Final Cooperative Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement

Home , Fort Snelling State Park, Kinnickinnic State Park, Marine Mill, Willow River State Park

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Minnesota • Wisconsin Final Cooperative Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement LOWER ST. CROIX National Scenic Riverway Minnesota and Wisconsin This Final Cooperative Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement presents and analyzes six alternatives, including the preferred alternative, for a cooperative management plan for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. The purpose of the plan is to provide a general direction for managing the area for the next 15 to 20 years. The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources are co-lead agencies with the National Park Service in the preparation of this plan. Six alternatives for land and water use management were considered. The preferred alternative would maintain long stretches of the lower riverway’s natural and rural landscape, while allowing limited, planned development in communities that would be consistent with the historic character of the communities; it would protect and enhance the diverse recreational uses found in the riverway. Alternative A would also maintain long stretches of the natural and rural landscape; however, a slightly greater proportion of the lower riverway would encompass town landscapes; recreational use would intensify. Alternative B would stress maintaining the visual landscape, while maintaining the diversity of water recreational experience. The overall level of recreational use would be allowed to increase slightly, although segments of the river would be designated for specific uses. Alternative C would essentially be the same as alternative B, except there would be a freeze on recreational use levels. Alternative D would emphasize resource protection, development visible from the river would be reduced even in towns, and recreational use would be reduced. The natural qualities of the riverway would be promoted and restored, with an emphasis on promoting quieter, slower, and less intrusive experiences. Alternative E, the no- action alternative, would maintain existing land use and recreational use patterns, following the 1976 Master Plan and the Lower St. Croix Management Commission’s policy resolutions. Policy resolutions would be used to address new issues that arose. In general, all alternatives would maintain long stretches of the lower riverway’s natural and cultural landscape, and riverway users would continue to find opportunities for a variety of recreational experiences. There would be an overall benefit to natural and cultural resources under the preferred alternative. Riverway user conflicts would be reduced, although there would be more restrictions. Alternative A would provide greater opportunities for more people, but the area would be more crowded and noisier. Impacts on natural and cultural resources would increase. The impacts of alternatives B and C would essentially be the same except that C would limit numbers of people. Alternative D would have the least effect on resources because of its emphasis on resource protection and reduction in recreational use. Under alternative E existing policies and management direction would continue. In addition to the alternatives, five options were considered for the management structure of the riverway. These options would provide a direction for determining agencies’ roles and responsibilities for policy development and land and water use management. The primary difference would be that under the preferred option and option 1 minor adjustments would be made in policy development and land and water use management. Under options 2 and 3 new management boards for land use management and a water patrol would be established, and the Lower St. Croix Management Commission would be expanded. Option 4 would continue the existing management structure for policy direction and land and water use management. The impacts vary with regard to administrative responsibilities and cost. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was available for public review from September 17, 1999 to November 30, 1999; comments and responses on the draft document are reprinted in this final document. The Final Environmental Impact Statement has been revised to reflect substantive comments and concerns received during the comment period, and the text has been refined and clarified where necessary. This final document will be on public review for 30 days; if no major comments are received during this period, a record of decision, indicating which alternative has been selected as the approved plan, will be signed. Comments should be addressed to the Superintendent, Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, P.O. Box 728, St. Croix Falls, WI 52024-0708, or call (715) 483-3284, or email [email protected]. U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources SUMMARY

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic River- · Provide an opportunity for the education way, which extends 52 miles from St. Croix and study of the geologic, historic, eco- Falls/Taylors Falls to the confluence with the logical, and aesthetic values to further Mississippi River at Prescott/Point Douglas, is enhance stewardship of the river. jointly managed by the National Park Service (NPS), Minnesota Department of Natural The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Resources (MDNR), and Wisconsin Depart- Riverway is significant for the following ment of Natural Resources (WDNR). Many reasons: changes have occurred in the St. Croix Valley since the original riverway Master Plan was · The riverway is an exceptional developed by the three managing agencies in combination of high-quality natural and 1976. Recognizing that the Master Plan was cultural resources, and scenic, aesthetic, dated, the managing agencies agreed to jointly and recreational values. develop a cooperative management plan for the lower riverway. · These resources and values exist in a distinctive river valley setting with a The joint plan has been adopted by the federal strong regional identity and character. and state river managing agencies after an adequate analysis of the benefits, environ- · These resources and values exist within mental impacts, and costs of alternative the expanding Twin Cities metropolitan courses of action and a thorough consideration area. of public input. These purpose and significance statements cannot be supported by continuing to implement the 1976 Master Plan; inade- PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE quacies of the current management approach require a new direction. This Lower St. Croix River Cooperative Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement will provide a general direction for managing the area for the next 15 to 20 years, OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE while meeting the following purposes of the VALUES lower riverway: To be eligible for inclusion in the national · Preserve and protect (and restore and en- wild and scenic rivers system a river or its hance where appropriate) the riverway’s rimmediate environment must possess one or ecological integrity, its unimpounded more of the following outstandingly remark- condition, its natural and scenic resources, able values: scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and its significant historic resources and wildlife, historic, cultural, or others that are similar in nature. · Accommodate a diverse range of recreational opportunities that do not detract The Lower St Croix was designated for its from the exceptional natural, historic, outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, scenic, and aesthetic resources and geologic values.

· Provide an environment that allows the opportunity for peace and solitude iii Summary

ALTERNATIVES The preferred alternative would emphasize protecting and enhancing the riverway’s Alternatives in this plan describe different diverse character. It would maintain long concepts or visions for the future. A number of stretches of the lower riverway’s natural and common management directions and associ- rural landscape, while allowing limited, ated strategies would be implemented under all planned, development in communities that alternatives. A preferred alternative and four would be consistent with the historic character other alternatives for managing land and water of the communities. Riverway users would in the lower riverway are presented along with continue to find opportunities to engage in a a no-action alternative, which describes how wide range of recreational experiences. The the lower riverway is currently managed and emphasis would be on maintaining and en- would be managed in the future if no changes hancing the diverse landscape character and occurred. A public workshop was held using a the diverse water-based recreational caucus/negotiation process to develop the opportunities. preferred alternative. Most elements of the plan were agreed upon at the caucus, but a few Alternative A would provide for more devel- were forwarded to the Lower St. Croix opment and more recreational activity than the Management Commission for decision. preferred alternative. Managing agencies would seek to maintain long stretches of the A set of options, including a preferred option, lower riverway’s natural and rural landscape, is also presented that identifies different while allowing limited, planned development organizational structures for future manage- within the boundary that was consistent with ment of the lower riverway. Any option could the historic character of the riverway’s com- be combined with any land and water use munities. However, under alternative A, a management alternative. slightly greater proportion of the lower riverway would encompass town landscapes, allowing greater opportunities for development MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS within or adjacent to riverway towns. Addi- tional residential development would also COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES occur in rural areas. Riverway users would continue to find an array of recreational Some elements of future riverway manage- opportunities, including increased oppor- ment will occur no matter what alternative tunities for more social activity on parts of the strategy for management is selected. Topics river, but unlike the preferred alternative, no include government coordination and coop- efforts would be made to regulate user eration, land use management, American activities if they were not causing significant Indian treaty rights, riverway stewardship, damage to the resource or posing safety natural resources management, management of hazards to others. hunting, fishing, and trapping, recreational use management, and interpretation. Alternative B would stress maintaining the current landscape character within the riverway boundary and maintaining the diversity of LAND AND WATER USE water recreational experiences as much as ALTERNATIVES possible. However, the overall level of recreational use would be allowed to increase but This Cooperative Management Plan / some use would be reallocated and separated. Environmental Impact Statement presents and New development would be more limited than evaluates six alternatives. alternative A and slightly more limited than the preferred alternative.

iv SUMMARY

Alternative C would achieve the same condi- development in rural areas and enhanced tions as alternative B — views of the lands management of recreational use. Protection of within the boundary and the diversity of river scenic resources would be improved compared recreational experiences would be maintained. to the no-action alternative. Limited localized The major difference from other alternatives impacts on natural resources would occur in would be that the strategy used to maintain the connection with residential development (e.g., diversity of recreational experience would be soil and vegetation disturbance and disruption to freeze the growth of recreational use. of wildlife), but these impacts would be less than under the no-action alternative. Protection Alternative D would promote and restore the of cultural resources would be improved. Rec- natural qualities of the lower riverway ? the reational diversity would be enhanced and the predominance of natural features over modern resource impacts of recreational use would be developments would increase. Natural land- reduced compared to the no action alternative. scapes would be restored where feasible, and Conflicts between recreational users and managing agencies would strive to make the landowners would be reduced. There would be landscape appear more natural than it is now. negligible impacts on the regional economy. Emphasis would be placed on promoting quieter, slower, and less intrusive experiences Alternative A would allow more development that would not disturb others. Overall in rural areas and increased recreational use. recreational use would be reduced. Residential construction would negatively impact scenic resources more than the other Alternative E, the no-action alternative, alternatives. Limited localized impacts on provides a baseline for comparing the other natural resources would occur in connection alternatives. The managing agencies would with residential development (e.g., soil and continue to manage the lower riverway as they vegetation disturbance and disruption of have in the past. The agencies would continue wildlife); these impacts would be more than to follow the 1976 Master Plan (with some any other alternative. Protection of cultural changes based on current management resources would be improved compared to the practices) and the Lower St. Croix Manage- no-action alternative, but not as much as the ment Commission’s policy resolution. preferred alternative. Recreational diversity Management would focus on maintaining would not be enhanced and the resource existing land use and recreational use patterns impacts of recreational use would be greater and would react to recreational use as they than any other alternative. Conflicts between have in the past. Rural residential development recreational users and landowners would would be allowed to a greater degree than all increase. There would be negligible impacts of the alternatives except alternative A. Policy on the economy. resolution would be used to address new issues that arose. Alternatives B and C would allow slightly less development in rural areas than the preferred alternative. Protection of scenic ENVIRONMENTAL resources would be improved compared to the no-action alternative and slightly improved CONSEQUENCES compared to the preferred alternative. Limited localized impacts on natural resources would The potential consequences of the six occur in connection with residential develop- alternatives on scenic resources, natural ment (e.g., soil and vegetation disturbance and resources, cultural resources, recreational use, disruption of wildlife); these impacts would be and the socioeconomic environment were similar to but slightly less than the preferred evaluated. In general, the preferred alternative. Protection of cultural resources alternative would allow limited private

v Summary would be improved compared to the no-action wildlife); these impacts would be greater than alternative and would be very similar to the the preferred alternative but less than alterna- preferred alternative. Recreational diversity tive A. Protection of cultural resources would would be enhanced and the resource impacts not improve. Recreational diversity would not of recreational use would be reduced com- be enhanced and resource impacts of recrea- pared to the no-action alternative. Under tional use would continue to increase. Con- alternative B there would be limited growth in flicts between recreational users and land- recreational use, with impacts similar to the owners would continue to slowly increase. preferred alternative. Under alternative C there Like the action alternatives, there would be would be no growth in recreational use, so negligible impacts on the regional economy. enhancement of recreational diversity, and the resource impacts of recreational use would be less than the preferred alternative. Conflicts MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE between recreational users and landowners OPTIONS would be reduced, and more so under alternative C. Like alternative A, there would Five options were developed for the lower be negligible impacts on the regional riverway management structure. Each one economy. would provide a direction for determining agencies’ roles and responsibilities for policy Alternative D would allow less development development and land and water use manage- in rural areas than the other alternatives. Pro- ment. In all cases, the state would review and tection of scenic resources would be improved comment on local zoning actions; the two state compared to the other alternatives. Limited departments of natural resources and the localized impacts on natural resources would National Park Service would participate in and occur in connection with residential develop- provide staff support for the Lower St. Croix ment (soil and vegetation disturbance and Management Commission; the three agencies disruption of wildlife); these impacts would be would provide staff for on-water law enforce- slightly less than the preferred alternative. ment, rescue, and related activities; the Park Protection of cultural resources would be Service would provide staff for management improved compared to the no-action alterna- of lands it owns north of Stillwater. tive and would be similar to the preferred alternative. Recreational diversity would be The preferred option would retain the significantly reduced; the resource impacts of management commission and include an recreational use would be reduced compared additional nonvoting member from the newly to all other alternatives. There would be created partnership team that would serve an negligible impacts on the regional economy. advisory role. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Some people would feel negative impacts from Boundary Area Commission would continue in displaced recreational use, and some landown- its administrative support and nonvoting ers would experience negative impacts be- advisory roles. The management commission’s cause of development restrictions. technical committee would review all applications for variances and conditional use The no-action alternative, alternative E, would permits. Managing agencies would have no continue to allow development in rural areas in veto authority over a local government’s the same way as in the past 24 years. Protec- decision on a conditional use permit, or tion of scenic resources would continue to subdivision; if there was disagreement, slowly decline. Limited localized impacts on appeals could be made to the courts. Existing natural resources would occur in connection water use enforcement roles would continue. with residential development (e.g., soil and Option 1 would also retain the management vegetation disturbance and disturbance of commission but would include a local govern-

vi SUMMARY ment representative. The planning task force IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT would be restructured and made permanent. It STRUCTURE OPTIONS would assist in rules interpretation, mediation, and coordination for land management and/or The preferred option would create the least water use management. Options 2 and 3 change from the current management would further expand the management com- approach. Option 1 would involve a minor mission and create a water patrol. Option 2 change. Options 2 and 3 would involve the would create a joint powers board for land use most change, with each establishing a new management, whereas option 3 would create a management board. There would be no change riverway board to manage land use. Option 4 from the current management approach under would continue the existing management option 4. structure for policy direction and land and water use.

vii HEADINGS IN BOLD ARE CLICKABLE

CONTENTS

CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

Introduction 3 Purpose of and Need for the Cooperative Management Plan 3 Legislative Purpose for Establishing the Lower St. Croix 6 Fundamental Principles for the Cooperative Management Plan 9 Purposes, Significance, and Exceptional Resources/Values of the Lower Riverway 10 Vision for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway 11 The Planning Process 12 Planning Issues And Concerns 13 Other Related Planning Efforts 20 Next Steps in the Planning Process 23

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES, LAND AND WATER USE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES, AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS

Introduction 27 Framework for the Alternatives 27 Development of the Alternatives 28

Management Directions Common to All Alternatives

Management Actions 31 Coordination and Cooperation Among Managing Partners and between Governmental and Private Entities 31 Land Use Management 32 American Indian Treaty Rights 32 Riverway Stewardship 32 Natural Resources Management 34 Management of Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping 37 Recreational Use Management 38 Interpretation and Education 41

Management Areas Land Management Areas 45 Water Management Areas 57

Land and Water Use Alternatives Background 65 Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character 66 Management Concept 66

ix CONTENTS

Land Use 66 Vegetative Management 70 River Crossings 71 Island And Public Shoreline Management 72 Water Surface Use 73 Classification 76 Navigation Channel Maintenance 76 Cultural Resources Management 77 Land Protection/Boundary Adjustments 79 Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use 81 Management Concept 81 Land Use 81 Vegetative Management 85 River Crossings 86 Island And Public Shoreline Management 87 Water Surface Use 87 Alternative B: Accommodate Growth But Maintain The Landscape’s Visual Qualities And Minimize Recreational Use Conflicts 90 Management Concept 90 Land Use 90 Vegetative Management 94 River Crossings 94 Island And Public Shoreline Management 95 Water Surface Use 95 Alternative C: Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities and Existing Recreational Characteristics 100 Management Concept 100 Land Use 100 Vegetative Management 100 River Crossings 101 Island And Public Shoreline Management 101 Water Surface Use 101 Water Use Management from Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar 102 Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use 105 Management Concept 105 Land Use 105 Vegetative Management 108 River Crossings 110 Island And Public Shoreline Management 110 Water Surface Use 110 Alternative E: No Action 114 Management Concept 114 Land Use 114 Vegetative Management 114 River Crossings 115 Island And Public Shoreline Management 116 Water Surface Use 116

x HEADINGS IN BOLD ARE CLICKABLE

User Carrying Capacity 117 Navigation Channel Maintenance 117 Cultural Resource Management 117 Land Protection /Boundary Adjustments 118 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 119

Management Structure Options

Introduction 123 Preferred Option 124 Policy Development 124 Land Use Management 124 Water Surface Use Management 125 Option 1: Minor Adjustments to the Current Management Structure 126 Policy Development 126 Land Use Management 126 Water Surface Use Management 126 Option 2: Shift Authority for Land Use and Water Use Regulation to a Joint Powers Board 127 Policy Development 127 Land Use Management 127 Water Surface Use Management 127 Option 3: Shift Authority for Land Use and Water Use Regulation to a Riverway Board and Joint Powers Board 128 Policy Development 128 Land Use Management 128 Water Surface Use management 128 Option 4: Continue Current 129 Policy Development 129 Land Use Management 129 Water Surface Use Management 129 Implementation Costs of Alternatives and Options 130 Summary of Alternatives and Options 134

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Introduction 149 Scenic Resources 150 Recreational Use 155 River Sections 156 Overall Use 159 Camping Experience 159 Recreational Facilities along the Lower St. Croix 161 Other Public, Township, County, and Nonprofit 162 Private 163 Regional Recreational Facilities and Opportunities 163 Natural Resources 165 xi CONTENTS

Climate 165 Air Quality 165 Physiography and Topography 166 Land Use/Land Cover 167 Geology 168 Soils 168 Water Resources 169 Floodplains and Wetlands 171 Vegetation 172 Wildlife 174 Threatened and Endangered Species 176 Cultural Resources 182 Historical Overview 182 Physical Resources 184 Historic Structures 184 Archeological Resources 185 Cultural Landscapes 185 Ethnographic Resources 186 Socioeconomic Environment 187 Regional Setting and Land Use Characteristics 187 Services 187 Population 187 Economy 188 Land And Water Management 192 Ownership 192 Land Use Management 193 Water Use Management 193 Management Organization 194

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Introduction 204 Impacts of Preferred Alternative 207 Impacts on Scenic Resources 207 Impacts on Recreational Use 211 Impacts on Natural Resources 212 Impacts on Cultural Resources 218 Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment 218 Cumulative Effects 220 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 221 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 221 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 221 Impacts of Alternative A 223 Impacts on Scenic Resources 223 Impacts on Recreational Use 227 Impacts on Natural Resources 229 Impacts on Cultural Resources 233 Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment 233 Cumulative Effects 234 xii HEADINGS IN BOLD ARE CLICKABLE

Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 236 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 236 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 236 Impacts of Alternative B 237 Impacts on Scenic Resources 237 Impacts on Recreational Use 241 Impacts on Natural Resources 242 Impacts on Cultural Resources 247 Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment 248 Cumulative Effects 249 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 250 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 250 Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 250 Impacts of Alternative C 252 Impacts on Scenic Resources 252 Impacts on Recreational Use 252 Impacts on Natural Resources 253 Impacts on Cultural Resources 257 Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment 258 Cumulative Effects 259 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 260 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 261 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 261 Impacts of Alternative D 262 Impacts on Scenic Resources 262 Impacts on Recreational Use 266 Impacts on Natural Resources 268 Impacts on Cultural Resources 272 Impacts on Socioeconomic Conditions 272 Cumulative Effects 274 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 275 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 275 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 275 Impacts of Alternative E (No Action) 276 Impact on Scenic Resources 276 Impacts on Recreational Use 277 Impacts on Natural Resources 277 Impacts on Cultural Resources 280 Impacts on Socioeconomic Environment 281 Cumulative Effects 282 Relationship of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 283 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 283 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 283 Impacts of Management Structure Options 284 Preferred Option 284 Option 1: Minor Adjustment 284 Option 2: Joint Powers Board 284 Option 3: Riverway Board 284 Option 4: No Action 284

xiii CONTENTS

Compliance 285 Wild And Scenic Rivers Act (82 Stat. 906) As Amended 285 National Environmental Policy Act Of 1969 285 Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act Of 1971 285

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force 287 Newsletters and Workbooks 288 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 289 Consultation with American Indians 290 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 290 Comments and Responses 290 (Letters begin on page 293)

APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

Appendixes A: Land Use Regulation Guidelines 431 B: Water Surface Use Guidelines 435 C: Legislation 438 D: Fish And Wildlife Service Consultation 445 E: Federal & State Listed Species Of Concern 473 F: Inventory of Related Historic Sites 476 G: Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan 478

Bibliography 486 Preparers and Consultants 489 Index 491

xiv TABLE AND MAP NAMES ARE CLICKABLE

TABLES

1: Summary of Land Management Areas 55 2: Summary of Water Management Areas 56 3: Land Management Area Distributions Under the Preferred Alternative 68 4: Land Management Area Boundaries in the Preferred Alternative 68 5: Water Management Area Boundaries in the Preferred Alternative 76 6: Land Management Area Distributions Under Alternative A 83 7: Land Management Area Boundaries in Alternative A 83 8: Water Management Area Boundaries in Alternative A 89 9: Land Management Area Distributions Under Alternative B 92 10: Land Management Area Boundaries in Alternative B 92 11: Water Management Area Boundaries in Alternative B 98 12: Water Management Area Boundaries in Alternative C 104 13: Land Management Area Distribution Under Alternative D 107 14: Land Management Area Boundaries in Alternative D 107 15: Water Management Area Boundaries in Alternative D 112 16: Implementation Costs of Alternatives 131 17: Implementation Costs of Options 133 18: Comparison of Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Alternatives 137 19: Summary of Management Structure Options 143 20: Summary of Impacts of Alternatives 144 21: Summary of Impacts of Management Structure Options 145 22: St. Croix River Discharge Rates at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 172 23: Federal & State Threatened and Endangered Species 178 24: Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Population Data and Percentage Change for Selected Years 188 25: Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Top Three Industries in 1995 in Terms of Earnings 189 26: Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Per Capita Income for Selected Years 190 27: Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Unemployment and Poverty (1990 and 1994) 191

MAPS

Region 4 Boundary 7 Preferred Alternative - Land 67 Preferred Alternative - Water 75 Alternative A - Land 82 Alternative A - Water 88 Alternative B&C - Land 91 Alternative B - Water 97 Alternative C - Water 103 Alternative D - Land 106 Alternative D - Water 113 Land and Water Segment Key 135 Landownership (3) 195-200

xv Context for the Plan INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE purpose of this plan is to describe the COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT direction the managing agencies intend to PLAN follow in managing the lower riverway for the next 15 to 20 years while meeting the In 1976 the National Park Service (NPS), riverway’s stated purposes. This coopera- in cooperation with the Minnesota and tive management plan is consistent with Wisconsin Departments of Natural the requirements of the national wild and Resources (DNR), completed a Master scenic river act, the two state’s Lower St. Plan for managing the lower riverway. The Croix acts, and will serve as the general overall goal of the plan was to “preserve management plan as required by the the existing scenic and recreational re- National Parks and Recreation Act of sources of the Lower St. Croix through 1978. controlled development.” The plan focused on establishing the riverway, such as deter- The plan considers the riverway holis- mining the riverway boundary, acquiring tically, in its full ecological and cultural land, and identifying needed administrative contexts as a unit of the national wild and and recreational facilities. scenic rivers system and as a part of the surrounding watershed. The plan will serve Many changes have occurred in the St. as a management tool to guide decision- Croix Valley since 1976. For example, use making over the long term; it will not of the riverway has increased, and people provide specific and detailed answers to are using it in increasingly diverse ways. every issue or question. However, the plan The first Master Plan focused on land will provide a management framework that acquisition and startup of the riverway. will help maintain a balance between Today’s managers are concerned with continuity and adaptability in a dynamic resolving conflicts between different users decision-making process. and addressing the impacts of changing adjacent land uses on the lower riverway. This Final Cooperative Management Plan The old plan needs to be updated to pre- / Environmental Impact Statement presents pare for these changes, to take a new look six alternatives for managing the riverway at management of the riverway, and to and analyzes the environmental impacts of address problems and opportunities that each. A no-action alternative (a continua- were not apparent 24 years ago. tion of existing trends) is provided as a basis of comparison. The approved plan The National Park Service and the Min- will provide a framework for proactive nesota and Wisconsin DNRs have prepared decision making, including decisions on this Final Cooperative Management Plan / recreational use, land use, natural and Environmental Impact Statement for the cultural resource management, and general Lower St. Croix River. The plan was development in the lower riverway. developed in cooperation with the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force, which is comprised of interested citizens, agency staff, and other riverway stakeholders. The

3 Minnesota Interstate Taylors Falls State Park St. Croix Falls 8

Wisconsin Interstate State Park 8 Osceola Cedar Bend Forest Lake 97 35

William O'Brien State Park

Marine on St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area

64 35E 64 Somerset

35 Federal Zone Stillwater State Zone 36 Bayport North Hudson Minneapolis Hudson St. Paul Lakeland 94 94 Lake St. Croix Beach

Afton River Falls Afton State Park

10 61 35 M issis sippi Rive Kinnickinnic State Park r St. Croix River

Prescott Lower St. Croix NSR

10 Major Highways

0 4.5 9 Miles North

REGION Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Minnesota • Wisconsin

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service DSC • 643 • 20,029A • 5/00 Introduction

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE Croix passes through various landscapes LOWER RIVERWAY from a deep, narrow gorge with basalt cliffs to expansive views of a wide river In 1972 Congress added the Lower St. valley — and includes diverse biological Croix River (see the Region map) to the communities. The riverway’s scenery, national wild and scenic rivers system plentiful fish and wildlife, largely (Public Law 92-560, see appendix C). This unpolluted, free-flowing character, cooperative management plan addresses numerous access points, and closeness to only the lower riverway (see “Relationship the Twin Cities attract many people in the to Other Planning Efforts to This Plan” late spring, summer, and fall. Users section). participate in a wide range of recreational activities in the lower riverway, including On September 19, 1975 the original bound- motorboating, sailing, canoeing, swim- ary for the entire riverway was published, ming, camping, picnicking, wildlife consistent with the requirements of section viewing, fishing, and hunting. 3(b) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In March 1977 all islands The authorized boundary for the Lower St. under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Croix National Scenic Riverway encom- Land Management were withdrawn from passes approximately 25,346 acres of land entry, pursuant to a 1968 letter signed by and water (see Boundary map on page 7). the secretary of interior, and on August 6, The National Park Service manages the 1986, they were transferred to the National upper 27 miles of lands and waters Park Service. Additions and deletions were (approximately 9,542 acres — referred to made in 1983, creating a net increase of 82 as the federally administered zone) under acres. In March of 1990 a boundary change fee simple ownership or as conservation, was made in Prescott (Pierce County), riverfront, and scenic easements. The law Wisconsin. Legal descriptions are available requires that the lower 25 miles of the from the managing agencies. lower riverway (referred to as state- administered zone) be administered by the The Lower St. Croix Riverway is a narrow states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and corridor that runs for 52 miles along the that development planning for the riverway boundary of Minnesota and Wisconsin, be conducted jointly by the states and the from St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls to the secretary of the interior. confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott/Point Douglas. Although the While the National Park Service’s land riverway has a natural appearance for long acquisition authority is limited to the stretches, much of the riverway is adjacent federally administered zone (north of to the rapidly growing Twin Cities metro- Stillwater), the Park Service does have politan area. Municipalities along the some management responsibilities in the riverway include St. Croix Falls, Taylors state-administered zone (Stillwater south). Falls, Osceola, Marine on St. Croix, Similarly the states have land management Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport, authority over private lands throughout the North Hudson, Hudson, Lakeland, riverway (both north and south of Stillw- Lakeland Shores, Lake St. Croix Beach, St. ater). The National Park Service and the Mary’s Point, Afton, and Prescott. The St. states all have management responsibility

5 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN over water surface use north of Stillwater, found eligible by a Department of Interior while the states have management respon- study of 1972 for its outstanding scenic, sibility from Stillwater south. The three recreational, and geologic values. agencies, as well as other state and federal agencies, share many other natural resource The Congressional Record of October management responsibilities. 1972, which led to the designation of the Lower St. Croix, provides more insight As of June 1997, approximately 15,804 into the purposes for establishing the acres of land and water were in the state- Lower St. Croix. It contains numerous administered zone. Much of the land along references to the uniqueness of the Lower the lower 25 miles is in private ownership. St. Croix. Senator Henry Jackson said: The two states have several scenic easements on land within the riverway, “I should point out that this is one of (202 acres in Wisconsin and 80 acres in the last remaining major rivers in the Minnesota), and the state of Minnesota United States which lies within a major owns land for a public boat access. Several metropolitan area and is still relatively Wisconsin and Minnesota state parks and a unspoiled. The river borders the eastern Wisconsin wildlife management area also boundary of the Minneapolis-St. Paul are adjacent to the riverway boundary. urban area and is within easy access of over 2 million people. Ironically, it is this accessibility which places in LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES jeopardy the features which make this FOR ESTABLISHING THE river an outstanding natural resource, LOWER ST. CROIX and which makes it imperative that the river quickly receive protection under By the 1950s decades of damming, devel- the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. . . . opment, and diversion had taken their toll Final action on the St. Croix bill is on our country’s rivers. During the 1960s, urgently needed. If comprehensive the country began to recognize the damage protection is not extended to the river- we were inflicting. Recognition led to ac- way, the St. Croix will eventually tion by Congress to preserve the beauty become one more city river, its waters and free-flowing nature of some of our poisoned with pollution, its shorelines most precious waterways. In 1968 Con- gutted with indiscriminate gress passed and President Lyndon John- development.” son signed into law the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The purpose of the Wild and While many today refer to the Lower St. Scenic Rivers Act is to protect and enhance Croix as a “metro river,” in planning for its the free-flowing character, water quality, future management, it is important to and immediate environment of certain riv- remember that Congress established it ers. To be eligible for designation a river specifically to keep it from becoming just must be free flowing and must possess one “one more city river.” or more outstandingly remarkable resource values (i.e., scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar value). The Lower St. Croix was

6 8 WI Interstate State Park

St. Croix Falls 35 31 64 Wisconsin

e n

Minnesota Osceola e M o n Z

25 36 12 13 24 o Trout Hatchery Z Taylors Falls y Peasley 35 a y w Lake a r w

MN Interstate e

35 r 35 v e State Park i v R i

Osceola Polk County l

St. Croix Islands R

a r

35 St. Croix County e

Wildlife Area t 3 34 e Willow River a d t

e State Park S 17 20 29 32 5 8 17 Kinnickinnic F FF 33 Willow River State Park 95 21 243 4 9 3 4 9 33 16 21 Arcola 35 15 F 18 Sandbar 6 30 31 6 7 18 19 10 94 64 Franconia 29 5 8 17 20 29 32 5 3 35 Hudson 8 Houlton St. Cr St. Croix County Pierce County oix 12 13 24 E25 36 Ri 25 36 1 24 25 ve 95 n r F 7 18 31 o North Hudson 19 30 ns 6 o ta 26 Cedar Bend 14 26 c so 2 2 11 is e Wi n 95 Lakeland sconson Copas W in M 1 inn 1 12 13 24 12 13 24 59 M Bayport Lakeland esota Prescott Marine on St.Croix Shores 15 97 10 15 22 2127 3 Oak Park 15 27 21 r Lake e Heights St. Marys v St. Croix i William O'Brien 16 9 33 4 9 Point 16 21 28 35 4 9 16 21 28 R

State Park Beach i Stillwater p

18 i s Chisago County Washington County 36 Afton Point Douglas 32 Afton s i

17 20 5 5 8 17 20 29 32 State Park 32 5 s s 96 12 5 i

30 31 6 7 18 19 30 31

St. Croix Riverway Boundary

State Parks

North 0 1 2 3 Miles

Boundary Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

643 20030A DSC May 2000 Introduction

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR unlikely, there is no similar prohibition THE COOPERATIVE against removing development to change a MANAGEMENT PLAN river’s classification from recreational to scenic or from scenic to wild. Classification and Outstandingly Remarkable Values Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Classification is often confused with Classification. Rivers designated under the outstandingly remarkable values. To be National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild classified as “wild,” “scenic,” or “recrea- and Scenic Rivers System a river or its tional,” depending on the extent of immediate environment must possess one development and accessibility along each or more of the following outstandingly segment of river. Wild rivers are generally remarkable values: scenic, recreational, inaccessible except by trail; scenic rivers geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cul- are largely undeveloped, but are accessible tural, or others that are similar in nature. A in places by road; and recreational rivers river classified as scenic may or may not are readily accessible by road. The upper include scenery as an outstandingly 10 miles of the Lower St. Croix are remarkable value, and a river classified as classified as scenic, whereas the lower 42 recreational may or may not include recrea- miles are classified as recreational. tion as an outstandingly remarkable value.

Rivers classified as recreational are often The Lower St. Croix was designated for its mistakenly thought to be somehow less outstandingly remarkable scenic, recrea- deserving of protection than those tional, and geologic values. Section 7(a) of classified as scenic or wild. The the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides classification of a river is not intended to substantial protection to designated rivers. imply any management intent. For It states that: instance, a classification as recreational does not mean that the river must be “no department or agency of the United managed or developed specifically for States shall assist by loan, grant, recreational activities. All rivers are license, or otherwise in the construc- managed to protect and enhance the values tion of any water resources project that that caused them to be eligible for would have a direct and adverse effect inclusion in the national wild and scenic on the values for which such river was rivers system, regardless of their established, as determined by the classification. Secretary charged with its administration.” Classification is important only in that development and accessibility should not The National Park Service is responsible be allowed to increase to such an extent for evaluating water resource projects that a river’s classification would change. proposed on the Lower St. Croix according In other words, development that would to the provisions of section 7. Water change a river’s classification from wild to resources projects are those that involve scenic or from scenic to recreational should alterations to the bed or banks of the river not be allowed. However, while it may be and include bank stabilization projects,

9 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN bridges, and docking facilities. Most PURPOSES, SIGNIFICANCE, AND require permits from the U.S. Army Corps EXCEPTIONAL RESOURCES/ of Engineers or U.S. Coast Guard. VALUES OF THE LOWER RIVERWAY The National Park Service and other agencies manage the Lower St. Croix to protect The purposes, significance, and excep- and enhance all its important resource val- tional resources/values of the lower river- ues. Because of the wording of section way are three of the key elements that 7(a), in evaluating the impacts of a project, shaped the development of this cooperative the primary concern of the Park Service management plan. These reaffirm the will be the potential impact of a project on previously identified outstandingly remark- the values for which the Lower St. Croix able values. The purposes tell why the was designated – its scenic, recreational, Lower St. Croix was set aside as a unit in and geologic values. the national wild and scenic rivers system. The significance of the lower riverway Several other key elements also form the addresses what makes the area special — foundation for this plan, including the why it is important to our natural and/or purposes of the lower riverway, its signifi- cultural heritage and how it differs from cance and exceptional resources and val- other rivers in the country. The lower ues, and the vision or goal for the lower riverway’s exceptional resources / values riverway. These elements set the direction further elaborate why the Lower St. Croix and limits for the plan and are basic to all is significant. All of the alternatives and assumptions about how the riverway management prescriptions in this manage- should be used and managed, beginning ment plan should be consistent with and with the following principles: support the lower riverway’s purposes and significance. 1. The riverway must be managed cooperatively. There must be a framework for Based on the above fundamental principles federal, state, and local cooperative and the lower riverway’s enabling legisla- management. tion, legislative history, management 2. The river cannot be taken out of its agency policies, public input, and the watershed. While the riverway as a manage- knowledge and insights of the public, the ment entity is contained within a narrow cor- following purpose and significance state- ridor, it is profoundly influenced by activities ments and exceptional resources/values in the larger watershed. Therefore, it is important to realize that this plan is being developed were identified for the Lower St. Croix in conjunction with a companion Watershed National Scenic Riverway. Stewardship Initiative. The purposes of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway are to

· Preserve and protect (and restore and enhance where appropriate) for present and future generations the lower riverway’s ecological integrity, its

10 Introduction

natural and scenic resources, and its broad constituency for the management significant cultural resources. and preservation of the Lower St. Croix Riverway. · Accommodate a diverse range of recreational opportunities that do not · The 52 miles of the Lower St. Croix detract from the exceptional natural, River is at the junction of three major cultural, scenic, and aesthetic biomes: conifer-hardwood forest, resources. deciduous forest-woodland, and the prairie. The river has high water quality · Provide an environment that allows the from a myriad of sources in the opportunity for peace and solitude. watershed.

· Provide an opportunity for the educa- · The juxtaposition of landforms and tion and study of the geologic, cultural, geologic features, including the bluffs, ecological, and aesthetic values to islands, the Dalles, and Lake St. Croix, further enhance stewardship of the are unique. river. · Towns along the river corridor retain The Lower St. Croix National Scenic their historic small town character. Riverway is significant for the following reasons: · The diversity of scenic, geologic, economic, cultural, recreational, and · The riverway is an exceptional exceptional natural resources combine combination of high-quality natural and to make the Lower St. Croix River an cultural resources, and scenic, outstanding and accessible resource for aesthetic, and recreational values. the Upper Midwest.

· These resources and values exist in a · The natural communities, both terres- distinctive river valley setting with a trial and aquatic, are diverse and of strong regional identity and character. high quality. The sloughs, backwaters, braided streams, and other river fea- · These resources and values exist within tures provide habitat for native plants the expanding Twin Cities and animals. Rare and endangered metropolitan area. plants and animals, including mussels, eagles, and others, thrive here. The The Lower St. Croix National Scenic river corridor is an important flyway Riverway contains the following excep- for migrating birds and contains an tional resources and values: exceptionally diverse fishery.

· The valley’s varied cultural resources · The exceptional characteristics and reflect its significant role over thou- diversity of the linear riverway provide sands of years as a river transportation for a wide variety of high-quality recre- corridor. ational experiences. People can easily find opportunities, ranging from peace · The values of the Minnesota and Wisconsin communities provide a and solitude to dynamic social interaction.

11 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

VISION FOR THE LOWER ST. ployees from the Minnesota and Wisconsin CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC Departments of Natural Resources, Nation- RIVERWAY al Park Service, and the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. Based on the lower riverway’s purposes and significance, and the desired condi- The Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force tions for the riverway voiced by the public, played a key role in completing this plan. a common vision or goal was agreed upon The task force was established in 1996 to for the managing agencies to strive to guide development of the cooperative achieve in the future. This vision, high- management plan, facilitate participation lighted in the box below, describes the of the riverway stakeholders in the plan- overall riverway resource conditions, ning process, provide feedback on the three recreational experiences, land and water riverway managing agencies’ work, and uses. help build stakeholder consensus on the future management of the lower riverway. Each action alternative describes different Membership of the task force was open paths that strive to achieve this common throughout the planning process to all vision. interested citizens.

Interested members of the public, citizens VISION representing boaters, businesses, land- The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway continues to be an important natural protected owners, environmental groups, local corridor for people to use and enjoy. The river- governments, and various other interests, way maintains a diversity of scenic, natural, and and staff of the riverway managing cultural resources while also preserving rural agencies served on the volunteer task and small town qualities. The riverway’s unpol- force. From February 1996 through August luted waters accommodate diverse recreational and living experiences, ranging from quiet soli- 1998, 53 meetings were held to work on tude to highly social, motorized uses. This is an the plan. These meetings covered a host of area of minimal conflicts, with riverway users, topics, including the riverway’s biotic, landowners, and managers working together and geologic, and cultural resources, recreation respecting each other. Coordinated and coopera- issues, local riverway zoning, river cross- tive management of the riverway stresses and exemplifies stewardship. ings, vegetation management, interpretation, winter recreation, island management, riverway administration, commercial THE PLANNING PROCESS navigation, boundary adjustments, and management structure. The meetings Planning for the lower riverway began in focused on issues facing the lower river- the winter of 1995-96. The Cooperative way; its purposes, significance, and Management Plan / Environmental Impact exceptional resources; the development Statement was developed through a col- and refinement of the land use and water laborative effort, involving all interests that use alternatives in the plan; different have a stake in the management of the options for the lower riverway manage- lower riverway. With input from the pub- ment structure; guidelines for revisions to lic, the plan was prepared by an intera- the states’ land and water use regulations; gency planning team consisting of em-

12 Introduction and on the interagency planning team’s planning process. Additional opportunities work. also were provided to the public to give their views on the lower riverway’s The first major step in the planning process purposes and significance, exceptional was to collect data and identify goals for resource values, vision, issues and con- the lower riverway. The planning process cerns, desired future conditions, and the reaffirmed the purposes, identified the preliminary management alternatives. significance and exceptional resources/ Newsletters, workbooks, and media values, examined desired futures, devel- articles were the primary means relied on oped a vision statement, determined issues to communicate with the general public. A and concerns that need to be addressed in mailing list of about 720 individuals and the plan, and identified planning mandates groups was developed during the course of and constraints. Data on the lower river- the project. Newsletters were mailed out in way’s resources, users, and the socioec- November and May 1996, and an alterna- onomic environment were also collected tives workbook was mailed to the public in and analyzed. April 1997. Additional workbooks were A set of options was developed on the mailed out to the public in April and May organizational structure for managing the of 1998 for workshops on the selection of lower riverway and a preferred option the preferred alternative, management identified, and guidelines were established structure, and on the guidelines for state for use by the states of Minnesota and regulations. Meetings were also held with Wisconsin to revise their land and water local units of government, user groups, and use regulations within the lower riverway’s other interested organizations to discuss boundaries. the alternatives. (See the “Consultation and Coordination” section for more informa- After the alternatives were completed, the tion about public involvement to date.) environmental consequences and implications of each alternative were analyzed. Then all of the above information, includ- PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS ing the land and water use alternatives, management structure options, environ- Several major issues were identified that mental impact analysis, and the state form the focus of this Cooperative Man- guidelines, was incorporated into this Final agement Plan. All have the potential to Cooperative Management Plan / impact important natural and cultural re- Environmental Impact Statement. sources. Some of these issues and concerns Because of the complex makeup of the will not be fully resolved in this manage- lower riverway, which traverses or abuts ment plan, but the plan will establish a five state parks, one state wildlife manage- framework to resolve them in the future. ment area, five counties, 15 incorporated Certain issues and concerns will be addres- communities, and 35 townships, and the sed in more detail in the St. Croix Water- diverse publics interested in the future of shed Stewardship Initiative or as part of the the riverway, public involvement was an interagency St. Croix Basin Water Re- important aspect throughout the planning sources Management Plan. process. The task force was one conduit by which the public could participate in the

13 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS angling; safety; special events (including large-group events); and the availability of There are 13 fundamental assumptions that under- pin the plan for the Lower St. Croix. These boater facilities (such as accesses, way- assumptions are considered to be “givens,” which sides, beaches, campsites, private docks, will hold regardless of how the lower riverway is moorings, and sanitary facilities). managed in the future. · The region will continue to urbanize and the

regional population will continue to increase. Conflicts Between River Users and · The values of people living along the lower Riparian Landowners riverway are changing as new people move into the area. Riparian landowners routinely express · User demand will increase. displeasure with the behavior of some · The potential for resource degradation will boaters. For example, some landowners increase. complain that boaters trespass and litter on · The enabling legislation will not change. their property, and that boat wakes create · Planning will be grounded on the lower erosion of the shoreline. They feel the riverway’s purposes, significance, and riverway is being managed in favor of exceptional resources. boaters. Boaters, on the other hand, wish to · The management agency missions will not change. continue recreational use of the river and are concerned about excessive restrictions. · State lands along the lower riverway will be managed in a manner consistent with the cooperative management plan.

· Management areas will be applied to all lands Impacts of Changing Land Uses and waters within the riverway boundary. · Numerous variables such as floods affecting The landscape along the lower riverway the Lower St. Croix are not under the control and in adjacent areas is undergoing rapid of the riverway managing agencies. change in response to regional population · The lower riverway will be managed in manner growth, increasing urbanization, and that provides as safe a condition as possible. changing land use patterns. The population · The cooperative management plan will not residing in the five counties along the solve all conflicts between user groups and lower riverway increased from between riparian landowners and user groups. Conflicts Between Boaters approximately 189,800 people in 1970 to · Changes in statutes, rules, and policies will be 361,600 people in 1995 (Bureau of pursued to implement the plan. Economic Analysis, Economic & Statistics Administration 1997; CD Rom disk). The Conflicts Between Boaters number of structures documented within the riverway’s legal boundaries increased Boaters seeking different types of experi- from an estimated 1,900 in 1973 to 2,225 ences and engaged in different activities in 1991, with about 82% of the new create conflicts along the riverway. These structures added in the state-administered conflicts present management issues zone (Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary related to watercraft noise, horsepower, Area Commission 1993). The acreage of speed, type, and access from the Missis- urban land in the counties doubled from sippi River; opportunities for solitude 1973 to 1991, taking place primarily in versus social experiences; boat wakes; western St. Croix County and eastern

14 Introduction

Washington County (Minnesota-Wisconsin inconsistencies in protection of the river- Boundary Area Commission 1994). All of way’s water quality. There are concerns these changes are affecting the riverway’s about pollution entering the riverway from natural and cultural resources, scenic sources outside the boundary. Runoff from quality, cultural character, and recreational agricultural lands, roads, urban areas, and experiences. groundwater contamination from septic systems are all potential pollution sources that may be affecting the lower riverway’s tributaries. In addition, discharges from Inconsistencies in the Application and municipal and industrial wastewater Enforcement of Zoning Standards and facilities may be affecting the riverway’s Regulations water quality. As a result of increasing nutrients in the riverway, Lake St. Croix All county and municipal governments along the Lower St. Croix have adopted and the riverway’s backwaters are begin- riverway zoning ordinances. However, ning to show signs of eutrophication there are different zoning standards for (increased algae blooms, and unpleasant municipal and rural areas in both Minne- odors). Fish also have been contaminated sota and Wisconsin. Confusion and with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and misunderstandings have resulted from several organic compounds, which has unclear, subjective language in the resulted in the states of Minnesota and ordinances. Complicating the situation Wisconsin issuing fish consumption advis- further, the two state departments of ories for the St. Croix. As the population natural resources have veto power over and developments continue to increase local riverway zoning decisions. Land- near the river and its tributaries, the poten- owners are upset that the ordinances appear tial for degradation of the riverway’s water to be inconsistently applied and enforced quality will increase. Another concern is by the local governments and departments low water releases from operation of the of natural resources. Landowners some- St. Croix Falls dam in the winter. Low times get mixed messages about what they flows could jeopardize mussel and fish can and cannot do on their property. On the populations by dewatering part of their other hand, local governments have habitat. problems trying to interpret the intent of the ordinances and rules and in dealing with variance requests for improvements to Potential Loss of Native Mussel Species existing developments. The St. Croix River has one of the richest freshwater mussel communities in the world. The segment of the lower riverway Impacts on Water Quality and Quantity from the Northern States Power dam at St. Croix Falls/Taylor Falls (NSP dam) to Although the lower riverway’s water quality today is generally considered to be Osceola has especially high-quality mussel good, differences in water quality stand- habitat, as does the Hudson Narrows. ards, designations, and policies between However, native mussel species — Minnesota and Wisconsin could lead to including two federally endangered and many stated listed species — are threat-

15 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN ened by water pollutants, sedimentation, the riverway and its resources (e.g., crowd- the spread of the zebra mussels, loss of ing, noise, bank erosion, and sanitation habitat, direct human impacts, and fluctua- problems). Therefore, managing agencies tion of water flows caused by hydropower will continue to monitor and regulate these peaking operations. operations as required to protect these values.

Effects of Recreational Use on Natural Resources Spread of Exotic Species

Islands and shorelines are being eroded; Although there is insufficient information vegetation is being trampled at landings, regarding the distribution and abundance campsites, and popular day use areas; and of nonnative or exotic species, they are human wastes are being deposited in the found along the lower riverway. In 1985 river. If recreational use continues to more than 80 exotic plant species were increase, other resources impacts are likely listed for the riverway, including purple to increase, altering the riverway’s soils, loosestrife, spotted knapweed, and reed vegetation, wildlife, and water quality in canary grass (NPS 1985). The riverway’s localized areas. native species are being adversely affected by these species. Another species of concern, the zebra mussel, has not yet Effects of Recreational Use on the spread through the lower riverway but Islands zebra mussels have been found on boats entering the lower riverway and on boats For the past several generations, people harbored on the St. Croix. have used the islands in the lower riverway for camping and picnicking. People beach their boats on the shoreline of the islands Loss and Fragmentation of Native Plant and set up camp. Without designated Communities camping sites, these campers use most of the available space. As a result, ground Although remnants of all of the native vegetation is minimal or nonexistent, lit- plant communities still exist on the lower tering is common, and wastes have been riverway and the vegetation appears to be left indiscriminately on the islands. Condi- “natural,” the plant communities are con- tions have deteriorated to the point that tinuing to be affected by people. Manage- some users have been displaced and ripar- ment practices along the riverway, grazing, ian landowners have made complaints. use of fire and suppression of wildfires, clearing for agriculture and development, the introduction of exotic species, natural Need for Concessions Management plant succession, and diseases (e.g., white pine blister rust, and oak wilt) and insects The number of people using outfitters on (e.g., gypsy moth) are altering the native the lower riverway is increasing, and these plant communities in varying degrees. The operations have the potential to signifi- prairie and oak savanna communities along cantly affect the experience of visitors on

16 Introduction the lower riverway have been the most Impacts of New River Crossings severely affected by people. The Lower St. Croix is on the edge of the rapidly growing Twin Cities metropolitan Lack of Information on Natural and area. Growth is occurring on both sides of Cultural Resources the riverway. With the riverway’s north- south alignment, there will be continued Many resources of the lower riverway have pressure for people, commodities, com- not been inventoried and evaluated. Base- munications systems, and energy systems line data on many biological resources, to cross the riverway. These various types including current biological characteristics of crossings potentially can affect the and trends, is lacking. A lack of knowledge riverway’s resources, although to different of the St. Croix fishery, for example, limits degrees. Proposals to build or expand understanding of potential impacts to the highway or railroad bridges can signifi- fishery. Most of the riverway’s natural cantly impact the riverway’s scenic quality. resources are not being monitored. Some Construction of submarine crossings can basic cultural resource data, such as infor- affect aquatic resources. Utility lines have mation on archeological sites and on cul- a visual impact, and right-of-way mainte- tural landscapes, is still lacking. Native nance for crossings such as pipelines can American burial sites also are not known impact resources. A lack of coordination and frequently are not protected from among the companies and agencies pro- development. Without this basic natural posing projects, regulatory agencies, and and cultural resource information, the riverway managing agencies also encour- managing agencies will not be aware of ages crossings to proliferate and com- significant resources in the riverway, pounds the potential for impacts. impacts that are occurring to those resources, or management strategies needed to protect and maintain these Access to the Riverway resources. There are differing views as to whether boat access to the lower riverway is Lack of Cultural Resource adequate. Some argue that increased boat Management access (e.g., more access points and marinas) is needed so more people can Cultural resource management has been a enjoy the riverway. Others argue that boat lower priority than management of natural access needs to be reduced to decrease resources. As a result, there is the potential crowding and resource impacts and to for the degradation and loss of cultural provide opportunities for experiences that resources and a loss in the opportunity to are rapidly disappearing in the region (e.g., interpret the riverway’s resources for users. quality fishing, quiet, and solitude).

17 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

Navigation Channel Maintenance Inconsistencies in Regulation of Recreatioal Uses Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a 9-foot Users have complained about inconsis- navigation channel from the confluence tencies in the way in which the National with the Mississippi River to Stillwater, Park Service and the Wisconsin and Min- and a 3-foot navigation channel up to the nesota Departments of Natural Resources NSP dam. However, the Corps has not regulate boating, fishing, hunting, and maintained the 3-foot channel for many trapping in the riverway. For example, years. Channel maintenance plans for the watercraft noise laws are slightly different 9-foot channel assume only the Kinnicki- in the two states and are difficult to nnic Narrows will require dredging in the enforce. In Minnesota, the counties have next 40 years. The operation and mainte- veto power over state water-surface use nance of these channels can impact, and be regulations, which also has the potential to impacted by, resource management strate- lead to inconsistencies. gies, recreational use characteristics, aesthetics, recreational boater safety, and aquatic resources. For example, if the 9- Lack of Coordination foot channel is not periodically dredged in places, eventually some commercial users There is a need for better coordination, would not be able to use the Lower St. communication, and cooperation, and Croix. On the other hand, if the 3-foot integrated management and planning channel was maintained, it would provide between the riverway managing agencies easier motorboat access. and the federal, state, and local governments. In particular, local and regional governments have expressed frustration Perceived Lack of Enforcement that they lack a vote or even a seat at the table when management policies are Five county sheriff departments, two state established for the lower riverway. Insuf- departments of natural resources, and the ficient coordination occurs with other National Park Service all provide on-water agencies that have management responsi- enforcement. However, there is uneven bilities on the St. Croix, such as the U.S. enforcement, and uneven enforcement Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army capabilities, between all the agencies. Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota Although there have been and are still Pollution Control Agency, and the Minne- efforts underway, there is a perception that sota and Wisconsin departments of trans- on-water law enforcement is poorly coordi- portation. There is also a need for better nated among the agencies, leading to gaps coordination and communication between in enforcement coverage at times, dupli- the public and the riverway managing cation of enforcement coverage at other agencies. times, and inconsistencies in enforcement.

18 Introduction

Issues Not Addressed in the Cooperative environmental impact processes, inde- Management Plan pendent of this plan.

Several ongoing issues and projects are not One other existing proposal for the lower directly addressed by this plan. The ques- riverway also is not addressed in this plan. tion of whether or not to build a new A proposal to build an electrical transmis- bridge between Houlton and Stillwater was sion line across the river in the Taylors and continues to be addressed in a separate Falls/St. Croix Falls area is being ad- environmental impact statement developed dressed in a separate environmental review by the Minnesota and Wisconsin Depart- process being led by the Rural Utility ments of Transportation and Federal Service, the Minnesota Environmental Highway Administration, with input from Quality Board, and the Wisconsin Public the National Park Service, the Minnesota Service Commission. The question of and Wisconsin Departments of Natural whether to build this line, called the Resources, and others. The question of Chisago Project, and if so, where, is being whether or not to build a replacement for addressed independently of this plan. the existing lift bridge at Stillwater is an issue that will be addressed in separate

OTHER RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS

Several other plans — both within the 1994–95. The final plan was published in riverway and the larger watershed — are in August 1998. place or are being developed, all of which provide management direction to the lower The St. Croix Watershed Stewardship riverway. These plans are summarized Initiative is being prepared in conjunction below. with the cooperative management plan through efforts of the planning task force An Interagency Cooperative Fisheries and partnership team members. Based Management Plan for the riverway, largely on recognition of the important developed by the Minnesota and relationship between the St. Croix River- Wisconsin Departments of Natural way and its approximately 7,760 square- Resources and the National Park Service, mile watershed in Minnesota and Wiscon- will be released in 2000. The plan will set sin, this initiative will be a “vision-type” the framework for cooperative manage- plan that embraces the unique and precious ment of the fisheries resources of the character of the area. Collaborative plan- riverway. ning includes participation by citizens and local and regional governments. The pro- Recovery plans for the Higgins’ eye mussel duct will be a guidebook that is companion and the winged mapleleaf mussel were to the Cooperative Management Plan for completed in 1983 and 1997. The Higgins’ the riverway, which includes common eye plan is currently being updated. These visions as well as management of the recovery plans prescribe management watershed through proper stewardship actions to protect the mussels and their efforts. A strong connection will be shown habitat and to lead eventually to stable that what happens on the lower riverway is populations. strongly influenced by what happens in the watershed. A watershed resources directory A General Management Plan for the and a website and anticipated yearly sym- Upper St. Croix National Scenic Riverway posiums are also part of the initiative. was recently completed by the National Park Service. The plan for the Upper St. The National Park Service has prepared a Croix and Namekagon Rivers also addres- Water Resource Management Plan (NPS ses an array of management issues. Al- 1997) to guide actions in the federally ad- though there is a clear link between the two ministered portions of both the upper and areas and their management, and the plan- lower riverway. This plan summarizes ning processes are related, the distinction is data, recommends additional research, that the Upper St. Croix National Scenic inventories, and monitoring, and proposes Riverway is solely managed by the Nation- actions to address management issues such al Park Service. The states of Minnesota as establishing a cooperative interagency and Wisconsin and the Minnesota-Wiscon- database. Work on this plan was completed sin Boundary Area Commission cooper- in spring 1997. ated in the development of the plan for the upper riverway. This planning process for The St. Croix River Basin Water Resources the upper riverway began in the winter of Management Plan is being prepared by an

20 Introduction interagency task force, which includes the Several other NPS plans relate specifically U.S. Geological Survey, National Park to both the upper riverway and the Service, the Wisconsin and Minnesota federally administered portion of the lower Departments of Natural Resources, the riverway. These include the Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Management Plan, Land Protection Plan, Metropolitan Council, the Environmental and the Strategic Plan. These plans are Protection Agency, the University of updated periodically. (The National Park Minnesota, the Great Lakes Indian Fish Service is also preparing a Fire Manage- and Wildlife Commission, and the ment Plan for the upper and lower river- Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area way, which addresses fire suppression and Commission. This project’s goal is to prescribed burning for ecosystem restora- protect and improve the quality of the tion purposes.) surface and groundwater resources of the St. Croix River basin through coordinated The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pre- planning and management. Elements of pared a channel maintenance management this process were completed in 1995 and plan in 1997. This plan, which is updated 1997, and other elements are scheduled for regularly, provides historic data on the St. completion in 1999 and 2001. Croix channel and states the Corps’ dredging policy, mitigation strategies, and co- The National Water Quality Assessment ordination for maintaining the navigation Program examines the status and trends in channel in the St. Croix. The plan specific- water quality in the upper Mississippi ally focuses on work needed to maintain River basin between Royalton, Minnesota, the channel in the Kinnickinnic Narrows and Lake Pepin (in both Wisconsin and and at Hudson. Minnesota), including the St. Croix basin. This study, led by the U.S. Geological Because the boundary of the riverway Survey, is aimed at providing water quality either includes or is directly adjacent to information to policymakers; as such, it is several state and county properties, there a valuable contributor of information to the are many state, county, city, and regional St. Croix River basin water resources plans that could significantly influence the management plan process. A report is riverway. These include management plans scheduled to be completed in 2001. for Minnesota Interstate, Wisconsin Interstate, William O’Brien, Afton, and The Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan Kinnickinnic State Parks; St. Croix Bluffs presents a strategy to prevent or slow the Regional Park; and the St. Croix Islands spread of the zebra mussel into the St. Wildlife Area. All of the counties also Croix Riverway (see appendix G). The task have revised, or are in the process of force, composed of representatives of the developing, comprehensive land National Park Service, Minnesota and use/zoning plans: Chisago County has Wisconsin Departments of Natural updated its shoreline and zoning ordinance Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and comprehensive plan; Washington Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife County recently completed updating its Commission and Minnesota-Wisconsin comprehensive plans; Pierce County has a Boundary Area Commission updates this comprehensive plan in place and recently plan annually. adopted a comprehensive zoning

21 CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN ordinance; and Polk, St. Croix and Chisago Minnesota are regional planning efforts Counties are revising and developing that include current and long range urban comprehensive land use plans. development guidelines. The council’s policies directed toward guiding the Numerous cities and towns along the Low- region’s growth include the Aviation er St. Croix have also comprehensive plans Policy Plan, the Recreation Open Space or are in the process of updating land and Policy Plan, the Transportation Policy zoning planning guidelines. Plan, the Water Resources Management Policy Plan, and the Regional Blueprint. Also of importance to the Lower St. Croix Riverway is the Metropolitan Council. Influencing significant portions of the area in proximity to the Twin Cities in

NEXT STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

This Final Cooperative Management Plan after the final environmental impact / Environmental Impact Statement for the statement / cooperative management plan Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is printed, the National Park Service will includes responses to substantive com- publish a record of decision in the Federal ments on the draft plan. It will be approved Register. Following this process, the final by the National Park Service’s Midwest cooperative management plan will be regional director, the Wisconsin Depart- produced. The managing agencies will ment of Natural Resources secretary, and implement the plan as funding becomes the Minnesota Department of Natural available. Resources commissioner. At least 30 days

23 Management Directions Common to all Alternatives

Land & Water Use Alternatives

Management Structure Options

INTRODUCTION

FRAMEWORK FOR THE riverway would be managed. Each of the ALTERNATIVES action alternatives have a map showing where different land and water manage- This chapter describes a range of alterna- ment areas would be designated, a discus- tives for use and management of the Lower sion of several key topics that vary be- St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. The tween the alternatives (e.g., river crossings, alternatives and the assessment of the vegetative management), and a discussion potential environmental consequences of of what would be needed to implement the the alternatives, which is presented in the alternative. Following these alternatives “Environmental Consequences” chapter, are other alternatives that were originally form the core of the Draft Cooperative considered but not analyzed further. Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives in this plan des- After the six land use/water use manage- cribe different general concepts or visions ment alternatives, a set of options is pre- for the future of the lower riverway over sented that identifies different organi- the next 15 to 20 years. They are intended zational structures for the future manage- to enable managers, users, neighbors, and ment of the lower riverway along with a the public to consider different approaches preferred option. Any of the management to managing users and resources, directing structure options could be combined with development, and resolving conflicts. any of the land and water use management alternatives. The chapter is divided into several parts. First, there is a discussion of how the alter- Implementation costs for each alternative natives were developed. A number of com- are presented at the end of the chapter. mon management directions and associated Tables summarizing the key differences strategies that would be implemented between the land use and water use alterna- under all alternatives are then described. tives and the impacts of implementing the The land and water management areas that alternatives as well as tables summarizing would be applied in most of the alterna- the management structure options and their tives follows that discussion. Next, the impacts follow the discussion. preferred alternative is presented — the plan the riverway managing agencies are The preferred alternative and common proposing to implement on the Lower St. management directions suggest guidelines Croix — followed by four other alterna- for new state regulations governing land tives for managing the land and water in uses and water-based recreational (see the lower riverway. The “no action” alter- appendixes A and B). Additional regula- native is also presented, which describes tions of some riverway uses might be how the lower riverway is currently man- needed in the future. However, the manag- aged and would be managed in the future if ing agencies would solicit additional public no major changes occurred. Each alterna- input before implementing any regulations tive includes a description of the manage- that would alter use patterns or levels on ment concept and its intent, and a discus- the riverway, change land use, etc. This sion of how the land and water in the would include any new regulations pro- 27 ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS posed as the result of the Cooperative workbook was published, one of these Management Plan and any other possible alternatives —alternative E — was sub- future regulations not specifically identi- sequently dismissed from further consid- fied in this plan. If new federal regulations eration. A series of additional meetings were needed, the National Park Service were then held to further refine the alter- would print the proposed regulations in the natives and the common management Federal Register to solicit public directions. comment. These five alternatives represent a full range of reasonable alternatives for man- DEVELOPMENT OF THE aging the lower riverway. They address ALTERNATIVES different desired futures while remaining consistent with the riverway principles, In developing the common management planning assumptions, purposes and directions and the alternatives, several significance, legislative mandates (e.g., the elements were considered: the lower Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the riverway’s resources and uses, its purposes Endangered Species Act), and the lower and significance, the overall vision for riverway managing agencies’ missions. what the riverway ideally would look like in 20 years, the managing agencies’ mis- The next major step was to develop a sions, mandates, and constraints, and the preferred alternative. A public workshop major riverway issues that reflect differing was held using a caucus/negotiation desired futures. process to develop the preferred alternative. Individuals divided into caucus A series of potential management areas groups that were closest to their desired were identified to describe desired user future for the riverway and determined experiences and resource conditions that what positions to take where there were could be provided. Then different concepts different viewpoints. Representatives from were developed for managing the land uses these groups then met and negotiated to and water surface uses within the riverway reach consensus where possible. Unre- boundary. Five concepts were initially solved issues were discussed at subsequent identified for land use management and workshops. Of 106 decision points in five concepts for water surface manage- development of a preferred alternative, ment. When combined, these concepts consensus was reached on 79 issues (75%) could result in 25 possible alternatives. and forwarded 27 issues for resolution by However, not all combinations were the management commission. viable, reasonable alternatives, and from a practical standpoint it was too time- It should be remembered that the preferred consuming and costly to assess the alternative could still change. Following implications of these alternatives. public review of this draft document, more changes could be made to the preferred Five alternatives were selected for alternative, or a different alternative could managing the Lower St. Croix, plus a “no be selected as the preferred alternative. action” alternative. After an alternatives

28 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Several management actions need to be have primary management responsibility taken on the lower riverway regardless of north of Stillwater and that the states will be which alternative is approved by the the primary managers from Stillwater south. National Park Service and the Minnesota In practice however, there is significant and Wisconsin Departments of Natural overlap in jurisdictions. The states have the Resources. These management actions same on-water law enforcement authority would be taken under all of the alternatives. and the same oversight over private land use Most of these actions are based on existing both north and south of Stillwater. Despite state and federal laws, cooperating agency jurisdictions that sometimes overlap and policies, and general planning principles, all sometimes do not, the three managing of which support the purposes and agencies would strive to manage the entire significance of the lower riverway. riverway holistically.

Although there are alternatives for certain COORDINATION AND COOPERA- approaches to management activities (see TION AMONG MANAGING PART- the “Introduction”), the managing agencies NERS AND BETWEEN GOVERN- would coordinate management activities MENTAL AND PRIVATE ENTITIES and responses to riverway issues and concerns to facilitate an integrated and The National Park Service, Minnesota consistent management approach. When- Department of Natural Resources, and ever possible, the agencies would actively Wisconsin Department of Natural pursue and support cooperative studies and Resources have a long history of working planning for land and water resources together as managing partners on the lower management in areas of mutual interest. riverway. The managing agencies would continue to work together to guide activities Many other agencies and organizations and management within the riverway within and outside the riverway also affect consistent with the approved management the management and use of the Lower St. plan. Croix National Scenic Riverway. These include many private businesses, five Because Minnesota and Wisconsin also counties, numerous municipalities and manage lands that are adjacent but not townships, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife within the riverway boundaries, the Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army managing agencies would encourage Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota- management of both states’ lands (state Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, the parks, wildlife management areas, and Environmental Protection Agency, other natural areas) in a manner that would be state agencies, and private groups and indi- consistent with the cooperative management viduals. The cooperation of these organi- plan. zations is essential to the effective and efficient management of the lower riverway. The enabling legislation for the riverway The managing agencies would work specifies that the National Park Service will cooperatively with all levels of government

31 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES and the private sector to ensure the protec- AMERICAN INDIAN tion of the riverway’s resources and main- TREATY RIGHTS tain quality experiences for all users; manage land use, water surface use, vegetation, Eight Anishinaabe, or Chippewa bands, the wildlife, and fisheries; and deal with other Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, St. Croix, Bad issues of mutual concern. Cooperative River, Lac du Flambeau, Lac Court Oreilles, relationships would be fostered through Sokagon, and Red Cliff, have had off- regular communication and establishment of reservation treaty rights reaffirmed within informal and formal partnerships or the riverway. In the treaty signed in 1837, agreements such as implementation of the the Chippewa ceded lands to the U.S. Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan. The government, but retained the rights to hunt, managing agencies would coordinate fish, and gather on these lands, including enforcement of laws and regulations with those along the St. Croix north of Cedar local governments and other state and Bend (river mile 41, south of Osceola). All federal agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution American Indian treaty rights would be Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engi- respected. The managing partners would neers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environ- work with the affected tribes to ensure that mental Protection Agency). Optional tribal subsistence hunting, fishing, and riverway administrative and management gathering rights within the riverway were frameworks for achieving a cooperative and available to and appropriately exercised by coordinated management approach are tribal members. The National Park Service presented later in this chapter. and state authorities recognize these treaty rights and would work with the tribes, individual bands, and the Great Lakes LAND USE MANAGEMENT Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to ensure that the rights would be honored and Management of private land use is a that issues of common interest would be partnership between the states and local addressed. governments. Local governments enact and enforce zoning ordinances based on state Bands of the Sioux, or Dakota, nation at one standards. Under no circumstances would time also occupied lands in the St. Croix state standards adopted for the riverway be valley. Although the Dakota have no treaty less restrictive than statewide shoreland rights in the riverway, they retain historic management standards. These standards and cultural ties to the area which must be apply to the lands within the rvierway respected. The managing partners would boundary (as published in the Federal consult with representatives of the Dakota Register) between the dam at St. Croix Falls nation to identify significant sites associated / Taylors Falls and the confluence of the with the tribe’s history and ensure proper Mississippi River . interpretation of the Dakota’s historic use of the riverway.

