Source Category Pollutant Impairment Lake Superior Amnicon River Beach non‐point source E. coli Elevated Bacteria Lake Superior Middle River Beach non‐point source E. coli Elevated Bacteria Interfalls Lake Pattison Beach (State Park) other Factors E. coli Elevated Bacteria Lake Superior Wisconsin Point Beach #2 other Factors E. coli Elevated Bacteria ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐43 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Lake Superior Douglas County is one of four Wisconsin counties which border Lake Superior, the largest freshwater lake on earth. The county has 119.3 miles of coastal shoreline (including lands abutting the St. Louis River estuary) with 754 square miles of land draining into Lake Superior. An international sea port at Duluth‐Superior serves as the economic hub of the northland. The south shore has strong cultural ties to Lake Superior. Early settlers to the region relied on the lake for sustenance and income. Traditional primary economic activities such as lumbering and fishing have been largely replaced by tourism and recreation. Shoreline Types The characteristics of the Douglas County Lake Superior shore are described on the basis of differing physical features. Eleven different shore types are recognized in Douglas County (including the City of Superior). Douglas County has two prominent shore types, sand beach and clay bluffs. Sand beaches extending along the north side of Wisconsin Point represent the most outstanding example of sand beach and dunes along the south shore of Lake Superior. This shore type extends for a distance of 2.3 linear miles. Clay bluffs extend 21.5 miles from Wisconsin Point east into Bayfield County. Steeply eroded clay bluffs overlooking driftwood cluttered sand beaches characterize this shore type. Offshore water here usually remains somewhat turbid from continual wave action. In areas where clay bluff erosion is most severe, large clay banks slide into Lake Superior, eliminating beaches completely. Sand spits also occur at the mouths of larger rivers. Table 5.18 indicates the miles of shoreline in Douglas County by type. Table 5.18: Lake Superior Shoreline Types, Douglas County Shoreline Type Miles Eroding Scarps in Unconsolidated Sediments 4.7 Exposed, Solid Man‐made Structures 0.5 Extensive Wetlands 21.2 Fringing Wetlands 13.7 Mixed Sand and Gravel Beaches 14.4 Riprap Revetments, Groins, and Jetties 12.1 Riprap Revetments, Groins, and Jetties/Sand Beaches 0.1 Sand Beaches 10.6 Sheltered Sand/Mud Flats 0.1 Sheltered, Solid Man‐made Structures 10.0 Sheltered, Vegetated Low Banks 31.8 Total Miles of Shoreline 119.3 Source: NOAA Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐44 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Figure 5.3: Shoreline Types, City of Superior Figure 5.4: Shoreline Types, Superior to Bayfield County ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐45 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Lake Superior Watershed The Lake Superior watershed encompasses 754 square miles of land in Douglas County, 4 major watersheds and numerous coastal rivers and streams. The county’s most populous municipality, the City of Superior, is located entirely within the Lake Superior watershed. The total population of Douglas County residing within the Lake Superior watershed is estimated at 40,200, or nearly 93 percent of the total countywide population. Municipalities located entirely, or with a majority of land area within the Lake Superior watershed Municipalities with a minor portion of land area within the Lake Superior watershed City of Superior Town of Solon Springs Town of Amnicon Town of Gordon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Summit Town of Superior Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Superior Coastal Public Access Ensuring public access to the nation's coastlines is one of the goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Accordingly, providing access to coastal resources is foundational principal of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP). Public access to the coastline can be provided though developed boat launches and marinas, public parks and recreational lands, coastal heritage resources (open to the public, such as lighthouses), and other access sites such as trails and public beaches. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 depict coastal public access points in the City of Superior and Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐46 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Figure 5.5: Coastal Public Access, City of Superior Figure 5.6: Coastal Public Access, City of Superior to Bayfield County Line ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐47 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter COASTAL HAZARDS Bluff erosion Coastal erosion is a natural geologic process. This process may occur slowly over a period of thousands of years, or rapidly as with landslides and severe storms. Coastal erosion is closely linked with lake levels; the higher the water, the greater the wave impacts which erode away shoreland bluffs. Other factors influencing coastal erosion include water currents, groundwater flow, freeze/thaw cycles, soil types and bank composition, and shoreline vegetation. Erosion rates are particularly high along clay bluffs, sand plains, and high bluffs composed of till, with short‐term erosion rates of 3 to 5 feet per year having been recorded along sand plains and 2 to 6 feet per year along high bluff lines. This natural process is not particularly problematic unless human development is threatened. Coastal erosion and the costs associated with it are well documented in the Great Lakes. Policies for reducing the risk of damages and loss due to coastal erosion are essential elements of any effective coastal management strategy. Portions of the Lake Superior shoreline in Douglas County are extremely vulnerable to coastal erosion and bank slumping. Coastal erosion is of particular concern on the high clay bluffs extending from Wisconsin Point eastward to the Bayfield County line. Lake Levels The water level of Lake Superior is directly affected by the amount of precipitation falling in the lake basin and evaporation. Extreme changes in the water level can be expressed as a drought or flood, which has a tremendous impact on plants and animals living in the region. Coastal flooding can create or exacerbate erosion problems. Conversely, low water levels can expose coastal hazards and create problems for shipping and recreation. Levels of some of the Great Lakes fell to record lows in the late 1920s, the mid‐1930s, and the mid‐1960s. In 2007, the lake again fell to near record low levels, affecting commercial shipping and recreational boating. High water levels occurred in the early 1950s, the early 1970s, and the mid‐1980s. Lake levels reached all‐time highs in 1986, causing significant coastal erosion damage. The chart datum water level is 601.1 feet and the highest all‐time recorded lake level was 602.86 feet above sea level in 1876. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐48 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Water levels on Lake Superior can change locally in a matter of hours. Sustained high winds from one direction can push the water level up at one end of the lake (this is known as "surge") and make the level go down by a corresponding amount at the opposite end. When the wind stops, the water will oscillate back and forth until it levels itself out, much as it would in a bathtub. This phenomenon is known as "seiche". FLOODPLAINS Areas susceptible to flooding are considered unsuitable for development because of risks to lives and property. Effective February 4, 1981, the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) for Douglas County are the most recent source for identifying areas subject to flooding. These maps can be viewed in the Zoning Administrator’s office at the county courthouse in Superior. The FIRMs are intended to be interim maps prior to the completion of a more detailed study and may not include all flood hazard areas in the county. Additional field checking may be required to determine whether or not a given area is in the floodplain before development would be authorized or denied. WETLANDS Wetlands serve important environmental functions including flood control, water quality improvement and groundwater recharge and providing habitat for fish and wildlife. A complex set of local, state and federal regulations place limitations on the development and use of wetlands. The Department of Natural Resources regulates the placement of structures and other alterations below the ordinary high water mark of navigable streams and lakes. The Corps of Engineers has authority over the placement of fill materials in virtually all wetlands. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) incorporates wetland preservation criteria into its crop price support programs. Prior to placing fill or altering wetland resources, these agencies must be contacted to receive authorization. The latest wetland inventory in Douglas County estimates that about 190,000 acres of wetlands exist in the county. Table 5.19 provides a breakdown of the various types of wetlands that occur in Douglas County by municipality. It should be remembered that this table understates the actual wetland acreage since it does not include wetlands less than two acres in size. Map 5.13 depicts wetland types in Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐49 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.19: Wetland Types by Minor Civil Division Municipality Emergent Forested Scrub/Shrub Total Acres City of Superior 718.0 3,188.9 2,475.2 6,382.0 Town of Amnicon 48.0 1,715.7 546.7 2,310.4 Town of Bennett 266.6 6,508.4 2,832.7 9,607.7 Town of Brule 80.8 2,713.9 1,169.0 3,963.6 Town of Cloverland 126.5 5,570.6 1,198.8 6,896.0 Town of Dairyland 1,123.5 17,759.3 12,462.7 31,345.5 Town of Gordon 1,353.8 11,212.4 5,846.5 18,412.7 Town of Hawthorne 317.1 5,936.2 3,292.4 9,545.6 Town of Highland 85.7 1,471.3 529.0 2,086.1 Town of Lakeside 118.3 3,134.6 1,108.8 4,361.7 Town of Maple 15.1 3,271.3 230.4 3,516.7 Town of Oakland 376.2 6,555.0 4,415.6 11,346.7 Town of Parkland 108.2 4,097.3 1,532.2 5,737.7 Town of Solon Springs 374.8 6,008.5 2,914.0 9,297.3 Town of Summit 844.9 17,663.6 14,291.9 32,800.4 Town of Superior 485.1 11,830.0 4,126.7 16,441.7 Town of Wascott 1,183.6 7,338.4 4,849.5 13,371.5 V. of Lake Nebagamon 42.2 1,254.2 184.5 1,480.8 Village of Oliver 5.2 273.7 1.8 280.8 Village of Poplar 4.2 237.8 42.6 284.6 Village of Solon Springs 10.4 4.0 14.5 Village of Superior 2.3 68.9 25.4 96.6 Grand Total 7,679.8 117,820.4 64,080.4 189,580.7 Source: Wisconsin Wetland Inventory Priority Coastal Wetlands Within the Lake Superior drainage basin of northern Douglas County there are thirteen wetland sites which have been classified as “priority coastal wetlands” by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. These sites exemplify the best examples of wetlands and aquatic resources in the Lake Superior Basin. Map 5.14 depicts priority coastal wetlands in Douglas County. Black Lake Bog* The Black Lake Bog is a large acid peatland at the headwaters of the Black River. Surrounding Black Lake are several thousand acres of open bog, muskeg, and black spruce swamp. This area provides critical habitat for many species of birds, including two rare species, LeConte’s sparrow (Ammoondramus lecconteii) and the Yellow‐bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris). *Additional information can be found in the “State Natural Areas” section of this chapter. Belden Swamp* Belden Swamp is a large undisturbed acid peatland at the headwaters of the Spruce River. Peatlands are largely composed of open bog, muskeg black spruce swamp and fen communities. Rare species present include, LeConte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii, Freija fritillary (Boloria freija) Frigga fritillary (Boloria frigga), Purple lesser fritillary (Boloria titania) , Bog fritillary ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐50 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter (Boloria eunomia) , Yellow‐bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) , Bog copper (Lycaena epixanthe) and Jutta arctic (Oeneis jutta ascerta). *Additional information can be found in the “State Natural Areas” section of this chapter. Mud Lake Bog/Ericson Lake This site is located west of Mud Lake in the Town of Summit and features a diverse combination of wetland and terrestrial attributes. Surrounding the wetlands are scattered mature stands of maple‐ basswood and pine forest, with dense pockets of white spruce and balsam fir giving the area a boreal forest like appearance. Peatland birds present include Lincoln’s sparrow, palm warbler, Nashville warbler and red crossbill. Rare species present include Freija fritillary (Boloria freija), Purple lesser fritillary (Boloria titania), Bog fritillary (Boloria eunomia), Red‐disked alpine (Erebia discoidalis), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Bog copper (Lycaena epixanthe Jutta arctic (Oeneis jutta ascerta) and the Gray jay (Perisoreus canadensis Nemadji River Bottoms Located in the Town of Superior, this deeply cut segment of the Nemadji River valley contains forest elements rare to the Lake Superior clay plain. Within the valley, canopy cover is dominated by black and green ash, basswood, maples, balsam poplar and bur oak. Scattered conifers occur along the steep slopes adjacent to the river. Rare species occurrences include the Wisconsin threatened wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta). Pokegama‐Carnegie Wetlands* This site is an extensive wetland complex which forms the headwaters of the Pokegama and Little Pokegama Rivers in the Town of Superior. This site is significant due to the presence of many rare plants and the relative abundance of birds and amphibians found here. Rare species present include Slender spike‐rush (Eleocharis nitida), Vasey’s rush (Juncus vaseyi), Marsh grass‐of‐Parnassus (Parnassia palustris), Arrow‐leaved sweet‐ coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus), Small yellow water crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii var hookeri), Seaside crowfoot (Ranunculus cymbalaria), Northern bur‐reed (Sparganium glomeratum), and the New England violet (Viola novae‐angliae *Additional information can be found in the “State Natural Areas” section of this chapter. Red River Breaks/St. Louis River Marshes This site borders the Red River and tributaries of the lower St. Louis River in the Town of Superior. Forest cover is dominated by aspen, with a dense understory of alder. Once dominant, conifers occur in small stands or as scattered individuals. Some of the steep sided ravines support remnant stands of white cedar and uncommon herbs. Several springs also occur in this area. The St. Louis River marshes are an extensive complex of emergent marshes occurring along the St. Louis River estuary from Fond du Lac to the Village of Oliver. These marshes are biologically significant and provide habitat for many species of birds. Documented rare species occurring in this area include the Small yellow lady’s‐slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), Showy lady’s‐slipper (Cypripedium reginae), Variegated horsetail (Equisetum variegatum), Marsh horsetail (Equisetum palustre), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Vasey rush (Juncus vaseyi), Arrow‐leaved sweet‐coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus), Small yellow water crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii var hookeri), Northern black currant (Ribes hudsonianum), Tea‐ leaved willow (Salix planifolia) and the ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐51 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Northern bur‐reed (Sparganium glomeratum). Oliver Marsh This site is an expansive marsh along the St. Louis River between the Village of Oliver and the City of Superior Municipal Forest. Marsh vegetation includes an abundance of emergent plants including bulrushes, bur‐ reeds and cattails. Wild rice can also be found within the protected bays of this area. The Wisconsin shore remains undeveloped and has a uniquely ‘wild’ flavor, especially given its proximity to a major urban center. Superior Municipal Forest The Superior Municipal Forest is the third largest forest within a city in the U.S. The densely forested landscape provides a wild character which is unique within an urban population center. Notable features include mature conifer stands, which give the area a boreal flavor. The site borders the St. Louis River estuary, and emergent marshes occur along the shorelines and in backwater areas. The site provides habitat for many species of resident and migratory birds, mammals and unique plants. Documented rare species occurring in this area include the Pine siskin (Carduelis pinus), Vasey rush (Juncus vaseyi), Arrow‐ leaved sweet‐coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus), Small yellow water crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii var hookeri) and the Northern bur‐reed (Sparganium glomeratum). Superior Airport/Hill Avenue Wetlands/South Superior Triangle Now separated by urban development, road and railroads, these three sites were once a large contiguous wetland. Dominated by shrub swamp and open meadows and emergent marsh, these sites provide valuable habitat for resident birds. Wetland fragmentation, isolation and hydrological alteration have left these sites vulnerable to negative impacts from future development. Rare species found at one or more of these sites includes, Vasey rush (Juncus vaseyi), Arrow‐leaved sweet‐ coltsfoot (Petasites sagittatus), Small yellow water crowfoot (Ranunculus gmelinii var hookeri), Seaside crowfoot (Ranunculus cymbalaria), Northern bur‐reed (Sparganium glomeratum) and the New England violet (Viola novae‐angliae). Nemadji River Marshes This site includes emergent marshes occurring along developed portions of the Nemadji River in the City of Superior. Steep, occasionally forested, clay bluffs along the river valley are generally undeveloped and serve as a buffer between urban areas and the river. These marshes provide habitat for many plant species, while drier portions contains species of grasses. Wild rice can also be found in the deeper, slow‐flowing sloughs. Wisconsin Point‐Allouez Bay Marshes* Wisconsin Point lies along an extensive sand spit which divides the waters of Lake Superior from Allouez Bay. Prominent features of this site include interdunal wetlands, sand beaches, dunes and pine forest. Allouez Bay,on the east side of Wisconsin Point contains a large marsh which is dominated by flowering plants and sedges. This extensive wetland has high wildlife value and supports nesting birds and other wildlife. Rare species present in the marshes of Wisconsin Point and Allouez Bay includes the Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Crinkled hairgrass (Deschampsia flexuosa), Marsh horsetail (Equisetum palustre), Variegated horsetail (Equisetum variegatum), Merlin (Falco columbarius), Hoary elfin (Incisalia polia), Least bittern exilis), Fir clubmoss (Lycopodium selago), Savin‐leaved club moss (Lycopodium sabinaefolium), Adder’s‐ ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐52 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter tongue (Ophioglossum vulgatum var pseudopodum), Marsh grass‐of‐Parnassus (Parnassia palustris), Canada gooseberry (Ribes oxyacanthoides), Franklin’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus franklinii), Common tern (Sterna hirundo), Black meadowhawk (Sympetrum danae) and the Veined meadowrue (Thalictrum venulosum). *Additional information can be found in the “State Natural Areas” section of this chapter. Divide Swamp This site in the Brule River State Forest contains a mix of lowland forests, shrub swamp and springs. The surrounding area forms the headwaters of the Brule River and the St. Croix River. Lowland forests, consisting of tamarack, spruce, cedar and black ash contrast with the sandy, rolling uplands of aspen and pine. Rare species present in the Divide Swamp include the Black‐tipped darner (Aeshna tuberculifera), A caenid mayfly (Caenis youngi), Autumnal water‐starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica), Large water‐starwort (Callitriche Sparse‐flowered sedge (Carex tenuiflora), Sheathed sedge (Carex vaginata), Small yellow lady’s‐slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), Marsh willow‐ herb (Epilobium palustre), A predaceous diving beetle (Hydroporus pseudovilis), Fir clubmoss (Lycopodium selago), Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and Northern black currant (Ribes hudsonianum). Brule Spillway* Wetlands adjoining this six‐mile stretch of the upper Brule River include conifer swamp, shrub swamp, sedge meadows and springs. Uplands consist of mature, old‐ growth white and red pine. Several rare bird, insect and plant species are found here, including the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), LeConte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii), Autumnal water‐ starwort (Callitriche hermaphroditica), Fairy slipper (Calypso bulbosa), Pine siskin (Cartelist pinus), Sheathed sedge (Carex vaginata), Evening grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus), Small yellow lady’s‐slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum), Cape may warbler (Dendroica tigrina), Yellow‐bellied flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris), Marsh willow‐herb (Epilobium palustre), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Jutta arctic (Oeneis jutta ascerta), Gray jay (Perisoreus Canadensis), Black‐backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), Lapland buttercup (Ranunculus lapponicus), Northern black currant (Ribes hudsonianum) and the Ski‐tailed emerald (Somatochlora elongate). *Additional information can be found in the “State Natural Areas” section of this chapter. For further information on priority coastal wetland sites in Douglas County, one may consult the “Priority Wetland Sites of Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin”. This document is an excerpt from the “Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Coastal Wetlands Evaluation: A Report to the Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐53 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Deepest Shallowest GROUNDWATER Groundwater in Douglas County is generally of very good quantity and quality. It is usable for most purposes except in a few local areas where excessive mineral content, hardness, and high iron concentrations are present. The main chemical constituents in solution are calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate. Figure5.7: Douglas County Well Depths The Hydrologic Atlas for the Lake Superior and St. Croix River basins identify the groundwater elevations for Douglas County. Generally elevations range from 600 feet near Lake Superior, to nearly 1,200 feet in the central part of the county. This correlates very closely to the topographic variations in the county and also correlates well with the well drillers’ logs. Generally this means that groundwater could be found at or near the surface in many areas of the county with the maximum depth to groundwater approximately 200 feet. However, wells for domestic use are usually finished deeper than the first occurrence of groundwater in the drilling process. Figure 5.7 depicts generalized well depths in Douglas County based on well drillers log records. Map 5.15 indicates the generalized groundwater contamination susceptibility in Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐54 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter METALLIC AND NONMETALLIC MINERAL RESOURCES Metallic Mineral Resources Native Americans were the first to discover metallic minerals in the rocks of the Copper Range in Douglas County. With European settlement to the region in the early 1800’s came increased exploration and extraction of copper resources. By the mid 1800’s there was considerable exploration and mining at Copper Creek (Pattison State Park) and near the Amnicon River. Copper exploration and mining was also occurring near the Brule River and other parts of the county. Early discoveries were promising and eventually led to widespread exploration. Following a decline in copper prices after the Civil War, mining efforts in Douglas County were abandoned. The remnants of these early mining ventures are still evident in the open pits, trenches, test holes and tunnels found scattered across the landscape today. Historic mining sites and prospects in Douglas County are depicted in Table 5.20. Table 5.20: Former Metallic Mining Sites and Prospects, Douglas County Site Name Major Commodities Development Status Municipality North Wisconsin Copper Unknown T. Amnicon Chippewa Copper‐Nickel Mine Copper, Zinc Occurrence T. Amnicon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Amnicon Chippewa Copper‐Nickel Mine Nickel, Silver, Copper, Gold Prospect T. Amnicon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Amnicon Astor Copper Unknown T. Brule Unnamed Prospect Copper, Lead Occurrence T. Brule Percival Copper Unknown T. Brule Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Brule Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Dairyland Unnamed Prospect Zinc, Copper Occurrence T. Dairyland Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Dairyland Cemetery Copper Occurrence T. Dairyland Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Gordon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Gordon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Gordon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Gordon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Gordon Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Gordon Unnamed Prospect Copper, Zinc Occurrence T. Lakeside Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Lakeside Unnamed Prospect Copper, Lead Occurrence T. Maple Fon Du Lac Copper Unknown T. Oakland Starkweather Copper Unknown T. Oakland ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐55 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Site Name Major Commodities Development Status Municipality Aminicon Copper Unknown T. Oakland Unnamed Prospect (Sunnyside) Copper Occurrence T. Oakland Unnamed Prospect (Sunnyside) Copper Occurrence T. Oakland Unnamed Prospect Copper, Lead Occurrence T. Parkland Catlin Copper Unknown T. Parkland Unnamed Prospect Copper Occurrence T. Parkland Culligan Copper Unknown T. Superior Copper Creek Copper Unknown T. Superior Weyerhauser Copper, Lead Prospect T. Wascott Weyerhaeuser Explorations Copper, Silver Prospect T. Wascott Source: MRDS, US Geological Survey Current Status Currently there are no active metallic mineral mines in Douglas County. Regulations A metallic mine in Wisconsin is subject to many rules and regulations. Before a mine can be developed, Wisconsin requires a metallic mining permit and approved plans for environmental monitoring, mining, and reclamation; a risk assessment and a contingency plan. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared by the Department of Natural Resources in order to assess the potential impacts of the proposed mine. WDNR is also responsible for monitoring construction, mining, and reclamation activities. The Wisconsin mining statutes state that the local municipality within which a metallic mine site is located has zoning approval authority over a proposed metallic mine. Before a proposed metallic mine can receive approval from the state, the local municipality must have granted approval under its zoning or land use ordinances or have entered into a legally binding agreement with the mining proponent. Non‐Metallic Mineral Resources Non‐metallic mineral resources include sand, gravel, and aggregate deposits. Minerals extracted from Douglas County are primarily used for construction purposes. Historic and current non‐metallic mineral resource sites and occurrences are shown in Table 5.21. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐56 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.21: Non‐Metallic Mineral Resources, Douglas County Site Name Commodities Development Status Municipality Mclean Dredge Sand and Gravel, Construction Unknown C. Superior Superior Grinding Plant Stone, Crushed/Broken Plant C. Superior Smith Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Producer C. Superior Superior Refinery‐‐Murphy Oil Sulfur Unknown C. Superior Albany Crushing Plant Sand and Gravel, Construction Plant C. Superior Albany Crushing Plant Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer C. Superior Lakeside Rd & Amnicon R. Pits Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Middle River Gravel Pits Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Vokovich Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Pattison Park Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Lakeside Johnson Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Sclavi Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Lakeside Hemmerling Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Udeen Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Lakeside Granum Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Past Producer T. Lakeside Stupak Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Producer T. Lakeside Nemadji River Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Big Manitou Falls Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Occurrence T. Lakeside Copper Creek Pit #3 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Lakeside Rock Creek Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Copper Creek Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Copper Creek Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Lagro Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Lakeside Manitou Falls Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Copper Creek Quarry #1 Stone, Crushed/Broken Occurrence T. Lakeside William Culligan Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Copper Creek Quarry #2 Stone, Crushed/Broken Occurrence T. Lakeside Rock Creek Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Lakeside Oliver Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer V. Oliver Anderson & Mckay Pits Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Parkland Fire Tower Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Parkland Johnstad Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Parkland Flannagan Fire Tower Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Occurrence T. Parkland Sam Anderson Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Past Producer T. Parkland Lagro Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Unknown T. Parkland ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐57 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Site Name Commodities Development Status Municipality Roadside Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Maple Blueberry Gravel Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Maple Martinson Clay & Gravel Pit Clay, Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Maple Hendrickson Rd Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Maple Troy Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Brule Bellwood Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Brule Fish Hatchery Rd Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Winneboujou Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Brule Fish Hatchery Rd Pit #3 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Blueberry Creek Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Troy Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Brule Blueberry Creek Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Fish Hatchery Rd Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Blueberry Creek Pit #4 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Brule Fish Hatchery Rd Pit #4 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule South Slope Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Hokkinen Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Brule Bois Brule River Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Hoodoo Lake Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Prospect T. Brule Ranger Sta. Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Blueberry Creek Pit #3 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Brule Cleveland Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Brule Robert Missine Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Occurrence T. Amnicon Farmers' Union Pits Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Amnicon Amnicon River Gravel Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Amnicon Berg Park Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Amnicon Amnicon Falls Station Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Occurrence T. Amnicon Willox Rd Gravel Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer V. Poplar Maple & E Lakeview Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer V. Poplar Poplar Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer V. Poplar Pine Dr Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer V. Poplar Lindquist Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer V. Poplar Lyman Lake Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Oakland George Larson Quarry Stone, Crushed/Broken Prospect T. Oakland Jacksino Rd Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Oakland Silver Creek Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Oakland Stupac Pit Stone Producer T. Hawthorne Larson Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Hawthorne ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐58 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Site Name Commodities Development Status Municipality Erickson‐Harstad Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Hawthorne Anthony Jacksino Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Prospect T. Hawthorne Middle River Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Hawthorne Cecil Williams Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Hawthorne Rothenbeuler Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Hawthorne Berry Rd Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Hawthorne Tavern Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Hawthorne Largo Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Unknown V. Lake Nebagamon Black River Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Summit Old Logging Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Summit Bear Lake Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Summit Milchesky Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Summit Bear Creek Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Summit Church Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Summit Highland Fire Tower Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Highland Bois Brule River Pit #4 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Highland Bois Brule River Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Highland Bois Brule River Pit #3 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Highland Bois Brule River Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Highland Bois Brule River Pit #5 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Highland Wasko Rd Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Bennett Bennett Rd Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Bennett Fire Tower Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Bennett Hagman Rd Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Bennett N Flowage Dr Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Gordon Mike Mix Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Gordon N Flowage Dr Pit #3 Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Gordon Many Lakes Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Gordon N Flowage Dr Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Gordon Robert Nelson Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Solon Springs Sauntry Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Solon Springs Leo Creek Pits Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Solon Springs Upper St Croix Lake Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Solon Springs Richard Flamang Sand Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer V. Solon Springs Kingsdale Rd Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Dairyland Repke Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Dairyland Upper Tamarack River Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐59 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Site Name Commodities Development Status Municipality Toad Creek Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Swedish Hwy Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Beaver Creek Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Past Producer T. Dairyland Miller Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Chase Creek Pit #1 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Swamp Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Toad Creek Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Crotte Creek Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland St Croix River Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland New Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Producer T. Dairyland Spruce River Pit Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Toad Creek Pit #3 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Chase Creek Pit #2 Sand and Gravel, Construction Occurrence T. Dairyland Source: MRDS, US Geological Survey Current Status Based are 52 active non‐metallic mining permits in Douglas County. All of which produce sand and gravel or stone products. Regulations Chapter NR135 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code requires that all counties develop and adopt a non‐metallic mining reclamation ordinance. NR 135 ensures that all nonmetallic mining sites are reclaimed in compliance with the uniform statewide reclamation standards by providing the detailed requirements and reclamation standards for local ordinances. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐60 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter CULTURAL & SCENIC RESOURCES CULTURAL RESOURCES VISION Historic Resources Introduction Our lives are influenced by what we learn from our own experiences and by the events that have shaped the communities we live in and the institutions and organizations we encounter. Our history gives us a sense of place and a framework to understand the world. It provides continuity and meaning in our lives and it can be a basis for economic development through preservation programs and Heritage Tourism. People have been living in the area for thousands of years, with hunting, fishing, farming, and forestry playing a central role in their lives. This story of agriculture, resource use, and land stewardship is preserved in archaeological sites, buildings, landscapes, written accounts, photographs, governmental records, and the thoughts and ideas people remember and pass along by word of mouth. Planning can play a critical part in protecting these resources and in learning from this wealth of experience. Land‐use planning and land‐ use decisions will directly impact historic buildings, archaeological sites, and cemeteries. Archaeological Sites and Cemeteries Archaeological sites include places where people lived, where they worked, and where they worshiped. These sites were made by the people who lived at the village, farm, or logging camp located just down the road. Archaeological sites occur figuratively and literally under our feet. Archaeology is well suited for providing important information about the lives of people who are not well represented in the written record. Archaeological sites are non‐ renewable resources and once a site is destroyed, either by natural or human related activities, it cannot be reclaimed. The Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) maintains a list of archaeological sites and cemeteries referred to as the Archaeological Site Inventory (ASI) a component of the Wisconsin Historic Preservation Database (WHPD). The Archaeological Site Inventory (ASI) is the most comprehensive list of archaeological sites, mounds, unmarked cemeteries, marked cemeteries, and cultural sites available. The ASI does not include all of the sites and cemeteries present in the state, however. It includes ONLY those sites that have been reported to the Wisconsin Historical Society. The information in the ASI is a compilation of reports covering a period of 150 years. The information for each entry varies widely and WHS has not been able to verify all of the entries. Few of these sites have been evaluated for their “Douglas County promotes knowledge and celebration of its resources, notably Lake Superior, healthy forests and clean waters, and highlights its cultural heritage. “ ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐61 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter importance. The ASI is changed and updated on a daily basis and recommendations about site importance may change as new information becomes available. The attached site list will become quickly out of date and a procedure for updating the list should be developed. This ASI information is confidential and is not subject to Wisconsin’s open records law (Wis. Stats. 44.48 and 157.70). This information is also protected by Federal law (Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 9(a) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979). This caution not only helps protect archaeological sites but also protects landowners since private landowners own the majority of archaeological sites in the Town. Under Wisconsin law, Native American burial mounds, unmarked burials, and all marked and unmarked cemeteries are protected from intentional disturbance. If you have any questions concerning the law, please contact Chip Brown at 608‐264‐ 6508. Archaeological Sites and Cemeteries in Douglas County The Wisconsin Historical Society maintains a list of archaeological sites and cemeteries referred to as the Archaeological Site Inventory (ASI). Since only a small portion of the county has been surveyed for the presence of archaeological sites and cemeteries, the sites listed in the inventory represent only a fraction of the sites that are actually present. Local residents and American Indian communities who have and do live and work in the area possess much additional information on other archaeological sites and cemeteries. Steps should be taken to have this information incorporated into the land use plan. Up to this point in time, 182 archaeological sites and cemeteries have been reported for Douglas County. The following types of sites have been identified: Cemeteries, Native American burial mounds Campsite/village Cabins/homesteads Farmsteads Shipwrecks Military Sites Mining sites Trading Post Boarding House Railroad Clearly this sample of sites does not reflect the rich history of the area. Many more sites are present in the area, but they are not recorded because no systematic survey of the county has been completed. The Brule‐St. Croix River Portage (GD‐112) is listed on the National and State Register of Historical Places, but many sites in the county certainly may be eligible and are important. Where are archaeological sites going to be located? Using the results of archaeological surveys, relevant historical and environmental data, the following high priority areas were designated: higher, dryer areas adjacent to rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, wetlands higher, dryer areas adjacent to older, abandoned rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, wetland areas adjacent to rock outcrops areas adjacent to older historic features such as trails, early roads, rail corridors, and earlier communities ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐62 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Cemeteries, Burial Mounds, and Other Burials Cemeteries and burial areas have been set aside as special areas throughout Wisconsin history and they have been given special protection under the law. Under Wisconsin law, Native American burial mounds, unmarked burials, and all marked and unmarked cemeteries are protected from intentional disturbance. If anyone suspects that a Native American burial mound or an unmarked or marked burial is present in an area, the Wisconsin Historical Society should be notified. If human bone is unearthed during any phase of a project, all work must cease, and the Wisconsin Historical Society must be contacted at 1‐800‐342‐7834 to be in compliance with Wis. Stat. 157.70 which provides for the protection of all human burial sites. Work cannot resume until the Burial Sites Preservation Office gives permission. If you have any questions concerning the law, please contact Chip Brown at 608‐264‐6508. At the present time, one cemetery or burial site has been identified in Douglas County. Since a systematic survey of the county has not been completed, cemeteries and burials may be present. As part of the planning process all cemeteries and burials in the Town should be cataloged under Wis. Stat. 157.70 to provide for the maximum protection of these important sites and to clearly define their boundaries. How do we know which archaeological sites need preservation? Under Wisconsin law Native American burial mounds, unmarked burials, and all marked and unmarked cemeteries are protected. In addition to these, a wide variety of archaeological sites may be worthy of preservation. Through the use of the State and National Register of Historic Places a procedure for identifying important sites is available. The criteria include: a good local example of an architectural style and period; association with a person important in our past; represent an important period, movement or trend in local, state or national history; or have the potential to yield important information about our past through archaeological investigations. Protection of Important Archaeological Sites The wide variety of methods used to protect natural resources can also be used to protect archaeological sites. For example, land purchases, conservation easements, zoning, and the state operates a tax exemption program for property owners. With the 1991 changes to Wis. Stats. 70.11 [see 70.11(13m)] it became possible to provide a property tax exemption for owners of archaeological sites listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places. To obtain the tax exemption, the landowner has to agree to place a permanent protective covenant for the site area in the deed for the property. The tax exemption program makes the landowner and subsequent owner’s stewards of Wisconsin's past. The intent of the program is not to discourage all use of the property containing a site, but to encourage land use planning that protects sites. How are archaeological sites and cemeteries identified and evaluated? Archaeological identification and evaluations are required for a variety of projects that receive Federal or State funding, licenses, or permits. These projects are automatically forwarded to the Wisconsin Historical Society for review. Local residents frequently report sites and cemeteries. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐63 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter RECOMMENDATIONS The development of a strong cultural resource component will allow the residents to identify valuable sites and locations and clarify the important role they play in the present and in planning for the future. This can provide a variety of rewards such as heritage tourism, economic development and other community enrichments. Local residents and American Indian communities who have or do live and work in the area possess much additional information on the history of Douglas County and steps should be taken to have this information incorporated into the comprehensive plan. As part of the planning process, all cemeteries and burials in the county should be cataloged under Wis. Stat. 157.70 to provide for the maximum protection of these important sites and to clearly define their boundaries. Archaeological investigations should be completed at the locations of known archaeological sites to assess the impacts of projects on these resources and archaeological investigations should be completed at high potential areas as identified through research. CAUTION It is not uncommon to find evidence of American Indian villages and other earlier settlements in the form of houses, storage areas, burials, and other undisturbed deposits underneath the tilled layer in farm fields or in urban settings. Archaeological sites are non‐renewable resources and once a site is destroyed, either by natural or human related activities, it cannot be reclaimed. Only a small percentage of archaeological sites in the County have been identified. Table 5. 22 contains an inventory of known archeological sites and cemeteries in Douglas County. Table 5.22: Archaeological Sites & Cemeteries in Douglas County State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0064 Coppermine Dam Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 43, 13, W, 8 DG‐0063 Unnamed Site Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 43, 13, W, 8 DG‐0065 Unnamed Site Cabin/homestead Foundation/depression Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 13 DG‐0066 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 13 43, 14, W, 24 DG‐0067 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 23 DG‐0068 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 34 DG‐0007 Eau Claire Lake Mounds 1 Mound(s) ‐ Conical Mound(s) ‐ Linear Mound(s) ‐ Other/Unk Late Woodland 44, 10, W, 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐64 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0008 Eau Claire Lake 2 Mounds Mound(s) ‐ Other/Unk Mound(s) ‐ Conical Woodland 44, 10, W, 25 44, 10, W, 25 44, 10, W, 25 DG‐0031 Rindo Campsite/village Woodland 44, 12, W, 1 44, 12, W, 1 44, 12, W, 1 DG‐0032 Scotts Bridge Cabin/homestead Campsite/village Historic Euro‐American Unknown Prehistoric 44, 13, W, 35 DG‐0070 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 44, 13, W, 35 DG‐0071 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Transportation site Historic Euro‐American 44, 13, W, 35 DG‐0011 Sucices Campsite/village Late Paleo‐Indian Unknown Prehistoric 44, 12, W, 1 44, 12, W, 1 DG‐0072 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 44, 13, W, 36 DG‐0015 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown 45, 11, W, 8 DG‐0014 Upper St. Croix Lake Chisel Campsite/village Old Copper 45, 11, W, 30 DG‐0003 St. Croix Lake Mounds Mound(s) ‐ Other/Unk Woodland 45, 12, W, 35 DG‐0017 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown 45, 12, W, 36 DG‐0019 Unnamed Site Trading/fur post Campsite/village Historic Euro‐American Historic Indian 45, 12, W, 36 DG‐0012 Prevost Mound Mound(s) ‐ Other/Unk Woodland 45, 12, W, 36 DG‐0018 Prevost Camp Campsite/village Woodland 45, 12, W, 36 DG‐0020 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown 46, 13, W, 22 DG‐0010 Tomahawk Island Campsite/village Cemetery/burial Unknown Prehistoric 46, 14, W, 13 DG‐0021 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown 46, 14, W, 13 DG‐0022 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown 47, 10, W, 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐65 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0028 St. Marie Workshop site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 47, 12, W, 9 DG‐0030 C.A.I. Wis‐1‐2 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 28 DG‐0029 C.A.I. Wis‐1‐1 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 34 DG‐0023 Osaugie's Village Campsite/village Historic Indian 49, 10, W, 10 DG‐0025 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown 49, 15, W, 25 DG‐0084 Northwest Company Wintering Quarters Trading/fur post Historic Euro‐American 49, 14, W, 10 DG‐0085 B. H. Connor House Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 49, 14, W, 11 DG‐0006 Connor's Point Campsite/village Cemetery/burial Unknown Prehistoric Historic Indian 49, 14, W, 14 DG‐0024 Wisconsin Point Campsite/village Cemetery/burial Historic Indian Unknown Prehistoric 49, 13, W, 28 DG‐0027 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Historic Indian 49, 13, W, 29 DG‐0033 Old Stockade Military site Historic Euro‐American 49, 13, W, 19 BDG‐ 0001 Bennett Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 46, 12, W, 22 BDG‐ 0002 Hawthorne Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 46, 12, W, 3 46, 12, W, 4 BDG‐ 0003 St. Aloysius Church And Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 31 BDG‐ 0004 Pine Ridge Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 10, W, 24 BDG‐ 0005 Maple Church And Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 23 48, 11, W, 23 BDG‐ 0006 Dairyland Town Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 6 BDG‐ 0007 Covenant Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 43, 15, W, 3 BDG‐ 0008 Summit Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 46, 15, W, 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐66 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section BDG‐ 0009 Gordon Memorial Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 44, 11, W, 31 44, 11, W, 31 BDG‐ 0010 Wascott Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 43, 12, W, 25 BDG‐ 0011 Highland Memorial Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 45, 10, W, 5 BDG‐ 0012 Blueberry Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 10, W, 6 BDG‐ 0013 Lake Nebagamon Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 11, W, 34 47, 11, W, 34 47, 11, W, 34 47, 11, W, 34 BDG‐ 0014 Ever Rest Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 10, W, 13 BDG‐ 0015 Rest Haven Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 49, 10, W, 26 BDG‐ 0016 Unnamed Cemetery cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 11, W, 6 BDG‐ 0018 Lakeside Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 12 48, 12, W, 12 BDG‐ 0019 Riverhill Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 14 BDG‐ 0020 Evergreen Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 34 BDG‐ 0021 Unnamed Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 4 BDG‐ 0022 Nemadji Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 49, 13, W, 30 49, 13, W, 31 BDG‐ 0023 Unnamed Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 49, 13, W, 31 BDG‐ 0024 St. Francis Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 49, 13, W, 31 BDG‐ 0025 Woodlawn Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 13, W, 7 BDG‐ 0026 Greenwood Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 14 48, 14, W, 15 BDG‐ 0029 Hebrew Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 9 48, 14, W, 9 BDG‐ 0030 Graceland Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐67 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section BDG‐ 0031 Riverside Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 9 BDG‐ 0032 Catholic Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 4 BDG‐ 0033 Calvary Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 4 48, 14, W, 9 BDG‐ 0034 Parkview Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 46, 12, W, 4 46, 12, W, 4 DG‐0158 Clevedon Colony Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 49, 10, W, 10 DG‐0035 Cockerhan Campsite/village Late Woodland Unknown Prehistoric 46, 14, W, 6 DG‐0036 Monorail Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 32 DG‐0037 CCC Well CCC/WPA site Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 28 DG‐0038 Chaffey School School Historic Euro‐American 45, 14, W, 7 DG‐0039 Befera Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 14, W, 18 DG‐0048 Jones‐Nelson Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 44, 12, W, 2 DG‐0040 Road Water Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 43, 12, W, 36 DG‐0062 Dump # 7 Dump Jobber camp Historic Euro‐American 43, 12, W, 25 DG‐0041 Bergen Springs Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 43, 12, W, 13 DG‐0069 Dump #6 Dump Jobber Camp Historic Euro‐American 44, 12, W, 24 DG‐0042 Two Pits Cabin/homestead Farmstead Logging camp Historic Euro‐American Historic Indian 44, 12, W, 24 DG‐0043 Hanson Homestead Cabin/homestead Farmstead Historic Euro‐American 44, 12, W, 12 DG‐0044 Wayside Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 44, 12, W, 1 DG‐0045 Scruffy Eagle Campsite/village Woodland 44, 12, W, 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐68 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0046 Hotel‐Motel Boarding House Historic Euro‐American 44, 12, W, 1 DG‐0057 Lucius #2 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 44, 12, W, 1 DG‐0047 Poodle Pit Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 44, 12, W, 13 DG‐0049 Sumpthing Else Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 35 DG‐0050 Tree Farm Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0051 Tin House Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 11 DG‐0052 Porcupine Tree Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 44, 12, W, 1 DG‐0055 Fat White Dog Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0053 Hundreds‐Of‐ Cans Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 23 DG‐0054 Karls Kaverns Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 14 DG‐0056 Blackman Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 24 DG‐0077 Mc‐D9 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0075 Mc‐D10 Cabin/homestead Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 25 DG‐0078 Mc‐D11 Cabin/homestead Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0074 Mc‐D8 Cabin/homestead Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 23 DG‐0081 Proposal #2 Dump #1 Dump Jobbers camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 35 DG‐0083 Proposal #2 Dump #2 Dump Jobbers Camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 35 DG‐0082 Proposal #3 Dump #1 Dump Jobbers Camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐69 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0076 Proposal #3 Dump #2 Dump Jobbers Camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0080 Proposal #3 Dump #5 Dump 2. Jobbers Camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0073 Proposal #3 Dump #3 Dump Jobbers Camp Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 14 DG‐0058 Sheldon School Foundation Dump Jobbers Camp Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 25 DG‐0088 90wi2 Campsite/village Woodland 48, 11, W, 29 DG‐0089 90wi5 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 48, 10, W, 23 DG‐0090 90wi4 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 27 DG‐0091 90wi3 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 27 DG‐0092 Nebagamon Lumber Co.‐ Middle River Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 25 DG‐0093 Gitchee Manitou Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 47, 14, W, 21 DG‐0094 Bowling Lane Campsite/village Late Paleo‐Indian 44, 12, W, 36 DG‐0098 Paske Cabin/homestead Campsite/village Historic Euro‐American Unknown Prehistoric 45, 14, W, 32 DG‐0097 Toad Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 44, 14, W, 17 DG‐0096 Moose Meander Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 44, 14, W, 20 DG‐0095 Belden Swamp Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 45, 14, W, 30 DG‐0101 Tom Green Road Site Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 12 DG‐0099 Bemis Ridge Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 46, 12, W, 2 DG‐0100 Siegel Foundation Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 46, 12, W, 2 BDG‐ 0043 Isolated Burial Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐70 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section BDG‐ 0046 Solon Springs Catholic Church And Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 26 DG‐0106 Hines Camp #3 Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 11 48, 11, W, 11 DG‐0104 Pellinen School School Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 15 DG‐0105 Nelson House Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 1 DG‐0103 Saari Site Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 11, W, 10 DG‐0102 Cedar Grove School School Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 14 DG‐0107 Polaske Home Site Campsite/village Late Paleo‐Indian Unknown Prehistoric 48, 10, W, 20 DG‐0108 John Semo Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 47, 14, W, 21 DG‐0109 Algonquin (1839) Shipwreck Historic Euro‐American 49, 13, W, 19 DG‐0110 Box Of Rain Foundation/depression Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 35 DG‐0111 Clarence (1930) Shipwreck Historic Euro‐American 49, 14, W, 10 DG‐0145 Martinsen Graves Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 49, 10, W, 2 DG‐0112 Brule‐St. Croix Portage Transportation site Historic Euro‐American Historic Indian 45, 11, W, 9 45, 11, W, 17 45, 11, W, 17 45, 11, W, 17 DG‐0114 Unnamed Site Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 44, 13, W, 35 DG‐0113 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 43, 14, W, 33 DG‐0115 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 34 DG‐0116 Unnamed Site Dam/historic earthwork Historic Euro‐American 48, 15, W, 31 DG‐0117 Unnamed Site Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 1 DG‐0118 Unnamed Site Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 14, W, 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐71 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0119 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 47, 13, W, 23 DG‐0157 Bois Brule Bridge Grave Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 47, 10, W, 27 DG‐0120 Amnicon Quarry Quarry Dam/historic earthwork Foundation/depression Cabin/homestead Transportation site Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 29 48, 12, W, 29 DG‐0121 BN Railroad Transportation site Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 30 48, 12, W, 30 DG‐0122 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Terminal Woodland Unknown Prehistoric 48, 14, W, 31 DG‐0123 Clevedon Colony Community Farmstead Historic Euro‐American 49, 10, W, 2 49, 10, W, 9 49, 10, W, 10 49, 10, W, 3 49, 10, W, 2 49, 10, W, 2 DG‐0124 Unnamed Site Transportation site Historic Euro‐American 47, 13, W, 4 DG‐0125 Unnamed Site Foundation/depression Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 15 DG‐0126 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 43, 11, W, 20 DG‐0127 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 43, 11, W, 20 DG‐0128 Unnamed Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 43, 11, W, 21 DG‐0135 Brule Spillway Vista #2 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 46, 10, W, 30 DG‐0134 Brule Spillway Vista #1 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 45, 11, W, 2 DG‐0133 Beaupre Springs #2 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 45, 11, W, 9 DG‐0132 Beaupre Springs #1 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 45, 11, W, 9 DG‐0131 Lake Duluth Beach #1 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 48, 10, W, 22 DG‐0129 Lake Superior Vista #1 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 48, 10, W, 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐72 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0130 Lake Superior Vista #2 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 48, 10, W, 23 DG‐0136 M. Pattison Lumber Camp Logging camp Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 27 DG‐0138 Imac 52‐1 Foundation/depression Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 43, 11, W, 33 DG‐0137 Imac 15‐1 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 47, 13, W, 14 DG‐0141 Big Falls Tunnel Quarry Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 21 DG‐0139 Big Falls Pits Quarry Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 21 DG‐0140 No Name Falls Diggings Quarry Historic Euro‐American 47, 14, W, 14 47, 14, W, 15 47, 14, W, 15 DG‐0142 Cliff Dwelling Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 29 48, 12, W, 29 DG‐0143 Glarc 03.043‐01 Mine Historic Euro‐American Unknown Prehistoric 47, 14, W, 12 DG‐0146 Coppermine Road Logging camp Dam/historic earthwork Trading/fur post Mine Historic Euro‐American 43, 10, W, 11 DG‐0147 Fort St. Louis Trading/fur post Campsite/village Historic Indian Historic Euro‐American 49, 14, W, 13 DG‐0148 Sugar Sugar bush Historic Indian 48, 10, W, 30 DG‐0149 Rice Lake Camp Campsite/village Historic Indian 42, 12, W, 16 DG‐0150 Pokegama Camp Campsite/village Historic Indian 42, 12, W, 33 DG‐0151 Gaudin Post Trading/fur post Historic Euro‐American Historic Indian 44, 11, W, 31 DG‐0152 Fort St. Croix Trading/fur post Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 25 BDG‐ 0049 Apostolic Lutheran And Faith Lutheran Cemeteries Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐73 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter State Site #/Burial Code # Site Name Site Type Cultural Study Unit Town Range Section DG‐0060 Amik Island Corn hills/garden beds Historic Indian 48, 15, W, 8 DG‐0059 Nekuk Island Campsite/village Historic Indian 48, 15, W, 8 BDG‐ 0050 Nissly Pioneer Cemetery Cemetery/burial Historic Euro‐American 48, 12, W, 35 DG‐0153 H‐121‐1 Cabin/homestead Historic Euro‐American 45, 12, W, 10 DG‐0154 P‐132‐1 Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 43, 11, W, 6 DG‐0155 Danelski Tombstone Cemetery/burial Unknown 48, 15, W, 8 DG‐0156 Bear Creek East Site Campsite/village Unknown Prehistoric 48, 13, W, 16 DG‐0159 Copper Mine Mine Unknown Historic Indian Unknown Prehistoric 47, 13, W, 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐74 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter The National and State Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places was authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Properties listed in the register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register listings in Douglas County are shown in Table 5.23. The State Register of Historic Places was established in 1989. State listings must meet evaluation criteria, which include: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state or local history. