Final

Cooperative Management Pla n

Environmental Impact Statemen t

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota • Wisconsi n
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 noaction 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 SACN_Superintendent@nps.gov.

U.S. Department of the Interior • National Park Service

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
iii

SUMMARY

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, which extends 52 miles from St. Croix

Falls/Taylors Falls to the confluence with the

Mississippi River at Prescott/Point Douglas, is

jointly managed by the National Park Service

(NPS), Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources (MDNR), and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Many

changes have occurred in the St. Croix Valley

since the original riverway Master Plan was

developed by the three managing agencies in

1976. Recognizing that the Master Plan was

dated, the managing agencies agreed to jointly

develop a cooperative management plan for

the lower riverway.

The joint plan has been adopted by the federal

and state river managing agencies after an

adequate analysis of the benefits, environmental impacts, and costs of alternative

courses of action and a thorough consideration

of public input.

PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE

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,

while meeting the following purposes of the

lower riverway:

• Preserve and protect (and restore and enhance where appropriate) the riverway’s

ecological integrity, its unimpounded

condition, its natural and scenic resources,

and its significant historic resources

• Accommodate a diverse range of recreational opportunities that do not detract

from the exceptional natural, historic,

scenic, and aesthetic resources

• Provide an environment that allows the

opportunity for peace and solitude

• Provide an opportunity for the education

and study of the geologic, historic, ecological, and aesthetic values to further

enhance stewardship of the river.

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway is significant for the following

reasons:

• The riverway is an exceptional

combination of high-quality natural and

cultural resources, and scenic, aesthetic,

and recreational values.

• These resources and values exist in a

distinctive river valley setting with a

strong regional identity and character.

• These resources and values exist within

the expanding Twin Cities metropolitan

area.

These purpose and significance statements

cannot be supported by continuing to

implement the 1976 Master Plan; inadequacies of the current management approach

require a new direction.

OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE

VALUES

To be eligible for inclusion in the national

wild and scenic rivers system a river or its

rimmediate environment must possess one or

more of the following outstandingly remarkable values: scenic, recreational, geologic, fish

and wildlife, historic, cultural, or others that

are similar in nature.

The Lower St Croix was designated for its

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,

and geologic values.
Summary

iv

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives in this plan describe different

concepts or visions for the future. A number of

common management directions and associated strategies would be implemented under all

alternatives. A preferred alternative and four

other alternatives for managing land and water

in the lower riverway are presented along with

a no-action alternative, which describes how

the lower riverway is currently managed and

would be managed in the future if no changes

occurred. A public workshop was held using a

caucus/negotiation process to develop the

preferred alternative. Most elements of the

plan were agreed upon at the caucus, but a few

were forwarded to the Lower St. Croix

Management Commission for decision.

A set of options, including a preferred option,

is also presented that identifies different

organizational structures for future management of the lower riverway. Any option could

be combined with any land and water use

management alternative.

MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS

COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Some elements of future riverway management will occur no matter what alternative

strategy for management is selected. Topics

include government coordination and cooperation, land use management, American

Indian treaty rights, riverway stewardship,

natural resources management, management of

hunting, fishing, and trapping, recreational use

management, and interpretation.

LAND AND WATER USE

ALTERNATIVES

This Cooperative Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement presents and

evaluates six alternatives.

The preferred alternative would emphasize

protecting and enhancing the riverway’s

diverse character. It 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. Riverway users would

continue to find opportunities to engage in a

wide range of recreational experiences. The

emphasis would be on maintaining and enhancing the diverse landscape character and

the diverse water-based recreational

opportunities.

Alternative A would provide for more development and more recreational activity than the

preferred alternative. Managing agencies

would seek to maintain long stretches of the

lower riverway’s natural and rural landscape,

while allowing limited, planned development

within the boundary that was consistent with

the historic character of the riverway’s communities. However, under alternative A, a

slightly greater proportion of the lower riverway would encompass town landscapes,

allowing greater opportunities for development

within or adjacent to riverway towns. Additional residential development would also

occur in rural areas. Riverway users would

continue to find an array of recreational

opportunities, including increased opportunities for more social activity on parts of the

river, but unlike the preferred alternative, no

efforts would be made to regulate user

activities if they were not causing significant

damage to the resource or posing safety

hazards to others.

Alternative B would stress maintaining the

current landscape character within the riverway boundary and maintaining the diversity of

water recreational experiences as much as

possible. However, the overall level of recreational use would be allowed to increase but

some use would be reallocated and separated.

New development would be more limited than

alternative A and slightly more limited than

the preferred alternative.
SUMMARY

v

Alternative C would achieve the same conditions as alternative B — views of the lands

within the boundary and the diversity of river

recreational experiences would be maintained.

The major difference from other alternatives

would be that the strategy used to maintain the

diversity of recreational experience would be

to freeze the growth of recreational use.

Alternative D would promote and restore the

natural qualities of the lower riverway ? the

predominance of natural features over modern

developments would increase. Natural landscapes would be restored where feasible, and

managing agencies would strive to make the

landscape appear more natural than it is now.

Emphasis would be placed on promoting

quieter, slower, and less intrusive experiences

that would not disturb others. Overall

recreational use would be reduced.

Alternative E, the no-action alternative,

provides a baseline for comparing the other

alternatives. The managing agencies would

continue to manage the lower riverway as they

have in the past. The agencies would continue

to follow the 1976 Master Plan (with some

changes based on current management

practices) and the Lower St. Croix Management Commission’s policy resolution.

Management would focus on maintaining

existing land use and recreational use patterns

and would react to recreational use as they

have in the past. Rural residential development

would be allowed to a greater degree than all

of the alternatives except alternative A. Policy

resolution would be used to address new issues

that arose.

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

The potential consequences of the six

alternatives on scenic resources, natural

resources, cultural resources, recreational use,

and the socioeconomic environment were

evaluated. In general, the preferred

alternative would allow limited private

development in rural areas and enhanced

management of recreational use. Protection of

scenic resources would be improved compared

to the no-action alternative. Limited localized

impacts on natural resources would occur in

connection with residential development (e.g.,

soil and vegetation disturbance and disruption

of wildlife), but these impacts would be less

than under the no-action alternative. Protection

of cultural resources would be improved. Recreational diversity would be enhanced and the

resource impacts of recreational use would be

reduced compared to the no action alternative.

Conflicts between recreational users and

landowners would be reduced. There would be

negligible impacts on the regional economy.

Alternative A would allow more development

in rural areas and increased recreational use.

Residential construction would negatively

impact scenic resources more than the other

alternatives. Limited localized impacts on

natural resources would occur in connection

with residential development (e.g., soil and

vegetation disturbance and disruption of

wildlife); these impacts would be more than

any other alternative. Protection of cultural

resources would be improved compared to the

no-action alternative, but not as much as the

preferred alternative. Recreational diversity

would not be enhanced and the resource

impacts of recreational use would be greater

than any other alternative. Conflicts between

recreational users and landowners would

increase. There would be negligible impacts

on the economy.

Alternatives B and C would allow slightly

less development in rural areas than the

preferred alternative. Protection of scenic

resources would be improved compared to the

no-action alternative and slightly improved

compared to the preferred alternative. Limited

localized impacts on natural resources would

occur in connection with residential development (e.g., soil and vegetation disturbance and

disruption of wildlife); these impacts would be

similar to but slightly less than the preferred

alternative. Protection of cultural resources
Summary

vi

would be improved compared to the no-action

alternative and would be very similar to the

preferred alternative. Recreational diversity

would be enhanced and the resource impacts

of recreational use would be reduced compared to the no-action alternative. Under

alternative B there would be limited growth in

recreational use, with impacts similar to the

preferred alternative. Under alternative C there

would be no growth in recreational use, so

enhancement of recreational diversity, and the

resource impacts of recreational use would be

less than the preferred alternative. Conflicts

between recreational users and landowners

would be reduced, and more so under

alternative C. Like alternative A, there would

be negligible impacts on the regional

economy.

Alternative D would allow less development

in rural areas than the other alternatives. Protection of scenic resources would be improved

compared to the other alternatives. Limited

localized impacts on natural resources would

occur in connection with residential development (soil and vegetation disturbance and

disruption of wildlife); these impacts would be

slightly less than the preferred alternative.

Protection of cultural resources would be

improved compared to the no-action alternative and would be similar to the preferred

alternative. Recreational diversity would be

significantly reduced; the resource impacts of

recreational use would be reduced compared

to all other alternatives. There would be

negligible impacts on the regional economy.

Some people would feel negative impacts from

displaced recreational use, and some landowners would experience negative impacts because of development restrictions.

The no-action alternative, alternative E, would

continue to allow development in rural areas in

the same way as in the past 24 years. Protection of scenic resources would continue to

slowly decline. Limited localized impacts on

natural resources would occur in connection

with residential development (e.g., soil and

vegetation disturbance and disturbance of

wildlife); these impacts would be greater than

the preferred alternative but less than alternative A. Protection of cultural resources would

not improve. Recreational diversity would not

be enhanced and resource impacts of recreational use would continue to increase. Conflicts between recreational users and landowners would continue to slowly increase.

Like the action alternatives, there would be

negligible impacts on the regional economy.

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

OPTIONS

Five options were developed for the lower

riverway management structure. Each one

would provide a direction for determining

agencies’ roles and responsibilities for policy

development and land and water use management. In all cases, the state would review and

comment on local zoning actions; the two state

departments of natural resources and the

National Park Service would participate in and

provide staff support for the Lower St. Croix

Management Commission; the three agencies

would provide staff for on-water law enforcement, rescue, and related activities; the Park

Service would provide staff for management

of lands it owns north of Stillwater.

The preferred option would retain the

management commission and include an

additional nonvoting member from the newly

created partnership team that would serve an

advisory role. The Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission would continue in

its administrative support and nonvoting

advisory roles. The management commission’s

technical committee would review all

applications for variances and conditional use

permits. Managing agencies would have no

veto authority over a local government’s

decision on a conditional use permit, or

subdivision; if there was disagreement,

appeals could be made to the courts. Existing

water use enforcement roles would continue.

Option 1 would also retain the management

commission but would include a local govern-
SUMMARY

vii

ment representative. The planning task force

would be restructured and made permanent. It

would assist in rules interpretation, mediation,

and coordination for land management and/or

water use management. Options 2 and 3

would further expand the management commission and create a water patrol. Option 2

would create a joint powers board for land use

management, whereas option 3 would create a

riverway board to manage land use. Option 4

would continue the existing management

structure for policy direction and land and

water use.

IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE OPTIONS

The preferred option would create the least

change from the current management

approach. Option 1 would involve a minor

change. Options 2 and 3 would involve the

most change, with each establishing a new

management board. There would be no change

from the current management approach under

option 4.
HEADINGS IN BOLD ARE CLICKABLE

ix

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
CONTENTS

x

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
HEADINGS IN BOLD ARE CLICKABLE

xi

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
CONTENTS

xii

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
HEADINGS IN BOLD ARE CLICKABLE

xiii

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
CONTENTS

xiv

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
TABLE AND MAP NAMES ARE CLICKABLE

xv

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
Context for the Pla n
3

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE

COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT

PLAN

In 1976 the National Park Service (NPS),

in cooperation with the Minnesota and

Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources (DNR), completed a Master

Plan for managing the lower riverway. The

overall goal of the plan was to “preserve

the existing scenic and recreational resources of the Lower St. Croix through

controlled development.” The plan focused

on establishing the riverway, such as determining the riverway boundary, acquiring

land, and identifying needed administrative

and recreational facilities.

Many changes have occurred in the St.

Croix Valley since 1976. For example, use

of the riverway has increased, and people

are using it in increasingly diverse ways.

The first Master Plan focused on land

acquisition and startup of the riverway.

Today’s managers are concerned with

resolving conflicts between different users

and addressing the impacts of changing

adjacent land uses on the lower riverway.

The old plan needs to be updated to prepare for these changes, to take a new look

at management of the riverway, and to

address problems and opportunities that

were not apparent 24 years ago.

The National Park Service and the Minnesota and Wisconsin DNRs have prepared

this Final Cooperative Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Lower St. Croix River. The plan was

developed in cooperation with the Lower

St. Croix Planning Task Force, which is

comprised of interested citizens, agency

staff, and other riverway stakeholders. The

purpose of this plan is to describe the

direction the managing agencies intend to

follow in managing the lower riverway for

the next 15 to 20 years while meeting the

riverway’s stated purposes. This cooperative management plan is consistent with

the requirements of the national wild and

scenic river act, the two state’s Lower St.

Croix acts, and will serve as the general

management plan as required by the

National Parks and Recreation Act of

1978.

The plan considers the riverway holistically, in its full ecological and cultural

contexts as a unit of the national wild and

scenic rivers system and as a part of the

surrounding watershed. The plan will serve

as a management tool to guide decisionmaking over the long term; it will not

provide specific and detailed answers to

every issue or question. However, the plan

will provide a management framework that

will help maintain a balance between

continuity and adaptability in a dynamic

decision-making process.

This Final Cooperative Management Plan

/ Environmental Impact Statement presents

six alternatives for managing the riverway

and analyzes the environmental impacts of

each. A no-action alternative (a continuation of existing trends) is provided as a

basis of comparison. The approved plan

will provide a framework for proactive

decision making, including decisions on

recreational use, land use, natural and

cultural resource management, and general

development in the lower riverway.
Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

St. Croix Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Minneapolis

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

10

61

8

35

35

36

94 94

35E

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Minnesota • Wisconsin

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

Cedar

Bend

Somerset

97

35

64

64

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

United States Department of the Interior • National Park Service

DSC • 643 • 20,029A • 5/00

REGION
Introduction

5

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE

LOWER RIVERWAY

In 1972 Congress added the Lower St.

Croix River (see the Region map) to the

national wild and scenic rivers system

(Public Law 92-560, see appendix C). This

cooperative management plan addresses

only the lower riverway (see “Relationship

to Other Planning Efforts to This Plan”

section).

On September 19, 1975 the original boundary for the entire riverway was published,

consistent with the requirements of section

3(b) of the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act. In March 1977 all islands

under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of

Land Management were withdrawn from

entry, pursuant to a 1968 letter signed by

the secretary of interior, and on August 6,

1986, they were transferred to the National

Park Service. Additions and deletions were

made in 1983, creating a net increase of 82

acres. In March of 1990 a boundary change

was made in Prescott (Pierce County),

Wisconsin. Legal descriptions are available

from the managing agencies.

