Minnesota Calling - Belwin Conservancy

Transcription

Minnesota Calling:
Conservation Facts, Trends and Challenges
Minnesota Campaign for
Conservation Steering
Committee
PREPARED BY THE
Minnesota Campaign for Conservation
David Hartwell
Citizen
Steering Committee Chair
Paul Austin
Executive Director, Minnesota League
of Conservation Voters
The Minnesota Campaign for Conservation is a coalition of citizens and
organizations committed to developing long term conservation strategies,
funding sources and policy tools that will ensure the preservation of
Minnesota’s cherished outdoor traditions for future generations.
Peter Bachman
Citizen
Martha Brand
Executive Director, Minnesota Center
for Environmental Advocacy
This report discusses the challenges facing conservation in Minnesota in
the next 25 years and examines why the development and implementation
of a long-term conservation vision for Minnesota is necessary.
Nancy Gibson
Citizen
Dorian Grilley
Executive Director, Parks and Trails
Council of Minnesota
Steve Hobbes
Director, Rice Creek Watershed District
Jim Klatt
National Grassroots Coordinator, Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Interim Executive Director
Minnesota Environmental Partnership
Brad Moore
Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
Ron Nargang
Executive Director, The Nature
Conservancy of Minnesota
Susan Schmidt
Executive Director,
Minnesota Trust for Public Land
Glen Skovholt
Chair, Metropolitan Parks and
Open Space Commission
This report was written by Dave Dempsey with
research by Cheryl Appeldorn.
Questions should be directed to:
John Curry, Campaign Director
Minnesota Campaign for Conservation
458 Otis Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
[email protected]
651-253-5691
© February 2006
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I.
5
Introduction
A. Minnesota’s past points the way to a proud future.
B. The Great Outdoors—a Minnesota value.
C. Conservation—the key to Minnesota’s future.
9
10
11
12
II. The Challenge of the New Century
A. Minnesota’s natural resources face unprecedented challenges.
1. Rapid population growth.
2. More households using more land.
3. More pressure on lakes, forests and scenic areas.
4. Historic shifts in corporate land ownership.
5. Increasing public demand for outdoor recreation.
13
14
14
15
16
19
20
B. Despite conservation efforts, Minnesota is on the brink of irreversible losses.
1. Loss of critical wetlands.
2. Loss of undeveloped lakeshore especially on shallow and sensitive lakes.
3. Declining water quality in lakes and rivers.
4. Fragmentation of forests and prairies.
5. Invasive species threatening lakes, rivers and wildlife.
6. Development encircling and isolating public recreation lands.
III. The Need to Renew the Conservation Commitment
A. Shrinking state conservation budget.
31
32
B. Local government conservation budgets insufficient to meet needs.
34
IV. Minnesota’s Future Depends on its Natural Wealth
A. Minnesota has much at stake in its high quality natural resources.
V.
21
23
24
26
27
28
29
35
36
B. The public health depends on a clean environment.
1. Clean air and water.
2. Places to exercise.
37
37
38
C. The Great Outdoors is critical to Minnesota’s economy.
1. Tourism and outdoor recreation.
2. Forestry and farming.
3. Protecting property values.
4. Attracting and retaining highly educated workers.
39
39
40
41
41
Conclusion
A. As Minnesotans, we must come together to assure our conservation future.
43
44
VI. Bibliography
47
MINNESOTA CAMPAIGN FOR CONSERVATION
|1
© THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND (TPL)
2
|
Look forward a century, to the time when the
“
city has a population of a million, and think what
will be their wants. They will have wealth enough to
purchase all that money can buy, but all their wealth
cannot purchase a lost opportunity, or restore
natural features of grandeur and beauty, which
would then possess priceless value, and which you
can preserve for them if you will but say the word
and save them from the destruction which certainly
awaits them if you fail to utter it.
”
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HORACE CLEVELAND, 1880S
Hired by the Minneapolis Board of Park Commissioners
When I leave here, I want to leave the
“
environmental structure and the economic and social
structure as good as I had it for future generations. I
don’t want to move out of here running away from
the problems that I tried to fix.
”
THE LATE STATE REPRESENTATIVE WILLARD MUNGER, 1999
Architect of Minnesota’s Environmental and
Natural Resources Trust Fund
Minnesotans have always been close to
“
nature…Minnesotans have been shaped by the land,
and they in turn have shaped it…Minnesota’s
bountiful waters have molded the state’s character
just as surely as the search for scarce water has
influenced much of the Great Plains and the
American Southwest.
”
WILLIAM E. LASS, 1977
In Minnesota: A History
|3
© THE NATURE CONSERVANCY (TNC)
4
|
Executive Summary
Minnesota’s Past Points
the Way to a Proud Future
In 1856, on the eve of statehood, a visitor to the
Minnesota Territory described in glowing terms the
richness of the region’s natural resources:
“Undulating and level prairies, skirted with woods of
various growth, and clothed everywhere with a rich
verdure; frequent and rapid streams, with innumerable
small but limpid lakes, frequented by multitudes of
waterfowl… make up the panorama of this extensive
district, which may be said to be everywhere fertile,
beautiful, and inviting.”
Minnesota’s first settlers came and prospered in large part
because of the abundance of the region’s natural
resources. But within 40 years, the first warning signals
that these resources were in danger came with the
realization that Minnesota’s northern forests had been
nearly exhausted and the very last of Minnesota’s large
primeval pine forests was threatened with destruction.
Minnesotans, led by a wide array of civic organizations
and citizen involvement, rose to the challenge and called
for preserving the remaining forest through the creation of
the Chippewa National Forest—the nation’s first
congressionally authorized national forest.
Sizing up the threats to Minnesota’s natural resources and
hearing the call of duty, these foresighted conservation
pioneers made a lasting difference. Thus began
Minnesota’s tradition of citizen action to conserve and
protect the state’s natural resources. Thanks to the efforts
of Minnesotans before us, the state enjoys 16 million
acres of forest, thousands of majestic lakes, and a
landscape that provides beauty, recreation and economic
benefits to all of us.
The Challenge of the New Century
Minnesota has a proud heritage of responding to threats
against its natural resources and taking action to secure
the future. Now the future of Minnesota is calling us
again to act. As Minnesota approaches the 150th
anniversary of statehood, it is again on the brink of
dramatic change that will put the conservation
commitment of its people to the test. Startling trends in
population, land use, recreation demand and public
funding mean that we cannot take Minnesota’s outdoor
heritage for granted. Minnesota’s natural resources will
face unprecedented challenges in the next decades:
• Minnesota, the fastest growing state in the Midwest,
added over 1 million people from 1970 to 2000
and will grow by an additional 1.2 million by 2030.
• Because of decreases in household size and
increases in acres per household, these 1.2 million
people will convert over one million acres from
natural areas or farmland to development in the
next 25 years — a land area equivalent to four of
Minnesota’s larger counties.
• Some of the regions under greatest pressure are
also among the most scenic and environmentally
significant in Minnesota—including areas rich
with lakes, rivers, fish, wildlife, wetlands, prairies,
and forests.
• Economic pressures are driving corporate
landowners to sell and subdivide large tracts of
forested and natural land, especially in northern
Minnesota, fragmenting and endangering fish and
wildlife habitat and closing access to the public.
• Minnesotans, among the most physically active
people in the nation, increasingly demand outdoor
recreation opportunities such as biking, hiking,
camping, fishing, hunting and bird watching.
|5
Taken together, these trends create both urgent problems
and historic opportunities for the people of Minnesota. If
we fail to develop and act on a vision for natural resource
conservation in Minnesota over the next half century, the
state’s natural wealth and quality of life will decline. If,
however, we heed the lessons of the state’s past,
including the bold actions of conservation pioneers over
the last 150 years, we will renew Minnesota’s tradition of
protecting, managing, and enjoying clean air and water,
natural beauty, diverse fish and wildlife populations, and
recreational opportunities.
Minnesota’s Natural Resources
on the Brink
Many of Minnesota’s traditional landscapes and wildlife
habitats are in fragile condition. Our prairies and ‘Big Woods’
forest have all but disappeared—less than one percent of
Minnesota’s original native prairie survives, and of the
original 1.9 million acres of ‘Big Woods” that stretched from
Mankato to St. Cloud, only 10,000 acres remain. Wetlands
and northern forest acres have been lost at an alarming rate
and the fish, wildlife and plant populations that depend on
these habitats are in parallel decline.
Minnesota’s lakes and rivers are beginning to be tested to
see if they meet the pollution standards of the federal
Clean Water Act. The results are striking. Of the small
percentage of Minnesota lakes and rivers fully assessed,
approximately 40% are found to be polluted, that is, they
do not meet water quality standards. Currently 199 rivers
and 916 lakes do not meet water quality standards and
are on the Minnesota Impaired Waters list. New
monitoring data indicates that 97 new rivers and 166
new lakes have been identified as polluted and should be
added to the list, bringing the total to 296 impaired rivers
and 1,082 impaired lakes.
The population pressures, development patterns, and
land ownership changes outlined above will place even
more stress on these fragile resources. Current patterns
show a number of disturbing trends in our natural
resources, including:
• Continuing loss of wetlands, which provide
critical wildlife habitat, protect water quality by
filtering groundwater and surface water, and help
reduce flooding.
• Increasing development of lakeshore, especially on
shallow lakes, which are some of the most sensitive
and important for wildlife habitat.
6
|
• Deteriorating water quality in our lakes and rivers as
a lack of natural buffers allows sediments and
nutrients to run unfiltered into surface waters.
• Expanding threats to native prairie and forest
habitats as rising land prices and competing uses
lead to smaller parcel size and fragmentation.
• Increasing numbers of invasive species choking out
native plants and wildlife.
• Encroaching development around public recreation
lands, limiting their value for both wildlife habitat
and outdoor recreation.
Minnesota’s Future Depends
on its Natural Wealth
Minnesota’s outdoor legacy is integral to its renowned
quality of life. The richness and diversity of Minnesota’s
natural heritage—our lakes, rivers, forests, and prairies—
define Minnesota and provide extraordinary outdoor
recreation opportunities. Minnesotans treasure these
opportunities, and the same natural wealth appeals to and
attracts newcomers. Polls consistently show that the Great
Outdoors and the recreation associated with it are among
the most important of Minnesota values. Compared to other
states’ residents, Minnesotans fish more, boat more, camp
more, hunt more, recreate more and watch wildlife more.
Industries based on natural resources including forestry,
hunting, fishing and tourism provide vital jobs and
contribute a significant portion of the gross state product.
Clean water and air are fundamental to the public health,
and experts are increasingly emphasizing the role outdoor
recreation plays in reducing the staggering health care
costs associated with physical inactivity. And, our healthy
environment and opportunities for outdoor recreation will
play an increasingly important role in attracting and
retaining the highly educated workers we will need to
remain competitive in the future.
Because they understand the critical importance of
Minnesota’s outdoor resources, when given the
opportunity, Minnesotans voluntarily pay more for their
license plates, check off additional income tax donations
and consistently vote to commit resources to conservation.
A New Commitment to
Conservation is Needed
Despite the fact that the Great Outdoors is vital to
Minnesota’s quality of life and economic well-being, state
conservation budgets have slipped alarmingly in recent
years. The share of the state budget that goes to
conservation is at the lowest level in three decades. By
2007, only 1.1 % of the state general fund will go to the
four agencies that monitor and manage our outdoors, a
drop of more than one-third in just five years. The
widespread public perception that the Minnesota Lottery
funds a significant share of the state’s natural resource
needs is not accurate. Meanwhile, local governments at
all levels indicate that funding for the Great Outdoors
falls below their identified needs, especially as it relates
to capital expenditures.
Although Minnesota has long been a U.S. leader in
conservation, we cannot continue to rest on our laurels.
The combination of shrinking public conservation
funding, fragmentation and destruction of prairies, forests
and lakeshores, demand for outdoor recreation, and a
growing awareness of the connection between a healthy
environment and a healthy economy all underscore the
need for bold new actions.
The coming pressures are as certain as a winter blizzard.
Minnesota can either succumb to them and lose a big part
of our quality of life, or prepare wisely for a future of
healthy change anchored by a conservation commitment.
We need a vision for the Minnesota of tomorrow and
50 years from now and a plan to implement it. Such a
plan must:
• Identify and conserve the most important forests,
prairies, wetlands, farmlands, fish and wildlife
habitats and other places that define Minnesota,
including crown jewels that need new or added
protection.
• Assure continued access to high quality outdoor
recreation for all Minnesotans.
• Ensure adequate parks, trails and open space are
available particularly for those areas of Minnesota
growing the fastest.
• Help to clean up polluted lakes and rivers by
protecting shorelines, important nearby buffer
lands, and by reducing sediment erosion, nutrient
run-off, and pollution from all sources.
• Protect resource-based industries important to our
economy, including tourism, agriculture, and forest
products while assuring a continued high quality of
life that will attract employers and workers.
• Allow for sustainable economic and population
growth.
• Capitalize on the strong support of Minnesota
citizens for protecting natural resources.
• Provide stable, adequate funding to implement the
plan and to provide for ongoing natural resource
stewardship and science-based fish and wildlife
management.
In 2008, Minnesota will celebrate its 150th anniversary of statehood.
The best gift the citizens of Minnesota can give ourselves and our descendants is an
outdoors legacy that sustains the prairies, woods, streams, lakes and abundant wildlife
once glimpsed by an awestruck visitor to the Minnesota Territory in the 1850s. Though
less abundant, these beautiful natural landscapes exist today and can be protected for
tomorrow. Our ancestors responded when Minnesota’s future called, and we must do
the same.
The Campaign for Conservation invites all Minnesotans to ask themselves:
How can I help protect
Minnesota’s natural legacy?
|7
© THE CAMPAIGN FOR CONSERVATION
8
|
I. Introduction
“We’ve all watched new housing developments pop up like dandelions on
the suburban edge. We’ve all gone ‘up to the lake’ noting year by year the
changes, the growth, the ever-increasing crowdedness. Each of us has
watched farmland and grassland converted to roads, electrical and sewer
lines. And each of us has a story about some place, some memory that is of
deep personal importance, which is no longer there or no longer accessible.
“Nothing will stop growth in Minnesota, but does it have to come on each
parcel of land? On each bay? On each wetland? On each forested or
farmland acre? We believe growth can and must be coordinated in concert
with Minnesotans’ overwhelming love for their Great Outdoors.
“This report is not a woeful collection of Minnesota’s better days gone by.
It is a clarion call to all Minnesotans that tomorrow is here. And we aren’t
prepared. We aren’t even preparing to prepare.
“Minnesota is at its best when its citizens and its leaders recognize coming
threats and we join together as a state to act. Taking care of our natural
resources is a tradition repeated throughout our history as Minnesotans face
up to challenges and ultimately reap the rewards of taking action.
“In 2006, the threats to Minnesota’s Great Outdoors traditions are more
severe than ever and signs of stress are everywhere. We believe the time is
past due for Minnesotans to mobilize and take action. We hope this report
can be a catalyst for Minnesota. It documents that the threats are
unprecedented; the decline is real; and that action is urgently needed.
Finally, it asks that you join us in preparing a vision for the state and giving
voice to the preservation of our land, our water and our way of life.”
DAVID HARTWELL
Founder and President, Bellcomb Technologies, Minneapolis
Minnesota Campaign for Conservation Steering Committee Chair
|9
A. MINNESOTA’S PAST POINTS
THE WAY TO A PROUD FUTURE
In 1856, on the eve of statehood, a visitor to the
Minnesota Territory described in glowing terms the
richness of the region’s natural resources:“Undulating and
level prairies, skirted with woods of various growth, and
clothed everywhere with a rich verdure; frequent and
rapid streams, with innumerable small but limpid lakes,
frequented by multitudes of waterfowl… make up the
panorama of this extensive district, which may be said
to be everywhere fertile, beautiful, and inviting.”1
Just 40 years later, as the last of Minnesota’s primeval
pine forests was threatened with destruction, leaders of
the Minnesota Federation of Women’s Clubs called for its
conservation: “State pride, health, recreation and the best
interests of this generation and of posterity, all demand
that this last opportunity shall not pass without the most
favorable action for a permanent forest reservation in
Minnesota.”2 University of Minnesota professor Maria
Sanford said on their behalf, “In the name of humanity,
is it not possible for the American people to favorably
determine the results of an occasion so fraught with
inestimable benefits…by permanently preserving the last
public white pine forest that exists in America!”3
In June 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt signed
into law a measure authorizing the country’s first
congressionally mandated national forest—what is now
the Chippewa National Forest in northern Minnesota.
Today, as a result of citizen vision and action, Minnesota
contains 16.3 million forest acres, providing jobs, timber,
hunting, fishing, birdwatching and dozens of other
benefits to the state’s people.
But, as examined in the report below, an era of change
looms over Minnesota. Our tradition of natural resource
leadership has never been tested as it will be in the next
few decades. Dramatic changes in population, household
size and land conversion rates, new migration patterns,
and historic land ownership shifts will present
unprecedented challenges for Minnesota’s outdoor legacy.
These trends create both urgent problems and historic
opportunities for the people of Minnesota. If we fail to
develop and act on a vision of Minnesota conservation
over the next decades, the state’s natural wealth and
quality of life will decline. If, however, we heed the
lessons of the state’s past, including the bold actions of
Minnesota’s early conservation pioneers, we will renew
Minnesota’s place of leadership among the states in
protecting, managing and enjoying clean air and water,
natural beauty, diverse fish and wildlife populations and
outdoor recreation opportunities.
1 Andrews, C.C. Minnesota and Dacotah: Letters descriptive of a Tour through the North-West, in the Autumn of 1856. With information relative to public lands and a table of statistics. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: R.
