Yesterday, I received this alert from the Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Development. This paving & shingling over of the Lake Mendota watershed is dumb growth at its worst. And they need your help on the 11th. If you care about the quality of our lakes, read on…

Hello Friends

I know how busy all of you are with your own lives and also working for so many worthy causes. Although I am reluctant to do so, I feel compelled to ask you to add one more thing to your “to do” list.

Here it is in brief. The City of Middleton and the Town of Westport want to develop 910 acres south of Dorn Creek, between County Roads M and Q in the area better know as Bishop’s Bay. They want to build housing for some 6,000 people, a strip mall, offices, a church, plus recreational facilities (Probably tennis courts and such, since there is already a golf course next door). Most of what is proposed is not justified by the projected population growth for that area. And what is justified could be accomodated as infill development inside the city, especially since there are quite a few vacant large lots left in Middleton.

From the environmetal perspective a lot is at stake here. If this developoment is allowed, water levels in Dorn Creek and ajacent Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery would decline permanently. Invasive aquatic and terrestrial species would begin to flourish while native species would decline. That area of Dorn Creek is home to the blanding turtle, one of the poster children of Threatened species in Wisconsin. Scientific studies confirm that in intensively developed areas, such as the one proposed here, floods caused by runoff cannot always be controlled. Ultimetly the proposed development would have negative effect on natural areas in Governor State Park and on water levels in Lake Mendota.

As if all this is not not enough trouble, there is more. The proposed development needs another large municipal well. Addition of such wells in the northwestern quadrant around Lake Mendota mean that water levels in all local streams and wetlands will drop. Eventually they might dry up for most months of a year, except when it is raining. Imagine what happens to aquatic plants and animals under such conditions.

I ask you not to remain silent on this.

This development is a good example of dumb growth. Most of the people who would move here would end up driving to work in Madison and would make already rush-hour congested County Road M a transportational nightmare. It would not be too long before cries for an alternative to “M” would start. And there go taxpayer dollars, wasted gas, carbon emissions and farmland loss! All because good people stood back and let the developer take charge of the public planning.

I ask you not stand back and let this one pass this time. Here, together we can make a difference.

Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) is holding a public hearing on this proposal. All of you who can, please, come to this hearing. It is really a big deal. A lot is at stake here. We are more likely to be listened to if a large group of us shows up. But if you cannot come send them an e-mail telling them that the proposed development is not a good idea for the area. Here is their e-mail address info@CapitalAreaRPC.org

The CARPC hearing will be held on coming Thursday, November 12th at 7:00 PM in City-County Building, Room 315.

If you need any more information about what I wrote let me know.

Stefi Harris

stefiharris@tds.net

And below is the official comment of Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Development to the Capital Area Regional Plan Commission — a masterwork of research!

11/5/09

To: Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC)

From: Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Development (WDC/SGE)

Re: Request by the City of Middleton and the Town of Westport for the Central

Urban Service (CUSA) amendment

We ask that CARPC turn down the CUSA request by the City of Middleton and the Town of Westport for 910 acres for 2990 housing units and 500,000 to 775,000 sq ft of commercial and institutional space in a corridor between County Highways Q and M, roughly south of Oncken Road, the general area also known as Bishops Bay.

The amendment area is located in the midst of some of the Dane County’s most vulnerable water and other natural resources. North and northwest is Dorn Creek Marsh State Fishery Area.  Directly south is a wetland area of Lost Lake. Southwest are Fredrick Springs, parkland featuring unique springs, streams, a marsh and a restored prairie. The western boundary of the proposed amendment area is less than ¼ mile from the demarcation line for the Fredrick Springs recharge area.  Northeast and directly east is Governor Nelson State Park. Most of these lands are in public ownership. An intensive development in the proposed amendment area with projected housing for 6,888 residents plus large commercial, recreational and institutional development would have a profound negative water quality effect reaching well beyond the proposed amendment area boundaries.

Wisconsin Department of Administration (WI DOA) projected population-household figures 2010-2030 for the City of Middleton and the Town of Westport do not justify such large addition of housing units. The same is true of the purported need for commercial space. Currently the City of Middleton is struggling with the issue of vacant commercial space in several areas, not the least of which is the Century Avenue/Allen Boulevard area. Adding commercial space on the outskirts of the city near Bishops Bay would draw business away from more centrally located commercial businesses. It is also unlikely that this is the only USA amendment request, which the City of Middleton and the Town of Westport would either conjointly or individually present to CARPC between now and 2030.