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant to our past. Architectural, engineering or artistic merit Archaeological significance Table 5.23: Wisconsin National Register of Historic Places, Douglas County Municipality Location Historic Name Certification Type C. Superior 917‐‐927 Tower Ave. Berkshire Block N/S Building T. Solon Springs Brule River State Park Brule‐St. Croix Portage N/S Site T. Lakeside SE of Superior on STH 13 Davidson Windmill N/S Structure C. Superior 502‐‐520 Twenty‐second Ave. E Descent Block E/O Building C. Superior 1313 Belknap St. Douglas County Courthouse N/S Building C. Superior 1202‐‐1208 Tower Ave. Empire Block N/S Building V. Lake Nebagamon 1st St. Lake Nebagamon Auditorium N/S Building C. Superior NW tip of Barkers Island METEOR (Whaleback carrier) N/S Structure C. Superior 1221‐‐1227 Tower Ave. Maryland Block N/S Building C. Superior 1525‐‐1531 Tower Ave. Massachusetts Block N/S Building C. Superior 1501‐‐1511 Tower Ave. Minnesota Block‐ Board of Trade Bldg. N/S Building C. Superior 1422‐1432 Tower Ave. and 1705‐1723 Belknap Ave. New Jersey Building N/S Building ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐75 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Municipality Location Historic Name Certification Type C. Superior 1402‐‐1412 Tower Ave. New York Block N/S Building C. Superior 2229 East 5th St. Northern Block N/S Building C. Superior 906 E. 2nd St. Pattison, Martin, House N/S Building C. Superior 1700‐1714 (even) North 21st Street and 2105‐ 2109 (odd) Ogden Avenue Roosevelt Terrace N/S Buildings C. Superior 1200 Fifteenth Ave. E St. Joseph Orphan Home E/O Buildings C. Superior Superior Entry South Breakwater Superior Entry South Breakwater Light N Site C. Superior 916 Hammond Ave. Trade and Commerce Building N/S Buildings C. Superior 1517‐‐1523 Tower Ave. Washington Block N/S Building C. Superior 1301‐‐1305 Tower Ave. Wemyss Building N/S Building Source: Wisconsin Historical Society Certification=N/S (National/State), E/O (Eligible/Owner Objection) Wisconsin Architecture and Heritage Inventory The official historic resource catalog for the State of Wisconsin is the Wisconsin Architecture and Heritage Inventory (AHI). The AHI is a search engine which contains a documentation of 120,000 properties in the State of Wisconsin. This database is maintained by the Wisconsin Historical Society, based in Madison, Wisconsin. It is important to note that the AHI is not a comprehensive listing of Wisconsin’s historic resources. It is likely that other historic properties and resources exist within Douglas County but have yet to be identified or published. Properties listed in the AHI are not given any special status or increased level of protection. Most of properties listed in the inventory are privately owned and are not open to the public. WHS advises users of AHI data to “Please respect the rights of private property owners when visiting any of these properties. “ Currently, there are 149 entries in the AHI database for towns in Douglas County (Table 5.24). ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐76 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.24: AHI, Douglas County Municipality Total Municipality Total T. Amnicon 7 T. Lakeside 5 T. Bennett 4 T. Maple 15 T. Brule 47 T. Parkland 4 T. Cloverland 7 T. Solon Springs 2 T. Dairyland 5 T. Summit 7 T. Gordon 8 T. Superior 18 T. Hawthorne 2 T. Wascott 5 T. Highland 12 T. Bennett 1 Source: Wisconsin Historical Society SCENIC RESOURCES The Douglas County Critical Resource Information Booklet identifies fifty (50) potentially critical scenic areas in Douglas County. Brule River Wisconsin Point Pattison Park Gordon Flowage Lake Superior shoreline Amnicon Falls Portage Trails Billings Park and Billings Drive Lower St. Croix River Ice buildup in the Wisconsin Point area St. Louis River Brule River valley Panoramic views of Lake Superior Mouth of the Brule River Lucius Woods State Park St. Croix River and St. Croix Lake Finnish Windmill View of Duluth Hills at night Superior waterfront, Connors Point Red River area Estuaries of Amnicon, Poplar and Middle Rivers Stream valleys that drain red clay basin Scenic value of the entire county View from Lake Superior to the shoreline Superior Forest area Barkers Island Superior High Bridge, Connors Point View of grain elevators, Tower Bay slip Eau Claire River and lake area Highway 13, Amnicon – Miller Creek area Douglas County Historical Museum Deer herds in winter Brule River Fish Hatchery Coolidge Memorial Drive Stockage Viewpoint, Bay side Dewey Foxboro Lake Nebagamon Minong Flowage Allouez waterfront view Douglas County Bird Sanctuary Commercial forest cropland (sand barrens) Bear Lake Park Lyman Lake Park Maple Hill area Well kept and maintained farms Riverview Drive Beebe Creek Bennett Firetower area Small, undeveloped lakes Itasca waterfront ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐77 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES VISION Conventional seed‐crop agriculture has never been a significant part of Douglas County’s economy. The region’s climate and marginal soils have been the primary factors limiting agricultural productivity. While environmental conditions may limit productivity for seed crops, these conditions are ideal for timber growth. Consequently, Douglas County is one of the leading timber producing counties in Wisconsin. Number of Farms As shown in Table 5.25, the number of farms in Douglas County has declined by nearly 80 percent since 1920, while total agricultural acreage declined by more than 50 percent. While the county has been losing agricultural lands, the average size of remaining farms increased by nearly 140 percent. This change is likely the result of the consolidation of smaller farms into larger units that can benefit from efficiencies of scale. At least some of the agricultural land loss can be directly attributable to increased rural development; much of this acreage has simply been idled and taken out of agricultural production. Data from the 2002 Census of Agriculture suggests that the trends in farm numbers may be reversing. According to the 2002 figures, there were 391 farms in 2002. By 2002, the total countywide agricultural acreage had increased to 84,858 acres. Table 5.25: Douglas County Farms, 1920‐2000 Year Number of Farms Farm Acreage Average Farm Size 1920 1,557 154,671 99.4 1930 1,922 169,961 88.4 1940 2,103 175,661 83.5 1950 1,533 188,210 122.8 1960 609 112,655 185.0 1970 347 79,147 228.1 1980 369 82,493 223.6 1990 340 83,000 244.0 2000 320 76,000 238.0 Sources: Douglas County Farmland Preservation Plan, NASS Statistics “By 2030, agriculture in Douglas County is thriving and is a well‐balanced part of the overall economy in partnership with sustainable forest management and strong protection policies for water, air and soil. Douglas County promotes: y A diverse array of agricultural products. y Zoning that protects productive agricultural land. y Forests managed according to best management practices. y Maintaining the current balance of forest, agricultural and recreational land.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐78 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Table 5.26: Trends in Farm4 Numbers, Douglas County Towns Estimated Farm Numbers Percent Change 90‐97 Estimated Farms Per Square Mile Dairy Farm Numbers Dairy Farms per Square Mile, 2002 Percent Change 89‐02 Town Name 1990 1997 1989 1997 2002 Amnicon 30 31 3.3% 0.8 5 2 1 0.0 ‐80.0% Bennett 10 13 30.0% 0.3 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% Brule 43 51 18.6% 0.9 1 1 1 0.0 0.0% Cloverland 46 52 13.0% 1.1 10 4 1 0.0 ‐90.0% Dairyland 16 25 56.3% 0.2 4 2 0 0.0 ‐100.0% Gordon 8 0 ‐100.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% Hawthorne 3 0 ‐100.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% Highland 2 1 ‐50.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% Lakeside 45 16 ‐64.4% 0.4 5 4 1 0.0 ‐80.0% Maple 14 9 ‐35.7% 0.3 7 5 4 0.1 ‐42.9% Oakland 25 26 4.0% 0.4 2 2 1 0.0 ‐50.0% Parkland 11 9 ‐18.2% 0.3 6 1 2 0.1 ‐66.7% Solon Springs 15 22 46.7% 0.3 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% Summit 37 19 ‐48.6% 0.1 1 0 0 0.0 ‐100.0% Superior 28 32 14.3% 0.3 4 6 2 0.0 ‐50.0% Wascott 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0% All Towns 333 306 ‐8.1% 0.2 45 27 13 0.01 ‐71.1% Source: Wisconsin Town Land Use Data Project: Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin‐Madison 4 Farm estimates were based on the published number of farms in 1990 reported for each county by the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS). (WASS defines farms as places where at least $1,000 worth of agricultural products were produced in a given year.) County totals were allocated to each town based on property tax information. The estimated number of farms in each town was calculated by multiplying the town’s proportion of county agricultural improvement parcels by the county farm total. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐79 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Douglas County Agricultural Crops and Commodities Table 5.27: Agricultural Crops and Commodities, 2002 Item Quantity State Rank MARKET VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD ($1,000) Total value of agricultural products sold 4,696 68 Value of crops including nursery and greenhouse 1,584 67 Value of livestock, poultry, and their products 3,111 65 VALUE OF SALES BY COMMODITY GROUP ($1,000) Grains, oilseeds, dry beans, and dry peas 15 70 Vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes 6 71 Fruits, tree nuts, and berries Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod Cut Christmas trees and short rotation woody crops 4 63 Other crops and hay 559 61 Poultry and eggs 4 67 Cattle and calves 1,447 64 Milk and other dairy products from cows 1,280 65 Hogs and pigs 15 63 Sheep, goats, and their products 51 44 Horses, ponies, mules, burros, and donkeys 109 46 Aquaculture 195 16 Other animals and other animal products 10 61 TOP LIVESTOCK INVENTORY ITEMS (number) Cattle and calves 7,502 64 Horses and ponies 803 52 Layers 20 weeks old and older 709 61 Sheep and lambs 662 46 Broilers and other meat‐type chickens 590 50 TOP CROP ITEMS (acres) Forage ‐ land used for all hay and haylage, grass silage, and greenchop 24,530 50 Corn for silage 482 66 Oats 217 67 All Berries 13 Nursery stock 23 Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service Note: Data not disclosed ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐80 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter In 2002, the total value of agricultural products sold in Douglas County was $4,696,000, which ranked 68th out of Wisconsin’s 72 counties. In terms of the value of products sold, livestock sales exceeded crop sales by a margin of nearly 2 to 1. The county ranked below the 25th percentile of all Wisconsin counties in all categories except berries and aquaculture. Douglas County’s notable ranking in berry‐ production stems from the county’s position as a prominent cranberry producer. Cranberries are Wisconsin’s leading fruit crop, both in terms of acreage and value. In 2002, the county ranked 16th out of 72 counties in value of sales related to aquaculture. This industry, which includes the commercial production of many fish and plant species, represents a small, but growing, sector of the state and national agricultural economies. The 2002 Census of Agriculture statistics for agricultural crops and commodities in Douglas County are depicted in Table 5.27. Prime Farmland Prime farmland is defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as “land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. The land must also be available for these uses (cropland, pastureland, forestland, or other land but not water or urban built‐up land).” Prime farmland has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. According to the NRCS, prime farmland generally: has an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, has a favorable temperature and growing season, has acceptable acidity or alkalinity, has few or no rocks, is permeable to air and water, is not excessively erodible, is not saturated with water for long periods of time, and does not flood frequently or is protected from flooding. Douglas County prime farmlands and farmlands of statewide importance are depicted in Map 5.17. Most of the prime agricultural land in Douglas County is located north of the escarpment on the Lake Superior clay plain. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐81 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Douglas County Forest Products Industry Forest Products Industry Output In 2003, the forest products and processing industry output was $53,000,000 (MIG, Inc. 2006), or 2.0% of the total county industrial output. Forest related industries employed 314 (MIG, Inc. 2006) people, and accounted for 1.6% of the total county employment. Douglas County Forest At over 262,000 acres in size, the Douglas County Forest is the largest County Forest in Wisconsin. County Forest lands are managed for multiple uses including production of timber, protection of wildlife and water resources and outdoor recreation. On the Douglas County Forest, large tracts of aspen are being managed for game species such as whitetail deer, ruffed grouse, and woodcock, as well as other associated upland non‐game species. Additionally, several scientific and research study areas have been established throughout Douglas County where unusual or rare resource features are being observed, studied, and protected. Timber harvesting operations on the Douglas County Forest generate over $2,000,000 in revenue each year. Local municipalities with County Forest land receive an annual severance payment based on County Forest stumpage revenues. Table 5.28 shows annual timber revenues from the Douglas County Forest for the 10‐ year period from 1997‐2007. The average annual revenue during this period was $2,037,282. Table 5.29 shows the severance payments issued to local municipalities in 2007. Table 5.28: Douglas County Forest Timber Sales Revenue, 1997 – 2007 Year Total Value of Harvested Timber Sales 1997 $1,278,641.57 1998 $1,318,894.11 1999 $1,845,187.23 2000 $1,755,691.33 2001 $1,861,928.22 2002 $1,639,645.94 2003 $1,913,230.31 2004 $2,711,105.82 2005 $2,906,078.70 2006 $2,862,304.14 2007 $2,317,398.30 TOTAL $22,410,105.67 Source: Douglas County Forestry Department, March 2008 Table 5.29: Douglas County Forest Severance Payments to Local Municipalities, 2007 Town Dollars Bennett $6,050.43 Brule $6,075.33 Dairyland $48,776.91 Gordon $4,7681.36 Hawthorne $5,378.16 Highland $2,664.18 V. Lake Nebagamon $771.87 Lakeside $24.90 Maple $3,187.06 Oakland $11,602.88 Solon Springs $13,370.70 Summit $59,483.43 Superior $6,025.53 Wascott $37,896.10 TOTAL $248,988.84 Source: Douglas County Forestry Department, March ---PAGE BREAK--- 5‐82 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Dependence on Agriculture Table 5.30 shows the number of individuals living and working on Douglas County farms in 2000. The data indicates that less than 3 percent of the county’s rural population resided on farms in 2000 and about 2 percent of the county’s employed adults worked on farms. Table 5.30: Dependence on Agriculture in 2000, Douglas County Population Living On Farms: Employed Adults Working on Farms: Town Name Population Number Percent Number Percent Amnicon 1,074 27 2.5% 14 2.8% Bennett 622 0 0.0% 10 3.4% Brule 591 0 0.0% 6 2.3% Cloverland 247 48 19.4% 4 3.8% Dairyland 186 12 6.5% 0 0.0% Gordon 645 8 1.2% 8 3.7% Hawthorne 1,045 20 1.9% 5 1.1% Highland 245 9 3.7% 2 2.4% Lakeside 609 37 6.1% 10 3.6% Maple 649 29 4.5% 10 3.4% Oakland 1,144 16 1.4% 13 2.2% Parkland 1,240 22 1.8% 8 1.3% Solon Springs 807 20 2.5% 8 2.1% Summit 1,042 22 2.1% 6 1.1% Superior 2,058 37 1.8% 16 1.5% Wascott 714 0 0.0% 2 0.7% Total 12,918 307 2.4% 122 2.0% Source: Wisconsin Town Land Use Data Project: Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin‐Madison ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-81 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Douglas County Forest Products Industry Forest Products Industry Output In 2003, the forest products and processing industry output was $53,000,000 (MIG, Inc. 2006), or 2.0% of the total county industrial output. Forest related industries employed 314 (MIG, Inc. 2006) people, and accounted for 1.6% of the total county employment. Douglas County Forest At over 262,000 acres in size, the Douglas County Forest is the largest County Forest in Wisconsin. County Forest lands are managed for multiple uses including production of timber, protection of wildlife and water resources and outdoor recreation. On the Douglas County Forest, large tracts of aspen are being managed for game species such as whitetail deer, ruffed grouse, and woodcock, as well as other associated upland non-game species. Additionally, several scientific and research study areas have been established throughout Douglas County where unusual or rare resource features are being observed, studied, and protected. Timber harvesting operations on the Douglas County Forest generate over $2,000,000 in revenue each year. Local municipalities with County Forest land receive an annual severance payment based on County Forest stumpage revenues. Table 5.28 shows annual timber revenues from the Douglas County Forest for the 10- year period from 1997-2007. The average annual revenue during this period was $2,037,282. Table 5.29 shows the severance payments issued to local municipalities in 2007. Table 5.28: Douglas County Forest Timber Sales Revenue, 1997 – 2007 Year Total Value of Harvested Timber Sales 1997 $1,278,641.57 1998 $1,318,894.11 1999 $1,845,187.23 2000 $1,755,691.33 2001 $1,861,928.22 2002 $1,639,645.94 2003 $1,913,230.31 2004 $2,711,105.82 2005 $2,906,078.70 2006 $2,862,304.14 2007 $2,317,398.30 TOTAL $22,410,105.67 Source: Douglas County Forestry Department, March 2008 Table 5.29: Douglas County Forest Severance Payments to Local Municipalities, 2007 Town Dollars Bennett $6,050.43 Brule $6,075.33 Dairyland $48,776.91 Gordon $4,7681.36 Hawthorne $5,378.16 Highland $2,664.18 V. Lake Nebagamon $771.87 Lakeside $24.90 Maple $3,187.06 Oakland $11,602.88 Solon Springs $13,370.70 Summit $59,483.43 Superior $6,025.53 Wascott $37,896.10 TOTAL $248,988.84 Source: Douglas County Forestry Department, March ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-82 Natural, Cultural & Agricultural Resources Chapter Dependence on Agriculture Table 5.30 shows the number of individuals living and working on Douglas County farms in 2000. The data indicates that less than 3 percent of the county’s rural population resided on farms in 2000 and about 2 percent of the county’s employed adults worked on farms. Table 5.30: Dependence on Agriculture in 2000, Douglas County Population Living On Farms: Employed Adults Working on Farms: Town Name Population Number Percent Number Percent Amnicon 1,074 27 2.5% 14 2.8% Bennett 622 0 0.0% 10 3.4% Brule 591 0 0.0% 6 2.3% Cloverland 247 48 19.4% 4 3.8% Dairyland 186 12 6.5% 0 0.0% Gordon 645 8 1.2% 8 3.7% Hawthorne 1,045 20 1.9% 5 1.1% Highland 245 9 3.7% 2 2.4% Lakeside 609 37 6.1% 10 3.6% Maple 649 29 4.5% 10 3.4% Oakland 1,144 16 1.4% 13 2.2% Parkland 1,240 22 1.8% 8 1.3% Solon Springs 807 20 2.5% 8 2.1% Summit 1,042 22 2.1% 6 1.1% Superior 2,058 37 1.8% 16 1.5% Wascott 714 0 0.0% 2 0.7% Total 12,918 307 2.4% 122 2.0% Source: Wisconsin Town Land Use Data Project: Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison ---PAGE BREAK--- kh 535 IJ 53 IJ 2 35 27 13 23 105 KJ V KJ E KJ O KJ C KJ A KJ L KJ B KJ D KJ UU KJ S KJ BB KJ Z KJ FF KJ Y KJ W KJ AA KJ H KJ K KJ F KJ M KJ U KJ G KJ P KJ T Douglas County Map 5.1 Topography 0 5 10 15 20 2.5 Miles ´ Contours 100 ft 50 ft Elevation (ft) High : 1363.01 Low : 599.772 kh High Point (Summit Hill) ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 535 IJ 53 IJ 2 35 27 13 23 105 KJ V KJ E KJ O KJ C KJ A KJ L KJ B KJ D KJ UU KJ S KJ BB KJ Z KJ FF KJ Y KJ W KJ AA KJ H KJ K KJ F KJ M KJ U KJ G KJ P KJ T Douglas County Map 5.2 Slope 0 10 20 5 Miles Slope 0% - 15% 15% - 20% 20.01% - 25% 25.01% - 30% 30.01% - 112.72% ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Surface Texture Channery silt loam Silt loam Clay loam Sandy loam Fine sandy loam Very fine sandy loam Silty clay loam Mucky silt loam Sand Loamy sand Loamy fine sand Loamy very fine sand Cobbly loamy sand Muck Mucky peat Cobbly mucky peat Peat Stony muck Highly decomposed plant material Moderately decomposed plant material decomposed plant material Soil texture data was derived from the NRCS SSURGO soil database.Soil texture refers to the relative proportion of sand, silt and clay size particles in a sample of soil. Soil scientists group soil textures into soil texture classes. A soil texture triangle is used to classify the texture class. Douglas County Map 5.3 Soil Surface Texture 0 10 20 5 Miles ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 5.4 Soil Limitations For Dwellings 0 10 20 5 Miles Soil Limitations for Dwellings with Basements Not Rated Not limited Somewhat limited Very limited ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 5.5 Hydric Soils 0 7.5 15 3.75 Miles Hydric Soils All hydric Partially hydric Water features City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior Douglas County Map 5.6 Land Cover 0 10 20 5 Miles Land Cover Background Bare Land Cultivated Crops Deciduous Forest Developed, High Intensity Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity Developed, Open Space Estuarine Emergent Wetland Estuarine Forested Wetland Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Evergreen Forest Grassland/Herbaceous Mixed Forest Open Water Palustrine Emergent Wetland Palustrine Forested Wetland Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland Pasture/Hay Scrub/Shrub Unclassified Unconsolidated Shore ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- XY XY City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior KJ Y KJ A KJ C KJ Z KJ N KJ B KJ A KJ W KJ P KJ S KJ H KJ D KJ U KJ E KJ E KJ K KJ BB KJ L KJ V KJ F KJ T KJ B KJ E KJ Y KJ G KJ T KJ M KJ P KJ UU KJ B KJ FF KJ C KJ A KJ O KJ B 35 13 105 35 23 27 535 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 2 IJ 53 IJ 53 IJ 53 De d h a m R d Lackson Rd 28th St N East Mail R d 5th St E Colby Rd Tuff Rd Bas s L a k e Rd Cemet ery Rd Jack s o n B o x T r l Bayfield R d Doetsch Ln Jackson Rd Lake B l vd S Tom Green Rd Cheney Lake Rd Engstad Rd Clevedon Rd Muck Lake Rd F lowag e Ln 58th St N TN R D F Sum m it Trl D eer Tr a ck Rd T ri L akes R d R e d L a ke Dr B u ck l ey I s l a n d R d TN RD TT N Town Ln Kingsdale Rd Moose Rd Bennett R d For est r y R d B r u l e Ri v e r Rd Becks R d Leusman Rd Big Balsa m R d Ibs e n R d North R d Pioneer Trl Neuman Rd Peterson Rd Ferguso n Rd G e r m a nn Rd Milches ky R d San d R d Commiskey Rd W o o d Rd L ucas Rd Flat L a ke Rd Roos Rd Old 11 Rd L o st Rd So u th M ail R d Si mms L a k e Rd G re g e r s o n R d Sun s e t Dr Jack Pine Dr Ross Rd Swedish Highway Darrow Rd Bur m a R d Moore Rd W M a i l Dr Stucke y R d Afterhou r s R d C hee v e r R d Bakken Rd Flaman g R d Rocky B r o o k T rl Schaefer Rd Kre e l R d N Fire Ln Douglas County Map 5.7 Natural Heritage Inventory 0 10 20 5 Miles Natural Heritage Inventory Beetle Bird Butterfly Caddisfly Community Dragonfly Fish Mammal Other Plant Snail Stonefly Turtle Water Features Lakes Perennial River/Stream Intermittent Stream ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior KJ F KJ FF KJ Y KJ V KJ S KJ UU KJ B KJ D KJ C KJ O KJ T KJ A KJ L KJ E KJ P KJ Z KJ G KJ U KJ K KJ M KJ H KJ BB KJ W 105 35 23 13 27 IJ 53 IJ 2 535 NJ BB ER NB EB MU CA HW LG SX ST WI WL UT Douglas County Map 5.8 Legacy Places 0 10 20 5 Miles Abbreviation Name Abbreviation Name ST St. Louis Estuary and Pokegema Wetlands MU Manitou Falls - Black River WI Wisconsin Point UT Upper Tamarack and Spruce Rivers NJ Nemadji River and Wetlands CA Chase Creek MD Middle River Contact HW Highway 2 Grasslands BB Bois Brule River LG Lower Totagatic River ER Eau Claire River SX St. Croix River NB Namekagon-Brule Barrens WL Western Lake Superior Drowned River Mouths EB Empire and Belden Swamps ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Ellison Lake Lake Minnesuing Gander Lake Pine Lake Flat Lake Lund Lake Mud Lake Upper Ox Lake Lower Eau Claire Lake Simms Lake Steele Lake Rush Lake Muck Lake Loon Lake Sand Lake Murray Lake High Life Lake Black Fox Lake Rock Lake Long Lake Dowling Lake Scout Lake Lyman Lake Smith Lake Cheney Lake Lake of the Woods Twin Lakes Long Lake Amnicon Lake Mud Lake Bear Lake Saint Croix Flowage Webb Lake Scott Lake Spider Lake Pocket Lake Bardon Lake One Mile Lake Round Lake Thorn Lake Goose Lake Haugen Lake Two Mile Lake Bass Lake Clear Lake Kreide Lake Mulligan Lake Leader Lake Cranberry Lake Person Lake Lake Bond Lake Lower Chain Lake Sullivan Lake Red Lake Loon Lake Clyde Lake Minong Flowage Crott Lake Deer Lake Loon Lake Radigan Flowage Upper Saint Croix Lake Lake Nebagamon Black Lake S p r uce R i v e r B a r d on C r eek A m n i con R i v e r Bois Brule River Poplar River Bluff Creek Dutchman Creek Black River Nemadji River Red River St. L ou i s R i ver Pokegema River South Fork Nemadji River Black River Upper Tamarack River Saint Croix River Moose River Saint Croix River Lower Ox Creek Eau Claire River Tot a gat ic R iver Minnesuing Creek Nebagamon Creek Middle River T h o m pson C r e ek W i l s on C r e ek B e r g en C r eek P o k e g ama R i v e r B u c k ley C r e ek C o p per C r eek C r a n b erry C r e ek B a l s am C r e ek H a n s on C r e ek Mud C r e ek H a n sen C r e ek P o plar R i v er B e ar C r e ek M i l l er C r e ek E m p ire C r e ek Rock C r e ek M ud C r e ek S n a ke C r e ek A m n i con R i v er J e r s eth C r e ek B o i s B r u le R i v er Morrison Creek Stony Brook Clear Creek Little Pokegema River Bear Creek Little Balsam Creek Spruce River East Branch Hay Creek Boyles Brook Chases Brook Dingle Creek Rock Creek Beaver Creek Cr o tte Cr eek Arn old Cr eek Buckety Creek Carlson Creek Lord Creek Leo Creek She osh Cr eek Upper Ox Creek Ounce River O'Hara Creek Beebe Creek Catlin Creek Porcupine Creek La k e Cr e ek Bardon Creek Pearson Creek Haukkala Creek Nelson Creek Trask Creek And erso n C reek Smith Creek Fisher Creek Blueberry Creek Neb a gam on C reek Casey Creek Rocky Run Sandy Run Per civ a l C r eek Haymaker Creek Toad Creek Bear Creek Ericson Creek East Fork Moose River Mo ose Ri ver Park Creek Middle River Kaspar Creek Little Amn icon River Sil v er Cr e ek Crawford Creek Ro ck y R un Mi l ler Cr eek Wagner Creek City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior Douglas County Map 5.9 Water Resources 0 10 20 5 Miles Water Features Lakes Perennial River/Stream Intermittent Stream Wetlands Emergent Filled Forested Scrub/Shrub Water ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Lower Namekagon River LAKE SUPERIOR BASIN MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN Iron River Totagatic River Bois Brule River Amnicon and Middle Rivers Upper Saint Croix and Eau Claire Rivers Upper Tamarack River Saint Croix and Eau Claire Rivers Saint Louis and Lower Nemadji River Black and Upper Nemadji River Douglas County Map 5.10 Watersheds 0 10 20 5 Miles Lake Superior Subwatersheds Amnicon and Middle Rivers Black and Upper Nemadji River Bois Brule River Iron River Lower Namekagon River Saint Croix and Eau Claire Rivers Saint Louis and Lower Nemadji River Totagatic River Upper Saint Croix and Eau Claire Rivers Upper Tamarack River ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Ellison Lake Lake Minnesuing Gander Lake Pine Lake Flat Lake Lund Lake Mud Lake Upper Ox Lake Lower Eau Claire Lake Simms Lake Steele Lake Rush Lake Muck Lake Loon Lake Sand Lake Murray Lake High Life Lake Black Fox Lake Rock Lake Long Lake Dowling Lake Scout Lake Lyman Lake Smith Lake Cheney Lake Lake of the Woods Twin Lakes Long Lake Amnicon Lake Mud Lake Bear Lake Saint Croix Flowage Webb Lake Scott Lake Spider Lake Pocket Lake Bardon Lake One Mile Lake Round Lake Thorn Lake Goose Lake Haugen Lake Two Mile Lake Bass Lake Clear Lake Kreide Lake Mulligan Lake Leader Lake Cranberry Lake Person Lake Lake Bond Lake Lower Chain Lake Sullivan Lake Red Lake Loon Lake Clyde Lake Minong Flowage Crott Lake Deer Lake Loon Lake Radigan Flowage Upper Saint Croix Lake Lake Nebagamon Black Lake S p r uce R i v e r B a r d on C r eek A m n i con R i v e r Bois Brule River Poplar River Bluff Creek Dutchman Creek Black River Nemadji River Red River St. L ou i s R i ver Pokegema River South Fork Nemadji River Black River Upper Tamarack River Saint Croix River Moose River Saint Croix River Lower Ox Creek Eau Claire River Tot a gat ic R iver Minnesuing Creek Nebagamon Creek Middle River T h o m pson C r e ek W i l s on C r e ek B e r g en C r eek P o k e g ama R i v e r B u c k ley C r e ek C o p per C r eek C r a n b erry C r e ek B a l s am C r e ek H a n s on C r e ek Mud C r e ek H a n sen C r e ek P o plar R i v er B e ar C r e ek M i l l er C r e ek E m p ire C r e ek Rock C r e ek M ud C r e ek S n a ke C r e ek A m n i con R i v er J e r s eth C r e ek B o i s B r u le R i v er Morrison Creek Stony Brook Clear Creek Little Pokegema River Bear Creek Little Balsam Creek Spruce River East Branch Hay Creek Boyles Brook Chases Brook Dingle Creek Rock Creek Beaver Creek Cr o tte Cr eek Arn old Cr eek Buckety Creek Carlson Creek Lord Creek Leo Creek She osh Cr eek Upper Ox Creek Ounce River O'Hara Creek Beebe Creek Catlin Creek Porcupine Creek La k e Cr e ek Bardon Creek Pearson Creek Haukkala Creek Nelson Creek Trask Creek And erso n C reek Smith Creek Fisher Creek Blueberry Creek Neb a gam on C reek Casey Creek Rocky Run Sandy Run Per civ a l C r eek Haymaker Creek Toad Creek Bear Creek Ericson Creek East Fork Moose River Mo ose Ri ver Park Creek Middle River Kaspar Creek Little Amn icon River Sil v er Cr e ek Crawford Creek Ro ck y R un Mi l ler Cr eek Wagner Creek City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior Douglas County Map 5.11 Outstanding and Exceptional Water Resources 0 10 20 5 Miles Water Features Lakes Perennial River/Stream Intermittent Stream Exceptional Outstanding ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- T h o m pson C r e ek W i l s on C r e ek B e r g en C r eek P o k e g ama R i v e r B u c k ley C r e ek C o p per C r eek C r a n b erry C r e ek B a l s am C r e ek H a n s on C r e ek Mud C r e ek H a n sen C r e ek P o plar R i v er B e ar C r e ek M i l l er C r e ek E m p ire C r e ek Rock C r e ek M ud C r e ek S n a ke C r e ek A m n i con R i v er J e r s eth C r e ek B o i s B r u le R i v er Morrison Creek Stony Brook Clear Creek Little Pokegema River Bear Creek Little Balsam Creek Spruce River East Branch Hay Creek Boyles Brook Chases Brook Dingle Creek Rock Creek Beaver Creek Cr o tte Cr eek Arn old Cr eek Buckety Creek Carlson Creek Lord Creek Leo Creek She osh Cr eek Upper Ox Creek Ounce River O'Hara Creek Beebe Creek Catlin Creek Porcupine Creek La k e Cr e ek Bardon Creek Pearson Creek Haukkala Creek Nelson Creek Trask Creek And erso n C reek Smith Creek Fisher Creek Blueberry Creek Neb a gam on C reek Casey Creek Rocky Run Sandy Run Per civ a l C r eek Haymaker Creek Toad Creek Bear Creek Ericson Creek East Fork Moose River Mo ose Ri ver Park Creek Middle River Kaspar Creek Little Amn icon River Sil v er Cr e ek Crawford Creek Ro ck y R un Mi l ler Cr eek Wagner Creek S p r uce R i v e r B a r d on C r eek A m n i con R i v e r Bois Brule River Poplar River Bluff Creek Dutchman Creek Black River Nemadji River Red River St. L ou i s R i ver Pokegema River South Fork Nemadji River Black River Upper Tamarack River Saint Croix River Moose River Saint Croix River Lower Ox Creek Eau Claire River Tot a gat ic R iver Minnesuing Creek Nebagamon Creek Middle River Ellison Lake Lake Minnesuing Gander Lake Pine Lake Flat Lake Lund Lake Mud Lake Upper Ox Lake Lower Eau Claire Lake Simms Lake Steele Lake Rush Lake Muck Lake Loon Lake Sand Lake Murray Lake High Life Lake Black Fox Lake Rock Lake Long Lake Dowling Lake Scout Lake Lyman Lake Smith Lake Cheney Lake Lake of the Woods Twin Lakes Long Lake Amnicon Lake Mud Lake Bear Lake Saint Croix Flowage Webb Lake Scott Lake Spider Lake Pocket Lake Bardon Lake One Mile Lake Round Lake Thorn Lake Goose Lake Haugen Lake Two Mile Lake Bass Lake Clear Lake Kreide Lake Mulligan Lake Leader Lake Cranberry Lake Person Lake Lake Bond Lake Lower Chain Lake Sullivan Lake Red Lake Loon Lake Clyde Lake Minong Flowage Crott Lake Deer Lake Loon Lake Radigan Flowage Upper Saint Croix Lake Lake Nebagamon Black Lake Douglas County Map 5.12 Trout Streams 0 10 20 5 Miles Trout Streams Class 1 2 3 Water Features Lakes Rivers/Streams Perennial Intermittent ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 5.13 Wetlands 0 10 20 5 Miles Wetlands Emergent Filled Forested Scrub/Shrub Water ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 5.14 Priority Wetlands 0 10 20 5 Miles PriorityWetlands PriorityWetlands Perennial River/Stream Intermittent Stream Lake T h o m pson C r e ek W i l s on C r e ek B e r g en C r eek P o k e g ama R i v e r B u c k ley C r e ek C o p per C r eek C r a n b erry C r e ek B a l s am C r e ek H a n s on C r e ek Mud C r e ek H a n sen C r e ek P o plar R i v er B e ar C r e ek M i l l er C r e ek E m p ire C r e ek Rock C r e ek M ud C r e ek S n a ke C r e ek A m n i con R i v er J e r s eth C r e ek B o i s B ru le R i v er Morrison Creek Stony Brook Clear Creek Little Pokegema River Bear Creek Little Balsam Creek Spruce River East Branch Hay Creek Boyles Brook Chases Brook Dingle Creek Rock Creek Beaver Creek Cr o tte Cr eek Arn old Cr eek Buckety Creek Carlson Creek Lord Creek Leo Creek She osh Cr eek Upper Ox Creek Ounce River O'Hara Creek Beebe Creek Catlin Creek Porcupine Creek La k e Cr e ek Bardon Creek Pearson Creek Haukkala Creek Nelson Creek Trask Creek And erso n C reek Smith Creek Fisher Creek Blueberry Creek Neb a gam on C reek Casey Creek Rocky Run Sandy Run Per c iva l C r eek Haymaker Creek Toad Creek Bear Creek Ericson Creek East Fork Moose River Mo ose Ri ver Park Creek Middle River Kaspar Creek Little Amn icon River Sil v er Cr e ek Crawford Creek Ro ck y R un Mi l ler Cr eek Wagner Creek S p r uce R i v e r B a r d on C r eek A m n i con R i v e r Bois Brule River Poplar River Bluff Creek Dutchman Creek Black River Nemadji River Red River St. L ou i s R i ver Pokegema River South Fork Nemadji River Black River Upper Tamarack River Saint Croix River Moose River Saint Croix River Lower Ox Creek Eau Claire River Tot a gat ic R iver Minnesuing Creek Nebagamon Creek Middle River Ellison Lake Lake Minnesuing Gander Lake Pine Lake Flat Lake Lund Lake Mud Lake Upper Ox Lake Lower Eau Claire Lake Simms Lake Steele Lake Rush Lake Muck Lake Loon Lake Sand Lake Murray Lake High Life Lake Black Fox Lake Rock Lake Long Lake Dowling Lake Scout Lake Lyman Lake Smith Lake Cheney Lake Lake of the Woods Twin Lakes Long Lake Amnicon Lake Mud Lake Bear Lake Saint Croix Flowage Webb Lake Scott Lake Spider Lake Pocket Lake Bardon Lake One Mile Lake Round Lake Thorn Lake Goose Lake Haugen Lake Two Mile Lake Bass Lake Clear Lake Kreide Lake Mulligan Lake Leader Lake Cranberry Lake Person Lake Lake Bond Lake Lower Chain Lake Sullivan Lake Red Lake Loon Lake Clyde Lake Minong Flowage Crott Lake Deer Lake Loon Lake Radigan Flowage Upper Saint Croix Lake Lake Nebagamon Black Lake KJ F KJ FF KJ Y KJ V KJ S KJ UU KJ E KJ B KJ D KJ C KJ O KJ T KJ A KJ U KJ L KJ P KJ Z KJ G KJ AA KJ K KJ M KJ H KJ BB KJ W 105 35 23 13 27 IJ 53 IJ 2 535 Mud Lake Bog/Ericson Creek Superior Municipal Forest South Superior Triangle Nemadji River Marshes Wisconsin Point-Allouex Bay Marshes Divide Swamp Black Lake Bog Belden Swamp Brule Spillway Priority wetlands are sites which contain the best examples of wetlands and aquatic features found in both coastal and interior portions of the Lake Superior Basin. These designations are based on rankings of the communities and rare species found at these sites and the landscape context and representation. Priority wetland sites were identified by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as part of a larger project to inventory habitats within the Lake Superior Baisin that are most critical to protect and restore. ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Village of Superior Village of Solon Springs Village of Poplar Village of Oliver Village of Lake Nebagamon Town of Wascott Town of Superior Town of Summit Town of Solon Springs Town of Parkland Town of Oakland Town of Maple Town of Lakeside Town of Highland Town of Hawthorne Town of Gordon Town of Dairyland Town of Cloverland Town of Brule Town of Bennett Town of Amnicon City of Superior Douglas County Map 5.15 Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility 0 10 20 5 Miles Groundwater Contamination Susceptibility High High - Medium Low Medium - Low ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 5.16 Aquatic Invasive Species 0 10 20 5 Miles 535 IJ 53 IJ 2 35 27 13 23 105 KJ V KJ E KJ O KJ C KJ A KJ L KJ B KJ D KJ UU KJ S KJ BB KJ Z KJ FF KJ Y KJ W KJ AA KJ H KJ K KJ F KJ M KJ U KJ G KJ P KJ T Aquatic Invasive Species Banded mysterysnail Bell's honeysuckle Chinese mysterysnail Eurasian watermilfoil Galerucella beetles New Zealand mud snail Alewife Bishop's goutweed Bull thistle Curly leaf pondweed Fresh water jellyfish Purple loosestrife Quagga mussel Rainbow smelt Round goby Ruffe Spiny water flea Spotted knapweed Threespine stickleback Yellow iris Zebra Mussel ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Map 5.17 Prime Farmland 0 10 20 5 Miles Prime Farmland All areas are prime farmland Farmland of statewide importance Prime farmland if drained ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐1 Economic Development Chapter INTRODUCTION Douglas County’s economy differs considerably from many of its surrounding counties in Wisconsin, primarily due to inclusion of the City of Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Apart from this difference, the remainder of the county relies heavily on natural resources related to the leisure and hospitality industry. The county’s many lakes and woodlands sustain tourism, and at the same time the county sustains the region’s largest manufacturing base, two of the main stays of the local economy. Several factors or characteristics of the labor force and the economic base of the county play a major role in its economic development and will be discussed in this element. In addition, the and weaknesses of the county with respect to attracting and retaining businesses will be explored along with an inventory of the top 20 existing businesses. Finally, state, federal, county, and regional economic development programs and organizations will be identified that apply to Douglas County. ECONOMIC DEVEOPMENT VISION “In 2030, Douglas County has wisely developed business and industrial areas providing employment and increased retention of local workforce. In doing this, Douglas County has elicited the cooperation of strong business leaders and utility providers to implement affordable infrastructure to attract new businesses, reinvigorate existing businesses and redevelop blighted business areas to new.” ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐2 LABOR FORCE The labor force is that portion of the population 16 years or older that is employed or unemployed but actively looking for a job. Table 6.1 provides an overview of some of the key characteristics of the population and labor force in Douglas County and Wisconsin. Table 6.1: General Characteristics of the Population CHARACTERISTICS City of Superior Douglas County Wisconsin Labor Force, 2007 14,114 23,157 3,086,243 Employed, 2007 13,401 21,773 2.930,869 Unemployed, 2007 714 1,384 155,374 Unemployment Rate, 2007 5.1% 6.0% 5.0% Labor Participation Rate, 2007 52.0% 52.4% 54.7% Education Beyond High School (25 or older), 2006 NA 38.9% 50.6% Bachelor's Degree or Higher (25 or older), 2006 NA 18.8% 22.4% Per Capita Personal Income, 2005 $30,092 $25,813 $33,278 Median Household Income, 2006 $31,921 $39,524 $46,142 Average Annual Wage, 2006 NA $29,442 $32,422 Poverty Rate, 2004 13.4% 9.9% 10.9% Population Change (from 4/2000 to 7/2003) ‐0.6% 1.8% 3.6% Median Age, 2006 NA 38.2 36.0 Sources: 2000 Census SF 3, WI Department of Workforce Development Douglas County’s population over the age of 60 is a much larger share of the total than the state or the nation. This is reflected in the county’s median age (38.2), which is substantially higher than the state (36.0) or the national (35.3) median age. Economic Development Chapter The labor force participation rate is the number of residents who are either working or looking for work divided by the total non‐institutional population over 16 years of age. The Douglas County labor force participation rate (67.8%) is considerably lower than the Wisconsin rate The lower participation rates in Douglas County could reflect jobs that require more physical labor; residents who move to the county to retire – not work; or, part time jobs with hours and pay rates that do not entice older workers. Labor force participation rates are highest for the middle age groups and lowest for the older age groups. This is typical. However, by 2020 the number of Douglas County residents over 55 years old in the labor force will increase from 30 percent to over 40 percent. This is usually the age when participation in the labor force wanes. Unemployment rates are on the rise in the county and the state, initially beginning with the loss of railway and nursing home closures/layoffs; and, punctuated in 2003 due to a loss in manufacturing and telemarketing job worker layoffs. Nearly half of all the job loss in 2003 in Douglas County was caused by the decline in production jobs, with industrial equipment manufacturers being the hardest hit. High unemployment rates in Douglas County are also caused by the numerous seasonal and part‐time jobs, many of which are for laborers and entry‐level positions. Although Wisconsin had a higher majority (71.2%) of high school students that pursued some form of post secondary education after graduation in 2005‐2006 compared to a ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐3 Economic Development Chapter national estimate (60%)1, it lags behind the nation in its ability to retain those students following completion of their degree program. The national average is 71.3 percent compared to Wisconsin’s 61.6 percent.2 Douglas County, like the state, suffers from this college out‐ migration commonly referred to as “Brain Drain.” About 22 percent of residents age 25 ‐ 34 have at least a bachelor’s degree, then falls to 16 percent for the 35 – 44 age group.3 Given the large manufacturing presence in the state, vocational/technical programs have high participation rates in these areas.4 It is most likely that the composition of the industry base and the lack of professional jobs in the county contribute to this lower number. There are 14 K‐12 public schools and two post‐secondary institutions. Per capita, median household income and average annual income in Douglas County all are well below corresponding state (approximately the 25th percentile) and national figures. There are several reasons for the low wages that are endemic in the county. Nearly half of all employment in the county is in the trade or services industry division, which consists of many seasonal and part time jobs; therefore, the people in these jobs do not work the standard number of hours in a year, which reduces the average annual wage. In addition to being part time and seasonal, many of these jobs are in trades where hourly wages are low. Furthermore, because of the seasonality of many jobs related to tourism and forestry, there is more turnover and every time someone starts a new job, they generally start at the lowest wage. One more contributing factor to the low wages is that many of the jobs in the county are for laborers and entry‐level 1 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction 2 Indiana’s Human Capital Retention Project. Graduate Migration from Indiana’s Postsecondary Institutions. Bloomington, IN. Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. March 1999 3 US Dept. of Commerce, Census 2000, Summary file 4, QT‐P20 4 Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. Mortarboards, Paychecks, and Balls: The Link Between Education and Wisconsin’s Labor Force. October 2002 positions, which often translates to lower wages. A further discouraging projection is that general merchandise stores are expected to create the largest number of jobs over the next 5 years, with average annual wages of $16,860.5 It is noted that incomes are higher in the City of Superior. This is likely influenced by the fact that the two largest employers are the School District of Superior and the University of Wisconsin – Superior. ECONOMIC BASE Douglas County is a rural county with only one city that has a population greater than 2,500, the City of Superior. It has one of the major Wisconsin north‐south freeways, U.S. Highway 53, running through the middle of the county and another major highway, U.S. Highway 2, running from the northwest corner to the northeast corner. Thus, a great proportion of the local economic activity occurs near the cities and towns that are located along this highway system. 5 2007 Douglas County Workforce Profile; Wisconsin – DWD/Office of Economic Advisors ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐4 Economic Development Chapter Employment by Industry Based on data from the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Douglas County was home to an average of 3,090 businesses with 14,035 jobs in 2006. Table 6.2 lists Douglas County’s top ten businesses by industry sector using the new North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Jobs that are exempt or otherwise not covered by unemployment insurance are not included in the Covered Employment and Wages tabulations. 6 Total employed non‐farm civilian labor force, n=14,035 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nonemployers are businesses with no paid employees but are subject to federal income tax. These nonemployers are typically self‐ employed individuals or partnerships that they have chosen not to incorporate. In 2005, there were 2,350 nonemployer establishments in Douglas County of which 1,099 were non‐farm. This means that 53.2 percent of employment in Douglas County is related to farming or small home businesses. Deeper insight can be gained through an examination of Douglas County NAICS sectors by examining employment hiring and wage demographics. Table 6.3 uses an industry focus of Douglas County’s ranked top public and private non‐farm industries. Table 6.2: 2006 Top Ten Non‐Farm Industry Groups in Douglas County (Employed labor force)6 Industry Sector Number of Businesses Average Employees % Of Total Employment All Industries 3,090 14,035 64.5% Educational Services 7 1,755 12.5% Food services & Drinking Places 126 1,601 11.4% Truck Transportation 27 1,325 9.4% Executive, Legislative & Gen. Gov’t 24 1,019 7.3% Retail Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 23 713 5.1% Administrative and Support Services 23 676 4.8% Ambulatory Health Care Services 36 633 4.5% Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 10 608 4.3% Professional & Business Services 40 600 4.3% Rail Transportation Food and Beverage Stores 23 483 3.4% Data suppressed to maintain confidentiality Sources: WI Department of Workforce Development, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; DOC – Census Bureau ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐5 Economic Development Chapter Table 6.3: 2006 Ranked NAICS Douglas County Industries (Public & Private Non‐Farm) Rank Industry (All NAICS Sectors) Avg. Total Employment New Job Growth * Total Hiring Growth** Average Annual Wage 1 Retail Trade 2,465 7.5% 10.0% $22,500 2 Accommodation & food Services 2,013 2.2% ‐21.6% $10,128 3 Educational Services 1,864 2.2% NA $32,352 4 Health Care and Social Assistance 1,743 2.9% 7.8% $33,744 5 Transportation and Warehousing 1,521 18.6% 26.2% $43,560 6 Manufacturing 1,194 1.4% ‐46.4% $48,048 7 Wholesale Trade 907 12.1% 2.4% $49,020 8 Construction 936 45.1% 46.4% $55,272 9 Public Administration 889 ‐1.6% NA $40,296 10 Other Services (not incl. Public Administration) 684 5.2% 23.0% $24,000 11 Administrative/t/Waste Mgmt/ & Remediation 446 28.4% ‐47.1% $23,028 12 Finance and Insurance 385 ‐0.8% ‐72.7% $37,884 13 Professional/Scientific/ & Technical Services 299 8.0% 76.9% $52,212 14 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 202 43.3% NA $24,036 15 Real estate and Rental and Leasing 139 ‐3.5% 73.6% $29,208 16 Utilities 131 2.3% NA $53,100 17 Information 114 ‐7.3% NA $37,248 18 Management of Companies & Enterprises 89 ‐6.3% NA $35,136 19 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 35 ‐25.5% NA $28,848 Total All Sectors 16,056*** 7.1% 5.4% $35,770 * Net 2006 Q1 thru Q4 expressed as a percentage Total hiring within the industry – it is the total of new created jobs and hires to fill existing positions Avg. Total Employment is higher here than in Table XX due to the inclusion of public sector employment [Source: Wisconsin of Workforce Development – Office of Economic Advisors, QWI Quickfacts One of the first items noted in Table 6.3 are the negative values found under New Job Growth and Total Hiring Growth. New job growth reflects the creation of new jobs that never existed previously; therefore, a negative figure in that column indicates that a particular industry sector is shrinking. The Total Hiring Growth column reveals some interesting traits about an industry sector. A high positive value in this column indicates industries with high turnover rates. High negative values are indicative of employers that are reducing their workforce through attrition by not filling existing positions when an individual leaves. In the Manufacturing sector, there is wide diversity with many different types of manufacturers. It is noteworthy that Table 6.3 indicates there is marginal new growth in the Manufacturing sector of 1.4%; yet, Total Hiring Growth is –46.4%. This tends to indicate that large established manufacturers are reducing their workforce, while newer small‐scale ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐6 Economic Development Chapter manufacturing is producing sufficient growth to trigger positive growth. Negative values in either column should indicate that there are dynamics in that sector that should be examined closely. The –72.7% figure in the Finance and Insurance sector is acute, and there may be several reasons that contribute to the downturn. The Other Services category includes businesses such as: repair and maintenance, funeral homes, barber and beauty shops, and religious organizations. Included in the Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting sector for Douglas County are agriculture crop producers, and forestry and logging businesses. As shown in Table 6.3, the largest number of jobs in the county is in the Retail Trade and Accommodations and Food Services industry sector. One explanation for this is the fact that the Duluth‐Superior MSA serves as a magnet for commerce. It is the largest commercial shopping district serving a 60‐mile radius. Education Services and the Health Care and Social Assistance industry sectors are next largest grouping of jobs in Douglas County. Again, the Duluth‐Superior MSA plays a major role. It is host to the regions only Level I trauma center, Furthermore, Superior is the only city in the northwest region of Wisconsin that has a well‐developed system of mass transportation. This is beneficial to support a large elderly population, and many elderly persons living on marginal fixed incomes will prefer to transition from a rural to urban setting to eliminate large transportation maintenance costs and live in close proximity to multiple large retail outlets. Poor families living in poverty will also find Superior attractive for the same reasons. The high number of jobs in education can be attributed to the two post‐secondary schools. The largest number of employment in the business sector is in the Transportation and Warehousing, Manufacturing, and Wholesale trade industry sectors. To a large extent, these industry sectors have a symbiotic relationship. Furthermore, the City of Superior serves as both the largest railway hub and switching yard and the largest port city on the Great Lake of Superior. Both of these have distinct advantages for trans‐modal shipping and warehousing and manufacturing. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2006, farm employment comprised 5.5 percent of total employment in the county. In some communities, however, it is the prime contributor to the economy and provides a stable market for many service and retail businesses. Douglas County Businesses Table 6.4 lists the top 20 employers in Douglas County as of March 2007 per the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. More than eighty‐five percent of these companies are located in or near the City of Superior. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐7 Economic Development Chapter Table 6.4: Ranked Top 20 Employers in Douglas County (Public and Private) Employer Name Industry Product or Service Employment Size Range School District of Superior Elementary & secondary schools 500‐999 University of Wisconsin‐ Superior Colleges & universities 250‐499 Wal‐Mart Discount department stores 250‐499 Halvor Lines Inc General freight trucking, long‐distance TL 250‐499 County of Douglas Executive & legislative offices, combined 250‐499 City of Superior Executive & legislative offices, combined 250‐499 School District of Maple Elementary & secondary schools 100‐249 Jeff Foster Trucking Inc General freight trucking, long‐distance TL 100‐249 Super‐One Foods Supermarkets & other grocery stores 100‐249 Murphy Oil USA Inc Petroleum refineries 100‐249 St Mary’s Hospital of Superior General medical & surgical hospitals 100‐249 St Francis Home in the Park Nursing care facilities 100‐249 Amsoil Inc Managing offices 100‐249 Advanced Data Comm Telemarketing bureaus 100‐249 Enbridge Employee Services Inc Pipeline transportation of crude oil 100‐249 General Mills Operations Inc All other miscellaneous food manufacturing 100‐249 Middle River Health Care Center Inc Nursing care facilities 100‐249 The Duluth Clinic Offices of physicians, except mental health 100‐249 Genesis Attachments Construction machinery manufacturing 100‐249 Fraser Shipyards Inc Ship building & repairing 100‐249 Source: WI Department of Workforce Development, LMI – Worknet – March 2007 Table 6.5 lists the top 20 private industries by three‐digit NAICS code in Douglas County as of December 2006 per the U.S. Census. Employment in these industry subsectors accounts for over 75% of all employment in Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐8 Economic Development Chapter Table 6.5: Ranked Top 20 Private Industries by 3‐Digit NAICS Code (2006) Rank Industry Avg. Quarterly Employment All NAICS subsectors 12,720 1 722 Food Services and Drinking Places 1,693 2 484 Truck Transportation 905 3 452 General Merchandise Stores 872 4 623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 548 5 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 490 6 624 Social Assistance 473 7 621 Ambulatory Health Care Services 440 8 238 Specialty Trade Contractors 430 9 445 Food and Beverage Stores 407 10 561 Administrative and Support Services 403 11 423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 336 12 721 Accommodation 328 13 522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 298 14 236 Construction of Buildings 282 15 541 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 281 16 447 Gasoline Stations 265 17 881 Repair and Maintenance 264 18 441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 255 19 812 Personal and Laundry Services 228 20 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing 220 [Source: Dept. of Commerce, US Census – LED, Industry focus It is noteworthy that as of 2002, 34.5% of all businesses in Douglas County are listed as women‐owned Firms. This is nearly 10% higher than the Wisconsin State percentage. Other key statistics the US Census Bureau noted in 2006 relative to Douglas County businesses include, • 177 building permits were issued in 2006. • Population growth is 1.8%, nearly 2% less than the statewide level. • Minorities are dramatically under‐ represented, particularly among Black and Hispanic or Latino populations. • Considering the Duluth‐Superior MSA boasts an international airport, only 1.6% of residents are foreign born. Again, 2% less than the statewide level of 3.6%. • The mean travel time to work is 21 minutes. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, the Douglas County industries with the largest percentage of growth throughout 2006 were Construction, Transportation, and Warehousing, and Wholesale Trade. Table 6.6 lists the region‐ wide7 employment projections (by occupation) developed by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD), while Table 6.8 depicts the ten fastest growth and most job opening occupational projections by 2010. Local area employment projections for Douglas County are shown in Table 6.7. 7 Northwest region includes Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor and Washburn counties ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐9 Economic Development Chapter Table 6.6: Northwest Region Employment Projections (by Occupation) 2004‐2014 Occupation Title 2004 2014 Change % Change New Jobs Replace‐ ments Total Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 3,030 3,790 760 25.1% 80 60 140 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 550 680 130 23.6% 10 10 20 Personal Care and Service Occupations 2,020 2,490 470 23.3% 50 50 100 Healthcare Support Occupations 2,190 2,680 490 22.4% 50 30 80 Community and Social Services Occupations 1,370 1,620 250 18.2% 30 30 60 Education, Training, and Library Occupations 4,220 4,880 660 15.6% 70 90 160 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 2,500 2,880 380 15.2% 40 50 90 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 1,910 2,200 290 15.2% 30 40 70 Construction and Extraction Occupations 3,430 3,950 520 15.2% 50 70 120 Legal Occupations 280 320 40 14.3% <5 <5 <5 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 7,210 8,170 960 13.3% 100 290 390 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 530 600 70 13.2% 10 10 20 Management Occupations 2,390 2,660 270 11.3% 30 40 70 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 730 810 80 11.0% 10 10 20 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 860 930 70 8.1% 10 20 30 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 2,650 2,860 210 7.9% 20 60 80 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 6,640 7,160 520 7.8% 50 150 200 Protective Service Occupations 1,870 2,010 140 7.5% 10 50 60 Sales and Related Occupations 6,450 6,850 400 6.2% 40 230 270 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 10,200 10,440 240 2.4% 20 240 260 Production Occupations 8,440 8,430 ‐10 ‐0.1% <5 210 210 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 240 230 ‐10 ‐4.2% <5 10 10 Total, All Occupations 69,700 76,620 6,920 9.9% 690 1,740 2,430 Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐10 Economic Development Chapter Local Area Employment Projections Employment projections for local units of government in Douglas County were derived by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission. Table 6.7 depicts an estimate of future jobs within each municipality based on projected growth in commercial and industrial land use. Employment estimates are based on the two models (service area relationship and residential relationship) used to forecast future commercial and industrial land demand. The number of jobs within each community in 2000 was estimated using the Census Bureau worker flow data. Table 6.7: Local Area Employment Projections to 2030 Municipality Forecast Method Estimated Jobs in 2000 New Jobs by 2030 (Low) New Jobs by 2030 (High) Amnicon Service Area Relationship 107 36 67 Residential Relationship 107 60 111 Bennett Service Area Relationship 53 8 16 Residential Relationship 53 10 18 Brule Service Area Relationship 186 11 21 Residential Relationship 186 17 32 Cloverland Service Area Relationship 21 0 0 Residential Relationship 21 0 0 Dairyland Service Area Relationship 54 ‐10 ‐18 Residential Relationship 54 ‐7 ‐12 Gordon Service Area Relationship 96 17 31 Residential Relationship 96 28 53 Hawthorne Service Area Relationship 212 35 66 Residential Relationship 212 33 62 Highland Service Area Relationship 33 24 44 Residential Relationship 33 33 62 Lakeside Service Area Relationship 16 0 0 Residential Relationship 16 0 0 Maple Service Area Relationship 198 2 3 Residential Relationship 198 2 4 Oakland Service Area Relationship 82 58 108 Residential Relationship 82 48 90 Parkland Service Area Relationship 148 ‐33 ‐62 Residential Relationship 148 ‐20 ‐38 Solon Springs Service Area Relationship 160 51 95 Residential Relationship 160 77 143 Summit Service Area Relationship 79 6 11 Residential Relationship 79 8 15 Superior Service Area Relationship 521 77 144 Residential Relationship 521 141 263 Wascott Service Area Relationship 93 40 75 Residential Relationship 93 57 106 All Towns Service Area Relationship 2,059 322 601 Residential Relationship 2,059 489 912 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐11 Economic Development Chapter Table 6.8: NORTHWEST REGION OCCUPATION PROJECTIONS: 2010 Top Ten Occupations Education & Training Typically Required* Average Wage** Fastest Growth Computer Support Specialists Associate degree $15.50 Personal and Home Care Aide 1‐month or less training $8.13 Home Health Aides 1‐month or less training $8.95 Social/Human Service Assistants 1‐12 Months on‐the‐job Training $12.72 Hotel/Motel/Resort Desk Clerks 1‐month or less training $7.94 Security Guards/Gaming Surveillance Officers 1‐month or less training NA Food Preparation/Service Workers/Fast Food Workers 1‐month or less training $6.47 Emergency Medical Technicians/Paramedics Post‐secondary vocational training $9.82 Teachers – Primary/Secondary/Adult/all other Bachelor’s degree $10.19 Fitness Trainers/Aerobics Instructors Post‐secondary vocational training $7.54 Most Openings Food Preparation/Service Workers/Fast Food Workers 1‐month or less training $6.47 Cashiers 1‐month or less training $7.09 Waiters/waitresses 1‐month or less training $7.38 Retail Salespersons 1‐month or less training $8.23 Registered Nurses Bachelor’s degree $20.27 Nursing Aides/Orderlies/Attendants 1‐month or less training $9.27 Bartenders 1‐month or less training $6.65 Maids/Housekeeping Cleaners 1‐month or less training $7.76 Truck Drivers/Heavy/Tractor‐Trailer 1‐12 Months on‐the‐job Training $15.61 General and Operations Managers Work experience and degree $26.89 The most common way to enter the occupation, not the only way. Wages from Occupation Employment Statistics survey responses for the region, 2001 (Northwest WDA). [Source: WI DWD, Bureau of Workforce Information 2002 Worker Commuter Patterns Table 6.9 shows the commuting patterns for Douglas County based on Census 2000 data. The county has a large share of residents employed outside of the county. About 35 percent of the commuting workforce who live in the county traveled elsewhere for a job; however, 85 percent of those commuted across the river to St. Louis County, MN. Over 75 percent of the workers traveling into Douglas County come from with the MSA counties of St. Louis and Carlton Minnesota. Approximately another 15% came from the neighboring counties of Bayfield and Washburn in Wisconsin. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐12 Economic Development Chapter Table 6.9: Douglas County Commuting Patterns, 2000 Live In: Work In Count Travel To: From: Count Douglas Co. WI Douglas Co. WI 13,175 Douglas Co. WI St. Louis Co. MN 2,948 St. Louis Co. MN 5,991 Bayfield Co. WI 365 Carlton Co. MN 246 Carlton Co. MN 363 Washburn Co. WI 227 Washburn Co. WI 128 Bayfield Co. WI 120 Lake Co. MN 86 Sawyer Co. WI 106 Ashland Co. WI 46 Ashland Co. MN 46 Itasca Co. MN 33 Hennepin Co. MN 42 Pine Co. MN 23 Barron Co. WI 23 Barron Co. WI 21 Crow Wing Co MN 22 Sawyer Co. WI 17 Mille Lacs Co. MN 16 Cook Co. MN 17 Scott Co. MN 13 Wood Co. WI 15 Ramsey Co. MN 12 Dane Co. WU 15 Elsewhere 199 Elsewhere 267 Totals 20,222 Totals 4,344 Source: Census 2000, County to County Worker Flow Files, WI Dept. of Workforce Development ATTRACTING AND RETAINING BUSINESS AND INDUSTY Historically, business attraction has centered on manufacturing and will likely continue to do so; but increasingly, attracting retail, tourism, technology, and service‐oriented businesses has become important in order to diversify and expand business clusters in the area. To be successful, an attractive and competitive environment must be provided. Entrepreneurship and small business development are necessary to create new jobs and provide stability to the local economic base. Because of structural changes in the economy and the transition from a primarily physical‐ labor industrial age economy to an intellectual‐ labor, information age or knowledge‐based economy, the development of technology‐ based businesses has become even more important to attract high‐skilled, high‐paying jobs. Douglas County, as indicated in the following sections, has the necessary amenities, such as high‐speed access, adequate power sources, and access to financing to attract knowledge‐based businesses. It is estimated that 85 percent of the employment in an area is generated by the existing businesses; therefore, retaining these companies is a high priority for local officials and economic development organizations. To accomplish this, the obstacles that restrict the growth of existing businesses must be removed and assistance must be given to help businesses remain competitive in a global economy. This section provides information on existing programs, initiatives, infrastructure, and organizations available to attract/retain businesses and industries in Douglas County. SuperiorLife Technology Zone Program In June 2002, Douglas County was one of six counties in Northwest Wisconsin designated as a Technology Zone (called SuperiorLife) by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. Developed out of the Build Wisconsin initiative, the Technology Zone program brings $5 million in income tax incentives for high‐tech development in the area. The Technology Zone ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐13 Economic Development Chapter program will help the county generate high‐ wage jobs through the startup and expansion of technology‐based businesses. The SuperiorLife Technology Zone designation is designed to attract and retain high‐wage workers to the region and foster regional partnerships to promote entrepreneurship. The Department of Commerce will certify eligible businesses for tax credits based on their ability to create high‐wage jobs and investment and support the development of high‐tech industries in the region. Workforce Development WoodLINKS‐USA is a program designed to respond to the serious lack of skilled workers in the wood industry. It is an industry education partnership designed to enhance the wood product industry competitiveness and economic development through significant improvement of entry‐level work force skills. The WoodLINKS program is designed to attract young people to the wood industry and provide solid wood manufacturing education through high schools. The program combines traditional classroom training with experienced based learning both in schools and in cooperating industry partners. Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College (WITC) is an accredited postsecondary educational institution serving Northwestern Wisconsin, with a campus located in Superior. WITC offers customized training and technical assistance to business and industry to help them become more competitive, increase productivity, and to retain workers. This customized training is available at the business site or in a campus classroom setting. The Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program, Inc. (NWCEP) is a non‐ profit corporation whose mission is to strengthen the economy by providing effective and efficient workforce development services to businesses and workers. In existence since 1968, it administers programs to help local youth and adults gain marketable skills and find better jobs. In addition, NWCEP provides a variety of services, including workshops, conferences, and newsletters for businesses and business development. Although its main office is in Ashland, it has a satellite office located in Douglas County. Business Development Assistance There are several options available for small businesses in Douglas County seeking technical assistance. One is the Wisconsin Business Innovation Corporation (WBIC), a partner organization formed by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission Since its beginning in 1996, WBIC has developed a unique array of technical, financial, and business support services for start up and expanding businesses. This work involves analyzing a firm’s financial needs including preparation or review of financial projections, analyzing requirements and procedures of the various financing programs, identifying the appropriate funding sources, structuring sources and uses of funds, and the preparation of forms and documents needed in applications. Another source for technical assistance is the University of Wisconsin‐Superior Small Business Development Center (SBDC). It assists entrepreneurs, small business owners, and managers who are in the pre‐venture, start‐up, or existing business stage. SBDC offer confidential, one‐to‐one counseling on business management topics through personal visits, email, and telephone. The center maintains a business‐to business network so a new business can ask for business expertise from a pertinent resource. Technical assistance for small businesses is also available through the SCORE Association (Service Corps of Retired Executives), which is a resource partner with the U.S. Small Business ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐14 Economic Development Chapter Administration. There is a chapter in neighboring Douglas County that offers help with any business questions, strategy, and concerns. Small business counseling is available via telephone, email, workshops, and activities. Access to Financing and Venture Capital Small businesses create the lion's share of new jobs but are the least able to obtain reasonable financing for job‐creating expansions and start‐ ups. Because of the shortage of long‐term financing, small businesses are frequently unable to match the term of financing with the life of the asset. The Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation is a non‐ profit corporation formed by to address the critical need for business financing in Northwest Wisconsin. Its office is located in the City of Spooner in Douglas County. It is targeted at the best economic development opportunities of the area: the timber and wood products industry, tourism, and other manufacturing and service industries. manages three revolving loan funds (RLFs) and a technology seed fund. The overall goal of the RLFs is to stimulate private sector investment in long‐term business assets and to create new jobs. The funds partially fill the gap in private capital markets for long‐term fixed rate financing. The technology seed fund can be used to complete research and development activities and validate the technology, develop prototypes, and file patents and copyrights. In late 2000, a community‐based venture capital (equity) fund called the Wisconsin Rural Enterprise Fund, LLC (WREF) was established by the Wisconsin Business Innovation Corporation. It was formed to create a capital fund that would provide self‐sustaining, moderate growth through financial investments made in rural businesses that meet the WREF criteria. Technology intensive businesses, which have the potential to create high‐skilled, high‐wage jobs in rural areas, are the targeted businesses. Currently, it is the only Northwest Wisconsin community‐based venture capital fund; and its members include, besides WBIC, rural electric cooperatives and local community development organizations. In addition to the loan funds, Douglas County has a local revolving loan fund available to small businesses for start up and expansion purposes. The fund was originally established by a grant from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce to help a county business. As that money comes back in, it is being used to help other businesses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐15 PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE One of the factors limiting economic development activity in rural Douglas County is access to municipal services, such as sewer and water. These services are currently available within incorporated communities, such as the Villages of Poplar, Solon Springs and within the City of Superior. Given the absence of these services in the rural areas, it is unlikely that a large commercial or industrial enterprise would locate in these areas. With the exception those communities along US Highway’s 2 & 53, and State Highway 35, access to major transportation routes and facilities is limited across much of rural Douglas County. The City of Superior, which is situated at the nexus of several major transportation routes, has a much greater economic development advantage in terms of transportation access. Access to rail, trucking and commercial shipping through the port of Duluth/Superior further cements the cities position as the economic hub of Douglas County. Economic Development Chapter ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐16 Economic Development Chapter ISSUES & OPPORTUNITES Based on input from representatives from economic development organizations, the county board, local businesses, and local units of government from Douglas County, the following and weaknesses of the county were identified with respect to attracting and retaining businesses and industries. for Attracting and Retaining Business & Industry • A reliable workforce for potential businesses • Lake Superior ‐ Natural Resources • Educational opportunities • Readily available utilities & affordable • Rails & shipping • TIF districts ‐ in local areas • Adjacent to major hub (Duluth) Types of Business and Industry Desired by the County • Rural occupations ‐ forestry, agriculture, aquaculture • Small manufacturing • Incubator ‐ green technology • Support services for arts & culture • Make better use of local educators • Technology • Support services for University • Marine research • Recreation can create jobs (B & B's, Trails, sale of products) Quality of Life A good quality of life is becoming increasingly important to employers and employees alike, not only in Wisconsin, but around the country. Douglas County has a premium quality of personal life, with a beautiful physical environment, excellent quality and quantity of water, a good public education system (K‐12 and vocational), excellent public services, and an above average labor force with a good work ethic. Natural, recreational, and lifestyle amenities abound throughout the county and tranquility and solitude of the great outdoors is plentiful. The lack of traffic jams and low crime rates enhance the quality living environment. Clean, unpolluted air, as well as lots of open space for recreation and expansion, adds to the general overall quality of life to residents of Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐17 Economic Development Chapter TOURISM IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY Douglas County is a vacationland for local and distance travelers and ranks 28nd in the state for traveler spending. Its natural amenities, an abundance of woods and water, significantly contribute to the number of visitors to Douglas County. Businesses that cater to tourism, such as motels, resorts, campgrounds, B&Bs, and retail stores complement the hundreds of miles of snowmobiling and biking trails as well as the many parks, golf courses, historic sites, and area attractions. Tourism is an extremely vital part of Douglas County’s economy. According to the State Department of Tourism, visitors to Douglas County in 2006 spent a total of nearly $127 million. Summer is the top tourism season and generated traveler expenditures of $50 million. Winter/spring travelers spent an average of $21 million, and fall visitors spent $34 million. Table 6.10: Douglas County Tourism Expenditures County 2000 Population 1994 2004 2005 2006 % Change 1994‐2006 Douglas 43,932 $58,623,896 $125,315,249 $127,537,413 $126,843,907 116.4% Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Tourism, March 2005; WI Dept. of Administration – Demographics Services Center Since 1994, travel expenditures in Douglas County increased 116 percent, from $58.6 million to $126.8 million. Counting all people in 2003 employed both directly and indirectly as a result of tourism in Douglas County, traveler spending supported 3,267 full‐time equivalent jobs. Employees in the county earned an estimated $80 million in wages generated from tourist spending. The total impact of tourism extends far into the county, making a contribution to schools and local governments. Local revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, lodging taxes, etc.) collected as a result of tourist spending in Douglas County resulted in an estimated $6 million in 2006. State revenue (lodging, sales and meal taxes) generated in the county due to travelers was another $16 million. REDEVELOPMENT SITES Comprehensive plans funded by Wisconsin Comprehensive Planning Grants are required to identify development and redevelopment areas referred to as “smart growth areas (Wisconsin Statutes (16.965(1)(b)).” Smart Growth Areas include sites that will enable the development and redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure and municipal, state and utility services, where practicable, or that will encourage efficient development patterns that are both contiguous to existing development and at densities which have relatively low municipal, state governmental and utility costs. In rural Douglas County, no major redevelopment areas have been identified. Areas outside of the incorporated communities are generally not served by municipal infrastructure. Rural compact design and development efficiency are reflected in the future land use maps of individual jurisdictions. In rural towns, small scale redevelopment opportunities could include the redevelopment or reuse of former commercial enterprise sites. While revitalization of these individual properties will not generally be discouraged, their redevelopment or reuse may not constitute the creation of a “Smart Growth Area” as defined in State Statutes. Many of these sites are located within relatively remote areas, have little connectivity to existing development and have no municipal services. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐18 Economic Development Chapter There are numerous redevelopment opportunities within the City of Superior. Detailed information regarding these sites can be found in the City of Superior Comprehensive Plan. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND ORGANIZATIONS There are many programs at the federal, state, county, and regional level that can help Douglas County in the support and development of economic development efforts. In addition, there are programs available to assist individual businesses in start‐up and expansion. This section contains a list of the major agencies and programs that are most likely to be used by the county in its economic development efforts. In addition to programs, there are economic development organizations throughout the county that provide assistance to local units of government and businesses. These are also listed in this section. FEDERAL PROGRAMS Economic Development Administration The U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration offers two programs for assistance with economic development that apply to Douglas County. One is the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Assistance Program, which supports the construction or rehabilitation of essential public infrastructure and development facilities necessary to generate private sector jobs and investment, including investments that support technology‐ led development, redevelopment of brownfield sites, and eco‐industrial development. Secondly, the Economic Adjustment Assistance Program is available to: address the immediate needs of businesses and communities presently undergoing transition due to a sudden and severe job loss; and demonstrate new and proactive approaches for economic competitiveness and innovative capacity for threatened regions and communities. USDA Wisconsin Rural Development Several loan and grant programs of benefit to the county and local business development are available from the USDA Rural Development. One of those programs is the Community Facility Guaranteed Loans Program, which provides funding to local units of government to construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community facilities providing essential services in rural areas and towns. The Rural Economic Development Loans and Grants Program helps develop projects that will result in a sustainable increase in economic productivity, job creation, and incomes in rural areas. Projects may include business start‐ups and expansion, community development, incubator projects, medical and training projects, and feasibility studies. The purpose of the Business and Industry Direct Loan Program is to improve, develop, or finance business, industry, and employment and improve the economic and environmental climate in rural communities. Loan purposes include purchase and expansion of land, equipment, buildings, and working capital. Loans to public bodies can be used to finance community facilities and construct and equip industrial plants for lease to private businesses. The Community Facilities Direct Loans and Grants Program provides funding for essential community facilities (CF) such as municipal buildings, day care centers, and health and safety facilities. Examples include fire halls, fire trucks, clinics, nursing homes, and hospitals. CF loans and grants may also be used for such things as activity centers for the handicapped, schools, libraries, and other community buildings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐19 Economic Development Chapter STATE PROGRAMS Wisconsin Department of Commerce At least three programs are available to local units of government through the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. The first program is the Community Development Block Grant for Economic Development (CDBG‐ED). Its purpose is to provide resources to local governments that will enable them to assist economic development projects in their community. The local unit of government is the applicant and recipient of the funds. A specific business, which must be located in a municipality of 50,000 or less, is loaned the funds for eligible business development uses. When the funds are repaid to the local government, they may stay in the community to be used as a revolving loan fund to assist other businesses in the community. The second program is the Community Development Block Grant Public Facilities for Economic Development (CDBG‐PFED). Its purpose is to provide grant funds to local governments that will enable them to provide needed public facilities streets, sewer mains, water mains, etc.) to private business enterprises that are going to create full‐time jobs by starting or expanding their businesses because of the availability of the funded public facilities. The third program available from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce is the Community‐ Based Economic Development Program (CBED). Its purpose is to provide financing assistance to local governments and community‐based organizations that undertake planning or development projects or that provide technical assistance in support of business (including technology‐based businesses) and community development. Wisconsin Departments of Tourism and Commerce The Tourism Development Initiative is a multi‐ faceted program designed to assist tourism businesses that have been severely affected by consecutive winters with minimal snowfall. The program offers planning and training grants that focus on tourism development and diversification at the business and municipal levels. A Snow Emergency Loan is available to qualifying small businesses that can document significant revenue loss caused by the lack of snow. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Available from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is a program called the Transportation Facilities Economic Assistance and Development Program (TEA). The intent of the TEA program is to help support new business development in Wisconsin by funding transportation improvements that are needed to secure jobs in the state. A governing body, a business, a consortium group, or any combination thereof can apply for TEA program funding. REGIONAL PROGRAMS Northwest Regional Planning Commission The Northwest Regional Planning Commission is a cooperative venture of the local units of governments in the ten counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Douglas and the five tribal nations of Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Red Cliff, St. Croix, and Lac du Flambeau in the region. The purpose of is to assist the communities of the membership to promote sustainable economic development, develop public facilities, provide planning and technical services, efficiently manage and conserve natural resources, and protect the ---PAGE BREAK--- 6‐20 Economic Development Chapter environment. Every three years, with the cooperation of the local units of government in its region, prepares a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the entire northwest region. The CEDS is updated at the mid‐point of the three year period. In an effort to build a focused development strategy for the northwest region, developed four non‐profit development corporations, each focusing on a specific area need and opportunity including: 1) financing for business start up and expansions (Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation), 2) technology‐based business development (Wisconsin Business Innovation Corporation), 3) a regional‐based Revolving loan fund (Northwest Wisconsin Rural Economic Development Fund), and 4) affordable housing (Northwest Affordable Housing, Inc.). A fifth development corporation, the Wisconsin Rural Enterprise Fund (WREF) was the first community‐based venture capital fund created in Wisconsin, and it focuses on new technology development by providing bridge financing to companies that wish to market proprietary technology products in northwest Wisconsin. Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation A strategic partner of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, the Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation has available revolving loan funds to address a gap in private capital markets for long‐term, fixed rate, low down‐payment, and low interest financing to assist businesses in job creation/retention and growth. SuperiorLife Technology Zone Program The Technology Zone program was developed out of the Build Wisconsin initiative, which is firmly based in the concepts of promoting regional cooperation and developing a technology base. Douglas County is part of the SuperiorLife Technology Zone and won designation as such by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC) in 2002. Each designated zone will get $5 million in income tax incentives for high‐tech development. The WDOC will certify eligible businesses for tax credits based on their ability to create high‐wage jobs and investment and support the development of high‐tech industries in the region. The SuperiorLife Technology Zone offers the potential for growth in the computer software, medical, and forestry clusters, among others. LOCAL PROGRAMS & RESOURCES The Development Association, Inc. The Development Association, Inc. is a nonprofit 501 organization. Its mission is to assist with retention, expansion, creation and recruitment of businesses in Superior and Douglas County Wisconsin. The organization administers the Douglas County Revolving Loan Fund on behalf of Douglas County and also manages the Superior Business Center, Inc., an incubator facility. Northeast Entrepreneur Fund The Northeast Entrepreneur Fund is a private nonprofit organization which helps individuals starting or expanding small businesses in northeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin. This organization offers financing ($1,000 to $100,000 loans) for business start‐up and for existing businesses. OTHER PROGRAMS There are many more federal, state, and local programs offering assistance to businesses that are too numerous to mention here; however, they are listed in the Economic Development Manual prepared by the Wisconsin Bankers Association and the Wisconsin Financing Alternatives booklet prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-19 Economic Development Chapter STATE PROGRAMS Wisconsin Department of Commerce At least three programs are available to local units of government through the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. The first program is the Community Development Block Grant for Economic Development (CDBG-ED). Its purpose is to provide resources to local governments that will enable them to assist economic development projects in their community. The local unit of government is the applicant and recipient of the funds. A specific business, which must be located in a municipality of 50,000 or less, is loaned the funds for eligible business development uses. When the funds are repaid to the local government, they may stay in the community to be used as a revolving loan fund to assist other businesses in the community. The second program is the Community Development Block Grant Public Facilities for Economic Development (CDBG-PFED). Its purpose is to provide grant funds to local governments that will enable them to provide needed public facilities streets, sewer mains, water mains, etc.) to private business enterprises that are going to create full-time jobs by starting or expanding their businesses because of the availability of the funded public facilities. The third program available from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce is the Community- Based Economic Development Program (CBED). Its purpose is to provide financing assistance to local governments and community-based organizations that undertake planning or development projects or that provide technical assistance in support of business (including technology-based businesses) and community development. Wisconsin Departments of Tourism and Commerce The Tourism Development Initiative is a multi- faceted program designed to assist tourism businesses that have been severely affected by consecutive winters with minimal snowfall. The program offers planning and training grants that focus on tourism development and diversification at the business and municipal levels. A Snow Emergency Loan is available to qualifying small businesses that can document significant revenue loss caused by the lack of snow. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Available from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is a program called the Transportation Facilities Economic Assistance and Development Program (TEA). The intent of the TEA program is to help support new business development in Wisconsin by funding transportation improvements that are needed to secure jobs in the state. A governing body, a business, a consortium group, or any combination thereof can apply for TEA program funding. REGIONAL PROGRAMS Northwest Regional Planning Commission The Northwest Regional Planning Commission is a cooperative venture of the local units of governments in the ten counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Douglas and the five tribal nations of Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Red Cliff, St. Croix, and Lac du Flambeau in the region. The purpose of is to assist the communities of the membership to promote sustainable economic development, develop public facilities, provide planning and technical services, efficiently manage and conserve natural resources, and protect the ---PAGE BREAK--- 6-20 Economic Development Chapter environment. Every three years, with the cooperation of the local units of government in its region, prepares a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the entire northwest region. The CEDS is updated at the mid-point of the three year period. In an effort to build a focused development strategy for the northwest region, developed four non-profit development corporations, each focusing on a specific area need and opportunity including: 1) financing for business start up and expansions (Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation), 2) technology-based business development (Wisconsin Business Innovation Corporation), 3) a regional-based Revolving loan fund (Northwest Wisconsin Rural Economic Development Fund), and 4) affordable housing (Northwest Affordable Housing, Inc.). A fifth development corporation, the Wisconsin Rural Enterprise Fund (WREF) was the first community-based venture capital fund created in Wisconsin, and it focuses on new technology development by providing bridge financing to companies that wish to market proprietary technology products in northwest Wisconsin. Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation A strategic partner of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, the Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation has available revolving loan funds to address a gap in private capital markets for long-term, fixed rate, low down-payment, and low interest financing to assist businesses in job creation/retention and growth. SuperiorLife Technology Zone Program The Technology Zone program was developed out of the Build Wisconsin initiative, which is firmly based in the concepts of promoting regional cooperation and developing a technology base. Douglas County is part of the SuperiorLife Technology Zone and won designation as such by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC) in 2002. Each designated zone will get $5 million in income tax incentives for high-tech development. The WDOC will certify eligible businesses for tax credits based on their ability to create high-wage jobs and investment and support the development of high-tech industries in the region. The SuperiorLife Technology Zone offers the potential for growth in the computer software, medical, and forestry clusters, among others. LOCAL PROGRAMS & RESOURCES The Development Association, Inc. The Development Association, Inc. is a nonprofit 501 organization. Its mission is to assist with retention, expansion, creation and recruitment of businesses in Superior and Douglas County Wisconsin. The organization administers the Douglas County Revolving Loan Fund on behalf of Douglas County and also manages the Superior Business Center, Inc., an incubator facility. Northeast Entrepreneur Fund The Northeast Entrepreneur Fund is a private nonprofit organization which helps individuals starting or expanding small businesses in northeastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin. This organization offers financing ($1,000 to $100,000 loans) for business start-up and for existing businesses. OTHER PROGRAMS There are many more federal, state, and local programs offering assistance to businesses that are too numerous to mention here; however, they are listed in the Economic Development Manual prepared by the Wisconsin Bankers Association and the Wisconsin Financing Alternatives booklet prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION VISION Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter INTRODUCTION Municipalities within Douglas County share more than common boundaries. They also share services and resources which cross jurisdictional lines, including government and emergency services, roads, trails and infrastructure, school districts, fire protection areas, drainage basins and watersheds and natural features. Many communities within Douglas County are faced with the same or similar issues and concerns. The county and the local units of government recognize the need for maintaining or improving cooperation and communication in order to promote efficiency, reduce costs and improve services available to the citizens of Douglas County. As indicated by the comprehensive planning survey, Douglas County landowners also recognize the need for intergovernmental cooperation. An overwhelming majority of survey respondents (89.3%) indicated that they support, or strongly support, coordination and cooperation among nearby units of government. “In 2030, all units of government cooperate routinely on decisions related to the provisions of services county‐wide, relying on technology while maintaining personal contacts. This cooperation and collaboration has resulted in a truly integrated community where service delivery is based on maximum efficiency. The people of the county recognize that they have the responsibility to be active in community decision‐making. Units of government rely on that participation as an integral part of their decision‐making process. Douglas County sets the standard for conflict resolution.” The intergovernmental cooperation chapter identifies opportunities for establishing or maintaining cooperative relationships between Douglas County, local units of government and adjacent and overlapping jurisdictions. Cooperation opens or improves lines of communication between different units of government, aids in the identification and resolution of conflicts, and allows for the identification of mutual service needs and improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐2 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter Jurisdictional Authority There are 22 individual governmental units within Douglas County. Wisconsin counties have administrative home rule powers, which allow them to organize their administrative departments or consolidate them as they see fit. Counties can only undertake activities that are permitted or mandated by the state. Counties also are responsible for enforcing state laws and providing services such as law enforcement and social service programs. The home rule authority granted to counties has allowed them to gradually expand as a regional government in areas such as recycling, water quality management, transportation planning, and zoning review, but only in cases where a municipality or group of municipalities have requested the county to do so on their behalf through voluntary agreements. Counties may also enact and enforce ordinances and regulations. The City of Superior and the five incorporated villages have broad constitutional and statutory home rule powers. Cities and villages have the authority to enact and enforce ordinances as long as the ordinances do not conflict with existing state legislation. The 16 unincorporated towns in Douglas County are “direct democracies” which do not have home rule powers. Towns in Douglas County are reliant upon the county to provide many government services and programs. One of the most important town responsibilities is road maintenance. All towns can enact limited ordinances or regulations where there is specific or implied authority. Towns with village powers may adopt regulations when there is no explicit or implied town statutory authority to do so. ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY R Douglas C Local Unit There are Douglas C and 1 city the uninc as one of limited op services. T services to Figure 7.1 RELATIONSH County Interg ts of Governm e 22 local unit County includ y. Douglas Cou orporated tow mutual respe pportunities f The County p o the unincor 1: Douglas Co In IP TO INTERN governmenta ment ts of governm ing 16 towns, unty’s relatio wns can be c ect and coope for shared res rovides sever rporated tow ounty, Region ntergovernmen NAL, ADJACEN l Relationshi ment within , 5 villages nship with haracterized eration with sources and ral critical ns (see nal Framewor ntal Cooperatio NT AND OVER ps Utilit inclu and adm with zoni flood com mini rk on Chapter RLAPPING JU ties and Com uding emerge various socia inisters sever in the uninco ng, land divis dplains, shore munication fa ng. URISDICTIONS munity Facilit ency services, l service prog ral land use re orporated tow ion, private s elands, wirele acilities, and 7‐3 S ties Chapter) law enforcem grams. The Co elated regula wns regarding sanitary syste ess nonmetallic ment ounty ations g ms, ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐4 The five villages and the City of Superior are autonomous governmental units with their own financial, administrative and legal responsibilities. The incorporated communities are largely independent of the county when it comes to the provision of services to their residents. While the county does provide only limited services to the villages (i.e. recycling), village residents generally have the same level of access to county staff and resources as town residents. Each village has its own administrative staff and elected representatives and its own laws and regulations. A similar situation exists with regard to the city which has its own services, including police, fire, public works, cemetery, water/wastewater facilities, library, senior citizen/community center program, and are all committed to providing the city's residents with the best care possible Adjoining Counties Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter Douglas County shares a common boundary with six counties. In Wisconsin, Douglas County is bounded by Bayfield County to the east, Sawyer County to the southeast and Burnett and Washburn Counties to the south. The western border is shared with Pine and Carlton Counties (MN), while St. Louis County (MN) lies to the northwest. Douglas County has a cooperative, working relationship with adjacent counties. Local municipal jurisdictional boundaries are depicted in Figure 7.1. Nearly 25 percent of Douglas County’s workforce commutes to jurisdictions outside of the county for employment. The majority of county residents employed outside of Douglas County work in St. Louis County, Minnesota. Cooperative efforts between Douglas County and neighboring counties include: School Districts A school district is a political subdivision responsible for public education within its borders. Wisconsin school districts are corporate bodies which means they can acquire, hold and dispose of real property; make and enforce contracts; hire employees; and adopt rules to govern their own operations. School districts receive funding from the state and a local property tax levy. Douglas County is served by five school districts, with three (Maple, Superior, and Solon Springs) districts headquartered in the county. School districts which serve portions of the county, but headquartered outside of Douglas County include the Northwood, Webster and Drummond School Districts. School districts in Douglas County are governed locally and are separate from county and local government. Technical Colleges Figure7.2: Wisconsin Technical College Districts There are 16 technical college districts in Wisconsin. Technical college districts are special purpose units of government which have authority to levy taxes. Douglas County is within the Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College (WITC) District, which includes all, or portions of, 10 counties in northwestern Wisconsin. WITC facilities include four campus locations, two branch locations, a learning center and administrative office. The WITC‐ Superior campus serves the residents of Douglas County and surrounding area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐5 Metropolitan Planning Organization The Metropolitan Interstate Council (MIC) is the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the Duluth‐Superior metropolitan planning area. The MIC provides guidance and leadership on transportation and land use planning issues within the urban area and adjoining governmental units. A key goal of the MIC is to focus the areas limited transportation funding on projects that yield the greatest benefit and integrate with the existing transportation system. To this end, the MIC conducts studies, develops plans, models the transportation system and programs projects for federal funding in the metropolitan area. The MIC was created in 1975 under a joint agreement between the Arrowhead Regional Development Commission (ARDC) in Duluth, Minnesota and the Northwest Regional Planning Commission in Spooner, Wisconsin. The MIC, is required by federal law to produce a 20‐year Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to address projects, programs and policies for a twenty‐year timeframe; develop a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for highway, transit, and non‐ motorized improvements (bike, pedestrian, historic etc.) which receive federal funding for a four‐year timeframe; and adopt a comprehensive Unified Planning Work Program that determines the MPO’s transportation planning activities and budget for a two‐year period. The MIC is has two advisory committees which meet regularly to provide technical and stakeholder input into the planning processes. The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) advises the MIC on transportation‐related issues within the metropolitan area and the Harbor Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) is an advisory body to the MIC on issues related to the Duluth‐Superior Harbor. The MIC has a strong working relationship with Douglas County and the local municipalities within the MPO boundary. Plans and studies developed by the MIC have been integrated into planning efforts of both the county and the City of Superior. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE AGENCIES Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Figure 7.3: WDNR Regions The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is the state agency charged with protecting Wisconsin’s air, land, water, wildlife, fish and forests. The WDNR is responsible for implementing the laws of the state and, where applicable, the laws of the Federal government that protect and enhance Wisconsin’s natural resources. The seven‐member Wisconsin Natural Resources Board (NRB) establishes WDNR policy and exercises authority and responsibility in accordance with governing statutory provisions. The Wisconsin Conservation Congress (WCC), an independent organization of citizen‐elected delegates, serves in an advisory capacity to the Natural Resources Board. The WDNR is comprised of six divisions which include: Air and Waste, Land, Forestry, Water, Customer and Employee Services, and Enforcement and Science. To best serve the needs of citizens, the state is divided in five WDNR regional areas. Douglas County is located in the Northern Region, which serves 18 counties in the northern third of Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐6 Wisconsin. The Northern Region headquarter offices are located in Rhinelander and in Spooner. Local WDNR Service Centers are found in communities throughout the state, including 10 locations within the Northern Region. A WDNR service center is located on Tower Avenue in Superior. Other WDNR facilities in Douglas County include a fish hatchery and field station at Brule and a ranger station at Gordon. WDNR operates 57 ranger stations statewide which support forest fire prevention and suppression efforts. These facilities are staffed with trained wildland firefighters and are equipped with wildland fire apparatus, equipment, and other supplies. In addition to regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, WDNR staff provide technical assistance and support to citizens, businesses and governmental entities in Douglas County. WDNR also provides financial assistance through grants to local governments and interested organizations to develop and support projects that protect public health, natural resources, the environment and outdoor recreational opportunities. WDNR is responsible for the management and oversight of state parks and forests in Wisconsin. In Douglas County, WDNR managed lands include Pattison State Park, Amnicon Falls state Park and the Brule River State Forest. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Figure 7.4: WisDOT Regions Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) is the state agency responsible for planning, building and maintaining Wisconsin's network of state highways and interstate highway system. WisDOT is comprised of three executive offices and five divisions organized according to transportation function. WisDOT's main office is located in Madison, but the department maintains regional offices throughout the state. The Northwest Region offices are located in Eau Claire and Superior. WisDOT’s planned future transportation improvement projects within Douglas County are found in the Transportation Chapter. Although there are no major expansion plans for highways, the County and local communities should continue to collaborate with WisDOT to address transportation issues including a long‐ term vision for the USH 2 and the USH 53 corridors. There has been a strong regional interest in seeing an expansion of USH 2 from a two‐lane non‐divided highway, to a four lane highway between Superior and Hurley. Such an expansion could have a significant impact on economic development, infrastructure, and land use within the corridor and adjoining communities. Douglas County, and the local units of government must also continue to work with WisDOT to address safety of ‘at grade’ intersections along the USH 53 corridor. Of particular concern is the intersection of CTH B/53, where several serious accidents have occurred over the past few years. The Department of Transportation is also an objecting agency for subdivision plat review under the provisions of Chapter 236 of the Wisconsin State Statutes and TRANS 233 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. WisDOT reviews subdivision plats for their impact upon the existing or planned state trunk highway system and their conformance to statute 82.50 (Town Road Standards). The department either certifies that it has no objection or lists its objections for each plat submitted for review, including non‐abutting plats. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐7 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter Wisconsin Department of Commerce The Wisconsin Department of Commerce (WDOC) is the state’s lead agency on economic development. The Department of Commerce, along with seven other state agencies which administer economic development programs, provides financial assistance and direct services to individuals, local governments, nonprofits and other organizations. Financial assistance is provided in the form of grants and loans, targeted tax credits, bonding authorizations and loan guarantees. The Wisconsin Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Division of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), provides grants to general purpose units of local government for housing programs which principally benefit low and moderate income (LMI) households. Four municipalities in Douglas County Superior, T. Gordon, V. Poplar and V. Superior) have CDBG funds that may be used for housing rehabilitation. These funds come from repaid CDBG housing rehabs or home purchase loans. Under Wisconsin Administrative Code Comm. 10, WDOC is the primary unit responsible for the administration and regulation of storage tanks. WDOC also regulates the State's building construction safety codes as well as several environmental regulatory programs. WDOC also has ‘objecting authority’ in the subdivision review process, in cases where the proposed subdivision is not served by public sewer. Wisconsin Department of Administration The primary function of the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) is to deliver a wide range of support services to other state agencies. DOA also offers direct services to Wisconsin residents and communities, including assistance with housing and energy efficiency improvements. The Division of Intergovernmental Relations (DIR) provides support services to counties and local municipalities including land use planning, land information and records modernization, municipal boundary review, plat review, demography and coastal management programs. In 2007, Douglas County and 16 partnering local jurisdictions were awarded a Comprehensive Planning grant from WDOA. Douglas County and several local jurisdictions have also received funding for various projects through the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP). All local governmental units within Douglas County are eligible for WCMP grant funding. Since 2004, Douglas County and the City of Superior have been working with WCMP staff, various state agencies, tribal units and interest groups to establish a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) site on the south shore of Lake Superior. In 2008, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle announced the nomination of the St. Louis River in Douglas County as a NERR site. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Management Plan must be completed before a formal decision on the NERR proposal is made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The DOA is also responsible for administering the state platting regulations. The DOA reviews all plats submitted in the state in accordance with Section 236.13 Wisconsin State Statutes. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection The Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) regulates agriculture, trade and commercial activity in Wisconsin. DATCP also has responsibility for ensuring the safety of food and dairy products produced and sold in Wisconsin. DATCP also regulates certain professionals involved in the production of food and dairy products and oversees contracts with local health departments that regulate retail food ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐8 establishments, excluding restaurants1. DATCP’s Agricultural and Resource Management Division (ARM) regulates pesticides and other agrichemicals to protect public health and the environment, establishes standards for certain local regulations, including livestock facility siting ordinances and manages farmland preservation programs. DATCP is based in Madison, but has 23 offices across the state, including an office in Superior. DATCP also provides financial support to the Douglas County Land Conservation Department. radiological emergency preparedness, and exercise and training for the State of Wisconsin. WEM’s central offices are located in Madison with six regional offices located across Wisconsin. In disaster situations, local/county governments are the first line of response. They use their own resources to protect people and property and to implement recovery measures. When the capabilities of local/county governments, including available mutual aid, have been exhausted the county emergency management director notifies WEM. WEM then coordinates obtaining the appropriate resources and assistance from state agencies, the Federal government, the private sector or the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC). Wisconsin Department of Revenue The Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR) is the state agency responsible for property assessment and administration of the state’s tax laws. The county and local units of government interact with the DOR through the submittal of annual reports regarding assessment, taxation, and shared revenue. The DOR is also responsible for administration of Wisconsin’s Tax Increment Law. WEM also administers a number of grants to local communities and is responsible for preparing and administering several statewide policy plans. In 2003, WEM assisted Douglas County through the approval process for the county’s hazard mitigation plan. Wisconsin Department of Emergency Management Wisconsin Historical Society Figure 7.5: Wisconsin Emergency Management Regions The primary roles of the Wisconsin Historical Society (WHS) are to educate the public on areas relating to Wisconsin history and to administer many programs to preserve places and information of historical interest. WHS maintains the Wisconsin Archaeological and Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM) specializes in hazard mitigation, warning and communications, emergency police services, disaster response and recovery, hazardous materials and Emergency Planning and Community Right‐to‐Know Act (EPCRA), 1 Restaurants in Wisconsin are regulated by the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) Historic Resources Database (WisAHRD) which is a compilation of the Society’s Archaeological Sites Inventory (ASI), Architectural History Inventory (AHI), and the Bibliography of Archaeological Reports (BAR). As part of this planning process, WHS provided assistance to Douglas County and local governmental units in identifying historic and archaeological resources within their communities. WHS will continue to be a valuable partner to all jurisdictions in the county during the implementation phase of the planning process. Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐9 REGIONAL GOVERNMENT Northwest Regional Planning Commission Figure 7.6: Wisconsin Regional Planning Commissions Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter Douglas County is located within the 10‐county region of northwestern Wisconsin served by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission Created in 1959, is the oldest regional planning commission in Wisconsin and one of the first multi‐county planning commissions in the nation. is a cooperative venture of Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Washburn Counties and the tribal nations of Bad River, Red Cliff, Lac du Flambeau, Lac Courte Oreilles, and St. Croix. Regional planning commissions (RPCs) In Wisconsin are formed by executive order of the governor and provide intergovernmental planning and coordination for the physical, social and economic development of a region. provides professional services to local units of governments, communities, and businesses in an effort to strengthen the regional economy and assist businesses with the retention of local jobs and the creation of higher skill/higher wage jobs. Professional services include preparing state and federal grant applications, such as Wisconsin Department of Commerce economic, public facility, and planning grants and Economic Development Administration grants; creating local economic development strategies; construction and management of economic development facilities, such as enterprise centers; facilitating local business expansions; and Tax Increment District and project plan development. partnership with the Northwest Wisconsin Business Development Corporation the Northwest Wisconsin Regional Economic Development Fund (NWREDF) revolving loan funds and Wisconsin Business Innovation Corporation’s (WBIC) business technical assistance contributes to regional economic development efforts. Additionally, WBIC formed and manages the only community‐based venture capital fund in the Northwest Region, the Wisconsin Rural Enterprise Fund, LLC (WREF). In 1973, the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce designated the Northwest Regional Planning Commission as an Economic Development District (EDD). As a result, a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is prepared to guide the economic growth of the District. In 2003, Northwest Regional Planning Commission prepared a major update to the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). The CEDS provides an analysis of local conditions; identifies the problems, needs, and opportunities of the district; defines the vision, goals, and objectives of the district; and designates and coordinates strategies and/or activities to accomplish and implement its goals. Furthermore, the CEDS includes two lists of projects provided by local units of government, local economic development organizations, and tribal nations. One list contains projects completed in 2002 for the region and the second list consists of prioritized community and economic development projects for the years 2003‐2010. A revised CEDS will be completed prior to October 31, 2010. This revision will encompass the planning years 2011‐2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐10 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Douglas County and the local governmental units have a cooperative relationship with agencies of the Federal government. In Douglas County several federal agencies have wide‐ ranging jurisdictional and regulatory authority. The county and local municipalities have access to a number of federal programs and grant‐ funding sources. Some of the key federal responsibilities applicable to Douglas County include: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates many activities that occur in jurisdictional navigable waterways (including Lake Superior). These include construction of docks, installation of piers and rip rap, dredging and filling. ACOE also regulates wetlands activities in navigable waters of the U.S. The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforces laws against illegal entry, smuggling and other criminal activities. DHS is also responsible for port security at the Port of Duluth‐Superior. The United Stated Coast Guard (USCG), a federal agency under DHS, regulates the movements and anchorage of vessels on Lake Superior. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat and regulates use of and activities within wildlife refuges. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged with administering all or parts of laws that influence environmental protection such as the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Douglas County and the local units are eligible for numerous federal programs and grant funding opportunities. In fiscal year 2006, the county received over $70 million (Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 2006) in federal grant funds (Block, Formula, Project, and Cooperative Agreements) through 50 different programs. Also in 2006, other forms of federal assistance to Douglas County including direct loans, guaranteed loans and insurance totaled over $25 million. A sample of federal programs used by Douglas County and the local units of government include: The Section 154 Environmental Infrastructure Assistance Program funds water‐related environmental infrastructure and resource protection and development projects in northern Wisconsin. In 2009, Douglas County received $2,472,500 for seven projects. In 2005, the City of Superior was awarded $150,000 from the Homeland Security Grant Program to purchase boats and communications equipment to patrol and respond to hazardous materials incidents. The Douglas County Sheriff’s Department also received $220,000 to purchase boats for conducting law enforcement operations on Lake Superior. In 2001, Douglas County received $31,122 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for the development of a multi‐jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. In 2006, Douglas County received nearly $8 million in Federal Highway Planning and Construction Grants through the Federal Highway Administration. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐11 NON‐GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Resource and Conservation Development Areas Figure 7.7: Wisconsin Resource Conservation and Development Areas Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter The Wisconsin Resource Conservation and Development program (RC&D) involves the pooling of technical and financial resources within a large area (Development Areas). RC & Ds provide technical and educational assistance to citizens in conserving and developing the resources of the area it serves. The RC&D works cooperatively with various federal, state, local agencies and organizations to conserve natural resources and improve the quality of life. Currently 375 RC&D Councils serve 2,666 counties in 50 states. In Wisconsin, there are seven RC&D Councils which serve 72 counties. The Pri‐Ru‐Ta RC&D, based in Medford, serves the 10 counties of northwestern Wisconsin. Pri‐Ru‐Ta grazing specialists are currently working with livestock producers in Douglas County to adopt management‐intensive grazing practices. The RC&D is also developing various soil data products for municipalities, businesses, individuals and education. International Trade, Business and Economic Development Council for Northwest Wisconsin Wisconsin’s five regional International Trade, Business and Economic Development Councils (ITBECs) were created as partnership efforts between counties, business leaders, tribal representatives, and others, organized to target tourism from other countries and create new export markets for Wisconsin products. Each ITBEC works to enhance economic activity in its respective region; by promoting regional tourism, regional business development, and international trade. Douglas County is located in the Northwest Wisconsin ITBEC which represents 11 counties in northwestern part of the state. The Northwest Wisconsin ITBEC has developed several tourism‐related informational publications and produced collaborative ad programs for multi‐use trails across the region including a “Discover Wisconsin” segment highlighting recreational trails. The Council also works to connect individuals interested in relocating to northwestern Wisconsin with potential employers. Lake Superior Binational Program The Lake Superior Binational Program (LSBP) is a cooperative venture between the federal governments of Canada and the United States, the province of Ontario and the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, native communities, industry, academia, environmental groups and citizens dedicated to the protection and restoration of the Lake Superior Basin. The LSBP developed, and implements, the Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) which provides an assessment of the state of the Lake Superior ecosystem, including its ecological impairments, emerging issues and their causes, and gaps in knowledge which require further research and monitoring. The Binational Program is comprised of four major components, the Task Force, Work Group, Lake Superior Binational Forum and the public. The LSBP Task Force, which comprised ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐12 governmental representatives and decision‐ makers, serves as the steering committee for the LSBP. The Superior Work Group (SWG) includes the technical experts from the various agencies which manage resources in the Lake Superior Basin. This group implements and monitors policies put in place by the Task Force. The Lake Superior Binational Forum (LSBF) is a multi‐sector stakeholder group representing a cross‐section of the general public. The Forum provides recommendations to governments and educates basin residents about ways to protect and restore the basin’s natural resources. The general public comprises the fourth component of the LSBP. Efforts on behalf of citizens of the basin to monitor local resources and take individual action to improve water quality and basin health are an essential part of achieving LSBP objectives. Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter Great Lakes Commission The Great ssion hority to approve prove applications the use, obstruction or boundary aters; investigate and mendations to e problems and to tures in the Great Lakes Commi (GLC) is a binational agency that works to promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the water and related natural resources of the Great Lakes basin and St. Lawrence River. Commission members include the eight Great Lakes states with the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec as associate members. The GLC was established by joint legislative action of the Great Lakes states in 1955 through the Great Lakes Basin Compact. The GLC hosts the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN), an on‐line resource for information and data about the Great Lakes region. International Joint Commission The International Joint Commission (IJC) is a binational organization established under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. The IJC has the aut or disap for diversion of w make recom resolv approve dams and other struc Lakes. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐13 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter INVENTORY OF EXISTING PLANS AND AGREEMENTS Existing Plans Prior to this comprehensive planning effort, very few existing land use plans were in place, and only one plan which meets the requirements of Ch. 66.1001 Wisconsin Statutes had been adopted in Douglas County. Existing adopted land use plans include a comprehensive land use plan for the City of Superior (October 1998), the Superior Port Land Use Plan (MIC, June 2003) and the Town of Oakland Land Use Plan January 2002). Douglas County developed an advisory land use plan in 1999 which was never formally adopted. Table 7.1: Inventory of Existing Plans of Overlapping Jurisdictions State of Wisconsin Author Year Wisconsin Bicycle Transportation Plan 2020 WisDOT 1998 Wisconsin State Highway Plan 2020 WisDOT 2000 Wisconsin State Airport System Plan 2020 WisDOT 2000 State Recreational Trails Network Plan WisDOT 2001 Midwest Regional Rail System WisDOT 2000 Wisconsin Pedestrian Plan WisDOT 2001 Translink 21 WisDOT 1994 Brule River State Forest Master Plan WDNR 2003 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2000‐2005 WDNR 2000 State of Wisconsin Hazard Mitigation Plan WEM 2001 Wisconsin Historic Preservation Plan; 2006–2015 WHS 2005 St. Louis River Area of Concern Remedial Action Plan WDNR,MPCA 1992 Douglas County Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2006‐2020 County 2008 Douglas County Hazard Mitigation Plan County 2004 Douglas County Outdoor Recreation Plan County 2003 Lake Superior Lakewide Management Plan LSBP 2004 Douglas County Land and Water Resource Management Plan County 2005 Metropolitan Interstate Council (MPO communities only) Access and Mobility for People and Freight 2030 MIC 2005 Duluth‐Superior Tourism and Transportation Plan MIC 1999 TSM Assessment of MIC Roadways in Wisconsin MIC 2007 Duluth‐Superior Metropolitan Pedestrian Plan MIC 1999 2008‐2011 Superior Metropolitan Area TIP MIC 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐14 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter Plans of Adjoining Jurisdictions Existing countywide plans are in place in the neighboring counties of Bayfield (WI), Burnett (WI), Pine (MN), Carlton (MN) and St. Louis (MN). Several adjoining local units of government have also adopted comprehensive or land use plans. Bayfield and Burnett Counties received Wisconsin Department of Administration Comprehensive Planning Grants in 2008. Plan development is currently underway in both counties with completion anticipated prior to January 1, 2010. Table 7.2: Inventory of Existing Plans of Adjoining Jurisdictions Counties Year Type Bayfield County, Wisconsin 2003 Land Use Washburn County, Wisconsin2 ‐ Land Use Burnett County, Wisconsin 1998 Land Use Pine County, Minnesota 1993 Land Use Carlton County, Minnesota 2001 Comprehensive St. Louis County, Minnesota3 2000 Comprehensive Towns Year Type Town of Hughes, Bayfield County 2003 Land Use Town of Barnes, Bayfield County 2006 Comprehensive Town of Frog Creek, Washburn County2 ‐ Comprehensive Town of Minong, Washburn County2 ‐ Comprehensive Town of Blaine, Burnett County 2005 Comprehensive Cities Year Type City of Duluth, St. Louis County 2006 Comprehensive Plan Consistency The plans of adjoining and overlapping jurisdictions were reviewed as part of this planning process. Of greatest concern are boundary areas where there is the potential for incompatible abutting land uses. No known or potential conflicts have been identified. As plans are updated or amended, Douglas County and adjoining governmental units must continue to coordinate and share information to reduce the potential for future conflict. 2 Plan has not been formally adopted 3 Applicable sub‐plans include St. Louis County Water Plan and St. Louis Cloquet Whiteface Corridor Management Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐15 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter EXISTING AGREEMENTS Existing and Potential Conflicts During the planning process the county and local governmental units have taken several steps to reduce the potential for intergovernmental conflict. Each jurisdiction was engaged in parallel planning activities to ensure that all entities were coordinating at critical junctures in the process. Countywide planning goals and polices were developed to be as consistent with town desires (as expressed in their comprehensive plans) as possible. One area of potential intergovernmental conflict is annexation which involves the transfer of territory from one jurisdiction to another. Disputes between incorporated jurisdictions and unincorporated towns can arise when town lands are proposed to be annexed, or transferred into the incorporated community. Town involvement in the annexation process is usually limited, unless the annexation is contested in court. Annexation can be perceived by an affected town as a “hostile” taking of town lands and a loss of the unit’s tax base. Perhaps the most effective way to reduce intergovernmental conflict is to foster open communication between adjacent governmental units. A more formalized approach to minimizing the potential for conflict involves engagement in joint planning activities or the implementation of intergovernmental agreements between adjoining jurisdictions. Another form of potential conflict is land use conflicts. These issues may arise when land use in one area conflicts with use in an adjoining area. Land use conflicts can result from the sights, sounds, smells, or other activities associated with a given use. This type of conflict is most common in cases where residential land use interfaces with agricultural use. In most of these circumstances the conflict is usually between a few adjoining landowners; as both agricultural and residential uses are generally considered “desirable” land uses by the community as a whole. Land use conflicts can also be safety and health issues. For example, siting a development which generates heavy commercial truck traffic, or a chemical plant, in a predominantly residential area can create safety concerns. Another form of land use conflict arises when a land use conflicts with the desires of the broader community. For example, a proposed pipeline or large‐scale landfill may be widely opposed by the community as a whole. These conflicts can sometimes be difficult to avoid completely due to existing regulations and because they may involve many independent jurisdictions, or even an entire county. Reducing the potential for land use conflict is best accomplished by establishing clear growth and development policies and by providing for a thorough review of development proposals. Plan policies should establish the framework for evaluating future development proposals and establish the criteria or performance standards required. Local plan commissions and the Douglas County Planning Committee exercised great care to ensure that future land use patterns are spatially organized in a manner which minimizes the potential for conflict. All governmental units, including the county must continue to be aware of changes in planning and development requirements of governmental units within the county. It is important that any plan updates, policy amendments, map revisions, or changes to development requirements or procedures, be relayed to all other governmental units in the county. Process for Resolving Conflicts Should intergovernmental conflict arise in the future, it will be important to have a systematic process in place to resolve these disputes in a ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐16 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter manner that is efficient, respectful and mutually beneficial. The conflict resolution process outlined below is intended to provide a low‐ cost, flexible approach to resolving planning disputes between governmental entities. If implemented, this process should not supersede local processes established for conflict resolution and is not intended to be used by parties dissatisfied with the appropriate application of local rules and regulations within their jurisdiction. Option 1: Open Discussion Communication and open discussion between parties involved in a dispute will be the first action taken to resolve conflicts by reaching consensus. Oftentimes, open dialog and debate between affected parties will be sufficient to resolve intergovernmental conflicts. Affected communities could hold joint meetings to discuss the issue and to present each community’s perspective and concerns. Option 2: Negotiation Techniques If parties cannot reach consensus through discussion and debate it may be necessary to utilize facilitation or mediation techniques involving the use of a neutral third‐party as a facilitator or mediator. • Facilitation – A conflict resolution method which involves use of a neutral third party to act as a facilitator in discussions between disputants. The facilitator’s role is normally limited to providing a forum for the parties to interact directly, including the enforcement of very basic rules of communication during discussions and negotiations. • Mediation – A form of a conflict resolution in which the parties bring their dispute to a neutral third party, who helps them agree on a settlement. Option 3: Litigation If discussion and negotiation techniques fail to achieve a resolution to the dispute, the process will move to litigation. This process involves the use of the court system to resolve disputes. While many cases are settled in pre‐trial proceedings, this alternative can be very time‐ consuming and expensive for all parties involved. IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS Cooperative Planning Sharing Plans with Other Jurisdictions Under Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning Law, communities are required to submit their plans to adjoining jurisdictions, Wisconsin Land Council, local Regional Planning Commission and local libraries. Counties are also required to provide copies of the county plan to each jurisdiction in the county. Municipalities should also consider sharing their plans with other jurisdictions affecting their community. For example communities with state parks or state forestlands should consider sending copies of their plans to the local management offices. Meeting with Adjoining Jurisdictions Meeting with adjoining jurisdictions allows for sharing of information and fosters the development of positive intergovernmental relationships. Communities which have opened a dialog are much more likely to recognize and understand each other’s concerns and issues. Communication between municipalities may also help reduce, or even eliminate future intergovernmental conflict. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐17 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter COOPERATING WITH SERVICES Trading Services Municipalities can agree to cooperatively exchange services, equipment or labor. Some towns in Douglas County already exchange services such as snowplowing and road maintenance on an informal basis. Renting Equipment from Neighboring Communities Communities could potentially save money by renting equipment to, or from, neighboring communities and other governmental units. Renting equipment can make sense for both communities ‐ the community renting gets the use of the equipment without having to buy it, and the community renting out earns income from the equipment rather than having it sit idle. Contracting Municipalities could contract with another community or jurisdiction to provide a service. For example, a town could contract with an adjacent city or village for fire or police protection services. Some communities in Douglas County currently do contract with other municipalities for emergency services. Sharing of Municipal Staff Local governmental units could agree to share staff, including municipal employees and independently contracted professionals. Pooling resources to hire contracted staff, such as assessors, may result in lower costs for each municipality. Some staff sharing is currently occurring between governmental units in Douglas County. Consolidation of Services Governmental units could agree to the consolidation of services or functions directly related to delivery of governmental services. Consolidating services is frequently done to provide fire protection service. Douglas County could also consider the consolidation of services with adjacent counties through intergovernmental agreements. County‐to‐ county consolidation could involve services such as road maintenance, social services, emergency services or other areas that overlap boundaries. The consolidation of services allows for an economy of scale which may make a particular service affordable when it might otherwise have been unaffordable or inefficient. Joint Use of Facilities Communities could share the use of municipal facilities including municipal buildings, garages and other maintenance facilities, libraries, parks and recycling facilities. The facilities could be jointly owned or one municipality could rent from the other. Douglas County is currently sharing use of municipal facilities with the City of Superior. Local examples of facility sharing include a joint recycling facility operated by the Village and Town of Solon Springs and a joint waste transfer station operated by the Towns of Gordon and Wascott. Creating a Special Purpose District Special purpose districts (SDPs) are political subdivisions created to provide a particular service or solve a specific issue. Like municipalities, special purpose districts are separate and legally independent entities, and have their own governing bodies, boundaries, ordinances, and revenue generating authority. Examples of special purpose districts include sanitary districts, lake districts, and drainage districts. SPDs may be most effective in ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐18 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter addressing multi‐jurisdictional issues which may be addressed most effectively by a body whose regional focus is broader than that of individual units of government. Examples of the kinds of services SPD’s could provide sewer and water, transportation, utilities, stormwater management, lake protection, solid waste, recycling and energy. In Douglas County, existing special purpose districts include, Maple School District Solon Springs School District Superior School District Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College District Lake Minnesuing Sanitary District Brule Sanitary District #1 Gordon Sanitary District #1 Lake Minnesuing Sanitary District Amnicon‐Dowling Lake Management and Rehab Dist Parkland Sanitary District #1 Upper St. Croix Lake Sanitary District Manitou Falls Sanitary District Joint Purchase of Supplies and Equipment Municipalities could agree with other jurisdictions to jointly purchase equipment and supplies. This may be of particular benefit to the towns whose major annual expenditures are for road maintenance. One disadvantage to joint purchasing is that equipment is shared and may not be available when needed. Cooperating with Regulations Different jurisdictions create and administer laws and regulations. Counties and local units of government have ordinances while the state has administrative rules. Regulations may vary from community to community and the requirements within one community may directly impact neighboring communities. Because rules and regulations play an important role in successful implementation of the comprehensive plan, it is essential that communities cooperate to ensure consistency. Examples of rules and ordinances which require intergovernmental cooperation include: General zoning ordinances Land division ordinances Building permits Municipal violations such as speeding, parking, and stray animals Lake management ordinances Official maps Certified survey maps Impact fees Non‐metallic mining ordinances Shoreland, wetland, and floodplain ordinances Airport zoning ordinances Agricultural preservation ordinances Erosion control and construction site ordinances Sanitary sewer/private septic system ordinances Drainage district rules Stormwater management ordinances Zoning Douglas County is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the zoning ordinance within the 16 unincorporated towns. The incorporated units (villages, City of Superior) are responsible for enforcement and administration of their zoning ordinances within their municipal boundaries. In Wisconsin, villages and cities also have extraterritorial zoning authority4 which allows them to develop zoning for extraterritorial areas. In Douglas County, the extraterritorial area for the villages extends 1 ½ miles from the village’s corporate limits. The City of Superior’s extraterritorial area extends for 3 miles beyond the city’s corporate limits. Currently, none of the incorporated units in Douglas County exercise extraterritorial zoning authority. 4 62.23(7a), Wis. Statutes ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐19 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter It is important that communities which exercise general zoning authority coordinate zoning activities with those of neighboring jurisdictions and with Douglas County to ensure compatibility of uses, especially along municipal boundaries. This would also apply to jurisdictions outside of Douglas County which share a common border with Douglas County communities. Mechanisms to ensure consistency include providing notices and review of proposed zoning actions and holding joint meetings as previously discussed in this chapter. By exchanging zoning and development proposals and offering an opportunity for neighboring jurisdictions to review and to provide comments, potential incompatibilities can be avoided. Local units of government within Douglas County could also coordinate with municipalities in adjoining counties to initiate a notice and review process. Land Division Ordinances Douglas County is responsible for administration and enforcement of land division (subdivision) ordinances within the 16 unincorporated towns. The City of Superior has a subdivision ordinance which applies to lands within the city’s corporate limits. None of the villages have land division ordinances. Like general zoning, many different jurisdictions may be involved in the land division process. However, unlike general zoning, the rules and regulations of several jurisdictions may apply to the same parcel of land. For example, a proposed project in a rural area could be subject to a countywide land division ordinance and the local town land division ordinance. If the proposal was located within the extraterritorial area of a city or village, those jurisdictions could also exercise their statutory extraterritorial plat review authority. In this case, the most restrictive requirements would apply to the proposed land division. If towns elect to develop their own land division ordinances, this process should be coordinated with adjoining jurisdictions. Development of ordinances concurrently would allow towns to share ideas, resources and ordinance language. Local units could also collaborate to share the expenses of ordinance administration and enforcement. Towns could also enter into intergovernmental agreements with neighboring jurisdictions with extraterritorial plat review authority. Such agreements could call for the waiver of review authority on behalf of the city or village in exchange for something else. Table 7.3: Jurisdictions Having Authority to Approve Subdivision Plats Review Authority City Council or Village Board Town Board County Planning or Zoning Agency Wisconsin Department of Administration Wisconsin Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Commerce Plat Location City or Village X X X Town X X X Town within an Extraterritorial Plat Approval Jurisdiction X X X X Source: A Guide to Preparing the Intergovernmental Cooperation Element of a Local Comprehensive Plan. Wisconsin Department of Administration **‐if plat abuts a State Trunk Highway, Interstate Highway or connecting highway. If plat is served with private septic systems. Currently, the WI Dept. of Commerce delegates review authority to the County. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐20 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter OFFICIAL MAPPING Official maps map are adopted by ordinance or resolution and depict existing and planned streets, highways, historic districts, parkways, parks, playgrounds, railroad rights of way, waterways and public transit facilities. An official map reserves lands for future public uses. Cities, villages and towns which have adopted village powers have the authority to develop an official map. Official maps ensure that future land use decisions will remain compliant with the comprehensive plan. County official mapping powers are limited to highway‐ width maps showing the location and width of existing or planned roads. Official mapping is one of the tools available to implement the comprehensive plan. Because official maps of several jurisdictions may apply to the same area, is important that communities and the county coordinate on future map development. Cooperating with Boundaries Annexation Cities and villages have the power to annex lands within their extraterritorial boundaries. The power to extend municipal boundaries into adjacent unincorporated land allows a community to control development on its periphery, therefore, minimizing land use conflicts. As an alternative to annexation, an unincorporated area may incorporate as a city or village, provided the unincorporated area meets certain statutory criteria. As discussed previously in this chapter, annexation is often a catalyst for intergovernmental disputes. Because cities and villages cannot initiate annexation proceedings, they can be a planning challenge. Cities and villages should work cooperatively with adjoining towns to identify potential growth areas within the extraterritorial area. These communities could also work collaboratively to identify mutually‐agreeable annexation standards that must be met before an annexation is approved. Annexation standards should be formalized through an intergovernmental agreement between jurisdictions. Detachment Detachment is the process by which territory is detached from one jurisdiction and transferred to another. Detachment may involve the transfer of lands between cities and villages or between cities/villages and unincorporated towns. While rarely used, detachment can be used to resolve boundary disputes, reconfiguration of irregular municipal boundaries to improve service distribution or as a tool to implement a land exchange between communities. The land exchange option could apply to situations where a city or village is allowed to expand into a town through annexation in exchange for other city or village lands being transferred to the town through detachment. Incorporation Incorporation is the process of creating a new village or city from unincorporated territory. Incorporation proceedings are driven by residents and landowners within the unincorporated area, although a town may initiate or support a petition. Petitions for incorporation must be approved by a circuit court to ensure consistency with Wisconsin law (66.0207 Wis. Stats). The Incorporation Review Board (IRB) advises the circuit court on whether petitions should be granted, dismissed, or re‐ submitted with altered boundaries. The Board is also responsible for prescribing and collecting an incorporation review fee. Petitions for incorporation must also have the approval of the electorate through a referendum vote. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐21 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter CONSOLIDATION Consolidation is the process by which a town, village, or city joins together with another town, village, or city to form one jurisdiction. Consolidation requires that communities be contiguous and each community must pass an ordinance describing the terms of the consolidation. The electorate from each community must also vote to approve the consolidation. If a town is consolidating with a city or village, approval by the circuit court and by Municipal Boundary Review (MBR) office is also required. Table 7.4: Distinguishing between Intergovernmental Agreement Types General Agreements Stipulations and Orders Revenue Sharing Agreements Cooperative Boundary Agreements Used for Services Boundaries Revenue sharing Boundaries, services, revenue sharing Binding with boundaries? No Yes, as long as any party is willing to seek enforcement of the agreement. Yes, period fixed by participants (10 year minimum) Yes, period fixed by participants (10 years or longer with MBR approval) Notice required? No Yes Yes Yes Public Hearing Required? No No Yes Yes Referendum? No Binding referendum possible Advisory referendum possible Advisory referendum possible Who Decides? Participating municipalities Municipalities involved in lawsuit, judge, area residents Participating municipalities Participating municipalities, MBR Who Reviews or Comments? Participating municipalities Municipalities involved in lawsuit, judge, area residents Participating municipalities, residents Participating municipalities, MBR, area jurisdictions, state agencies, RPC, County, Residents Source: A Guide to Preparing the Intergovernmental Cooperation Element of a Local Comprehensive Plan. Wisconsin Department of Administration ---PAGE BREAK--- 7‐22 Intergovernmental Cooperation Chapter INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Intergovernmental agreements are the most common type of formal agreements between governmental units. Intergovernmental agreements can be used in many different situations including the sharing of public services such as police or fire services, revenue sharing, establishing boundaries, and land use within boundary areas. There are four types of intergovernmental agreements; general agreements, stipulations and orders, revenue sharing agreements and cooperative boundary agreements. General agreements5 involve a contract between governmental units to establish boundaries or other shared services. Boundaries are set and the parties either commit to maintain them or to allow growth to some ultimate boundary. General agreements may also contain provisions for revenue sharing. Stipulations and Orders6 allow adjacent governmental units to resolve boundary disputes. Under the statutes, litigants are provided an opportunity to settle their lawsuit by entering into a written Stipulation and Order that is subject to approval by a judge. Residents can petition to have a binding referendum to vote to approve or reject the stipulation order. Revenue Sharing Agreements7 allow adjacent municipalities to share taxes and fees. 5 66.0301 Wisconsin Statutes 6 66.0225 Wisconsin Statutes 7 66.0305 Wisconsin Statutes Cooperative Boundary Agreements8 are the most comprehensive formal boundary agreements. These agreements are typically used to resolve boundary, service and land use issues between adjoining units of government. There is a detailed and multi‐layered process for implementation, which includes the preparation of a cooperative plan that clearly describes the public services, facilities, and infrastructure that will be provided, the layout of neighborhoods, the boundary changes agreed to, conditions, and the duration of the agreement (at least 10 years). Cooperative Boundary Agreements also require a public hearing and approval by the Wisconsin Department of Administration (Municipal Boundary Review). 8 66.0307 Wisconsin Statutes ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-1 INTRODUCTION The intent of land use planning is to understand present land use trends and to find ways to accommodate various types of future land use activities for the benefit of the county’s residents and quality of life, while minimizing the short-term and the long-term conflicts between adjacent land uses. Ownership of the land, whether in private or public hands, is an important consideration in understanding present land use activity and for guiding land use activity in the future. This portion of the Douglas County Comprehensive plan is intended to summarize the past trends and present condition of land ownership, profile existing land use activity, and existing zoning conditions. Land Use Vision Key Vision Ideas Local governments regulate expansion with county cooperation Lakes and rivers are well protected without the devaluation of property County government works with towns and appropriate agencies and respects the autonomy of each community Towns and villages have excellent plans that county respects Open space maintained as a quality of rural life without infringing on land owner rights Lake and river setbacks are well-maintained and enforced, with county respecting community provisions Land use plans encourage “one-stop-shop” Agricultural land use is respected “Dark sky” initiatives incorporated into county, town, city and village plans “In 2030, Douglas County will continue to maintain its rural character and natural resources through its respect of private and public land ownership and its responsibility to sound resource management. Douglas County will view their public land as held in public trust, wisely managed and maintained for forestry, recreation, agriculture, watershed protection and balance of wild land. Furthermore, Douglas County will be widely known for its dark skies, clean air, abundance of high quality water and wild areas, recognizing that these elements are part of the excellent quality of life.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-2 LAND OWNERSHIP Public lands A common trend in many northern Wisconsin counties is large amounts of land held in public trust and managed by public agencies. The central objective of this management in the region is to maintain continued availability for timber harvest, recreational access and use, conservation of unique, scenic, or rare natural sites, as well as the preservation of critical wildlife habitat areas. Other publicly-owned and managed lands are used primarily for municipal purposes, including the siting of government facilities. Presently, public holdings (combined federal, state, county, and municipal land holdings) constitute 42.9 percent of the Douglas County’s total area. The county itself is the largest public landholder, as 33.9 percent of the county’s land area is in county ownership, the majority of which forms the Douglas County Forest lands. Table 8.1 illustrates the various land owner classification categories and the amount of land held by each. Publicly-owned lands are also prominent locally, with several municipalities having greater than 30% of their land base under public ownership and management. In the City of Superior, for example, over ½ (55.4%) of the land base is under some form of public ownership. This is due, in part, to the fact that the city is the governmental ‘hub’ of Douglas County and northwestern Wisconsin, and the fact that the city has the third largest municipal forest within any city in the nation. The high percentage of public lands in the rural towns is primary due to the presence of county Forestlands. At over 269,000 acres in size, the Douglas County Forest is the largest in Wisconsin. Table 8.2 indicates the relative proportion of public vs. private land in each Douglas County municipality. Publicly-owned lands in Douglas County are shown on Map 8.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-3 Table 8.1: Douglas County Parcels by Owner Classification Municipality County1 Federal Municipal 2 State Private Lands3 Other Exempt 4 Total Acres City of Superior 3,957.9 10.9 7,316.4 42.4 6,904.4 2,198.8 20,430.8 Town of Amnicon 112.5 0.0 2,110.7 1,256.5 20,634.6 123.5 24,237.8 Town of Bennett 6,716.4 0.0 53.8 2,844.1 20,224.0 33.1 29,871.4 Town of Brule 6,687.1 0.6 171.7 12,331.9 15,441.9 278.4 34,911.6 Town of Cloverland 0.0 0.0 118.2 8,258.8 20,782.2 10.2 29,169.4 Town of Dairyland 53,530.1 768.4 2,151.3 191.7 32,103.9 2.2 88,747.6 Town of Gordon 56,020.6 593.3 2,032.8 1,114.4 42,073.4 212.7 102,047.2 Town of Hawthorne 6,382.7 0.0 240.3 287.6 21,485.8 145.2 28,541.6 Town of Highland 2,946.5 0.0 33.2 10,795.8 34,072.7 23.8 47,872.0 Town of Lakeside 222.5 0.0 433.5 199.7 24,141.1 23.8 25,020.6 Town of Maple 3,645.0 0.0 128.3 71.6 15,988.0 220.7 20,053.6 Town of Oakland 12,718.0 0.0 116.5 0.0 27,782.3 76.6 40,693.4 Town of Parkland 1,586.4 11.4 96.9 935.2 17,830.3 181.3 20,641.5 Town of Solon Springs 14,799.9 0.0 638.2 6,096.4 30,437.4 370.2 52,342.1 Town of Summit 65,227.6 39.7 95.2 412.8 27,933.2 521.3 94,229.8 Town of Superior 7,539.0 0.0 89.3 9,155.4 48,155.0 1,257.8 66,196.5 Town of Wascott 42,256.9 178.6 315.3 1,401.6 39,639.6 614.6 84,406.6 Village of Lake Nebagamon 840.4 0.0 131.6 33.3 6,497.6 102.2 7,605.1 Village of Oliver 0.0 0.0 382.3 10.6 220.8 9.9 623.6 Village of Poplar 12.5 0.0 234.3 34.3 6,813.6 94.4 7,189.1 Village of Solon Springs 44.4 0.0 20.4 52.0 586.8 174.0 877.6 Village of Superior 0.3 0.0 232.3 7.8 332.4 24.6 597.4 Douglas County 285,246.6 1,602.8 17,142.5 55,533.6 460,081.0 6,699.4 826,305.9 Source: Douglas County Land Records Department data & 2008 Statement of Assessments 1 All county-owned property, including County Forest lands 2 City, village and town-owned properties 3 Lands owned by private individuals or corporations (includes MFL and FCL lands) 4 Tax exempt properties, such as school district lands, public utilities, hospitals, churches, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-4 Table 8.2: Percent Public and Private Land Ownership % Total Land Ownership Municipality Public Private City of Superior 55.4% 44.6% Town of Amnicon 14.4% 85.6% Town of Bennett 32.1% 67.9% Town of Brule 54.8% 45.2% Town of Cloverland 28.7% 71.3% Town of Dairyland 63.5% 36.5% Town of Gordon 56.7% 43.3% Town of Hawthorne 24.1% 75.9% Town of Highland 28.6% 71.4% Town of Lakeside 3.4% 96.6% Town of Maple 19.2% 80.8% Town of Oakland 31.1% 68.9% Town of Parkland 14.7% 85.3% Town of Solon Springs 40.7% 59.3% Town of Summit 69.5% 30.5% Town of Superior 25.3% 74.7% Town of Wascott 51.5% 48.5% Village of Lake Nebagamon 13.2% 86.8% Village of Oliver 63.0% 37.0% Village of Poplar 3.9% 96.1% Village of Solon Springs 9.3% 90.7% Village of Superior 43.6% 56.4% Douglas County 43.0% 57.0% Source: WDNR GAP Stewardship data ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-5 Federal lands The federal government presently owns and administers 1,530 acres of Douglas County. Lands held in federal ownership are primarily those associated with the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway and are found in the St. Croix River Corridor in the Towns of Gordon, Wascott, and Dairyland. In 1968, the U.S. Congress designated the Upper St. Croix River and its primary tributary, the Namekagon (flowing through Burnett, Washburn, and Sawyer Counties), as one of the first wild and scenic river areas under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542). The federal government has identified a management boundary in the river corridor and within this management boundary there exists a mix of federal, state, county, local government, and private parcels. In terms of management, the National Park Service seeks to work collaboratively with other landowners and agencies in the corridor for the continued enhancement, protection, and preservation of the river itself and the adjacent cultural, natural, and wildlife habitat resources and, when possible, to acquire lands for continued protection. As the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is one of only two such special riverway management areas in the nation, both Douglas County and the Towns of Gordon, Wascott and Dairyland should give special consideration for land use activities, issuance of permits and development to the St. Croix corridor, its tributaries and watershed basin. State lands The State of Wisconsin presently owns and manages 52,582 acres of land in Douglas County. The largest contiguous state holding is the Brule River State Forest, encompassing portions of the Towns of Solon Springs, Bennett, Highland, Brule, and Cloverland. The Brule River State Forest follows the watercourse of the Brule River from its headwaters north of Upper St. Croix Lake to its mouth at Lake Superior. Additionally, the Brule River State Forest encompasses a two square mile annex property in the Town of Wascott. The state also maintains the St. Louis River Streambank Fish Management Area in the county’s extreme northwestern corner (Town of Superior) and a number of scattered parcels throughout the remainder of the county. Douglas County is home to two state parks, Pattison State Park (Town of Superior) established in 1920 and Amnicon Falls State Park (Town of Amnicon) established in 1961. As with the federal St. Croix River management area designation, the Brule River State Forest also maintains a designated management boundary that extends beyond the parcels presently in state ownership. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources seeks to work with private and other concerns owning lands within the management boundary to meet its long-term management goals and will work to acquire these parcels on the occasions they are available for purchase. County lands Douglas County holds nearly 280,000 acres, most of which forms the extensive Douglas County Forest—the largest county forest system in the State of Wisconsin. The largest contiguous areas of Douglas County forest are found in the Towns of Dairyland, Summit, Oakland, Bennett, Solon Springs, Gordon, and Wascott with smaller areas found in eastern Wascott, Highland, Brule, Maple, Hawthorne, Parkland and the Town of Superior. The county also maintains the Douglas County Bird Sanctuary Wildlife Area in the (encompassing portions of the Towns of Gordon and Solon Springs) in addition to numerous county parks, campground areas, boat landings, public access sites and multi-use trail networks. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-6 Large county land holdings in Douglas County originated from the late 1930s and early 1940s. As the lumbering era (roughly 1880 to 1925 in northern Wisconsin) drew to a close, the areas denuded of trees were made available for purchase for incoming settlers. The state legislature and numerous county boards in northern Wisconsin established boards of immigration, receiving support from the timber companies (who were eager to sell their holdings) and private land agencies to promote the purchase and settlement of these lands. These immigration boards published advertisements throughout the United States declaring northern Wisconsin as an ideal place to purchase cleared land and engage in farming. Many thousands of settlers and new immigrants heeded the call and arrived in the state’s northern counties to attempt to convert the “cutover” into productive farmland. Agricultural activity was never able to secure as a solid foothold in the area as it had in the southern part of the state due to the lack of local markets (at that time) for agricultural goods, the shorter growing season, and the less suitable soils. The 1930s and early 1940s saw many farms become tax delinquent, with much of the tax forfeited lands coming into public ownership—to both the counties and to the state. These lands, in large part, formed the basis for the development of northern Wisconsin’s county, state and national forest system. Municipal lands Municipal holdings (lands held by the City of Superior, the villages and the towns) encompass 17,400 acres (2.13%) of the county’s land area. The largest contiguous municipal holdings are the Superior Municipal Forest (within the City of Superior) and lands around the Radigan Flowage (Town of Dairyland). Municipal holdings have generally been designated for a specific use (examples include landfill or transfer station site, town hall/town garage site, town park area, or day-use recreational site) or have been held by the municipality in anticipation of a coming development or identified need. Industrial forest lands Industrial forestlands comprise 109,125 acres in Douglas County. The largest contiguous industrial forest area is largely coincident with the sandy soils of southeastern Douglas County, covering much of central Wascott, eastern Gordon, southern Highland and eastern Solon Springs. Substantial industrial forest holdings are also located in the Towns of Bennett, Oakland, Superior, Dairyland, and Cloverland. Private lands Private land holdings comprise 365,741 acres (44.87% of the total area) of Douglas County. Most privately held lands are found in the northern portion of the county as well as the areas adjacent to lakeshores and along the major roadways countywide. The predominant use of private lands in Douglas County is for residential use (year-round and seasonal) combined with a mix of forestry and agricultural uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-7 TRENDS IN LAND ASSESSMENT Figure 8.1: Tax Parcel Classification, Douglas County Historical information regarding land use trends in Douglas County is largely incomplete or unavailable. The 2008 existing land use assessment was the county’s first formal attempt to identify current land uses across the landscape. Property tax assessment data was used as a surrogate for historical land use information. While having limitations, this information can be used as a broad indicator of land use change over a period of years. Tables 8.3 -8.7 depict property tax classification data from 1978, 1988, 1998 and 2008 for the categories of agriculture, residential, commercial, manufacturing and forestry. Figure 8.2: Tax Classification Acreage, Douglas County Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-8 Agriculture Figure 8.3: Agricultural Property Assessment- Parcels Figure8.4: Agricultural Property Assessment - Acreage Chapter 70.32(2) 4, Wis. State Statues defines agricultural use as “land, exclusive of buildings and improvements and the land necessary for their location and convenience, that is devoted primarily to agricultural use, as defined by rule.” Between 1978 and 2008, the number of town parcels in the agricultural tax assessment class declined by 44.5 percent. Meanwhile, the total assessed acreage in this class declined 42.7 percent. This change likely reflects the conversion of agricultural lands, or fallow lands assessed as agriculture, to other tax classes such as forest or residential. This change may also be due, in part, to changes in the way that agricultural land has been assessed. Since 1974, the Wisconsin Constitution has allowed for the preferential assessment of agricultural lands for tax purposes. Prior to 1995, the market value standard was revised to a “use value” standard under the state Budget Act. This change sought to tax farmland based on its agricultural productivity, rather than its potential for development. While the apparent loss of agricultural land is evident in each town’s assessment statistics, the figures are more notable in the south shore towns; which historically have had a larger agricultural base. With the exception of the Village of Poplar, agriculture does not occupy a large part of the land base in Douglas County’s incorporated communities. Like the towns, Poplar’s agricultural land base has also dwindled over the past 30 years. The changes in agriculture in Douglas County are reflective of a broader shift in land use occurring at both a state and national level. Between the 1950’s and the 1990’s the State of Wisconsin lost nearly one-fourth of its farmland to development and conversion to other land uses. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-9 Table 8.3: Douglas County Agricultural Assessments, 1978-2008 Number of Parcels Acres 1978 1988 1998 20085 1978 1988 1998 20081 T Amnicon 397 339 270 242 8,994 8,887 7,784 7,109 T Bennett 135 66 65 63 1,575 945 934 1,064 T Brule 206 166 157 127 6,195 3,069 2,816 2,630 T Cloverland 310 201 165 177 11,602 7,650 6,075 6,378 T Dairyland 153 64 64 68 3,603 1,619 1,652 1,714 T Gordon 49 54 32 36 1,853 1,864 619 579 T Hawthorne 96 39 40 31 2,448 862 798 799 T Highland 28 10 8 26 322 127 107 516 T Lakeside 286 283 287 162 9,341 8,593 7,984 5,172 T Maple 297 184 189 146 8,831 5,220 5,209 4,068 T Oakland 321 241 123 143 6,037 4,149 3,449 3,883 T Parkland 185 212 210 113 4,965 5,835 5,540 3,457 T Solon Springs 41 130 55 62 1,048 1,475 4,252 858 T Summit 349 223 176 125 7,848 4,119 3,603 3,006 T Superior 543 505 483 355 12,506 11,235 10,471 8,914 T Wascott 17 21 13 17 702 446 255 185 Towns 3,413 2,738 2,337 1,893 87,870 66,095 61,548 50,332 V Lake Nebagamon 136 147 0 0 4,145 4,489 0 0 V Oliver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Poplar 200 154 137 110 6,022 4,792 4,252 3,239 V Solon Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Superior 0 9 0 0 0 123 0 0 C Superior 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 133 Incorporated 336 310 137 128 10,167 9,409 4,252 3,372 Douglas County 3,749 3,048 2,474 2,021 98,037 75,499 65,800 53,704 Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue 5 2007 assessment statistics obtained from WDOR Statement of Assessments as reported on or before March 04, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-10 Residential The residential tax assessment includes “any parcel or part of a parcel of untilled land that is not suitable for the production of row crops, on which a dwelling or other form of human abode is located and which is not otherwise classified “(Ch 70.32(2)(c)3), Wi. State Statutes). Over the 30-year period between 1978 and 2008, the number of residential tax parcels in Douglas County increased by 39.7 percent. Total acreage in the residential tax assessment class also grew by 24 percent. During this period Douglas County experienced relatively rapid rural growth and a notable urban to rural population shift. The only unincorporated town to experience a decrease in residential assessment was Parkland. These residential trends confirm the trends identified in both the population and housing data presented earlier in the plan and that there remains a continued high demand for rural residential property. The decline in agricultural parcels and corresponding rise in residential parcels suggests the conversion of one to the other. Agricultural lands are often desirable for new development as they require no clearing, are generally well drained, and in the case of Douglas County, are in proximity (20 minutes or less driving time) of the Cities of Duluth and Superior, which accommodates commuting. The trend is opposite in the incorporated communities of Douglas County, which collectively lost 44.5 percent of their residential tax parcels during the period. This change is likely due to residential parcels no longer being assessed as residential by conversion to other uses or reclassification and the consolidation of smaller residential parcels into larger parcels. Figure 8.5: Residential Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.6: Residential Property Assessment – Acreage The number of residential tax parcels in the City of Superior declined by 49 percent between 1978 and 2008. This figure directly corresponds to a marked decline in the city’s population during this period. In accordance with regional and national trends, Douglas County is experiencing large-lot residential growth within unincorporated areas throughout the county. This type of development has substantial cumulative impacts on the county’s transportation infrastructure, service delivery and roadway maintenance costs. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-11 A prosperous economy throughout the late ‘90’s and into the early part of the 21st century fostered increased development of seasonal/recreational housing units, particularly within the lake areas of the county. As more of the “prime” waterfront is developed and costs escalate, it is reasonable to assume that development will focus on the previously less desirable areas including rivers, streams, small lake and wetlands. Development has also begun to encroach on the forestlands of northern Wisconsin. Large tracts of industrial forest land are being divided and sold to private landowners for development or for private hunting/recreational uses. Forested lands are now highly prized for development; a fact which is evidenced by rapidly escalating land costs and the number of rural forested lots on today’s market. The rapid fragmentation of forestlands has broad implications for land use planning, including the threat of greater fragmentation through the establishment of new roads, utilities, and houses across the landscape. Fragmentation increases the amount of linear edge areas on the landscape. These areas favor species that prefer edge habitat such as whitetail deer and ruffed grouse. An increased amount of edge habitat is accompanied by a variety of negative impacts including increased predation/competition among species and increased range expansion of exotic species. Heavy browsing by an expanding population of whitetail deer can alter the types of plant species that grow in some areas. As a result, some desirable or rare plant species may become threatened. Deer are thriving in many parts of Wisconsin because humans have created large amounts of edge habitat. Core species such as wolves and interior songbirds can be negatively impacted by the loss of interior habitat. Regionally, there has been a notable trend in the conversion of seasonal/recreational dwellings to permanent year-round homes. Between 1980 and 2000, several of the lake communities grew more quickly that the rest of Douglas County, which may be indicative that this trend is occurring in Douglas County. In the lake areas of northwestern Wisconsin, the conversion of resorts to residential housing development and condominiums has also become evident in the wake of rising lakefront property values. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-12 Table 8.4: Douglas County Property Assessment- Residential Real Estate Class, 1978-2000 Number of Parcels Acres 1978 1988 1998 20086 1978 1988 1998 20081 T Amnicon 306 395 470 589 413 1,625 2,325 3,173 T Bennett 360 386 415 450 584 665 720 773 T Brule 329 329 373 436 1,643 980 1,052 842 T Cloverland 41 84 99 131 127 170 226 303 T Dairyland 201 210 259 326 242 618 754 899 T Gordon 717 909 1,011 1,229 1,556 2,125 4,736 3,357 T Hawthorne 326 408 450 506 678 1,032 1,252 1,455 T Highland 314 353 [PHONE REDACTED] 1,166 2,339 2,411 T Lakeside 283 295 355 480 859 1,008 1,183 1,471 T Maple 206 269 303 336 668 317 453 578 T Oakland 601 626 703 787 5,000 1,468 2,062 2,542 T Parkland 1,093 1,012 940 1,033 3,558 2,232 2,457 2,931 T Solon Springs 810 866 942 1,106 2,582 1,331 1,411 1,829 T Summit 670 749 804 862 1,041 1,145 1,916 1,753 T Superior 801 937 1,045 1,259 1,199 1,706 2,945 3,422 T Wascott 1,217 1,249 1,428 1,557 4,085 2,493 3,491 4,087 Towns 8,275 9077 10,021 11,558 25,674 20,081 29,322 31,826 V Lake Nebagamon 1,059 933 912 956 1,594 1,461 1,399 1,462 V Oliver 474 348 339 409 (No data) (No data) (No data) 153 V Poplar 144 226 239 267 881 2,054 1,839 997 V Solon Springs 646 562 537 434 502 723 483 482 V Superior 435 297 307 315 (No data) (No data) (No data) 259 C Superior 18,998 15,471 10,051 9,687 (No data) (No data) 147 3,133 Incorporated 21,756 17,837 12,385 12,068 2,977* 7,753* 3,868* 6,486 Douglas County 30,031 26,914 22,406 23,626 28,651* 27,834* 33,190* 38,312 Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue *Total does not include municipal divisions where no data was listed. 6 2007 assessment statistics obtained from WDOR Statement of Assessments as reported on or before March 04, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-13 Commercial Commercial properties include those in which the primary use is the selling of merchandise or services. Historically, much of Douglas County’s commercial tax base has been located within the county’s incorporated villages and the City of Superior. Rural commercial development is generally located within isolated development nodes along highways and within rural hamlet communities. Between 1978 and 2008, the number of rural commercial parcels increased by 28.7 percent, while the commercial land base (acreage) remained stable. Historically, commercial development has been linked to various economic drivers and population change. Commercial growth tends to expand during times of economic prosperity and contract with a weakening economy. In parts of the county, seasonal and recreational development has been a factor in promoting commercial growth. Rural commercial development consists largely of small retail and service establishments, resorts and lodging establishments. Within the unincorporated communities, commercial growth is typically confined to areas adjoining the principal transportation corridors, particularly at key intersections, or nodes. The principal highway corridor and “nodal” rural commercial development areas in Douglas County include: USH 2 corridor, community of Brule STH 35 corridor, Town of Superior CTH & USH 53, Town of Hawthorne CTH “AA”, north of Solon Springs CTH Town of Summit CTH & USH 53, community of Wascott USH 53, community of Gordon Figure 8.7: Commercial Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.8: Commercial Property Assessment – Acreage Within many of the lake areas, commercial development is intermixed with residential and recreational development. Rural commercial within the lake areas includes several resorts. In the wake of rising shoreland property values many resort properties across the region have been converted to multi-family residential, single family residential or condominium units. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-14 Table 8.5: Douglas County Property Assessment- Commercial Real Estate Class, 1978-2008 Number of Parcels Acres 1978 1988 1998 20087 1978 1988 1998 20081 T Amnicon 22 27 34 36 413 285 374 342 T Bennett 8 8 5 8 86 86 82 115 T Brule 16 14 24 29 30 35 43 69 T Cloverland 2 1 2 3 4 1 4 6 T Dairyland 8 8 9 9 17 19 24 33 T Gordon 50 64 74 67 234 257 300 380 T Hawthorne 10 14 15 16 42 159 169 181 T Highland 3 7 8 8 49 116 148 94 T Lakeside 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 T Maple 10 10 10 14 26 18 19 22 T Oakland 8 10 8 13 10 11 49 17 T Parkland 31 29 26 42 169 181 148 245 T Solon Springs 16 19 28 29 293 119 233 252 T Summit 21 19 16 19 71 98 117 149 T Superior 62 62 63 59 593 483 515 472 T Wascott 29 23 29 29 307 187 193 125 Towns 296 315 352 381 2,344 2,055 2,419 2,502 V Lake Nebagamon 62 50 230 47 315 213 230 218 V Oliver 18 5 0 10 (No data) (No data) 0 6 V Poplar 31 32 192 42 138 136 192 195 V Solon Springs 43 41 39 45 10 10 39 106 V Superior 35 23 (No data) 32 45 0 (No data) 129 C Superior 2,270 2,383 1,785 1,690 (No data) (No data) 137 2,638 Incorporated 2,459 2,534 2,137* 1,866 508* 359* 598* 3,292 Douglas County 2,755 2,849 2,997* 2,247 2,852* 2,414* 3,017* 5,794 Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue *Total does not include municipal divisions where no data was listed. 7 2007 assessment statistics obtained from WDOR Statement of Assessments as reported on or before March 04, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-15 Manufacturing Figure 8.9: Manufacturing Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.10: Manufacturing Property Assessment – Acreage Under Ch 70.995(1)(a), Wis. State Statutes, manufacturing property, “includes all lands, buildings, structures and other real property used in manufacturing, assembling, processing, fabricating, making or milling tangible personal property for profit. Manufacturing property also includes warehouses, storage facilities and office structures when the predominant use of the warehouses, storage facilities or offices is in support of the manufacturing property, and all personal property owned or used by any person engaged in this state in any of the activities mentioned, and used in the activity, including raw materials, supplies, machinery, equipment, work in process and finished inventory when located at the site of the activity. Establishments engaged in assembling component parts of manufactured products are considered manufacturing establishments if the new product is neither a structure nor other fixed improvement. Materials processed by a manufacturing establishment include products of agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining and quarrying. For the purposes of this section, establishments which engage in mining metalliferous minerals are considered manufacturing establishments. Manufacturing operations in Douglas County are largely confined to urban areas, where infrastructure (sewer, water, transportation facilities) exist. The bulk of the county’s manufacturing operations are located in the City of Superior. Rural industrial development consists mainly of extractive activities, including sand and gravel pits. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-16 Table 8.6: Douglas County Property Assessment- Manufacturing Real Estate Class, 1978-2008 Number of Parcels Acres 1978 1988 1998 20088 1978 1988 1998 2008 T Amnicon 0 1 2 2 0 18 23 23 T Bennett 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Brule 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Cloverland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Dairyland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Gordon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Hawthorne 13 9 8 0 408 242 203 0 T Highland 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 T Lakeside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Maple 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Oakland 1 1 1 1 80 80 80 80 T Parkland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T Solon Springs 2 1 0 0 40 5 0 0 T Summit 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 T Superior 5 5 5 5 112 113 119 119 T Wascott 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Towns 23 17 16 8 650 458 425 222 V Lake Nebagamon 1 1 1 1 28 27 26 26 V Oliver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V Poplar 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 5 V Solon Springs 6 1 0 4 (No data) (No data) (No data) 10 V Superior 0 0 83 0 0 0 588 0 C Superior 73 73 0 90 177 208 0 733 Incorporated 80 75 86 97 205* 235* 619* 774 Douglas County 103 92 102 105 855* 693* 1,044* 996 Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue *Total does not include municipal divisions where no data was listed. 8 2007 assessment statistics obtained from WDOR Statement of Assessments as reported on or before March 04, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-17 Forest Figure 8.11: Forest Property Assessment – Parcels Figure 8.12: Forest Property Assessment – Acreage "Productive forest land" means land that is producing or is capable of producing commercial forest products and is not otherwise classified under Ch 70.32 Wis. State Statutes. Lands classified as forest as nearly exclusive to the unincorporated towns of Douglas County. This classification includes only privately-owned forestlands, as publicly-owned properties are tax-exempt. Overall, the number of parcels classified as forest increased by 19.3 percent between 1978 and 2008, while the total acreage in this class declined by 5.1 percent. The reduction in the number of parcels classified as forest likely reflects the consolidation of smaller parcels into larger land tracts. Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue Data Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-18 Table 8.7: Douglas County Property Assessment- Forest Real Estate Class, 1978-2008 Number of Parcels Acres 1978 1988 1998 20089 1978 1988 1998 2008 T Amnicon 474 371 377 346 10,076 9,895 9,856 7,740 T Bennett 599 484 510 463 19,216 12,487 12,792 10,758 T Brule 251 422 438 420 7,920 10,947 13,958 9,109 T Cloverland 130 206 226 205 4,385 6,687 7,099 5,474 T Dairyland 548 574 565 675 16,749 18,380 17,438 20,536 T Gordon 648 574 532 529 20,266 15,691 14,952 13,560 T Hawthorne 545 653 724 781 15,826 14,286 15,388 15,377 T Highland 329 356 307 246 10,592 10,600 9,409 6,692 T Lakeside 341 373 436 612 10,958 11,247 13,374 16,561 T Maple 219 404 427 505 6,498 10,305 10,375 11,085 T Oakland 593 570 562 590 19,489 16,411 15,525 15,399 T Parkland 127 198 221 418 4,828 5,309 5,473 9,777 T Solon Springs 510 567 590 588 10,227 17,073 16,355 13,295 T Summit 671 853 792 729 18,608 19,729 20,228 15,820 T Superior 1166 1,422 1165 1,355 29,005 30,803 25,645 27,273 T Wascott 514 612 576 679 20,828 16,230 16,098 15,620 Towns 7,665 8,639 8,448 9,141 225,471 226,080 223,965 214,076 V Lake Nebagamon (No data) (No data) 156 170 (No data) (No data) 3,696 3,115 V Oliver (No data) (No data) 0 0 (No data) (No data) 0 0 V Poplar (No data) (No data) 9 94 (No data) (No data) 175 1,947 V Solon Springs (No data) (No data) 0 0 (No data) (No data) 0 0 V Superior (No data) (No data) 0 0 (No data) (No data) 0 0 C Superior (No data) (No data) 0 0 193 (No data) 0 0 Incorporated (incom.) (incom.) 164 264 (incom.) (incom.) 3,871 5,062 Douglas County (incom.) (incom.) 8,612 9,405 (incom.) (incom.) 227,836 219,138 Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue *Total does not include municipal divisions where no data was listed. 