Farnham, 1857.
2 Tim Brady, “The Real Story of Chippewa National Forest,” Minnesota Conservation Volunteer, November/December 2004, 22-24.
3 Ibid.
A Tradition of Conservation
Minnesota has never waited for the future to shape it; we Minnesotans have always shaped our conservation future. The vision and commitment of the
generations that preceded us point the way to our future. All of these milestones in Minnesota conservation were the result of forward-looking citizens
and public officials who thought not only of their own future, but that of Minnesotans after them. Many of Minnesota’s conservation pioneers did not live
to see the results of their foresight, but all Minnesotans today benefit from it.
1880s:
1891:
1891:
1900:
1902:
Looking ahead to the rapid
growth of Minneapolis and Saint
Paul, civic leaders
commissioned a design for a
system of drives, river parks and
river boulevards that is now
considered one of the finest
urban park systems in the
country.
Jacob V. Brower, historian,
anthropologist and land surveyor,
saw the Mississippi Headwaters
region being transformed by
aggressive logging, and
advocated protecting Lake Itasca
for future generations. Brower’s
tireless efforts to save the
remaining pine forest
surrounding Lake Itasca led the
state legislature to establish
Itasca as the first Minnesota
State Park on April 20, 1891.
Responding to the concerns of
sportsmen about depletion of
Minnesota’s fish and game, the
Legislature provided for salaried
game wardens to enforce
conservation laws.
Gen. Christopher C. Andrews,
the state’s foremost early
advocate of forestry, called for
the creation of an international
park along the MinnesotaOntario border and made a
national reputation by preaching
and implementing forest fire
prevention and public tree
planting programs.
President Theodore Roosevelt
signed into law a measure
sought by Minnesota
conservationists authorizing the
country’s first congressionally
mandated national forest—
what is now the Chippewa
National Forest.
10
|
B. THE GREAT OUTDOORS—
A MINNESOTA VALUE
Minnesotans treasure the state’s rich natural resources—
its lakes, rivers, forests, prairies as well as the abundant
opportunities for outdoor recreation. A 2004 poll revealed
that 82% of Minnesotans consider outdoor recreation to
be either very or moderately important in their lives.4
In a recent survey, the Twin Cities’ parks, trails and open
spaces topped the list of the most attractive features of
living in the region, and 97% of all residents said the
Twin Cities are a better place to live compared to other
metro areas.5
Minnesota is a leading state in physical activity and
outdoor recreation. 65% of Minnesotans participate in
wildlife-associated recreation—the third highest
participation rate in the nation, behind Vermont and
Alaska.6 Minnesota is the third most physically active
state—behind Hawaii and Washington State.7
Minnesota ranks first in boats per capita—there is one for
every six people—and is fourth in the nation in the
number of licensed boats.8 Minnesota ranks second in the
nation in the total number of fishing licenses sold. 30%
of Minnesotans (approximately 1.5 million) are anglers,
compared to 16% nationally.9
Minnesotans also consistently support protection of
natural areas. Since 1997, Minnesota voters in cities and
counties across the state have voted to spend over $70
million on parks and open space. In 2002, Dakota County
voters approved $20 million for natural land and key
farmland protection. In 2004, voters in St. Cloud
approved a $10 million referendum
including funds for natural land
protection with a 71%
majority.
In 2005 both
Woodbury and Eden
Prairie passed
similar measures.10
Caring about
the Great
Outdoors is a
Minnesota tradition,
and a Minnesota
value. That ethic will
be more important
than ever in the
next few critical
decades.
More than
100,000
Minnesotans pay
an extra $30 per
year for the state’s
Critical Habitat
license plate. Twice
since 1988,
Minnesotans have
overwhelmingly affirmed that a
portion of lottery proceeds should be
dedicated to the Environmental Trust Fund. More than
77% of voters in the 1998 general election supported
amending the constitution to affirm that hunting and
fishing is a valued part of Minnesota’s culture.
4 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans: Report on Findings. St. Paul, MN: January, 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_report.pdf.
5 Metropolitan Council. 2004 Metro Resident’s Survey. St. Paul, MN: January 2005 http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/MetroResidentsSurvey_2004.pdf.
6 U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation Washington D.C.: October 2002. p.96 < http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/fhw01-us.pdf.
7 Hovey, CQ’s State Fact Finder 2005: Rankings Across America. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005, p. 88.
8 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. A Strategic Conservation Agenda 2003-2007: Measuring Progress Toward Mission. St. Paul, MN: March, 2004, p. 91.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/conservationagenda/fulldoc.pdf.
Hovey, CQ’s State Fact Finder 2004: Rankings Across America. CQ Press, Washington D.C. 2004).
9 Kelly, Tim, Outdoor recreation participation trends in wildlife-related activities (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation) and recreational boating. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Office of Management and Budget Services:
2005. (30% of Minnesotans (1.3 million people) bought a fishing license in 2002.) American Sportfishing Association Website, “Fishing Statistics—2001.” January 2005.
http://www.asafishing.org/asa/statistics/participation/fishlicense_2001.html.
10 Trust for Public Land, “Land Vote: Votes by Jurisdiction: Minnesota.” Trust for Public Land Vote Website. January 2006. http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=12010&folder_id=2386.
1903:
1931:
1950s:
1963:
1970s:
Mary Gibbs, the first female
park manager in North America,
defended Minnesota’s first
state park, Itasca, by defying
loggers’ threats and releasing
water from an artificial flooding
to prevent destruction of a
pine forest.
Public support led to the
creation of the state’s
Department of Conservation to
“bring under one head and
correlate all conservation
activities and to take
conservation out of politics.”
Minnesota Bureau of Game
Supervisor Richard Dorer
championed a Save the
Wetlands Program that
conserved more than 1 million
acres of habitat.
The Minnesota Resources
Commission began distributing
funds from a new state tax on
cigarettes, funding 11 new state
parks and expanding 17 others.
The Pig’s Eye sewage treatment
plant in the Twin Cities dumped
over 4 billion gallons of raw
sewage into the Mississippi
River annually, and citizens
banded together and won a
court fight to clean up the river,
restore its fisheries, and rid it of
foul algae blooms.
© PETER CROUSER
| 11
C. CONSERVATION—THE KEY TO
MINNESOTA’S FUTURE
Conservation is not only a value Minnesotans share, but
also a cornerstone of our future. Minnesota’s natural
wealth and beauty are key to the health of the state’s
economy, our quality of life, and our health.
The coming century will be nothing like the last century,
as population grows rapidly and access to the outdoors
becomes ever more important. The very things we love
best about this state are under threat as never before.
Although Minnesota has long been a U.S. leader in
conservation, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. The
combination of shrinking public funding, fragmentation of
prairies, forests and lakeshores, pressure from invasive
species, demand for outdoor recreation, and a growing
awareness of the connection between a healthy
environment and a healthy economy all underscore the
need for bold new actions.
© TPL
This report examines why Minnesota must look—and
plan—ahead. We must take stock of our natural resource
challenges, and come together to secure our future
leadership in protecting the Great Outdoors. We must
work to assure recreation, natural beauty and economic
prosperity through a renewed conservation commitment
and a commitment to the future.
© TNC
1974:
1986:
1988:
1991:
Responding to suburban growth,
civic leaders and citizens
launched the Metropolitan
Regional Parks System, which
today serves over 30 million
park guests per year.
An enormous coalition of
conservationists united to
support and pass the state’s
Reinvest in Minnesota legislation,
which provided incentives to
farmers to help improve critical
fish and wildlife habitat.
Minnesotans voted to establish
an Environmental Trust Fund
and to dedicate a portion of
state-run lottery proceeds to the
first established Trust of its kind
in the nation.
The Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act became law,
establishing a goal of no net
loss in the quality and quantity
of wetlands in the state.
© TNC
© TOM EVERS/TPL
© TNC
12
|
For more than 100 years,
Minnesotans have worked
tirelessly to protect and
nurture our outdoor
heritage. Not content
simply to meet the needs
of their own time, they
have anticipated the needs
of future citizens of the
state and fought for
protection of fish, wildlife,
air, land and water.
Minnesota has a proud
heritage of responding to
threats against its natural
resources and taking action
to secure the future.
II. The Challenge
of the New Century
“Having lived for the past half century in Minnesota, I’ve seen such a
bewildering amount of change. I grew up in Chisago County, doing a lot of
fishing with my Dad on the St. Croix River, which is now blessed with the
Wild River State Park. Other changes are more upsetting. Houses and
buildings now dominate the former country roads where my family liked to
do our Sunday drives to look for wildlife.
“It’s difficult to believe—but it’s true—that the next 50 years will bring
change like nothing we’ve seen before. That much is a given. People are
coming. Roads, bridges, homes, sidewalks, gas stations, grocery stores,
office buildings—they’re all coming.
“Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the new growth helped to pay for itself? Imagine
if we planned for a certain amount of parkland, trails and open space for
each new development. Consider the benefits if Minnesota established
certain areas for growth, other areas for recreation and still other areas for
nature and wildlife.
“You will read that our population is growing faster than ever, we are using
more land per person than ever before and that people are more frequently
living close to natural amenities like woods and water. These trends aren’t
just abstract. They’re having implications for the conservation of wildlife
and natural resources already. And they will be amplified in time if left
unchecked. Minnesota’s response to prepare for the new era has been
(remarkably) to cut back on resources, funding and commitment to the
Great Outdoors.
“I have great faith in the people and the leaders of this state to renew our
cherished conservation heritage. The question is not if we will rise to the
challenge, it’s when.”
CHAR BROOKER
Izaak Walton League, National Board of Directors
| 13
A. MINNESOTA’S NATURAL RESOURCES FACE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGES
• Continuing rapid population growth.
• More households using more land.
• More development pressure on lakes, forests and
scenic areas.
• Historic shifts in corporate land ownership.
• Increasing public demand for outdoor recreation.
Wisconsin’s. According to Census Bureau projections,
Minnesota will be the 20th most populous state by 2030,
while Wisconsin will have slipped to 21st.14
Midwest States–Percent Change in Population
2000 – 2030
30
25
20
Percent
In the coming decades, Minnesota’s outdoor legacy will
be challenged as never before by changing demographic
and economic forces. Five trends, in particular, will
confront our continued ability to access and enjoy the
outdoors and our ability to preserve Minnesota’s forests,
lakes, prairies, fish and wildlife:
15
10
5
1. Rapid population growth
0
Population growth poses perhaps the greatest challenge to
Minnesota’s natural resources. Minnesota’s high quality of
life and economic success have made it the fastest
growing state in the Midwest. From 1970 to 2000,
Minnesota’s population grew from 3,806,103 to
4,919,479.11 According to projections based on the 2000
census, Minnesota’s population is projected to grow to
5,452,500 by 2010 and to 6,268,200 by 2030.12 This
means that by 2030, Minnesota will have nearly 2.5
million more people than it had in 1970.
Minnesota Resident Population
7
6
Millions
5
4
3
2
1
0
1970
2000
2030
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Minnesota will continue to be the fastest growing state in
the Midwest. From 2000 to 2030, Minnesota’s population
will increase by 28.2%; Wisconsin’s will increase by
14.7% and Michigan’s will increase by 7.6%.13 By 2030,
Minnesota’s total population will exceed that of
-5
-10
North
Dakota
Iowa
South
Dakota
Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Interim Projections, Ranking of State Population and Change, 2000 and 2030.
As Minnesota’s population increases, so does pressure on
public recreation lands. According to the state
Department of Administration, the amount of land in
federal, state, and regional parks, forests and wildlife
refuges increased 1.8%, or by 213,000 acres between
1991 and 2000. However, population increases have
outpaced increases in recreation land, leading to a drop
in the amount of recreation land per person.15 As more
people use the existing land base, it becomes more
difficult to protect natural resources, and crowding can
reduce the recreational experience for all users.
ACRES PER PERSON OF
PUBLIC RECREATION LAND IN MINNESOTA
Acres (US Forest,
Acres
USFWS, NPS,
Per
Year
DNR, Met Council)
Population
Person
1983
1991
1995
1997
2000
11,426,462
11,645,000
11,758,000
11,834,000
11,857,806
4,141,458
4,440,859
4,660,180
4,763,390
4,919,479
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
Source: MN Department of Administration
11 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minnesota Resident Population.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. December 2005. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/minnesota.pdf.
12 Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. Minnesota’s Population Projections 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: October 2002. http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/00Proj/PopulationProjections02.pdf.
13 U.S. Census Bureau, “Interim State Population Projections 2005.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. April 21, 2005. http://www.census.gov/population/projections/PressTab1.xls.
14 U.S. Census Bureau, “Interim State Population Projections 2005.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. April 21, 2005. http://www.census.gov/population/projections/PressTab1.xls.
15 Minnesota Dept. of Administration. “Minnesota Milestones: Parkland and Open Space.” Minnesota Dept. of Administration Website. March 2005. http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator.html?Id=69&G=42 and
http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator.html?T=315&From=Custom&Table_together=N.
See also: Land Management Information Center, Minnesota State Planning Agency. Minnesota Public Lands: 1983. St. Paul, MN: November 1983. http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/pdf/MN_Public_Lands_1983.pdf.
14
|
Developed land is expanding even faster than population
in Minnesota. According to the National Resources
Inventory (NRI) compiled by the National Resources
Conservation Service, an arm of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, from 1982 to 1992, Minnesota lost 23,400
acres per year to development. From 1992 to 1997, the
rate of conversion doubled, to 46,400 acres per year.16
While the NRI does not have more current annual
conversion data for individual states, national data
indicates that the rate of conversion is continuing at
these levels.17
Statewide, the amount of urban land in Minnesota
increased 27% from 1982 to 1997.18 At the present rate,
another 1,029,408 acres of land will be converted to
urban/developed land by 2030.19 This means that by
2030, an amount of land equal to the size of Hennepin,
Ramsey, Dakota and Carver counties combined will be
converted from undeveloped to developed uses.20
The amount of land converted per person may be
influenced by Minnesota’s shrinking household size. As
baby boomers age, more people are living in one-person
or two-person households instead of larger families.21 With
more people living in smaller households, the number of
households increases. The combination of both a growing
and aging population will result in a substantial increase
in households—the number of households in Minnesota is
projected to grow 40% between 2000 and 2030.22 The
number of households will put corresponding pressure on
the number of housing units, and in most areas of
Minnesota housing units are increasing faster than
population.
We not only have more people and more households, but
are also using more land per person. In 1982, the average
urban land use per 1,000 urban residents in Minnesota
was 0.6 square miles per 1,000 urban residents.23
From 1982 to 1997, the growth in urban lands was
about 1.0 square mile per 1,000 urban residents.24
In the seven-county metropolitan area, agricultural and
undeveloped lands declined by 140,624 acres between
1990 and 2000, whereas parks, preserves and recreation
lands increased by only 36,527 acres, for a net loss of over
100,000 acres of open space.25 This trend is expected to
continue with the amount of developed land continuing to
outpace the amount of protected land through 2020.26
Development Trends in the Twin Cities
Acres (in hundreds of thousands)
2. More households using more land
16
14
12
12.7
14.0
10.6
10
8
7.4
6
5.2
4
2
3.9
0
1990
2000
Developed Land
2020
Undeveloped Land
As developed land increases in the Twin Cities, opportunities to conserve natural land decreases.
Based on Metropolitan Council’s Land Use layers from 1990, 2000, and Regional Planned Land Use,
which is a compilation of comprehensive plans from townships and municipalities.
Source: DNR Strategic Conservation Agenda, 2003 - 2007
A traditional feature of the Minnesota landscape, the
family farm, is fast disappearing. A 1999 study found
that an amount of farmland equivalent to a “new Mall of
America” was being lost every day to urban uses in the
13-county metropolitan area. 27
Taken together, these statistics underscore a trend that
Minnesota must confront creatively—the escalating
consumption of open space, recreation land and farmland.
16 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “1997 National Resources Inventory: State Rankings by Acreage and Rate of Non-Federal Land Developed.” Natural Resources Conservation Service Website. Revised
December 2000. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/tables/t5845.html.
17 U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “National Resources Inventory 2001 Annual NRI: Urbanization and Development of Rural Land.” Natural Resources Conservation Service Website. 2002.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri01/nri01dev.html.
18 Kelly, Tim, Observations on Urban Land Use Change in Minnesota, 1982 to 1992 & Projections of Urban Land Needs to 2025. MN Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of Management and Budget Services, St. Paul, MN: June 1999.
(Applying NRI data.)
19 See Kelly, Observations on Urban Land Use Change, p. 7 (projections updated with 2000 U.S. Census Population figures).
20 County acreages from U.S. Census Bureau, “Factfinder: State and County Quick Facts.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. December 2005. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/minnesota_map.html.
21 Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. Minnesota Household Projections, 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: Dec. 2003. http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/HouseholdProjections2003.pdf.
22 Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. Minnesota Household Projections, 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: Dec. 2003. http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/HouseholdProjections2003.pdf.
23 Kelly, Observations on Urban Land Use, p. 5. (Aapplying NRI data.)
24 Kelly, Observations on Urban Land Use, p. 5 (updated with 1997 NRI data—see footnote 19).
25 Metropolitan Council. “Land Use in the Twin Cities Region.” Metropolitan Council Website. December 2005. http://gis.metc.state.mn.us/landuse2k/tables.asp?y=y90&c=1.
26 DNR, Strategic Conservation Agenda 2003-2007, p. 15.
27 University of Minnesota Extension Service. “New Study: More Farmland Being Lost to Urban Uses.” University of Minnesota Extension Service Website. July 1999.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/newsletters/sustainableagriculture/FD1052.html.
| 15
3.More pressure on lakes, forests
and scenic areas
For many years, conventional wisdom has held that the
majority of Minnesota’s population increase will occur in
the “growth corridor” immediately surrounding the Twin
Cities metropolitan area. In recent years, however, it has
become clear that this growth corridor is expanding far
beyond the traditional seven-county metropolitan region.
