Kiap-TU-Wish

Guidance for Watershed Stewardship Lower St. Croix River

A Stream Protection Strategy*

Kent Johnson

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Section

Metropolitan Council Environmental Services

December, 1998

Acknowledgments

Credit for the Stream Protection Strategy* and much of the supporting information in this guidance document goes to Tom Schueler of the Center for Watershed Protection in Ellicott City, Maryland. More detail on the stream protection strategy and the watershed approach to site planning can be found in Tom’s publication: "Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection" (1995). Tom’s innovative ideas about planning for growth in the context of stream and watershed protection can serve as a model for those seeking a sustainable balance between environment, economy, and human needs.

* (From: Tom Schueler. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, Maryland)

A Thought on Conservation and Stewardship

"There must be some force behind conservation more universal than profit, less awkward than government, less ephemeral than sport; something that reaches into all time and places where humans live on land; something that brackets everything, from rivers to raindrops, from whales to hummingbirds, from land estates to window boxes. I can see only one such force: a respect for land as an organism; a voluntary decency in land-use exercised by every citizen and every landowner out of a sense of love for and obligation to that biota we call America. This is the meaning of conservation, and this is the task of conservation education."

- Aldo Leopold, from "A Sand County Almanac"

Table of Contents

Introduction

The Stream as the Primary Focus of Protection

Advantages of a Stream Protection Strategy

The Role of Community Planning in Stream Protection

Elements of a Stream Protection Strategy

1. Watershed-based Planning and Zoning

2. Protect Sensitive Areas From Development

3. Establish a River and Stream Buffer Network

4. Modify Local Ordinances to Reduce Creation of Impervious Cover

Conservation Development

5. Limit the Disturbance and Erosion of Soils

6. Treat the Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Runoff

7. Maintain Stream Protection Measures

8. Treat Wastewater

9. Establish an Effective Public Outreach and Education Program

10. Monitor River and Stream Quality

The Economics of Urban Sprawl vs. Stream and Watershed Protection

The Economics of Urban Sprawl

The Economics of Stream and Watershed Protection

The Role of Local Governments

Summary

References

Introduction

The Lower St. Croix River, a National Wild and Scenic Riverway, is significant for the following reasons:

The management plan for the Lower St. Croix National Wild and Scenic Riverway is based on the following fundamental principles:

Water quality, one of the Lower St. Croix River’s exceptional resources, is intimately linked to land use decisions within the entire St. Croix River watershed. At present, the Lower St. Croix River enjoys very good water quality, due largely to relatively undisturbed, natural conditions in the watershed.

Because of the St. Croix River’s proximity to a rapidly-growing Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, however, river water quality is at risk. In 1997, the St. Croix River was named by American Rivers as one of the 20 most threatened rivers in America, because of concerns about the impacts of accelerated urban growth in the lower St. Croix watershed. Growth in the eastern Metropolitan Area and western Wisconsin promises large-scale land use changes in the watershed. Poor land use practices will result in deteriorating water quality in the Lower St. Croix River, while good land use practices will sustain water quality for generations to come.

Land use planning and water resource planning and management for the entire St. Croix River watershed (7,760 square miles) is a difficult and complex undertaking. Although federal and state agencies provide some direction, the magnitude of this task at a watershed scale is truly daunting.

Perhaps the best approach for protecting Lower St. Croix River water quality is to maintain stream water quality at a subwatershed level, through local involvement. A stream’s scale, proximity, and vulnerability to land use changes make it an excellent choice for local water resources management. The preferred geographic units for local planning are the Lower St. Croix River subwatersheds, which drain individual streams. With authority for land use planning already vested in local entities, local governments and citizens have an excellent opportunity to promote stream protection at a subwatershed scale, provided stream protection is a community priority.

The Stream as the Primary Focus of Protection

A stream is a primary and important focus for protection because it integrates all aspects of the environment. When a watershed is transformed, the first impacts are often seen in the local stream. Beyond its intrinsic value as a sensitive environmental indicator, a stream is a very useful unit for local environmental management, for a number of reasons:

1. Many communities have found that stream protection is a very clear, easily understood and well-supported local resource goal.

The public intuitively understands the goal of stream protection. Quite simply, there is a stream in everyone’s backyard. Once educated about their backyard streams, most residents place a high value on them. This can translate into the popular support needed to develop and maintain funding for stream protection.