32 Management Actions

RIVERWAY STEWARDSHIP promote private land stewardship in the riverway, and their roles are expected to On the Lower St. Croix, stewardship would continue in the future. involve ensuring the rights of the current generation to use and enjoy the riverway The riverway is strongly influenced by what without interfering with the rights of future happens in the greater watershed. Locally generations to use and enjoy the same high- initiated stewardship efforts would be inte- quality resource. gral to managing and protecting environmental resources (e. g., wildlife habitat, The managing agencies would strongly remnant plant communities, scenic areas) encourage landowners, local governments, not only within the riverway but within the and riverway users to adopt, with a coopera- greater viewshed, which frequently extends tive spirit, the riverway’s philosophy of outside the riverway boundary and water- preservation and protection of its significant shed. Local government programs and resources and values. Building a steward- policies that would promote voluntary ship commitment among river landowners, means to help protect and preserve the local officials, and users would be essential riverway’s resources would be encouraged. because the state and federal governments Local initiatives within the watershed would could not achieve the long-term riverway complement the protective efforts within the protection goals alone. riverway. Innovative and cooperative efforts, such as the land stewardship program The managing agencies would work to build initiated by Washington and Chisago Coun- public stewardship and support for riverway ties in collaboration with their local units of protection. They would promote awareness, government and citizens to create a pro- understanding , and support for protection tected green corridor, is an example of one of the riverway’s natural, cultural, scenic, such effort. Other ongoing programs by the and recreational values, and the rules, regu- Natural Resources Conservation Service, lations, and policies that guide riverway county conservation departments, and activities and uses. This would be done in a watershed districts would also continue to variety of ways, such as interpretive exhib- promote stewardship and use of best its, educational outreach programs, news- management practices. Forest stewardship letters, and presentations to local govern- programs are another example of landowner ments and publics. Land and recreational assistance with broad implications for use practices (e.g., soil erosion prevention, watershed management. minimum impact camping) that protect and enhance riverway resources and values A Watershed Stewardship Initiative is in would also be encouraged, as would progress to address broader watershed involvement by volunteer groups and issues facing the riverway. Work has begun individuals in organized river protection to further engage citizens, interest groups, programs such as Adopt-a-River and and governmental agencies into crafting an Riverwatch. The Minnesota-Wisconsin overall stewardship framework to identify Boundary Area Commission and private and compile key issues, concerns, and organizations, such as land trusts and the opportunities within the larger St. Croix Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy, are watershed area (totaling approximately actively involved in a variety of efforts to 7,760 square miles in Wisconsin and

33 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Minnesota). Efforts are currently underway Water Quality and Quantity to identify the scope of the stewardship initiative, setting a common vision/ The water quality of the Lower St. Croix is mission direction and organizing the wide relatively good and is one of the riverway’s variety of “stakeholder” groups in the St. most important assets, but the quality of the Croix area. Since this initiative extends to river’s water is slowly degrading from a the entire watershed and far beyond the variety of point and nonpoint sources. The regulatory boundary of the riverway, it managing agencies and the Minnesota depends entirely on the voluntary actions Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) would of citizens and local governments work to protect and improve the water (additional description of the initiative is quality of the lower riverway. Recognizing found on page 19). that the water quality management programs of both states are not identical, effective water quality protection and improvement NATURAL RESOURCES would be enhanced by establishing uniform MANAGEMENT water quality goals for the lower river. The states would implement their planning, Under all of the alternatives the lower regulatory, and assistance programs to riverway’s natural resources would continue achieve agreed to water quality goals. This to be managed in accordance with NPS and approach would apply to both point source Minnesota and Wisconsin state policies and and nonpoint source water quality regulations. The managing agencies would management programs. strive to maintain all the components and processes of the riverway’s naturally evolv- The managing agencies and the MPCA, ing ecosystems, including the natural di- Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area versity and ecological integrity of the Commission, Environmental Protection riverway’s plants and animals. Agency, and U.S. Geological Survey would continue to develop and implement water The managing agencies would pursue quality protection measures. Current resource inventory, monitoring, and activities are underway to complete a St. research programs to enhance knowledge of Croix Water Quality Management Plan. As vegetative communities, wildlife popu- established, this plan will be a compilation lations, and natural processes and to evalu- of current, ongoing, and projected technical ate trends and threats. This information water resources studies related to the St. would provide the basis for the preparation Croix River and its’ 7,760 square- mile and periodic updating of specific basin area. Included in the analysis are water management plans (e.g., fisheries quality monitoring programs, nutrient management plan, water resources loading issues, impoundment affects, and management plan). other subjects relative to water quality impacts. This planning effort will address Cooperative management of resources protection and improvement of both surface would be encouraged by conducting and groundwater resources within the entire joint/cofunded programs and preparing St. Croix river drainage. Interagency devel- comprehensive, interagency management opment of a whole basin strategy for the St. plans where appropriate. Croix River would provide a more compre-

34 Management Actions hensive and integrated effort to establish as bank erosion, that was not associated uniform water quality goals and protect with managing agency facilities, natural water resources. Studies and data collection forces would be allowed to take their needed to obtain information to determine course. specific water-quality goals and priorities has been initiated and will continue. As dams on the St. Croix River and its Surveys of resource conditions and major tributaries age, their removal may become a pollutants and ground water contaminants, reasonable and even desirable option. As determination of the sources of pollutants part of the water basin planning effort and both within and outside the riverway, other ongoing resource studies, the effects identification of impacts from land- and of the hydropower and nonhydropower water-based uses, and establishment of a impoundments and their operations on the long-term monitoring program would be St. Croix River and its tributaries would be pursued. Based on this information, specific investigated. Both the positive and negative goals, projects, and mitigating measures changes to river morphology, water quality, would be developed and implemented. biological communities, recreation, and Interagency partnerships with local aesthetics would be evaluated. Potential governments would be used to focus benefits to the long-term natural hydrologic financial resources and expertise on issues and ecological conditions of the river and of common concern. Development and watershed from dam removal or operational implementation of the basin water quality flow modification would be identified. management plan would also be coordinated and integrated with other related basin Air Quality area activities. Examples of these activities include the Upper Mississippi National The managing agencies monitor air Water Quality Assessment Program, quality-related values of the riverway from Wisconsin Department of Natural adverse air pollution impacts. Air quality Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control related values include visibility, water Agency basin plans, local watershed plans, quality, vegetation, wildlife, historic and as well as other local programs by the prehistoric structures and objects, and Natural Resources Conservation Service, other resources that could be degraded by county conservation departments, and air pollution. Air quality within the river- watershed districts. way and the effects of air pollutants upon the riverway’s resources is difficult to Floods occur on a regular basis on the St. evaluate without adequate information. Croix. Damage to managing agencies’ State air quality management programs lands and facilities from floods is usually would continue to be a primary mechanism related to deposition of sediment or erosion for addressing air quality monitoring and of shorelines. In the event of a large- pollutant prevention and control. In addi- magnitude flood with severe damage, tion, air quality indicators within the river- restoration of facilities would be evaluated way, such as pollution-sensitive lichen on a case-by-case basis. The managing species, would be identified and monitored agencies might choose to close damaged to evaluate air quality trends. facilities and restore the location to natural conditions. Where there was damage, such 35 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Mussel Management Two mussel species, the winged mapleleaf and Higgins’ eye, are listed as federally A cooperative interagency approach is endangered species. The managing agen- underway and would continue to protect and cies would continue to support the succes- conserve the native freshwater mussel sful implementation of the U.S. Fish and assemblage and habitat found within the St. Wildlife Service’s recovery plans for these Croix watershed. Mechanisms to increase species. Habitat protection actions such as coordination and information exchange retrofitting bridges for spills containment among all agencies, organizations, and and run-of-the-river hydropower genera- institutions that study, manage, conserve, or tion at the NSP dam should be evaluated recover native freshwater mussels in the St. for implementation. Croix watershed would be identified and developed. Fundamental knowledge about the mussel fauna and habitat is critical to Fisheries Management effectively managing and conserving this resource. Studies would be initiated to The managing agencies, in cooperation with enhance knowledge on the basic biology the Chippewa tribes, would manage the and habitat requirements, status and trends, lower riverway’s fisheries to maintain the and threats and impacts from various diversity and abundance of the riverway’s sources and activities to native mussel native fisheries and maintain and restore populations and their habitats. Management their aquatic habitat. Fish harvests would be strategies would be developed to protect and managed to be sustainable and consistent reverse the decline of quality mussel habitat with sound resource management principles. and to minimize or eliminate threats from Resource inventory, monitoring, and zebra mussels and other non-native species. research programs would be pursued to The Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan enhance knowledge of fish populations and would continue to be fully implemented. their habitats to determine and evaluate Regulations prohibiting the harvesting or changes in response to habitat dynamics, taking of mussels would continue to be recreational fishing, land use, and manage- strictly enforced in the federally admin- ment actions. The managing agencies com- istered zone. pleted a Memorandum of Understanding related to fisheries management in the The future of the freshwater mussel fauna as spring of 1998. One key element of the well as other aquatic and aquatic-dependent MOU is preparation of an interagency species of the riverway would depend a cooperative fisheries management plan for great deal on the degree of public and other the entire riverway. The plan should be agency support for aquatic ecosystem completed in 2000 and should include protection and recovery programs. An recommendations specific to the lower information and education program would riverway. be developed and implemented to increase public awareness of the plight of mussels and the benefits of maintaining the eco- Exotic Species logical integrity of aquatic ecosystems and to develop support for protection efforts. A number of invasive exotic plant species are already present in the Lower St. Croix 36 Management Actions

National Scenic Riverway. Some of these much of its attention on the zebra mussel plants, such as purple loosestrife, Eurasian but also addresses the rusty crayfish, a snail water milfoil, spotted knapweed, and of the genus Cipangopaludina, and the buckthorn are threats to the riverway’s Asiatic clam, all of which have been in the natural ecosystems. The managing partners St. Croix River. The plan also covers would survey and monitor the riverway for several species that are found in the Missis- the presence of exotic plant species. They sippi River watershed that potentially would control as best they can those exotic threaten the St. Croix, including the spiny species that are a hazard to public safety, water flea, grass carp, bighead carp, rudd, damage historic or archeological resources, ruffe, round goby, and white perch. interfere with natural processes and the perpetuation of natural features or native species, or significantly hamper the Threatened and Endangered Species management of the riverway or adjacent lands. High priority would be given to The federal Endangered Species Act controlling exotic species that have a provides special protection to all federally substantial impact on the riverway’s listed threatened and endangered species resources and that could reasonably be and their critical habitats. Plants and expected to be successfully controlled. animals appearing on state lists of endangered, threatened, and special concern The Lower St. Croix is currently free of species also have special status. The zebra mussel infestation, although they have riverway contains a number of plants and been found attached to recreational boats on animals that appear on federal and/or state the river. A zebra mussel action plan has lists and therefore are provided special been prepared by the interagency Zebra protection under state and federal laws. The Mussel Task Force and is updated annually National Park Service and the two depart- (see appendix G). The managing agencies ments of natural resources have special would implement the recommendations of responsibilities to protect these species and the Zebra Mussel Task Force, as identified their habitats. In addition, the three agencies in the current action plan and any future will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife revisions, that were within the authority of Service and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and the agencies to carry out. The Zebra Mussel Wildlife Commission to inventory, monitor, Task Force would continue to monitor for protect, and perpetuate the natural distribu- the presence of the zebra mussel, inform tion and abundance of special status species. and educate the public about the mussel and The agencies would implement their respec- the threat it poses, and take actions includ- tive components of the recovery plans de- ing regulations and enforcement to prevent veloped for threatened and endangered zebra mussels from becoming established. species (see appendixes D and E). In addition, the states have received funds from the National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force to implement the St. Croix MANAGEMENT OF HUNTING, National Scenic Riverway Comprehensive FISHING, AND TRAPPING Interstate Management Plan for the Pre- vention and Control of Nonindigenous The management of hunting and fishing as Aquatic Nusance Species. This plan focuses recreational activities would continue to be 37 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES primarily the responsibility of the respective ing agencies would devise new or use exist- states. The two state departments of natural ing outreach programs that would commun- resources will set quotas and bag limits to icate natural resource regulations to these maintain balanced game and non-game groups. populations. The National Park Service would continue to cooperate with the state The safety of recreationists and the general departments of natural resources and the public would be of primary concern, espec- affected Chippewa bands in regulating ially in areas of increasing development and sporthunting, fishing, and subsistence human encroachment. The managing agen- harvesting of wildlife and fish within the cies might also limit access based on wild- riverway. The Chippewa view hunting, life management and safety considerations. fishing, and gathering as traditional subsistence activities. Their off-reservation treaty Trapping would continue to be managed on rights allow them under certain circum- all lands and waters on NPS fee lands as stances to trap furbearing animals and to established by past federal court decision. spear and net fish in the riverway north from Outside NPS jurisdiction, trapping would Cedar Bend. continue to be regulated by the two state departments of natural resources. There is Chippewa hunting, fishing, and trapping an exception for qualified Native Americans rights along a portion of the riverway were exercising their treaty rights. reserved in the Treaty of 1837. Tribal members exercising these rights are RECREATIONAL USE regulated by tribal codes that must be no MANAGEMENT more liberal (but that may be more General Types of Uses restrictive) than the model off-reservation Conservation Code that the various bands Recreational use management has some sharing these off-reservation harvesting aspects that vary by alternative, however, rights have adopted. Any licenses, permits, there are some aspects that are common to or tags that tribal members require are all of the alternatives, which are discussed obtained from their tribe or from the Great in this section. The cooperating managers Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission, would work to promote uses and behaviors which was formed to assist its member that ensure high-quality and safe experi- tribes in the exercise of these rights. The ences for all users and help maintain and commission also works with the tribes and protect the riverway’s resources. Under all other state and federal natural resource of the alternatives a variety of water uses agencies to ensure that all harvests are would continue, including nonmotorized sustainable and consistent with sound and motorized activities. However, some resource management principles. alternatives place greater emphasis on slow, nonmotorized boating while others empha- Other groups who have recently moved into size less restricted boating. With regard to the region have different cultural approaches terrestrial recreational uses, in all of the to fishing. Some might not be entirely famil- alternatives, existing uses (e.g., biking, iar with state regulations governing fishing hiking, and the use of motorized vehicles) in the riverway and federal regulations pro- would continue on designated roads and hibiting the taking of mussels. The manag- trails within the riverway. Other than 38 Management Actions existing state regulations pertaining to trail or near the river and with other areas outside uses, no additional regulations would be the river corridor. Trail development would imposed unless they were needed for safety be coordinated with state trail plans, county or resource protection, or to address con- comprehensive plans, and other pertinent flicts that might arise from increased use or plans. Assistance of user groups and other new types of uses. Camping would also trail supporters would continue to be inte- continue; however, restrictions such as gral to the development and maintenance of designation of sites or closures of some trails. islands to camping would vary under the alternatives. In general, recreational uses Existing railway rights-of-way might offer would continue unless it is demonstrated the potential to expand trails and river that unacceptable resource impacts, user access for the nonboating public within the conflicts, or conflicts with adjacent private lower riverway. Abandoned railway rights- landowners are occurring. of-way, if and when available, would be pursued for conversion to trails consistent State, county, and city parks and nongovern- with the National Rail to Trails Act. Also, mental nature centers in both Wisconsin and when roads along the river were improved, Minnesota would continue to provide rec- the addition of bicycle lanes would be reational opportunities (e.g., swimming encouraged. beaches, picnic areas, campgrounds, trails) within or close to the riverway. Additional The amount of recreational use in the winter overlooks, picnic areas, and other oppor- is far less than that which takes place during tunities to enjoy the river from the land other seasons. Winter recreational uses that would be encouraged in accordance with the are consistent with the purposes of the river- riverway’s management area scheme and way and that do not require major new facil- would most likely be accomplished through ities would continue to be allowed. New public/private partnerships. The five state regulations would be instituted only as parks that abut the lower river, while tech- necessary for safety or to address conflicts nically not within the official riverway or resource protection needs that might arise boundary, would be managed in a way that from increased use or new types of use. The is consistent with this plan. managing agencies would work to resolve inconsistencies in existing winter use regu- Many miles of trails offer hiking, bicycling, lations governing icehouse use and licens- horseback riding, skiing, snowmobiling, ing. snowshoeing, and other activities. A number of private groups and communities in the St. The frozen river surface between Osceola Croix Valley are working to expand the and St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls is closed to network of existing trails. For example, a snowmobile use under 36 Code of Federal trail is proposed from William O’Brien Regulations 7.9. Snowmobiles are allowed State Park to Taylors Falls. The riverway on the frozen river surface of the St. Croix managing agencies would work in partner- south of Osceola and designated trails that ship with user groups, communities, local traverse the riverway, and snowmobile use agencies, and others in development of a would continue in accordance with state comprehensive regional trail network to and/or federal snowmobile use policy and provide trail connections to link trails along regulations.This use would be restricted if

39 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES there were unacceptable resource impacts, experiences? In other words, carrying user conflicts, safety considerations, or capacity is not strictly interpreted as an conflicts with adjacent private landowners. absolute number of people (except in the case of health and safety) but as a Cross-country skiers would continue to be prescription of user experience (social) and permitted to use the frozen river or other resource conditions. unmarked, unofficial routes in the riverway. Although activities on the frozen river sur- To fully address the lower riverway’s face (e.g., cross-country skiing, snowshoe- carrying capacity, after this plan is ing, snowmobiling, ice fishing) would be implemented additional work would be permitted, the managing agencies would not needed to set indicators and standards encourage such use because of the inherent (which are minimum acceptable condi- danger. tions) in the land and water management areas and to develop a variety of monitoring strategies. In addition, the managing Any new activity within the riverway which agencies would continue to undertake would draw large gatherings of people and water surface use monitoring studies would likely cause the pollution, impair- conducted biennially since 1977. ment, or destruction of the air, water, land, or other natural resources in the riverway should be prohibited. User Safety Where there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the gathering is consistent Although users assume a certain degree of with and reasonable and required for the responsibility for their own safety when promotion of the public health, welfare, and visiting the lower riverway, the managing safety, the gathering may be permitted. partners would reduce hazards where Economic considerations alone will not practical and might limit access to certain constitute reason for approval by any agency areas at certain times based on safety con- or authority over the matter. siderations. Actions to prevent known hazards would not conflict with the managing partners’ mandates to preserve the riverway’s resources. Safe conditions would be User Carrying Capacity maintained. To properly administer areas designated as national wild and scenic rivers, managing agencies are required as part of the long- Commercial Services and Concession term planning process to address the issue Operations of resource protection in relation to user carrying capacity. There are several pro- A large number of people using canoe livery cesses for accomplishing this social sci- operators on the lower riverway has the ence research, but each tries to answer the potential to significantly affect the recrea- same question – at what level does use tional experiences on the riverway as well as begin to degrade natural and cultural the riverway’s resources. Therefore, the resources, aesthetic values, and user National Park Service and state departments 40 Management Actions of natural resources would evaluate the need Transient docks available to the public to place canoe livery operators under a provide opportunities for boaters to leave permit system. The purposes of this permit the river for brief periods to visit local system would be to ensure that oppor- businesses and public facilities. Transient tunities for a quality experience were docks are acceptable in existing facilities, maximized, to encourage the highest degree providing dockage for more than 24 hours is of safety and interpretation of the resources, prohibited. and to ensure that riverway resources were protected. To determine the impacts of these operations on the resources, the permit Accessibility for Individuals with system would also gather information to use Disabilities in future planning efforts to ensure that the authorized services would not have an The managing partners would strive to adverse impact on park resources. provide the highest level of accessibility possible to buildings, facilities, programs, The Minnesota Department of Natural and services, consistent with the nature and Resources currently authorizes one conces- limitations of the area, the conservation of sioner that operates the canoe rentals at riverway resources, and the mandate to Minnesota Interstate Park and William provide a quality experience for everyone. O’Brien State Park. There does not seem to Any new developed user or employee be a large demand for additional types of facility and any alterations to existing goods and services that could be provided facilities would be evaluated in accordance through concessioner operations. A policy with the Americans with Disabilities Act for providing additional goods and services (42 USC 12101) and Uniform Federal via concessioner operations within the lower Accessibility Standards (49 FR 31528) to riverway would be developed if demand provide full accessibility to all users. warranted. The managing agencies would Wherever possible, information about only consider contracting for additional facilities and programs for people with concessioner services if such services were sensory and mental disabilities would be necessary and appropriate for public use and available. enjoyment of the riverway and if they were consistent with the preservation and conservation of the areas. If such services were INTERPRETATION AND provided, additional staff and staff time EDUCATION would be required to manage and monitor concession contracts. Interpretation within the riverway would focus on four primary goals: There are several commercial public excursion boat operations on the river. They · increase public awareness of the lower provide river access for large numbers of riverway as a component of the people who might otherwise not be able to National Wild and Scenic Rivers use the river. Excursion boat operations are system acceptable if they operate from existing · increase appreciation and facilities and offer regular public cruises. understanding of the riverway’s resources and values 41 MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

· provide information to visitors to programs to expand the scope and outreach ensure a safe and enjoyable visit of both programs.

· promote visitor interaction with Cooperative partnerships with private riverway resources that supports interests (e.g., marinas, chambers of preservation of those resources for commerce, tourism organizations) could future generations also be important to maintain and improve high-quality user services. This could In support of these goals, there would be include riverway orientation for employees an increased emphasis placed on coordi- of private sector groups. nation of interpretive activities among the primary providers of interpretive services Education efforts for both the Lower St. within the riverway, the National Park Croix riverway and the larger St. Croix Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin state watershed would be a major element in the parks, and nongovernmental nature centers. implementation activities of this plan. The St. Croix Valley Interpreter’s Associa- Increased programs for the awareness of tion, an informal alliance of interpreters in riverway water and land resources planning the area, would continue to serve as the issues would be incorporated in educational principal forum for coordination of inter- pamphlets, public information sessions, and pretation, including the development of riverway public access signage ( i.e., interpretive programs and activities (which amended and revised boating rules, exotic are key ideas or stories that should be species bulletins, camping guidelines, etc.). imparted to riverway users). The National Agencies would host the St. Croix Expo, Park Service visitor centers, state parks, develop a St. Croix information website, and nongovernmental nature centers could and develop a St. Croix watershed focus on the same interpretive topic at the stewardship guidebook. same time, offering complementary programs and activities. Coordination and partnerships with the National Park Service, Minnesota Other cooperative efforts could also be Department of Natural Resources, pursued, such as development of a clear- Wisconsin Department of Natural inghouse for information on programs and Resources, and the Minnesota-Wisconsin activities at the various interpretive facili- Boundary Area Commission would ties along the riverway, joint publication of continue and become more active in terms information on facilities, programs, and of educational programs and public activities, and development of common involvement relating to the riverway and signage to be used on the riverway. River- surrounding watershed area. way interpretive programs could also be coordinated with the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area interpretive

MANAGEMENT AREAS

INTRODUCTION

In developing management alternatives for controls and would be better able to target the lower riverway, decisions needed to be management to meet specific goals. The made on what resource conditions, experi- rural landscape would be divided into two ences/uses, and developments would be management areas to ensure continuation appropriate in different parts of the river- of its diverse character, while three man- way. To do this, a series of management agement areas would provide flexibility for areas were developed, which were the managing land use in the municipalities. primary building blocks for the management alternatives. The management Similarly, increasing surface water man- areas identify how different portions of the agement areas from two in the Master Plan riverway could be managed to achieve to four would provide greater flexibility in desired resource and social conditions, managing water uses and ensuring that the consistent with the riverway’s purposes. diversity of water uses on the lower river- Different types and levels of water surface way is maintained. uses and developments would be applied by the riverway managing agencies in The original seven land management areas different management areas. (and the one new one) and five water management areas are described on the follow- Each alternative has different management ing pages, including tables 1 and 2, which areas and/or varying arrangements of the summarize the features, facilities, and management areas, depending on the types of experiences for each area. (Gener- direction of the alternative. alized sketches and photographs are included with the written descriptions to Seven distinct land management areas and further illustrate the characteristics of each five distinct water management areas were management area.) originally developed for the lower riverway. These management areas were part of Within each alternative, the boundaries all the action alternatives described in the between management areas are sometimes draft plan. Following public comment on delineated by political boundaries of com- the draft plan, the managing agencies communities. These management area bound- bined three land management areas into a aries are intended to remain static over single, new land management area and time and would not change if a community eliminated one water management area. By annexes adjacent land. Thus, when corpor- shifting from two land-use management ate limits are used as a line between man- areas in the 1976 Master Plan to five, local agement areas, the boundary of the man- governments would be provided with agement area should be interpreted to mean greater flexibility in administering land use the corporate limit as it was in 1999.

45 MANAGEMENT AREAS

RIVER TOWN

This management area would provide a feeling be private or public facilities to support river of being on a river flowing through or next to a recreation (e.g., marinas, docks, launches, small city. A mixture of commercial, park, and ramps, interpretive kiosks); some of these facili- residential developments could be within the ties would be relatively large. Large numbers of riverway; however, the historic character of the people and crowds often would be present. river towns would be maintained. Dense, inten- Noise levels from users and adjacent areas (e.g., sive development also might be adjacent to the business traffic) might be high. One would not riverway, including utilities, multistory struc- expect to see many natural features other than tures, and nonresidential buildings (e.g., shops, the river. Most of the shoreline would be devel- offices, apartments, factories, community cen- oped, although some natural vegetation might ters). Thus, the built environment would domi- screen adjacent buildings. However, these natu- nate the riverine landscape and shape the river- ral features would be scattered and limited in way experience to a significant degree. area. There would be relatively few opportunities to view wildlife, but people would still find Although most of the developments in the area places to fish from shore. would not be recreation-oriented, there would

46 Land Management Areas

SMALL TOWN

This management area would be similar to the ment, which would be mostly residential in small town historic management area, except character. Shoreline areas generally would be a the predominant character of the landscape mix of natural vegetation and residential lawns, would be large-lot, single-family residences. with some portions being largely undisturbed. Encounters with other people would be com- Public and private recreational support struc- mon, and noise levels might be moderate. tures, primarily small docks and boat ramps, Natural vegetation and landscaped environments would be scattered along the river. would be interspersed with the built environ-

47 MANAGEMENT AREAS

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

This landscape would be developed but would ary could be moderate, typical of those found in be almost exclusively single-family residences a residential area. Natural vegetation and land- and be primarily historic in character. While scaped environments would be interspersed with some dwellings would be obviously newer, the the built environment, which would be mostly predominant character of the community would residential in character. Shoreline areas gener- be that of a late 19th or early 20th century resi- ally would be a mix of natural vegetation and dential area. A combination of the river, man- residential lawns; however, portions of the made features, and natural landscape elements shoreline would be largely undisturbed. would shape the riverway experience in this Opportunities for fishing and viewing wildlife area. Encounters with other people would be would be limited. Public and private recreation- common, although one would not see the large al support structures, primarily small docks and crowds found in the river town management boat ramps, would be scattered along the river. areas. Noise levels within the riverway bound-

48 Land Management Areas

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

This area would provide a feeling of being on a density than the small town or river town man- river in a sparsely developed landscape. As in agement areas. Natural vegetation would cover the small town management areas, the river, nat- significant portions of the shoreline, with some ural features, and man-made features would stretches being largely undisturbed. Riverway shape the riverway experience. Users would users could anticipate moderate noise levels. encounter no large concentrations of develop- The area would offer abundant opportunities to ment or people — small numbers of people fish and view wildlife. There might be a few would be the rule in this area, with little or no small public recreational support facilities (e.g., commercial development. Residential settings docks and launches) and some private docks. would be limited to large lot development scattered along the shore and/or bluffs at a lower

49 MANAGEMENT AREAS

PARK

This area would include a concentration of cul- tables, restrooms, and trails. Future develop- tural and/or natural features of special interest, ment of additional recreational support facilities as well as highly scenic and relatively undis- would be concentrated at existing development turbed natural areas. As viewed from the river, nodes. Noise levels would be moderate near the vast majority of this area would appear very activity nodes but low elsewhere. This manage- natural, but there would be nodes of recreational ment area would provide many opportunities to support facilities that would often be the focus view wildlife with abundant opportunities for of relatively intense human activity. The nodes angling. Users might encounter large numbers could have many recreational support facilities of people near activity nodes, but away from and services, both on and off the river, such as those areas users would have many opportuni- campsites, visitor centers, landings, picnic ties to find a sense of peace and quiet.

50 Land Management Areas

NATURAL

This management area would provide users with opportunities for angling. Access to the river a sense of being in a natural setting. Relatively would be limited to a few designated public few signs of development, such as homes, carry-in and small craft access points, and possi- bridges, or agricultural fields, would intrude on bly some riparian landowner private docks. this largely natural scene. The vegetation along Only a few recreational support facilities, such the shoreline would be largely undisturbed — as primitive campsites and trails, would be pres- natural vegetation (e.g., boreal hardwood and ent. Noise levels would be low, relatively small northern hardwood forests, lowland riparian numbers of people would be present, and there forests, and oak savannahs) would cover most would be a low probability of people encounter- of the area and would be a key element of the ing one another. Because few people would use user experience. Forest management would the area, there would be ample opportunity to emphasize the undisturbed appearance. find a sense of peace and quiet within the management area. This area would provide many opportunities to view wildlife, and there would be abundant

51 MANAGEMENT AREAS

MINIMALLY DISTURBED

Minimally disturbed management areas would points and possibly a few riparian landowner be similar to natural management areas but con- private docks. Recreational support facilities tain even fewer signs of people and develop- (e.g., primitive campsites, trails) would be ments. The river and surrounding biological small, limited in number, and screened by natu- communities would dominate the user experi- ral vegetation. With few or no river access ence. The shoreline would not be disturbed by points, small numbers of people, and infrequent the few visible signs of development. Forest encounters, there would be ample opportunity management would emphasize the undisturbed for quiet and solitude. appearance. Access to the river would be limited to a few public carry-in and small craft access

52 Land Management Areas

CONSERVATION

This management area would provide users with would be abundant opportunites for angling. a sense of being in a natural setting. Very few Access to the river would be limited to a few signs of development, such as homes, bridges, public carry-in and small craft access points and or agricultural fields, would intrude on this a very few riparian landowner private docks. largely natural scene. The river and surrounding Recreational support facilites (e.g., primitive biological communites would dominate the user campsites, trails) would be small, limited in experience. The shoreline would not be dis- number, and largely screened by natural vegeta- turbed by the few visible signs of development. tion. With few access points, small numbers of Forest management would emphasize the undis- people and infrequent encounters, there would turbed appearance. This area would provide be ample opportunity for quite and solitude. many opportunities to view wildlife, and there

53 MANAGEMENT AREAS

T ABLE 1: SUMMARY OF LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS LAND MANAGEMENT Natural and man-made Landscape and shoreline River access and support Number of people / encounter Wildlife viewing Noise levels AREAS features facilities rate opportunities

River Town some natural features, scattered dominated by urban private and/or public river access large numbers of people are often limited may be high and limited in area, mostly development, including shops, and support facilities including present, very high encounter rate manmade features offices, historic, and residential marinas, docks, ramps (some of structures which may be large) Small Town combination developed, but less than river public and private river access and although large crowds are unlikely, limited moderate, typical of residential town, primarily large lot single support facilities, primarily small large numbers of people may be areas family residential historic in docks and ramps scattered along the encountered character, portions of the river shoreline would be largely undisturbed Small Town Historic combination developed, but less than river public and private river access and although large crowds are unlikely, limited moderate, typical of residential town, primarily single family support facilities, primarily small large numbers of people may be areas residential historic in character, docks and ramps scattered along the encountered portions of the shoreline would river be largely undisturbed Rural Residential combination sparsely developed, scattered a few public and private river small numbers, no large crowds, abundant moderate farms and residences, little or access and support facilities, low encounter rate no commercial development, no primarily small docks and launches large concentrations of development, shoreline largely undisturbed Park predominantly native may have scattered numerous opportunities for public Large numbers of people may be abundant moderate vegetation, (includes natural concentrations of recreational access with support facilities present, likely very high encounter features of special interest) support facilities (campsites, rate landings, trails, restrooms, picnic facilities, visitor centers), shoreline largely undisturbed Natural largely undisturbed natural few signs of development limited public and private access to small number of users, low chance abundant low scene, variety of biological (homes, agricultural fields, the river, only a few primitive of encountering others communities may be present primitive campsites, trails) support facilities, public carry-in shoreline largely undisturbed and small craft access Minimally Disturbed dominated by an undisturbed very few signs of development very few public and private access very limited number of users, very greatest opportunities very low natural scene, variety of (homes, agricultural fields, points to the river and limited to low chance of encountering others biological communities may be primitive campsites, trails) primitive support facilities, public present shoreline almost totally carry-in only undisturbed, support facilities screened by vegetation Conservation sense of being in a natural dominated by river and sur- access limited to a few public carry- small numbers of people and abundant to greatest moderate to very low setting; combination of park, rounding biological communi- in and small craft access points and infrequent encounters; ample opportunities natural, and minimally ties; shoreline would not be a few riparian landowner docks opportunity for quiet and solitude disturbed descriptions. disturbed by few visible signs of development; forest management would emphasize undisturbed appearance MANAGEMENT AREAS

T ABLE 2: SUMMARY OF WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS

Water Management Number of people Opportunities for Watercraft number Watercraft type Boat speeds Boat speed controls Water surface Fishing Noise levels Area Solitude opportunities

Active Social—peak high low high variety, primarily vary significantly, strictly controlled in commonly agitated; limited, especially likely to be high times motorized, including including the river’s some areas possibility of during high use sailboats highest allowable relatively large periods boat speeds wakes/ waves

Active Social—off moderate Moderate moderate moderately agitated ample/abundant moderate peak times

Moderate moderate moderate moderate variety, primarily vary, tending towards may be strictly moderately agitated ample/ abundant moderate Recreation motorized slower speeds controlled in some areas

Quiet Waters— high low high motorized and low restricted largely undisturbed abundant consistently low peak times nonmotorized

Quiet Waters—off low high low peak times

Natural Waters low high low variety, primarily low restricted undisturbed abundant consistently low human powered, nonmotorized

Silent Boating low high low only nonmotorized low to very low no controls undisturbed abundant consistently low

56 Water Management Areas

ACTIVE SOCIAL RECREATION

The user experiences and user management in would be moderate opportunities for solitude. this area would vary between peak times (i.e., Users may experience moderate levels of noise. summer weekends) and nonpeak times. During The surface of the water would be commonly peak times on this section of the river people moderately agitated. However, during nonpeak often would encounter large numbers of both times the area would offer abundant opportuni- people and watercraft; opportunities for solitude ties for angling. would be low. Users may experience high noise levels from sources on the water. The surface of The types of boats found in this area would vary the water would more commonly be agitated, widely during peak and nonpeak times: while with the possibility of relatively large most would be motorized, nonmotorized water- wakes/waves. Human activity on the river sur- craft may be present. Boat speeds would also face would, at times, limit opportunities to fish vary significantly; they would be strictly con- in this area. trolled in some limited areas, but the river's highest boat speeds would be allowed in this During nonpeak times users would encounter management area. moderate numbers of people and boats; there

57 MANAGEMENT AREAS

MODERATE RECREATION

Users in this area would encounter moderate speeds. Boat speeds might be strictly controlled numbers of people and watercraft on the water. in certain places. Noise levels from sources on A variety of boat types, primarily motorized the water generally would be moderate. The watercraft, might be present. Boats might travel area would offer abundant opportunities for at different speeds, but tend toward slower angling.

58 Water Management Areas

QUIET WATERS

Users in this area usually would encounter a directed toward recreational uses that leave the small number of other people engaged in "low- surface of the river largely undisturbed. Both impact" activities during nonpeak times, but motorized and nonmotorized watercraft would during peak use periods (i.e., summer week- be able to use these areas. Watercraft speeds ends) large numbers of other users and boats would be kept low to preserve the river's tran- could be encountered. Opportunities for solitude quil quality. Noise levels would be consistently consequently would vary from low opportuni- low. Abundant opportunities for fishing would ties during peak times to moderate opportunities be available. during nonpeak times. Management would be

59 MANAGEMENT AREAS

NATURAL WATERS

Users in this area would experience a sense of powered. Watercraft speeds would be kept low peace and quiet and could anticipate opportuni- to preserve the sense of a remote, backwater ties for solitude. The numbers of both users and experience. Noise levels would be consistently watercraft would be low - users could anticipate low. There would be abundant opportunities for a low probability of encountering other people fishing. on the water. Most watercraft would be human-

60 Water Management Areas

SILENT BOATING

This management area would provide opportu- of this area would likely be by canoe, kayak, or nities for users seeking silent, nonmotorized inflatable boats. Users would encounter low experiences where contact with the riverway's numbers of other people, and noise levels would natural features would be maximized. Electric be minimal. There would be abundant opportu- trolling motors would be permitted, but other nities for angling and viewing wildlife. motors could not be used in this area. Most use

LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES

BACKGROUND

As described in the Introduction, this plan ment, on private lands management, or on has been jointly developed by the three recreational use management. The river- managing agencies, with extensive way’s public interests were even more assistance from a full range of diverse varied. Some viewpoints were clearly interests meeting as the Lower St. Croix outside the scope of the foundation state- Planning Task Force. This process began ments so were not considered in develop- with recognition of the riverway’s out- ment of the preferred alternative; views standingly remarkable values, development that fell under the umbrella of the founda- of two principle statements, development tion statements remained fairly diverse. In of four purpose statements, development of fact, accommodating multiple interests in three significance statements, identification the riverway, including diverse recreational of eight exceptional resources and values, uses, became a hallmark of the preferred creation of a vision statement, and devel- alternative. opment of 13 planning assumptions. While there are many issues that confront The agencies (again with the assistance of managers of the riverway (see the “Issues” the planning task force) then set about section) primary issues that drive developing a range of alternatives, each of management are development on lands which would be consistent with those within and adjacent to the riverway and the foundation statements. Two of the alterna- intensity of recreational use (including tives originally developed were later elim- conflicts among users). Both of these inated from detailed study because they issues result from the riverway’s proximity were not consistent with those foundation to a large metropolitan area. These issues statements. The remaining four alterna- dominate management of the riverway and tives are described in this chapter as alter- in turn drive all other management natives A, B, C, and D along with the no- strategies. As a result, the alternatives are action alternative, which is alternative E. all described primarily in the context of land development controls and recreational The next step was development of a pre- boating management. While other resource ferred alternative, which again needed to management areas (rivers, forests, wilder- be consistent with the foundation state- ness areas, etc.) might focus management ments. It was created in a series of public on wildlands, unique vegetation, or certain workshops to enable all of the riverway’s animals, management of this riverway is diverse viewpoints to be heard. The out- driven primarily by people management; come was, understandably, a compromise other resources can be managed only in the alternative. The three managing agencies context of how human activity is managed. do not have exactly the same mission or perspective on natural resource manage-

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVERWAY’S DIVERSE CHARACTER

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT of management areas under the preferred alternative; table 3 shows the percentages One hallmark of the Lower St. Croix of how much of the riverway would be National Scenic Riverway is its diversity. included in each management area, while Both its landscape character and its water- table 4 identifies the boundaries of the based recreation reflect diverse uses. Sur- management areas. The management area face water recreation reflects the diversity allocation is intended to maintain long of the surroundings: experiences range stretches of the river in a natural condition, from the quiet solitude of a nonmotorized while still allowing development in munic- area to a very social and highly motorized ipalities. As the figure and tables indicate, environment. The preferred alternative the majority of the lands along the river- would provide greater emphasis than ever way would be designated as rural residen- to ensure continuation and enhancement of tial (38%) and conservation (39%) man- the Lower St. Croix National Scenic agement areas. Most of the conservation Riverway’s diversity. management areas would be north of Still- water. The rest of the lands would be in- In the future it is likely that there will be cluded in small town (12%), river town increased demands for development within (5%), and small town historic (5%), and adjacent to the lower riverway. This management areas, all of which would be alternative would maintain long stretches scattered throughout the riverway. of the lower riverway’s natural and rural landscape, while allowing limited, planned, Under the preferred alternative limited new development in municipalities that is con- development could occur within existing sistent with the historic character of the municipalities along the riverway. In the riverway’s communities. Protection of river town management area, development natural resources, including the valley’s would be guided by the community’s un- important biological diversity, would be derlying plans and ordinances. In the river enhanced. Riverway users on the river town and small town historic management would continue to find opportunities to areas, new development would be allowed engage in a wide range of recreational providing it was consistent with the his- experiences. (Appendixes A and B re- toric character of the communities. New spectively describe guidelines for sug- development also might be in the small gested changes in the states’ land use rules town management areas, provided the and water surface use regulations to existing large-lot, single-family character achieve the above desired conditions.) of the areas do not change. There are few industrial uses within the riverway; should an industrial site ever be abandoned, the LAND USE most desirable future use of the riverfront portions of those properties would be The “Preferred Alternative: Land” map on public park. page 66 shows the location and distribution

66 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: LAND Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota Interstate State Park St. Croix Falls SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Taylors Falls SMALL TOWN HISTORIC 8 Wisconsin Interstate State Park 8 CONSERVATION CONSERVATION

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Cedar Osceola Bend Forest Lake 35 RURAL William O'Brien RURAL State Park RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION CONSERVATION SMALL TOWN Marine on HISTORIC St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area RURAL 64 RESIDENTIAL Somerset 35E 35 RURAL SMALL TOWN RESIDENTIAL 64 Federal Zone Stillwater State Zone

36 RIVER TOWN SMALL TOWN Bayport North Hudson SMALL TOWN RURAL RESIDENTIAL Hudson RIVER TOWN St. Paul SMALL TOWN Lakeland 94 94 61 Lake St. Croix SMALL TOWN 10 Beach SMALL TOWN HISTORIC RURAL RURAL Afton RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL SMALL TOWN CONSERVATION River Falls Afton State Park CONSERVATION RURAL RESIDENTIAL 35 RURAL CONSERVATION Kinnickinnic State Park RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION RURAL RESIDENTIAL Prescott RIVER TOWN 10

St. Croix River 0 4.5 9 Miles Lower St. Croix NSR North Major Highways DSC • 643 • 20025B • 5/00 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

T ABLE 3: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA DISTRIBUTIONS (%) UNDER THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Management Area Minnesota % Wisconsin % Overall Riverway % River town 5 6 5 Small town historic 7 4 5 Small town 20 4 12 Rural residential 34 43 38 Conservation 35 43 39

T ABLE 4: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Land Segment Management Area Minnesota Taylors Falls Small town historic Interstate Park to south end of McLeod’s Slough Conservation South end of McLeod’s Slough to north edge of William O’Brien State Rural residential Park William O’Brien State Park Conservation South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern tip of Greenburg Rural residential Island in Marine-on-St. Croix Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix to southern Small town historic boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition to Rural residential north limits of Stillwater North end of Stillwater to train station Small town Train station to north limits of Bayport River town Bayport Small town South limits to Bayport to Hudson railroad bridge Rural residential Hudson railroad bridge to north end of old Afton Village Small town Old Afton Village Small town historic South part of Afton: (north end of River Road to south end of river road) Small town South end of River Road in Afton to Afton State Park Rural residential Afton State Park Conservation South end of Afton State Park to north boundary of St. Croix Bluffs Rural residential Regional Park St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Conservation

68 Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

Land Segment Management Area South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north end of Carpenter Rural residential Nature Center Carpenter Nature Center Conservation South end of Carpenter Nature Center to the Mississippi River Rural residential Wisconsin St. Croix Falls Small town historic Interstate Park to north limits of Osceola Conservation Osceola Small town historic South end of Osceola to Arcola high bridge Conservation Arcola high bridge to the south edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in Rural residential North Hudson South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision to Orange Street Small town Orange Street to Mayer Road extended River town Mayer Road extended to Riverview Drive extended Small town Riverview Drive extended to north end of Kinnickinnic State Park Rural residential Kinnickinnic State Park Conservation South end of Kinnickinnic State Park to north end of Prescott Rural residential Prescott to the Mississippi River River town

The emphasis in this alternative would be mize impacts on adjacent rural areas, the to ensure the overall character of the riverway managing agencies would encour- municipalities did not significantly change. age local governments to cluster new Some state land use regulations would be development in the riverway towns. Local relaxed in the river town, small town governments also would be encouraged to historic, and small town management areas protect historic values in the river town and to give local governments greater flexi- small town historic management areas bility over land use. (See the guidelines in through several methods. Examples of appendix A for further details on suggested these methods would be adaptive reuse of changes to the states’ existing land use existing historic structures, adoption and regulations.) enforcement of historic preservation ordinances, and adoption of architectural Although there would be more flexibility standards that require new development to than there is today in managing develop- be consistent with the historic community ments in municipalities, new developments character. and their effects would continue to be monitored within municipalities. To ensure Outside municipalities, landowners would that the character of the communities does be encouraged to maintain the natural not significantly change, and to help mini- character of the landscape, particularly the 69 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES blufflines, to the presettlement condition as VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT seen from the water. Much of the land from Taylors Falls to just above the north The primary goals for vegetative manage- limits of Stillwater would be designated as ment would be to screen structures from conservation. This stretch contains the view as seen from the river and prevent least disturbed portions of the lower disturbance of environmentally sensitive riverway. The conservation designation areas such as steep slopes or riverfront would help ensure that the natural bluffs. character of this stretch is maintained (and restored where possible). Recreational A secondary goal would be to encourage structures, such as toilet buildings, on this and promote vegetative management stretch would be screened by vegetation actions that would maintain and restore where practical. Boat access points would historically and ecologically significant continue to be designed primarily for carry- plant communities and enhance diversity. in use and launching of small boats. Successional climax forest and presettlement disturbed oak savanna would be Limited new developments could still be the preferred forest ecotype examples of allowed in rural residential management significant plant communities. However, areas, so long as they complied with land throughout the lower riverway, vegetative use regulations. (See the proposed state screening of existing structures and land use guidelines in appendix A for potential development sites would take further details regarding new residential priority over restoration and maintenance developments.) For Minnesota and of significant plant communities. Wisconsin Interstate State Parks and St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park, the emphasis This alternative would place emphasis on would be on maintaining current voluntary actions, coupled with education conditions and uses. The northern unit of and stewardship, to preserve and restore Minnesota Interstate State Park, the plant communities. Removal of exotic potholes-Glacial Garden area, is being species would be encouraged on all lands managed toward a ca. 1890 historic vista. within the riverway. Control of insects and The southern unit is being managed in a disease would be recommended if there more natural state. At William O’Brien would be a high likelihood that outbreak State Park the emphasis would be on would threaten large areas of vegetative keeping the appearance of a natural cover within the lower riverway or threaten landscape as seen from the water. For to infest adjacent lands. In addition, prun- Afton and Kinnickinnic State Parks new ing or removal of hazard trees would facilities and development would be continue to be allowed. Hazard trees would consistent with adjacent riverway land be trees that exhibit damage resulting from management area designations — no insect, disease, age, or storm, and, if they changes would occur in the overall natural/ were to fall, would be a safety risk to development character of these two parks. people or property. Pruning of normal tree growth to prevent property damage would also be allowed.

70 Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

On local government lands voluntary A specific action that would be taken to efforts would be encouraged to maintain encourage significant plant communities and restore preferred forest cover. On state concerns lands enrolled under forest tax and federal lands the managing agencies law programs on the Wisconsin side of the would maintain and restore preferred forest riverway. (Minnesota does not have an types. Vegetation on NPS fee lands would equivalent law regarding forest manage- continue to be managed in accordance with ment.) Under this alternative the Wiscon- NPS policies to perpetuate native plant sin Department of Natural Resources communities. Plant succession would would pursue an amendment to the state generally not be interfered with except to land use standards within the riverway protect life or property, convert existing (Chapter NR 118). Under the proposed tree plantations to nonmonocultures or amendment landowners could develop a mixed species communities, maintain forest management plan with department native plant community diversity (e.g., approval that would protect the scenic prevent loss of prairie and oak savanna), quality of the river, prevent disturbance of and maintain habitat for threatened and environmentally sensitive areas such as endangered species. Manipulation of plant steep slopes or riverfront bluffs, and allow communities to maintain threatened and vegetation to be managed in a manner that endangered species habitat would be would maintain significant plant carried out in a manner designed to restore communities. or enhance the functioning of the plant and animal community of which the endangered species is a natural part. RIVER CROSSINGS

On private lands voluntary efforts would Being a linear resource near a growing also be encouraged to maintain and restore metropolitan area, there is frequent interest preferred forest cover so long as these in building new crossings of the riverway. efforts did not conflict with maintaining Crossings come in three forms: bridges for visual screening of existing structures and roads, railroads, pedestrians; overhead potential development sites. State regula- wires for communications and electrical tions that restrict vegetation management energy; and under-river crossings (often on private lands would be revised to allow called submarine crossings) for communi- maintenance and restoration of the natural cations, electrical energy, and material diversity and ecological integrity of signifi- such as fuel or natural gas. cant plant communities. A variety of management techniques, such as planting, The long-term goal for this alternative seeding, pruning, thinning, harvesting, would be to reduce the number and size of prescribed burning, and clearing, would be visible river crossings. The managing allowed and encouraged on private lands in agencies would encourage safe, compati- both states to accomplish this goal. Federal ble, multiple uses of existing corridors and and state scenic easements would be re- structures that cross the riverway. All pro- vised on a volunteer basis with individual posed changes to river crossings or cor- landowners to allow these management ridors would require site-specific environ- techniques. mental evaluations and approval from applicable local, state, and federal 71 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES agencies. The impacts of each proposal utility corridors would be permitted to would be analyzed and documented before cross the river, and existing line towers the managing agencies permit any change could not be made larger. Consolidation of in a river crossing or corridor. utility line crossings also would be encouraged. There would be no net increase in the number of transportation corridors. In Submarine crossings could be expanded general, transportation corridors would be (i.e., the size and number of lines could be replaced in or adjacent to the existing increased) or relocated to an existing corridor. Existing transportation corridors corridor. New submarine crossings also could be relocated only if all of the could be permitted provided there were no following are true: 1) the need for the visual impacts. However, the crossing project is clearly justified, 2) the project is technique having the least impact on the consistent with state and regional trans- riverway’s outstandingly remarkable val- portation plans, 3) there is no feasible and ues and impact on the resource would be prudent alternative to relocating the corri- required. Natural vegetation would be dor, and 4) all built elements of the exist- maintained as much as possible along ing corridor are removed and the corridor utility line rights-of-way that cross the is restored to natural conditions. Existing riverway. Clearcutting of rights-of-way for corridors are defined as being roughly pipeline inspections would be prohibited. equivalent to the existing approach rights- of-way. Existing bridges could be replaced If any river crossing project would require with new bridges provided that existing any construction below the ordinary high structures were removed. water mark, the National Park Service would review the project, including the Increased capacity within an existing mitigation plan, pursuant to section 7 of transportation corridor could be expanded the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The by widening an existing bridge or by con- National Park Service would determine structing a parallel structure to an existing whether the project would or would not bridge so long as items 1 and 2 above are have a direct and adverse effect on the true. values for which the river was designated. If the NPS found that the project would Any new bridge or alteration of an existing result in a direct and adverse effect, no bridge must be of a scale and character that federal funding, licenses or permits would minimizes impact to the values for which be issued for its construction. the area was designated under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (scenic, recreational, geologic). Construction projects ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE must include appropriate mitigation to MANAGEMENT compensate for any impact on these values. North of Stillwater public day use of Utility lines could be replaced and new publicly owned islands and shoreline areas lines could be added to existing crossings. generally would continue. In addition, new lines could be placed under existing bridges. However, no new

72 Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

Camping in the three state parks in the area restricted to designated sites only. When would continue to be allowed only in des- demand for sites exceeded the number of ignated campgrounds. On federal lands available sites, a reservation system could managed by the National Park Service, be instituted to allocate a certain number of camping would continue to be prohibited sites in advance; other sites would remain in two areas: first-come, first-served. In addition, the National Park Service could institute at any · From Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to time, in compliance with national policy 1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing and regulations, a camper user fee system. (the upper entrance to Close Slough) South of Stillwater, use of the Hudson · For 1,200 feet north and south of the Islands and day use of publicly owned Highway 243 bridge at Osceola shoreline areas would continue to be minimally regulated. To resolve sanitation In addition, camping would continue to be problems on the Hudson Islands users prohibited from the southern tip of Green- would be required to have portable toilets burg Island to the upper entrance to Dead to transport human wastes off the islands Man’s Slough (opposite the city of Marine unless the managing agencies, local on St. Croix) until a comprehensive river government, or volunteer organization use/camping management plan is com- provided public facilities for this purpose. pleted. Once this plan is in place, camping Camping in the two state parks and one might occur on this stretch of river at regional park in the area would continue to designated sites that would suit campers' be allowed only in designated areas. needs only as long as there was no significant impact on the resource and adjacent Regardless of other management strategies riparian landowners. camping on all public areas would be subject to a seven-night stay limit at any one On all other public lands north of Still- site and a 30-night limit for the entire sum- water, several management actions could mer season at all sites. Camping equipment be instituted to minimize user conflict, to also could not be left unattended for more mitigate resource impacts, and to protect than 24 hours. adjacent private landowner property rights. Each of the following management options could be instituted either individually or all at the same time, depending on local con- WATER SURFACE USE ditions. One of the unique characteristics of the Camping zones would be identified in a Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway river use/camping management plan that is the diversity of surface water recrea- might identify broad zones where camping tional experiences users can find in a rela- could and could not occur. If this manage- tively small area, ranging from quiet soli- ment option proved unsuccessful in pre- tude to faster or more social experiences. venting user conflicts and protecting cul- Under the preferred alternative river users tural and natural resources and private would be assured of finding opportunities landowner property rights, camping within to engage in a variety of recreational exper- a particular zone, or in all zones, would be iences far into the future. In general, exist- 73 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ing access to the riverway would not moderate recreation waters (5 miles). All change. To provide opportunities for quiet backwaters north of Stillwater would be solitude, watercraft would be required to designated as natural waters (27 miles). operate at no-wake speed in all backwaters The boundaries of the water management north of Stillwater. The main channel areas would be as follows from north to between Taylors Falls and the Arcola south: sandbar would provide a relatively quiet experience for nonmotorized and slow- moving motorized craft. Between the Water Use Management From Taylors Arcola sandbar and the north limits of Falls to Arcola Sandbar Stillwater, motorized and nonmotorized recreational boaters would continue to use The main channel would be managed as the braided channel and wooded islands. quiet waters, while 22 miles of the back- Below the north limits of Stillwater, recre- waters would be managed as natural ational users, primarily motorboaters, waters. This would help ensure that would continue to enjoy the open, lake-like opportunities for quiet and solitude do not section of the river. As motorboat densities significantly change. increased, restrictions such as speed limits and slow no-wake zones, would be imposed to ensure safe conditions for all Water Use Management From Arcola users and to minimize or avoid conflicts Sandbar to the North Limits of between different user activities. (See Stillwater appendix B for suggested changes in the states’ regulations that may be imposed on All of the main channel in this stretch (5 water users.) miles) would be a moderate recreation management area, while the backwaters (5 The “Preferred Alternative: Water” map on miles) would be a natural waters manage- page 74 and table 5 show the location and ment area. This allocation is intended to distribution of water management areas. In maintain existing recreational opportuni- the preferred alternative all of the lower ties: the moderate management area would riverway above the north limits of Still- provide a variety of boat types, primarily water would be designated as natural, powerboats, traveling at moderate speeds, quiet, and moderate recreation manage- while the natural waters designation would ment areas, while below the north limits of provide opportunities for quiet and Stillwater the riverway would be desig- solitude. nated as active social recreation waters. The active social recreation management area would cover the largest portion of the lower riverway’s main channel (25 miles), followed by quiet waters (22 miles) and

74 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: water Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Taylors Falls St. Croix Falls 8 Wisconsin Interstate State Park Minnesota Interstate State Park 8 Osceola Cedar QUIET WATERS Bend (main channel) Forest Lake 35 NATURAL WATERS (backwaters) William O'Brien State Park

Marine on St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area 64 MODERATE Somerset RECREATION 35E35 35 (main channel)

64 NATURAL WATERS Federal Zone (backwaters) Stillwater State Zone

36 Bayport North Hudson Hudson St. Paul Lakeland 94 94 Lake St. Croix Beach ACTIVE SOCIAL Afton RECREATION River Falls Afton State Park

10 61 35 Miss iss ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park

Prescott 10 St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20024B • 5/00 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 5: WATER MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Area Classification Backwaters north of Stillwater Natural Main channel from Taylors Falls to Arcola sandbar Quiet Main channel from Arcola sandbar to north limits of Moderate Stillwater Stillwater to Prescott/Point Douglas Active Social Recreation

Water Use Management From the North Limits of Stillwater to Prescott since then and has not removed snags in All of this stretch (25 miles) would be recent years. designated as an active social recreation management area. Recreational users The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) would be permitted to use powerboats and has not maintained the 3-foot navigation pursue a variety of recreational uses channel between Taylors Falls and the (including sailing and waterskiing). A Arcola Sandbar (river mile 31.0) in many speed limit for powerboats would be years. As a result, prevailing shallow water imposed to ensure boater safety and to levels at the sandbar effectively limit the enhance enjoyment of the scenic resource. majority of motorboat use to that portion of One public access point would be added to the river south of the sandbar. Above the this stretch, south of Stillwater near the sandbar, use is a mix of canoes and motor- Allan S. King power plant, in part boats, with predominantly canoe use north replacing an access in Stillwater that is of Cedar Bend. These conditions would being closed. likely change if water levels changed at the sandbar.

To ensure that opportunities for a diversity NAVIGATION CHANNEL of recreational experiences continued to be MAINTENANCE provided on the Lower St. Croix, it is In 1866 Congress authorized the U.S. important that channel maintenance does Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a 3- not resume north of the Arcola Sandbar. foot navigation channel from Taylors Falls Thus, under the preferred alternative the to the Mississippi River. Maintenance of managing agencies would recommend that the 3-foot channel was originally intended Congress deauthorize the 3-foot navigation to provide a navigable channel for steam- channel between the NSP dam and the boats. Although some snag removal has Arcola Sandbar. The managing agencies been done since the end of the steamboat would work with the Corps to pursue this era on the St. Croix River around 1915, the change in legislation. Corps has not dredged the 3-foot channel

76 Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

No changes would be proposed regarding CULTURAL RESOURCES the Corps’ authority to maintain a 3-foot MANAGEMENT navigation channel from the Arcola sandbar down to river mile 24.5 at Stillwater. For the purposes of this plan, cultural This would allow limited snag removal resources are museum objects, historic when necessary for safe motorized use. properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, or properties that are The Corps is also authorized to maintain a eligible for listing on the register. Historic 9-foot navigation channel from Stillwater properties on or eligible for listing on the (river mile 24.5) down to the confluence national register include archeological with the Mississippi River at Prescott. sites, or historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districts. In addition to While channel maintenance has historically national register properties, cultural involved dredging at Hudson, Catfish Bar, resources are also traditional cultural and the Kinnickinnic Narrows, the Corps’ properties (including those associated with Upper Mississippi River Channel Mainte- American Indians) and historic landscapes nance Management Plan (U.S. Army (both designed and vernacular). The lower Corps of Engineers 1997) indicates that riverway and adjoining areas include prop- only the Kinnickinnic Narrows is expected erties currently listed on the national regis- to require dredging over the next 40 years. ter, properties determined to be eligible for Given this, under the preferred alternative listing on the register, and some properties the managing agencies would support that have been identified but not yet evalu- continued maintenance of the navigation ated. (See appendix F for a list of prop- channel. No changes would be recom- erties that are either on the national register mended to the channel’s existing vertical or eligible for listing.) Cultural resources clearance standards, which all existing within the riverway boundary are located bridges meet. However, the managing on NPS fee land, nonfederal public land, agencies would recommend that the Corps private land (including parcels with NPS reduce the maintained channel width from scenic easements), and potentially in the 200 feet to 100 feet at the Kinnickinnic river itself (e.g. shipwrecks, other Narrows. A mussel survey would be submerged resources). required before maintenance dredging could occur at the Kinnickinnic Narrows. The National Park Service currently has Dredged material would continue to be several efforts underway to identify and placed where it could be reused for bene- evaluate historic buildings, structures, and ficial purposes while minimizing impacts landscapes in the riverway. These include: to aquatic resources, as described in the a historic resource study, to establish the Upper Mississippi River Channel Mainte- broad historic context of the region; the nance Management Plan. Any watercraft List of Classified Structures, which evalu- entering the riverway to conduct dredging ates NPS-owned properties; and the cul- activities and buoy-tending would be tural landscape inventory, which identifies checked and cleaned if necessary in a and evaluates significant cultural land- manner consistent with the zebra mussel scapes in and adjacent to the riverway. prevention plan. Other efforts currently underway are a cultural sites inventory and an

77 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES archeological and ethnographic overview that visually affect the river outside the and assessment. These efforts focus solely riverway boundary. on the portion of the lower riverway administered by the National Park Service Previously unidentified archeological sites and on historic properties located on might be encountered as the result of future National Park Service fee lands. excavations or other ground disturbances. Archeological surveys would precede any In the preferred alternative the managing future ground disturbing activities under- agencies would work together to inventory, taken by the managing agencies. These evaluate, and protect the riverway’s surveys would be conducted under the cultural resources. All three managing provisions of section 106 of the National agencies should better utilize their own Historic Preservation Act, in consultation internal expertise on cultural resource with the Minnesota or Wisconsin state issues to better protect the riverway’s historic preservation offices. While section cultural resources. The National Park 106 typically applies only to federal Service would continue its efforts to actions, in this case actions by the state identify and evaluate historic buildings, managing agencies within the riverway structures, cultural landscapes, archeo- would voluntarily comply with the spirit of logical and ethnographic resources, and section 106, following procedures to be other cultural sites on the federally admin- developed in cooperation with the state istered portion of the lower riverway in the historic preservation office and consistent state-administered portion of the riverway. with state statutes and rules. The Minnesota and Wisconsin state historic preservation offices, American Local governments would be strongly Indian interests, and private property encouraged and relied upon to play a key owners would be responsible for the role in protecting historic properties. The identification, preservation and managing agencies, in cooperation with the interpretation of historic properties. The state historic preservation offices and local National Park Service would support this preservation organizations, would encour- effort by performing research on the age local government efforts. These actions historic contexts of the region. National would include historic preservation Park Service staff would work with these measures in county comprehensive plans groups where appropriate in developing and other regional plans; establishment of protection and treatment strategies and local historic preservation ordinances; priorities. Property owners and managing participation in the certified local govern- partners would work together to develop ment program administered by the state challenge cost share grants and other historic preservation offices; and develop- cooperative ventures to preserve historic ment of incentives (e.g., grants, loans, tax properties throughout the state- breaks) for the rehabilitation of historic administered zone. The National Park buildings or preservation of archeological Service would assist the state historic sites. The managing agencies also would preservation offices in promoting the increase their efforts to educate the public identification, evaluation and protection of on the value of the lower riverway’s historic properties by local governments, cultural heritage. landowners and private institutions in areas 78 Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

Under the preferred alternative, local (The state departments of natural governments would be required to adopt resources would pursue revision of the and enforce historic preservation ordi- state minimum standards based on the nances and historic-theme architectural suggested land use guidelines in standards for use in the river town and appendix A.) small town historic districts. · Agencies would evaluate alternative methods of protection other than acqui- LAND PROTECTION/BOUNDARY sition (e.g., cooperative agreements, ADJUSTMENTS environmental regulations, local zoning ordinances, private land stewardship). There would be support for greater use Land Protection of land trusts and other nonregulatory and nongovernmental land protection The goals for riverway land protection are to methods. protect the ecological integrity, scenic char- · Agencies would renegotiate scenic ease- acter, geologic resources, and cultural and ments where needed to include provi- historic resources of lands within the bound- sions for natural and cultural resource ary of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic protection and modifications of vege- Riverway while providing for public use tation management practices. and enjoyment. The National Park Service has essentially completed acquiring land · NPS and state ownership of lands north and interests in land as identified in the of Stillwater might be modified to im- Land Protection Plan for the federally prove administration. administered zone. The state DNRs would · Agencies would encourage inclusion of provide the opportunity for landowners to historic preservation measures in county participate in a variety of land protection comprehensive plans and other regional programs, such as forest stewardship plans plans and establishment of local historic and other land stewardship programs. Land preservation ordinances. protection needs and opportunities for areas outside the riverway that affect the · Agencies would encourage state and lo- integrity and character of the riverway cal incentives (e.g., grants, loans, tax would be addressed in the Watershed breaks) for the rehabilitation of historic Stewardship Initiative. buildings or preservation of archeological sites. The following tools and opportunities The land protection program for the lower could be used in developing the land riverway addresses only those lands within protection program: the authorized boundary of the riverway. · At a minimum, local zoning in conform- However, lands outside the riverway are ance with state minimum standards also integral to the integrity and character would continue to apply to all lands of the riverway. The Watershed Steward- within the riverway, as published in the ship Initiative will address land protection Federal Register between the dam at St. opportunities in the greater watershed. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls, and the confluence with the Mississippi River.

79 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Boundary Adjustments posed in Bayport to remove part of a residential area that is not near the river. There is a small gap in the boundary on the north edge of Wisconsin’s St. Croix Is- If other minor boundary adjustments were lands Wildlife Area resulting from an error identified, they would be referred to the in the original delineation of the riverway Lower St. Croix Management Commission boundary. The riverway boundary would for review and possible boundary be extended to cover this area. Another mi- adjustments. nor boundary adjustment has been pro-

ALTERNATIVE A: DIRECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASED RECREATIONAL USE LEVELS

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT residential (34%) and natural (32%) management areas, although most of the As in the preferred alternative, the manag- natural management areas would be north ing agencies would seek to maintain long of Stillwater. The remaining lands would stretches of the lower riverway’s natural be included in small town, park, river and rural landscape, while allowing lim- town, and small town historic management ited, planned, development within the areas, all of which would be scattered riverway boundary that was consistent with throughout the riverway. the historic character of the riverway’s communities. Alternative A would differ Limited new residential and commercial from the preferred alternative in that a development could occur within the mu- greater proportion of the lower riverway nicipalities along the riverway. In the river would be included in the river town, small town and small town historic management town historic, or small town management areas new development would be allowed areas. Users on the river would continue to provided it was consistent with the historic find opportunities to engage in a wide character of the communities. New devel- range of recreational experiences. Unlike opment also could occur in the small town the preferred alternative, as long as users management areas, provided the large-lot, were not causing significant damage to the single-family character of the areas did not riverway’s exceptional resources or posing change. There are few industrial uses with- safety hazards to others, no efforts would in the riverway; should an industrial site be made to regulate user activities. ever be abandoned, the most desirable future use of the riverfront portions of those properties would be public park. LAND USE The emphasis in this alternative would be The “Alternative A: Land” map on page 81 to ensure that the overall character of the shows the location and distribution of communities did not significantly change. management areas under this alternative; Consequently, there would be less control table 6 shows the percentages of how much by the riverway managing agencies on of the riverway would be included in each specific developments within the munici- management area, while table 7 identifies palities compared to the present. Some the boundaries of the management areas. state land use regulations would be relaxed The management area allocation is in- in the river town, small town historic, and tended to maintain long stretches of the small town management areas to give local river in a natural condition, while still governments greater flexibility over land allowing development in the existing use, development density, structure height, municipalities and areas adjacent to the etc. Standards regarding such features as municipalities. As the figure and tables decks and residential additions also would indicate, the majority of the lands along the be relaxed in the small town management riverway would be designated as rural areas.

81 alternative a: LAND Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota Interstate State Park St. Croix Falls

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Taylors Falls 8 SMALL TOWN HISTORIC MINIMALLY PARK Wisconsin Interstate PARK DISTURBED State Park (islands) NATURAL 8 SMALL TOWN NATURAL Osceola SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Cedar Bend Forest Lake 35 RURAL RESIDENTIAL William O'Brien State Park RURAL RESIDENTIAL PARK NATURAL SMALL TOWN Marine on HISTORIC St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area RURAL RESIDENTIAL 64 Somerset 35E 35

64 Federal Zone RURAL SMALL TOWN State Zone RESIDENTIAL RIVER TOWN Stillwater SMALL TOWN 36 RURAL RESIDENTIAL Bayport North Hudson SMALL TOWN Hudson RIVER TOWN St. Paul SMALL TOWN Lakeland 94 94 SMALL TOWN Lake St. Croix RURAL Beach 10 RESIDENTIAL SMALL TOWN SMALL TOWN HISTORIC RURAL RESIDENTIAL Afton RURAL River Falls RESIDENTIAL PARK Afton State Park 61 RURAL PARK RESIDENTIAL 35 RURAL PARK Kinnickinnic State Park RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL NATURAL SMALL TOWN Prescott RURAL RESIDENTIAL RIVER TOWN 10 St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20016B • 5/00 Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

T ABLE 6: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA DISTRIBUTIONS (%) UNDER ALTERNATIVE A*

Management Area Minnesota (%) Wisconsin (%) Overall Riverway (%) River Town 7 4 5 Small Town Historic 6 4 5 Small Town 19 10 14 Rural Residential 33 35 34 Park 14 6 10 Natural 22 42 32 Minimally Disturbed 0 0 0 *Percentages do not necessarily add up to 100% due to rounding.

T ABLE 7: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN ALTERNATIVE

Land Segment Management Area Minnesota Taylors Falls Small town historic Interstate Park Park South end of Interstate Park to south end of McLeod’s Natural Slough South end of McLeod’s Slough to north end of William Rural residential O’Brien State Park William O’Brien State Park Park South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern Rural residential tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Small town historic Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Rural residential Falls Addition to north limits of Stillwater North limits of Stillwater to the south end of Dutch Small town Town South end of Dutch Town to north end of Bayport River town North limits of Bayport to north limits of old Afton Small town Village Old Afton Village Small town historic South end of old Afton Village (north end of River Rural residential Road) to north end of Afton State Park

83 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Land Segment Management Area Afton State Park Park South end of Afton State Park to north boundary of St. Rural residential Croix Bluffs Regional Park St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Park South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north Rural residential end of Carpenter Nature Center Carpenter Nature Center Natural South end of Carpenter Nature Center to Mississippi Rural residential River Wisconsin St. Croix Falls Small town historic Interstate Park Park South end of Interstate Park to north limits of Osceola Natural Osceola Small town historic South end of Osceola to north end of Twin Springs Natural subdivision North end of Twin Springs subdivision to south edge of Rural residential St. Croix Station subdivision in North Hudson South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in North Small town Hudson to Orange Street Orange Street to I-94 bridge River town I-94 bridge to YMCA Camp Small town YMCA Camp to north end of Kinnickinnic State Park Rural residential Kinnickinnic State Park Park South end of Kinnickinnic State Park to north end of Rural residential Cedar St. Croix subdivision North end of Cedar St. Croix subdivision to north end Small town of Prescott North end of Prescott to Mississippi River River town

Although there would be more flexibility not significantly change, and to help in managing developments in munici- minimize impacts on adjacent rural areas, palities in alternative A, the riverway the riverway management areas would managing agencies would continue to encourage local governments to cluster monitor new development within the new development in the riverway towns. communities and their effects. To ensure Local governments also would be encour- that the character of the municipalities did aged to protect historic values in the river

84 Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels town and small town historic management sensitive areas such as steep slopes or areas through several methods. Examples riverfront bluffs. would include adaptive reuse of existing historic structures, adoption and enforce- A secondary goal would be to encourage ment of historic preservation ordinances, and promote vegetative management and adoption of architectural standards that actions that would maintain historically require new development to be consistent and ecologically significant plant com- with the historic community character. munities and diversity. Successional climax forest and pre-settlement disturbed In areas outside municipalities, limited oak savanna would be the preferred forest new developments would continue to be ecotype examples of significant plant allowed, some of which may be visible communities. However, throughout the from the river, so long as the riverway’s lower riverway, vegetative screening of rural and natural character is maintained. existing structures and potential develop- Specifically, limited new residential and ment sites would take priority over restora- commercial development could occur in tion and maintenance of significant plant rural residential management areas, limited communities. residential development could occur in natural management areas, and some This alternative would place emphasis on recreational facilities could be built in the voluntary actions, coupled with education park and natural management areas. and stewardship, to preserve plant communities. Removal of exotic species would be encouraged on all lands within the river- VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT way. Control of insects and disease would be recommended if there would be a high Under this alternative, more development likelihood that outbreak would threaten would be expected to occur along the river- large areas of vegetative cover within the way, and more native plant communities lower riverway or threaten to infest adja- likely would be altered. Consequently, the cent lands. In addition, pruning or removal riverway managing agencies would seek to of hazard trees would continue to be al- minimize decreases in the coverage (acre- lowed. Hazard trees would be trees that age) of plant communities. Losses due to exhibit damage resulting from insect, dis- development would be minimized by ease, age, or storm, and, if they were to educating landowners, encouraging devel- fall, would be a safety risk to people or opment in areas that have already been property. Pruning of normal tree growth to disturbed, limiting the “footprint” of the prevent property damage would also be development, and encouraging developers allowed. to replant native vegetation. On local government lands voluntary As described under the preferred alterna- efforts would be encouraged to maintain tive, the primary goals for vegetative man- preferred forest cover. On state and federal agement would be to screen structures lands the managing agencies would main- from view as seen from the river and tain and restore preferred forest types. prevent disturbance of environmentally Vegetation on NPS fee lands would continue to be managed in accordance with

85 LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES

NPS policies to perpetuate native plant the Wisconsin Department of Natural communities. Plant succession would Resources would pursue an amendment to generally not be interfered with except to the state land use standards within the protect life or property, convert existing riverway (Chapter NR 118). Under the tree plantations to nonmonocultures or proposed amendment, landowners could mixed species communities, maintain develop a forest management plan with native plant community diversity (e.g., department approval that would protect the prevent loss of prairie and oak savanna), scenic quality of the river, prevent and maintain habitat for threatened and disturbance of environmentally sensitive endangered species. Manipulation of plant areas such as steep slopes or riverfront communities to maintain threatened and bluffs, and would allow vegetation to be endangered species habitat would be managed in a manner that would maintain carried out in a manner designed to restore and restore significant plant communities. or enhance the functioning of the plant and animal community of which the endangered species is a natural part. RIVER CROSSINGS

On private lands voluntary efforts would In alternative A the managing agencies also be encouraged to maintain and restore would encourage safe, compatible, multi- preferred forest cover so long as these ple uses of existing corridors and structures efforts do not conflict with maintaining that cross the riverway. All proposed visual screening of existing structures and changes to river crossings or corridors potential development sites. State regula- would require site-specific environmental tions that restrict vegetation management evaluations. The impacts of each proposal on private lands would be revised to allow would be analyzed and documented before maintenance and restoration of the natural the managing agencies would permit any diversity and ecological integrity of signifi- change in a river crossing or corridor. cant plant communities. A variety of management techniques, such as planting, There would be no increases in the number seeding, pruning, thinning, harvesting, of road or railroad bridges in alternative A. prescribed burning, and clearing, would be However, the scale and character of exist- allowed and encouraged on private lands in ing bridges could be altered so long as the both states to accomplish this goal. Federal scale and character was still in keeping and state scenic easements would be with the values for which the area was revised on a volunteer basis with indi- designed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers vidual landowners to allow these manage- Act. Bridges could be made wider to ment techniques. provide for increased capacity with more lanes. Road and railroad bridges could be A specific action that would be taken to replaced with new bridges, provided the encourage significant plant communities existing structures were removed. (Agen- concerns lands enrolled under forest tax cies proposing to replace structures on the law programs on the Wisconsin side of the National Register of Historic Places or riverway. (Minnesota does not have an replace structures that are eligible for equivalent law regarding forest manage- listing would need to comply with section ment but this action.) Under this alternative 106 of the National Historic Preservation 86 Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

Act before they could remove the Camping would continue to be allowed in structures.) Road and railroad bridges also other public areas, subject to a seven-night could be relocated to new sites, as long as limit at any one site and a 30-night limit the existing structures are removed. for the entire summer season at all sites. Camping equipment also could not be left Utility lines could be replaced with the unattended for more than 24 hours. removal of the existing structures. Existing transmission lines also could be increased South of Stillwater use of the Hudson Is- in scale (e.g., larger towers, more cables, or lands and day use of publicly owned shore- thicker cables could be installed) or line areas would continue to be minimally relocated to new sites. regulated. Camping in the two state parks and one regional park would continue to be Submarine crossings could be expanded allowed only in designated areas. (i.e., the size and number of lines could be increased) or relocated. New submarine crossings also could be permitted. Trench- WATER SURFACE USE ing or directional drilling may be required for all new submarine crossings, depending On the water surface, increased recreation- on the resource impacts. Natural vegetation al use would be permitted along some would be maintained as much as possible stretches below Arcola, as long as the along utility line rights-of-way that cross riverway’s exceptional resource values the riverway. Clearcutting of rights-of-way were not compromised and safety hazards for pipeline inspections would be did not occur. There would be increased prohibited. opportunities for social activity (e.g., more access for motorboats) on designated parts of the river. ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE MANAGEMENT The “Alternative A: Water” map on page 87 and table 8 show the location and North of Stillwater public use of publicly distribution of water management areas. owned islands and shoreline areas gen- The largest portion of the lower riverway erally would be minimally regulated except in alternative A would be designated as for camping. Camping in the three state active social recreation (30 river miles), parks in the area would continue to be followed by quiet waters (22 miles of the allowed only in designated campgrounds. main channel and 5 miles of backwaters) On federal lands managed by the National and natural waters (22 miles of backwat- Park Service, camping would continue to ers). This management area allocation be prohibited in two areas: would allow additional recreational use (particularly social, motorized uses) below · from Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to the north limits of Stillwater, while still 1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing providing opportunities for quieter non- (the upper entrance to Close Slough) motorized uses above the Arcola sandbar. Mixed uses would occur between the · for 1,200 feet north and south of the Arcola sandbar and the north limits of Highway 243 bridge at Osceola Stillwater.

87 alternative a: water Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Taylors Falls St. Croix Falls 8

Minnesota Interstate Wisconsin Interstate State Park State Park 8 Osceola QUIET WATERS Cedar (main channel) Bend and 35 NATURAL WATERS Forest Lake (backwaters including Rice Lake) William O'Brien State Park

Marine on St. Croix

St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area 64 ACTIVE SOCIAL Somerset RECREATION 35E 35 (main channel) and 64 Federal Zone QUIET WATERS (backwaters) Stillwater State Zone 36 Bayport North Hudson Hudson St. Paul Lakeland 94 94 Lake St. Croix Beach ACTIVE SOCIAL RECREATION Afton River Falls Afton State Park

10 61 35 Miss iss ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park

Prescott

St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20015B • 5/00 Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

T ABLE 8: WATER MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN ALTERNATIVE A

Water Segment Management Area The main channel from the Taylors Falls Dam south to Arcola sandbar Quiet waters The backwaters from the Taylors Falls Dam south to the Arcola sandbar Natural waters The main channel from the Arcola sandbar to the north limits of Active social recreation Stillwater The backwaters from the Arcola sandbar to the north limits of Stillwater Quiet waters The north limits of Stillwater to the Prescott railroad bridge Active Social Recreation

Water Use Management From Taylors crease opportunities for more people to Falls to Arcola Sandbar pursue a variety of uses. Speed levels also would be permitted to increase, provided On this stretch of the riverway the main there were no safety concerns. No changes channel (22 miles) would be managed as in access to this stretch would occur. quiet waters and the backwaters (22 miles) would be managed as natural waters. Management of boating on this stretch Water Use Management From the North would continue: limited growth in use Limits of Stillwater to Prescott levels would be allowed; opportunities for All of this reach of the Lower St. Croix (25 quiet and solitude would be maintained, miles) would be an active social recreation current speed levels would be maintained, management area. Additional opportunities and access opportunities would continue. would be available for large numbers of people to engage in a variety of recrea- Water Use Management From Arcola tional uses under alternative A. To accom- Sandbar to the North Limits of modate more people, access opportunities Stillwater would be increased, such as by providing more parking spaces at existing landings, All of the main channel (5 miles) in this providing more launch ramps, or allowing stretch would be an active social recreation marinas to increase their boat slips. Speed management area and all of the backwaters levels also would be permitted to increase, 5 miles) would be in a quiet waters man- provided there were no safety concerns. agement area. Under alternative A the riverway managing agencies would in-

Three of the management actions described in the preferred alternative would also be implemented in alternative A: the navigation channel maintenance, cultural resource management, and land protection/boundary adjustments management actions are identical under both alternatives. Please refer to the preferred alternative to see these three management actions.

ALTERNATIVE B: ACCOMMODATE GROWTH BUT MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE’S VISUAL QUALITIES AND MINIMIZE RECREATIONAL USE CONFLICTS

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT the lands would be included in small town, park, river town, and small town historic Alternative B would stress maintaining the management areas, all of which reflect natural/rural/town landscape areas within current conditions along the riverway. the riverway boundary and maintaining the present diversity of water recreational New residential and commercial develop- experiences as much as possible. However, ment could be built within the munici- the overall level of recreational use would palities along the riverway, provided it was be allowed to increase along with the not visible from the river. Additional state expected population growth in the restrictions (e.g., setback and height re- riverway region. quirements) would be placed on new development to minimize the visual impact LAND USE on the landscape. In the river town and small town historic management areas new In alternative B lands within the riverway development would only be allowed if it boundary would be managed to maintain was consistent with the historic character the current landscape character. Thus, of the communities. New development also existing rural residential and natural condi- could occur in the small town management tions along the river would be maintained. areas, provided the existing large-lot, However, this alternative would not be a single-family character of the areas did not complete freeze on new development: change. There are few industrial uses more residential development could occur within the riverway; should an industrial within the riverway boundary so long as it site ever be abandoned, the most desirable was not visible from the water. future use of the riverfront portions of those properties would be public park. The allocation of land management areas in alternative B is intended to maintain Although this alternative generally would existing visual conditions along the impose more restrictions on new develop- riverway. As the “Alternatives B and C: ment than now, an exception would be Land” map on page 91 and tables 9 and 10 made for small town management areas: show, the majority of the lands along the some state land use regulations would be riverway would be designated as rural eased for small town management areas to residential (36%) and natural (38%) give local governments and landowners management areas. Rural residential areas greater flexibility. Specifically, state stand- would be scattered along the river, pri- ards regarding decks and residential addi- marily south of Marine-on-St.-Croix. Most tions would be relaxed in the small town of the natural management areas would be management areas, provided the additions north of Stillwater, but a few would be were not visible from the water. designated on the lower stretch, adjacent to state parks or nature centers. The rest of

90 alternative b and c: LAND Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota Interstate State Park St. Croix Falls SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Taylors Falls SMALL TOWN HISTORIC PARK PARK 8 Wisconsin Interstate State Park 8 NATURAL NATURAL

Osceola NATURAL / SMALL TOWN Cedar Bend Forest Lake 35 NATURAL RURAL William O'Brien RURAL State Park RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NATURAL SMALL TOWN Marine on HISTORIC St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area RURAL 64 RESIDENTIAL Somerset 35E 35

64 Federal Zone Stillwater SMALL TOWN State Zone RURAL RESIDENTIAL 36 RIVER TOWN SMALL TOWN Bayport North Hudson SMALL TOWN RURAL RESIDENTIAL Hudson RIVER TOWN St. Paul SMALL TOWN Lakeland 94 94 SMALL TOWN Lake St. Croix 61 Beach 10 RURAL SMALL TOWN HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL Afton NATURAL River Falls Afton State Park NATURAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL 35 RURAL PARK Kinnickinnic State Park RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NATURAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL Prescott RIVER TOWN 10

St. Croix River 0 4.5 9 Miles Lower St. Croix NSR North Major Highways DSC • 643 • 20018B • 5/00 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 9: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA DISTRIBUTIONS (%) UNDER ALTERNATIVE B

Management Area Minnesota (%) Wisconsin (%) Overall Riverway (%) River Town 6 4 5 Small Town Historic 6 2 4 Small Town 17 9 13 Rural Residential 36 36 36 Park 6 4 5 Natural 30 46 38 Minimally Disturbed 0 0 0 *Percentages do not necessarily add up to 100% due to rounding.