The Lower St. Croix Riverway is a narrow

corridor that runs for 52 miles along the

boundary of Minnesota and Wisconsin,

from St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls to the

confluence with the Mississippi River at

Prescott/Point Douglas. Although the

riverway has a natural appearance for long

stretches, much of the riverway is adjacent

to the rapidly growing Twin Cities metropolitan area. Municipalities along the

riverway include St. Croix Falls, Taylors

Falls, Osceola, Marine on St. Croix,

Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Bayport,

North Hudson, Hudson, Lakeland,

Lakeland Shores, Lake St. Croix Beach, St.

Mary’s Point, Afton, and Prescott. The St.

Croix passes through various landscapes

from a deep, narrow gorge with basalt

cliffs to expansive views of a wide river

valley — and includes diverse biological

communities. The riverway’s scenery,

plentiful fish and wildlife, largely

unpolluted, free-flowing character,

numerous access points, and closeness to

the Twin Cities attract many people in the

late spring, summer, and fall. Users

participate in a wide range of recreational

activities in the lower riverway, including

motorboating, sailing, canoeing, swimming, camping, picnicking, wildlife

viewing, fishing, and hunting.

The authorized boundary for the Lower St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway encompasses approximately 25,346 acres of land

and water (see Boundary map on page 7).

The National Park Service manages the

upper 27 miles of lands and waters

(approximately 9,542 acres — referred to

as the federally administered zone) under

fee simple ownership or as conservation,

riverfront, and scenic easements. The law

requires that the lower 25 miles of the

lower riverway (referred to as stateadministered zone) be administered by the

states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and

that development planning for the riverway

be conducted jointly by the states and the

secretary of the interior.

While the National Park Service’s land

acquisition authority is limited to the

federally administered zone (north of

Stillwater), the Park Service does have

some management responsibilities in the

state-administered zone (Stillwater south).

Similarly the states have land management

authority over private lands throughout the

riverway (both north and south of Stillwater). The National Park Service and the

states all have management responsibility
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

6

over water surface use north of Stillwater,

while the states have management responsibility from Stillwater south. The three

agencies, as well as other state and federal

agencies, share many other natural resource

management responsibilities.

As of June 1997, approximately 15,804

acres of land and water were in the stateadministered zone. Much of the land along

the lower 25 miles is in private ownership.

The two states have several scenic

easements on land within the riverway,

(202 acres in Wisconsin and 80 acres in

Minnesota), and the state of Minnesota

owns land for a public boat access. Several

Wisconsin and Minnesota state parks and a

Wisconsin wildlife management area also

are adjacent to the riverway boundary.

LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES

FOR ESTABLISHING THE

LOWER ST. CROIX

By the 1950s decades of damming, development, and diversion had taken their toll

on our country’s rivers. During the 1960s,

the country began to recognize the damage

we were inflicting. Recognition led to action by Congress to preserve the beauty

and free-flowing nature of some of our

most precious waterways. In 1968 Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act. The purpose of the Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act is to protect and enhance

the free-flowing character, water quality,

and immediate environment of certain rivers. To be eligible for designation a river

must be free flowing and must possess one

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

found eligible by a Department of Interior

study of 1972 for its outstanding scenic,

recreational, and geologic values.

The Congressional Record of October

1972, which led to the designation of the

Lower St. Croix, provides more insight

into the purposes for establishing the

Lower St. Croix. It contains numerous

references to the uniqueness of the Lower

St. Croix. Senator Henry Jackson said:

“I should point out that this is one of

the last remaining major rivers in the

United States which lies within a major

metropolitan area and is still relatively

unspoiled. The river borders the eastern

boundary of the Minneapolis-St. Paul

urban area and is within easy access of

over 2 million people. Ironically, it is

this accessibility which places in

jeopardy the features which make this

river an outstanding natural resource,

and which makes it imperative that the

river quickly receive protection under

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. . . .

Final action on the St. Croix bill is

urgently needed. If comprehensive

protection is not extended to the riverway, the St. Croix will eventually

become one more city river, its waters

poisoned with pollution, its shorelines

gutted with indiscriminate

development.”

While many today refer to the Lower St.

Croix as a “metro river,” in planning for its

future management, it is important to

remember that Congress established it

specifically to keep it from becoming just

“one more city river.”
Wisconsin

Minnesota

Wisconson

Minnesota

M

Wisconson

innesota

22

14

25

27

4 16

15

35

William O'Brien

State Park

Chisago CountyWashington County

Osceola

Trout Hatchery

WI Interstate 

State Park

Franconia

MN Interstate

State Park

Taylors Falls

St. Croix Falls

Peasley

Lake

97

35

M

95

59

95

35

35

E

64

36

5

12 96

95

21

FF

F

F

21

18

St. Croix Riverway Boundary

State Parks

Cedar Bend

Copas

8

94

61

10

35

64

8

243

North 0 1 2 3 Miles

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

Marine on St.Croix

Polk County

St. Croix County

Stillwater

Willow River

State Park

Oak Park

Heights

Bayport

Willow River

Hudson

Lakeland

Lake

St. Croix 

Beach

St. Marys

Point

Lakeland

Shores

North Hudson

Kinnickinnic

State Park

Afton

State Park

St. Croix CountyPierce County

Afton

S t . C r o i x R i v e r

Mississippi River

Prescott

Point Douglas

State Riverway Zone

Federal Riverway Zone

Boundary

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

Osceola

Houlton

Arcola 

Sandbar

25

31

36 12 13

35

3

24

35

34

4 9

15

21

29

9

5 8 17

1 12 13

6

7 18 19

24

20 29 32

33

5

1 12 13 24

16 21

30 31

33

6

12 13

2 11

10 15

24

26

30

36

31 6 7

16

17 20

30 31

32

5

9

18 19

17 20 29 32 5 8

3

33 9

5

6 7 18

8

21

17 20

19

15

30 31

29 32

28

27

35 4 9 16 21 28

32 5

2

24 25

18

26

3

3

17

25 36 1

4

 643 20030A

DSC May 2000 
Introduction

9

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR

THE COOPERATIVE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Classification and Outstandingly

Remarkable Values

Classification. Rivers designated under the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are

classified as “wild,” “scenic,” or “recreational,” depending on the extent of

development and accessibility along each

segment of river. Wild rivers are generally

inaccessible except by trail; scenic rivers

are largely undeveloped, but are accessible

in places by road; and recreational rivers

are readily accessible by road. The upper

10 miles of the Lower St. Croix are

classified as scenic, whereas the lower 42

miles are classified as recreational.

Rivers classified as recreational are often

mistakenly thought to be somehow less

deserving of protection than those

classified as scenic or wild. The

classification of a river is not intended to

imply any management intent. For

instance, a classification as recreational

does not mean that the river must be

managed or developed specifically for

recreational activities. All rivers are

managed to protect and enhance the values

that caused them to be eligible for

inclusion in the national wild and scenic

rivers system, regardless of their

classification.

Classification is important only in that

development and accessibility should not

be allowed to increase to such an extent

that a river’s classification would change.

In other words, development that would

change a river’s classification from wild to

scenic or from scenic to recreational should

not be allowed. However, while it may be

unlikely, there is no similar prohibition

against removing development to change a

river’s classification from recreational to

scenic or from scenic to wild.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

Classification is often confused with

outstandingly remarkable values. To be

eligible for inclusion in the National Wild

and Scenic Rivers System a river or its

immediate environment must possess one

or more of the following outstandingly

remarkable values: scenic, recreational,

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or others that are similar in nature. A

river classified as scenic may or may not

include scenery as an outstandingly

remarkable value, and a river classified as

recreational may or may not include recreation as an outstandingly remarkable value.

The Lower St. Croix was designated for its

outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, and geologic values. Section 7(a) of

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides

substantial protection to designated rivers.

It states that:

“no department or agency of the United

States shall assist by loan, grant,

license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that

would have a direct and adverse effect

on the values for which such river was

established, as determined by the

Secretary charged with its

administration.”

The National Park Service is responsible

for evaluating water resource projects

proposed on the Lower St. Croix according

to the provisions of section 7. Water

resources projects are those that involve

alterations to the bed or banks of the river

and include bank stabilization projects,
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

10

bridges, and docking facilities. Most

require permits from the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers or U.S. Coast Guard.

The National Park Service and other agencies manage the Lower St. Croix to protect

and enhance all its important resource values. Because of the wording of section

7(a), in evaluating the impacts of a project,

the primary concern of the Park Service

will be the potential impact of a project on

the values for which the Lower St. Croix

was designated – its scenic, recreational,

and geologic values.

Several other key elements also form the

foundation for this plan, including the

purposes of the lower riverway, its significance and exceptional resources and values, and the vision or goal for the lower

riverway. These elements set the direction

and limits for the plan and are basic to all

assumptions about how the riverway

should be used and managed, beginning

with the following principles:

1. The riverway must be managed

cooperatively. There must be a framework for

federal, state, and local cooperative

management.

2. The river cannot be taken out of its

watershed. While the riverway as a management entity is contained within a narrow corridor, it is profoundly influenced by activities

in the larger watershed. Therefore, it is important to realize that this plan is being developed

in conjunction with a companion Watershed

Stewardship Initiative.

PURPOSES, SIGNIFICANCE, AND

EXCEPTIONAL RESOURCES/

VALUES OF THE LOWER

RIVERWAY

The purposes, significance, and exceptional resources/values of the lower riverway are three of the key elements that

shaped the development of this cooperative

management plan. These reaffirm the

previously identified outstandingly remarkable values. The purposes tell why the

Lower St. Croix was set aside as a unit in

the national wild and scenic rivers system.

The significance of the lower riverway

addresses what makes the area special —

why it is important to our natural and/or

cultural heritage and how it differs from

other rivers in the country. The lower

riverway’s exceptional resources / values

further elaborate why the Lower St. Croix

is significant. All of the alternatives and

management prescriptions in this management plan should be consistent with and

support the lower riverway’s purposes and

significance.

Based on the above fundamental principles

and the lower riverway’s enabling legislation, legislative history, management

agency policies, public input, and the

knowledge and insights of the public, the

following purpose and significance statements and exceptional resources/values

were identified for the Lower St. Croix

National Scenic Riverway.

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
Introduction

11

natural and scenic resources, and its

significant cultural resources.

• Accommodate a diverse range of

recreational opportunities that do not

detract from the exceptional natural,

cultural, scenic, and aesthetic

resources.

• Provide an environment that allows the

opportunity for peace and solitude.

• Provide an opportunity for the education and study of the geologic, cultural,

ecological, and aesthetic values to

further enhance stewardship of the

river.

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway is significant for the following

reasons:

• The riverway is an exceptional

combination of high-quality natural and

cultural resources, and scenic,

aesthetic, and recreational values.

• These resources and values exist in a

distinctive river valley setting with a

strong regional identity and character.

• These resources and values exist within

the expanding Twin Cities

metropolitan area.

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway contains the following exceptional resources and values:

• The valley’s varied cultural resources

reflect its significant role over thousands of years as a river transportation

corridor.

• The values of the Minnesota and

Wisconsin communities provide a

broad constituency for the management

and preservation of the Lower St. Croix

Riverway.

• The 52 miles of the Lower St. Croix

River is at the junction of three major

biomes: conifer-hardwood forest,

deciduous forest-woodland, and the

prairie. The river has high water quality

from a myriad of sources in the

watershed.

• The juxtaposition of landforms and

geologic features, including the bluffs,

islands, the Dalles, and Lake St. Croix,

are unique.

• Towns along the river corridor retain

their historic small town character.

• The diversity of scenic, geologic,

economic, cultural, recreational, and

exceptional natural resources combine

to make the Lower St. Croix River an

outstanding and accessible resource for

the Upper Midwest.

• The natural communities, both terrestrial and aquatic, are diverse and of

high quality. The sloughs, backwaters,

braided streams, and other river features provide habitat for native plants

and animals. Rare and endangered

plants and animals, including mussels,

eagles, and others, thrive here. The

river corridor is an important flyway

for migrating birds and contains an

exceptionally diverse fishery.

• The exceptional characteristics and

diversity of the linear riverway provide

for a wide variety of high-quality recreational experiences. People can easily

find opportunities, ranging from peace

and solitude to dynamic social interaction.
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

12

VISION FOR THE LOWER ST.

CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC

RIVERWAY

Based on the lower riverway’s purposes

and significance, and the desired conditions for the riverway voiced by the public,

a common vision or goal was agreed upon

for the managing agencies to strive to

achieve in the future. This vision, highlighted in the box below, describes the

overall riverway resource conditions,

recreational experiences, land and water

uses.

Each action alternative describes different

paths that strive to achieve this common

vision.

 VISION

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

continues to be an important natural protected

corridor for people to use and enjoy. The riverway maintains a diversity of scenic, natural, and

cultural resources while also preserving rural

and small town qualities. The riverway’s unpolluted waters accommodate diverse recreational

and living experiences, ranging from quiet solitude to highly social, motorized uses. This is an

area of minimal conflicts, with riverway users,

landowners, and managers working together and

respecting each other. Coordinated and cooperative management of the riverway stresses and

exemplifies stewardship.

THE PLANNING PROCESS

Planning for the lower riverway began in

the winter of 1995-96. The Cooperative

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement was developed through a collaborative effort, involving all interests that

have a stake in the management of the

lower riverway. With input from the public, the plan was prepared by an interagency planning team consisting of employees from the Minnesota and Wisconsin

Departments of Natural Resources, National Park Service, and the MinnesotaWisconsin Boundary Area Commission.

The Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force

played a key role in completing this plan.

The task force was established in 1996 to

guide development of the cooperative

management plan, facilitate participation

of the riverway stakeholders in the planning process, provide feedback on the three

riverway managing agencies’ work, and

help build stakeholder consensus on the

future management of the lower riverway.

Membership of the task force was open

throughout the planning process to all

interested citizens.

Interested members of the public, citizens

representing boaters, businesses, landowners, environmental groups, local

governments, and various other interests,

and staff of the riverway managing

agencies served on the volunteer task

force. From February 1996 through August

1998, 53 meetings were held to work on

the plan. These meetings covered a host of

topics, including the riverway’s biotic,

geologic, and cultural resources, recreation

issues, local riverway zoning, river crossings, vegetation management, interpretation, winter recreation, island management, riverway administration, commercial

navigation, boundary adjustments, and

management structure. The meetings

focused on issues facing the lower riverway; its purposes, significance, and

exceptional resources; the development

and refinement of the land use and water

use alternatives in the plan; different

options for the lower riverway management structure; guidelines for revisions to

the states’ land and water use regulations;
Introduction

13

and on the interagency planning team’s

work.