2. A stream exists on the same general scale as development.

A stream is seldom located more than a quarter mile away from a development site. Consequently, it is possible to directly link the stream protection goal with the impacts generated by an individual development project. By contrast, it is much more difficult to relate impacts from individual development projects to broader regional water quality resources, such as the St. Croix River.

3. Stream protection also provides reliable insurance that downstream water resource objectives can generally be achieved.

Streams are the "narrowest door" in a watershed. If a community cannot protect the quality of its local stream, it cannot reasonably expect to maintain the quality of downstream lakes or the St. Croix River. Over time, the cumulative impact from hundreds of individual development sites will slowly degrade water quality at the regional scale. If streams are properly protected, a community can be more confident that downstream water quality will be maintained.

Advantages of a Stream Protection Strategy

Many communities have discovered that the stream protection strategy is a better alternative than conventional development regulations. Perhaps the greatest merit of this strategy is that it is resource-driven. The primary objective is very clear - the quality of a stream and its associated natural resource components is to be maintained or enhanced as the community develops and grows. The stream protection objective is tangible, measurable, and understandable to all the participants in the community development process.

The strategy is directly linked to the community development review process by making stream protection a priority during all stages of the development process, from the conception of how the landscape is to be altered, through the planning, design, and construction of individual projects, to the maintenance of the stream infrastructure after development is complete. Each step of the development process only proceeds when it can be reliably determined that the impacts of the development on the stream are minimal. As such, the strategy sets high performance criteria that explicitly recognize how difficult it is to maintain the quality of streams in the face of development pressure.

Another benefit of the stream protection strategy is that it typically requires an interdisciplinary approach during development review. Each development proposal must be assessed in terms of all of its short- and long-term impacts on the stream. Thus, plan reviewers must be skilled in many disciplines to craft a development plan that meets community needs, yet produces minimal change to the hydrology, morphology, water quality, habitat, and biodiversity of the stream.

The last advantage of the stream protection strategy is that it presents a clear and practical management approach toward community development. When administered properly, the strategy can greatly streamline the local review process, reduce administrative burdens on local government, and be fully responsive to the needs of developers for clear direction, timely review, and cost reduction.

The Role of Community Planning in Stream Protection

At first glance, many communities may feel that implementation of the stream protection strategy is a rather daunting challenge. In an era of fiscal austerity and local economic restraints, communities may reasonably question whether they possess enough staff, financial, and political resources to effectively implement such a strategy. While the stream protection strategy does require a strong local commitment, it is primarily a management approach to better organize existing staff, resources, and programs around a common objective.

The stream protection strategy also recognizes that many existing local development regulations actually work against the goal of stream protection. Therefore, the strategy is not intended to produce more rules and regulations to govern development. Rather, it seeks to reform and simplify existing ones, and substitute flexible performance criteria in the place of rigid and uniform standards.

Thus, the first step in implementing the stream protection strategy usually involves a critical analysis of existing subdivision codes and related development criteria. Nearly every community in America has a subdivision code that regulates the density and geometry of development, specifies road widths, parking, and drainage requirements, and defines resource protection areas. The subdivision code contains a series of restrictive and uniform standards that govern all aspects of development, and trigger a complex site planning process. These requirements provide little flexibility for architects, landscape architects, and engineers involved in the design and site planning for new developments. While the exact standards often vary, most subdivision codes contain rigid standards within each zoning category that mandate:

Subdivision codes have evolved to their present level of complexity over the last few decades in response to an increasingly diverse list of community concerns. Primary among these has been the need to accommodate the automobile, reduce liability, and provide emergency access. Other concerns include the need to respect privacy, reduce noise, allow for pedestrian movement, and prevent drainage problems. The underlying objective has been to standardize development practices so as to create more consistent subdivisions, to meet the goals of protecting public safety, enhancing community amenities, and preserving local property values.

It is not always clear, however, how well these complex codes are actually meeting these elusive community goals. However, it is abundantly clear that numerous aspects of subdivision code do not support better stream protection, insofar as they create needless impervious cover or fail to provide the right of way needed to adequately protect the stream. Relatively simple code modifications often make both economic and environmental sense.

To this end, a Site Planning Roundtable sponsored by the Center for Watershed Protection has recently established twenty-two model development principles that provide design guidance for economically viable, yet environmentally sensitive development (Center for Watershed Protection, 1998a). These model development principles can provide planners, developers, and local officials with benchmarks to investigate how existing ordinances may be modified to reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas, and prevent stormwater pollution, for better stream protection.