Rapid growth is occurring in areas beyond normal
commuting distance to the Twin Cities. In particular,
counties with lakes and forests are increasingly seeing
substantial population pressure.
From 1980 to 2000, the populations of 14 Minnesota
counties grew by more than 30%—Anoka, Benton, Carver,
Chisago, Crow Wing, Dakota, Hubbard, Isanti, Olmsted,
Pine, Scott, Sherburne, Washington and Wright. Two
counties—Cass and Roseau—fell just shy of the 30%
growth mark with population increases of 29%.28 By
2030, all of these counties except Roseau will grow
another 30% or more, and another nine will see growth
rates exceeding 30%—Aitkin, Cook, Dodge, Douglas,
Kanabec, Mille Lacs, Otter Tail, Rice, and Stearns.29
Demographic research shows that across the country
more and more people are moving to non-metropolitan
counties, especially counties rich in natural amenities.
Retirement, technologies that facilitate working from a
distance, increased disposable income, and second home
ownership will dramatically increase population pressure
in scenic areas where outdoor recreation opportunities are
plentiful.30 These dramatic increases will alter the
character of these counties and require additional resources
to support new water, sewer, roads and other services.
In Minnesota, areas with lakes, rivers and forests are
particularly likely to see an influx of these “amenity
migrants.”31 The impact of these location changes is
already being felt in Minnesota’s lake counties. For
example, in the 30 years between 1960 and 1990, Cass
and Crow Wing counties grew by approximately 30%; in
the thirty years between 2000 and 2030, growth in these
counties is projected to explode by over 60%.32
The Brainerd lakes area has been growing so fast that it
has emerged as one of the nations’ fastest growing
“micropolitans.”33 The two-county area around Brainerd
attracted more than 4,000 new residents from 2000 to
Minnesota Population by County
1970 Population
2000 Population
2030 Population
Projection
Less than 10,000
10,000 to 20,000
20,000 to 30,000
30,000 to 50,000
More than 50,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; MN Planning, State Demographic Center.
28 Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center, “Census 2000: MN Population Change by County, 1980-2000,”Minnesota State Demographic Center Website. March 2005.
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/Cen2000redistricting/Cen00ctypopr.html.
29 Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. Minnesota Household Projections, 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: Dec. 2003. p. 10-11. http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/00Proj/PopulationProjections02Intro.pdf.
30 Johnson, K.M. and C. L. Beale. 2002. “Nonmetro Recreation Counties: Their Identification and Rapid Growth.” Rural America 17(4): 12-19; McGranahan, D.A. 1999. “Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change.” Agricultural
Economic Report No. 781. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.; Stewart, S.I. 2002. “Amenity Migration.” In: Luft, K.; MacDonald, S., comps. Trends 2000: Shaping the Future, 5th Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium, 2000 September 17-20, Lansing, MI. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University: 369-378.
31 Radeloff, V.C., R.B. Hammer, P.R. Voss, A.E. Hagen, D.R. Field, and D.J. Mladenoff. 2001. “Human Demographic Trends and Landscape Level Forest Management in the Northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens.” Forest Science 47(2): 229-241.
32 U.S. Census Bureau, “Historic Population and Housing Unit Counts” U.S. Census Website December 2005 http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html and Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center.
Minnesota’s Population Projections 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: October 2002.
33 U.S. Census Bureau. “2004 Population Estimates for Micropolitan and Metropolitan Statistical Areas.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. December 2005. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/Estimates%20pages_final.html
Also, “Brainerd big player among resort cities.” Star Tribune. 22 Sept. 2005.
16
|
2003 alone, making it the fourth fastest growing mini
metro area in the Midwest and the 28th nationally.34
This population increase in counties outside the metro
will bring a coinciding increase in housing units. The U.S.
Forest Service, North Central Region (in partnership with
the University of Wisconsin) has mapped the increase in
housing units across the state from 1970 to 2000, and
the projected increase from 2000 to 2030. These maps
Low-density development in forested areas also has a
negative impact on timber harvests and on access to
hunting. It has been shown that increases in housing
density lead to decreases in timber harvests, even in
sparsely populated areas.36 Because state law prohibits
hunting within 500 feet of a residence, construction of a
new home can have a shadow effect by limiting hunting
on nearby lands.
Minnesota Housing Density
Housing Density 1970
Housing Density 2000
Housing Density 2030*
*Linear projection of 1990s growth
Copyright 2003 R.B. Hammer and V.C. Radeloff, University of Wisconsin-Madison (used with permission)
demonstrate that in many non-metro counties, and
especially the northern and central lakes counties, new
housing development will spread farther and farther into
previously rural areas.
Although much of this development pressure may involve
low-density housing in which residences are widely spread
on larger lots, such development nonetheless raises
serious concerns for local communities. While development
can bring an increase in local property tax revenue,
studies have shown that growth does not pay for the
additional costs of services incurred by local government.35
Moreover, each new housing unit adds impervious
surfaces to the watershed, fragments wildlife habitat, and
may introduce invasive species through landscaping.
Another result of the increasing demand for property in
resource-rich areas is that land prices have soared,
pushing new buyers to look to ever more remote and
sensitive areas in search of affordable property. The cost
of land in many parts of Minnesota has risen dramatically
in recent years, in large part due to second home
development and an increasing market for recreation land
or investment properties as baby boomers near
retirement.37 In 2004, the National Association of
Realtors found that 36% of all homes purchased were
second homes.38
Land costs in areas within three hours of the Twin Cities
(such as the Brainerd Lakes area) have increased
dramatically for some time. As these areas become more
34 U.S. Census Bureau. “2004 Population Estimates for Micropolitan and Metropolitan Statistical Areas.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. December 2005. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/Estimates%20pages_final.html.
Also, “Brainerd big player among resort cities.” Star Tribune. 22 Sept 2005.
35 American Farmland Trust, “Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies.” Washington, D.C.: November 2002. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_11-02.pdf.
36 Gobster, Paul and Robert Haight, Landscapes to Lots: Understanding and Managing Midwestern Landscape Change. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station St. Paul, MN: 2004.
http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc245.pdf
37 “Subdividing the North Country.” Star Tribune. 16 Oct. 2005.
38 “Second Homes/Vacation Homes and Investment Property Now 1/3 of Market,” Mortgage News Daily, 2004. at http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/382005_Second_Homes.asp.
| 17
The demand for recreation land and lakeshore is pushing
the market farther and farther from metro areas. The area
near Ely in northern St. Louis County—225 miles from
the Twin Cities—was once considered too far a drive for
most vacation homebuyers. Now, however, the area is one
of the hottest real estate markets in the country.40 In
2003, the Ely area was identified in a nationwide survey
as one of the top ten emerging second home markets.41
Lake Vermillion, named by National Geographic in the
1940s as one of the nation’s ten most scenic lakes, is
expected to see 600-700 new single-family homes and
500 home expansions in the next 20 years.42
Another effect of population pressures in lake and
forest counties and the increasing demand for recreation
property is that average Minnesotans are being priced
out of some of the state’s traditional recreational
opportunities. What was once public land or open space
is now becoming privately owned or privately leased land.
Opportunities for outdoor recreation may increasingly be
too expensive or too far away for many Minnesota families.
The rising cost of land
The demand for recreation land has pushed up the
cost of lakeshore, even on small, shallow lakes,
undeveloped forestland, and farmland. In its 2005
Property Value and Assessment Practices Report, the
Minnesota Department of Revenue found that in the
Northwest region of the state, “smaller undeveloped
or semi-developed lakes that are in the ‘recreational
belt’ in the region are continuing to experience
pressure for more development as some prospective
buyers are priced out of more popular lakes and
search out more affordable lakeshore. Interestingly,
some of these lakes offer no recreational use other
than a building site with a view of water.” The
Department also found that demand for non-lakeshore
recreational property was strong in every northern
region of the state, and noted in particular that land
values in the Arrowhead region “…skyrocketed this
year. Land in Lake and Cook Counties increased
30-50%. Acreages of 30-40 acres or more are
routinely selling for $2000-$3000/acre.”
Median Nominal Sale Price Per Acre of
Minnesota Forestland, 1989-2003
$1,200
$1,000
$ Per Acre
expensive, buyers are looking to more remote or smaller
lakes for waterfront property. In its 2005 Property Value
and Assessment Practices Report, the Minnesota
Department of Revenue found that, while market values
appear to have stabilized on large well-known lakes such
as Gull Lake and the Whitefish Chain near Brainerd,
“(d)evelopment continues to spread to ‘new’ bodies of
water, and smaller and smaller lakes are showing signs of
significant value.”39
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
1989
1991 1993 1995
1997
1999
2001 2003
Source: Kilgore, Michael A. and Donald G. Mackay. “Trends in Minnesota’s Forest Land Real Estate Market:
Potential Implications for Forest Land Uses.” Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 2006 (in press.)
In addition, a recent study of 8,000 sales of
Minnesota forest land revealed that from 1989 to
2003, the median sale price of forest land increased,
on average, 13 percent per year in nominal terms.
The cost of agricultural land has also increased
substantially, primarily due to demand for recreational
uses. From 2003 to 2004 the average per acre value
of farmland in Minnesota increased by 12.5 percent,
the largest increase in the nation.
39 Minn. Dept of Revenue, Property Tax Division. 2005 Property Values and Assessment Practices Report,
Assessment Year 2004. St. Paul MN: March 2005.
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/property/other_supporting_content/assessment_report_2005.pdf.
40 “A Vanishing Lifestyle: for real estate buyers, a lake once considered remote is now right on the beaten
path.” Star Tribune. 5 June 2005.
41 “Top 10 Emerging Second Home Markets.” Realty Times. 15 April 2003.
42 “A Vanishing Lifestyle: for real estate buyers, a lake once considered remote is now right on the beaten
path.” Star Tribune. 5 June 2005.
18
|
Sources: “2005 Property Values and Assessment Practices Report (assessment year 2004),” Minn. Dept
of Revenue, Property Tax Division (March 2005), U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistics
Service “Land Values and Cash Rents.” (2004).
4. Historic shifts in
corporate land ownership
Forestland ownership in the United States and Minnesota
is in the midst of an unprecedented change. Until
recently, forest products companies held the majority of
large private forests. These companies held these lands
for long periods of time in order to assure a stream of
available wood and pulp for their mills. The privatelyowned industry lands were largely open to public hunting
and were often adjacent to public lands. These lands
helped to preserve large blocks of timberland, as they
were primarily managed for long-term gain rather than
short-term profits. This protected both a base for jobs in
forest products industries, and extensive wildlife habitats
valuable for hunting, fishing and other recreation.
Forest Industry Holdings
by selling developable land in which real estate values are
greater than long-term timber values.44 This is beginning
to fragment and ultimately will destroy formerly unbroken
tracts of high-quality forestland—habitat for many
valuable wildlife species.
In Minnesota, timber transactions have resulted in a
dramatic shift in ownership from industry owners to
TIMOs. In December 2004, Boise Cascade sold 2.2
million acres of forestland—including 300,000 acres in
Minnesota—to Forest Capital Partners for $1.65 billion.45
Approximately 400,000 acres of Minnesota forestland
have been sold since 1998.46 Given the trends seen in
other states, it is likely that many of these forest acres
will be subdivided and sold. Wolfwood, one TIMO with
Minnesota holdings, currently has 27,000 acres for sale
in small parcels.47
Increased low-cost competition in forest products is
forcing some forest industry companies to find other ways
to maximize profits on their lands. Potlatch Corporation
manages 315,000 of its Minnesota acres as real estate.
Of these, 100,000 acres are leased as hunting land to
private individuals, and approximately 1,400 acres are
currently for sale.48
Forest Products Industry
Public Land
Forested Land (NLCD, USGS)
Source: GAP Program Minnesota Stewardship Data.
USGS 1992 National Land Cover Data.
With the exception of Alaska and Hawaii, just six states
account for 60 percent of the large, relatively undisturbed
forest blocks remaining in the United States. Minnesota is
the only state east of the Rocky Mountains to make the
list.43 But the timber industry has been liquidating its
land assets, often selling to Timberland Investment
Management Organizations (TIMOs) that maximize return
The pressure to maximize profit from their northern land
holdings has led other corporate owners to subdivide and
sell their forestland. Minnesota Power is currently halfway
through selling 26,000 acres of its 30,000 acres in St.
Louis, Cook and Lake Counties for cabin sites.49 U.S.
Steel sold 800,000 acres of mineral rights and surface
acres, but retained 3,000 acres along the east end of
Lake Vermillion near Soudan State Park. The company
plans to develop 140 lots along more than 5 miles of
shoreline and back lots.50
Combined, these land transactions represent one of the
most dramatic shifts in land ownership in a century.
They raise numerous concerns, including loss of public
access to lands previously open to public recreation,
fragmentation of wildlife habitat, and loss of jobs
dependent on timber harvesting in Minnesota.
43 Data received from The Nature Conservancy, December, 2005.
44 Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Institutional Timberland Investment: Summary of a Forum Exploring Changing Ownership Patterns and the Implications for Conservation of Environmental Values.” Yale Forest
Forum. 5: 2, 2002. See also “Land Sales. ” Forest Capital Partners Website at http://www.forestcap.com/landsale/index.htm.
45 “Boise Cascade to sell 2.2 million acres to Forest Capital for $1.65 billion.” Paper Loop. 21 December 2004. http://www.paperloop.com/inside/stories/wk12_20_2004/41.html.
46 Minnesota Forest Resources Council presentation, September, 2005.
47 Minnesota Forest Resources Council presentation, September, 2005.
48 Minnesota Forest Resources Council presentation, September, 2005. See “Minnesota Land Opportunities.” Potlatch Corporation Website. December 2005. http://www.pchlandsales.com/mnlands/
49 See “Minnesota Power Real Estate Sales.” Minnesota Power Website. December 2005. http://www.mpland.com/index2.htm.
50 “Subdividing the North Country.” Star Tribune. 16 Oct. 2005.
| 19
5. Increasing public demand
for outdoor recreation
As Minnesota’s population continues to grow, increasing
numbers of people use our recreation lands. As noted
above, population increases in the last 20 years have
outpaced increases in public lands, leading to fewer acres
per person of lands for outdoor recreation. And the
pressure on public recreation lands is compounded by the
loss of industry lands traditionally open to public hunting.
that while the number of hours per person may decrease
somewhat primarily due to higher numbers of people over
age 65, overall population growth in the state will result
in increasing demand for outdoor recreation.
Projected Outdoor Recreation
Demand for 2025
Minnesotans have always taken great advantage of the
state’s outdoor recreation opportunities, and this demand
for places to recreate will continue. The 2004 Outdoor
Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans,
conducted by the Department of Natural Resources,
found that 82% of Minnesotans consider outdoor
recreation to be very or moderately important to their
lives.51 The survey found that the vast majority (89%) of
outdoor recreation by Minnesotans occurs within the
state. The most popular outdoor activities are:
Activity
Walking and hiking
Boating of all types
Swimming
Scenic driving
Picnicking
Fishing
Biking
Camping
Nature observation
Percent of
Minnesotans Participating
54%
43%
41%
37%
36%
30%
29%
26%
25%
Source: DNR Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey
Based on the participation rates identified in the
recreation survey, the Department of Natural Resources
also recently released a report on the ten-year forecast for
outdoor recreation in Minnesota.52 This report finds that
by 2014, overall hours of outdoor recreation by
Minnesotans will increase by 8 to 14%.53 The report finds
Source: MN State Park System Land Study.
A study of existing state park facilities found that parks
within a 30-mile radius of population centers and within
30 miles of other tourist destinations will see the most
pressure in the coming decades.54
Increasing population, increasing demand for outdoor
recreation, and a shrinking base of land to support it raise
the specter of intolerable stress on our natural resources
and conflicts between competing uses. These pressures
will increasingly tax the quality of Minnesota’s
environment and quality of life.
51 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans: Report on Findings. St. Paul, MN: January 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_report.pdf.
52 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ten-Year Forecasts of Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Participation, 2004-2014. St. Paul, MN: July, 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/ten_year_rec_forecast.pdf.
53 Ibid.
54 University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota State Park System Land Study. St. Paul, MN: April 2000.
20
|
B. DESPITE CONSERVATION EFFORTS, MINNESOTA IS ON THE BRINK OF IRREVERSIBLE LOSSES.
What are some of the crown jewels we are at risk of
losing? Despite its historic commitment to natural
resources protection, Minnesota is facing imminent,
irreversible change to much of its outdoor heritage.
Minnesota’s traditional landscapes and wildlife habitats
are in fragile condition and are not prepared to meet the
challenges ahead. Wetlands and northern forest acres
have been lost at an alarming rate and the fish, wildlife
and plant populations that depend on these habitats are
in parallel decline.
At the time of statehood, Minnesota’s forests covered
31.5 million acres—over half the state. Writer John
Wesley Bond observed in 1853 that Minnesota’s
“extensive pine and hardwood forests [are] apparently
inexhaustible for centuries.”55 By 1953, however,
Minnesota’s forests were reduced to 19.3 million acres
and by 2002, to 16.3 million acres.56 In the central part
of the state, a vast maple basswood forest, known as the
“Big Woods,” once extended from St. Cloud to Mankato.
