2001-02-12 MN DNR Classification of Lakes
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
1601 Minnesota Drive, Brainerd, MN. 56401
(218) 828-6172
February 12,2001
Linda Goeb, City Administrator and
Mike Couri, City Attorney
City of Albertville
5975 Main avenue N.E.
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, Minnesota 55301
Dear Ms. Goeb and Mr. Couri:
John Linc Stine requested that I send you background information on how the Department classified Mud
and School Lakes as Natural Environment under the shoreland program. I have enclosed Shoreland Report
No.1, that explains the basis behind the Shoreland classification system. Page 11 of the report, under the
heading County Lakes, states that all lake basins between 25-150 acres were classified Natural
Environment. This was because lake basins below 150 acres in size had a Crowding Potential (acres of
water per mile of shore) below 60. Crowding Potential is explained on page 6 and on the top of page 9.
Also the chart on the backside of page 11 further explains how this fits in.
Our records show Mud (86-26) lake to be 128 acres and School (86-25 lake to be 76 acres in size. Wright
County adopted their Shoreland Management ordinance in 1972 listing Mud and School lakes as Natural
Environment. Both lakes were in the unincorporated areas of Wright County at the time. Annexation
occurred and the City of Albertville adopted a state approved Shoreland Ordinance listing Mud and School
lakes as Natural Environment. Because of revised state Shoreland rules the city amended its ordinance in
1993 to meet state standards. Both Mud and school lakes continued to be listed as Natural Environment.
I hope this information is helpful in providing an understanding in how the lakes were classified. Please
contact me should you have further questions.
Sincerely,
~'" S~
Russ Schultz,
Shoreland Management Coordinator
cc: Patty Fowler, Area Hydrologist
John Stine, Permits and Land Use Section Administrator
David Hills, Regional Hydrologist
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
^ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a
...., Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste
. ."
. '_ ,- . . . '. ,";:,,, '''0' . . - ~,; C' 'f .',,:,.; . _.'.' _,,,,C'
"9. .....'.i..,...'?:..., <;:'" ..' '::E"~:'< A' 'N' . ".D"E:;J: ;itM>ii~:it~iiA;~~EE'~':\":~~E;<;iI'T
~"tn-;.",',:: .'T:,"';:_",;.' -, < ," '.' ',-';':: ':;:~.;S- '_;i>~~:__" > V"'- "':':--"::111'-"" >~:~..-~~.'~::- "
.~' . -,'- - ~ '" ',.::",":" "'~7:C~-:-',-:_',~ "'>-c'-";'::.'" --::':>.:''- '.C
'C.. ...;",;.::<S..... ["Se /,' F': ",,':fC' ..Ii 'T" " ...1.:0......... '.N<~' :S.:~;(S:.);iri.;.xe:..M:..
..:.,:~:"-",-, ,'_ ,- .:.: ; ;uL: -, '-.': ',>;~:' '. " >. ."0,,, ,",/l: .~' '-_"~';":- -'._..-::-1\'-;'-:_~:':':,
..- .', -- .' "
f .' -", .
-"' '-"."
...:;.'".......;.yw/..
, ,v.~. '-'
.- .-.
"';:,'. U 8.1::l~'t\":;-,,~i~i;.~~ "'E)~R'~: "'.;'." .'......
'r ..' ....1'~:,.:"1;";;j.: '< .....;~!\;:.~;ti:
.- - " . . " . ,~- .
,
"1
,~'....o r y
19'7.'
..,ij.'..
''''',QlfA ,i~<.< .'i. -",..; e',...,
D E PAR T M' E'f4 T OF,' ,:', :A't'uR~i....;fE<souJie~s '
Division of':'_ !&:i~t.i.~j,"" .' '.' .....
..
.
e
--
I. INTRODUCTION
A delicate relationship exists between a life supporting 'lake or river and
the natural setting of the adjacent shore1and. This relationship can be drasti-
cally affected by man's activities. Failure to properly use our shoreland
resources will inevitably lead to a deterioration of the total lake environment
and will drastically diminish the recreational and aesthetic amenities sought
and valued by a large segment of Minnesota's citizens. The recognition of this
delicate relationship led to the enactment of the Shore1andManagemen:t Act.
The Shore1and Management Act is actually two separate pieces qf legislation.
The original act (Laws of Minnesota 1969, Chapter 777) was passed by'the 1969
session of the legislature in order to provide guidance for the wise development
of shore1ands in unincorporated areas. During the 1973 session of the 1egisla-
ture, the original Shore1and Management Act was amended to also include munici-
pa1ities (Laws of Minnesota 1973, Chapter 379).
Basically, the Shore1and Management Act requires the Department of Natural
Resources to promulgate regulations under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 105 which
shall be implemented through county and municipal land use controls (Le. zoning
ordinances). The intent of the act is to provide local units of government with
minimum dimensional and performance standards in order to protect and enhance
the quality of our surface waters and conserve the economic an~ .natural resource
values of the shorelands of public waters.
Since public waters in Minnesota vary widely in character and use, an
optimum balance between resource utilizati,onand resource protection can be
obtained only if each lake has development standards tailored to it. This, un-
fortunate1y,is virtually impossible in Minnesota with over 12,000 lake basins!
1Exc1udes dry lake basins from Bulletin No. 25, "An Inventory of Minnesota
Lakes."
e
e
-
that are capable of some type of public use. For this reason a public waters
classification system was incorporated into the Statewide Standards and Criteria
for Mana2ement of Shoreland Areas of Minnesota~ officially adopted June 30, 1970:
CONS 71 (a) PUBLIC WATERS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The. c1.1U.6.in~a.ti.on .6lj.6t.e.m nolt pubUc. wa.:te1L6 .6haU. be.
blUe.d u.pon :the. .6uli:.a.bUlilj On eac.h lak.e. Oil. .6.t1te.a.m 601t
6u;tUILe. Oil. adc:U.-tWna.t de.vel.opme.n:t and :the. duhta..ble.
le.vel. 0 n de.vel.opme.n:t.
The classification system recognizes the varied nature of Minnesota lakes.
It is flexible enough to insure that development standards for any particular
body of water will reflect the unique qualities of the .resource.
CONS 71 (a) (1) The. ci.a.6.6.ifri-c.a.ti.on .6lj.6t.em 06 public. wa.:te1L6 .6hall.
C.On6~t. On Na.i::uIuLt Env,(Jr.cmme.n:t Lak.u and S.tIte.am6,
Re.CJte.a..U.ona1. Ve.vel.opme.n:t La,~u, Ge.neJutt Ve.vel.op-
me.n:t Lak.u and S.tIte.a.m6, and CJU:t.i..c.ai. La.h.u.
To simplify the administration of this program a shoreland management
classification system with three categories was selected. A fourth temporary
designation of "critical lake" was intended for a lake which did not clearly
fall into one of the three classes. The public waters included in the initial
classification for the unincorporated areas consisted of all lakes, ponds and
flowages having a basin acreage of 25 acres or more and all rivers and streams
having a total drainage area of two square miles or more. When the 1969 Shore-
land Management Act was amended to include municipalities, all lakes, ponds
and flowages having a basin acreage of 10 acres or more and all rivers and
streams having a total drainage area of two square miles or more within munic-
ipalities were classified.3
2Rules and Regulations of the Department of Conservation, Chapter Six, State-
wide Standards and Criteria for Management of Shoreland Areas of Minnesota.