Using the model development principles as a starting point, communities are encouraged to re-evaluate their existing development criteria in the 12 checklist areas summarized above. In addition, recommended elements of a stream protection strategy (detailed below) can be implemented through better community planning, within the context of existing codes and criteria.

Elements of a Stream Protection Strategy:

1. Watershed-based Planning and Zoning

The future quality of the Lower St. Croix River and tributaries (streams) is fundamentally determined by the broad land use decisions made by watershed communities. It is essential that the impact of future community growth and development on water quality be seriously assessed during the community zoning or master planning process. The most appropriate planning unit for this assessment is the subwatershed. On the basis of the forecasted level of impervious cover, it is possible to devise effective and achievable strategies for river and stream protection.

Watershed planning and zoning directs proposed development to the least sensitive area, and attempts to control the amount and location of impervious cover. Some areas are designated as growth areas, while others are partly or fully protected from future development. Many communities wonder about the effect of such broad-based planning on property values and the local tax base. Recent studies, however, suggest that the effect of watershed planning is largely positive (Schueler, 1997).

As one example, land use plans that retain open space, rural landscapes, and recreational opportunities contribute to the quality of a community and region. A survey of chief executive officers has ranked quality of life as the third most important factor in locating a new business. Citizens also rank protection of their water resources quite highly. As regional economies become increasingly competitive, a high quality-of-life ranking can provide a critical edge in attracting new businesses and residents.

The Center for Watershed Protection has recently published a rapid watershed planning handbook that features elements for effective watershed planning, presents watershed analysis tools and management options, and provides case studies of actual watershed plans (Center for Watershed Protection, 1998b).

2. Protect Sensitive Areas From Development

Key natural areas, such as streams, wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, mature forests, critical habitat areas, and shorelines, should be protected from development through the adoption and enforcement of local ordinances. An ordinance should describe how these sensitive areas will be delineated, and how they are to be protected during site planning, construction, and post-construction stages. Other protection methods include land trusts, conservation easements, and land purchases (both public and private).

Communities have repeatedly found that property adjacent to protected wetlands, floodplains, shorelines, forests, and other natural features constitutes an excellent location for development. A sense of place is instilled by the presence of water, forest, and natural areas, and this preference is expressed in a greater willingness to pay to live near these habitats (Schueler, 1997).

As one example, two regional economic surveys have documented that conserving forests on residential and commercial sites enhances property values by an average of 6 to 15%, and increases the rate at which units are sold or leased. Other studies show that the presence of forests and natural areas measurably increases the residential property tax base, boosts property values by reducing irritating noise and dust levels and screening adjacent land uses, saves 20-25% in energy bills for heating and cooling homes and businesses, and reduces the volume of stormwater runoff.

3. Establish a River and Stream Buffer Network

To fully protect the Lower St. Croix River and tributaries, it is very advantageous to establish a riparian buffer adjacent to river and stream channels (MWCOG, 1995a). The buffer network can be regarded as a river or stream right-of-way, and is an integral element of a watershed. A riparian buffer provides shade, woody debris, leaf litter, streambank protection, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and a multitude of other functions and services to the river or stream .

A shoreline or stream buffer can create many market and non-market benefits for a community, particularly if it is managed as a greenway (Schueler, 1997). Nationally, buffers were thought to have a positive or neutral impact on adjacent property values in 32 of 39 communities surveyed. Buffers also reduce pollution from stormwater runoff, provide a critical stream right-of-way during floods and storms, sharply reduce the number of drainage complaints received by local public works departments, protect valuable wildlife habitat, and expand recreational opportunities, when managed as a greenway.

4. Modify Local Ordinances to Reduce Creation of Impervious Cover

A key objective in any community or watershed plan should be the reduction of impervious cover created by development. Less impervious cover translates into less stormwater runoff and lower pollutant loads (Schueler, 1994a). Planners and landscape architects can utilize a wide range of site planning tools to minimize impervious cover. In many cases, however, full utilization of these tools is limited by outdated local zoning regulations or inflexible subdivision codes. Indeed, existing subdivision codes often create needless impervious cover, in the form of wide streets, expansive parking lots, and large-lot subdivisions.