9 2007 assessment statistics obtained from WDOR Statement of Assessments as reported on or before March 04, 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-19 LAND USE REGULATION Introduction Land use regulations are among the most important tools that communities have to direct growth and realize their long-term vision. While Douglas County’s land use regulations are intended to protect health, safety and the general welfare of county residents, they are not based on any planning or long-range vision. Achieving the goals of the comprehensive plan will, at a minimum, require that existing land use regulations be examined to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan. Plan implementation may also include the revision of existing regulations or the development of new regulations, ordinances or other land use controls in order to achieve planning and development aspirations. Comprehensive Zoning Zoning ordinances are the primary land use regulation tool used in Douglas County, and the county adopted countywide zoning by ordinance in December 1970. County zoning applies to all unincorporated areas of the county. The City of Superior and the five incorporated villages are responsible for administering their own zoning within their municipal limits. A land use permit must be issued by the county zoning office before engaging in any land use activities within the county. Douglas County’s comprehensive zoning ordinance divides lands into a series of mapped districts, and then assigns permitted uses and development requirements to each zone. When the ordinance was developed, probably in the late 1960’s, land uses were likely mapped and framed within the context of development and uses that existed at that time. In other words, at the time it was developed, the zoning map more or less reflected existing uses on the landscape. Much has changed in the nearly 40 years since the ordinance was developed. While the code has been amended several times, the existing ordinance has not kept pace with change on the landscape and development trends. Consequently, the code reveals occasional inconsistencies between existing use and underlying zoning. For example, in several areas zoned Agricultural the existing land use is forest or residential. In these instances, the A-1 zoning would make sense if the county had adopted long-range plans promoting the development of agriculture in these areas. Zoning Districts Lands within the unincorporated towns of Douglas County are currently zoned within the ten categories described in Table 8.8. Each Zoning District has unique dimensional requirements and standards, including minimum lot sizes, minimum lot width, setback requirements, floor area requirements and building height limitations. In addition to the provisions of the Douglas County Zoning Ordinance, new development may also be subject to provisions of local town ordinances and other regulations. A land use permit is required before any substantial land use alteration, or prior to building, moving or structurally altering any structure. Existing zoning in Douglas County is shown in Map 8.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-20 Table 8.8: Douglas County Zoning Districts Description Required Lot Area R-1 Residential This district provides for one-family and two-family year-round residential development protected from traffic hazards and the intrusion of incompatible land uses. It is intended to encourage such development around existing residential areas where soil conditions are suitable for such development and in those areas which can be economically and readily served by utilities and municipal facilities. with public sewer 10,000 ft2(1) shorelands- backlots 20,000 ft2(2) outside shorelands 15,000 ft2 R-2 Residential This district provides for one-family and two-family year-round residential development and for the continuation of forest programs. It is intended to encourage forest management programs and at the same time, allow large lot residential development. with public sewer 5 acres shorelands- backlots 5 acres outside shorelands 5 acres RR-1 Recreational Residential This district is intended to provide for seasonal residential development and essential recreation-oriented services in areas of high recreational value where soil conditions and other physical features will support such development without depleting or destroying natural resources. with public sewer 10,000 ft2(1) shorelands- backlots 5 acres outside shorelands 20,000 ft2 Shoreline lots 30,000 ft2(2)(10 30,000 ft2((2) ) 11 40,000 ft2(2)( ) 12 80,000 ft2(2)( ) 13 A-1 Agricultural ) This district is intended to provide for the continuation of general farming and related activites in those areas best suited for such development; and to prevent the untimely and uneconomical scattering of residential, commercial, or industrial development into such areas. with public sewer 5 acres shorelands- backlots 5 acres outside shorelands 5 acres C-1 Commercial This district is intended to provide for the orderly and attractive grouping, at appropriate locations, of retail stores, shops, offices and similar commercial establishments. with public sewer 10,000 ft2(1) shorelands- backlots 20,000 ft2(2) outside shorelands 20,000 ft2(2) I-1 Industrial This district is intended to provide for manufacturing and industrial operations which, on the basis of actual physical and operational with public sewer 1 acre 10 Unclassified shorelines 11 Minimum protection classified shorelines 12 Moderate protection classified shorelines 13 Maximum protection classified shorelines Minimum for one-family dwellings; add 5,000 square feet for each additional unit over one. Plus any additional area required by Wis. Adm. Code Comm. 85. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-21 Description Required Lot Area characteristics, would not be detrimental to surrounding areas by reason of smoke, noise, dust, odor, traffic, physical appearance or similar factors relating to public health, welfare and safety. shorelands- backlots 1 acre outside shorelands 1 acre F-1 Forestry This district provides for the continuation of forest programs and related uses in those areas best suited for such activities. It is intended to encourage forest management programs and also to recognize the value of the forest as a recreational resource by permitting as a conditional use certain recreational activities which when adequately developed, are not incompatible to the forest. with public sewer 10 acres shorelands- backlots 10 acres outside shorelands 10 acres W-1 Resource Conservation This district is intended to be used to prevent destruction of natural or man-made resources and to protect water courses including the shorelands of navigable waters, and areas which are not adequately drained, or which are subject to periodic flooding, where developments would result in hazards to health or safety, would deplete or destroy resources; or be otherwise incompatible with the public welfare. N/A SP Shoreland Protection (Overlay District) This district provides for the protection waters and shorelands, and for safe and orderly shoreland development in Douglas County. The intent is to further the maintenance of safe and healthful conditions; prevent and control water pollution; protect spawning grounds, fish and aquatic life; control building sites, placement of structures and uses, and to preserve shore cover and natural beauty. The district includes all lands in the unincorporated areas of the county within the following distance from the normal highwater elevation of navigable water; 1,000 feet from a lake, pond, or flowage, and 300 feet from a river or stream or to the landward side of a floodplain whichever distance is greater. See SHORELANDS CLASS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PUD Planned Unit Development The PUD District is intended to provide for large-scale residential or residential-recreational development. This district shall have no definite boundaries until such are approved by the county board on the recommendation of the Zoning Committee in accordance with procedures prescribed for zoning amendments by Wisconsin Statutes, Section 59.97. Plans for the proposed development shall be submitted in duplicate, and shall show the location, size, and proposed use of all structures and land included in the areas involved. Single area of at least 5 acres, Each residential building and lot in the district must conform to the R-1 District requirements and each commercial building and lot must conform to the C-1 District requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-22 The following table identifies the area of the county in each of the nine zoning categories. As is evidenced in Table 8.9, F-1 forestry is the largest zoning district in Douglas County, followed by A-1 Agriculture and the combined residential zoning designations. Table 8.9: Douglas County Zoning Districts (for unincorporated areas only) Zoning District Name Acres Percent of County Number of Parcels Average Parcel Size A-1 Agricultural 165,095 21.08% 11,749 14.1 C-1 Commercial 2,477 0.32% 751 3.3 F-1 Forestry 535,262 68.34% 21,700 24.7 I-1 Industrial 1,074 0.14% 645 1.7 R-1 Residential 6,028 0.77% 1331 4.5 R-2 Residential 40,562 5.18% 9,606 4.2 PUD Planned Unit Dev. 75 0.01% 2 37.4 RR-1 Recreational-Residential 24,319 3.11% 6,565 3.7 W-1 Resource Conservation 8,297 1.06% 1521 5.5 Source: Douglas County Zoning Department ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-23 Zoning changes By following the changes in zoning—by charting the rezoning from one district category to another—it can be revealed where significant land use changes are occurring. Numerous rezones in a single town may suggest a significant change in land use activity which requires a zoning change or may also reflect the inadequacy of the zoning regulation to respond to existing or developing land use activity. Table 8.10 illustrates the number of re-zones granted in each of the unincorporated units of the county from January 1990 to December of 2007. Table 8.10: Re-zones Granted in the Unincorporated Towns: 1999-2007 Unincorporated Towns January 1990- June 1999 July 1999- December 2007 Total Amnicon 16 15 31 Bennett 5 11 16 Brule 10 7 17 Cloverland 0 2 2 Dairyland 7 10 17 Gordon 14 19 33 Hawthorne 14 7 21 Highland 4 8 12 Lakeside 3 4 7 Maple 4 13 17 Oakland 10 11 21 Parkland 8 9 17 Solon Springs 19 21 40 Summit 10 23 33 Superior 19 35 54 Wascott 19 17 36 Source: Calculated from Douglas County Zoning Department Data As is shown in Table 8.10 above, the largest number of rezone requests were granted in the Towns of Superior, Solon Springs, Wascott, Gordon, and Amnicon. These municipalities have also been identified (see Population & Demographics and Housing chapters of this plan) as experiencing increasing population and residential development. Between 1999 and 2007, the majority of parcel rezones for residential purposes involved a transition from F-1 Forestry (35) or C-1 Commercial (17) to a residential zoning district. Rezones to commercial zoning largely involved the transition of existing residential zoning (14), A-1 Agricultural (11) or F-1 Forestry to C-1 Commercial. Table 8.11 depicts petitions granted by zoning district for the unincorporated municipalities in Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-24 Table 8.11: Zoning Petitions Granted by Zoning District, 1999-2007 ZONED TO MCD ZONED FROM A-1 C-1 C- 1/A- 1 F-1 I-1 NON S/L W/L NON W/L PUD R-1 R-1 /R-2 R-2 RR-1 T. Amnicon A-1 3 C-1 1 F-1 1 3 2 R-1 1 1 R-1 & F- 1 R-1/F-1 1 1 TOTAL 3 3 1 2 3 3 T. Bennett C-1 1 F-1 4 R-2 3 1 1 R-2 & F- 1 TOTAL 8 1 1 1 T. Brule A-1 1 1 F-1 2 1 R-1 1 R-2 1 TOTAL 3 1 1 1 1 T. Cloverland F-1 1 1 TOTAL 1 1 T. Dairyland C-1 1 F-1 4 1 R-1 1 R-2 1 2 TOTAL 4 2 2 1 1 T. Gordon A-1 1 A-1 & F- 1 C-1 1 2 F-1 4 2 2 1 F-1/RR-1 1 I-1 1 R-2 1 1 RR-1 1 TOTAL 7 1 1 5 3 2 T. Hawthorne F-1 5 R-2 1 1 TOTAL 5 1 1 T. Highland F-1 2 1 2 R-2 1 1 S/L W/L 1 TOTAL 3 1 1 1 2 T. Lakeside A-1 1 1 F-1 1 1 TOTAL 1 1 1 1 T. Maple C-1 4 F-1 6 1 R-1 1 1 TOTAL 7 1 5 T. Oakland F-1 9 1 W/L 1 TOTAL 9 1 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-25 MCD ZONED FROM A-1 C-1 C- 1/A- 1 F-1 I-1 NON S/L W/L NON W/L PUD R-1 R-1 /R-2 R-2 RR-1 T. Parkland A-1 1 1 C-1 1 F-1 1 R-2 1 3 1 TOTAL 2 4 1 1 1 T. Solon Springs A-1 3 2 C-1 1 1 F-1 2 1 2 F-1/R-2 1 R-1 1 1 R-2 1 1 2 1 R-2/F-1 1 TOTAL 4 5 2 4 1 3 2 T. Summit A-1 1 C-1 2 1 2 1 F-1 6 4 R-2 2 2 1 RR-1 1 TOTAL 10 3 1 2 6 1 T. Superior A-1 2 2 C-1 2 1 F-1 10 2 1 2 I-1 1 R-2 2 1 W-1 3 1 1 4 TOTAL 15 4 1 6 8 1 T. Wascott F-1 5 1 5 3 R-1 1 R-2 1 RR-1 1 TOTAL 5 2 1 1 5 3 Douglas County A-1 6 1 2 2 1 1 A-1 & F- 1 C-1 3 1 5 4 2 F-1 16 4 4 11 3 F-1/R-2 1 F-1/RR-1 1 I-1 1 1 R-1 3 4 1 1 R-1 & F- 1 R-1/F-1 1 1 R-2 6 6 5 1 1 4 2 R-2 & F- 1 R-2/F-1 1 RR-1 1 2 S/L W/L 1 W/L 1 W-1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 33 21 1 8 5 1 1 1 18 1 19 10 Source: Calculated from Douglas County Zoning Department Data ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8‐26 Rezoning Trends Table 8.11 depicts zoning changes (rezones) by municipality occurring between 1999 and 2007. Of the 119 total rezones, 33 (27.7%) were rezones to A‐1 Agriculture from other zoning districts, most commonly F‐1 Forestry. At first glance this trend appears to run contrary to the decline in agriculture implied by the tax assessment statistics. However, it is likely that these changes actually reflect conversion for purposes of residential development as the A‐1 district (5 acre minimum) has a smaller minimum lot size than F‐1 district (10 acre minimum). Countywide, there were only four zoning changes from A‐1 to residential zoning districts (R‐1, R‐2, RR‐1), suggesting that the conversion of existing agricultural land to residential land was limited during this period. Shoreland Zoning The Douglas County shoreland zoning ordinance establishes development standards for lands adjacent to shorelands. These standards are based on the Douglas County Lakes and Rivers Classification System, which groups surface waters into separate classes based on their sensitivity to development impacts, while recognizing existing levels of development. Using a three‐tiered classification system, surface waters were designated as class 1,2 or 3, with class 3 lakes (along with rivers & streams) having the most restrictive development standards. Table 8.12: Douglas County Shoreland Class Development Standards – Dimensional Requirements14 Lakes Classification Lot Size For Each Single Family Dwelling Unit Lot Width Shoreline Setback Lot Depth Vegetation Removal Side Yard Setback for all Structures Class 1 30,000 ft2 150 ft. 300 ft.15 75 ft. 200 ft. 30' corridor within 35' of shore 10' min. 40' min total Class 2 40,000 ft2 175 ft. 300 ft. a 100 ft. 230 ft. 30' corridor within 35' of shore 10' min. 40' min. total Class 3 80,000 ft2 200 ft. 300 ft. a 125 ft. 400 ft. 30' corridor within 50' of shore 20' min. 50' min. total Wild Lakes 10 Acres 300ft. 175ft. N/A 30' corridor within 50' of shore 20' min. 50' min. total Rivers & Streams 80,000 ft2 200 ft. 125 ft.16 400 ft. 30' corridor within 50' of shore 20' min. 50' min. total Source: Douglas County Zoning 14 The Town of Wascott Lake Development Standards, when more restrictive, supersede the Douglas County Shoreland Development Standards. 15R‐1 & A‐2 16 Brule, St. Croix, and Eau Claire Rivers have a 200' setback, Douglas County Shoreland Development Standards apply when more restrictive. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-27 Unlike inland lakes, building setback restrictions on Lake Superior are based on bluff height and slope rather than the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Subdivision Regulation Douglas County adopted its Subdivision Control Ordinance in 1969. The ordinance regulates the division of land within all unincorporated areas of Douglas County in order to provide safe and orderly subdivision layouts. All land divisions of land under 10 acres are subject to the provisions of the ordinance. Surveys or plats are required for such subdivisions. Provisions are made for minimum lot sizes, access roads and other concerns such as floodplain, wetlands and topography. Douglas County Floodplain Zoning Ordinance Douglas County adopted its floodplain zoning ordinance in August of 1994. Floodplain zoning affects all unincorporated areas of the county which lie within floodplains mapped on FEMA Floodplain Insurance Rate Maps. Douglas County villages and the City of Superior have their own zoning standards for floodplains. Local Zoning Authority The City of Superior and the Villages of Lake Nebagamon, Oliver, Solon Springs, Poplar and Superior are responsible for their own zoning enforcement and administration. Each community has its own zoning code with provisions specific to each community. Private Sewage Ordinance Douglas County’s Private Sewage System Ordinance was adopted in 1980. The ordinance refers to Chapter 145 of the State Statutes and Administrative Code Comm. 83. These rules address proper siting, design, installation, inspection and maintenance of private sewage systems in order to protect public and environmental health and safety. The code requires that all dwellings be served by a state compliant sanitary system. Non-Metallic Mining Reclamation Ordinance Chapter NR 135, Wis. Adm. Code, defines the standards for reclamation and restoration of state nonmetallic mining operations. By law, each Wisconsin county (except Milwaukee County) is required to enact an ordinance and administer a program that regulates the reclamation of nonmetallic mining sites. Douglas County adopted its Non-metallic Mining Reclamation Ordinance in June of 2001. Conditional-Use Permits are required for all nonmetallic mining operations in the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-28 EXISTING LAND USE Existing Land Use Map Current land uses in Douglas County were identified through photographic interpretation, field reconnaissance and consultation with the local units of government. Land uses were classified using categories depicted in Figure 8.13. Existing land use in Douglas County is shown in Map 8.3. Figure 8.13: Existing Land Use Categories ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-29 Table 8.13: Existing Land Use, Towns Agriculture Commercial Extraction Forest - Harvested Forest Roads & Trails Govt./ Institution Hydrologic Feature Impervious Surface Industrial Forest Parks and Rec. Residential Structure Transition Lands Transport. Transport. (Driveway) Utilities Anmicon 5,360.1 43.4 116.1 2,505.3 4.2 2.0 150.0 2.8 11.3 13,044.2 802.5 719.7 49.6 1,222.0 928.2 49.4 0.2 Bennett 623.8 27.9 0.0 3,949.6 35.9 81.5 493.2 1.6 0.0 23,931.4 7.2 611.6 27.1 332.8 560.2 39.9 177.4 Brule 3,275.0 6.9 0.0 3,142.8 35.9 5.5 281.7 5.4 42.1 26,436.7 464.5 520.9 31.1 511.8 732.0 45.2 211.1 Cloverland 5,200.7 0.0 0.0 4,415.5 10.4 5.0 112.7 0.4 0.0 18,100.0 0.0 310.4 18.1 816.0 531.4 21.4 0.0 Dairyland 765.1 11.7 0.0 3,419.0 159.3 45.8 502.4 0.4 30.7 83,534.5 48.0 369.4 20.6 79.7 874.4 36.6 104.8 Gordon 716.1 39.8 15.7 8,685.8 236.6 28.1 3,950.7 6.7 0.0 84,472.9 100.6 620.3 49.1 172.0 1,401.2 83.4 123.6 Hawthorne 552.6 72.0 94.6 2,735.4 29.8 39.9 355.6 10.4 0.0 23,548.9 162.8 826.9 41.7 317.8 594.0 62.2 85.3 Highland 136.8 48.3 1.9 10,245.9 140.7 9.7 1,107.8 12.9 0.0 36,822.0 0.1 227.3 20.2 94.3 1,031.6 35.6 0.0 Lakeside 4,171.2 0.0 0.0 1,439.4 4.9 11.3 182.4 0.0 0.0 16,548.1 0.0 607.9 30.6 1,831.8 517.0 35.1 139.8 Maple 4,861.2 3.1 20.0 1,396.8 14.9 28.5 11.1 5.0 0.0 12,156.0 5.4 647.7 33.6 691.3 455.8 31.6 166.5 Oakland 2,578.3 24.1 161.2 7,280.1 63.5 49.4 732.2 0.4 8.1 27,115.4 8.4 833.0 48.1 1,840.6 534.0 53.9 238.7 Parkland 3,247.1 38.2 27.6 1,363.3 7.5 35.1 14.6 1.4 137.1 15,064.9 7.2 804.2 44.9 1,023.5 538.1 33.4 328.2 Solon Springs 746.0 53.6 65.6 7,336.6 157.1 18.4 1,012.0 10.5 0.0 42,541.7 62.1 561.6 49.5 104.8 1,048.8 56.8 235.5 Summit 3,048.8 49.6 15.0 16,369.0 120.9 342.9 770.9 1.7 0.0 71,006.3 50.4 868.1 50.9 677.5 965.3 58.0 0.0 Superior 7,985.2 195.1 280.6 3,029.3 13.2 137.9 1,206.3 14.1 0.0 49,470.7 0.0 1,853.1 105.4 2,794.7 1,080.1 92.4 679.4 Wascott 384.7 93.1 0.0 6,216.0 281.1 4.6 5,536.4 3.9 0.0 74,926.4 0.0 691.7 69.6 105.6 1,621.9 104.1 243.5 TOTAL 43,652.7 706.8 798.3 83,529.8 1,315.9 845.6 16,420.0 77.6 229.3 618,720. 1 1,719.2 11,073.8 690.1 12,616.2 13,414.0 839.0 2,734.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-30 LAND SUPPLY Providing an adequate supply of developable land is critical to accommodate projected growth, promote and sustain economic development and to build strong and prosperous communities. Wisconsin’s comprehensive planning legislation (§66.1001) requires that plan’s contain projections, in 5- year increments, of future residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial land uses. Communities (and counties) must also allocate sufficient land to accommodate projected future growth. Undeveloped lands and redevelopment lands are subject to a wide array of potential “limiting factors” which may preclude certain land use practices. These factors may limit development options or completely exclude the subject lands from future development. It is important that development constraints be considered throughout the planning process and in the future as development proposals are brought before the Planning Commission. Below is a summary of development factors that have been identified in the planning area. Environmental Factors Environmental factors must be closely analyzed when considering future use and development. Factors such as natural drainage patterns, steepness of slopes, soil conditions, hydrography and wetlands or the presence of floodplains may severely restrict or prohibit development. The maps contained in the Natural, Agricultural & Cultural Resources Element should serve as a general guide to aid the county in broad-area land use planning. While detailed, these maps do not provide sufficient data to make individual site suitability determinations with regard to environmental factors. Site reconnaissance data and mapping coupled with assessments made by qualified professionals should be used to determine individual suitability. The rationale for consideration of environmental concerns is two-fold. First, these factors may pose serious risks to health and safety (i.e. home to close to floodplain or failing coastal bluff). By incorporating a “designing with nature” approach to development policies and by avoiding sensitive natural features, risks to health and safety can be minimized. Second, sensitive environmental resources such as wetlands, floodplains and undeveloped forestlands are an important component of the ecological landscape of Douglas County. Ensuring the continued vitality of these resources preserves the natural benefits these resources provide, including clean air and water, flood control, contaminant attenuation and the preservation of groundwater quality and quantity. Protecting sensitive natural features also promotes plant and animal diversity, preserves critical habitat and yields may social and aesthetic benefits to people. Map 8.4 shows various environmental factors which may inhibit growth and reveals an estimate of remaining land in Douglas County with development potential. The map depicts the variables that inhibit or prevent new development from taking place. These areas include industrial forest lands, lands already developed, public lands where developments are prohibited, wetlands, existing developed lands and roads, steep slopes (greater than 20%), open water, and lands within the required setback distances of lakes and streams. Floodplains must also be considered constraints to future land development; however, this data is not currently available in a GIS-ready digital format. The largest stretch of developable lands extends east to west across the northern third of the county along the Lake Superior clay plain and is coincident with the county’s identified prime agricultural lands ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-31 Table 8.14: Development Constraints, Douglas County Municipality Constrained (Acres) Unconstrained (Acres) City of Superior 9,453.9 17,199.7 Town of Amnicon 9,235.7 15,775.6 Town of Bennett 21,129.5 9,771.7 Town of Brule 23,763.7 11,985.0 Town of Cloverland 19,157.8 10,384.9 Town of Dairyland 74,731.7 15,270.9 Town of Gordon 83,209.4 17,493.3 Town of Hawthorne 17,286.1 12,243.7 Town of Highland 39,412.3 10,523.2 Town of Lakeside 9,609.0 15,911.4 Town of Maple 6,985.7 13,543.1 Town of Oakland 26,270.6 15,298.7 Town of Parkland 10,571.2 12,145.6 Town of Solon Springs 39,589.9 14,650.1 Town of Summit 74,416.0 19,979.3 Town of Superior 40,962.6 27,976.1 Town of Wascott 73,844.4 16,438.2 Village of Lake Nebagamon 4,255.1 4,922.6 Village of Oliver 411.8 908.0 Village of Poplar 942.6 6,693.5 Village of Solon Springs 446.8 845.5 Village of Superior 217.4 578.2 Douglas County 585,903.1 270,538.0 Source: Two or more barriers to development impact some areas of Douglas County. In these cases, the barrier that impedes development the most, or is most pressing is attributed to color data on the map (Map 8.4). For example, the wetlands on public lands are classed as wetlands and not public lands. As is evidenced by the data in Table 8.14, about 1/3rd (31.6%) of the land base in Douglas County may available for development given present land use and existing barriers, regulations or other restrictions. For the purposes of this statistical and spatial analysis, the assumption is made that the identified developable lands are available, when in fact; many of these properties are not available. The land holders of the areas identified may in fact have no desire to have these lands developed in anyway and are holding them for their use as wildlife habitat, forestry or timber harvest, recreational use, or aesthetic beauty. This further reduces the true percentage of developable land in the county. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-32 Existing Development One of the foundational principals of Wisconsin’s comprehensive planning law is the promotion of development “efficiency.” This directly translates into siting new development in such as manner as to minimize development costs. Generally, the most cost effective method is to site new growth directly adjacent to existing growth in order to minimize road construction and servicing costs, utility extension costs and to promote an overall more compact and orderly development pattern. Other benefits of compact design include improved walkability, reduced demand for publicly funded greenspace, protection of water quality and wildlife habitat and agricultural, cultural or scenic resources. The existing spatial development pattern in Douglas County, like much of rural Wisconsin, is scattered and haphazard. Growth is most compact within the incorporated communities and the small rural hamlets which dot the landscape. The principal of compact design may run counter-intuitive to the rural mindset, which generally places more emphasis on less compact design and larger parcels. In these areas, alternative subdivision design methods such as conservation design subdivisions may be employed as a means to promote rural efficiency. Public Utility Access Public utilities include municipal water systems, wastewater treatment systems, stormwater management systems, and utilities such as natural gas, electrical, telephone, and cable service. In order to promote an efficient and cost-effective growth pattern, new development should be sited in areas where access to public utilities is available. Most of rural Douglas County is not served by public utilities. Rural residents generally rely on private wells for potable water and private on- site wastewater treatment systems. Table 2.12 in the Housing Element outlines the public wastewater utility systems currently available in Douglas County. It would be impractical to suggest a comprehensive expansion of public utilities into all rural areas of Douglas County, and cost-prohibitive. As a planning consideration, new development in incorporated communities should be sited in areas with existing services or in areas where expansion of services results in the lowest possible costs. The county should also continue to work with rural communities to explore options for the future development of rural sewer and water systems (sanitary districts) to serve areas of moderate to high development density, particularly near lakes and other areas with poor soil conditions. Undeveloped Land Land prices Land prices are dictated by the real estate market, and the laws of supply and demand. Increasing the amount of available development land can press land costs downward, while decreasing the supply of development land can raise prices. Government regulation can impact the overall supply of developable land and, consequently influence land prices. The market price of land depends upon many factors, which can vary significantly from one location to another. It is often difficult to generalize the market price of property within a large area, such as a county, due to the ‘location specific’ factors that dictate the price and by the fact that a limited number of properties are on the market at any given time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-33 Table 8.15: Average per Acre Cost of Undeveloped Rural Land (May 2008 MLS Listings), Douglas County As shown in Table 8.15, in May of 2008 undeveloped rural lands were selling at a countywide average of $1,834 per acre. The costs of undeveloped shoreland lots were significantly higher, with some lots exceeding costs of $2,500 per linear foot of frontage. Waterfront lots adjacent to streams and creeks were generally less costly. Municipality Average Cost per acre Bennett $1,568 Brule $1,990 Cloverland $2,000 Dairyland $2,100 Gordon $2,902 Hawthorne $1,300 Lake Nebagamon $2,060 Maple $1,320 Oakland $1,748 Solon Springs $1,118 Parkland $1,904 Superior $1,038 Wascott $3,659 Grand Total $1,834 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-34 Land Use Conflicts One of the challenges in land use planning is providing for a harmonious mix of diverse land uses, while avoiding land use conflict. Conflicts between uses arise when use in one area interfere with the uses in another. In some cases, these conflicts may be minor annoyances, but in other situations, land use conflicts can pose threats to health and safety. Examples of common land use conflicts include situations where residential land use directly abuts areas of agricultural use, or when an industrial area is constructed near residential development. It is often desirable to reduce land use conflicts through the use of “buffer zones”, or zones of transition between disharmonious land uses. The buffer concept is widely recognized as an effective tool to reduce the potential for conflict, and is fairly easily implemented through the modification of the local zoning code. The use of this tool is particularly well suited for reducing potential conflict between residential and industrial development. In this situation, a buffer would provide for a mix of light industry and commercial as a transition to residential. Another type of conflict arises when there is shared planning authority within overlapping jurisdictional boundaries. In Douglas County, the potential for this type of conflict is greatest where city and village planning areas overlap with the unincorporated towns. Both entities involved can essentially plan for the future development extraterritorial area. Conflicts may arise over issues such as annexation of town lands, development in the agricultural/residential interface, development density or the extension of municipal services. Conflicts may also arise as incorporated communities review and deny proposed subdivisions within extraterritorial plat review areas (Wis. Stat. § 236.10(1)(b)2), which may restrict residential development in the town. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-35 Contaminated Sites The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System provides information about contaminated properties and other activities related to the investigation and cleanup of contaminated soil or groundwater in Wisconsin. Table 8.16 reveals a comprehensive inventory of contaminated properties and activities in Douglas County. Additional data about these sites can be obtained through the online system database at Table 8.16: Contaminated Properties and Other Activities Related to the Investigation and Cleanup of Contaminated Soil or Groundwater in Douglas County Database) Municipality Abandoned Container Environmental Repair General Property Information Leaking Underground Storage Tank No Action Required Removed Spill Liability Exemption Grand Total T. Amnicon 1 6 1 4 12 T. Bennett 1 3 2 3 9 T. Brule 1 3 9 4 4 21 T. Cloverland 3 1 4 T. Dairyland 1 5 1 7 T. Gordon 2 12 10 10 34 T. Hawthorne 5 6 2 8 21 T. Highland 1 1 T. Maple 2 8 3 2 15 T. Oakland 2 2 T. Parkland 2 5 9 16 T Superior17 3 3 T. Summit 1 3 5 1 4 14 T. Wascott 1 3 2 6 12 V. L. Nebagamon 2 1 9 8 2 22 V. Poplar 3 7 1 1 6 18 Solon Springs18 6 2 11 6 20 45 Superior19 5 166 10 191 42 9 593 6 1,022 Unknown 12 12 Grand Total 8 197 13 283 84 10 689 6 1,290 Data Source: WDNR Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment Tracking System. data was extracted on 5/12/09. Data records were sorted manually to remove errant information (i.e. site located in another county). Data records referring to place names (i.e. South Range, Allouez or Foxboro) were manually reviewed and sorted to associate activities with the proper minor civil division. 17 Sites determined to exist in the Town of Superior via web query and data sorting 18 Includes sites located within the Town and Village of Solon Springs 19 Includes sites located within the Town and Village of Superior ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-36 Figure 8.14: Contaminated and Cleaned Up Sites The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Remediation & Redevelopment (RR) Program is an environmental cleanup program, designed to assist in the investigation, cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties in Wisconsin. Contaminated sites include leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) sites, which have contaminated soil and/or groundwater with petroleum and Environmental Repair (ERP) sites, which are sites other than LUSTs that have contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Open sites are contaminated sites in need of cleanup or where cleanup is still underway. Closed sites are those that have completed all cleanup requirements and have received a case closure letter from DNR or spills that require no further cleanup. RR Program data is a subset of the more comprehensive system database. As of May 2008, there were 125 open sites (68 ERP, 57 LUST), and 332 closed sites (110 ERP, 222 LUST) in Douglas County. Figure 8.14 displays the contaminated and cleaned up sites in Douglas County. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-37 Closed Landfills The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources publishes a registry of known waste disposal sites in Wisconsin. The registry was created by the WDNR to serve as a comprehensive listing of all sites where solid or hazardous wastes have been or may have been deposited. Inclusion of a site on the registry is not intended to suggest that environmental problems have occurred, are occurring, or will occur in the future. Figure 8.15: Closed Landfills ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-38 LAND DEMAND Land demand projections attempt to identify future land needs based on current or anticipated trends. These estimates are based on several assumptions which are discussed under each of the relevant sections. Factors which could cause deviation from projected land demand include, but are not limited to; Increase or decrease in average lot sizes Unforeseen changes in demographic variables such as population changes or changes in the average household size Economic variables, including land prices Development policies and regulations Physical determinants (land supply) Changing social or cultural values Transportation system improvements Utility access Wisconsin’s comprehensive planning statutes require that the plan contain projections based on the plan’s background information for 20 years, in 5–year increments, of future residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial land uses including the assumptions of net densities or other spatial assumptions upon which the projections are based. Tables 8.17 through 8.20 depict the forecast land demand for residential, commercial, industrial and manufacturing land uses through 2030. Residential Land Demand Residential land demand forecasts are presented using two models. The first depicts forecast residential land demand based on projected population. This method assumes a proportional relationship between population and land acreage required for housing development. The second depicts demand forecasts based on the projected number of housing units. Both models assume an average residential parcel size based on calculations derived from the 2008 land use inventory. It must be understood that that these figures are merely estimates which are subject to numerous variables that may change over time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-39 Table 8.17: Forecast Residential Land Demand, Towns Forecast Demand (Acres) RESIDENTIAL LAND DEMAND Town 2008 Acres Method 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Amnicon 769 Population-Based 857 902 947 987 993 Housing-Based 804 891 978 1,063 1,152 Bennett 639 Population-Based 715 754 793 828 833 Housing-Based 658 707 756 807 856 Brule 552 Population-Based 614 647 679 708 712 Housing-Based 572 623 671 722 771 Cloverland 329 Population-Based 325 323 321 318 319 Housing-Based 399 438 477 520 559 Dairyland 390 Population-Based 371 361 350 340 342 Housing-Based 405 442 477 511 548 Gordon 669 Population-Based 785 844 903 957 962 Housing-Based 701 781 860 940 1,019 Hawthorne 869 Population-Based 927 958 987 1,012 1,018 Housing-Based 906 1,000 1,094 1,189 1,283 Highland 248 Population-Based 302 330 358 384 386 Housing-Based 261 295 331 365 400 Lakeside 639 Population-Based 683 706 729 748 752 Housing-Based 665 731 800 866 934 Maple 681 Population-Based 704 717 729 737 741 Housing-Based 702 753 804 859 910 Oakland 881 Population-Based 904 958 1,012 1,059 1,065 Housing-Based 912 989 1,067 1,144 1,222 Parkland 849 Population-Based 820 807 792 774 779 Housing-Based 869 920 971 1,019 1,070 Solon Springs 611 Population-Based 731 793 855 912 918 Housing-Based 641 714 788 863 937 Summit 919 Population-Based 956 976 995 1,009 1,015 Housing-Based 948 1,016 1,087 1,159 1,230 Superior 1,958 Population-Based 2,151 2,252 2,351 2,437 2,451 Housing-Based 2,025 2,192 2,359 2,530 2,697 Wascott 761 Population-Based 917 997 1,076 1,150 1,157 Housing-Based 791 865 939 1,013 1,087 Towns 11,764 Population-Based 12,762 13,324 13,874 14,360 14,442 Housing-Based 12,260 13,358 14,459 15,569 16,675 Source: Northwest Regional Planning Commission ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-40 Commercial Land Demand In terms of acreage commercial land represents a small portion of rural Douglas County’s overall land base, but is an important part of the overall tax base. Commercial development provides access to goods and services in the rural areas and employment opportunities for rural residents. Although this plan is not a comprehensive retail market analysis, it is important to provide adequate commercial land to meet future market needs. Because rural commercial development draws in customers from a broad radius, it is extremely challenging to accurately estimate future demand. The first method used to estimate future commercial land demand assumes a population service relationship and relates commercial growth to population forecasts. This model assumes that the absolute amount of commercial land per person will remain the same and that future commercial growth will occur in response to growth in population. The second method, presented for comparative purposes, assumes that commercial development is directly proportional to residential growth. This model is based on the 2008 ratio of commercial to residential land use derived from the land use inventory. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-41 Table 8.18: Forecast Commercial Land Demand, Towns Forecast Demand (Acres) COMMERCIAL LAND DEMAND Town 2008 Acres Method 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Amnicon 43 Service Area Relationship 44 46 49 51 51 Residential Relationship 48 51 53 56 56 Bennett 28 Service Area Relationship 30 32 33 35 35 Residential Relationship 31 33 35 36 36 Brule 7 Service Area Relationship 7 7 8 8 8 Residential Relationship 8 8 8 9 9 Cloverland 0 Service Area Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Dairyland 12 Service Area Relationship 10 10 10 9 10 Residential Relationship 11 11 11 10 10 Gordon 40 Service Area Relationship 41 44 47 50 50 Residential Relationship 47 50 54 57 57 Hawthorne 72 Service Area Relationship 77 80 82 84 85 Residential Relationship 77 79 82 84 84 Highland 48 Service Area Relationship 53 58 63 67 68 Residential Relationship 59 64 70 75 75 Lakeside 0 Service Area Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Maple 3 Service Area Relationship 3 3 3 3 3 Residential Relationship 3 3 3 3 3 Oakland 24 Service Area Relationship 26 27 29 30 30 Residential Relationship 25 26 28 29 29 Parkland 38 Service Area Relationship 35 34 33 33 33 Residential Relationship 37 36 36 35 35 Solon Springs 54 Service Area Relationship 57 62 66 71 71 Residential Relationship 64 70 75 80 80 Summit 50 Service Area Relationship 50 51 52 53 53 Residential Relationship 52 53 54 54 55 Superior 195 Service Area Relationship 195 204 213 221 222 Residential Relationship 214 224 234 243 244 Wascott 93 Service Area Relationship 101 110 118 126 127 Residential Relationship 112 122 132 141 141 Towns 706 Service Area Relationship 729 768 807 842 847 Residential Relationship 788 831 873 912 917 Source: Northwest Regional Planning Commission ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-42 Industrial Land Demand Industrial development within the rural areas of Douglas County is limited as most towns lack the infrastructure needed to support traditional industrial development. Access to transportation resources and facilities is also limited in the rural areas of the county. Rural industrial use is dominated by ‘extractive’ enterprises such as gravel pits and quarries and not heavy industry. Industrial land use is less closely linked to population than commercial land use, thus are very difficult to accurately forecast. Nonetheless, the relationship between population and industrial service areas can be used to estimate future industrial land demand. A residential to industrial ratio model is also presented for comparative purposes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-43 Table 8.19: Forecast Industrial Land Demand, Towns Forecast Demand (Acres) INDUSTRIAL LAND DEMAND Town 2008 Acres Method 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Amnicon 127 Population Relationship 129 136 143 149 150 Service Area Relationship 142 149 157 163 164 Bennett 0 Population Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Service Area Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Brule 42 Population Relationship 43 46 48 50 50 Service Area Relationship 47 49 52 54 54 Cloverland 0 Population Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Service Area Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Dairyland 31 Population Relationship 27 26 26 25 25 Service Area Relationship 29 28 28 27 27 Gordon 16 Population Relationship 16 17 19 20 20 Service Area Relationship 18 20 21 22 23 Hawthorne 95 Population Relationship 102 105 108 111 112 Service Area Relationship 101 104 108 110 111 Highland 2 Population Relationship 2 2 2 3 3 Service Area Relationship 2 3 3 3 3 Lakeside 0 Population Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Service Area Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Maple 20 Population Relationship 20 20 21 21 21 Service Area Relationship 21 21 21 22 22 Oakland 169 Population Relationship 180 191 201 211 212 Service Area Relationship 174 184 194 203 205 Parkland 165 Population Relationship 149 147 144 141 142 Service Area Relationship 159 156 154 150 151 Solon Springs 76 Population Relationship 81 88 94 101 101 Service Area Relationship 91 99 106 114 114 Summit 15 Population Relationship 15 16 16 16 16 Service Area Relationship 16 16 16 16 17 Superior 281 Population Relationship 280 293 306 317 319 Service Area Relationship 308 323 337 349 351 Wascott 0 Population Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Service Area Relationship 0 0 0 0 0 Towns 1,038 Population Relationship 1,045 1,087 1,128 1,164 1,171 Service Area Relationship 1,108 1,153 1,196 1,234 1,242 Source: Northwest Regional Planning Commission ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-44 Agricultural Land Demand Agriculture is the second most dominant use within Douglas County’s rural landscape. Only forestlands encumber more total acreage. As noted previously in this chapter, agriculture in Douglas County has been declining over the past 20 years. Historic trends derived from assessment statistics were used to estimate future agricultural land demand. One of the key indicators used to identify land use change are parcel rezonings, or changes from one zoning designation to another. Between 1971 and 2008, there were 63 rezonings from A-1 Agricultural to another zoning district. The total A-1 acreage lost was 2,127 acres or an average of about 57 acres per year, countywide. This figure does not correlate to the tax assessment changes which showed a more than 37,000 acre decline between 1978 and 2008. This disparity suggests a general disconnect between land use and zoning and/or property tax assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-45 Table 8.20: Forecast Agricultural Land Demand, Towns Forecast Demand (Acres) AGRICULTURAL LAND DEMAND Town 2008 Acres Method 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Amnicon 5,360 Assessment Trends 5,248 4,973 4,712 4,465 4,231 Bennett 624 Assessment Trends 604 555 510 468 430 Brule 3,275 Assessment Trends 3,087 2,642 2,262 1,937 1,658 Cloverland 5,201 Assessment Trends 4,966 4,407 3,911 3,471 3,080 Dairyland 765 Assessment Trends 725 630 547 476 413 Gordon 716 Assessment Trends 667 552 457 379 314 Hawthorne 553 Assessment Trends 515 429 356 296 246 Highland 137 Assessment Trends 145 167 192 221 254 Lakeside 4,171 Assessment Trends 3,985 3,540 3,145 2,794 2,483 Maple 4,861 Assessment Trends 4,599 3,979 3,442 2,978 2,577 Oakland 2,578 Assessment Trends 2,486 2,264 2,063 1,879 1,711 Parkland 3,247 Assessment Trends 3,148 2,909 2,688 2,484 2,296 Solon Springs 746 Assessment Trends 732 699 668 637 608 Summit 3,049 Assessment Trends 2,861 2,419 2,046 1,731 1,464 Superior 7,985 Assessment Trends 7,756 7,199 6,682 6,202 5,757 Wascott 385 Assessment Trends 356 291 237 194 158 Towns 43,653 Assessment Trends 41,788 37,325 33,339 29,778 26,598 ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-46 FUTURE LAND USE The future land use component is the focal point of the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. This element is built upon the community’s vision for the future and is intended to provide guidance for community growth and development. The land use element seeks to accommodate future growth by providing ample lands for residential, commercial, industry, agriculture, and open space. Additionally, the element seeks to guide future growth away from areas of the community where natural constraints such as wetlands, steep slopes, and floodplains exist. It is also a primary function of this element and the plan in general to strive to preserve the unique rural character, reduce potential conflict, and enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors. Future Land Use Maps The Future Land Use map is intended to provide a generalized visual depiction of the desired future land use and development pattern in Douglas County. The future land use map is not a zoning map, nor is it an official map, but rather it is a decision-making tool for use by the county and local units of government. Mapping of future land uses in Douglas County was largely undertaken by local towns and villages, as part of local comprehensive planning processes. To complete an overall countywide future land use vision, the individual community maps must be examined. Future Land Use Categories The Comprehensive Plan divides the county into future land use categories or areas that identify recommended future land use. Implementation of future land use will be primarily accomplished through zoning and subdivision regulation. In order to identify future land use, participating communities used 14 standardized categories (10 non-shoreland, 4 shoreland), which were modified, in some cases, to fit the needs, goals and objectives of individual communities. The standardized future land use categories for Douglas County are as follows: Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-47 Rural Conservation This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewsheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Rural Activity Center The Rural Activity Center category identifies rural residential centers with limited commercial and community services. This category would include compact development within a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. Included within this category would be unincorporated rural hamlets that often form at community crossroads or develop around some community focal point. Typical uses include residential, churches, schools, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, and other small shops. Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS). General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-48 uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; Tribal Lands, and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. Public Utilities This category includes lands used for generating and/or processing electronic communication, or water, electricity, petroleum, or other transmittable products and for the disposal, waste processing, and/or recycling of by-products. Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. Shoreland Commercial This category includes the commercial resorts, tourism-based businesses along with general retail and service uses within the shoreland area. The use and development design should recognize and address the sensitive relationship with surrounding residential uses, scenic views, natural features and the impact on water quality. Scenic River The category includes lands adjoining St. Croix, Brule and Eau Claire River’s, and is intended to recognize the outstanding natural, scenic and recreational use values associated these unique natural features. Future developments within this category should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and scenic beauty as primary goals. Wild Lakes This category includes lands adjoining Class 3 “wilderness lakes”, and is intended to recognize the outstanding scenic and natural values associated with these resources and their high sensitivity to disturbance due to use and development. Development along these lakes or within the lakeshed is strongly discouraged. If future development is permitted, it should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and the wild scenic character of these resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- Land Use Chapter 8-49 Using the Future Land Use Maps Upon adoption of the town future land use maps as part of the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan, these maps become a guide for future land use decisions and zoning changes. A land development proposal is checked against the future land use map and the Comprehensive Plan’s goals, objectives and policies for consistency. If the proposal is consistent, a zoning change or land use proposal can be easily justified. If the proposal is not consistent, justification is present for rejecting the proposed development. When examining an individual town future land use map, it is important to understand that the town future land use category definitions may be different than the standardized category definitions. For this reason, it is imperative to consult individual to plan maps and category definitions. Town-level future land use maps are depicted in Map 8.5 through Map 8.21. ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 Table 8.21: Town Future Land Use Categories and Desired Minimum Lot Sizes Amnicon Bennett Cloverland Brule Dairyland Gordon Hawthorne Highland Lakeside Maple Oakland Parkland Solon Springs Summit Superior Wascott Rural Traditional * * *a 5 10 * 10 5 * 10 5 10 10b Single Family Residential 2 * 2 1-2 * 2 1-2 Rural Residential * * * 5 5 * 5 5 5 c Medium Density Residential 2 Commercial * * * * * * * * * * * * * Industrial * * * * * * Rural Activity Center * * * * * * Government and Institutional * * * * * * * * * * * * * Public Utilities * * * * Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation * * * * * * * * * *d Forest 10 Agriculture 20 20 Recreational Trails * Mitigated Wetland * Rural Conservation * *e 40 40 40 Parks and Recreation * Extraction * Transportation * Shoreland Residential * * * * f * *g Shoreland Commercial * * Scenic River * * Wild Lakes * * a “Rural Traditional and Agriculture” b “Forest Residential” c 15,000 Square feet d “Forest” e “Rural Conservation and Forest” f “30,000 square feet” g “Residential – Water” * No density specified. Please refer to town comprehensive plan for land use category details ---PAGE BREAK--- 535 IJ 53 IJ 2 35 27 13 23 105 KJ V KJ E KJ O KJ C KJ A KJ L KJ B KJ D KJ UU KJ S KJ BB KJ Z KJ FF KJ Y KJ W KJ AA KJ H KJ K KJ F KJ M KJ U KJ G KJ P KJ T Douglas County Map 8.1 Land Ownership 0 10 20 5 Miles Town Lands Town Lands School District State_Owned Town Lands ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 535 IJ 53 IJ 2 35 27 13 23 105 KJ V KJ E KJ O KJ C KJ A KJ L KJ B KJ D KJ UU KJ S KJ BB KJ Z KJ FF KJ Y KJ W KJ AA KJ H KJ K KJ F KJ M KJ U KJ G KJ P KJ T Douglas County Map 8.2 Zoning 0 10 20 5 Miles Zoning A1 C1 F1 HWY I1 PUD R1 R2 RR1 Unknown W1 ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Ceme t ery Rd L a ke Dr E Rd Rd Meller Rd Pioneer Trl Neuman Rd Fi n n Oakland Rd River Rd Little S an d Rd Hudacek Rd Anderson Rd Pluty Rd Clara Barton Rd W a y R d Denver Rd Off Johnson Rd G ermann Rd S an Rd Tower R d Castl e Rd Saari Rd Church Rd Barnes Rd Rutledge Milch e s k y R d Ti m ber Ln Okerson Ln Hazel Prairie Rd G r a m R d De d h a m R d Sa nd R d Palm Rd North Rd Pelkey Rd Knutson Rd Commiskey Rd Crest View Ln Kelly Rd For e s t r y R d Airport Rd Radio Station Rd Pine St Alfalfa Ln Harju Rd Carlson Rd H a l k ett Rd John Sch midt Rd C abin Ln Tom Green Rd Wo o d Rd Ri v ord Rd Fall Rd Bear Tr ee R d Dietz Rd Beck Rd Perkin s R d N Fire Ln Oliph a nt Rd Moos e Rd B a s s L a k e Rd S u n set D r Jack Pine Dr Ross Rd Hend r y Rd Swedish Highway Old 11 Rd D a r row Rd 31st Ave E Old 13 Volker Rd M o ore Rd So u t h Ma il R d Roos Rd W M a i l Dr Stuck e y R d G re g e r s o n R d Sandman Rd C h e e v e r R d Bakken Rd S imms L a k e Rd L o s t Rd Luc a s R d K r ee l R d Old 35 Bur m a R d J a c k s o n B o x T r l 28th St N East Mail Rd Belkn a p St 21st St N Doetsch Ln E St B53 Engstad Rd TN RD TT 23rd Ave E 58th St N B ell Rd Ellison L a k e R d Sullivan R d Lake St Lake B l v d S Moe n R d Keith Jer s ett R d W hitefi s h L ak e R d B rill Rd T N R D F R e d L a ke D r Bebe Rd D eer Tr a c k Rd N Town Ln Tu u ra Rd Kansy Rd Bennett Rd City Limits Rd Park Rd Wallin Rd Oakdale Rd Swamp Rd Tuff Rd Kauppi Rd B u ck l e y I s l a n d Rd Baumgartner Rd S u m m it Tr l Nyquist Rd Tower F i r e Ln Maple Dr Windy Lane Rd Moose J o dell Rd Tab Rd Town Line Rd High Line Rd Johnson Rd Maki Rd Stone Chimne y R d Clevedon R d Pison Rd Fir Lien Rd Nort h R d Wiehe S Bayfield Rd Chaffey Foxboro Rd Lee Rd Remer Rd Sand Rd Swenson Ln Balcsik Rd Becks Rd Walsh R d Big Balsa m R d KJ H KJ E KJ UU KJ U KJ G KJ D KJ Z KJ Y KJ FF KJ W KJ BB KJ B KJ C KJ K KJ S KJ T KJ L KJ P KJ A KJ O KJ M KJ F KJ V 23 35 105 27 13 IJ 53 IJ 2 535 535 Douglas County Map 8.3 Existing Land Use 0 10 20 5 Miles Existing Land Use Agriculture Commercial Extraction Forest - Harvested Government/Institutional Lake/River Industrial Forest Outdoor Recreation Residential Structure Transitional Lands Tranportation Utilities ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Superior Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior KJ F KJ O KJ C KJ B KJ UU KJ T KJ A KJ BB KJ V KJ P KJ Y KJ Z KJ G KJ U KJ FF KJ S KJ M KJ H KJ W KJ L KJ E KJ D KJ K 35 27 105 13 23 IJ 2 IJ 53 535 Douglas County Map 8.4 Environmental Constraints 0 6 12 18 24 30 3 Miles Roads and Development Water Features Steep Slopes Water Setbacks Wetlands and Hydric Soils Public Lands including Private Forest Crop Lands ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Hawthorne Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Poplar IJ 2 TN R D 3 1 IJ 53 KJ C KJ U KJ D KJ V KJ P KJ E Smith Rd Rive r R d Moonshine Rd Kalien Rd S Line Rd Western Rd Abrahamson Rd Sam Anderson Rd Lackson Rd Willox Rd Middle River Rd Bayfield Rd Snookey Rd Berg Park Rd Wentworth Rd S Rockmont Rd Twenty Two Rd N Town of Amnicon Map 8.5 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles Roads XY XY XY Interstate Highway US Highway State Highway County Highway On/Off Ramp Local Road County Forest Road Hydrology Lakes Rivers/Streams Political Boundaries Municipal Boundary Future Land Use Commercial Rural Traditional Forestry, Wildlife Conservation & Outdoor Recreation Industrial Rural Residential Single Family Residential Parcel Bounda ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- li li li li Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Oakland Town of Solon Springs Village of Lake Nebagamon Lake Minnesuing Gander Lake Moose Lake M o ose Lake Rd IJ 53 KJ L KJ P KJ L KJ E Old Eleven Rd Klang Rd Bennett Rd Hagman Rd Meller Rd Peterson Rd Pison Rd Karras R d Bebe Rd Olson Rd Hazel Prairie Rd Maki Rd Jackson Rd G r ege r son Rd Minnesuing Rd Stone Chimney R d Fire Tower Rd Town of Bennett Map 8.6 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles ´ Future Land Use Commercial Extraction Forestry, Wildlife Conservation & Outdoor Recreation Government/Institutional Rural Activity Center Rural Conservation Rural Residential Rural Traditional Shoreland Commercial Shoreland Residential Transportation Utilites Hydrology Lakes Rivers/Streams Towers li Radio Tower li Cell Tower ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Bayfield County Town of Cloverland Town of Highland Town of Maple Village of Lake Nebagamon IJ 2 Graham Rd Schiesser Rd Koho Rd Anderso n R d Smith Creek Rd Carlson Rd Leppanen Rd County Line Rd Wallin Rd ( 1) Afterhours R d Fore s tr y Rd Ccc Square Rd Bellwood Pit Rd Castle Rd Hilltop Rd Tr oy P i t Rd Lake St Leppala R d Miller Rd Culhane Rd T u ura Rd Kauppi Rd Hill Dr S amp l e R d Congdon Rd Hat ch e r y R d Seven Mile Rd Sand Rd Koski R d Clevedon Rd River Rd Hakkinen Rd Oja Rd KJ FF KJ B KJ O KJ H 27 Town of Brule Map 8.7 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 0.5 Miles Future Land Use State Land Douglas County Land General Commercial Government/Institutional Rural Traditional Shoreland Residential Single-family Residential Parcel Boundary ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Brule Town of Lakeside Town of Maple B o i s B r u l e R i v e r Clevedon Rd Danielson Rd HY 1 3 HY 13 Tepoel Dr Poppl e Bend Rd Harvey R d Hoefling Dr Remer Rd CTY TK H Burhans Rd Windy La Alfalfa LA Green Acres Rd CTY TK H CTY TK O Colby Rd Rudolphs Rd Lo v e l a n d Rd Becks R d County Line Rd Jack Pine Dr Loop Rd B a lsam Bend Rd Bayfield County Town of Cloverland 0 1 2 3 4 0.5 Miles FutureLandUse Forestry, Wildlife, and Outdoor Recreation Governmental and Institutional Rural Conservation and Forest Rural Residential Rural Traditional and Agriculture Map 8.8 - Future Land Use ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CTY T K T P ark R d Town Road TT Dry Landing Rd Engine Hill Rd Lee R d Kingsdal e Rd HY 35 Mihna Rd Stuart Rd CTY TK M Crotte B r o o k Tr High Line Rd Andrews Rd Moose Rd Wes t m a n R d Moose Rd North Fire LA Cummings Rd Knutson Rd County Line Rd Town Line Rd Town R d " F " Rd Cut -Across Rd Ri v e r R d B ear T r ee R d Perkins Rd S pr u c e R i ve r Tr Bo u n t y R d CTY TK T North Rd St C r o i x D r Lundqu ist Rd Swedish Hwy S ch oe n R d W e s t C r o tt e B ro o k T r R ocky Bro o k T r D a r w in' s L oop Town of Dairyland Map 8.9 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Commercial Government/Institutional Outdoor Recreation Rural Traditional Parcel Boundary ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Gordon Town of Highland Town of Solon Springs Village of Solon Springs L o w e r O x C r eek M o o s e R i v e r Sai n t C r o i x R i v e r E a u C l ai r e Ri v er Flat Lake Lund Lake Mud Lake Upper Ox Lake Simms Lake IJ 53 KJ G KJ M KJ A KJ M KJ Y KJ Y Doetsch Ln E Mail R d J a c k s on Bo x T rl Jakacki Rd Connors Meadow Rd C abin Ln Swenson L n Pi t D r Hill Rd Crot t e B r ook Rd Sa nd R d Crest Vie w Ln Grouse Rd Wood Rd Prairie Ln Bir d R d L o w er Ox Ln Lucas R d Roos Rd Plantation Rd Flowa ge Ln Bur m a R d Old Hwy 5 3 W M ail Dr Stuckey R d Flamang R d Simms Lak e Rd L o st Rd G e r m a n n Rd Schaefer Rd B ay f i e ld R d Flat La k e R d Co u n t y F orest 70 4 R d Coun ty For e s t 7 14 Town of Gordon Map 8.10 Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles ´ Political Boundaries Municipal Boundary Hydrography Perennial Stream Intermittent Stream Lake Roads US Highway County Highway Local Road County Forest Road Rail Future Land Use Residential Commercial Rural Traditional Forestry, Wildlife Conservation, & Outdoor Recreation Rural Activity Center Government/Institutional ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Steele Lake Twin Lakes Little Steele Lake Lake Minnesuing Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Maple Town of Oakland Village of Lake Nebagamon Mi d d le R i v e r H ans en C r e e k P o p l a r Ri v e r IJ 53 Kent R d Carlson Rd Church Rd Pine Rd Town Line Rd E South Shore R d Okerson Ln F a r mer L n Jackson Rd Crossover Rd Old 11 Rd Brannen Rd Lasch Rd Ibsen Rd Williams Ln Hallberg Rd Lackson Rd Hine s R d Town Hall Rd Line Rd N e ss Rd Kizlik Rd 18th St McGivern Ln Olso n Ln Gun Club Ln Barry Ln Weyerhaus er Rd San Rd KJ B KJ P KJ E KJ B KJ D Town of Hawthorne Map 8.11 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Commercial Forest Government/Institutional Outdoor Recreation Single Family Residential Rural Traditional Rural Residential Hydrography Lake Rivers/Streams Perennial Intermittent Political Boundaries Municipal Boundary ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Bayfield County Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Solon Springs Village of Lake Nebagamon Muck Lake Loon Lake Sand Lake Murray Lake High Life Lake Black Fox Lake Ellison Lake Rock Lake Boot Lake Paradise Lake Deer Print Lake Hopkins Lake Mirror Lake Beauregard Lake Catherine Lake Rush Lake Whisky Lake Horseshoe Lake Sunfish Lake Anderson Lake B o i s Br u l e R i v e r M u d C r e e k Sunset Blvd Ca s tle Rd Pe terson Rd Rus h L ake Rd Sutfin Rd Vapa Rd E Beauregard Lake Rd Lost Lake Rd Kelly Rd Muck Lake Rd Airport Rd Radio Station Rd Moore Rd Fire T o w er Rd Anderson Rd Volker Rd Cheney Lake Rd Sandman Rd Ross Rd Bong Forest Rd Francis Willard Rd Duck Pond Rd Commiskey Rd KJ A 27 27 Ced a r I s lan d KJ S KJ Y Town of Highland 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Forestry, Wildlife Conservation & Outdoor Recreation Rural Traditional Rural Residential General Commercial Governmental/Institutional Rural Activity Center Rural Conservation Shoreland Residential Single-family Residential Parcel Boundary Hydrology Lakes Rivers/Streams Scenic River Roads US Highway State Highway County Highway On/Off Ramp Local Road ´ Map 8.12 - Future Land Use ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Lakeside Map 8.13 Future Land Use 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4 0.4 Miles Future Land Use Agriculture Commercial Extraction Forest - Harvested Government/Institutional Lake/River Industrial Forest Outdoor Recreation Residential Structure Transitional Lands Tranportation Utilities ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Amnicon Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Hawthorne Town of Lakeside Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Poplar 13 KJ FF KJ F KJ O Colby Rd Perala Rd Hill Rd Gonschorek Loop Hendrickson Rd Degerman Rd Autio Rd Autio-Haukkala R d Gulley Rd Jarvi Rd Blueberry Rd Lindgren R d Dump Rd Ahola Rd Wuori Rd Karna R d Estness Rd Haukkila Rd L a ndela Rd Lund Rd Eskolin Rd Jamiska Rd B a rdon Creek Rd Harju Rd Heino Rd Becks Rd IJ 2 Town of Maple FutureLandUse General Commercial Governmental and Institutional Public Utilities Rural Activity Center Rural Residential Rural Traditional Single Family Residential ´ Map 8.14 Future Land Use 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 0.4 Miles ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Oakland Map 8.15 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 0.5 Miles Future Land Use and Lot Sizes Agriculture (5 acres) Commercial (Same as existing regulations) Forest (10 acres) Lake Lots (Under 5 acres) Shoreland Special Use Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Parkland Town of Summit Town of Superior A mn i c o n R i v e r Long Lake Dowling Lake Scout Lake Lyman Lake Three Bucks Lakes Round Lake Deer Lake Lake Newman One Buck Lake Tri Lakes Rd Gr e gerson R d Otto Rd Brannan Rd Koenen Rd Ro s s Rd Neuman Rd Clara Barton Rd Craig R d Mabel Nels o n Rd