3The classification excluded lakes completely within the Red Lake Ind~an
Reservation and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.
-2-
~ Goals and Objectives
The primary goal of the classification system is to designate lakes and
streams into classes which will provide a balance between general public use and
resource protection. The goals are more explicitly stated in the statewide
standards:
CONS 71 (a) (2) Manageme.nt Goa.t6 and Ob j e.wvu
(aa) Na.:tuJtal EnvVwnme.YLt Lak.u and. S.tIt.e.a.m6: t:fJ
pltU eJl.ve. and e.nhanc.e. high qu.aU.ty wa.:te.JL6 by
pltOte.cUng them 6Jtom poUu.tWn and t:fJ pltote.c.t
.6 ho 1tei.a.n.cL6 0 6 wa.:te.JL6 whic.h a.lte. UYL6 uUable. 601t
de.vei.opme.nt; t:fJ m:Un.:ta1..n a low de.YL6Lty 06
de.vei.opme.nt; and t:fJ mU..ntLUn high .6:ta.ndaJr.d6
06 quaLi:ty 601t pvunU:te.d de.vei.opme.YLt.
The Natural Environment classification is intended for those waters which
need a significant amount of protection because of their unique natural
4It characteristics or their unsuitability for development and sustained recreational
use. They will be assigned the most restrictive development standards,
(bb) Re.cJLe.a.:ti.onal Ve.ve.lopme.n:t Lak.u and S.tIt.e.a.m6:
t:fJ pItOvide. ma.n.a.geme.YLt poUcUu lte.tt6onably
C.On6-U.te.nt wUh e.x.i6:ti..ng de.vei.opme.nt and U6 e.;
to pltOv.<.de. nOIt the. be.ne.6ic..i.al. U6 e. 06 pubUc
wa.:te.JL6 by the. ge.neJtal pubUc, a.6 well. a.6 the.
JL.ipalVi.a.n ownelL6; t:fJ pltOv.<.de. a balanc.e. be.:lwe.e.n
the. la.k.e. ItUO ulLC.e. and la.k.e. U6 e.; t:fJ pILOv.<.de.
601t a mul:UpUcUy 06 la.k.e. U6U; a.nd. t;o pItO-
te.et a.lte.tt6 UYL6 uUable. nolt ltuide.n.:tW. and.
c.ommeJl.c..i.al. U6U 61tOm de.vei.opme.n;t.
The Recreational Development classification is intended for those waters
which are capable of absorbing additional development and recreational use.
They are usually lightly to moderately developed at present. They will be assigned
an intermediate set of development standards.
e
(c.c.) Ge.neJLa.l Ve.vei.opme.nt La.k.u and S.tIt.e.a.m6: t:fJ
pita v.<.de. mi.YUmum Ite.gui.a.:ti..o n6 06 a.lte.tt6 pltU e.n.t1.y
de.vei.ope.d a.6 high de.n6Uy, muU..i.ple. U6e. a.lte.tt6;
-3-
e
e
e
a.nd W plWvide. gtWia.nc.e. nOIL nlLtWt.e. glWwth 0 n
c.ommeILc.<.al a.nd J..n.dwdJri.al e.6ta.bWhme.11.t6 wlUc.h
ILe.quiJLe. lOc.a..U.on6 on pu.bUc. wa-teJL6.
The General Development classification is intended for those bodies which
are at present highly developed or which, due to their location, may be needed
for high density development in the future. They will be assigned the least
restrictive set of development standards.
(dd) ClUUc.al La.ke.6: W plLOvide. a. mOILe. ILe.6tJri..c:t1..ve.
.6 et 0 n .6ta.rr.daJr.d6 nOIL ba.di.y deteJri.oJta.ted taku
wh1..c.h c.a.nno t be. ILe.a.6 0 na.bly ma.na.g ed J..n. a.ny 0 ~
the. pu.bUc. wa.teJL6 cla.6.6e.6 de.frine.d a.bove.. rhue.
take.6, de.6.i.gna.ted by the. CorrrniA.6.ioneIL, .6hall.
be. .6:t.w:U.ed J..n. nU/LtheIL de.t.ail W deteltJrline.
a.ppltopJvia.te. .6ta.ru:1.aItcl.6 nOIL .6hoILei.a.nd de.vei.o~e.n.t
nOIL e.a.c.h huUvidual. take.. Until. .6u.c.h .6:t.w:U.u
Me. c.ompleted, thUe. take.6 .6haU, be. .6u.bje.ct.
W the. .6ta.ru:1aIr.d6 a.ppUed w Na..tuJr.ai. Envvumme.n.t
La.ku a.nd St"lteam.6.
The Critical designation was intended for those waters which required
further study to determine a satisfactory management program. These waters
have peculiar physical or developmental characteristics which set them apart
from other lakes.
II. THE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS
.
Criteria
The most critical task in developing a classification system is to ensure
reliability of the criteria selected for the classification process. These
criteria must accurately reflect the physical and cultural characteristics of
each body of water, and they must provide the means for analyzing bodies of water
-4-
e
e
-
and grouping them into appropriate categories.
CONS 71 (a I (3 I CIU..-teJr1..a. 60lt. deteJunbu.ng the. ci.a.6.6-i.6-i.c.a;U.o n 06 any
pubUc. WCtteJl .6ha1i. be.:
(a.a.1 S-i.ze. - It.ei.a..U.ng to ava.il.able. .6 pa.c.e. 60lt.
de.vel.opme.n,t on the. .6holt.e. and 60lt. U6e. 06
the. wateJl .6 pac.e..
( bb I Clt.owcUng Pote.n:ti.a1. - It.ei.a..U.ng to the.
ILa.:t1.o 06 tak.e. .6WL6ac.e. alLea. to the.
le.ngth 06 .6holt.e.Une..
(c.c.1 Amoun,t and type. 06 e.xi.6.ting de.vel.opme.n,t.
( ddl Exi.6ilng na.:tuJtai. c.haM.c;teJcM-Uc6 06 the.
pubUc. wateJL6 and .6 uJLItouncUng .6 holt.e1.a.nd6 .
(e.e.) County and It.e.g.wnal pubUc. wateJL6 ne.ed.6.
Additional criteria were considered when classifying public waters in
municipal areas.
Tho.6 e. wateJL6 who.6 e. .6 holt.e6 aILe. plte6 e.rrfty c.haJt-
ac.:teJr1.ze.d by -i.ndU6:tJUa.l, c.ommeJlcia1. Olt. h1.gh
de.n6Uy It.e6.w.e.n:ti.a1. de.vel.opme.nt .6ha..U. be.
ci.a.6.6-i.6-i.e.d Ge.neJLal Ve.velopme.n,t.