The first major step in the planning process

was to collect data and identify goals for

the lower riverway. The planning process

reaffirmed the purposes, identified the

significance and exceptional resources/

values, examined desired futures, developed a vision statement, determined issues

and concerns that need to be addressed in

the plan, and identified planning mandates

and constraints. Data on the lower riverway’s resources, users, and the socioeconomic environment were also collected

and analyzed.

A set of options was developed on the

organizational structure for managing the

lower riverway and a preferred option

identified, and guidelines were established

for use by the states of Minnesota and

Wisconsin to revise their land and water

use regulations within the lower riverway’s

boundaries.

After the alternatives were completed, the

environmental consequences and implications of each alternative were analyzed.

Then all of the above information, including the land and water use alternatives,

management structure options, environmental impact analysis, and the state

guidelines, was incorporated into this Final

Cooperative Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement.

Because of the complex makeup of the

lower riverway, which traverses or abuts

five state parks, one state wildlife management area, five counties, 15 incorporated

communities, and 35 townships, and the

diverse publics interested in the future of

the riverway, public involvement was an

important aspect throughout the planning

process. The task force was one conduit by

which the public could participate in the

planning process. Additional opportunities

also were provided to the public to give

their views on the lower riverway’s

purposes and significance, exceptional

resource values, vision, issues and concerns, desired future conditions, and the

preliminary management alternatives.

Newsletters, workbooks, and media

articles were the primary means relied on

to communicate with the general public. A

mailing list of about 720 individuals and

groups was developed during the course of

the project. Newsletters were mailed out in

November and May 1996, and an alternatives workbook was mailed to the public in

April 1997. Additional workbooks were

mailed out to the public in April and May

of 1998 for workshops on the selection of

the preferred alternative, management

structure, and on the guidelines for state

regulations. Meetings were also held with

local units of government, user groups, and

other interested organizations to discuss

the alternatives. (See the “Consultation and

Coordination” section for more information about public involvement to date.)

PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS

Several major issues were identified that

form the focus of this Cooperative Management Plan. All have the potential to

impact important natural and cultural resources. Some of these issues and concerns

will not be fully resolved in this management plan, but the plan will establish a

framework to resolve them in the future.

Certain issues and concerns will be addressed in more detail in the St. Croix Watershed Stewardship Initiative or as part of the

interagency St. Croix Basin Water Resources Management Plan.
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

14

Conflicts Between Boaters

Conflicts Between Boaters

Boaters seeking different types of experiences and engaged in different activities

create conflicts along the riverway. These

conflicts present management issues

related to watercraft noise, horsepower,

speed, type, and access from the Mississippi River; opportunities for solitude

versus social experiences; boat wakes;

angling; safety; special events (including

large-group events); and the availability of

boater facilities (such as accesses, waysides, beaches, campsites, private docks,

moorings, and sanitary facilities).

Conflicts Between River Users and

Riparian Landowners

Riparian landowners routinely express

displeasure with the behavior of some

boaters. For example, some landowners

complain that boaters trespass and litter on

their property, and that boat wakes create

erosion of the shoreline. They feel the

riverway is being managed in favor of

boaters. Boaters, on the other hand, wish to

continue recreational use of the river and

are concerned about excessive restrictions.

Impacts of Changing Land Uses

The landscape along the lower riverway

and in adjacent areas is undergoing rapid

change in response to regional population

growth, increasing urbanization, and

changing land use patterns. The population

residing in the five counties along the

lower riverway increased from

approximately 189,800 people in 1970 to

361,600 people in 1995 (Bureau of

Economic Analysis, Economic & Statistics

Administration 1997; CD Rom disk). The

number of structures documented within

the riverway’s legal boundaries increased

from an estimated 1,900 in 1973 to 2,225

in 1991, with about 82% of the new

structures added in the state-administered

zone (Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary

Area Commission 1993). The acreage of

urban land in the counties doubled from

1973 to 1991, taking place primarily in

western St. Croix County and eastern

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

There are 13 fundamental assumptions that underpin the plan for the Lower St. Croix. These

assumptions are considered to be “givens,” which

will hold regardless of how the lower riverway is

managed in the future.

• The region will continue to urbanize and the

regional population will continue to increase.

• The values of people living along the lower

riverway are changing as new people move

into the area.

• User demand will increase.

• The potential for resource degradation will

increase.

• The enabling legislation will not change.

• Planning will be grounded on the lower

riverway’s purposes, significance, and

exceptional resources.

• The management agency missions will not

change.

• 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

and waters within the riverway boundary.

• Numerous variables such as floods affecting

the Lower St. Croix are not under the control

of the riverway managing agencies.

• The lower riverway will be managed in manner

that provides as safe a condition as possible.

• The cooperative management plan will not

solve all conflicts between user groups and

between riparian landowners and user groups.

• Changes in statutes, rules, and policies will be

pursued to implement the plan.
Introduction

15

Washington County (Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission 1994). All of

these changes are affecting the riverway’s

natural and cultural resources, scenic

quality, cultural character, and recreational

experiences.

Inconsistencies in the Application and

Enforcement of Zoning Standards and

Regulations

All county and municipal governments

along the Lower St. Croix have adopted

riverway zoning ordinances. However,

there are different zoning standards for

municipal and rural areas in both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Confusion and

misunderstandings have resulted from

unclear, subjective language in the

ordinances. Complicating the situation

further, the two state departments of

natural resources have veto power over

local riverway zoning decisions. Landowners are upset that the ordinances appear

to be inconsistently applied and enforced

by the local governments and departments

of natural resources. Landowners sometimes get mixed messages about what they

can and cannot do on their property. On the

other hand, local governments have

problems trying to interpret the intent of

the ordinances and rules and in dealing

with variance requests for improvements to

existing developments.

Impacts on Water Quality and Quantity

Although the lower riverway’s water

quality today is generally considered to be

good, differences in water quality standards, designations, and policies between

Minnesota and Wisconsin could lead to

inconsistencies in protection of the riverway’s water quality. There are concerns

about pollution entering the riverway from

sources outside the boundary. Runoff from

agricultural lands, roads, urban areas, and

groundwater contamination from septic

systems are all potential pollution sources

that may be affecting the lower riverway’s

tributaries. In addition, discharges from

municipal and industrial wastewater

facilities may be affecting the riverway’s

water quality. As a result of increasing

nutrients in the riverway, Lake St. Croix

and the riverway’s backwaters are beginning to show signs of eutrophication

(increased algae blooms, and unpleasant

odors). Fish also have been contaminated

with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and

several organic compounds, which has

resulted in the states of Minnesota and

Wisconsin issuing fish consumption advisories for the St. Croix. As the population

and developments continue to increase

near the river and its tributaries, the potential for degradation of the riverway’s water

quality will increase. Another concern is

low water releases from operation of the

St. Croix Falls dam in the winter. Low

flows could jeopardize mussel and fish

populations by dewatering part of their

habitat.

Potential Loss of Native Mussel Species

The St. Croix River has one of the richest

freshwater mussel communities in the

world. The segment of the lower riverway

from the Northern States Power dam at St.

Croix Falls/Taylor Falls (NSP dam) to

Osceola has especially high-quality mussel

habitat, as does the Hudson Narrows.

However, native mussel species —

including two federally endangered and

many stated listed species — are threat-
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

16

ened by water pollutants, sedimentation,

the spread of the zebra mussels, loss of

habitat, direct human impacts, and fluctuation of water flows caused by hydropower

peaking operations.

Effects of Recreational Use

on Natural Resources

Islands and shorelines are being eroded;

vegetation is being trampled at landings,

campsites, and popular day use areas; and

human wastes are being deposited in the

river. If recreational use continues to

increase, other resources impacts are likely

to increase, altering the riverway’s soils,

vegetation, wildlife, and water quality in

localized areas.

Effects of Recreational Use on the

Islands

For the past several generations, people

have used the islands in the lower riverway

for camping and picnicking. People beach

their boats on the shoreline of the islands

and set up camp. Without designated

camping sites, these campers use most of

the available space. As a result, ground

vegetation is minimal or nonexistent, littering is common, and wastes have been

left indiscriminately on the islands. Conditions have deteriorated to the point that

some users have been displaced and riparian landowners have made complaints.

Need for Concessions Management

The number of people using outfitters on

the lower riverway is increasing, and these

operations have the potential to significantly affect the experience of visitors on

the riverway and its resources (e.g., crowding, noise, bank erosion, and sanitation

problems). Therefore, managing agencies

will continue to monitor and regulate these

operations as required to protect these

values.

Spread of Exotic Species

Although there is insufficient information

regarding the distribution and abundance

of nonnative or exotic species, they are

found along the lower riverway. In 1985

more than 80 exotic plant species were

listed for the riverway, including purple

loosestrife, spotted knapweed, and reed

canary grass (NPS 1985). The riverway’s

native species are being adversely affected

by these species. Another species of

concern, the zebra mussel, has not yet

spread through the lower riverway but

zebra mussels have been found on boats

entering the lower riverway and on boats

harbored on the St. Croix.

Loss and Fragmentation of Native Plant

Communities

Although remnants of all of the native

plant communities still exist on the lower

riverway and the vegetation appears to be

“natural,” the plant communities are continuing to be affected by people. Management practices along the riverway, grazing,

use of fire and suppression of wildfires,

clearing for agriculture and development,

the introduction of exotic species, natural

plant succession, and diseases (e.g., white

pine blister rust, and oak wilt) and insects

(e.g., gypsy moth) are altering the native

plant communities in varying degrees. The

prairie and oak savanna communities along
Introduction

17

the lower riverway have been the most

severely affected by people.

Lack of Information on Natural and

Cultural Resources

Many resources of the lower riverway have

not been inventoried and evaluated. Baseline data on many biological resources,

including current biological characteristics

and trends, is lacking. A lack of knowledge

of the St. Croix fishery, for example, limits

understanding of potential impacts to the

fishery. Most of the riverway’s natural

resources are not being monitored. Some

basic cultural resource data, such as information on archeological sites and on cultural landscapes, is still lacking. Native

American burial sites also are not known

and frequently are not protected from

development. Without this basic natural

and cultural resource information, the

managing agencies will not be aware of

significant resources in the riverway,

impacts that are occurring to those

resources, or management strategies

needed to protect and maintain these

resources.

Lack of Cultural Resource

Management

Cultural resource management has been a

lower priority than management of natural

resources. As a result, there is the potential

for the degradation and loss of cultural

resources and a loss in the opportunity to

interpret the riverway’s resources for users.

Impacts of New River Crossings

The Lower St. Croix is on the edge of the

rapidly growing Twin Cities metropolitan

area. Growth is occurring on both sides of

the riverway. With the riverway’s northsouth alignment, there will be continued

pressure for people, commodities, communications systems, and energy systems

to cross the riverway. These various types

of crossings potentially can affect the

riverway’s resources, although to different

degrees. Proposals to build or expand

highway or railroad bridges can significantly impact the riverway’s scenic quality.

Construction of submarine crossings can

affect aquatic resources. Utility lines have

a visual impact, and right-of-way maintenance for crossings such as pipelines can

impact resources. A lack of coordination

among the companies and agencies proposing projects, regulatory agencies, and

riverway managing agencies also encourages crossings to proliferate and compounds the potential for impacts.

Access to the Riverway

There are differing views as to whether

boat access to the lower riverway is

adequate. Some argue that increased boat

access (e.g., more access points and

marinas) is needed so more people can

enjoy the riverway. Others argue that boat

access needs to be reduced to decrease

crowding and resource impacts and to

provide opportunities for experiences that

are rapidly disappearing in the region (e.g.,

quality fishing, quiet, and solitude).
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

18

Navigation Channel Maintenance

Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers to maintain a 9-foot

navigation channel from the confluence

with the Mississippi River to Stillwater,

and a 3-foot navigation channel up to the

NSP dam. However, the Corps has not

maintained the 3-foot channel for many

years. Channel maintenance plans for the

9-foot channel assume only the Kinnickinnic Narrows will require dredging in the

next 40 years. The operation and maintenance of these channels can impact, and be

impacted by, resource management strategies, recreational use characteristics,

aesthetics, recreational boater safety, and

aquatic resources. For example, if the 9-

foot channel is not periodically dredged in

places, eventually some commercial users

would not be able to use the Lower St.

Croix. On the other hand, if the 3-foot

channel was maintained, it would provide

easier motorboat access.

Perceived Lack of Enforcement

Five county sheriff departments, two state

departments of natural resources, and the

National Park Service all provide on-water

enforcement. However, there is uneven

enforcement, and uneven enforcement

capabilities, between all the agencies.

Although there have been and are still

efforts underway, there is a perception that

on-water law enforcement is poorly coordinated among the agencies, leading to gaps

in enforcement coverage at times, duplication of enforcement coverage at other

times, and inconsistencies in enforcement.

Inconsistencies in Regulation of

Recreatioal Uses

Users have complained about inconsistencies in the way in which the National

Park Service and the Wisconsin and Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources

regulate boating, fishing, hunting, and

trapping in the riverway. For example,

watercraft noise laws are slightly different

in the two states and are difficult to

enforce. In Minnesota, the counties have

veto power over state water-surface use

regulations, which also has the potential to

lead to inconsistencies.

Lack of Coordination

There is a need for better coordination,

communication, and cooperation, and

integrated management and planning

between the riverway managing agencies

and the federal, state, and local governments. In particular, local and regional

governments have expressed frustration

that they lack a vote or even a seat at the

table when management policies are

established for the lower riverway. Insufficient coordination occurs with other

agencies that have management responsibilities on the St. Croix, such as the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota and Wisconsin departments of transportation. There is also a need for better

coordination and communication between

the public and the riverway managing

agencies.
Introduction

19

Issues Not Addressed in the Cooperative

Management Plan

Several ongoing issues and projects are not

directly addressed by this plan. The question of whether or not to build a new

bridge between Houlton and Stillwater was

and continues to be addressed in a separate

environmental impact statement developed

by the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation and Federal

Highway Administration, with input from

the National Park Service, the Minnesota

and Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources, and others. The question of

whether or not to build a replacement for

the existing lift bridge at Stillwater is an

issue that will be addressed in separate

environmental impact processes, independent of this plan.

One other existing proposal for the lower

riverway also is not addressed in this plan.

A proposal to build an electrical transmission line across the river in the Taylors

Falls/St. Croix Falls area is being addressed in a separate environmental review

process being led by the Rural Utility

Service, the Minnesota Environmental

Quality Board, and the Wisconsin Public

Service Commission. The question of

whether to build this line, called the

Chisago Project, and if so, where, is being

addressed independently of this plan.
20

 OTHER RELATED PLANNING EFFORTS

Several other plans — both within the

riverway and the larger watershed — are in

place or are being developed, all of which

provide management direction to the lower

riverway. These plans are summarized

below.

