Lake Superior Sustainable Communities

(note: This is the unedited and un-shortened version of an article I worked on for the Spring 2008 issue of "Streamline", a newsletter for residents of the Lester-Amity watershed published by the Natural Resources Research Institute; this and other issues are on the Lake Superior Streams website.)

Quick: how many trees are in the Lester-Amity rivers watershed? Give up? Me too, but if the first thing that came in to your head was “a lot!�?, you’re on the right track. Most of the land in the watershed is forested, with trees covering approximately 71% of the Amity Creek watershed’s 10,533 acres and 63% of the Lester River’s 22,773 acres (that’s almost 22,000 acres of forest), and this is clearly the dominant land cover. As it turns out, that’s a pretty good thing for water quality in the creek, too.

Trees play a critical role in protecting and maintaining water quality all around Lake Superior, and do many things that we don’t always recognize. During rainfall, a forest canopy can capture up to 30-50% of a typical rain, and hold it on their leaves or needles until it evaporates. The floor of a forest, with all the undergrowth and decaying leaves, can hold a significant amount of water as well, trapping 3 times more water than a grass lawn can. The roots of trees also help break up the soil (particularly important with the clay soils so common in this area), and this helps water infiltrate down into the ground. During the spring, coniferous forests reduce and delay snowmelt runoff due to the shade their needles provide. All of these things help keep water on the land, and protect the stream from higher runoff volumes, which erode the banks and pull sediment into the creek.

Trees along the banks of the stream play a few other roles, as well. The shade provided by trees to the stream helps keep the water cool for the Brook Trout, which do best when the water temperature is between about 52-61 deg. F, and can’t survive when the water temperatures exceed 75 degrees F. The roots of trees along the banks help prevent erosion as well, keeping the water clean. The trees also directly provide food and habitat to stream organisms as well; leaves falling into the stream are eaten by many invertebrates, and can be the main source of food entering the stream. Trees falling into the stream are also both a source of food (some critters feed on the wood as it decomposes), and create habitat for fish by blocking high flows, creating pools and eddies, and providing cover from predators.

Research has actually found that if you remove too many trees from a watershed, peak stream flows increase, the amount of sediment in the water increases, and water temperatures increase. Trees are definitely a good thing for water quality.

So, along with rain barrels, rain gardens, and other things, add planting trees to the list of things you can do to help out water quality in the Lester River and Amity Creek. As part of the Weber Stream Restoration Initiative, NRRI planted hundreds of native conifers in the Amity Creek watershed. Coniferous trees are probably most helpful, but many varieties suitable for our area are available each spring through the South St. Louis Soil and Water Conservation’s annual tree sale (info online here: http://www.southstlouisswcd.org/tree.html); orders are due by April 15 this year. As you may know, Deer will kill many tree seedlings, but a good 5-6’ high fence can keep the deer away until the trees are tall enough to be out of reach. The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago, of course, but the 2nd best time is today!

Posted by Jesse Schomberg at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(note: this was originally posted on Feb 11th, 2008, before I started this one. I'm adding it here to get everything in one place)

On Friday at the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Washington, DC, I attended a session called “Emerging Thresholds of Sustainable Urbanism� led by Doug Farr, who recently wrote the Book: Sustainable Urbanism (2008), with other smart growth experts from around the country, and chaired the committee that developed the new LEED-ND standard (LEED for Neighborhood Development).

Here’s a few facts shared by him, Lynn Richards from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Smart Growth, and Kaid Benfield from the Natural Resources Defense Council; all had citations, though I didn’t manage to copy down most of them. This is followed by a few additional ideas about what this means, and how Duluth can use this information

¬ We use 37% more energy getting to and from buildings than we use operating the buildings themselves.

¬ Vehicle miles traveled are increasing so fast that planned increases in CAFÉ standards will do little more than slightly slow fuel consumption growth. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is critical to reducing carbon output

¬ VMT is directly related to the density of the residential area in which a family lives; the less dense an area, the more miles driven

¬ Increases in housing efficiency are not keeping up with the increases in housing size; so homes are more efficient per square foot, but the square feet are increasing too fast!

¬ A “green� household in a suburban area (green = highly efficient building, hybrid car) still requires more energy for heating, cooling, lighting, and transportation than an urban home without any green features included.

¬ Atlanta Avg = 34 vehicles miles traveled per person per day. In a new smart growth neighborhood in Atlanta, vehicle miles traveled is 8/person/day.

¬ Attached housing (sharing a wall, floor, or ceiling with another unit) can reduce energy needs by up to 50% as compared to detached units, not including reduction in building materials.

¬ Share Cars: recommend 1 per block; can replace 6-7 cars on a standard block.

¬ Density and Design help, but LOCATION is critical: you need walkable access to other destinations.

Farr defines sustainable urbanism as:

Walkable, transit-served urbanism integrated with high-performance buildings and high-performance infrastructure. By creating more high-density urban mixed-use neighborhoods that are walkable for local needs (parks, open space, corner stores, schools, restaurants) and served by reliable, frequent transit service, we can cut building energy demands significantly and reduce vehicle miles traveled.