(bb I Tho.6 e. wateJL6 who.6 e. .6 holt.e6 aILe. plt.e6 e.ntly c.ha.Jt.-
ac.:teJr1.ze.d by me.cUum de.n6Uy It.u.w.e.n.t.i.ai. de.ve1-
opme.n,t w.i.:th Olt. wUhou.t UmUe.d .6 eJlv-i.c.e.-oue.n,te.d
c.orrmeJlcA..a.t de.vel.opme.n,t .6ha.U be. ci.a.6.6-i.fr<.e.d a.6
Re.CJte.a;t..i.o nai. Ve.vel.o pme.n,t.
NR 82(6)(1)(a.a.)
(ec.) Th0.6e. WCtteJL6 who.6e. .6holt.u aILe. pltue.ntly c.ha.Jt.-
ac.:teJr1.ze.d by low de.n6Uy, .6-i.ngle.- 6a.mily
It.u-i.de.n:ti.a1. de.vel.opme.n,t .6ha..U. be. ci.a.6.6-i.6-i.e.d
a.6 NatuIta.t Envbw nme.n,t.
( ddl Tho.6 e. wateJL6 whoi e. .6 holt.u aILe. not yet de.n6 el.y
de.vel.ope.d, .60 tha..t the. 6u.tuILe. c.haJr.a.c.:teJL 06
the. WCtteJl .i6 a mafteJl 06 c.ho.ic.e., .6 ha..U. be.
c.l.a.6.6-i.6-i.e.d a.6 UtheJl NatuIta.t Envbw nme.nt Olt.
Re.CJte.a.:tional Ve.vel.opme.nt, de.pe.ncUng on:
(-i.1 Exi.6:Ung na.tuJtal C.haJr.a.c.:teJcM.tiC6 06 the.
wateJL6 and .6holt.e1.a.nd6;
(Lt.1 The. abUUy 06 the. WCtteJL6 and adja.c.e.n,t
.6 ho It.e1.a.nd6 , ba.6 e.d on .6-i.z e. and CILOwcUng
pote.n:ti.a1., to a.c.c.e.pt wUh.ou.t du-i.gna.-
-5-
e
Uon, me.cU.wn den6liy .6holLe1.a.nd. devel.op-
men;t;
(LU) S:ta.te, lLeg-i.onai., c.oun:ty a.nd. mu.nici.pai.
pta.n6 ;
(-i.v) E xi6fug la.nd U6 e 1Lel3tJU.c;Uo n6 . 4
Size and shape are important indicators of the capability of a body of
water to absorb additional development and recreational use. Larger lakes will
not deteriorate as rapidly as small ones when developed, due to a larger volume
of water and a greater likelihood of some portions of the lake remaining unde-
veloped. Irregularly shaped lakes have a greater proportion of miles of shore-
line to water area than large round ones. This ratio of shoreline to acreage
is called crowding potential and is a good indicator of potential developmental
problems. When the shoreline of a lake with high crowding potential is completely
developed, utilization of available water space will be greater than on a lake
III with a low crowding potential. This ratio is an important factor in determining
how much development pressure a lake can absorb.
Existing development was weighted heavily in the classification process,
since legal constraints dictate a reasonable correlation between newly adopted
zoning controls and the existing pattern of development. For example, strict
lot size and setback requirements might be unreasonable if applied to a heavily
developed lake. Existing development for a lake is measured by average density
of dwellings per mile of shore.
Classification must also be based upon the physical characteristics of the
shoreland areas. Factors such as soil types, vegetative cover, on-shore land
slope, off-shore lake bed slope and ecological classification (previously deter~
mined by the Division of Fish and Wildlife) can be used as indicators of the
-
4Rules and Regulations of the Department of Natural Resources, Chapter Six,
Standards and Criteria for the Management of Municipal Shor~land Areas of Minnesota.
-6-
e
e
e
suitability of the shoreland areas for future development. Many areas around
shallow lakes have soils that are unsuitable for building sites or soil absorp-
tion sewage treatment systems. Often times, shallow lakes with gently sloping
shoreland areas have the groundwater level very near the ground surface. The
statewide shoreland management standards preclude construction of soil absorption
units in areas where the groundwater level will be less than four (4) feet from
the bottom of the proposed system. They also stipulate that the lowest floor of
any building constructed in shoreland areas must be at least three (3) feet above
the highest known water level.
Management considerations cannot be based solely upon characteristics of an
individual body of water. They must also consider the waters in a state, regional,
county and municipal context. The demand for shoreland is greater in areas where
population pressures are high, or where improved highways make formerly isolated
areas more accessible. Individual municipal, county and regional public water
needs must be considered in determining a shoreland management classification.
Careful resource management plans insure steady economic growth in stride with
increased recreational demand, while still preventing resource deterioration.
The classification system, therefore, had to be carefully structured. It
has to take into account the physical capability of a public water to assimilate
increased development and use. It had to account for the intensity of existing
use patterns and development densities, and it had to consider the resource in
a regional context.
Data Sources
The primary data resource for the classification was the Lakeshore Develop-
ment Study, conducted by the Department of Geography, University of Minnesota.
This study was an inventory of the physical and cultural characteristics of most
of Minnesota's lakes with development potential. The study included all lakes
-7-
e
e
e
150 acres or larger which were not comple~ely within publicly owned land or
the seven county metropolitan area. The basic data unit was the government
lot (less than 40-acre parcel adjoining a lake).
Records of the Division of Waters and the Division of Fish and Wildlife
supplied technical and biological information to supplement the Lakeshore Study.
These records contained such data as water levels, locations of spawning beds,
lake bottom contours, median lake depths, water quality, fish counts and loca-
tions of control structures. Other sources consulted for additional information
included the Metropolitan Lake Inventory prepared by the Division of Fish and
Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, air photos, U.S. Forest
Service Maps, Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Commission land ownership
maps and Department of Highways general county highway maps. Field surveys were
made in those cases where information was not available on a lake or stream
within DNR or other agency files.
Critical Values
Critical "cutoff" values for the classification criteria were determined by
statistical analysis. Some of the criteria did not lend themselves to statis-
tical analysis, such as soils information or ecological type. They required
subjective evaluation.
Development density cutoffs were determined by a frequency distribution which
listed, in order, the average development density values for lakes. This list was
then plotted and the frequency curve analyzed for natural breaks. By comparing
these breaks with existing development patterns, the following limits for the
three lake classes were determined;
CLASSIFICATION
Natural Environment
Recreational Development
General Development
VEVELOPMENT VENSITY
(dwetUng.6 peJL mile.)
less than 3
3 - 25
greater than 25
- 8 -
e
.
e
Crowding potential cutoff values were determined in a similar manner. The
resultant values are as follows:
CLASSIFICATION
CROWVING POTENTIAL
(aCJte.6 0-6 wa.tVt pVt mite 0-6 .6hoJte)
Natural Environment
less than 60
(high)
Recreational Development
60 - 225
(medium)
General Development
greater than 225
(low)
(Note: Crowding potential was not used exclusively in the determination of
lake class. It was used concurrently with the other criteria and given
priority only in cases of a low development density.)