An Interagency Cooperative Fisheries

Management Plan for the riverway,

developed by the Minnesota and

Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources and the National Park Service,

will be released in 2000. The plan will set

the framework for cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the

riverway.

Recovery plans for the Higgins’ eye mussel

and the winged mapleleaf mussel were

completed in 1983 and 1997. The Higgins’

eye plan is currently being updated. These

recovery plans prescribe management

actions to protect the mussels and their

habitat and to lead eventually to stable

populations.

A General Management Plan for the

Upper St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

was recently completed by the National

Park Service. The plan for the Upper St.

Croix and Namekagon Rivers also addresses an array of management issues. Although there is a clear link between the two

areas and their management, and the planning processes are related, the distinction is

that the Upper St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway is solely managed by the National Park Service. The states of Minnesota

and Wisconsin and the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission cooperated in the development of the plan for the

upper riverway. This planning process for

the upper riverway began in the winter of

1994–95. The final plan was published in

August 1998.

The St. Croix Watershed Stewardship

Initiative is being prepared in conjunction

with the cooperative management plan

through efforts of the planning task force

and partnership team members. Based

largely on recognition of the important

relationship between the St. Croix Riverway and its approximately 7,760 squaremile watershed in Minnesota and Wisconsin, this initiative will be a “vision-type”

plan that embraces the unique and precious

character of the area. Collaborative planning includes participation by citizens and

local and regional governments. The product will be a guidebook that is companion

to the Cooperative Management Plan for

the riverway, which includes common

visions as well as management of the

watershed through proper stewardship

efforts. A strong connection will be shown

that what happens on the lower riverway is

strongly influenced by what happens in the

watershed. A watershed resources directory

and a website and anticipated yearly symposiums are also part of the initiative.

The National Park Service has prepared a

Water Resource Management Plan (NPS

1997) to guide actions in the federally administered portions of both the upper and

lower riverway. This plan summarizes

data, recommends additional research,

inventories, and monitoring, and proposes

actions to address management issues such

as establishing a cooperative interagency

database. Work on this plan was completed

in spring 1997.

The St. Croix River Basin Water Resources

Management Plan is being prepared by an
Introduction

21

interagency task force, which includes the

U.S. Geological Survey, National Park

Service, the Wisconsin and Minnesota

Departments of Natural Resources, the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

Metropolitan Council, the Environmental

Protection Agency, the University of

Minnesota, the Great Lakes Indian Fish

and Wildlife Commission, and the

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission. This project’s goal is to

protect and improve the quality of the

surface and groundwater resources of the

St. Croix River basin through coordinated

planning and management. Elements of

this process were completed in 1995 and

1997, and other elements are scheduled for

completion in 1999 and 2001.

The National Water Quality Assessment

Program examines the status and trends in

water quality in the upper Mississippi

River basin between Royalton, Minnesota,

and Lake Pepin (in both Wisconsin and

Minnesota), including the St. Croix basin.

This study, led by the U.S. Geological

Survey, is aimed at providing water quality

information to policymakers; as such, it is

a valuable contributor of information to the

St. Croix River basin water resources

management plan process. A report is

scheduled to be completed in 2001.

The Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan

presents a strategy to prevent or slow the

spread of the zebra mussel into the St.

Croix Riverway (see appendix G). The task

force, composed of representatives of the

National Park Service, Minnesota and

Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife

Commission and Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission updates this

plan annually.

Several other NPS plans relate specifically

to both the upper riverway and the

federally administered portion of the lower

riverway. These include the Resources

Management Plan, Land Protection Plan,

and the Strategic Plan. These plans are

updated periodically. (The National Park

Service is also preparing a Fire Management Plan for the upper and lower riverway, which addresses fire suppression and

prescribed burning for ecosystem restoration purposes.)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared a channel maintenance management

plan in 1997. This plan, which is updated

regularly, provides historic data on the St.

Croix channel and states the Corps’ dredging policy, mitigation strategies, and coordination for maintaining the navigation

channel in the St. Croix. The plan specifically focuses on work needed to maintain

the channel in the Kinnickinnic Narrows

and at Hudson.

Because the boundary of the riverway

either includes or is directly adjacent to

several state and county properties, there

are many state, county, city, and regional

plans that could significantly influence the

riverway. These include management plans

for Minnesota Interstate, Wisconsin

Interstate, William O’Brien, Afton, and

Kinnickinnic State Parks; St. Croix Bluffs

Regional Park; and the St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area. All of the counties also

have revised, or are in the process of

developing, comprehensive land

use/zoning plans: Chisago County has

updated its shoreline and zoning ordinance

and comprehensive plan; Washington

County recently completed updating its

comprehensive plans; Pierce County has a

comprehensive plan in place and recently

adopted a comprehensive zoning
CONTEXT FOR THE PLAN

22

ordinance; and Polk, St. Croix and Chisago

Counties are revising and developing

comprehensive land use plans.

Numerous cities and towns along the Lower St. Croix have also comprehensive plans

or are in the process of updating land and

zoning planning guidelines.

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

Minnesota are regional planning efforts

that include current and long range urban

development guidelines. The council’s

policies directed toward guiding the

region’s growth include the Aviation

Policy Plan, the Recreation Open Space

Policy Plan, the Transportation Policy

Plan, the Water Resources Management

Policy Plan, and the Regional Blueprint.
23

NEXT STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

This Final Cooperative Management Plan

/ Environmental Impact Statement for the

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

includes responses to substantive comments on the draft plan. It will be approved

by the National Park Service’s Midwest

regional director, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources secretary, and

the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources commissioner. At least 30 days

after the final environmental impact

statement / cooperative management plan

is printed, the National Park Service will

publish a record of decision in the Federal

Register. Following this process, the final

cooperative management plan will be

produced. The managing agencies will

implement the plan as funding becomes

available.
Management Directions

Common to all Alternative s

Land & Water Use Alternativ e s

Management Structure Optio n s
27

INTRODUCTION

FRAMEWORK FOR THE

ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes a range of alternatives for use and management of the Lower

St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. The

alternatives and the assessment of the

potential environmental consequences of

the alternatives, which is presented in the

“Environmental Consequences” chapter,

form the core of the Draft Cooperative

Management Plan / Environmental Impact

Statement. Alternatives in this plan describe different general concepts or visions

for the future of the lower riverway over

the next 15 to 20 years. They are intended

to enable managers, users, neighbors, and

the public to consider different approaches

to managing users and resources, directing

development, and resolving conflicts.

The chapter is divided into several parts.

First, there is a discussion of how the alternatives were developed. A number of common management directions and associated

strategies that would be implemented

under all alternatives are then described.

The land and water management areas that

would be applied in most of the alternatives follows that discussion. Next, the

preferred alternative is presented — the

plan the riverway managing agencies are

proposing to implement on the Lower St.

Croix — followed by four other alternatives for managing the land and water in

the lower riverway. The “no action” alternative is also presented, which describes

how the lower riverway is currently managed and would be managed in the future if

no major changes occurred. Each alternative includes a description of the management concept and its intent, and a discussion of how the land and water in the

riverway would be managed. Each of the

action alternatives have a map showing

where different land and water management areas would be designated, a discussion of several key topics that vary between the alternatives (e.g., river crossings,

vegetative management), and a discussion

of what would be needed to implement the

alternative. Following these alternatives

are other alternatives that were originally

considered but not analyzed further.

After the six land use/water use management alternatives, a set of options is presented that identifies different organizational structures for the future management of the lower riverway along with a

preferred option. Any of the management

structure options could be combined with

any of the land and water use management

alternatives.

Implementation costs for each alternative

are presented at the end of the chapter.

Tables summarizing the key differences

between the land use and water use alternatives and the impacts of implementing the

alternatives as well as tables summarizing

the management structure options and their

impacts follow the discussion.

The preferred alternative and common

management directions suggest guidelines

for new state regulations governing land

uses and water-based recreational (see

appendixes A and B). Additional regulations of some riverway uses might be

needed in the future. However, the managing agencies would solicit additional public

input before implementing any regulations

that would alter use patterns or levels on

the riverway, change land use, etc. This

would include any new regulations pro-
ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS

28

posed as the result of the Cooperative

Management Plan and any other possible

future regulations not specifically identified in this plan. If new federal regulations

were needed, the National Park Service

would print the proposed regulations in the

Federal Register to solicit public

comment.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE

ALTERNATIVES

In developing the common management

directions and the alternatives, several

elements were considered: the lower

riverway’s resources and uses, its purposes

and significance, the overall vision for

what the riverway ideally would look like

in 20 years, the managing agencies’ missions, mandates, and constraints, and the

major riverway issues that reflect differing

desired futures.

A series of potential management areas

were identified to describe desired user

experiences and resource conditions that

could be provided. Then different concepts

were developed for managing the land uses

and water surface uses within the riverway

boundary. Five concepts were initially

identified for land use management and

five concepts for water surface management. When combined, these concepts

could result in 25 possible alternatives.

However, not all combinations were

viable, reasonable alternatives, and from a

practical standpoint it was too timeconsuming and costly to assess the

implications of these alternatives.

Five alternatives were selected for

managing the Lower St. Croix, plus a “no

action” alternative. After an alternatives

workbook was published, one of these

alternatives —alternative E — was subsequently dismissed from further consideration. A series of additional meetings

were then held to further refine the alternatives and the common management

directions.

These five alternatives represent a full

range of reasonable alternatives for managing the lower riverway. They address

different desired futures while remaining

consistent with the riverway principles,

planning assumptions, purposes and

significance, legislative mandates (e.g., the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the

Endangered Species Act), and the lower

riverway managing agencies’ missions.

The next major step was to develop a

preferred alternative. A public workshop

was held using a caucus/negotiation

process to develop the preferred alternative. Individuals divided into caucus

groups that were closest to their desired

future for the riverway and determined

what positions to take where there were

different viewpoints. Representatives from

these groups then met and negotiated to

reach consensus where possible. Unresolved issues were discussed at subsequent

workshops. Of 106 decision points in

development of a preferred alternative,

consensus was reached on 79 issues (75%)

and forwarded 27 issues for resolution by

the management commission.

It should be remembered that the preferred

alternative could still change. Following

public review of this draft document, more

changes could be made to the preferred

alternative, or a different alternative could

be selected as the preferred alternative.
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO

ALL ALTERNATIVES
31

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Several management actions need to be

taken on the lower riverway regardless of

which alternative is approved by the

National Park Service and the Minnesota

and Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources. These management actions

would be taken under all of the alternatives.

Most of these actions are based on existing

state and federal laws, cooperating agency

policies, and general planning principles, all

of which support the purposes and

significance of the lower riverway.

COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG MANAGING PARTNERS AND BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE ENTITIES

The National Park Service, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources, and

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources have a long history of working

together as managing partners on the lower

riverway. The managing agencies would

continue to work together to guide activities

and management within the riverway

consistent with the approved management

plan.

Because Minnesota and Wisconsin also

manage lands that are adjacent but not

within the riverway boundaries, the

managing agencies would encourage

management of both states’ lands (state

parks, wildlife management areas, and

natural areas) in a manner that would be

consistent with the cooperative management

plan.

The enabling legislation for the riverway

specifies that the National Park Service will

have primary management responsibility

north of Stillwater and that the states will be

the primary managers from Stillwater south.

In practice however, there is significant

overlap in jurisdictions. The states have the

same on-water law enforcement authority

and the same oversight over private land use

both north and south of Stillwater. Despite

jurisdictions that sometimes overlap and

sometimes do not, the three managing

agencies would strive to manage the entire

riverway holistically.

Although there are alternatives for certain

approaches to management activities (see

the “Introduction”), the managing agencies

would coordinate management activities

and responses to riverway issues and

concerns to facilitate an integrated and

consistent management approach. Whenever possible, the agencies would actively

pursue and support cooperative studies and

planning for land and water resources

management in areas of mutual interest.

Many other agencies and organizations

within and outside the riverway also affect

the management and use of the Lower St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway. These

include many private businesses, five

counties, numerous municipalities and

townships, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the MinnesotaWisconsin Boundary Area Commission, the

Environmental Protection Agency, other

state agencies, and private groups and individuals. The cooperation of these organizations is essential to the effective and

efficient management of the lower riverway.

The managing agencies would work

cooperatively with all levels of government
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

32

and the private sector to ensure the protection of the riverway’s resources and maintain quality experiences for all users; manage land use, water surface use, vegetation,

wildlife, and fisheries; and deal with other

issues of mutual concern. Cooperative

relationships would be fostered through

regular communication and establishment of

informal and formal partnerships or

agreements such as implementation of the

Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan. The

managing agencies would coordinate

enforcement of laws and regulations with

local governments and other state and

federal agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Optional

riverway administrative and management

frameworks for achieving a cooperative and

coordinated management approach are

presented later in this chapter.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Management of private land use is a

partnership between the states and local

governments. Local governments enact and

enforce zoning ordinances based on state

standards. Under no circumstances would

state standards adopted for the riverway be

less restrictive than statewide shoreland

management standards. These standards

apply to the lands within the rvierway

boundary (as published in the Federal

Register) between the dam at St. Croix Falls

/ Taylors Falls and the confluence of the

Mississippi River .

AMERICAN INDIAN

TREATY RIGHTS

Eight Anishinaabe, or Chippewa bands, the

Mille Lacs, Fond du Lac, St. Croix, Bad

River, Lac du Flambeau, Lac Court Oreilles,

Sokagon, and Red Cliff, have had offreservation treaty rights reaffirmed within

the riverway. In the treaty signed in 1837,

the Chippewa ceded lands to the U.S.

government, but retained the rights to hunt,

fish, and gather on these lands, including

those along the St. Croix north of Cedar

Bend (river mile 41, south of Osceola). All

American Indian treaty rights would be

respected. The managing partners would

work with the affected tribes to ensure that

tribal subsistence hunting, fishing, and

gathering rights within the riverway were

available to and appropriately exercised by

tribal members. The National Park Service

and state authorities recognize these treaty

rights and would work with the tribes,

individual bands, and the Great Lakes

Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission to

ensure that the rights would be honored and

that issues of common interest would be

addressed.

Bands of the Sioux, or Dakota, nation at one

time also occupied lands in the St. Croix

valley. Although the Dakota have no treaty

rights in the riverway, they retain historic

and cultural ties to the area which must be

respected. The managing partners would

consult with representatives of the Dakota

nation to identify significant sites associated

with the tribe’s history and ensure proper

interpretation of the Dakota’s historic use of

the riverway.
Management Actions

33

RIVERWAY STEWARDSHIP

On the Lower St. Croix, stewardship would

involve ensuring the rights of the current

generation to use and enjoy the riverway

without interfering with the rights of future

generations to use and enjoy the same highquality resource.