The proposed water quality plan amendment falls short of the NR 121 requirements pertaining to the plan amendment content and public participation. It should be rejected.

———————————————————————————————————————

LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF NR 121.05 (2)(b) and (i) and NR 121.01

Urban development lacking adequate water quality mitigation measures would cause a wide array of problems. Increased values for stormwater runoff volumes, rates and sediment levels due to introduction of impervious surfaces lead to flooding, hydrologic changes in receiving streams and wetlands, reduction in groundwater recharge and decrease in baseflows as well as to chemical contamination and ecological alteration of receiving waters (8-7-09 CARPC staff report on Verona USA amendment request).

NR 121.05 (2)(b)

The City of Middleton and the Town of Westport have not produced an assessment of existing and potential water quality problems within the effected planning area, including a general assessment of expected nonpoint sources of pollution contributing to the problem as required under NR 121.05 (2) (b). In that they have also not followed their own Joint Comprehensive Plan for Middleton-Westport (2009), which requires “environmental assessment for each proposed development” (III C.1.).

Instead, the applicants have provided two competing sets of water quality standards, one for the city and the other one for the town. CARPC staff indicates intention to choose for the applicants the more stringent of the standards from each set. However, even the best standards when standing alone, without an assessment of existing and potential water quality problems, do nothing to help decision-makers and members of the interested public understand if and how the eventual water quality management plan for the massive Bishop’s Bay development would protect water quality.

NR 121.05 (2)(i)

Similarly, NR 121.05 (2) (i) requires that best management practices, needed to produce a basic level of control of nonpoint source of pollutants throughout the planning area, be identified and evaluated. The applicants have provided a map (Map 10) plus three terse paragraphs scattered in sections 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 of the submitted material, merely listing the proposed best management practices. But these lack any evaluation. One is left to guess as to how useful these would be in application at the proposed amendment area.

NR 121.01

Furthermore, the applicants’ statement that “all the planning areas, including the stormwater management area, are approximate and subject to adjustment as a part of the local approval process” (page 5 of the submitted material) does nothing to dispel the notion that the best management practices listed in the application and shown on the map may or may not be eventually implemented and that at this point there is no real water quality plan for the requested amendment area. Instead what the public has been presented with and asked to comment on is a stand-in plan to be solely used for the purposes of obtaining the CARPC CUSA amendment recommendation and only to be replaced later with another, perhaps more locally convenient, actual water quality management plan. Thus the intent of 121.01 that the public participation is provided throughout plan development has been ignored.

AREA WATER RESOURCES – DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM ASSESSMENT

Watersheds of the proposed amendment area

The proposed Bishop’s Bay development lies within six smaller watersheds of the much larger Lake Mendota watershed.  The two largest watersheds at Bishop’s Bay, comprising 835 acres, drain into Dorn Creek. 208 acres drain into 4.5-acre Lost Lake pond and 44 acres drain into an abandoned quarry. The abandoned quarry area formerly was a part of Pheasant Branch watershed until subsequent mining operations changed the drainage pattern and diverted it away from Pheasant Branch.  However 77 acres at Bishop’s Bay still remain in Pheasant Branch watershed. 276 acres drain directly into Lake Mendota via a culvert and a vegetated swale.

The lower reaches of the two closed watersheds of Lost Lake and the old abandoned quarry are vulnerable to flooding emanating from any development placed on higher grounds, but particularly to a large development such as the one proposed here.

Wetlands and perennial streams in the proposed amendment area

The area immediately to the north surrounding Dorn Creek is the Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery Area.  Currently, Dorn Creek retains much of its pre-settlement wetland acreages. It is estimated that 16% of the Dorn Creek watershed is in wetlands. A 2004-2006 study of sediment transport and deposition of Dorn Creek (Chin et al 2004) found that wetlands located near Dorn Creek, in addition to their other beneficial functions, were responsible for sequestering 40% of the incoming dissolved reactive phosphorous, a major problem in Lake Mendota and its sister lakes around Madison. Dorn Creek wetlands trapped re-suspended sediments during small runoff events but flushed them during larger events. In addition they attenuated peak flows, thus removing some of the destructive peak flow potential for causing channel erosion.

Wetland areas of the Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery Area extend into the most northerly segment of the proposed development. This segment as a part of the larger wetland lying within the amendment boundary had been delineated but not yet approved by WI-DNR. Inexplicably the submitted material (page 19) states that there are no wetlands noted on the DNR map for that area.