Lake Depth and Ecological Class were used to isolate lakes unsuitable for
shoreland development. Two ecological classes, Winterkill-Roughfish and
Bullhead-Panfish, are indicative of lakes displaying poor development character-
istics. These ecological classes usually have some or all of the following
characteristics: shallowness, eutrophic conditions, heavy aquatic vegetative
growth, low dissolved oxygen levels, and shallow groundwater table. Lake depth
of less than 15 feet and ecological class of Winterkill-Roughfish or Bullhead-
Panfish were used to determine Natural Environment Lakes.
The idea is to establish strict development standards to discourage devel-
opment in areas where many potential development problems exist. Due to the
shallow nature of these lakes, recreational opportunities may be somewhat
limited. These lakes are often more suited for waterfowl and game pToduction
than for recreational uses. Emergent vegetation can often limit surface recrea-
tional use, such as boating or swimming. Heavy use by large motors on shallow
lakes may also cause unnecessary stirring of bottom sediments which can recycle
large amounts of nutrients back into the lake system.
-9-
.
Soils and Vegetation data for the shoreland areas were also used in lake
class determination. Soils are closely related to natural vegetation and
topographic conditions. This information was applied subjectively when the
four preceeding criteria alone did not determine a category for a particular
lake. Soil types are an important indication of lakeshore quality and suita-
bility for development. Their occurrence often dictates the placement of
buildings and soil absorption sewage treatment systems. These physical char-
acteristics were considered in the classification process in the following
manner:
C LASS I FICA TI ON
VOMINANT SOIL GROUP
VEGETATION
SLOPES
NE
Wet, Clay or Bedrock
No Trees or
Shrubs
Flat
RD or GO
Sand, Loam
Oecidious or
Coniferous Trees
t.t>derate
to Steep
.
These determinations were based upon engineering capabilities of the soil
types and land slopes. Here again, the attempt was made to limit development in
unsuitable areas.
III. RESULTS OF THE CLASSIFICATION
Approximately 10,200 lake basins and approximately 25,000 miles of rivers
and streams in the state were classified under the shoreland management program.
Almost 9,700 of these basins were classified for the county program and over
500 were added in the municipal program. Since the amount of information avail-
~ able was not constant for all bodies of water, the classification process had
-10-
e
.
to be adjusted to allow for a subjective determination in some cases.
County Lakes
Every lake basin in unincorporated areas between 25-150 acres was classified
as Natural Environment, unless development was detected. The detailed amount of
data available for large lakes was not available for smaller lakes. By nature
of their size, these lakes are highly susceptible to overcrowding. Therefore,
the decision was made to initially classify them in a restrictive category. When
development already existed on these lakes (information obtained from county
highway maps), they were classified as Recreational Development.
For lakes over 150 acres in size, the data processing technique was used to
place each lake in an appropriate class. Table I indicates the relative weight
assigned to each criterion in the classification process. For a lake to be
classified as a Natural Environment lake, it had to meet all of the values of
column 1: very little development and high crowding potential (under 60 acres
of water surface per mile of shoreline). Since these lakes are highly suscep-
tible to overcrowding and since they are undeveloped or lightly developed at
present, they were afforded a greater degree of protection under the shoreland
regulations.
A lake was also classified Natural Environment if its physical character-
istics were conducive to developmental problems. Lakes with all of the values
of column 2 are probably more suitable for waterfowl or game management purposes
than for lakehome development and were classified accordingly.
If a lake had between 3 and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline -it was placed
in the Recreational Development class (column 3). Here development density was
the weighted factor. A lake that is developed to a density greater than three
dwellings per mile was not classified as Natural Environment since Natural
Environment standards might conflict with the existing development. Areas that
-11-
It
I III III
.... ::s Q) Q)
~ .... 0 III +J s:L.
; III s::41 ..-i 1-1 5 ..-i ::s ell 0
b041 ell 0 ~ 0 ell-,j o 1-1 ....
s:: 0 .s:: 1-1 O..-i 1-1 Q) III
~ tI') ..-i Q) +J III 1-1 Q).s:: I s:L. ....UQ)-,j s::
....Q)s:: Q) Q) +J1Il-,j Q) Q)41 0s:L. ell ell III
\.W s:: .... ......-i 1-1 1-1 s:L. s:: ..-i ell.s:: Ll)Q) 1-1 -,j ..-i 5 Q) Q) 5
:E \0 Q) Q) ..-i .... Q) U ..-i 41 Q) III ....-,j 0 s:: Q) s:: 1-1 ell
c::... Q) ~ 5 Q) +J ell 1-1 ~.s::.s:: ..-i .. 0 ..+J ..-i ell Q)
'0 ~-,j 1-1 ell Q) Q) bO.... 41 I-I+J -,j....U . III ..c: 1-1
....J +J 1-1 0 Q)LI) +J .... e-::s....a Q) Q) S::..-i bO +J~+J
\.W Q)LI)Q).s:: I-IN ell..-i o 0 ::s > Q) ell 0 1-1 Q) 0 ..-i Q) CI)
::::. .0 N ~ III bON ~ 5 Z 1-1 .0 s:L. 04-1 III III 0 >+J ~+J
\.W ell~
~ >'1-1;
41 ....0
....J 0 ....s:L.
<: III Q) ell 1-1 III
~ bOQ)S:: ..-i 0 1-1
\.W LI) s:: ......-i +JUQ)
:z N ..-i..-i .... 1-1 s:: >
\.W ....5Q) ell..-i ..-i
Q) LI) 1-1.... 1-1 s:L. Cl::
Q) Q) 1-1 0
>~Q).s:: . .
O~ ~1Il ell .0
I III
.... III Q) Q)
~ III .... ::s III +Js:L.
Q) 1-1 ..-i 1-1 a.~ ::s ell 0
m \.W Q) 1-1 Q) ~ 0 01-1....
.... ~ Q) 0 U s:L. 1-1 o ~ 1-1 Q) III
s.. 1-1 III \0 ell Q).s:: I ~ .......-i Q) ~
OJ '0 .s:: bOQ) 1-1 +J1Il-,j Q) U 41 0 s:L.
~ ....J +J s::.... S::LI) Q) S::..-i ell..c: LI) Q) 1-1 Q)..-i 5 Q)
.... \.W -.:r ..-i ..-i Q)N +J ..-i 41 Q) III ....~ O~ s:: Q)
s.. ::::. 1-1.....5 Q)N ell ~ .s:: ..c: ..-i ~...."8 ..+J
u \.W Q)..... ~ ~ Q) bO.... 4-1 I-I+J . III
~ ~ Q) 1-1 +J-,j ..... e-::s....s:: Q) Q) S::..-i bO
s::: s:: ~ Q) Q) s:: 41 ..-i o 0 ::s ell ~ce ell 0 1-1 Q) 0
0 ....J ::S~ ~ .0 ell 0 5 Z 1-1.0 s:L. III III 0 > +J
.... <:
~ :z 41
. m '0
U to-< 0
.... !< tI') III Q)
It- bOQ)S::
.... \.W s:: s::..... ..-i
en ~ Q) LI) ..-i ..-i ....
en t.) tI') Q)N....5Q)
m \.U ~ .... 1-1
r- ~ +J~Q)I-IO
U Q)S::~Q)..c:
.0 ell -,j s:L. III
.....