Reducing the amount of impervious cover created by subdivisions and parking lots at developments can lead to savings for municipalities and developers. Impervious cover can be minimized by modifying local subdivision codes to allow narrower or shorter roads, smaller parking lots, shorter driveways, and smaller turnarounds (Wells, 1994; Center for Watershed Protection, 1998a). These tools make both economic and environmental sense. Infrastructure- roads, sidewalks, storm sewers, utilities, etc.- normally constitutes over half the total cost of subdivision development (CH2M-Hill, 1993). Much of this infrastructure creates impervious surfaces. Thus, developers can realize significant cost savings by minimizing impervious cover. Some of the typical savings include:

In addition to these direct cost savings, developers will realize indirect savings. For example, costs for stormwater conveyance and treatment are a direct function of the amount of impervious cover. Thus, for each unit of impervious cover that is reduced, a developer can expect a proportionately smaller cost for stormwater conveyance and treatment.

Conservation Development

Conservation (or cluster) development provides an excellent opportunity to reduce impervious cover, while also protecting open space and natural resources, providing community recreational space, and substantially reducing development costs (Apfelbaum, et. al., 1997; MWCOG, 1998b; Schueler, 1994b). The concept underlying conservation development is to minimize lot sizes (but not necessarily reduce the total number of dwelling units) within a compact developed portion of a subdivision, while leaving the remaining portion prominently open. Housing can still consist of detached single family homes, as well as multi-family housing, or a mix of both. Conservation development creates protected open space that provides many market and non-market benefits. For example, some communities have found that conservation development:

An indication of the potential savings associated with conservation development is provided by the Remlik Hall Farm example in Maryland (Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 1996). Cost estimates were derived for two development scenarios that result in equivalent yield to the developer. In the conventional scenario, the 490-acre farm is sub-divided into 84 large-lot units; whereas in the conservation scenario, 52 higher-end units are located on smaller lots in three clusters. In the conservation scenario, over 85% of the site is retained in open space, as farmland, forest, and wetland, compared to 41% in the conventional scenario.

In addition to a reduction in impervious cover, a net development savings of over $600,000 was achieved for this conservation development. The total development cost for the conservation scenario is $594,550, compared to $1,229,030 for the conventional scenario. These large savings in development infrastructure (including engineering, sewer, and water) and road construction costs certainly contribute to a better bottom line. In addition, Arendt (1994) maintains that open space units sell both more rapidly and at a premium, thus increasing cash flow, which is always a prime concern for the developer.

5. Limit the Disturbance and Erosion of Soils

Perhaps the single most destructive stage during a development process occurs when vegetation is cleared and a site is graded to achieve a more buildable landscape. The potential impacts to a river or stream are particularly severe at this stage: vegetation and topsoil are removed, soils are exposed to erosion, steep slopes are cut, natural topography and drainage are altered, and sensitive areas are often disturbed (Paterson, 1994a; Schueler, 1994c). Reduction of the massive sediment pulse that inevitably occurs during construction can be achieved through a combination of clearing restrictions, erosion prevention, and sediment controls. Traditionally, many communities have focused on enforcing erosion and sediment control plans at construction sites (Paterson, 1994b), primarily through structural practices and temporary seeding. The value of non-structural practices for erosion control, such as clearing restrictions, construction sequencing, footprinting, and vegetation conservation, is increasingly being recognized (MWCOG, 1995b; Center for Watershed Protection, 1998a). Effective soil protection measures and practices should also be emphasized for agricultural and silvicultural activities in the watershed.

Current state and local requirements for erosion and sediment control (ESC) often do increase the cost of development. On a typical site, the cost to install and maintain erosion and sediment control practices can average $800-$1,500 per cleared acre per year, depending on the duration of construction and site conditions (SMBIA, 1990; Paterson et. al., 1993).

Application of other watershed protection tools, however, can help reduce the total cost for erosion and sediment control practices at a construction site. Open space conservation, buffers, and clustering can all sharply reduce the amount of clearing and grading needed at a site, thereby reducing the area that must be controlled by ESC practices.

ESC practices also provide direct and indirect benefits to both the builder and the adjacent property owner. By keeping soil on the site, a developer needs to spend less time and labor re-grading the site to meet final plan elevations, and less effort stabilizing eroded slopes. Careful phasing of construction within a subdivision can also lead to economies over the entire construction process.

6. Treat the Quantity and Quality of Stormwater Runoff

An important component of any community or watershed plan involves the use of stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to treat the quantity and quality of runoff generated by impervious surfaces (Center for Watershed Protection, 1998a). Stormwater BMPs include ponds, wetlands, filters (riparian buffers), swales, and infiltration systems that are designed to replicate predevelopment river and stream hydrology and water quality. While many recent advances have been made in stormwater BMP design, most can only partially mitigate the impacts of development on rivers and streams. While reduction of impervious cover should be the primary objective of watershed planning, stormwater BMPs can provide important complementary benefits. Stormwater BMPs are a simple solution to a complex problem, however, and cannot be expected to compensate for a lack of watershed planning, poor site design, or the absence of a river and stream buffer network. Indeed, a poorly designed or located stormwater BMP can create as many environmental problems as it was intended to solve. Stormwater BMPs require an ongoing commitment to maintenance, to ensure performance and longevity. Many communities have failed to recognize the long-term cost burden of stormwater BMP maintenance.