The amendment proposal calls for construction of community facilities on higher ground adjacent to the wetland. Such facilities in relatively close proximity to the wetland would play a role in diminishing its functionality.

Middleton-Westport’s submitted materials also mention a possible wetland at a culvert under Oncken Road that needs investigating.

Two perennial streams are located in the northeastern part of the proposed amendment area. In lower elevations they merge and flow northward under Oncken Road to eventually drain into Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery Area. Middleton/Westport submitted materials refer to these perennial streams as drainage ways. The submitted maps reveal a plan to turn these streams into stormwater conveyance channels where a part of the plan is to block their flow into the marsh area and flood lower elevations to create a combination stormwater retention and recreation facility. The North Mendota Parkway Environmental and Transportation Study describes this specific area as sensitive containing natural resources that Dane County would like to reserve for protection (LWRD Map, 1/9/09).

Some of the submitted site maps indicate in other parts of the amendment area, presence of additional, similar streams, also labeled as “drainage ditches”. The navigability determination should also be sought for them.

Permission for alteration of the course of any of the mapped perennial streams has not been issued by DNR. But if this CUSA would be recommended for approval and any of the proposed development would take place, the Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery Area would lose the badly needed cyclical water contribution from these perennial streams.

Although The City of Middleton Stormwater Runoff Control Plan advocates avoidance of “deterioration of wetland functional values” in general terms, the same plan allows in some cases release of pollutant-laden urban stormwater into a wetland without any pretreatment. The evaluation and impact of such proposed discharges and permitting activity is left to the discretionary assessment of the City Engineer.

It is reasonable to assume that the intent of NR 121 is not to contradict other water quality protective NR regulations and to allow for alteration of hydrology of natural wetland-feeder streams such as the two perennial streams from the proposed amendment area, which development plans mistakenly or intentionally labeled as drainage ditches.

Dorn Creek and Pheasant Branch Creek

The Lower Rock River Water Quality Management Plan, 2001 indicates that Dorn Creek flows through mostly rural terrain, which is 78% agricultural and 16% wetlands. It contributes about 7% of annual surface flow into Lake Mendota. Its baseflow is provided by a number of small springs. It is important to spawning of northern pike. It supports mainly tolerant warm water forage fishery. But two intolerant species –Northern Redbelly Dace and Pearl Dace are also present. Their preferred habitat is found in slow sluggish streams with cool water springs and seeps. These two species are on the endangered species lists of South Dakota, Nebraska and Colorado.

The tributaries of North and South Fork contribute to Pheasant Branch Creek. The North Fork drainage area is predominantly agricultural, although it has been extensively channelized and straightened (current Dane County State of the Waters Report, 2008).

There is a strong hydraulic connection between North Fork and the Fredricks Springs      ( Steuer and Hunt 2001: 29). South Fork is described as “an intermittent stream resultant from runoff of highly urbanized environment encompassing areas of residential, commercial and light industrial use” (ibid: 4). This area contains numerous detention ponds, all results of past attempts to reduce peak stream stages and extent of flooded areas.

In 2001 Steuer and Hunt conducted a modeling study of the hydrologic effects of urbanization on North Fork Pheasant Branch Basin. They considered two scenarios; one for low density residential and low density commercial of 5% to 10% along the principal highways; and another where the entire North Fork and the neighboring area basin contained 50% commercial and 50% medium density residential development. Under low development conditions, mean annual streamflow increased by 53%, runoff by 84%, baseflow decreased by 15% and annual recharge to the groundwater decreased by 10%. Under conditions of full development, annual storm runoff increased by more than 450%; North Fork dried up; Fredricks Springs lost 26% of the flow. When detention basins were introduced into the low-density scenario it was found that some streamflow peaks were reduced but many remained higher than the current peaks.

In order to determine the effect of development on groundwater recharge rates and runoff volumes in 2004, Lathrop and Potter applied their own modified version of USGS PRMS model to same area of North Fork Branch that Steuer and Hunt had previously studied. The result of their modeling showed that infiltration practices could preserve groundwater recharge rates either in low or high-density conditions. However, they found that infiltration practices are only effective in reducing runoff volumes in moderate development conditions. In high density scenarios infiltration practices did not reduce runoff volumes (Lathrop and Potter, 2004: 8).