TABLE 10: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN ALTERNATIVE B

Land Segment Management Area Minnesota Taylors Falls Small town historic Interstate Park Park South end of Interstate Park to south end of McLeod’s Natural Slough South end of McLeod’s Slough to north end of William Rural residential O’Brien State Park William O’Brien State Park Natural South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern Rural residential tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Small town historic Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Rural residential Falls Addition to north limits of Stillwater North limits of Stillwater to train station Small town Train station to north limits of Bayport River town Bayport Small town South limits of Bayport to Hudson railroad bridge Rural residential Hudson railroad bridge to north end of old Afton Small town Village Old Afton Village Small town historic

92 Alternative B: Accommodate Growth but Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities

Land Segment Management Area South end of old Afton Village (north end of River Rural residential Road) to north end of Afton State Park Afton State Park Natural South end of Afton State Park to north boundary of St. Rural residential Croix Bluffs Regional Park St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Park South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north Rural residential end of Carpenter Nature Center Carpenter Nature Center Natural South end of Carpenter Nature Center to Mississippi Rural residential River Wisconsin St. Croix Falls Small town historic Interstate Park Park South end of Interstate Park to Twin Springs Natural subdivision, including the bluffs within Osceola Osceola Small town historic Osceola to Twin Springs subdivision Natural Twin Springs subdivision to south edge of St. Croix Rural residential Station subdivision in North Hudson South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in North Small town Hudson to Orange Street Orange Street to I-94 bridge River town I-94 bridge to south end of Hudson Small town South end of Hudson to north end of Kinnickinnic State Rural residential Park Kinnickinnic State Park Natural South end of Kinnickinnic State Park to north end of Rural residential Prescott North end of Prescott to Mississippi River River town

93 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

In areas outside municipalities limited new forest management plan (with department developments could be allowed in rural approval) that provided for the mainte- residential, park, and natural management nance of existing native plant communities areas, but they could not be visible from and protection of the river’s scenic quality. the river (unlike alternative A). Specif- Federal and state scenic easements would ically, limited new residential and commer- be revised on a volunteer basis with indi- cial development could occur in rural resi- vidual landowners to maintain native plant dential management areas, limited residen- communities. tial development could occur in natural management areas, and recreational Vegetation on NPS fee lands also would facilities could be built in the park and continue to be managed to perpetuate plant natural management areas. State land use communities — actions generally would regulations would be strengthened to not be taken to manipulate plant communi- ensure that the potential visual impacts of ties or interfere with native insect or dis- new developments in rural areas are ease outbreaks except to protect to life or minimized. property, convert existing tree plantations to natural communities, maintain plant community diversity, or maintain habitat VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT for threatened and endangered species.

Vegetation management in alternative B would be the same as alternative A. The RIVER CROSSINGS overall emphasis in this alternative would be on screening structures from view as Under alternative B the managing agencies seen from the river, preventing disturbance would continue to encourage safe, com- of environmentally sensitive areas, and patible, multiple uses of existing corridors maintaining the existing diversity of plant and structures that cross the riverway. As communities. As in alternative A, a variety in all of the alternatives, all proposed of actions would be taken or encouraged to changes to river crossings or corridors maintain plant communities, but no action would require site-specific environmental would be taken to alter vegetation that evaluations and approval from applicable would conflict with ensuring that develop- local and state agencies. The impacts of ments were visually screened from the each proposal would be analyzed and water — vegetative screening of develop- documented before the managing agencies ment would take priority over maintenance permit any change in a river crossing or of native plant communities. State regula- corridor. tions that restrict vegetation removal on private lands would be revised to allow Minimal changes would be permitted in maintenance of the natural diversity and the number, type, scale, or characteristics ecological integrity of the riverway’s plant of the river crossings — all roads, rail- communities. The Wisconsin Department roads, utility lines, and submarine lines of Natural Resources would pursue an would be restricted to existing corridors amendment to the state land use standards (i.e., the existing rights-of-way or the areas within the riverway (Chapter NR 118), immediately adjacent to the existing rights- which would allow landowners to write a of-way). Although road and railroad brid- 94 Alternative B: Accommodate Growth but Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities ges could be replaced within existing cor- · from the southern tip of Greenburg ridors, no change in the scale or character Island to the upper entrance to Dead of the bridges would be permitted. (Agen- Man’s Slough (opposite the city of cies proposing to replace structures on the Marine-on-St. Croix, generally) National Register of Historic Places or replace structures that are eligible for Minor restrictions would apply to camping listing would need to comply with section in other areas. However, as use levels con- 106 of the National Historic Preservation tinued to grow, additional camping restric- Act before they could remove the struc- tions would be imposed in this alternative tures.) to protect riverway resources. Specifically, at some point camping would be restricted Utility line structures could be replaced, north of Stillwater to sites designated by but no changes would be permitted in the the National Park Service. number, scale, or character of the transmission structures. Use of the Hudson Islands and publicly owned shorelines generally would be The number of lines in the existing minimally regulated in alternative B, with submarine crossings would not be a couple of exceptions. Camping would increased, with one exception: utility lines continue to be allowed only in designated might be relocated to existing submarine areas in the two state parks and one region- crossings. If a utility line was replaced by a al park in the area. Also, users would be submarine line, trenching or directional required to have portable toilets to camp on drilling might be required, depending on the islands at Hudson. the resource impacts.

WATER SURFACE USE ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Users on the river would be assured of finding opportunities to engage in a wide North of Stillwater day use would be mini- range of recreational experiences, ranging mally regulated. For the three state parks in from quiet solitude to faster or more social the area camping would be allowed only in experiences. However, as overall use levels designated campgrounds. Camping would increase, additional use management than be prohibited in three areas administered exists today would be required in order to by the National Park Service: minimize the potential for conflicts between incompatible uses while maintaining · from Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to the diversity of recreational experiences. 1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing (the upper entrance to Close Slough) The strategy of alternative B would be to permit overall recreational use levels to · 1,200 feet north and south of the increase on the lower riverway. However, Highway 243 bridge at Osceola growth would be limited in some areas and some recreational uses might be separated from other uses in space and/or time south

95 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES of the north limits of Stillwater to resolve aged as quiet waters, and all of the back- user conflicts or safety concerns. waters would be managed as natural waters. This would help ensure that Specifically, certain parts of the river could existing recreational activities did not be set aside for compatible water uses. For significantly change. There would be no instance, some segments of the river might changes from existing conditions with be designated for canoeing and fishing, regard to management of boating on this while other segments might be set aside for stretch: Limited increases in use levels faster recreational uses such as personal would be allowed to continue, existing watercraft and waterskiing. Other areas opportunities for quiet and solitude would might be designated as anchorages. There be maintained, current speed levels would also could be speed limits and slow no- be maintained, and no changes would wake zones at different times and/or days occur in access opportunities. to accommodate more boaters in safe and enjoyable conditions. In all cases, a safe boating channel would be designated for through-traffic along the entire river. Water Use Management From Arcola Sandbar to the North Limits of The “Alternative B: Water” map on page Stillwater 97 and table 11 show the location and distribution of water management areas. The riverway managing agencies would The largest portion of the lower riverway maintain existing recreational opportunities in alternative B would be designated as on this stretch. All of the main channel (5 quiet waters (22 miles of the main channel) miles) would be a moderate recreation and natural waters (22 miles of back- management area, while all of the backwaters), followed by active social waters would be managed as natural recreation waters (13.5 river miles) and waters. The moderate recreation manage- moderate recreation waters (11.5 river ment designation would provide for mod- miles). The management area allocation is erate numbers of users and a variety of intended to allow an increase in recrea- boat types, primarily powerboats, traveling tional use (particularly fast motorized uses) at slower speeds. As boating levels between the north limits of Stillwater and increased, additional speed regulations Afton, an increase in slower uses below might be imposed to ensure user safety or Afton, and limited growth in quiet, largely reduce conflicts. Access to this stretch nonmotorized uses, above Arcola. would not change.

Water Use Management From Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar

On this stretch of the riverway all of the main channel (22 miles) would be man-

96 alternative b: water Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Taylors Falls St. Croix Falls 8 Wisconsin Interstate State Park Minnesota Interstate State Park 8 Osceola Cedar QUIET WATERS Bend (main channel) Forest Lake and 35 NATURAL WATERS (backwaters) William O'Brien State Park

Marine on St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area

35E35 64 Somerset MODERATE 35 RECREATION Federal Zone Stillwater State Zone 36 Bayport North Hudson Hudson ACTIVE SOCIAL St. Paul Lakeland RECREATION 94 94 Lake St. Croix Beach

Afton River Falls Afton State Park

10 61 35 MODERATE Miss RECREATION iss ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park

Prescott 10

St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20017A • 5/00 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Table 11: Water Management Area Boundaries in Alternative B

Water Segment Management Area The main channel from the Taylors Falls Dam south to the Arcola Quiet waters sandbar The backwaters from the Taylors Falls Dam south to the Arcola Natural waters Sandbar, including Peaslee Lake, the slough between Osceola and Cedar Bend, and from the north end of McLeod Slough to the Arcola sandbar via Dead Man’s Slough The Arcola sandbar to the head of Lake St. Croix Moderate recreation

The head of Lake St. Croix to Catfish Bar Active social recreation

Catfish Bar to the Prescott railroad bridge Moderate recreation

Water Use Management From the North stretch. Increased use levels would be per- Limits of Stillwater to Prescott mitted, but powerboats would be encouraged to travel at slower speeds. If boating Under alternative B the portion of the riv- levels continue to increase, the managing erway between the north limits of Still- agencies might impose additional speed water and Afton would be managed differ- regulations to address conflicts or safety ently from the portion between and Afton concerns. and Prescott. The 13.5-mile stretch between the north limits of Stillwater and Under alternative B the managing agencies Afton, accounting for 54% of the overall would segregate uses either spatially or reach, would be designated as an active temporally if user conflicts or safety prob- social recreation management area. More lems occurred between the north limits of users would be permitted to use power- Stillwater and Prescott. For example, the boats and pursue a variety of recreational managing agencies would consider permit- uses (particularly powerboat use) com- ting only waterskiing in North Hudson pared to the present, although no changes Bay. Another example of segregating uses would be made in existing access points. would be permitting sailing only on Satur- Speed levels also would be permitted to days, Sundays, and holidays on the eastern increase, provided there are no safety two-thirds of Lake St. Croix, between concerns. Interstate 94 and St. Croix Cove, providing that boats moored on the eastern shore The 11.5-mile stretch between Afton and travel to and from the western third by the Prescott (46% of the overall reach) would most direct route. A third possible example be designated as a moderate recreation would be designating anchorage areas, management area. This management area with no-wake speed restrictions, just north would provide for a moderate number of of Point Douglas County Park near the people to pursue a variety of uses, primar- Minnesota shore and just south of ily powerboat uses. No changes would Kinnickinnic State Park near the occur to the existing access points on this Wisconsin shore.

98 Alternative B: Accommodate Growth but Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities

Three of the management actions described in the preferred alternative would also be implemented in alternative B: the navigation channel maintenance, cultural resource management, and land protection/boundary adjustments management actions are identical under both alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE C: MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE’S VISUAL QUALITIES AND EXISTING RECREATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT and residential additions would be relaxed in the small town management areas, Alternative C would achieve the same provided the additions were not visible conditions in the riverway as described from the water. There are few industrial under alternative B: as much as possible, uses within the riverway; should an indus- the views of the lands within the riverway trial site ever be abandoned, the most de- boundary and the diversity of river recrea- sirable future use of the riverfront portions tional experiences would be kept the same. of those properties would be public park. The only major difference between the two alternatives would be in the strategy used In areas outside municipalities, limited to maintain the existing diversity of recrea- new developments could be allowed in tional experiences: alternative C would rural residential, park, and natural manage- freeze the growth of recreational use. ment areas, but they could not be visible from the river. Specifically, limited new residential and commercial development LAND USE could occur in rural residential management areas, limited new residential devel- Like alternative B, lands within the river- opment could occur in natural management way boundary would be managed to main- areas, and recreational facilities could be tain the visual quality as seen from the built in the park and natural management water. The management area allocation in areas. alternative C would be identical to alternative B (see the “Alternative B and C: Land” map on page 91 and tables 9 and 10 VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT on page 92 in the previous section). The majority of lands along the riverway would Vegetative management in alternative C be designated as rural residential and nat- would be the same as described in alterna- ural management areas. Limited new resi- tive B. The overall emphasis in this alter- dential and commercial development could native would be on screening structures occur within the municipalities along the from view as seen from the river, prevent- riverway, provided it is not visible from the ing disturbance of environmentally sensi- river. In addition, in the river town and tive areas, and maintaining the diversity of small town historic management areas new plant communities. A variety of actions development could be allowed if it is con- would be taken or encouraged on riverway sistent with the historic character of the lands to maintain native plant communi- communities. New development also could ties, but no action would be taken to alter occur in the small town management areas, vegetation that would conflict with en- provided the existing large-lot, single- suring that developments were visually family character of the areas do not change. screened from the water — vegetative To provide local governments with more screening of development would take flexibility, state standards regarding decks priority over maintenance of native plant

100 Alternative C: Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities and Existing Recreational Characteristics communities. State regulations that restrict head utility lines could be relocated to vegetation removal on private lands would existing submarine crossings. be revised to allow maintenance of the natural diversity and ecological integrity of the riverway’s plant communities. The ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- MANAGEMENT sources would pursue an amendment to the state land use standards within the river- The riverway managing agencies would way (Chapter NR 118). ). Under the pro- employ several strategies to prevent a posed amendment, landowners could growth in use of publicly owned islands develop a forest management plan with and shorelines and to prevent additional department approval that would protect the resource impacts along the riverway. As in scenic quality of the river, prevent dis- the other alternatives, north of Stillwater turbance of environmentally sensitive areas day use would be minimally regulated. For such as steep slopes or riverfront bluffs, the three state parks in the area camping and would allow vegetation to be managed would be allowed only in designated in a manner that would maintain signifi- campgrounds. Camping would continue to cant plant communities. Federal and state be prohibited in the same three areas that scenic easements would be revised on a were described in alternative B. In alterna- volunteer basis with individual landowners tive C, the National Park Service would to maintain plant communities. implement camping permit and reservation systems: users would need reservations and Veg etation on National Park Service fee permits to camp on all NPS administered lands also would continue to be managed lands on the lower riverway. North of Still- to perpetuate native plant communities. water camping would be restricted to sites designated by the National Park Service.

RIVER CROSSINGS South of Stillwater day use of the Hudson Islands and publicly owned shorelines Management of river crossings would be generally would continue to be minimally the same as described under alternative B. regulated. Camping would continue to be Minimal changes would be permitted in allowed only in designated areas in the two the number, type, scale, or characteristics state parks and one regional park. Also, of the river crossings. Although road and users would be required to have portable railroad bridges could be replaced within toilets to camp on the islands at Hudson. existing corridors, no change in the scale or character of the bridges would be permitted. Existing utility line structures could be WATER SURFACE USE replaced with the removal of the existing structure in this alternative, but no changes Alternative C, like alternative B, would would be permitted in the number, scale, or strive to maintain the existing diversity of character of the transmission structures. No river recreational experiences and mini- increase in the size or number of lines in mize the potential for conflicts between the existing submarine crossings would incompatible uses. To achieve this desired occur with one exception: existing over- condition, recreational use levels would be 101 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES frozen. In other words, an increase in water Water Use Management From Taylors surface recreational use over 1997 levels or Falls to Arcola Sandbar a change in the mix and pattern of uses would not be permitted. To freeze recrea- The main channel (22 miles) from Taylors tional growth would require more manage- Falls to Arcola sandbar would be managed ment, monitoring, regulations, and enforce- as quiet waters, and the backwaters would ment than presently exist. The alternative be managed as natural waters, which would largely rely on tightly regulating all would help ensure that recreational activi- access points to the river (including limit- ties did not significantly change. Boat man- ing access to the Mississippi River within agement would continue: increases in use boater commuting range of the St. Croix) levels would be discouraged, opportunities and banning new access points to prevent for quiet and solitude and speed levels future growth. Access points would be would be maintained, and access oppor- closely monitored and closed when their tunities would remain the same. predetermined capacities were reached. Other actions that would be taken to discourage growth include prohibiting new Water Use Management From Arcola ramps of any kind, prohibiting the expan- Sandbar to the North Limits of sion or construction of marinas, promulgat- Stillwater ing more surface use regulations (e.g., designating more slow no-wake zones), The riverway managing agencies would and aggressive enforcement of riparian maintain existing recreational opportunities owner access limits. on this stretch. The main channel (5 river miles) would be a moderate recreation The “Alternative C: Water” map on page management area, while the backwaters 103 and table 12 show the location and would be managed as natural waters. The distribution of water management areas. In moderate recreation management designa- alternative C the active social recreation tion would provide for moderate numbers management area would cover the largest of users and a variety of boat types, pri- portion of the lower riverway (25 river marily powerboats, traveling at slower miles), followed by natural waters (22 speeds. Additional speed regulations might miles) and quiet waters (22 miles); 5 miles be imposed to ensure user safety or reduce of the lower riverway would be designated conflicts. No changes in access to this as a moderate recreation area. The man- stretch would occur. agement area distribution above the north limits of Stillwater would be identical to Water Use Management From the North alternative B. However, from the north Limits of Stillwater to Prescott limits of Stillwater to Prescott, alternative C differs from B in that all of the riverway This stretch would be designated an active would be designated as an active social social recreation management area. Users recreation management area, which reflects would continue to use powerboats and pur- how this part of the riverway is now sue a variety of recreational uses (particu- managed. larly powerboat use). Existing use levels and speed levels would be maintained, and access points would remain the same. 102 alternative c: water Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Taylors Falls St. Croix Falls 8 Wisconsin Interstate State Park Minnesota Interstate State Park 8 Osceola Cedar Bend QUIET WATERS Forest Lake 35 (main channel) and William O'Brien NATURAL WATERS State Park (backwaters)

Marine on St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area

64 64 35E Somerset MODERATE RECREATION 35 Federal Zone Stillwater State Zone 36 Bayport North Hudson Hudson St. Paul Lakeland 94 94 Lake St. Croix Beach ACTIVE SOCIAL Afton RECREATION River Falls Afton State Park

10 61 35 Miss iss ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park

Prescott 10 St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20019A • 5/00 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

TABLE 12: WATER MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN ALTERNATIVE C

Area Classification Backwaters from the Taylors Falls Dam to the Arcola sandbar Natural waters Taylors Falls Dam to the Arcola sandbar Quiet waters The Arcola Sandbar to the head of Lake St. Croix Moderate recreation The head of Lake St. Croix to Prescott Active social recreation

Three of the management actions described in the preferred alternative would also be implemented in alternative C: the navigation channel maintenance, cultural resource management, and land protection /boundary adjustments management actions are identical under both alternatives

104

ALTERNATIVE D: EMPHASIZE RESOURCE PROTECTION AND REDUCE RECREATIONAL USE

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT provided it was not visible from the river. Additional state and local restrictions As the region surrounding the St. Croix would be placed on new development to valley continued to urbanize and grow in minimize the visual impact on the land- population, people would have less oppor- scape. In the river town and small town tunity to experience nature, quiet, and soli- historic management areas, new develop- tude. In alternative D the lower riverway ment would only be allowed if it was con- would be managed to promote and restore sistent with the historic character of the the natural qualities of the riverway. The communities. In small town management predominance of natural features over areas new development would be permitted modern developments would increase only if it was consistent with the large-lot, within the riverway boundary. Natural single-family character of the areas. Unlike landscapes would be restored where feasi- alternatives A and B, there would be no re- ble. More emphasis would be placed on laxation of standards for such features as promoting user experiences that are decks and residential additions. If indus- quieter, slower, and less intrusive and trial uses were to be discontinued, local disturbing to others. governments would be encouraged to redevelop the areas as parklands.

LAND USE In areas outside municipalities a strong emphasis would be on resource protection to Alternative D would place more emphasis increase the predominance of the river- on resource protection than the previous way’s natural/rural features over modern alternatives. Thus, fewer areas would be development. Limited new developments available for new residential or commercial could be allowed in rural residential, park, development than the other alternatives. As and natural management areas, but they shown on the “Alternative D: Land” map could not be visible from the river. Some on page 106 and tables 13 and 14, the new residential and commercial develop- majority of the land in the riverway would ment could be built in rural residential be included in natural (22%) and mini- management areas, and some recreational mally disturbed (32%) management areas. facilities could be built in the park and Rural residential management areas would natural management areas. State land use account for 21% of the land in the bound- regulations would be strengthened to re- ary and would be scattered throughout the duce the potential visual impacts of new riverway. The remaining lands would be developments in areas outside towns. Nat- included in small town, park, river town, ural landscapes would be restored where and small town historic management areas, feasible. Throughout the riverway, no new most of which would cover small areas construction or expansion of existing struc- south of Stillwater’s northern boundary. tures would be permitted unless topog- New development would be built within raphy (not vegetation) made it impossible the municipalities along the riverway, to see from the river. 105 alternative d: LAND Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota Interstate State Park Taylors Falls St. Croix Falls SMALL HISTORIC TOWN 8 SMALL TOWN HISTORIC PARK Wisconsin Interstate PARK State Park MINIMALLY 8 DISTURBED MINIMALLY DISTURBED Osceola NATURAL / SMALL TOWN Cedar Bend Forest Lake 35 RURAL RURAL William O'Brien RESIDENTIAL State Park RESIDENTIAL MINIMALLY NATURAL DISTURBED SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Marine on St. Croix St. Croix Islands RURAL Wildlife Area RESIDENTIAL 64 35 35E35 Somerset 64 NATURAL SMALL TOWN Federal Zone Stillwater State Zone NATURAL RIVER TOWN NATURAL 36 SMALL TOWN Bayport NATURAL North Hudson SMALL TOWN Hudson RIVER TOWN St. Paul SMALL TOWN Lakeland 94 94 SMALL TOWN 61 Lake St. Croix Beach RURAL 10 RESIDENTIAL

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC Afton RURAL RESIDENTIAL River Falls Afton State Park NATURAL NATURAL 35 Miss iss ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park RURAL RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL NATURAL Prescott RURAL RESIDENTIAL RIVER TOWN 10

St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20021A • 5/00 Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use

TABLE 13: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA DISTRIBUTION (%) UNDER ALTERNATIVE D.*

Management Area Minnesota (%) Wisconsin (%) Overall Riverway (%) River Town 6 4 5 Small Town Historic 6 2 4 Small Town 16 9 12 Rural Residential 23 19 21 Park 4 4 4 Natural 25 20 22 Minimally Disturbed 20 43 32 *Percentages do not necessarily add up to 100% due to rounding.

T ABLE 14: LAND MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN ALTERNATIVE D

Land Segment Management Area Minnesota Taylors Falls Small town historic Interstate Park Park South end of Interstate Park to south end of McLeod’s Minimally disturbed Slough South end of McLeod’s Slough to north end of William Rural residential O’Brien State Park William O’Brien State Park Natural South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern Rural residential tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Small town historic Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Rural residential Falls Addition to High Bridge High Bridge to north limits of Stillwater Natural North limits of Stillwater to south end of Dutch Town Small town South end of Dutch Town to train station Natural Train station to north limits of Bayport River town Bayport Small town South limits of Bayport to Hudson railroad bridge Natural Hudson railroad bridge to north end of old Afton Small town Village

107 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Land Segment Management Area Old Afton Village Small town historic South end of old Afton Village (north end of River Rural residential Road) to north end of Afton State Park North end of Afton State Park to south end of St. Croix Natural Bluffs Regional Park South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north Rural residential end of Carpenter Nature Center Carpenter Nature Center Natural South end of Carpenter Nature Center to Mississippi Rural residential River Wisconsin St. Croix Falls Small town historic Interstate Park Park South end of Interstate Park to Twin Springs Minimally disturbed subdivision, excluding Osceola Bluffs within Osceola Natural Osceola Small town Twin Springs subdivision to south edge of St. Croix Natural Station subdivision in North Hudson South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in North Small town Hudson to Orange Street Orange Street to I-94 bridge River town I-94 bridge to south end of Hudson Small town South end of Hudson to Black Bass Bar Rural residential Black Bass Bar to south end of Kinnickinnic State Park Natural South end of Kinnickinnic State Park to north end of Rural residential Prescott North end of Prescott to Mississippi River River town

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT A secondary goal would be to encourage and promote vegetative management The primary goals for vegetative manage- actions that would maintain and restore ment would be to screen structures from historically and ecologically significant view as seen from the river and prevent plant communities and enhance diversity. disturbance of environmentally sensitive Successional climax forest and presettle- areas such as steep slopes or riverfront ment disturbed oak savanna would be the bluffs. preferred forest ecotype examples of significant plant communities. However, 108 Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use throughout the lower riverway, vegetative carried out in a manner designed to restore screening of existing structures and or enhance the functioning of the plant and potential development sites would take animal community of which the endan- priority over restoration and maintenance gered species is a natural part. of significant plant communities. On private lands voluntary efforts would This alternative would place emphasis on also be encouraged to maintain and restore voluntary actions, coupled with education preferred forest cover so long as these and stewardship, to preserve and restore efforts do not conflict with maintaining plant communities. Removal of exotic visual screening of existing structures and species would be encouraged on all lands potential development sites. State regula- within the riverway. Control of insects and tions that restrict vegetation management disease would be recommended if there on private lands would be revised to allow would be a high likelihood that outbreak maintenance and restoration of the natural would threaten large areas of vegetative diversity and ecological integrity of cover within the lower riverway or threaten significant plant communities. A variety of to infest adjacent lands. In addition, prun- management techniques, such as planting, ing or removal of hazard trees would con- seeding, pruning, thinning, harvesting, tinue to be allowed. Hazard trees would be prescribed burning, and clearing, would be trees that exhibit damage resulting from allowed and encouraged on private lands in insect, disease, age, or storm, and, if they both states to accomplish this goal. Federal were to fall, would be a safety risk to and state scenic easements would be re- people or property. Pruning of normal tree vised on a volunteer basis with individual growth to prevent property damage would landowners to allow these management also be allowed. techniques.

On local government lands voluntary ef- A specific action that would be taken to forts would be encouraged to maintain and encourage significant plant communities restore preferred forest cover. On state and concerns lands enrolled under forest tax federal lands the managing agencies would law programs on the Wisconsin side of the maintain and restore preferred forest types. riverway. (Minnesota does not have an Vegetation on NPS fee lands would equivalent law regarding forest manage- continue to be managed in accordance with ment but this action.) The Wisconsin NPS policies to perpetuate native plant Department of Natural Resources would communities. Plant succession would pursue an amendment to the state land use generally not be interfered with except to standards within the riverway (Chapter NR protect life or property, convert existing 118). Under the proposed amendment, tree plantations to nonmonocultures or landowners could develop a forest manage- mixed species communities, maintain ment plan with department approval that native plant community diversity (e.g., would protect the scenic quality of the prevent loss of prairie and oak savanna), river, prevent disturbance of environment- and maintain habitat for threatened and ally sensitive areas such as steep slopes or endangered species. Manipulation of plant riverfront bluffs, and would allow vegeta- communities to maintain threatened and tion to be managed in a manner that would endangered species habitat would be maintain significant plant communities.

109 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

RIVER CROSSINGS number of lines in a submarine corridor might be permitted if this action would As in the other alternatives, the managing result in the replacement of a utility line. If agencies would continue to encourage safe, a utility line is replaced by a submarine compatible, multiple uses of existing corri- line, trenching or directional drilling might dors and structures that cross the riverway. be required, depending on the resource Similarly, all proposed changes to river impacts. crossings or corridors would require site- specific environmental evaluations and ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE approval of applicable local and state MANAGEMENT agencies. The impacts of each proposal would be analyzed and documented before In alternative D the riverway managing the managing agencies permitted any agencies would employ several strategies change in a river crossing or corridor. to prevent additional resource impacts to publicly owned islands and shorelines In alternative D the managing agencies along the riverway. As in the other alterna- would strive to reduce the visual impact of tives, north of Stillwater day use would be structures that cross the riverway. Road, minimally regulated. For the three state railroad bridges, utility lines, and subma- parks in the area, camping would be al- rine lines would be restricted to corridors lowed only in designated campgrounds. (i.e., the rights-of-way or the areas immedi- Camping would continue to be prohibited ately adjacent to the rights-of-way). Al- in the same three areas as described in though road and railroad bridges could be alternatives B and C. The National Park replaced within corridors, no change in the Service also would limit camping to a few scale or character of the bridges would be designated sites. Users would need reser- permitted. (Agencies proposing to replace vations and permits to camp at these sites. structures on the National Register of Historic Places or replace structures that South of Stillwater day use of the Hudson are eligible for listing would need to Islands and publicly owned shorelines comply with section 106 of the National would continue to be minimally regulated. Historic Preservation Act before they could Camping would continue to be allowed remove the structures.) only in designated areas in the two state parks and one regional park in the area. The managing agencies would also encour- Camping on the islands at Hudson would age a reduction in utility lines. The utility be limited to just a few watercraft. In addi- lines could be reduced by consolidating tion, users would be required to have port- them onto existing bridges and towers, by able toilets to camp on the islands. consolidating them onto new structures in existing corridors (assuming this would eliminate several existing structures), or by WATER SURFACE USE converting them to submarine lines. Recreational uses would not change. River As noted above, new corridors for subma- users would continue to find opportunities rine lines under the river would not be per- for a variety of recreational experiences. mitted. However, an increase in the size or However, more opportunities would be 110 Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use available for users to find quieter, slower, The largest portion of the lower riverway peaceful recreational experiences in desig- would be designated as a moderate recrea- nated areas than currently exist. This alter- tion management area (25 miles), and as native would encourage users to slow natural waters (22 miles of backwaters and down and appreciate the river’s stories and 10 miles of the main channel). Quiet water the natural and historical qualities that management areas would cover 17 miles make the riverway a special place. In other (12 miles of the main channel and 5 miles words, alternative D calls for increased use of backwaters). No active social recreation management in order to increase oppor- management areas would be designated, tunities for quiet and solitude, to address eliminating all fast boating and water- potential user conflicts, and to increase skiing. users’ appreciation of the riverway.

Increased management of use would occur Water Use Management From Taylors under this alternative to reduce overall use Falls to Arcola Sandbar levels and the density of recreational use on the river and to reduce speed levels. On this stretch of the riverway 12 miles of North of the head of Lake St. Croix, use the main channel would be managed as levels and densities would be reduced to quiet waters (55% of the entire reach) and provide more opportunities for solitude. 10 miles would be managed as natural South of the head of Lake St. Croix, use waters (45% of the reach). Backwaters (22 levels would be decreased to improve miles) would be managed as natural wat- users’ experiences by reducing congestion, ers. This allocation of management areas noise, and conflicts. Lower speeds would would help ensure that recreational activi- be encouraged to help increase users’ ap- ties did not significantly change. To in- preciation of the environment and to re- crease opportunities for quiet and solitude, duce conflicts. use levels would be decreased and access opportunities would be reduced. Reducing overall use levels would be accomplished by closing some of the existing publicly owned water access points and by Water Use Management From Arcola acquiring and closing some of the existing Sandbar to the North Limits of privately owned marinas. New access de- Stillwater velopment would be prohibited. Remain- ing accesses would be closely monitored All of the main channel and backwaters be- and closed when their predetermined ca- tween Arcola and the north limits of Still- pacities were reached (including limiting water (5 river miles) would be a quiet access to the Mississippi River within waters management area. Both motorized boater commuter range of the St. Croix). and nonmotorized boats would continue to There would also be aggressive enforce- be able to use this area. However, alterna- ment of riparian owner access limits. tive D would provide for increased opportunities for quieter, slower boating activi- The “Alternative D: Water” map on page ties than now. To achieve this, use and 113 and table 15 show the location and speed levels would be reduced. No changes distribution of water management areas. in access points would be permitted.

111 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Water Use Management From the North people to pursue a variety of uses, primar- Limits of Stillwater to Prescott ily powerboat uses. However, to improve the user experience and resolve conflicts, All of this stretch (25 river miles) would be management actions would be taken to designated as a moderate recreation man- decrease use levels, reduce speed levels, agement area. This management area and decrease existing access opportunities. would provide for a moderate number of

T ABLE 15: WATER MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARIES IN ALTERNATIVE D

Area Classification Taylors Falls Dam south to Rock Island Quiet waters The main channel and backwaters from Rock Island to the south end of McLeod Natural waters Slough The main channel from the south end of McLeod Slough to the Arcola sandbar Quiet waters The backwaters from the south end of McLeod Slough to the Arcola sandbar Natural waters The Arcola sandbar to the north limits of Stillwater Quiet waters The north limits of Stillwater to the Mississippi River Moderate recreation

Three of the management actions described in the preferred alternative would also be implemented in alternative D: the navigation channel maintenance, cultural resource management, and land protection /boundary adjustments management actions are identical under both alternatives.

112 alternative d: water Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota Interstate State Park St. Croix Falls Taylors Falls 8 QUIET Wisconsin Interstate State Park WATERS

8 Osceola NATURAL Cedar WATERS Bend Forest Lake 35

William O'Brien State Park QUIET WATERS (main channel) Marine on and St. Croix NATURAL WATERS (backwaters)

St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area 64 35 35E35 Somerset QUIET 64 WATERS Federal Zone Stillwater State Zone 36 Bayport North Hudson Hudson St. Paul Lakeland 94 94 Lake St. Croix Beach MODERATE RECREATION Afton River Falls Afton State Park

10 61 35 Miss iss ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park

Prescott

10 St. Croix River Lower St. Croix NSR 0 4.5 9 Miles Major Highways North DSC • 643 • 20020A • 5/00

ALTERNATIVE E: NO ACTION

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT is 32% and 16% respectively; the unincorporated areas make up 68% and 84% This alternative is included to satisfy the respectively. Under this alternative 24% of requirements of the National Environ- the land along the lower riverway would be mental Policy Act, and it provides a base- maintained as incorporated areas and 76% line for comparing the other alternatives. In would be maintained as unincorporated alternative E the managing agencies would areas. In incorporated areas local and state continue to manage the lower riverway as zoning standards would continue to they have in the past. The agencies would determine what uses would be permitted. continue to follow the guidance and man- New residential and commercial devel- agement directions in the 1976 Master opment could be built in communities as Plan (with some changes based on current long as the development met state and management practices) and the current local standards designed to limit visual Lower St. Croix Management Commis- impacts. Tight controls would continue on sion’s policy resolution. Management certain development characteristics, such would focus on maintaining existing land as development density and height and use and recreational use patterns — no color of structures. Lot sizes would not be changes would occur in the permitted uses restricted, but limits on decks and addi- of the lower riverway, and no new tions to existing residences would con- management actions would be taken to tinue. No special actions would be taken to limit or restrict existing uses unless there maintain the historic character of riverway were safety concerns or users were communities. adversely affecting the lower riverway’s exceptional resources. The managing In areas outside municipalities no changes agencies would react to recreational use as would be made to state land use regula- they have in the past and to issues and tions. Limited new development would trends that were not addressed in the continue to be allowed, some of which may Master Plan. Riverway management be visible from the river. would continue to rely on the policy resolution and potential amendments to address new issues that arose. VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

This alternative would emphasize mini- LAND USE mizing the visibility of development from the river. Maintenance of the natural abun- The managing agencies would continue to dance, diversity, and ecological integrity of manage land use along the lower riverway the riverway’s plant communities would as they have in the past. Emphasis would continue to be limited by state regulations continue to be placed on maintaining long that restrict vegetation removal on private stretches of the lower riverway’s natural lands. Plant communities would not be and rural landscape. The makeup of incor- afforded any special protection under porated areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin alternative E — limited management ac-

114 Alternative E: No Action tions would be taken to restore or maintain NPS policies to perpetuate native plant historically and ecologically significant communities. Plant succession and native plant communities, such as prairie and oak insect or disease outbreaks would generally savanna on private lands. A vegetation not be interfered with except to protect life control zone would continue to be in effect or property, convert existing tree planta- along the lower riverway. In this area, tions to nonmonocultures or mixed species which is larger in unincorporated areas communities, maintain native plant than in incorporated areas, large trees community diversity (e.g., prevent loss of generally could not be cut. (However, prairie and oak savanna), and maintain small trees and shrubs can be removed habitat for threatened and endangered from this area.) species. Maintenance of native plant communities would be pursued where it Vegetative management by private land- did not conflict with maintaining visual owners in both states would continue to be screening for development. Manipulation limited to the removal of disease or insect of plant communities to maintain threat- infested trees, removal of hazardous trees, ened and endangered species habitat would pruning of trees, and cutting of understory be carried out in a manner designed to vegetation. Plant succession and restric- restore or enhance the functioning of the tions on vegetation removal would contin- plant and animal community of which the ue to favor perpetuation and expansion of endangered species is a natural part. closed canopy forest communities.

One action that could be taken to protect RIVER CROSSINGS the scenic quality of the river would concern lands enrolled under the managed In this alternative there would be no forest law on the Wisconsin side of the changes in the number and type of river riverway. Current state land use standards crossings. No increases in road and rail- (Chapter NR 118) do not provide for the road bridges, transmission lines, and removal of vegetation in the riverway to submarine corridors, would be permitted. protect scenic quality. The Wisconsin Although road and railroad bridges would Department of Natural Resources has be restricted to existing corridors (i.e., the proposed that this oversight be corrected. existing rights-of-way or the areas immedi- Thus, under alternative E the Wisconsin ately adjacent to the existing rights-of- Department of Natural Resources would way), the scale and character of these pursue an amendment to the state land use bridges could be changed. For example, standards within the riverway. Specifically, bridges could be widened to allow in- under the proposed amendment, landown- creased capacity with more lanes. Utility ers could develop a forest management lines might be replaced or relocated, but no plan, with department approval, that would change in the number, scale, or character of allow vegetation to be removed in a man- overhead river crossings would be permit- ner that would protect the scenic quality of ted. Although no new submarine corridors the river. would be permitted, the size and number of lines within existing corridors could be Vegetation on NPS fee lands would con- increased. Trenching or directional drilling tinue to be managed in accordance with

115 LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES could be required to install new submarine WATER SURFACE USE lines, depending on the resource impacts. Under alternative E river users would continue to find opportunities for a variety ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE of recreational experiences. No new man- MANAGEMENT agement areas would be implemented and no changes would occur in the permitted North of Stillwater, recreational use of uses of or access to the lower riverway. No publicly owned islands and shoreline areas new management actions would be taken would continue. Three state parks in this to limit or restrict the type of existing uses area would allow camping only in desig- or user numbers, unless there were safety nated campgrounds. The National Park issues or users were adversely affecting the Service would continue to prohibit camping lower riverway’s exceptional resources. in three areas under its management: The overall number of access points would not change. · Camping would be prohibited on federal land from Taylors Falls / St. Croix Falls New user facilities would not be built, with to 1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing the exception of developments already (the upper entrance to Close Slough) planned (e.g., developing the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources public · Camping would be prohibited on federal access at the Allen S. King plant). Other land for 1,200 feet north and south of existing user facilities, including camp- the Highway 243 bridge at Osceola sites, trails, and interpretive facilities, also generally would not change. The emphasis · Camping would be prohibited on federal would be on maintaining existing facilities. land from the southern tip of Greenburg Island to the upper entrance to Dead Man’s Slough (opposite the city of Water Use Management From Taylors Marine-on-St. Croix, generally) Falls to Arcola Sanbar

Camping would be allowed in other areas The managing agencies would maintain under NPS jurisdiction, subject to a 7-night existing opportunities for quiet and soli- limit at any one site and a 30-night limit for tude on this stretch of the lower riverway. the entire summer season at all sites. Camp- This condition might require the agencies ing equipment could not be left unattended to limit growth in user numbers here. No for more than 24 hours at any site. changes would be made to boat speed limits or to the number of access points South of Stillwater use of the Hudson along this stretch. Islands and day use of publicly owned shoreline areas would continue to be minimally regulated. Camping in the two state parks and one regional park in the area would continue to be allowed only in designated areas.

116 Alternative E: No Action

Water Use Management From Arcola ramps and on new nonpublic launching Sandbar to the North Limits of ramps would continue. Stillwater

Existing opportunities for recreational NAVIGATION CHANNEL uses, primarily powerboat recreation, MAINTENANCE would be maintained as they are now on this stretch. If boating levels increased No changes would be proposed for the 3- additional speed regulations might be foot navigation channel between the imposed to ensure user safety. Taylors Falls dam and the Arcola sandbar or the 9-foot navigation channel from Stillwater to Prescott in alternative E. The Water Use Management From the North 3-foot channel from the Arcola sandbar Limits of Stillwater to Prescott down to river mile 24.5 at Stillwater would continue to be authorized for navigation Existing opportunities would be main- and could be maintained if the U.S. Army tained for large numbers of people to Corps of Engineers decided it was neces- recreate on this stretch, primarily sary. The 9-foot navigation channel from powerboat users. If boating levels Stillwater to Prescott would continue to be increased additional speed regulations maintained at its current width by the might be imposed to ensure user safety. Corps. Dredged material would continue to Except for the planned access at the Allen be placed where it could be reused for S. King plan, no changes would occur in beneficial purposes while minimizing access opportunities to this stretch. impacts to aquatic resources. Any watercraft entering the riverway to conduct dredging activities would be checked and USER CARRYING CAPACITY cleaned if necessary in a manner consistent with the zebra mussel prevention plan. No new special actions would be taken under this alternative to address the lower riverway’s carrying capacity. Use would be CULTURAL RESOURCE allowed to continue to increase in the MANAGEMENT lower riverway unless one of the conditions noted above were met. The existing The managing agencies would continue to Lower St. Croix Management Commission exercise their responsibility to inventory policy that prohibits new marinas and and evaluate historic buildings, structures, expansion of existing marinas in the lower landscapes, and archeological, ethnograph- riverway would continue. The existing ic, and cultural sites in zones administered policy also would continue that limits new by them. In the federally administered public access sites to no more than 100 zone, the National Park Service would car/trailer units, provided they met the continue to conduct archeological surveys needs of small watercraft and were located in conjunction with projects involving in noncongested use areas. In addition, the ground disturbing activities, update the List current prohibitions on expanding the of Classified Structures inventory for parking capacity of nonpublic launch federally owned properties, and complete a 117 LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES cultural landscape inventory. In addition, in the federally administered zone; the National Park Service would prepare a therefore, there would be no major changes historic resource study and an ethnographic in the status of lands from Taylors Falls to overview and assessment, which would Stillwater. provide contexts and baseline information for resources in the federal and state Land protection throughout the lower administered zones of the lower riverway. riverway would continue to rely on special This information would assist planners and riverway zoning regulations, which have resource managers in understanding the been adopted and administered by local lower riverway’s cultural resources, governments based on standards estab- determining appropriate treatments, and lished by the states. The states would con- establishing priorities for implementing tinue to provide oversight on local deci- treatments. sions to ensure consistent administration of the rules. State land use rules could be NPS planners and resource specialists amended under this alternative for several would work closely with the state historic reasons, such as to make the Minnesota preservation offices of Minnesota and and Wisconsin rules more alike, to make Wisconsin, American Indian interests, and the rules consistent with new policy resolu- private property owners where appropriate tions of the Lower St. Croix Management in developing protection and treatment Commission, and to reflect any changes in strategies and priorities for all historic eligibility for the Wisconsin forest man- properties along the riverway. agement tax program.

Some limited protection in the state- LAND PROTECTION /BOUNDARY administered zone (south of Stillwater) ADJUSTMENTS would continue to be provided by scenic easements acquired by the states. No new Land protection within the federally scenic easements would be acquired by the administered zone (north of Stillwater) states. However, the states would continue would continue to be guided by the to administer their current easements. National Park Service’s Land Protection Plan (NPS 1984), which identifies those Minor boundary adjustments would con- lands or interests in lands that need to be tinue to be evaluated on a case-by-case acquired to accomplish the intent of the basis. Some minor adjustments would Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and/or continue to be considered by the managing riverway management objectives. In large agencies, such as where the boundary now part, fee title acquisition and scenic splits a parcel of land, or where an adjacent easement acquisition have been completed road provides a more easily definable boundary.

118

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

The task force identified two other alter- alternatives. More restrictions would be natives for managing the Lower St. Croix placed on new developments to reduce but dropped them from further study. their visibility from the water. Natural Under the “Lake Minnetonka” concept the quiet would be encouraged through intent would have been to allow portions of controls on the use of machinery on lands the lower riverway to change so they within the boundary. This alternative also would have looked like Lake Minnetonka, would ban all motorized watercraft and a lake in suburban Minneapolis surrounded would allow increased nonmotorized use by beautifully landscaped homes, which north of the Boomsite. South of the users could view from their boats. State Boomsite motorized watercraft would be land use controls would have been limited permitted, but these boats could operate under this alternative; there would have only at slow speeds except in two desig- been no state restrictions unique to the nated waterskiing areas: Hudson’s north Lower St. Croix. Unrestricted residential bay and north of the Kinnickinnic Nar- development would have been allowed rows. Additional anchorage areas would be along parts of the shoreline, enabling river put in the lower part of the river. The task users to float past a “parade of scenic force dropped this alternative because it homes.” The task force rejected this alter- would be inconsistent with the principles native because it would have been incon- underlying the alternatives. Specifically, sistent with the purposes of the lower the ban on motorized watercraft north of riverway. This alternative would have the Boomsite and restriction on motorboats allowed increased urbanization in the south of the Boomsite would profoundly riverway corridor, which would have change the nature of water-based recreation resulted in the loss of many of the on the Lower St. Croix. This management outstanding natural scenic qualities. The action would directly contradict the lower lower riverway was established by Con- riverway’s purposes, which state that the gress to protect and preserve the scenic riverway “accommodate a diverse range of resources and to maintain the area’s natural recreational opportunities.” It is inconsis- character in an urbanizing region. Houses tent with the riverway’s exceptional would not have been considered “scenic resources and values, which state: “The resources” in the context of a river in the exceptional characteristics of the linear national wild and scenic rivers system. riverway provide for a wide range of high- quality recreational experiences. People The other alternative that was dropped could easily find opportunities, ranging from consideration emphasized resource from peace and solitude to dynamic social protection and slower, nonmotorized uses interaction.” It is also inconsistent with the on the lower riverway. (Alternative E in task force’s vision statement, which the April 1997 workbook.) Increased includes “a diversity of recreational and emphasis would be placed on restoring living experiences, ranging from quiet natural landscapes compared to the other solitude to highly social, motorized uses.”

119 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS

121 INTRODUCTION

The current management structure for the should do policy development, how land Lower St. Croix has been in place for over and water surface use should be managed, 20 years. By law, the lower riverway must and anticipated implementation costs. be jointly managed by the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Although several of the options shift some Resources and the National Park Service. authorities and responsibilities among the The vehicle for that joint management has agencies, a “given” for all of the options been the Lower St. Croix Management would be as follows: by law primary Commission, established in 1973 by management responsibility for the lower cooperative agreement. In addition to the riverway would rest with the two state three voting members, the Minnesota- departments of natural resources and the Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission National Park Service; the Minnesota- serves as a nonvoting member. Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission would continue to have public interest One of the questions dealt with in the responsibilities as outlined in state laws; planning process was how the federal, the states would review and comment on state, and local agencies should work local zoning actions; all three agencies together to administer the lower riverway would participate in and provide staff for — who should be involved in manage- on-water law enforcement, rescue, and ment, what roles and responsibilities related activities; the National Park Service should each agency have, and what would would provide staff for management of be the best governmental organization for lands it owns north of Stillwater. managing the lower riverway? Five distinct options were developed for the lower A summary of the options and their riverway management structure. Each impacts can be found in tables 20 and 22 option includes directions for which at the end of this chapter. agency should participate in activities, who

123 PREFERRED OPTION

The preferred management structure being Commission would continue to provide proposed for administering the Lower St. staff services to the management Croix National Scenic Riverway would commission and its technical committee require more partnerships than now but and would provide coordination for water would not require additional federal and surface law enforcement. state legislation, would not create new organizations, and would not require extensive new funding. A new organization, called the Lower St. Croix Partnership Team, would be POLICY DEVELOPMENT established to serve as an advisor to the management commission. The team would The Lower St. Croix Management Com- have the following duties: serve as an mission (hereafter referred to as the advisor for development and revision of management commission) would continue state water surface use regulations (see to be the primary policy body for the appendix B); serve as an advisor for riverway — it would be responsible for development and revision of state land use policy development, including preparation regulations (see appendix A); conduct on a and adoption of policy documents as bimonthly basis post-decision review of needed and management plan updates local land use actions (variances, etc.) for every 20 years. The management commis- consistency with intent; and appoint one sion also could review and comment on all nonvoting member to the Lower St. Croix actions by government and others that Management Commission. The member- affect the lower riverway. ship of the partnership team would be based on the Lower St. Croix Planning The organization of the management Task Force, but its membership would be commission would be similar to what it is more clearly defined: the team would today. The Minnesota Department of consist of representatives of local Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department governments and a balanced list of of Natural Resources, and the National stakeholder groups. Staff services to the Park Service would continue to be the partnership team would be provided by the three voting members. Two nonvoting two state departments of natural resources. members also would serve on the management commission: one member of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area LAND USE MANAGEMENT Commission, appointed by that commission, and one member of the Lower St. Under the preferred option the two state Croix Partnership Team (a new organiza- departments of natural resources would tion described below), appointed by that adopt state rules that form the basis for team. In addition, a technical committee, local riverway ordinances. The Lower St. consisting of field-level staff, would Croix Partnership Team would serve as a continue to address day-today issues. The public forum for development of the state Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area 124 Preferred Option rules. Local governments would be re- occurred, appeals could be made to the quired to adopt and enforce ordinances courts. based on the states’ rules (local ordinances could be more restrictive than state rules, The partnership team would meet at least but not less so); the departments of natural bimonthly and review all local land use resources would have review or certifica- decisions rendered during the previous tion authority over local ordinances and months. It would make periodic reports any amendments to those ordinances. The and/or recommendations to the manage- departments of natural resources also ment commission and state departments of would provide regular training for local natural resources to improve the consis- government officials on land use tency of local government implementation management questions. of their riverway ordinances.

In implementing the ordinances, local governments would provide notice of WATER SURFACE USE hearings to the managing agencies. To MANAGEMENT provide for cross-agency consultation, the management commission’s technical On-water law enforcement would continue committee would review all applications to be provided by the five county sheriff’s for variances and conditional use permits. departments, the two departments of Both the technical committee and the natural resources, and the National Park departments of natural resources could Service. Increased coordination among comment on applications either in writing surface water law enforcement agencies or at the local government hearings. would be led by staff to the management commission. However, no riverway managing agency would have veto authority over a local government decision on a conditional use permit or subdivision. If disagreements

125 OPTION 1: MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

POLICY DEVELOPMENT be permitted in some areas only under certain conditions, and decide if variances Under option 1 there would be minor should be issued from certain zoning pro- adjustments to management roles and visions. The two state departments of responsibilities for the lower riverway, natural resources would continue to ensure centering on the Lower St. Croix Manage- that local governments provide consistent, ment Commission and the Lower St. Croix appropriate enforcement of land use Planning Task Force. The management regulations. The departments of natural commission would continue to set overall resources also would continue to review policies for the lower riverway. However, and approve or disapprove local decisions. the management commission would be However, the Lower St. Croix Planning expanded to include one local government Task Force would be restructured and representative and a support staff and made permanent. The task force would office in the valley. As a result, the man- interpret state land use rules and provide agement commission would serve as a mediation services when there were public information source about riverway disagreements among landowners, local management rather than the Minnesota- governments, and the two departments of Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. natural resources. However, the boundary commission would continue to have public interest review responsibilities as outlined in state laws. WATER SURFACE USE MANAGEMENT

LAND USE MANAGEMENT On-water law enforcement would continue to be provided by the five counties, two Land use management roles and responsi- departments of natural resources, and the bilities would be similar to what they are National Park. The Lower St. Croix Plan- today in this option. Local governments ning Task Force would be restructured and would continue to be responsible for made permanent to improve coordination adopting and enforcing land use regula- among the law enforcement agencies. tions within their jurisdictions. They would continue to act on proposals to change the zoning of property, decide if uses should

126 OPTION 2: SHIFT AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND WATER USE REGULATION TO A JOINT POWERS BOARD

POLICY DEVELOPMENT ments provide consistent, appropriate enforcement of land us regulations. It As in the previous options, the Lower St. would review and approve or deny local Croix Management Commission would government decisions in the same way the continue to set overall policies for the two departments of natural resources now lower riverway. But under this option the oversee local decisions — the departments management commission would be of natural resources would no longer be expanded from its current three members involved in reviewing local decisions. The (i.e., the two departments of natural board would meet regularly to review local resources and National Park Service) to actions, elect officers, have an office and include one local government representa- staff, and administer its budget. tive, one landowner representative, one general public representative, and one In addition to the joint powers board, a Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area citizens review board would be created to Commission representative. The manage- serve as an advisor to landowners, local ment commission also would have its own governments, and the joint powers board support staff and office in the valley and on the consistency, accuracy, and would serve as a public information source appropriateness of local land use decisions. on riverway management. The boundary The citizens review board would have commission would not serve as a public individuals with technical expertise to information source, but it would continue review land use decisions. to have public interest review responsibilities. WATER SURFACE USE MANAGEMENT LAND USE MANAGEMENT A new entity, called the St. Croix water In option 2 the local governments would patrol, would perform all water law en- continue to be responsible for implement- forcement on the lower riverway. This ing land use regulations within the jurisdic- water patrol would be created by a joint tions. However, a new entity, called a joint powers board for water, consisting of the powers board, would be created to oversee five counties, two departments of natural land use management. The joint powers resources, and the National Park Service. board would be created by all the valley’s (Authorization of the joint powers board local governments and would include one would require the approval of both state representative from each of the 15 munic- legislatures and Congress.) With a single ipalities and five counties along the river- law enforcement agency, there would be no way. (Authorization of this board may need for coordination noted in the above require approval by both state legislatures options. and Congress.) The board would have the responsibility to ensure that local govern-

127 OPTION 3: SHIFT AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND WATER USE REGULATION TO A RIVERWAY BOARD AND JOINT POWERS BOARD

governments. Landowners would need POLICY DEVELOPMENT approvals from both local governments and the riverway board to build new develop- This option is identical to option 2 ments within the lower riverway. There concerning policy development. The would be no oversight agency reviewing Lower St. Croix Management Commission the board’s decisions. The interpretation of would continue to set overall policies for land use rules and mediation of disputes the lower riverway, but its membership would be the board’s responsibility. would be expanded to include one local government representative, one landowner Since the riverway board would have representative, one general public repre- cross-river authority, it would need to be sentative, and one Minnesota-Wisconsin authorized by both legislatures and Con- Boundary Area Commission representa- gress. The board would consist of 20 tive. The management commission also members, with each of the elected govern- would have its own support staff and its ing bodies of the 15 municipalities and five own office in the valley, and would serve counties appointing one member. The as a public information source on riverway board would meet monthly to act on con- management. The boundary commission struction applications. It would have an would continue to exercise its public office, elect officers, administer a budget, interest review responsibilities. and employ a staff.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT WATER SURFACE USE MANAGEMENT The only difference between options 2 and 3 would be the method of regulating land Like option 2, a new entity, called the St. use in the lower riverway. In this option a Croix Water Patrol, would perform all single land-use authority would be created water law enforcement on the lower for the valley. Local governments would riverway. This water patrol would be not handle riverway zoning matters within created by a joint powers board for water, their borders. Instead, a riverway board, consisting of the five counties, two depart- modeled on the Lower Wisconsin State ments of natural resources, and the Na- Riverway Board, would be created to tional Park Service. (Authorization of the directly manage land use within the lower joint powers board would require the riverway. The board would work directly approval of both state legislatures and with landowners in reviewing development Congress.) proposals. It would have the authority to approve, modify, or reject individual land development proposals in place of local

128 OPTION 4: CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (NO ACTION)

POLICY DEVELOPMENT land use regulations within their jurisdictions, while the two departments of natural Under this option the lower riverway resources would continue to provide over- would continue to be managed as it is now. sight on local decisions and enforcement of There would be no changes in agency land use regulations. authorities or responsibilities. Overall management policies would continue to be set by the three-member Lower St. Croix Management Commission, consisting of WATER SURFACE USE the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments MANAGEMENT of Natural Resources and the National Park Roles and responsibilities for water surface Service. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Bound- use management would largely remain as ary Area Commission would continue to be they are today. Surface water law enforce- a nonvoting member of the management ment would continue to be provided by the commission and would serve as a public five-county sheriff departments, two information source about riverway departments of natural resources, and the management. National Park Service. One change would be that the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission would assume leader- LAND USE MANAGEMENT ship in facilitating coordination among the law enforcement agencies. Option 4 would be similar to option 2 concerning roles and responsibilities for land use management: local governments would be responsible for implementing

129 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS

Table 16 provides a summary of the imple- It should also be acknowledged that both mentation costs under each alternative that states and the National Park Service are would be incurred by the two states, local currently operating with an annual budget governments, and the National Park Ser- shortfall. That is, the managing agencies vice. Table 17 provides a summary of costs are underfunded to meet the continuing for implementing the management struc- demands of increased use, internal program ture options. requirements, and outside development pressure. Regardless of the alternative Implementation of any alternative or option selected, both the states of Minnesota and would depend on the availability of ade- Wisconsin and the National Park Service quate funding for additional staff or other would require additional support funding costs. Approval of the cooperative manage- to meet current program requirements. ment plan would not provide any funding, Each partner would continue to seek nor would it guarantee that money for funding, through its standard budget implementation of all elements of the plan process, to meet these outstanding program would be provided. Each major action needs. would compete for funding with other managing agency priorities and projects. The costs primarily represent long-range staffing needs that are expected to take years to implement.

130 Implementation Costs of Alterantives and Options

TABLE 16: IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Preferred Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative One-time costs Minnesota Management $40,000 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000

Enforcement 7,500 0 7,500 7,500 7,500 Acquisition 0 0 0 0 12,000,000 MN Total $47,500 $20,000 $47,500 $47,500 $12,047,500 Local gov? ts. in Minnesota Management $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Enforcement 7,500 0 7,500 7,500 7,500 Total local gov? t. in MN $67,500 $60,000 $67,500 $67,500 $67,500 Wisconsin Management 0 0 0 0 0 Enforcement $7,500 0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Acquisition 0 0 0 0 $12,000,000 WI Total $7,500 0 $7,500 $7,500 $12,007,500 Local gov? ts. In Wisconsin Management $41,500 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Enforcement $7,500 0 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 Total local gov? t. In WI $49,000 $40,000 $47,500 47,500 $47,500 Annual costs Minnesota Management $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $218,750 Enforcement 112,500 0 112,500 225,000 225,000 Research 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Grants 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Total MN $365,000 $252,500 $365,000 $477,500 $508,750

131 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Preferred Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative Local gov? ts. In Minnesota Management 0 0 0 0 0 Enforcement $56,250 0 $56,250 $112,500 $112,500 Total local gov? t. in MN $56,250 0 $56,250 $112,500 $112,500 Wisconsin Management $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $218,750 Enforcement 112,500 0 112,500 225,000 225,000 Research 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 Grants 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Total WI $365,000 $252,500 $365,000 $477,500 $508,750 Local gov? ts. In Wisconsin Management $7,500 0 0 0 0 Enforcement 20,000 0 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 Total local gov? t. In WI $27,500 0 $20,000 $40,000 $40,000 National Park Service Management $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 $81,000 Administration 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Resource management 172,000 177,000 177,000 177,000 202,000 Resource protection 164,000 164,000 164,000 164,000 189,000 Interpretation/ visitor services 199,000 150,000 125,000 199,000 150,000 Maintenance 117,000 157,000 142,000 157,000 122,000 Research 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

Total NPS $908,000 $904,000 $864,000 $953,000 $919,000

Grand Total $1,893,250 $1,529,000 $1,840,250 $2,230,500 $28,489,500

132 Implementation Costs of Alternatives and Options

TABLE 17: IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF OPTIONS

Preferred Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option Riverway $75,000a $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 coordinator Organizational $25,000b $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 support Clerical 0 $60,000 $90,000 $90,000 Office 0 $50,000 $75,000 $75,000 operations Law 0 0 $400,000 $400,000 enforcement Boats, vehicles, 0 0 $45,000 $45,000 equipment Annual total 0 $210,000c $710,000d $710,000e One-time start- 0 $50,000f $75,000g $75,000H up costs

Total $100,000 $260,000 $785,000 $785,000 a. The coordination costs are already shown for the preferred alternative in table 16. b. The coordination costs are already shown for the preferred alternative in table 16. c. The Lower St. Croix Management Commission’s costs would be split equally by the National Park Service, Minnesota DNR, and Wisconsin DNR. d. The Joint Powers Board would receive half its funds from the Minnesota Legislature and half from the Wisconsin Legislature, as would the St. Croix Water Patrol. e. The Riverway Board would receive half its funds from the Minnesota Legislature and half from the Wisconsin Legislature, as would the St. Croix Water Patrol. f. The Lower St. Croix Management Commission’s costs would be split equally by the National Park Service, Minnesota DNR, and Wisconsin DNR. g. The Joint Powers Board would receive half its funds from the Minnesota Legislature and half from the Wisconsin Legislature, as would the St. Croix Water Patrol. h. The Riverway Board would receive half its funds from the Minnesota Legislature and half from the Wisconsin Legislature, as would the St. Croix Water Patrol

133 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS

The following Land and Water segment use management alternatives for Minnesota map for the Lower St. Croix is keyed to and Wisconsin. A summary of the four table 18. The keys on the map (i.e., M-1, management structure options are shown in W-1) correspond to the reaches of the river table 19. Impacts of the alternatives are shown on the table, which provides a presented in table 20 and impacts of the summary comparison of land and water four options are shown in table 21.

134 Land and Water Segment Key Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

MINNESOTATaylors Falls M-1 W-1 C-A M-2 W-2

Minnesota Interstate Wisconsin Interstate State Park State Park W-3 B-AA C-B M-3 Osceola W-5

W-4

B-AA M-4 William O'Brien State Park WISCONSIN M-6 M-5 C-C B-A Marine on M-7 St. Croix St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area B-A M-8 B-B W-6 C-D

B-B M-9 M-10 W-7 W-8 M-11 M-12 Stillwater W-9 M-13 Bayport W-10 M-14 North Hudson W-11 C-E Hudson W-12 W-14 Lakeland W-13

M-15 Lake St. Croix Beach W-15 M-17 W-16 M-16 Afton W-17

M-18 Afton State Park W-18 W-19 M-19 C-F

Miss iss W-20 M-20 ippi River Kinnickinnic State Park M-21 M-22 W-21 M-23 W-22 Prescott

NOTE: The width of the St. Croix River on this graphic is exaggerated for clarity. 0 4.5 9 Miles North DSC • 643 • 20023B • 12/98 TABLE 18: COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (LAND USE MANAGEMENT ) LAND MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B/C ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E (No Action)

Directed land development Maintain the landscape’s visual qualities Emphasize resource protection Maintain present management approach based on 1976 Master Plan and subsequent policy

Development in communities (including Maintain long stretches of the lower Maintain long stretches of the lower Maintain long stretches of the lower Maintain long stretches of the lower Maintain long stretches of the lower river town, small town historic, and small riverway’s natural and rural landscape while riverway’s natural and rural landscape; allow riverway’s natural and rural landscape; new riverway’s natural and rural landscape; riverway’s natural and rural landscape; new town) still allowing new development in existing limited new residential and commercial residential and commercial development remove existing development that is visible residential and commercial development could communities; overall character of development that was consistent with the could be built as long as it was not visible from the river if or when opportunities arose be built as long as it met development communities would not significantly change; historic character of the river’s communities from the river standards designed to limit visual impact new residential and commercial development could be built as long as it met development standards designed to limit visual impact and was consistent with the historic character of the river communities

Some state land use regulations would be Some state land use regulations would be More restrictions would be placed on new Same as alternative B/C Regulations in incorporated areas would not relaxed in river town, small town historic, relaxed in river town, small town historic development to minimize visibility from the be as restrictive as in rural areas, but tight and small town management areas to give and small town management areas to give river controls on land use (including zoning local governments greater flexibility in local governments greater flexibility in districts), development density, structure regulating land use, development density, regulating land use, development density, height, etc., would be established structure height, etc. structure height, etc.; encourage clustering of new development

In the small town management areas, the In the small town management area, the In the small town management area, the Same as alternative B/C In incorporated areas, lot size would not be as emphasis would be on retaining the large-lot emphasis would be on retaining the large-lot emphasis would be on retaining the large-lot restricted as in rural areas, but there would be single-family character of the area, while single-family character of the area, while single-family character of the area; new limits on decks and residential additions relaxing standards for features such as decks relaxing standards for features such as decks development would not be visible from the and residential additions and residential additions river

In river town and small town historic In river town and small town historic In river town and small town historic Same as alternative B/C No special action would be taken to address management areas, new development would management areas, new development would management areas, new development would the historic character of communities be allowed if it was consistent with the be allowed if it was consistent with the be allowed if it was consistent with the historic character of the communities historic character of the communities historic character of the communities and not visible from the river

If an industrial use was discontinued, the If an industrial use was discontinued, Same as alternative A If an industrial use was discontinued, Uses would be determined by the most desirable future use of the riverfront commercial, residential or recreational use of redevelopment of the area as urban parkland municipality’s underlying zoning standards portions of these properties would be public the site would be considered would be considered park.

Development outside of communities Limited new developments would be Limited new development would be allowed, Land uses would be managed to maintain There would be a strong emphasis on Limited new development would continue to (including rural residential, park, natural, permitted, so long as they were visually some of which might be visible from the visual characteristics as seen from the water; resource protection, increasing the be allowed, some of which might be visible minimally disturbed) inconspicuous as seen from the river; more river, so long as the riverway’s rural and more restrictions would be placed on new predominance of natural features over from the river restrictions would be placed on new natural character was maintained developments to reduce their visibility modern development; more restrictions Note: park, natural, minimally disturbed developments to reduce their visibility; would be placed on new developments to combined as “Conservation” in Preferred natural landscapes would be restored where reduce their visibility; natural landscapes Alternative. feasible would be restored where feasible

137 COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (Minnesota Land Use Segments)

MINNESOTA SEGMENTS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B/C ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E

(north to sot h) M-1 Taylors Falls Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Incorporated M-2 Interstate Park Conservation Park Park Park Unincorporated M-3 South end of Interstate Park to south end of Conservation Natural Natural Minimally disturbed Unincorporated McLeod Slough M-4 South end of McLeod Slough to north Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated boundary of William O’Brien State Park M-5 William O’Brien State Park Conservation Park Natural Natural Unincorporated M-6 South end of William O’Brien State Park Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential to southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine- on-St. Croix M-7 Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Incorporated Marine-on-St. Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition M-8 Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition to High Bridge M-9 High Bridge to north limits of Stillwater Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated M-10 North limits of Stillwater to the south end Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated of Dutch Town M-11 South end of Dutch Town to train station Small town River town Small town Natural Incorporated M-12 Train station to north limits of Bayport River town River town River town River town Incorporated M-13 Bayport Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated M-14 South limits of Bayport to Hudson Rural residential Small town Rural residential Natural Unincorporated railroad bridge M-15 Hudson railroad bridge to north limits of Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated old Afton Village M-16 Old Afton Village Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Incorporated M-17A South limits of old Afton Village to Small town Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Incorporated south end of River Road M-17B South end of River Road to Afton State Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Incorporated Park M-18 Afton State Park Conservation Park Natural Natural Unincorporated M-19 South end of Afton State Park to north Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park M-20 St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Park Park Park Natural Unincorporated M-21 South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated Park to Carpenter Nature Center M-22 Carpenter Natural Center Natural Natural Natural Natural Unincorporated M-23 South end of Carpenter Natural Center to Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated the Mississippi River

138 COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (Wisconsin Land Use Segments) WISCONSIN SEGMENTS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B/C ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E (north to south) Directed land development Maintain the landscape’s visual qualities Emphasize resource protection Maintain present management approach based on 1976 master plan and subsequent policy W-1 St. Croix Falls Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Incorporated W-2 Interstate Park Conservation Park Park Park Unincorporated W-3 South end of Interstate Park to limits Conservation Natural Natural Minimally disturbed Unincorporated Osceola W-4 Bluffs within Osceola Conservation Small town Natural Natural Incorporated W-5 Downtown Osceola Small town historic Small town historic Small town Small town Incorporated W-6A South of Osceola to High Bridge Conservation Natural Natural Minimally disturbed Unincorporated W-6B High Bridge to Twin Springs Rural residential W-7 Twin Springs subdivision to Houlton Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated W-8 Houlton Rural residential Small town Rural residential Natural Unincorporated W-9 South of Houlton to south edge of St. Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated Croix Station subdivision in North Hudson W-10 South edge of St. Croix Station Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated subdivision in North Hudson o Willow River W-11 Willow River to Orange Street River town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated W-12 Orange Street to Interstate 94 bridge River town River town River town River town Incorporated W-13 Interstate 94 bridge to Mayer Road River town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated W-14 Mayer Road to Riverview Drive Small town Small town Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated W-15 Riverview Drive to St. Croix Cove Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated W-16 St. Croix Cove Rural residential Small town Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated W-17 St. Croix Cove to Black Bass Bar Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated W-18 Black Bass Bar to Kinnickinnic State Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated Park W-19 Kinnickinnic State Park Conservation Park Natural Natural Unincorporated W-20 South limits of Kinnickinnic State Park to Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated Cedar St. Croix subdivision W-21 Cedar St. Croix subdivision to north end Rural residential Small town Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated of Prescott W-22 Prescott to Mississippi River River town River town River town River town Incorporated

139 COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (WATER USE MANAGEMENT )

RECREATION MANAGEMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E CONCEPTS Reduce recreation use levels Accommodate increased recreation use Accommodate increased recreation use Freeze recreation use at present levels Maintain present management levels with few restrictions levels with additional restrictions to approach based on 1976 master plan minimize user conflicts and subsequent policy

Riverwide Concept River users would continue to find Use could continue to increase as long as River users would continue to find River users would continue to find River users would find opportunities River users would continue to find opportunities for a variety of users were not causing significant damage opportunities for a variety of recreational opportunities for a variety of recreational for a reduced variety of recreational opportunities for a variety of recreational recreational experiences; existing access to the riverway’s exceptional resources or experiences; no new access would be experiences; no new access would be experiences, including social experi- experiences; no new access would be points would be maintained; if posing safety hazards to others provided or permitted; as watercraft provided or permitted, and existing access ences, plus more opportunities would provided or permitted; more activity watercraft density increased, more numbers continued to increase, more would be strictly controlled to prevent be available for quieter, slower, peace- restrictions might be imposed to ensure restrictions would be imposed to ensure activity restrictions would be imposed to boat use from increasing; use would be ful recreational experiences in desig- safe conditions if watercraft numbers safe conditions and to avoid conflicts segregate uses and ensure safe conditions frozen at current levels nated areas than currently exist; increased reduce use levels and density of recreational use of the river

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar: Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar: Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar: Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar: Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar: Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Maintain opportunities for quiet and Maintain existing opportunities for quiet Maintain existing opportunities for quiet Maintain opportunities for quiet and Increase opportunities for quiet, Maintain existing opportunities for quiet solitude; maintain current slow speed and solitude; allow limited growth in use; and solitude; allow limited growth in use; solitude; maintain existing use, speed solitude; decrease use levels; decrease and solitude; allow limited growth in use; levels; maintain access points. maintain existing speed levels; maintain maintain existing speed levels; maintain levels; maintain current access access maintain existing speed levels; maintain current access current access current access

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater: Arcola to north limits of Stillwater: Arcola to north limits of Stillwater: Arcola to north limits of Stillwater: Arcola to north limits of Stillwater: Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Maintain existing opportunities for a Allow for increased numbers of people to Maintain existing opportunities for Maintain opportunities for recreation, Increase opportunities for quieter, Maintain existing opportunities for mix of powerboat and nonmotorized engage in a variety of uses; allow an recreation, primarily powerboat primarily powerboat recreation; prevent slower activities; decrease use levels; recreation, primarily powerboat recreation increase in use levels; allow boat speeds recreation; as boating levels increase, increased use decrease boat speed recreation; as boating levels increased, to increase if safety was not a concern additional speed regulations might be additional speed regulations might be imposed to ensure user safety and imposed to ensure user safety minimize conflicts

North limits of Stillwater to Prescott: North limits of Stillwater to Prescott: North limits of Stillwater to Afton: North limits of Stillwater to Prescott: North limits of Stillwater to Prescott: North limits of Stillwater to Prescott:

Maintain existing opportunities for large Allow for large numbers of people to Increase opportunities for large numbers Maintain opportunities for large numbers Provide opportunities for moderate Maintain opportunities for large numbers numbers of people to engage in a variety engage in a variety of uses; allow use and of people to engage in a variety of uses; of people to recreate on this stretch, number of users to engage in a variety of people to recreate on this stretch, of uses; one access point would be speed levels to increase; allow an increase allow use and speed levels to increase; primarily power-boat users; maintain of uses; decrease use levels; decrease primarily power-boat users; as boating added near the Allan S. King power in access maintain existing access; more activity existing use levels; maintain existing speed levels; decrease access levels increase, additional regulations on plant; overall boat speed limit would be restrictions would be imposed to speed levels; prevent any increase in boat speeds would be imposed to ensure imposed to ensure safe conditions and segregate uses and ensure safe conditions access user safety; maintain current access avoid conflicts Afton to Prescott:

Impose additional speed regulations to accommodate increasing use while reducing conflicts; maintain existing access; more activity restrictions would be imposed to segregate uses and ensure safe conditions

140 COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (WATER USE MANAGEMENT CONTINUED)

WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E

B-AA Backwaters Taylors Falls Dam to Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Quiet waters Slow speed zone north end of O’Brien State Park B-A Backwaters North end of O’Brien Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Slow-speed zone State Park to Arcola sandbar

B-B Backwaters Arcola sandbar to north Natural waters Quiet waters Natural waters Natural waters Quiet waters No speed limit, but weekend limits of Stillwater restriction on waterskiing

Main Channel

C-A Taylors Falls Dam to Rock Island Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Slow speed zone

C-B Rock Island to the south end of Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Natural waters Slow speed zone McLeod Slough

C-C South end of McLeod Slough to the Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Slow speed zone Arcola sandbar

C-D Arcola sandbar to the north limits of Moderate recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation Moderate recreation Quiet waters No speed limit, but weekend Stillwater restriction on waterskiing

C-E North limits of Stillwater to Catfish Active social recreation Active social recreation Active social recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation No speed limit, except no-wake at Bar Hudson Narrows and south Hudson Bay

C-F Catfish Bar to the Prescott railroad Active social recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation No speed limit, except no-wake at bridge Catfish Bar, Kinnickinnic Narrows and Prescott Narrows

141 COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (OTHER TOPICS)

ALTERNATIVE A ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D ALTERNATIVE E OTHER TOPICS Directed land development Allow growth, but maintain the Maintain the landscape’s visual Emphasize resource protection Maintain present management PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE landscape’s visual qualities qualities approach based on 1976 master plan and subsequent policy River Crossings Road and railroad bridges could be No increase in the number of road or Road and railroad bridges could be Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Road and railroad bridges could be replaced with bridges of similar scale in railroad bridges, but the scale and replaced within existing corridors; no replaced within existing corridors and existing corridors; the total number of character of bridges could be altered change in the number, scale or their scale and character altered; the total bridge crossings would not increase (wider, for example); bridges could be character of the structures would be number of bridge crossings would not relocated to new sites as long as permitted increase existing structures are removed No new utility corridor crossings or Utility lines could be replaced, Utility lines could be replaced within Same as alternative B The number of utility lines could be Utility lines could be replaced or increase in size of transmission line increased in scale or relocated to new existing corridors; no change in the reduced by consolidation of lines or relocated (as long as existing crossings towers; new lines could be added to sites number, scale or character of the conversion from overhead to are removed); no change in the number, existing crossings; consolidation of utility structures would be permitted submarine crossings scale or character of river crossings line crossings would be encouraged would be permitted Submarine crossings could be expanded or Submarine crossings could be The number of submarine crossings Same as alternative B The number of submarine crossings No new submarine crossings would be relocated to an existing corridor and new expanded or relocated; new submarine would remain the same, except that would remain the same; existing permitted, but the size and number of submarine crossings could be permitted if crossings could be permitted existing utility lines could be utility lines could be relocated to lines within existing corridors might be there were no visual impacts. However, the relocated to submarine crossings existing submarine crossing corridors increased crossing technique having the least impact on the riverway’s outstandingly remarkable values and impact on the resource would be required. Vegetation Management Screen structures from view as seen from Maintain the existing significant Maintain the existing significant plant Same as alternative B Maintain and restore significant plant A vegetation control zone (larger in the river; prevent disturbance of plant communities communities communities unincorporated areas than in environmentally sensitive areas incorporated areas) would continue to exist, in which large trees could not be cut, but shrubs and small trees could be removed Maintain and restore historically and Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative No special protection would be provided ecologically significant plant communities for significant plant communities on state and federal lands; encourage voluntary efforts to maintain and restore significant plant communities on private lands and local government lands Island and Public Shoreline Day use largely unregulated Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative. Same as the preferred alternative Management

Camping would be prohibited in two areas Camping prohibited in two areas north Camping prohibited in three areas Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Same as alternative B north of Stillwater; near Marine-on-St. of Stillwater north of Stillwater Croix camping would be prohibited until a comprehensive river use / camping plan was completed and then would be at designated sites only. In other areas north of Stillwater zones Minor camping restrictions in other Camping north of Stillwater restricted Camping north of Stillwater restricted Camping north of Stillwater limited to Same as alternative A would be established that identify where areas. to designated sites to designated sites a few designated sites camping would be permitted; designated camping sites would be established if needed Camping might be restricted to designated No camping permit or reservation Same as alternative A Camping permit and reservation Same as alternative C Same as alternative A sites if needed and a reservation system system. systems used. might be instituted if needed Users required to have portable toilets to No limits on camping on the Hudson Users required to have portable toilets Same as alternative B Camping on the Hudson Islands Same as alternative A camp on the Hudson Islands unless the Islands.(existing conditions) to camp on the Hudson Islands. limited to a few watercraft; users managing agencies or others supply public required to have portable toilets. facilities 142 TABLE 19: SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS

ACTIONS PREFERRED OPTION OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4

Management Activities The states of Minnesota and Wisconsin Same as preferred option Same as preferred option Same as preferred option Same as preferred option and the National Park Service would continue to provide staff to the Lower St. Croix Management Commission.