Stormwater BMPs are designed to remove pollutants, promote groundwater recharge, prevent streambank erosion, and control downstream flooding. Special BMP design considerations are necessary to mitigate the thermal impacts of stormwater on sensitive cold-water resources such as trout streams (Galli, 1990; Galli and Dubose, 1990; Yetman, 1991; Claytor, 199?; Johnson, 1995). Although stormwater BMPs can be quite effective, they are also among the most expensive watershed protection tools to construct and maintain. The most recent study indicates that the cost of treating the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff ranges from $2,000-$50,000 per impervious acre (Brown, 1997), emphasizing the importance of reducing impervious cover to the extent practical before applying BMPs. These construction costs do not include the cost of land used for stormwater treatment. In addition, stormwater BMPs must be maintained, and that cost burden often falls on landowners and local governments. Over a 20-25 year period, the full cost to maintain a stormwater BMP is roughly equal to its initial construction cost (Wiegand et. al., 1986).

Despite their high construction and maintenance costs, stormwater BMPs can confer several tangible economic benefits:

7. Maintain Stream Protection Measures

A concerted effort is needed to inspect, maintain, and restore the river and stream protection measures listed above (1-6). This effort can involve:

This step is often the weakest element of a stream protection strategy. It is also the most important, since river and stream protection measures must continue to function properly over many decades to achieve the desired level of protection.

8. Treat Wastewater

In many rural watersheds, new development occurs outside of water and sewer service areas, which means that wastewater must be treated on the site, usually by a septic system. To treat wastewater, septic systems must have an appropriate drainage area and soil type to function properly. Costs associated with installing and maintaining septic systems and correcting system failures are as follows:

In rural watersheds, innovative approaches to wastewater treatment should be considered when new development is planned outside of municipal wastewater treatment service areas. Common or community septic systems, or alternatives such as constructed wetland treatment systems, should be utilized whenever possible. Alternatives to conventional septic systems are particularly compatible with conservation development, where "clustering" of homes and availability of open space favor such options as community septic systems or wetland treatment. Local utilities can also be established to operate these alternative systems for homeowners, if desired.

As an example of alternative wastewater treatment, Jackson Meadow, a conservation development in Marine-on-St. Croix, Minnesota, is proposing to use 2 two-stage, two-cell wetland treatment systems to serve 64 homes generating an average wastewater flow of 11,000 gallons per day. Using this innovative design, no wastewater will be exposed to the surface at any time during the treatment process, and no wastewater will be discharged to local surface waters.

Common or community water supply sources should also be considered for new developments in rural areas, rather than individual wells.

9. Establish an Effective Public Outreach and Education Program

To succeed, a river and stream protection effort needs broad-based support throughout the watershed. To generate and maintain this support, public outreach programs must be developed for watershed residents, emphasizing the value of the St. Croix River watershed and its natural resources, educating residents and businesses about the daily role they play in protecting the quality of this watershed, and providing opportunities for the public to assist with protecting resource quality (appropriate lawn care practices, proper disposal of household hazardous wastes, storm drain stenciling, industrial and commercial pollution prevention programs, inspection of treatment systems, etc.).

10. Monitor River and Stream Quality

To provide feedback to watershed managers and residents on how well the stream protection strategy is achieving its objectives, ongoing water quality monitoring of the Lower St. Croix River and tributaries is needed. With a well-designed monitoring approach, spatial and temporal water quality trends can be documented, water quality issues can be identified and prioritized, water quality improvements can be measured as management programs are implemented, and the achievement of water quality goals can be demonstrated. A coordinated monitoring approach should be established, involving multiple partners (including citizens).

The Economics of Urban Sprawl vs. Stream and Watershed Protection

The Economics of Urban Sprawl

Low-density suburban development (popularly known as urban sprawl) has inexorably crept across the rural landscape, steadily transforming farms, forests, and fields into residential subdivisions, strip shopping centers, and roads. In just a few decades, growing communities can find that dozens of square miles of rural land have been transformed into impervious cover and turf. At the same time, residents discover that roads are congested, schools are overcrowded, and the sense of place that originally attracted them has greatly diminished.