Lathrop and Potter’s finding relate to the proposed Bishop’s Bay development. If the development is allowed, it can be expected that it would preserve some of the groundwater recharge through infiltration. But in spite of the stringency of any applied standards or promises by municipalities and their sponsoring development partners, the runoff volumes will become a flooding hazard, especially if the perennial springs and Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery Area wetland are not allowed to be converted into stormwater sewers as proposed in CUSA request.

The Dane County Water Quality Plan, 2004 lists Pheasant Branch and Dorn Creeks as limited forage fisheries for the most part, except for the last segment before the entry into Lake Mendota, where they are classified as warm sport fisheries. The plan describes Dorn Creek, as a stream, which “has experienced moderate environmental degradation with significantly reduced biotic integrity”.  The plan gives it a rating of fair. The same plan rates water quality of Pheasant Branch Creek as poor because of severely reduced environmental conditions and biotic integrity.

Water quality ratings of the two creeks seem to correlate with the intensity of urbanization that has occurred along their banks. More urbanized Pheasant Branch Creek ranks lower in water quality than predominantly rural Dorn Creek where 16% of its wetlands are still in existence.

Lake Mendota watershed and Lower Rock River Basin

The Lake Mendota watershed is a part of Lower Rock river basin. According to Lower Rock River Water Quality Management Plan, 2001 and Dane County Water Quality Plan, 2004, Lake Mendota by the virtue of its location at the top of the chain of four major lakes and near the center of an urbanized area, has been experiencing water quality problems emanating from both agricultural and urban sources. In turn it is contributing to the same problems in the Yahara River and its three other downstream lakes.

According to the 7/11/06 CARPC staff report on the City of Middleton CUSA amendment request on behalf of Misty Valley Development, “The Yahara River system “is sluggish and has several bottlenecks. Storm surges flow through the system in a period of weeks, resulting in flooding during wet years or when storms occur from back to back.  Lake Mendota has been used to store runoff from the Upper Yahara watershed (including Pheasant Branch Creek) helping protect low lying areas around the lower lakes. Because of sluggishness of the system even when new urban areas control post-development runoff peaks at predevelopment levels through retention/detention basins, the typical 24- to 36-hour attenuation of the peaks does little to mitigate downstream flooding potential” (page 13).

Dorn Creek contributes 7% of annual surface flow into Lake Mendota (Chin et al).

Adding 2950 housing units for 6,888 residents, large commercial, institutional and recreational facilities on 910 acres of the amendment area where the environmental corridors have been stripped of their respective natural hydrologic networks and vegetation, to make room for runoff holding facilities, would lead to a chain of disastrous water quality consequences:

Increased runoff volumes and sediment loads would fill and ultimately destroy the Dorn Creek Marsh Fishery Area wetland. The next to go would be groundwater recharge into the northwestern corner of Lake Mendota, due to increased pumping, along with the current 7% contribution of annual surface flow. But since even intensive infiltration practices cannot control runoff volumes for high density development (Lathrop and Potter 2004:7) and because of the sluggish nature of the Yahara river system — where even the state-of-art retention/detention basins set to 24- to 36-hour attenuation peaks and the high standards of pre-settlement conditions can do little to mitigate downstream flooding potential (CARPC staff report 7-11-06) — adding such massive high density development as the one proposed by Middleton-Westport would only heighten flooding threat and its associated human, social, financial and ecological costs.

Groundwater

Middleton-Westport concerns about groundwater mainly center on technical aspects of water procurement needed for the proposed population increase, rather than on the effects of increased pumping on the area streams and wetlands. The development proposal for Bishop’s Bay estimates that the city would need an additional 393,355 gallons per day (gpd) of fresh water and that the town would need 54,900 gpd. Middleton is scheduled to have its new well number 8 completed by next spring. Westport would either purchase the needed water from Middleton or it would open a new well. Surprisingly both the city and the town expect sewage productions to exceed water usage. Middleton estimates it would generate 457,080 gpd of sewage, Westport 74,660.

Dorn Creek contribution of 7% of annual surface flow into Lake Mendota is significant, especially because all four Madison Lakes are currently losing water to groundwater due to the pumping conditions. Madison area lakes used to receive groundwater in pre-settlement times. The northwestern side of Lake Mendota is the only area in the four lakes where the pre-settlement pattern of groundwater discharging into a lake still persists. And that is only because the area is still only moderately developed (Hunt et al 2001). The proposed amendment tract is a part of that same area.

According to Bradbury et al (1999), groundwater is the sole water supply for the county. Dane County’s groundwater ranges in age from less than five years to over 3,000 years. It is being pumped out at the rate of 51 million gallons per day. Most of that water is not recycled through the natural hydrologic system near where it originated, but is sent out of the watershed via sewage treatment plants.