The Park Service would continue to provide staff on NPS lands north of Stillwater

Policy Development Lower St. Croix Management commission There would be minor adjustments to Same as preferred, except that the Same as Option 2 The lower riverway would continue to be would be responsible for policy develop- management roles and responsibilities. management commission would be managed as it is now. ment and review all actions that affect the The Lower St. Croix Management expanded from three members to seven. Lower St. Croix. Organization of the Commission would continue to set overall commission would be similar to what it is policies. today, but with the addition of one member from a new organization, the The management commission would have Same as option 1. Lower St. Croix Partnership Team, which a support staff and serve as public would be established to advise the information source rather than the commission. Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

Land Use Management State rules would be adopted as a basis Roles and responsibilities would be Local governments would continue to be Same as option 2, except the method of Roles and responsibilities for land use for local riverway ordinances. The Lower similar to what they are now; however the responsible for implementing land use regulating land use would be that a single management would remain as they are St. Croix Partnership Team would serve Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force regulations, however a new entity, called riverway board, modeled on the Lower today. as an advisor for the development, would be restructured and made a Joint Power Board, would oversee land Wisconsin State Riverway Board, would amendment and implementation of state permanent. The task force would interpret use management. In addition, a citizens be created. rules. state land use rules and provide mediation review board would be created to serve as services. an advisor to several land use groups.

Water Surface Use Management On-water law enforcement would Same as the preferred option. In addition A new entity, called the St. Croix Water Same as option 2 Roles and responsibilities for water continue to be provided by the five- the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Patrol, would perform all on-water law surface use management would remain as county sheriff’s departments, the two state would be restructured and made enforcement. they are today. departments of natural resources, and the permanent to improve coordination National Park Service. The Lower St. among law enforcement agencies. Croix Partnership Team would serve as an advisor to the development, amendment and implementation of state rules.

143 TABLE 20: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES

TOPIC PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE DERROR! IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE E BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Scenic Resources Overall, the preferred alternative Potentially major long-term impacts Overall, alternative B would have a Overall, alternative C would have a Overall, alternative D would have a Depending on the magnitude of would have a minor positive impact on from changes to river crossings could moderate positive impact on scenic moderate positive impact on scenic moderate positive impact on scenic change, there could be minor to scenic resources. Also, potentially occur. Overall, alternative A would resources compared to the no-action resources. Potentially major long- resources. There would be somewhat major, adverse, long-term impacts major long-term impacts from changes have a minor negative impact on scenic alternative. Potentially major long- term impacts from changes to river greater beneficial impacts than the on scenic resources. to river crossings would be avoided. resources compared to the no-action. term impacts from changes to river crossings would be avoided. other alternatives because it would put crossings would be avoided. slightly more land within the management areas that would be more restrictive to development. Recreational Overall, the preferred alternative Alternative A would be similar to the Minor, possibly negligible, positive Alternative C would have minor Overall boating use would be slightly Riverway users would continue to be Resources would provide minor, possibly no-action. Congestion problems would impacts would be made on positive impacts on recreational use. reduced. Overall, alternative D would negatively affected to a minor to negligible, positive impacts on likely continue in narrow sections of the recreational use. Some might be Some safety concerns would continue provide minor, positive impacts on moderate extent by congested recreational use. However, a few river. Extremely high-speed boating negatively impacted by additional where extremely high speed boating recreational use. However, those conditions or safety issues in some riverway users, those seeking to travel would continue and associated safety regulation. A few riverway users, occurred occasionally south of seeking to travel at high speeds and areas of the riverway. at high speeds and some island and noise concerns would continue in those seeking to travel at high speeds, Stillwater. some island campers would be campers would be displaced. some areas. Increased use could alter and some island campers would be displaced. the recreational experience, such as displaced. creating more crowded conditions at peak use times. Natural Resources Limited localized impacts on natural Limited localized impacts on natural Limited localized impacts on natural Limited localized impacts on natural Limited localized impacts on natural Water pollution due to construction resources would occur in connection resources would occur in connection resources would occur in connection resources would occur in connection resources would occur in connection would be short term; pollution due to with residential development, but these with residential development; these with residential development; these with residential development; these with residential development; these users would be transient and have impacts would be less than under the impacts would be more than any other impacts would be similar to but impacts would be similar to but impacts would be slightly less than the minor to negligible effects. Impacts no-action alternative. Adverse impacts alternative. Adverse impacts to listed slightly less than the preferred slightly less than the preferred preferred alternative. Adverse impacts on soils, vegetation, and fish and to listed mussel species could be mussel species could be occurring, and alternative. Adverse impacts to listed alternative. Freezing use levels may on listed mussel species could be wildlife would be negligible to occurring, and conservation actions conservation actions would be mussel species may be occurring, and not change impacts on listed mussel occurring, and conservation actions minor. The Karner blue butterfly’s would be implemented. implemented. conservation actions would be species. would be implemented. habitat could be adversely affected implemented. as well as certain mussel populations. Cultural Resources Restrictions on new development and Restrictions on new development and Greater restrictions on new Greater restrictions on new Greater restrictions on new Greater potential for new develop- maintenance of historic character of maintenance of historic character of the development and maintenance of development and maintenance of development and maintenance of ment and no emphasis on maintain- the landscape would minimize poten- landscape would minimize potential historic character of the landscape historic character of the landscape historic character of the landscape ing historic character of the riverway tial impacts. impacts. Slightly higher potential to would reduce potential impacts. would reduce potential impacts. would reduce potential impacts. communities would pose higher risk impact archeological resources from to resources. new development in previously undeveloped areas. Socioeconomic Positive impacts to the local economy Economic and tourism impacts would Positive impacts to the local economy Economic impacts would be negligi- Economic and tourism impacts would Economic impacts would be negli- Environment and tourism would be negligible to be negligible to minor. Conflicts would and tourism would be negligible to ble. More restrictions on landowner be negligible. More restrictions on gible. Existing restrictions on devel- minor compared to the no-action alter- likely increase between some recrea- minor. Landowners would benefit improvements and new development. landowner improvements and new opment would continue. Conflicts native. Some reduced restrictions on tional users and local landowners in from reduced conflicts with recrea- Local landowners would benefit from development. Existing development would likely increase between some new development in town and some some areas, primarily near islands and tional users, primarily north of Still- reduced conflicts north of Stillwater, visible from the river removed when recreational users and local land- increased restrictions on new develop- where the highest boat speeds would be water and on southern part of lake. but would be negatively impacted by opportunities arise. Local landowners owners in some areas, primarily near ment outside of towns. Local land- allowed on the lake. noise and shoreline erosion on the would benefit from reduced conflicts islands and where the highest boat owners would benefit from reduced lake. with recreational users along most of speeds would be allowed on the lake. conflicts with recreational users. the riverway. One-time costs: One-time costs: One-time costs: One-time costs: One-time costs: No change Implementation Costs WI &MN: $55,000 WI&MN: $20,000 WI&MN: $55,000 WI&MN: $55,000 WI&MN: $24,055,000 Local Government: $116,500 Local Government: $100,000 Local Government: $115,000 Local Government: $115,000 Local Government: $115,000 Annual costs: Annual costs: Annual costs: Annual costs: Annual costs: WI&MN: $730,000 WI&MN: $505,000 WI&MN: $730,000 WI&MN: $955,000 WI&MN: $1,017,500 Local Government: $83,750 Local Government: $0 Local Government: $76,250 Local Government: $152,500 Local Government: $152,500 NPS: $908,000 NPS: $904,000 NPS: $864,000 NPS: $953,000 NPS: $919,000 TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS

Topic Preferred Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Management Approach There would be the least change from the Minor change in management approach, Most change in management approach, with the Same as option 2, except a riverway board No change current management approach. with role of the Minnesota-Wisconsin management commission having greater local would implement local zoning. Boundary Area Commission reduced representation. A joint powers board and new on- water law enforcement agency (St. Croix water patrol) would be major undertaking. The management commission would be The management commission would be retained and local government retained and a partnership member added. representative would be added. The No managing agency would set authority planning task force would have role in land over local land use decisions. Existing use rules interpretation and mediation and water use enforcement would continue. in water use enforcement coordination. Implementation Costs $100,000 Annual $260,000 Annual $710,000 Annual $710,000 No additional costs would One-time $ 56,000 One-time $75,000 One-time $75,000 be anticipated. Note: This cost is already included in the preferred alternative under the costs for the Minnesota DNR and Wisconsin DNR (Manager positions).

145 Affected Environment INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environment of the “Introduction” and the “Consultation the Lower St. Croix National Scenic and Coordination” chapters). The effects of Riverway. This is the baseline environment the alternatives on these impact topics are that the management alternatives would also assessed in the “Environmental affect if they were implemented. The focus Consequences” chapter. of this chapter is on scenic resources, recreational use, natural resources, cultural In describing the riverway’s environment resources, socioeconomic resources, and and particularly in evaluating the impacts land use and management that have the of the alternatives, special attention needs potential to be affected by the alternatives. to be paid to the riverway’s outstandingly Some features are also discussed because remarkable values. The National Wild and they provide context, must be considered Scenic Rivers Act places special impor- in environmental impact statements based tance on the values for which a particular on federal laws, regulations, and orders, river has been set aside. In the case of the and NPS management policies (e.g., Lower St. Croix, the identified outstand- wetlands, prime and unique agricultural ingly remarkable values are its scenic, lands, threatened and endangered species), aesthetic, recreational and geologic values. or reflect issues and concerns expressed by While both the words scenic and aesthetic the public and other agencies during the are used in the identification of outstand- scoping process (see the issues section in ingly remarkable values, they are used interchangeably.

149 SCENIC RESOURCES

Scenic resources are those landscape fea- there are fewer signs of people with only a tures (including the river) that are visible to small amount of residential development riverway users. However, not all that is visible on the blufftops. The river narrows visible from the river is included within the again at Rock Island and passes through boundaries of the riverway. The following another basalt rock gorge. Just above Rock text defines the landscape features of the Island there is a clear-cut swath up the riverway, starting at the NSP dam going bluffs from an underground pipeline. downriver to the confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott. The river experience changes based on physiog- Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod's raphy, topography, vegetation type, river Slough; 10.0 miles) characteristics, and the amount and type of development. Distinct sections of the river On this relatively undisturbed stretch of are described below. river the natural features are predominant, with few signs of development or recreational support facilities. Except for the The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock small blufftop community of Osceola, only Island; 3.5 miles a small amount of development is visible on the wooded blufftops. Most of the lands The communities of Taylors Falls and St. within the riverway are either NPS fee Croix Falls lie at the uppermost edge of property or scenic easements. Near the this river section. These communities are towering cliffs at Cedar Bend much of this historic in character and have a combina- forested and agricultural area is protected tion of natural and man-made elements in by land trusts. Throughout this stretch the the landscape. From the dam at Taylors river winds back and forth across the Falls to beneath the Highway 8 bridge the floodplain, leaving islands and braided river is a series of rapids. Below the bridge channels beneath steep, heavily wooded the river proceeds through a deep and bluffs. Just below the Swing Bridge — a narrow gorge with basalt cliffs known as historic railroad crossing — the river splits “The Dalles of the St. Croix.” Each side of into two distinct channels that come the river along the highly scenic Dalles is together again at the south end of protected in state parks. Minnesota and McLeod’s Slough. This slough is marked Wisconsin Interstate State Parks both have by floodplain forests and extensive developed areas surrounded by less devel- backwater marshes. Altogether this stretch oped lands. The developed areas include of river has a tranquil and natural feel. visitor centers, trails, boat accesses, campgrounds, a canoe rental operation, and a commercial paddle boat/excursion service. Downstream of the Dalles the river valley widens and the St. Croix changes to a shallow, slow-moving river. Tall, forested bluffs line this heavily wooded valley, and

150 Scenic Resources

Marine Area (McLeod's Slough to Slough, which is a braided, island-rich, Arcola Sandbar via Page’s Slough; 8.5 backwater complex on the Wisconsin side miles) of the river’s main channel. From there this portion of the river flows slowly through This stretch of river is similar to the Osce- Rice Lake, a large backwater lake impor- ola area but is marked by more residential tant for migrating waterfowl. The Apple development, especially on terraces along River then enters the St. Croix and forms the Minnesota shore. Moderate develop- the Arcola sandbar — an extremely ment is along the Minnesota shore north of shallow section of the main river channel William O’Brien State Park. The National that serves as a barrier to motorboat traffic Park Service has a narrow strip of scenic from the south. Little development is visi- easements along this stretch. In the state ble in this reach of the river. park there are recreational facilities, and many people camp, picnic, and hike there. Downstream of the park lies the developed Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head residential shoreline of Marine, which is of Lake St. Croix; 5 miles) predominantly historic in character. Page’s Slough is another area with residential The river valley in this area is narrower development on the Minnesota terrace. The than in areas to the north or south, and the shoreline here is also managed by NPS valley walls are steeper, frequently marked scenic easements. The Wisconsin side of by limestone and sandstone cliffs. Almost the river is natural in character with few the entire valley lies in the floodplain. Lim- signs of development, and the shoreline is ited development is on this stretch with a predominantly NPS fee properties with few homes visible atop the bluffs and more scenic easements nearer the riverway that are noticeable along the Minnesota boundary. The river throughout this area side than on the Wisconsin side until the flows through a broad floodplain covered southern part of this river section. The with forests and braided channels, bordered historic Arcola High Bridge, 1 mile south by heavily wooded bluffs. Below Marine of the Arcola sandbar, spans the blufftops the main channel is flanked by wooded and dominates views along the river for islands. The river has a relatively slow several miles. The river flows through a current and shallow conditions. braided channel where there are numerous forested islands. Near the head of Lake St. Croix lies the Boomsite Highway Wayside, Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to a popular roadside picnic area and national Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands historic landmark. The river, natural fea- Wildlife Management Area; 2.5 miles) tures, and man-made features shape the landscape of this section of river. This area lies east of Page’s Slough and is characterized by a large backwater complex that is unique on the St. Croix. Most of the area is part of Wisconsin’s St. Croix Islands Wildlife Management Area, which means that little development is visible. The unit begins with the Dead Man’s 151 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St. tall smokestack and by transmission lines Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy that cross the river. Docks; 2 miles)

The river valley here broadens consid- Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen erably and the river itself becomes lake- Point to Willow River Dam; 2 miles) like with some islands at the head of the lake. The Wisconsin bluffs descend almost This reach of river is again broad and lake- to the water’s edge and are largely forested, like. Tall bluffs rise from near the water on with some large lot residential properties the Wisconsin side but recede at North dotting the blufftops. The Minnesota bluffs Hudson. On the Minnesota shore the are largely set back from the river with a wooded bluffs are set back from the river large terrace in-between. On this terrace at Bayport and then come back close to the lies the historic lumbering community of river at the south end of town. Fairly dense Stillwater — the St. Croix watershed’s residential developments are at North Hud- largest city. Along the Minnesota shore are son and Bayport, while homes dot the Stillwater’s downtown district, some wooded blufftops on the Wisconsin shore homes, marinas, and docks, while Lowell north of North Hudson. A park and a ma- Park’s seawall abuts the river. The historic rina line the shore in Bayport, and railroad highway lift bridge across the river is a tracks run along the shore south of town. dominant visual feature. This section has a more developed feel than the upper sections of the riverway. Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to Interstate 94; 2 miles)

South Stillwater-Bayport Area Although this stretch of the St. Croix (Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks valley is broad, the main river channel is to Andersen Point; 3 miles) narrow and fairly fast-moving, confined to near the Minnesota shore by dikes built The river here remains broad and lake-like. from the Wisconsin shore to accommodate High bluffs are on either side of the river, a railroad and two highway crossings. A although the Minnesota bluffs recede far chain of sandy, sparsely vegetated islands back from the river’s edge. The forested runs along the Wisconsin side of the main Wisconsin bluffs are similar to the area channel. On the Minnesota shore the valley across from Stillwater: the bluffs descend bluffs descend near the water’s edge on the almost to the water’s edge, and the bluff Minnesota shore, except near the Interstate tops are dotted with homes. In contrast to 94 bridges. On the Wisconsin side the the Wisconsin shoreline, the Minnesota bluffs are set back from the water. This is shoreline is the most developed reach of another highly developed stretch of the the St. Croix: a commercial drydock, ma- riverway, with views dominated by Hud- rina, large coal-fired electric generating son, another one of the valley’s historic plant, and large window factory are on the lumbering towns, and the two Interstate 94 terrace along the shore. Views are strongly bridges at the south end of the unit. On the impacted by the large power plant and its Minnesota side the blufftops have fairly dense residential development, and several 152 Scenic Resources homes sit on the floodplain at the river’s mon in localized areas. Scattered homes edge, but there is some natural vegetation are on the blufftops. The Wisconsin side of and landscaped environments. On the Wis- the river is rural with natural and man- consin side the residential and downtown made features in the landscape. In Minne- neighborhoods of Hudson cover the bluff sota the historic river town of Afton lies in tops and the river terrace. A park abuts the the floodplain, with two marinas, a park, riverfront downtown, just north of the and scattered commercial and residential river’s largest marina. development along the edge of the river. Just south of town, development thins and closely resembles the rural residential Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish Bar; character of the Wisconsin side. Many 4.5 miles) people use Afton State Park, which offers boat beaching, hiking, and swimming This is the river’s widest and deepest sec- areas. A large electrical transmission line tion, nearly 2 miles across and up to 70 feet also crosses the river on this stretch. deep. Tall, wooded bluffs descend to the shoreline on the Wisconsin side. The Min- nesota bluffs are far from the shore. A high terrace drops abruptly to the water’s edge Kinnickinnic Narrows (Kinnickinnic between Lakeland and Afton. Develop- Narrows; 0.5 miles) ments can be found in several areas on this A sandy, forested delta at the mouth of the stretch. The Wisconsin blufftops are rim- Kinnickinnic River forces the St. Croix med by large-lot residential development. River’s channel against the Minnesota More intensive residential development is bluffs, resulting in a narrow river with a found at St. Croix Cove, where most swift current. Kinnickinnic State Park homes are on a terrace below the rim of the covers the Wisconsin side of the river and bluff. The river terrace on the Minnesota is an extremely popular boat beaching and side in this section contains five municipal- mooring area. Scattered homes sit atop the ities and fairly dense residential develop- Minnesota bluff, which drops almost ment. A flood control levee fronts the river directly into the river. at Lake St. Croix Beach.

Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at Kinnickinnic Narrows; 5.0 miles) Prescott; 6.0 miles)

The river here is uniformly about a ? mile This area is similar to the Catfish- wide and fronted by tall, wooded bluffs Kinnickinnic stretch north of the narrows. that drop almost directly into the water. The river is uniformly about ? mile wide Directly across the river from Afton is and fronted by tall, wooded bluffs that drop Catfish Bar, a large sandbar that juts into almost directly into the water. Scattered the river at the base of a large, wooded homes are along the bluffs. The Minnesota bluff. Black Bass Bar, a similar sandbar on side has a mix of rural and natural land- the Wisconsin side, lies south of Catfish scapes. The Wisconsin side has a Bar. Developments and people are com- 153 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT predominately rural character until the nesota shore at the mouth of the river southern edge of this river segment where (Point Douglas), forming a natural dam there are more signs of people and that creates Lake St. Croix. The Point development. Here the eastern shore has Douglas area has a marina and county the residential and downtown park. A highway and railroad bridge cross neighborhoods of Prescott, another of the the river in its last few hundred feet before St. Croix’s historic river towns. A meeting the Mississippi. peninsula extends from the Min-

154 Scenic Resources

RECREATIONAL USE

Five state parks and one regional park abut Park in Bayport, Lakefront Park in the river and provide recreational oppor- Hudson, Point Douglas County Park, and tunities including hiking, cross-country the swimming beach in Lake St. Croix skiing, nature observation, swimming, Beach, it would be safe to conclude that fishing, car-related camping, and other visitation easily exceeds 2 million visitors activities. Local parks in communities per year. along the river provide similar opportunities. Considering the proximity to the Twin An increasingly popular form of recreation Cities metropolitan area, it is not surprising in the riverway is heritage tourism, which that many people access the riverway attracts visitors to a combination of natural through these parks. The following sum- and cultural amenities. In addition to the marizes three-year average annual park riverway's scenic character, visitors are visitor data for 1996-98: also attracted to its historic communities. There is currently no method of Minnesota Interstate State Park 364,499 determining the number of visitors to the Wisconsin Interstate State Park 338,131 riverway that are attracted by heritage William O’Brien State Park 239,810 Afton State Park 176,748 tourism. Kinnickinnic State Park 226,326 St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park 133,754* Because of its scenic character and high Total 1,479,268 water quality (suitable for body-contact recreation), the riverway is popular for all *Data is for 1998 only; this park opened to the public for the first time in 1997. types of boating recreation. Boating density is a concern along several sections of the Most of the riverway is not accessible by river. Riverway managing agencies have public park or by public road; as a result, agreed that the need for water surface use much of the riverway is accessed for rec- regulations should be studied when density reational purposes from the water. Ap- reaches 15 acres of water per moving boat proximately 310,600 people visited the and should be implemented when density riverway by water in 1997, the most recent reaches 10 acres of water per moving boat. year for which data is available. Combined Density is monitored with aerial photo- with state and regional park visitation graphic surveys, which have been con- information, the boating information leads ducted in odd-numbered years since 1977. to the conclusion that the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway receives ap- Because the river changes character several proximately 1.8 million visitors per year. times through its length, different sections Considering that use data is not kept for of the river are popular with different user some local parks that receive heavy use, groups. Distinct sections of the river are such as Lowell Park in Stillwater, Lakeside described below.

155 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

RIVER SECTIONS this area is second on the river only to the area described above. Backwaters from the Dalles of the St. Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16 miles Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles In areas such as Close Slough, Rice Lake, Peaslee Lake, and Lower Lake, and in back The river environment in this area includes channels opposite Osceola, at Cedar Bend, a braided channel environment with many opposite McLeod’s Slough and opposite forested floodplain islands and narrow side Copas, users will find a narrow and inti- channels, as well as a main channel that mate riverine experience that suggests moves back and forth across the valley. wilderness and provides solitude. The The very steep bluffs wall the valley with forested islands and shorelines appear cliffs and sandstone outcrops, creating a undisturbed and water quality is high. Very very scenic backdrop. Many, but not all of shallow conditions prevail and motorized the side channels are accessible to slow- craft are rarely seen, even during periods of moving motorboats, and there are some high water. During low-water periods, island campsites located on the side even canoes frequently run aground. Few channels. While the main channel here can of the river’s many users explore these be busy and noisy, the side channels offer a areas, leaving this as a refuge for solitude- quieter alternative. seekers.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: Backwaters from William O’Brien State 3.5 miles Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles The main river channel here meanders In areas such as Dead Man’s Slough, users among lush forests and basalt cliffs, will find a narrow and intimate riverine creating a scenic backdrop for the on-river experience that provides moderate solitude. experience. The two state parks here In Rice Lake is the designated St. Croix provide popular starting points for canoe Islands Wildlife Area, a large open back- trips that involve high scenic quality, no water similar to those found on the Missis- rapids to challenge the novice, and enough sippi River, with vast acres of emergent other people around to make the novice vegetation and waterfowl habitat. Very feel safe. Many Twin Cities residents have shallow conditions prevail and motorized their first canoe experience here, usually in craft are rarely seen, except during periods a group setting; the experience is fairly of high water when they cross the Arcola social, with relatively large numbers of sandbar from the south and motor slowly people. Shallow conditions generally through the area. This is an excellent area ensure that few, if any motorboats are for wildlife observation, especially water- encountered. fowl. For those seeking quiet and solitude,

156 Recreational Use

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10 Arcola Sandbar to north limits of miles Stillwater: 5 miles

The main river channel here is similar to The river environment in this area includes the area immediately north, except the a braided channel environment with many basalt cliffs have been replaced by wooded forested floodplain islands and narrow side bluffs. The bridge and landing at Osceola channels, as well as a main channel that serve as an end-point for many rental canoe moves back and forth across the valley. trips, so the social nature of the experience The very steep bluffs wall the valley with diminishes south of Osceola. The river cliffs and sandstone outcrops, creating a remains shallow and motorboats continue very scenic backdrop. The main river to be uncommon. channel provides adequate depth for most motorboats. The islands provide many boat beaching sites for island camping and day McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar: use, and the steep valley walls provide 8.5 miles shelter from the winds that often buffet Lake St. Croix to the south. These factors After the main river channel emerges from contribute to this being an extremely McLeod’s Slough, water depth increases popular area among motorboat users, and enough to permit use by pontoon boats and the recreational activity here is clearly other shallow-draft motorboats. Shoreline social. This reach of river contains about residential development increases, as does 9% of the riverway’s miles of length and the number of docked motorboats. Most receives about 8% of the total boating use. canoeists end their trip at William O’Brien Boating density in this reach of river has State Park. This river segment contains a averaged 9.4 acres of water per moving mixture of nonmotorized and slow-moving craft since 1983. motorized craft. The Arcola sandbar itself, created by a delta at the mouth of the Waterskiing is prohibited on weekend Apple River, is extremely shallow during afternoons in this area, and designation as a normal river levels and most motorized no-wake zone was considered but not craft do not cross it. enacted in the mid-1990s.

The section of the riverway north of the Arcola sandbar contains about 42% of the Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles riverway’s miles of length and receives This naturally wide part of the river is about 19% of the total boating use. While known as Lake St. Croix and is among the large numbers of canoes are occasionally most popular boating areas in Minnesota seen between Taylors Falls and Osceola, and Wisconsin. It is part of the Upper boating density is generally not a concern Mississippi River navigation system, north of the Arcola sandbar. ensuring adequate depth for even the largest recreational vessels (some craft in this area approach 100 feet in length). The widest portions, above and below Hudson, are very popular for sailboat use, and sailing races are held regularly. The 157 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

narrows area at Hudson includes several owned and leased to boating clubs, and at sandy islands that are very popular for both Afton State Park, Kinnickinnic State Park day use and camping. The bay between two and St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park. Most of man-made levees at Hudson is very popu- the remaining riverfront is privately owned. lar for waterskiing because it is protected The narrows area at Kinnickinnic State Park from winds that often buffet the open lake. includes a large and extremely popular Boating here is a very social experience, sandbar for day use and camping. Water and some watercraft travel at high speeds. depth is adequate for very large craft. Boating here is a very social experience, The portion of the lake north of Hudson and some watercraft travel at high speeds. contains about 12% of the riverway’s miles of length and receives about 12% of total The river at Catfish Bar contains about 1% use; density ranges from about 16 acres of of the riverway’s miles of length and rec- water per moving boat at Stillwater to about eives about 4% of total use; density 30 between Stillwater and Hudson. The averages 11.4 acres of water per moving Hudson narrows contains about 2% of the craft. The area is currently managed as a no- riverway’s miles of length and receives wake zone. The portion of river between about 18% of total use; density here aver- Catfish Bar and the Kinnickinnic Narrows ages 2.2 acres of water per moving craft, contains about 9% of the riverway’s miles making this the riverway’s most congested of length and receives about 5% of total area. The area is currently managed as a no- use; density averages 25.2 acres of water wake zone. The waterski bay at Hudson per moving craft. The Kinnickinnic Narows contains about 1% of the riverway’s length contains about 1% of the riverway’s miles and receives about 1% of total use; density of length and receives about 11% of total averages about 30 acres of water per mov- use; density averages 3.8 acres of water per ing craft. The southerly bay at Hudson, moving craft. The area is currently north of the Interstate 94 bridge, also con- managed as a no-wake zone. The bay on the tains about 1% of the riverway’s length; it south side of Kinnickinnic State Park receives about 4% of total use; density contains about 0.5% of the riverway’s miles averages 14.7 acres of water per moving of length and receives about 2% of total craft. The area is currently managed as a no- use; density averages 4.9 acres of water per wake zone. The portion of the lake between moving craft. The area is currently managed Hudson and Catfish Bar contains about 8% as a no-wake zone. The area between the of the riverway’s miles of length and re- Kinnickinnic Sandbar and Prescott contains ceives about 6% of total use; density aver- about 11% of the riverway’s miles of length ages 35.9 acres of water per moving craft. and receives about 7% of total use; density averages 18.7 acres of water per moving craft. The Prescott Narrows contains about Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles 0.5% of the riverway’s miles of length and receives about 3% of total use; density This lower section of Lake St. Croix is averages 4.6 acres of water per moving narrower than the upper portion of the lake craft. The area is currently managed as a no- and tall wooded bluffs fall directly into the wake zone. river. Boat beaching is popular at Catfish Bar and Black Bass Bar, which are privately 158 Recreational Use

OVERALL USE satisfaction remains artificially high because dissatisfied boaters have already left for Most recreational use of the riverway occurs other waters. Of the users who remain, during summer months, especially on week- those with a long experience on the river ends. Because of its proximity to the Twin and many of them riverfront landowners, Cities, much activity is day use rather than are often most concerned about crowding. as a vacation destination. Fishing is heavy Boaters access the river through boat in early May, and general boating use rises launching ramps, marinas, private riparian sharply on pleasant weekend days in May homes, and from the adjacent Mississippi and September. During the rest of the year, River. The states can regulate access on the recreational use of the riverway is low. inland waterway system (between the two Some snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and rivers) to meet certain regulatory needs cross-country skiing occur in winter, and ice (such as preventing the spread of exotic fishing is popular on Lake St. Croix during species), but not for arbitrary purposes such the coldest winter months. Cross-country as controlling overall numbers. skiing is quite popular in the state parks. On the whole, though, the vast majority of rec- Large numbers of boaters can impact the reational users visit the St. Croix only dur- river’s environment in two ways that are ing summer months. worth noting. First, some boaters do not dispose of human waste appropriately, with Watercraft use of the river in summer resulting threats to water quality. Because months increased rapidly during the 1960s, the river contains a large volume of water, 1970s, and early 1980s, and many users the river’s assimilative capacity makes that complained about crowding. Water surface risk relatively low, but it does exist. Sec- use regulations were imposed in the late ondly, boaters who visit the river’s sandy 1970s in response to concerns about safety shorelines and islands can trample vegeta- and resource impacts. A study of watercraft tion and increase erosion of those easily use in 1971 concluded the river was unac- eroded sandy soils. ceptably overcrowded. A carrying capacity study conducted in 1977 drew the same conclusion and observed that boating use CAMPING EXPERIENCE had increased dramatically in that six-year period. Use began to level off in the 1980s Island/shoreline boat-in camping is the pri- with the only discernable trend being an mary type of camping experience offered in increase in boat size south of Stillwater. the Lower St. Croix. Most campsites are un- designated and are created through recrea- Watercraft crowding remains a contro- tional use. Camping at informal sites has no versial subject on the St. Croix. Since many limitations on the number of groups or indi- of the riverway’s boaters are seeking a viduals. The island area available for camp- relatively social experience, encountering ing use will change within seasons and from large numbers of other people on the water year to year due to water level fluctuation. does not diminish their experience. For others seeking a less busy environment, the riverway fails to meet their needs and they are displaced to another water body. Boater

159 Recreational Use

There is some evidence that the number and Overnight use within the area north of complexity of islands has significantly Stillwater in 1997 was 16,216 overnight increased between 1969 and 1991. During stays. All overnight stays occurred in April this same period, data show that the area of through October; for five months of the year the islands had significantly decreased. Such (January, February, March, November, and changes have implications for how the island December) overnight use was nonexistent. resources may be managed. Car-accessible The cold weather limits the numbers of camping opportunities are limited within the campers during late fall and winter. Freezing riverway but such experiences are available of the riverway prohibits the usual boating at nearby state parks and private and other warm weather recreational campgrounds. activities. However, the frozen lake then offers opportunities for ice fishing, Camping use is reported as overnight stays snowmobiling, and other wintertime within the riverway. An overnight stay is activities. Overnight use figures for the one person spending one night within the riverway south of Stillwater are not col- riverway for recreational purposes. Over- lected. However, there is extensive overnight stays are counted separate from night use of the islands near Hudson and recreational users, so they do not cor- other public lands throughout the summer respond exactly. However, overnight use of season. July is the busiest month for the riverway accounted for only a minor overnight use throughout the riverway. portion of the riverway’s recreational use. Overnight stays for the lower riverway for 1997 are presented in figure A.

Figure A. Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Backcountry Camping (Overnight Stays) for 1997 by Month

5000 4500 4,150 4000 3500 2,954 2,986 3000 2,313 2500 1,798 2000

Overnight Stays 1500 1,230 1000 785 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 May July April June March August January

Month October February December November September

Source: National Park Service, Washington Office, Public Use Statistics Program Center

160 Recreational Use

Large numbers of boat-in campers can National Park Service impact the river’ environment in two ways that are worth noting. First, some boat-in The NPS headquarters for the St. Croix campers do not dispose of human waste National Scenic Riverway is in St. Croix appropriately, with resulting threats to water Falls, Wisconsin, just above the Taylors quality. Because the river contains a large Falls Dam. Facilities available here include volume of water, the assimilative capacity a visitor information center, picnic site, and makes that risk relatively low, but it does canoe landing. The Eagles Nest area exist. Secondly, boaters who camp on the (Minnesota) is 5.3 river miles downstream river’ sandy shorelines and islands can of the Taylors Falls Dam and offers canoe trample vegetation and increase erosion of camping and a landing, water, toilets, and a those easily eroded sandy soils. picnic site. This is a primitive camping site for canoe access only. The next NPS facility along the riverway is the Osceola Landing RECREATIONAL FACILITIES area on the Minnesota side of the river. This ALONG THE LOWER ST. CROIX area has a boat launch and canoe landing, fishing pier, and picnic areas with restrooms The lower riverway offers parks, recrea- and drinking water. Somerset Landing tional sites, wildlife areas, and facilities for (Wisconsin) is 18.2 river miles from the river and land-based recreational activities. Taylors Falls Dam and offers canoe These recreational facilities are managed by camping and a landing, boat launch, and various entities, including the National Park toilet facilities. Canoe campsites are also Service, the states of Minnesota and Wis- available on NPS-managed islands just consin, local governments, and private above Stillwater, Minnesota. The Lower entities. These public and additional private River Visitor Center in Stillwater is open facilities provide a diversity of visitor use year-round and provides visitor information experiences along the riverway, which and interpretive displays. include canoeing, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, hiking, bicycling, cross- country skiing, and environmental educa- Minnesota Department of Natural tion. The upper sections of the Lower St. Resources Croix from St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls areas to just north of Stillwater, Minnesota, Minnesota Interstate State Park is just offer water-based recreational opportunities below Taylors Falls and offers boat ramp in a natural setting. The lower sections of access to the river, camping and picnic the St. Croix downriver from Stillwater to facilities, hiking trails, and fishing. This the confluence with the Mississippi River park provides 37 camping sites, group provide an almost lakelike setting that campsites for 100 people, canoe rental and includes more motorized use and larger shuttle service, volleyball courts, a seasonal watercraft. The various recreational visitor center, and 3.5 miles of hiking trails. facilities along the lower riverway are William O’Brien State Park located just described below. north of Marine on the St. Croix offers a variety of recreational experiences including canoeing, hiking, fishing, and swimming.

Camping opportunities include backpack 161 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT campsites and primitive group campsites river and lake fishing, and a swimming (capacity 75) to semi-modern sites (125) beach. with electrical hookups (62). Showers and dump stations are also provided. A boat Wildlife management areas such as the St. launch ramp, hiking and cross-country ski Croix Islands Wildlife Area offer wildlife trails (9.5 miles), access to country bike trail viewing, canoeing, hunting, fishing, trap- systems, a year-round interpretive program ping, and picnicking opportunities. The St. and visitor center, and picnic grounds (200 Croix Islands Wildlife Area is downriver tables) with snack bar and shelters are also from Marine on St. Croix and provides found here. Winter recreation includes river access to the St. Croix and to the snowmobiling, skate ski, and cross-country Apple River. The Apple River flows ski trails with a warming house provided. through the wildlife area to join the St. Croix and is known for its tubing oppor- The St. Croix Boomsite public access is tunities. Also contained within the wildlife above Stillwater and has 20 parking spaces area is the Apple River Canyon, which is and a boat launch. The next major DNR used by the scientific community for facility is Afton State Park just south of the student teaching and research. city of Afton on bluffs overlooking the St. Croix Valley and river. There is minimal Kinnickinnic State Park is on the lower amount of development in the park in order section of the riverway and provides to preserve the natural character of the site. recreational opportunities for swimming, A walk-in backpack campground (24 fishing, picnicking, and 7 miles of hiking sites), group campground (two camps), and and cross-country skiing trails. Day-use one canoe campsite are provided with facilities focus on picnicking and hiking dock, fishing, swimming beach, and river and water-based activities such as water access. The park has a year-round visitor skiing, sunbathing, boat camping, wind center, a self-guided trail, and two picnic surfing, and summertime sports. Campsites grounds, and offers 18 miles of hiking and (112 sites) have limited facilities. Winter cross-country trails, 5 miles of horseback uses include cross-country skiing, ice trails, and 4 miles of bike trails. fishing, hiking, and snowshoeing. The Kinnickinnic River joins the St. Croix at the park and is known for its trout fishing. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources OTHER PUBLIC, TOWNSHIP, Wisconsin Interstate State Park is below COUNTY, AND NONPROFIT St. Croix Falls and provides boat ramp access to the river, camping and picnic Sources of information on river recreation facilities, hiking trails, and fishing. It also and facilities can be found at the Interstate offers year-round naturalist programs, 94 State Welcome Centers on either side of guided hikes, and the Ice Age Interpretive the St. Croix River in Minnesota and in Center. This park has 85 camping sites Wisconsin. These Department of Transpor- with two group camps, 8.9 miles of hiking tation waysides also provide picnic sites. and 10.6 miles of cross-country ski trails, Public boat ramps and launches can be found at Franconia, Log House, Somerset,

162 Recreational Use and St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park. City REGIONAL RECREATIONAL boat launch areas include facilities at, FACILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES Bayport, Hudson, and Afton. Public facilities that provide picnic areas, rest- In addition to those recreational facilities rooms, and drinking water are at St. Croix directly along the lower riverway, within a Boomsite Historic Wayside (Minnesota 50 mile radius, there are many other DOT), Lakeside Park (Bayport), Ferry regional outdoor recreational areas that Landing Park (North Hudson), and provide hiking, biking, equestrian, snow- Lakefront Park (Hudson). Municipal dock mobile, and cross-country skiing trails; access is available at Lowell Park (Still- camping facilities; environmental water). Public swimming beaches can be education centers; and river recreational found at Kalliner Park, Bayport, North opportunities that include boat and canoe Hudson, Hudson, Lakeland, Troy Beach, access, swimming, and fishing. Lake St. Croix Beach, Pt. Douglas Park, and Prescott. Within this region Minnesota offers three state parks, one national recreation area, Hiking trails and educational programs two wildlife areas, one state forest, and one focusing on the lower river environment national wildlife refuge. St. Croix Wild can be found at the Carpenter Nature River State Park (Minnesota DNR) is Center north of Point Douglas, Minnesota. northwest of Interstate State Park and has This is a private, nonprofit nature preserve 96 semimodern campsites, eight canoe and environmental education facility campsites, eight backpack campsites, a encompassing 600 acres with several miles trailer dump station, picnic grounds, two of hiking trails and an interpretive center. river access points, a visitor center and Still in the development phase is the Stand- year-round trail center, 35 miles of hiking ing Cedars Community Land Conservancy and cross-country ski trails, 18 miles of (Osceola, Wisconsin) that will offer public horseback trails, a guest house, and two outdoor recreation and environmental cabins. The Sand Dunes State Forest education programs along the Lower St. (Minnesota DNR) has hiking, cross- Croix Riverway. country skiing, equestrian, and snowmobile trails, campgrounds, swimming beaches, and fishing. The Carlos Avery Wildlife PRIVATE Management Area (Minnesota DNR) west of Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls offers Many private marinas and docks can be hunting and a boat ramp with canoe-carry found along the riverway at Marine on St. access. Fort Snelling State Park Croix, Boomsite, Stillwater, Bayport, (Minnesota DNR) in the heart of the Hudson, Afton, and Prescott. Private boat Minneapolis/St. Paul area has 150 picnic ramps for river access are at Marine on St. sites, a swimming beach, toilets, river and Croix, Stillwater, Bayport, Hudson, Lake- lake fishing, boat and canoe access, 18 land, and Afton. Many of these facilities miles of hiking trails, 18 miles of skiing also provide river access, picnic areas, trails, 5 miles of biking trails, a golf restrooms, boat docks, and drinking water. course, recreational fields, and an interpretive center. The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area includes 72

163 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

miles of river environment flowing through and developments. The Minnesota Gateway the Twin Cities metropolitan area to the Trail is a bike trail connecting St. Paul to confluence of the St. Croix River. Fronte- Pine Point Park and is a segment of the nac State Park (Minnesota DNR) near Lake Willard Munger Trail that runs as far north Pepin provides bird viewing opportunities, as Duluth. The Willard Munger Trail is a 58 campsites, one group campsite, 15.4 164-mile multiuse Minnesota state trail that miles of hiking trails, a 2.5-mile self- offers hiking, bicycling, snowmobiling, guided trail, 6 miles of cross-country ski cross-country skiing, and horseback riding. trail, 8 miles of snowmobile trails, a picnic The 50-mile Gandy Dancer Trail in Wiscon- area, and fishing. Wildlife management sin is used by hikers, bikers, snowmobilers, areas that provide wildlife viewing and and ATVs and connects St. Croix Falls to recreational activities include the Danbury. The Ice Age Trail is a 500-mile- Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. long hiking and horseback riding trail that Fish and Wildlife Service) northwest of traverses the glacial landscape of Wisconsin Minneapolis and the Gores Pool No. 3 with a trailhead at the Interstate Park below Wildlife Management Area (Minnesota St. Croix Falls. Also found in Wisconsin is Department of Natural Resources) the Red Cedar State Trail that is a 14.5-mile southeast of Minneapolis. Other Minnesota hiking, biking, and cross-country skiing trail areas include the Upper Mississippi paralleling the Red Cedar River from National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, the Menomonie to the Chippewa River Valley. Sandstone National Wildlife Refuge, the Kettle State Wild and Scenic River, the The 200 miles of riverine environment of Mississippi State Wild and Scenic River, the Upper St. Croix National Scenic the Rum State Wild and Scenic River, and Riverway complement the recreational Nerstrand Big Woods State Park. activities in the Lower St. Croix by providing different types of experiences. Wisconsin has three additional recreational The upper river offers more primitive, areas within the region of the lower river- wilderness-like experiences with river way. Willow River State Park (Wisconsin conditions containing mostly class I rapids DNR) northeast of Hudson provides camp- (small waves with few or no obstructions) ground facilities (72 sites), beach and boat and some class II rapids (wide clear lake access, nature center, and hiking and channels with waves up to 3 feet). The nature trails (10.2 miles). Hoffman Hills upper riverway’s flowages at Hayward, Recreation Area (Wisconsin DNR) near Trego, and Taylors Falls provide slack Menomonie has an outdoor group camp for water for small powerboat activities and youth groups, an observation tower, a self- deep-water fishing. The numerous public guided nature trail, and hiking/skiing trails. recreational areas surrounding the Upper St. The Red Cedar Trail (Wisconsin DNR) is Croix provide a wide range of outdoor also near Menomonie. recreational activities and facilities, which occur in primarily wilderness like settings. Long distance trails in the region provide links between scenic natural areas and also connect natural areas with residential parks

164 NATURAL RESOURCES

CLIMATE forms from nitrogen oxide emissions from the King Plant. The climate is subhumid continental, with long, snowy, cold winters and relatively National Ambient Air Quality Standards short, warm summers. Average annual for certain major air pollutants, including precipitation in the St. Croix Basin ranges sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate from 28–32 inches. About 75% of the matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead, annual precipitation falls from May to were established under the 1970 Clean Air September (Baker et al. as cited in USGS Act Amendments. Areas in the United 1996). Average daily maximum tempera- States that meet or exceed these standards tures reach 85° in July and 23° in January. are known as attainment areas. Areas in Early spring months are cool and rainy, which the standards are not met are with June usually being the wettest month nonattainment areas. of the year. During summer and early fall, the weather becomes progressively drier. The southwestern part of Wisconsin from Snowfall contributes about 15% of the Prescott (Pierce County) to St. Croix Falls total annual precipitation; annual snowfall (Polk County) is in attainment with all averages about 45 inches per year in the St. national ambient air quality standards. Croix basin, most of which is in February Overall, Minnesota is in compliance with and March. Much of the river is usually nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead frozen from November until April, with the ambient air quality standards. The Twin exception of the Narrows, whose width and Cities seven-county area, which includes faster current keep the water ice-free most Washington County, is in nonattainment of the winter. for carbon monoxide. However, the state is applying for redesignation to attainment based on the lack of carbon monoxide AIR QUALITY standards violations in recent years. An ozone monitoring site is in Washington In general, air quality and visibility are County, which monitors downwind con- usually good in the lower St. Croix area. centrations of ozone emanating from the However, there is some evidence of Twin Cities area. This monitoring site is in pollution from the Minneapolis/St. Paul attainment with the old 1-hour ozone stan- (Twin Cities) area. Adjacent to the river at dard. However, recent promulgation of the Stillwater, Minnesota, is the Allen S. King new 8-hour standard calls for reassessment Power Plant, a coal-fired facility. The Twin at the end of 1998 monitoring season, at Cities area and Allen S. King plant appear which time the attainment status will be to be the major sources of pollution along reassessed. The Twin Cities seven-county the lower riverway. Regional haze condi- area also has a limited problem with tions are noticeable on many days through- particulate matter (PM10) in the downtown out the year (NPS 1995a). Under certain St. Paul area. EPA’s promulgation of a meteorological conditions, layered haze new particulate standard (PM2.5) calls for

165 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT monitoring to determine status. That new produces fluctuating flows downstream. monitoring program will start in 1999. From the dam, rapids extend to a deep and narrow gorge with basalt cliffs, known as The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments the Dalles. Downstream of the gorge the established a program to preserve, protect, valley widens and the St. Croix changes to and enhance the air quality in clean air a shallow, slow-moving river. Tall, areas of the United States. The riverway forested bluffs line the heavily wooded was designated as a class II clean air area. valley. At Rock Island the river narrows Air quality standards, known as incre- and passes through another basalt rock ments, were established for these areas for gorge. Below Rock Island, the river winds certain air pollutants, including sulfur back and forth across the floodplain, leav- dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate ing islands and braided channels beneath matter, from new or modified existing steep, heavily wooded bluffs. Just below major stationary sources. Under this the Swing Bridge (historic railroad cros- designation, limited development can be sing) the river splits into two distinct permitted in the vicinity of the riverway as channels, that come together again at the long as the levels of particulate matter, south end of McLeod’s Slough. This sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide do not slough is marked by floodplain forests and exceed the class II increments. extensive backwater marshes. The river continues to flow through a broad floodplain, with many braided channels, in- PHYSIOGRAPHY AND cluding Page’s Slough. East of Page’s TOPOGRAPHY Slough, on the Wisconsin side of the river’s main channel, is a large, island-rich, The Lower St. Croix National Scenic backwater complex, which includes Dead Riverway is 52 miles long, from the Man’s Slough and Rice Lake. Downstream Northern States Power Dam at Taylors of Rice Lake, the Apple River enters the Falls/St. Croix Falls to the confluence with St. Croix and forms a delta that includes the Mississippi River. The watershed of the the Arcola sandbar ¾ an extremely shal- lower river consists of 1,470 square miles; low section of the main channel that serves approximately 1,053 square miles in Wis- as a barrier to motorboat traffic from the consin and 417 square miles in Minnesota. south. From the Arcola sandbar down- Three major tributary streams, the Apple, stream to the head of Lake St. Croix the Willow, and Kinnickinnic Rivers, all in river valley is narrower, and the valley Wisconsin, drain much of this lower river walls are marked by limestone and sand- watershed. stone cliffs. The river flows through a braided channel with numerous islands, The lower St. Croix changes markedly although the main channel provides along this 52-mile course. Through the adequate water depth for large watercraft. upper 27 miles, the river flows through a relatively narrow valley and is primarily Through the lower 25 miles, the river characterized by shallow water and many valley broadens considerably and the river islands, braided channels, and backwaters. itself becomes lake-like. The head of Lake At Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls river flow St. Croix lies near Stillwater, Minnesota. is affected by a hydroelectric dam that High bluffs line both sides of the valley. 166 Natural Resources

On the Wisconsin side, tall bluffs rise from Analysis compared land use in 1972, when near the water, receding back from the the Lower St. Croix was first designated as river near North Hudson. The Minnesota a national scenic riverway, and 1991, bluffs largely set back from the river, reflecting then current land use character- coming closer to the water south of Bay- istics. Recent land use patterns and port. The river remains broad and lake-like, proximity to the Twin Cities metropolitan although it becomes narrow and fairly fast- area continue to influence the riverway. moving near Hudson, where a chain of sandy, sparsely vegetated islands runs Today, the fastest-growing land use in the along the Wisconsin side of the main St. Croix basin is urban. The acreage of channel. South to Catfish Bar is the river’s urban land in the watershed doubled from widest and deepest section, nearly two 1973 to 1991, growing from 3% of the miles across and up to 70 feet deep. From total land area to 6% of the total land area Catfish Bar to the Kinnickinnic narrows of the watershed. That growth has taken the river is about 1/2-mile wide and fronted place primarily in western St. Croix by tall bluffs that drop almost directly into County and eastern Washington County. the water. Catfish Bar, which is directly Along the Lower St. Croix itself, there are across from Afton, is a large sandbar that some areas where land use / land cover juts into the river at the base of a large, change has been even more dramatic. wooded bluff. Black Bass Bar, a similar Where the northern portion of the Lower sandbar on the Wisconsin side, lies south St. Croix is largely influenced by National of Catfish Bar. The Kinnickinnic narrows Park Service fee and scenic easement is formed by the sandy delta at the mouth acquisition, the southern portion of the of the Kinnickinnic River, which forces the Lower St. Croix (i.e., between Stillwater, river channel west, against the Minnesota MN and Prescott,WI ) is largely influenced bluffs. Below the narrows the river is much by private residential development. like the Catfish Bar to Kinnickinnic Densities in this area range from larger stretch. The river is uniformly about 1/2- homesteads to more dense urban lots in mile wide and fronted by tall, wooded small town and outlying subdivision bluffs that drop almost directly into the developments. water. A peninsula extends from the Minnesota shore at the mouth of the river Other land use patterns are fairly reflective (Point Douglas), forming a natural dam of characteristics identified in 1972. that creates Lake St. Croix. Water levels Larger river towns like Stillwater, and are further influenced by Lock and Dam #3 Hudson, and smaller communities like at Red Wing, Minnesota. Osceola, Marine on St. Croix and Afton continue to be prominent in the riverway corridor. Limited industrial development includes the Alan S. King Generating Plant LAND USE / LAND COVER in Oak Park Heights and Andersen Win- A comprehensive land use / land cover dow Corporation in Bayport. Undevel- study was undertaken by the Minnesota – oped shoreland and bluff areas, and state as Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission in well as local park areas are also found 1993 (Stewardship of the Lower St. Croix throughout the riverway. River and its Watershed, MWBAC, 1994). 167 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The area has been transformed from a The potential for sand and gravel develop- presettlement mixture of forest, prairie and ment in and near the riverway continues to wetland natural habitat to a watershed that increase due to urban development. Within in the 1990s, was about 56% cultivated the riverway, two private pits are being agricultural land, 25% forest, 7% water and expanded. The Park Service holds scenic wetlands, 6% grassland, and 6% urban. easements on many of the private lands within the upper portion of the riverway, but easements will not prevent mineral GEOLOGY development on lands of split estate ownership, where sand and gravel is part of the Geologic resources are one of the three subsurface estate. The NPS 1984 Land outstandingly remarkable values for which Protection Plan allows the riverway to the riverway was designated. The basalt purchase mineral rights if deemed formations form the Dalles, along with necessary to protect its resources. potholes and other geologic features left by glacial meltwater. SOILS The wide, deep valley of the St. Croix was formed approximately 9, 000 years ago Soils on the Wisconsin side of the lower when large volumes of water drained St. Croix River formed primarily in glacial glacial Lake Duluth. Underlying the river- outwash and a small portion formed in way surface features are a variety of bed- glacial till. Polk County general soils are ock formations, which consists of Precam- characterized by well drained and some- brian sandstone, lava flows, Cambrian what excessively drained loamy and sandy sandstone, and dolomite. The unconsoli- soils on pitted outwash plains. St. Croix dated material under most of the basin County general soils are characterized as ranges from 100 to 200 feet in thickness. In well drained and somewhat excessively the vicinity of the lower St. Croix River, drained, medium to moderately coarse the basin is characterized by flat-topped, textured soils on outwash plains and steep-sided hills with narrow stream stream terraces. The soils on the Minnesota valleys. Below St. Croix Falls, the river side of the lower St. Croix are generally flows through both ground and end characterized as very poorly to moderately moraines. The Dalles geological forma- well-drained loamy and sandy soils that tions at Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls formed in alluvial deposits and glacial till. are basalt overlain by sandstone and con- However, the soils vary along the riverway, glomerate. High bluffs of limestone and and also include soils formed primarily in a sandstone are distinctive features below sandy or loamy mantle over bedrock and in Taylors Falls to Prescott. The area south of sandy alluvium, silty mantle and the under- Bayport to Afton on the Minnesota side is lying sandy outwash, silty mantle over characterized by nearly level terraces com- bedrock, and glacial outwash. posed of sand and gravel. The riverway substrate is gravel and cobble in the high Prime and unique soils are important farm- velocity areas and coarse to fine sand in the land and orchard production soils best slower reaches. suited to food, feed, forage, and fiber. They can be cultivated land, pasture, or wood- 168 Natural Resources land. It does not include developed or managing agencies to increase winter water areas. In Wisconsin, numerous areas minimum flows. of prime farmland have been identified between St. Croix Falls and Prescott along The lock and dam system on the Missis- and adjacent to the lower St. Croix NSR in sippi River at Red Wing, Minnesota, has a Polk, St. Croix, and Pierce Counties. Ac- profound influence on the water level in cording to individual Natural Resources the lower riverway. That system was built Conservation Service (NRCS) county soil in the 1930s when flow in the St. Croix surveys, in Wisconsin, more than 54 desig- was at a historical low. It was built to nated prime and unique farmland soil types maintain a flat pool level in Pool 3, which can be found in or along the riverway. On includes the lower St. Croix, at a level of the Minnesota side of the lower St. Croix 675.0 feet above mean sea level at the at least 34 prime and unique farmland soil Stillwater gauge. At 675.0, the river is 3 to types have been identified that lie along the 5 feet above its pre-dam level. However, riverway in Chisago and Washington when the level is higher than 675.0 the Counties. Shoreline areas and some bluff effect of the lock and dam on the St. Croix areas in the riverway are generally sandy is minimal or nonexistent (Steve Johnson, and easily eroded. MDNR, personal communication, 1996 as cited in NPS 1997).

Both Wisconsin and Minnesota recognize WATER RESOURCES the quality of the water of the St. Croix Streamflow of the St. Croix River has been Riverway and give most of it the highest monitored at St. Croix Falls since 1902. level of protection allowed. Wisconsin Average discharge through 1990 is 4,206 classifies the St. Croix River as Excep- cubic feet per second (cfs). Seasonally, tional Resource Water (ERW) from the highest flow is in the spring, from melting northern city limit of St. Croix Falls to 1 snow, rains falling on melting snow, or mile below the State Highway 243 bridge heavy rains falling on saturated soils. The at Osceola. From this point to the northern largest dam on the river is the Northern boundary of the Hudson city limits, it is States Power Company (NSP) dam span- classified as an outstanding resource water ning the river at Taylors Falls, Minnesota, (ORW). Then, from Hudson to the con- and St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. The dam fluence with the Mississippi River, the St. was specifically authorized by Congress in Croix is classified as an ERW. Waters 1903 and consequently predates Federal classified as ERW require that any in- Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) creases in existing discharges must meet requirements. Because the dam is operated the water quality standards for “fish and on a daily peaking schedule, water level aquatic life purposes” and any new dis- fluctuations are experienced above and charge is required to meet “background” below the dam. In 1931, minimum flows of conditions of the receiving water. For 1,600 cfs were established from April 1 to ORW segments of the river both new and October 31 of each year. Then in 1989, the increased discharges must meet “back- NSP agreed to an 800 cfs minimum flow ground” conditions. In Minnesota, the for the rest of each year. Negotiations are entire lower St. Croix River, is designated underway between NSP and riverway as outstanding resource value waters - 169 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT restricted (ORVW-R). This designation criteria were exceeded for some param- requires that a proposed new or increased eters, primarily fecal coliform, cadmium, discharge would not be allowed unless copper, and lead; mercury, nickel, zinc, there was no prudent and feasible fluoride, pH, dissolved oxygen, and alternative. turbidity were also exceeded, but even less frequently. It should be emphasized that The overall water quality of the riverway is the frequency of times the above criteria considered to be good relative to other were exceeded was relatively low. For river systems within the region (Troelstrup example, dissolved oxygen was below et al. 1993). In general in the St. Croix criteria once and only at Taylors Falls, and River, alkalinity, pH, conductivity, nitro- was typically well above the EPA recom- gen, turbidity, and phosphorus increase mended level necessary to maintain fish downstream, while oxygen tends to de- populations. crease (NPS 1997a). Graczyk (1986) and Boyle et al. (1992) also showed increasing Results of an anti-degradation analysis nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations (Breidt et al. 1991 as cited in NPS 1997a) downstream along the riverway. Increasing on dissolved oxygen, organic nitrogen, and nutrients, turbidity, chlorophyll a, and phosphorus on a lower St. Croix River site decreasing oxygen could be the result of at Hudson, Wisconsin, showed that water the more fertile soils in the lower basin, but quality has not degraded, with the possible may also suggest increasing human exception of organic nitrogen, since impacts downstream along the riverway. establishment of the riverways. Sources of nutrients in the St. Croix River include municipal sewage, industrial Fifteen municipal and industrial permitted wastes, septic tanks, feedlot discharges, waste water facilities discharge directly to detergents, fertilizers, plant detritus, animal the St. Croix River. Thirteen of these waste, soil erosion, stormwater runoff, discharge to the lower riverway. Troelstrup phosphate-bearing rock, precipitation and et al. (1993) examined compliance evalua- atmospheric deposition. Sources of tion reports for NPDES dischargers during sediments include erosion of soils and 1982-92. Discharger compliance with scouring stream channels. permitted limits has generally been good. Most violations were minor and short- Preliminary data (Boyle et al. 1992, term, involving some combination of total Graczyk 1986) suggest that many suspended solids, residual chlorine, tributaries on the riverway have higher biochemical oxygen demand and/or fecal sediment and nutrient concentrations than coliform bacteria. The Allen S. King power the river itself. plant and the municipal wastewater treatment plant at Taylors Falls, St. Croix Water quality variables usually are well Falls, Osceola and Hudson had the greatest within acceptable water quality criteria. number of permit violations (NPS 1997a). There were some isolated instances of water quality criteria (EPA 1994, 1995 as The lower riverway has several communi- cited in NPS 1997a) being exceeded, based ties along its banks with potential storm on historical data from four sites that were sewer drainage (St. Croix Falls, Taylors monitored on the lower St. Croix. EPA Falls, Osceola, Stillwater, and Hudson).

170 Natural Resources

These existing communities along with tion, toxic compounds such as heavy increasing development along the river metals, pesticides, and herbicides can increase the potential for storm water influence mussel populations. Increase impacts. Potential pollutants include levels of sediment can affect metabolism sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding and feeding. organic materials, bacteria, pesticides and toxic pollutants (heavy metals), and The principal bedrock in which ground- hazardous organic compounds (Kim et al. water occurs along the St. Croix are sedi- 1993). These can cause increased turbidity, mentary strata. The groundwater in the lower oxygen levels, human health riverway area is generally satisfactory for hazards, and contaminated biota including most domestic, public, and industrial and fish. irrigation uses (Kanivetsky as cited by USGS 1996). However, the geology of the Minnesota and Wisconsin polychlorinated St. Croix River basin makes the basin’s biphenyls (PCB) fish consumption advis- groundwater vulnerable to contamination, ories have been issued for six fish species which has the potential to produce negative in the Marine on St. Croix area and nine impacts on the quality of water in the St. species below Stillwater. Contamination Croix River. Groundwater contamination levels showed an increasing downstream may result from both point and non-point trend. Mercury consumption advisories sources; point sources are generally related have been issued for five fish species in the to spills of hazardous material and improp- Marine on St. Croix area and two species er waste disposal, whereas non-point below Stillwater (Minnesota Department sources are most frequently related to of Health 1994, Wisconsin Department of application of fertilizers and pesticides on Natural Resources, Dept. of Health, 1994 agricultural, residential, and commercial as cited in NPS 1997a). Past sampling for lands. PCBs by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources have shown the pres- FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS ence of PCBs in both fish and sediment. Heavy metals have also been found in fish Flooding is most likely on the lower St. tissue in the lower portions of the St. Croix Croix River from snowmelt in the spring River. and occasionally from intense storms in the summer. But flooding happens at other An indicator of exceptional water quality times of the year as well. The regional 100- of the St. Croix River is the presence of 40 year flood is generally used to delineate the species of native mussels. Based on water limits of floodplains for regulatory pur- quality data (Fago and Hatch 1993), at poses. A peak discharge of about 58,100 present water quality standards are high cfs can be expected on the St. Croix River and do not pose a threat to the mussel com- at St. Croix Falls once every 100 years and munity (Hornbach, D. J. 1996). A number has a 1% chance of occurring in any one of water quality factors can limit the distri- year (i.e., the 100-year flood). Peak eleva- bution and abundance of mussels. These tion at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for the include suspended solids, dissolved oxy- 100-year flood is 718.5 feet. Table 22 gen, ammonia, calcium, and pH. In addi- shows peak discharge rates of selected 171 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT intervals at St. Croix Falls. The Federal system is also based on the U.S. Fish and Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Wildlife Service’s Classification of has mapped the 100-year flood boundary Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the for much of the riverway for flood United States, but with a few simplifica- insurance rates. No base flood elevations tions to make it easier to understand and were determined by FEMA. use. About 1,030 acres of the lands within the riverway boundary on the Wisconsin Wetlands are lands where saturation with side of the St. Croix are classified as water is the dominate factor determining wetland. the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities Glenn-Lewin et al. (1992) surveyed living in the soil and on its surface. Within wetlands along the federal zone of the the riverway, wetlands exist primarily on riverway. Based on inventory and the riverine edge. The types of wetlands reconnaissance sampling and assessment, found within the lower riverway include the riverway’s wetlands are in excellent wet meadows, ponds , sloughs, seeps, and condition. There was little evidence of marshes. disturbance, erosion loss, or sedimentation.

Different classification systems have been used to map wetlands along the lower VEGETATION riverway. On the Minnesota side of the St. Croix, wetlands have been mapped The St. Croix watershed has dramatically (1:24,000 scale) using the U.S. Fish and changed since Euro-American settlement Wildlife Service’s Classification of of the 1840s–150s. Presettlement land- Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the cover in the lower St. Croix basin was United States (USFWS 1979). About 500 primarily dominated by river-bottom acres of the land within the riverway forest, oak openings and barrens, prairie, boundary of the Minnesota side is and big woods. In Wisconsin, the major classified as wetland. plant communities in Polk County consisted of the southern-hardwood forest,

TABLE 22: ST. CROIX RIVER DISCHARGE RATES while the vegetation along the St. Croix in AT ST. CROIX FALLS, WISCONSIN St. Croix and Pierce Counties was Interval Discharge rate in primarily oak savanna. In Minnesota, vege- cubic feet per second tation along the riverway in Chisago 2 year 22,300 County consisted primarily of hardwood 5 year 33,200 forest and in Washington County, a 10 year 40,000 mixture of hardwood forests, brushland, 25 year 47,800 and grassland. The watershed now is a 50 year 53,100 mosaic of habitat fragmented by suburban, 100 year 58,100 agrarian, and recreational developments. The makeup is 56% cultivated agricultural land, 25% forest, 7% water and wetlands, Wetlands in Wisconsin have been mapped 6% grassland, and 6% urban. using a different classification system developed by the state of Wisconsin. This 172 Natural Resources

Historically, presettlement forest acreage ties are also strongly influenced by the was more than double what it is today. periodicity and duration of flooding as well Some very important remnants of natural as proximity to the water table. vegetation exist in the watershed, and many of the most significant ones are Several aquatic plant communities can be found along the river. distinguished along the lower riverway. Algal communities, composed mainly of The lower St. Croix Riverway is ecolog- blue-greens, greens, yellow-greens, dia- ically significant for many reasons. A toms, and Cryptophyta are found in both mosaic of biological communities occurs standing and moving water. Community along the riverway, including southern composition and abundance vary according hardwood forests, oak savannahs, and to seasonal changes and local river influ- lowland forests. Moreover, the riverway ences. Stagnant or backwater areas are provides an edge zone where land meets more likely to experience “blooms" than water, which creates diverse habitats for moving water. both aquatic and terrestrial species. Several special habitats are rare or unique in this Little information is available on nonvas- region: bedrock outcrops, oak savannahs, cular plants in the riverway. Wetmore and floodplain islands harbor their own (1991) studied lichens at 77 sites along the special plant associations and wildlife entire riverway. He observed that the populations. With its variety of habitats, riverway had a diverse lichen flora, with a soil types, and landforms, the riverway is total of 265 identified species. Most of the considered to be a hot spot from a biodi- species were found along the whole length versity standpoint, supporting a rich fauna of the riverway — 10 were found south of and flora population. Taylors Falls, and a number were on the basaltic rocks around Taylors Falls. In general, vegetation communities in the lower riverway consist primarily of north- Nonnative or exotic plant species are found ern hardwood and river floodplain forest, throughout the riverway on lands that have with south and southwestern facing slopes been disturbed by human activities and on in the lower reaches covered by grasslands lands populated by seeds from lands typified by sand, basalt bald, and hill adjacent to or near the riverway. In 1985 prairies. Vegetation types include: river more than 80 exotic plant species were floodplain (river bottom forest), dry oak listed for the upper and lower riverway forest (Wisconsin bluffs), mesic oak forest, (NPS 1985). Some of the more pervasive maple-basswood forest, lowland hardwood and aggressive exotics found on the lower forest, white pine-hardwood forest, mixed riverway include purple loosestrife, spotted emergent marsh, river beach, and to some knapweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, curly degree oak woodland brushland and bed- pondweed, Tartarian honeysuckle, rock prairie (remnants). Plant community buckthorn, and reed canary grass. distribution along the riverway is governed by a variety of considerations, such as soil type, landform, aspect, slope, and moisture. For example, lowland hardwood forests occur on mineral soils. Lowland communi-

173 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

WILDLIFE (Ophiogomphus susbehcha), is of special interest: this newly discovered species was The St. Croix River supports one of the first found along the middle reaches of the most diverse mussel populations in the St. Croix in 1989. upper Mississippi River system, with 90% of the potential mussels species being in Boyle et al. (1992) observed significantly the area (NPS 1995a). There have been a reduced densities and taxa richness of number of surveys for freshwater mussels invertebrates from below the dam to the in the St. Croix River. Hornbach (1996) confluence with the Apple River. Fluctu- reported 40 species of mussels. The density ating flows from power-peaking activities and richness of the mussel communities is at the dam may be influencing invertebrate quite high. There are two particular areas communities. Similar effects were found of high density and species richness on the downstream of the Osceola wastewater lower riverway. The Interstate Park and treatment plant outfall. Downstream Lakeland sites are found in the two major declines in macroinvertebrate species habitats in the lower St. Croix ¾ Interstate richness were also reported by Montz et al. in the riverine portion and Lakeland in the (1991 as cited in NPS 1997a). lacustrine portion. Little of the variation in mussel density and richness is explained by Fifty-two mammals have been observed in physical habitat parameters. It appears that the lower riverway. There is very little host distribution may greatly influence the baseline information on the distribution distribution of mussel species in the St. and abundance of mammals within the Croix. The native mussels have a host-fish lower riverway; most data are limited to requirement to complete their life cycle. fur bearers and game species. Many mammals may use the riverway as a travel Terrestrial invertebrates have not been well corridor, moving north and south. Habitat studied on the lower riverway, and little fragmentation as a result of residential data exist for most aquatic macroin- development has likely reduced the use of vertebrates. Common groups of aquatic the riverway as a travel corridor for some invertebrates known in the lower riverway mammals, especially sensitive species such include worms, insects, leeches, snails, as gray wolf (Canis lupus), mountain lion clams, crayfish, and mussels. In their (Felis concolor), and bobcat, which are review of studies that have been done in now rarely seen in the riverway. The white- the St. Croix River basin from 1966–1991, tailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus) is the Fago and Hatch (1993) found specimen big game animal most likely to be seen by records for 291 species for the lower St. river travelers. The riverway is surrounded Croix River based on a study done 1966– by good to excellent deer habitat. Other 75. Most of the specimens were collected mammals likely to be seen by the average on the mainstem of the St. Croix, with a river traveler in and near the water include few on tributaries near their confluence’s mink (Mustela vison), weasel (Mustela with the mainstem. Most of the inverte- sp.), striped skunk (Mephitus mephitus), brate specimens collected were insects, river otter (Lutra canadensis), muskrat including mayflies, stoneflies, caddis flies, (Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor dragonflies, beetles, and true flies. A canadensis), woodchuck (Marmota dragonfly species, the St. Croix snaketail monax), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).

174 Natural Resources

Smaller mammals in the area include gray minor), and wild turkey (Meleagris and red squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis and gallopavo), which was recently Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), masked shrew reintroduced in Polk County. (Sorex cinereus), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), eastern mole The St. Croix Riverway is considered to be (Scalopus aquaticus), little brown myotis productive for wood ducks (Aix sponsa) (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat and mallard (Anus platyrhynchos). Hooded (Eptesicus fuscus), deer mouse mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus) also (Peromyscus maniculatus), and meadow nest along the riverway, and use by Canada vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). The mice geese (Branta canadensis) is increasing. and voles prefer the plains and meadows, Waterfowl that are likely to be seen while the shrews and moles prefer wetter include mallard, blue-winged teal (Anas areas bordering the river. discors), common and red-breasted merganser (Mergus merganser and Mergus The lower riverway also supports a diverse serrator), ring-necked duck, wood duck, population of upland and water birds. At and Canada goose. least 133 species are known to breed within the lower riverway. Birds that river The north-south orientation of the St. travelers would most likely see include Croix Riverway attracts and makes it an song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), important route for migrating birds (NPS American crow (Corvus brachyrhinchos), 1995a). It connects the western Great common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Lakes with the Mississippi flyway. Mil- great-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus lions of birds annually pass along the crinitus), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), riverway in spring and fall migrations. The eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), white- riverway provides important nesting and breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), tree breeding habitat for bald eagles and other swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor), blue jay resident and seasonal birds. (Cyanocitta cristata), and northern rough- winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis). Generally, there are very little data on Birds commonly seen in the winter include reptiles and amphibians from the St. Croix black-capped chickadee (Poecile River. In 1993-1995 a reptile and amphib- atricapillus), downy and hairy woodpecker ian survey conducted by the U. S. Forest (Picoides pubescens and Picoides villosus), Service (Deahn Donner Wright) found and purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus). seven species of reptiles (turtles), four Raptor species present, at least seasonally, herptofauna species (salamander/ newts), along the lower riverway include: osprey seven species of amphibians (toad/frog) (Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawk and four species of lizard/snakes. (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk The variety of aquatic habitats in the (Buteo lineatus), broad-winged hawk riverway supports both warm and cold (Buteo platypterus), sharp-shinned hawk water (only in tributary streams in the (Accipter striatus), American kestrel lower riverway) fisheries, including both (Falco sparverius) and bald eagle. Upland small and large stream species. Fish fauna game bird species most frequently seen in in the lower riverway may be strongly the area are ruffed grouse (Bonasa influenced by fish movement to and from umbellus), American woodcock (Scolopax 175 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT the Mississippi River. There are also primary mode of zebra mussel dispersal is significant differences in the fish species in through boat movement from infested the upper and lower riverway. Fago and waters into uninvested waters. Of primary Hatch (1993) listed 22 species in the lower concern is the potential impact on native mainstem that were not in the upper main- mussels. As well, zebra mussels pose a stem and 18 species in the upper mainstem serious threat to the commercial and that were not in the lower mainstem. The recreational boating industry. dam at Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls is likely a major cause of this variation, Eight zebra mussel sightings have been preventing fish movement from one seg- reported for the lower St. Croix from 1994 ment of the river to another, possibly keep- –1996 (Hornbach 1996). In July 1997, ing some species from former spawning juvenile zebra mussels were found on a grounds, and impacting freshwater mussel monitoring device in the St. Croix River. communities. They were 53 miles north of the Missis- sippi River/St. Croix River confluence. A Historically, 83 fish species have been re- further search of the river substrate, native ported from the lower St. Croix mainstem. mussels, docks, boats, and dam breakwall Of these, 15 species have not been ob- was conducted, but no additional zebra served since 1975 — shovelnose sturgeon mussels were found (NPS 1997b). There (Scaphirhynachus platorynchus), goldeye are no known breeding populations within (Hiodon alosoides), skipjack herring the riverway. (Alosa chrysochloris), pallid shiner (Notropis amnis), river shiner (N. Also, the non-native rusty crayfish has blennius), bigmouth shiner (N. dorsalis), been detected in the riverway, but range, weed shiner (N. texanus), longnose dace population, and impact are unknown. (Rhinichthys cataractae), yellow bullhead There has been little monitoring of habitats (Ameiurus natalis), brown bullhead (A. and changes in habitat that could poten- nebulosus), stonecat (Noturus flavus), tially affect the biological communities tadpole madtom (N. gyrinus), banded they support (NPS 1997a). It has been killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), mud darter documented as displacing native crayfish (Etheostoma asprigene), and least darter and presents a threat to biological diversity (E. microperca). For the lower St. Croix in the watershed (NPS 1995b). basin, 103 species have been historically reported, although the number of species Several fish species have been introduced dropped to 95 since 1975. in the lower St. Croix River, including the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), rainbow There are also a few known exotic species trout, and brown trout. in the lower riverway. One species of particular concern is the zebra mussel. With the introduction of the exotic zebra THREATENED AND ENDANGERED mussel into the Great Lakes and subse- SPECIES quently within the Upper Mississippi River in the early 1990s, this invasive species The lower St. Croix River serves as a ref- poses a serious threat to the biological and uge for a number of species that are threat- recreational resources of the riverway. The ened, endangered, or of special concern.