The managing agencies would strongly

encourage landowners, local governments,

and riverway users to adopt, with a cooperative spirit, the riverway’s philosophy of

preservation and protection of its significant

resources and values. Building a stewardship commitment among river landowners,

local officials, and users would be essential

because the state and federal governments

could not achieve the long-term riverway

protection goals alone.

The managing agencies would work to build

public stewardship and support for riverway

protection. They would promote awareness,

understanding , and support for protection

of the riverway’s natural, cultural, scenic,

and recreational values, and the rules, regulations, and policies that guide riverway

activities and uses. This would be done in a

variety of ways, such as interpretive exhibits, educational outreach programs, newsletters, and presentations to local governments and publics. Land and recreational

use practices (e.g., soil erosion prevention,

minimum impact camping) that protect and

enhance riverway resources and values

would also be encouraged, as would

involvement by volunteer groups and

individuals in organized river protection

programs such as Adopt-a-River and

Riverwatch. The Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission and private

organizations, such as land trusts and the

Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy, are

actively involved in a variety of efforts to

promote private land stewardship in the

riverway, and their roles are expected to

continue in the future.

The riverway is strongly influenced by what

happens in the greater watershed. Locally

initiated stewardship efforts would be integral to managing and protecting environmental resources (e. g., wildlife habitat,

remnant plant communities, scenic areas)

not only within the riverway but within the

greater viewshed, which frequently extends

outside the riverway boundary and watershed. Local government programs and

policies that would promote voluntary

means to help protect and preserve the

riverway’s resources would be encouraged.

Local initiatives within the watershed would

complement the protective efforts within the

riverway. Innovative and cooperative efforts, such as the land stewardship program

initiated by Washington and Chisago Counties in collaboration with their local units of

government and citizens to create a protected green corridor, is an example of one

such effort. Other ongoing programs by the

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

county conservation departments, and

watershed districts would also continue to

promote stewardship and use of best

management practices. Forest stewardship

programs are another example of landowner

assistance with broad implications for

watershed management.

A Watershed Stewardship Initiative is in

progress to address broader watershed

issues facing the riverway. Work has begun

to further engage citizens, interest groups,

and governmental agencies into crafting an

overall stewardship framework to identify

and compile key issues, concerns, and

opportunities within the larger St. Croix

watershed area (totaling approximately

7,760 square miles in Wisconsin and
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

34

Minnesota). Efforts are currently underway

to identify the scope of the stewardship

initiative, setting a common vision/

mission direction and organizing the wide

variety of “stakeholder” groups in the St.

Croix area. Since this initiative extends to

the entire watershed and far beyond the

regulatory boundary of the riverway, it

depends entirely on the voluntary actions

of citizens and local governments

(additional description of the initiative is

found on page 19).

NATURAL RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

Under all of the alternatives the lower

riverway’s natural resources would continue

to be managed in accordance with NPS and

Minnesota and Wisconsin state policies and

regulations. The managing agencies would

strive to maintain all the components and

processes of the riverway’s naturally evolving ecosystems, including the natural diversity and ecological integrity of the

riverway’s plants and animals.

The managing agencies would pursue

resource inventory, monitoring, and

research programs to enhance knowledge of

vegetative communities, wildlife populations, and natural processes and to evaluate trends and threats. This information

would provide the basis for the preparation

and periodic updating of specific

management plans (e.g., fisheries

management plan, water resources

management plan).

Cooperative management of resources

would be encouraged by conducting

joint/cofunded programs and preparing

comprehensive, interagency management

plans where appropriate.

Water Quality and Quantity

The water quality of the Lower St. Croix is

relatively good and is one of the riverway’s

most important assets, but the quality of the

river’s water is slowly degrading from a

variety of point and nonpoint sources. The

managing agencies and the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) would

work to protect and improve the water

quality of the lower riverway. Recognizing

that the water quality management programs

of both states are not identical, effective

water quality protection and improvement

would be enhanced by establishing uniform

water quality goals for the lower river. The

states would implement their planning,

regulatory, and assistance programs to

achieve agreed to water quality goals. This

approach would apply to both point source

and nonpoint source water quality

management programs.

The managing agencies and the MPCA,

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission, Environmental Protection

Agency, and U.S. Geological Survey would

continue to develop and implement water

quality protection measures. Current

activities are underway to complete a St.

Croix Water Quality Management Plan. As

established, this plan will be a compilation

of current, ongoing, and projected technical

water resources studies related to the St.

Croix River and its’ 7,760 square- mile

basin area. Included in the analysis are water

quality monitoring programs, nutrient

loading issues, impoundment affects, and

other subjects relative to water quality

impacts. This planning effort will address

protection and improvement of both surface

and groundwater resources within the entire

St. Croix river drainage. Interagency development of a whole basin strategy for the St.

Croix River would provide a more compre-
Management Actions

35

hensive and integrated effort to establish

uniform water quality goals and protect

water resources. Studies and data collection

needed to obtain information to determine

specific water-quality goals and priorities

has been initiated and will continue.

Surveys of resource conditions and major

pollutants and ground water contaminants,

determination of the sources of pollutants

both within and outside the riverway,

identification of impacts from land- and

water-based uses, and establishment of a

long-term monitoring program would be

pursued. Based on this information, specific

goals, projects, and mitigating measures

would be developed and implemented.

Interagency partnerships with local

governments would be used to focus

financial resources and expertise on issues

of common concern. Development and

implementation of the basin water quality

management plan would also be coordinated and integrated with other related basin

area activities. Examples of these activities

include the Upper Mississippi National

Water Quality Assessment Program,

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency basin plans, local watershed plans,

as well as other local programs by the

Natural Resources Conservation Service,

county conservation departments, and

watershed districts.

Floods occur on a regular basis on the St.

Croix. Damage to managing agencies’

lands and facilities from floods is usually

related to deposition of sediment or erosion

of shorelines. In the event of a largemagnitude flood with severe damage,

restoration of facilities would be evaluated

on a case-by-case basis. The managing

agencies might choose to close damaged

facilities and restore the location to natural

conditions. Where there was damage, such

as bank erosion, that was not associated

with managing agency facilities, natural

forces would be allowed to take their

course.

As dams on the St. Croix River and its

tributaries age, their removal may become a

reasonable and even desirable option. As

part of the water basin planning effort and

other ongoing resource studies, the effects

of the hydropower and nonhydropower

impoundments and their operations on the

St. Croix River and its tributaries would be

investigated. Both the positive and negative

changes to river morphology, water quality,

biological communities, recreation, and

aesthetics would be evaluated. Potential

benefits to the long-term natural hydrologic

and ecological conditions of the river and

watershed from dam removal or operational

flow modification would be identified.

Air Quality

The managing agencies monitor air

quality-related values of the riverway from

adverse air pollution impacts. Air quality

related values include visibility, water

quality, vegetation, wildlife, historic and

prehistoric structures and objects, and

other resources that could be degraded by

air pollution. Air quality within the riverway and the effects of air pollutants upon

the riverway’s resources is difficult to

evaluate without adequate information.

State air quality management programs

would continue to be a primary mechanism

for addressing air quality monitoring and

pollutant prevention and control. In addition, air quality indicators within the riverway, such as pollution-sensitive lichen

species, would be identified and monitored

to evaluate air quality trends.
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

36

Mussel Management

A cooperative interagency approach is

underway and would continue to protect and

conserve the native freshwater mussel

assemblage and habitat found within the St.

Croix watershed. Mechanisms to increase

coordination and information exchange

among all agencies, organizations, and

institutions that study, manage, conserve, or

recover native freshwater mussels in the St.

Croix watershed would be identified and

developed. Fundamental knowledge about

the mussel fauna and habitat is critical to

effectively managing and conserving this

resource. Studies would be initiated to

enhance knowledge on the basic biology

and habitat requirements, status and trends,

and threats and impacts from various

sources and activities to native mussel

populations and their habitats. Management

strategies would be developed to protect and

reverse the decline of quality mussel habitat

and to minimize or eliminate threats from

zebra mussels and other non-native species.

The Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan

would continue to be fully implemented.

Regulations prohibiting the harvesting or

taking of mussels would continue to be

strictly enforced in the federally administered zone.

The future of the freshwater mussel fauna as

well as other aquatic and aquatic-dependent

species of the riverway would depend a

great deal on the degree of public and other

agency support for aquatic ecosystem

protection and recovery programs. An

information and education program would

be developed and implemented to increase

public awareness of the plight of mussels

and the benefits of maintaining the ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems and

to develop support for protection efforts.

Two mussel species, the winged mapleleaf

and Higgins’ eye, are listed as federally

endangered species. The managing agencies would continue to support the successful implementation of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s recovery plans for these

species. Habitat protection actions such as

retrofitting bridges for spills containment

and run-of-the-river hydropower generation at the NSP dam should be evaluated

for implementation.

Fisheries Management

The managing agencies, in cooperation with

the Chippewa tribes, would manage the

lower riverway’s fisheries to maintain the

diversity and abundance of the riverway’s

native fisheries and maintain and restore

their aquatic habitat. Fish harvests would be

managed to be sustainable and consistent

with sound resource management principles.

Resource inventory, monitoring, and

research programs would be pursued to

enhance knowledge of fish populations and

their habitats to determine and evaluate

changes in response to habitat dynamics,

recreational fishing, land use, and management actions. The managing agencies completed a Memorandum of Understanding

related to fisheries management in the

spring of 1998. One key element of the

MOU is preparation of an interagency

cooperative fisheries management plan for

the entire riverway. The plan should be

completed in 2000 and should include

recommendations specific to the lower

riverway.

Exotic Species

A number of invasive exotic plant species

are already present in the Lower St. Croix
Management Actions

37

National Scenic Riverway. Some of these

plants, such as purple loosestrife, Eurasian

water milfoil, spotted knapweed, and

buckthorn are threats to the riverway’s

natural ecosystems. The managing partners

would survey and monitor the riverway for

the presence of exotic plant species. They

would control as best they can those exotic

species that are a hazard to public safety,

damage historic or archeological resources,

interfere with natural processes and the

perpetuation of natural features or native

species, or significantly hamper the

management of the riverway or adjacent

lands. High priority would be given to

controlling exotic species that have a

substantial impact on the riverway’s

resources and that could reasonably be

expected to be successfully controlled.

The Lower St. Croix is currently free of

zebra mussel infestation, although they have

been found attached to recreational boats on

the river. A zebra mussel action plan has

been prepared by the interagency Zebra

Mussel Task Force and is updated annually

(see appendix G). The managing agencies

would implement the recommendations of

the Zebra Mussel Task Force, as identified

in the current action plan and any future

revisions, that were within the authority of

the agencies to carry out. The Zebra Mussel

Task Force would continue to monitor for

the presence of the zebra mussel, inform

and educate the public about the mussel and

the threat it poses, and take actions including regulations and enforcement to prevent

zebra mussels from becoming established.

In addition, the states have received funds

from the National Aquatic Nuisance Species

Task Force to implement the St. Croix

National Scenic Riverway Comprehensive

Interstate Management Plan for the Prevention and Control of Nonindigenous

Aquatic Nusance Species. This plan focuses

much of its attention on the zebra mussel

but also addresses the rusty crayfish, a snail

of the genus Cipangopaludina, and the

Asiatic clam, all of which have been in the

St. Croix River. The plan also covers

several species that are found in the Mississippi River watershed that potentially

threaten the St. Croix, including the spiny

water flea, grass carp, bighead carp, rudd,

ruffe, round goby, and white perch.

Threatened and Endangered Species

The federal Endangered Species Act

provides special protection to all federally

listed threatened and endangered species

and their critical habitats. Plants and

animals appearing on state lists of

endangered, threatened, and special concern

species also have special status. The

riverway contains a number of plants and

animals that appear on federal and/or state

lists and therefore are provided special

protection under state and federal laws. The

National Park Service and the two departments of natural resources have special

responsibilities to protect these species and

their habitats. In addition, the three agencies

will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the Great Lakes Indian Fish and

Wildlife Commission to inventory, monitor,

protect, and perpetuate the natural distribution and abundance of special status species.

The agencies would implement their respective components of the recovery plans developed for threatened and endangered

species (see appendixes D and E).

MANAGEMENT OF HUNTING,

FISHING, AND TRAPPING

The management of hunting and fishing as

recreational activities would continue to be
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

38

primarily the responsibility of the respective

states. The two state departments of natural

resources will set quotas and bag limits to

maintain balanced game and non-game

populations. The National Park Service

would continue to cooperate with the state

departments of natural resources and the

affected Chippewa bands in regulating

sporthunting, fishing, and subsistence

harvesting of wildlife and fish within the

riverway. The Chippewa view hunting,

fishing, and gathering as traditional subsistence activities. Their off-reservation treaty

rights allow them under certain circumstances to trap furbearing animals and to

spear and net fish in the riverway north from

Cedar Bend.

Chippewa hunting, fishing, and trapping

rights along a portion of the riverway were

reserved in the Treaty of 1837. Tribal

members exercising these rights are

regulated by tribal codes that must be no

more liberal (but that may be more

restrictive) than the model off-reservation

Conservation Code that the various bands

sharing these off-reservation harvesting

rights have adopted. Any licenses, permits,

or tags that tribal members require are

obtained from their tribe or from the Great

Lakes Fish and Wildlife Commission,

which was formed to assist its member

tribes in the exercise of these rights. The

commission also works with the tribes and

other state and federal natural resource

agencies to ensure that all harvests are

sustainable and consistent with sound

resource management principles.

Other groups who have recently moved into

the region have different cultural approaches

to fishing. Some might not be entirely familiar with state regulations governing fishing

in the riverway and federal regulations prohibiting the taking of mussels. The managing agencies would devise new or use existing outreach programs that would communicate natural resource regulations to these

groups.

The safety of recreationists and the general

public would be of primary concern, especially in areas of increasing development and

human encroachment. The managing agencies might also limit access based on wildlife management and safety considerations.

Trapping would continue to be managed on

all lands and waters on NPS fee lands as

established by past federal court decision.

Outside NPS jurisdiction, trapping would

continue to be regulated by the two state

departments of natural resources. There is

an exception for qualified Native Americans

exercising their treaty rights.