Groundwater moves downward from the surface along much of the shore of Lake Mendota.  It had been estimated (ibid)  that as much as 25% of the groundwater drawn by municipal wells located near the Yahara lakes, including Mendota, is of that origin.

From 2000 to 2004, a groundwater study was conducted in the North Fork of the Pheasant Branch Creek (Lathrop and Potter 2004).  It was discovered that water pumping causes frequent cycling of water levels in the lower regional aquifer, and that the levels in the upper aquifer remain relatively steady under pumping conditions but that they do respond to precipitation. According to the applied groundwater model, the projected water demand for the year 2020 would result in up to 12% reduction in the baseflow of Pheasant Branch Creek. Wetlands would undergo 7% reduction in groundwater recharge regardless which aquifer was pumped.

The study also found that, when imperviousness of land cover was considered together with groundwater data, then under urban development conditions, baseflow in Pheasant Branch and at Pheasant Branch Marsh decreased by up to 63% and by 22 % respectively.

The proposed amendment area is partly in the Pheasant Branch Creek watershed, nearest to North Fork of Pheasant Branch, where data for Lathrop and Hunt’s study were collected. The warning of drastically decreased baseflow along Pheasant Branch and Pheasant Branch Marsh under increased development should be taken seriously also for Dorn Creek and the associated wetland.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Farms and Prairie

The Middleton-Westport CUSA amendment request is short on the implementation details of the standards proposed for water quality management. Other than a map and a list of best management practices for control of runoff and groundwater recharge, there is no other explanation on that topic.

The concept plan of the Bishop’s Bay proposed development includes two unconventional neighborhoods. One of these is where residential units are interspersed with 50 acres of “farms”; and the other where 110 single-family houses are placed in clusters in the midst of planted prairie of unknown size.

Prairie and farms, depending on the crops planted and farming practices, could be helpful for infiltration. However, these two neighborhoods are only a small fraction of the total development. This particular land use goes only a very small step to offset effects of intense imperviousness that would be introduced with development. Likewise 50 acres of farms could hardly substitute for the loss of 910 farmland acres, with 47% of soils classified as prime for agricultural use.

Some prospective future residents of the “Farm Neighborhood” might think of the braying of animals and odor of fresh manure close to their windows as disruptive. The pledge made to neighborhood association to till the community field might prove to be burdensome to suburbanites coming home after a long day at their offices. As with many other aspects of this CUSA request, “farms” at Bishop’s Bay are also subject to post-approval revision.

Prairies are esthetically pleasing as well as ecologically useful.  But they must be burned every three to five years to keep out trees and invasive species. The proposed 110 houses in the midst of a would-be prairie represent a mutual threat. Eventually one has to make a room for the other.

Infiltration in cold weather months

The Bishop’s Bay CUSA application suggests that Middleton and Westport would pursue their own separate standards for infiltration. Even if unified and maximal, CARPC-imposed standard for infiltration would be accepted here, it is not clear if and how such standard would be met.

A study by Steuer and Hunt (2001:29) at Pheasant Branch uncovered data showing that much of the summer precipitation is lost to evaporation and transpiration by plants and that much of the annual recharge occurs during the winter and spring when the snow is melting.

At the Bishop’s Bay proposed development, the natural annual infiltration cycle would be shifted to engineered facilities that under cold weather conditions often do not perform as intended. A report by Caracao and Clayton (1997:1.3.6), based on a country-wide survey of over 100 stormwater experts, indicates that the stormwater control facilities, which rely on infiltration for proper functioning are ineffective when the soil is frozen. In addition, large volumes of water occur with snowmelt. That is the time when many impediments, such as frozen ground for infiltration basins or frozen permanent pools and clogged outlets for pond systems, may be in their worst condition, all of which results in loss of effectiveness of these facilities (ibid 1.3.9).

HOW MUCH CUSA LAND IS NEEDED IN MIDDLETON-WESTPORT AREA?

Middleton-Westport is asking for a CUSA of an extraordinarily large tract of 910 acres.

The historical record of CUSA granted land extensions does not justify this request.

The record of CUSA-granted land extensions reveals that this request dwarfs most others (Table 18, page A-10 of Regional Trends, 2008 issued by CARPC). In the 22-year period of 1986 to 2008 when the countywide population grew by 28% and the City of Middleton and the Town of Westport grew their populations by 30% and 33% respectively, only 13,092 acres were added to the entire CUSA. (Comparable USA added acreage for the same period for the county was 13,526 acres). Yearly average for CUSA additions for the entire county (not just one municipality) was 595.1 acres.