176 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identi- scattered along the lower St. Croix River. fied four endangered and one threatened Most of these eagles migrate in the winter, species that are federally protected in the although some overwinter where there is counties of the lower riverway. Likewise, open water. There are no current or histori- the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments cal records for federally endangered Karner of Natural Resources also maintain lists of Blue Butterfly within the lower riverway. threatened and endangered species in their In 1983 this butterfly was recorded within states. Table 23 lists federal and state listed 1 mile of the riverway boundary just north threatened and endangered species that of Hudson. This species is associated with have been recorded in the lower riverway. pine barrens and oak savannas that support wild lupine (Lupinus perennis), the butter- Native mussels are the most rapidly declin- fly’s host species. In addition to the listed ing faunal species in the U.S. The St. Croix species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service River has one of the richest freshwater and both state departments of natural mussel communities in the world (Troel- resources maintain lists of species of stup and Foley 1993) and serves as a major concern. refuge for both globally and regionally endangered mussel species. Two mussel Further information is needed on these species, the winged mapleleaf and Higgins’ species to determine if it is appropriate to eye, are listed as federally endangered consider them for addition to the federal species. The only known population of the and state lists of endangered and threatened winged mapleleaf mussel is found in the species. The Fish and Wildlife Service St. Croix River, just downstream of Inter- identified 17 animal and 5 plant species of state Park. Hornbach et al. (1996) found concern as possibly being within the that this species was found in areas of riverway; the Wisconsin DNR has identi- highest mussel density and richness. The fied 18 animal and 17 plant species of Higgins’ eye is found in the St. Croix from concern; and the Minnesota DNR has Interstate Park to the confluence with the identified 22 animal and 9 plant species of Mississippi River; a significant concentra- concern. tion exists at the Hudson Narrows. In addition to the two federally listed mussel Additionally, in Wisconsin, high quality species, there are 15 other species of mus- natural communities have been identified sels that are state listed as either threatened for protection along the lower riverway. or endangered. For many of the listed The Minnesota County Biological Survey species the St. Croix River supports the has identified natural and rare species areas most important surviving populations of having highest priority for protection along the species in Minnesota and Wisconsin. the lower riverway that are within/ bordering the riverway boundary in Minnesota. The federally endangered American pere- See appendix E for the lists of species of grine falcon nests on the smokestack at the concern and natural communities. Allen S. King power plant in Bayport. They have been nesting there since at least 1990. The riverway serves as important bald eagle habitat. The federally threatened bald eagle commonly nests in the tall trees

177 Natural Resources

TABLE 23: FEDERAL & STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Species Federally Federally WI WI MN MN Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Mammals Eastern Spotted Skunk X Spilogale putorius Birds Peregrine Falcon XX Falco peregrinus anatum Bald Eagle XX Haliaeetus leucocephalus Richardson trumpeter swan X Cygnus buccinator Red-shouldered Hawk X Buteo lineatus Cerulean Warbler X Dendroica cerulea Amphibians & Reptiles Wood Turtle X Clemmys insculpta Blandings Turtle X Emydoidea blandingii Timber Rattlesnake X Crotalus horridus Fish Crystal Darter X Ammocrypta asprella Gilt Darter X Percina evides River Redhorse X Moxostoma carinatum Greater Redhorse X Moxostoma valenciennesi Pallid Shiner X Notropis amnis Goldeye X Hiodon alosoides Skipjack Herring X Alosa chrysochloris Blue Sucker X Cycleptus elongatus Speckled Chub X Macrhybopsis aestivalis Paddlefish X Polyodon spathula Mussels & Clams Higgins’ Eye XXX Lampsilis higginsi Winged Mapleleaf Mussel XXX Quadrula fragosa Wartyback Mussel X Quadrula nodulata Spectacle case XX Cumberlandia monodonta Rock pocketbook X 178 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Species Federally Federally WI WI MN MN Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Arcidens confragosus Monkey Face Mussel XX Quadrula metanevra Pistolgrip (Buckhorn) XX Mussel Tritogonia verrucosa Salamander Mussel XX Simpsonaias ambigua Elephant-ear Mussel X Elliptio crassidens Purple Wartyback Mussel XX Cyclonaias tuberculata Snuffbox Mussel XX Epioblasma triquetra Butterfly Mussel XX Ellipsaria lineolata Mucket Mussel X Actinonaias ligamentina Elktoe Mussel X Alasmidonta marginata Ebonyshell Mussel X Fusconaia ebena Round Pig Toe Mussel X Pleurobema coccineum Washboard Mussel X Megalonaias nervosa Sheepnose Mussel X Plethobasus cyphyus Butterflies & Moths Karner Blue Butterfly XX Lycaeides melissa samuelis Vascular Plants Bog Bluegrass XX Poa paludigena Dotted Blazing Star XX Liatris punctata var nebraskana Kitten Tails XX Besseya bullii Carolina Anemone X Anemone caroliniana Small Skullcap X Scutellaria parvula var parvula Ground Plum X Astragalus crassicarpus Rough-seeded (prairie) Fame X Flower Talinum rugospermum False Mermaid X Floerkea proserpinacoides Blunt-lobed Grapefern X Botrychium oneidense Fernleaf False Foxglove X Aureolaria pedicularia James’ Polanisia X 179 Natural Resources

Species Federally Federally WI WI MN MN Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Threatened Endangered Cristatella jamesii Narrow-leafed Pinweed X Lechea tenuifolia Forked Chickweed X Paronychia fastigiata Brittle Prickly-pear X Opuntia fragilis Lichens, Mosses & Fungi A species of Lichen X Parmelia stuppea

180 CULTURAL RESOURCES

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW resulted in sporadic conflict between the Dakota, their allies the Fox, and Chippewa, The complex history of the St. Croix River for the next 175 years. is a story of human interaction with and exploitation of a rich and diverse riverine Competition for furs largely defined the environment. As a natural passage between region’s economy for almost two centuries, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley, and created the initial incentive for Euro- the river has for centuries facilitated peans to explore the St. Croix. The first exploration and commerce, migration and verified European incursion in the St. Croix conflict. The valley’s natural resource occurred in 1679, when Daniel Greysolon, wealth has drawn numerous cultures — the Sieur du Luth, canoed upstream on the Native American, European, and Euro- Brule River, a small stream that flows into American — to use, and often exploit, the the southwestern portion of Lake Superior. landscape for furs, timber, and water power. From the upper reaches of the Brule, du Even now the St. Croix’s water quality, Luth traversed a short portage to the head- recreational potential, and near-wilderness waters of the St. Croix. He then descended solitude draws thousands of visitors. the river and attempted to mediate a settlement between the Dakotas and the Chip- Native American cultures have occupied the pewa. French explorers continued to use the lands along the St. Croix River for St. Croix as the gateway between the Great thousands of years. Archeological sites in Lakes and the Mississippi River. the riverway have yielded evidence of diverse hunting and gathering cultures that Over the next century, French voyageurs span the archaic, woodland, and Mississip- regularly paddled the waters of the St. pian periods. The artifacts unearthed in Croix, forging relations with the valley these sites include lithic points and tools, tribes and trading European goods for furs. pottery shards, and copper beads and Even after France’s defeat in the French and jewelry. Many of these sites appear to have Indian War in 1763, French-Canadian been only temporary campsites; others, traders maintained their commercial con- however, were permanent settlements. The tacts in the St. Croix Valley. The fur trade archeological evidence describes a gradual remained a vital part of life along the St. economic and cultural evolution from strict- Croix in the first decades of the 19th century ly hunting and gathering to the development as powerful rival fur companies from of subsistence agriculture, although hunting Canada competed to monopolize the traffic and gathering remained important parts of in furs harvested by the valley’s native Native American economies. inhabitants. The Northwest Company, the XY Company, and the Hudson’s Bay By the mid-17th century, the Dakota tribe Company all staked claims in the St. Croix had established control over the St. Croix. Valley. These British companies relied They came into conflict with Chippewa, or heavily on French contacts who had earlier Ojibwa, who had moved West, attracted in formed familial and diplomatic relationships part by the area’s furbearing animals. The with the Chippewas. resulting clashes over hunting grounds 182 Cultural Resources

American expansion along the upper Mis- halting navigation on its lower reaches from sissippi River and the St. Croix had begun the Dalles to the confluence with the soon after the turn of the 19th century. Mississippi. In 1883 a colossal logjam at the Lieutenant Zebulon Pike explored the Dalles stopped the flow of water for 57 headwaters of the Mississippi in 1805 and days. Ironically, the rush to exploit the great also negotiated treaties with the Dakotas to white pine forests often threatened to acquire sites along the Mississippi and the destroy the river’s commercial navigation. mouth of the St. Croix for future military Throughout the second half of the 19th installations. In 1820, the United States century, the St. Croix served as one of Army began construction of Fort Snelling at nation’s major arteries for the transport of the confluence of the Mississippi and cut timber. Minnesota Rivers. The military presence secured a foothold for other Americans who Because of its enormous resources, the St. moved into the area to compete with British Croix valley played an important part in and Canadian fur traders. Kenneth the post-Civil War urbanization of the McKenzie of the Columbia Fur Company West. Many Midwestern cities used the established a post in 1819 near what is now valley as a valuable hinterland, exhausting Taylors Falls, Minnesota. The powerful the St. Croix’s vast, old-growth timber American Fur Company absorbed McKen- reserves to fabricate cheap, high-quality zie’s firm in 1827 and expanded its reach building materials for cities and towns into the upper reaches of the St. Croix River throughout the Mississippi valley. The once controlled by the Northwest Company. region’s insatiable appetite for wood products put increasing pressure on the St. With the establishment of the Wisconsin Croix’s timber resources. In 1850 observ- territory in 1836, exploratory expeditions ers had predicted that the valley’s forest alerted Americans to the immense potential reserves would last 50 years. By the turn of of the St. Croix’s white pine forests. The the century, they were proved correct, as 1837 treaty with the Chippewas opened the residents began to anticipate the “total door to legal settlement in the valley. annihilation of [the] lumber business.” Entrepreneurs, many of whom were Although the last log run through the experienced lumbermen from established Stillwater Boom was not made until 1914, timber regions in New England, began most of the seemingly endless stands of small-scale logging and sawmill operations white pine had long been reduced to vast in the St. Croix valley. wastelands of stumps.

By the 1840s numerous small communities While the St. Croix’s fur and timber like Marine on St. Croix, Stillwater, Taylors resources were depleted, the river continued Falls, St. Croix Falls, and Hudson had to serve as a significant natural resource in sprung up around lumber mills on both its own right for recreational and utilitarian sides of the river. In little more than a uses. As early as the 1850s, the river was decade, mills on the St. Croix were cutting recognized for high-quality recreational millions of board feet of logs. Logging hunting and fishing. Soon after the end of camps were rafting logs in such quantities the logging era, utility companies con- that the river was frequently jammed for structed dams to generate hydroelectric weeks at a time, damming the river and power. The river’s limited navigation and

183 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT relative freedom from industrial pollution surveys were conducted from 1976–79, combined to maintain the river’s high water 1981–84, and 1992–94. In 1976 the quality. The St. Croix retained its integrity Wisconsin and Minnesota Historical as a recreational resource even as dozens of Societies, under contract to the National the nation’s rivers were virtually destroyed Park Service, conducted surveys for by urban and industrial waste. historic structures within the riverway boundary for potential nomination to the Congress passed the National Scenic and National Register of Historic Places. One Wild Rivers Act to preserve rivers remark- property was identified and subsequently able for their scenic, recreational, and primi- purchased by the riverway. Other prop- tive qualities. The St. Croix’s remarkable erties were identified but not purchased by features led to its inclusion as one of the the federal government. An administrative eight rivers protected under the original history for the riverway, completed in Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. In 1968 the 1994, documents the historical context of upper St. Croix National Scenic Riverway the riverway’s creation and past manage- was placed under the jurisdiction of the ment. The NPS Midwest Regional Office National Park Service. is continuing work on the list of classified structures, the historic resource study, and The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act originally the cultural landscape inventory for the excluded the lower St. Croix River. Some riverway. recreationists and property owners along the St. Croix feared such a designation’s impact on their property rights and ability to use the HISTORIC STRUCTURES rivers. However, many others saw unre- strained development as a greater threat to No structures owned by the National Parks the riverway than increased federal involve- Service are known to be eligible for listing ment. Years of study and political debate on the National Register of Historic Places. over the lower river’s future led to its desig- The 1976 surveys provided baseline infor- nation as a Wild and Scenic River on Octo- mation. The Wisconsin survey identified ber 25, 1972. A portion of the lower St. one bridge in the Lower St. Croix that met Croix is under the jurisdiction of the eligibility criteria, the Soo Line Railroad National Park Service; the remainder is Bridge. It was listed on the National Reg- under the control of Minnesota and Wiscon- ister and remains in private ownership. sin. The lower St. Croix has emerged as a The Society noted three additional prop- working example of a “partnership park.” erties of historic interest that also remain in Federal and state officials continue to work private ownership. The Minnesota survey together to ensure the long-term protection identified 17 potentially eligible properties. of this valuable resource. The Park Service purchased one of those structures, the Foster summer residence. Unfortunately after years of restoration PHYSICAL RESOURCES work , fire destroyed the house in 1986. Arson was the suspected cause. Previous cultural resource work for the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway includes Since then all structures acquired by the three major archeological surveys. These riverway have been reviewed for historic 184 Cultural Resources value by Park Service staff and regional archeological sites management infor- specialists and submitted to the state mation system. historic preservation offices for consultation when appropriate, before any actions Some archeological sites in the lower have been taken. None have been found riverway are listed on the National Register eligible. When the historic resource study of Historic Places. These include the St. and list of classified structures are com- Croix River Access Site (21 WA 49) in pleted, they will help determine if any Interstate State Park in Washington remaining structures are potentially County, Minnesota; the Dalles Bluff Site, eligible. in Polk County, Wisconsin; and rock art sites in Washington and Chisago Counties, Outside the Park Service jurisdiction, many Minnesota. historic structures remain within the Lower Riverway. This includes historic districts as well as individual properties, which are CULTURAL LANDSCAPES important resources that add to riverway’s character (see appendix F). The St. Croix Valley clearly exhibits the effects of human habitation and alteration of the riverine environment. Some settings ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES within the riverway may be determined to be important illustrations of the cultural The archeological surveys conducted be- impacts on the riverway. The National tween 1976 and 1979 for the upper/ Park Service is required to identify and original St. Croix National Scenic River- protect significant historic or cultural way identified 217 sites on the riverway. landscapes under its jurisdiction. These surveys designated 22 of these sites as endangered and in need of further evalu- The NPS Midwest Regional Office has ation. The NPS Midwest Archeological begun work on a cultural landscape in- Center (MWAC) began a three-year testing ventory. This inventory will identify the program in 1981 to evaluate the signifi- significant cultural or historic landscapes cance and condition of these 22 sites. None that are owned by the National Park of these endangered resources were along Service. These landscapes may include the lower St. Croix, however. In 1992 logging sites, recreational areas, and river MWAC began the first archeological sur- towns and communities. The character of vey of the lower St. Croix. This effort, adjoining properties will be documented to which concluded in 1994, identified an determine significance and integrity. additional 66 sites in the riverway. Some of these sites are considered significant and This inventory, like the List of Classified potentially eligible for listing in the Structures, will in part depend on the National Register of Historic Places. historic resource study to establish the appropriate historical context for the Subsequent compliance surveys have evaluation of landscape significance. identified additional sites. The Midwest Again, the historic resource study may not Archeological Center now lists 326 be completed before the cultural landscape archeological sites in the riverway in its inventory.

185 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES will then be assigned traditional legendary, religious, subsistence, or other significance Ethnographic resources can encompass any in the cultural system or group traditionally of the numerous cultural or natural associated with them. resources managed by the National Park Service, including traditional cultural As part of the overall effort to identify and properties. Among the more common inventory significant ethnographic ethnographic resources are sacred and resources in the riverway, the National traditional use sites, traditional properties, Park Service will work with the affected ceremonial sites and areas, and sites and bands of the Chippewa Indian Nation and features from the prehistoric or historic the Minnesota and Wisconsin State periods. Other cultural resources, including Historic Preservation Offices. They will buildings, structures, and archeological identify and protect archeological and sites, may also constitute ethnographic historic sites as well as cultural landscapes resources. that have significant associations for the area’s traditional cultures. Less obvious resources, such as vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, waterways, landscapes, Appendix F contains an inventory of sites and other natural features, may also qualify within or immediately adjacent to the as ethnographic resources. Determinations riverway that are listed or are eligible for of their status as ethnographic resources listing on the national register. will be made on research and consultation with the affected groups. These resources

186 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

REGIONAL SETTING AND LAND large numbers of visitors to become temp- USE CHARACTERISTICS orary outdoor recreation users of the area.

The five-county region bordering the riverway is comprised of Chisago and SERVICES Washington Counties in Minnesota, and Polk, St. Croix, and Pierce Counties in All necessary services are found within the Wisconsin. From Taylors Falls south to the region surrounding the scenic riverway. Mississippi River, the region surrounding However, availability depends on location, the riverway becomes more and more with the highest concentration and greatest developed. Increasing frequency of human- variety of services being found in the made structures and other non-natural Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. intrusions are noticeable from and along Along the river, services are concentrated the St. Croix River. Several larger towns in the nearby towns. The quantity and are found along the banks of the river, quality of services depend on the including Osceola, North Hudson, Hudson, population of the town and surrounding and Prescott in Wisconsin, and Marine-on- service area. St. Croix, Stillwater, and Afton in Minne- sota. All of the lower riverway is within a one-half to 1-hour drive of the Minneapolis POPULATION and St. Paul Metropolitan region. Rela- tively easy access to the riverway is within Populations of the states of Minnesota and the reach of more than 2.5 million people. Wisconsin, the five-county region surrounding the Lower St. Croix National The national scenic riverway is a primary Scenic River, as well as the Minneapolis- feature of the region. Adjacent to its length St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area and are a few state parks. These public lands entire country are presented in table 24. As and the access they provide are a popular shown in the table, the years from 1980 to recreational resource for the people of 1995 were ones of population growth for Minnesota and Wisconsin. The recreational the geopolitical areas. resources of these counties serves as the basis of a local tourism industry. As with Population growth in the five counties has most tourism it is highly seasonal in nature varied from 1980 to 1995. Washington dependent on the weather even in the sum- County grew by more than 73% while mer season. Pierce County grew at a rate of only 10.7%. All five counties experienced The five-county region is less developed growth rates that were greater than the than the nearby urbanized and industri- respective state averages. During this 15- alized Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The year period, only Polk and Pierce Counties juxtaposition of rural-urban, open space- grew at rates that were lower than the developed land, and leisure attraction-work national average of 15.7%. place provides a large part of the area’s recreational appeal and sets the stage for

187 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

ECONOMY for Washington County were consistently above the national average and the Minne- All five counties have services and state sota state average. In 1995 St. Croix Coun- and local government among their top ty’s per capita income was higher than both three industries in terms of earnings (see the state and national averages. Minne- table 25). Manufacturing and retail trade sota’s 1995 average per-capita income was are also important within the region. 103.2% of the national average while Wis- Compared to the Minneapolis-St. Paul consin’s was only 96.1% of the national Metropolitan Statistical Area, the five average. county region has a relatively small economy as measured by earnings. This is The states of Minnesota and Wisconsin to be expected given the relative popula- both experienced unemployment rates and tion difference between the two areas. poverty rates that were below national averages (see table 27). Unemployment Average county per-capita incomes for and poverty are less of a problem in St. Chisago, Polk, and Pierce Counties were Croix and Washington counties, than in the consistently below the national average and other three. The five counties present a the respective state averages (see table 26). varied picture when comparisons to state The average county per-capita incomes and national data are made.

TABLE 24: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY POPULATION DATA AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE FOR SELECTED YEARS Population State/County/ 1980 1990 1995 % change Other 1980 to 1995 Minnesota 4,085,017 4,387,209 4,614,613 12.96% Chisago 25,819 30,723 37,014 43.36% Washington 114,207 147,040 197,824 73.22% Wisconsin 4,712,045 4,902,197 5,122,100 8.70% Polk 32,561 34,887 37,288 14.52% St. Croix 43,522 50,491 54,836 26.00% Pierce 31,251 32,805 34,607 10.74% MSA* 2,206,545 2,548,262 2,730,060 23.73% United States 227,224,719 249,397,990 262,889,634 15.70% * Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of the following counties: in Minnesota; Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright; and in Wisconsin; St. Croix, and Pierce. Source: Regional Economic Information System 1969-95, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, August 1997.

188 Socioeconomic Environment

TABLE 25: ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY TOP THREE INDUSTRIES IN 1995 IN TERMS OF EARNINGS Primary Economic Sectors in Terms of Earnings in 1995 State/County Industry and Industry and Percent Industry and Percent of Total Earnings Percent of Total of Total Earnings Total Earnings (Thousands of $) Earnings Minnesota Services (26.0%) Durable Goods State and Local $82,301,748 Manufacturing Government (11.4%) (12.9%)

Chisago Services (26.5%) State and Local Durable Goods $297,023 Government (14.6%) Manufacturing (13.5%) Washington Services (20.0%) Durable Goods State and Local $1,713,964 Manufacturing Government (15.0%) (18.5%) Wisconsin Services (22.6%) Durable Goods State and Local $80,827,045 Manufacturing Government (12.0%) (18.0%) Polk Services (20.1%) Durable Goods State and Local $328,820 Manufacturing Government (15.0%) (17.0%) St. Croix Durable Goods Services (20.5%) State and Local $628,346 Manufacturing Government (11.9%) (22.4%) Pierce State and Local Services (17.3%) Retail Trade (9.2%) $254,693 Government (32.8%) MSA * Services (26.6%) Durable Goods State and Local $58,689,762 Manufacturing Government (10.0%) (13.1%) * Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of the following counties: in Minnesota; Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright; and in Wisconsin; St. Croix.

Source: Regional Economic Information System 1969-95, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, August 1997.

189 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

TABLE 26: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY PER CAPITA INCOME FOR SELECTED YEARS Per Capita Income State/County/ 1980 1990 1995 Other Minnesota $10,146 $19,373 $23,937 Chisago $9,120 $15,931 $19,355 Washington $10,673 $21,083 $25,388 Wisconsin $9,879 $17,721 $22,285 Polk $8,329 $14,074 $17,702 St. Croix $9,802 $18,749 $23,629 Pierce $9,030 $15,729 $19,638 MSA* $11,625 $22,117 $27,436 United States $10,030 $19,142 $23,196 Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of the following counties: in Minnesota; Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright; and in Wisconsin; St. Croix.

Source: Regional Economic Information System 1969-95, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, August 1997.

Transportation/Access throughout the watershed provide immediate access to the national scenic The Lower St. Croix National Scenic River riverway for recreational users. is accessible by a well-developed federal, state, and local highway and road system. All of the scenic river is within a ? to 1- Interstates 35 and 94 bring travelers from hour drive time of the Minneapolis-St. the east and west, and north and south, Paul metropolitan area. The development respectively, to the Minneapolis-St. Paul of modern highways, the creation of region. U.S. Routes 8, 10, 12, and Minne- flexible work schedules and three-day sota Routes 96 and 97 are the other pri- weekends, people’s higher disposable mary east-west routes through the Lower incomes, and an increased desire of people St. Croix River region. U.S. Routes 61 and to get away from it all, even for short 63, and Minnesota Routes 35 and 95, and periods of time, have all combined to place Wisconsin Route 65 also provide north- the Lower St. Croix National Scenic River south access to the area. Many local roads within easy reach of more than 2.5 million people.

190 Socioeconomic Environment

TABLE 27: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY (1990 AND 1994) Percentage of Percentage of Labor Percentage of Percentage of State/County Labor Force Force Unemployed Population Below the Population Below the Other Unemployed (1994) Poverty Level (1990) Poverty Level (1994) (1990) Minnesota 5.1% 4.0% 10.2% 10.8% Chisago 7.0% 5.5% 7.8% 8.1% Washington 3.9% 3.0% 4.4% 4.8% Wisconsin 5.2% 4.7% 10.7% 10.9% Polk 6.7% 5.3% 11.8% 11.8% St. Croix 4.1% 3.9% 6.4% 6.0% Pierce 5.3% 4.2% 10.4% 8.1% MSA * 4.6% NA 8.1% NA United States 6.4% 6.1% 13.1% 15.1% Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area consists of the following counties: in Minnesota; Anoka, Carver, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, Isanti, Ramsey, Scott, Washington, and Wright; and in Wisconsin; St. Croix, and Pierce. NA = not available Source: Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM (Minnesota and Wisconsin) [machine- readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1992; and

U.S. Census Bureau; “Estimated Number and Percent People of All Ages in Poverty by State: US 1993;” published January 1998; , and U.S. Census Bureau; “USA Counties 1996, General Profile;” 1996;

Tourism Louis are attracted to the riverway’s amenities. Tourism is an important economic factor in the St. Croix Valley. The historic character of many of the valley’s communities, as Land Values well as the scenic character of the valley itself, has been emphasized by organiza- There are about 3,000 private landowners tions promoting the valley as a regional within the riverway boundary and many tourist destination. The majority of tourism more in close proximity to the river. The visits arrive in the valley by car and visit valley’s scenic character and its recreational such destinations as downtown Stillwater, values make it attractive for up-scale Hudson, Prescott, Marine on St. Croix, residential development, making the St. Osceola, and Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls. Croix Valley a status address for many of Many summer tourism visits, however, the Twin Cities wealthiest residents. arrive by boat from the Mississippi; Residential land values are high and have vacationing boaters from places like La continued to climb throughout the last 25 Crosse and even such distant places as the years. Quad Cities and St.

191 LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT

OWNERSHIP reserved a right of use and occupancy when they sold their property to the Park The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Service; these reservations are either for a limits the total acreage within the riverway fixed period or a life estate. Two of those boundary to an average of no more than reservations have expired and the last of 320 acres of land per linear mile on both the remaining six will expire in 2019. sides of the river (outside the river’s ordi- Within the ordinary high water marks north nary high water mark). The riverway is 52 of Stillwater there are 2,610 acres of land miles long and the boundary averages ¼ that the Park Service can legally acquire; mile in width on each side of the river. 2,003 acres have been acquired and 607 Lands such as riverbeds and islands that lie acres remain to be acquired. between the river’s ordinary high water mark on each side of the river are not Remaining lands north of Stillwater could included in the total acreage. Therefore, the be acquired by the Park Service in fee total approximate acreage of the riverway either through donation or willing seller. is 25,346 acres. Scenic easements, which place limits on future private development, have been While most of the land within the riverway acquired on 3,102 acres. Riverfront ease- boundary is in private ownership, there are ments are more restrictive and essentially also significant holdings by federal, state, prohibit development; they have been and local governments. In addition, there acquired by the Park Service on 393 acres. are many parcels of land where federal or In both cases, these lands remain in private state agencies have purchased something ownership and remain on the tax rolls. less than fee title. Other than the remaining 607 acres within the river and some potential scenic ease- Federal Ownership ment purchases, the NPS land acquisition goals in the land acquisition plan have The Lower St. Croix Act limits National been met. Park Service land acquisition activities to the 27 miles of river north of the north limits of Stillwater. In this area, the Park State Ownership Service has acquired fee title to some land as well as less-than-fee-title (scenic ease- State ownership is far more limited than ments and riverfront easements) to other NPS ownership in the river valley. The parcels. The National Wild and Scenic states have acquired land within the five Rivers Act limits federal fee title acquisi- state parks along the river, as well as with- tion to an average of 100 acres per river in Wisconsin Department of Natural mile outside the ordinary high water Resources’ St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area. marks, which in the case of the Lower St. There are some additional parcels of state Croix translates to 2,700 acres. As pro- ownership, most of them small. They vided for in federal law, eight sellers include some highway waysides and a

192 Land and Water Management

Minnesota DNR-owned public water LAND USE MANAGEMENT access site. The 1976 Master Plan directed that the The 1976 Master Plan envisioned exten- states develop land use regulations that sive state acquisition of scenic easements local governments would adopt and on rural private lands south of Stillwater as enforce with state oversight. Guidelines for a backup to land use controls. Because land those state regulations were found in an values are very high along the river, those appendix to that plan. Both states subse- scenic easements proved very expensive quently adopted state rules and all local and both states abandoned their acquisition governments adopted and have continued programs in favor of land use controls. to enforce special zoning ordinances in the State scenic easements were purchased on riverway. Local governments are required only a few hundred acres, primarily in the to notify the state of public hearings on vicinity of Kinnickinnic and Afton State zoning issues such as variances and condi- Parks. tional use permits, as well as adoption or amendment of the local riverway ordinance. Each state has authority to overrule Local Government Ownership a local zoning decision if the state con- cludes the decision is inconsistent with Many of the communities along the river state rules for protection of the riverway. own public parkland along the river, although these parcels are often fairly small. Larger holdings include Kolliner WATER USE MANAGEMENT Park, which is owned by the city of Stillwater even though it is located in St. The 1976 Master Plan recommended that Croix County, Wis.; Lowell Park in the states develop water surface use regula- Stillwater; Lakeside Park in Bayport; Ferry tions to control boating activity in busy Landing Park in North Hudson; Lakefront sections of the river. Those state rules were Park in Hudson; public swimming beaches subsequently adopted and have been in in Lakeland and Lake St. Croix Beach, and effect since 1977. The Lower St. Croix Steamboat Park in Afton. Larger holdings Management Commission developed include Point Douglas County Park oppo- density standards for consideration of site Prescott, which is owned and managed additional boat speed restrictions, and the by Washington County, and St. Croix state rules have been amended several Bluffs Regional Park in southern Washing- times consistent with those guidelines. On- ton County. St. Croix Bluffs was acquired water law enforcement is provided by the by Washington County in 1997; it had five county sheriff’s departments, the two previously been a private recreation area Departments of Natural Resources, and the for employees of a Twin Cities-based National Park Service. corporation.

193 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION member. The boundary area commission also provides part-time staff services to the The Lower St. Croix Management Com- management commission. Coordination of mission establishes policy for cooperative day-to-day field management of the river- management of the riverway. It consists of way is the responsibility of the manage- the two Departments of Natural Resources ment commission’s technical committee; and the National Park Service, with the technical committee membership includes Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area the same agencies represented on the Commission serving as a nonvoting management commission.

194

Environmental Consequences INTRODUCTION

The potential environmental effects of the within the lower riverway boundary and five land use/water use management take actions that affect the riverway’s alternatives on scenic resources, recrea- resources and users. Also, the conse- tional use, natural resources, cultural quences of the proposed state guidelines resources, socioeconomic resources and for land use and water-based recreational land and water management are examined use regulations in appendixes A and B are in this chapter. These effects provide a not assessed — these proposed guidelines basis for comparing the advantages and would be approved and implemented disadvantages of the alternatives. through the states’ separate rule-making process. The impacts of the five management structure options are presented separately Developments and actions are also being at the end of this chapter. The impacts of taken in the watershed, outside the lower these options are related to land and water riverway, which affect the river. The management and to costs, and are inde- National Park Service and the Minnesota pendent of the land use/water use manage- and Wisconsin Departments of Natural ment alternatives. Resources have little or no control over many of these actions, although they would Because of the conceptual nature of the work with businesses, landowners, local alternatives, their potential consequences governments, and others to minimize any can be addressed only in general terms. impacts on the lower riverway. The conclusions presented here are based Consequently, this environmental impact on the review of information provided by statement does not assess the impacts of other agencies and the insights of the other organizations’ actions in or outside National Park Service and Minnesota and the riverway, except briefly under the Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- “Cumulative Effects” section. sources staff who are familiar with the lower riverway. If and when specific To focus the discussion of the potential developments or other actions are proposed consequences of the alternatives, specific as a result of this Cooperative Manage- impact topics were identified. These topics ment Plan, the staff of the managing agen- were based on the riverway’s outstandingly cies would determine whether or not more remarkable values, federal laws, regula- detailed environmental documents need to tions and orders, agency management be prepared, consistent with provisions of policies, the planning team’s knowledge of the National Environmental Policy Act and scarce or easily impacted resources, and comparable state laws. issues and concerns expressed by the public and other agencies during scoping It is important to note that this analysis (see the issues section in the “Introduction” only applies to actions being proposed by and the “Consultation and Coordination” the National Park Service and the Minne- chapters). Other topics were dismissed sota and Wisconsin Departments of Nat- from further consideration. The rationale ural Resources. Many other governmental for dropping these topics is discussed organizations and individuals own land below. 204 Introduction

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM Natural or Depletable Resource FURTHER CONSIDERATION Requirements and Conservation Potential Under NPS policies and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, a num- Resource extraction activities are ongoing ber of impact topics must be assessed in in the lower riverway but the alternatives environmental impact statements. How- are not proposing any such activities. ever, in the case of the Lower St. Croix Consequently, there is no need to assess several of these topics are irrelevant and resource requirements and conservation can be dismissed. Other topics were dis- potential. missed because they were not important for the lower riverway, or because the alterna- Energy Requirements and Conservation tives would not affect the topics, or the Potential alternatives would not have discernible impacts on the topics. None of the alternatives would encourage a substantial increase in energy use or would Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands propose new activities or major facilities in which energy conservation would need to be As noted in the “Affected Environment,” considered. there are prime and unique agricultural lands within the boundary of the lower Mussels riverway. However, none of the alternatives being considered would propose The St. Croix River supports a highly developments or other uses that would diverse mussel population. Potential im- affect these lands. Thus, there is no need to pacts to listed mussel species are discussed assess the impacts of the alternatives on under the “threatened and endangered spe- this topic. cies” impact topic. Similar types of impacts to other mussel species would be expected. Sacred Sites Management that benefits the federally listed Higgins eye pearly mussel should also There are no known sacred sites in the effectively protect mussel communities in lower riverway. general because the Higgins eye is found throughout the riverway. (However, man- Indian Trust Resources agement that specifically benefits the winged maple leaf mussel might not benefit All of the alternatives recognize the other mussel species in the rest of the Chippewa Indian tribal treaty rights to riverway, since the winged maple leaf is hunt, fish, and gather resources on lands found only in a small area.) A separate along the St. Croix north of Cedar Bend. impact topic for mussels has not been Thus, Indian trust resources would not be included (see the threatened and endangered affected. species impact topic).

205 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Wetlands and Floodplains tionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs No actions or new developments are being and policies on minorities and low-income proposed by the management agencies in populations and communities. any of the alternatives that would adversely affect either wetlands or the lower St. For the purpose of fulfilling Executive Croix floodplain. (New access points could Order 12898, in the context of NEPA, the be permitted in one of the alternatives, but alternatives addressed in this plan were the NPS floodplain guidelines — Special assessed during the planning process. It Directive 93-4 — do not apply to this was determined that none of these water-dependent development.) In addi- alternatives would result in significant tion, both states have regulations that cover direct or indirect negative or adverse new developments on floodplains. effects on any minority or low-income population or community.

Climate/Air Quality/Physiography/ METHODOLOGY Topography/Geology The impacts on scenic, natural, and These resources were dismissed as impact topics because they would not be affected cultural resources, recreational use, and by actions or developments under any of socioeconomic conditions were generated the alternatives. The climate or overall based on existing conditions, current physiography or topography of the river- regulations, and likely development trends. way would not be altered. Air quality The action alternatives were compared to would continue to be monitored for air the no action alternative to determine the pollution impacts. Geologic resources are degree of impact. Experience and profes- one of the three “outstandingly remarkable sional judgment also contributed to the values” for which the riverway was desig- analysis and evaluation as well as the nated. The record shows that the geologic park’s purpose, significance, and excep- resources of greatest interest to Congress at tional resources and values. In some cases, the time of designation are the basalt out- a major negative impact on one resource crops and evidence of the actions of glacial may prove to be a positive benefit to meltwater in the Dalles of the St. Croix. another. These features are contained within the two The effects were evaluated with the state parks in that portion of the riverway following levels of impact in mind: and will receive the same high level of protection under all alternatives. · Negligible — The impact is so slight as to be difficult to measure or perceive, Environmental Justice and has no meaningful implications. · Minor — The impact is small, not Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to always obvious, but is detectable and Address Environmental Justice in Minority measurable. Populations and Low-Income Populations, · Moderate — The impact is readily requires all federal agencies to incorporate apparent. environmental justice into their missions · Major — The impact is severely adverse by identifying and addressing dispropor- or exceptionally beneficial. 206 Impacts of Preferred Alternative

IMPACTS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES development nodes, and scenic and relatively undisturbed natural areas would be Analysis maintained. Private lands in Minnesota in the southern portion of this segment would Scenic resources in the riverway are pro- be classified as conservation and would tected primarily through land acquisition or receive increased protection (i.e., more through regulatory controls on land devel- restrictive state land use regulations) as opment. No significant land acquisition compared to the rural classification under would occur in implementing the preferred the no-action alternative. Additional devel- alternative. The proposed five land man- opment could still occur, but there would agement categories, compared to the be fewer new structures and those struc- current two categories, would provide tures would be less visible from the river. additional scenic resource protection in Consequently, they would have less impact rural areas with slightly less protection on scenic resources than the no-action within municipalities (where scenic values alternative. have already been heavily altered). Under the no-action alternative, scenic values Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod would continue to be protected by devel- Slough): 10 miles. Osceola is classified as opment standards designed to limit visual small town historic, which affords about impacts. However, under the preferred the same level of scenic protection as the alternative, the riverway managing agen- existing urban standard, which does not cies would require local governments to preclude new development visible from the protect the historic character of munici- river but limits the development’s visibility palities, which would reduce potential and visual impacts. However, protection of impacts to scenic values in municipalities historic character would be required, fur- from new development. The no-action ther reducing potential scenic impacts. alternative would take no such special Most of this segment would be classified actions. as conservation and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural The following analysis evaluates scenic classification under the no-action alterna- impacts created by the application of the tive. Additional development could still five land management areas on each river occur, but there would be fewer new segment. structures and those structures would be less visible from the river. Consequently, The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock they would have less impact on scenic Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within resources than the no-action alternative. the two state parks in this river segment would continue to be protected by state Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola ownership (as they would be under the no- Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles. action alternative). No impact to scenic Marine on St. Croix itself is classified resources would occur because any future partly as rural residential and mostly as development would occur at existing

207 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES small town historic, which affords about Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head the same level of scenic protection as the of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minne- existing urban standard. However, sota side of the river in this segment would protection of historic character would be be classified as rural residential, which required in most the area, reducing affords a level of protection very similar to potential scenic impacts. William O’Brien the no-action alternative. The Wisconsin State Park would receive the same high side of the river would mostly be classified level of scenic resource protection as as rural residential , which would afford a compared to the no-action alternative. level of protection similar to the no-action Most of the remainder of this segment in alternative. Minnesota would be classified as rural residential, providing a level of protection Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St. similar to the no-action alternative, which Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy would further limit visibility of develop- Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of ment and maintains the rural character in this segment in Minnesota is not inten- unincorporated areas. The Wisconsin side sively developed; it would be classified as of the river would be classified conserva- small town, which would give it a level of tion and would receive increased protec- scenic protection similar to the current tion as compared to the rural classification urban classification. The southern portion under the no-action alternative. Additional of this segment includes the heavily development could still occur, but there developed downtown Stillwater area; it would be fewer new structures and those would be classified as river town, which structures would be less visible from the would provide slightly less scenic protec- river. Consequently, they would have less tion than the current urban classification. impact on scenic resources than the no- Considering the heavily developed nature action alternative. of the area, however, impacts on scenic resources would be negligible. In addition, Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to the preferred alternative would require Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands protection of historic character that would Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix reduce potential scenic impacts. Islands Wildlife Area would receive the same high level of scenic resource protec- The Wisconsin side would be classified as tion as compared to the no-action alterna- rural residential, which would afford a tive, which would maintain the undisturbed level of protection similar to the no-action natural appearance. The remainder of this alternative. segment would be classified conservation and would receive increased protection as South Stillwater-Bayport Area compared to the rural classification under (Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks the no-action alternative. Additional to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this development could still occur, but there segment in Minnesota would be classified would be fewer new structures and those as river town, which provides slightly less structures would be less visible from the scenic protection than the current urban river. Consequently, they would have less classification. Considering the heavily impact on scenic resources than the no- developed nature of the area, however, action alternative. impacts on scenic resources would be 208 Impacts of Preferred Alternative negligible. In addition, the preferred classified as river town, which would pro- alternative would require protection of vide slightly less scenic protection than the historic character that would reduce current urban classification. Considering potential scenic impacts. The Andersen the heavily developed nature of the area, Point area would be classified as small however, impacts on scenic resources town, with the result that its level of scenic would be negligible. In addition, the pre- protection would be similar to the current ferred alternative would require protection urban classification. The Wisconsin side of historic character that would reduce would be classified as rural residential, potential scenic impacts. which affords a level of protection very similar to the no-action alternative. Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen segment would be classified as small town, Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. with the result that its level of scenic pro- In Minnesota, the area between Andersen tection would be similar to the current Point and the south limits of Bayport urban classification. The southern portion would be classified as small town, which of Hudson would be classified partly as would result in a level of scenic protection river town and partly as small town. The similar to the current urban classification. remainder of this segment in Wisconsin The southern portion of this segment in would be classified as rural residential, Minnesota would be classified as rural which would afford a level of protection residential, which affords a level of protec- similar to the no-action alternative. tion similar to the no-action alternative. Most of the Wisconsin side would be Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to classified as rural residential, which affords Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In a level of protection similar to the no- Minnesota, the old Afton village area action alternative. The southern portion of would be classified as small town historic, this segment in Wisconsin lies in North and the residential area to the south would Hudson and would be classified as small be classified as small town, with the result town, which would result in a level of that its level of scenic protection would be scenic protection similar to the current similar to the current urban classification. urban classification. The southern portion of Afton and the area south of Afton State Park, as well as all of Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to the Wisconsin side, would be classified as Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota rural residential, which would afford a side in this segment would be primarily level of protection similar to the no-action classified as small town, which would alternative. Afton State Park would receive result in a level of scenic protection similar the same high level of scenic resource to the current urban classification. The protection as the no-action alternative. Wisconsin side north of Orange Street would be classified as small town, which Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The would result in a level of scenic protection Minnesota side of the river in this segment similar to the current urban classification. would be classified as rural residential, The area south of Orange Street would be which affords a level of protection similar

209 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES to the no-action alternative. Kinnickinnic because these actions would be voluntary, State Park in Wisconsin would receive the and most individuals would consider these same high level of scenic resource areas as natural landscapes whether or not protection as the no-action alternative. the vegetative mosaics included a diversity of significant plant communities. Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at A change in forest tax law programs in Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota Wisconsin would be pursued, which would side of the river in this segment would be enable landowners within the riverway to classified as rural residential, which affords develop a forest management plan that a level of protection very similar to the no- would allow vegetation to be removed in a action alternative. St. Croix Bluffs Region- manner that would protect the scenic quali- al Park would receive the same high level ty of the river. This change in policy for of scenic resource protection as compared Wisconsin would result in a long-term, mi- to the no-action alternative. Carpenter Na- nor beneficial impact on the scenic re- ture Center would be classified as conser- sources of the riverway by providing vation and would receive increased protec- landowners with more flexibility to tion as compared to the rural classification preserve these resources. under the no-action alternative. In Wiscon- sin, the area north of Prescott would be Continued adherence to NPS policies that classified as rural residential, which would perpetuate native plant communities would afford a level of protection similar to the result in a long-term, minor, beneficial no-action alternative. Prescott would be impact on the scenic resources of the classified as river town, which provides riverway. Under the current management slightly less scenic protection than the approach (no-action), allowed changes in current urban classification. Considering the scale or character of bridge crossings the heavily developed nature of the area, and relocation of transmission lines to new however, impacts on scenic resources crossing corridors could potentially have a would be negligible. major long-term effects on scenic resources. The preferred alternative would In addition to the application of land restrict numbers and scale and encourage management areas to segments of the multiple uses of river crossing corridors riverway, encouraging the maintenance and and structures (including the consolidation restoration of the natural diversity and of utility crossings). Replacement of ecological integrity of significant plant similar-scale bridges or of larger-scale communities on public and private lands bridges would be allowed as long as there would result in the visual landscape of the would be no adverse effects on the river- riverway becoming more representative of way. Compared to the no-action alterna- the native acuteness of the area. These tive, the preferred alternative would avoid voluntary provisions could have a long- potentially major long-term impacts to term beneficial impact on the visual scenic quality from construction of large- resources of the riverway by aiding in the scale bridge crossings or relocation of perpetuation of a natural mosaic of transmission lines to highly scenic or indigenous vegetation. However, these largely undisturbed corridors. impacts would be minor to negligible

210 Impacts of Preferred Alternative

Flexibility on the use of submarine cross- portunities would remain, with the excep- ings could allow for accommodation of tion of extremely high-speed boating ac- infrastructure needs for the surrounding tivities. Boaters interested in that activity communities while minimizing impacts on would be displaced to another resource. the riverway. Provisions could include the Impacts for each river segment are des- relocation, expansion in size or the number cribed below. of lines, or the addition of new crossings. These actions could result in negligible Backwaters from the Dalles of the St. adverse impacts on scenic resources in the Croix to north limits of Stillwater: 5 immediate vicinity because new crossings miles. The natural waters classification for would only be permitted provided there this segment would be identical to the were no visual impacts. Potential impacts existing no-wake designation; the impact from accommodation of the utility needs of the preferred alternative would be the could be reduced. same as the no-action alternative, which would be to maintain the quiet and little- Prohibiting clearcutting for inspections of used character of the recreational pipeline rights-of-way and maintaining as experience. much natural vegetation as possible along utility rights-of-way would result in minor Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: beneficial impacts on scenic resources. 3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification for this segment would be identical to the existing slow-speed zone designation. The Conclusion impact of the preferred alternative would be the same as the no-action alternative, Overall, the preferred alternative would which would be to maintain the slow have a minor, positive impact on scenic speeds, low noise levels, and the more resources. Also, potentially major long- social experience associated with relatively term impacts from changes to river large numbers of canoers. crossings would be avoided. Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10 miles. The quiet waters classification for IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE this segment would be identical to the existing slow-speed zone designation; the Analysis impact of the preferred alternative would be the same as the no-action alternative. The primary goal of the preferred alterna- Thus, recreational use would be similar to tive with respect to boating recreation the preceding river segment, although less would be to preserve the existing diversity social interaction would likely occur below of surface water recreational experiences. the landing at Osceola where many rental Like the no-action alternative, overall boat- canoe trips would continue to end. ing use of the riverway would continue to grow slowly, if at all (existing use patterns McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar: show no clear increase in use since the 8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification mid-1980s). The diversity of boating op- for this segment would be identical to the

211 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES existing slow-speed zone designation; the red alternative. There has been growing impact of the preferred alternative would concern about safety factors surrounding be the same as the no-action alternative. extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and Opportunities would be maintained for a greater) that occasionally occurs in this mixture of nonmotorized and slow-moving segment; this would be eliminated under motorized craft. the preferred alternative, forcing boaters who want to travel at those speeds to use a Arcola Sandbar to north limits of different resource. The imposition of a Stillwater: 5 miles. The moderate recrea- speed limit in this area would be consid- tion classification for this segment would ered a minor positive impact on the involve a speed limit and elimination of environment. waterskiing. This is slightly different that the current rule, which involves no speed Camping Experience. A camping limit but a firm restriction on summer management plan would be developed for weekend waterskiing. Congestion in this boat-related camping north of Stillwater narrow area has become a concern and the that would impose gradually increased imposition of a speed limit would be con- restrictions on camping. This would result sidered a positive impact on congestion in fewer boat-in campsites than currently and shoreline erosion concerns. exist, enhancing privacy and reducing shoreline erosion and visual impacts from Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The trampled vegetation and exposed soils. active social recreation classification for However the opportunity for more social this segment would involve a speed limit; camping would be reduced, which would under the no-action alternative there would displace some campers to another resource. be no speed limit. The existing no-wake At Hudson, campers without on-board zones in the Hudson area would remain toilets would be displaced. The outcome under the preferred alternative. There has would be reduced shoreline erosion been growing concern about safety factors between the Arcola sandbar and Stillwater surrounding extremely high-speed boating and reduced water quality problems there (80 mph and greater) that occasionally and at Hudson, but an increase in displaced occurs in this segment. This would be recreational users. eliminated under the preferred alternative, forcing boaters who want to travel at those speeds to use a different resource. The Conclusion imposition of a speed limit in this area would be considered a minor positive Overall, the preferred alternative would impact on the environment. provide minor, possibly negligible, positive impacts on recreational use. However, a Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The few riverway users, those seeking to travel active social recreation classification for at high speeds and some island campers, this segment would involve a speed limit; would be displaced. under the no-action alternative there would be no speed limit. The no-wake zones in the Catfish Bar and Kinnickinnic State Park areas would remain under the prefer-

212 Impacts of Preferred Alternative

IMPACTS ON NATURAL transient and should have minor to negli- RESOURCES gible effects on pollutant levels.

Water Quality Soils

Analysis. Overall boating totals would not Analysis. As under the no-action alterna- likely change under the preferred alternative, additional development could occur, tive, so water quality impacts from petro- including residential development in rural leum products or day-use boaters who areas. Consequently, some soils would still don’t use proper toilet facilities would be be lost to development, although new soil about the same as the no-action alternative. disturbance would likely be reduced in the Additional restrictions on camping north of park, natural, and minimally disturbed Stillwater and at Hudson would have a management areas (43% of the lower river- slight positive impact on water quality as way) where less development and more compared to the no-action alternative. restrictive land use regulations would be There would be a slight decrease in total employed. residential development in areas not served by public sewer, leading to slightly less Shoreline erosion caused by boat wakes risk of water quality impacts from failed would be similar to the no-action alterna- on-site waste treatment systems. tive. The imposition of speed limits from the Arcola sandbar south would have a Possible bridge replacements could have negligible impact on shoreline erosion short-term, adverse effects on water quality caused by boat wakes. The area between during construction, however, mitigation the Arcola sandbar and Stillwater is the measures would likely minimize these focus of much concern about wake- impacts. induced shoreline erosion, and a moderate speed limit there would likely do little to Conclusion. Water quality impacts from alter current impacts. the discharge of motorboat petroleum products or day-use boaters who do not use Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the proper toilet facilities would continue but formation of social trails from campers would not likely increase because overall would be slightly reduced, as compared to boating totals would not be expected to the no-action alternative, by limitations and change. Additional restrictions on camping overall reductions in camping north of north of Stillwater and at Hudson would Stillwater. Localized bluff erosion from have a slight positive impact on water foot trails would be about the same as the quality. Some short-term impacts also no-action alternative. could occur during construction of bridge replacements. Only a few areas would be affected by bridge and utility line replacements during From a riverwide perspective, it is ex- the life of this plan. It is expected that pected that pollution due to the construc- mitigation measures would keep impacts tion of development would be short term, localized and minor to moderate in magni- while pollution due to users would be tude. (Additional environmental docu-

213 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES mentation, with mitigation measures, significant plant communities on federal would be required before these crossings and state lands and would encourage would be approved.) Because bridge and private and local government landowners utility line replacements would only be to maintain and restore these communities. permitted in existing corridors, additional This beneficial effect would help maintain soil disturbance would be limited to areas the riverway’s diverse plant communities. that likely have already been altered. As in all of the action alternatives, the If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic sources would pursue a rule amendment Narrows, this alternative would reduce the that would allow landowners to harvest amount of dredged material that would trees in a manner that would protect the need to be removed and disposed. If the scenic quality of the river. Many land- dredged material could be reused for other owners might alter vegetative cover on purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby their land, but with agency oversight it is would not be altered by the disposal of the expected to have a minor positive effect on material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance the riverway’s vegetation. Management Plan directs that dredged material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be Application of the land use management placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State areas along the riverway would have a park for beach nourishment.) positive effect on the riverway’s vegetation. Some vegetation would still be lost Conclusion. Under the preferred alterna- to new development, but in the park, tive shoreline and bluff erosion would natural, and minimally disturbed manage- continue from recreational use but would ment areas (43% of the riverway) less be less. This would have negligible to vegetation would be lost because of new minor long-term positive impacts on soils development. in localized areas, particularly on riverbanks and the islands. Additional soil loss Bridge and utility line replacements would and disturbance would be expected from have a minor effect during the life of this new development on some private lands. plan. Because bridge and utility line re- However, the land use management area placements would only be permitted in allocation would be beneficial, minimizing existing corridors, little additional vegeta- potential soil disturbance and loss on a tion would be lost or disturbed. Mitigation large portion of the riverway. From an measures are expected to localize and keep overall riverway perspective, compared to impacts minor to moderate in magnitude. current conditions, the preferred alternative New submarine crossings could disturb would likely have a negligible to minor and alter vegetation near riverbanks where positive impact. the transmission lines/pipelines go underground. (Additional environmental documentation, with mitigation measures, Vegetation would be required before these crossings would be approved.) Analysis. Special protection would provide maintenance and restoration of

214 Impacts of Preferred Alternative

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to prevent this impact, some trampling of do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic vegetation would likely still occur due to Narrows, this alternative would reduce the day users and campers). amount of dredged material that would need to be removed and disposed. If the Conclusion. The preferred alternative dredged material could be reused for other would have both negative and beneficial purposes, vegetation in the riverway or effects on the riverway’s vegetation. Vege- nearby would not be altered by the disposal tative communities would continue to be of the dredged material. altered and lost due to the activities of users and new developments in the river- Motorboat use on the lower St. Croix is way. If new bridge replacements and/or believed to be affecting shoreline vegeta- utility crossings were built, there could be tion, with boat wakes damaging plants, some minor impacts on vegetation. On the exposing root systems, and undercutting other hand, the application of the manage- trees. This impact would likely continue ment areas in this alternative would have a similar to the no-action alternative. The beneficial effect, helping prevent the loss imposition of moderate speed limits from or disturbance of vegetation on a large the Arcola sandbar south would likely have portion of the lower riverway. Efforts to a negligible positive impact on shoreline maintain and restore significant plant com- erosion. munities on public and private lands would also have a positive effect. Restrictions on Users would continue to trample vegeta- camping would reduce impacts to vegetation in localized areas when they picnic on tion. From a riverwide perspective, most of the shoreline and islands and camp on the the riverway’s vegetation would not be islands south of Stillwater (i.e., the Hudson affected by users, new developments, or islands). Some users probably would the management agencies. However, com- continue to damage trees, stripping bark pared to the no action alternative, the pre- from birch trees, cutting saplings, and ferred alternative would be expected to pulling down branches for firewood. have a negligible to minor, long-term, posi- Disturbance of soils also would increase tive impact on the riverway’s vegetation. the likelihood of exotic plants like spotted knapweed and purple loosestrife becoming established. With overall use levels not Fish and Wildlife expected to increase greatly on the lower riverway, alteration and loss of vegetation Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would be would likely continue similar to the no- similar to the no-action alternative. Most of action alternative. the lower riverway management actions in this alternative would continue to promote On the other hand, limiting camping in the protection of fish and wildlife popula- areas north of Stillwater to certain zones, tions and habitats. No actions would be possibly to designated campsites, also taken that would adversely affect areas should reduce the loss of vegetation and known to be of special importance for encourage native plants to become re- breeding, nesting, foraging, or wintering. established (although even with efforts to

215 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

However, rural home development would Threatened and Endangered Species create patches that disrupt the movement of some wildlife, especially those most Analysis. Implementation of the preferred sensitive to human activity. There would alternative would not significantly change be slightly less new rural home develop- the number of recreational boats using the ment under the preferred alternative as river as compared to the no-action alter- compared to the no-action alternative, but native. The potential for recreational the differences in terms of wildlife impacts impacts is not expected to change with the would not be measurable, especially con- continued use of appropriate mitigation sidering much of the rural home develop- (e.g., keeping people away from bald eagle ment that could occur in the riverway has nests). Efforts to maintain and restore the already been built. diversity and ecological integrity of significant plant communities should help protect species like the Karner blue butterfly. Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife Therefore, this alternative would not likely populations and habitats have already been adversely affect threatened and endangered affected in varying degrees by recreational species (with the possible exception of users and nearby developments. Some certain mussel species). A slight reduction individual animals might be disturbed or in new rural home development could temporarily displaced by the sounds of decrease the potential for impacts to some motorboats and groups floating down the threatened and endangered species. river, but this is not expected to substantially affect the lower riverway’s fish and Also, since this alternative would promote wildlife populations. the maintenance and restoration of the natural diversity and ecological integrity of Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife plant communities on federal and state populations would be expected to be lands and encourage private landowners to negligible to minor. do likewise, species like the Karner blue butterfly could benefit.

There is the potential that the federally listed Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussels could be adversely affected in the following ways: People could inadvertently introduce zebra mussels into the lower riverway; zebra mussels could be scraped off by boats in shallow waters or by beached boats; boats could increase shoreline erosion and sediments in the water (which could affect filter-feeding mussels); waders and swimmers could unknowingly collect mussels and use them for fishing or other purposes, and poachers could adversely affect the mussels. Although these activities have occurred, or

216 Impacts of Preferred Alternative are occurring, on the lower St. Croix, it is sels, and implementation of the zebra not known what the effect, if any, has been mussel action plan (see “Management on the Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf Directions Common to All Alternatives” mussel populations. Recreational uses are section). The managing agencies would likely “taking” individual mussels, which also implement their respective compo- might be adversely affecting these species. nents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Pers com, R. Ferrin, NPS and Dan Service’s recovery plans for the winged Hornbach, Biology Dept., Macalester mapleleaf mussel and the Higgins’ eye College, 11/5/98). The National Park mussel. These components address a wide Service consulted with the U.S. Fish and variety of tasks, including actions to Wildlife Service regarding incidental take, minimize human disturbance and destruc- which might be occurring either now or in tion to the federally listed mussels, such as the future. quantification of the magnitude of potential threats (harvesting, swimming, wading, Recommended changes on the navigation digging, small recreational watercraft, and channel between Taylors Falls and the commercial paddlewheel watercraft) and Arcola sandbar and at the Kinnickinnic identification of specific geographic Narrows would avoid potential impacts to locations of greatest concern; posting of mussels. educational signs; conducting educational programs; and review of paddleboat Measures to minimize impacts and operations to minimize boat operation recovery of mussels would include the impacts. following measures. Recovery of the winged mapleleaf mussel would include Conclusion. The uses, user levels, and preservation of the sole known remnant developments in the preferred alternative population in the lower St. Croix River. would not likely adversely affect most Recovery of the Higgins’ eye mussel federal and state listed species in the lower would include preservation of the current riverway (with adequate surveys, consulta- populations and its essential habitat, which tion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- would include one site on the lower St. vice and state biologists, and the applica- Croix near Hudson, Wisconsin and another tion of appropriate mitigation measures). essential habitat area in the river near There are indications that recreational Franconia. The cooperative management activities already may be adversely affect- plan identifies the following goals, ing the federally endangered Higgins’ eye strategies, or actions in support of the and winged mapleleaf mussel population protection and recovery of these species: on the lower St. Croix. Formal consulta- protection and improvement of water tions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- quality, development of a public vice was undertaken to determine what information/education program that actions need to be taken to ensure the con- includes mussels, development of means to servation of these species and their biologi- improve mussel information/ coordination cal opinion is included in appendix D. among various agencies, organizations, etc., continued enforcement of regulations prohibiting harvesting or taking of mus-

217 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL tion partnerships would help minimize RESOURCES impacts from new development.

Analysis The managing agencies would work closely with the Minnesota and Wisconsin state As under the no-action alternative, river- historic preservation offices, American way management would ensure the protec- Indian interests, and private landowners in tion of all significant cultural resources. developing preservation strategies for any These resources would be at low risk of cultural resources that could be affected by adverse impacts resulting from recreational future development. use or neglect, and restrictions on new development within the riverway would minimize impacts. Land uses, including Conclusion new development, would be managed to maintain the river’s visual qualities and the Similar to the no-action alternative, re- historic character of the river communities. stricted development and maintaining the riverway’s visual qualities would minimize The preferred alternative would require impacts on archeological and historic re- local governments in the river town and sources. Additionally, the preferred alter- small town historic districts to develop native would result in minor improvements ordinances protecting historic structures in protection of cultural resources in the and requiring new development to be river town and small town historic consistent with the historic character of districts. those communities. As a result, the preferred alternative would result in minor improvements in protection of cultural IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC resources. ENVIRONMENT The development of specific management Local Economy direction for historic resources and cultural landscapes would depend on the completion of the List of Classified Structures and Analysis. This alternative does not call for the Cultural Landscape Inventory. Deter- large expenditures by the Park Service or minations of significance for the river- the states for the development of infra- way’s cultural resources, including cultural structure, so there would be little direct landscapes, would help guide appropriate economic impact. Application of the land management decisions. Management management areas would not result in would work cooperatively with the Minne- greatly different restrictions on new sota and Wisconsin State Historic Preser- development for most areas within the vation Offices, local officials, and private riverway. Placement of most of the new preservation groups in developing protec- land management categories would be tion strategies for those cultural resources similar to the existing incorporated and adjacent to the river but outside the bound- unincorporated classifications. Exceptions aries of the riverway. Effective preserva- to this would be areas designated as minimally disturbed and natural where increased restrictions would likely occur 218 Impacts of Preferred Alternative

(although development could still occur) ficially affected by the presence of the and in towns where some restrictions riverway as under the no-action alternative. would be reduced (but with historic structure protection). Consequently, limited Conclusion. There would be no new additional negligible to minor impacts on impacts on land values. the long-term property tax base of the local communities due to restrictions on new development would occur. Existing posi- Landownership/Landowners tive effects on local economy from expenditures from tourists and other recrea- Analysis. The preferred alternative pro- tionists would continue, but would not be poses a modest increase in scenic easement appreciably changed by the preferred acquisition by the two states; National Park alternative. Service acquisition is essentially complete and would not change. As a result, the preferred alternative would have negligible Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local impact on land ownership. economy would be negligible to minor compared to the no-action alternative. In general, the preferred alternative could affect some landowners in a manner that would have a minor to moderate impact Tourism when compared to the no action alternative. For instance, preserving the scenic Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley character of the riverway might mean that is partially linked to the area’s historic some landowners within the riverway’s character. In that context, the preferred boundary might be constrained when they alternative’s emphasis on historic structure wanted to make certain improvements to protection and enhancement of the historic their property. character of valley communities would have a minor positive impact on tourism. There would be a minor to moderate Boating-related tourism would not change, beneficial impact for local landowners in so impacts would be negligible. some areas of the riverway due to a reduction in conflicts with recreational Conclusion. There would be some users, particularly in popular camping negligible to minor positive effects on areas north of Stillwater. Local landowners tourism. would also likely benefit from a reduction in the periodic loud noise generated by higher boat speeds and reduced shoreline Land Values effects from wave action.

Analysis. Land values would not be Conclusion. There would be negligible impacted by the preferred alternative. impacts on landownership. Some landown- Local property values have probably been ers would benefit from reduced restrictions and would likely continue to be bene- on property improvements, although there would be constraints on new development

219 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES to maintain historic character. Some viewshed, would be beneficial to the landowners would be negatively affected preservation of the riverway’s scenic by restrictions on new development or quality. Actions taken outside the riverway improvements in areas outside of towns. boundary could have negligible to major There would also be minor to moderate impacts on the scenic resources of the benefits to landowners from a reduction in riverway, depending on the magnitude of conflicts and shoreline erosion associated change. Therefore, the cumulative effects with recreational use in some areas of the of NPS/state actions on the scenic quality riverway. of the viewshed would be negligibly to moderately beneficial, depending on the magnitude of changes to the scenic CUMULATIVE EFFECTS resources outside the riverway boundary.

The entire viewshed of the riverway as Land use changes in the riverway and seen from the river would not be encom- watershed have had a cumulative effect on passed within the riverway boundaries, the riverway’s water quality, flows, soils, therefore, visual encroachments outside the vegetation, and wildlife in localized areas. boundary have the potential to impact the As the region’s population continued to scenic resources of the riverway. In the grow, new development would likely occur federal zone the high bluffs, the rural near the riverway and in the communities character, the predominance of protected along the river. Further habitat fragmenta- areas along this section of the river, and the tion of the surrounding watershed land- fact that the viewshed outside the boundary scape would likely continue. would be less than the state-administered zone would mean that the concerns would The entire historical distribution of winged not be as great here as in the state- mapleleaf mussel has been significantly administered zone. In this zone more of the altered by human development in the Mis- viewshed would be outside the riverway sissippi River basin, such as damming, boundary, the area would have a series of dredging, channelization, agricultural benches visible from the river, there would application of fertilizers, pesticides, and be less high bluff areas, more of the area herbicides, and municipal and industrial would be incorporated, and its proximity to waste discharges. These developments are the Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely probably responsible for widespread and mean greater growth. For those areas precipitous decline in mussel communities within the viewshed, yet outside the in general, and the extirpation or extinction riverway boundary, local zoning standards of several species, although few studies would be the primary methods of control- have addressed directly the specific impact ling scenic impacts on the riverway. of any one of these factors. Mitigating methodologies, such as the Impacts from continued recreational use encouragement of the preservation and within the riverway and managing agency maintenance of mature vegetation, planting actions would contribute incrementally to of additional vegetative buffering, the impacts from the sources noted above. protection of cultural resources, and the Overall, the land use management area prohibition of the construction of any more allocation and special plant community extremely visible towers within the 220 Impacts of Preferred Alternative protection would be beneficial, preventing RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM loss of natural resources on a large portion USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUC- of the riverway. This would be a positive, TIVITY minor cumulative impact within the riverway and watershed. The proposed management area allocation, restrictions on island, shoreline, and None of the management actions are ex- boating use, along with the proposed pected to add substantively to the cumula- inventory, monitoring, and research tive effects on cultural resources. Growth programs for the riverway would and land use changes could affect cultural contribute to the long-term protection and resources adjacent to or within the view- preservation of resources and scenic shed of the riverway. The cumulative character of the landscape. The mainte- effects of the management actions would nance and restoration of plant communities help mitigate the effects of population would also enhance long-term productivity growth and development. of natural communities.

Many communities and counties in Minne- sota and Wisconsin are in the process of UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS revising their comprehensive plans and related ordinances. Some of these revised Some minor adverse impacts to natural plans and ordinances may include land use resources would occur. An adverse effect and development provisions applicable to on some users, such as those seeking to the river corridor that would go beyond boat at high speeds and some island guidance provided in this document. campers, would also occur. To meet the Therefore, in some areas, cumulative scenic and resource protection purposes of impacts of land management measures may the riverway, development restrictions on have negligible to moderate additional local landowners would be implemented. effects on certain property owners as To meet the recreational purposes of the compared to current conditions. riverway, some conflicts between local landowners and recreational users would The economic and population growth in continue. the region is expected to continue. The relatively small number of jobs and expenditures on management of the riverway IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEV- would only have a minor effect on the ABLE COMMITMENT OF expected growth of the total economy of RESOURCES the region. Therefore, there would be no appreciable socioeconomic cumulative Some new residential and commercial impacts from the implementation of this development would likely continue to alternative occurring in conjunction with occur on private lands within the riverway the region’s expected overall population boundary, particularly in the existing and economic growth. municipalities. Potentially, new river crossings might also occur. It is expected

221 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES that this new development would result in alternative would contribute to their the long-term localized loss of vegetation, decline. However, it is expected that the soils, and wildlife habitat. implementation of actions outlined in the recovery plans for these species would Any action that led to the loss of individual avoid this situation and contribute to their federally listed mussel species or their conservation. habitat would contribute to the loss of the species as an ecological and genetic resource. It is possible that the preferred

222 Impacts of Alternative A

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES ownership (as they would be under the no- action alternative). No impact to scenic Analysis resources would occur because any future development would occur at existing Scenic resources in the riverway are pro- development nodes, and scenic and rela- tected primarily through land acquisition or tively undisturbed natural areas would be through regulatory controls on land maintained. Private lands in Minnesota in development. No significant land acquisi- the southern portion of this segment would tion would occur in implementing alterna- be classified as natural and would receive tive A. The establishment of seven land increased protection as compared to the management categories compared to two rural classification under the no-action under the existing management program alternative. Additional development could would provide additional scenic resource still occur, but there would be fewer new protection in rural areas, with slightly less structures and those structures would be protection within municipalities (where less visible from the river. Consequently, scenic values have already been heavily they would have less impact on scenic altered), as compared to the no-action resources than the no-action alternative. alternative. Also under this alternative, the riverway managing agencies would require Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod local governments to protect the historic Slough): 10 miles. Osceola itself is classi- character of municipalities, which would fied as small town historic, which affords reduce potential impacts to scenic values in about the same level of scenic protection as municipalities from new development. The the existing urban standard, which does not no-action alternative would take no such preclude new development visible from the special actions. Alternative A differs from river but limits the development’s visibility the preferred alternative in that a greater and visual impacts. However, protection of portion of the riverway would be included historic character would be required, fur- in the river town, small town, and small ther reducing potential scenic impacts. An town historic districts, essentially reducing area just north of Osceola would be classi- scenic resource protection when consid- fied as small town, providing for commun- ering the riverway as a whole. ity growth along the riverway but allowing development that has more scenic impact The following analysis evaluates scenic than the existing rural classification. Most impacts created by the application of the of this segment would be classified as nat- seven land management areas on each river ural, however, and would receive increased segment. protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative. Ad- The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock ditional development could still occur, but Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within there would be fewer new structures and the two state parks in this river segment those structures would be less visible from would continue to be protected by state the river. Consequently, they would have

223 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES less impact on scenic resources than the new structures and those structures would no-action alternative. be less visible from the river. Consequent- ly, they would have less impact on scenic Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola resources than the no-action alternative. Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles. Marine on St. Croix itself is classified Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head mostly as small town historic, which of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minne- affords about the same level of scenic sota side of the river in this segment would protection as the existing urban standard, be classified as rural residential, which but with additional protection of historic affords a level of protection very similar to character. William O’Brien State Park the no-action alternative. The Wisconsin would receive the same high level of side of the river would be classified partly scenic resource protection as compared to as natural and would receive increased the no-action alternative. Most of the protection as compared to the rural classi- remainder of this segment in Minnesota fication under the no-action alternative. would be classified as rural residential, Additional development could still occur, which affords a level of protection similar but there would be fewer new structures to the no-action alternative, which further and those structures would be less visible limits visibility of development and main- from the river. Consequently, they would tains the rural character in unincorporated have less impact on scenic resources than areas. The Wisconsin side of the river the no-action alternative. About the south- would be classified as natural and would ern half of this segment in Wisconsin receive increased protection as compared would be classified as rural residential, to the rural classification under the no- which affords a level of protection similar action alternative. Additional development to the no-action alternative. could still occur, but there would be fewer new structures and those structures would Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St. be less visible from the river. Consequent- Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy ly, they would have less impact on scenic Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of resources than the no-action alternative. this segment in Minnesota is not intensive- ly developed; it would be classified as Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to small town with the result that its level of Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands scenic protection would be similar to the Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix current urban classification. The central Islands Wildlife Area is owned by Wiscon- portion of this segment includes a rela- sin DNR and would receive the same high tively undeveloped area north of down- level of scenic resource protection as com- town Stillwater; it would be classified as pared to the no-action alternative, which river town, which provides slightly less would maintain the undisturbed natural scenic protection than the current urban appearance. The remainder of this segment classification and would accommodate would be classified as natural and would downtown growth, while reducing scenic receive increased protection as compared protection. The southern portion of this to the rural classification under the no- segment includes the heavily developed action alternative. Additional development downtown Stillwater area; it would be could still occur, but there would be fewer classified as river town, which provides

224 Impacts of Alternative A slightly less scenic protection than the less than the southern portion of this current urban classification. Considering segment, which is classified as rural the heavily developed nature of the area, residential under the no-action alternative. however, impacts on scenic resources Most of the Wisconsin side would be would be negligible. In addition, alterna- classified as rural residential, which would tive A would require protection of historic afford a level of protection similar to the character that would reduce potential no-action alternative. The southern portion scenic impacts. of this segment in Wisconsin lies in North Hudson and would be classified as small The Wisconsin side would be classified town, with a level of scenic protection partly as rural residential, which would similar to the current urban classification. afford a level of protection similar to the no-action alternative, and partly as small Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to town, which would provide significantly Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota less scenic protection than the rural classi- side in this segment would be classified as fication in the no-action alternative. small town, with the result that its level of scenic protection would be similar to the South Stillwater-Bayport Area current urban classification. The Wisconsin (Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks side would be classified as river town, to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this which would provide slightly less scenic segment in Minnesota would be classified protection than the current urban classi- as river town, which would provide slight- fication. Considering the heavily devel- ly less scenic protection than the current oped nature of the area, however, impacts urban classification. Considering the on scenic resources would be negligible. In heavily developed nature of the area, addition, alternative A would require pro- however, impacts on scenic resources tection of historic character that would would be negligible. In addition, alterna- reduce potential scenic impacts. tive A would require protection of historic character that would reduce potential Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish scenic impacts. The Andersen Point area Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this would be classified as small town, with the segment would be classified as small town, result that its level of scenic protection with the result that its level of scenic pro- would be similar to the current urban tection would be similar to the current classification. The Wisconsin side would urban classification. The southern portion be classified as rural residential, which of Hudson would also be classified as would afford a level of protection similar small town as would the St. Croix Cove to the no-action alternative. area, which would be rural under the no- action alternative. The level of scenic Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen resource protection in the St. Croix Cove Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. In area would be reduced. The remainder of Minnesota, this area would be classified as this segment in Wisconsin would be small town, with a level of scenic protec- classified as rural residential, which affords tion similar to the current urban classifica- a level of protection similar to the no- tion in a part of the area, but significantly action alternative.