1-1 >. ..
OJ Q) I 0 I ell..... III
r- ~ Q) .... Q) .... ..-i Q)
.0 1-1 III ......s:: I s:L. III bOUO s:L. .......~
m l-U ..c: bOQ) ..-i 1Il~ LI) Q) Q) Q) III 0 III s::
I- ::::E +J s::.... ~ ..-i ell..c: .... Q) Q) > .. .... Q) ell
:z N ..-i ..-i 1-1 4-1 Q) III ~ 1-1 s:: +J III ~
0:::> 1-1 .... 5 Q) .s:: ..c: ..-i 1-1 +J.oo Q) U III III
c:lI:': Q) .... +JbO....4-I Q)+J ::S..-i ~+J CIS a 1-1
to-< ~ Q) 1-1 s::::s....s:: ~ Q) ~ 1-1 +J t'<l III Q)
:::. a ~ Q) ..-i 0 ::s ell ace Q).s:: ell 1-1.... Q)O Q) >
:z ~~ ~ 1-1.0 s:L. 4-I1Il+J 04-1 ~Itl I-I..-i
\.U ell.-l+o)Cl::
..... CI)
-J 0 III ; ~ -,j
<: ~ bOQ) III 1-1 1-1 ....Q)+o).....
~ +J s::.... .s:: Q) Q) Q) .... rtj ::S..-i
::s ..... ..-i ..-i +J 1-1 +J s:L. ellSO:3:
!< 1-1.-15 U ell 5 1-1
Q).-I III ell ~ ell Q) 1Il.....e-
:z ~ Q) 1-1 III Q).....
s:: ~ Q) Q)04-1 1-1 ..-i . .
::S~ ~ .....\00 ell 5 ell .0
s::
0 s::
-< +J .-I ..-i ..c: .-I 0
u- _ s:: ..... ell +0) +J ..-i ..-i
'Oc:lI:': Q) >. bOell U ell s:L. O+J III
\.U 5+J S::..-i ..-i U Q) CI) ell 1-1
~I- s:L. ..-i ..-i +J bO..-i Q +J Q)
:z- o III ~s:: 04-1 Q) Q) .s::
-<c:lI:': .-I s:: ~ Q) ..... ..-i Q) 1-1 bO +0)
- c:lI:': t.) Q) Q) O+J o III ~ o Q) 0
>Q 1-1 0 U III ell .s::>
Q) UCl. well ...J CI)
Q .... ..,.
U
e
e
e
require added protection on these lakes may be regulated by land use zoning
controls applied to the specific area.
A lake with less than three (3) dwellings per mile of shoreline was also
classified as Recreational Development if it was suitable for development
(column 4); sufficient depth to support game fish (over 15 feet deep and not
a winterkill-roughfish or bullhead-panfish lake), sand or loam soil (clay in
some instances) and coniferous or decidious forest cover.
General Development standards provide for the least restrictive land use
controls and are intended for highly developed, multi-use lakes. Lakes which
have average development densities greater than 25 dwellings per mile were
designated as General Development (column 5). Lakes which are developed to
this level usually do not have much remaining land for development. Thus, the
application of more restrictive zoning controls would do little to remedy lake
deterioration.
In some cases, however, lakes which are not highly developed were classified
as General Development if the lake is physically capable of absorbing substantial
future development (column 6). The most important criterion was a low crowding
potential. This factor indicates that the lake probably is not susceptible to
overcrowding. Lakes such as Winnibigoshish, Leech, Mille Lacs, and Red are
examples which meet this criterion. They do not have very high average develop-
ment densities at present, and by nature of their size and shape are capable of
supporting greater development densities than would be afforded under a Recreational
Development classification.
Seven (7) lakes were unclassifiable due to special development or environmental
problems. These lakes were termed Critical and designated for further study before
a final set of development standards was applied. A cursory review showed that
most of these lakes had long standing water quality problems. The lakes were
generally shallow, and occasional winterkills cause fish management problems. They
-12-
e
e
e
were usually highly developed. Since the shoreland management program is limited
to the use of land use controls, little can be accomplished in terms of redevel-
opment or remedial actions.
Proximity to Municipalities
Most county lakes bordering upon a municipality were classified as General
Development. This decision was based upon the assumption that shoreland was
needed for urban uses, as well as recreational uses and the fact that the county
does not have jurisdiction over municipal areas in applying land use controls.
Municipal Lakes
Lake basins lying within or bordering on municipalities were classified in
the same manner as those basins classified in the county phase of the shoreland
management program. For many of these lakes, a classification had already been
assigned under the county shoreland management program. These classifications
were retained in order to maintain continuity.
For the lakes that were found to be within one or several municipalities,
data were collected on existing development, crowding potential and the other
criteria used to help classify the lakes in the county program. These data
were then analyzed using the same technique as summarized in Table I.
Rivers and Streams
The state does not yet have a complete stream inventory. MOst rivers and
streams were placed in the General Development category to be reasonable in
formulating a sound and workable program. Streams continually regenerate them-
selves, so they do not pose as critical a problem of water quality as do lakes.
The exceptions to our stream classification were wild and scenic waterways and
designated trout streams. These exceptions are not unreasonable, since these
streams have been recognized by governmental agencies as waters worthy of pres-
-13-
e
ervation and since easements along these streams are usually purchased.
Preliminary Distribution
The percentages of lakes under the county program, by lake class were:
Natural Environment - 85%; Recreational Development - 12%; and General Develop-
ment - 3%. The Natural Environment category is inflated because the small lakes
were summarily placed in this category. If lakes under 150 acres are excluded,
the percentages are: Natural Environment - 48%; Recreational Development - 42%;
and General Development - 10%.
The percentages of lakes added under the municipal shoreland program, by
lake class were: Natural Environment - 57%; Recreational Development - 33%; and
General DevelQpment - 10%.
A tabulation of the results of the preliminary classification, by county
and municipal phases of the shoreland management program, is shown in the appendix.
e
IV. APPLICATION TO SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
e
Review of Prelirrrinary Classification
The shoreland management program is intended to be a locally administered
and enforced program. The public waters classification, along with the statewide
standards, sets the basic framework for local administration. Due to certain
time limitations, the classification had to be completed in a short period of
time. The Division could not possibly gather the amount of information needed
to classify all lake basins, especially small lakes, consistent with local land
use management programs. For these reasons the classification by the Division
was intended to be preliminary. Each county and municipality should review its
-14-
e
e
e
classification to insure compatibility with any existing land use plans.
Special attention should be given to lakes under 150 acres. Under certain
conditions the existing classification of Natural Environment may result in a
degree of resource protection over and above what is necessary for these lake
basins. Many of these lakes are shallow and swampy. They probably never will
be developed for seasonal home uses. These lakes may be reclassified by the
Division at county or municipal request. Also, some of these lake basins may
now be dry. Such lakes may be omitted from the shoreland program once the
Division has been notified of their status.
Rivers and streams may also be reclassified should the local unit of
government desire a more restrictive category to be consistent with local recre-
ational and land use plans.