The Big Woods originally comprised 3,000 square miles—
1.9 million acres; now, only 5 to 10 thousand acres remain.57
Minnesota has lost an estimated 42 percent of its original
16 million wetland acres to drainage or fill operations.62
The loss of wetlands is most severe in the prairie regions
of the state. Approximately 80% of prairie wetlands have
disappeared, and in the southwestern area of the state,
losses are as high as 99%.63
The loss of this forest, prairie, and wetland habitat has
led to the decline of many wildlife and plant species
originally abundant in the state. Of the nearly 1,200
known wildlife species in Minnesota, 292 species—
nearly one-fourth—are at risk because they are rare, their
populations are declining or they face serious risks of
decline due to loss of habitat.64 The list of species at
risk includes every type of wildlife species—from game
species such as bluebills and sharp-tailed grouse, to
non-game species such as the common loon and the
Blanding’s turtle. Almost 200 of the state’s more than
2,400 native plant species are listed as endangered,
threatened or of special concern.65
Minnesota’s northern forests have
particularly suffered from the loss of old
growth stands and from the loss of the white
pine component that once characterized
them. Prior to settlement, 50% of
Minnesota’s forests were old growth; now
less than 4% remain.58 Despite repeated
efforts to re-establish the white pine
component, only about 67,000 acres of
white pine existed as of 1996.59
The loss of Minnesota’s prairies is even more
drastic. Minnesota’s prairies once comprised
nearly 20 million acres, extending from
the borders of Iowa and Wisconsin in the
southeast to North Dakota and Manitoba in
the northwest.60 Less than 1% of this native
prairie remains.61
© TPL
55 Bond, John Wesley. Minnesota and its resources, Notes of a trip from St. Paul to Pembina. Redfield, New York: 1853.
56 DNR, Strategic Conservation Agenda 2003-2007, p. 70.
57 Dunnevitz, Hannah, Statistics on Minnesota’s Loss of Diversity. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources: St. Paul, MN: August, 1996.
58 DNR, Strategic Conservation Agenda 2003-2007. See also Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, The Forest Legacy Program In Minnesota: Statewide Assessment of Needs. Paul, MN: September, 1999, p. 26.
59 DNR, The Forest Legacy Program In Minnesota, p. 26.
60 Tester, John R., Minnesota’s Natural Heritage: An Ecological Perspective. University of Minnesota Press, St. Paul, MN: 1995, p. 132
61 Tester, Minnesota’s Natural Heritage.
62 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Plan, Version 1.2. St. Paul, MN: 1997. Spieles, Douglas J. Ph.D. The Prairie Wetlands of Southwest Minnesota. Southwest State University: January, 2000.
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscience/casestudies/case8.mhtml
63 Tester, Minnesota’s Natural Heritage, p. 162.
64 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. St. Paul, MN: 2005. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/strategy.html
65 Pfannmuller, Lee and Barbara Coffin, The Uncommon Ones: Minnesota’s Endangered Plants and Animals. Dept. of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: 1989, p. 4.
| 21
Minnesota wildlife and plant species at risk
sharp-tailed grouse
boreal owl
© CRAIG BORCK
northern pintail
lesser scaup
piping plover
trumpeter swan
© CRAIG BORCK
western prairie fringed orchid
© REBECCA
EKSTEIN/U.S. FISH &
WILDLIFE SERVICE
dwarf trout lily
red-headed woodpecker
© BRIAN WINTER/TNC
© BRIAN WINTER/TNC
elk
western Jacob’s Ladder
© TNC
Blanding’s turtle
© MN DNR
wood turtle
© JIM GINDORFF
Above are some of the more well-known Minnesota wildlife and plant species at risk. Of course, many species have
already been extirpated from Minnesota—they are not extinct, but no longer exist in the wild in Minnesota. Animal species
extirpated from Minnesota include the brown bear, the American bison, the whooping crane, long-billed curlews, and
McGowan’s longspurs.66 Two species—the American Elk and the trumpeter swan—were extirpated at one time, but have
been reintroduced to the wild, although the small populations currently surviving in Minnesota are highly fragile.
66 Sources: Dunnevitz, H. Statistics on Minnesota’s Loss of Diversity (August 1996), DNR, Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005), Pfannmueller and Coffin, Uncommon Ones (1989)
22
|
The challenges created by new population pressures, land consumption and
use patterns will seriously threaten our natural resources. In particular, six
damaging trends are likely to continue:
1. Loss of critical wetlands
The Upper Midwest including Minnesota is described as being one of the most
important wetland regions in the world because of its numerous shallow lakes
and marshes, rich soils,
and warm summers.67
Wetlands are critical
habitat for waterfowl and
other wildlife species, and
also absorb surges of rain,
snowmelt, and floodwaters
thereby reducing the risk
and severity of downstream
flooding.68 Despite passage
of the state Wetland
Conservation Act in 1991, © TNC
the state continues to lose
wetlands because of exemptions in the act to the ban on wetland destruction,
inadequate enforcement, and relentless development pressures.
Some of the most severe losses of wetlands are in the “prairie pothole” region
of the state. Prairie potholes are depressional wetlands that fill with snowmelt and
rain in the spring. Some prairie pothole marshes are temporary, while others may
be essentially permanent.69 Potholes are particularly important for migratory
waterfowl—although the North American pothole region contains only about 10
percent of the waterfowl nesting habitat on the continent, it produces 50 to 75
percent of all North American waterfowl.70
Wetlands 1860
Loss of wetlands
A recent study of the Redwood
River watershed basin in
southwestern Minnesota highlights
the continued loss of wetland
acres. In 2003, as part of a
multi-agency project to develop
a Comprehensive Wetland
Assessment, Monitoring and
Mapping Strategy, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
scientists conducted a probabilistic
survey of wetlands in the Redwood
River watershed. The primary
objective of the study was to assess
the condition of the wetlands
on a watershed scale. However, in
selecting the sites to be studied,
the MPCA found that substantial
numbers of wetlands had been lost
since 1980.
The Redwood River watershed
spans about 700 square miles.
The watershed includes major parts
of Lyon and Redwood counties
and lesser parts of Lincoln,
Pipestone and Murray counties.
The watershed is characteristic of
the state’s western prairie pothole
region, which has a rich waterfowl
hunting tradition.
Wetlands 1981
LEGEND
Peat soil wetlands
Mineral soil wetlands
Upland areas
Deep water areas
The MPCA study compared
wetlands identified by the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
(conducted in the early 1980s) to
more current satellite images and
the results of field reconnaissance.
The preliminary results of the
study, which will be finalized in
February 2006, show that, overall,
about half of the “depressional”
wetlands—those not found along
creeks and rivers—have
disappeared since the early 1980s.
Source: DNR Wetlands Conservation Plan, Version 1.2, 1997.
67 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Wetlands: Prairie Potholes,” EPA Website. Oct. 2005. http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/types/pothole.html
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Spieles, Douglas J. Ph.D. The Prairie Wetlands of Southwest Minnesota. Southwest State University: January, 2000.
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscience/casestudies/case8.mhtml.
Source: MPCA, Preliminary Data, Comprehensive Wetland Strategy.
2005.
| 23
In 1991, Governor Arne Carlson signed the Wetland
Conservation Act in response to public concern over
Minnesota’s disappearing wetlands. The act established a
goal of no net loss in the quality, quantity or biological
diversity of Minnesota’s wetlands. Recent studies,
however, have indicated that the state continues to lose
wetlands.71 The Board of Water and Soil Resources, in a
report issued in 2005, found that from 2001-2003, there
was a net loss of 456 wetland acres per year when
counting acres impacted through exemptions, regulated
impacts, and required mitigation. The report concluded:
After more than a decade of a comprehensive
wetland regulatory program in Minnesota, we are still
unable to fully and accurately ascertain whether the
no-net-loss directive has in fact been met, much less
whether the state is making significant strides toward
increasing the quantity, quality, or biological diversity
of Minnesota’s wetlands.72
.
2. Loss of undeveloped shoreline especially
on shallow and sensitive lakes
Nothing defines Minnesota more than its extraordinary
number of lakes and rivers. But a combination of amenity
migration, increasing demand for second homes, and
rising land prices is pushing the relentless demand for
lakeshore development to ever more remote areas and to
shallower and more environmentally sensitive lakes and
rivers. This continued pressure for shoreline development
is permanently changing the face of many of Minnesota’s
lakes and rivers.
© METROPOLITAN DESIGN CENTER, U OF M
© JOHN R. BORCHERT/MAP LIBRARY, U OF M
A study by the University of Minnesota based on 2003
county tax information estimated that there are between
200,000 and 225,000 lake homes on the 11,842 lakes
of over 10 acres in Minnesota. Of these, 180,000 are on
fisheries lakes. About half of all lakeshore homes are
seasonal residences, and 75% are located on less than
200 feet of frontage.73
While Minnesota does not conduct regular surveys of the
number of lakeshore homes, a 1998 study of Itasca
County tax records showed a 31% increase in lakeshore
development between 1992 and 1998.74 A recent study
of historical aerial photos of north central lakes found
that since 1996 all lake classes had significant increases
in the number of docks per kilometer of lakeshore
indicating continued increases in the number of
developed lots.75
Lakeshore development is often related to a loss of
aquatic vegetation, which has a negative impact on fish
populations and lake quality. The Department of Natural
Resources has found that for every developed shoreline
lot, there is an average 66% reduction in aquatic
vegetation compared to undeveloped conditions.76 These
declines in aquatic vegetation coincide with lower fish
production in lakes.77
71 “Minnesota still losing wetlands.” St. Paul Pioneer Press. 18 January 2005.
72 Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2001-2003 Minnesota Wetland Report. St. Paul, MN: August, 2005 , p. 51 http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/publications/wetlandreport.pdf.
73 Schroeder, S. Payton, M.A. and Fulton, D.C. Aquatic Plant Management Landowner Study - Introduction and Study Overview. University of Minnesota, Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation
Biology: St. Paul MN: December 2004. p. 4. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/apm/review_reports/05c.pdf.
74 Kelly, Tim and Joe Stinchfield. Lakeshore Development Patterns in Northeast Minnesota: Status and Trends. MN Department of Natural Resources, Office and Management and Budget Services, St. Paul, MN: July, 1998. p. 5.
75 Radomski, Paul. Historical Changes in Abundance of Floating Leaf and emergent Vegetation in Minnesota Lakes. Minn. Dept of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: April 2005. (Figure 1)
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/apm/review_reports/historical_changes.pdf.
76 Radomski, Paul and Timothy Goeman. “Consequences of Human Lakeshore Development on Emergent and Floating Leaf Vegetation Abundance,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21:46-61 (2001) at
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/apm/review_reports/12.pdf.
77 Radomski and Goeman, “Consequences of Human Lakeshore Development.”
24
|
Shallow Lake Development
Vegetation Loss by Lake Type
There are more than 5,000 shallow lakes in Minnesota.
While all lakes provide important fish and wildlife habitat,
shallow lakes less than 15 feet deep and characterized by
rich aquatic plant growth are a critical niche. The
abundance of aquatic vegetation in these lakes, which
requires both nutrients and sunlight to thrive, provides
excellent food and habitat for a wide variety of waterfowl
and other wildlife.
25
Plant Cover Lost (%)
Natural Environment
20
15
10
5
0
25
20
Recreational Development
There is increasing demand to develop shoreline property
on these shallow lakes, as larger lakes are fully developed
and rising land values make lakeshore on more desirable
lakes too expensive for many second home buyers. Demand
for shoreline on these lakes has continued to increase
despite the fact that many of these lakes have limited
recreational value because their shallow depth and thick
aquatic plant vegetation limits boat motors and because
winter fish kills are common in the shallow waters.
15
10
5
0
25
20
General Development
15
10
5
0
1939
1955
1960
1969
1978
1989
1996
2003
Time Period
Source: Radomski, Paul. Historical Changes in Abundance of Floating Leaf and emergent Vegetation in
Minnesota Lakes. Minn. Dept of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: April 2005.
As a result, more and more lots are being developed on
shallow lakes around the state. One such shallow lake is
DeHart Lake in Hubbard County. DeHart Lake is classified
as a natural environment lake consisting of 32 acres with
an average depth of less than six feet. Mostly a wetland,
it may have a small fish population, but is subject to
winter kills due to its shallow depth. While recreational
opportunities are limited, the lake is important habitat for
waterfowl, including trumpeter swans, and has an active
eagle’s nest.
In addition, lakeshore development increases the amount
of paved or impervious surface in the watershed, which
increases runoff into lakes
Minnesota’s Shallow Lakes
and rivers. As the percentage
of land covered with asphalt
and concrete increases,
runoff increases and
transports more pollutants
into lakes and streams.78
Recent research has found
that once the impervious
surfaces exceed about 8% of
a watershed, streams, rivers
and lakes begin to lose their
ability to support species
Shallow Lakes (DNR)
requiring high water quality.79
78 Tester, Minnesota’s Natural Heritage, p. 229.
79 Wang, Lizhu, John Lyons, Paul Kanehl, Roger
Bannerman, “Impacts of Urbanization on Stream
Habitat and fish across Multiple Spatial scales,
Environmental Management 28 (2):255-266 (2001).
Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Minnesota Shallow Lakes Program.
In 2004, a 15-lot subdivision was
proposed on Dehart Lake. A sign on
nearby Highway 71 advertises the lots
as potential home sites. Priced between
$25,000 and $30,000, four of these
lots have already been sold and a home
has been constructed on one. While the
impact of this development on the
lake’s water quality and wildlife habitat
remains to be seen, development in
almost all cases increases the amount
of runoff from impervious surfaces,
increases the likelihood of the
introduction of invasive species, limits
the adjacent upland habitat, and
results in loss of natural shoreline
vegetation that protects the water
quality of these lakes.
Source: Hubbard County Website Plat Maps.
| 25
3. Declining water quality in
lakes and rivers
Increasing urbanization and polluted runoff are damaging
Minnesota’s surface waters. Of the small number of lakes
and rivers tested (just 8% of our rivers and 14% of our
lakes) by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),
40% are found to be
polluted and do not meet
water quality standards. In
2006, MPCA is proposing
to add 166 new lakes and
97 new river stretches to its
impaired or polluted list,
bringing the total to 1,082
impaired lakes and 296
impaired rivers.80
© MN PCA
As new lakes and rivers are assessed, this number will
continue to rise toward 10,000 impairments as estimated
by the DNR. These impairments threaten Minnesotans in
many ways: our health (swimming in or drinking polluted
waters can cause sickness); our recreation (advisories
warn against eating contaminated fish); and our economy
(permits for nearby farming,
wastewater and other business
Minnesota’s
activities cannot be approved
until the lake or river has a
clean up plan). Despite all
that, Minnesota lags behind
other states in its response to
cleaning up polluted waters.
The Minnesota River is often
considered one of the most
polluted rivers in the state and
has been the focus of
concerted clean-up efforts. The
river is contaminated with large
amounts of nutrient run-off and
studies have indicated that the
Minnesota River basin delivers
up to 5% of the nation’s
contribution to the “dead zone”
in the Gulf of Mexico caused
by pollution. In the fall of 1992,
Gov. Arne Carlson
issued a challenge to
make the Minnesota
River fishable and
swimmable by 2002.
In 2002, the MPCA
looked at 30 years of
data on the Minnesota
to measure progress. The MPCA found that although
progress had been made in reducing sediment and
phosphorus loads, nitrogen is increasing. Also, from 1990
to 2001, there had been “little or no improvement in
stream biological condition as measured by fish
community structure.” The river has not yet achieved
fishable/swimmable status—89 reaches of the river are
still on the PCA’s impaired waters list.81
Minnesota’s trout streams are also a particular concern
because sediments can quickly degrade the conditions
needed for trout populations. A study of six North Shore
streams found that total phosphorus loads and total
suspended solids were greatest at the southern end of
the shore and were likely due to a combination of natural
watershed variation
Impaired Waters
and land use changes
such as increased
urbanization.
Phosphorus loads
and suspended solids
increased two-fold and
six-fold, respectively,
between two monitoring
sites bracketing a
developed site on
the Poplar River.
Comparison with
historical data from
the 1970s showed a
decline in water quality
in the streams.82
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2006.
Minnesota’s Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads.
URL = http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/tmd./index.html
80 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2004 303 (d) List: Cover letter. St. Paul MN: 2005. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/tmdl-coverletter-04.pdf.
81 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Minnesota Water Priorities: 2003-2005. St. Paul, MN: February, 2003.
82 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Water Quality Assessment of Trout Streams on Lake Superior’s North Shore.” MPCA Environmental Bulletins, August, 2004, No. 2.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/environmentalbulletin/environmentalbulletin-0404.pdf.
26
|
4. Fragmentation of forests
and prairies
Fragmentation and parcelization into
multiple ownerships present serious
concerns for Minnesota’s remaining forest
and prairie habitats. Fragmentation disrupts
ecological processes and reduces the
availability of habitats for some wildlife
species. Fragmented areas may be too
small to maintain viable breeding
populations of some species. The distances
between and among habitat fragments can
interfere with pollination, seed dispersal,
wildlife movement and breeding. Excessive
fragmentation can contribute to the loss of
plant and animal species that are unable to
re-colonize.
Aggregate Mining and Native Prairie
By the mid 20th century, nearly all of the tall grass prairie that once
dominated western Minnesota was cleared for farming— today less
than 1% of Minnesota’s original prairie survives. The few prairie
remnants that escaped the plow were typically areas considered too
steep or rocky to farm. One such area is eastern Clay County, where
the ancient beach ridges of Glacial Lake Agassiz left the soil sandier
than and not as rich as the soil in the Red River Valley to the west.
The surviving prairies on these “beach ridges” are some of the best
remaining examples of native prairie in Minnesota.
Located just east of Felton, Minnesota, the Felton Prairie complex is
one of the gems of these beach ridge prairies. As far back as the
1950s, Felton Prairie captured the attention of wildlife managers,
with one DNR wildlife supervisor noting that,
“Felton Prairie … is a spectacular prairie with well exposed remnants
of the shorelines of Glacial Lake Agassiz and portions of the pioneer
wagon trail still plainly visible. From the high ridges there is a fine
view westward out across the floor of the Red River Valley.”