225 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to to the no-action alternative. An area north Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In of Prescott would be classified as small Minnesota the old Afton village area town to allow urban growth; this would would be classified as small town historic, result in significantly less scenic resource with the result that its level of scenic protection for that area than the current protection would be similar to the current rural classification. Prescott would be urban classification, but with additional classified as river town, which provides protection of historic character. The slightly less scenic protection than the southern portion of Afton and the area current urban classification. Considering south of Afton State Park, as well as all of the heavily developed nature of the area, the Wisconsin side, would be classified as however, impacts on scenic resources rural residential, which affords a level of would be negligible. protection similar to the no-action alternative. Afton State Park would receive Provisions for vegetative management the same high level of scenic resource would be similar to the preferred alterna- protection as compared to the no-action tive, except there would be no emphasis on alternative. voluntary actions or efforts to restore the natural diversity or ecological integrity of Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The significant plant communities on private or Minnesota side of the river in this segment state or local government lands. Also under would be classified as rural residential, this alternative more development could be which affords a level of protection similar expected; therefore, more plant communi- to the no-action alternative. Kinnickinnic ties would likely be affected. These actions State Park in Wisconsin would receive the would have an adverse impact on visual same high level of scenic resource resources because there would be less of protection as compared to the no-action the natural mosaic of vegetation that is alternative. indigenous to the riverway. These impacts would be minor to moderate (depending on Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic the amount of development) and long term Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at because it could take years to restore Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota vegetative patterns. side of the river in this segment would be classified as rural residential, which affords An amendment to the Wisconsin-managed a level of protection very similar to the no- forest law (Chapter NR 118) would be action alternative. St. Croix Bluffs Region- pursued, which would result in a long- al Park would receive the same high level term, minor, beneficial impact for the of scenic resource protection as provided scenic resources of the riverway by provid- under the no-action alternative. Carpenter ing landowners with more flexibility to Nature Center would be classified as nat- preserve these resources. ural and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification Continued adherence to NPS policies that under the no-action alternative. In Wiscon- perpetuate native plant communities would sin, most of the area north of Prescott result in a long-term, minor, beneficial would be classified as rural residential, impact to the scenic resources. which affords a level of protection similar

226 Impacts of Alternative A

Alternative A would restrict the overall precedence over maintaining a variety of number and encourage multiple uses of recreational opportunities. The existing existing river crossing corridors and diversity of boating opportunities would be structures. However, because this alterna- reduced somewhat. Some boaters would be tive allows for changes in the scale and displaced to other resources. These impacts character of or the relocation of road and are evaluated for the following river railroad bridges, utility lines, and subma- segments. rine lines, there could be negligible to major impacts on the scenic resources of Backwaters from the Dalles of the St. the riverway, depending on the magnitude Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16 of the change. Allowance of new addi- miles. The natural classification for this tional submarine crossings could result in segment would be identical to the existing minor to negligible adverse impacts on no-wake designation; the impact of scenic resources in the immediate vicinity alternative A would be the same as the no- depending on the extent and duration of action alternative, which would be to ground disturbance and vegetation removal maintain the quiet and little-used character during installation. By prohibiting clear- of the recreational experience. cutting for inspections of pipeline rights- of-way, there would be minor beneficial Backwaters from William O’Brien State impacts to scenic resources. Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The natural classification for this segment would be identical to the existing no-wake Conclusion designation; the impact of alternative A would be the same as the no-action Overall, alternative A would have a minor, alternative, which would be to maintain the negative impact on scenic resources com- quiet and little-used character of the pared to the no-action alternative. Also, recreational experience. potentially major long-term impacts from changes to river crossings could still occur. Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The quiet waters classification for this segment would permit slow-speed boating, com- IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE pared to the existing no-wake designation; Analysis the impact of alternative A would be to allow moderately faster boating than the Alternative A would allow recreational no-action alternative. boating use levels to increase as long as resource impacts and safety concerns did Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: not reach unacceptable levels. This in- 3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification creased use could alter the recreational for this segment would be identical to the experience, such as creating more crowded existing slow speed zone designation. The conditions at peak use times. Providing for impact of alternative A would be the same a larger number of users would take as the no-action alternative, which would be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise

227 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES levels, and the more social experience The concern about safety factors surround- associated with relatively large numbers of ing extremely high-speed boating (80 mph canoers. and greater) that occasionally occurs in this segment would continue. Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10 miles. The quiet waters classification for Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The this segment would be identical to the active social recreation classification for existing slow-speed zone designation; the this segment would allow extremely high- impact of alternative A would be the same speed boating to continue, although speed as the no-action alternative. Thus, recrea- limits might be set in certain areas. The tional use would be similar to the preced- existing no-wake zones in the Catfish Bar ing river segment, although less social and Kinnickinnic State Park areas would interaction would likely occur below the remain under alternative A. The concern landing at Osceola where many rental about safety factors surrounding extremely canoe trips would continue to end. high-speed boating (80 mph and greater) that occasionally occurs in this segment McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar: would continue. 8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification for this segment would be identical to the Camping Experience. Camping would existing slow speed zone designation; the continue to be allowed with little or no impact of alternative A would be the same restriction in the same way as the no-action as the no-action alternative. Opportunities alternative. would be maintained for a mixture of nonmotorized and slow-moving motorized craft. Conclusion Arcola Sandbar to north limits of Overall, alternative A would be similar to Stillwater: 5 miles. The active social the no-action alternative. Congestion prob- recreation classification for this segment lems would likely continue, primarily in would be similar to the current rule for this the narrow section of river between Arcola segment, which involves no speed limit but sandbar and Stillwater, in the Hudson Nar- a restriction on summer weekend rows, and the Prescott Narrows. Extremely waterskiing. Congestion which has become high-speed boating would continue, and a concern in this narrow area would likely associated safety and noise concerns would continue. therefore continue. Increased use could Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The alter the recreational experience, such as active social recreation classification for creating more crowded conditions at peak this segment would allow extremely high- use times. speed boating to continue, although speed limits might be set in certain areas. The existing no-wake zones in the Hudson area would remain under alternative A.

228 Impacts of Alternative A

IMPACTS ON NATURAL opments would be short term. Pollution RESOURCES created by increased use would be transient and should have minimal effects on nutri- Water Quality ent loads and on pollutant levels. Com- pared to current conditions, alternative A Analysis. Overall boating totals are would be expected to result in a negligible expected to increase under alternative A, to minor, long-term negative impact on the so water quality impacts from petroleum riverway’s overall water quality. products or day-use boaters who do not use proper toilet facilities would increase slightly as compared to the no-action Soils alternative. Unrestricted camping north of Stillwater and at Hudson would have a Analysis. As under the no-action alterna- slight negative impact on water quality as tive, additional development could occur, compared to the no-action alternative. including residential development in rural There would be a modest increase in total areas. Consequently, some soils would still residential development in areas not served be lost to development, although new soil by public sewer, leading to slightly greater disturbance would likely be reduced in the risk of water quality impacts from failed park and natural management areas (42% on-site waste treatment systems. of the lower riverway) where less development and more restrictive land use regula- Under alternative A there could be some tions would be employed. bridge relocations. These projects could have short-term, adverse effects on water With increasing boating use, shoreline quality, such as increased sedimentation erosion caused by boat wakes would be due to the installation of new bridge piers, slightly increased as compared to the no- although mitigation measures would likely action alternative. The area between the minimize the impacts. (More detailed Arcola sandbar and Stillwater would environmental documents would be pre- continue to be the focus of much concern pared before these projects would be about wake-induced shoreline erosion. approved.) Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the Conclusion. With increased use levels, the formation of social trails from campers potential for pollution due to user activities would also slightly increase, as compared would increase as compared to the no- to the no-action alternative, due to rela- action alternative. There could be localized tively unrestricted camping outside the two increases in impacts to water quality in prohibited camping areas. Bluff erosion heavily used areas where users are picnick- from foot trails would be about the same as ing, camping, and boating, particularly the no-action alternative. near the islands. Some short-term impacts also could occur if bridges were relocated. Some bridge relocations could occur. Any bridge relocations would disturb additional From a riverwide perspective, it is expect- soils along the riverbanks. However, with ed that pollution caused by potential devel- mitigation measures, it is expected that

229 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES impacts from these developments would be ment in the park and natural zones (42% of localized and minor to moderate in magni- the riverway in alternative A); however, tude. (As indicated under the preferred more vegetation could be lost due to new alternative, additional environmental development in some other areas in documentation, with mitigation measures, alternative A, particularly adjacent to the would be required before these crossings municipalities. Both alternatives would would be approved.) have a minor positive effect on plant communities if the Wisconsin Department If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to of Natural Resources proposed amendment do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic to the state land use standards within the Narrows, this alternative would reduce the riverway was adopted. If dredging occurred amount of dredged material that would between Stillwater and Prescott, alternative need to be removed and disposed. If the A would reduce the amount of vegetation dredged material could be reused for other that would be lost due to the deposition of purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby dredged material. would not be altered by the disposal of the material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance Under alternative A bridge and utility line Management Plan directs that dredged relocations would result in the loss or material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be alteration of vegetation in localized areas. placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State With mitigation measures, it is expected park for beach nourishment.) that these impacts would be minor to moderate in magnitude. Conclusion. Under alternative A, shoreline erosion would continue or accelerate as Alternative A would have the same type of river use increased. This would have impacts as the preferred alternative due to minor, additional negative, long-term motorboat use and use of the shoreline and impacts on soils in localized areas on islands, but the impacts would likely be riverbanks and the islands. There would greater in alternative A due to increased also be the potential for soil loss and user numbers. With increased motorboat disturbance due to new developments on use, boat wakes would continue or accel- private lands and from bridge relocations. erate damage to plants along the shoreline From an overall perspective, compared to and islands, particularly in heavily used current conditions, alternative A probably stretches and/or stretches where boats are would have a long-term, minor, negative going at higher speeds. impact on the soils in the lower riverway. In addition, more users would adversely affect vegetation in areas where they picnic Vegetation and camp on the shoreline and islands, with vegetation being trampled, harvested, Analysis. Alternative A would share many and cut for firewood. Disturbance of soils of the same beneficial and negative also would increase the likelihood of impacts described under the preferred exotic plants like spotted knapweed and alternative. The alternatives would have purple loosestrife becoming established. the same beneficial effects in minimizing With use expected to increase on the lower the loss of vegetation due to new develop- riverway, and only limited restrictions on

230 Impacts of Alternative A the use of most islands and shoreline, lower riverway management actions in this vegetation in more areas would likely be alternative would continue to promote the altered or lost. protection of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. No actions would be taken Conclusion. Alternative A would have that would adversely affect areas known to both negative and beneficial effects on the be of special importance for breeding, riverway’s vegetation. Vegetative com- nesting, foraging, or wintering. munities would continue to be altered and lost due to the activities of users and new However, rural home development creates developments in the riverway. With patches that disrupt the movement of some increased use levels, this impact would be wildlife, especially those most sensitive to expected to increase and more areas would human activity. There would be slightly be affected, particularly in heavily used more new rural home development under areas on the islands and the shoreline, Alternative A as compared to the no-action resulting in increases in localized, long- alternative, but the differences in terms of term impacts. Some minor to moderate wildlife impacts are likely not measurable, vegetation loss also would occur if bridges especially considering much of the rural and utility lines were relocated and/or home development that could occur in the submarine crossings were built. On the riverway has already been built. other hand, the land use management area allocation would have a beneficial effect, Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife helping ensure the protection of vegetation populations and habitats have already been on a large portion of the lower riverway. affected in varying degrees by recreational Efforts to maintain significant plant com- users and nearby developments. Some munities also would have a positive effect individual animals might be disturbed or on the riverway vegetation. From an over- temporarily displaced by the sounds of all perspective, most of the riverway’s more motorboats and groups floating down vegetation would not be affected by users, the river, but this is not expected to new developments, or the management substantially affect the lower riverway’s agencies. However, with increased use fish and wildlife populations. Fishing levels and new developments vegetation would increase because of expanded use, still would be lost or altered. Compared to but with careful monitoring and enforce- the current situation, alternative A would ment of the states’ regulations, there be expected to result in an overall minor, should be no adverse effects on the long-term, adverse impact on the fisheries. riverway’s vegetation.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife populations would be expected to be Fish and Wildlife negligible to minor.

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be significantly different for alternative A Threatened and Endangered Species than the no-action alternative. Most of the

231 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Analysis. Implementation of alternative A section). The managing agencies would would allow an increase in the number of also implement their respective compo- recreational boats using the river as nents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s compared to the no-action alternative, so recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf the potential to impact threatened and mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These endangered species could increase slightly. components address a wide variety of It is not anticipated that increased use tasks, including actions to minimize human levels under alternative A would result in disturbance and destruction to the federally adverse impacts on listed species or their listed mussels, such as quantification of the habitats with the continued use of appro- magnitude of potential treats (harvesting, priate mitigation. A slight increase in new swimming, wading, digging, small rural home development could also in- recreational watercraft, and commercial crease the potential for impacts on some paddlewheel watercraft) and identification threatened and endangered species. of specific geographic locations of greatest concern; posting of educational signs; The potential adverse effects on the conduction of educational programs; and federally listed Higgins’ eye and winged review of paddleboat operations to mapleleaf mussels would be the same as minimize boat operation impacts. described under the preferred alternative. Although these activities have occurred or Conclusion. The uses, use levels, and might be occurring on the lower St. Croix, developments under alternative A would the effects on the Higgins’ eye and winged not likely adversely affect most federal and mapleleaf mussel populations are unknown state listed species in the lower riverway — recreational uses are likely “taking” (with adequate surveys, consultation with individual mussels, which could be ad- the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and versely affecting these species. Additional state biologists, and the application of use might or might not exacerbate this appropriate mitigation measures). Recrea- possible impact. tional activities already might be adversely affecting the federally endangered Higgins’ The following goals, strategies, or actions eye and winged mapleleaf mussel popula- would support the protection and recovery tions on the lower St. Croix. Increased use of these species: protection and improve- levels near Hudson and in the Interstate ment of water quality, development of a Park area (where the mussels primarily public information/education program that occur) would be expected in the future, includes mussels, development of means to which might increase the potential for improve mussel information/coordination impacts. Formal consultations need to be among various agencies, organizations, initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife etc., continued enforcement of regulations Service to determine what actions need to prohibiting harvesting or taking of mus- be taken to ensure the conservation of sels, and implementation of the zebra these species. mussel action plan (see “Management Directions Common to All Alternatives”

232 Impacts of Alternative A

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL Conclusion RESOURCES The impacts on cultural resources under Analysis this alternative would be similar to those under the preferred alternative. Limited The impacts on cultural resources under development would be allowed outside this alternative would be similar to those municipalities in relatively undeveloped under the preferred alternative. Limited rural portions of the riverway. Municipal new development could be built within governments would be encouraged to existing towns and communities. As in the preserve the historic character of their preferred alternative, municipal govern- communities by adopting and enforcing ments would be encouraged to preserve the historic preservation and architectural historic character of their communities by standards that would require new develop- adopting and enforcing historic preserva- ment to be compatible with the design tion ordinances and architectural standards elements of the historic community. that would require new development to be Archeological resources may be at a compatible with the design elements of the slightly higher risk because of new historic community. Management would development in previously undeveloped work to maintain visual characteristics, areas. thus helping to ensure the preservation of any significant historic structures identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT Limited new development would be allowed outside the municipalities in Local Economy relatively undeveloped rural portions of the riverway. Some of this new development Analysis. This alternative does not call for might be visible from the riverway, which large expenditures by the Park Service or could pose potential impacts on cultural the states for the development of landscapes. However, new development infrastructure, so there would be little would be consistent with the riverway’s direct economic impact. Existing positive rural and natural character. The completion effects on local economy from expendi- of the cultural landscape inventory would tures from tourists and other recreationists help ensure that new development in outly- would continue. Increased riverway use ing areas was appropriate and consistent would result in more people accessing the with the riverway’s rural and natural riverway and perhaps encourage additional character, thereby minimizing impacts on commercial activity along the riverway. significant cultural or historic landscapes. Alternative A would also allow some Archeological resources could be at a growth in urban areas, with the conversion slightly higher risk as a result of new of some existing rural landscapes. Conse- development in previously undeveloped quently, limited additional impacts on the areas. long-term property tax base of the local

233 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES communities due to the increased potential tive would have negligible impact on for new development would occur. landownership.

In general, alternative A could affect some Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local landowners in a manner that would have a economy would be negligible to minor minor to moderate impact when compared compared to the no-action alternative. to the no-action alternative. For instance, preserving the scenic character of the riverway might mean that some landowners Tourism within the riverway’s boundary might be Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley constrained when they wanted to make is partially linked to the area’s historic certain improvements to their property. character. In that context, alternative A’s However, expansion of urban areas would emphasis on historic structure protection allow some landowners more flexibility in and enhancement of the historic character developing their property. of valley communities would have a minor positive impact on tourism. Boating-related Conclusion. There would be negligible tourism would increase slightly. impacts on landownership. Some landowners would benefit from reduced Conclusion. There would be some minor restrictions on property improvements in positive effects on tourism. and near towns, although there would be constraints on new development to maintain historic character. Some landowners Land Values would be negatively affected by restrictions on new development or improve- Analysis. Land values would not be ments in some areas outside of towns. impacted by the alternative A. Local There would also be minor to moderate property values have probably been and benefits to landowners from a reduction in would likely continue to be beneficially conflicts and shoreline erosion associated affected by the presence of the riverway as with recreational use in some areas of the described under the no-action alternative. riverway. Conclusion. There would be no new impacts on land values. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as Landownership/Landowners seen from the river would not be encompassed within the riverway boundaries, Analysis. Alternative A proposes a modest therefore, visual encroachments outside the increase in scenic easement acquisition by boundary have the potential to impact the the two states; National Park Service scenic resources of the riverway. In the acquisition is essentially complete and federal zone, the high bluffs, rural char- would not change. As a result, this alterna- acter, predominance of protected areas along this section of the river, the primarily

234 Impacts of Alternative A unincorporated zoning, and the fact that the allocation would contribute to a minor viewshed outside the boundary would be positive cumulative impact within the less than the state-administered zone would riverway and watershed. mean that the concerns would not be as great here as in the state- administered None of the management actions are zone. In this zone more of the viewshed expected to add substantively to the cumu- would be outside the riverway boundary, lative effects on cultural resources. Growth the area would have a series of benches and land use changes could affect cultural visible from the river, there would be less resources adjacent to or within the view- high bluff areas, more of the area would be shed of the riverway. The cumulative incorporated, and its proximity to the effects of the management actions would Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely help mitigate the effects of population mean greater growth. For those areas growth and development. within the viewshed, yet outside the riverway boundary, local zoning standards Many communities and counties in would be the primary methods of control- Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the ling scenic impacts to the riverway. Miti- process of revising their comprehensive gating methodologies such as the encour- plans and related ordinances. Some of agement of the preservation and main- these revised plans and ordinances might tenance of mature vegetation, planting of include land use and development provis- additional vegetative buffering, the protec- ions applicable to the river corridor that tion of cultural resources, and the prohibi- would go beyond guidance provided in this tion of the construction of any more ex- document. Therefore, in some areas, cum- tremely visible towers within the viewshed ulative impacts of land management would be beneficial to the preservation of measures might have negligible to mod- the riverway’s scenic quality. Actions erate additional effects on certain property taken outside the riverway boundary could owners as compared to current conditions. have negligible to major impacts on the The economic and population growth in scenic resources of the riverway, depend- the region is expected to continue. The ing on the magnitude of change. Therefore, relatively small number of jobs and the cumulative effects of NPS/state actions expenditures on management of the on the scenic quality of the viewshed riverway would only have a minor effect would be negligibly to moderately bene- on the expected growth of the total ficial, depending on the magnitude of economy of the region. Therefore, there changes to the scenic resources outside the would be no appreciable socioeconomic riverway boundary. cumulative impacts from implementation Impacts from increased recreational use of this alternative occurring in conjunction within the riverway and managing agency with the region’s expected overall actions would contribute incrementally to population and economy of the region. impacts from land use changes and population growth in the watershed and larger region. Overall, the land use management

235 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM and recreational users would continue and USES AND LONG-TERM likely increase. PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation, IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEV- restrictions on island, shoreline, and boat- ABLE COMMITMENT OF ing use, along with the proposed inventory, RESOURCES monitoring, and research programs for the riverway, would contribute to the long- Some new residential and commercial term protection and preservation of redevelopment would likely continue on sources and scenic character of the land- private lands within the riverway bound- scape. Maintenance of plant communities ary. Potentially, new river crossings might would also enhance long-term productivity also occur. It is expected that this new of natural communities. development would result in the long-term localized loss of vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Any action that led to the loss of individ- Some minor adverse impacts to natural ual, federally listed mussel species or their resources would occur. This alternative, habitat would contribute to the loss of the would place the fewest restrictions on species as an ecological and genetic recreational use. In order to meet the scenic resource. It is possible that this alternative and resource protection purposes of the would contribute to their decline. How- riverway development, restrictions on local ever, it is expected that the implementation landowners would implemented. To meet of actions outlined in the recovery plans the recreational purposes of the riverway, for these species would avoid this situation some conflicts between local landowners and contribute to their conservation.

236 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES in the southern portion of this segment would be classified as natural and would Analysis receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification under the no- Scenic resources in the riverway are action alternative. Additional development protected primarily through land acqui- could still occur, but there would be fewer sition or through regulatory controls on new structures and those structures would land development. No significant land not be visible from the river. Consequently, acquisition would occur in implementing they would have no impact on scenic alternative B. The establishment of seven resources. land management categories compared to two under the existing management Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod program would provide additional scenic Slough): 10 miles. Osceola itself is resource protection, as compared to the no- classified as small town that would afford action alternative. However, under this an increased level of scenic protection alternative, more restrictions would be compared to the existing urban standard to imposed to avoid additional rural develop- minimize new development visible from ment that would be visible from the river. the river. Most of this segment would be The riverway managing agencies would classified as natural, however, and would also require local governments to protect receive increased protection as compared the historic character of municipalities, to the rural classification under the no- which would reduce potential impacts to action alternative. Additional development scenic values in municipalities from new could still occur, but there would be fewer development. new structures and those structures would not be visible from the river. Consequently, The following analysis evaluates scenic they would have no impact on scenic impact associated with the application of resources. the land management areas on each river segment. Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles. The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within Marine on St. Croix itself is classified as the two state parks in this river segment small town historic, which would afford an would continue to be protected by state increased level of scenic protection com- ownership (as they would be under the no- pared to the existing urban standard. action alternative). No impact to scenic Additional restrictions would be placed on resources would occur because any future development to minimize new develop- development would occur at existing ment visible from the river and also to development nodes, and scenic and protect historic character. William O’Brien relatively undisturbed natural areas would State Park would receive the same high be maintained. Private lands in Minnesota level of scenic resource protection as

237 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES compared to the no-action alternative. tection as compared to the rural classi- Most of the remainder of this segment in fication under the no-action alternative. Minnesota would be classified as rural Additional development could still occur, residential and would receive increased but there would be fewer new structures protection as compared to the rural and those structures would not be visible classification under the no-action from the river. Consequently, they would alternative. The Wisconsin side of the river have no impact on scenic resources. A would be classified as natural and would small portion of the southern part of this receive increased protection as compared segment in Wisconsin would be classified to the rural classification under the no- as rural residential and would receive action alternative. Additional development increased protection as compared to the could still occur, but there would be fewer rural classification under the no-action new structures and those structures would alternative. not be visible from the river. Consequently, they would have no impact on scenic Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St. resources. Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to this segment in Minnesota is not inten- Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands sively developed; it would be classified as Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix small town with the result that its level of Islands Wildlife Area is owned by scenic protection would be increased Wisconsin DNR and would receive the compared to the current urban classifica- same high level of scenic resource protection. The southern portion of this segment tion as compared to the no-action alterna- includes the heavily developed downtown tive, which would maintain the undisturbed Stillwater area; it would be classified as natural appearance. The remainder of this river town, and additional restrictions segment would be classified as natural and would be placed on development to would receive increased protection as minimize new development visible from compared to the rural classification under the river and also to protect historic the no-action alternative. Additional character. This would provide slightly development could still occur, but there more scenic protection than the current would be fewer new structures and those urban classification, which would reduce structures would not be visible from the potential scenic impacts. river. Consequently, they would have no impact on scenic resources. The Wisconsin side would be classified as rural residential and would receive Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head increased protection as compared to the of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minne- rural classification under the no-action sota side of the river in this segment would alternative. be classified as rural residential and would receive increased protection as compared South Stillwater-Bayport Area to the rural classification under the no- (Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks action alternative. The Wisconsin side of to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this the river would mostly be classified as segment in Minnesota would be classified natural and would receive increased pro- as river town, and additional restrictions

238 Impacts of Alternative B would be placed on development to scenic protection increased compared to minimize new development visible from the current urban classification. The the river and also to protect historic Wisconsin side would be classified as river character. This would provide slightly town, and additional restrictions would be more scenic protection than the current placed on development to minimize new urban classification, which would reduce development visible from the river and potential scenic impacts. The Andersen also to protect historic character. This Point area would be classified as small would provide slightly more scenic protec- town, with its level of scenic protection tion than the current urban classification, increased compared to the current urban which would reduce potential scenic classification. The Wisconsin side would impacts. be classified as rural residential and would receive increased protection as compared Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish to the rural classification under the no- Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this action alternative. segment would be classified as small town, with the result that its level of scenic Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen protection would be increased compared to Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. In the current urban classification. The south- Minnesota, the area between Andersen ern portion of Hudson would also be clas- Point and the south limits of Bayport sified as small town. The remainder of this would be classified as small town, with the segment in Wisconsin would be classified result that its level of scenic protection as rural residential and would receive would be increased compared to the increased protection as compared to the current urban classification. The southern rural classification under the no-action portion of this segment in Minnesota alternative. would be classified as rural residential and would receive increased protection as Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to compared to the rural classification under Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In the no-action alternative. Most of the Minnesota, the old Afton village area Wisconsin side would be classified as rural would be classified as small town historic, residential and would receive increased with its level of scenic protection increased protection as compared to the rural classi- compared to the current urban classifica- fication under the no-action alternative. tion, with additional restrictions on devel- The southern portion of this segment in opment to minimize new development Wisconsin lies in North Hudson and would visible from the river and also to protect be classified as small town, with the result historic character. The southern portion of that its level of scenic protection would be Afton and the area south of Afton State increased compared to the current urban Park, as well as all of the Wisconsin side, classification. would be classified as rural residential and would receive increased protection as Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to compared to the rural classification under Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota the no-action alternative. Afton State Park side in this segment would be primarily would receive the same high level of classified as small town, with its level of

239 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES scenic resource protection as compared to term beneficial impact on the visual the no-action alternative. resources of the riverway by preserving existing parcels of indigenous vegetation. Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The However, these impacts would be minor to Minnesota side of the river in this segment negligible because these actions would be would be classified as rural residential and voluntary, and most individuals would would receive increased protection as consider these areas as natural landscapes compared to the rural classification under whether or not the vegetative mosaics the no-action alternative. Kinnickinnic included a diversity of significant plant State Park in Wisconsin would receive the communities. same high level of scenic resource protection as compared to the no-action An amendment to the Wisconsin-managed alternative. forest law (Chapter NR 118) would be pursued, which would result in a long-term Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic minor beneficial impact for the scenic Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at resources of the riverway by providing Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota landowners with more flexibility to side of the river in this segment would be preserve these resources. classified as rural residential and would receive increased protection as compared Continued adherence to NPS policies that to the rural classification under the no- perpetuate native plant communities would action alternative. St. Croix Bluffs Region- result in a long-term, minor, beneficial al Park would receive the same high level impact to the scenic resources. Because of scenic resource protection as compared minimal changes would be permitted in the to the no-action alternative. Carpenter number, type, scale, or characteristics of Nature Center would be classified as nat- the river crossings (including the restric- ural and would receive increased protection of road, railroad, and overhead lines to tion as compared to the rural classification existing corridors), there could be little under the no-action alternative. In Wiscon- noticeable change in the overhead visual sin, the area north of Prescott would be intrusions on the riverway. Even though no classified as rural residential and would increases would be allowed in the size or receive increased protection as compared number of lines in existing submarine to the rural classification under the no- crossings, overhead utility lines could be action alternative. Prescott would be relocated to existing submarine crossings. classified as river town, which would This latter action could reduce the amount provide slightly more scenic protection of overhead visual intrusions on the than the current urban classification. riverway landscape. Otherwise, there would be negligible change to the visual By encouraging the maintenance of resources of the riverway related to river significant plant communities on both crossings. Compared to the no-action public and private lands through voluntary alternative, the alternative B would avoid actions, education, and awareness-building, potentially major long-term impacts to these resources would remain part of the scenic quality from construction of large- visual landscape of the riverway. These scale bridge crossings or relocation of voluntary provisions could have a long-

240 Impacts of Alternative B transmission lines to highly scenic or would be the same as the no-action largely undisturbed corridors. alternative.

Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to Conclusion north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The Overall, alternative B would have a natural waters classification for this seg- moderate, positive impact on scenic ment would be identical to the existing no- resources compared to the no-action wake designation; the impact of alternative alternative. Also, potentially major, long- B would be the same as the no-action alter- term impacts from changes to river native, which would be to maintain the crossings would be avoided. quiet and little-used character of the recreational experience.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE 3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification Analysis for this segment would be identical to the existing slow speed zone designation. The The primary goal of alternative B with impact of Alternative B would be the same respect to boating recreation would be to as the no-action alternative, which would allow modest growth in total boating and be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise to minimize user conflicts through in- levels, and the more social experience creased regulation. The existing diversity associated with relatively large numbers of of boating opportunities would remain, canoers. with the exception of extremely high-speed boating activities. Boaters interested in that Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10 activity would be displaced to another miles. The quiet waters classification for resource. These impacts are evaluated for this segment would be identical to the each river segment. existing slow-speed zone designation; the impact of alternative B would be the same Backwaters from the Dalles of the St. as the no-action alternative. Thus, Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16 recreational use would be similar to the miles. The natural waters classification for preceding river segment, although less this segment would be identical to the social interaction would likely occur below existing no-wake designation; the impact the landing at Osceola where many rental of alternative B would be the same as the canoe trips would continue to end. no-action alternative, which would be to maintain the quiet and little-used character McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar: of the recreational experience. 8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification for this segment would be identical to the Backwaters from William O’Brien State existing slow-speed zone designation; the Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The impact of alternative B would be the same natural classification for this segment as the no-action alternative. Opportunities would be identical to the existing no-wake would be maintained for a mixture of designation; the impact of alternative B

241 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES nonmotorized and slow-moving motorized would be considered a minor positive craft. impact on the environment.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of Camping Experience. A camping man- Stillwater: 5 miles. The moderate recrea- agement plan would be developed for boat- tion classification for this segment would related camping north of Stillwater that involve a speed limit and a possible restric- would impose gradually increased restriction on waterskiing. This is slightly differ- tions on camping. This would result in ent that the current rule, which involves no fewer boat-in campsites than currently speed limit but a firm restriction on sum- exist, enhancing privacy and reducing mer weekend waterskiing. Congestion in shoreline erosion problems, but reducing this narrow area has become a concern and the opportunity for more social camping the imposition of a speed limit would be situations and reducing the overall number considered a positive impact on congestion of camping occasions, displacing some and shoreline erosion concerns. campers to another resource. At Hudson, campers without on-board toilets would be Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The displaced. The outcome would be reduced active social recreation classification for shoreline erosion between the Arcola this segment would allow extremely high- sandbar and Stillwater and reduced water speed boating to continue, although speed quality problems there and at Hudson, but limits might be set in certain areas. The an increase in displaced recreational users. existing no-wake zones in the Hudson area would remain under alternative B. The concern about safety factors surrounding Conclusion extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and greater) that occasionally occurs in this Overall, alternative B would provide mi- segment would continue. nor, possibly negligible, positive impacts on recreational use. Some people might be Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The negatively impacted by the additional moderate recreation classification for this regulation. Also, a few riverway users, segment would involve a speed limit and a those seeking to travel at high speeds and possible restriction on waterskiing; under some island campers, would be displaced the no-action alternative there would be no from part of the riverway. speed limit. The existing no-wake zones in the Catfish Bar and Kinnickinnic State Park areas would remain under alternative IMPACTS ON NATURAL B. There has been growing concern about RESOURCES safety factors surrounding extremely high- speed boating (80 mph and greater) that Water Quality occasionally occurs in this segment; which would be eliminated under alternative B, Analysis. Overall boating totals are ex- forcing boaters who want to travel at those pected to increase slightly under alternative speeds to use a different resource. The B, therefore, water quality impacts from imposition of a speed limit in this area petroleum products or day-use boaters who do not use proper toilet facilities would be

242 Impacts of Alternative B slightly higher than the no-action alterna- including residential development in rural tive. Additional restrictions on camping areas. Consequently, some soils would still north of Stillwater and at Hudson would be lost to development, although new soil have a slight positive impact on water disturbance would likely be reduced in the quality as compared to the no-action alter- park and natural management areas (43% native. There would be a slight decrease in of the lower riverway) where less develop- total residential development in areas not ment and more restrictive land use regula- served by public sewer, leading to slightly tions would be employed. less risk of water quality impacts from failed on-site waste treatment systems (as Slower boat speed limits in some areas compared to the no-action alternative). would, to some extent, reduce the amount of shoreline erosion that occurs as a result Under alternative B there could be some of boat wakes. The area between the bridge and utility line replacements, which Arcola sandbar and Stillwater is the focus could have short term adverse effects on of much concern about wake-induced water quality, such as increased sedimenta- shoreline erosion, and a moderate speed tion due to the installation of new bridge limit there would likely do little to alter piers. Mitigation measures would likely current impacts. With increasing boating minimize these impacts. (More detailed use, shoreline erosion caused by boat environmental documents would be pre- wakes would be slightly increased as pared before a bridge replacement would compared to the no-action alternative. be approved.) Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the Conclusion. With slightly increased use formation of social trails from campers levels, the potential for pollution due to would be slightly reduced, as compared to user activities would be slightly higher. the no-action alternative, by limitations and Additional restrictions on camping north of overall reductions in camping north of Stillwater and at Hudson would have a Stillwater. Localized bluff erosion from slight positive impact on water quality. foot trails would be about the same as the Some short-term impacts also could occur no-action alternative. if bridges or transmission lines are replaced. From a riverwide perspective, it is There could be some bridge and utility line expected that pollution due to construction replacements under alternative B, although of potential developments would be short only a few areas would likely be affected term, while pollution due to increased during the life of this plan. Since these users would be transient and should have replacements would only be permitted in minor to negligible effects on pollutant existing corridors, additional soil disturb- levels. ance would be limited to areas that likely have already been altered. (Additional environmental documentation, with Soils mitigation measures, would be required before these crossings would be approved.) Analysis. As under the no-action alterna- Potential soil disturbance that could occur tive, additional development could occur,

243 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES from new submarine crossings would be ficial effect in minimizing the loss of prevented. vegetation due to new development in the park and natural zones (43% of the If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to riverway in alternative B). Alternative B do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic also would have a minor positive effect on Narrows, this alternative would reduce the plant communities if the Wisconsin amount of dredged material that would Department of Natural Resources proposed need to be removed and disposed. If the amendment to the state land use standards dredged material could be reused for other within the riverway is adopted. purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby would not be altered by the disposal of the Both alternative B and the preferred material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance alternative would have the same effects on Management Plan directs that dredged vegetation due to bridge/utility line material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be replacements and dredging. Very little placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State additional vegetation would be lost or park for beach nourishment.) disturbed due to bridge and utility line replacements, and this disturbance Conclusion. Under alternative B, shoreline probably would be limited to areas that erosion would continue or slightly acceler- already have been altered. If dredging ate as river use increased. This would have occurred between Stillwater and Prescott, minor negative, long-term impacts on soils alternative B would reduce the amount of in localized areas on riverbanks and the vegetation that would be lost due to the islands. However, the actions proposed for deposition of dredged material. However, managing the islands and public shoreline unlike the previous action alternatives, north of Stillwater would be expected to alternative B would not allow additional have a positive effect, reducing erosion and submarine crossings. This would prevent soil compaction. There would also be the potential impacts on vegetation due to the potential for soil loss and disturbance due construction of new pipelines near the to new developments on private lands and riverbanks. from bridge relocations. However, the land use management areas would prevent po- Alternative B would have the same type of tential soil disturbance and loss on a large impacts as the preferred alternative due to portion of the lower riverway. From an motorboat use. Boat wakes are believed to overall perspective, compared to current be affecting vegetation along the shoreline conditions alternative B probably would and islands, and this impact would con- have a long-term, negligible to minor, tinue, particularly in heavily used stretches positive impact. and/or stretches that high-speed boats use. Imposition of moderate speed limits from Arcola sandbar to Stillwater and below Vegetation Catfish Bar would a have negligible positive impact on shoreline erosion. Analysis. Alternative B would share many of the same beneficial and negative im- Users would continue to trample vegeta- pacts described under the preferred alterna- tion in localized areas when they picnic on tive. The alternative would have a bene- the shoreline and islands and camp on the

244 Impacts of Alternative B islands south of Stillwater (i.e., the Hudson long-term, positive impact on the river- islands). Some users probably would con- way’s vegetation. tinue to damage trees, stripping bark from birch trees, cutting saplings, and pulling down branches for firewood. Disturbance of soils also would increase the likelihood of exotic plants like spotted knapweed and purple loosestrife becoming established. However, alternative B should have a beneficial effect on the islands and public shorelines north of Stillwater, reducing the loss of vegetation, due to increased restrictions on camping. Limiting camping in areas to designated sites would be expected to reduce the extent of vegetation disturbance and encourage native plants to become reestablished (although day users still could trample vegetation and introduce exotics).

Conclusion. Like the other action alternatives, alternative B would have both negative and beneficial effects on the riverway’s vegetation. Vegetative communities would continue to be altered and lost due to the activities of users and new developments in the riverway. Some minor vegetation loss also would occur if bridge or transmission line replacements were built. On the other hand, the land management area allocation would have a beneficial effect, helping ensure the protection of vegetation on a large portion of the lower riverway. Efforts to maintain significant plant communities as well as restrictions on camping would also have a positive effect on the riverway vegetation.

From an overall perspective, most of the riverway’s vegetation would not be affected by users, new developments, or the managing agencies. Compared to the current situation, alternative B would be expected to have a negligible to minor,

245 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Fish and Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be Analysis. Implementation of alternative B significantly different for alternative B than would not significantly change the number the no-action alternative. Most of the lower of recreational boats using the river as riverway management actions in this compared to the no-action alternative. The alternative would continue to promote the potential for recreational impacts is not protection of fish and wildlife populations expected to change with the continued use and habitats. No actions would be taken of appropriate mitigation (e.g., keeping that would adversely affect areas known to people away from bald eagle nests). This be of special importance for breeding, alternative would maintain the diversity of nesting, foraging, or wintering. native plant communities on federal and state lands, and encourage private land- Rural home development creates patches owners to do likewise, which should help that disrupt the movement of some wild- protect species like the Karner blue butter- life, especially those most sensitive to fly. A slight reduction in new rural home human activity. There would be slightly development could decrease the potential less new rural home development under for impacts to some threatened and alternative B as compared to the no-action endangered species. Therefore, this alterna- alternative, but the differences in terms of tive would not likely adversely affect wildlife impacts are likely not measurable, threatened and endangered species (with especially considering much of the rural the possible exception of certain mussel home development that could occur in the species). riverway has already been built. Like all of the action alternatives, there is Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife the potential in alternative B that the populations and habitats have already been federally listed Higgins’ eye and winged affected in varying degrees by recreational mapleleaf mussels could be adversely users and nearby developments. Some affected. However, it is not known what individual animals might be disturbed or effect these activities are having on the temporarily displaced by the sounds of Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel more motorboats and groups floating down populations — recreational uses are likely the river, but this is not expected to “taking” individual mussels, which may be substantially affect the lower riverway’s adversely affecting these species. fish and wildlife populations. The following goals, strategies, or actions would support the protection and recovery Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife of these species: protection and improve- populations would be expected to be ment of water quality, development of a negligible to minor. public information/education program that includes mussels, development of means to improve mussel information/coordination among various agencies, organizations, etc., continued enforcement of regulations prohibiting harvesting or taking of mus-

246 Impacts of Alternative B sels, and implementation of the zebra IMPACTS ON CULTURAL mussel response plan (see “Management RESOURCES Directions Common to All Alternatives” section). The managing agencies would Analysis also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s This alternative would focus on main- recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf taining the current (1997) visual qualities mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These of the riverway . There would be less components address a wide variety of potential for new development under this tasks, including actions to minimize human alternative than under alternative A. disturbance and destruction to the federally Maintaining the landscape’s visual listed mussels, such as quantification of the qualities would pose no adverse impacts magnitude of potential threats like for the cultural resources in the riverway. harvesting, swimming, wading, digging, Alternative B would require local govern- and small recreational watercraft and ments in the river town and small town identification of specific geographic historic districts to develop ordinances locations of greatest concern; posting of protecting historic structures and requiring educational signs; presenting educational new development to be consistent with the programs; and review of paddleboat historic character of those communities. operations to minimize boat operation As a result, alternative B would result in impacts. minor improvements in protection of Conclusion. The expected uses, user cultural resources. numbers, and developments under alterna- Archeological resources would be at a tive B are not likely to adversely affect lower risk due to increased restrictions in most federal and state listed species in the areas within the riverway. Any increased lower riverway (with adequate surveys, use of public shoreline should pose no consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wild- impacts on these resources, since these life Service and state biologists, and the areas were previously disturbed. Minor application of appropriate mitigation restrictions placed on camping would be measures). Recreational activities already used to protect sensitive archeological might be adversely affecting the federally sites. endangered Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel on the lower St. Croix. The number, significance, and condition of Formal consultations would need to be the riverway’s cultural landscapes currently initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife is unknown. However, this alternative Service to determine what actions need to would pose no adverse impacts on any be taken to ensure the conservation of significant cultural or historic landscapes these species. that may later be identified in the riverway. Maintaining the riverway’s visual qualities by restricting development would minimize impacts on the riverway’s cultural landscapes. The completion of the cultural

247 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES landscape inventory would enhance future negligible to minor impacts on the long- planning efforts to protect these resources. term property tax base of the local communities due to restrictions on new development would occur. Existing positive Conclusion effects on the local economy from expenditures from tourists and other recreationists Cultural resources would be at minimal would continue, but would not be risk under this alternative because of the appreciably changed. emphasis on maintaining the riverway’s visual qualities. Additionally, this alterna- Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local tive would result in minor improvements in economy would be negligible to minor protection of cultural resources in the river compared to the no-action alternative. town and small town historic districts. Archeological resources would face minimal risks cue to restrictions on develop- Tourism ment within those portions of the riverway that would be visible from the riverway. Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley Restriction on development would help is partially linked to the area’s historic safeguard any significant cultural land- character. In that context, alternative B’s scapes that might be identified in the emphasis on historic structure protection cultural landscape inventory. and enhancement of the historic character of valley communities would have a minor positive impact on tourism. Boating-related IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC tourism would increase slightly. ENVIRONMENT Conclusion. There would be some negli- Local Economy gible to minor positive effects on tourism.

Analysis. There would be little direct eco- Land Values nomic impact because no additional large expenditures by the states or by the Park Analysis. Land values would not be Service are proposed. Application of the impacted by the preferred alternative. land management areas would not result in Local property values have probably been greatly different restrictions on new devel- and would likely continue to be bene- opment for most areas within the riverway. ficially affected by the presence of the Placement of the new land management riverway as under the no-action alternative. categories would be similar to the existing incorporated and unincorporated classifi- Conclusion. There would be no new cations. Exceptions to this would be areas impacts on land values. designated as natural where increased restrictions would likely occur (although development could still occur) and in Landownership/Landowners towns where some restrictions would be reduced (but with historic structure protec- Analysis. Alternative B proposes a modest tion). Consequently, limited additional increase in scenic easement acquisition by 248 Impacts of Alternative B the two states; National Park Service CUMULATIVE EFFECTS acquisition is essentially complete and would not change. As a result alternative B The entire viewshed of the riverway as would have negligible impact on land- seen from the river would not be en- ownership. compassed within the riverway boundaries, therefore, visual encroachments outside the In general under alternative B, land use boundary have the potential to impact the regulations would be slightly more restric- scenic resources of the riverway. In the tive than under the no-action alternative, federal zone, the high bluffs, rural charac- considering much of the rural home devel- ter, predominance of protected areas along opment that could occur has already been this section of the river, the primarily unin- built. Thus, alternative B could affect some corporated zoning, and the fact that the landowners in a manner that would have a viewshed outside the boundary would be minor to moderate impact on flexibility in less than the state-administered zone would developing their property when compared mean that the concerns would not be as to the no-action alternative. great here as in the state- administered zone. In this zone more of the viewshed There would be a minor to moderate would be outside the riverway boundary, beneficial impact for local landowners in the area would have a series of benches some areas of the riverway due to a visible from the river, there would be less reduction in conflicts with recreational high bluff areas, more of the area would be users, particularly in popular camping incorporated, and its proximity to the areas north of Stillwater. Local landowners Minneapolis/St. Paul area would mean would also likely benefit from a reduction greater growth. in the periodic loud noise generated by higher boat speeds and some minimal For those areas within the viewshed, yet reduced shoreline effects from wave outside the riverway boundary, local action. zoning standards would be the primary methods of controlling scenic impacts to Conclusion. There would be negligible the riverway. Mitigating methodologies impacts on landownership. Some landown- such as the encouragement of the preser- ers would benefit from reduced restrictions vation and maintenance of mature vegeta- on property improvements, although there tion, planting of additional vegetative would be constraints on new development buffering, the protection of cultural re- to maintain historic character. Some land- sources, and the prohibition of the owners would be negatively affected by construction of any more extremely visible restrictions on new development or im- towers within the viewshed would be provements in areas outside of towns. beneficial to the preservation of the river- There would also be minor to moderate way’s scenic quality. Actions taken outside benefits to landowners from a reduction in the riverway boundary could have negli- conflicts and shoreline erosion associated gible to major impacts on the scenic with recreational use in some areas of the resources of the riverway, depending on riverway. the magnitude of change. Therefore, the cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on

249 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES the scenic quality of the viewshed would the region’s expected overall population be negligibly to moderately beneficial, and economy of the region. depending on the magnitude of changes to the scenic resources outside the riverway boundary. RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM As under the previous alternatives, impacts PRODUCTIVITY from recreational use within the riverway and managing agency actions would con- The proposed management area allocation, tribute incrementally to impacts from land restrictions on island, shoreline, and boat- use changes and population growth in the ing use, along with the proposed inventory, watershed and larger region. Overall, the monitoring, and research programs for the land use management allocation would riverway, would contribute to the long- contribute to a minor positive cumulative term protection and preservation of re- impact within the riverway and watershed. sources and scenic character of the landscape. The maintenance of plant communi- None of the management actions are ex- ties would also enhance long-term produc- pected to add substantively to the cumu- tivity of natural communities. lative effects on cultural resources. Growth and land use changes could affect cultural resources adjacent to or within the view- UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS shed of the riverway. The cumulative effects of the management actions would Some minor to locally moderate adverse help mitigate the effects of population impacts to natural resources would occur. growth and development. In the process of resolving conflicts among different uses or reducing resource im- Many communities and counties in Min- pacts, restrictions would be placed on nesota and Wisconsin are in the process of particular uses, having an adverse effect on revising their comprehensive plans and some users. In order to meet the scenic and related ordinances. Some of these revised resource protection purposes of the river- plans and ordinances may include land use way development restrictions on local and development provisions applicable to landowner would implemented. To meet the river corridor that would go beyond the recreational purposes of the riverway, guidance provided in this document. some conflicts between local landowners and recreational users would continue. The economic and population growth in the region is expected to continue. The relatively small number of jobs and expenditures on management of the riverway IRREVERSIBLE AND would only have a minor effect on the IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT expected growth of the total economy of OF RESOURCES the region. Therefore, there would be no appreciable socioeconomic cumulative Some new residential and commercial impacts from implementation of this development would likely continue to alternative occurring in conjunction with occur on private lands within the riverway

250 Impacts of Alternative B boundary. Potentially, new river crossings species as an ecological and genetic re- may also occur. It is expected that this new source. It is possible that this alternative development would result in the long-term would contribute to their decline. How- localized loss of vegetation, soils, and ever, it is expected that the implementation wildlife habitat. of actions outlined in the recovery plans for these species would avoid this situation Any action that led to the loss of individual and contribute to their conservation. federally listed mussel species or their habitat would contribute to the loss of the .

251 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The Scenic resources would be affected under natural waters classification for this seg- alternative C in exactly the same fashion as ment would be identical to the existing no- alternative B. Overall, alternative C would wake designation; the impact of alternative have a moderate positive impact on scenic C would be the same as the no-action resources compared to the no-action alternative. alternative. Also, potentially major long- term impacts from changes to river cross- Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: ings would be avoided. 3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification for this segment would be identical to the existing slow speed zone designation. The IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE impact of alternative C would be the same as the no-action alternative, which would Analysis be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise levels, and the more social experience The primary goal of alternative C with associated with relatively large numbers of respect to boating recreation is to freeze canoers. the amount of total boating in the riverway at current levels and to minimize user Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10 conflicts through boating regulations. miles. The quiet waters classification for Impacts are evaluated for each river this segment would be identical to the segment. existing slow speed zone designation. The impact of Alternative C would be the same Backwaters from the Dalles of the St. as the no-action alternative. Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16 miles. The natural waters classification for McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar: this segment would be identical to the 8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification existing no-wake designation. The impact for this segment would be identical to the of alternative C would be the same as the existing slow speed zone designation; the no-action alternative, which would be to impact of alternative C would be the same maintain the quiet and little-used character as the no-action alternative. of the recreational experience. Arcola Sandbar to north limits of Backwaters from William O’Brien State Stillwater: 5 miles. The moderate recrea- Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The tion classification for this segment would natural waters classification for this seg- involve a speed limit and a possible ment would be identical to the existing no- restriction on waterskiing. This is slightly wake designation; the impact of alternative different that the current rule, which in- C would be the same as the no-action volves no speed limit but a firm restriction alternative. on summer weekend waterskiing. Conges- tion in this narrow area has become a concern and the imposition of a speed limit

252 Impacts of Alternative C would be considered a positive impact on Sandbar and Stillwater and reduced water congestion and shoreline erosion concerns. quality problems there and at Hudson, but an increase in displaced recreational users. Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The active social recreation classification for this segment would allow extremely high- Conclusion speed boating to continue, although speed limits might be set in certain areas. The Overall, alternative C would have minor existing no-wake zones in the Hudson area positive impacts on recreational use. The would remain under alternative C. The existing diversity of boating opportunities concern about safety factors surrounding would remain, however, safety concerns extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and would continue where extremely high- greater) that occasionally occurs in this speed boating activities occurred occasion- segment would continue. ally south of Stillwater.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The active social recreation classification for IMPACTS ON NATURAL this segment would allow extremely high- RESOURCES speed boating to continue, although speed limits might be set in certain areas. The Water Quality existing no-wake zones in the Catfish Bar and Kinnickinnic State Park areas would Analysis. Slower boat speed limits would, remain under alternative C. The concern to some extent, reduce the amount of about safety factors surrounding extremely shoreline erosion that occurs as a result of high-speed boating (80 mph and greater) boat wakes. The area between the Arcola that occasionally occurs in this segment sandbar and Stillwater is the focus of much would continue. concern about wake-induced shoreline erosion, and the proposed moderate speed Camping Experience. A camping limit there would likely do little to alter management plan would be developed for current impacts. boat-related camping north of Stillwater that would impose gradually increased Overall boating totals are expected to restrictions on camping. This would result remain unchanged under alternative C, so in fewer boat-in campsites than currently water quality impacts from petroleum exist, enhancing privacy and reducing products or day-use boaters who do not use shoreline erosion problems. However, the proper toilet facilities would be less than opportunity for more social camping and the no-action alternative. Additional overall number of camping occasions restrictions on camping north of Stillwater would be reduced, displacing some and at Hudson would have a slight positive campers to another resource. At Hudson, impact on water quality as compared to the campers without on-board toilets would be no-action alternative. There would be a displaced. The outcome would be reduced slight decrease in total residential develop- shoreline erosion between the Arcola ment in areas not served by public sewer,

253 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES leading to slightly less risk of water quality ment and more restrictive land use regula- impacts from failed on-site waste treatment tions would be employed. systems (as compared to the no-action alternative). Shoreline erosion caused by boat wakes would be similar to the no-action alterna- River crossings would be affected the same tive. The imposition of speed limits from way under alternative C as described under the Arcola sandbar south would have a alternative B. There could be some bridge negligible impact on shoreline erosion and utility line replacements, which could caused by boat wakes. have short term adverse effects on water quality, although mitigation measures Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the should minimize these impacts. (More formation of social trails from campers detailed environmental documents would would be slightly reduced, as compared to be prepared before a bridge or a utility line the no-action alternative, by limitations and replacement would be approved.) overall reductions in camping north of Stillwater. Localized bluff erosion from Conclusion. With use levels being frozen, foot trails would be about the same as the the potential for pollution due to user no-action alternative. activities would remain the same as now. Additional restrictions on camping north of Only a few areas would be affected by Stillwater and at Hudson would have a bridge and utility line replacements during slight positive impact on water quality. the life of this plan. It is expected that Some short-term impacts could be caused mitigation measures would keep impacts by bridges or utility line replacements. localized and minor to moderate in From a riverwide perspective, it is ex- magnitude. (Additional environmental pected that pollution due to construction of documentation, with mitigation measures, potential developments would be short would be required before these crossings term, while pollution due to users would be would be approved.) Because bridge and diluted and dispersed. Compared to current utility line replacements would only be conditions, alternative C would likely have permitted in existing corridors, additional a minor, positive, long-term impact on the soil disturbance would be limited to areas riverway’s overall water quality. that likely have already been altered. If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic Soils Narrows, this alternative would reduce the Analysis. As under the no-action alterna- amount of dredged material that would tive, additional development could occur, need to be removed and disposed. If the including residential development in rural dredged material could be reused for other areas. Consequently, some soils would still purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby be lost to development, although new soil would not be altered by the disposal of the disturbance would likely be reduced in the material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance park and natural management areas (43% Management Plan directs that dredged of the lower riverway) where less develop- material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be

254 Impacts of Alternative C placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State tional vegetation would be lost or disturbed park for beach nourishment.) due to bridge and utility line replacements, and this disturbance probably would be Conclusion. With a freeze on use levels, limited to areas that already have been alternative C would have a lower potential altered. If dredging occurred between for impacts on soils than the previous Stillwater and Prescott, alternative C alternatives. Shoreline and bluff erosion would reduce the amount of vegetation that would continue from recreational use, but would be lost due to the deposition of would be less in areas used by campers. dredged material. However, unlike the This would have negligible to minor long- previous action alternatives, alternative C term positive impacts on soils in localized would not allow additional submarine areas, particularly on riverbanks and the crossings. This would prevent potential islands. Additional soil loss and disturb- impacts on vegetation due to the ance would be expected from new develop- construction of new pipelines near the ment on some private lands. However, the riverbanks. land use management area allocation would be beneficial, minimizing potential Alternative C would have the same type of soil disturbance and loss on a large portion impacts as the preferred alternative due to of the riverway. From an overall riverway motorboat use. Boat wakes are believed to perspective, compared to current condi- be affecting vegetation along the shoreline tions, alternative C would likely have a and islands, and this impact would con- negligible to minor positive impact. tinue, particularly in heavily used stretches and/or stretches that high-speed boats use. Imposition of moderate speed limits from Vegetation Arcola sandbar south would a have negligible positive impact on shoreline erosion. Analysis. Alternative C would have the same beneficial and negative impacts Users would continue to trample vegeta- described under alternative B. The alterna- tion in localized areas when they picnic on tive would have a beneficial effect in mini- the shoreline and islands and camp on the mizing the loss of vegetation due to new islands south of Stillwater (i.e., the Hudson development in the park and natural zones islands). Some users probably would con- (43% of the riverway in alternative B). tinue to damage trees, stripping bark from Alternative C also would have a minor birch trees, cutting saplings, and pulling positive effect on plant communities if the down branches for firewood. Disturbance Wisconsin Department of Natural Re- of soils also would increase the likelihood sources proposed amendment to the state of exotic plants like spotted knapweed and land use standards within the riverway is purple loosestrife becoming established. adopted. However, alternative C should have a beneficial effect on the islands and public Both alternative C and the preferred shorelines north of Stillwater, reducing the alternative would have the same effects on loss of vegetation, due to increased restric- vegetation due to bridge/utility line tions on camping. Limiting camping in replacements and dredging. Little addi- areas to designated sites would be expected

255 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES to reduce the extent of vegetation disturb- be of special importance for breeding, ance and encourage native plants to be- nesting, foraging, or wintering. come reestablished (although day users still could trample vegetation and introduce Rural home development creates patches exotics). that disrupt the movement of some wildlife, especially those most sensitive to Conclusion. Like the other action alterna- human activity. There would be slightly tives, alternative C would have both nega- less new rural home development under tive and beneficial effects on the river- Alternative C as compared to the no-action way’s vegetation. Vegetative communities alternative, but the differences in wildlife would continue to be altered and lost due impacts would not likely be measurable, to the activities of users and new develop- especially considering much of the rural ments in the riverway. Some minor vegeta- home development that could occur in the tion loss also would occur if bridge or riverway has already been built. transmission line replacements were built. On the other hand, the land management Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife area allocation would have a beneficial populations and habitats have already been effect, helping ensure the protection of affected in varying degrees by recreational vegetation on a large portion of the lower users and nearby developments. Some riverway. Efforts to maintain significant individual animals might be disturbed or plant communities as well as restrictions temporarily displaced by the sounds of on camping would also have a positive more motorboats and groups floating down effect on the riverway vegetation. the river, but this is not expected to substantially affect the lower riverway’s fish From an overall perspective, most of the and wildlife populations. riverway’s vegetation would not be affected by users, new developments, or Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife the management agencies. Compared to the populations would be expected to be current situation, alternative C would be negligible to minor. expected to have a negligible to minor, long-term, positive impact on the riverway’s vegetation. Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. The potential for recreational impacts is not expected to change with the Fish and Wildlife freeze in use levels and continued use of mitigation as necessary. This alternative Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be would maintain the diversity of plant significantly different for Alternative C communities on federal and state lands, than the no-action alternative. Most of the and encourage private landowners to do lower riverway management actions in this likewise, which could benefit species like alternative would continue to promote the the Karner blue butterfly. A slight reduc- protection of fish and wildlife populations tion in new rural home development could and habitats. No actions would be taken decrease the potential for impacts to some that would adversely affect areas known to threatened and endangered species.

256 Impacts of Alternative C

Overall, this alternative would not likely tive C are not likely to adversely affect adversely affect threatened and endangered most federal and state listed species in the species (with the possible exception of lower riverway (with adequate surveys, certain mussel species). consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service and state biologists, and the There is the potential in alternative C that application of appropriate mitigation the federally listed Higgins’ eye and measures). With regard to the federally winged mapleleaf mussels could be endangered Higgins’ eye and winged adversely affected as described in the mapleleaf mussel populations, there are previous alternatives. However, it is not indications that recreational activities known how the Higgins’ eye and winged already may be adversely affecting the mapleleaf mussel populations would be populations on the lower St. Croix. In affected — recreational uses would likely particular, existing use levels near Hudson “take” individual mussels, which may be and in the Interstate Park area (where the adversely affecting these species. It is not mussels primarily occur) may be affecting known if freezing use at current levels these populations. Freezing existing use would affect this. levels may not change the impacts that are occurring. Thus, formal consultations The same goals, strategies, or actions to would still need to be initiated with the support protection and recovery of these U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to deter- species described in alternative B would be mine what actions need to be taken to applied under alternative C (see “Manage- ensure the conservation of the two mussel ment Directions Common to All Alterna- species. tives” section). The managing agencies would also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s IMPACTS ON CULTURAL recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf RESOURCES mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These components address a wide variety of Analysis tasks, including actions to minimize human disturbance and destruction to the federally This alternative would focus on main- listed mussels, such as quantification of the taining the current visual qualities of the magnitude of potential treats (harvesting, riverway. Maintaining the landscape’s swimming, wading, digging, small recrea- visual qualities would pose no adverse tional watercraft, and commercial paddle- impacts for the cultural resources in the wheel watercraft) and identification of riverway. Alternative C would require specific geographic locations of greatest local governments in the river town and concern; posting of educational signs; small town historic districts to develop conduction of educational programs; and ordinances protecting historic structures review of paddleboat operations to and requiring new development to be minimize boat operation impacts. consistent with the historic character of those communities. As a result, alternative Conclusion. The expected uses, user numbers, and developments under alterna-

257 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

C would result in minor improvements in IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC protection of cultural resources. ENVIRONMENT

Archeological resources would be at a Local Economy lower risk due to increased restrictions on areas within the portion of the riverway Analysis. There would be little direct that is visible from the river. Minor economic impact because no additional restrictions placed on camping would be large expenditures by the states or by the used to protect sensitive archeological Park Service is proposed. Application of sites. the land management areas would not result in greatly different restrictions on The number, significance, and condition of new development for most areas within the the riverway’s cultural landscapes currently riverway. Placement of the new land man- is unknown. However, this alternative agement categories would be similar to the would pose no adverse impacts on any existing incorporated and unincorporated significant cultural or historic landscapes classifications. Exceptions to this would be that may later be identified in the riverway. areas designated as natural where increased Maintaining the riverway’s visual qualities restrictions would likely occur (although by restricting development would mini- development could still occur) and in mize impacts on the riverway’s cultural towns where some restrictions would be landscapes. The completion of the cultural reduced (but with historic structure landscape inventory would enhance future protection). Consequently, limited addi- planning efforts to protect these resources. tional negligible to minor impacts on the long-term property tax base of the local Conclusion. Cultural resources would be communities due to restrictions on new at minimal risk under this alternative development would occur. Existing because of the emphasis on maintaining positive effects on local economy from the riverway’s 1997 visual qualities. expenditures from tourists and other Additionally, this alternative would result recreationists would continue, but would in minor improvements in protection of not be appreciably changed. cultural resources in the river town and small town historic districts. Archeological Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local resources would face minimal risks due to economy would be negligible to minor restrictions on development. Restriction on compared to the no-action alternative. development would help safeguard any significant cultural landscapes that might be identified in the cultural landscape Tourism inventory. Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley is partially linked to the area’s historic character. In that context, alternative C’s emphasis on historic structure protection and enhancement of the historic character of valley communities would have a minor positive impact on tourism. Boating-related

258 Impacts of Alternative C tourism would not be permitted to increase, property when compared to the no action possibly offsetting the minor positive alternative. impact noted above. There would be a minor to moderate Conclusion. There would be some negli- beneficial impact for local landowners in gible to minor positive effects on tourism, some areas of the riverway due to a that may possibly be offset by precluding reduction in conflicts with recreational any increase in boating-related tourism. users and some shoreline erosion, particularly in popular camping areas north of Stillwater. Land Values Conclusion. There would be negligible Analysis. Land values would not be impacts on landownership. Some impacted by Alternative C. Local property landowners would benefit from reduced values have probably been and would restrictions on property improvements, likely continue to be beneficially affected although there would be constraints on by the presence of the riverway as under new development to maintain historic the no-action alternative. character. Some landowners would be negatively affected by restrictions on new Conclusion. There would be no new development or improvements in areas impacts on land values. outside of towns. There would also be minor to moderate benefits to landowners from a reduction in conflicts and some shoreline erosion associated with Landownership/Landowners recreational use in some areas of the Analysis. Alternative C proposes a modest riverway. increase in scenic easement acquisition by the two states; National Park Service acquisition is essentially complete and CUMULATIVE EFFECTS would not change. As a result, alternative The entire viewshed of the riverway as C would have negligible impact on land seen from the river would not be encom- ownership. passed within the riverway boundaries, In general under alternative C, land use therefore, visual encroachments outside the regulations would be slightly more boundary have the potential to impact the restrictive in rural areas than under the no- scenic resources of the riverway. In the action alternative, considering much of the federal zone, the high bluffs, the rural rural home development that could occur character, the predominance of protected has already been built. Thus, alternative C areas along this section of the river, the could affect some landowners in a manner primarily unincorporated zoning, and the that would have a minor to moderate fact that the viewshed outside the boundary impact on flexibility in developing their would be less than the state-administered zone would mean that the concerns would not be as great here as in the state-

259 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES administered zone. In this zone more of the None of the management actions are viewshed would be outside the riverway expected to add substantively to the boundary, the area would have a series of cumulative effects on cultural resources. benches visible from the river, there would Growth and land use changes could affect be less high bluff areas, more of the area cultural resources adjacent to or within the would be incorporated, and its proximity to viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative the Minneapolis/St. Paul area would mean effects of the management actions would greater growth. For those areas within the help mitigate the effects of population viewshed, yet outside of the riverway growth and development. boundary, local zoning standards would be the primary methods of controlling scenic Many communities and counties in impacts to the riverway. Mitigating Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the methodologies such as the encouragement process of revising their comprehensive of the preservation and maintenance of plans and related ordinances. Some of mature vegetation, planting of additional these revised plans and ordinances may vegetative buffering, the protection of include land use and development cultural resources, and the prohibition of provisions applicable to the river corridor the construction of any more extremely that would go beyond guidance provided in visible towers within the viewshed would this document. be beneficial to the preservation of the riverway’s scenic quality. Actions taken The economic and population growth in outside the riverway boundary could have the region is expected to continue. The negligible to major impacts on the scenic relatively small number of jobs and resources of the riverway, depending on expenditures on management of the the magnitude of change. Therefore, the riverway would only have a minor effect cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on on the expected growth of the total the scenic quality of the viewshed would economy of the region. Therefore, there be negligibly to moderately beneficial, would be no appreciable socioeconomic depending on the magnitude of changes to cumulative impacts from implementation the scenic resources outside the riverway of this alternative occurring in conjunction boundary. with the region’s expected overall population and economy of the region. As described under the preferred alternative, impacts from recreational use within the riverway and managing agency actions RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM would contribute incrementally to impacts USES AND LONG-TERM from land use changes and population PRODUCTIVITY growth in the watershed and region. Over- all, the land use management allocation The proposed management area allocation, and special native plant community restrictions on island, shoreline, and protection would contribute to a minor to boating use, along with the proposed moderate positive cumulative impact inventory, monitoring, and research within the riverway and watershed. programs for the riverway would contribute to the long-term protection and preservation of resources and scenic

260 Impacts of Alternative C character of the landscape. The mainte- occur on private lands within the riverway nance and restoration of native plant boundary, particularly in the existing communities would also enhance long- municipalities. Potentially, new river cross- term productivity of natural communities. ing and navigation channel maintenance may also occur. It is expected that this new development would result in the long-term UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS localized loss of vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat. Some minor to locally moderate adverse impacts to natural resources would occur. Any action that led to the loss of individual In the process of resolving conflicts among federally listed mussel species or their different uses or reducing resource im- habitat would contribute to the loss of the pacts, restrictions would be placed on species as an ecological and genetic re- particular uses, having an adverse effect on source. It is possible that this alternative some users. To meet the scenic and would contribute to their decline. How- resource protection purposes of the river- ever, it is expected that the implementation way development restrictions on local of actions outlined in the recovery plans landowner would implemented. To meet for these species would avoid this situation the recreational purposes of the riverway, and contribute to their conservation. some conflicts between local landowners and recreational users would continue.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Some new residential and commercial development would likely continue to

261 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES would be classified as minimally disturbed and would receive increased protection as Analysis compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative. Additional Scenic resources in the riverway are pro- development could still occur, but there tected primarily through land acquisition or would be fewer new structures and those through regulatory controls on land devel- structures would not be visible from the opment. No significant land acquisition river. Consequently, they would have no would occur in implementing alternative impact on scenic resources. D. The establishment of seven land management categories compared to two Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod under the existing management program Slough): 10 miles. Osceola itself is would provide additional scenic resource classified as small town, which would protection. More restrictions would be afford an increase level of scenic protec- imposed to avoid additional development tion compared to the existing urban that would be visible from the river. standard to minimize new development Alternative D would restrict development visible from the river. Most of this segment outside municipalities more aggressively would be classified as minimally disturbed, than other alternatives. Also, as under the however, and would receive increased previous alternatives, the riverway protection as compared to the rural classi- managing agencies would require local fication under the no-action alternative. governments to protect the historic Additional development could still occur, character of municipalities, which would but there would be fewer new structures reduce potential impacts to scenic values in and those structures would not be visible municipalities from new development. from the river. Consequently, they would have no impact on scenic resources. The following analysis evaluates scenic impacts created by the application of the Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola seven land management areas on each river Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles. segment. Marine on St. Croix itself is classified as small town historic, which afford an in- The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock creased level of scenic protection com- Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within pared to the existing urban standard. the two state parks in this river segment Additional restrictions would be placed on would continue to be protected by state development to minimize it being visible ownership (as they would be under the no- from the river and also to protect historic action alternative). No impact to scenic character. William O’Brien State Park resources would occur because any future would receive the same high level of development would occur at existing scenic resource protection as compared to development nodes, and scenic and the no-action alternative. Most of the relatively undisturbed natural areas would remainder of this segment in Minnesota be maintained. Private lands in Minnesota would be classified as rural residential and in the southern portion of this segment 262 Impacts of Alternative D would receive increased protection as classified as minimally disturbed and compared to the rural classification under would receive increased protection as the no-action alternative. The Wisconsin compared to the rural classification under side of the river would be classified as the no-action alternative. Additional minimally disturbed and would receive development could still occur, but new increased protection as compared to the structures would have no impact on scenic rural classification under the no-action resources. A small portion of the southern alternative. Additional development could part of this segment in Wisconsin would be still occur, but there would be fewer new classified as natural and would receive structures and those structures would not increased protection as compared to the be visible from the river. Consequently, rural classification under the no-action they would have no impact on scenic alternative. Additional development could resources. still occur, but new structures would have no impact on scenic resources. Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St. Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Islands Wildlife Area is owned by Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of Wisconsin DNR and would receive the this segment in Minnesota is not inten- same high level of scenic resource sively developed; it would be classified as protection as compared to the no-action small town with the result that its level of alternative, which would maintain the scenic protection would be increased undisturbed natural appearance. The compared to the current urban classifi- remainder of this segment would be cation. The central portion just north of classified as minimally disturbed and downtown would be classified as natural would receive increased protection as and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification under compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative. Additional the no-action alternative. Additional development could still occur, but there development could still occur, but new would be fewer new structures and those structures would have no impact on scenic structures would not be visible from the resources. The southern portion of this river. Consequently, they would have no segment includes the heavily developed impact on scenic resources. downtown Stillwater area; it would be classified as river town, and additional Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head restrictions would be placed to minimize of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minne- new development being visible from the sota side of the river in this segment would river. In addition, this alternative would be classified as natural and would receive require protection of historic character that increased protection as compared to the would reduce potential scenic impacts. rural classification under the no-action alternative. Additional development could The Wisconsin side would be classified as still occur, but new structures would have natural and would receive increased no impact on scenic resources. The Wis- protection as compared to the rural classi- consin side of the river would mostly be fication under the no-action alternative.

263 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Additional development could still occur, cation under the no-action alternative. but new structures would have no impact Additional development could still occur, on scenic resources. but new structures would have not impact scenic resources. The southern portion of South Stillwater-Bayport Area this segment in Wisconsin lies in North (Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks Hudson and would be classified as small to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this town, with the result that its level of scenic segment in Minnesota would be classified protection would be increased compared to as river town and additional restrictions the current urban classification. would be placed to minimize new development being visible from the river. In ad- Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to dition, this alternative would require Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota protection of historic character that would side in this segment would be primarily reduce potential scenic impacts. The classified as small town, with the level of Andersen Point area would be classified as scenic protection increased compared to small town, with the result that its level of the current urban classification. The Wis- scenic protection would be increased consin side would be classified as river compared to the current urban classifica- town and additional restrictions would be tion. The Wisconsin side would be classi- placed to minimize new development fied as natural and would receive increased being visible from the river. In addition, protection as compared to the rural classi- this alternative would require protection of fication under the no-action alternative. historic character that would reduce Additional development could still occur, potential scenic impacts. but new structures would have less impact on scenic resources than the no-action Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish alternative. Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this segment would be classified as small town, Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen with the result that its level of scenic pro- Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. In tection would be increased compared to the Minnesota, the area between Andersen current urban classification. The southern Point and the south limits of Bayport portion of Hudson would also be classified would be classified as small town, with the as small town. The remainder of this result that its level of scenic protection segment in Wisconsin would be classified would be increased compared to the as rural residential, which affords an current urban classification. The southern increased level of protection compared to portion of this segment in Minnesota the rural classification under the no-action would be classified as natural and would alternative. receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification under the no- Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to action alternative. Additional development Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In could still occur, but new structures would Minnesota the old Afton village area not impact scenic resources. Most of the would be classified as small town historic, Wisconsin side would be classified as with the result that its level of scenic natural and would receive increased pro- protection would be increased compared to tection as compared to the rural classifi- the current urban classification. The

264 Impacts of Alternative D southern portion of Afton would be be classified as natural and would receive classified as rural residential and would increased protection as compared to the receive an increased level of protection rural classification under the no-action compared to the rural classification under alternative. There would be small areas the no-action alternative. Afton State Park north and south of Carpenter Nature Center would receive the same high level of that would be classified as rural residential, scenic resource protection as compared to which affords an increased level of protec- the no-action alternative. The area south of tion compared to the no-action alternative. Afton State Park in Minnesota and all of In Wisconsin, the area north of Prescott the Wisconsin side in this segment would would be classified as rural residential, be classified as natural and would receive which affords an increased level of protec- increased protection as compared to the tion compared to the no-action alternative. rural classification under the no-action Prescott would be classified as river town alternative. Additional development could and additional restrictions would be placed still occur, but new structures would have to minimize new development being no impact on scenic resources. visible from the river. In addition, this alternative would require protection of Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The historic character that would reduce Minnesota side of the river in this segment potential scenic impacts. would be classified as natural and would receive increased protection as compared By encouraging the maintenance and to the rural classification under the no- restoration of natural diversity and action alternative. Additional development ecological integrity of plant communities could still occur, but new structures would through a variety of actions, the visual have no impact on scenic resources. Kin- landscape of the riverway would become nickinnic State Park in Wisconsin would more representative of the native ecotones receive the same high level of scenic of the area. These provisions would have a resource protection as compared to the no- long-term beneficial impact on the visual action alternative. resources of the riverway by preserving and enhancing indigenous vegetation. Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic However, these impacts would be minor to Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at negligible because these actions would be Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota voluntary, and most individuals would side of the river in this segment would be consider these areas as a natural landscapes classified as natural and would receive whether the vegetative mosaics included a increased protection as compared to the diversity of significant plant communities rural classification under the no-action or not. alternative. Additional development could still occur, but new structures would have An amendment to the Wisconsin managed no impact on scenic resources. St. Croix forest law (Chapter NR 118) would be Bluffs Regional Park would receive the pursued which would result in a long term same high level of scenic resource minor beneficial impact for the scenic protection as compared to the no-action resources of the riverway by providing alternative. Carpenter Nature Center would

265 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES landowners with more flexibility to Also, its goal would be to reduce the visual preserve these resources. impacts of structures that cross the riverway, possibly resulting in less visual Continued adherence to NPS policies encroachments over the river corridor than which perpetuate native plant communities currently exist. Like the preferred alterna- would result in a long term minor bene- tive, it encourages the maintenance and ficial impact to the scenic resources. restoration of plant communities on both public and private lands. Overall, alterna- This alternative would result in the least tive D would have a moderate, positive impacts to scenic resources related to river impact on scenic resources compared to the crossings because its goal is to reduce the no-action alternative. visual impacts of structures that cross the riverway. By encouraging a reduction in the utility lines, restricting road, railroad IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE bridges, utility lines, and submarine lines to existing corridors, and not allowing any Analysis change in scale or character of road and railroad crossings, the visual landscape of The primary goal of alternative D with the river corridor could eventually have respect to boating recreation is to reduce less visual encroachments over the river total recreational use and to enhance corridor than currently exist. Compared to opportunities for quieter, slower, more the no-action alternative, alternative D passive boating recreational experiences. would avoid potentially major long-term Impacts are evaluated for each river impacts to scenic quality from construction segment. of large-scale bridge crossings or relocation of utility lines to highly scenic Backwaters from the Dalles of the St. or largely undisturbed corridors. Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16 miles. Under alternative D, this segment Flexibility on the use of existing submarine would be classified silent boating and crossings to allow for the replacement of internal combustion motors could not be an existing overhead transmission lines used. This would slightly enhance the could reduce the amount of overhead exceptionally quiet and little-used charac- visual intrusions upon the riverway ter of the recreational experience in this landscape, however, ground disturbance segment compared to the current no-wake and vegetation removal during installation rule. While motorboats cannot navigate could result in minor to negligible adverse this segment during normal river levels, impact to scenic resources in the they are occasionally found in the area immediate vicinity. during high water periods. Consequently, restrictions on use of motors would slightly Conclusion. This alternative would result decrease the flexibility of movement for in the somewhat greater beneficial impacts some motorized watercraft but would to scenic resources of all the alternatives ensure locations for boaters seeking areas because it would put slightly more of the free from encounters with noisier land within the management areas that motorized watercraft. would be most restrictive to development.