Basically, shoreland management classifications are intended to indicate
which set of minimum statewide development standards must be applied to a partic-
ular body of water. The local units of government are reminded that they have
the option of imposing controls more restrictive than those called for in the
statewide standards, particularly for parts of lake~ or streams which may need
additional protection.
It was the policy of the Division to maintain the same classification for
an entire body of water. A main goal of the shoreland management program is to
protect water quality. A classification which varies over different areas would
not necessarily achieve this goal. However, a number of instances have arisen
where the unique geometry and geography of a particular water body have indicated
a need for more than one management classification. In these few cases, the
Division will give consideration to adopting more than one management classifica-
tion for the body of water.
Reclassification
Minnesota Regs. CONS 7l(a) (5) and NR 82(f) (4) allow the Commissioner of
-15-
Natural Resources to reclassify any public water as he deems necessary. Generally,
e
the decision to change the shoreland management classification of a public water
is initiated by a request from the local unit of government in which the body of
water is located. It is the established policy of the DNR to only consider a
request for the reclassification of a public water body when such a request is
submitted in the form of an official resolution of the County Board of Comm:ssioners,
City Councilor Local Planning Commission.
In addition to the official request, the local unit of government should also
supply as much of the following data as possible:
1. Crowding potential
2. Development density
3. Percent of shoreland in public ownership
4. Number of existing undeveloped platted lots
5. Shoreland physical characteristics (soil and vegetation types, slope, etc.)
With this additional data, the official requests for shoreland management re-
classification will be referred to DNR regional shoreland management personnel. The
e
regional staff will evaluate the request and make the final determination. Once the
preliminary classification has been finalized, the local unit of government may then
proceed to develop its shoreland management ordinance.
Land Use Zoning
As prescribed in CONS 7l(b) and NR 83(a) and (b), local units of government are
required to delineate land use districts or zones for shoreland areas which are
compatible with the designated shoreland management classification.
These land use zoning districts shall be established to provide for:
e
(1) Management On aJLea.6 uYL6ui:ta.bte nOJL development due t.o phy~.ic.a1. c.haJr.-
o.c;teJviAUC6 and the management On aJLea.6 On wUque na;tU/lai.. a.n.d
bi.oR..og.ic.a1. c.haJta.cteJviAUC6 .in ac.c.OJLda.nc.e wlih c.ompa.:Ubte u.6 e.6 .
( Z) The JLe.6 eJtvaUo nOn aJLea.6 ~ ui:ta.bte nOJL JLe.6.<.den-Uai. develo pment t5JLom
encJLoa.c.hment by c.ornmeJtc.ial and .indu.6:t1Uai. e.6,tabwhmen:t6.
( 3) The c.eYI.tJLa.,Uza.:Uo nOn ~ eJtv.ic.e naWi.;t[e.6 nOJL JLecJLeatio Yl.a1.aJLea.6 and
enhanc.ement On ec.onom<.c. glLOwth po;ten-Uai. nOJL tho~e aJLea.6 ~ui:ta.bte
nOJL Um<:ted c.ornmeJt.c1.a1. development.
-16-
e
(4) The management 0 n MeM wheJte U6 e may be cUJc.ec;ted :toWOJr.d c.orrrnelLC1.a1.
oIL ..tndu6:t1Uai. U6 e6, Jt.a:theJt .than lteCJLeo..:Uo nai. OIL lte6ident.iai. U6 e6 ,
whic.h by the1A natUILe ltequ.iJte loc.a...U.on ht .6holte1.a.nd MeM.
The criteria to be used for land use zoning districts shall be based on con-
siderations of: preservation of natural areas; presen~ ownership and development
of 1akeshore and adjacent land; shore1and soil types and their engineering capa-
bi1ities; topographic characteristics; vegetative cover; county socioeconomic
development needs and plans as they involve water and related land resources;
the land requirements of industry requiring location in shore1and areas; and the
necessity to preserve and restore certain areas having great historical or
ecological value.
It is the responsibility of each local unit of government to prescribe uses
of shore1ands, such as residential or commercial, to provide for the most beneficial
public use. The statewide shore1and regulations point out considerations which
tit should be used to determine the types of allowable uses based on compatibility
with the unique characteristics of the resource. The shore1and management classi-
fication, therefore, does not eliminate the need to delineate land use zones. It
does prescribe standards which must be applied to uses allowed along a given body
of water.
v. SUMMt\RY
The Minnesota Shoreland Management Classification System may be summarized as
follows:
e
A. Goals of Classification System
1. To provide a flexible management tool which recognizes the v~~ied char-
-17-
e
e
e
acter of Minnesota's public waters.
2. To provide for the application of different development standards
to different kinds of lakes and streams in order to achieve a
balance between resource protection and resource utilization.
B. Basis for the Classification
1. Lakes were classified depending upon their existing degree of
resource utilization (intensity of development), and
2. Upon their existing physical character (capability to withstand
future development).
C. Shore1and Management Classes
1. Natural Environment Waters - are little developed at present and
require the greatest degree of resource protection.
2. Recreational Deve10pmentWaters - are moderately developed at present
and are physically capable of supporting additional development.
3. General Development Waters - are those capable of multiple use
development or those partially within an incorporated area.
D. Local Government Role
1. Should review preliminary classification to insure compatibility
with local land use objectives.
2. Request reclassification whenever and wherever appropriate.
3. Establish land use zoning districts consistent with the shoreland
management classification.