A portion of the Felton Prairie was first dedicated as a Wildlife
Management Area in 1953, and since then, a number of other
parcels, representing approximately a third of the prairie, have been
protected as wildlife management areas or scientific and natural
areas. Unfortunately, Felton Prairie, like many surviving native
prairies, also sits on top of significant gravel deposits. The beach
ridges contain the best source of gravel and construction aggregate in
the region. This construction aggregate is a critical resource for road
construction and maintenance, and as the Fargo/Moorhead
metropolitan area continues to grow, the demand for construction
aggregate from the beach ridges is expected to continue.
© TPL
Parcelization—the subdivision of larger
blocks of land into multiple smaller
ownerships—often leads to fragmentation
of use and management and is a particular
threat to forest tracts. As discussed above,
escalating land values have led to the sale
and subdivision of large forest tracts in
recent years. Studies of forestland sales
show a long-term trend of decreasing parcel
size, as well as an increase in the frequency
of small acreage forest land sales. The
mean parcel size of forested land has
declined 18% from 1989 to 2003.83
83 Kilgore, Michael A. and Donald G. Mackay. “Trends in Minnesota’s Forest Land
Real Estate Market: Potential Implications for Forest Land Uses.” Northern
Journal of Applied Forestry, 2006 (in press.)
A DNR aggregate resources study in 1996 specifically noted the
Felton Prairie area as having some of the best potential for concrete
aggregate in the region. A county mine currently operates on 60 acres
of county land within the Felton area and provides approximately
40% of the county’s need for aggregate. However, much of the
remaining gravel resource in the county mine is below the water
table, making it likely that the county will need to expand the mine to
nearby areas identified as having gravel resources below the surface.
This potential expansion of mining operations poses a significant to
the prairie resource on top of the land. Mining destroys the existing
prairie, decreases the amount of prairie habitat in the area, and
disconnects and fragments the surviving prairie parcels. While a
Felton Prairie Stewardship Plan has been approved, the
recommendations are currently non-binding and it is still possible
that the prairie resource will be impacted by additional efforts to
reach new gravel resources.
Source: Felton Prairie Stewardship Plan. http://www.co.clay.mn.us/depts/planenvi/pzfelpra.htm.
| 27
The fragmentation of land into
smaller parcels raises numerous
concerns from a conservation
standpoint. The purchaser of a
subdivided parcel often adds a road,
transmission line and new structures;
further fragmenting wildlife habitat
and adding impervious surfaces to
the watershed.
The conversion of land to multiple
ownerships also makes protection
strategies more complicated and
expensive. It becomes far more
difficult to conserve parcels large
enough to meet habitat or recreation
needs. When parcelization occurs in
the area surrounding a park, wildlife
refuge or natural area, it becomes too
expensive to acquire needed buffers
and the likelihood of incompatible
uses increases.
Land values have also risen in
agricultural areas, threatening
parcelization of remnant tracts of
native prairie. As noted in the side
bar (previous page), aggregate mining
also threatens remaining native
prairie and grassland wildlife habitat.
With so little native prairie remaining,
the survival of native prairie in
Minnesota has reached a tipping
point, at which even slight further
losses could eliminate prairie from
the Minnesota landscape entirely.
5. Invasive species threatening lakes, rivers and wildlife
Development of roads, homes and commercial areas as well as increased boat
recreation causes the introduction and spread of exotic species of plants and
animals. These exotic species often aggressively crowd out native species,
disrupt the food chain for wildlife, and negatively affect the recreation value of
an area or ecosystem.
Non-native
invasive species
Ten of the most aggressive and
problematic non-native invasive
species in Minnesota include:
Eurasian Watermilfoil
Curly leaf pondweed
Buckthorn
EURASIAN WATERMILFOIL © MN DNR
Purple Loosetrife
One of the most infamous invasives in
Garlic Mustard
Minnesota is Eurasian milfoil. This
aggressive water plant has become the
Leafy Spurge
bane of many Minnesota lakes due to
Zebra mussels
its ability to reproduce from fragments
Asian Carp
and spread rapidly, its high growth rate
in a range of temperatures and
Sea lamprey
environmental conditions, and its
Rusty Crayfish
tendency to form mats of weeds on the
surface of lakes which shade and outcompete native vegetation. The first
discovery of Eurasian water milfoil in Minnesota was made in Lake Minnetonka.
Since then, the plant has spread to over 155 water bodies statewide.84
An exceptionally difficult exotic in forests is “glossy buckthorn,” which was sold
by all major nurseries until 1998. This plant develops a dense layer of
vegetation which casts a deep shade that inhibits the growth of native forest
plants. A soil altering substance in its
berries and roots prevents many native
species of trees from establishing
themselves.85
The zebra mussel—a non-native
invasive aquatic animal—has recently
spread to new water bodies in central
Minnesota, raising serious concerns.
These small, striped freshwater clams
reached North America—probably in
ZEBRA MUSSELS © MN DNR
84 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “Notice of Waters Identified and Designated as Infested.” DNR Website. December, 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/invasives/infestedwaters.pdf.
85 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The Forest Legacy Program In Minnesota: Statewide Assessment of Need. St. Paul, MN: September, 1999.
28
|
the ballasts of European cargo ships — in
the mid-1980s. They attach themselves to
hard objects, clog water-intake systems and
encrust themselves on native mussels,
restricting their eating, breathing and
reproductive patterns and eventually killing
them. They also filter microscopic plant and
animal life from water, affecting the food
chain that fish need.
In Minnesota, zebra mussels were first
discovered in the Duluth-Superior harbor in
1989. Until recently, the only inland water
bodies thought to be infested were the
Mississippi River up to the Twin Cities and
the lower St. Croix River. However, zebra
mussels are now found in two inland lakes,
Zumbro Lake near Rochester and
Ossawinnamakee Lake near Brainerd, and
one inland river, the Zumbro. In the summer
of 2005, zebra mussels were found in Lake
Mille Lacs, one of the premier walleye
fishing lakes in the state, and in Rice Lake,
an impoundment of the Mississippi River
near Brainerd.86
The discovery of zebra mussels in the
Mississippi near Brainerd raises serious
concerns about their spread south in the
Mississippi which could have major impacts
on businesses and utilities that use
Mississippi River water. Those water users
may be forced to implement new
preventative actions to keep zebra mussels
from blocking pipes and reducing water flow.
It has been estimated that power plants can
spend between $250,000 and $500,000
per year treating zebra mussel infestations.87
Communities, landowners and local
governments must deal with the cost of
managing invasives once they appear. Some
studies have estimated the cost of invasives
nationwide to be $138 billion per year.88
In Minnesota, state appropriations for the
management of aquatic invasive species have
increased by 600% from 1990 to 2004.89
6. Development encircling and isolating public
recreation lands
In many parts of the state, development is increasingly surrounding
public recreation lands. As these lands become islands of habitat in
the midst of houses and roads, their recreational and wildlife habitat
value is severely threatened.
For example, in Washington County, development is rapidly encroaching
on both the Bayport Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the St.
Croix Savanna Scientific and Natural Area (SNA). The Bayport WMA
consists of 452 acres in two main parcels (the north and south parcels
in the photo below). The WMA is a mix of grassland and woodland, and
is managed for wildlife habitat as well as public hunting. The 148-acre
St. Croix Savanna SNA, on the bluffs overlooking the St. Croix River
(center parcel), is considered the best hill prairie and oak savanna
along the lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Combined,
St. Croix Savanna and
Bayport WMA contain an
extraordinary array of
prairie flowers including
coneflowers, aster, blazing
star, pasque flower, prairie
gentian, and coreopsis.
Housing developments now
border several sides of the
WMA and SNA. In addition,
the area north of the
SNA and the entire area
around the south section
of the WMA are under
BAYPORT WMA AND ST. CROIX SNA © MN DNR
development for residential
housing. It is unclear how long the WMA will continue to be able to
offer hunting opportunities given the increase in nearby residences.
While homebuyers are attracted to the open space created by these
public lands, many are unaware of their intended use. In a 2002
survey, only 22% of residents living on land abutting the Bayport WMA
identified recreational hunting as a primary purpose of the WMA.90 Many
new residents, unaware that an area is intended for public hunting,
ultimately pressure local officials to limit hunting opportunities.
Other wildlife management areas are experiencing similar pressures. A
124-unit development has been proposed on 362 acres of high quality
habitat on the southwestern boundary of Carlos Avery WMA. In Champlin,
surrounding development caused city officials to close down firearms
hunting on Schmidt WMA, leaving the unit open only to limited archery.
86 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “News Release: Zebra Mussel Discovery in Rice Lake in Brainerd Raises Concerns for the Mississippi River.” DNR Website. October 2005.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/releases/index.html?id=1130164080.
87 Cataldo, Rosie, “Musseling in on the Ninth District Economy: How Many Clams will it Cost?” FedGazette. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. January 2001. http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/01-01/invaders.cfm.
88 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. “Fact Sheet: Invasive Species.” APHIS Website. December 2005. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/lpa/pubs/fsheet_faq_notice/fs_aphisinvasive.html.
89 Data from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Ecological Services. March 2005.
90 Nelson, Kristin, et al. Wildlife and Homeowner Interactions, Bayport Wildlife Management Area. Report Prepared for the Division of Wildlife, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: DNR December, 2002. p. 26.
http://www.cnr.umn.edu/FR/people/facstaff/nelson/personal_page/knelson/WMA%20Report_Nelson.pdf.
| 29
COTTAGE GROVE RAVINE REGIONAL PARK © WASHINGTON COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT
30
|
III. The Need to Renew the
Conservation Commitment
“Our environmental endowment is shrinking under the weight of exploitation
of our remnant natural resources. Just like prevention in the health care
system, conservation is a better investment than paying later to repair our ill
deeds. We can try to ignore our conservation needs for the present, but in
the end we will all pay the price as our environment is less healthy and the
resources that support our economic well-being slip away.
“Some estimates are that just under $5 per person is directly spent for land
conservation in Minnesota annually. That is half of what Wisconsin citizens
pay and pales in comparison to Florida where residents pay five times as
much as what we pay in our land of 10,000 lakes.
“Currently, the largest source of funding for conservation is the state general
fund, which comes from state income and sales taxes. But as a share of the
general fund, conservation spending has slipped to the lowest level in three
decades. Other conservation funds come from several sources—conservation
license plates, a portion of state lottery proceeds, an income tax checkoff,
increased user fees for hunters, anglers, campers and polluters, and a few
other minor sources. While citizens do their part in paying these fees and
charges, these funds have not kept up with inflation. The result is a
dramatic decrease in conservation spending while demands for open space
and recreational use of the outdoors are at a premium.
“Our investment may have dwindled but has the commitment of our citizens?
We need to develop a more rational system for setting conservation priorities
using our scarce resources to build effective partnerships of citizens, local
governments and private businesses. And finally, we need to focus on our
pursuit of these goals by enlisting political and citizen leaders capable of
fighting this erosion of natural resource support. We must all be ready to act.”
NANCY GIBSON
Former Member and Chair, Citizens’ Advisory Committee,
Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (and)
Co-founder, International Wolf Center
| 31
A. SHRINKING STATE CONSERVATION BUDGET
In the first few state budgets of the new century,
conservation spending as a proportion of the state general
fund budget has slipped to the lowest level in 30 years.
Over the last three decades, the share of the state general
fund going to conservation and environment has averaged
1.8%. By 2007, only 1.1% of the state general fund will
go to the four conservation agencies, a drop of more than
one-third. Because these agencies are charged with many
activities beyond habitat, species, and clean air and water
protection, even less of the state budget is devoted to
preserving natural resources.
the Minnesota League of Conservation Voters Education
Fund (LCVEF), state general fund direct appropriations for
the primary conservation agencies, in actual dollars,
dropped from $228 million spent in 2001 to $123
million appropriated for 2007.91
LCVEF found that total agency expenditures, which
include fees as well as funds from other sources such as
federal funds, have also declined in actual dollars over
the last 5 years. In 2001, total expenditures for the
primary conservation agencies were $547.8 million; in
General Fund Direct Spending on
Conservation and Environment
Environmental Spending as % of General Fund
30 Year History
2.20%
2.00%
Pecentage
250,000
Dollars in Thousands
2.40%
1.80%
1.60%
1.40%
1.20%
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1.00%
6
7
19
8
7
19
*
80 82 984 986 988 990 992 994 996 998 000 002 004 006
1
19 19
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
2
TY2001 TY2002 TY2003 TY2004 TY2005 TY2006 TY2007
Nominal Dollars
Real (Inflation Adjusted) Dollars
Source: Minnesota League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Losing Ground: Understanding Minnesota’s 2006 - 2007 Conservation and Environment Budget. 2005.
State agencies have primary responsibility for maintaining
state parks and public recreation lands, ensuring the health
of forest and wetland resources, providing opportunities
for public recreation, protecting our wildlife populations,
ensuring the water quality of our lakes, rivers and
groundwater, preventing air pollution, providing flood
mitigation, guarding against harmful invasive species, and
preserving the state’s natural biodiversity. In Minnesota,
four state agencies are charged with the bulk of these
responsibilities: the Department of Natural Resources, the
Pollution Control Agency, the Board of Water and Soil
Resources, and the Department of Agriculture. The largest
single source of funding for these agencies is the state’s
general fund, which comes mainly from state income and
sales taxes.
2007, total expenditures will be $540.4 million. In
inflation-adjusted dollars, total spending on conservation
is down 15% since 2001.92
These findings are consistent with data collected by the
U.S. Census Bureau, which show that Minnesota’s
investment in natural resources is slipping when
compared to other states. The U.S. Census Governments
Division conducts an annual survey of state government
finances and collects data on natural resources spending.93
According to Census data, Minnesota’s ranking among the
states for natural resource spending as a percentage of
state budget dropped from 10th in 1999 to 17th in 2003
(the last year for which data are available).94
General funds for these conservation agencies have been
steadily declining since 2001 as the state has struggled
with ongoing budget deficits. According to an analysis by
91 Minnesota League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Losing Ground: Understanding Minnesota’s 2006-2007 Conservation and Environment Budget, St. Paul, MN: October, 2005.
http://www.mepartnership.org/documents/Losing%20Ground.pdf.
92 Minnesota League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Losing Ground: Understanding Minnesota’s 2006-2007 Conservation and Environment Budget, St. Paul, MN: October, 2005.
http://www.mepartnership.org/documents/Losing%20Ground.pdf.
93 U.S. Census Bureau, Government Division, State Government Finances. “Natural Resource Spending in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state.html (The category for Natural Resource
expenditures includes fish and wildlife, forestry and a variety of spending related to conservation, promotion, and development of natural resources. See Government Finance Classification Manual at
http://www.census.gov/govs/www/classexpdef.html).
94 U.S. Census Bureau, Government Division, State Government Finances. “Natural Resource Spending in the United States.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. Dec. 2005. http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state.html (additional time series
data for all states obtained from Census Bureau, April 2005.)
32
|
This loss of funding is particularly evident in funding for
Minnesota’s state parks. According to the National
Association of State Park Directors (NASPD), Minnesota
ranks 37th in terms of the percentage of the state budget
allocated to state parks.95 The NASPD’s 2005 annual
report found that for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2004, the states spent an average of two-tenths of one
percent of their budget on state parks. Minnesota,
however, spent only a little more than one-tenth of one
percent (.12%) on state parks.96
© PARKS AND TRAILS COUNCIL OF MINNESOTA
While conservation funding in Minnesota has been
slipping, other states have been making major
investments in protecting their Great Outdoors. In
Colorado, 358,000 acres of land have been protected by
the Great Outdoors Colorado program since its inception
in 1994.97 Wisconsin’s highly popular Stewardship
Program has protected 225,000 acres since 1990.98
From 2000 though 2004, California’s Wildlife
Conservation Board protected 632,100 acres at a cost of
over $1 billion.99 In Florida, the state’s Florida Forever
program has protected over 1 million acres since 1999.100
And in other states, including Michigan,101 North
Carolina,102 and Virginia,103 major conservation initiatives
have recently been announced.
95 National Association of State Park Directors. 2005 Annual Information Exchange. Center for State Park
Research, Dept. of Recreation Management, Indiana State University: April, 2005.
96 NASPD 2005 Annual Information Exchange, p. 30.
97 Great Outdoors Colorado Website, January 2006. http://www.goco.org/overview/purpose.html.
98 Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources Website, “Stewardship Program: Achievements.”
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/lr/stewardship/stats.html. Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters.
Wisconsin Conservation Briefing Book. 2006. http://www.conservationvoters.org/brbk05/bgt_sec6.shtml.
99 California Wildlife Conservation Board, Protecting California’s Natural Heritage for Future Generations. January
2005. http://www.wcb.ca.gov/pdf/Reports/ProtectingCalifornia2004.pdf.
100 Florida Forever Website. January 2006. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/acquisition/FloridaForever/default.htm.
101 Michigan’s Land, Michigan’s Future: Final Report of the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. August 2003.
http://www.michiganlanduse.org/MLULC_FINAL_REPORT_0803.pdf.
102 Land for Tomorrow Coalition. Saving the Goodliest Land: A Five-Year Plan for Investing in North Carolina’s
Land, Water, History and Future. June 2005. http://www.landfortomorrow.org/.
103 Virginia Forever Website. January 2006. http://www.virginiaforever.org/conservation.htm. Also, Governor’s
Natural Resources Funding Commission. Recommendations to Address the Critical Funding Needs of Virginia’s
Natural Resource Programs. October 2003.