266 Impacts of Alternative D

Backwaters from William O’Brien State as the no-action alternative. Opportunities Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The would be maintained for a mixture of non- natural waters classification for this seg- motorized and slow-moving motorized ment would be identical to the existing no- craft. wake designation. The impact of alternative D would be the same as the no- Arcola Sandbar to north limits of action alternative, which would maintain Stillwater: 5 miles. The quiet waters the quiet little-used character of the classification for this segment would result recreational experience. in a slow speed designation; under the no- action alternative there would be no speed Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to limit, but there would be a restriction on north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The weekend waterskiing. Congestion in this quiet waters classification for this segment narrow area has become a concern and the would permit slow-speed boating, com- imposition of a slow speed designation pared to the existing no-wake designation; would be considered a positive impact on the impact of alternative D would be to congestion and shoreline erosion concerns. allow moderately faster boating than the no-action alternative. Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The moderate recreation classification for this Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island: segment would involve a speed limit and a 3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification possible restriction on waterskiing; under for this segment would be identical to the the no-action alternative there would be no existing slow-speed zone designation. The speed limit. The existing no-wake zones in impact of alternative D would be the same the Hudson area would remain under as the no-action alternative, which would alternative D. There has been growing be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise concern about safety factors surrounding levels, and the more social experience extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and associated with relatively large numbers of greater) that occasionally occurs in this canoers. segment; that would be eliminated under alternative D, forcing boaters who want to Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10 travel at those speeds to use a different miles. The natural waters classification for resource. The imposition of a speed limit this segment would provide for a no-wake in this area would be considered a minor designation, which is more restrictive than positive impact on the environment. the existing slow speed zone designation; the impact of alternative D would be a Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The reduction in boat speed in this area moderate recreation classification for this compared to the no-action alternative. segment would involve a speed limit and a possible restriction on waterskiing; under McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar: the no-action alternative there would be no 8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification speed limit. The existing no-wake zones in for this segment would be identical to the the Catfish Bar and Kinnickinnic State existing slow speed zone designation; the Park areas would remain under alternative impact of alternative D would be the same D. There has been growing concern about

267 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES safety factors surrounding extremely high- IMPACTS ON NATURAL speed boating (80 mph and greater) that RESOURCES occasionally occurs in this segment. This would be eliminated under alternative D, Water Quality forcing boaters who want to travel at those speeds to use a different resource. The Analysis. Overall boating totals are ex- imposition of a speed limit in this area pected to decrease slightly under alterna- would be considered a minor positive tive D, so water quality impacts from pe- impact on the environment. troleum products or day-use boaters who do not use proper toilet facilities would be Camping Experience. A camping slightly lower than the no-action alterna- management plan would be developed for tive. Additional restrictions on camping boat-related camping north of Stillwater north of Stillwater and at Hudson would that would impose gradually increased have a slight positive impact on water restrictions on camping. This would result quality as compared to the no-action in fewer boat-in campsites than currently alternative. There would be a slight de- exist, enhancing privacy and reducing crease in total residential development in shoreline erosion problems, but reducing areas not served by public sewer, leading the opportunity for more social camping to slightly less risk of water quality impacts situations and reducing the overall number from failed on-site waste treatment systems of camping occasions, displacing some (as compared to the no-action alternative). campers to another resource. At Hudson, campers without on-board toilets would be With regard to river crossings, the impacts displaced. The outcome would be reduced of alternative D would be identical with shoreline erosion between the Arcola alternatives B and C. There could be some sandbar and Stillwater and reduced water bridge and utility line replacements, which quality problems there and at Hudson, but could have short term adverse effects on an increase in displaced recreational users. water quality; however, mitigation measures should minimize these impacts. (More detailed environmental documents would be prepared before a bridge or a Conclusion transmission line replacement would be Overall boating use of the riverway would approved.) be reduced under Alternative D, while additional water surface use regulations Conclusion. With use levels being would be imposed to preserve slower lowered, the potential for pollution due to recreational uses and to reduce boat speeds user activities should decrease. Some in significant sections of the river. The short-term impacts could occur if bridges existing diversity of boating opportunities or utility lines were replaced. From a would be reduced. Overall, alternative D riverwide perspective, it is expected that would provide minor positive impacts on pollution due to construction of potential slower recreational uses, while reducing developments would be short term, while recreational boating diversity. pollution due to users would be diluted and dispersed. Overall, alternative D would be expected to have a minor to moderate,

268 Impacts of Alternative D positive, long-term impact on the river- tional environmental documentation, with way’s overall water quality compared to mitigation measures, would be required current conditions. before these crossings would be approved.) Alternative D also would prevent soil disturbance that could be caused by new Soils submarine crossings.

Analysis. As under the no-action alterna- If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to tive, additional development could occur, do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic including residential development in rural Narrows, this alternative would reduce the areas. Consequently, some soils would still amount of dredged material that would be lost to development, although new soil need to be removed and disposed. If the disturbance would likely be reduced in the dredged material could be reused for other park, minimally disturbed, and natural purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby management areas (58% of the lower would not be altered by the disposal of the riverway) where less development and material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance more restrictive land use regulations would Management Plan directs that dredged be employed. material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State With motorboat use levels and speeds park for beach nourishment.) being decreased, the potential for soils being eroded along the river’s banks and Conclusion. Shoreline erosion caused by islands should be reduced. Some river- boat wakes would be moderately less than banks would continue to be undercut and the no-action alternative. Soil erosion and some erosion due to motorboat wakes compaction from campers should also be would continue, but the magnitude of this reduced in localized areas, particularly on impact would be the lowest of all the riverbanks and the islands. There is the alternatives being considered. potential for soil loss and disturbance due to new developments on private lands and Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the from bridge replacements. However, the formation of social trails from campers management area allocation would help would be slightly reduced as compared to minimize potential soil disturbance and the no-action alternative by limitations and loss on a large portion of the lower overall reductions in camping. Localized riverway. From an overall perspective, bluff erosion from foot trails would be compared to present conditions, alternative about the same as the no-action alternative. D would have a minor to moderate, positive effect on the soils in the lower Alternative D would have the same effects riverway. as alternatives B and C with regard to river crossings. There could be some bridge and utility line replacements under this alternative, but any soil disturbance would be limited to areas in existing corridors that likely have already been altered. (Addi-

269 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Vegetation would be reduced. The land management areas also would have a beneficial effect, Analysis. The alternative would have a helping ensure the protection of vegetation beneficial effect in minimizing the loss of on a large portion of the lower riverway. vegetation due to new development in the Some minor vegetation loss also would minimally disturbed, park and natural land occur if bridge or transmission line re- management areas (58% of the riverway). placements were built. Efforts to maintain Alternative D also would have a minor and restore significant plant communities positive effect on plant communities if the on public and private lands also would Wisconsin Department of Natural have a positive effect on the riverway Resources proposed amendment to the vegetation. From an overall perspective, state land use standards within the most of the riverway’s vegetation would riverway is adopted. not be affected by users, new developments, or the management agencies, and Very little additional vegetation would be efforts would be made to restore native lost or disturbed due to bridge and utility plant communities. Thus, compared to line replacements, and this disturbance current conditions, alternative D would be would be limited to areas that already have expected to have a moderate, beneficial, been altered. If dredging occurred at the long-term impact on the riverway’s Kinnickinnic Narrows, alternative D would vegetation. reduce the amount of vegetation that would be lost due to the deposition of dredged material. Alternative D also would not Fish and Wildlife allow additional submarine crossings, Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be which would prevent potential impacts on significantly different for alternative D vegetation. than the no-action alternative. Most of the Some vegetation would continue to be lower riverway management actions in this affected in areas where users picnic or alternative would continue to promote the camp on the shoreline and islands, with protection of fish and wildlife populations vegetation being trampled, harvested, and and habitats. No actions would be taken cut for firewood. Any disturbance of soils that would adversely affect areas known to also would increase the likelihood of be of special importance for breeding, exotic plants like spotted knapweed and nesting, foraging, or wintering. purple loosestrife becoming established. Rural home development creates patches However, with a reduction in use levels, that disrupt the movement of some wild- impacts from motorboat use and use of the life, especially those most sensitive to shoreline and islands would be reduced. human activity. There would be slightly less new rural home development under Conclusion. Some vegetative communities alternative D as compared to the no-action would continue to be altered and lost due alternative, but the differences in terms of to the activities of users and new develop- wildlife impacts would likely not be meas- ments in the riverway. But with use levels urable, especially considering much of the being decreased, potential future impacts rural home development that could occur in the riverway has already been built. 270 Impacts of Alternative D

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife affect the mussels. These activities have populations and habitats have already been occurred, or are occurring, on the lower St. affected in varying degrees by recreational Croix. Although alternative D would users and nearby developments. Some decrease use levels, it is not known how individual animals might be disturbed or much of an impact this would have on the temporarily displaced by the sounds of Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel more motorboats and groups floating down populations — even with lower use levels, the river, but this is not expected to recreational users may continue to “take” substantially affect the lower riverway’s individual mussels, which may adversely fish and wildlife populations. affecting these species.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife The following goals, strategies, or actions populations would be expected to be support the protection and recovery of negligible to minor. these species: protection and improvement of water quality, development of a public information/education program that Threatened and Endangered Species includes mussels, development of means to improve mussel information/coordination Analysis. Reductions in use levels would among various agencies, organizations, not be expected to affect listed species and etc., continued enforcement of regulations their habitats. Alternative D would main- prohibiting harvesting or taking of tain and restore significant plant communi- mussels, and implementation of the zebra ties on federal and state lands, and en- mussel action plan (see “Management courage private landowners to do likewise, Directions Common to All Alternatives” which could benefit species like the Karner section). The managing agencies would blue butterfly. A slight reduction in new also implement their respective compo- rural home development could decrease the nents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s potential for impacts to some threatened recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf and endangered species. mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These components address a wide variety of Like all of the alternatives, there is the tasks. The tasks include actions to potential in alternative D that the federally minimize human disturbance and listed Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf destruction to the federally listed mussels, mussels could be adversely affected in the such as quantification of the magnitude of following ways: People could inadvertently potential threats (harvesting, swimming, introduce zebra mussels into the lower wading, and small recreational watercraft) riverway; mussels could be scraped off and identification of specific geographic boats in shallow waters or by beached locations of greatest concern; posting of boats; boats could increase shoreline educational signs; presentation of erosion and sediments in the water (which educational programs; and review of could affect filter-feeding mussels); waders paddleboat operations to minimize boat and swimmers could unknowingly collect operation impacts. mussels and use them for fishing or other purposes, and poachers could adversely

271 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion. The expected uses, user Conclusion numbers, and developments under alternative D would not likely adversely affect Cultural resources would be at minimal most federal and state listed species in the risk under this alternative. Additionally, lower riverway (assuming adequate sur- this alternative would result in minor veys, consultation with the U.S. Fish and improvements in protection of cultural Wildlife Service and state biologists, and resources in the river town and small town the application of appropriate mitigation historic districts. Archeological resources measures). Recreational activities could would face minimal risks due to restric- adversely affect the federally endangered tions on development. Restriction on Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel development would help safeguard any populations on the lower St. Croix. In par- significant cultural landscapes that might ticular, even with reductions in user num- be identified in the cultural landscape bers, boaters near Hudson and in the Inter- inventory. state Park area (where the mussels primarily occur) might affect these populations. Formal consultations would still IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC need to be initiated with the U.S. Fish and ENVIRONMENT Wildlife Service to determine what other actions need to be taken to ensure the Local Economy conservation of the two mussel species. Analysis. There would be little direct economic impact because no additional large expenditures by the states or by the IMPACTS ON CULTURAL Park Service is proposed. Application of RESOURCES the land management areas would not Analysis result in greatly different restrictions on new development for most areas within the Archeological resources and any cultural riverway. Exceptions to this would be landscapes in the riverway that might be areas designated as natural and minimally identified in the future would face no disturbed where increased restrictions adverse impacts under this alternative, due would likely occur (although development to greater restrictions on new development. could still occur) and in towns where some Minor restrictions placed on camping restrictions would be reduced (but with would be used to protect sensitive archeo- historic structure protection). Conse- logical sites. Alternative D would require quently, limited additional negligible to local governments in the river town and minor impacts on the long-term property small town historic districts to develop tax base of the local communities due to ordinances protecting historic structures restrictions on new development would and requiring new development to be occur. Existing positive effects on local consistent with the historic character of economy from expenditures from tourists those communities. As a result, alternative and other recreationists would continue but D would result in minor improvements in would not be appreciably changed. An protection of cultural resources. exception to that would be the loss of

272 Impacts of Alternative D economic activity associated with marinas would not change. As a result, the alterna- that would be puchased and closed. tive D would have negligible impact on landownership. Conclusion. Impacts to the local economy would be negligible to minor compared to In general under alternative D, land use the no-action alternative. regulations would be slightly more restrictive than under the no-action alternative, considering much of the rural home Tourism development that could occur has already been built. Thus alternative D could affect Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley some landowners in a manner that would is partially linked to the area’s historic have a minor to moderate impact on flexi- character. In that context, alternative D’s bility in developing their property when emphasis on historic structure protection compared to the no-action alternative. and enhancement of the historic character of valley communities would have a minor There would be a minor to moderate positive impact on tourism. Boating-related beneficial impact for local landowners in tourism would decrease slightly. some areas of the riverway due to a reduction in conflicts with recreational Conclusion. There would be some users, particularly in popular camping negligible to minor positive effects on areas north of Stillwater. Local landowners tourism that might possibly be offset by a would also likely benefit from a reduction decrease in boating-related tourism. in the periodic loud noise generated by higher boat speeds and reduced shoreline effects from wave action. Land Values Conclusion. There would be negligible Analysis. Land values would not be impacts on landownership. Some impacted by alternative D. Local property landowners would benefit from reduced values have probably been and would restrictions on property improvements, likely continue to be beneficially affected although there would be constraints on by the presence of the riverway as under new development to maintain historic the no-action alternative. character. Some landowners would be negatively affected by restrictions on new Conclusion. There would be no new development or improvements in areas impacts on land values. outside of towns. There would also be minor to moderate benefits to landowners from a reduction in conflicts and shoreline Landownership/Landowners erosion associated with recreational use in some areas of the riverway. Analysis. Alternative D proposes a modest increase in scenic easement acquisition by the two states; National Park Service acquisition is essentially complete and

273 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS the scenic quality of the viewshed would be negligibly to moderately beneficial, The entire viewshed of the riverway as depending on the magnitude of changes to seen from the river would not be the scenic resources outside the riverway encompassed within the riverway boundary. boundaries, therefore, visual encroachments outside the boundary have the Overall the land use management alloca- potential to impact the scenic resources of tion, special plant community protection, the riverway. In the federal zone, the high and restoration efforts would contribute to bluffs, the rural character, the predomi- a minor to moderate positive cumulative nance of protected areas along this section impact within the riverway and watershed. of the river, the primarily unincorporated zoning, and the fact that the viewshed None of the management actions would be outside the boundary would be less than expected to add substantively to the the state-administered zone would mean cumulative effects on cultural resources. that the concerns would not be as great Growth and land use changes could affect here as in the state- administered zone. In cultural resources adjacent to or within the this zone more of the viewshed would be viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative outside the riverway boundary, the area effects of the management actions would would have a series of benches visible help mitigate the effects of population from the river, there would be less high growth and development. bluff areas, more of the area would be incorporated, and its proximity to the Many communities and counties in Minne- Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely sota and Wisconsin are in the process of mean greater growth. revising their comprehensive plans and related ordinances. Some of these revised For those areas within the viewshed, yet plans and ordinances might include land outside of the riverway boundary, local use and development provisions applicable zoning standards would be the primary to the river corridor that would go beyond methods of controlling scenic impacts to guidance provided in this document. the riverway. Mitigating methodologies such as the encouragement of the preser- The economic and population growth in vation and maintenance of mature vegeta- the region is expected to continue. The tion, planting of additional vegetative relatively small number of jobs and ex- buffering, the protection of cultural penditures on management of the riverway resources, and the prohibition of the would only have a minor effect on the construction of any more extremely visible expected growth of the total economy of towers within the viewshed would be the region. Therefore, there would be no beneficial to the preservation of the appreciable socioeconomic cumulative riverway’s scenic quality. Actions taken impacts from implementation of this outside the riverway boundary could have alternative occurring in conjunction with negligible to major impacts on the scenic the region’s expected overall population resources of the riverway, depending on and economy of the region. the magnitude of change. Therefore, the cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on

274 Impacts of Alternative D

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM some conflicts between local landowners USES AND LONG-TERM and recreational users would continue. PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation, IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEV- restrictions on island, shoreline, and boat- ABLE COMMITMENT OF ing use, along with the proposed inventory, RESOURCES monitoring, and research programs for the riverway, would contribute to the long- Some new residential and commercial term protection and preservation of development would likely continue to resources and scenic character of the occur on private lands within the riverway landscape. The maintenance and restora- boundary, particularly in the existing mu- tion of plant communities would also nicipalities. Potentially, new river cross- enhance long-term productivity of natural ings may also occur. It is expected that this communities. new development would result in the long- term localized loss of vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Any action that led to the loss of individual In the process of resolving conflicts among federally listed mussel species or their different uses or reducing resource im- habitat would contribute to the loss of the pacts, restrictions would be placed on species as an ecological and genetic re- particular uses, having an adverse effect on source. It is possible that this alternative some users. In order to meet the scenic and would contribute to their decline. How- resource protection purposes of the river- ever, it is expected that the implementation way development restrictions on local of actions outlined in the recovery plans landowner would implemented. To meet for these species would avoid this situation the recreational purposes of the riverway, and contribute to their conservation.

275 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE E (NO ACTION)

IMPACT ON SCENIC RESOURCES the “Impacts on Natural Resources” section for additional impacts related to Analysis vegetation management.)

The use of current state and local zoning Restriction of the numbers and types of standards to limit development in urban road and railroad bridge crossings would and rural areas would ensure that future prevent additional visual encroachments development was comparable to develop- over the river corridor. Road and railroad ment that has occurred in the valley in the bridges, however, could change in scale last 20 years. Additional development and character. These impacts would have would continue, although structure size to be determined on a case-by-case basis and placement would be limited to reduce and could be negligible to major, based on visual impact. the magnitude and visibility of the change.

Additional development in urban areas Restriction of the number, scale, or charac- would result in a negligible to minor ter of utility lines would also prevent addition of visible structures. However, the additional visual encroachments over the character of some communities could river corridor. Utility lines, however, could change. The impact on scenic resources be replaced or relocated provided that the could be minor to major depending on the existing structures were removed. These magnitude of change. In rural areas, scenic impacts would have to be deter- considering that much of the rural home mined on a case-by-case basis, and their development that could occur in the impacts could also be negligible to major, riverway has already been built, expected based on the magnitude of change. additional development would likely have negligible to minor impacts on scenic Submarine corridors could change in size resources. or the number of lines with negligible to minor adverse impacts to scenic resources The state of Wisconsin could elect, in the immediate vicinity. The degree of independent of this planning process, to change would depend on the extent and amend the Wisconsin-managed forest law duration of ground disturbance and (chapter NR118). The consequences of this vegetation removal during installation. action would be considered as part of the state’s established rule-making process, which would result in a long-term minor Conclusion beneficial impact for scenic resources by providing landowners with more flexibility Additional development would continue to to preserve these resources. occur, although structure size and placement would be limited to reduce Continued adherence to NPS policies that visual impact. The character of some perpetuate native plant communities would communities could change, resulting in result in a long-term minor beneficial minor to major impacts on scenic impact to the scenic resources. (Please see resources, depending on the magnitude of 276 Impacts of Alternative E: No Action change. In unincorporated areas limited continue to be negatively affected to a development would continue to be allowed minor to moderate extent by congested and could be visible from the riverway. conditions or safety issues in some areas of Road and railroad bridges could change in the riverway. scale and character, and utility lines could be replaced or relocated. These actions would have a minor to major, adverse, IMPACTS ON NATURAL long-term impact on the scenic resources RESOURCES of the riverway, depending on the magnitude of the change. Water Quality

Analysis. Water quality impacts from IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE petroleum products or day-use boaters who do not use proper toilet facilities would Analysis continue, as would impacts from camping north of Stillwater and at Hudson. There Water surface use regulations would re- would continue to be some new residential main in place to preserve the existing development in areas not served by public diversity of surface water recreational sewer, leading to a slight risk of water experiences. Overall boating use of the quality impacts from failed on-site waste riverway would continue to grow slowly, if treatment systems. at all (existing use patterns show no clear increase in use since the mid-1980s). The Under alternative E there could be some existing diversity of boating opportunities bridge and utility line replacements that would remain. Congestion problems would could have short-term adverse effects on likely continue, primarily in the narrow water quality, such as increased sedimenta- section of river between the Arcola sandbar tion due to the installation of new bridge and Stillwater, in the Hudson Narrows, the piers. Mitigation measures would likely Catfish Bar area, the Kinnickinnic Nar- minimize these impacts. (More detailed rows, and the Prescott Narrows. Extremely environmental documents would be high-speed boating would continue to be prepared before a bridge or utility line unregulated, and associated safety and replacement would be approved.) noise concerns would continue in areas south of Stillwater. Conclusion. Pollution due to user activities would continue on the lower St. Croix. There would continue to be limited regula- From a riverwide perspective, however, it tion of camping in the riverway. The social is expected that pollution due to construc- nature of the camping experience north of tion of developments would be short term, Stillwater and at Hudson would not while pollution due to users would be tran- change. sient and should have minor to negligible effects on pollutant levels. Conclusion. The recreational experiences and opportunities provided by the riverway would not change. Riverway users would

277 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Soils species/communities, such as oak savanna communities, would likely be crowded out Analysis. Under alternative E, additional by invasive exotic species or more tolerant development could occur. Consequently, closed canopy plant species. some soils would be lost or disturbed by development. The area between the Arcola Motorboat use on the lower St. Croix is sandbar and Stillwater is the focus of much believed to be affecting shoreline vegeta- concern about wake-induced shoreline ero- tion, with boat wakes damaging plants, sion; new regulations would not be im- exposing root systems, and undercutting posed to address this problem. Shoreline trees. With continued motorboat use, this erosion caused by boat wakes would con- impact would likely continue, particularly tinue to occur. Shoreline erosion from in heavily used stretches and/or stretches campers and bluff erosion from foot trails where there would be high-speed boats. In would also continue. addition, users would continue to affect vegetation in localized areas; when they There could be some bridge and utility line picnic and camp on the shoreline and replacements under alternative E, although islands, users deliberately and inadver- only a few areas would likely be affected tently trample plants. Some users probably during the life of this plan. Since these would continue to damage trees, stripping replacements would only be permitted in bark from birch trees, cutting saplings, and existing corridors, additional soil disturb- pulling down branches for firewood. Dis- ance would be limited to areas that likely turbance of soils would increase the likeli- have already been altered. hood of exotic plants like spotted knapweed and purple loosestrife becoming Conclusion. Under alternative E, shoreline established. With use not expected to and bluff erosion would continue from increase greatly on the lower riverway, and recreational use. This would have minor to no additional management of use on the moderate, negative, long-term impacts on islands and shoreline, degradation of vege- soils in localized areas, particularly along tation would likely continue and result in the riverbanks and the islands. Some soil minor to moderate, localized impacts. also would be lost or disturbed due to new However, the prohibition of camping in developments in the lower riverway. From three NPS areas north of Stillwater would an overall perspective, the impact of likely result in a moderate beneficial effect, alternative E would likely be minor with plants becoming re-established in compared to existing conditions. those areas.

Some new residential and commercial Vegetation development would likely continue on private lands within the riverway bound- Analysis. In this alternative no special ary. It is expected that this new develop- protection would be afforded significant ment would result in additional vegetation plant communities on non-NPS lands. This being lost or altered. would likely result in the gradual perpetuation and expansion of closed canopy forest Conclusion. Under alternative E signifi- communities — desirable native plant cant vegetative communities would con-

278 Impacts of Alternative E: No Action tinue to be altered and lost due to the Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife activities of users and new developments populations would be expected to be in the riverway, primarily in heavily used negligible to minor. areas on the islands and the shoreline, resulting in minor to moderate, long-term impacts. From a riverwide perspective, Threatened and Endangered Species most of the riverway’s vegetation would Analysis. Continued and possibly slightly not be affected by users or the management higher recreational use and limited new agencies. rural home development would have the potential to affect some species that are Fish and Wildlife sensitive to human disturbance, or areas that provide habitat for listed species could Analysis. Most of the lower riverway be altered. But with appropriate mitigation management actions in this alternative (e.g., keeping people away from nesting would continue to promote the protection eagle nests) such impacts are not of fish and wildlife populations and habi- anticipated. tats. No actions would be taken that would adversely affect areas known to be of Although no Karner blue butterflies have special importance for breeding, nesting, been recorded in the lower riverway, foraging, or wintering. Rural home devel- butterflies might use open savanna areas opment creates patches that disrupt the along the river. This habitat has historically movement of some wildlife, especially been declining along the riverway. Under those most sensitive to human activity. the no-action alternative, there would be no There would be some new rural home additional management on public lands to development under alternative E, but prevent savannas from succeeding to wildlife impacts are likely not measurable closed canopy forests, and private land- considering that much of the rural home owners would not be encouraged to main- development that could occur in the tain savannas. Thus, there is the potential riverway has already been built. that this alternative might indirectly adversely affect the habitat of the Karner blue Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife butterfly. populations and habitats have already been affected in varying degrees by recreational As described in the action alternatives, users and nearby developments. Some there is the potential that the federally individual animals might be disturbed or listed Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf temporarily displaced by the sounds of mussels could be adversely affected, more motorboats and groups floating down however, it is not known what effect these the river, but this is not expected to activities are having on the Higgins’ eye substantially affect the lower riverway’s and winged mapleleaf mussel populations. fish and wildlife populations. Recreational uses are likely “taking” individual mussels, which might be adversely affecting these species.

279 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Measures to minimize impacts and most federal and state listed species in the recovery of mussels would include the lower riverway, and there is no indication following measures. Recovery of the that these uses would adversely affect the winged mapleleaf mussel would include populations in the future (assuming preservation of the sole known remnant surveys, consultation with the U.S. Fish population in the lower St. Croix River. and Wildlife Service and state biologists, Recovery of the Higgins’ eye mussel and the application of appropriate includes preservation of the current mitigation measures). populations and its essential habitat, which includes one site on the lower St. Croix Alternative E potentially could adversely near Hudson, Wisconsin. The Cooperative affect the Karner blue butterfly’s habitat Management Plan identifies the following indirectly. Recreational activities could goals, strategies, or actions in support of adversely affect the federally endangered the protection and recovery of these Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel species: protection and improvement of populations. Formal consultations would water quality, development of a public be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife information/education program that Service to determine actions needed to includes mussels, development of means to ensure the conservation of these species. improve mussel information/coordination among various agencies, organizations, etc., continued enforcement of regulations IMPACTS ON CULTURAL prohibiting harvesting or taking of RESOURCES mussels, and implementation of the zebra mussel action plan (see “Management Analysis Directions Common to All Alternatives” section). The managing agencies would Cultural resources would be at a slightly also implement their respective compo- higher risk under this alternative. There nents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- would be greater potential for new resi- vice’s recovery plans for the winged dential and commercial development along mapleleaf mussel and the Higgins’ eye the riverway. Increased development and mussel. These components address a wide more opportunities for camping could pose variety of tasks, including actions to mini- an increased risk for archeological mize human disturbance and destruction to resources. the federally listed mussels, such as This alternative would provide for no harvesting, swimming, wading, digging, special actions to address the historic small recreational watercraft, and commer- character of the riverway’s communities. cial paddlewheel watercraft; identification Increased development could pose some of specific geographic locations of greatest impacts on historic structures, districts, and concern; posting of educational signs; other significant resources along the conduction of educational programs; and riverway. review of paddleboat operations to minimize boat operation impacts. Potential impacts on any cultural or historic landscapes include the following: Conclusion. It is believed that current users allow new development that would be and use levels are not adversely affecting 280 Impacts of Alternative E: No Action visible from the river; take no steps to Tourism protect the historic character of the riverway’s communities; allow changes in Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley the scale and character of railroad bridges is partially linked to the area’s historic and other bridges that would replace character. In that context, alternative E’s existing structures; and allow increases in lack of emphasis on historic structure the size and number of utility lines within protection and enhancement of the historic existing corridors. All of these actions character of valley communities would not could pose adverse impacts on any enhance tourism. The loss of historic significant cultural landscapes. community character could have a minor negative impact on some tourism. Boating- Conclusion. Cultural resources would face related tourism would increase slightly or slightly higher risks because of the greater stay the same, so impacts would be potential for new residential and negligible. commercial development along the riverway. Increased development and more Conclusion. There could be some minor, opportunities for camping could pose negative impacts on tourism. greater risks of adverse impacts to archeological resources. Land Values

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC Analysis. Land use values would not be ENVIRONMENT affected. Local property values have probably been and would likely continue to be Local Economy beneficially affected by the presence of the riverway. Analysis. The no action alternative would not change the manner in which the riverway is currently being managed. Current Landownership/Landowners management conditions would continue. As a result, there would be no change in Analysis. Alternative E proposes no land the regional short- or long-term social or acquisition by the two states; National Park economic conditions related to the river- Service acquisition is essentially complete way. Existing positive effects on the local and would not change. As a result, alterna- economy from expenditures from tourists tive E would have negligible impacts on and other recreationists would continue. landownership.

Conclusion. Overall effects on the region- Landowners would still be constrained by al social or economic conditions would be existing restrictions on new development negligible compared to existing conditions. and land. Existing conflicts between local landowners and recreational users, particularly in the vicinity of popular camping areas north of Stillwater, and from high speed boat use would likely continue.

281 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Shoreline erosion associated with of additional vegetative buffering, the recreational use would also continue. protection of cultural resources, and the prohibition of the construction of any more Conclusion. There would be negligible extremely visible towers within the impacts on landownership. Some viewshed would be beneficial to the landowners would continue to be affected preservation of the riverway’s scenic by restrictions on development. Existing quality. Actions taken outside the riverway conflicts between local landowners and boundary could have negligible to major recreational users would likely continue in impacts on the scenic resources of the some areas of the riverway. riverway, depending on the magnitude of change. Therefore, the cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on the scenic quality CUMULATIVE EFFECTS of the viewshed would be negligibly to moderately beneficial, depending on the The entire viewshed of the riverway as magnitude of changes to the scenic seen from the river would not be en- resources outside the riverway boundary. compassed within the riverway boundaries, therefore, visual encroachments outside the Land use changes in the riverway and boundary have the potential to impact the watershed have had a cumulative effect on scenic resources of the riverway. the riverway’s water quality, flows, soils, vegetation, and wildlife in localized areas. In the federal zone, the high bluffs, rural As the region’s population continued to character, predominance of protected areas grow, new development would be likely along this section of the river (primarily near the riverway and in the communities unincorporated zoning), and the fact that along the river. Further habitat fragmenta- the viewshed outside the boundary would tion of the surrounding watershed land- be less than the state-administered zone scape would likely continue. would mean that the concerns would not be as great here as in the state- administered The entire historical distribution of the zone. In this zone more of the viewshed winged mapleleaf mussel has been signifi- would be outside the riverway boundary, cantly altered by human development in the area would have a series of benches the Mississippi River basin, such as visible from the river, there would be less damming, dredging, application of high bluff areas, more of the area would be fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and incorporated, and its proximity to the municipal and industrial waste discharges. Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely These developments are probably responsi- mean greater growth. For those areas ble for widespread and precipitous decline within the viewshed, yet outside the in mussel communities, and the extirpation riverway boundary, local zoning standards or extinction of several species, although would be the primary methods of few studies have addressed directly the controlling scenic impacts to the riverway. specific impact of any one of these factors (USFWS 1997). Impacts from continued Mitigating methodologies such as the recreational use and managing agency encouragement of the preservation and actions would contribute incrementally to maintenance of mature vegetation, planting impacts noted above.

282 Impacts of Alternative E: No Action

None of the management actions are ex- different uses or reducing resource im- pected to add substantively to the cum- pacts, restrictions would be placed on ulative effects on cultural resources. particular uses, having an adverse effect on Growth and land use changes could affect some users. To meet the scenic and cultural resources adjacent to or within the resource protection purposes of the river- viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative way, development restrictions on local effects of the management actions would landowners would be implemented. To help mitigate the effects of population meet the recreational purposes of the growth and development, however, actions riverway, some conflicts between local could be less effective under the no-action. landowners and recreational users would continue and likely increase. The economic and population growth in the region is expected to continue. The relatively small number of jobs and ex- IRREVERSIBLE AND penditures on management of the riverway IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT would only have a minor effect on the OF RESOURCES expected growth of the total economy of the region. Therefore, there would be no Some new residential and commercial appreciable socioeconomic cumulative development would likely continue on impacts from implementation of this private lands within the riverway bound- alternative occurring in conjunction with ary. Potentially, new river crossing and the region’s expected overall population navigation channel maintenance could also and economy of the region. occur. It is expected that this new development would result in the long-term localized loss of vegetation, soils, and wildlife RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM habitat. USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Any action that led to the loss of individual federally listed mussel species or their Existing development standards, proposed habitat would contribute to the loss of the inventory, monitoring, and research pro- species as an ecological and genetic re- grams, along with some restrictions on source. It is possible that this alternative recreational use within the riverway would would contribute to their decline. How- contribute to the long-term protection and ever, it is expected that the implementation preservation of resources and scenic of actions outlined in the recovery plans character of the landscape. for these species would avoid this situation and contribute to their conservation.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Some minor to locally moderate adverse impacts to natural resources would occur. In the process of resolving conflicts among

283 IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS

PREFERRED OPTION would have a larger and more independent role and would have great local represen- This option would involve the least cost, tation. The joint powers board would pro- but some minor adjustments would be vide greater access to the decision-making made from the current management process for local governments. The joint approach. The Lower St. Croix Partnership powers board, rather than state agencies, Team would provide access to the would have veto authority over local land- decision-making process for citizens and use decisions. Creation of the joint powers local interest groups. Staff services to the board and the St. Croix water patrol would partnership team would be provided by the require action by both state legislatures and Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of the Congress, a significant undertaking. A Natural Resources. new on-water law enforcement agency (the St. Croix water patrol) would be created, The states would retain “certification/ significantly raising the cost of this option. objection/veto” authority over ordinance adoptions, amendments, and variances, but not over conditional use permits or subdi- OPTION 3: RIVERWAY BOARD visions. On-water law enforcement would remain the same. Options 2 and 3 would be the most expensive to implement. The roles of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area OPTION 1: MINOR ADJUSTMENT Commission and the Lower St. Croix Management Commission would be the This option would be more expensive to same as described under option 2. The implement that the preferred option but riverway board would directly implement significantly less costly than options 2 or 3. local zoning in riverway communities, The role of the Minnesota-Wisconsin supplanting local decision-making. As Boundary Area commission would be indicated under option 2, creation of a reduced in this option. The Lower St. riverway board and the St. Croix water Croix Planning Task Force would provide patrol would require action by both state access to the decision-making process for legislatures and Congress undertaking. citizens and local interest groups. State Creation of a new on-water law enforce- agency veto authority over local land use ment agency (St. Croix water patrol) would decisions would not change. On-water law significantly raise the cost of this option. enforcement would remain the same.

OPTION 2: JOINT POWERS BOARD OPTION 4: NO ACTION This option and option 3 would be the most expensive to implement. The role of The riverway would continue to be the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area managed as it has been in the past. Costs Commission would be reduced, but the would be the same as they are now. Lower St. Croix Management Commission 284 COMPLIANCE

In implementing the cooperative manage- The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riv- ment plan for the Lower St. Croix National erway Cooperative Management Plan / Scenic Riverway, the National Park Ser- Environmental Impact Statement was pre- vice and the states of Minnesota and pared pursuant to this act and its imple- Wisconsin would comply with all applic- menting regulations and guidelines. Imple- able federal, state, and local regulations, mentation of this plan will require ongoing statutes, laws, and executive orders, such adherence to the National Environmental as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Policy Act. Additional documentation may Water Act, and National Historic Preser- need to be prepared in the future if NPS vation Act. Several of the key federal and facilities are moved or altered, or other state statutes and regulations that affect actions are taken to manage visitor use. management of the lower riverway are summarized below. WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT (82 POLICY ACT OF 1971 (WEPA) STAT. 906) AS AMENDED Wisconsin has an Environmental Policy As a designated wild and scenic riverway, Act(WEPA), approved by the legislature in the National Park Service and the states of 1971 as Wisconsin Stats. 1.11, which is Wisconsin and Minnesota will comply largely patterned after NEPA in purpose, with all provisions of the Wild and Scenic content, and process. The Wisconsin De- Rivers Act. If any water resource projects, partment of Natural Resources (WDNR), including bridges, are proposed that might as a Lower St. Croix Riverway manage- affect the lower riverway, the National ment partner and whose future manage- Park Service is required to conduct an ment activities will be guided by the evaluation under section 7 of the act. cooperative management plan, is required to satisfy WEPA requirements. Wis. Admin. Code NR 150 contains applicable NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL substantive and procedural requirements to POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA) comply with WEPA for all WDNR actions, This act sets forth the federal policy to including management plans (NR 150.03 preserve important historic, cultural, and (6)(a)(6)(a)) such as the cooperative man- natural aspects of our national heritage. It agement plan. To avoid duplication, NR requires federal agencies to use a syste- 150 allows WDNR to adopt an environ- matic, interdisciplinary, approach that mental review document of another agency integrates natural and social sciences in provided it meets the minimum require- planning and decision making that may ments of WEPA. By cooperating with NPS impact the human environment. in development of the cooperative management plan and design of the public review process, WDNR has been assured that WEPA requirements are being satisfied.

285 Consultation & Coordination CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Cooperative Management Plan / the task force mailing list, 78 other individ- Environmental Impact Statement for the uals, 56 interagency contacts, 112 individ- Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway uals in local government, and the media. is the product of a collaboration of the All meetings were advertised and open to Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of the public. Natural Resources, the National Park Service, and the public. Consultation and Between February 1996 and August 1998 coordination among the agencies and the the task force met 53 times. Some of these public were vitally important throughout meetings were informational, intended to the planning process. The public had two educate task force members, while others primary avenues by which it participated in were workshops where the task force the development of the plan — participa- worked on specific topics and developed tion in the Lower St. Croix Planning Task recommendations. All of the task force’s Force and responses to newsletters and recommendations for the cooperative workbooks. management plan were developed through consensus.

The task force held a workshop in April LOWER ST. CROIX PLANNING 1996 to formulate preliminary statements TASK FORCE on the lower St. Croix’s purposes, significance, and exceptional resources and The task force was established in February values. Meetings were then held through 1996 to guide the development of the the summer of 1996 to discuss various cooperative management plan, facilitate issues and concerns regarding future use participation of riverway stakeholders and and management of the lower riverway. the public in the planning process, provide Issues that were covered included such feedback on the three riverway manage- topics as river crossings, vegetative cover, ment agencies’ work, and help build stake- water quality, land protection, and recre- holder consensus on the future manage- ation. ment of the riverway. Membership of the task force was open throughout the plan- In September 1996 a workshop was held to ning process to all interested citizens. begin identifying the range of experiences Attendees at the task force meetings and resources conditions for which the included staff of the riverway management lower riverway could be managed. This agencies, interested individuals, and information, along with information from citizens representing boaters, businesses, the April workshop and from the summer landowners, environmental groups, local meetings was used to develop management governments, and various other groups. A areas. diversity of interests was always present. Attendance at meetings was usually be- In January 1997 the task force held a third tween 30 and 50, although some meetings workshop to develop management alterna- had over 200 in attendance. Notices of task tives for the lower riverway. The task force force meetings were sent to 53 people on agreed to an overall vision that described 287 CONSULATION AND COORDINATION what the riverway ideally would look like about and involved in the planning process in 20 years. Based on the riverway’s for the lower St. Croix. A mailing list resources and uses, and differing views consisting of 685 names was compiled regarding the future use and management during the planning process. This mailing of the lower riverway, the task force iden- list included members of the planning team tified preliminary alternative management from the three riverway management agen- concepts. A series of meetings were then cies (12), other governmental agencies (75) held through the winter and summer of [combined interagency team + other agen- 1997 to provide more detail on specific cies], nongovernmental groups/ nonprofit topics such as riverway crossings and to organizations (57), businesses and com- identify actions that were common to all of mercial interests (143), legislators (22), the alternatives. local governments (112), and interested citizens (264). In the summer of 1997 the task force examined different organizational structures During the course of the planning process for managing the land and water surface. two newsletters and three workbooks were From September through November 1997 published and mailed to the public. In May the task force turned its attention to devel- 1996, the first planning newsletter was oping guidelines for revising the states’ published, alerting people that the planning regulations on land and water surface uses. process was beginning. Newsletter #1 included the draft purpose, significance, In the winter of 1997-1998 the task force and exceptional resource/value statements, concentrated on refining the management and asked for public comments on these alternatives for the lower riverway. Using statements, on desired futures, and on information generated at earlier meetings, issues the plan should address. About 430 the alternatives were revised and clarified. newsletters were distributed and 23 separate responses were mailed back along with Beginning with a two-day workshop in four letters from individuals who voiced April 1998, the task force held seven meet- opinions about what should be addressed ings attempting to reach agreement on a in the plan. Most people who responded preferred alternative for managing the supported or did not disagree with the draft lower riverway and on the guidelines for purpose, significance, and exceptional revising the states’ regulations. Unresolved resource/value statements. Most respond- issues were forwarded to the Lower St. ents also had similar desires for the future Croix Management Commission. On Aug- of the lower riverway. Many wanted to see ust 10, 1998, the management commission the riverway remain as it is today, wanted met with the task force and resolved these new development to be minimized, and the outstanding issues for the preferred alter- small-town flavor of the river communities native. to be maintained. There were widely differing views on boating, with some wanting less motorized boat traffic and/or more NEWSLETTERS AND WORKBOOKS restrictions, and others wanting fewer restrictions on boating and more Newsletters and workbooks were the other opportunities for access. avenue used to keep the public informed

288 Consultation and Coordination

Newsletter #2, published in November Workbook #3, also published in April 1996, summarized the response to the May 1998, focused on the guidelines for newsletter and identified changes that were revising the state land use and surface made in the purpose, significance, and water use regulations. The workbook exceptional resource/value statements included summary matrices describing the based on the public’s comments. The preferred alternative and guideline newsletter also identified the issues and comparison matrices. The public was concerns that would be addressed by the asked to indicate its support for different cooperative management plan, described options being considered by the task force landscape units of the lower St. Croix, and and the rationale for supporting the option. described the activities of the task force. Approximately 125 written responses were No response form was included in the received on the options. newsletter.

In April 1997 an alternatives workbook CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE was published. The workbook included the HISTORIC PRESERVATION descriptions of potential land and water OFFICES AND THE ADVISORY management areas, and five preliminary COUNCIL ON HISTORIC management alternatives, plus a “no PRESERVATION action” alternative. A vision for the lower riverway also was presented. A response Section 106 of the National Historic form was included in the workbook, asking Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 the public to comment on the vision USC 470, et seq.) requires that federal statement and the management alterna- agencies that have direct or indirect interest tives. Fifty-three responses were received jurisdiction take into account the effect of on the workbook. Some of the respondents undertakings on national register properties felt that conditions were fine and no and allow the Advisory Council on His- changes were needed regarding land use toric Preservation an opportunity to regulation, while some felt that additional comment. Toward that end the National restrictions were needed to ensure that Park Service would work with the Min- conditions stay the way they are now. nesota and Wisconsin State Historic Landowners wanted less regulation on Preservation Offices and the advisory their private property. There was a notable council to meet requirements of 36 CFR lack of discussion about river use conflicts 800. Both state historic preservation among those who responded to the offices were invited to participate in the workbook. planning process, and each had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Workbook #2, published in April 1998, document. In addition to federal agency was intended to compile the existing consultation, the state riverway managing products of the task force and serve as a agencies will also consult with the SHPOs reference tool for participants at the as appropriate, and as directed by state preferred alternative workshop. No statute and rule. response form was included in this workbook.

289 CONSULATION AND COORDINATION

CONSULTATION WITH AMERICAN mapleleaf mussel. The biological opinion INDIANS from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is included in appendix D of this Final Consultation with American Indian groups Environmental Impact Statement. who historically occupied the area of the riverway was initiated during the planning process. Two Ojibway Bands (the St. Croix COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Band and the Mille Lacs Band), the Prairie Island Community of Dakota, and the The Draft Cooperative Management Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Commission were invited to participate in the Lower St. Croix National Scenic this planning effort. All planning task force Riverway was released to the public on mailings and newsletters have been sent to September 17, 1999. The public comment the tribes. The Minnesota Indian Affairs period ended November 30, 1999. Ap- Council and Mille Lacs Band presented proximately 650 copies of the document information at a task force meeting con- were distributed to federal and state offi- cerning the cultural significance of the St. cials and agencies, local governments, Croix valley to American Indians. Conver- organizations, individuals, and public sations have been ongoing throughout the libraries. The document was also available planning process to inform the tribes about for review on the internet. Informational the progress of the plan and identify how open houses were held in Hudson, Wiscon- and to what extent they would like to be sin, on October 25 and in Stillwater, involved. The tribes will also have the Minnesota, on October 26. The purpose of opportunity to review and comment on this the open houses was to discuss and answer draft plan. questions about the document and solicit written comments concerning the plan.

CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S. The managing agencies received almost FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 900 written responses during the public review period, including written letters, e- Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish mail comments, form cards, and comment and Wildlife Service began in May 1995 forms that were either filled out and with a request for a list of endangered and submitted at the open houses or mailed in. threatened species that may occur in or Of these responses, 37 were from agencies, near the lower riverway. A response dated organizations, and businesses, including July 1995 was received. An updated list one federal agency, four state agencies, two was requested in April 1997 and a response regional and interstate agencies, 10 local dated June 1997 was received and is in- agencies and governments, and 20 organi- cluded in appendix D. The National Park zations and business interests. Responses Service initiated formal consultation pur- were also received from about 850 indi- suant to the Endangered Species Act with viduals, including approximately 600 form the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regard- cards. Almost all of the form cards sup- ing management directions that may ported Alternative E, no action. The adversely affect the federally endangered majority of the other responses did not say Higgins’ eye mussel and the winged which alternative they favored. Of those 290 Consultation and Coordination that did, approximately an equal number, Local Agencies around 30, expressed support for the pre- City of Afton ferred alternative or alternative D, about City of Bayport half as many supported alternative E, and City of Lake St. Croix Beach only a couple individuals supported alter- City of Marine on St. Croix natives A or C. City of Prescott City of Stillwater Comment letters from all agencies, govern- Village of Osceola ments, organizations, and businesses are Pierce County reproduced. Responses are provided to St. Croix County substantive comments questioning sup- Washington County porting information or environmental analysis, comments recommending actions or alternatives beyond the range of alterna- Organizations and Businesses tives in the draft plan, comments that Andersen Corporation caused changes or revisions in the pre- Beanies ferred alternative, or comments requesting Carpenter Nature Center clarification of the draft. No response was Cedar St. Croix Landowners Association given to comments simply expressing pre- Thousand Friends of Minnesota ference for an alternative. Because of the Empson Archives volume of written comments received, only Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter individuals’ letters that contained com- Northern States Power Company ments not covered by the agency and Port of Sunnyside organization letters have been printed and Riverway Consensus Standard are listed below. Where appropriate, the Sierra Club text in the Final Environmental Impact St. Croix River Marina Managers Statement has been revised to address the St. Croix River Association comments. These changes are identified in St. Croix Waterways Association the managing agencies’ responses. Steamboat Inn Stillwater Heritage Preservation Federal Agencies Commission Environmental Protection Agency Upper Mississippi Waterway Association Wildlaw Regional Agencies Wolf Marine, Inc. Metropolitan Council Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Landowner Rights Commission

State Agencies Individuals Minnesota Department of Transportation Larry Wolf Minnesota Historical Society Gene Anderson Wisconsin Department of Transportation Dennis O’Donnell State Historical Society of Wisconsin Clarence Nelson Bill and Sharon Clapp Kathryn M. Nelson

291 LETTERS (COMMENTS & RESPONSES)

292 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. The managing agencies are aware of the lack of information and data gaps related to water quality, land cover, and endangered species and have initiated actions to correct them. Detailed water quality information, planned corrective actions, and ongoing monitoring plans are being developed as part of preparation of the St. Croix River Basin Water Resources Management Plan. This is referenced on pages 19 and 32 of the DEIS and is discussed in detail on pages 159-161. Language has been added to the discussion of water quality and quantity management directions (page 32 of the draft) that clarifies the relationship between this plan and the St. Croix River Basin Water Resources Plan. Additional text describing existing land cover has been prepared and inserted in the “Affected Environment” chapter, referencing the “Atlas of Land Cover and Land Cover Change,” MWBAC, 1993. Planned land management is described in the description of the preferred alternative on pages 61-67 and in appendix A. Endangered species are discussed throughout the plan. A significant potential threat to endangered species in the riverway is a threat to native mussels from the zebra mussel. Zebra mussel control is addressed in the Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan, which includes a monitoring component and is updated annually. That plan is described on pages 33-34 of the draft and

293 is found in appendix G. Water quality problems can affect mussels; water quality issues are being addressed in the planning process noted above. Peaking operations at the NSP dam at St. Croix Falls can affect endangered mussels; actions are being taken to implement run-of-the-river operations at the dam to eliminate this threat, and the text on page 34 has been corrected. Federal Agencies

1 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. Controlling the numbers of recreational users of the riverway is difficult due to the large number of access points, but growth in use would be limited under the preferred alternative. The discussion of user carrying capacity found on page 71 has been revised to help ensure that user numbers do not degrade

natural resources; standards and indicators would be developed and a C OORDINATION monitoring program initiated. The discussion of island and public shoreline management found on pages 67-68 has been revised to clarify that camping would be more aggressively managed to reduce the impacts of trampling and inappropriate disposal of human waste.

3. For the plan to be successfully implemented, it would need the active support and participation of the states and local governments. Although alternative D would provide greater protection for natural resources, the land use controls necessary for implementation would be difficult to enact. This would be the most expensive alternative to implement and it would be difficult to acquire necessary funds. The implementation costs section found on pages 124-126 has 2 been revised to more accurately reflect the costs of implementing each alternative. The description of alternative D on pages 100-104 has been revised

294 to more clearly describe how it would be implemented. Enhanced natural resource management common to all alternatives is discussed on pages 31-35 of the draft plan.

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. The plan has been revised to reference the appropriate plans (page 20 of the drat plan).

2. The management plan places Stillwater and Oak Park Heights in the river town district and Bayport in the “small town” district. Only a small portion of each community lies in the riverway, and the Metropolitan Council cannot expect communities to meet growth goals in environmentally sensitive districts, something that was confirmed by the Metropolitan Council’s Livable Communities Committee on December 20, 1999. 295

2 Regional Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

3. The plan acknowledges (page 18 of the draft plan) that a bridge planning process is underway and is separate from and independent of this plan.

4. The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation have stated that

there will be no need for additional bridge capacity within the 20-year life of C OORDINATION the plan; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

4 296 Regional Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

297 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The “Implementation Costs” section on pages 124-126 of the draft plan have been revised to reflect increased costs for on-water law enforcement.

2. The plan has been modified to include a 24-hour speed limit of 20 mph

between the Arcola Sandbar and the north limits of Stillwater, and a speed limit C OORDINATION of 40 mph between sunrise and sunset and 20 mph between sunset and sunrise on the river between the north limits of Stillwater and the confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott.

3. Comment noted.

4. This is consistent with the discussion on pages 29-30 of the draft plan and the preferred alternative as discussed on pages 61-67 of the draft plan.

5. The plan has been revised to clarify that the states would retain “certification” authority “objection” authority “veto” power over local government actions to adopt riverway ordinances, ordinance amendments and variances, but not over local government actions on conditional use permits and subdivision plats. 298 1 6. The plan has been revised to show the high-water, no-wake rule would remain at 683 feet.

3 4

5 6 Regional Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

299 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The text on pages 19 and 31 has been corrected to clarify that the initiative is voluntary and does not carry any regulatory authority.

2. The description of the “Affected Environment” on page 158 of the draft plan

has been revised to more accurately reflect the influence of the two dams. C OORDINATION 300

2 COMMENTS RESPONSES

3. The relationship of this plan with the bridge project is clarified on page 18 of the draft plan. 3 4. River crossings have a profound affect on the river environment and on the outstandingly remarkable values for which the riverway was designated. As such, they must be carefully controlled. MnDOT and WisDOT have both reported that they do not see any need for new bridges across the river during the 20-year life of this plan. The text on page 67 of the draft plan has been revised to more clearly state how future river crossings would be evaluated.

5. See the response to Metropolitan Council comment 4.

4 301

5 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

6. The riverway as established by Congress lies between the dam at St. Croix Falls and the confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott. The riverway boundary as defined in the Federal Register excludes the state parks (their protection was assumed) and therefore excludes the land on the Wisconsin side

of the bridge, but does include the land on the Minnesota side of the bridge. C OORDINATION The Highway 8 bridge is within the riverway. 6 7. The error has been corrected.

7 8. The Region map on page 4 of the draft plan has been corrected to show Highway 95, Highway 243, and Highway 64. The other maps exist for specific 8 purposes and showing many highways would only serve to clutter them.

9. See previous comment. 9 302 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. The plan does not address seaplane use because it is uncommon.

1 303 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The outstandingly remarkable values were established by the study team prior to congressional designation of the riverway and cannot be changed.

2. Cultural resource surveys would be conducted under the preferred alternative

as described on page 73 of the draft plan. The “Implementation Costs” section C OORDINATION (pages 124-126 of the draft plan) has been rewritten to include the cost of these surveys. 304

2 COMMENTS RESPONSES

3. The text on pages 13-18 of the draft plan provides a brief overview of planning issues; a more detailed description is found on page 72 of the draft plan.

3 4. Comment noted.

5. Comment noted. 4 6. The text has been corrected.

7. The text has been changed to commit the state managing agencies to voluntarily comply with the spirit of section 106. 5 8. While it would be commendable for all riverway communities to adopt historic preservation ordinances, it is required only in the river town and small town historic districts.

9. The text on page 73 of the draft plan has been revised to clarify that all three 6 managing agencies should take better advantage of their internal expertise on

305 cultural resources.

10. The text has been revised to include a discussion of heritage tourism. 7 11. The text on page 173 of the draft plan has been corrected, and a section on historic structures has been added.

11 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

12. See the response to comment 8, above.

13. The text has been revised to clarify that state riverway managing agencies would also consult with the SHPOs. C OORDINATION 14. The organizations have been added to agency mailing lists.

15. The text has been revised to include reference to cultural and historic resources. 12 16. The text has been revised to include the information provided.

14 306

16 COMMENTS RESPONSES

17. The bibliography has been corrected to include an additional reference. Other reports on archeological surveys exist, but they contain sensitive information about archeological sites protected under the Archeological Resources Protection Act and it would be inappropriate to reference them in the bibliography. 17 307 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. See the response to Metropolitan Council comment 4.

2. See the response to Metropolitan Council comment 4.

3. See the response to Metropolitan Council comment 4. C OORDINATION 308

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES

4. River crossings are defined on page 67 of the draft plan. There is no discussion of river crossings on page 132 of the draft plan; the text on page 134 of the draft is consistent with the definitions on page 67.

5. See the response to Minnesota Department of Transportation comment 8.

5 309 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 310 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Comment noted.

2. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 9.

3. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 2.

1 311

3 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

4. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 16.

5. Implementation costs identified in the plan include inventory funds but not funds for a staff position. C OORDINATION 6. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 11.

5 312

6 COMMENTS RESPONSES

7. The organizations have been added to agency mailing lists.

8. As noted on page 277 of the draft plan, consultation would be consistent with current federal regulations. Reference to the 1995 agreement has been deleted.

8 313 State Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The plan has been changed to ensure the continued viability of the downtown commercial districts of Afton, Marine on St. Croix, and Osceola, as well as the existing industrial facility in Bayport. C OORDINATION 314

1 Public Comments Public Local Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

315 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 316 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to Afton comment 1.

2. The plan has been revised to identify a recommended change in the riverway boundary in Bayport. While the managing agencies favor a slightly different boundary adjustment than proposed by the city, the Lower St. Croix Management Commission would take action on specific boundary changes after completion of this plan. 317

2 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 318 Lcal Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

319 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 320 Local Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

321 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 322 Local Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

323 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 324 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. While lot size in Lake St. Croix Beach does not reflect the general description of the “small town” district, all other aspects of the community are consistent with the district. The city does not have the historic character emblematic of the “small town historic” district. 325

1 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. The plan states that minimum lot size in the “small town” district would be determined by the local government’s underlying zoning. The definition of “net project area” is not applicable to Lake St. Croix Beach.

3. A minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet in the “small town” district is C OORDINATION reasonable. The current Minnesota rules require a minimum lot width of 100 feet in sewered areas and 150 feet in unsewered areas. Many lots in Lake St. Croix Beach do not meet those current standards. 326

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES

4. See the response to Afton comment 1.

5. The states, in development of land use regulations that will implement 4 elements of this plan, are preparing a definition of screening and are developing language that protects views of the river from residences as well as views from the river.

6. Adequate flexibility in the state land use rules will allow yard maintenance in Lake St. Croix Beach. The referenced language has been in effect in Minnesota Rules since 1974 and has not prevented yard maintenance in this community. 5 327

6 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

7. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 6.

8. A speed limit of 40 mph in the daytime and 20 mph at night would be

established between the north limits of Stillwater and the confluence with the C OORDINATION Mississippi at Prescott. This is consistent with speed limits on Lake 7 Minnetonka and Prior Lake.

9. Seaplane use is uncommon in the riverway, and regulation of seaplane use was not considered in development of the plan. Noise generated by watercraft, offroad vehicles, snowmobiles, and motor vehicles are regulated by statewide programs in both states.

8 328

9 COMMENTS RESPONSES

10. Access controls of this type are not proposed in this plan. The referenced paragraph on page 290 of the draft plan has been deleted from the plan.

11. Boating density on the river is evaluated for 13 zones based on use patterns and geographic similarities. This is part of an ongoing monitoring program established in 1977 that is not discussed in this plan.

10 12. The text on page 291 has been revised to resolve these concerns.

11 13. Nonmotorized craft can operate outside the marked 9-foot-deep maintained channel, as can most motorized recreational vessels. Shoaling at the mouth of the Kinnickinnic River has not reduced the width of the 9-foot channel below the current 200 foot standard for many years, and it is unlikely dredging would ever be required if the 9-foot channel were allowed to be as narrow as 100 feet. Since there is a strong likelihood that the endangered Higgins eye pearly mussel has colonized the Kinnickinnic Narrows since the most recent dredging event, avoiding the need to dredge the channel in the future is a priority. 329

13 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 330 COMMENTS RESPONSES 331 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 332 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. No change is proposed in the existing rules that have been in place since 1974. 333

13 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. See the response above. See also the response to Afton comment 1.

3. This is being considered in the development of state rules to implement this plan and is beyond the scope of the plan. C

2 OORDINATION 334

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES 335 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 336 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. It is difficult to determine the boundary from the map due to its scale. The best determinant of the boundary is its legal description, which is available from the managing agencies. The Lower St. Croix Management Commission acted in 1985 to move the boundary west (from a section line) to the railroad bridge; Front, Orange, and Broad Streets; and Highway 10. However, the boundary 1 change was not published in the Federal Register so never took effect. That error will be corrected when other boundary corrections, discussed on page 75 of the draft plan, are published in the Federal Register. In the interim, Wisconsin DNR and the city are managing the area as if the boundary lay along the railroad bridge, Front, Orange, and Broad streets, and Highway 10. 337 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 338 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Congress established that the riverway shall extend from the dam at St. Croix Falls to the confluence with the Mississippi River.

1 339 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 340 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. The list in appendix F has been corrected.

2. Comment noted. The area between downtown and Dutchtown is quite natural in character and it would not be appropriate to convert it to look like downtown. The Dutchtown area is residential in character, with the exception of the two marinas, and bears a greater resemblance to Lake St. Croix Beach or Afton than to downtown Stillwater or Hudson. 341

2 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

3. The text has been changed to reflect the comment. C OORDINATION 342

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES 343 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 344 Local Agencies RESPONSES COMMENTS

345 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. Concur. The intent to continue to regulate activities on slopes of 12% or greater is identified on page 283 of the draft plan. Using a steeper gradient was considered during the planning process but rejected. The Natural Resource Conservation Service advised keeping the standard at 12%, stating there was

more evidence today than 25 years ago that erosion problems can occur too C OORDINATION quickly on slopes greater than 12%. 346

1 COMMENTS RESPONSES

2. As defined on page 283 of the draft plan, the “slope preservation zone” is any slope greater than 12% anywhere within the riverway boundary. Slopes not facing the river may be handled differently as noted in the Wisconsin DNR memo dated December 29, 1999, addressed to Rep. Kitty Rhoades, but this is a level of detail beyond the scope of this plan that will be addressed as the states develop land use regulations.

3. The two states have different statutes that may prevent a consistent approach to substandard structures and nonconforming uses. Further, the Wisconsin legislature was considering changing the Wisconsin statute as this plan was being finalized. This issue will be addressed in state land use rulemaking processes subsequent to completion of this plan; all references to this topic have been removed from the plan.

2 4. Comment noted. It was felt that the vertical profile of structures in rural areas should be reduced to limit their visual impact.

5. Concur. This boundary amendment is discussed on page 75 of the draft plan. 347 3 6. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 6.

6 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

7. The shore area no-wake zone would remain at 100 feet. C

7 OORDINATION 348 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 5.

2. The text has been changed to restrict structure color in the “small town” and “small town” historic districts.

3. The structure color requirements apply to all structures, regardless of their use. 349

3 Local Agencies COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

4. Existing state land use rules limit vegetative cutting within 200 feet of the ordinary high-water mark. The plan has been revised to include this restriction (see page 284 of the draft plan).

5. New development on land within the “conservation” district in the northern C OORDINATION part of Washington County (among other areas) would be restricted to larger and wider lots, with greater structure setbacks and lower structure height. The 4 “minimally disturbed” district and the “natural” district that appeared in the draft plan turned out to be virtually identical and they were merged in the preferred alternative into the similar “conservation” district.

6. Cluster development will be provided for in the regulations being developed to 5 implement this plan.

7. See the response to Minnesota State Historical Society comment 2. 350

7 COMMENTS RESPONSES

8. The St. Croix River Basin Water Resources Management Plan, described on pages 19-20 of the draft plan, will identify funding sources for erosion control planning and implementation.

9. As noted on page 118 of the draft plan, the partnership team would include local government appointees selected by elected bodies, but would also include 8 some stakeholder group representation, as did the planning task force.

10. The provisions under which variances can be granted are provided for in state law and cannot be changed by this plan. 9

10 351 Local Agencies CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION RESPONSES COMMENTS

352 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to Afton comment 1.

1 353 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 2.

2. Comment noted. Both states will continue to apply statewide boater safety

training standards in the riverway. C OORDINATION

3. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 2.

1 354 2

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 2. 355 Organizations andBusinesses

1 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 6.

2 C OORDINATION 356 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to St. Croix County comment 3.

2. See the response to St. Croix County comment 3.

3. Congress specifically directed that the riverway be jointly managed by the National Park Service and the two states, and the Lower St. Croix Management Commission was created to be the vehicle for coordinating that joint management. The agencies originally asked to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission to sit as a nonvoting member to enhance public input; this plan adds the input of a representative of the Lower St. Croix Partnership Team, as described on page 118 of the draft plan.

4. Enforcement of boat noise laws was increased in 1999.

5. The plan recommends the managing agencies seek funds for additional enforcement staff. 357

1 2 3 4 5 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. Concur. While the boards described in Options 2 and 3 provide for coordinated management, they add considerable cost to plan implementation and in some cases create a new layer of government.

2. Concur. While the plan no longer contains the seven land use districts C OORDINATION described in the draft, the five districts it contains provide significantly greater land use management flexibility than the two districts created by the original plan. 358

2 COMMENTS RESPONSES

3. The text has been changed to define all of the state parks as “conservation,” along with St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park. The area between Marine and Stillwater, and the area between Afton State Park and St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park, will remain classified as “rural residential.”

3 4. Comment noted. There are areas that would leave some structures starkly visible if a remnant bluff prairie was restored; the concept in the plan is that vegetation would continue to screen structures on the top of the bluff, while bluff prairie restoration could occur further down the bluff.

5. See the response to Washington County comment 4.

6. Comment noted.

7. Comment noted. 4 8. Comment noted.

359 9. Comment noted. 5

7 Organizations andBusinesses

8 9 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

10. The preferred alternative encourages a reduction in utility crossings. It would also reduce camping on islands. 10 11. Minnesota’s current rules require a 100-foot lot width in areas served by

municipal sewer and 150 feet in areas not served by municipal sewer. With C OORDINATION statewide requirements in place in Minnesota that lots must have adequate land area for two drainfields, the water quality goals of that lot width or size are met.

12. See the response to Afton comment 1.

13. The inconsistent statements have been corrected.

11 360

13 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to Minnesota State Historical Society comment 2.

2. See the response to Minnesota State Historical Society comment 2. As noted on page 18, this plan does not address the ongoing Stillwater bridge debate.

3. See the response to Minnesota State Historical Society comment 8. 361

3 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

4. Comment noted. C OORDINATION

4 362 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES COMMENTS

363 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION RESPONSES COMMENTS

364 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Comment noted.

2. Comment noted. 365

1 Organizations andBusinesses

2 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION RESPONSES COMMENTS

366 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES COMMENTS

367 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The plan does not propose creating the no-wake zone recommended in this comment. C OORDINATION 368

1 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES COMMENTS

369 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The referenced $19 million was intended to provide acquisition funds to the National Park Service, not the states. The states did complete fee acquisition of lands within Afton and Kinnickinnic state parks; the 1976 plan did not propose any other state fee acquisition activity, other than a few small boater waysides

that proved impractical. C OORDINATION

1 370 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES COMMENTS

371 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION RESPONSES COMMENTS

372 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES COMMENTS

373 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. Alternative A remains an implementable alternative and therefore was considered in development of the draft plan. The old alternative E (which was not the no-action alternative described in the draft plan) would have significantly reduced recreational diversity in violation of the first purpose

statement on page 10 of the draft plan, and was therefore eliminated following C OORDINATION extended public discussion.

2 374 COMMENTS RESPONSES

3. The fact the riverway is within a large and rapidly growing metropolitan area is indisputable.

3 375 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

4. This issue is beyond the level of detail of this management plan but may be considered in development of the fisheries management plan identified on page 19 of the draft plan.

5. The referenced sentence is within a section of the plan intended to describe C OORDINATION issues and concerns relevant to the cooperative management plan. The text accurately describes issues related to navigation channel maintenance.

4 6. The plan clearly states the managing agencies’ commitment to science (see page 31 of the draft plan, for example). Performance evaluation will be accomplished through standard monitoring and evaluation processes of each plan implementation component, rather than as a separate component.

6 376 COMMENTS RESPONSES

7. Comment noted. See the response to comment 6 above.

8. Regulation of hunting is beyond the scope of this plan. Hunting regulations are determined periodically by the two DNRs.

8 377 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

9. The reference is clearly not intended to be a complete list but only a few obvious examples.

10. The text has been corrected. C

9 OORDINATION 11. Photographs used in the final plan have been changed to better reflect the character of the land use areas. 10 12. See the response to comment 11 above.

11 378

12 COMMENTS RESPONSES 379 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

13. The exact boundary will be used as recommended when detailed district boundary maps are prepared.

13 C OORDINATION 380 COMMENTS RESPONSES

14. See the response to comment 2 above.

14 381 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

15. The recommendation is noted, but is beyond the level of detail of this management plan. An annual meeting with utilities is just one tool management may consider for advancing the goal to reduce utility lines.

16. The text is intended to describe the general character of the area. C 15 OORDINATION 17. Detailed maps delineating the shore activity zones (and where they overlap) will be prepared when water surface use regulations are being developed to implement portions of this plan.

18. Comment noted. The section is intended to provide a general description of the 16 stretch of river, not to detail ownership patterns.

17 19. Language has been added to the “Conflicts Between Boaters” section (page 14 of the draft plan) to make clear that boater safety is a management issue. 382 18

19 COMMENTS RESPONSES

20. The text has been corrected.

21. Pending completion of the noted cultural resources inventory, it is premature to make the recommended statement.

21 383 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

22. The text is correct, according to MWBAC data. There has been an increase in larger craft and an offsetting decrease in smaller craft, but overall use has not increased. MWBAC data cannot determine horsepower. See also page 150 of the draft plan. C OORDINATION 23. Recreational use of the riverway remains diverse, as correctly noted in the referenced text on page 198 of the draft plan. The dominant use from O’Brien State Park north is nonmotorized. Use between O’Brien State Park and the Arcola Sandbar is a compatible mix of nonmotorized use, small fishing boats, and slow-moving pontoon boats. All types of motorboat use occurs south of the Arcola Sandbar. The trend toward increasing size among motorboats south of the Arcola Sandbar has been noted in a revision to page 150 of the draft plan. Large craft are less likely to use two-cycle engines. The imposition of speed limits will prevent increasing size from impacting the diversity of uses in that 22 southern area (see the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission comment 2.

24. The text on page 150 of the draft plan has been corrected to note that there has

384 been a trend toward larger craft south of Stillwater.

24 COMMENTS RESPONSES

25. It would be speculative for the plan to develop policies relating to possible future evolutions in technology. The plan provides the framework for managers to respond as needed to changes in technology that might occur in the next 20 years.

25 385 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

26. The plan has been revised to show that the “quiet waters” water management area will be implemented through requiring a “slow speed” speed limit, which is defined as “a leisurely speed, whereby the wake or wash created by the motorboat is minimal, but in no case greater than 15 mph.” C OORDINATION 386 26 COMMENTS RESPONSES

27. While some vegetation would be affected by recreational users, residential development, and management actions to restore native plant communities, these impacts would be extremely local. Overall, most vegetation in the riverway would not be affected.

28. This plan will be implemented consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf mussel and the Higgin’s eye mussel, and with the Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan. Implementation of the Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan has prevented infestation of the riverway by zebra mussels.

28 387 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

29. Thank you for your confidence in the measures proposed to help protect cultural resources. However, we believe the impacts that can be reasonably expected are most consistent with the definition of a “minor impact” as described on page 193 of the draft plan. C OORDINATION 30. The plan has been revised to clarify that conflicts between landowners and recreational users would be reduced by boat speed limits, restrictions on camping, and increased law enforcement.

29 388

30 COMMENTS RESPONSES 389 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. Comment noted. Actions to implement the Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan have thus far been successful in preventing an infestation of zebra mussels in the riverway. C OORDINATION 390

1 COMMENTS RESPONSES

2. Air quality in the riverway is good but is modestly affected by the adjacent metropolitan area. It is not anticipated that air quality in the riverway would be affected by implementation of any of the alternatives, as noted on page 193 of the draft plan.

3. There are only two industrial uses within the riverway and both are expected to remain throughout the 20-year life of this plan. The text has been changed to 2 encourage conversion to park if an industrial site is ever abandoned.

4. Cluster development is encouraged in existing state land use rules and will be considered in state rulemaking processes that will follow completion of this plan.

5. Since the riverway boundary in Stillwater is the railroad tracks, there is actually very little land within the city that is within the riverway boundary, and most of that is city parkland.

6. The “park” classification has been eliminated and the state parks will be

391 managed as “conservation” lands, similar to the recommendation that they be classified as “natural.”

5 Organizations andBusinesses

6 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

7. Since protection of scenic values is one of the outstandingly remarkable values for which the riverway was designated and protection of ecologically significant vegetation is not, screening of structures does take precedence over protection of ecologically significant vegetation. In most cases, both values can

be protected together and management for ecologically significant vegetative C

7 OORDINATION communities is an improved resource management objective over the 1976 8 plan.

8. The statement has been corrected.

9 9. Under the preferred alternative, there would be no net increase in the number of transportation corridors. Increases in traffic associated with wider bridges would be evaluated (under the provisions of section 7(a) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act) on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts on water and air quality, habitat, and hydrology in the riverway and necessary mitigation 10 would be required.

10. Comment noted. 392 11. The plan has been revised to eliminate the “silent boating” water management 11 area. The original goal of that water management area was to provide an area where users would be completely free of the sounds of internal combustion 12 engines. With motorboats operating in the main channel (in the “quiet waters” management area) and with the large numbers of riparian residential properties, the original goal of the “silent boating” water management area could not be achieved. The backwaters that had been proposed as “silent boating” will be 13 managed as “natural waters” with a no-wake speed requirement. The adjacent main channel will be managed as “quiet waters” with a modified slow-speed requirement. See also the response to the Riverway Consensus Standards Foundation comment 26.

12. While quiet and solitude are to be protected in the riverway, the plan does not 14 propose to protect them everywhere and there is no proposal to protect those values along the river’s shore in Afton State Park, where boat speeds have not been restricted in the past.

13. This plan does not propose elimination of commercial navigation or deep-draft recreational boating. The proposal to reduce the maintained channel width at the mouth of the Kinnickinnic River should eliminate the need for future channel maintenance dredging. COMMENTS RESPONSES

14. A “vernacular historic landscape” is one that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped it. Through social or cultural attitudes or an individual, family or community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. This can be a farm complex or a district of historic farmsteads along a river valley. Examples include rural historic districts and agricultural landscapes. Additional information can be found in the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, National Park 15 Service, 1996. 16 15. The concept in alternative D was that the bluffs in the city would be designated “natural” and the rest of the community “small town.” The preferred alternative does, as recommended, designate the entire community “small town historic.” 17 16. See the response to comment 7 above.

17. Comment noted.

393 18 18. As noted on page 105, camping north of Stillwater would be limited to a few designated sites. South of Stillwater public camping is currently allowed only 19 at the Hudson Islands and the state parks.