-18-
APPENVIX
e
COUNTY SHORE LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PRELIMINARY LAKE CLASSIFICATION
DISTRIBUTION
NE Lakes NE Lakes
less than greater than RD GD C Tota 1
County 150 acres 150 acres Lakes Lakes Lakes Lakes
Aitkin 109 22 45 2 0 178
Anoka 46 5 4 5 0 60
Becker 350 57 58 9 0 474
Be1trami 151 26 38 6 0 221
Benton 10 0 2 0 0 12
Big Stone 124 17 0 3 0 144
Blue Earth 82 24 5 3 0 114
e Brown 67 12 0 3 0 82
Carlton 35 6 16 3 0 60
Carver 92 23 10 3 0 128
Cass 265 30 87 6 0 388
Chippewa 56 6 0 0 0 62
Chisago 40 6 11 10 0 67
Clay 59 1 0 1 0 61
Clearwater 99 14 8 3 0 124
Cook 139 49 19 0 0 207
Cottonwood 39 15 1 3 0 58
Crow Wing 148 25 89 32 0 294
Dakota 13 3 1 2 0 19
Dodge 8 3 0 0 0 11
Douglas 211 34 36 8 0 289
Faribau1t 59 14 2 0 0 75
Fillmore 0 0 0 0 0 0
. Freeborn 24 14 5 2 0 45
Goodhue 13 1 0 3 0 17
Grant 182 17 8 5 0 212
Hennepin 4 1 1 1 0 7
Houston 2 7 0 2 0 11
Hubbard 118 33 47 5 0 203
e Isanti 88 13 9 2 2 114
-19-
e NE Lakes NE Lakes
less than greater than RO GO C Total
County 150 acres 150 acres Lakes lakes Lakes Lakes
Itasca 415 66 116 10 0 607
Jackson 54 12 5 1 0 72
Kanabec 22 1 9 0 0 32
Kandiyohi 219 44 20 8 0 291
Kittson 1 3 0 0 0 4
Koochiching 11 4 0 1 0 16
Lac Qui Parle 142 8 0 0 0 150
Lake 162 25 24 2 0 213
Lake of the Woods 1 1 0 1 0 3
Le Sueur 53 20 11 0 2 86
Lincoln 72 19 3 2 0 96
Lyon 54 16 0 4 0 74
McLeod 80 26 6 3 0 115
Mahnomen 141 17 9 0 0 167
Marshall 2 3 0 0 0 5
Martin 80 28 3 5 0 116
Meeker 104 48 17 6 0 175
Mille Lacs 5 5 1 1 0 12
e Morrison 61 7 11 5 0 84
Mower 1 0 0 0 0 1
Murray 54 23 2 4 0 83
Nico11et 17 10 0 0 0 27
Nobles 19 13 0 2 0 34
Norman 4 0 0 0 0 4
Olmsted 1 0 1 2 0 4
Otter Tail 534 72 65 14 1 686
Pennington 1 1 0 0 0 2
Pine 51 0 19 3 0 73
Pipestone 1 0 0 0 0 1
Polk 170 11 3 3 0 187
Pope 116 30 8 3 0 157
Ramsey Out - Completely Incorporated
Red Lake 2 0 0 0 0 2
Redwood 77 10 0 3 0 90
Renville 81 12 1 0 0 94
Rice 36 13 6 2 0 57
Rock 0 0 0 0 0 0
Roseau 1 2 0 0 0 3
St. Louis 310 49 135 9 1 504
e Scott 102 21 2 3 0 128
-20-
e NE Lakes NE Lakes
less than greater than RD GD C Total
County 150 acres 150 acres Lakes Lakes Lakes Lakes
Sherburne 90 5 5 8 3 111
Sibley 61 22 2 2 0 87
Stearns 158 21 44 4 0 227
Steele 23 10 1 0 0 34
Stevens 150 22 3 5 0 180
Swi ft 83 16 2 3 0 104
Todd 108 19 20 4 0 151
Traverse 36 3 0 1 0 40
Wabasha 3 0 1 2 0 6
Wadena 25 2 3 1 0 31
Waseca 67 7 4 2 0 80
Washington 62 3 6 9 0 80
Watonwan 29 9 2 0 0 40
Wilkin 7 0 1 0 0 8
Winona 2 0 0 5 0 7
Wright 130 42 35 14 0 221
Yellow Medicine 58 10 0 0 0 68
e
Total 6982 1289 1108 279 9 9667
Percent Total 72.2 13.3 11.5 2.9 .01 100
Percent Adjusted TotalS 48.2 41.4 10.1 0.3 100
e
5NE Lakes under 150 acres are excluded.
-21-
e
_ en
ItSCIJ
..., ~
o ItS
~...J
.....N\OO\O\
00
'<:t'<:tN'<:tN
N
\OO\ONN
N .....
.-4 tt)..... '<:t 0
NI'
.....
O\NO\OO
e
ItS
~
tn
-0 0
CIJ~
_ 0-
If- en
or- -0 CIJ
ene C~ OL/)OOO 0000..... 00000 00\0.....0 00000
en ItS ~1tS
ItS - ...J
_ CIJ
u~
0
en .s:; en
ClJV) CIJ
:E: ~ C~ 0\0 000 00001' 00..........0 00\0000 .....00.....0
~ ItS _ 0::: ItS ..... .....N
...J1tS ...J
~ Z C.
0 0 --
0::: .... ItSU
0- !;;: c._ en
or- e CIJ
~ u U::S I.LI ~ 01") 01")0 .....0.....01' 00'<:t00 OOL/)OO 00000
Z .... or- :IE: ZItS '<:t I")'<:t
I.LI I.L. e ...J
:E: .... ::S~
I.LI V) :lE:CIJ
~ V) ::z -0
c( c( 0 e
z ...J .... ;::)
e ~ u ~
;::)
I.LI CO
C ~ ....
Z c( 0:::
c( ...J ~
...J V)
I.LI >- .... e
0::: 0::: C ItS
0 c( -0 ~
:J: Z CIJ tn
V) .... or- 0 en
:E: If-~ CIJ
...J .... _ 0- C~ .....N\ONO\ I")N.....I") I") 0\00\.......... .....NO NO \0.....0.....0
c( ...J en ~1tS I")
0- I.LI en-o ...J
.... 0::: ltSe
u 0- _ ItS
.... u_
z CIJ en
;::) en~ CIJ
:E: ClJO C~ OI")ONO O.....O.....N 1")0000 0.....1").....0 0 .....ONO
~ .s:; 0::: ItS .....
ItS V) ...J
...J
-~
ltSe en
c.::s CIJ
or- 0 I.LI ~ OI")ONO O.....OON '<:tON 0"'" OO.-l NO NOONO
UU Z ItS ..... ..... N
- ...J
e~
::SCIJ
:IE: -0
e
;::)
..., .c:: l-t '"d
e Q)~ Q) ObO ~
e ::s ..-f s:: l-t cIS ~ o s:: .....Q)f:l
0 a o cIS s:: ~ 0 cIS ~'.-f III :s l-t Q)
U s:: l-t cIS s:: ~~ 0 l-t Q)bO ~ s::::= cIS cIS cIS 0 0 :s
..-f cIS Q) l-t 0 tI) ~~ Q) s:l.cIS 0 ~ Q) .-l.oa.o.c::
':'::':'::':'::.j.J~ Q) > III s:l.1Il >'cIS .:.:: ~~OtlO tlO..-f ..... Q) '"d
~OCJ""'s:: bO:SOl-tl-t 1Il'.-f..-f cIS Q) O~O':'::'"d :sl-t.....Q)O
..-f ~ Q) Q) Q) ..-f ..... l-t cIS cIS cIS.c::.c::.......... o 0 l-t cIS 0 o cIS..-f l-t 0
< c:ac:aCXl c:aCXlCXlUU UUUUU UUUCC c~~~t.:)
-22-
e
r- en
/0 OJ
+-' ~
0/0
I- -J
U'l0 ~U'l~
U'l
~
I")~NO~
N ~
NONOU'l
"'=!"U'lU'l00
r--U'lI")I")N
U'l01")01")
E
/0
~
en
"CO
OJ~
.... 0-
~ en
.... "C OJ
enC: o~ 0U'l000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000
en/O C.D/O N
/0 r- -J
r- OJ
U~
0
en.c: en
OJVl OJ
~ O~ 000 000 "'=!"O~OO 00000 00000 OOOO~ 00000
/0 r- 0::/0 \0
-J/O -J
0-
r- ....
/0(.)