RECREATIONAL USE

MANAGEMENT

General Types of Uses

Recreational use management has some

aspects that vary by alternative, however,

there are some aspects that are common to

all of the alternatives, which are discussed

in this section. The cooperating managers

would work to promote uses and behaviors

that ensure high-quality and safe experiences for all users and help maintain and

protect the riverway’s resources. Under all

of the alternatives a variety of water uses

would continue, including nonmotorized

and motorized activities. However, some

alternatives place greater emphasis on slow,

nonmotorized boating while others emphasize less restricted boating. With regard to

terrestrial recreational uses, in all of the

alternatives, existing uses (e.g., biking,

hiking, and the use of motorized vehicles)

would continue on designated roads and

trails within the riverway. Other than
Management Actions

39

existing state regulations pertaining to trail

uses, no additional regulations would be

imposed unless they were needed for safety

or resource protection, or to address conflicts that might arise from increased use or

new types of uses. Camping would also

continue; however, restrictions such as

designation of sites or closures of some

islands to camping would vary under the

alternatives. In general, recreational uses

would continue unless it is demonstrated

that unacceptable resource impacts, user

conflicts, or conflicts with adjacent private

landowners are occurring.

State, county, and city parks and nongovernmental nature centers in both Wisconsin and

Minnesota would continue to provide recreational opportunities (e.g., swimming

beaches, picnic areas, campgrounds, trails)

within or close to the riverway. Additional

overlooks, picnic areas, and other opportunities to enjoy the river from the land

would be encouraged in accordance with the

riverway’s management area scheme and

would most likely be accomplished through

public/private partnerships. The five state

parks that abut the lower river, while technically not within the official riverway

boundary, would be managed in a way that

is consistent with this plan.

Many miles of trails offer hiking, bicycling,

horseback riding, skiing, snowmobiling,

snowshoeing, and other activities. A number

of private groups and communities in the St.

Croix Valley are working to expand the

network of existing trails. For example, a

trail is proposed from William O’Brien

State Park to Taylors Falls. The riverway

managing agencies would work in partnership with user groups, communities, local

agencies, and others in development of a

comprehensive regional trail network to

provide trail connections to link trails along

or near the river and with other areas outside

the river corridor. Trail development would

be coordinated with state trail plans, county

comprehensive plans, and other pertinent

plans. Assistance of user groups and other

trail supporters would continue to be integral to the development and maintenance of

trails.

Existing railway rights-of-way might offer

the potential to expand trails and river

access for the nonboating public within the

lower riverway. Abandoned railway rightsof-way, if and when available, would be

pursued for conversion to trails consistent

with the National Rail to Trails Act. Also,

when roads along the river were improved,

the addition of bicycle lanes would be

encouraged.

The amount of recreational use in the winter

is far less than that which takes place during

other seasons. Winter recreational uses that

are consistent with the purposes of the riverway and that do not require major new facilities would continue to be allowed. New

regulations would be instituted only as

necessary for safety or to address conflicts

or resource protection needs that might arise

from increased use or new types of use. The

managing agencies would work to resolve

inconsistencies in existing winter use regulations governing icehouse use and licensing.

The frozen river surface between Osceola

and St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls is closed to

snowmobile use under 36 Code of Federal

Regulations 7.9. Snowmobiles are allowed

on the frozen river surface of the St. Croix

south of Osceola and designated trails that

traverse the riverway, and snowmobile use

would continue in accordance with state

and/or federal snowmobile use policy and

regulations.This use would be restricted if
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

40

there were unacceptable resource impacts,

user conflicts, safety considerations, or

conflicts with adjacent private landowners.

Cross-country skiers would continue to be

permitted to use the frozen river or other

unmarked, unofficial routes in the riverway.

Although activities on the frozen river surface (e.g., cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, snowmobiling, ice fishing) would be

permitted, the managing agencies would not

encourage such use because of the inherent

danger.

Any new activity within the riverway which

would draw large gatherings of people and

would likely cause the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land,

or other natural resources in the riverway

should be prohibited.

Where there is no feasible and prudent

alternative and the gathering is consistent

with and reasonable and required for the

promotion of the public health, welfare, and

safety, the gathering may be permitted.

Economic considerations alone will not

constitute reason for approval by any agency

or authority over the matter.

User Carrying Capacity

To properly administer areas designated as

national wild and scenic rivers, managing

agencies are required as part of the longterm planning process to address the issue

of resource protection in relation to user

carrying capacity. There are several processes for accomplishing this social science research, but each tries to answer the

same question – at what level does use

begin to degrade natural and cultural

resources, aesthetic values, and user

experiences? In other words, carrying

capacity is not strictly interpreted as an

absolute number of people (except in the

case of health and safety) but as a

prescription of user experience (social) and

resource conditions.

To fully address the lower riverway’s

carrying capacity, after this plan is

implemented additional work would be

needed to set indicators and standards

(which are minimum acceptable conditions) in the land and water management

areas and to develop a variety of monitoring strategies. In addition, the managing

agencies would continue to undertake

water surface use monitoring studies

conducted biennially since 1977.

User Safety

Although users assume a certain degree of

responsibility for their own safety when

visiting the lower riverway, the managing

partners would reduce hazards where

practical and might limit access to certain

areas at certain times based on safety considerations. Actions to prevent known hazards would not conflict with the managing

partners’ mandates to preserve the riverway’s resources. Safe conditions would be

maintained.

Commercial Services and Concession

Operations

A large number of people using canoe livery

operators on the lower riverway has the

potential to significantly affect the recreational experiences on the riverway as well as

the riverway’s resources. Therefore, the

National Park Service and state departments
Management Actions

41

of natural resources would evaluate the need

to place canoe livery operators under a

permit system. The purposes of this permit

system would be to ensure that opportunities for a quality experience were

maximized, to encourage the highest degree

of safety and interpretation of the resources,

and to ensure that riverway resources were

protected. To determine the impacts of these

operations on the resources, the permit

system would also gather information to use

in future planning efforts to ensure that the

authorized services would not have an

adverse impact on park resources.

The Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources currently authorizes one concessioner that operates the canoe rentals at

Minnesota Interstate Park and William

O’Brien State Park. There does not seem to

be a large demand for additional types of

goods and services that could be provided

through concessioner operations. A policy

for providing additional goods and services

via concessioner operations within the lower

riverway would be developed if demand

warranted. The managing agencies would

only consider contracting for additional

concessioner services if such services were

necessary and appropriate for public use and

enjoyment of the riverway and if they were

consistent with the preservation and conservation of the areas. If such services were

provided, additional staff and staff time

would be required to manage and monitor

concession contracts.

There are several commercial public excursion boat operations on the river. They

provide river access for large numbers of

people who might otherwise not be able to

use the river. Excursion boat operations are

acceptable if they operate from existing

facilities and offer regular public cruises.

Transient docks available to the public

provide opportunities for boaters to leave

the river for brief periods to visit local

businesses and public facilities. Transient

docks are acceptable in existing facilities,

providing dockage for more than 24 hours is

prohibited.

Accessibility for Individuals with

Disabilities

The managing partners would strive to

provide the highest level of accessibility

possible to buildings, facilities, programs,

and services, consistent with the nature and

limitations of the area, the conservation of

riverway resources, and the mandate to

provide a quality experience for everyone.

Any new developed user or employee

facility and any alterations to existing

facilities would be evaluated in accordance

with the Americans with Disabilities Act

(42 USC 12101) and Uniform Federal

Accessibility Standards (49 FR 31528) to

provide full accessibility to all users.

Wherever possible, information about

facilities and programs for people with

sensory and mental disabilities would be

available.

INTERPRETATION AND

EDUCATION

Interpretation within the riverway would

focus on four primary goals:

• increase public awareness of the lower

riverway as a component of the

National Wild and Scenic Rivers

system

• increase appreciation and

understanding of the riverway’s

resources and values
MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

42

• provide information to visitors to

ensure a safe and enjoyable visit

• promote visitor interaction with

riverway resources that supports

preservation of those resources for

future generations

In support of these goals, there would be

an increased emphasis placed on coordination of interpretive activities among the

primary providers of interpretive services

within the riverway, the National Park

Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin state

parks, and nongovernmental nature centers.

The St. Croix Valley Interpreter’s Association, an informal alliance of interpreters in

the area, would continue to serve as the

principal forum for coordination of interpretation, including the development of

interpretive programs and activities (which

are key ideas or stories that should be

imparted to riverway users). The National

Park Service visitor centers, state parks,

and nongovernmental nature centers could

focus on the same interpretive topic at the

same time, offering complementary

programs and activities.

Other cooperative efforts could also be

pursued, such as development of a clearinghouse for information on programs and

activities at the various interpretive facilities along the riverway, joint publication of

information on facilities, programs, and

activities, and development of common

signage to be used on the riverway. Riverway interpretive programs could also be

coordinated with the Mississippi National

River and Recreation Area interpretive

programs to expand the scope and outreach

of both programs.

Cooperative partnerships with private

interests (e.g., marinas, chambers of

commerce, tourism organizations) could

also be important to maintain and improve

high-quality user services. This could

include riverway orientation for employees

of private sector groups.

Education efforts for both the Lower St.

Croix riverway and the larger St. Croix

watershed would be a major element in the

implementation activities of this plan.

Increased programs for the awareness of

riverway water and land resources planning

issues would be incorporated in educational

pamphlets, public information sessions, and

riverway public access signage ( i.e.,

amended and revised boating rules, exotic

species bulletins, camping guidelines, etc.).

Agencies would host the St. Croix Expo,

develop a St. Croix information website,

and develop a St. Croix watershed

stewardship guidebook.

Coordination and partnerships with the

National Park Service, Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources,

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources, and the Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission would

continue and become more active in terms

of educational programs and public

involvement relating to the riverway and

surrounding watershed area.
43

MANAGEMENT AREAS
45

INTRODUCTION

In developing management alternatives for

the lower riverway, decisions needed to be

made on what resource conditions, experiences/uses, and developments would be

appropriate in different parts of the riverway. To do this, a series of management

areas were developed, which were the

primary building blocks for the management alternatives. The management

areas identify how different portions of the

riverway could be managed to achieve

desired resource and social conditions,

consistent with the riverway’s purposes.

Different types and levels of water surface

uses and developments would be applied

by the riverway managing agencies in

different management areas.

Each alternative has different management

areas and/or varying arrangements of the

management areas, depending on the

direction of the alternative.

Seven distinct land management areas and

five distinct water management areas were

originally developed for the lower riverway. These management areas were part of

all the action alternatives described in the

draft plan. Following public comment on

the draft plan, the managing agencies combined three land management areas into a

single, new land management area and

eliminated one water management area. By

shifting from two land-use management

areas in the 1976 Master Plan to five, local

governments would be provided with

greater flexibility in administering land use

controls and would be better able to target

management to meet specific goals. The

rural landscape would be divided into two

management areas to ensure continuation

of its diverse character, while three management areas would provide flexibility for

managing land use in the municipalities.

Similarly, increasing surface water management areas from two in the Master Plan

to four would provide greater flexibility in

managing water uses and ensuring that the

diversity of water uses on the lower riverway is maintained.

The original seven land management areas

(and the one new one) and five water management areas are described on the following pages, including tables 1 and 2, which

summarize the features, facilities, and

types of experiences for each area. (Generalized sketches and photographs are included with the written descriptions to

further illustrate the characteristics of each

management area.)

Within each alternative, the boundaries

between management areas are sometimes

delineated by political boundaries of communities. These management area boundaries are intended to remain static over

time and would not change if a community

annexes adjacent land. Thus, when corporate limits are used as a line between management areas, the boundary of the management area should be interpreted to mean

the corporate limit as it was in 1999.
MANAGEMENT AREAS

46

RIVER TOWN

This management area would provide a feeling

of being on a river flowing through or next to a

small city. A mixture of commercial, park, and

residential developments could be within the

riverway; however, the historic character of the

river towns would be maintained. Dense, intensive development also might be adjacent to the

riverway, including utilities, multistory structures, and nonresidential buildings (e.g., shops,

offices, apartments, factories, community centers). Thus, the built environment would dominate the riverine landscape and shape the riverway experience to a significant degree.

Although most of the developments in the area

would not be recreation-oriented, there would

be private or public facilities to support river

recreation (e.g., marinas, docks, launches,

ramps, interpretive kiosks); some of these facilities would be relatively large. Large numbers of

people and crowds often would be present.

Noise levels from users and adjacent areas (e.g.,

business traffic) might be high. One would not

expect to see many natural features other than

the river. Most of the shoreline would be developed, although some natural vegetation might

screen adjacent buildings. However, these natural features would be scattered and limited in

area. There would be relatively few opportunities to view wildlife, but people would still find

places to fish from shore. 
Land Management Areas

47

This management area would be similar to the

small town historic management area, except

the predominant character of the landscape

would be large-lot, single-family residences.

Encounters with other people would be common, and noise levels might be moderate.

Natural vegetation and landscaped environments

would be interspersed with the built environment, which would be mostly residential in

character. Shoreline areas generally would be a

mix of natural vegetation and residential lawns,

with some portions being largely undisturbed.

Public and private recreational support structures, primarily small docks and boat ramps,

would be scattered along the river.

SMALL TOWN
MANAGEMENT AREAS

48

This landscape would be developed but would

be almost exclusively single-family residences

and be primarily historic in character. While

some dwellings would be obviously newer, the

predominant character of the community would

be that of a late 19th or early 20th century residential area. A combination of the river, manmade features, and natural landscape elements

would shape the riverway experience in this

area. Encounters with other people would be

common, although one would not see the large

crowds found in the river town management

areas. Noise levels within the riverway boundary could be moderate, typical of those found in

a residential area. Natural vegetation and landscaped environments would be interspersed with

the built environment, which would be mostly

residential in character. Shoreline areas generally would be a mix of natural vegetation and

residential lawns; however, portions of the

shoreline would be largely undisturbed.

Opportunities for fishing and viewing wildlife

would be limited. Public and private recreational support structures, primarily small docks and

boat ramps, would be scattered along the river.

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC
Land Management Areas

49

This area would provide a feeling of being on a

river in a sparsely developed landscape. As in

the small town management areas, the river, natural features, and man-made features would

shape the riverway experience. Users would

encounter no large concentrations of development or people — small numbers of people

would be the rule in this area, with little or no

commercial development. Residential settings

would be limited to large lot development scattered along the shore and/or bluffs at a lower

density than the small town or river town management areas. Natural vegetation would cover

significant portions of the shoreline, with some

stretches being largely undisturbed. Riverway

users could anticipate moderate noise levels.

The area would offer abundant opportunities to

fish and view wildlife. There might be a few

small public recreational support facilities (e.g.,

docks and launches) and some private docks.