He argues, and I have long agreed, that community design is not getting it’s due in climate change mitigation discussions, even though well-designed communities can drastically reduce vehicle miles traveled (without having to severely alter our lifestyle), improve building efficiency, make transit successful, create viable local businesses, protect open spaces, reduce stormwater impacts, increase physical activity, and create communities that foster a sense of civic engagement and connectedness severely lacking in our current suburban model.

Unfortunately, many of the existing zoning codes in our cities and towns come from the “car era� and set minimum standards for the very things we don’t want (parking, setbacks, street widths, outdoor lighting) and maximums for the things we DO want (density, building height for example) and limit uses to districts separated by distances that REQUIRE a vehicle to travel between.

Farr’s book brings together green building design, new urbanism, and smart growth (with a healthy dose of LID as well), showing a model that seeks to maximize the benefits of each of these concepts, while eliminating the negatives from them as well.

Consider:

1. the chain store built 5 miles from the city center on a former forest, with no transit and 3 acres of parkinglot, but is LEED certified because of the paint, sheetrock, and heating system.
2. The “new urbanist� neighborhood with high density and pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, but nothing to walk to: no restaurants, corner stores, or civic buildings
3. the Smart Growth community in the urban center that fails to provide safe sidewalks or adequate density to support local businesses

None of these by themselves allow our communities the “get over the hump� to creating vibrant, walkable communities where cars aren’t needed by everyone to have a high quality of life, and resource use is minimized throughout the development and “habitation�. Putting them all together moves us much closer to sustainable than our current model, and actually opens up the door to additional measures to increase sustainability through energy generation, waste management, and food supply, for instance.

How does all this apply to Duluth and the North Shore, with small communities and significant tourism? I don’t fully know, but many thoughts come to mind, that seem worth exploring.

Duluth is well-positioned to take advantage of these ideas. With the community being strung out along the lake, Transit is much simpler than in many communities across the country. Our bus system is not adequate because we don’t have the community designed to make it work; it’s not the DTA’s fault. We need more density along the main corridors and within our neighborhood centers to make effective transit work. These neighborhood centers can become “true� mixed use, walkable neighborhoods as Duluth grows. Some examples: the redevelopment plan for Woodland would bring in higher-density retail and residential uses that would allows the existing and new businesses to thrive while creating a “center� that would make more efficient transit feasible. Lakeside has a number of existing businesses (even though many have closed); promoting mixed-use with higher-density housing along this corridor would again provide these businesses with built-in customers, and again increasing the use of transit and allowing more efficient and effective transit.

Farr indicated that as a rough rule of thumb, a corner store needs @ 1,000 dwelling units within a 5 minute walk that will use it; being on a high travel corridor and/or selling gas reduces this number significantly, but not all places will/can sell gas, either; density is the key to making both transit and local businesses work!

Duluth also has a railway running the entire length of the city, and will, if plans all work, have a high-speed rail line to the Twin Cities. What does this mean? Will we have Duluthians taking the rail to their job in Minneapolis? Can we create a “hub� of high-density residential around the Depot to support such a population that could “walk to work� in St. Paul? This would greatly enhance the viability of our downtown and within-city transit systems, creating greater need and allowing an increase in service. Can we create a dedicated transit line through the city on these rails that could service West Duluth to Lakeside? Can we shuttle tourists from the Twin Cities all the way to Two Harbors on rail lines? Can Two Harbors build the infrastructure to support such service within their community and become a destination? All of these things are possible, and as gas prices continue to climb, become more and more feasible and attractive.

In research looking at housing demands across the country, Zimmerman Volk Associates found 40% of the housing demand for units that share walls or floors: apartments, condos, duplexes, etc.) This % is increasing over time, and this IS high density! Single family residential will never go away, but increasing the diversity in the types of housing available can give new homeowners, young professionals, and older empty-nesters new options to stay in Duluth and take advantage of our incredible assets.

The new development is only one aspect, of course. This density that I’m talking about must be offset by protections of the community green space that we have, and this is feasible because all the density would go in already-developed areas, shrinking the demand for new housing on undeveloped lands and providing increased tax base with minimal increased service costs (the roads, sewer, water, plowing and bus services, etc. are all in place already with no real increase in cost!). There are tools available for the community to use as well, such as transfer of development rights, which would use the increased density as a funding source to pay for permanent protection of greenspaces that can be used for stormwater management, community gardens, recreation, and habitat.

These new buildings need to be built efficiently, and take into consideration all the knowledge we have about green building design and water quality protection, and they need to fit in with the existing neighborhoods and work WITH them to create more vibrant and safer places to live.

Climate change is not going away, and we can all do the simple things, like changing lightbulbs, quickly. Getting more efficient cars may take a few years, but is a pretty simple step for the most part as well. Both of these are small steps on our way to sustainability, though. Creating better neighborhoods is not quick, but essential for creating a community that doesn’t rely on cars to go everywhere, and that’s where we have the potential to realize significant gains in sustainability. The time to start is now.

Posted by Jesse Schomberg at 9:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)