104 Minnesota Constitution, Art. XI, Sec 14.
105 Minnesota State Board of Investments. 2004 Report, St. Paul, MN 2005
http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/lcmr/pdf/etfsbi.pdf.
106 Minn. Stat. 116P.03.
Lottery Funds
There is a widespread public perception that the
lottery funds a significant portion of the state’s
natural resource needs. While lottery funds are
important, they represent a relatively small portion of
overall funding for conservation needs in Minnesota.
Minnesotans voted to establish a state run lottery in
1988 and to dedicate 40% of the net proceeds to the
Environmental Trust Fund. Under the state
constitution, the trust fund receives
“not less than 40 percent of the net
proceeds from any state-operated
lottery.”104 Net proceeds are the
profits after all expenses, including
prize money, administration,
payments to retailers and the inlieu-of-sales-tax, are paid.
For 2005, total lottery sales were
$408 million, but the Trust Fund
received just 6.8%, or $27.99
million, of this amount. This money
is then invested into the corpus of
the Trust Fund. The State Board of Investment
administers the Trust Fund, and 5.5% of the trust
fund’s annual market value is made available for
allocation to environmental projects. This amount has
never exceeded approximately $19 million per year, a
small share of the annual state conservation and
environmental budget of over $540 million.
Over time, as the fund grows, earnings from
investments of the fund corpus will normally grow. In
2001 and 2002, however, the fund actually lost
money. The State Board of Investment estimates that
from 2005-2010, the fund will grow by an average of
9% per year.105
Further, the trust fund proceeds are, by statute,
required to supplement and enhance the state’s
existing commitment to natural resources, not serve
as a substitute for traditional funding such as general
funds.106
Therefore, while funds from the state lottery are an
important supplement for conservation funding, they
are only a small part of the overall funding picture for
conservation in Minnesota.
| 33
B. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONSERVATION BUDGETS INSUFFICIENT
Many local units of government are responsible for
creating land use plans and meeting the open space
needs and outdoor recreation needs of their residents. A
recent survey of local governments found that lack of
funding is a significant obstacle to meeting local and
regional outdoor recreation needs.
The survey also asked counties, cities, and school
districts to identify problems they face in meeting public
needs for outdoor recreation. All three—counties, cities
and school districts—named lack of funding as their most
serious problem.110 For all three local government types,
obtaining funding for capital expenditures was a greater
problem than ongoing operating expenses.111
In addition to providing for outdoor recreation, local
governments often bear the burden of finding funds for
water treatment plants, of dealing with the costs
associated with invasive species, of repairing flood
damage caused by loss of wetlands and buffers near
rivers, and absorbing the additional infrastructure costs
caused by unplanned sprawl. Local community
development may be inhibited by the state’s failure to
address lakes and rivers that are impaired by pollutants.
© MN DNR
In July 2004, the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources conducted a survey of counties, cities, and
school districts to determine their needs for outdoor
recreation facilities now and in the next five
years.107 Surveys were sent to 87 counties,
603 cities and 310 school districts. The
return rates varied from 83 percent for
counties and 85 percent for cities, which
was far higher than expected for this type of
survey. In their responses, 45.3 % of
counties and 30.5% of cities identified a
need for more natural areas and open space
within the next five years. In the central and
metro regions of the state, 71% of counties
identified a need for more natural areas and
open space.108 Trails were the most
frequently identified need by both counties
and cities.109
In sum, inadequate public funding at both the state and
local level is undermining Minnesota’s ability to plan and
provide for its conservation future. This puts one of the
engines that drive our economy, and the Minnesota way of
life, at risk.
© TNC
107 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Facility Survey of Minnesota Cities, Counties and School Districts: Part I: Facility Adequacy. St. Paul, MN: July, 2005. pp. 22,63
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/facility_adequacy.pdf.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Facility of Minnesota Cities, Counties and School Districts: Part II: Management Concerns of Local Government Providers. St. Paul, MN: July, 2005, p. 6
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_management_concerns.pdf.
111 Ibid.
34
|
IV. Minnesota’s Future Depends
on its Natural Wealth
“I’m a hunter, a hiker, a camper, a fisherman. I’m an outdoors enthusiast
through and through. Judging by the numbers, so are you. I challenge any
state to compare with Minnesota’s overall relationship between its citizens
and the outdoors. How many of us fish, camp, hunt, enjoy a walk in the
woods, vacation at the lake or simply love to pass time looking for wildlife or
sight-seeing on a carefree, beautiful drive? Less obvious but equally
important, how many of us earn a paycheck from outdoors-based industries
such as tourism, fishing, farming and forestry? How many workers and
students come to Minnesota, how many businesses locate here because of
our renowned quality of life? How is the value of your home, the revenue of
your city, and the taxes that you pay affected by the quality of Minnesota’s
natural resources?
“In Minnesota, the answer to all of these questions is the same: Minnesotans,
their outdoors and their quality of life are inextricably linked. We benefit every
day in many ways from Mother Nature. Surprisingly, many of those benefits
are tangible and quantifiable. You will read the numbers in the following
section that back up what we already know. We are a state and a people
dependent on the woods, water, wetlands and wildlife that surround us.
“This clarion call to invest in our resources isn’t a nostalgic cry for days
gone by. It’s an understanding that our heritage, our prosperity, our health
and our culture are intrinsically tied to our natural world. Moving forward,
Minnesota will be best served if we embrace our core conservation values.
We know we must face up to the challenges ahead. What we may not so
easily understand is that a commitment to conservation is a requirement for
our future health and prosperity.”
JIM KLATT
Vice President, Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance (and)
National Grassroots Coordinator, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
| 35
A. MINNESOTA HAS MUCH AT STAKE IN ITS HIGH QUALITY NATURAL RESOURCES
Few states can boast the wealth of natural resources that
Minnesota has. We are simultaneously the place where
three continental drainage basins come together and
three major ecosystems divide apart. Our climate, our
soils, our wildlife and vegetation are more varied than
anywhere in the country. Minnesota is not only one of the
largest states in land and water area, but its location at
the intersection of three major ecological regions
(coniferous forest, deciduous forest and prairie) and
at the head of three of North America’s major river
systems (the Mississippi, Great Lakes and Hudson Bay
watersheds) makes it home to an extraordinary richness
of natural resources.
Minnesota is the 12th largest state in total area,
including land and water, and the 8th largest in
square miles of water area.
Minnesota Biomes and Watershed Basins
© DAKOTA COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT
The “Land of 10,000 Lakes” actually has 11,842
lakes of more than 10 acres. Minnesota has 6,564
natural rivers, streams, and other waterways covering
more than 92,000 miles. It is the headwaters of the
Mississippi River, the third longest river in the world.
Minnesota is also home to nearly 200 miles of
shoreline on Lake Superior, the largest freshwater
lake in the world by surface area.112
Minnesota is an ecologically diverse state with over
1,200 known wildlife species and more than 2,400
known native plant species.113 The Mississippi Flyway
is used by more than 40% of the migratory waterfowl
in the United States.
Biomes (Ecological Provinces) (MN DNR)
Laurentian Mixed Forest Province
Tallgrass Aspen Parklands
Eastern Broadleaf Forest Province
Prairie Parkland Province
Major Drainage Basins
Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources–Division of Forestry. 1999. First
level of the Ecological Classification System is shown.
URL: http://dell.dnr.state.mn.us/data_search.htm.
112 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “Minnesota Facts: Lakes, Rivers & Wetlands.” MN DNR
Website, October 22, 2004. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/faq/mnfacts/water.html, U.S. Geological Survey
Website, “Mississippi River” January 9, 2005 http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ms137.htm
113 Mary H. Meyer, Peter Olin, “Common Questions about Wildflowers and Native Plants,” University of
Minnesota Extension Website. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/DG6065.html
114 Pfannmuller, Lee and Barbara Coffin, The Uncommon Ones: Minnesota’s Endangered Plants and Animals,
p. 10. Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: 1989.
36
|
Minnesota’s natural diversity extends from the Aspen
Parklands in the northwest, where a small herd of
wild elk is one of the last populations of the species
in the world to exist in its native prairie habitat, to
the Big Woods of
the southeast,
home to the rare
dwarf trout lily,
which is found
nowhere else
on earth.114
© TNC
B. THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPENDS ON A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT
1. Clean water and air
The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the foods we
consume are all critical to our health and well-being.
Environmental contaminants can endanger our health. At
the same time, convenient access to outdoor recreational
opportunities and livable communities can enhance our
health and well-being.
Groundwater supplies the drinking water needs of 70% of
Minnesota’s population.115 Approximately one-quarter of
all Minnesotans rely on an individual well for water—the
9th highest percentage in the nation.116 Yet unseen
contaminants often threaten the quality of these wells.
While in general, Minnesota has high levels of safety in
its drinking water systems, the Minnesota Department of
Health has noted that source
water protection efforts are a
vital part of providing safe
drinking water.117 Surface
pollutants can contaminate
groundwater, and, in some
areas of the state, particularly
in the southeast, geologic
conditions make groundwater
supplies particularly
susceptible to contamination.
The Department of Health, in
its 2004 annual report, notes
that it is “much easier to keep
contamination out of surface
and groundwater supplies than
it is to remove it.” Hundreds
of sites of groundwater
contamination across the state
put private and public water
supplies at risk.
A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study of over
200 wells in sensitive urban areas across the state
found herbicides in more than 60 percent. Their
breakdown products—which can be even more toxic than
the chemicals themselves—were found in 95% of the
wells.118 Vegetative buffer strips, pollution prevention
practices and compliance assistance to herbicide users
can reduce this risk.
Air pollution alerts are issued on days when air pollution
levels may affect people’s health. Alerts were issued for
thirteen days in 2003 when the levels of smog or soot
rose to levels potentially unhealthy for children, the
elderly, people with asthma and other respiratory
conditions, as well as people with heart disease.119
115 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “2000 National Water Quality Inventory: Water Quality Conditions of the United States.” EPA Website. August, 2002. http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/idmt.pdf.
116 U.S. Census Bureau. Historical Housing Tables, “Source of Water.” U.S. Census Website. March 2005. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/water.html.
117 Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota Drinking Water: Protecting Public Health, A Summary of Drinking Water Protection Activities for 2004. St. Paul, MN: May, 2005.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/com/dwar/report04.html.
118 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Minnesota Water Priorities: 2003-2005. St. Paul, MN: February, 2003. http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/pdf/2003/BiennialWaterReport2003.pdf.
119 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Air Quality Trends in Minnesota,” MPCA Website. December 2005. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/indicators/iom-0504.html.
| 37
2. Places to exercise
Physical inactivity and diet combined are the second
leading cause of preventable death and disease in the
United States.124 Many studies have documented the
health benefits of a physically active life, but most
Americans do not achieve sufficient levels of activity to
achieve these benefits.125 While Minnesotans are more
physically active than Americans as a whole, growing
urbanization and stagnant funding for the purchase of
recreational lands and trails threatens this status.
As our population increases, development not only
progressively consumes larger areas of open space; it
increases the distances we drive each day, thereby
increasing air pollution. Studies have found that in rural
and forested regions of the Midwest, ozone (smog)
pollution, which can harm the respiratory health of
children, the elderly and other sensitive populations, will
increase if current population growth patterns continue.120
Protecting natural areas and open space has an economic
value as a result of the ability of forested areas and
natural vegetation to sequester carbon and reduce air
pollution. A recent study in the Twin Cities noted “open
spaces, and green spaces in particular, can improve air
quality in their immediate vicinity [making it] extremely
important for society to maintain adequate open space to
support air quality.”121
Health-related and other costs due to air pollution from
transportation sources alone in the Twin Cities were
estimated at nearly $1 billion for 1998, according to a
2000 study by the Center for Transportation Studies at
the University of Minnesota.122 In addition to health
impacts, reductions in air quality are strongly correlated
to reduced quality of life.123 Planning for growth can
reduce traffic and its related health costs while also
providing for additional open space and parklands.
120 Gobster, Paul and Robert Haight. Landscapes to Lots: Understanding and Managing Midwestern Landscape
Change. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station. St. Paul,
MN, 2004. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc245.pdf.
121 Anton, Paul, The Economic Value of Open Space: Implications for Land Use Decisions. Report Prepared for
Embrace Open Space. St. Paul, MN: October, 2005. p, 41.
122 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “Department Results.” MPCA Website.
http://www.departmentresults.state.mn.us/pca/DeptDetail.htm.
123 Gabriel, Stuart A. Joe P. Mattey and William L Wascher, Compensating Differentials and Evolution of the
Quality of Life among U.S. States. Univ. of Southern California Graduate School of Business: June 1996
(finding evidence of a substantial deterioration in quality of life perceptions in some states that
experienced rapid population growth during the 90s).
124 Minnesota Dept. of Health, “Fact Sheet: Health Care Costs of Physical Inactivity in Minnesota” (May 2002).
125 Guijing Wang, PhD., et al, “Cost Effectiveness of a Bicycle/Trail Development in Health Promotion,”
Preventive Medicine 38 (2004)237-242.
126 Presentation by Blue Cross and Blue Shield to the Parks & Trail Council of MN, January 7, 2005.
127 MN Department of Health. “Fact Sheet: Health Care Costs of Physical Inactivity in Minnesota.” St. Paul, MN:
May, 2002. See also Guijing Wang, PhD., et al, “Cost Effectiveness of a Bicycle/Trail Development in Health
Promotion,” Preventive Medicine 38 (2004)237-242 (nationally, the costs of physical inactivity may be as
high a $76.6 billion per year).
128 Michael Pratt, MD et al, “Economic Interventions to Promote Physical Activity” American Journal of
Preventive Medicine . 2004;27 3S (136 at 141).
129 See e.g. Frumkin, Howard. “Urban Sprawl, Public Health, and Equity”, Rollins School of Public Health at
Emory University. Public Health. Spring 2001.
130 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans:
Report on Findings. St. Paul, MN: January 2005.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_report.pdf.
38
|
In Minnesota, the percentage of obese Minnesotans has
more than doubled since 1991, from 10.6% in 1991 to
22.3% in 2002.126 The cost of treating diseases and
conditions that would have been avoided if all
Minnesotans were physically active is estimated to be
$495 million annually.127
Land use policies that encourage more densely
populated, walkable communities encourage more
daily physical activity.128 Numerous studies have shown
that sprawling development patterns, which promote
automobile use and dependence, are a public health
issue because they contribute to a lack of exercise as
well as increased air pollution.129
Minnesotans recognize that outdoor recreation helps them
stay healthy—59% of Minnesotans who participate in
outdoor recreation, including walking, boating, swimming,
fishing and other activities, say that one of the primary
reasons for doing so is to stay physically fit.130
LAKE ELMO REGIONAL PARK © WASHINGTON COUNTY PARKS DEPARTMENT
C. THE GREAT OUTDOORS IS CRITICAL TO MINNESOTA’S ECONOMY
1. Tourism and Outdoor Recreation
Natural resources are the backbone of Minnesota’s
tourism industry, with scenic touring, visiting parks, and
fishing representing three of the five most popular
activities for tourists.131 Pleasure travelers make up 87%
of travel in Minnesota, and the top tourist activity for
travelers in Minnesota is scenic touring.132 In Greater
Minnesota, visiting parks, scenic driving, camping, and
outdoor recreation are consistently the most popular
activities for visitors.133 Approximately one-third of
travelers to Minnesota hunt or fish.134
Further, tourism supports cultural and recreational
amenities that otherwise might not be available to local
residents. Tourist revenues from restaurants, historic
sites, and entertainment venues help sustain such
facilities that add to the quality of life for permanent
residents. This quality of life, in turn, helps attract and
retain employees and inhabitants.138
• Fishing: Protecting the quality of Minnesota’s
lakes and rivers is a top priority in part because
fishing is big business in Minnesota. Thirty percent
of Minnesotans fish, and fishing is the third most
The travel and tourism industry in Minnesota generated
$9.2 billion in gross receipts and sales in 2003, resulting
in $1 billion in state and local tax revenues. Tourism is
comparable to agriculture in terms of its
contributions to gross state product.135 It has been
estimated that the outdoor recreation industry
alone—fishing, hunting and wildlife watching—
contributes $4.2 billion annually to the gross
state product and generates over 70,000 jobs in
Minnesota.136
popular tourist activity in Minnesota. 98 percent of
our resorts, 80 percent of our campgrounds and
nearly a fourth of
Minnesota’s hotels are
located on lakes and
rivers.139 Fishing generates
$1.28 billion in
expenditures per year.140 It
has been estimated to
create 49,700 jobs in the
The state department of economic development
has observed, “It should be noted that these
statistics don’t take into account the vast indirect
employment effects of tourism. Travelers who
patronize Minnesota’s leisure and hospitality
businesses are also supporting many other types
of jobs in the surrounding communities. Direct
spending on lodging, restaurants and the like
generates additional expenditures on a wide range
of services including construction, printing, food
processing, hospitals, and companies that provide
food and equipment to hospitality businesses;
many more examples could be given.”137
state and generates
approximately $100
million per year in income
and sales tax.141 The
American Sports Fishing
Association ranks
Minnesota 4th in the
nation in the overall
economic output
from fishing.142
© TPL
131 Hillman, Rachel, “Profit and Pleasure: The Impact of Tourism on Minnesota’s Economy,” MN Economic Trends, Department of Employment and Economic Development. St. Paul, MN: June, 2004. See also Explore Minnesota. “Tourism
Works for Minnesota: Tourism and the Economy 2005” Explore Minnesota Website. January 2005 http://industry.exploreminnesota.com/sites/f998bc45-3bdd-43f1-b100-04b8aaa908d1/uploads/Tourism_works_brochure1.pdf;
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, “Tourism: Economic Impact.” DEED Website http://www.deed.state.mn.us/tourism/economy/EconomicImpact.htm.