RURAL RESIDENTIAL
MANAGEMENT AREAS

50

This area would include a concentration of cultural and/or natural features of special interest,

as well as highly scenic and relatively undisturbed natural areas. As viewed from the river,

the vast majority of this area would appear very

natural, but there would be nodes of recreational

support facilities that would often be the focus

of relatively intense human activity. The nodes

could have many recreational support facilities

and services, both on and off the river, such as

campsites, visitor centers, landings, picnic

tables, restrooms, and trails. Future development of additional recreational support facilities

would be concentrated at existing development

nodes. Noise levels would be moderate near

activity nodes but low elsewhere. This management area would provide many opportunities to

view wildlife with abundant opportunities for

angling. Users might encounter large numbers

of people near activity nodes, but away from

those areas users would have many opportunities to find a sense of peace and quiet.

PARK
Land Management Areas

51

This management area would provide users with

a sense of being in a natural setting. Relatively

few signs of development, such as homes,

bridges, or agricultural fields, would intrude on

this largely natural scene. The vegetation along

the shoreline would be largely undisturbed —

natural vegetation (e.g., boreal hardwood and

northern hardwood forests, lowland riparian

forests, and oak savannahs) would cover most

of the area and would be a key element of the

user experience. Forest management would

emphasize the undisturbed appearance. 

This area would provide many opportunities to

view wildlife, and there would be abundant

opportunities for angling. Access to the river

would be limited to a few designated public

carry-in and small craft access points, and possibly some riparian landowner private docks.

Only a few recreational support facilities, such

as primitive campsites and trails, would be present. Noise levels would be low, relatively small

numbers of people would be present, and there

would be a low probability of people encountering one another. Because few people would use

the area, there would be ample opportunity to

find a sense of peace and quiet within the management area.

NATURAL
MANAGEMENT AREAS

52

Minimally disturbed management areas would

be similar to natural management areas but contain even fewer signs of people and developments. The river and surrounding biological

communities would dominate the user experience. The shoreline would not be disturbed by

the few visible signs of development. Forest

management would emphasize the undisturbed

appearance. Access to the river would be limited

to a few public carry-in and small craft access

points and possibly a few riparian landowner

private docks. Recreational support facilities

(e.g., primitive campsites, trails) would be

small, limited in number, and screened by natural vegetation. With few or no river access

points, small numbers of people, and infrequent

encounters, there would be ample opportunity

for quiet and solitude. 

MINIMALLY DISTURBED
53

This management area would provide users with

a sense of being in a natural setting. Very few

signs of development, such as homes, bridges,

or agricultural fields, would intrude on this

largely natural scene. The river and surrounding

biological communites would dominate the user

experience. The shoreline would not be disturbed by the few visible signs of development.

Forest management would emphasize the undisturbed appearance. This area would provide

many opportunities to view wildlife, and there

would be abundant opportunites for angling.

Access to the river would be limited to a few

public carry-in and small craft access points and

a very few riparian landowner private docks.

Recreational support facilites (e.g., primitive

campsites, trails) would be small, limited in

number, and largely screened by natural vegetation. With few access points, small numbers of

people and infrequent encounters, there would

be ample opportunity for quite and solitude. 

CONSERVATION

Land Management Areas
MANAGEMENT AREAS

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF LAND MANAGEMENT AREAS

LAND MANAGEMENT

AREAS

Natural and man-made

features

Landscape and shoreline River access and support

facilities

Number of people / encounter

rate

Wildlife viewing

opportunities

Noise levels

River Town some natural features, scattered

and limited in area, mostly

manmade features

dominated by urban

development, including shops,

offices, historic, and residential

structures

private and/or public river access

and support facilities including

marinas, docks, ramps (some of

which may be large)

large numbers of people are often

present, very high encounter rate

limited may be high

Small Town combination developed, but less than river

town, primarily large lot single

family residential historic in

character, portions of the

shoreline would be largely

undisturbed

public and private river access and

support facilities, primarily small

docks and ramps scattered along the

river

although large crowds are unlikely,

large numbers of people may be

encountered

limited moderate, typical of residential

areas

Small Town Historic combination developed, but less than river

town, primarily single family

residential historic in character,

portions of the shoreline would

be largely undisturbed

public and private river access and

support facilities, primarily small

docks and ramps scattered along the

river

although large crowds are unlikely,

large numbers of people may be

encountered

limited moderate, typical of residential

areas

Rural Residential combination sparsely developed, scattered

farms and residences, little or

no commercial development, no

large concentrations of

development, shoreline largely

undisturbed

a few public and private river

access and support facilities,

primarily small docks and launches

small numbers, no large crowds,

low encounter rate

abundant moderate

Park predominantly native

vegetation, (includes natural

features of special interest)

may have scattered

concentrations of recreational

support facilities (campsites,

landings, trails, restrooms,

picnic facilities, visitor centers),

shoreline largely undisturbed

numerous opportunities for public

access with support facilities

Large numbers of people may be

present, likely very high encounter

rate

abundant moderate

Natural largely undisturbed natural

scene, variety of biological

communities may be present

few signs of development

(homes, agricultural fields,

primitive campsites, trails)

shoreline largely undisturbed

limited public and private access to

the river, only a few primitive

support facilities, public carry-in

and small craft access

small number of users, low chance

of encountering others

abundant low

Minimally Disturbed dominated by an undisturbed

natural scene, variety of

biological communities may be

present

very few signs of development

(homes, agricultural fields,

primitive campsites, trails)

shoreline almost totally

undisturbed, support facilities

screened by vegetation

very few public and private access

points to the river and limited to

primitive support facilities, public

carry-in only

very limited number of users, very

low chance of encountering others

greatest opportunities very low

Conservation sense of being in a natural

setting; combination of park,

natural, and minimally

disturbed descriptions.

dominated by river and surrounding biological communities; shoreline would not be

disturbed by few visible signs of

development; forest management would emphasize undisturbed appearance

access limited to a few public carryin and small craft access points and

a few riparian landowner docks

small numbers of people and

infrequent encounters; ample

opportunity for quiet and solitude

abundant to greatest

opportunities

moderate to very low
MANAGEMENT AREAS

56

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS

Water Management

Area

Number of people Opportunities for

Solitude

Watercraft number Watercraft type Boat speeds Boat speed controls Water surface Fishing

opportunities

Noise levels

Active Social—peak

times

high low high variety, primarily

motorized, including

sailboats

vary significantly,

including the river’s

highest allowable

boat speeds

strictly controlled in

some areas

commonly agitated;

possibility of

relatively large

wakes/ waves

limited, especially

during high use

periods

likely to be high

Active Social—off

peak times

moderate Moderate moderate moderately agitated ample/abundant moderate

Moderate

Recreation

moderate moderate moderate variety, primarily

motorized

vary, tending towards

slower speeds

may be strictly

controlled in some

areas

moderately agitated ample/ abundant moderate

Quiet Waters—

peak times

high low high motorized and

nonmotorized

low restricted largely undisturbed abundant consistently low

Quiet Waters—off

peak times

low high low

Natural Waters low high low variety, primarily

human powered,

nonmotorized

low restricted undisturbed abundant consistently low

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

57

The user experiences and user management in

this area would vary between peak times (i.e.,

summer weekends) and nonpeak times. During

peak times on this section of the river people

often would encounter large numbers of both

people and watercraft; opportunities for solitude

would be low. Users may experience high noise

levels from sources on the water. The surface of

the water would more commonly be agitated,

with the possibility of relatively large

wakes/waves. Human activity on the river surface would, at times, limit opportunities to fish

in this area. 

During nonpeak times users would encounter

moderate numbers of people and boats; there

would be moderate opportunities for solitude.

Users may experience moderate levels of noise.

The surface of the water would be commonly

moderately agitated. However, during nonpeak

times the area would offer abundant opportunities for angling.

The types of boats found in this area would vary

widely during peak and nonpeak times: while

most would be motorized, nonmotorized watercraft may be present. Boat speeds would also

vary significantly; they would be strictly controlled in some limited areas, but the river's

highest boat speeds would be allowed in this

management area.

ACTIVE SOCIAL RECREATION
MANAGEMENT AREAS

58

Users in this area would encounter moderate

numbers of people and watercraft on the water.

A variety of boat types, primarily motorized

watercraft, might be present. Boats might travel

at different speeds, but tend toward slower

speeds. Boat speeds might be strictly controlled

in certain places. Noise levels from sources on

the water generally would be moderate. The

area would offer abundant opportunities for

angling.

MODERATE RECREATION
Water Management Areas

59

Users in this area usually would encounter a

small number of other people engaged in "lowimpact" activities during nonpeak times, but

during peak use periods (i.e., summer weekends) large numbers of other users and boats

could be encountered. Opportunities for solitude

consequently would vary from low opportunities during peak times to moderate opportunities

during nonpeak times. Management would be

directed toward recreational uses that leave the

surface of the 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. Noise levels would be consistently

low. Abundant opportunities for fishing would

be available.

QUIET WATERS
MANAGEMENT AREAS

60

Users in this area would experience a sense of

peace and quiet and could anticipate opportunities for solitude. The numbers of both users and

watercraft would be low - users could anticipate

a low probability of encountering other people

on the water. Most watercraft would be humanpowered. Watercraft speeds would be kept low

to preserve the sense of a remote, backwater

experience. Noise levels would be consistently

low. There would be abundant opportunities for

fishing.

NATURAL WATERS
Water Management Areas

61

This management area would provide opportunities for users seeking silent, nonmotorized

experiences where contact with the riverway's

natural features would be maximized. Electric

trolling motors would be permitted, but other

motors could not be used in this area. Most use

of this area would likely be by canoe, kayak, or

inflatable boats. Users would encounter low

numbers of other people, and noise levels would

be minimal. There would be abundant opportunities for angling and viewing wildlife.

SILENT BOATING
63

LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES
65

BACKGROUND

As described in the Introduction, this plan

has been jointly developed by the three

managing agencies, with extensive

assistance from a full range of diverse

interests meeting as the Lower St. Croix

Planning Task Force. This process began

with recognition of the riverway’s outstandingly remarkable values, development

of two principle statements, development

of four purpose statements, development of

three significance statements, identification

of eight exceptional resources and values,

creation of a vision statement, and development of 13 planning assumptions.

The agencies (again with the assistance of

the planning task force) then set about

developing a range of alternatives, each of

which would be consistent with those

foundation statements. Two of the alternatives originally developed were later eliminated from detailed study because they

were not consistent with those foundation

statements. The remaining four alternatives are described in this chapter as alternatives A, B, C, and D along with the noaction alternative, which is alternative E.

The next step was development of a preferred alternative, which again needed to

be consistent with the foundation statements. It was created in a series of public

workshops to enable all of the riverway’s

diverse viewpoints to be heard. The outcome was, understandably, a compromise

alternative. The three managing agencies

do not have exactly the same mission or

perspective on natural resource management, on private lands management, or on

recreational use management. The riverway’s public interests were even more

varied. Some viewpoints were clearly

outside the scope of the foundation statements so were not considered in development of the preferred alternative; views

that fell under the umbrella of the foundation statements remained fairly diverse. In

fact, accommodating multiple interests in

the riverway, including diverse recreational

uses, became a hallmark of the preferred

alternative.

While there are many issues that confront

managers of the riverway (see the “Issues”

section) primary issues that drive

management are development on lands

within and adjacent to the riverway and the

intensity of recreational use (including

conflicts among users). Both of these

issues result from the riverway’s proximity

to a large metropolitan area. These issues

dominate management of the riverway and

in turn drive all other management

strategies. As a result, the alternatives are

all described primarily in the context of

land development controls and recreational

boating management. While other resource

management areas (rivers, forests, wilderness areas, etc.) might focus management

on wildlands, unique vegetation, or certain

animals, management of this riverway is

driven primarily by people management;

other resources can be managed only in the

context of how human activity is managed.
66

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: PROTECT AND ENHANCE RIVERWAY’S

DIVERSE CHARACTER

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

One hallmark of the Lower St. Croix

National Scenic Riverway is its diversity.

Both its landscape character and its waterbased recreation reflect diverse uses. Surface water recreation reflects the diversity

of the surroundings: experiences range

from the quiet solitude of a nonmotorized

area to a very social and highly motorized

environment. The preferred alternative

would provide greater emphasis than ever

to ensure continuation and enhancement of

the Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway’s diversity.

In the future it is likely that there will be

increased demands for development within

and adjacent to the lower riverway. This

alternative would maintain long stretches

of the lower riverway’s natural and rural

landscape, while allowing limited, planned,

development in municipalities that is consistent with the historic character of the

riverway’s communities. Protection of

natural resources, including the valley’s

important biological diversity, would be

enhanced. Riverway users on the river

would continue to find opportunities to

engage in a wide range of recreational

experiences. (Appendixes A and B respectively describe guidelines for suggested changes in the states’ land use rules

and water surface use regulations to

achieve the above desired conditions.)

LAND USE

The “Preferred Alternative: Land” map on

page 66 shows the location and distribution

of management areas under the preferred

alternative; table 3 shows the percentages

of how much of the riverway would be

included in each management area, while

table 4 identifies the boundaries of the

management areas. The management area

allocation is intended to maintain long

stretches of the river in a natural condition,

while still allowing development in municipalities. As the figure and tables indicate,

the majority of the lands along the riverway would be designated as rural residential (38%) and conservation (39%) management areas. Most of the conservation

management areas would be north of Stillwater. The rest of the lands would be included in small town (12%), river town

(5%), and small town historic (5%),

management areas, all of which would be

scattered throughout the riverway.

Under the preferred alternative limited new

development could occur within existing

municipalities along the riverway. In the

river town management area, development

would be guided by the community’s underlying plans and ordinances. In the river

town and small town historic management

areas, new development would be allowed

providing it was consistent with the historic character of the communities. New

development also might be in the small

town management areas, provided the

existing large-lot, single-family character

of the areas do not change. There are few

industrial uses within the riverway; should

an industrial site ever be abandoned, the

most desirable future use of the riverfront

portions of those properties would be

public park.
Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

CONSERVATION

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

HISTORIC

CONSERVATION 

CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION 

CONSERVATION

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL 

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

DSC • 643 • 20025B • 5/00

Cedar

Bend

35

10

SMALL TOWN

35E

36

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

St. Croix Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

94 94

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: LAND

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

CONSERVATION CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION

Somerset 35

64

64
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

68

TABLE 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

TABLE 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

Park

Rural residential

William O’Brien State Park Conservation

South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern tip of Greenburg

Island in Marine-on-St. Croix

Rural residential

Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix to southern

boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition

Small town historic

Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition to

north limits of Stillwater

Rural residential

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

Regional Park

Rural residential

St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Conservation
Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

69

Land Segment Management Area

South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north end of Carpenter

Nature Center

Rural residential

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

North Hudson

Rural residential

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

to ensure the overall character of the

municipalities did not significantly change.