0- .... en
_ c: OJ
(.)::::J UJ~ 0U'l 000 U'l00~~ 00000 O~OOO ~O~~~ ~O~ON
.... :E %/0 U'l
c: -J
::::J~
:E<LJ
"C
c:
:::)
e
E
/0
"C ~
OJ en
.... 0 en
~~ OJ
.... 0- o~ U'l0~00 U'l00"'=!"0 ~OOOO N"'=!"I")OO U'lNNNO "'=!"ONO~
en C.D/O
en "C -J
/OC:
r- /0
Ur-
<LJ en
en~ OJ
OJO O~ 0001")0 \O~~~O ~000"d" NO~OO ~OOOO 00000
~ .c: 0::/0
/OVl -J
-J
~
r- +-'
/OC: en
O-::::J <LJ
.... 0 UJ~ ONON~ 1")00"d" 0 OONO~ o 0 ~ 0,0 01")000 00000
(.)U %/0
.... -J
C:~
::::J<LJ
:E"C
c:
:::)
e
+-'
c:
::::J
o
U
1=:
.~ 1=:-0
p.. 0 f.4.~
+oJCU+oJCll+oJ
@s~;g@
~~~~.!l
.~
..c::
CllSg~S
U III .0 .~ III
IIl.l<:Cll"'O+oJ
CllU1=:1=:+oJ
+oJ Cll Cll Cll .~
I-I""~~~
III
-0
o
o
CU ~
~
OD f.4 CU
1=:Cll .c::
.~ 0. +oJ
.c:: f.4
U'.-! ~::s
..-!::s 0 CU
.c:: 0' ::s
U CUCUtJ)
OU~.l<:
o Cll Cll Cll CU
~...:l...:l...:l...:l
1=:~
1=: CU ~
~ -oeCll
o oo..c::
U 1=: cu 1=: III
1=:O...:l..c::f.4
.~ >. U Cll Cll
...:l...:l::E::E::E
III
U
Cll 1=:
...:l 0
1=: f.4 III
..-! cu cu.~ f.4
+oJ~~f.4CU
f.4CU~f.43:
~~:i~~
+oJ
cu "'0
>.~ III 1=: CU
Cll~cuCll+oJ
f.4o~elll
f.4U.Qf.4e
::s..-! 0 0 ~
::EZZZO
-23-
e
_ en
ctlCLI
~~
Octl
I- ...J
NO~O~
N -'
~Lf)O-'O
Lf)
-'000-'
~ -'
~Noo-,Lf)
NNO-'-'
E
ctI
~
~
"0 0
CLI~
.... a.
'l- en
.... "0 CLI
en~ Cl~ 00000 0 -'000 OOONO 00000 0000-'
enctl Wctl -"
ctI - ...J
_CLI
U~
0
en .s::. en
CLlV') CLI
~ Cl~ OO~OO O~OOO OOO-'N OONOO 00000
ctI- IXctI -'
...JctI ...J
c..
- ....
ctlU
c.. .... en
.... ~ CLI
U:::l LIJ ~ NOt'OO 0 0000 -'OOooN -'00-'0 00000
- :E: z ctI ~ -'
~ ...J
:::l~
:E:CLI
"0
~
=>
e
E
ctI
"0 ~
CLI ~
.... 0 en
'l-~ CLI
.... a. Cl~ NONO~ -'0000 OOOLf)N ~-'~O~ -'NO-'O
en WctI ~
en "0 -'
ctI~
_ ctI
U_
CLI en
en~ CLI
CLIO Cl~ Lf)O-'OO ~OOOO OOO~O O-'~OO 00000
~.s::. IXctI
ctI V') ...J
...J
-~
ctI~ en
c..:::l CLI
.... 0 LIJ ~ ~O-'OO 000-'0 000-'1.I'l 0000-' -'0000
UU Zctl
.... ...J
~~
:::lCLI
:E:"O
~
=>
~ -' s::
~ ..-4 0 Q) en Q)
:::l cd .fj s:: Q) Q) ..-4 s:: Q)
e 0 E-<tlO 0 ~'"CI-' ::s ~ III III III cd
U s:: .fj >'cdO-' ::s 0 ::s>.eQ) s:: $-4.c:: cd
$-4..-4 en Q) ~ 0..-4 cd~ .fj ,c Q) -' Q) .fj Q) en s::
Q)S::Q)Q)~ Q) en ~ > Q)~ Q) .fj $-4-'cdQ) > ~'"CI>cdQ)
.fj s:: s:: p,.-, p,.a'"CI~ s:: () () en . 0 Q),c Q) Q) Q) ..-4 ~ cd,c ~
.fj Q)..-4..-4 0 o cd Q) Q) Q) ..-4 0 0 .fj () .c:: ..-4 .fj .fj .fj ~ 0 ~ cd cd
Op..p..p..p.. p..a::a::a::a:: a::a::a::CIlCll CIlCllCllCllCll CIlE-<E-<:&::&:
-24-
e
..- en
/0 OJ
~~
0/0
~-I
N\Or-40~
~
NO
r-4
t")
N
C'\
o
o
r-4
e
/0
~
en
"C 0
OJ~
..... 0..
If- en
..... "C OJ r-4
ens:: e~ 0t")000 00 III .
en/O ~/O III \0
/0..- -I
..-OJ
U~
0
en~ en
OJV') OJ 0()
~ ~ 0r-400N r-40 r-4 .
/0..- e /0 r-4 00 O'l
-I/O c::: -I r-4 r-4
0.
..--
/OU
0._ en
..... s:: OJ N
U~ L&J ~ Ot") 00t") ~O ~ .
-:E ;2::/0 ~ r-4 ~
s:: -I t") t")
~~
:EOJ
"C
s::
:::::)
e
e
/0
"C ~
OJ en
..... 0 en
If-~ OJ 0()
..... 0.. e~ Nt")OON \0 0 r-4 .
en ~/O C'\ 0
en"C -I r-4 N
/OS::
..- /0
U..-
OJ en
en~ OJ ~
OJO e~ 0~r-400 00 N .
~~ c:::/O ~ ~
/0 V') -I
-I
~
..-~
/Os:: en
o.~ OJ ~
-0 L&J ~ ONOOO r-40 ~
UU ;2::/0 r-4 0 r-4
..... -I r-4 ~
S::~
~OJ
:E"C
s::
:::::)
CI)
s::
.rol ~
CJ ell
.rol ~
~ 5 ~ 0
s:: CI) E-o
~ t'oa ::E
e 0 ~
U ell s:: ~ s:: ell ~ ~ s::
CJ.rol s::.rol s:: .c::o r-4 CI)
CI).c::o~o bOr-4 ell CJ
lI)lI)~r-4S:: .rol~ ~ F-4
ell ell ell.rol.rol F-4 CI) 0 CI)
:c:c:c:c:c :c>o E-o Q.,
-25-
e
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FOR PUBLIC WATERS
MINNESOTA'S LAKES AND SlREAl-'S
Preliminary Classification
By
Department of Natural Resources
NATlRAJ.. WI RONf/fNT
WATERS
RECREATIONAL lEvELOPflfNT
WATERS
teNERAJ.. DEvELOReIT
WATERS
e
County or Municipal Review
I
Reclassification
Requests
NATlRAL ENvIRONMENT
RECREATIONAL DEvELOPMENT
GENERAL DEvELOPfIfNT
Classification Determines
Applicable Minimum Standards
e
CouNTY OR M.JN IC I PAL
SH)RELAND ~GEf/fNT ORDINANCES
-26-
.
.