Urban sprawl is also increasingly recognized as a primary factor reducing the quality of streams, lakes, and wetlands in many watersheds. A growing body of research (Schueler, 1994a) clearly documents that the creation of impervious cover accompanying new growth causes a predictable and profound decline in critical elements of aquatic ecosystems. The most disturbing component of this research is that impacts start to occur at a relatively low level of impervious cover - about ten percent. This level is roughly equivalent to the amount of impervious cover produced by large-lot residential development (one house per acre). In a state-wide study of Wisconsin streams, impacts on biological integrity became severe when urbanized land use in the watershed surpassed a threshold of 10-20% (Wang et.al., 1997). In addition to the rapid and striking decline in stream quality that can occur in a single generation of sprawl development, sprawl also degrades the quality of the rural landscape by fragmenting fields, forests, and wetland habitats, and drastically altering viewsheds.

Just as the environmental effects of sprawl development can be felt throughout ecological systems, the economic effects of sprawl are felt throughout the economy (Pelley, 1997). While these detrimental effects may be temporarily masked in a "hot" real estate market, the economic impacts will eventually emerge. Because sprawl has adverse impacts on traditional local industries such as agriculture, tourism, recreation, fisheries, and forestry, it can weaken economic diversity in the overall regional economy and reduce the multiplier effects of money generated by these businesses.

One common assumption about sprawl is that by promoting residential development, local tax revenues are increased, which ultimately lowers everyone’s property taxes. Although new development certainly increases the local tax base of the community, new homes and businesses also increase the cost of municipal services such as roads, schools, water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater collection and treatment, fire and police services, libraries, and parks and recreation. A number of economic studies (Vance and Larson, 1988; American Farmland Trust, 1992 and 1994; Hulsey, 1996) have shown that taxes from residential development do not pay the full cost of servicing it. On the average, the cost of servicing traditional residential development is about 116% of the tax revenue received. In contrast, the cost of servicing commercial development is only 32% of the tax revenue received. However, while commercial development can be an initial tax positive, it tends to attract residential development as people move to homes closer to job locations. The cost of servicing farmland, forest, and open space averages 37% of the tax revenue received. In other words, changing rural land uses to traditional residential development costs the community more than is raised in tax revenues.

Finally, communities may need to spend significant sums to repair or restore natural resources degraded by sprawl. Reactive natural resource restoration is expensive and time-consuming, with no guarantee that restoration goals can be achieved.

After several decades of study, it is apparent that sprawl development imposes significant short-term and long-term costs on local government, business, property owners, developers, and the environment. Communities are beginning to recognize that public investments should be spent to contain sprawl rather than promote it. Educating the public and elected officials about the economic and environmental consequences of sprawl is a first step toward better local choices about growth management.

The Economics of Stream and Watershed Protection

Watershed protection may be a fine idea, but how much does it cost? How does it change the bottom line for the region, the development community, landowners, and residents alike? This question is increasingly being posed to those advocating better watershed protection (Schueler, 1997).

Recognizing that people also need a place to call home, watershed protection cannot be anti-growth. Environmental sustainability must be supportive of a healthy economy and society. Conversely, watershed development does not have to be synonymous with the degradation of aquatic and other natural resources. When new growth is managed in a watershed context, homes and businesses can be located and designed to have the smallest possible impact on streams, lakes, wetlands, and other natural resources.

Planners have been proposing more compact growth patterns for many years. Regional plans for compact growth have been forged to respond to problems of sprawl by concentrating new growth around existing development centers or regions served by suburban transit. By strategically accommodating growth, compact development can preserve prime agricultural land and protect sensitive natural areas while also reducing costly construction of new infrastructure. Burchell and Listokin (1995) have defined planned growth as "an attempt to maximize development resources and limit costs by containing most growth within locations that are more efficient to service".

While few people celebrate sprawl, consumers seem to prefer a suburban lifestyle. However, this does not necessarily imply that they are satisfied with conventional large-lot subdivisions. Developers have found that well-designed cluster and traditional urban-style neighborhoods are very attractive to new home buyers. In addition, surveys have shown that residents are willing to pay a premium to live next to natural areas or park-like settings. As environmental awareness has grown among consumers, the market for environmentally friendly compact developments has expanded. Recent market surveys have tracked the ascendance of this preference for "green" or "conservation" development.