Nor do projected population growth figures for the CUSA support Middleton-Westport’s exaggerated claim of need for housing. CUSA population in the county is on a declining trend. In the period between 1970 and 2000 it went from 73% to 63% of the total. CAPD data predict that the CUSA population will be only 58% of the total for the county by 2030.

The Middleton-Westport CUSA amendment proposes to build 2950 new residential units at a time when DOA figures indicate only 2,264 new households for that area in the coarse of the next 20 years (Middleton-Westport submitted materials, page 40).

There is no guarantee that this CUSA amendment request is the only request for urban service expansion, which Westport and Middleton conjointly or separately will be making to CARPC before 2030.

Middleton-Westport’s attempt to justify their proposed oversupply of housing units relative to expected new households under a guise of wider CUSA umbrella — which includes West Madison, Village of Waunakee and Towns of Springfield and Middleton — serves no other function but to confuse the issue. All those municipalities will pursue their own projected growth needs. Allowing unjustifiably large urban expansion to Middleton-Westport will only tempt Madison and Waunakee to ask for the same.

There are currently 195 vacant residential lots in the city, all located in three new subdivisions opened for construction in 2007. The city has not revealed data for vacant commercial lots. Neither has is revealed data for un-platted vacant residential land within the current CUSA.  Judging from “Land available for development” signs placed at many Middleton locations the current urban service area still contains room for growth.

CONCLUSION

The requested CUSA amendment should be denied for recommendation to WI-DNR because of the following reasons:

—- It would have negative impact on both local and wider regional water resources. The proposed CUSA area is a wrong place for a massive development such as one proposed.

—- It ignores NR 121.05 (2)(b) and 121.05 (2)(i) requirements relating to evaluation of the water quality impacts of the proposed activities and the necessary mitigation measures to offset any such impacts.

—- It ignores NR 121.01 public participation requirements.

—- It fails to show how the proposed water quality standards would be implemented and to what degree the implementation of such standards would work

—- The remaining capacity of all plotted land as well as vacant land for residential and for commercial space was not provided for the City of Middleton.

—- Documentation on the number of available land divisions in the Town of Westport was also not given.

—-The official population projections do not support the CUSA extension of the area size proposed here.

Stefi Harris and Arnold Harris

Western Dane Coalition for Smart Growth and Environment

3427 County Rd P

Mt Horeb WI 53572

WORKS CITED

Articles

Bradbury K R, SK Swanson, S K Krohelski, J T Fritz; Hydrology of Dane County; Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey; 1999.

Caracao D and R Clayton; Stormwater Supplement for Cold Climates; Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicot City, MD; December 1997.

Chin H W, K W Potter, J A Hoopes, J S Roger and E A Murdock; In-stream Sediment Transportation and Deposition; USA EPA Nutrient Science Star Grant; online.

Hunt R J, K R Bradbury and J T Krohelski; Effects of Large-Scale Pumping and

Diversion of the Water Resources of Dane County, Wisconsin; December 2001; USGS; online.

Lathrop R C and K W Potter; Alternative Urbanization Scenarios for an Agricultural Watershed: Design Criteria, Social Constraints and Effects of Groundwater on Surface Water Systems (Project Period 2000-2004); EPA/National Center for Environmental Research; online.

Steuer J J and Hunt R J; Use of Watershed-Modelling Approach to Assess Hydrologic Effects of Urbanization, North Fork Pheasant Branch Basin near Middleton, Wisconsin; USGS Water Resources Investigation Report 01-4113, 2001.

Planning documents

CARPC staff report 7/16/06; City of Middleton CUSA amendment for Misty Valley Development.

CARPC staff report 8/7/09; City of Verona USA amendment request.

CARPC; Regional Trends for 2008; online.

Dane County State of the Waters Report; Office of Lakes and Watersheds, 2008.

Dane County Water Quality Management Plan, 2004.

The Lower Rock River Water Quality Management Plan, 2001.

Joint Comprehensive Plan for Middleton-Westport.

Maps

LWRD map of natural areas near the proposed North Mendota Parkway; created 1/9/09.

Map of Infiltration and Stormwater Elements; North Mendota Environmental and transportation Study; Strand Associates 1-124.006.

Natural resource regulations

NR 121 Areawide Water Quality Management Plans.