Conley Rd Range Line Rd Pine Grove Rd A m nicon R i v e r Mikrot Rd Najt Rd Oliphant Rd Turbett Rd Lien Rd S Old Lyman Lake Rd Jacksino Rd Eastman Rd Swamp R d Lucas R d KJ V KJ B KJ K KJ L ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Papineau Rd Grand Ave Orchard Dr Cutter Rd W ermter Rd Cemetery Rd Welland Av e Way Rd Caterpillar Trl Huppert Rd Windmill Rd Bayfield Rd Lyman Lake Rd Pine St Sam Anderson Rd Rivord Rd Findlay Rd Stones Rd Lee Rd Hendrickson R d Johnson Rd Valley Brook Rd Webb Rd KJ E KJ K KJ UU KJ Z KJ C 13 IJ 2 Town of Parkland Map 8.16 - Future Land Use 0 1 2 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Agriculture City of Superior Commercial Forest GI Industrial Medium Density Residential Mitigated Wetland Recreational Trails Sanitary System Parcel Boundary XY XY XY XY Interstate Highway US Highway State Highway County Highway On/Off Ramp Local Road County Forest Road Rail Lake River/Stream Municipal Boundary ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Smith Lake Twin Lakes Long Lake Bass Lake Upper Saint Croix Lake Muskrat Lake Island Lake Lake of the Woods Cheney Lake Shoberg Lake Beaupre Springs Mills Lake Gilbert Lake Ferguson Lake Mo o s e R i v e r S a i n t Croix River P ark Cr e ek E as t Fork Moose Ri v e r W i l s o n Creek M o o s e R i v er L e o C r e e k B e e be C r e e k Buckety C re ek Je rs e t h C r ee k C a t l i n C r e e k B ois B r u le R i v e r Por c u p i n e C r e e k Town of Bennett Town of Gordon Town of Highland Town of Oakland Village of Solon Springs Town of Solon Springs Map 8.17 Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Wild Lakes Scenic River Shoreland Residential General Industrial Rural Activity Center Rural Residential Single-family Residential Public Utilities Government/Institutional Rural Traditional Rural Conservation Forestry, Wildlife Conservation & Outdoor Recreation General Commercial ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Town of Summit Map 8.18 Future Land Use 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Commercial Industrial Government/Institutional Rural Residential Rural Traditional Shoreland Residential Forestry, Wildlife Conservation & Outdoor Recreation 35 35 KJ A KJ B KJ BB KJ W Gr uh l ke Rd Moen Rd Sch oo l F o r e st R d Summit Trl Bea r L ak e Rd Dietz Rd Fall Rd Matlock Rd Carlson Rd Hunters Trl Pelkey Rd North Rd Milchesky Rd Foxboro Chaffey Rd Pioneer Trl B r ietzman L a ke Rd Warring Rd Big Balsam Rd Chaffey Foxboro Rd Patzau Foxboro Rd Tower Fire Ln N a n u u q T r l C o u nt y F o r est 7 0 5 Co unty F o rest 706 F r e d B e ar R idg e Amnicon Lake Mud Lake Summit Lake Breitzman Lake Reichuster Lake Bear Lake Black Lake Lake Seventeen Carlton County, MN Pine County, MN Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Oakland Town of Superior B al sa m C r e e k E m p i r e Cr e e k A mn ico n R iv e r A m ni co n R i v e r B l ack R i ve r L it t l e B a l s a m C r e e k B e a r C re e k B e a r C r ee k S pr u ce R iv e r ´ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Superior Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Summit Village of Oliver Village of Superior Carlton County, MN St. Louis County, MN S a i n t L o u i s R i v e r R e d R i v e r B l ack R i v e r N e m a d j i R iv e r 35 105 23 Oakland Rd Newman Rd E Twin Creek Rd Kerwin Rd Barnes Rd Dedham Rd Miller R d Reed Merrill Rd Irondale Rd E Irondale Rd D a rrow R d Hudacek Rd Old 3 5 Rd Polish Rd Tuff Rd Valley Brook Rd K a nsy R d Baumgartner Rd Leggate Rd Old 105 R d G raves Rd Ha mmond Ave Kronberg Rd KJ Z KJ A KJ B KJ C KJ W KJ A Town of Superior 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.5 Miles Future Land Use Agriculture Commercial Extraction Forest Roads & Trails Forest Government/Institutional Hydrologic Feature Residential Transportation Utilities ´ Map 8.19 - Future Land Use ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Kreel Rd. Cheever Rd. Balcsik Rd. Newsome RD Mosinee Spur Rd. E.Crooked Lake Rd. Legg Rd. Newsome Rd. Burns Rd. Blackburn Rd. S. Crooked Lake Rd. Sullivan Lake Rd. Berger Rd. Wilderness Dr. Horse Shoe Rd. Red Lake Dr. Wemissem Rd. Matzke Rd. Sawyer Lake Rd. Jack Pine Loop Johnson Rd. Lily Pad Lake Rd. Copper Mine Loop Denver Rd. S. Snake Lake Rd. S. Chain Lake Rd. Haugen Dr. Witzig Dr. Alexander Lake Loop Williams Dr. Lidberg Bridge Rd. Harriet Lake Rd. Snake Lake Rd. Mc Cumber Rd. Lawler Bridge Rd. S. Snake Lake Rd. Claire Lawler Rd. If Sullivan Lake Rd. S. Coppermine Rd. E. Mail Rd. E. Copper Mine Rd. E. Mail Rd. Red Lake Dr. Red Lake Dr. E. Mail Rd. Copper Mine Loop Deer Farm Rd. Red Lake Dr. S. Chain Lake Rd. Iw Peterson Rd. E. Mail Rd. Ahrens Dr Kreel Rd. If S. Chain Lake Rd. Cheever Rd. Williams Dr. Blackburn Rd. If E. Mail Rd. If Claire Lawler Rd. Frahm Rd. Red Lake Dr. Gate Rd. Iw Iw E. Mail Rd. Burns Rd. E. Mail Rd. If S. Coppermine Rd. Red Lake Dr. Red Lake Frahm Lake Snake Lake Two Mile Lake Sullivan Lake Mulligan Lake Lower Chain Lake Eau Claire River Crott Lake Pocket Lake Clyde Lake Upper Chain Lake Goose Lake Alexander Lake Thorn Lake Crooked Lake Haugen Lake Totagatic River Loon Lake e Lake Sawyer Lake Harriet Lake Grover Lake Ounce River Eau Claire River Cole Creek Snake Creek Haymaker Creek O'Hara Creek Williamson Creek F Town of Wascott (East), Future Land Use Map Source: Wisconsin DNR, Northwest Regional Planning Updated November 3, 2004 by Town Committee 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles Map 8.20 Railroad Federal County Local Private River Parcel Lake Agriculture Commercial Rural Residential Forest Residential Forest Park & Rec Shoreland Residential 1000' Industrial Shoreland Residential 300' Governmental/ Institutional ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Carp's Creek Rd. Cemetery Rd. Velie Rd. Sunset Dr. St. Croix Dr. Norris Rd. Bell Rd. Apple Lake Rd. Gram Rd. One Mile Rd. Ballpark Three Mile Rd. Daisy Rd. Town Line Rd. S. Lost Lake Rd. Crotte Brook Rd. Old 53 Rd. Liautaud Rd. Blue Ribbon Tr. E. Spider Lake Rd. S. Bondwood Rd. Ix Benson Rd. Empire Landing Rd. Smith Rd. Whitefish Lake R Pine Oak Rd. Kimbal Lake Rd. Frye Rd. Kennedy Rd. Tower Heights Rd. Smith Bridge Rd. Eagle Heights Rd. White Fish Lake Rd. Chipmunk Halow Rd. S. Bond Lead Lake Rd. Estates Rd. E. Bondwood Rd. Haegele Rd Two Mile Rd. Buffalo Lake Rd. Lake Rd. Miles Lake Rd. Marshall Rd. Rediger Rd. Harriet Lake Rd. Koff Rd Short Cut Rd. S. Mail Rd. S. Mail Rd. Is Ix Deer Track Rd. Buckley Island Rd. Town Line Rd. S. Mail Rd. Clear Lake Rd. Deer Farm Rd. Apple Lake Rd. Leader Lake Rd. Iw Bass Lake Rd. Crotte Brook Rd. Cranberry Lake Rd. Is S. Mail Rd. Three Mile Rd. S. Lost Lake Rd. Cranberry Lake Rd. Re Lake Rd. Gate Rd. Iw Sunset Dr. Is Is S. Lost Lake Rd. Apple Lake Rd. Is Iw Two Mile Rd. Bergen Spring Rd. Cemetery Rd. Little Sand Rd. Bass Lake Rd. Buckley Island Rd. Buckley Island Rd. Apple Lake Rd. Deer Track Rd. Leader Lake Rd. Whitefish Lake Minong Flowage Bond Lake Lake Person Lake Leader Lake Bass Lake Cranberry Lake Two Mile Lake Saint Croix River Loon Lake Spider Lake Webb Lake Kreide Lake Pickerel Lake Clear Lake Round Lake Long Lake Wilson Lake Buffalo Lake Peterson Lake Deer Lake Scott Lake Muck Lake Saint Croix Flowage Snipe Lake Bluegill Lake Wagner Lake One Mile Lake Apple Lake Wascott Lake Bergen Springs Little Sand Lake Rainbow Lake Saint Croix River Buckley Creek Crotte Creek Sheosh Creek F Town of Wascott (West), Future Land Use Map Source: Wisconsin DNR, Northwest Regional Planning Updated November 3, 2004 by Town Committee 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25 Miles Map 8.21 Railroad Federal County Local Private River Parcel Lake Agriculture Commercial Rural Residential Forest Residential Forest Park & Rec Shoreland Residential 1000' Industrial Shoreland Residential 300' Governmental/ Institutional ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-1 Implementation Chapter IMPLEMENTATION INTRODUCTION The Implementation Chapter establishes a framework for accomplishing the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The foundation for plan implementation is the action plan, which includes a compilation of programs and specific actions to be completed in a stated sequence. The action plan also includes proposed changes to any applicable zoning ordinances, official maps or subdivision ordinances and describes how each of the various planning elements will be integrated and made consistent with one another. The Implementation Chapter also includes a mechanism to measure progress toward achieving the plan’s goals and objectives and identifies a process for periodically updating the comprehensive plan. Actions that must be Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning Law (66.1001 Wisconsin Statutes) identifies a series of actions and procedures that must be consistent with the governmental unit’s comprehensive plan. Beginning on January 1, 2010, implementation of zoning, subdivision regulation, and official map ordinances must be consistent with the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. Since state statutes do not clearly provide a definition for ‘consistent’, this plan assumes consistency to imply actions must be ‘compatible’ with the comprehensive plan and do not directly contradict the plan’s goals, objectives. It is important to understand that the comprehensive plan itself is not a regulation, but rather a guide for directing and managing growth and development. Comprehensive plans do not create regulatory requirements independent from other regulations used to implement the comprehensive plan. Plan Adoption and Amendment Requirements Chapter 66.1001(4) of the Wisconsin Statutes establishes the procedures for adoption or amendment of the comprehensive plan. The governmental entity must comply with the following five steps before its comprehensive plan becomes effective. Public Participation Plan (66.1003)(4)(a) The adoption of a written public participation plan designed to foster public participation in the development or amendment of a comprehensive plan. Resolution Recommending Adoption (66.1003)(4)(b) The body of a local governmental unit (planning committee) that is authorized to prepare or amend a comprehensive plan may recommend the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan only by adopting a resolution by a majority vote of the entire commission. 1. Every governmental body that is located in whole or in part within the boundaries of the local governmental unit. Draft Plan Review (66.1003)(4)(b) Prior to formal adoption of the comprehensive plan, one copy of the draft plan must be submitted to the following entities for review and comment. 2. The clerk of every local governmental unit that is adjacent to the local governmental unit that is the subject of the plan that is adopted or amended. 3. The Wisconsin Land Council 4. The Wisconsin Department of Administration ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-2 Implementation Chapter 5. The regional planning commission in which the local governmental unit is located. 6. The public library that serves the area in which the local governmental unit is located. 1. An operator who has obtained, or applied for a nonmetallic mining permit under 295.12(3)(d), Wisconsin Statutes Public Hearing (66.1003)(4)(d) Before an ordinance can be enacted adopting the comprehensive plan, the governmental entity must hold at least one public hearing at which the proposed ordinance is discussed. A Class 1 notice of the hearing must be published at least 30 days prior to the hearing. Written notice must also be provided to; 2. A person who has registered a marketable nonmetallic mineral deposit under s. 295.20, Wisconsin Statutes 3. Any other property owner or leaseholder who has an interest in property pursuant to which the person may extract nonmetallic mineral resources, if the property owner or leaseholder requests in writing that the local governmental unit provide the property owner or leaseholder notice of the hearing. 4. Property owners that have filed a request for written notice under Section 66.1001(6), Wisconsin Statutes. Public Plan Review and Adoption of the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan Adoption of the Plan by Ordinance (66.1003)(4)(c) In order for the comprehensive plan to take effect, the governmental unit must enact an ordinance that adopts or amends the plan. The ordinance must be passed by a majority vote of the County Board. Sound planning provides opportunities for the general public to participate in and to review and comment on proposed plan content. Per the adopted public participation plan, two public open house events were held to allow for public review of draft plan materials. The first, held on April 20th, 2009 provided an opportunity for the public to review draft goals and objectives and the preliminary background materials. A second open house held on October 20th, 2009 presented the full draft comprehensive plan for public review. Similar opportunities for public review and comment should be a part of any future plan revisions or amendments. On October 6th, 2009 the Douglas County Comprehensive Planning Committee passed a resolution recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the County Board. A formal public hearing on the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan was held on November 16th, 2009. The county provided public notice in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 66.1003(4)(d) and 66.1003(4)(e), Wisconsin Statutes. Copies of the draft plan were submitted by the county to the required parties under Chapter 66.1003(4)(b), Wisconsin Statutes. On December 17, 2009, the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan was adopted by unanimous vote (26 – yes, 2 – absent) by the County Board of Supervisors. Future Amendments or Plan Updates The Douglas County Comprehensive Plan is designed to serve the county for about 20 years (2010-2030). It is possible that unforeseen changes or deviation from planning assumptions will occur over the planning period. Plan statistical data, projections, narrative and maps may also become outdated if not periodically updated. This comprehensive plan should be considered ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-3 Implementation Chapter a “living document”, responsive to changing conditions, opportunities and challenges. Updates to long-range plans such as this one are inevitable as changes in development patterns, economic conditions, social values or other factors may require that the plan be revised in order to remain consistent with the current situation. The plan also contains background narrative and statistical data which needs to be periodically revised to remain current. The plan’s projections may also need to be revised in response to changing demographics, social values or economic variables. There are two types of plan revisions, periodic plan updates and corrections. Periodic plan updates occur on regular intervals and are meant to adjust the plan content based on changing conditions. This type of revision may involve alteration of plan goals, objectives or policies or the incorporation of new or adjusted information into the comprehensive plan. Plan corrections involve the revision of plan text, statistics, projections or mapping to reconcile issues with incorrect or faulty data. Rationale for Plan Revisions or Updates Changing conditions and/or values will require periodic revision of the comprehensive plan. Wisconsin’s comprehensive planning law requires that the plan be reviewed and updated at least once every ten years. However, it is recommended that the plan be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure accuracy and relevance and to evaluate progress toward attainment of plan goals and objectives. A more formal plan update is recommended at least once every 5 years to examine and adjust statistical data, projections, plan narrative, goals, objectives, mapping, actions and implementation mechanisms. The update of statistical data should coincide with the release of US Decennial Census information. Changes to plans of the local governmental units in Douglas County should also be reflected in the countywide comprehensive plan. For example, changes to a town future land use map also need to be reflected in the countywide future land use map. For this reason, it is recommended that Douglas County coordinate plan revision activities with the local governmental units using a process similar to that used for initial plan development. Table 9.1: Recommended Plan Revision Schedule Annual General plan review, add new data as available, plan progress monitoring 2011-2012 Formal amendment, add Census 2010 data, revise projections, amend narrative, goals, objectives, actions, implementation mechanisms or mapping as needed. Plan progress monitoring. 2016-2017 Formal amendment, revise projections, amend narrative, goals, objectives, actions, implementation mechanisms or mapping as needed. Plan progress monitoring. 2021-2022 Formal amendment, add Census 2020 data, revise projections, amend narrative, goals, objectives, actions, implementation mechanisms or mapping as needed. Plan progress monitoring. 2026-2027 Formal amendment, revise projections, amend narrative, goals, objectives, actions, implementation mechanisms or mapping as needed. Plan progress monitoring. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-4 Implementation Chapter INTERPRETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Role of the Planning Commission Planning commissions generally serve two key functions, plan development and plan implementation. Commissions are authorized to prepare a comprehensive plan and recommend its adoption to the governing body (town board, village board, city council, county board), which adopts the plan as an ordinance by majority vote. Key potential commission responsibilities include sponsoring the planning process for their community, oversight of the public participation plan and fostering public participation during the planning process. Once a plan has been adopted by the community, the planning commission serves to advise elected officials on comprehensive planning and land use issues within their community and may make decisions as delegated by the local governing body. Planning commissions typically review development and land use proposals that come before the commission and provide recommendations to the local governing body. Commissions may also be involved in other activities such as plan review, monitoring, research or amendment activities as directed by the local governing body. County Planning Committee A 17-member advisory committee was formed to guide the preparation of a comprehensive plan for Douglas County. On October 6th, 2009, the plan was forwarded to the Douglas County Zoning Committee for review and approval. Under the comprehensive plan adoption procedures in Sections 59.69 and 66.1001 of the Wisconsin Statutes, the Zoning Committee adopted a resolution recommending adoption of the comprehensive plan by the Doulas County Board of Supervisors. The resolution was approved by a majority of the entire membership of the committee. While many county agencies will be involved in some aspect of plan implementation, the Zoning Committee will continue to be the lead entity on plan implementation throughout the 20-year planning period. During the implementation period, the Zoning Committee will continue to review land use proposals and provide recommendations to the County Board. How to Use the Plan The Douglas County Comprehensive Plan is intended to help guide the county’s decision- making process for the next 20 years. This plan is not an inflexible or static set of rules; rather, it is fluid, dynamic and responsive to the changing needs of the county. The plan’s objectives and recommendations are intended to allow flexibility in light of new information or opportunities. The plan is not an attempt to predict the future, rather it is an attempt to record the fundamental community values and philosophies that citizens of Douglas County share and to use them as benchmarks in future decisions concerning growth and development throughout the county. The plan is intended to be used by the Douglas County Zoning Committee, the Douglas County Board of Supervisors and citizens in reviewing all future land use and development proposals. In the examination of future planning-related issues, careful consideration should be taken to ensure that the proposed activity is consistent with the vision, wishes and desires expressed in the plan. The plan’s goals, objectives and policies are intended to provide a general framework and direction making land use, and other planning-related decisions. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-5 Implementation Chapter Table 9.2: Creating a Planning Commission Local unit Towns Villages and Cities Counties Statutory authority 60.22(3) 61.35, 62.23(1) 59.69 Creation by ordinance By town board after adoption of village powers. By village board or city council. By county board. Membership 7 members if population is 2,500 or greater. 7 or 5 members if population is under 2,500. Seven members. Number of commission members not specified in statutes. Committee composed of county board members. Appointment Town board chair appoints – Chooses from among chair & other elected or appointed officials, at least 3 citizen members or 1 if under 2,500. Mayor/village president appoints – self (optional), elected or appointed officials, at least 3 citizen members; can increase to include building inspector Board chair or executive appoints commission subject to Board approval; may appoint 2 alternate members. Commission composition is flexible. Terms 3 years 3 years 3 years with staggered commissioner appointments Chairperson Appointed by town board chair Appointed by mayor/village president Elected by committee/commission for 2 year term Source: “Plan Commission Handbook”, Center for Land Use Education, UW- Stevens Point, May 2002 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-6 Implementation Chapter Implementation Activities Actions, procedures that must be consistent with comprehensive plans Wisconsin’s Comprehensive Planning Law states that Beginning on January 1, 2010, if a local governmental unit engages in any of the following actions, those actions shall be consistent with that local governmental unit's comprehensive plan: 1. Official mapping established or amended under s. 62.23 2. Local subdivision regulation under s. 236.45 or 236.46 3. County zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 59.69 4. City or village zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 62.23 5. Town zoning ordinances enacted or amended under s. 60.61 or 60.62 6. Zoning of shorelands or wetlands in shorelands under s. 59.692, 61.351 or 62.231 Douglas County currently engages in comprehensive zoning, subdivision regulation and shoreland-wetland zoning. Beginning on January 1, 2010 these programs and actions must be consistent with this comprehensive plan. Local governmental units engaging in the aforementioned programs and actions (1-6) are also subject to the consistency requirement. Plan Implementation Zoning Amendments The zoning ordinance will be the one of the principal tools used to implement the comprehensive plan. As such, the countywide comprehensive zoning ordinance should reflect the plan’s goals, objectives and policies. The ordinance should also reflect the goals, objectives and policies of the towns, as expressed in their comprehensive planning documents. Following adoption of this plan by the Douglas County Board of Supervisors, the county should make appropriate adjustments to the zoning ordinance so that it is consistent with the provisions of this plan and the adopted plans of the towns. Future changes to the zoning ordinance may involve relatively simple map and/or text amendments, or a comprehensive revision, which changes numerous zoning provisions and alters or adds zoning districts .The law governing comprehensive revisions for counties does not clearly define what constitutes a comprehensive revision. A 1994 Attorney General’s opinion states that adding one new zoning district does not constitute a comprehensive revision. Counties can therefore make incremental changes through the amendment process where text changes are governed by a majority-rule town veto procedure and the map changes are subject to the town veto procedure. Consistency with Town Plans The Douglas County Comprehensive Plan is intended to function cooperatively with the town comprehensive plans. This fact highlights the importance of striving for ongoing consistency between local community comprehensive planning and this countywide plan. Plan consistency will help achieve the desired patterns of future growth and consistent, predictable decision-making because local governments and the County will be “reading from the same playbook.” This is important as Douglas County shares zoning and land division review authority with local governments. All towns within Douglas County are under county zoning, and are encouraged to consult with the County zoning staff before making amendments to their comprehensive plans. It is also important that every amendment to a town plan be forwarded to the County. Douglas County should work to ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-7 Implementation Chapter incorporate local plan amendments into the countywide comprehensive plan through the recommended periodic review and update procedures described in this element. Consistency between Plan Elements The goals, objectives, and policies contained within the preceding eight elements of this Comprehensive Plan, along with the accompanying inventory and analysis, have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Douglas County board of Supervisors. Throughout the plan development process, great care was exercised in the examination of countywide and local planning issues and concerns. It is felt that there exists a high degree of compatibility among the provisions of this plan and the provisions of the plans of the local units of government. During the planning process, significant attention was then given to ensuring that the policies required to address the individual issues or concerns did not conflict, either with each other within the chapter, or between the different chapters. Consistency between Municipalities Although the local municipalities (towns, villages, City of Superior) developed their own visions, goals, objectives and policies, there are many areas of consistency between communities. The differing vision elements and policies reflect notable differences between communities in Douglas County. Each participant in the multi-jurisdictional planning process established a vision and implementation framework that was relevant to the uniqueness of their communities. Great care was taken to ensure that the goals, objectives and policies of local municipalities did not conflict with those of their neighboring jurisdictions or with Douglas County. Consistency was also emphasized in the future land use mapping process. During the planning process, local communities sharing common boundaries met jointly to review maps, identify potential conflicts and discuss cross- jurisdictional consistency. Future revision of any countywide comprehensive plan goal, objective, policy or future land use map shall receive the same level of consideration, deliberation and analysis as the original Plan; special attention shall be given so that the new adopted language does not create conflicts within or between chapters. Future revision of any local municipality’s comprehensive plan goal, objective, policy or future land use map must also be reviewed by Douglas County to ensure continued consistency with the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. A process for consideration of future local plan amendments is included within the action plan. Land Use Planning Tools There are a number of planning tools available to implement the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. Below is a summary of some of the key planning tools which may be used to further progress toward plan goals and objectives. Regulatory Tools Although zoning and subdivision ordinances are the two most commonly utilized land use planning tools, there are several innovative tools which can be used by the county to implement the plan and to guide the land use decision-making process. ZONING General Zoning In Wisconsin, general zoning power is granted to counties, towns, cities, and villages. Zoning separates conflicting land uses and ensures that development is directed in certain areas that can accommodate that particular land use. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-8 Implementation Chapter Several different types of specialized zoning exist (methods, regulations, policies & practices). Douglas County currently administers countywide comprehensive zoning, floodplain zoning and shoreland-wetland zoning within the unincorporated towns. Floodplain Zoning- Floodplain zoning ordinances are required by Wisconsin law and pertain to cities, villages, and towns. The Wisconsin DNR specifies minimum standards for development in floodplains, but local ordinances may be more restrictive than these rules. Shoreland Zoning- Wisconsin law requires that counties adopt zoning regulations in shoreline areas that are within 1,000 feet of a navigable lake, pond, or flowage or 300 feet of a navigable stream or the landward side of the floodplain, whichever distance is greater. Minimum standards for shoreland zoning ordinances are specified in rules developed by the Wisconsin DNR, while local standards may be more restrictive. Exclusive Agricultural Zoning- Municipalities may adopt exclusive agricultural zoning for farmland under the Farmland Preservation Program. Exclusive agricultural zoning essentially prohibits non- farm uses within identified agricultural preservation areas. To participate in the program, the county must have an agricultural preservation plan that meets the standards of Chapter 91, Wisconsin Statutes, and has been certified by the state Land and Water Conservation Board (LWCB).The ordinance must comply with the county farmland preservation plan. Eligible landowners receive a state income tax credit. Performance Zoning- Performance zoning uses performance standards to regulate development. Performance standards are zoning controls that regulate the effects or impacts of a proposed development, instead of separating uses into various zones. Performance standards often relate to a site’s development capability. For example, in agricultural areas, performance zoning could be used to limit development on prime agricultural soils and allow development on lower quality soils. Performance zoning provides landowners and developers with flexibility to determine how best to meet required standards. Bonus and Incentive Zoning- Bonus or incentive zoning allows local governments to grant a bonus, usually in the form of density or the size of the development, in exchange for amenities such as parks or walking paths for example. Overlay Zoning- Overlay zones are designed to protect important resources and sensitive areas. Overlay zones are special zoning districts, which are placed over existing base zone(s). The overlay identifies special provisions in addition to those in the underlying base zone. The overlay district can share common boundaries with the base zone or cut across base zone boundaries. Regulations or incentives are attached to the overlay district to protect a specific resource or guide development within a special area. Mixed Use Zoning- Mixed use zoning is an effective way to enhance existing urban and suburban areas and encourage infill development. Mixed use zoning recognizes the existing mixture and encourages its continuance and may offer an alternative to struggling with nonconforming use complexities. Inclusionary Zoning- Inclusionary zoning provides incentives to developers to provide affordable housing as part of a proposed development project. For example, in exchange for higher density, a developer would have to build a specified ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-9 Implementation Chapter number of low and moderate income dwelling units. Extraterritorial Zoning and Plat Review (cities & villages) Incorporated cities and villages in Wisconsin have statutory authority to exercise extraterritorial zoning and plat review powers for unincorporated areas within certain distances of their municipal boundaries. Extraterritorial jurisdiction extends for 3 miles beyond the corporate limits of the City of Superior and 1 ½ miles beyond the corporate limits of the villages. Where the boundaries of multiple extraterritorial jurisdictions overlap, the jurisdictional boundaries are divided on a line equidistant from the corporate limits of each municipality affected. Municipalities wishing to exercise extraterritorial zoning authority must have a zoning ordinance for lands within their corporate limits and must also adopt an extraterritorial zoning ordinance. Affected towns must also approve the zoning ordinance. Currently, none of the incorporated municipalities in Douglas County engage in extraterritorial zoning. While extraterritorial zoning requires town approval of a zoning ordinance, extraterritorial plat review applies automatically if the city adopts a subdivision ordinance or an official map. Extraterritorial plat review authority essential allows a city or village to apply its subdivision ordinance in the unincorporated area. Exercising plat review authority allows incorporated communities to influence the development pattern along their borders and to reduce the potential for conflicting land uses. Official Mapping State statutes permit cities, villages and towns to prepare official mapping (Ch. 62.23(6), 61.35, 60.10(2)c). An official map is a formal public record which delineates current and planned future roadways, utilities, waterways, historic districts, railroad rights-of-way, public transit facilities, drainageways, playgrounds and parks. The purpose of an official map is to protect a community’s investment in public facilities by identifying and reserving land for public purposes. An official map ensures that no improvements will be made to land designated for future public use that might add to future costs. In communities with official mapping, no public sewer or other municipal street utility or infrastructure improvement can be constructed in any street until the street is placed on the official map. Furthermore, no building permits may be issued within features delineated on the map unless a street access to the proposed structure has been indicated on the official map. Wisconsin counties have limited official mapping authority. Under s. 236.46, Wis. Stats. , counties may adopt highway-width maps showing the location and width of proposed new highways and the widths of any highways proposed to be expanded. County maps function similarly to local official maps, but with jurisdiction limited to streets and highways. Because of overlapping jurisdictional authority, counties and local governmental units must work collaboratively to develop official maps. Wisconsin law allows villages and cities to extend their official mapping into their extraterritorial jurisdictions, which includes unincorporated lands that may be part of a town’s official map. Sign Regulations Local government in Wisconsin can regulate billboards and off-premise outdoor advertising. Counties and communities with zoning authority may wish to consider the use of billboard prohibition ordinances as part of local zoning codes. These ordinances essentially equate to a complete prohibition of the construction of new off-premise outdoor advertising signs and billboards. Local ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-10 Implementation Chapter regulations could also be modified to include provisions preventing a new billboard from being constructed unless an existing billboard comes down. Communities may also develop and adopt sign ordinances, which restrict the type, size, and location of signs within a community. These ordinances may also restrict the types of materials that can be used to construct signs. Towns which do not have their own zoning or those who wish to have more restrictive standards than the county may adopt local billboard control ordinances. These regulations may not be as effective as billboard prohibition or sign ordinances due to the fact that town authority to regulate billboards is primarily limited to highway safety concerns. Model ordinances are available to assist local units of government in the development of billboard and sign ordinances. Models for each of the aforementioned techniques are available online from ScenicWisconsin.org at http://www.scenicwisconsin.org/modelord.htm Erosion and Stormwater Control Ordinances Counties and local units of government in Wisconsin can adopt erosion and stormwater control ordinances to control the impact of development on runoff, groundwater recharge, and overall water quality. Model ordinances exist that can be used to develop a customized ordinance for a municipality. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Watershed Management has developed model construction site erosion control and post- construction stormwater management zoning ordinances for use by local units of government. Copies of the model ordinances are available on-line at http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/rules/nr152.htm. Historic Preservation Ordinances Historic preservation ordinances can aid local units of government in protecting and enhancing key historic and cultural resources in their communities. In 1994 the Wisconsin Legislature amended state statutes to require cities and villages that contain property listed on the state or federal register of historic places to enact a historic preservation ordinance. Through the enactment of historic preservation ordinances, municipalities can create a historic preservation commission that is empowered to designate and protect the designated properties by regulating new construction, alterations or demolitions that impact these properties. Communities with adopted historic preservation ordinances are eligible to participate in Wisconsin’s Certified Local Government Program (CLG) which provides grants to fund planning and educational activities. Towns in Wisconsin also have the authority to enact historic preservation ordinances (60.64 Wis. Stats.)and to create historic preservation commissions for purposes of designating historic landmarks and establishing historic districts. The Wisconsin Historical Society, Division of Historic Preservation, developed model ordinances to assist communities in creating their own local ordinances. Building Codes As of January 1, 2005 all communities (cities, villages, and towns) in Wisconsin are required to administer the Uniform Dwelling Code (UDC) for the construction of new dwellings. The UDC is a uniform statewide code that sets minimum standards for fire safety; structural strength; energy conservation; erosion control; heating, plumbing and electrical systems; and general health and safety in new dwellings. Douglas County towns are responsible to assure the proper procedures are met. Each town has created an ordinance or resolution outlining the permitting process, to include application, plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-11 Implementation Chapter review and inspections, required in the code. Plan reviewers and building inspectors may be state or municipal employees or private firms under contract with the town. Villages and the City of Superior must also administer the UDC within their municipal boundaries. Design Review Regulations Design review regulations are one of the planning options available to local units of government to address community character and design. Design review regulations seek to minimize adverse aesthetic impacts of new development on the character of the surrounding area by regulating the exterior appearance of structures, lighting, and signage. Design review standards must be based on clear, well-defined design criteria which are applied through rules and regulations and processes for applying review to specific development applications. The review process usually involves an administrative committee (plan commission, historic preservation commission, design review commission), which is responsible for reviewing building plans and proposals. Sanitary System Regulations In rural Douglas County, a soil evaluation conducted by a state licensed Certified Soil Tester is required before a sanitary system (except holding tanks) may be installed. The evaluation identifies all the elements necessary for the future design and installation of the system such as type, size, depth and location on the property. Sanitary system plans must be approved by Douglas County before a land use permit will be issued for construction of a new dwelling. Public sewer service is available within the incorporated villages, the City of Superior and portions of unincorporated towns served by sanitary districts. Within the incorporated communities, new development is required to connect to the municipal sanitary system. Subdivision Regulations State subdivision regulations (Chapter 236 Wis. Stats.) provide the minimum standards and procedures for dividing and recording parcels of land in Wisconsin. State statutes define subdivisions as “the division of land into 5 or more lots of 1 ½ acres each or less in area; or when 5 or more parcels or building sites of 1 ½ acres each or less in area are created by successive divisions within a period of five years.” Subdivision ordinances typically regulate how and under what conditions a parcel of land can be divided into smaller parcels. Subdivision ordinances can also regulate aspects of development such as dimensional standards, lot size and setback requirements. Subdivision ordinances often contain development standards which are not addressed in the zoning ordinance such as design standards for drainage, roads, sidewalks, utilities and lighting. The Ordinance may also include site design criteria to promote visual quality, traditional neighborhoods, rural character or other community goals expressed in its comprehensive plan. Local governmental units (counties, cities, villages or towns) have express authority regulate subdivisions, as long as the community’s requirements are more restrictive than the minimum state standards defined in Chapter 236. In cases where there is overlapping jurisdictional authority, (i.e. county subdivision regulations & town subdivision regulations) a proposed subdivision would have to meet the standards of both ordinances. Subdivision Design A prominent rural residential development model used in much of Wisconsin is the conventional subdivision. Often referred to as the “cookie-cutter” method, this model involves the splitting of large tracts of open space into the maximum number of residential lots permitted in the zoning ordinance. The lots created using the conventional model are ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-12 Implementation Chapter oftentimes large, with significant lot clearing to make room for a home and large yards. Conventional subdivision design places little emphasis on retention of rural character, protection of historic resources, farmland preservation or natural resource values. Furthermore, conventional subdivision regulations impose rigid lot restrictions that do not preserve distinctive scenic natural features and characteristics of the landscape. In the rural environment, conventional subdivisions can contribute to diminishing rural character by creating a homogeneous, monotonous development pattern. An alternative to the conventional model is the conservation design concept. The purpose of a conservation design is to provide opportunity for development while maintaining open space characteristics, encouraging interaction among residents through site design, and protection of habitat, scenic characteristics and environmental features. A typical conservation design subdivision contains the same number of lots that would be permitted under a conventional design. The lots are typically smaller than conventional lots and are designed for single-family homes reminiscent of traditional neighborhoods found in small towns throughout America. The compact design of a conservation subdivision allows for the creation of permanent open space (typically 50 percent or more of the buildable area). This undeveloped land typically serves as communal open space land and provides recreational, aesthetic, and social benefits to subdivision residents. Lighting Controls Light radiating into the atmosphere can create a “glow effect” around cities and built-up areas which may be seen from several miles away. In the wake of expanding development and unregulated lighting, many communities are seeking ways of reducing the amount of excess light escaping into the atmosphere. Several communities in Wisconsin have adopted ordinances to regulate the use of exterior lighting. Ordinances typically focus on strategies to minimize “light trespass”, where light travels across property boundaries or into areas which are not intended to be lit and radiant light which escapes into the atmosphere. Local lighting codes can also be programmed into local building codes, site plan review and subdivision regulations. NON-REGULATORY APPROACHES Conservation Easements When a landowner sells the rights to develop their property, a legal document known as a conservation easement is drafted and recorded with the Register of Deeds. The easement restricts the use of the land to agricultural use, open space, or other desired use in perpetuity. A conservation easement permanently limits residential, commercial, or industrial development to protect the natural attributes or agricultural values of a property. The conservation easement remains on the deed even if the land is sold or passed through inheritance thereby ensuring the development will not occur on the property. A conservation easement does not guarantee public access to the property. The land remains in the hands of the property owner, as only the right to develop it has been purchased. All remaining rights of property ownership remain with the landowner including the right to transfer ownership, swap, deed, or sell the land. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) The purchase of development rights is a voluntary protection technique that compensates the landowner for limiting future development on their land. PDR programs are primarily used for retention of agricultural lands, but the concept can be applied to all types of land use scenarios. Under a PDR ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-13 Implementation Chapter program an entity such as a town, county or a land trust purchases the development rights to a designated piece of property. A conservation easement is then recorded with the Register of Deeds. The land remains in private ownership, and the landowner retains all the other rights and responsibilities associated with the property. Transfer of Development Rights A transfer of development rights (TDR) program is a voluntary conservation approach that allows the right to develop property to be transferred from one parcel (or zoning district) to another. Under a TDR program, the development rights to parcel of land are transferred from a “sending area” to another parcel referred to as the “receiving area”. Sending areas are typically those areas where development is discouraged or limited, and receiving areas are areas where growth and development are encouraged. Under some TDR programs local government awards development rights to each parcel of developable land in the community or in selected districts on the basis of the land's acreage or value. Landowners can then sell the development rights on the open market. A benefit of TDR programs is that they require no major financial contribution by local government. Acquisition This type of plan implementation tool involves the direct purchase of land for the purposes of preservation and protection. This tool should be considered in cases where other protective mechanisms fail to meet objectives and/or in cases of high-priority lands. Acquisition efforts should be coordinated with other local, state, and national acquisition initiatives (lake associations, environmental groups, USFS, WDNR, etc.) Best Management Practices Best management practices (BMP’s) describe voluntary procedures and practices that landowners can take to help protect and preserve natural resources. BMP’s resources include the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources publications titled “Best Management Practices for Water Quality Field Manual1” and “Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality2 1 www.dnr.state.wi.us/forestry/Usesof/bmp/bmpfieldmanual.htm 2 www.dnr.state.wi.us/forestry/publications/pdf/FR-349.pdf ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-14 Implementation Chapter FISCAL TOOLS Capital Improvements Program Capital improvement programs (CIP’s) are a budgeting tool used by communities to plan for the timing and location of capital improvements (such as municipal sewer and water service, parks or schools). CIP’s ensure that proper budgets are allocated for future developments or improvements to community infrastructure. Impact Fees Impact fees are financial contributions imposed on new developments to help pay for capital improvements needed to serve the development. Local governments can impose impact fees to finance highways, other transportation facilities, storm water facilities, solid waste and recycling facilities, fire and police facilities etc. Initially, Wisconsin law permitted counties, cities, villages and towns to assess impact fees on developers for purposes of offsetting costs of capital improvements required to serve the new development. In 2006, the law was revised, removing county authority to assess impact fees. However, municipalities can continue to impose impact fees within their municipal boundaries. Impact fees may only be established following a municipal ordinance and passed following a public hearing specifically designed to hear comments on the reasonableness and allocation of the impact fees Tax Incremental Finance Tax increment financing (TIF) is a financial tool used by municipalities to promote expansion of the economic base and job creation. Under Wisconsin’s Tax Increment Finance law, cities and villages front the cost for improvements (i.e. sewer, curb and gutter, roads) within a defined Tax Increment District (TID), and the cost of those improvements is then repaid through the increased property taxes generated by new development within the TID. Establishing a TIF district requires a partnership between a municipality and overlying taxing jurisdictions (i.e. county, technical college, school district). These jurisdictions must agree to forego any revenues based on the increase in property valuation until all of the TIF improvement costs are paid. Under Wisconsin’s Town Tax Incremental Tax Finance Law (Ch. 66.85 Wis. Stats.), towns can create TIF districts for agricultural, forestry, manufacturing or tourism improvements. Potential benefits of using TIF programs include the rehabilitation of blighted areas, increased economic expansion and job creation and the formation of an economic development partnership between the municipality and overlying taxing jurisdictions. TIF is not a panacea, and its application does not come without an element of risk. If development/redevelopment does not occur as planned, the TIF may be unable to generate sufficient revenue to meet its obligations within its maximum life. In this case, the municipality is responsible for all unpaid costs associated with the TIF. Special Assessments Special assessments are financial tools available to local units of government to defray the costs of infrastructure improvements which benefit private property owners. Only properties which receive the benefit of the improvements bear the costs and the general property tax for the community is unaffected. The ability to use special assessments is statutorily (Ch. 66.60(1)(a) Wis. Stats granted to any city, village or town. Intergovernmental Cooperation Tools (Refer to Intergovernmental Cooperation Element) ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-15 Implementation Chapter GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES For definitional purposes, a goal is a broad statement of a desired end state toward which objectives and policies are directed. The objectives provide the measurable and attainable ends toward which specific actions are directed. The goals and objectives provide a general framework for attaining the county’s long-range vision. These statements established the benchmarks on which the plan was created and provide a means of assessing and evaluating plan progress in the future. The plan’s policy statements are intended to serve as specific guidelines, or recommendations, for public planning decisions. Action Plan An action is a specific task that must be completed in order to achieve the plan’s goals and objectives. The action plan is intended to provide a clear set of specific actions to be undertaken in a preferred sequence in order to implement the comprehensive plan. For purposes of compliance with Wisconsin’s comprehensive planning law (Ch. 66.1001), the “actions” are used synonymously with “programs” identified in the legislation. The following tables provide a detailed work plan and timeline for actions that Douglas County should complete as part of overall plan implementation. Column headings used in the following tables are defined as follows: Action Statement – Language defining the action Lead(s) - The agency, department or organization responsible for taking the lead on the specified action Timeframe – Identifies the order, or sequence of actions ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-16 Implementation Chapter ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES Objective IO-1(a): Guide land use in recognition of resource limitations and county goals and objectives. Policy IO-1(a)(1): The county will maintain a current land use plan, which will serve as a guide for future land use and zoning decisions. New development will be permitted based on consideration of this plan as well as other applicable plans and ordinances. Policy IO-1(a)(2): Encourage land use choices rather than structural measures as a means of limiting disruption of the environment and reducing the cost of future maintenance and enforcement. Objective IO-1(b): Provide the county with a unified vision of planned growth. Objective IO-1(c): Conserve the county’s distinctive rural, north woods atmosphere. Policy IO-1(c)(1):Landscape and land use buffers will be used to lessen the impacts of conflicting land uses in close proximity. Policy IO-1(c)(2):Maximize the quality of life by providing regional open space, trails, parks and recreational opportunities and facilities managed in such a fashion as to afford the maximum benefit to the community. Policy IO-1(c)(31):Help identify, evaluate, and preserve historic, archaeological, and cultural resources. Policy IO-1(c)(4):Help coordinate archaeological inventories and management plans with Native American groups and other interested parties. Objective IO-1(d): Guide development within defined service limits in an orderly fashion. Policy IO-1(d)(1):The location of new development will be restricted to areas known to be safe or suitable for development due to natural hazards, contamination, access, or incompatibility problems. Policy IO-1(d)(2):Establish agreements regarding land use regulation and provision of services in the growth areas outside existing villages addressing land uses, levels of service, resolution of boundary disputes, service extension policies, and transfer of jurisdictional burdens. Policy IO-1(d)(3):Encourage the centralization of commerce, entertainment, and employment. Policy IO-1(d)(4):Promote growth patterns that result in compact, distinct, and separate communities rather than continuous linear strips of development. Overall Goal: “Provide for orderly planned development that promotes a safe, healthy, and pleasant living environment and makes efficient use of land, public services, and public financial resources” ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-17 Implementation Chapter Policy IO-1(d)(5):Encourage cluster development to assure conservation of land, efficient provision of public services, and accessibility. Policy IO-1(d)(6):Help identify the full range of public facilities considered optimum for development such as water and sewer utilities, police and fire protection, health services, schools, parks, libraries, and solid and hazardous waste collection, and disposal services. Policy IO-1(d)(7):Help direct the location of private facilities and services such as pipelines, electric transmission lines, and wireless communication towers based upon a demonstration of public need. Objective IO-1(e): Provide a continuing level of planning effort, review, and amendatory process to ensure long-term compatibility of the plan with county needs. Policy IO-1(e)(1):Coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources to ensure that land management decisions provide maximum public benefits. Objective IO-1(f): Assist in enhancing the county’s “quality of life”. Policy IO-1(f)(1):Help provide efficient and cost effective law enforcement services to the public. Policy IO-1(f)(2):Help coordinate the provision of emergency medical and fire suppression services in the county. Policy IO-1(f)(3):Support the formation of neighborhood watch programs in the county. Policy IO-1(f)(4):Encourage cultural improvements such as expanded health, education, and recreation outlets. Policy IO-1(f)(5):Help reduce or eliminate light, noise, and air pollution. Objective IO-1(g): Provide uniform and effective enforcement of county land use regulations. Objective IO-1(h): Provide continuing education to the public that will lead to a more complete understanding of planning and land use issues facing the county. Policy IO-1(h)(1):Provide educational programs that support resource protection goals. Policy IO-1(h)(2):Educate resource users of the county’s environmental quality goals and objectives. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-18 Implementation Chapter HOUSING Objective H-1(a): Encourage housing in areas that would not negatively impact the County’s natural resources. Policy H-1(a)(1): Direct high density housing activities toward areas that have existing infrastructure and municipal services. Policy H-1(a)(2): Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. Objective H-1(b): Increase awareness within the private and public sectors of available housing funds. Policy H-1(b)(1): Publicize information about available funding opportunities. Objective H-1(c): Promote septic system alternatives which benefit Douglas County residents. Policy H-1(c)(1): Support alternatives that lower costs for residents, while maintaining environmental quality. Policy H-1(c)(2): Continue to be aware of changing legislation relative to private sewage systems. Objective H-1(d): Encourage the private sector to address housing for all income levels, age groups and individuals with special needs. Policy H-1(d)(1): Promote the development of additional low-income housing. Policy H-1(d)(2): Support the construction of nursing and retirement homes. Policy H-1(d)(3): Address handicap accessibility issues. Policy H-1(d)(4): Increase public housing options, and educate the public about these options. Objective H-1(e): Consolidate rural housing information into an accessible and comprehensive format. Policy H-1(e)(1): Create a Rural Housing Brochure. ACTION: The brochure will contain maps of Douglas County Retirement Facilities and Public Housing, as well as lists of Douglas County Housing and Maintenance Programs. The brochure will be created by the Comprehensive Plan Housing Workgroup and maintained by the Rural Housing Authority (to be updated every 2 years). Lead(s): Comprehensive Plan Housing Workgroup Timeframe: By December 31, 2009 Goal H-1: Douglas County will have a range of safe and affordable housing for all residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9‐19 Implementation Chapter TRANSPORTATION Objective T‐1(a): Encourage enhancement of alternative modes of transportation. Policy T‐1(a)(1): Support the development of a car sharing program in Douglas County. ACTION: Set up parking areas. Lead(s): Highway Committee/with Towns Timeframe: 2011 Policy T‐1(a)(2): Encourage development of bus system to service rural areas. Objective T‐1(b): Maintain and improve transportation infrastructure. Policy T‐1(b)(1): Encourage County Highway Department to develop a Critical Use of Douglas County Plan for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years. Policy T‐1(b)(2): Support County Highway Department to develop maintenance plan to keep major highway arteries open to reach state highways. Objective T‐1(c): Develop a regional transportation plan. Policy T‐1(c)(1): Encourage Douglas County Highway Department to collaborate with neighboring counties to develop multi‐jurisdictional plans for sharing personnel, resources and equipment. ACTION: Coordinate with neighboring counties for connecting county roads and transportation services. Lead(s): County Highway Department Timeframe: 2011 Objective T‐1(d): Provide a safe alternative to vehicle travel and promote a healthy lifestyle ACTION: Research financial opportunities to develop walking and bicycling trails Lead(s): Douglas County Land, Forestry, Highway Committee Timeframe: Ongoing ACTION: Provide information on grants available to county jurisdictions to assist in development Lead(s): Douglas County Highway/Forestry Committee Goal T‐1: Maintain and upgrade transportation infrastructure and land use development/design to support transportation choices for all citizens. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-20 Implementation Chapter Timeframe: Ongoing Objective T-1(e): Promote development of transportation infrastructure that is in keeping with the rural nature of Douglas County while maintaining natural resources. Policy T-1(e)(1): Maintain multi-jurisdictional beautification program along county roads and trails. Objective T-2(a): Promote and develop an integrated efficient and economical transportation system that meets the needs of all citizens, including transit dependent residents, persons with disabilities and the elderly. Policy T-2(a)(1): Encourage a variety of transportation choices to meet the needs of all income, age and special needs groups. Policy T-2(a)(2): Develop a county-wide workshop for county, towns and village leadership and staff to promote, plan and coordinate in alternative forms of development, such as infill, mixed use, traditional neighborhood, and transit-oriented development. Policy T-2(a)(3): Promote a county-wide workshop for county, towns, and village leadership and staff in the development of transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel other than conventional development. Policy T-2(a)(4): Educate residents to use alternative modes of transportation. Policy T-2(a)(5): Provide technical assistance to employers interested in establishing programs to encourage commuting by transit, carpooling, biking, or walking or by telecommuting from home. Policy T-2(a)(6): Develop methods to promote interconnection between all transportation modes and systems. ACTION: Monitor impact of present and future railway and port activities. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: 2011 Objective T-3(a): Work to ensure consistency between regional, county, and local land use and transportation plans so that the arterial road network is appropriately sized and located to serve county residents and land uses. Goal T-3: Promote the efficient and safe movement of people and goods into and through Douglas County. Goal T-2: Meet the goals and objectives of the regional transportation system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-21 Implementation Chapter Policy T-3(a)(1): Develop land uses adjacent to roads and highways by reserving adequate rights- of-way in advance of construction. Policy T-3(a)(2): Develop a model road plan and profile section for use in local land ordinances and develop ordinance language requiring road connectivity with future developments. Objective T-3(b): Encourage new transportation options that relieve congestion and reduce fuel consumption, air and noise pollution, and reduce the need for expansion of roads. Policy T-3(b)(1): Ensure efficient and cost effective public transportation options are available to all residents of Douglas County, including transit-dependent residents. Policy T-3(b)(2): Provide an efficient public transportation system that can effectively move people into the county to promote a strong economy within the county. Policy T-3(b)(3): Assess the needs/impacts of commercial trucking Objective T-4(a): Ensure efficient and cost-effective public transportation options are available to all residents of Douglas County, including persons with disabilities and elderly residents. Policy T-4(a)(1): Encourage Douglas County to collaborate with neighboring county organizations connected with medical, aging and handicap needs. Goal T-4: Provide an integrated, efficient and economical transportation system that affords mobility, convenience, and safety to persons with disabilities and the elderly. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-22 Implementation Chapter UTILITIES AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES Objective UCF-1(a): Direct more intensive development to areas with existing utilities, community facilities and public services. Policy UCF- Determine the best areas for future growth and plan utility extensions and new facilities accordingly to guide development to those areas. Objective UCF-1(b): Consider the impacts that the development of community facilities and utility systems has on land use, transportation and natural and cultural resources. Policy UCF- Develop new community facilities in a way that conserves natural resources, protects historical and cultural features, provides easy accessibility and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Objective UCF-1(c): Encourage the installation of public utility systems where appropriate for new and existing development. Policy UCF- Plan areas for future utility extensions, taking into account projected growth corridors for different types of development--particularly commercial and industrial. ACTION: Update Future Land Use Map. Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: Every 5 years Policy UCF- Minimize impacts in environmentally sensitive areas. Objective UCF-1(d): Authorize the use of new and private on-site wastewater treatment systems (POWTS) technologies and experimental systems when appropriate. Policy UCF- Utilize information on processes that minimize waste hazards in private waste water systems and encourage their use. ACTION: Re-establish a POWT’s committee to monitor Wisconsin Administrative Code COMM 83 as well as report committee findings to the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: January 2010 Objective UCF-1(e): Work with telecommunication service providers to expand local calling areas within the County. Goal UCF-1: A range of community services that meet the needs of the residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-23 Implementation Chapter Policy UCF- Streamline cross-use of telecommunication systems, allowing larger calling areas and less duplication of cost. ACTION: Request all telecommunication providers in the County to provide a complete list of “Extended Community Calling” areas. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: January 2011 Objective UCF-1(f): Encourage the improvement of wireless facilities in the County to limit the number of new communication towers constructed. Policy UCF- Locate wireless communication towers in areas which provide the highest level of service while protecting visual resources. Policy UCF- Encourage wireless service providers to mitigate the visual impacts of wireless communications towers. Objective UCF-1(g): Encourage co-location of wireless facilities in the County to limit the number of new communication towers constructed. Objective UCF-1(h): Ensure that law enforcement agencies in the County have the proper facilities and equipment to operate effectively. Policy UCF- Research grant opportunities to improve facilities and equipment for emergency services. ACTION: Review a long range plan for need. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: Every 2 years Objective UCF-1(i): Ensure that a full range of fire, rescue and emergency medical services are available to efficiently serve the people of Douglas County. Policy UCF- Plan emergency facilities, equipment and personnel as needed to continue efficient and reliable service for all areas of the County. ACTION: Request towns to provide a list of current fire and rescue equipment and personnel sharing policies Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: Every 2 years Objective UCF-1(j): Assess the future needs of Douglas County government facilities. Policy UCF- Prioritize County facility improvement projects and address possible future ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-24 Implementation Chapter expansion needs, costs and locations for new facilities. ACTION: Request Towns Association to provide a list of County facility improvement projects and expansion needs. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: By 2011 Objective UCF-2(a): Continue to support the educational system serving the County. Policy UCF- Explore additional funding opportunities to help support schools within the County. Policy UCF- Advance County involvement in educational activities and opportunities. ACTION: Request Schools within the County to provide a list of needs and wants that the County could provide. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: By 2011 Objective UCF-2(b): Support efforts to improve services provided by libraries in the County. Policy UCF- Provide equal educational information to all County libraries with personnel available as demand warrants. ACTION: Work with libraries to see that needs are met. Lead(s): County Library Committee Timeframe: Ongoing Objective UCF-3(a): Continue to support recycling and Clean-up Day programs in the County. Policy UCF- Maintain a list of local recycling and waste disposal facilities and services. ACTION: Advertise recycling and waste disposal programs in County buildings. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: Ongoing Goal UCF-3: Protect public health through proper waste disposal. Goal UCF-2: Support high quality educational opportunities for all County residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-25 Implementation Chapter Objective UCF-3(b): Proper hazardous waste disposal. Policy UCF- Educate the public on hazardous waste materials and how to dispose of them. ACTION: Encourage development of a hazardous waste disposal site in Douglas County. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: By 2013 Objective UCF-4(a): Support the County Park and Recreational Department. Policy UCF- Provide equipment and staff necessary to maintain the park and recreational areas in the County. ACTION: Develop a plan to make County Parks and recreational facilities self-sustaining Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: By 2012 Objective UCF-4(b): Update the Park and Recreational Plan every five years to maintain eligibility for grants from the federal and state governments. Policy UCF- Address any safety issues that may occur in Douglas County Parks and in the recreational trail system. Policy UCF- Consider locations for future parks and park expansions. ACTION: Consult with towns on future park and recreational facilities expansion Lead(s): Parks and Recreation Committee Timeframe: Every 2 years Objective UCF-4(c): Solicit input and resources from interested residents, organizations, municipalities and others regarding planning, development, operation and acquisitions of the County. Policy UCF- Develop communication to inform the public and gather input. Objective UCF-4(d): Encourage future development plans for county facilities that implement the recommendations of the American with Disabilities Act. Policy UCF- Provide handicap access and facilities where feasible, and as required. Goal UCF-4: A high quality county-wide system of park and recreational lands and public facilities that help preserve significant natural, cultural or historical resources and meet the needs and demands of the citizens of Douglas County and its visitors. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-26 Implementation Chapter ACTION: Request park workers make lists to determine need. Lead(s): Parks and Recreation Committee Timeframe: Yearly Objective UCF-4(e): Design park, recreational, cultural art and auditorium facilities with multi-public uses with the natural environment in mind. Policy UCF- Embrace features such as Lake Superior, local waterways, forests and the region’s heritage when planning new facilities. Objective UCF-4(f): Continue to support recreational trails. Policy UCF- Encourage safe and well-maintained trail systems for multiple uses throughout Douglas County. ACTION: Pass Resolution commending volunteer groups that work to maintain County trail systems. Lead(s): County Board Timeframe: Yearly Objective UCF-4(g): Work to conserve lands for recreational uses along rivers and lakes. Policy UCF- Provide access to scenic resources in Douglas County, while protecting sensitive areas at those sites. ACTION: Determine best access to scenic and landlocked property Lead(s): Parks and Recreation Committee Timeframe: Ongoing ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-27 Implementation Chapter AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Agricultural Resources Vision By 2030, agriculture in Douglas County is thriving and is a well-balanced part of the overall economy in partnership with sustainable forest management and strong protection policies for water, air and soil. Douglas County promotes: A diverse array of agricultural products. Zoning that protects productive agricultural land. Forests managed according to best management practices. Maintaining the current balance of forest, agricultural and recreational land. Objective AR-1(a): Encourage various types of agriculture including traditional and non-traditional types of agriculture. Policy AR-1(a)(1): Be recognized for various farming enterprises. ACTION: Review the zoning requirements for development of agricultural /horticultural production for home use (i.e.-poultry, honey, small livestock etc.) Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: Initiate, March 2010 Objective AR-1(b): Encourage local entrepreneurs and craftspeople to use local resources and local products. Policy AR-1(b)(1): Support efforts to advertise local resources and products. Policy AR-1(b)(2): Support value added products. “Value added,” acknowledged to mean products that have a degree of development and marketing beyond the raw, locally produced product. (Example: forest products certified as achieving sustainable guidelines, dairy products produced and advertised as rBGH free) Objective AR-1(c): Develop markets for locally produced products. Policy AR-1(c)(1): Promote and encourage the establishment of farmers’ markets and other related businesses. ACTION: Clarify meat marketing rules for direct marketing Lead(s): ITBEC, DATCP, Meat Marketing Board Timeframe: Initiate, March 2010 Goal AR-1: A diverse agricultural community. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-28 Implementation Chapter ACTION: Encourage central locations for farmers market Lead(s): Douglas County UW-Extension, ITBEC, Local community garden groups Timeframe: Annually ACTION: Encourage community gardeners/truck farming on private rural plots (rental of plots, leasing) Lead(s): Douglas County UW-Extension, Land Conservation Committee, Farm Service Agency Timeframe: March, 2010 Objective AR-2(a): Identify prime acreage and promote farming on those lands. Policy AR-2(a)(1): Protect prime agricultural lands. ACTION: Establish AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE ZONES FOR DOUGLAS COUNTY. “Agricultural Enterprise Zones” are those areas identified through a planning process where agricultural activities are maintained and expanded upon. Lead(s): Local farming organizations, Douglas County Extension, DATCP, Land Conservation Committee, Town Association, Zoning Committee, municipalities and Comprehensive Planning Commissions Timeframe: Ongoing Objective AR-2(b): Discourage non-agricultural development on tillable lands. Policy AR-2(b)(1): Guide development away from productive farmland and toward land that is least suitable for agricultural use. Policy AR-2(b)(2): Plan development practices creating a blend of agricultural and residential uses. ACTION: Develop conservation design 3 3 Conservation Design is a method of subdivision development which allows homes to be clustered on part of a rural parcel while protecting the remainder as open space. protocol for Douglas County Lead(s): Zoning Department, Local Plan Commissions Timeframe: March 2011 Objective AR-2(c): Maintain existing acreage in agricultural use. Policy AR-2(c)(1): Support current agricultural producers and encourage new agricultural uses. Goal AR-2: Abundant prime agriculture lands and acreage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-29 Implementation Chapter ACTION: Develop agricultural conservation easement program for Douglas County Lead(s): Douglas County and Town Comprehensive Planning Commission, Douglas County Extension, DATCP, Land Conservation Committee, Town Associations, Local Farming Organizations Timeframe: March 2011 Objective AR-3(a): Promote education careers and opportunities in agribusiness. Policy AR-3(a)(1): Work with schools to educate youth on local agriculture and the opportunities for education and careers in the field. ACTION: Promote agricultural scholarships Lead(s): Local School Districts, UW-Superior, WITC, Douglas County Extension, Agricultural Youth Groups, Regional Agricultural Organizations, Local Agricultural Businesses Timeframe: March 2010 ACTION: Maintain agricultural professionals in Douglas County Lead(s): Douglas County Extension, Local adult and youth agricultural organizations. Timeframe: Ongoing ACTION: Encourage FFA and 4-H membership and functions in Douglas County Lead(s): Douglas County Extension, State and local FFA organizations, and School Boards Timeframe: Ongoing Objective AR-3(b): Support preservation of agricultural and historical buildings. Policy AR-3(b)(1): Existing agricultural uses and buildings should be taken into account when locating new development to avoid conflict. Objective AR-3(c): Support preservation of rural viewsheds, scenic fields, and corridors ACTION: Create signage identifying the viewsheds of Douglas County (scenic view list of Douglas Co.) Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee, Forestry Committee Timeframe: Summer 2011 Goal AR-3: Strong rural character, culture, and visual quality. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-30 Implementation Chapter Objective AR-3(d): Showcase agriculture at the County Fair. Policy AR-3(d)(1): Promote the county fair throughout the year and encourage farmers to participate. ACTION: Support efforts of the County Fair Board. ACTION: Increase youth participation in a strong agriculturally influenced County Fair. Lead(s): Douglas County Extension, 4-H, School District, County Fair board, Home and Community Education, FFA Timeframe: March 2010 ACTION: Engage farm organizations in County Fair planning. Lead(s): Douglas County Extension, Fair Board, FFA, Home and Community Education Timeframe: March 2010 Objective AR-4(a): Promote/showcase the use of locally grown products. Objective AR-4(b): Promote education and careers in Agriculture Policy AR-4(b)(1): Assist area schools and UW-Extension in incorporating agricultural education into their curriculum. Policy AR-4(b)(2):Maintain the professional agricultural infrastructure to support farming. Objective AR-4(c): Continue to provide education and support for best management practices. Policy AR-4(c)(1): utilize County, state, and federal resources to educate farmers on best management practices and new agricultural techniques. Policy AR-4(c)(2): Promote the use of proper soil conservation and manure management practices to protect surface, ground water, air, and wildlife habitat in the County. Policy AR-4(c)(3): Acceptance of irrigation, dust, noise, odors, vehicle traffic, etc. as a normal part of agricultural operations. Policy AR-4(c)(4): Explore programs and funding opportunities to assist farmers in applying best management practices. Objective AR-4(d): Promote legislation to support sustainable agribusiness. Goal AR- 4: Sustainable agriculture, prosperous farmers, and supporting industries. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-31 Implementation Chapter Policy AR-4(d)(1): Promote sustainable agriculture in Douglas County and strive to set an example for surrounding counties. Policy AR-4(d)(2): Guide land use controls to protect prime agricultural lands ACTION: Conceive agricultural enterprise zones for Douglas County. Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee, Zoning Committee Timeframe: March 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-32 Implementation Chapter CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural Resources Vision Douglas County promotes knowledge and celebration of its resources, notably Lake Superior, healthy forests and clean waters, and highlights its cultural heritage. Cultural Resources Goals and Objectives Objective CR-1(a): Preserve historical and cultural sites, resources and events. Policy CR-1(a)(1): Consider the possible impacts of new development on historical sites to reduce the risk of disturbing or harming irreplaceable County assets. ACTION: Form a historic preservation committee Lead(s): Douglas County Historical Society Timeframe: March 2011 ACTION: Educate public on how to preserve identified places of cultural and historic significance. Lead(s): Douglas County Historical Society, Northern Lakes Archeological Society, State Historical Society, local community historical groups Timeframe: Ongoing ACTION: Investigate “Certified Local Government4 4 A Certified Local Government (CLG) is any city, village, county, or town that has been certified by Wisconsin's State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the Department of the Interior. CLG’s are eligible to receive state and federal grant funds, are authorized the use of the Wisconsin Historic Building Code for locally designated historic buildings, and have the ability to formally comment on National Register of Historic Places nominations (within municipal boundaries) before they are sent to the State Historic Preservation Review Board ” status Lead(s): Douglas County Historical Society Timeframe: March, 2011 ACTION: Highlight history of existing county sites. Lead(s): Douglas County Historical Society, Superior, Douglas County Chamber of Commerce, Tribal Governments Timeframe: Ongoing ACTION: Increase number of sites on the state and national register of historic places Goal CR-1: A Culturally Rich County ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-33 Implementation Chapter Lead(s): Towns Associations, local community historical groups, Tribal Governments Timeframe: 10% by March 2011 Objective CR-2(a): Celebrate the history and culture of the area. Policy CR-2(a)(1): Promote events and festivals that have a cultural or historical focus. Objective CR-2(b): Encourage cooperation and support performing groups, artists and craftspeople. ACTION: Engage historic preservation & conservation groups in outreach, planning, and implementation. Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: March 2010 Objective CR-2(c): Involve citizens Policy CR-2(c)(1): Solicit citizen participation in identifying and restoring historic sites in the County. Objective CR-3(a): Involve local governments Policy CR-3(a)(1): Work with tribal and local governments and private citizens to identify and preserve cultural resources. Objective CR-3(b): Produce a history of Douglas County Policy CR-3(b)(1): Acknowledge historical sites and events in Douglas County and strive to make the public more aware of these important features. Policy CR-3(b)(2): Review the impact of new development in the municipality, or the redevelopment, of historically significant structures or sites before allowing it to occur. Objective CR-3(c): Seek funding for historical/cultural projects Objective CR-3(d): Support well-planned, well-funded K-12 education. Policy CR-3(d)(1): Strongly encourage the incorporation of local history and culture into the classroom at all grade levels. Goals 3: Acknowledge Cultural Resources Goal CR-2: Cultural Diversity ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-34 Implementation Chapter Objective CR-3(e): Encourage development of heritage tourism Policy CR-3(e)(1): Encourage signage to promote and identify historical and cultural sites. Policy CR-3(e)(2): Support the use of historical and cultural sites for tourism, without harming the integrity of them. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-35 Implementation Chapter NATURAL RESOURCES Natural Resources Vision Douglas County works to preserve the natural aspect of county lands, thinking always of balancing uses and protecting the environment. The county is known throughout the state as a leading steward of healthy forests and clean waters. The county is also known as a leader in protecting Lake Superior, a body of fresh water that is of paramount national and global importance by 2030. All uses of natural resources are carefully aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. The vision for natural resources in Douglas County includes: Being a state leader in protecting and conserving water resources—from Lake Superior to inland lakes to streams and wetlands—by meeting and often exceeding state guidelines. Incorporating state-of-the-art prevention and management of invasive species on land and in waters. Managing county forests lands in a best-practice, sustainable manner, while retaining the distinction of having the largest county-owned forest in Wisconsin. Planning all development to protect natural resources by directing growth away from sensitive areas. Maintaining and protecting public access to natural resources. Natural Resources Goals and Objectives Objective NR-1(a): Public Education Policy NR-1(a)(1): Educate the public through informational news releases, brochures, signage, and the county website, school curriculum Policy NR-1(a)(2): Encourage the use of native species in plantings to minimize the risk of introducing new invasive species to the area. Policy NR-1(a)(3): Continue to provide staff at public boat landings and periodically educate people about aquatic invasive species. ACTION: Continue to include and update invasive species curriculum in schools Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee Timeframe: March 2010 ACTION: Develop and implement “most dangerous” invasive species list for county website with an explanation of noxious weed laws, control, ID. Lead(s): AIS Coordinator, Land Conservation Committee Timeframe: March 2010 Goal NR- 1: Invasive species (land & water) introductions are prevented and current populations controlled ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-36 Implementation Chapter Objective NR-1(b): County support and coordination of strategic planning for invasive species programs Policy NR-1(b)(1): Coordinate with local lake associations to implement prevention and control plans for invasive species. Policy NR-1(b)(2): Integrate policies that reflect entire Great Lakes basin policy for control of invasive species. Objective NR-1(c): Support Great Lakes Ballast Water Initiative Policy NR-1(c)(1): Insure consistency in ballast water initiatives across state and international borders. Objective NR-2(a): Identify high priority natural resource areas. Policy NR-2(a)(1): Collaborate with state and federal agencies and other organizations to identify sensitive areas. Policy NR-2(a)(2): Protect environmental /wildlife corridors Objective NR-2(b): Encourage growth away from identified natural resource areas where possible. Policy NR-2(b)(1): Use density, distance and buffer zone etc, as applicable to protect natural resource areas. Objective NR-2(c): Continue to support the use of best-management practices Policy NR-2(c)(1): Promote sustainable development and conservation of natural resources ACTION: Develop conservation design protocol for Douglas County Objective NR-2(d): Evaluate current condition of water resources on a watershed scale. Policy NR-2(d)(1): Promote Intergovernmental cooperation. ACTION: Development and implementation of evaluation and protection plan for water resources (including non-point source pollution5 5 Pollution that is so general or covers such a wide area that no single, localized source of the pollution can be identified and construction site erosion) Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee, Zoning Committee Timeframe: March 2010 Goal NR-2: High priority natural resource areas are protected. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-37 Implementation Chapter Objective NR-2(e): Develop land use strategies Policy NR-2(e)(1): Inhibit erosion. ACTION: Utilize a storm water management plan for new development. Lead(s): Zoning Committee, Land Conservation Committee, WDNR Timeframe: March 2010 ACTION: Identify and protect at-risk drainage corridors. Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee, Highway Committee, Local units of Government, Forestry Committee Timeframe: March 2010 Policy NR-2(e)(2): Value and conserve wetland, shoreline and floodplain areas Policy NR-2(e)(3): Utilize forest coverage standards to manage runoff and water quality, and preserve natural habitats. ACTION: Manage runoff, water quality, and natural habitat as part of all development plans in Douglas County. Lead(s): Zoning Committee, WDNR Timeframe: Ongoing Policy NR-2(e)(4): Review of non-metallic and metallic mineral extraction operation requests ACTION: Evaluate current permitting process Lead(s): Douglas County Comprehensive Plan commissions, local and municipal planning commissions. Timeframe: March, 2010 Objective NR-2(f): Support training of Zoning and Land Conservation staff and committees Policy NR-2(f)(1): Communicate with other agencies and jurisdictions to share information and educational materials. Objective NR-2(g): Educate and involve the public in natural resource stewardship. Policy NR-2(g)(1): Encourage school districts to continue natural resource education in Douglas County schools. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-38 Implementation Chapter Objective NR-3(a): Identify and protect groundwater recharge areas Policy NR-3(a)(1): Inform the public about the importance of and techniques for protecting groundwater recharge areas. Objective NR-3(b): Support voluntary groundwater inventory and testing programs. Policy NR-3(b)(1): Educate the public about and encourage participation in well testing programs. Objective NR-3(c): Identify and cap abandoned wells. Policy NR-3(c)(1): Develop a wellhead protection plan. Policy NR-3(c)(2): Work with private landowners to implement wellhead protection techniques. Objective NR-4(a): Support the Douglas County Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan 2006-2020 criteria for obtaining industrial forests that go on the market. Objective NR-4(b): Coordinate forest management information between county, state, commercial and private forest owners to minimize hydrologic impacts. Policy NR-4(b)(1): Work together with the DNR to educate commercial and private forest owners on best management practices. Policy NR-4(b)(2): Maintain communication with the state on forest management information and decisions and encourage forest landowners to enroll in Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law program and other tax programs. Objective NR-4(c): Continue to support funding and training for Forestry Department and Committee members Policy NR-4(c)(1): Ensure access to updated equipment, educational materials, and other resources for the Forestry Department. Policy NR-4(c)(2): Maintain adequate staffing to continue proper management of the County Forest. Goal NR- 4: County forestlands managed in a sustainable manner Goal NR-3: High quality and quantity of groundwater ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-39 Implementation Chapter Objective NR-5(a): Support maintenance of safe, environmentally sensitive access points to public lands and waters and support improvements where needed. Policy NR-5(a)(1): Make access points to public lands handicap accessible. Policy NR-5(a)(2): Control erosion at public access points to waterways. Objective NR-5(b): Support practicable access to public lands and waters. Policy NR-5(b)(1): Research funding opportunities for creating and improving public accesses. Objective NR-5(c): Provide opportunities for input concerning public access on existing and newly acquired public lands. Policy NR-5(c)(1): Hold public meetings and inform the public through multiple media sources. Objective NR-6(a): Support rideshare initiatives Policy NR-6(a)(1): Consider the addition of park-and-ride lots to increase convenience and incentives for carpooling. Objective NR-6(b): Support multi-modal transportation Policy NR-6(b)(1): Accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Objective NR-6(c): Support development that reduces auto-dependence and travel distances. Policy NR-6(c)(1): Encourage pedestrian and bicycle-friendly developments. Objective NR-7(a): Maintain wildlife species numbers as a recreational and visual resource. Policy NR-7(a)(1): Manage for species types/diversity. Policy NR-7(a)(2): Manage populations to provide food, recreation, and visual resources while protecting other natural resources and private economy. Goal NR-7: Maintain Wildlife Habitats Goal NR-6: A high level of air quality Goal NR-5: Safe, environmentally sensitive public access to natural resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-40 Implementation Chapter Policy NR-7(a)(3): Discourage fragmentation of large tracts of land into unconnected parcels. Objective NR-8(a): Identify scenic views in the county. Policy NR-8(a)(1): Provide opportunities for the public to safely access scenic views by developing and/or maintaining walkways, overlooks/viewing platforms, and parking areas. Policy NR-8(a)(2): Keep records of areas with scenic views and consider creating maps showing scenic view locations for tourism purposes. Policy NR-8(a)(3): Encourage the protection of land for recreational use and open space. Objective NR-8(b): Protect visual resources Policy NR-8(b)(1): Discourage development that will obstruct or decrease the value of Douglas County’s visual resources. Objective NR-8(c): Evaluate current regulations on proper placement and illumination of outdoor advertising. Policy NR-8(c)(1): Establish size and height regulations for outdoor advertising. ACTION: Encourage placement only in commercial areas Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: March, 2010 Objective NR-8(d): Minimize light, sound and air pollution. Policy NR-8(d)(1): Encourage vegetative buffers where possible around transportation corridors and industrial areas to reduce sound and air pollution. Objective NR-8(e): Value quiet areas Policy NR-8(e)(1): Enforce the county noise ordinance ACTION: Evaluate the ability of the county to control noise Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: March, 2010 Goal NR-9: Excellent communication and cooperation between units of government and the community Goal NR- 8: Protected Scenic and Recreational Resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-41 Implementation Chapter Objective NR-9(a): Network with state, federal and tribal governments to share information and tools and make decisions on natural resources. Policy NR-9(a)(1): Work collaboratively with multiple agencies, jurisdictions, and levels of government to provide the best management possible for Douglas County’s natural resources. Objective NR-9(b): Enable and encourage responsible stewardship by providing tools and sharing information with lake and river associations, school districts, sanitary districts, youth groups, etc. Policy NR-9(b)(1): Provide informational brochures, signage, and/or web sources to increase public knowledge regarding environmental stewardship. Objective NR-9(c): Coordinate, cooperate and share technical and educational resources between county departments and local governments. Policy NR-9(c)(1): Educate and assist town governments in protecting natural resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-42 Implementation Chapter ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Objective ED-1(a): Available leadership education for current and future leaders Policy ED-1(a)(1): Encourage on-going leadership education for County leaders. Policy ED-1(a)(2): Support youth development program sponsored by Chamber of Commerce. ACTION: Provide for early training sessions, job shadowing, and internships for youth. Lead(s): UW-Extension, Superior-Douglas County Chamber of Commerce Timeframe: Ongoing Objective ED-1(b): A well-educated, highly skilled workforce with high standards, integrity and ethics Policy ED-1(b)(1): Support businesses and organizations that will draw educated and skilled people to Douglas County. Policy ED-1(b)(2): Encourage collaboration and cooperation between educational institutions to meet needs of workforce. ACTION: Develop interactive learning opportunities between county, businesses and educational institutions. Lead(s): UW-Extension, Superior-Douglas County Chamber of Commerce Timeframe: January 2011 Objective ED-1(c): Maximize incentive programs Objective ED-1(d): Coordination with secondary and post-secondary educational services Policy ED-1(d)(1): Communicate with local colleges and universities to find ways to attract and retain graduates in Douglas County. Policy ED-1(d)(2): Offer internships to local college students to help build interest and experience in County and local government. Policy ED-1(d)(3): Expand youth leadership program with current guidelines in place. Goal ED-2: Economic development needs balanced with quality of life needs Goal ED-1: Leadership and educational opportunities for growth and development ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-43 Implementation Chapter Objective ED-2(a): Job creation and opportunities that support living wages Policy ED-2(a)(1): Encourage new businesses that will provide employment for a large number of residents. ACTION: Promote women’s expo and conference to highlight women-owned businesses and opportunities. Lead(s): Superior-Douglas County Development Association Timeframe: Within 3 years (following plan adoption) Objective ED-2(b): Encourage recreational and tourist industry opportunities. Policy ED-2(b)(1): Allow the utilization of Douglas County’s natural and scenic features, recreational opportunities, history, and culture to increase tourism. Policy ED-2(b)(2): Encourage ecotourism in Douglas County. ACTIONS: Develop brochures to promote businesses involved in tourist industry. Lead(s): Superior-Douglas County Chamber of Commerce, Development Association Timeframe: January 2011 ACTIONS: Encourage use of public service announcements for regional events. Lead(s): Superior-Douglas County Chamber of Commerce, PEGA Timeframe: Ongoing Objective ED-2(c): Provide guidance and incentives for the preservation of open spaces and natural areas. Policy ED-2(c)(1): Promote businesses that utilize sustainable building practices and water and energy conservation measures. Policy ED-2(c)(2): Encourage cluster development on large tracts of land. Objective ED-2(d): Encourage commercial nodes in rural areas. Policy ED-2(d)(1): Promote mixed use development to increase economic development while also satisfying needs and desires of residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-44 Implementation Chapter Objective ED-3(a): Retains and expands current businesses Policy ED-3(a)(1): Provide information on grants available for area businesses to assist in economic development. ACTIONS: Establish clearing-house for services available to small businesses. Identify obstacles to growth. Lead(s): Superior-Douglas County Development Association Timeframe: October 2011 Objective ED-3(b): Attracts new businesses Policy ED-3(b)(1): Promote Douglas County as a desirable place to live and operate a business. Policy ED-3(b)(2): Encourage a variety of business types that help serve area residents, contribute to the character of the county, and increase employment opportunities for residents. Policy ED-3(b)(3): Designate land for future commercial and industrial development. Policy ED-3(b)(4): Pursue state and federal grant programs for business development. ACTION: Promote business opportunities in surrounding communities and educational institutions. Lead(s): Superior-Douglas County Development Association Timeframe: Ongoing ACTION: Survey college students to determine occupational opportunities that interest graduates. Lead(s): Douglas County UW-Extension Timeframe: January 2013 ACTION: Recognize large senior population and identify businesses that will meet their needs. Lead(s): Douglas County UW-Extension, Senior Connections – Superior/Douglas County Senior Center Timeframe: January 2013 Goal ED-3: A strong regional economy that is secure and stable ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-45 Implementation Chapter Objective ED-3(c): Development is compatible with environment and resource capabilities Policy ED-3(c)(1): Encourage commercial and industrial development that preserves environmental quality and open space. Policy ED-3(c)(2): Ensure new development maintains scenic views and has low-impact on surrounding area. Policy ED-3(c)(3): Promote green businesses through incentive programs and grants. Objective ED-3(d): Promote development of an economy that is diverse and broad-based Policy ED-3(d)(1): Encourage unique, specialty businesses that are compatible with the region’s rural character. Policy ED-3(d)(2): Support a well managed and sustainable forest industry. Objective ED-3(e): Promote local and home-based companies. Objective ED-3(f): Expand forestry management practices. Objective ED-4(a): New businesses focused toward existing and planned business/industrial parks Policy ED-4(a)(1): Advertise business and industrial park opportunities. Policy ED-4(a)(2): Ensure that updated, high-capacity infrastructure is available in industrial parks. Policy ED-4(a)(3): Ensure technology services available to support businesses of the future. Objective ED-4(b): Affordable offerings of utilities, transportation, public services and communications Objective ED-4(c): Streamline permitting process Policy ED-4(c)(1): Provide user-friendly website to inform public and provide access to permit forms. Objective ED-4(d): Ensure policy and regulation consistency. Goal ED-5: Communication and collaboration within communities and county Goal ED-4: An infrastructure that supports economic development ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-46 Implementation Chapter Objective ED-5(a): Schedule meetings with present and future business leaders Policy ED-5(a)(1): Discuss needs and desires with business leaders to retain and attract businesses. Objective ED-5(b): Effective use of Internet technology and news media Policy ED-5(b)(1): Maintain an updated, user-friendly County website. Policy ED-5(b)(2): Effective use of Geographic Information System (GIS) Objective ED-5(c): Improve government services and delivery of services. Policy ED-5(c)(1): Advance information delivery and accessibility in the County. Policy ED-5(c)(2): Citizens are informed of available services and where to find them. Policy ED-5(c)(3): Ensure that adequate staffing is available to deliver government services in a timely manner. Objective ED-5(d): Support business organizations and community involvement Policy ED-5(d)(1): Support the establishment, improvement, and continuation of a County Chamber of Commerce. Objective ED-5(e): Comprehensive plans are consistent throughout region Policy ED-5(e)(1): Work with surrounding jurisdictions to ensure compatibility in border regions. Objective ED-6(a): Redevelopment of brownfields and blighted areas Policy ED-6(a)(1): Provide incentives for developers to rehabilitate brownfields and blighted areas, making them more desirable. Policy ED-6(a)(2): Determine possible Smart Growth areas that meet state statutes. Objective ED-6(b): Encourage the reuse of structures. Policy ED-6(b)(1): Promote the reuse of structures whenever possible to reduce the need for demolition and new building materials. Goal ED-6: Encourage redevelopment ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-47 Implementation Chapter ACTION: Encourage growth of green construction and salvage businesses. Lead(s): Douglas County and City of Superior County Me Green Program/recycling programs Timeframe: Ongoing Objective ED-7(a): Utilization of county forestlands to meet bio-energy and/or paper and wood products needs. Objective ED-7(b): Promote development of Parkland Industrial Park. Policy ED-7(b)(1): Work to acquire infrastructure upgrades to site. Objective ED-7(c): Promote utilization of Revolving Loan Fund. Objective ED-7(d): Develop Wisconsin Point into natural recreational use area. Objective ED-7(e): Regulatory restrictions that don’t prohibit economic development. Objective ED-7(f): Expand access to GIS. Objective ED-7(g): Sound fiscal management that builds a strong tax base. Goal ED-7: Best use of Douglas County assets ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-48 Implementation Chapter INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION Objective IC-1(a): Contact is effective and timely. Policy IC-1(a)(1): Each citizen has access to government services. ACTION: County web sites will be interactive. ACTION: Government centers will offer assistance to any resident. ACTION: Libraries will offer assistance to any resident Policy IC-1(a)(2): Each local unit of government has an Internet presence with a link to any unit with jurisdiction within the local unit. ACTION: Web sites will be interactive. ACTION: Local libraries will house plan documents. Objective IC-1(b): Citizen participation is encouraged and is utilized in decision-making processes. Policy IC-1(b)(1): Plan implementation will involve citizens. Policy IC-1(b)(2): County Board of Supervisors will effectively communicate with constituents. ACTION: Supervisors will attend their respective township or village board meetings. ACTION: Each Supervisor will invite communication from citizens. Policy IC-1(b)(3): Provide forum for citizen comments. ACTION: Establish methods to inform public throughout planning process and plan implementation. ACTION: Establish forum for comments and questions after implementation. ACTION: Establish method to retain comments for use during next plan review cycle. Objective IC-1(c): Comprehensive planning is implemented and enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Policy IC-1(c)(1): Each plan meets state statute for comprehensive planning elements. Goal IC-1: Government is available to serve all citizens. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-49 Implementation Chapter ACTION: Review local plan recommendations revisions and amendments to ensure consistency and compatibility ACTION: Review all other applicable plans for consistency and compatibility ACTION: County Zoning office will work toward common requirements and ordinances. Policy IC-2: Local units will be consulted during the decision-making process ACTION: Establish routine method to request participation from each affected entity. ACTION: Establish efficient means of communications with other entities. ACTION: Wisconsin Towns Association and similar associations will continue to communicate issues of interest to its members. ACTION: Lakes associations will continue to work with local units of government. Objective IC-2(a): Joint planning should occur when considering cross-jurisdictional developments Policy IC-2(a)(1): Coordination between entities is common and routine. ACTION: Local units regularly participate in decisions of nearby entities. Objective IC-2(b): Conflicting viewpoints are managed through a written conflict resolution process. Policy IC-2(b)(1): A conflict resolution process is in place. ACTION: Work with local units to establish a written conflict resolution policy. Objective IC-2(c): Local units of government have final control of policy development within their jurisdiction. ACTION: Allow local units clear voice throughout decision-making process. ACTION: Regional planning will involve all interested entities. Objective IC-3(a): Local units of government work together to develop ways to plan and administer services across boundaries. Goal IC-3: Intergovernmental agreements foster shared services. Goal IC-2: Communication between local units of government is routine and productive. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-50 Implementation Chapter Policy IC-3(a)(1): Local units communicate with nearby entities. ACTION: Establish method to communicate prior to action. ACTION: Establish guidelines for bulk purchase of supply items. Objective IC-3(b): Cost benefits and efficiencies are considered when discussing shared services. Policy IC-3(b)(1): Emergency response facilities and equipment are located throughout county to offer best response times. ACTION: Assess current and future population trends to determine ideal location of emergency response facilities and equipment. ACTION: Work with County Emergency Management to develop long-range plan for future equipment, facilities and manpower. ACTION: Work with insurance industry to review classes of fire protection to keep premiums affordable. Policy IC-3(b)(2): Public facilities are located to best serve the local residents. ACTION: Assess current use of existing public facilities. ACTION: Communicate with nearby units prior to planning of future facilities. Policy IC-3(b)(3): Local units routinely coordinate road work. ACTION: Encourage sharing of equipment, materials and/or personnel between local governmental units ACTION: Timing of road work is coordinated to reduce unnecessary delays along traffic routes. ACTION: Available laborers are shared Policy IC-3(b)(4): Share services, equipment, personnel or other resources where possible Objective IC-3(c): Partnerships are strengthened to promote better local services. Policy IC-3(c)(1): Agreements are fostered to improve services between adjoining units. ACTION: Existing agreements between the county and other entities are routinely reviewed. ACTION: Services and equipment are routinely reviewed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-51 Implementation Chapter LAND USE Objective LU-1(a): Consistency in requirements Policy LU-1(a)(1): Review existing policy at multi-jurisdictional level. Objective LU-1(b): Compatible and complimentary uses in close proximity to one another as reflected in community goals. Objective LU-2(a): Collaboration between units of government, businesses developers, citizens and organizations embracing cultural and socio-economic diversity. Policy LU-2(a)(1): Support mixing of compatible and complimentary uses in close proximity to one another as reflected in community goals. ACTION: Encourage in -fill development on lands that are vacant, blighted, or underutilized. “In fill” is to be acknowledged as development in the existing area of infrastructure. Lead(s): Local municipalities, planning commissions, Superior -Douglas County Development Associations Timeframe: March 2010 Objective LU-2(b): Flexibilities in requirements are explored. Policy LU-2(b)(1): Research intergovernmental land use policies and requirements used in other jurisdictions. Policy LU-2(b)(2): Update, develop and enforce land use controls through zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations that promote compatible land use patterns throughout the county. Policy LU-2(b)(3): Evaluate current ordinances to assure consistency with Douglas County Comprehensive Plan. ACTION: The Zoning Committee will review for consistency with ordinance already in place. Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: March 2010 Goal LU-2: Planned growth Goal LU-1: Balanced integrity of private property rights with the interests of the community. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-52 Implementation Chapter Objective LU-2(c): Provide for new development opportunities within the county by expanding utilities, facilities and services in line with existing infrastructure. Policy LU-2(c)(1): Promote adequate housing needs be met, including affordable and temporary. Policy LU-2(c)(2): Evaluate costs of expansion of infrastructure. ACTION: The Superior-Douglas County Development Association will conduct the evaluation of expansion of infrastructure. Lead(s): Superior -Douglas County Development Association, local municipalities, plan commissions Timeframe: March 2011 Objective LU-3(a): Douglas County’s rural “northwoods” atmosphere contains: a. Productive working land b. Scenic view sheds c. Limited development density d. Dark skies e. Planned development f. Healthy forests g. Diverse, native plant and animal life. h. Clean waterways i. Construction design that is compatible with the environment Policy LU-3(a)(1): Encourage proper lighting types and amounts to limit light pollution, to preserve the view of the night sky. ACTION: Provide Information and education to municipalities, lake associations, and planning commissions to mitigate light pollution. Lead(s): Land Conservation Department, lake associations Timeframe: Spring 2011 Policy LU-3(a)(2): Support design guidelines for new construction to reflect scenic values. ACTION: Provide information and education to municipalities and planning commissions to acknowledge and plan for the conservation of their scenic values. Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee, Zoning Committee Timeframe: Fall 2010 Goal LU-3: Distinctive rural “northwoods” atmosphere ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-53 Implementation Chapter ACTION: Develop guidelines for developers to use to protect scenic values of Douglas County. Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: Fall 2011 Policy LU-3(a)(3): Encourage rural atmosphere through Planned Unit Development. ACTION: Provide information and education to municipalities and planning commissions on the value and successes of Planned Unit Developments in Wisconsin. Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: Fall 2010 ACTION: Determine options for how Planned Unit Developments will become part of the planning and permitting process Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: Fall 2011 Policy LU-3(a)(4): Encourage the protection of open spaces, for wildlife habitat, agricultural land, wetlands, shore land, floodplains and forests. ACTION: Encourage landowners to enroll in the state DNR Managed Forest Law program. Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee, WDNR Private lands foresters Timeframe: March 2011 Policy LU-3(a)(5): Protect waterways by controlling erosion and pollution, and by maintaining vegetative buffers around them. Policy LU-3(a)(6): Utilize controls to protect prime agricultural land. Policy LU-3(a)(7): Promote the proper management and conservation of forests, and encourage private landowners to enroll in the state DNR Managed Forest Law program. Policy LU-3(a)(11): Develop and enforce sign regulations to improve visual quality of the community. Objective LU-4(a): Efficient modes of transportation. Policy LU-4(a)(1): Provide a transportation system that compliments the natural resources by avoiding environmentally sensitive areas and utilizing energy efficiently. Goal LU-4: Transportation maintains natural resources ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-54 Implementation Chapter Policy LU-4(a)(2): Minimize development in areas that are likely to be required to meet transportation needs in the future. Develop bus route transportation corridors. Objective LU-5(a): Increased public awareness and responsibility to current land use requirements. Policy LU-5(a)(1): Use the most current means of disseminating the land use planning information. Policy LU-5(a)(2): Establish working relationships with local business, industry, realtors to share needs in open door economic development policies. Objective LU-6(a): Encourage development within areas that have municipal infrastructure Policy LU-6(a)(1): Identify needs of local business and industry in economic development. ACTION: Evaluate the size, location, and proposed use for all commercial and industrial developments. ACTION: Provide incentives for development to match the capacity of utilities, roads, and community facilities. Lead(s): Local municipal plan commissions, Superior-Douglas County Development Association Timeframe: March, 2010 Objective LU-6(b): Encourage development away from environmentally sensitive areas. Policy LU-6(b)(1): Avoid development including roadways, driveways, and buildings on steep slopes . ACTION: Minimize soil erosion and the disruption of wildlife habitat while keeping infrastructure costs to a minimum. Lead(s): Land Conservation Committee Timeframe: March, 2010 ACTION: Encourage enforcement of ordinances dealing with salvage and debris. Goal LU-6: Balance economic development and environmental impact. Goal LU-5: Continuing public education ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-55 Implementation Chapter Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: March, 2010 Policy LU-6(b)(2): Encourage developers to preserve open space and sensitive environmental areas. Policy LU-6(b)(3): Conserve resources by promoting sustainable development. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Policy I-1(a): Coordinate the implementation of plan elements Policy I-1(b): Integrate the comprehensive plan into the decision-making process of the county and local governmental units Policy I-1(c): Maintain the plan as a “living document” that must be responsive to the changing needs of the county. Policy I-1(d): Utilize available programs, including those identified within the various elements of the comprehensive plan, as needed to achieve plan objectives. Policy I-1(e): Achieve and maintain a process for review and action on zoning/land use applications that is coordinated between the county and towns. Policy I-1 Coordinate County and town plan implementation efforts. Policy I-1(g): Continue to seek public participation and involvement throughout the plan implementation process. Policy I-1(h): Promote intergovernmental cooperation throughout the plan implementation process. Policy I-1(i): Utilize the recommended conflict resolution process (or other mutually agreed upon process) to resolve future conflicts related to implementation of the comprehensive plan. Policy I-2(a): Rely on the comprehensive plan recommendations in making decisions with respect to future development and redevelopment Goal I-2: Ensure that all future development and/or redevelopment within the unincorporated areas of Douglas County occur in accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal I-1: Implement the Douglas County Comprehensive Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 9-56 Implementation Chapter Policy I-3(a): Identify and correct inconsistencies between county ordinances, regulations and the comprehensive plan ACTION: Conduct a zoning-planning consistency review Lead(s): Zoning Committee Timeframe: Initiate immediately following plan adoption Policy I-4(a): Continue to monitor plan progress and ensure that the plan remains relevant Policy 1-4(b): Adjustments to this plan should be made as required by changing conditions Policy I-4(c): Conduct annual plan progress review Policy I-4(d): Ensure continued public participation in the plan review and amendment process Goal I-4: Reevaluate the comprehensive plan on a regular basis (a minimum of once every ten years) to ensure that it continues to accurately reflect current conditions and County and local community objectives. Goal I-3: Review, revise, or create the regulatory ordinances necessary to ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan and implementation of the objectives, including zoning ordinances, land division ordinances, and official mapping ordinances. ---PAGE BREAK--- ADOPTION ORDINANCE APPENDIX A ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES (TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLANS) APPENDIX B ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- STANDARD CATEGORIES PROVIDED TO ALL TOWNS FOR CONSIDERATION NON- SHORELAND CATEGORIES Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Conservation This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewsheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Rural Activity Center The Rural Activity Center category identifies rural residential centers with limited commercial and community services. This category would include compact development within a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. Included within this category would be unincorporated rural hamlets that often form at community crossroads or develop around some community focal point. Typical uses include residential, churches, schools, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, and other small shops. ---PAGE BREAK--- STANDARD CATEGORIES PROVIDED TO ALL TOWNS FOR CONSIDERATION Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS)(more density with municipal sewer?) General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. Public Utilities This category includes lands used for generating and\or processing electronic communication, or water, electricity, petroleum, or other transmittable products and for the disposal, waste processing, and/or recycling of by-products. ---PAGE BREAK--- STANDARD CATEGORIES PROVIDED TO ALL TOWNS FOR CONSIDERATION SHORELAND CATEGORIES Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. Shoreland Commercial This category includes the commercial resorts, tourism-based businesses along with general retail and service uses within the shoreland area. The use and development design should recognize and address the sensitive relationship with surrounding residential uses, scenic views, natural features and the impact on water quality. Scenic River The category includes lands adjoining St. Croix, Brule and Eau Claire River’s, and is intended to recognize the outstanding natural, scenic and recreational use values associated these unique natural features. Future developments within this category should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and scenic beauty as primary goals. Wild Lakes This category includes lands adjoining Class 3 “wilderness lakes”, and is intended to recognize the outstanding scenic and natural values associated with these resources and their high sensitivity to disturbance due to use and development. Development along these lakes or within the lakeshed is strongly discouraged. If future development is permitted, it should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and the wild scenic character of these resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF AMNICON Future Land Use Categories Used on the Town of Amnicon Future Land Use Map Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreation uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling per 2 acres. Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Single Family Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling per 1 acre. Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses, such as manufacturing, warehousing and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas and the availability of adequate infrastructure. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF BENNETT TOWN OF BENNETT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES NON-SHORELAND AREAS Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Conservation This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewsheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Rural Activity Center The Rural Activity Center category identifies rural residential centers with limited commercial and community services. This category would include compact development within a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. Included within this category would be unincorporated rural hamlets that often form at community crossroads or develop around some community focal point. Typical uses include residential, churches, schools, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, and other small shops. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF BENNETT Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS)(more density with municipal sewer?) General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF BENNETT Public Utilities This category includes lands used for generating and\or processing electronic communication, or water, electricity, petroleum, or other transmittable products and for the disposal, waste processing, and/or recycling of by-products. SHORELAND CATEGORIES Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. Shoreland Commercial This category includes the commercial resorts, tourism-based businesses along with general retail and service uses within the shoreland area. The use and development design should recognize and address the sensitive relationship with surrounding residential uses, scenic views, natural features and the impact on water quality. Scenic River The category includes lands adjoining St. Croix, Brule and Eau Claire River’s, and is intended to recognize the outstanding natural, scenic and recreational use values associated these unique natural features. Future developments within this category should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and scenic beauty as primary goals. Wild Lakes This category includes lands adjoining Class 3 “wilderness lakes”, and is intended to recognize the outstanding scenic and natural values associated with these resources and their high sensitivity to disturbance due to use and development. Development along these lakes or within the lakeshed is strongly discouraged. If future development is permitted, it should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and the wild scenic character of these resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF BRULE TOWN OF BRULE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES NON- SHORELAND CATEGORIES Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS)(more density with municipal sewer?) General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. SHORELAND CATEGORIES Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF CLOVERLAND Governmental & Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. Rural Traditional/Agricultural Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries related to, and dependent on, natural resources; includes public forest land treated as fields. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also pay a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within this category, with an approved plan density per clusters. DENSITY: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional/Agricultural category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residental The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. DENSITY: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Conservation/Forest This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic view sheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space with an approved plan density per cluster. DENSITY: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas which are designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife and waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF DAIRYLAND Future Land Use Categories used on the Town of Dairyland Future Land Use Map The Town of Dairyland Future Land Use Map includes four future land use districts. Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF HAWTHORNE TOWN OF HAWTHORNE FUTURE LAND USE DEFINITIONS NON- SHORELAND CATEGORIES Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS)(more density with municipal sewer?) General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF HAWTHORNE Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF HIGHLAND TOWN OF HIGHLAND FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource- based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Activity Center The Rural Activity Center category identifies rural residential centers with limited commercial and community services. This category would include compact development within a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. Included within this category would be unincorporated rural hamlets that often form at community crossroads or develop around some community focal point. Typical uses include residential, churches, schools, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, and other small shops. Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS). General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF HIGHLAND Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Rural Conservation This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewsheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF OAKLAND Town of Oakland Future Land Use Map Categories (MAP 1) AGRICULTURAL: (Orange) Lot size minimum is 5 acres. Includes residential development and small to medium scale farming operations. FOREST: (green) Lot size minimum is 10 acres. Includes residential development. LAKE LOTS: (yellow) Lot size minimum follows the current county standards. Includes residential development. COMMERCIAL: (Red) Lot size minimum is 5 acres. Includes commercial, retail, service and office uses, including manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations given to abutting residential areas and adequate infrastructure. SPECIAL USE: (Plum) Includes county parks and various non-profit institutions. Residential development would be prohibited. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF PARKLAND Future Land Use Categories used on the Town of Parkland Future Land Use Map The Town of Parkland Future Land Use Map includes eight future land use districts. Forest This category includes areas of existing forest cover. The future land use plan recommends preservation of these areas as much as possible. The preferred minimum lot size in 10 acres, unless approved by the town. Agriculture This category includes lands which are currently in agricultural production. The future land use plan recommends preservation of these areas as much as possible. The preferred minimum lot size is 20 acres, unless approved by the town. Recreational Trails This category includes public recreational trails. Medium Density Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density is 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in areas that have access to municipal sewer. Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. Mitigated Wetland Constructed wetlands designed to replace lost wetland functions due to fill or other negative impacts. This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SOLON SPRINGS TOWN OF SOLON SPRINGS FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES NON- SHORELAND CATEGORIES Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Conservation This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewsheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Rural Activity Center The Rural Activity Center category identifies rural residential centers with limited commercial and community services. This category would include compact development within a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. Included within this category would be unincorporated rural hamlets that often form at community crossroads or develop around some community focal point. Typical uses include residential, churches, schools, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, and other small shops. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SOLON SPRINGS Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS)(more density with municipal sewer?) General Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SOLON SPRINGS Public Utilities This category includes lands used for generating and\or processing electronic communication, or water, electricity, petroleum, or other transmittable products and for the disposal, waste processing, and/or recycling of by-products. SHORELAND CATEGORIES Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. Scenic River The category includes lands adjoining St. Croix, Brule and Eau Claire River’s, and is intended to recognize the outstanding natural, scenic and recreational use values associated these unique natural features. Future developments within this category should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and scenic beauty as primary goals. Wild Lakes This category includes lands adjoining Class 3 “wilderness lakes”, and is intended to recognize the outstanding scenic and natural values associated with these resources and their high sensitivity to disturbance due to use and development. Development along these lakes or within the lakeshed is strongly discouraged. If future development is permitted, it should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and the wild scenic character of these resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SUMMIT Future Land Use Categories used on the Town of Summit Future Land Use Map The Town of Summit Future Land Use Map includes six future land use districts. Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. This category also includes the projected growth of residential, commercial and industrial. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling per 5 acres, with the exception of subdivisions for which lot sizes may be smaller (2 acres recommended). This category also includes the projected growth of residential, commercial and industrial. Commercial This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SUMMIT Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. The preferred minimum lot size is 30,000 ft². ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SUPERIOR Town of Superior Future Land Use Categories NON- SHORELAND CATEGORIES Rural Traditional Rural lands in this category will include large-lot residential uses and resource-based industries, including farming and forestry operations. Industrial uses would be limited to industries directly related to, and dependent on, natural resources. Rural-oriented recreational uses will also play a role in this category. Rural cluster development would typically be allowed within in this category. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Traditional category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres. Rural Residential The Rural Residential category would permit development at a density low enough to assure conservation of natural systems and protection of rural resources. Rural residential clustering would be allowed. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Residential category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres. Rural Conservation This category focuses on the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, scenic viewsheds and the conservation of rural open space. The category will encourage low-impact uses and utilize clustering and/or other open space techniques to protect sensitive areas and preserve open space. Density: The preferred maximum density of the Rural Conservation category would not be greater than 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. (Bonus density may be granted for preserving open space, scenic resources and/or environmentally sensitive areas through the use of clustered housing) Rural Activity Center The Rural Activity Center category identifies rural residential centers with limited commercial and community services. This category would include compact development within a defined boundary that is readily distinguishable from surrounding rural lands. Included within this category would be unincorporated rural hamlets that often form at community crossroads or develop around some community focal point. Typical uses include residential, churches, schools, taverns, restaurants, gas stations, and other small shops. Single Family Residential The Single Family Residential category includes primarily single-family detached residential development. Density: The preferred density range would be between 1 dwelling unit per acre and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres, with wastewater needs served by private on-site waste treatment systems (POWTS). General Commercial ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SUPERIOR This category includes small-scale indoor commercial, retail, service and office uses, excluding manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. Typical retail uses include gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, shops and convenience stores. General development considerations include traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, the appearance of new and existing development as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure. General Industrial This category includes both light and heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, warehousing, and distribution. General development considerations include noise, smoke, smells, traffic, compatibility with abutting residential areas, and the availability of adequate infrastructure. Forestry, Wildlife Conservation and Outdoor Recreation This category delineates areas in which designated exclusively for the production of timber, wildlife & waterfowl production, wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation. Desired future land use practices would include sustainable forestry practices, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, various forms of motorized and non-motorized recreation consistent with adopted management plans, and other low-impact human uses. Public access and use is contingent on ownership and/or enrollment in Forest Tax Law Programs. All mapped wetlands and public parks are included within this category. Governmental and Institutional This category includes all government-owned administration buildings and offices; fire stations, public hospitals and health care facilities; day care centers; public schools, colleges, educational research lands; and lands of fraternal organizations (BSA, VFW, etc.) located outside of Rural Activity Centers. Cemeteries, churches, and other religious facilities located outside of Rural Activity Centers are also included in this category. Public Utilities This category includes lands used for generating and\or processing electronic communication, or water, electricity, petroleum, or other transmittable products and for the disposal, waste processing, and/or recycling of by-products. SHORELAND CATEGORIES Shoreland Residential This category is a blended residential area, encompassing older traditional “cottage style” developments and newer lakefront homes. All new development in this classification should be compatible with the sensitive character of this shoreline area, protecting the shoreline itself, scenic views, and natural features. Recommended land uses include single family residential and seasonal/recreational homes. Shoreland Commercial ---PAGE BREAK--- TOWN OF SUPERIOR This category includes the commercial resorts, tourism-based businesses along with general retail and service uses within the shoreland area. The use and development design should recognize and address the sensitive relationship with surrounding residential uses, scenic views, natural features and the impact on water quality. Scenic River The category includes lands adjoining St. Croix, Brule and Eau Claire River’s, and is intended to recognize the outstanding natural, scenic and recreational use values associated these unique natural features. Future developments within this category should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and scenic beauty as primary goals. Wild Lakes This category includes lands adjoining Class 3 “wilderness lakes”, and is intended to recognize the outstanding scenic and natural values associated with these resources and their high sensitivity to disturbance due to use and development. Development along these lakes or within the lakeshed is strongly discouraged. If future development is permitted, it should be minimal and respect the natural integrity of the environment and the wild scenic character of these resources. ---PAGE BREAK--- WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES & THREATS and COMMUNITY ISSUES APPENDIX C ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Element Issue Score Agricultural, Cultural and Natural Resources Element Not changing laws that would affect a land owners property values or rights 24 points Identify and direct growth away from sensitive areas 20 points (Maintain) viability of rural enterprises 19 points Lack of integration of sustainable wildlife, forests, water resources, recreation and wetlands 12 points Manage terrestrial and aquatic invasive species 12 points (Protect) water quality – streams and lakes – slow water runoff and flooding to streams, lakes d tl d 9 points and wetlands (Amend) Zoning (ordinance to be) consistent with Comprehensive Plan 7 points Lack of emphasis on regional sustainability 6 points Comprehensive Plan (should) address global markets and changing climate patterns 5 points Shortage of well-planned, well-funded pre- school, K-12 and adult education in (the areas of) cultural, natural and agricultural resources 5 points Biofuels as a new market/carbon credits 2 points Maintain and protect public access to natural resources 2 points (Reverse the) low level of training and cooperation with relevant agencies such as University of Wisconsin Superior, US Geological Survey, etc. 1 point ---PAGE BREAK--- Lack of close cooperation with Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission 1 point A need to protect habitat and biodiversity 1 point Loss of family farms 0 points Provide leadership to the State – notably to respond to changing markets and climate 0 points Lack of cooperation for recreational, art and cultural heritage programs 0 points Transportation Element Need roads that support multiple uses and multi- modal options 38 points Reduce fossil fuel demand 18 points Continue to maintain and upgrade transportation infrastructure (for) multiple uses (such as) bike- trail access 14 points Need to (develop) rideshare program 13 points Return to rail transport, passenger and freight 11 points Culverts are undersized and raised on important streams causing flooding, erosion, habitat degradation and fish passage problems 9 points Assure mobility for all 8 points Expand Port (of Superior) for cargo 6 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Lack of public marina facilities 1 point Access across rail lines 0 points Lack of planning for rail transport to southern Wisconsin 0 points Land Use Element Need to protect private property rights 24 points Lack of understanding and use of new land use tools and technology such as low-impact development, conservation design and other alternative growth scenarios 23 points Lack of enforcement of existing land use laws that promote clean lakes, rivers and groundwater 21 points (Encourage) responsible and reasonable use of land 17 points Keep industrial development in proper areas 13 points Respect for local governments needs 10 points Need to control light and noise pollution 10 points Potential loss of existing public access – hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, etc - from the sale of industrial forests and other lands 6 points Need to preserve paper company forests for public use 2 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Local say on lot size to preserve rural integrity 2 points Utilities and Community Facilities Element Lack of affordable sewage/septic (system) options 51 points Lack of development of local renewable energy opportunities 21 points Coordinate resources and facilities between municipalities 14 points Lack of storm water ordinance and education 10 points Lack of county multi-use cultural auditorium 8 points Lack of incentives for conservation of utilities 7 points Lack of pro-active, forward-thinking, educated, comprehensive plan for coordinating telecommunication needs 6 points On-site waste handling – septic – not meeting state standards 6 points Lack of funding for oversight of county parks 5 points Lack of awareness of incentives for conservation of utilities 1 point Lack of recreational and educational opportunities 0 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Poor location of land fills 0 points Neighboring city/state filling local land fill 0 points Demographics Age - slowly againg Population (older people moving back) 42 points Diversity of Culture (Growing, lack of now, Develop housing economy, Community adjustment) 22 points Education & Stable Student Population (Transient population, some bome back after being trained elsewhere) 25 points Income (Shipping & Rail jobs, low income service jobs) 13 points Property - Steady demand (High land prices negatively affecting rural economy, buy for various recreation needs, need property use planning, Aging population) 12 points Rural - Stable Ag Population 11 points Movement (Superior to County) (County to City because of cost of transportation/energy/medical) 11 points Housing Element Need to improve/rehab/remode/reuse existing homes 23 points Existing septic laws do not include acceptable, affordable alternatives, which in turn influences purchases and sales of homes 21 points Lack of incentives and training for contractors to use "green" and energy efficient building methods and materials 19 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Lack of diversity in Senior Housing choices 18 points Loss of homes trhough increasing taxation 17 points Increasing issues with low income housing. Retrofit, upgrades, insulation, codes, heating efficient systems 15 points Loss of homes through increasing heating & utility costs 14 points Capability of Government to de-vaule homesites through zoning? 7 points Loss of homes through increasing transportation costs 6 points Senior assistance programs not able to meet the needs of the aging population 5 points Lack of building material reclaimation business within the County 4 points Intrusion on indidvidual homeowner rights, through too many mandates and regulations 2 points Lack of financial planning assistance for current and potential homeowners 0 points Intergovernmental Cooperation Element Keep County Board at the same number - better representation 55 points Lack of cooperation between jurisdictions (re: shared services - roads, grant-writing, machinery purchases, workers) 33 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Lack of communication between towns, counties, state, feds, inter-state 29 points Lack of joint planning on cross-jurisditional development issues 27 points No forum for conflict resolution 25 points Opportunities for bi-state coordination (Opportunity for inter-nation cooperation with tribes, one unit for highway/road of government 7 points Maintanence vehicles to lessen costs/duplication 6 points Community Challenges & Difficulties Intergovernmental coordination promotion of local & County 34 points Natural resources desirable maintenance for econdve protecting & complimented 28 points Education 26 points Lack of planning by "Topdown" & "Bottom up" 13 points Communication with the rest of State of WI 6 points Look beyond local - be better educated of potential 2 points Economic Development Element Transportation & 4 lane hwy and public hwy 2 37 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Arts & Cultural 27 points Business Center for shared services coordinating educaltion with WITC, UWS, government agencies 27 points Education 20 points Identifying location of different types of businesses, industry, mfg. & residential changing workforce available 18 points Permitting process 11 points A) for Attracting Business and Industry A reliable workforce for potential businesses 32 points Lake Superior - Natural Resources 29 points Educational opportunities 26 points Readily available utilities & affordable 20 points Rails & shipping 13 points TIF districts - in local areas 8 points Adjacent to major hub (Duluth) 8 points ---PAGE BREAK--- B) Types of Business & Industry desired by the County Rural occupations - forestry, agriculture, aquaculture 46 points Small mfg 27 points Incubator - green technology 27 points Supoort services for Arts & Culture 23 points Make better use of local educators 20 points Technology 14 points Support services for University 6 points Marine research 5 points Recreation can create jobs (B & B's, Trails, sale of products) 0 points ---PAGE BREAK--- Outstanding natural resources RANK Abundance of public lands Redevelopment opportunities Exceptional air & water quality Educational opportunities, postsecondary institutions Available developable land Available reliable utilities Available multi-modal transportation system Proximity to major health care system Well managed forest Small communities Proximity to metro areas Good work ethic You can live your life here with limited interference by govt. Stable population Established Intergov Relationships (City, County, Duluth community) Experienced WI population Volunteerism H I G H E R L O W E R ---PAGE BREAK--- services Douglas does not promote itself WEAKNESSES Lack of living wage jobs RANK I G H E R Lack of suitable, affordable septic systems H Lack of employment opportunities Aging population Lack of civics education – involvement & motivation Lack of promoting culture & arts Lack of communication & cooperation Apathy Lack of assisted living housing Losing youth Good ol’ boy government Access to Wisconsin news Old housing stock Drug & Alcohol issues Geographical location of the county seat Lack of adequate and quality rental units Fear of change Economic pressure to develop open land Inadequate Countywide emergency services Inadequate Countywide emergency Port (“too much reliance on”) Highway 2 is not 4 lanes Deteriorating rural roads Proximity to metro area Outside perception as Douglas County is “second rate” L O W E R ---PAGE BREAK--- OPPORTUNITIES Murphy Oil RANK Capitalize on “green economy” The Port Redevelopment opportunities (land-structures) Development and production of wind power Medical access Recreational opportunities Small business potential Use of Lake Superior Business opportunities along highway 2 & 53 Growing bio-fuels Technical infrastructure to support new businesses Increase civic involvement Promote scouting and 4-H type activities Passenger rail service between S WI – Superior Vast tracts of open land Intergovermnetal communication between planning agencies – govt H I G H E R L O W E R ---PAGE BREAK--- THREATS Apathy and civic responsibility and accountability RANK High cost of energy Aquatic & terrestrial invasive species Increase in aging population Climate change Rising taxes & fees Environmental regulations discourage development Loss of private lands Youth moving out of the community Weakening tax base (aging housing stock) Influence of non-resident landowners Declining work ethic Reactive governing instead of proactive Corporate firms Less of family firms Negative attitude Small communities are unprepared for growth Loss of large tracts of industrial forest H I G H E R L O W E R ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS APPENDIX D ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Conflict Resolution Process (CRP) Purpose: To provide the framework for resolving planning related conflicts. The CRP is intended to provide a low-cost, flexible approach to resolving planning disputes between governmental entities. This process should not supersede local processes established for conflict resolution and is not intended to be used by parties dissatisfied with the appropriate application of local rules and regulations within their jurisdiction. 1. Open Discussion and Debate Communication and open discussion between parties involved in a dispute will be the first action taken to resolve conflicts by reaching consensus. Oftentimes, open dialog and debate between affected parties will be sufficient to resolve most conflicts. This action will be undertaken without outside assistance from a neutral third-party. 2. Negotiation Techniques If parties cannot reach consensus through discussion and debate it may be necessary to utilize facilitation or mediation techniques involving the use of a neutral third-party. • Facilitation – A conflict resolution method which involves use of a neutral third party to act as a facilitator in discussions between disputants. The facilitator’s role is normally limited to providing a forum for the parties to interact directly, including the enforcement of very basic rules of communication during discussions and negotiations. • Mediation – A form of a conflict resolution in which the parties bring their dispute to a neutral third party, who helps them agree on a settlement. Planning disputes should be mediated by a neutral third-party. A mutually acceptable mediator is to be selected from the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee. 3. Litigation If discussion and negotiation techniques fail to achieve a resolution to the dispute, the process will move to litigation. This process involves the use of the court system to resolve disputes. While many cases are settled in pre-trial proceedings, this alternative can be very time- consuming and expensive for all parties involved. Initiating the CRP The process may be initiated by a local jurisdiction or Douglas County at any time during the planning process. Requests to initiate CRP should be submitted to the consultant and to affected jurisdictions and shall clearly and concisely identify the issue, the jurisdictions involved, and the affected jurisdiction’s authorized representatives. Upon receipt of CRP notification, and unless otherwise requested by the jurisdictions involved, the consultant will schedule a meeting between the affected parties to discuss and debate the issue (see If this step fails ---PAGE BREAK--- to resolve the dispute, the consultant will coordinate meeting to address the dispute using negotiation techniques (see The consultant may, at the request of both parties, act as a facilitator and/or mediator, otherwise this party selected from the Conflict Resolution Subcommittee. ---PAGE BREAK--- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPENDIX E ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SURVEY RESULTS APPENDIX F ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Douglas County Comprehensive Plan Survey Results Northwest Regional Planning Commission December, 2007 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Executive Summary In October of 2007, a total of 9,483 surveys were distributed to landowners in Douglas County. Landowner mailing addresses were obtained from the Douglas County tax roll. The tax roll was sorted to remove duplicate records, ensuring that each landowner only received one survey. An on-line (internet-based) option was also available for those wishing to complete the survey digitally. Of the 9,483 surveys sent, 1,849 were returned, for an unadjusted response rate of 19.5 A total of 136 surveys were filled out using the online option. The adjusted response rate (hard copy and digital) for the survey was 20.9%. Geographic Distribution of Respondents 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Percent Respondents Town of Amnicon Town of Bennett Town of Brule Town of Cloverland Town of Dairyland Town of Gordon Town of Hawthorne Town of Highland Town of Lakeside Town of Maple Town of Oakland Town of Parkland Town of Solon Springs Town of Summit Town of Superior Town of Wascott Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Solon Springs Village of Superior ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Key Statistics and Findings Demographics 72.3% of respondents were residents Only 2 respondents were renters Nearly half (47.7%) of respondents have lived in, or owned property in Douglas County for more than 20 years. The median acreage owned by survey respondents was about 10 acres. Half of respondents owned more, half owned less. About 40 % of respondents owned shoreland property (lakefront and riverfront) Respondents felt that it was important to maintain the county’s population. Planning Goals Respondents indicated a high level of support for the 14 state comprehensive planning goals. On average, about 1 in 10 respondents indicated “don’t know” when asked to indicate level of support for planning goals. Nearly 20 % of respondents chose “don’t know” when asked to indicate level of support for GOAL 2: “Encourage neighborhood designs that support a range of transportation choices.” Quality of Life Respondents generally indicated a high quality of life in Douglas County People choose to live in Douglas County primarily due to its rural character, natural beauty and clean air and water. Taxes, employment and schools were the lowest rated quality of life attributes. The greatest perceived quality of life threats were taxes, loss of natural beauty, loss of natural resources and pollution. Land Use Some growth is generally favored over the next 20 years The types of growth which were most favored over the next 20 years were single-family residential, commercial, tourism-based and industrial development A large number of respondents (1,064 or 58%) wanted to see more land preserved over the next 20 years. There was noted opposition to mining, multi-family and seasonal/recreational housing development ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Most property owners (82.3%) indicated that their property is already developed or that they did not plan on developing (subdividing or otherwise increasing the intensity of use) their property over the next 20 years. Only 11 % of property owners who responded to the survey expressed an intention to develop their property over the next 20 years. Respondents generally had limited or no familiarity with existing land use regulations and most did not know if current regulations were effectively protecting farmland and forestland in rural areas. More than ½ of respondents felt that the minimum lot size for single-family residential (non-subdivision) development in the rural areas should be 10 acres or less. Respondents generally supported increasing the minimum lot size for residential development to limit density in shoreland areas. There is strong support for the preservation of agriculture and prime farmland. It should be noted, however, that agriculture was generally not a widely favored form of future growth. 12). There is strong support to preserve rural character. Utilities, Community Resources & Facilities Overall, respondents generally are satisfied with government services. 40.8% of respondents indicate that public schools need some level of improvement The majority of respondents felt that both County and Town roads needed improvement. Respondents are very concerned about job opportunities and the cost of living. Housing Respondents felt that single-family, senior and low to moderate income housing were the housing types which are currently most needed. Respondents also felt that these would be the most needed types of housing over the next 20 years. Respondents felt there was little current need for mobile home parks, seasonal & recreational housing and housing subdivisions. Nearly ¼ of all respondents felt that there was additional housing is currently needed in Douglas County. Most (43.5 respondents felt that more affordable housing is needed in Douglas County. Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Survey respondents indicated that they would generally not support a countywide transit system linking communities and adjoining counties nor would they support the use of county funds to supplement the operation of such a system. Existing personal transportation needed are generally being met, although 22% of respondents were aware of others who had unmet transportation needs. Of those who respondents who commute to work, most (20.5%) travel between 11 and 25 miles. Many individuals (17.8%) travel in excess of 25 miles to work. Carpooling is not popular among commuters. Over 70% of respondents utilize public roads for other activities besides driving (walking, biking, jogging, etc.). More people would likely utilize public roads for these purposes if safety improvements were made. Economic Development Respondents consistently expressed a need to expand economic development activities in the county which include Retaining existing business and industry Attracting new business Creating quality business ownership opportunities Promoting a strong and stable local economy Expanding tourism and visitor opportunities Economic development consistent with rural character Respondents felt that it was important to attract more tourists to the area. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 Demographic Questions Survey Results Where do you live? Q1. Please indicate the total number of people in each age group that live in your household, including yourself? MCD Responses % Town of Amnicon 74 4.5 Town of Bennett 48 2.9 Town of Brule 56 3.4 Town of Cloverland 17 1.0 Town of Dairyland 62 3.8 Town of Gordon 145 8.9 Town of Hawthorne 60 3.7 Town of Highland 70 4.3 Town of Lakeside 42 2.6 Town of Maple 42 2.6 Town of Oakland 96 5.9 Town of Parkland 70 4.3 Town of Solon Springs 108 6.6 Town of Summit 109 6.7 Town of Superior 113 6.9 Town of Wascott 252 15.4 Village of Lake Nebagamon 127 7.8 Village of Oliver 13 0.8 Village of Poplar 39 2.4 Village of Solon Springs 50 3.1 Village of Superior 43 2.6 Total 1,636 100.0 Under 5 5-9 10-17 18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ People # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % 1 104 69.8 105 72.9 146 58.6 154 66.1 107 53.5 252 57.4 363 52.2 319 51.1 230 54.4 2 36 24.2 34 23.6 82 32.9 60 25.8 92 46.0 183 41.7 331 47.6 304 48.7 191 45.2 3 6 4.0 1 0.7 18 7.2 16 6.9 1 0.5 2 0.5 1 0.1 1 0.2 1 0.2 4 1 0.7 0 0.0 2 0.8 3 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 0 0.0 1 0.7 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 9 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 149 100 144 100 249 100 233 100 200 100 439 100 695 100 624 100 423 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Property Ownership Q2. Please indicate the total household income range of your household Q3. Is your primary residence located in Douglas County? Q4. How long have you had your primary residence (or property) in Douglas County? Income Range # % Less than $15,000 78 4.3 $15,000 to $24,999 146 8.0 $25,000 to $34,999 202 11.1 $35,000 to $49,999 290 15.9 $50,000 to $54,999 156 8.5 $55,000 to $59,999 110 6.0 $60,000 to $64,999 102 5.6 $65,000 to or more 742 40.6 Total 1,826 100.0 # % Yes 1,422 72.3 I am not a resident 540 27.5 I am a renter 2 0.1 Total 1,967 100.0 # % Less than 1 year 25 1.3 1 to 5 years 237 12.4 5 to 10 years 299 15.7 11 to 20 years 415 21.8 More than 20 years 928 48.7 Total 1,907 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Q5. Approximately how many total acres do you own in Douglas County? Q6. Is your Douglas County residence or property (check all that apply) Lakefront Riverfront Woodland Agricultural Other 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Percent Respondents 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Number of Respondents 0-1 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-40 40-80 80+ Acres Q5. Approximately how many total acres do you own in Douglas County? Lakeshore Riverfront Woodland Agricultural Other # % # % # % # % # % Yes 610 30.9 169 8.6 1,101 55.7 305 15.4 344 17.4 No 1,367 69.1 1,807 91.4 875 44.3 1,671 84.6 1,630 82.6 Total 1,977 100 1,976 100 1,976 100 1,976 100 1,974 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Q7. Do you plan on developing (subdividing or otherwise increasing the intensity of use) your property over the next 20 years? Q8. If you answered “yes” to Q7, when do you plan to develop your property? Q9. Please indicate your level of support for the 14 planning goals which Douglas County must address during the comprehensive planning process. GOAL 1: Promote the redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure (utilities, roads) and public services and the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing residential, commercial and industrial structures. (check one) GOAL 2: Encourage neighborhood designs that support a range of transportation choices. (check one) GOAL 3: Protect natural areas, including wetlands, wildlife habitats, lakes, woodland, open spaces and groundwater resources. (check one) # % Yes 222 11.4 No 1,411 72.2 My property is already developed 321 16.4 Total 1,954 100.0 Lakeshore Riverfront Agricultural Other Time Frame # % # % # % # % 5 years or less 29 48.3 13 39.4 27 50.0 22 35.5 6 to 10 years 12 20.0 7 21.2 8 14.8 25 40.3 11 to 15 years 3 5.0 2 6.1 3 5.6 6 9.7 16 to 20 years 1 1.7 2 6.1 1 1.9 3 4.8 I plan to sell my property 11 18.3 6 18.2 8 14.8 6 9.7 I am considering the preservation of my property 4 6.7 3 9.1 7 13.0 0 0.0 Total 60 100 33 100 54 100 62 100 # % Strongly Support 349 18.4 Support 1,027 54.1 Oppose 144 7.6 Strongly Oppose 119 6.3 Don't Know 258 13.6 Total 1,897 100.0 # % Strongly Support 246 12.9 Support 913 47.8 Oppose 227 11.9 Strongly Oppose 145 7.6 Don't Know 380 19.9 Total 1,911 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 GOAL 4: Protection of economically productive areas, including farmland and forests. (check one) GOAL 5: Encourage land uses, densities (the number of people or buildings that exist in relationship to the surrounding area) and regulations that promote efficient development patterns and relatively low municipal, state government and utility costs. (check one) GOAL 6: Preserve cultural, historical and archaeological sites. (check one) GOAL 7: Encourage coordination and cooperation among nearby units of government. (check one) # % Strongly Support 999 51.7 Support 704 36.4 Oppose 99 5.1 Strongly Oppose 69 3.6 Don't Know 63 3.3 Total 1,934 100.0 # % Strongly Support 759 39.3 Support 973 50.4 Oppose 85 4.4 Strongly Oppose 40 2.1 Don't Know 75 3.9 Total 1,932 100.0 # % Strongly Support 389 20.3 Support 1,015 53.0 Oppose 197 10.3 Strongly Oppose 99 5.2 Don't Know 214 11.2 Total 1,914 100.0 # % Strongly Support 613 31.6 Support 1,059 54.6 Oppose 106 5.5 Strongly Oppose 55 2.8 Don't Know 107 5.5 Total 1,940 100.0 # % Strongly Support 649 33.4 Support 1,086 55.9 Oppose 51 2.6 Strongly Oppose 41 2.1 Don't Know 115 5.9 Total 1,942 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 GOAL 8: Build community identity by revitalizing main streets and enforcing design standards. (check one) GOAL 9: Provide an adequate supply of affordable housing for individuals of all income levels throughout each community. (check one) GOAL 10: Provide adequate infrastructure and public services and an adequate supply of developable land to meet existing and future market demand for residential, commercial and industrial uses. (check one) GOAL 11: Promote the expansion or stabilization of the current economic base and the creation of a range of employment opportunities at the state, regional and local levels. (check one) GOAL 12: Balance individual property rights with community interests and goals. (check one) # % Strongly Support 307 15.9 Support 986 51.1 Oppose 276 14.3 Strongly Oppose 109 5.7 Don't Know 250 13.0 Total 1,928 100.0 # % Strongly Support 339 17.4 Support 910 46.7 Oppose 313 16.1 Strongly Oppose 186 9.5 Don't Know 202 10.4 Total 1,950 100.0 # % Strongly Support 217 11.2 Support 1,062 54.6 Oppose 278 14.3 Strongly Oppose 139 7.1 Don't Know 250 12.8 Total 1,946 100.0 # % Strongly Support 491 25.4 Support 1,102 57.1 Oppose 130 6.7 Strongly Oppose 68 3.5 Don't Know 139 7.2 Total 1,930 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 GOAL 13: Engage in planning and development of land uses that create or preserve varied and unique urban and rural communities. (check one) GOAL 14: Provide an integrated, efficient and economical transportation system that affords mobility, convenience and safety and that meets the needs of all citizens, including transit-dependant and disabled citizens. (check one) # % Strongly Support 413 21.4 Support 989 51.2 Oppose 235 12.2 Strongly Oppose 139 7.2 Don't Know 155 8.0 Total 1,931 100.0 # % Strongly Support 314 16.3 Support 1,068 55.3 Oppose 209 10.8 Strongly Oppose 84 4.4 Don't Know 255 13.2 Total 1,930 100.0 # % Strongly Support 331 17.1 Support 1,013 52.4 Oppose 255 13.2 Strongly Oppose 118 6.1 Don't Know 217 11.2 Total 1,934 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Quality of Life Q10. Please rate the following quality of life attributes which best describe why you choose to live in Douglas County. (rank each in priority: 5-High priority, 1-Low priority) 0 200 400 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 1400 1600 Housing Taxes Crime Rate Employment Undesirable Land Uses Loss of Natural Beauty Pollution Loss of Natural Resources Schools Geographic Isolation Other Number of Respondents LOW HIGH Housing Taxes Crime Rate Employment Rural Character # % # % # % # % # % 1 Low 415 23.3 641 36.2 215 12.0 587 33.1 110 5.9 2 183 10.3 251 14.2 170 9.5 261 14.7 65 3.5 3 556 31.2 447 25.2 471 26.3 433 24.4 228 12.3 4 295 16.6 168 9.5 454 25.4 213 12.0 393 21.1 5 High 331 18.6 265 15.0 478 26.7 281 15.8 1,065 57.2 Total 1,780 100 1,772 100 1,788 100 1,775 100 1,861 100 Natural Beauty Clean Air & Water Rec. Opp. Schools Geographic Isolation # % # % # % # % # % 1 Low 76 4.0 76 4.1 125 6.8 543 30.4 157 8.7 2 33 1.7 32 1.7 107 5.8 173 9.7 134 7.4 3 119 6.3 122 6.6 306 16.6 420 23.5 349 19.3 4 331 17.5 352 18.9 409 22.3 286 16.0 372 20.5 5 High 1,328 70.4 1,279 68.7 891 48.5 365 20.4 799 44.1 Total 1,887 100 1,861 100 1,838 100 1,787 100 1,811 100 ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Q11. Please rate the following threats to the quality of life you enjoy in Douglas County? (rank each in priority: 5-High priority, 1-Low priority) Housing Taxes Crime Rate Employment Loss of Natural Beauty # % # % # % # % # % 1 Low 451 25.8 120 6.4 226 12.4 390 21.5 176 9.5 2 230 13.1 84 4.5 262 14.4 208 11.5 143 7.8 3 612 35.0 269 14.3 608 33.4 508 28.1 325 17.6 4 208 11.9 285 15.2 333 18.3 296 16.4 287 15.6 5 High 250 14.3 1,120 59.6 392 21.5 408 22.5 913 49.5 Total 1,751 100 1,878 100 1,821 100 1,810 100 1,844 100 Undesirable Land Uses Pollution Loss of Natural Resources Schools Geographic Isolation # % # % # % # % # % 1 Low 209 11.4 170 9.3 176 9.6 513 28.9 450 25.6 2 188 10.3 182 10.0 153 8.4 268 15.1 230 13.1 3 448 24.5 372 20.3 340 18.6 539 30.3 446 25.4 4 293 16.0 280 15.3 308 16.8 216 12.2 235 13.4 5 High 688 37.7 825 45.1 853 46.6 240 13.5 394 22.5 Total 1,826 100 1,829 100 1,830 100 1,776 100 1,755 100 0 200 400 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 1400 1600 1800 Housing Taxes Crime Rate Employment Rural Character Natural Beauty Clean Air & Water Recreational Opportunities Schools Geographic Isolation Other Number of Respondents LOW HIGH ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Q12. What types of growth would you like to see in Douglas County over the next 20 years?(check all that apply) Q13. .How familiar are you with the following land use regulations currently in place in Douglas County? Q14. Do you believe current regulations are effectively preserving farmland and forestland in rural areas? Q15. What do you feel is an appropriate minimum lot size for single-family residential (non-subdivision) development in the rural areas of Douglas County? Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Recreational Homes and Cottages Commercial (retail restaurants & services) Other Mining # % # % # % # % # % # % Yes 969 51.0 272 14.7 471 25.1 863 45.6 142 7.7 131 7.0 No 930 48.9 1,580 85.3 1,403 74.9 1,030 54.4 1,703 92.3 1,741 93.0 Total 1,900 100 1,852 100 1,874 100 1,893 100 1,845 100 1,872 100 Industrial Tourism related (hotels, attractions, recreational) Forestry & Logging Agriculture No Growth Preservation # % # % # % # % # % # % Yes 758 40.1 760 40.6 614 32.6 614 33.2 473 24.7 1,064 57.9 No 1,133 59.9 1,113 59.4 1,268 67.4 1,236 66.8 1,440 75.3 774 42.1 Total 1,891 100 1,873 100 1,882 100 1,850 100 1,913 100 1,838 100 Zoning Subdivision Shoreland Sanitary (POWTS) # % # % # % # % Familiar 441 22.6 166 8.6 416 21.3 359 18.4 Somewhat Familiar 948 48.5 484 25.0 730 37.5 862 44.2 Unfamiliar 565 28.9 1,285 66.4 803 41.2 730 37.4 Total 1,954 100 1,935 100 1,949 100 1,951 100 # % Yes 539 28.4 No 476 25.1 Don't Know 880 46.4 Total 1,895 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Q16. Do you support increasing the minimum lot size for residential development in to limit density in shoreland areas? Q17. Please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the following statements. # % 1 acre 299 15.3 2 to 5 acres 752 38.6 5 to 10 acres 548 28.1 10 to 20 acres 141 7.2 20 to 40 acres 96 4.9 Don't Know 114 5.8 Total 1,950 100.0 What do you feel is an appropriate minimum lot size for single-family residential (non-subdivision) development in the rural areas? 38.6 15.3 5.8 4.9 7.2 28.1 1 acre 2 to 5 acres 5 to 10 acres 10 to 20 acres 20 to 40 acres Don't Know # % Yes 1,149 59.3 No 441 22.8 Don't Know 347 17.9 Total 1,937 100.0 County land use regulations protect private property rights. # % Strongly Agree 206 10.7 Agree 684 35.4 Disagree 408 21.1 Strongly Disagree 175 9.1 Don't Know 458 23.7 Total 1,931 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 County land use regulations protect private property rights. 21.1 9.1 23.7 10.7 35.4 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Landowners should have some restrictions on how much of their land they can develop. 21.7 15.9 4.9 15.3 42.1 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Landowners should have some restrictions on how much of their land they can develop. # % Strongly Agree 300 15.3 Agree 825 42.1 Disagree 425 21.7 Strongly Disagree 312 15.9 Don't Know 96 4.9 Total 1,958 100.0 Undesirable land uses next to my property would impact my use and/or enjoyment of my property. # % Strongly Agree 1,120 57.2 Agree 634 32.4 Disagree 111 5.7 Strongly Disagree 46 2.3 Don't Know 48 2.5 Total 1,959 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Undesirable land uses next to my property would impact my use and/or enjoyment of my property. 32.4 57.2 2.5 2.3 5.7 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know The County and local Governments should continue to regulate the siting of land uses. 9.7 5.7 8.9 21.7 54.0 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know The County and local Governments should continue to regulate the siting of land uses. # % Strongly Agree 422 21.7 Agree 1,049 54.0 Disagree 188 9.7 Strongly Disagree 110 5.7 Don't Know 172 8.9 Total 1,941 100.0 The County should encourage the preservation of prime farmland. # % Strongly Agree 658 33.7 Agree 959 49.1 Disagree 150 7.7 Strongly Disagree 50 2.6 Don't Know 137 7.0 Total 1,954 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Q18. Please indicate whether YOU strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree that the County should place more regulations on the following: It's important to preserve the agricultural industry in Douglas County. # % Strongly Agree 667 34.1 Agree 969 49.5 Disagree 150 7.7 Strongly Disagree 45 2.3 Don't Know 126 6.4 Total 1,957 100.0 The rural character of Douglas County should be preserved. # % Strongly Agree 928 47.4 Agree 860 43.9 Disagree 73 3.7 Strongly Disagree 32 1.6 Don't Know 65 3.3 Total 1,958 100.0 It's important to maintain Douglas County's population. # % Strongly Agree 488 25.0 Agree 963 49.4 Disagree 240 12.3 Strongly Disagree 68 3.5 Don't Know 190 9.7 Total 1,949 100.0 Enforcement of County regulations is adequate. # % Strongly Agree 167 8.6 Agree 861 44.2 Disagree 235 12.1 Strongly Disagree 140 7.2 Don't Know 546 28.0 Total 1,949 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Where residential housing can be built Location of campgrounds and RV parks Location of manufacturing plants location of retail and commercial enterprises minimum lot sizes development of environmentally sensitive areas development in shoreland areas signs and billboards maintaining or enhancing scenic beauty location of sand and gravel pit operations locations of large animal feedlots development on wetlands development on floodplains development on land with unique natural features logging practices along streambanks logging practices along highways Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know The County should place more regulations on: Where residential housing can be built # % Strongly Agree 289 14.9 Agree 759 39.2 Disagree 489 25.3 Strongly Disagree 206 10.6 Don't Know 193 10.0 Total 1,936 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: Location of campgrounds and RV parks # % Strongly Agree 555 28.5 Agree 880 45.2 Disagree 260 13.4 Strongly Disagree 104 5.3 Don't Know 146 7.5 Total 1,945 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 The County should place more regulations on: Location of manufacturing plants # % Strongly Agree 673 34.7 Agree 868 44.7 Disagree 185 9.5 Strongly Disagree 94 4.8 Don't Know 120 6.2 Total 1,940 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: location of retail and commercial enterprises # % Strongly Agree 518 26.8 Agree 940 48.6 Disagree 259 13.4 Strongly Disagree 95 4.9 Don't Know 121 6.3 Total 1,933 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: minimum lot sizes # % Strongly Agree 508 26.2 Agree 861 44.5 Disagree 282 14.6 Strongly Disagree 132 6.8 Don't Know 154 8.0 Total 1,937 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: development of environmentally sensitive areas # % Strongly Agree 685 35.3 Agree 753 38.8 Disagree 241 12.4 Strongly Disagree 137 7.1 Don't Know 123 6.3 Total 1,939 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 The County should place more regulations on: development in shoreland areas # % Strongly Agree 703 36.2 Agree 711 36.6 Disagree 285 14.7 Strongly Disagree 134 6.9 Don't Know 110 5.7 Total 1,943 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: signs and billboards # % Strongly Agree 750 38.7 Agree 775 40.0 Disagree 213 11.0 Strongly Disagree 89 4.6 Don't Know 112 5.8 Total 1,939 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: maintaining or enhancing scenic beauty # % Strongly Agree 827 42.6 Agree 804 41.4 Disagree 158 8.1 Strongly Disagree 66 3.4 Don't Know 85 4.4 Total 1,940 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: location of sand and gravel pit operations # % Strongly Agree 502 25.8 Agree 869 44.7 Disagree 289 14.9 Strongly Disagree 105 5.4 Don't Know 178 9.2 Total 1,943 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: locations of large animal feedlots # % Strongly Agree 665 34.1 Agree 744 38.2 Disagree 280 14.4 Strongly Disagree 96 4.9 Don't Know 164 8.4 Total 1,949 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 The County should place more regulations on: development on wetlands # % Strongly Agree 697 35.8 Agree 660 33.9 Disagree 306 15.7 Strongly Disagree 160 8.2 Don't Know 122 6.3 Total 1,945 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: development on land with unique natural features # % Strongly Agree 662 34.2 Agree 739 38.2 Disagree 264 13.6 Strongly Disagree 133 6.9 Don't Know 139 7.2 Total 1,937 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: logging practices along streambanks # % Strongly Agree 765 39.3 Agree 727 37.3 Disagree 211 10.8 Strongly Disagree 109 5.6 Don't Know 136 7.0 Total 1,948 100.0 The County should place more regulations on: logging practices along highways # % Strongly Agree 550 28.3 Agree 719 37.0 Disagree 362 18.6 Strongly Disagree 129 6.6 Don't Know 183 9.4 Total 1,943 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Utilities, Community Resources & Facilities Q19. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following services and resources: Level of satisfaction with the following: County Recreation Facilities # % Needs a lot of improvement 253 13.3 Needs a little improvement 798 41.9 Needs no improvement 495 26.0 No Opinion 357 18.8 Total 1,903 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Town/Village Recreation Facilities # % Needs a lot of improvement 294 15.5 Needs a little improvement 704 37.1 Needs no improvement 527 27.8 No Opinion 374 19.7 Total 1,899 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Law Enforcement # % Needs a lot of improvement 261 13.7 Needs a little improvement 751 39.4 Needs no improvement 683 35.9 No Opinion 210 11.0 Total 1,905 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Fire Protection # % Needs a lot of improvement 127 6.6 Needs a little improvement 704 36.8 Needs no improvement 827 43.2 No Opinion 257 13.4 Total 1,915 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Ambulance # % Needs a lot of improvement 214 11.2 Needs a little improvement 621 32.6 Needs no improvement 761 40.0 No Opinion 308 16.2 Total 1,904 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Health Care Facilities # % Needs a lot of improvement 342 18.0 Needs a little improvement 685 36.0 Needs no improvement 555 29.2 No Opinion 320 16.8 Total 1,902 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Town Roads # % Needs a lot of improvement 635 33.0 Needs a little improvement 832 43.3 Needs no improvement 384 20.0 No Opinion 72 3.7 Total 1,923 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: County Roads # % Needs a lot of improvement 896 46.5 Needs a little improvement 705 36.6 Needs no improvement 259 13.5 No Opinion 65 3.4 Total 1,925 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Cost of living # % Needs a lot of improvement 726 38.1 Needs a little improvement 642 33.7 Needs no improvement 301 15.8 No Opinion 238 12.5 Total 1,907 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: job opportunities # % Needs a lot of improvement 941 48.9 Needs a little improvement 540 28.1 Needs no improvement 175 9.1 No Opinion 267 13.9 Total 1,923 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Environmental Quality # % Needs a lot of improvement 206 10.8 Needs a little improvement 823 43.0 Needs no improvement 740 38.7 No Opinion 145 7.6 Total 1,914 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Clean air # % Needs a lot of improvement 160 8.3 Needs a little improvement 659 34.3 Needs no improvement 961 50.1 No Opinion 139 7.2 Total 1,919 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Level of satisfaction with the following: Lakeshore protection # % Needs a lot of improvement 369 19.2 Needs a little improvement 745 38.8 Needs no improvement 591 30.8 No Opinion 213 11.1 Total 1,918 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Clean drinking water # % Needs a lot of improvement 187 9.8 Needs a little improvement 598 31.2 Needs no improvement 933 48.7 No Opinion 199 10.4 Total 1,917 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Public Schools # % Needs a lot of improvement 188 9.9 Needs a little improvement 591 31.0 Needs no improvement 769 40.3 No Opinion 360 18.9 Total 1,908 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Town Services # % Needs a lot of improvement 185 9.7 Needs a little improvement 683 35.8 Needs no improvement 739 38.8 No Opinion 300 15.7 Total 1,907 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Village Services # % Needs a lot of improvement 140 7.4 Needs a little improvement 573 30.5 Needs no improvement 663 35.3 No Opinion 504 26.8 Total 1,880 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: County Services # % Needs a lot of improvement 280 14.8 Needs a little improvement 728 38.4 Needs no improvement 597 31.5 No Opinion 293 15.4 Total 1,898 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Shopping Facilities # % Needs a lot of improvement 304 15.9 Needs a little improvement 613 32.0 Needs no improvement 776 40.5 No Opinion 221 11.5 Total 1,914 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Housing # % Needs a lot of improvement 175 9.2 Needs a little improvement 696 36.6 Needs no improvement 664 34.9 No Opinion 368 19.3 Total 1,903 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Sanitary Sewers # % Needs a lot of improvement 224 11.8 Needs a little improvement 504 26.5 Needs no improvement 677 35.6 No Opinion 499 26.2 Total 1,904 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Public Land ownership # % Needs a lot of improvement 167 8.8 Needs a little improvement 510 26.9 Needs no improvement 725 38.3 No Opinion 492 26.0 Total 1,894 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: News Media # % Needs a lot of improvement 484 25.7 Needs a little improvement 422 22.4 Needs no improvement 508 27.0 No Opinion 466 24.8 Total 1,880 100.0 Level of satisfaction with the following: Other # % Needs a lot of improvement 7 38.9 Needs a little improvement 5 27.8 Needs no improvement 4 22.2 No Opinion 2 11.1 Total 18 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% County Recreation Facilities Town/Village Recreation Facilities Law Enforcement Fire Protection Ambulance Health Care Facilities Town Roads County Roads Cost of living job opportunities Environmental Quality Clean air Lakeshore protection Clean drinking water Public Schools Town Services Village Services County Services Shopping Facilities Housing Sanitary Sewers Public Land ownership News Media Other Q19. Please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following services and resources: Needs a lot of improvement Needs a little improvement Needs no improvement No Opinion ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Housing Q20. In your opinion, what types of housing are currently needed in Douglas County? (select all that apply) Single-family homes Duplexes Apartments Housing subdivisions Mobile home parks Condominiums or townhouses # % # % # % # % # % # % Yes 808 42.7 204 11.1 195 10.6 99 5.4 78 4.3 171 9.3 No 1,085 57.3 1,635 88.9 1,650 89.4 1,738 94.6 1,748 95.7 1,667 90.7 Total 1,893 100 1,839 100 1,845 100 1,837 100 1,826 100 1,838 100 Low to moderate income housing of all types Senior Housing Seasonal or recreational housing other housing no additional housing is needed # % # % # % # % # % Yes 653 35.2 779 41.5 199 10.8 41 2.2 510 27.5 No 1,204 64.8 1,097 58.5 1,641 89.2 1,783 97.8 1,343 72.5 Total 1,857 100 1,876 100 1,840 100 1,824 100 1,853 100 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Single-family ho mes (o wned-o ccupied & rentals) Duplexes A partments (3 o r mo re units) Ho using subdivisio ns M o bile ho me parks Co ndo miniums o r to wnho uses Lo w to mo derate inco me ho using o f all types Senio r Ho using Seaso nal o r recreatio nal ho using o ther ho using no additio nal ho using will be needed Q20. In your opinion, what types of housing are currently needed in Douglas County? NO YES ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 Q21. In your opinion, what types of housing will be needed in Douglas County over the next 20 years? (select all that apply) Single- family homes Duplexes Mobile home parks Condominiums or townhouses Low to moderate income housing of all types # % # % # % # % # % Yes 816 43.2 166 9.0 95 5.2 242 13.1 723 38.8 No 1,075 56.8 1,669 91.0 1,733 94.8 1,605 86.9 1,140 61.2 Total 1,891 100 1,835 100 1,828 100 1,847 100 1,863 100 Senior Housing Seasonal or recreational housing Other housing no additional housing will be needed # % # % # % # % Yes 1,037 54.6 242 13.1 32 1.8 288 15.6 No 864 45.4 1,605 86.9 1,790 98.2 1,557 84.4 Total 1,901 100 1,847 100 1,822 100 1,845 100 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Single-family ho mes (o wned-o ccupied & rentals) Duplexes A partments (3 o r mo re units) Ho using subdivisio ns M o bile ho me parks Co ndo miniums o r to wnho uses Lo w to mo derate inco me ho using o f all types Senio r Ho using Seaso nal o r recreatio nal ho using Other ho using no additio nal ho using will be needed Q21. In your opinion, what types of housing will be needed in Douglas County over the next 20 years?? NO YES ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Transportation Q22. Do you feel there is a need for more affordable housing in Douglas County? A rural transit system increases the mobility of small urban and rural residents through improved public transportation. A rural transit system could provide regularly scheduled or on-demand shuttle services to rural Douglas County. Q23. Would you support an initiative to create a countywide transit system linking communities and adjoining counties? Q24. Development of a countywide transit system may require Douglas County to contribute funding towards operation of a transit system. Would you support the use of county funds to supplement the operation of a county transit system? Q25. If a transit system was developed, should all towns and villages also contribute funding to supplement the transit system? # % Yes 821 43.5 No 499 26.4 Don't Know 568 30.1 Total 1,888 100.0 # % Yes 700 36.0 No 808 41.6 Don't Know 434 22.3 Total 1,942 100.0 # % Yes 554 28.5 No 1,006 51.8 Don't Know 383 19.7 Total 1,943 100.0 # % Yes 742 38.5 No 790 41.0 Don't Know 394 20.5 Total 1,926 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 Q26. Are you experiencing unmet transportation needs to get to doctor appointments, shopping, etc? Q27. Are you aware of others who are experiencing unmet transportation needs to get to doctor appointments, shopping, etc? Q28. How far do you currently commute to work? # % Yes 79 4.1 No 1,861 95.9 Total 1,940 100.0 # % Yes 431 22.3 No 1,500 77.6 Don't Know 1 0.1 Total 1,932 100.0 # % less than 1 mile 94 5.1 1 to 5 miles 120 6.5 6 to 10 miles 126 6.8 11 to 25 miles 380 20.5 More than 25 miles 331 17.8 Not currently in the workforce 804 43.3 Total 1,855 100.0 Q28. How far do you currently commute to work? 43.3 5.1 6.5 6.8 20.5 17.8 less than 1 mile 1 to 5 miles 6 to 10 miles 11 to 25 miles More than 25 miles Not currently in the workforce ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Economic Development Q29. Do you Carpool? Q30. Do you currently use public roads for walking, biking, jogging, etc.? Q31. If more safety improvements were incorporated into road design would you be more likely to use public roads for walking, biking, jogging, etc.? Q32. In your opinion, how important are the following economic development issues to the future of Douglas County? # % Often 80 4.5 Sometimes 275 15.6 Rarely 350 19.8 Never 1,062 60.1 Total 1,767 100.0 # % Often 639 33.1 Sometimes 729 37.7 Rarely 338 17.5 Never 227 11.7 Total 1,933 100.0 Retaining existing business and industry # % Very Important 1,346 70.5 Important 401 21.0 Somewhat Important 84 4.4 Not Important 42 2.2 Don't Know 36 1.9 Total 1,909 100.0 Attracting new business # % Very Important 1,163 60.7 Important 404 21.1 Somewhat Important 204 10.6 Not Important 107 5.6 Don't Know 38 2.0 Total 1,916 100.0 # % Yes 949 49.4 No 687 35.8 Don't Know 284 14.8 Total 1,920 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Creating quality business ownership opportunities # % Very Important 963 50.7 Important 525 27.7 Somewhat Important 219 11.5 Not Important 122 6.4 Don't Know 69 3.6 Total 1,898 100.0 Promoting a strong and stable local economy # % Very Important 1,159 60.7 Important 504 26.4 Somewhat Important 160 8.4 Not Important 51 2.7 Don't Know 36 1.9 Total 1,910 100.0 Expanding tourism and visitor opportunities # % Very Important 684 36.2 Important 529 28.0 Somewhat Important 366 19.3 Not Important 267 14.1 Don't Know 46 2.4 Total 1,892 100.0 Economic development consistent with rural character # % Very Important 874 46.8 Important 547 29.3 Somewhat Important 244 13.1 Not Important 128 6.8 Don't Know 76 4.1 Total 1,869 100.0 Other # % Very Important 112 48.1 Important 29 12.4 Somewhat Important 21 9.0 Not Important 21 9.0 Don't Know 50 21.5 Total 233 100.0 ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 Q33. The County should try to attract more tourists to this area. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 Percent Retaining existing business and industry A ttracting new business Creating quality business o wnership o ppo rtunities P ro mo ting a stro ng and stable lo cal eco no my Expanding to urism and visito r o ppo rtunities Eco no mic develo pment co nsistent with rural character Other Q32. In your opinion, how important are the following economic development issues to the future of Douglas County? Do n't Kno w No t Impo rtant So mewhat Impo rtant Impo rtant Very Impo rtant The County should try to attract more tourists to this area. # % Agree 1,042 54.8 Disagree 532 28.0 Don't Know 329 17.3 Total 1,903 100.0