132 Explore Minnesota. “Tourism Works for Minnesota: Tourism and the Economy 2005” Explore Minnesota Website. January, 2005.at http://industry.exploreminnesota.com/sites/f998bc45-3bdd-43f1-b10004b8aaa908d1/uploads/Tourism_works_brochure1.pdf.
133 See Univ. of Minnesota Tourism Center. Study of Current Area Tourists: Southern Minnesota. Sept. 2005. , Univ. of Minnesota Tourism Center. Study of Current Area Tourists: Northwest Minnesota. Jan. 2004.
134 Gartner, William, Ph.D., et. al, “Economic Impact and Social Benefits Study of Coldwater Angling in Minnesota,” Univ. of Minnesota Tourism Center: June, 2002
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/management/coldwateranglingreport.pdf.
135 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, “Tourism: Economic Impact.” DEED Website http://www.deed.state.mn.us/tourism/economy/EconomicImpact.htm.
136 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. “DNR by the Numbers,” April 2005 (citing 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation , U.S. Dept. of Interior.)
137 Hillman, Profit and Pleasure.
138 Hillman, Profit and Pleasure.
139 Office of the Governor. “Press Release: Governor Pawlenty’s Clean Water Vision for Minnesota.” June 24, 2003 at http://www.governor.state.mn.us/Tpaw_View_Article.asp?artid=404.
140 U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation: Minnesota. Washington D.C.: rev. March 2003 http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-mn.pdf.
141 DNR. April 2005. “DNR by the Numbers.” ( citing 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation , U.S. Dept. of Interior.)
142 American Sport Fishing Association. “Sport fishing in America” (2005) at http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/economic_impact/fish_eco_impact.pdf.
| 39
2. Forestry and Farming
• Hunting and
wildlife watching:
According to the Minnesota
Department of Natural
Resources, the forest products
industry contributes $4.3 billion
annually to the gross state
product.148 The industry consists
of five pulp and paper mills,
three recycled pulp and paper
mills, three hardboard and
specialty product mills, six
oriented strand board mills, more
than 500 sawmills and over
1,000 secondary manufacturers
and associated industries. The
industry has invested $4 billion
in manufacturing facilities in
recent years.149
Hunting generates
$48.5 million in state
income and sales taxes
per year and is
estimated to support
11,200 Minnesota jobs.
Wildlife watching
generated expenditures
and sales totaling
$531.1 million in 2000
representing 12,730
jobs and $40 million in
state tax revenues.143
• Visiting Parks and
Scenic Touring:
Visits to state parks
alone generate $300
million annually to the
state economy.144 Thirty
© PETER CROUSER/TPL
percent of all Minnesota
adults visit state parks at least once a year.145
State park visits also help redistribute money
among various regions of the state. The Northeast
and Northwest regions are the primary beneficiaries
and the seven county metro areas are the primary
source of the gains.146 A recent survey of highway
travelers conducted by the University of Minnesota
found that travelers have a strong preference for
roads that are managed in a way that preserves
the natural environment, and that natural scenery
The forest products industry
employs 53,200 people in the
primary processing sector
(including logging) and 29,000
in secondary processing.150 The
annual payroll is in excess of $2
151
billion. Wood products and paper
manufacturing, combined, are the fourth largest source of
manufacturing jobs in the state.152 According to the
American Forest and Paper Association, Minnesota has
the fourth largest forest products industry in the nation
based on forest-related earnings.153
Minnesota ranked seventh among the states in farm
exports in 2001 at $2.3 billion. The state’s leading crop
exports were soybeans, feed grains and live animals.154 In
2004, the 79,800 farms in Minnesota generated over
$2.6 billion in net farm income.155
such as lakes, rivers, and forests was highly valued
by travelers.147
Together, farming, forestry and fishing account for
97,000 jobs in Minnesota.156
143 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife - Associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arlington, VA: August 2003. http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2001_economics.pdf.
144 Kelly, Tim, Contributions of the Minnesota State Park System to State and Regional Economies. Department of Natural Resources, Office of Management and Budget: August, 2002. p. 6.
145 “DNR by the Numbers.” (Citing DNR Park Surveys.)
146 Kelly, Contributions of the Minnesota State Park System to State and Regional Economies, p. 7.
147 Gartner, William, Ph.D. et al, Attributes and Amenities of Minnesota’s Highway System that Are Important to Tourists. Minn. Dept. of Transportation, June, 2002, pp. 73,102 http://www.lrrb.gen.mn.us/pdf/200322.pdf.
148 “DNR by the Numbers.” (citing U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.)
149 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. “2005 Priorities – Forest Management.” MN Chamber of Commerce Website . January 2005 at http://www.mnchamber.com/priorities/forestman.cfm.
See also “Compare Minnesota: Profiles of Minnesota’s Economy and Population,” Department of Employment and Economic Development (June 2003.)
150 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota’s Forest Resources Annual Report. St. Paul, MN: Sept., 2004. http://iic.gis.umn.edu/MN%20For%20Res%2004FINAL.pdf.
151 Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. “2005 Priorities – Forest Management.” MN Chamber of Commerce Website . January 2005 at http://www.mnchamber.com/priorities/forestman.cfm.
152 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Compare Minnesota: Profiles of Minnesota’s Economy and Population. St. Paul, MN: June ,2003, p. 2.6 http://www.deed.state.mn.us/bizdev/PDFs/c-book.pdf.
153 American Forest and Paper Association, “U.S. Forest Facts and Figures, 2001.” AFPA Website. March 2005 (based on 1998 data.)
http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/products_production.pdf.
154 “Exports and Land Values,” National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.nass.usda.gov/mn/agstat03/p005006.pdf.
155 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “State Fact Sheets: Minnesota,” USDA Website. December 8, 2005, http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/MN.htm.
156 Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Compare Minnesota: Profiles of Minnesota’s Economy and Population. St. Paul, MN: June, 2003,http://www.deed.state.mn.us/bizdev/PDFs/c-book.pdf.
40
|
3. Protecting Property Values
Because people value living near open space and
clean lakes and rivers, these natural assets have a
positive impact on property values.
Recent studies of property values in the Twin
Cities metro area have confirmed that proximity to
open space raises property values. According to a
2005 report prepared for Embrace Open Space, a
coalition of nonprofit land conservation
organizations, four independent studies on the
© TPL
effect of open space on property values
in the Twin Cities demonstrate that
open space has a positive effect
on property values.157 These
findings are confirmed in
Water quality
numerous national
studies.158
directly affects the
property value of
residential lakeshore
property in Minnesota,
and protecting water
quality is therefore
critical in preserving
the economic assets
of a region.
A 2003 survey of
homebuyers in
Minnesota found
that among the
factors that
influenced their
decision to buy a
home, the proximity to
parks and recreation was
the 5th most popular
response.159
Water quality can also have a strong
impact on property values for lakeshore property. In 2003,
researchers from Bemidji State University examined 1,205
sales of lakeshore property in the Mississippi Headwater
Board Region between 1996 and 2001. The properties
were located on 37 lakes of varying size for which water
quality monitoring data were available.160
The study found that, all other things being equal, prices
paid for lakeshore property were higher on lakes having
higher water clarity.161 Further, the study demonstrated that
a one-meter decline in water clarity could have an impact
on property values in the Mississippi Headwaters region in
the magnitude of tens of thousands to millions of dollars.162
The study concluded that water quality was critical to
protecting the tax base and economic assets of the region.
4. Attracting and retaining
highly educated workers
Dr. Richard Florida of Carnegie Mellon University, a
respected expert on the knowledge economy and regional
economic development, has found that a critical element
of competitiveness in today’s economy is a region’s ability
to develop a strong base of knowledge workers.163 Because
even in a highly educated state, there is an inevitable loss
of some “home-grown” workers, a region must focus both
on attracting and retaining highly educated knowledge
workers.164
Studies by Dr. Florida and others have found that
“amenities and the environment—particularly natural,
recreation and lifestyles amenities—are absolutely vital in
attracting knowledge workers.”165 Surveys of knowledge
workers found that the quality of life amenities they found
essential to a region included “easy access to outdoor
activities” and “a clean and healthy environment and a
commitment to preserving natural resources for enjoyment
and recreation.”166
157 Anton, Paul. The Economic Value of Open Space: Implications for Land Use Decisions. Report Prepared for Embrace Open Space. St. Paul, MN, October 2005.
158 National Park Service, Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors: A Resource Book. 4th ed. 1995.
159 National Association of Realtors. The 2003 National Association of Realtors Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers, Minnesota State Report. Chicago, IL: 2003. See also National Association of Home Builders. “Housing Facts, Figures and
Trends 2004.” Washington D.C.: 2004. (“Among 22 community amenities park areas and trails were the top rated amenities with 62% and 58% of the respondents, respectively, saying that these features would have an influence
on their purchase.”)
160 Krysel, Charles, et al. Lakeshore Property Values and Water Quality. Bemidji State University: June, 2003. http://www.co.cass.mn.us/esd/intralake/bsu_study.pdf.
161 Krysel, Lakeshore Property Values and Water Quality, p. 8.
162 Krysel, Lakeshore Property Values and Water Quality, pp. 8-9.
163 Florida, Dr. Richard, Competing in an Age of Talent: Environment, Amenities and the New Economy, Richard King Mellon Foundation: Pittsburg, January 2000 at 5 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&q=cache:sK4GrN5YoOgJ:www.heinz.cmu.edu/~florida/talent.pdf+author:%22Florida%22+intitle:%22Competing+in+the+Age+of+Talent%22.
164 See also Who Will Stay and Who Will Go?” A Report of the Southern Technology Council (May 2001) at 17 (Due to an inevitable loss of some “home-grown” engineering and science graduates, attraction of new workers to replace loss
should be highest priority for states.) http://www.southern.org/pubs/Migration-2001.pdf.
165 Florida, Competing in an Age of Talent, p. 5. See also Mathur, Vijay, “Knowledge Workers, Quality of Life and Regional Development: A Forum of Reflections and Visions,” Cleveland State University: September, 2002( knowledge
workers typically like to live and work in an amenity-rich environment which enhances their quality of life.)
166 Florida, Competing in an Age of Talent, p. 47.
| 41
The Northwest Minnesota Foundation recently confirmed
the importance of natural amenities to economic
development in Minnesota. To test whether the Carnegie
Mellon study results were applicable in rural Minnesota,
the report surveyed northwest Minnesota businesses and
concluded, “High-tech workers and employers in rural
Minnesota also highly value natural amenities. These
amenities include wildlife viewing, hunting and fishing,
outdoor recreation, clean air and water, recreational trail
systems (both motorized and non-motorized) community
gardens, sponsored outdoor events/contests, access to
public lands and lakes, picnic areas and parks and
natural forested areas and green spaces.”167
life in Minneapolis, particularly the “easy access to
natural resources, such as the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area, 66 state parks, 57 state forests and more than
15,000 lakes.”170 Also, the Best Buy recruiting web page,
in its “About Minneapolis” section, notes the “easy
access to natural resources.”171
The need to recruit and retain knowledge workers is
becoming increasingly acute. Although the demand for
high-tech workers declined after the 2001 recession and
there was somewhat less competition between states in
attracting workers, projections show that there will be
increasing demand for workers between 2005 and
2012, perhaps even recreating the workforce shortages
seen in the 1990’s.168 The Great North Alliance’s
Opportunity Forecast for 2005-2006 finds that:
“Capturing a share of America’s 6 million-plus young,
single, and college-educated is serious business. This
group’s influence is oversized because of its mobility,
economic clout, and shrinking numbers. As 78 million
baby boomers retire by 2020, today’s 40 million 25 to
34 year olds replace them. Slightly less than 20 million
of the young have a B.A.—a group 10% smaller than
10 years ago. The market for the raw material of the
knowledge economy is getting tighter.”169
Minnesota businesses recognize the importance of
Minnesota’s natural features—its lakes, forests, parks and
open spaces—in their ability to attract and retain talented
workers. For example, in the recruiting section of its
website, United Health Group notes the high quality of
The state’s Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) also recognizes the importance of
natural resources to continued economic vitality. In
DEED’s “Why Minnesota?” web page, the state’s tourism
and natural amenities are highlighted as one of six
reasons for business to locate in Minnesota, noting,
“Minnesota’s woods and waters make it a perfect place
for outdoor activities.”172
Clearly, Minnesota’s wealth of natural resources
contributes significantly to the wealth of individuals,
businesses and the state itself. Protecting and enhancing
this wealth will require protection of the natural resources
that foster it.
167 Northwest Minnesota Foundation, Quality of Place in Rural Minnesota. February, 2002 (Research Conducted by Nathan Dorr, Univ. of Minnesota Hubert Humphrey Public Policy Institute) p. 18. http://www.nwmf.org/QofP_full1.pdf
See also Henderson and Abraham, “Can Rural America Support a Knowledge Economy?” Economic Review, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank: 2004 (Rural counties with higher levels of natural amenities associated with topography
and water had higher shares of high-knowledge occupations.) http://www.kansascityfed.org/PUBLICAT/ECONREV/Pdf/3q04hend.pdf.
168 Macht, Cameron and Scott Moore, Today’s High Tech: How Big a Player is Minnesota?” Minnesota Economic Trends, Department of Employment and Economic Development (June 2004).
169 Great North Alliance, “Opportunity Forecast Summary, 2005-2006.” Great North Alliance Website http://www.thegreatnorth.com/reports/2005-Opportunity_Forecast-Summary.pdf.
170 United Health Group Website. October 28, 2004. http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/careers/recruit/recruit_mpls.htm See also The Target Corporation Website, “Twin Cities Living” (Oct. 28, 2004).
171 Best Buy Co. Inc. Website “About Minneapolis” (October 28, 2004) http://careers.bestbuy.com/AboutMpls.asp.
172 Minnesota Dept. of Employment and Economic Development, “Why Minnesota?” DEED Website. January 5, 2005. http://www.deed.state.mn.us/whymn/index.htm.
42
|
V. Conclusion
“Each autumn, Minnesotans prepare for the task ahead. We rake the leaves,
clean the gutters, winterize our homes and our cars, make sure the kids
have parkas, mittens, hats and boots, stow the sprinklers and get out the
shovels. Knowing winter is coming, and preparing for it, is part of what
makes us Minnesotans. And each winter is a little different, but we get
through as long as we’ve planned ahead.
“This annual sense of planning probably has a role in how we respond to
challenges that arise to the state as a whole. Minnesotans know when it’s
time to prepare. The challenge presented to us by this report is compelling
and if the analogy is planning for winter, I’m afraid it’s middle October—
time to consider changing from screen to storm windows by now.
“I look at it this way: Minnesota is stuck at 87,000 square miles—we’re not
getting any bigger. As we approach a population of 6.5 million in 2030 we
will have much fewer square miles per person, about 1/100. But it’s much
more complicated than that. It’s less parkland per person, less trail miles
per person and less open space per person. It’s less room for wildlife and
more pressure on lakes and rivers. The Great Outdoors has the ability to
cope with only so much growth. It’s past the time to plan for our future.
Tomorrow is too late.
“I join with my friends and colleagues on the Campaign for Conservation in
calling for your help in these matters. There is no blueprint for how to slow
growth and coordinate remaining growth with conservation. We need you to
help us frame those ideas into a plan that is embraced by citizens and
leaders alike from all four corners of the state.”
GRANT MERRITT
President, Parks & Trails Council of Minnesota
| 43
A. AS MINNESOTANS, WE MUST COME TOGETHER
TO ASSURE OUR CONSERVATION FUTURE
• Protect resource-based industries important to our
economy, including tourism, agriculture, and forest
products while assuring a continued high quality of
life that will attract employers and workers.
1. It’s Time to Act
Our natural resource legacy has benefited
Minnesotans for generations. The “Land of Sky Blue
Waters,” fertile fields and the legendary white pine are
part of our heritage—shaping our cultural values,
economic opportunities and relationship with the natural
world. Yet today an ever-increasing population and
demand for natural resources threaten these assets. We
are truly on the brink in so many ways, but we are
fortunate. We still have an opportunity to implement
strategies that protect Minnesota’s natural resources for
generations to come. The time to act is today, for
tomorrow may not afford us the option.
• Allow for sustainable economic and population
growth.
• Capitalize on the strong support of Minnesota
citizens for protecting natural resources.
• Provide stable, adequate funding to implement the
plan and to provide for ongoing natural resource
stewardship and science-based fish and wildlife
management.
In 2008 we will celebrate the 150th anniversary of
Minnesota’s statehood. Now is the time to reexamine
the condition of our natural resources, their importance
to our future, and the best way to preserve them for
future generations.
We need a vision for the Minnesota of tomorrow and 50
and 100 years from now and a plan to implement it.
Such a plan must:
• Identify and conserve the most important forests,
prairies, wetlands, farmlands, fish and wildlife
habitats, and other places that define Minnesota,
including crown jewels that need new or added
protection.
• Assure continued access to high quality outdoor
recreation for all Minnesotans.
• Ensure adequate parks, trails and open space are
available particularly for those areas of Minnesota
growing the fastest.
• Help to clean up polluted lakes and rivers by
protecting shorelines, important nearby buffer
lands, and by reducing pollution and excess
nutrient loading.
© TNC
44
|
All around Minnesota, the signs are there: citizens see
both the threats and the opportunities, and are beginning
to act on them. Examples abound. Neighbors along Lake
Superior have recently formed the North Shore Watershed
Watch, “a citizen-based initiative to monitor and build
public awareness of the ever-increasing development
pressure on the North Shore, a serious threat to the water
quality and natural habitat of the watershed.”