19. Comment noted. Organizations andBusinesses CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION RESPONSES COMMENTS

394 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES daytime speed limit of 40 mph and a night-time limit of 20 mph. of 40 mph and a night-time daytime speed limit to identify this need. In addition, ment and the plan has been amended when implementing amended water sur- increased public education is needed face use regulations. 1. a south to Prescott, the plan proposes limits of Stillwater From the north city 2. public education is an important component of riverway manage- Enhanced COMMENTS 1 2

395 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 396 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to St. Croix River Marina Managers comment 1. 397 Organizations andBusinesses

1 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. The river segment between the north limits of Stillwater and the confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott is classified as “active social recreation” in this plan, including the river segment described in this comment. As the 2 comment notes, this reach of river is heavily used and provides diverse motor-

boat experiences, including waterskiing. The area will be managed with a day- C OORDINATION time speed limit of 40 mph and a night-time limit of 20 mph. The “moderate recreation” classification is applied between the Arcola Sandbar and the north limits of Stillwater, with a 24-hour speed limit of 20 mph. Most waterskiing occurs between 25 mph and 36 mph; a 30-mph speed limit would prevent a significant amount of waterskiing activity.

3. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission com- 3 ment 5.

4. This is an important component of the preferred alternative as described on page 74 of the draft plan.

5. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission com-

398 ment 6.

6. Personal watercraft is prohibited in the area north of the north city limits of Stillwater. The plan states that they continue to be permitted south of that point, subject to other provisions of state law in each state.

6 COMMENTS RESPONSES

7. The plan has been amended to reflect this recommended change.

7 399 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. See the response to Lake St. Croix Beach comment 13.

2. The 3-foot channel was authorized for commercial navigation, but no commer- 1 cial navigation requiring a need for that channel exists any longer, and the

authorization is no longer needed. Snagging and dredging has not occurred at C OORDINATION or north of the Arcola Sandbar since at least the 1960s and probably not since 1915. As discussed on page 72 of the draft plan, shallow conditions at the Arcola Sandbar and occasional shallow conditions north of that point are consistent with maintaining the diversity of recreational experiences and for protecting opportunities for quiet and solitude on that portion of the riverway.

3. Maintaining views of the river from residences and maintaining visual screening of structures as viewed from the river are matters being considered in state rulemaking that will occur subsequent to completion of this plan. This is a level of detail not addressed in the plan.

4. Scenic quality is one of the outstandingly remarkable values for which the riverway was designated, and protecting scenic quality is a fundamentally

400 important element of this plan.

4 COMMENTS RESPONSES

5. Language has been changed in Appendix B to respond to the concern about 5 adequate dock length and to eliminate the implication that docks cannot extend beyond four feet. The dock width issue will be addressed in state rulemaking.

6. A “30% visibility rule” is not proposed in this plan. 6 7. Tall structures are likely to impact scenic quality to a greater degree than smaller structures. See the response to comment 4, above. 7 8. When the original plan was developed in the 1970s, the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the nation’s primary expert on soil stability, strongly recommended using the 12% slope figure to guard against increased erosion. In developing this plan, the Natural Resource 8 Conservation Service (the SCS’s successor agency) reported that data collected in the last 20 years showed even stronger evidence that the slope standard should remain at 12%.

9. While restrictions on camping need to be limited to accommodate public inter-

401 est in that activity, camping activity cannot be permitted to destroy the very 9 resources the agencies are charged to protect and the campers are there to enjoy.

10. Technological advances have made it possible to operate at high speeds in very 10 narrow and shallow areas. The plan proposes continuing the existing no-wake rule in back channels. 11 11. The plan proposes a 40 mph speed limit south of the north limits of Stillwater during daylight hours, and a 20 mph speed limit at night. Safety is a relevant issue with respect to extremely high speeds in daylight hours, but safety is only a small part of the justification for speed limits on the riverway. The riverway was designated for its scenic and recreational characteristics, and there is ample Organizations andBusinesses justification to slow traffic to enhance visitor enjoyment. It is analogous to the 12 difference in speed limit on an interstate highway versus a scenic road.

12. The plan has been revised to propose prohibiting waterskiing north of 13 Stillwater and to establish a 24-hour speed limit of 20 mph between the north limits of Stillwater and the Arcola Sandbar. The river there is very narrow and lends itself to more passive activities. Waterskiing is proposed to continue to be allowed south of the north limits of Stillwater. 14 S´ COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

13. Density standards used on other water bodies were modified to recognize the unique circumstances found on the St. Croix River.

14. The partnership team would have no regulatory authority. It would review local 15 government land use decisions for consistency and provide comments to the C OORDINATION Lower St. Croix Management Commission.

15. A prohibition on personal watercraft north of the north limits of Stillwater is an action taken by the National Park Service consistent with management of personal watercraft throughout the National Park System. The action was taken independent of this plan. 402 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. There are portions of Prescott, Afton, and Hudson that have blufflines within the riverway boundary. Steep slopes deserve protection regardless of whether or not they lie within municipal boundaries.

2. Comment noted.

1 403 Organizations andBusinesses

2 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

3. Considering the need to protect the values of a national scenic riverway, a 100- foot setback from the water’s edge is certainly appropriate.

4. See response to St. Croix County comment 3. 3 C OORDINATION

4 404 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. As noted on page 18 of the draft plan, the Stillwater-Houlton bridge issue is being addressed in a separate environmental impact process.

2. Comment noted.

405 1

2 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 406 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. See the response to St. Croix Waterways Association comment 2. 407

1 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. See the response to Lake St. Croix Beach comment 13.

3. It is illegal to bring a craft infested with zebra mussels into the St. Croix River; all vessels are subject to inspection on entering the St. Croix from the

Mississippi River. It is important that all government vessels be inspected to C OORDINATION ensure compliance.

3 408 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Development of a regional, interstate transportation and land use strategy is beyond the scope of this plan. The managing agencies are exploring such a strategy, however, in discussions with state transportation agencies and others. 409

1 Organizations andBusinesses COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

2. Comment noted.

3. Comment noted.

4. See the response to Upper Mississippi Waterway Association comment 3. C OORDINATION

2 410

4 Organizations and Businesses RESPONSES COMMENTS

411 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. Comment noted. C OORDINATION

1 412 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Comment noted.

2. Congress directed that the National Park Service and the two states cooperatively manage the riverway and the Lower St. Croix Management Commission was created to provide a vehicle for that cooperative management. Responsibility for management decisions is limited to those three agencies. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission was invited to serve on the Lower St. Croix Management Commission as a nonvoting member to provide 1 public perspective. The plan proposes an additional nonvoting member representing the Lower St. Croix Partnership Team to provide another public perspective.

3. The general policy statement is derived from a similar statement in appendix A 2 of the 1976 Master Plan. The plan proposes a general policy statement appear in state rules. 3 4. See the response to St. Croix Waterways Association, comment 8.

413 5. The managing agencies provide technical assistance to local governments on a 4 regular basis. However, it would not be appropriate to spend public funds to survey all lands within the riverway for the purpose of providing site plan 5 details for private land developers.

6 6. Steep slopes deserve protection regardless of their location.

7. See the response to comment 6 above. 7 8. See the response to comment 5 above. 8 9. See the response to St. Croix County comment 3.

9 Organizations andBusinesses 10. The plan has been changed to provide for a 35-foot structure height limit in the 10 rural residential district.

11. Comment noted. 11 COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

12 12. The “uppermost point” issue will be addressed in state rulemaking subsequent 13 to completion of this plan.

13. See the response to Afton comment 1.

14 C OORDINATION 14. Comment noted.

15 15. See the response to St. Croix County comment 3.

16. The plan has been revised to eliminate reference to a range of speeds.

16 17. See the response to comment 2 above.

17 414 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. In creating the riverway, Congress specified that the northern 27 miles of the river segment be administered by the National Park Service and the southern 25 miles be administered by the states. See page 292 of the draft plan.

2. The boundary has been shifted from the north end of the Twin Springs Subdivision to the Arcola High Bridge.

1 415

2 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

3. The proposed public water access is intended to provide free access to anglers, who generally use the river during off-peak periods. While the access would be used during busy times and would add watercraft to an already crowded resource, it would be unfair to suggest the general public is responsible for

reducing crowding when watercraft from private homes, private marinas, and C OORDINATION fee-based access points are not. 416

3 COMMENTS RESPONSES 417 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The plan does not propose creating the no-wake zone recommended in this comment. C OORDINATION 418

1 COMMENTS RESPONSES 419 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 420 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. The plan has been revised to propose a minimum lot size of one acre of net project area, but in no case less than 2.5 acres. 421

1 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 422 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Local governments are encouraged to protect the viewshed outside the formal riverway boundary by voluntarily extending their riverway controls to all lands within the viewshed.

423 1 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 424 COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. Appendixes A and B will provide guidance for development of state land and water surface use regulations.

1 425 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION C OORDINATION 426 COMMENTS RESPONSES 427 Individuals COMMENTS RESPONSES C NUTTO AND ONSULTATION

1. The plan has been revised to encourage landowners to remove buckthorn. Management of invasive exotic plant species will also be addressed in development of state land use regulations. C OORDINATION 428

1 Appendixes / Bibliography / Preparers APPENDIX A: LAND USE REGULATION GUIDELINES

The purpose of this appendix is to provide Rivers Act (PL 90-542), the Lower St. Croix suggested zoning guidelines for lands within Act (PL 92-560), the Minnesota Lower St. the riverway boundary (as published in the Croix Act (M.S. 103F.351 and the Wisconsin Federal Register), between the dam at St. Lower St. Croix Act W.S. 30.27), the (local Croix Falls / Taylors Falls and the confluence government) hereby adopts the following with the Mississippi River. provisions to be applicable to the St. Croix River District of the (local government) as Rationale: Local governments adopt zoning herein designated, and as a section of the (local ordinances based on state rules. Special zoning government) zoning code.” guidelines are needed in the riverway to protect the river’s outstanding values as discussed All codes will include the following in the cooperative management plan. Lot de- definitions: velopment standards are needed to protect steep slopes to minimize erosion, prevent Bluffline is the top of a slope preservation water quality degradation, and prevent nega- zone. tive visual impacts. River setback standards are Net project area means developable land area needed for structures to minimize erosion, minus slope preservation zones, floodplains, prevent water quality degradation, and prevent road rights-of-way, required setbacks, and negative visual impacts. Minimum lot width wetlands. and lot size standards are needed to ensure that development in certain areas does not change St. Croix River District includes all lands with- the character of the setting and to prevent addi- in the riverway boundary (as published in the tional impacts as seen from the river. Structure Federal Register) between the dam at St. Croix height standards are needed to help limit visual Falls / Taylors Falls and the confluence of the impacts. Limits on types of uses are needed to Mississippi River. ensure that additional development does not Slope preservation zone means areas with change the character of the setting and to help slopes greater than 12%, with the horizontal prevent additional impacts. Vegetative interval of measurement not exceeding 50 feet. management standards are needed to protect scenic character, reduce erosion potential, Visually inconspicuous means difficult to see maintain and restore historically significant or not readily noticeable in summer months as plant communities, and enhance diversity. viewed from the river. Standards for nonconforming or substandard All codes will include the following structures are needed to minimize visual and standards: natural resource impacts. In slope preservation zones, there will be no Ordinances will have a general policy state- structures and no grading or filling, and vege- ment based on the following: “In order to tation management will follow standards des- reduce the effects of overcrowding and poorly cribed elsewhere. Structures will be set back at planned shoreland development, to provide least 40 feet from all blufflines. sufficient space on lots for sanitary facilities, to minimize flood damage, to maintain prop- Bluffline setback: On blufflines visible from erty values, and to preserve and maintain the the river (without vegetation), structures will exceptional scenic, natural and cultural charac- meet the following setback requirements: 40 teristics of the waters and related lands of the feet in river town, small town-historic, and Lower St. Croix River Valley in a manner small town districts; 100 feet in the rural resi- consistent with the National Wild and Scenic

431 APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS dential district; 200 feet in the conservation conservation district. Structure height will be district. measured between the lowest exposed surface of the structure on the side facing the river and Structure color: In all districts, structures des- the uppermost point of the structure. ignated as historic or in designated historic districts may use earthtone colors, or may use Vegetation management: All districts will colors appropriate to the period in history for require a restriction on disturbing vegetation in which they were designated. Other new or slope preservation zones within 200 feet of the expanded structures will conform to the fol- rivers edge and within 40 feet of blufflines to lowing standards: Earthtone color will be used protect scenic character and reduce the poten- for all new or expanded structures in all dis- tial for erosion. Vegetative management stan- tricts except the river town district. In the river dards will not prevent the removal of diseased town district, structure color requirements will or hazard trees, designated noxious weeds, or be determined by local ordinance. exotic species. These standards will also allow management practices to restore and promote Minimum lot width: In the rivertown zoning preferred plant communities, such as suc- district, minimum lot width will be determined cessional climax forest and presettlement by the community’s underlying zoning ordi- disturbed oak savanna ecotypes. Vegetative nance. In other districts, the following mini- screening of structures will be emphasized mum lot width standards will apply (at build- over maintenance of preferred plant communi- ing line and at side nearest and parallel to the ties. Management actions will encourage, but river): 100 feet in the small town-historic and not require, maintenance and restoration of small town districts, 200 feet in the rural preferred plant communities on private lands. residential district, 250 feet in the conservation district. Codes will include appropriate sections of the following concerning permitted uses: In the Minimum lot size: In the river town, small rivertown district, permitted uses will be those town, and small town historic districts, mini- allowed by the community’s underlying zoning mum lot size will be determined by the com- ordinance. In the small town-historic and small munity’s underlying zoning ordinance. In the town districts, permitted uses include single- rural residential and conservation districts, all family structures; other uses permitted by the lots will be a minimum of 2.5 acres and con- comunity’s underlying zoning ordinance may tain at least 1 acre of net project area. Where be allowed as conditional uses. In the rural city sewer services are not available, each lot residential and conservation districts, permitted will have adequate land area for one principal uses include single-family structures and agri- dwelling structure and two onsite sewage culture. In the rivertown and small town- treatment systems. historic districts, there will be historic preservation ordinances and historic-theme architect- River setback: Structures will meet the fol- ural standards for new development. In the lowing setback requirements from the river’s small town-historic and small town districts, edge: 100 feet in the rivertown, small town- new commercial and multifamily uses will not historic, and small town districts and 200 feet be allowed, but commercial and multifamily in the rural residential and conservation uses will become conditionally permitted uses districts. and not be “nonconforming.” Permitted uses in the rural residential and conservation districts Structure height: New or expanded structures include waysides, rest areas and overlooks, will meet the following maximum height re- government resource management, and public quirements: 45 feet in the rivertown district; 35 and quasi-public natural resource educational feet in the small town-historic, small town, and facilities. rural residential districts; and 25 feet in the

432 TABLE A-1: PROPOSED LAND USE REGULATIONS EXISTING STATE RULES AND PROPOSED RULES WITH RATIONALE FOR CHANGE Topic MN Rules WI Rules Proposal Rationale Bluffline setback – 40’ 40’ 40’ Existing standards ade- river town, small quately protect resources in town, small town developed areas historic Bluffline setback – 100’ 100’ 100’ Existing standards ade- rural quately protect resources Bluffline setback – 100’ 100’ 200’ Greater level of protection conservation needed for these very natural areas Structure color – Earthtone Earthtone Local standards* Structure color standards river town determined by local ordinance to meet riverway character. Structure color – Earthtone Earthtone Earthtone* Existing standards rural, conservation, adequately protect small town, small resources town historic Minimum lot width 100/150’** 100’ Determined by Local zoning is adequate to – river town underlying local protect lot width in zoning code developed urban areas Minimum lot width 100/150’** 100’ 100’ Existing standards ade- – small town, small quately protect resources; town historic uniformity between states desirable Minimum lot width 200 200 200 Existing standards rural adequately protect resources Minimum lot width 200 200 250 Greater level of protection – conservation needed for these very natural areas Minimum lot size – 20,000 sq.ft./1 Local zoning in Local zoning*** Local zoning is adequate to river town, small acre** effect 1/1/76 protect lot size in developed town, small town urban areas, provided there historic is adequate area for on-site sewage treatment Minimum lot size – 2.5 acres 1 acre of net 2.5 acres and To protect density, rural, conservation project area**** contain at least 1 character, and resource acre of net project values of these areas, a area, whichever is minimum lot size is greater *** applicable River setback in 100’ 100’ 100’ Existing standards river town, small adequately protect town, small town resources historic River setback in 200’ 200’ 200’ Existing standards rural, conservation adequately protect resources Structure height – 35’ 35’ 45’ Greater flexibility river town appropriate for developed urban areas

433 Topic MN Rules WI Rules Proposal Rationale Structure height – 35’ 35’ 35’ Existing standards small town, small adequately protect town historic, rural resources

Structure height – 35’ 35’ 25’ Increased level of conservation protection needed Vegetation Vegetative cutting Vegetative cutting Vegetative cutting Interstate standardization management restricted within restricted within restricted within needed to protect visual (all districts) 100 feet of river in 200 feet of river; 200 feet of river- character; flexibility river town, small within 40 feet of edge; within 40 valuable for restoration of town, small town bluffline; on steep feet of bluffline; native species historic; 200 feet slopes; exemption on steep slopes; of river in rural, provided for exemption for res- conservation; on woodland tax law, toration of pre- steep slopes forest crop law ferred plant communities in areas where no impact on screening of structures Permitted uses – Conservancy, Conservancy, All uses permitted Increased flexibility river town agriculture, agriculture, single- by local zoning appropriate in developed single-family family residential, urban areas residential, parks; parks; other uses other uses permitted by local permitted by local zoning zoning will be conditionally permitted Permitted uses – Conservancy, Conservancy, agri- Conservancy, Some increase in flexibility, small town, small agriculture, culture, single- agriculture, single- especially for existing town historic single-family family residential, family residential, structures, appropriate in residential, parks; parks; other uses parks; other uses these largely developed other uses permitted by local permitted by local areas permitted by local zoning zoning will be zoning will be conditionally conditionally permitted. permitted Permitted uses – Conservancy, Conservancy, Conservancy, Existing standards rural, conservation agriculture, agriculture, single- agriculture, single- adequately protect single-family family residential, family residential, resources residential, parks parks parks

*A structure designated as historic or located in a designated historic district may use colors appropriate to the period in history for which it was designated.

**Difference in standard based on whether lot is sewered or unsewered.

***Where city sewer services are not available, each lot must have adequate land area for one principal dwelling structure and two on-site sewage treatment systems.

****Net project area means developable land area minus slope preservation zones, floodplains, road rights-of-way, required setbacks, and wetlands.

434 APPENDIX B: WATER SURFACE USE GUIDELINES

Watercraft speed regulations were first estab- WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS lished on the lower St. Croix River in the mid- 1960s in the form of limited slow-no-wake zones in the Hudson, Kinnickinnic, and Pres- Active Social Recreation cott narrows. Those limits were established by order of the Washington County Sheriff. In this district are found large numbers of both As boating activity on the river grew rapidly in people and watercraft. The types of boats the 1960s and 1970s, there were increasing found in this area would vary widely: while concerns that the river was becoming unsafe most would be motorized, nonmotorized and that additional speed regulations would watercraft may be present. Boat speeds would need to be imposed. The Scenic River Study of also vary significantly; they would be strictly the Lower St. Croix, prepared in 1971 as controlled in some limited areas (such as directed by Congress (National Wild and narrows areas), but the highest boat speeds Scenic Rivers Act, 1968), concluded boating allowed on the river would be in this district. use of the river was by then unacceptably overcrowded and action was needed to reduce the perceived hazards associated with speeding boats in close proximity to one another, to Moderate Recreation enhance safety and to reduce the impacts of boat wakes. This district may contain large numbers of watercraft at times, but use in this area would Following designation of the Lower St. Croix tend to be more moderate in terms of numbers (Lower St. Croix Act, 1972) the interagency of people and watercraft on the water, and in planning team undertook development of a terms of the intensity of activity. A variety of management approach for regulating boating. boat types, primarily motorized watercraft, The result was appendix B of the Master Plan may be present. Boats may travel at different (1976), which contained a framework for state speeds, but tend toward slower speeds than the and federal boating regulations. Based on that Active Social Recreation District, although framework, the states and the National Park faster than the Quiet Waters and Natural Service in 1977 imposed water surface use Waters districts. Boat speeds may be very regulations on the riverway. strictly controlled in some limited areas (such as narrows areas); there would be an overall In 1978 the Lower St. Croix Management limit on boat speeds. Commission developed a Riverway Manage- ment Policy Resolution that provided guidance for future changes in those regulations. Based on that guidance, the state-federal Quiet Waters regulations were amended in 1978, 1981, 1984, 1987, 1991 and 1996. This district would provide for low-impact boating activities, but during peak use periods The purpose of this appendix is to provide a large numbers of watercraft could be encoun- framework for future changes in the regula- tered. Management would be directed toward tions. It is based on the following four water recreational uses that leave the surface of the management districts: river largely undisturbed. Both motorized and nonmotorized watercraft would be able to use these areas. Watercraft speeds would be kept low to preserve the river’s tranquil quality.

435 APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

Natural Waters areas of parts of the Lower St. Croix since the 1960s. They exist to increase safety, reduce This district would provide an experience resource damage and preserve diverse emphasizing a sense of peace and quiet, with experiences. Slow-no-wake speed limits have some opportunities for solitude. Watercraft historically been established in areas that numbers would usually be very low. Most exceed density standards. watercraft would be human-powered. Water- craft speeds would be kept low. High-Water No-Wake

BOATING MANAGEMENT During periods of high water, the river contacts the shore in areas that are highly The following regulatory approach to susceptible to erosion. Watercraft traveling at managing boating is recommended: speeds above a slow-no-wake speed produce wakes that accelerate erosion on these unstable shore areas, so speeds need to be restricted Speed Limits during these high-water events. All boating should be limited to a slow-no-wake speed Speed limits should be imposed on the St. whenever river levels reach or exceed 683 feet Croix as follows, based on management area as measured at the Stillwater gauge. classification in the plan:

Active Social Recreation: 40 mph between sunrise and sunset, and 20 mph Density Policy between sunset and sunrise The potential need for speed regulations Moderate Recreation: 20 mph should be studied when density exceeds 15 acres of water per moving boat, and speed Quiet Waters: slow speed, but in no case regulations need to be imposed when density greater than 15 mph exceeds 10 acres of water per moving boat. Natural: slow-no-wake

Shore Activity Zone Craft Type Restrictions

A shore activity zone is needed to reduce boat Amphibious craft should not be permitted to speeds near shore to ensure the safety of drive onto publicly owned shore areas except swimmers and moored and beached boats and at boat ramps. Personal watercraft are required to prevent erosion. Boat speeds should be to operate at no-wake speeds near all shore, restricted to slow-no-wake within 100 feet of including islands and swimmers. This distance all shore, including islands, within 100 feet of is set by state law and is 150 feet in Minnesota swimmers, and within 100 feet of and 200 feet in Wisconsin. nonmotorized craft. Boat Noise

Slow-No-Wake Zones in Narrows Areas Watercraft noise limits are established by state law in each state. Slow-no-wake zones have reduced boat speed (to increase safety, reduce resource damage and preserve diverse experiences) in narrows

436 APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

ACCESS Single riparian parcels in common ownership may be allowed a combinaton of berthage and Large numbers of watercraft use the Lower St. moorage that total one watercraft per buildable Croix on summer weekends. Management frontage lot equivalent to what would be issues associated with high use include poten- allowed if the property was developed for tial safety problems, potential resource damage single-family homes. The total number of and strong management interest in preserving watercraft must be served by one common the existing diversity of recreational uses. In dock or pier. addition to water surface use controls aimed at managing existing use, access controls are Resource limitations of the site and river justified to prevent significant growth in cannot be exceeded. boating activity. Access to the river comes through private property, unlimited access Mississippi River from the Mississippi River at the mouth of the St. Croix, and public and quasi-public access The states should work with other agencies to from boat ramps and marinas. improve the recreational appeal of this portion of the Mississippi as a way to encourage Private Property boaters to stay on that river.

Residential riparian owners have a right to Boat Ramps access the water through their property, but the exercise of that right is limited to their per- There should be no new or expanded boat sonal needs. Unless limited by other require- ramps or car-trailer parking on the Lower St. ments, a dock may extend waterward the Croix, except for completion of the Minnesota greater distance of: 1) a boat length, 2) the public water access planned in the stretch of distance to the 4-foot water depth contour (at river near the A.S. King Generating Plant. normal low water, which is 675 feet elevation State and local units of government are from Stillwater south), or 3) the distance to a strongly encouraged to restrict parking deeper contour if required by the draft of the adjacent to all launch ramps, public and craft using the dock but in no case should the private, on lands under their jurisdiction. dock extend beyond the 100-foot shore activity zone. The states should establish standards for allowable dock size. Marinas

Mooring buoys must be the minimum size and New marinas should not be allowed on the number necessary (in combination with riverway, and existing marinas should not be berthage) to meet the owner’s personal needs permitted to expand in any way, including dry and must be placed within the 100-foot shore storage. Marina capacity should not be activity zone adjacent to the owner’s property. transferred from one marina to another.

437 APPENDIX C: LEGISLATION (pp. 438-444)

Includes:

- Federal Wild & Scenic Rivers Legislation (Public Law, 1972-1975)

- Minnesota Statute 103F.351 (Original page substituted with comparable text)

- Wisconsin Statutes 30.25-30.275 (Original page substituted with comparable text)

NOTE: Appendix C (Legislation) has been omitted from this electronic document because it did not scan in a legible manner. Comparable text substitutions have been made for Minnesota and Wisconsin Statutes. For questions regarding Appendix C topics, contact:

Superintendent, Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway P.O. Box 728 St. Croix Falls, WI 52024-0708 Phone: (715) 483-3284 email: [email protected]

PAGES OMITTED: (pp. 438-444) MINNESOTA STATUTES:

LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER

103F.351 Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic River Act.

Subdivision 1. Findings. The lower St. Croix River, between the dam near Taylors Falls and its confluence with the Mississippi River, constitutes a relatively undeveloped scenic and recreational asset lying close to the largest densely populated area of the state. The preservation of this unique scenic and recreational asset is in the public interest and will benefit the health and welfare of the citizens of the state. The state recognizes and concurs in the inclusion of the lower St. Croix River into the federal wild and scenic rivers system by the Lower St. Croix River Act of the 92nd Congress, Public Law Number 92-560. The authorizations of the state are necessary to the preservation and administration of the lower St. Croix River as a wild and scenic river, particularly in relation to those portions of the river that are to be jointly preserved and administered as a wild and scenic river by this state and Wisconsin.

Subd. 2. Comprehensive master plan. (a) The commissioner of natural resources shall join with the secretary of the United States Department of the Interior and the appropriate agency of the state of Wisconsin in the preparation of the comprehensive master plan relating to boundaries, classification, and development required by section 3 of the Lower St. Croix River Act of 1972, and by section 3(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law Number 90-542.

(b) The commissioner shall make the proposed comprehensive master plan available to affected local governmental bodies, shoreland owners, conservation and outdoor recreation groups, and the general public.

(c) Not less than 30 days after making the information available, the commissioner shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed comprehensive master plan in the county seat of each county which contains a portion of the area covered by the comprehensive master plan, in the manner provided in chapter 14.

Subd. 3. Acquisition of land and easements. The commissioner of natural resources may acquire land, scenic easements, or other interests in land by gift, purchase, or other lawful means, and may acquire scenic easement interests in land by eminent domain. The acquisitions must be proposed for acquisition by the state by the comprehensive master plan.

Subd. 4. Rules. (a) The commissioner of natural resources shall adopt rules that establish guidelines and specify standards for local zoning ordinances applicable to the area within the boundaries covered by the comprehensive master plan. (substituted for original) (b) The guidelines and standards must be consistent with this section, the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the federal Lower St. Croix River Act of 1972. The standards specified in the guidelines must include:

(1) the prohibition of new residential, commercial, or industrial uses other than those that are consistent with the above mentioned acts; and

(2) the protection of riverway lands by means of acreage, frontage, and setback requirements on development.

(c) Cities, counties, and towns lying within the areas affected by the guidelines shall adopt zoning ordinances complying with the guidelines and standards within the time schedule prescribed by the commissioner.

Subd. 5. Administration. The commissioner of natural resources in cooperation with appropriate federal authorities and authorities of the state of Wisconsin shall administer state lands and waters in conformance with this section, the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the federal Lower St. Croix River Act of 1972.

HIST: 1990 c 391 art 6 s 40

(substituted for original) 93-94 WISCONSIN STATUTES NAVIGABLE WATERS, HARBORS AND NAVIGATION

30.25 Wolf River protection. 30.25(1) (1) Except as provided under sub. (2), no person may make any effort to improve the navigation on the Wolf River north of the southern boundary of Shawano County nor shall any dam be authorized for construction in that portion of the Wolf River. Any permit issued or in effect by virtue of or under authority of any order or law authorizing the construction of any dam in the Wolf River in Langlade County is void. This declaration does not affect permits for or the operation or maintenance of any dam in existence on August 24, 1963.

(2) A person may engage in a minor dredging project to improve access to or to improve the aesthetics of the Wolf River in Shawano County if a permit issued by the department under s. 30.20 authorizes the project.

30.25 - ANNOT. History: 1987 a. 374.

30.26 Wild rivers. 30.26(1) (1) Legislative intent. In order to afford the people of this state an opportunity to enjoy natural streams, to attract out-of-state visitors and assure the well-being of our tourist industry, it is in the interest of this state to preserve some rivers in a free flowing condition and to protect them from development; and for this purpose a system of wild rivers is established, but no river shall be designated as wild without legislative act.

(2) Designation. The Pike River in Marinette County, and the Pine River and its tributary Popple River in Florence and Forest counties are designated as wild rivers and shall receive special management to assure their preservation, protection and enhancement of their natural beauty, unique recreational and other inherent values in accordance with guidelines outlined in this section.

(3) (intro.) Duties of department. The department in connection with wild rivers shall:

(a) Provide active leadership in the development of a practical management policy.

(b) Consult other state agencies and planning committees.

(c) Collaborate with county and town boards and local development committees or boards in producing a mutually acceptable program for the preservation, protection and enhancement of the rivers.

(d) Administer the management program.

(e) Seek the cooperation of the U.S. forest service, timber companies, county foresters and private landowners in implementing land use practices to accomplish the objectives of the management policy. (substituted for original) (f) Act as coordinator under this subsection. 30.27 Lower St. Croix River preservation. (1) Purpose. The Lower St. Croix River, between the dam near St. Croix Falls and its confluence with the Mississippi River, constitutes a relatively undeveloped scenic and recreational asset. The preservation of this unique scenic and recreational asset is in the public interest and will benefit the health and welfare of the citizens of Wisconsin. The state of Wisconsin is therefore determined that the Lower St. Croix River be included in the national wild and scenic rivers system under the wild and scenic rivers act, as amended, 16 USC 1271 to 1287, and the Lower St. Croix River act of 1972, 16 USC 1274 (a) (9). The purpose of this section is to ensure the continued eligibility of the Lower St. Croix River for inclusion in the national wild and scenic rivers system and to guarantee the protection of the wild, scenic and recreational qualities of the river for present and future generations.

(2) Zoning guidelines. (a) (intro.) As soon as possible after May 7, 1974, the department shall adopt, by rule, guidelines and specific standards for local zoning ordinances which apply to the banks, bluffs and bluff tops of the lower St. Croix river. The guidelines shall designate the boundaries of the areas to which they apply. In drafting the guidelines and standards, the department shall consult with appropriate officials of counties, cities, villages and towns lying within the affected area. The standards specified in the guidelines shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Prohibition of new residential, commercial and industrial uses, and the issuance of building permits therefor, where such uses are inconsistent with the purposes of this section.

2. Establishment of acreage, frontage and setback requirements where compliance with such requirements will result in residential, commercial or industrial uses which are consistent with the purposes of this section.

(b) The standards established under par. (a) shall be consistent with but may be more restrictive than any pertinent guidelines and standards promulgated by the secretary of the interior under the wild and scenic rivers act. If it appears to the department that the purposes of this section may be thwarted or the wild, scenic or recreational values of the river adversely affected prior to the implementation of rules under this section, the department may exercise its emergency rule-making authority under s. 227.24, and such rules shall be effective and implemented and enforced under sub. (3) until permanent rules are implemented under sub. (3).

(3) Implementation. Counties, cities, villages and towns lying, in whole or in part, within the areas affected by the guidelines adopted under sub. (2) are empowered to and shall adopt zoning ordinances complying with the guidelines and standards adopted under sub. (2) within 30 days after their effective date. If any county, city, village or town does not (substituted for original) adopt an ordinance within the time limit prescribed, or if the department determines that an adopted ordinance does not satisfy the requirements of the guidelines and standards, the department shall immediately adopt such an ordinance. An ordinance adopted by the department shall be of the same effect as if adopted by the county, city, village or town, and the local authorities shall administer and enforce the ordinance in the same manner as if the county, city, village or town had adopted it. No zoning ordinance so adopted may be modified nor may any variance therefrom be granted by the county, city, village or town without the written consent of the department, except nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a county, city, village or town from adopting an ordinance more restrictive than that adopted by the department.

30.27 - ANNOT. History: 1973 c. 197; 1983 a. 192; 1985 a. 182 s. 57; 1995 a. 225.

30.275 Scenic urban waterways. (1) Legislative intent. In order to afford the people of this state an opportunity to enjoy water-based recreational activities in close proximity to urban areas, to attract out-of-state visitors and to improve the status of the state's tourist industry, it is the intent of the legislature to improve some rivers and their watersheds. For this purpose a system of scenic urban waterways is established, but no river shall be designated as a scenic urban waterway without legislative act.

(2) (intro.) Designation. The following waters are designated scenic urban waterways and shall receive special management as provided under this section:

(a) The Illinois Fox River and its watershed and the Fox River, extending from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay, and its watershed.

(b) (intro.) The Rock River consisting of all of the following:

1. The river from the point that the river flows into the city of Watertown to the point that it flows out of the city of Watertown.

2. The river from the point it flows into the city of Jefferson to the point it flows out of the city of Fort Atkinson.

3. The river from the point it flows into the city of Janesville to the Illinois border.

(3) (intro.) Duties of department. The department in connection with scenic urban waterways shall:

(a) Provide active leadership in the development of a practical management policy.

(b) Consult with other state agencies and planning committees and organizations. (substituted for original) (c) Collaborate with municipal governing bodies and their development committees or boards in producing a mutually acceptable program for the preservation, protection and enhancement of the rivers and watersheds.

(d) Administer the management program.

(e) Seek the cooperation of municipal officials and private landowners in implementing land use practices to accomplish the objectives of the management policy.

(f) Act as coordinator under this section.

(g) Develop the Wisconsin Fox River scenic urban waterway, as designated in sub. (2), as a historic and recreational site.

(4) (intro.) Department authority. The department in connection with scenic urban waterways may:

(a) Acquire and develop land for parks, open spaces, scenic easements, public access, automobile parking, fish and wildlife habitat, woodlands, wetlands and trails.

(b) Lay out and develop scenic drives.

(d) Provide grants to municipalities, lake sanitary districts, as defined in s. 30.50 (4q), and public inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts to undertake any of the activities under pars. (a) to (c).

(5) Use of Wisconsin conservation corps. To the greatest extent practicable, the department shall encourage and utilize the Wisconsin conservation corps for appropriate projects.

30.275 - ANNOT. History: 1983 a. 410; 1985 a. 29; 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 31, 336, 352, 359; 1995 A. 349.

(substituted for original) APPENDIX D: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation (pp. 445-472)

– a listing of federally listed species of concern for Minnesota and Wisconsin, potentially affected by the new riverway management plan.

NOTE: Appendix D (Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation) has been omitted from this electronic document because it did not scan in a legible manner. For questions regarding this topic, contact:

Superintendent, Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway P.O. Box 728 St. Croix Falls, WI 52024-0708 Phone: (715) 483-3284 email: [email protected]

PAGES OMITTED: (pp. 445-472) APPENDIX E: FEDERAL & STATE LISTED SPECIES OF CONCERN AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES

Wisconsin Cerulean Warbler, Dendroica cerulea (Polk Co., WI) Lake Sturgeon, Acinpenser fulvescens (Polk Co., WI) Blue Sucker, Cycleptus elongatus (Polk Co., WI) Elktoe Mussel, Alasmidonta marginata (Polk Co., WI) Salamander Mussel, Simpsonaias ambiqua (Polk Co., WI) Spectacle Case Pearly Mussel, Cumberlandia monodonta (Polk Co., WI) Snuffbox Mussel, Epioblasma triquetra (Polk Co., WI) St. Croix Snaketail Dragonfly, Ophiogomphus anomalis (Polk Co., WI) Prairie Fame Flower, Talinum rugospermum (Polk Co., WI) Bog Bluegrass, Poa paludigina (Polk Co., WI) Oregon Woodsia, Woodsia oregana var cathcartiana (Polk Co., WI)

Minnesota Plains Spotted Skunk, Spilogale putoris (Washington Co., MN) Migrant Loggerhead Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus migrans (Washington Co., MN) Creulean Warbler, Dendroica cerulea (Washington Co., MN) Blandings Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) False Map Turtle, Graptemys pseudogeographica (Washington Co., MN) Lake Sturgeon, Acinpenser fulvescens (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Crystal Darter, Ammocrypta asperella (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Blue Sucker, Cycleptus elongatus (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Salamander Mussel, Simpsonaias ambiqua (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Spectacle Case Pearly Mussel, Cumberlandia monodonta (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Elktoe Mussel, Alasmidonta marginata (Washington Co., MN) Elusive Clubtail Dragonfly, Gomphus notatus (Washington Co., MN) St. Croix Snaketail Dragonfly, Ophiogomphus susbecha (Washington Co., MN) Extra-striped Snaketail Dragonfly, Ophiogomphus anomalis (Washington Co., MN) Sylvan Hygrotus Diving Beetle, Hygrotus sylvanus (Washington Co., MN) Bog Bluegrass, Poa paludigina (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Hill’s Thistle, Cirsium hillii (Washington Co., MN) Butternut, Junlans cinerea (Washington Co., MN) Southern brook lamprey, Ichthyomyzon gagei (Washington County, MN)

State Special Concern Species Wisconsin Prothonotary Warbler, Protonotaria citrea (Polk Co., WI) Louisiana Waterthrush, Seiurus motacilla (Polk Co., WI) Timber Rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus (Pierce Co., WI) Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens (Polk Co., WI) American Eel, Anguilla rostrata (Pierce Co., WI) Mud Darter, Etheostoma asprigene (St. Croix Co., WI) Western Sand Darter, Etheostoma clarum (Polk/St.Croix Co., WI) Banded Killifish, Fundulus diaphanus (St. Croix/Pierce Co., WI) Weed Shiner, Notropis texanus (Polk/St. Croix/Pierce Co., WI) Pugnose Minnow, Opsopoeodus emiliae (Polk/St. Croix Co., WI)

473 APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX

Elktoe Mussel, Alasmidonta marginata (Polk Co., WI) Creek Heelsplitter Mussel, Lasmigona compressa (Polk Co., WI) Round Pigtoe Mussel, Pleurobema sintoxia (Polk/St. Croix Co., WI) Inornate Ringlet Butterfly, Coenonympha tullia (Polk Co., WI) Green-faced Clubtail, Gomphurus ventricosus/viridifrons (Polk Co., WI) Rapids Clubtail, Gomphus quadricolor (St. Croix Co., WI) St. Croix Snaketail, Ophiogomphus susbencha (Polk Co., WI) Dragon Sagewort/Wormwood, Artemisia dracunculus (Polk Co., WI) Villous/Silky Prairie Clover, Dalea villosa (Polk/St. Croix/Pierce Co.., WI) Climbing Fumitory, Adlumia fungosa (Polk Co., WI) Dwarf Milkweed, Asclepias ovalifolia (Polk Co., WI) Yellow Evening Primrose, Calylophus serrulatus (St. Croix Co., WI) Arrow-headed Rattle-box, Crotalaria sagittalis (St. Croix/Pierce Co., WI) Wild Licorice, Glycyrrhiza lepidota (St. Croix/Pierce Co., WI) Rock Switchwort, Minuartia dawsonensis (Polk/St. Croix Co., WI) Wilcox Panic Grass, Panicum wilcoxianum (Dichanthelium wilcoxianum (St. Croix Co., WI) James Cristatella, Polanisia jamesii (St. Croix Co., WI) Bird’s-eye Primrose, Primula mistassinica (St. Croix Co., WI) Pomme-de-prairie, Psoralea esculenta (Pierce Co., WI) Marsh Ragwort, Senecio congestus (Pierce Co., WI) Prairie Fame Flower, Talinum rugospermum (Polk Co., WI) Oregon Woodsia, Woodsia oregona var cathcartiana (Polk Co., WI) Short’s Rockcress, Arabis shortii (Polk Co., WI) Assiniboine Sedge, Carex assiniboinensis (Polk Co., WI) Paper Pondshell, Utterbackia imbecillis (Polk Co., WI) State Natural Communities Wisconsin Sterling Barrens Natural Community (Polk Co., WI) Wolf Creek Sedge Meadow: (Polk Co., WI) Interstate Lowland Park & Downs (Polk Co., WI) Dalles of the St. Croix River (Polk Co., WI) Interstate State Park (Polk Co., WI) Peaslee and Rice Lakes (Polk Co., WI) Philadelphia Community (Polk Co., WI) Cedar Bend Bottoms (Polk Co., WI) St. Croix Islands (St. Croix Co., WI) Indianhead Scout Camp Woods (St. Croix Co., WI) Hudson Terrace Prairie (St. Croix Co., WI) Kinnickinnic River Gorge and Delta (Pierce Co., WI)

State Special Concern Habitat Heron Rookery - Rice Lake (St. Croix Co., WI) State Special Concern Species Minnesota Five-line Skunk, Eumeces fasciatus (Chisago Co., MN) Eastern Pipistrelle, Pipistrellus subflavus (Washington Co., MN) Northern Myotis, Myotis septentrionalis (Washington Co., MN) Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatus (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Chisago/Washington Co., MN)

474 Appendix E: Federal and State Listed Species of Concern

Acadian Flycatcher, Empidonax virescens (Chisago Co., MN) Louisiana Waterthrush, Seiurus motacilla (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Cerulean Warbler, Dendroica cerulea (Washington Co., MN) Hooded Warbler, Wilsonia citrina (Washington Co., MN) Gopher Snake, Pituophis catenifer (Washington Co., MN) Racer, Coluber constrictor (Washington Co., MN) Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Crystal Darter, Ammocrypta asprella (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Blue Sucker, Cycleptus elongatus (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Pallid Shiner, Notropis amnis (Washington Co., MN ) Gilt Darter, Percina evides (Chisago/Washington Co., MN)) Skipjack Herring, Alosa chrysochloris (Washington Co., MN) Spike Mussel, Elliptio dilatata (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Black Sandshell Mussel, Ligumia recta (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Hickorynut Mussel, Obovaria olivaria (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Creek Heelsplitter Mussel, Lasmigona compressa (Chisago Co., MN) Fluted-shell Mussel, Lasmigona costata (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Stemless Tick-trefoil, Desmodium nudiflorum (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) American Ginseng, Panax quinquefolius (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Smooth Softshell, Apalone mutica (Washington Co., MN) Goldie’s Fern, Dryopteris goldiana (Washington Co., MN) White Wild Indigo, Baptisia alba (Washington Co., MN) Rock Sandwort, Minuartia dawsonensis (Washington Co., MN) Cattail Sedge, Carex typhina (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) American Water-pennywort, Hydrocotyle americana (Chisago/Washington Co., MN) Creeping Juniper, Juniperus horizontalis (Washington Co., MN) State Natural Communities Minnesota Franconia 32 Natural Area (Chisago Co., MN) Osceola Natural Area (Chisago Co., MN) Franconia 10 Natural Area (Chisago Co., MN) Interstate State Park (Chisago Co., MN) Cedar Bend White Pines/Falls Creek State Natural Area (Washington Co., MN) Browns Creek (Washington Co., MN) Corries Swamp/Hardwood Creek Wildlife Management Area (Washington Co., MN)

475 APPENDIX F: INVENTORY OF RELATED HISTORIC SITES

Cultural Resource State, County, City National Register Status Cushing Hotel MN-Washington-Afton Listed 1/85 Marine Historic District MN-Washington-on-St. Croix Listed 6/74 Marine Mill Site MN-Washington-on-St. Croix Listed 1/70 Angel’s Hill Historic District MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 4/72 John Daubney House MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 7/80 Franconia Historic District MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 6/80 Interstate State Park CCC/WPA Rustic MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 6/92 Style Historic District Interstate State Park CCC/WPA Rustic MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 6/92 Style Campground Munch-Roos House MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 11/70 Taylors Falls Public Library MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 10/70 Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 7/77 Freight House and Depot Mower House and Arcola Mill Site MN-Washington-Stillwater Surveyed – 6/80 The St. Croix Boom Site MN-Washington-Stillwater NHL - 11/66 St. Croix Boom Company House and MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 6/80 Barn St. Croix Lumber Mills Power House MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 4/82 The St. Croix River Access Site (21 MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 8/84 WA 49) Soo Line High Bridge MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed 7/76 Stillwater Bridge MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 5/89 Stillwater Commercial Historic District MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 3/92 Stillwater State Prison Historic District MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 7/86 Minnesota State Prison (old) MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 4/82 Warden’s Home - Minnesota State MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 12/74 Prison (old) Washington County Courthouse MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 8/71 Second Street Commercial Historic Wisconsin-St. Croix-Hudson Listed - 10/84 District John S. Moffat House Wisconsin-St. Croix-Hudson Listed - 7/74 William H. Phipps House Wisconsin-St. Croix-Hudson Listed - 6/87 The Dalles Bluff Site Wisconsin-Polk-St. Croix Falls Listed - 9/81 Geiger Building/Old Polk County Wisconsin-Polk-Osceola Listed - 12/78 Courthouse Alvah A. Heald House Wisconsin-Polk-Osceola Listed - 12/85 Lamar State Grade School, District No. Wisconsin-Polk- St. Croix Falls Listed - 3/82 5 - Lamar Community Center Thomas Henry Thompson House Wisconsin-Polk-St. Croix Falls Listed - 3/84 H.S. Miller Bank/Prescott City Hall Wisconsin-Pierce-Prescott Listed 8/94 Daniel Smith House Wisconsin-Pierce-Prescott Listed 3/84

476 APPENDIX F: INVENTORY OF RELATED HISTORIC SITES (Continued)

Cultural Resource State, County, City National Register Status Mitchell Jackson Farmhouse MN – Washington - Lakeland Listed 2/82 John Oliver House MN – Washington - Lakeland Listed 12/77 Pest House MN – Washington - Stillwater Listed 6/80 Banjamin B. Sheffield House MN – Washington –May Twnp. Listed 6/80 John Copas House MN– Washington–New Scandia Listed 7/80 Paul Munich House MN–Chisago –Franconia Twnp Listed 7/76

Historic Districts (all or portions in riverwy boundaries)

Stillwater Commercial Historic District MN – Washington – Stillwater Established 3/92 Marine on St.Croix Historic District MN - Washington – Marine Established 6/74 Franconia Historic District MN – Chisago – Franconia Twnp Established 6/80 Angel’s Hill Historic District MN – Chisago – Taylors Falls Established 4/72

477 APPENDIX G: ZEBRA MUSSEL TASK FORCE ACTION PLAN

1998 ACTION PLAN FOR THE LOWER ST. CROIX RIVER. March 1998

Background The zebra mussel is a small exotic bivalve introduced into the United States in the Great Lakes region in the late 1980's. It has since rapidly spread to connected water bodies, primarily through attachment onto commercial traffic. It has also expanded into inland waters in more than six states mainly through recreational boat traffic. This exotic has been documented to kill native unionid mussels, disrupt ecosystems, possibly impact fisheries, damage municipal water supply and industrial intakes, and damage or impact boats and water recreation. There are no environmentally safe control methods once it is established in a water body. In response to the threat of this exotic, the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) formed the St. Croix River Zebra Mussel Task Force in 1992 in cooperation with other agencies. The 1993 Zebra Mussel Response Plan was the initial plan for actions to try and keep the zebra mussel from spreading into the St. Croix River. The primary focus in the first years of the Task Force was to enlist public support through voluntary boating restrictions. However, the discovery in 1994 and 1995 of boats moored in the river with attached zebra mussels resulted in the decision that voluntary actions were not sufficient to prevent movement of the mussel. The NPS enacted emergency travel restrictions for the 1995 season, preventing northbound traffic past the Arcola sandbar unless the owner met specific conditions (see Appendix A).

Since 1994, recreational boats have been discovered with attached zebra mussels during routine monitoring dives. The

478 number of boats with attached mussels was lowest in 1994, sharply increased next year and has remained relatively constant since 1995 (Figure 1). All boats found during diving with mussels were ordered removed and cleaned by the state DNR=s. The continued presence of boats with attached mussels reinforces the need for continued monitoring and enforcement of zebra mussel laws. Despite these finds, there has been no evidence that mussels are established on fixed substrates in the river and the St. Croix is considered uninfested by the natural resource agencies. Live zebra mussels attached to substrates such as rocks, pilings, or bridge supports or zebra mussel reproduction in the river are necessary to consider designating any portion of the river as infested. Zebra mussels attached to boats do not constitute an infestation, but are one of the primary potential pathways to start an infestation in the St. Croix. The purpose of the St. Croix Zebra Mussel Task Force is to help agencies and stakeholders prevent or slow the spread of zebra mussels into and within the St. Croix River and other waters. The Task Force tries to accomplish this by developing strategies, assessing the effectiveness of strategies that are implemented, recommending tools to use against the zebra mussel and linking agencies and stakeholders in this effort. Participants on the Task Force include: National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources (WDNR, MDNR), Northern States Power Company (NSP), University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program (SG), Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission (BAC), Macalester College, Biological Resources Division of the US Geological Survey (BRD), Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACoE), Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC).

479 1998 Action Plan This plan is a compilation of strategies and actions proposed by the participating agencies for the 1998 season to try and accomplish the Task Force purpose. This plan does not preclude other actions by agencies or stakeholders to assist this purpose. Strategy 1. INFORMATION AND EDUCATION This strategy is intended to inform and educate people on this harmful exotic animal, the threats it poses to the environment, laws concerning transport of zebra mussels by boats, and what can be done to help prevent the spread of this exotic. Actions a. Post and maintain access signs at public access sites along the river (NPS, MDNR, WDNR) b. Continue general exotics awareness efforts on biology, impacts and regulations through efforts including but not limited to billboards, radio spots, and literature distribution. (MDNR, USFWS, NPS, WDNR, SG) c. Staff Minnesota Boat Show (MDNR) d. Provide agency staff and commercial businesses along the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers with information (such as brochures, posters, fact sheets) about the threat posed by zebra mussels and the Task Force program. (NPS, MDNR, WDNR, USFWS, SG) e. Provide information to boating public at lock and dam areas, particularly Lock and Dam 2 and 3. (ACoE) f. Provide information to public at river community public events (ACoE) g. Provide information via Internet sites h. http://www.d.umn.edu/seagr/areas/exotic/z_overview.html for zebra mussel information, http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil for Mississippi River information)(ACoE, SG)

480 h. Set up and staff booths at community events to provide information on zebra mussels and aquatic exotic species (NPS) i. Continue to display zebra mussel and exotic species exhibits at NPS visitor centers and to present programs on zebra mussels to park visitors (NPS) j. Distribute to schools and/or conduct winter series outreach to schools using AAquatic Exotics@ traveling trunks, and provide training for teachers for use of the trunks (NPS, SG) Strategy 2. INSPECTIONS AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT This strategy is intended to take management and/or regulatory actions to try and prevent the inadvertent spread of zebra mussels into the St. Croix River. The strategy also seeks to inform boaters and other recreational water users of these actions. Actions a. Continue permit system and boating restrictions from 1997 at the Arcola sandbar area (NPS) b. Inspect watercraft leaving and/or entering at St. Croix and Mississippi River public access sites in Minnesota through the Watercraft Inspection Program to prevent transport of zebra mussels. (MDNR) Strategy 3. MONITORING FOR ZEBRA MUSSELS This strategy is intended to provide evidence of zebra mussel infestations for use in actions and management decisions. Actions a. Continue passive monitoring sampling for adults and settled larvae (settling plate samplers) on the St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers. (USFWS, NPS, MDNR) b. Continue dive searches on river substrate, marinas, boats, and other possible attachment sites. (USFWS, WDNR, MDNR, BAC, NPS, GLIFWC)

481 c. Collect and analyze plankton tows for veligers at various sites to monitor for veliger production. (USFWS, NPS, MDNR) Strategy 4. PREVENTION This strategy is intended to provide options to help prevent the spread of the zebra mussel. Actions a. The NPS has established threshold levels in the National Park Service Integrated Pest Management Plan and will use these levels to implement increased NPS actions in the Federally managed zone above Stillwater. (NPS) b. Enforce infested watercraft laws when zebra mussels are found on boats in the St. Croix River and pursue standardization to the extent possible (MDNR, WDNR, NPS) c. Provide language for commercial river use permits to require clean vessels for work in the St. Croix River. (WDNR, MDNR, ACoE) d. Based on monitoring results from Strategy 3, the Task Force will review this and all other strategies. (All Task Force Members) Strategy 5. RESEARCH This strategy is intended to provide information on possible environmentally safe control methods to use against zebra mussel populations. Actions a. Support research investigating potential control and/or remediation methods. (NPS, MDNR, WDNR, USFWS, ACoE, SG) b. Obtain and evaluate information on possible control methods and ongoing research through research conferences, Internet access and other on-line information. (MDNR, WDNR, NPS, USFWS, ACoE, SG) c. Conduct research and provide information on prevention methods (such as anti-fouling paints) for recreational boating public (ACoE)

482

Appendix A. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE VESSEL ACCESS RULES ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY 1997 BOATING SEASON

The National Park Service will continue to manage vessel access above the Arcola Sandbar to protect Riverway aquatic resources from the accidental introduction of the exotic Zebra mussel. Using existing regulatory authority found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Sections 1.5, 1.6 and 3.3, the National Park Service will allow access above the St. Croix River Arcola Sandbar under the following conditions.

A. The vessel is owned and operated by a riparian resident/land owner in the Federally administered zone who has been issued a permit/pass subject to the following conditions:

1. The owner/operator of the vessel is a riparian resident/land owner in the Federally administered zone of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Riparian resident/owner means someone owning property directly on the river, or someone who has legal, deeded access to the river.

2. The owner/operator agrees to not operate the vessel south of the Kinnickinnic Sandbar or in any infested waters, including the Mississippi River, at any time. This condition is subject to change if zebra mussels are found farther north such as Afton, Hudson or Stillwater.

3. The owner/operator agrees to not stop/anchor the vessel anywhere south of the Stillwater Lift Bridge.

4. The owner/operator checks in at the Arcola Sandbar Ranger Contact Station whenever passing the station.

5. The non-transferable permit/pass stickers are permanently fixed to both sides of the bow of the vessel in a readily visible location.

484 B. The owner/operator of a vessel has been issued a same-day pass at an approved inspection site. The pass will be issued subject to the following conditions:

1. If the vessel has not been operated in infested waters, the vessel must undergo one or all of the following prior to placement into uninfested waters:

a. Remain out of the water and be protected from rain for 7 dry/warm days.

b. Be visually inspected for attached zebra mussels.

c. Be cleaned with a high pressure hot water wash (140+ degrees Fahrenheit).

2. If the vessel has been operated in infested water, the vessel must undergo one or all of the following prior to placement in uninfested waters:

a. Remain out of the water and be protected from rain for at least 14 dry/warm days and be visually inspected for attached zebra mussels.

b. Be cleaned with a high pressure hot water wash (140+ degrees Fahrenheit) and be visually inspected for attached zebra mussels.

Visual inspection and cleaning must include all areas that zebra mussels may attach or reside: hull, motor mounts, intakes, trim tabs, swim platforms, live wells(must be dry), and trailers.

This program is a continuation of the program from 1996 modified from that described in the Federal Register/Vol. 60, No. 99/Tuesday, May 23, 1995/Notices page 27327.

Vessels traveling upstream beyond the Arcola Sandbar must meet the conditions outlined above. Vessel owner/operators not conforming to the above conditions are in violation of 36 CFR sections 1.5 Closures and Public Use Limits, 1.6 and 3.3 Permits and 2.32 Interfering with Agency Functions.

Vessel owner/operators in violation of the above regulations, and containing zebra mussels, are in violation of 36 CFR section 2.1(a)(2) Preservation of Natural, Cultural, and Archeological Resources, and may be in both civil and criminal violation of 16 U. S. Code Chapter 53 Control of Illegally Taken Fish and Wildlife Section 3372(a) Prohibited Acts - Offenses other than Marking Offenses.

485 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyle, T.P., N.J. Hoefs, and D.R. Beeson Hornbach, Daniel J., Ph.D. 1992 “An Evaluation of the Status of 1996 “Bivalves in the St. Croix River.” A Benthic Macroinvertebrate Com- report for the Water Resources munities in the Saint Croix Management Plan, National Park National Scenic Riverway, Service, Department of Biology, Minnesota and Wisconsin.” Macalester College: St. Paul, MN. Internal report for the Water Resources Division, National Park Hudick, Joe Service. On file at riverway 1982 “Breeding Bird Survey” (spring headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI. 1982). Unpublished National Park Service document. St. Croix Falls, Curtis, J.T. WI. 1971 The Vegetation of Wisconsin. An Ordination of Plant Communities. Karamansky, Theodore J. University of Wisconsin Press: 1992 “Saving the Saint Croix: An Madison, WI. Administrative History of the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway”, Fago, Don; Hatch, Jay Omaha, NE: National Park Service. 1993 Aquatic Resources of the St.Croix River Basin, Washington, DC: U.S. Kuss, F.R., A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske Department of Interior National 1990 Visitor Impact Management, vol. 1: Biological Survey; Biological A Review of Research. National Report 19. Proceedings of the Parks and Conservation Association, Symposium on Restoration Washington, D.C. Planning for the Rivers of the Mississippi River Ecosystem. Maercklein, R. A. 1998 “1998 Breeding Bird Survey: A Fannes, C. A. Comparison to the 1982/83 1981 Birds of the St. Croix River Valley: Surveys, St. Croix National Scenic Minnesota and Wisconsin. North Riverway.” Unpublished National American Fauna. Park Service document. St. Croix Falls, WI. Glenn-Lewin, T.R. Rosburg, and J. M. Ver Hoef Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 1992 “A Survey of the Wetlands of the St. Minnesota County Biological Survey Croix National Scenic Riverway, 1990 “Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin and Minnesota, from Natural Heritage and Nongame Stillwater to the Headwaters of the Wildlife Programs.,Chisago County, St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers.” Minnesota.” Map Series No. 5. Iowa State University: Ames, IA. 1993 “Department of Natural Resources, Graczyk, D.J. Natural Heritage and Nongame 1986 Water Quality in the St. Croix Na- Wildlife Programs, Washington tional Scenic Riverway. Wisconsin. County, Minnesota.” Map Series Geological Survey. Water No. 1. Resources Division. Madison, WI.

486 Bibliography

1996 Significant Biological Features of National Park Service, U.S. Department of the the St. Croix Watershed Interior 1976a Final Environmental Impact Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Statement, Master Plan for St. Croix Commission National Scenic Riverway. Prepared 1994 Stewardship of the Lower St. Croix by the NPS Midwest Regional River and Its Watershed. Hudson, Office and the Minnesota and WI. Copy on file at riverway Wisconsin Departments of Natural headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI. Resources. On file at riverway headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI. Mossman, M. J. 1991 “Breeding Birds of the St. Croix 1976b Final Master Plan. Saint Croix River, Wisconsin and Minnesota.” National Scenic Riverway. On file Passenger Pigeon 53:39-77. riverway headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI. Natural Resource Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture 1983 Land Protection Plan. Copy on file 1968 Soil Survey of Pierce County, at riverway headquarters, St. Croix Wisconsin. In cooperation with Falls, WI. University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 1985 Problem Exotic Plants in Selected Survey, Soil Survey Division and Parks of the Midwest Region and a Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Bibliography on Their Management. Station. Prepared by Karen E. Pestana. Research/Resources Management 1978 Soil Survey of St. Croix County, Report MWR-6. Omaha, NE. Wisconsin, In cooperation with Research Division of the College of 1991 Statement for Management. Copy on Agricultural and Life Sciences, file at riverway headquarters, St. University of Wisconsin. Croix Falls, WI.

1979 Soil Survey of Polk County, ` 1995a Resources Management Plan for St Wisconsin, In cooperation with Croix and Lower Saint Croix Research Division of the College of National Scenic Riverway. On file at Agricultural and Life Sciences, the riverway headquarters, St. Croix University of Wisconsin. Falls, WI.

1980 Soil Survey of Washington and 1995b St. Croix River Basin, Water Ramsey Counties, Minnesota, In Resources Management Plan, Phase cooperation with the Minnesota II, Interagency Team Members - Agricultural Experiment Station. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, National Park 1994 Soil Survey of Chisago County, Service, Wisconsin Department of Minnesota, In cooperation with the Natural Resources. On file at Minnesota Agricultural Experiment riverway headquarters, St. Croix Station. Falls, WI.

487 APPENDIXES/\BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

1997a “Water Resources Management http://www.census.gov/stab/ Plan.” St. Croix National Scenic USA96/27/025. Riverway, Minnesota and Wiscon- sin, Holmberg, K., J. Perry, R. 1996c “USA Counties 1996, General Ferrin, D. Sharrow. Copy on file at Profile.” Available on Internet @ riverway headquarters, St. Croix http://www.census.gov/stab/USA96/ Falls, WI. 27/163.

1997b Staff meeting notes/report by Sue 1996d “USA Counties 1996, General Jennings, Resource Management Profile.” Available on Internet @ Specialist, St. Croix National Scenic http://www.census.gov/stab/USA96/ Riverway, Stillwater, MN. 55/000.

Troelstrup, N. H. Jr., J. L. Foley, and J. A. 1997 “Estimated Number and Percent Perry People of All Ages in Poverty by 1993 Changing Patterns of Water Quality State: US 1993.” Available on and Biology Within the Lower St. Internet @ http://www. census.gov/ Croix National Scenic Riverway. cgibin/ hhes/ saipe93/gettable. Department of Forest Resources, University of MN, St. Paul, MN U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1979 Classification of Wetlands and 1997 Upper Mississippi River Channel Deepwater Habitats of the United Maintenance Managmeent Plan. States. Office of Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce 1997 Regional Economic Information U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the System 1969-95. Bureau of Interior Economic Analysis, Economics and 1995 “Long-term Water Quality Moni- Statistics Administration. toring - Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway.” Progress report and U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the scope of work proposal. Unpub- Census lished report. Mounds View, MN. 1992 Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD- Wetmore, C. M. ROM (Minnesota and Wisconsin) 1991 “Lichens and Air Quality in St. Washington, D.C. Croix National Scenic Riverway - Final Report.” Unpublished Report 1996a “USA Counties 1996, General for the National Park Service. Uni- Profile.”Available on Internet @ versity of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. http://www.census.gov/stab/ USA96/27/000. Winker, K. D., D. W. Warner, and A.R. Weisbrod 1996b “USA Counties 1996, General 1992 “Timing of Songbird Migration in Profile.” Available on Internet @ the St. Croix River Valley, Minnesota, 1984–1986.” The Loon 64:131-37.

488 PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

PLANNING TEAM Randy Ferrin, St. Croix National Scenic Lower St. Croix Management Commission Riverway Tony Andersen, National Park Service John Haubert, Washington Office Kent Lokkesmoe , Minnesota Department of Jan Harris, Denver Service Center Natural Resources Glenda Heronema, Denver Service Center Terry Moe, Wisconsin Department of Natural John Hoestery, Denver Service Center Resources Al Hutchings, Midwest Regional Office Clarence Malick, Minnesota-Wisconsin Dave Kreger, Denver Service Center Boundary Area Commision Michael Madell, Midwest Regional Office Robin Maercklein, St. Croix National Scenic Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Riverway Clarence Malick, chairman Paul Roelandt, St. Croix National Scenic A.W. Clapp, Vice-chairman Riverway Sandy Schuster, Denver Service Center Interagency Planning Team Sandra Washington, Midwest Regional Office Tony Andersen, National Park Service Mark Weekley, Midwest Regional Office Steve Johnson , Minnesota Department of Marianna Young, St. Croix National Scenic Natural Resources Riverway Terry Moe, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service James Harrison, Minnesota-Wisconsin Nick Rowse Boundary Area Commision Chuck Kjost Rick Sayers LOWER RIVERWAY PLANNING COORDINATOR DOCUMENT PREPARERS Randall Thoreson Nola Chavez, Landscape Architect, Denver Kate Hanson (former coordinator) Service Center, National Park Service. Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and TECHNICAL EXPERTS/CONSULTANTS Environmental Planning and Master of Landscape Architecture. Twenty years with the Minnesota Department of Natural National Park Service as a landscape architect. Resources Responsible for writing the “Land and Water Molly Shodeen Status,” “Recreational Facilities along the Lower St. Croix,” and the “Scenic Impacts” Wisconsin Department of Natural sections of the EIS. Resources Ronald Benjamin Steve Johnson, River Management Supervisor, David Heath Division of Waters, Minnesota Department of Tom Lovejoy Natural Resources. B.A., Sociology. Eleven years with Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary National Park Service Area Commission, 12 years with Minnesota Brain Adams, St. Croix National Scenic Department of Natural Resources. Responsible Riverway for coordinating parts of the planning process, Brian Carlstrom, Denver Service Center including public involvement, and writing John Daugherty, St. Croix National Scenic portions of the document. Riverway Judy Dersch, Denver Service Center

489 APPENDIXES/BIBLIIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

Richard Lichtkoppler, Resource Economist, B.S. (Environmental Studies). Four years with Denver Service Center, National Park Service, the Ohio Department of Transportation; 17 B.S., Business Administration, M.S., Natural years with the National Park Service. Resources, Ph.D., Resource Economics. Nine Responsible for managing the planning years with the National Park Service. Re- process, coordinating the overall document, sponsible for socioeconomic resources and and writing portions of various sections of the analyses. document.

Lynn Peterson, Natural Resource Specialist, Tom Thomas, Historian, Denver Service Denver Service Center, National Park Service. Center, National Park Service. Ph.D., History, B.S.(Forestry) and A.A. (Conservation). Six University of Colorado, 1996. Seven years years with the South Dakota Dept. of Game, with the Denver Service Center. Responsible Fish & Parks; 11 years with the National Park for “Historical Overview” and “Cultural Service. Responsible for writing portions of Resources” sections, and cultural resource the natural resource sections in the “Affected inventories. Environment” and “Environmental Conse- quences” chapters of the EIS. Randy Thoreson, Planning Coordinator, Lower St. Croix Planning Office. B.A., Planning and Michael Rees, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Resource Biology, M.A., Urban and Regional Denver Service Center, National Park Service. Studies/Planning. Twenty-three years B.A.(Environmental Studies), Master of Forest experience in the Midwest and Mountain West Science (MFS). Eight years with the U.S. Fish in planning and environmental fields for public and Wildlife Service, seven years with the and private sectors. Two years with the National Park Service. Responsible for writing partnership team (replacing Kate Hanson, the “Introduction,” the “Management Alterna- previous planning coordinator in 1997). tives,” and portions of the “Environmental Responsible for office management, project Consequences” for the EIS. coordination, and facilitation of the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force. Provided input to Elaine Rideout, Natural Resource Specialist, and review of the document. Denver Service Center, National Park Service.

490 INDEX access, 5, 6, 14, 17, 36-37, 49-51, 65, 68-69, 82, 84, 174, 191-198, 200-210, 212-214, 216-246 248- 93-94, 97, 106, 111-112, 132, 146, 152-154, 252, 254, 256-269 175, 178, 180, 193, 270, 277 issues, 12-14, 18-19, 26, 29-32, 109, 111, 118, 136, acreage, 14, 75, 80, 163, 180 141, 181, 191, 263, 275-277 air quality, 33, 156, 157 alternative A, 76, 78-79, 81, 82- 85, 89-90, 125, joint powers board, 121-122, 137, 270 129, 134, 136, 210, 212, 214-221, 233 jurisdiction, 5, 36, 111, 173-174, 277 alternative B, 86, 88, 90-91, 93-97, 125, 129, 134, 136, 224, 227-235, 238, 240-241, 243 land use, 3, 12, 14, 20, 25-26, 29, 30, 34, 43, 61, alternative C, 95-97, 99, 125, 134, 136, 238-245 64-66, 74, 76, 81, 85-86, 89-90, 94, 96, 99-100, alternative D, 100-102, 105-108, 125, 136, 248, 104, 108-109, 110, 113-114, 118-123, 125, 129- 252-259 131, 135, 137, 141, 175, 181, 191, 194, 201- alternative E, 26, 109-112, 114, 136, 262-267 202, 208, 216-218, 222, 230-231, 235- 236, 240- archeological, 16, 34, 73-75, 112, 136, 171, 173- 241, 245-246, 255-256, 259-260, 269-270, 277 174, 206, 234, 244, 258, 266-267 management area, 6, 12, 25, 26, 29, 36, 41, 43-50, boaters, 12, 14, 17, 69, 91, 97, 150-151, 179, 199- 53, 57, 61, 64-65, 69, 71, 76, 79-80, 82, 84, 86, 200, 214, 216, 229, 239, 252-254, 258, 263, 275 89, 91, 93-95, 97, 100, 102, 106, 111, 129, 136, boundary, 3, 5-7, 12, 14-15, 19-20, 26, 29, 31-32, 152, 154, 194, 197, 201-203, 206, 208, 210, 216, 43, 46, 63-64, 73-79, 85-89, 94-95, 99-100, 102, 218, 222, 224, 230-232, 234, 236, 240-242, 244, 108, 113-114, 117-118, 120-123, 126, 130, 135, 246, 248, 252, 255-256, 258, 260, 275, 277 137, 143, 160, 162, 167-168, 179-180, 182, 191- management commission, 26, 75, 109, 112-113, 192, 207, 209, 221, 223, 235, 237, 245, 247, 117-123, 135, 137, 181-182, 270, 276 260-261, 264, 268-269 managing agencies, 3, 5, 11, 12, 16-18, 21, 25-26, 29-38, 43, 65-68, 71-73, 75-76, 79-81, 84, 90, carrying capacity, 71, 85, 94, 99, 108, 112, 149 93-94, 96-97, 104-105, 109, 111-113, 119, 124, climate, 156, 193 134, 146, 191, 194, 204-205, 210, 219, 224, 232- costs, 25, 74, 117, 124-26, 136-137, 191, 270 233, 243, 257, 266 cultural landscape, 16, 73, 112, 173-174, 205, 220, mussels, 11, 15, 16, 19, 33-35, 161, 164, 166-167, 234, 244, 258, 267 192, 204, 219, 233, 243, 257-258, 265-266 cultural resources, 10-14, 16, 72, 73, 113, 136, 141, 171, 174, 191, 193, 205-208, 219, 220, 222, 233- natural resources, 3, 11, 12, 14-21, 29, 31-32, 35- 234, 236, 243-244, 246, 258, 260, 266, 268- 269 38, 61, 66, 68, 74, 81, 90, 96, 104, 110-111, 117- 123, 135-136, 141, 152, 154, 156, 159, 161, 167, economy, 136, 171, 176, 206, 208, 220, 222, 234, 174, 180-182, 191, 202, 208-209, 217, 222, 229, 236, 244, 246, 258-260, 267, 269 231, 237, 239, 241, 246, 254, 256, 262-263, 269, 271, 275, 279 federal, 9, 18, 21, 26, 29, 30, 35, 36-38, 66, 68, 80- 82, 90, 96, 104, 111, 113, 117-118, 134, 141, option, 12, 25, 33, 68, 117-24, 126, 135, 137, 270, 162, 167, 173, 178, 180, 191, 193, 202, 204-205, 277 207, 219, 221, 233, 235, 242, 243, 245, 257, 260, 266, 268, 271, 277, 280 physiography, 142, 157, 193 fishing, 5, 17, 30, 34-37, 46, 52, 55, 56, 91, 146, policy development, 117-118, 122, 135 149, 150-155, 172, 204, 257 preferred alternative, 13, 21, 25-26, 61, 63, 67-69, floodplains, 162, 193 71-76, 80, 85, 94, 99, 108, 125, 129, 131-134, 136, 194, 196, 198-201, 203, 205-206, 209- geologic resources, 74, 193 210, 213, 216-217, 219-220, 231, 235, 241, 246, 252, 276-277 historic resources, 74, 205-206 private, 5, 14, 29, 31, 36-37, 39, 44-47, 49-51, 66, impacts, 3, 9, 14-17, 25, 32-33, 36-37, 65, 67-68, 68, 73-74, 81, 90, 96, 104, 109-110, 113, 134, 72, 79, 81-82, 89-91, 96, 100, 105, 109-110, 150-151, 153, 158, 179-181, 197, 201-205, 209, 112, 117, 127, 134, 136-137, 141, 149, 160- 161,

491 APPENDIXES/BIBLIIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

213, 217, 223, 227, 231, 233, 237, 241-242, 247, tourism, 39, 175, 179, 206, 220-221, 235, 244, 259, 252, 255-257, 261, 264-265, 269, 277 267, 279 public, 5, 10-12, 18, 21, 25, 26, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 44-47, 49, 50-51, 67-69, 73-74, 82, 111-112, vegetation, 12, 15, 16, 30, 33, 44-47, 49-51, 65-67, 117, 119-123, 134-135, 141, 146, 151, 153, 155, 74, 80-82, 90, 95-96, 104, 109-110, 134, 136, 161, 175, 180-181, 191, 197, 200, 203-204, 216, 142, 144, 147, 150-151, 163, 174, 197-198, 200, 219, 227, 230-234, 239, 241, 252, 254, 256- 257, 202-203, 207-209, 213-214, 217, 221, 223, 227, 263, 265-266, 271, 275-278 231-232, 236-237, 241-242, 246,-47, 251-252, 256, 260-262, 264-265, 268-269 recreational facilities, 3, 65, 80, 89, 95, 100, 143, vision, 9, 11-13, 26, 31, 114, 276-277 151, 153 recreational use, 3, 14-15, 17, 31, 36-37, 55, 61, 69, water surface use, 26, 30, 43, 61, 117-120, 123, 76, 82, 84, 86, 91, 93-97, 100, 105-106, 109, 135, 146, 181, 254, 276 111, 129, 132, 136, 141, 149-150, 178, 191, 193, watercraft, 14, 18, 52-56, 68, 72, 91, 105, 112, 114, 199-201, 203, 205, 207-209, 215, 218- 219, 221- 132, 134, 148-149, 151, 157, 198, 205, 219, 233, 222, 228-229, 232-233, 235-237, 239, 241-243, 243, 252, 257, 266 245-247, 252, 254, 257, 259, 261, 263- 265, Watershed Stewardship Initiative, 9, 13, 19, 31, 74, 268-269 75 river crossing, 12, 25, 67, 81, 90, 96, 105, 110, 134, wetlands, 141, 162-164, 174, 193 136, 198, 209, 214, 223, 227-228, 237-238, 247, wild and scenic river, 3, 5, 6, 9-10, 26, 38, 75, 81, 252, 254-255, 261, 269, 275 113-114, 141, 154, 173, 180, 271 wildlife, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 20, 29-31, 33-36, 44, 46- socioeconomic environment, 12, 136, 175, 220, 49, 51, 57, 75, 136, 147, 151-152, 154, 163, 174, 234, 267 203, 208-209, 218, 223, 232, 237, 242, 247, 256- soils, 15, 136, 150-151, 159-160, 163, 200-202, 257, 261, 265, 268-269 208-209, 216-217, 223, 230-231, 237, 240-241, winged mapleleaf mussel, 19, 167, 204-205, 208, 247, 255-256, 261, 264, 268-269 219, 233, 243, 257-258, 265-266, 268, 278 threatened and endangered, 35, 66, 81, 90, 104, zebra mussel, 15-16, 20, 33-34, 72, 112, 166, 204, 110, 141, 167, 192, 204, 218, 233, 242, 257 219, 233, 257, 266 topography, 142, 193

492