A number of economic studies (Duncan et al., 1989; Frank, 1989; Burchell, 1992) have detailed the differences between sprawl and compact growth patterns. These studies have compared costs for suburban sprawl versus more dense, mixed-use growth. While both growth patterns typically result in the same number of people and jobs, compact growth protects a greater share of farmland, forests, and natural areas. The economic studies show that compact development consumes about 45% less land, and costs 25% less for roads, 15% less for utilities, 5% less for housing, and 2% less for other fiscal impacts (Burchell and Listokin, 1995).

Many players in the local economy perceive that watershed protection can be costly, burdensome, and potentially a threat to economic vitality. Others counter that watershed protection is inextricably linked to a healthy economy. The elements of a stream protection strategy, highlighted above, are designed to protect water quality while increasing the value of existing and developable land. Also, despite lingering concern about escalating cost, recent studies have shown that the economic effect of these watershed protection tools is largely positive. Examples of the positive environmental and economic benefits associated with some elements of a stream protection strategy are provided above. While economic research on many of the elements is somewhat sparse, much of the evidence indicates that these tools can have a positive or at least neutral economic effect, when applied properly.

The Role of Local Governments

Many players in the local economy are justifiably concerned about the economic consequences created by stream and watershed protection programs. Despite long-term benefits, stream and watershed protection efforts are both fiscally and politically challenging for local governments. How, then, can communities craft stream and watershed protection programs that achieve the broad and deep acceptance needed to overcome these challenges? Successful communities have found it important to:

The central role of local government leadership in stream and watershed protection cannot be overstated, nor can the economic implications be discounted.

Summary

The premise that carefully-managed stream protection tools can have a balanced, positive effect on the local economy is generally supported by the economic research to date. At first glance, it seems futile to calculate the intrinsic economic value of a high quality stream, a clear lake, or a forested floodplain. Calculating the "true" value of a high quality Lower St. Croix River watershed seems an even more daunting task. What is interesting about urbanizing watersheds, however, is that society measures the value it places on these resources every day, in terms of property values, real estate premiums, rental rates, stormwater utility fees, construction costs, and volunteer hours donated. While the true value of a stream may never be known, it is clear that society does not value them lightly.

The timeless real estate adage "location, location, location" underscores the importance of how people value land. Many people prefer to locate next to forests, wetlands, streams, lakes, and other natural features. More importantly, even those members of the community who do not live next to these features still recognize the important role they play in the quality of the environment and in their lives. Harnessing this sense of place is perhaps the most important element of a stream protection strategy for the Lower St. Croix River watershed.

References

American Farmland Trust. 1992. Does Farmland Protection Pay? The Cost of Community Services in Three Massachusetts Towns. Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture. Lancaster, MA. 38 pp.

American Farmland Trust. 1994. Farmland and the Tax Bill: the Cost of Community Services in Three Minnesota Cities. American Farmland Trust. Washington, D.C. 20 pp.

Apfelbaum, S., M. Sands, T. Price, J. Eppich, P. Margolin, and D. Hoffman. 1997. On Conservation Developments and Their Cumulative Benefits. In: Assessing the Cumulative Impacts of Watershed Development on Aquatic Ecosystems and Water Quality, pp. 181-187. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Chicago, IL.

Arendt, R. 1994. Designing Open Space Subdivisions: A Practical Step by Step Approach. Natural Lands Trust. Appendix E. Medic, PA. 150 pp.

Brown, W. 1997. The Economics of Stormwater BMPs: An Update (Technical Note 90). Watershed Protection Techniques 2 (4): 495-499.

Burchell, R. W. 1992. Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Reports II and III. Report prepared for the New Jersey Office of State Planning, Trenton. February 20 and April 30. (Executive Summary). 28 pp.

Burchell, R. W. and D. Listokin. 1995. Land, Infrastructure, Housing Costs, and Fiscal Impacts Associated with Growth: the Literature on the Impacts of Sprawl Versus Managed Growth. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cambridge, MA. 25 pp.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1998a. Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, Maryland.

Center for Watershed Protection. 1998b. Rapid Watershed Planning Handbook. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, Maryland.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1996. A Better Way to Grow, for More Livable Communities and a Healthier Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Lands Program. Annapolis, MD. 32 pp.

CH2M-Hill. 1993. Costs of Providing Government Services to Alternative Residential Patterns. Committee on Population Growth and Development. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, MD. 168 pp.

Claytor, R.A. 199?. Practical Aspects of Stormwater Design in Sensitive Areas. Loiederman Associates, Inc. Frederick, Maryland. 5 pp.