Another newly created entity exists in the Greater Blue
Earth watershed of south-central Minnesota. “From the
Ground Up” is a partnership of farmers, landowners and
other residents of the watershed that are seeding a vision
for a long-term effort to restore critical habitat, native
wildlife and ecological health to this working landscape.
One of their work products is a book of literary essays
about the watershed’s natural amenities and the
significance of its sense of place. Importantly, they hope
to achieve a vision of conservation biology, development
and ecologically responsible agriculture that could be used
by any agricultural watershed in the upper Midwest.
The Brainerd Lakes area of Minnesota is perhaps the
poster child for rapid development in an area renowned for
its natural resources and beauty. Faced with growth
projections of 60%, area citizens together with state, local
and nonprofit agencies have formed the Brainerd Lakes
Area Conservation Collaborative (BLACC). “BLACC is
identifying and prioritizing key conservation assets within
the Brainerd Lakes Area, developing potential strategies
for protection, and seeking opportunities to partner with
local units of government, nonprofits and businesses to
better serve the public's expressed needs for healthier
lakes, more parks, trails and open space, and finding a
better overall balance between development and
conservation.”
These efforts are just a few examples of Minnesotans
hearing the call to help create a vision that will preserve
our cherished outdoor traditions even as we grow and
prosper. They represent what is happening and what will
need to happen in communities across the state if we are
to be successful.
We need a strong commitment from the state, and
substantial, wisely-allocated new funding, to build the
community-by-community, region-by-region conservation
effort into a Minnesota mosaic that will assure our
conservation future.
The best sesquicentennial gift the citizens of Minnesota
can give ourselves and our descendants is an outdoors
legacy that sustains the prairies, woods, streams, lakes
and abundant wildlife once glimpsed by an awestruck
visitor to the Minnesota Territory. Though less abundant,
these beautiful natural landscapes exist today and can be
protected for tomorrow.
The Campaign for Conservation invites
all Minnesotans to ask themselves:
How can I help
protect Minnesota’s
natural legacy?
© MN DNR
| 45
© JOHN GREGOR
46
|
Bibliography
American Forest and Paper Association. “U.S. Forest Facts and Figures, 2001.” AFPA Website. March 2005.
http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Forestry/Forestry_Facts_and_Figures/products_production.pdf.
American Farmland Trust. “Fact Sheet: Cost of Community Services Studies.” Washington, D.C., November 2002.
http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27757/FS_COCS_11-02.pdf.
American Sport Fishing Association. “Sport fishing in America.” ASFA Website. March 2005.
http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/economic_impact/fish_eco_impact.pdf.
Andrews, C.C. Minnesota and Dacotah: Letters descriptive of a Tour through the North-West, in the Autumn of 1856. With information relative
to public lands and a table of statistics. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: R. Farnham, 1857.
Anton, Paul. The Economic Value of Open Space: Implications for Land Use Decisions. Report Prepared for Embrace Open Space.
St. Paul, MN, October 2005.
Bond, John Wesley. Minnesota and its resources, Notes of a trip from St. Paul to Pembina. New York: Redfield, 1853.
Dunnevitz, Hannah. Statistics on Minnesota’s Loss of Diversity. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, MN: August 1996.
Explore Minnesota. “Tourism Works for Minnesota: Tourism and the Economy 2005.” Explore Minnesota Website. January 2005.
http://industry.exploreminnesota.com/sites/f998bc45-3bdd-43f1-b100-04b8aaa908d1/uploads/Tourism_works_brochure1.pdf.
Florida, Dr. Richard. Competing in an Age of Talent: Environment, Amenities and the New Economy, Richard King Mellon Foundation:
Pittsburg, January 2000.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:sK4GrN5YoOgJ:www.heinz.cmu.edu/~florida/talent.pdf+author:
%22Florida%22+intitle:%22Competing+in+the+Age+of+Talent%22.
Frumkin, Howard. “Urban Sprawl, Public Health, and Equity,” Public Health. Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University: Spring 2001.
Gabriel, Stuart A., Joe P. Mattey and William L Wascher. “Compensating Differentials and Evolution of the Quality of Life among U.S. States.”
Univ. of Southern California Graduate School of Business, June 1996.
Gartner, William, Ph.D., et. Al. “Economic Impact and Social Benefits Study of Coldwater Angling in Minnesota,” Univ. of Minnesota Tourism
Center, June 2002. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/management/coldwateranglingreport.pdf.
Gobster, Paul and Robert Haight. Landscapes to Lots: Understanding and Managing Midwestern Landscape Change. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
United States Forest Service, North Central Research Station. St. Paul, MN, 2004. http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nc245.pdf.
Great North Alliance. “Opportunity Forecast Summary, 2005-2006.”
Great North Alliance Website http://www.thegreatnorth.com/reports/2005-Opportunity_Forecast-Summary.pdf.
Henderson and Abraham. “Can Rural America Support a Knowledge Economy?” Economic Review, Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, 2004.
Hillman, Rachel. “Profit and Pleasure: The Impact of Tourism on Minnesota’s Economy.” MN Economic Trends, Department of Employment
and Economic Development. St. Paul, MN: June 2004. http://www.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/publications/trends/0604/tourism.htm.
Hovey. CQ’s State Fact Finder 2005: Rankings Across America. Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 2005.
Johnson, K.M. and C. L. Beale. “Nonmetro Recreation Counties: Their Identification and Rapid Growth.” Rural America 17(4): 12-19, 2002.
Kelly, Tim. Contributions of the Minnesota State Park System to State and Regional Economies. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources,
Office of Management and Budget Service: August, 2002.
Kelly, Tim. Observations on Urban Land Use Change in Minnesota, 1982 to 1992 & Projections of Urban Land Needs to 2025.
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of Management and Budget Services, St. Paul, MN: June 1999.
| 47
Kelly, Tim. Outdoor recreation participation trends in wildlife-related activities (fishing, hunting, wildlife observation) and recreational boating.
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Office of Management and Budget Services: 2005.
Kelly, Tim and Joe Stinchfield. Lakeshore Development Patterns in Northeast Minnesota: Status and Trends.
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Office and Management and Budget Services, St. Paul, MN: July, 1998.
Kilgore, Michael A. and Donald G. Mackay. “Trends in Minnesota’s Forest Land Real Estate Market: Potential Implications for
Forest Land Uses.” Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 2006 (in press.)
Krysel, Charles, et al. Lakeshore Property Values and Water Quality. Bemidji State University: June, 2003.
http://www.co.cass.mn.us/esd/intralake/bsu_study.pdf..
Macht, Cameron and Scott Moore. “Today’s High Tech: How Big a Player is Minnesota?” Minnesota Economic Trends, Department of
Employment and Economic Development. St. Paul, MN: June 2004. http://www.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/publications/trends/0604/hightech.htm.
Mathur, Vijay. “Knowledge Workers, Quality of Life and Regional Development: A Forum of Reflections and Visions,”
Cleveland State University: September, 2002.
McGranahan, D.A. “Natural Amenities Drive Rural Population Change.” Agricultural Economic Report No. 781.
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 1999.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Minnesota Wetlands Protection Report: 2006. St. Paul, MN: January 2006.
http://www.mncenter.org/mcea_wetlands_initiative/files/MCEA_Wetlands_Report_2006.pdf.
Metropolitan Council. 2004 Metro Resident’s Survey. St. Paul, MN: January 2005.
http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/MetroResidentsSurvey_2004.pdf.
Metropolitan Council. “Land Use in the Twin Cities Region.” Metropolitan Council Website. December 2005.
http://gis.metc.state.mn.us/landuse2k/tables.asp?y=y90&c=1.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. 2001-2003 Minnesota Wetland Report. St. Paul, MN: August 2005.
http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/publications/wetlandreport.pdf.
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. “2005 Priorities – Forest Management.” Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Website. January 2005.
http://www.mnchamber.com/priorities/forestman.cfm.
Minnesota Department of Administration. “Minnesota Milestones: Parkland and Open Space.”
Minnesota Dept. of Administration Website. March 2005. http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator.html?Id=69&G=42;
http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/mm/indicator.html?T=315&From=Custom&Table_together=N.
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Compare Minnesota: Profiles of Minnesota’s Economy and Population.
St. Paul, MN: June 2003. http://www.deed.state.mn.us/bizdev/PDFs/c-book.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Health. “Fact Sheet: Health Care Costs of Physical Inactivity in Minnesota.” St. Paul, MN: May 2002.
Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota Drinking Water: Protecting Public Health, A Summary of Drinking Water Protection Activities
for 2004. St. Paul, MN: May 2005. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/water/com/dwar/report04.html.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. A Strategic Conservation Agenda 2003-2007: Measuring Progress Toward Mission.
St. Paul, MN: March 2004. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/conservationagenda/fulldoc.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Facility Survey of Minnesota Cities, Counties and School Districts: Part
I: Facility Adequacy. St. Paul, MN: July 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/facility_adequacy.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Facility of Minnesota Cities, Counties and School Districts:
Part II: Management Concerns of Local Government Providers. St. Paul, MN: July 2005.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_management_concerns.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004 Outdoor Recreation Participation Survey of Minnesotans: Report on Findings.
St. Paul, MN: January 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/orsurvey2004_report.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. St. Paul, MN: 2005.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/cwcs/strategy.html.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota’s Forest Resources Annual Report. St. Paul, MN:
Sept. 2004. http://iic.gis.umn.edu/MN%20For%20Res%2004FINAL.pdf.
48
|
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Plan, Version 1.2. St. Paul, MN: 1997.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/wetlands/wetland.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ten-Year Forecasts of Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Participation, 2004-2014.
St. Paul, MN: July 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/ten_year_rec_forecast.pdf.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, The Forest Legacy Program In Minnesota: Statewide Assessment of Need.
St. Paul, MN: September 1999.
Minnesota Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division. 2005 Property Values and Assessment Practices Report, assessment year 2004.
St. Paul, MN: March 2005. http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/property/other_supporting_content/assessment_report_2005.pdf.
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. Minnesota Water Priorities: 2003-2005. St. Paul, MN: February 2003.
http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/pdf/2003/BiennialWaterReport2003.pdf.
Minnesota League of Conservation Voters Education Fund. Losing Ground: Understanding Minnesota’s 2006-2007 Conservation and
Environment Budget. St. Paul, MN: October 2005. http://www.mepartnership.org/documents/Losing%20Ground.pdf.
Minnesota Planning, Land Management Information Center. Minnesota Public Lands: 1983. St. Paul, MN: November 1983.
http://www.lmic.state.mn.us/pdf/MN_Public_Lands_1983.pdf
Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. “Census 2000: MN Population Change by County, 1980-2000,”
Minnesota State Demographic Center Website. March 2005.
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/Cen2000redistricting/Cen00ctypopr.html.
Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. Minnesota Household Projections, 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: Dec. 2003.
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/HouseholdProjections2003.pdf.
Minnesota Planning, State Demographic Center. Minnesota’s Population Projections 2000-2030. St. Paul, MN: October 2002.
http://www.demography.state.mn.us/DownloadFiles/00Proj/PopulationProjections02.pdf.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2004 303 (d) list: Cover letter. St. Paul MN: 2005.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/tmdl-coverletter-04.pdf.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Air Quality Trends in Minnesota,” MPCA Website. December 2005.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/programs/indicators/iom-0504.html.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Water Quality Assessment of Trout Streams on Lake Superior’s North Shore.” MPCA Environmental
Bulletins. August 2004, No. 2. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/environmentalbulletin/environmentalbulletin-0404.pdf.
Nelson, Kristin, et al. Wildlife and Homeowner Interactions, Bayport Wildlife Management Area. Report Prepared for the Division of Wildlife,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: December 2002.
http://www.cnr.umn.edu/FR/people/facstaff/nelson/personal_page/knelson/WMA%20Report_Nelson.pdf.
Northwest Minnesota Foundation, Quality of Place in Rural Minnesota. February 2002.
(Research conducted by Nathan Dorr, Univ. of Minnesota Hubert Humphrey Public Policy Institute.) http://www.nwmf.org/QofP_full1.pdf.
Office of the Governor. “Press Release: Governor Pawlenty’s Clean Water Vision for Minnesota.” June 24, 2003.
http://www.governor.state.mn.us/Tpaw_View_Article.asp?artid=404.
Pfannmuller, Lee and Barbara Coffin. The Uncommon Ones: Minnesota’s Endangered Plants and Animals.
Minn. Dept. of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN: 1989.
Pratt, Dr. Michael, et al, “Economic Interventions to Promote Physical Activity” American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
2004;27 3S (136 at 141).
Radeloff, V.C., R.B. Hammer, P.R. Voss, A.E. Hagen, D.R. Field, and D.J. Mladenoff. 2001. “Human Demographic Trends and
Landscape Level Forest Management in the Northwest Wisconsin Pine Barrens.” Forest Science 47(2): 229-241.
Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, and S. I. Stewart. 2005. Sprawl and forest fragmentation in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000.
Conservation Biology 19: 793-805. http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/publications/PDFs/Radeloff_etal_ConsBio2005.pdf
Radomski, Paul. “Historical Changes in Abundance of Floating Leaf and Emergent Vegetation in Minnesota Lakes.” Minn. Dept of Natural
Resources, St. Paul, MN: April 2005. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/apm/review_reports/historical_changes.pdf.
| 49
Radomski, Paul and Timothy Goeman. “Consequences of Human Lakeshore Development on Emergent and Floating Leaf Vegetation
Abundance,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 21:46-61, 2001.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/apm/review_reports/12.pdf.
Schroeder, S. Payton, M.A. and Fulton, D.C. Aquatic Plant Management Landowner Study - Introduction and Study Overview. University of
Minnesota, Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology: St. Paul, MN: December, 2004.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ecological_services/apm/review_reports/05c.pdf.
Spieles, Douglas J. Ph.D. The Prairie Wetlands of Southwest Minnesota. Southwest State University: January, 2000.
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/environmentalscience/casestudies/case8.mhtml.
Stewart, S.I. 2002. “Amenity Migration.” in: Luft, K.; MacDonald, S., comps. Trends 2000: Shaping the Future, 5th Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism Trends Symposium, 2000 September 17-20, Lansing, MI. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University: 369-378.
Tester, John R., Minnesota’s Natural Heritage: An Ecological Perspective. University of Minnesota Press, St. Paul, MN: 1995.
Trust for Public Land, “Land Vote: Votes by Jurisdiction: Minnesota.” Trust for Public Land Vote Website. January 2006.
http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=12010&folder_id=2386.
U.S. Census Bureau. “2004 Population Estimates for Micropolitan and Metropolitan Statistical Areas.” U.S. Census Bureau Website.
December 2005. http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/Estimates%20pages_final.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Interim State Population Projections 2005.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. April 21, 2005.
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/PressTab1.xls.
U.S. Census Bureau. “Minnesota Resident Population.” U.S. Census Bureau Website. December 2005.
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/minnesota.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau, Government Division, State Government Finances. “Natural Resource Spending in the United States, 1993 to 2003.”
U.S. Census Bureau Website. December 2005. http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state.html.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “1997 National Resources Inventory: State Rankings by Acreage and
Rate of Non-Federal Land Developed.” Natural Resources Conservation Service Website. Revised December 2000.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/tables/t5845.html.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. “National Resources Inventory 2001 Annual NRI: Urbanization and
Development of Rural Land.” Natural Resources Conservation Service Website. 2002.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/nri01/nri01dev.html.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation Washington
D.C.: October 2002. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/fhw01-us.pdf
U.S. Dept of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation:
Minnesota. Washington D.C.: rev. March 2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/01fhw/fhw01-mn.pdf..
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 2001
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife - Associated Recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA: August 2003.
http://library.fws.gov/nat_survey2001_economics.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Wetlands: Prairie Potholes,” EPA Website. Oct. 2005.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/types/pothole.html.
University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Minnesota State Park System Land Study. St. Paul, MN: April 2000.
University of Minnesota Extension Service. “New Study: More Farmland Being Lost to Urban Uses.” University of Minnesota Extension
Service Website. July 1999. http://www.extension.umn.edu/newsletters/sustainableagriculture/FD1052.html.
University of Minnesota Tourism Center. Study of Current Area Tourists: Southern Minnesota. Sept. 2005.
University of Minnesota Tourism Center. Study of Current Area Tourists: Northwest Minnesota. Jan. 2004.
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. “Institutional Timberland Investment: Summary of a Forum Exploring Changing
Ownership Patterns and the Implications for Conservation of Environmental Values.” Yale Forest Forum. 5: 2, 2002.
50
|
Minnesota’s natural resources and environmental quality are
on the brink of irreversible decline.
Each generation of Minnesotans has risen to the challenge
of conserving our Great Outdoors.
The time has come for this generation to meet the biggest
conservation challenge in the state’s history.
We must:
• Save vanishing natural areas and habitats now.
• Become even better stewards of our air, lakes and streams,
forests, fish and wildlife, and scenery.
• Meet the ever-increasing public demand for parks, fishing
and hunting sites, trails and outdoor recreation.
• Find the funding needed to assure this stewardship.
• Most importantly, we must act now.
Future Minnesotans will judge us by our response to this challenge.
Let us make them proud.
458 Otis Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104
[email protected]
651-253-5691
www.campaignforconservation.org
© COVER PHOTOS BY JOHN GREGOR/COURTESY OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Minnesota Calling - Belwin Conservancy

Transcription

Similar documents

briefing - Public Record Media

industrial - United Properties

mnba-winners-poster-2010 - Friends of the St. Paul Public Library

James Rice Widder AIA LEED

H5N2 HPAI in Minnesota

2015 Central Region`s Marketing Recap

Peak Performance PDF

sym posium keynote lectures

Lookbook - Glensheen

BWBR Receives 2015 AIA Minnesota Firm Award