Clean Water Partnership. 1996. Wetlands, Water Quality, and Property Values. Chain of Lakes Brochure.

Duncan, J. et. al. 1989. The Search for Efficient Urban Growth Patterns. Florida Department of Community Affairs. Tallahassee, FL.

Frank, J. 1989. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Literature. The Urban Land Institute. Washington, D.C. 46 pp.

Galli, J. 1990. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. 172 pp.

Galli, J. and R. Dubose. 1990. Thermal Impacts Associated with Urbanization and Stormwater Management Best Management Practices: Appendices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. 126 pp.

Hulsey, B. 1996. Sprawl Costs Us All: How Uncontrolled Sprawl Increases Your Property Taxes and Threatens Your Quality of Life. Sierra Club Midwest Office. Madison, WI. 18 pp.

Johnson, D.K. 1995. Urban Stormwater Impacts on a Coldwater Resource. Kiap-TU-Wish Chapter, Trout Unlimited. Hudson, Wisconsin. 28 pp.

Lacey, J. and R. Arendt. 1990. An Examination of Market Appreciation for Clustered Housing with Permanent Protected Open Space. Center for Rural Massachusetts. Amherst, MA. 14 pp.

Liptan, T. and C. Kinsella-Brown. 1996. A Cost Comparison of Conventional and Water Quality-Based Stormwater Designs. City of Portland. Bureau of Environmental Services. Portland, OR. 16 pp.

Maryland Office of Planning. 1989. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Lot Size and Other Development Standards. Baltimore, MD. 18 pp.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 1995a. Riparian Buffer Strategies for Urban Watersheds. Washington, D.C. 101 pp.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 1995b. Clearing and Grading Strategies for Urban Watersheds. Washington, D.C. 84 pp.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 1998a. Residential Street Strategies for Urban Watersheds. Washington, D.C. In preparation.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). 1998b. Cluster Development Strategies for Urban Watersheds. Washington, D.C. In preparation.

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 1986. Cost-Effective Site Planning: Single Family Development. Washington, D.C. 124 pp.

National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC). 1995. Maintaining Your Septic System: A Guide for Homeowners. Pipeline 6 (4): 1-B. Septic Systems.

Ohrel, R. 1995. Dealing With Septic System Impacts. Watershed Protection Techniques 2 (1): 269-272.

Paterson, R. 1994a. Construction Practices: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (3): 95-99.

Paterson, R. 1994b. Enforcing Sediment Pollution Regulations: Lessons from North Carolina (Technical Note 41). Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (3): 143-144.

Paterson, R., M. Luger, R. Burby, E. Kaiser, H. Malcom, and A. Beard. 1993. Costs and Benefits of Urban Erosion and Sediment Control: The North Carolina Experience. Environmental Management 17 (2): 167-178.

Pelley, J. 1997. The Economics of Urban Sprawl. Watershed Protection Techniques 2 (4): 461-467.

Schueler, T. 1994a. The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (3): 100-111.

Schueler, T. 1994b. Use of Cluster Development to Protect Watersheds (Technical Note 39). Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (3): 137-140.

Schueler, T. 1994c. Clearing and Grading Regulations Exposed (Technical Note 40). Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (3): 141-142.

Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Silver Spring, MD. 232 pp.

Schueler, T. 1997. The Economics of Watershed Protection. Watershed Protection Techniques 2 (4): 469-481.

Suburban Maryland Building Industry Association (SMBIA). 1990. Unpublished Data on the Unit Cost of Residential Subdivision development in Suburban Maryland.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Guidance for Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA 840-B-92-002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Economic Benefits of Runoff Controls. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. EPA 841-5-95-002. 19 pp.

Vance, T. and A. Larson. 1988. Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in Culpepper County, Virginia. Piedmont Environmental Council.

Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Gatti. 1997. Influences of Watershed Land Use on Habitat Quality and Biotic Integrity in Wisconsin Streams. Fisheries 22 (6): 6-12.

Wells, C. 1994. Skinny Streets and One-sided Sidewalks: A Strategy for not Paving Paradise (Technical Note 38). Watershed Protection Techniques 1 (3): 135-137.

Wiegand, C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, and D. Jellick. 1986. Cost of Urban Runoff Quality Controls. In: Urban Runoff Quality, pp. 366-380. Engineering Foundation Conference. ASCE. Hennicker, NH. June 23-27, 1986.

Yetman, K. 1991. Study of Nonpoint Source Thermal Pollution in Jabez Branch. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 62 pp.