Some state land use regulations would be

relaxed in the river town, small town

historic, and small town management areas

to give local governments greater flexibility over land use. (See the guidelines in

appendix A for further details on suggested

changes to the states’ existing land use

regulations.)

Although there would be more flexibility

than there is today in managing developments in municipalities, new developments

and their effects would continue to be

monitored within municipalities. To ensure

that the character of the communities does

not significantly change, and to help minimize impacts on adjacent rural areas, the

riverway managing agencies would encourage local governments to cluster new

development in the riverway towns. Local

governments also would be encouraged to

protect historic values in the river town and

small town historic management areas

through several methods. Examples of

these methods would be adaptive reuse of

existing historic structures, adoption and

enforcement of historic preservation ordinances, and adoption of architectural

standards that require new development to

be consistent with the historic community

character.

Outside municipalities, landowners would

be encouraged to maintain the natural

character of the landscape, particularly the
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

70

blufflines, to the presettlement condition as

seen from the water. Much of the land

from Taylors Falls to just above the north

limits of Stillwater would be designated as

conservation. This stretch contains the

least disturbed portions of the lower

riverway. The conservation designation

would help ensure that the natural

character of this stretch is maintained (and

restored where possible). Recreational

structures, such as toilet buildings, on this

stretch would be screened by vegetation

where practical. Boat access points would

continue to be designed primarily for carryin use and launching of small boats.

Limited new developments could still be

allowed in rural residential management

areas, so long as they complied with land

use regulations. (See the proposed state

land use guidelines in appendix A for

further details regarding new residential

developments.) For Minnesota and

Wisconsin Interstate State Parks and St.

Croix Bluffs Regional Park, the emphasis

would be on maintaining current

conditions and uses. The northern unit of

Minnesota Interstate State Park, the

potholes-Glacial Garden area, is being

managed toward a ca. 1890 historic vista.

The southern unit is being managed in a

more natural state. At William O’Brien

State Park the emphasis would be on

keeping the appearance of a natural

landscape as seen from the water. For

Afton and Kinnickinnic State Parks new

facilities and development would be

consistent with adjacent riverway land

management area designations — no

changes would occur in the overall natural/

development character of these two parks.

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

The primary goals for vegetative management would be to screen structures from

view as seen from the river and prevent

disturbance of environmentally sensitive

areas such as steep slopes or riverfront

bluffs.

A secondary goal would be to encourage

and promote vegetative management

actions that would maintain and restore

historically and ecologically significant

plant communities and enhance diversity.

Successional climax forest and presettlement disturbed oak savanna would be

the preferred forest ecotype examples of

significant plant communities. However,

throughout the lower riverway, vegetative

screening of existing structures and

potential development sites would take

priority over restoration and maintenance

of significant plant communities.

This alternative would place emphasis on

voluntary actions, coupled with education

and stewardship, to preserve and restore

plant communities. Removal of exotic

species would be encouraged on all lands

within the riverway. Control of insects and

disease would be recommended if there

would be a high likelihood that outbreak

would threaten large areas of vegetative

cover within the lower riverway or threaten

to infest adjacent lands. In addition, pruning or removal of hazard trees would

continue to be allowed. Hazard trees would

be trees that exhibit damage resulting from

insect, disease, age, or storm, and, if they

were to fall, would be a safety risk to

people or property. Pruning of normal tree

growth to prevent property damage would

also be allowed.
Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

71

On local government lands voluntary

efforts would be encouraged to maintain

and restore preferred forest cover. On state

and federal lands the managing agencies

would maintain and restore preferred forest

types. Vegetation on NPS fee lands would

continue to be managed in accordance with

NPS policies to perpetuate native plant

communities. Plant succession would

generally not be interfered with except to

protect life or property, convert existing

tree plantations to nonmonocultures or

mixed species communities, maintain

native plant community diversity (e.g.,

prevent loss of prairie and oak savanna),

and maintain habitat for threatened and

endangered species. Manipulation of plant

communities to maintain threatened and

endangered species habitat would be

carried out in a manner designed to restore

or enhance the functioning of the plant and

animal community of which the

endangered species is a natural part.

On private lands voluntary efforts would

also be encouraged to maintain and restore

preferred forest cover so long as these

efforts did not conflict with maintaining

visual screening of existing structures and

potential development sites. State regulations that restrict vegetation management

on private lands would be revised to allow

maintenance and restoration of the natural

diversity and ecological integrity of significant plant communities. A variety of management techniques, such as planting,

seeding, pruning, thinning, harvesting,

prescribed burning, and clearing, would be

allowed and encouraged on private lands in

both states to accomplish this goal. Federal

and state scenic easements would be revised on a volunteer basis with individual

landowners to allow these management

techniques.

A specific action that would be taken to

encourage significant plant communities

concerns lands enrolled under forest tax

law programs on the Wisconsin side of the

riverway. (Minnesota does not have an

equivalent law regarding forest management.) Under this alternative the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

would pursue an amendment to the state

land use standards within the riverway

(Chapter NR 118). Under the proposed

amendment landowners could develop a

forest management plan with department

approval that would protect the scenic

quality of the river, prevent disturbance of

environmentally sensitive areas such as

steep slopes or riverfront bluffs, and allow

vegetation to be managed in a manner that

would maintain significant plant

communities.

RIVER CROSSINGS

Being a linear resource near a growing

metropolitan area, there is frequent interest

in building new crossings of the riverway.

Crossings come in three forms: bridges for

roads, railroads, pedestrians; overhead

wires for communications and electrical

energy; and under-river crossings (often

called submarine crossings) for communications, electrical energy, and material

such as fuel or natural gas.

The long-term goal for this alternative

would be to reduce the number and size of

visible river crossings. The managing

agencies would encourage safe, compatible, multiple uses of existing corridors and

structures that cross the riverway. All proposed changes to river crossings or corridors would require site-specific environmental evaluations and approval from

applicable local, state, and federal
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

72

agencies. The impacts of each proposal

would be analyzed and documented before

the managing agencies permit any change

in a river crossing or corridor.

There would be no net increase in the

number of transportation corridors. In

general, transportation corridors would be

replaced in or adjacent to the existing

corridor. Existing transportation corridors

could be relocated only if all of the

following are true: 1) the need for the

project is clearly justified, 2) the project is

consistent with state and regional transportation plans, 3) there is no feasible and

prudent alternative to relocating the corridor, and 4) all built elements of the existing corridor are removed and the corridor

is restored to natural conditions. Existing

corridors are defined as being roughly

equivalent to the existing approach rightsof-way. Existing bridges could be replaced

with new bridges provided that existing

structures were removed.

Increased capacity within an existing

transportation corridor could be expanded

by widening an existing bridge or by constructing a parallel structure to an existing

bridge so long as items 1 and 2 above are

true.

Any new bridge or alteration of an existing

bridge must be of a scale and character that

minimizes impact to the values for which

the area was designated under the National

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (scenic, recreational, geologic). Construction projects

must include appropriate mitigation to

compensate for any impact on these values.

Utility lines could be replaced and new

lines could be added to existing crossings.

In addition, new lines could be placed

under existing bridges. However, no new

utility corridors would be permitted to

cross the river, and existing line towers

could not be made larger. Consolidation of

utility line crossings also would be encouraged.

Submarine crossings could be expanded

(i.e., the size and number of lines could be

increased) or relocated to an existing

corridor. New submarine crossings also

could be permitted provided there were no

visual impacts. However, the crossing

technique having the least impact on the

riverway’s outstandingly remarkable values and impact on the resource would be

required. Natural vegetation would be

maintained as much as possible along

utility line rights-of-way that cross the

riverway. Clearcutting of rights-of-way for

pipeline inspections would be prohibited.

If any river crossing project would require

any construction below the ordinary high

water mark, the National Park Service

would review the project, including the

mitigation plan, pursuant to section 7 of

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The

National Park Service would determine

whether the project would or would not

have a direct and adverse effect on the

values for which the river was designated.

If the NPS found that the project would

result in a direct and adverse effect, no

federal funding, licenses or permits would

be issued for its construction.

ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

North of Stillwater public day use of

publicly owned islands and shoreline areas

generally would continue.
Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

73

Camping in the three state parks in the area

would continue to be allowed only in designated campgrounds. On federal lands

managed by the National Park Service,

camping would continue to be prohibited

in two areas:

• From Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to

1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing

(the upper entrance to Close Slough)

• For 1,200 feet north and south of the

Highway 243 bridge at Osceola

In addition, camping would continue to be

prohibited from the southern tip of Greenburg Island to the upper entrance to Dead

Man’s Slough (opposite the city of Marine

on St. Croix) until a comprehensive river

use/camping management plan is completed. Once this plan is in place, camping

might occur on this stretch of river at

designated sites that would suit campers'

needs only as long as there was no significant impact on the resource and adjacent

riparian landowners.

On all other public lands north of Stillwater, several management actions could

be instituted to minimize user conflict, to

mitigate resource impacts, and to protect

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 conditions.

Camping zones would be identified in a

river use/camping management plan that

might identify broad zones where camping

could and could not occur. If this management option proved unsuccessful in preventing user conflicts and protecting cultural and natural resources and private

landowner property rights, camping within

a particular zone, or in all zones, would be

restricted to designated sites only. When

demand for sites exceeded the number of

available sites, a reservation system could

be instituted to allocate a certain number of

sites in advance; other sites would remain

first-come, first-served. In addition, the

National Park Service could institute at any

time, in compliance with national policy

and regulations, a camper user fee system.

South of Stillwater, use of the Hudson

Islands and day use of publicly owned

shoreline areas would continue to be

minimally regulated. To resolve sanitation

problems on the Hudson Islands users

would be required to have portable toilets

to transport human wastes off the islands

unless the managing agencies, local

government, or volunteer organization

provided public facilities for this purpose.

Camping in the two state parks and one

regional park in the area would continue to

be allowed only in designated areas.

Regardless of other management strategies

camping on all public areas would be subject to a seven-night stay limit at any one

site and a 30-night limit for the entire summer season at all sites. Camping equipment

also could not be left unattended for more

than 24 hours.

WATER SURFACE USE

One of the unique characteristics of the

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

is the diversity of surface water recreational experiences users can find in a relatively small area, ranging from quiet solitude to faster or more social experiences.

Under the preferred alternative river users

would be assured of finding opportunities

to engage in a variety of recreational experiences far into the future. In general, exist-
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

74

ing access to the riverway would not

change. To provide opportunities for quiet

solitude, watercraft would be required to

operate at no-wake speed in all backwaters

north of Stillwater. The main channel

between Taylors Falls and the Arcola

sandbar would provide a relatively quiet

experience for nonmotorized and slowmoving motorized craft. Between the

Arcola sandbar and the north limits of

Stillwater, motorized and nonmotorized

recreational boaters would continue to use

the braided channel and wooded islands.

Below the north limits of Stillwater, recreational users, primarily motorboaters,

would continue to enjoy the open, lake-like

section of the river. As motorboat densities

increased, restrictions such as speed limits

and slow no-wake zones, would be

imposed to ensure safe conditions for all

users and to minimize or avoid conflicts

between different user activities. (See

appendix B for suggested changes in the

states’ regulations that may be imposed on

water users.)

The “Preferred Alternative: Water” map on

page 74 and table 5 show the location and

distribution of water management areas. In

the preferred alternative all of the lower

riverway above the north limits of Stillwater would be designated as natural,

quiet, and moderate recreation management areas, while below the north limits of

Stillwater the riverway would be designated 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

moderate recreation waters (5 miles). All

backwaters north of Stillwater would be

designated as natural waters (27 miles).

The boundaries of the water management

areas would be as follows from north to

south:

Water Use Management From Taylors

Falls to Arcola Sandbar

The main channel would be managed as

quiet waters, while 22 miles of the backwaters would be managed as natural

waters. This would help ensure that

opportunities for quiet and solitude do not

significantly change.

Water Use Management From Arcola

Sandbar to the North Limits of

Stillwater

All of the main channel in this stretch (5

miles) would be a moderate recreation

management area, while the backwaters (5

miles) would be a natural waters management area. This allocation is intended to

maintain existing recreational opportunities: the moderate management area would

provide a variety of boat types, primarily

powerboats, traveling at moderate speeds,

while the natural waters designation would

provide opportunities for quiet and

solitude.
Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

94 94

35

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: water

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

QUIET WATERS

(main channel)

NATURAL WATERS

(backwaters)

MODERATE

RECREATION

(main channel)

NATURAL WATERS

(backwaters)

ACTIVE

SOCIAL

RECREATION

DSC • 643 • 20024B • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

Cedar

Bend

35

10

35E Somerset 35

64

64

36
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

76

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

Stillwater

Moderate

Stillwater to Prescott/Point Douglas Active Social Recreation

Water Use Management From the North

Limits of Stillwater to Prescott

All of this stretch (25 miles) would be

designated as an active social recreation

management area. Recreational users

would be permitted to use powerboats and

pursue a variety of recreational uses

(including sailing and waterskiing). A

speed limit for powerboats would be

imposed to ensure boater safety and to

enhance enjoyment of the scenic resource.

One public access point would be added to

this stretch, south of Stillwater near the

Allan S. King power plant, in part

replacing an access in Stillwater that is

being closed.

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

MAINTENANCE

In 1866 Congress authorized the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers to maintain a 3-

foot navigation channel from Taylors Falls

to the Mississippi River. Maintenance of

the 3-foot channel was originally intended

to provide a navigable channel for steamboats. Although some snag removal has

been done since the end of the steamboat

era on the St. Croix River around 1915, the

Corps has not dredged the 3-foot channel

since then and has not removed snags in

recent years.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

has not maintained the 3-foot navigation

channel between Taylors Falls and the

Arcola Sandbar (river mile 31.0) in many

years. As a result, prevailing shallow water

levels at the sandbar effectively limit the

majority of motorboat use to that portion of

the river south of the sandbar. Above the

sandbar, use is a mix of canoes and motorboats, with predominantly canoe use north

of Cedar Bend. These conditions would

likely change if water levels changed at the

sandbar.

To ensure that opportunities for a diversity

of recreational experiences continued to be

provided on the Lower St. Croix, it is

important that channel maintenance does

not resume north of the Arcola Sandbar.

Thus, under the preferred alternative the

managing agencies would recommend that

Congress deauthorize the 3-foot navigation

channel between the NSP dam and the

Arcola Sandbar. The managing agencies

would work with the Corps to pursue this

change in legislation.
Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

77

No changes would be proposed regarding

the Corps’ authority to maintain a 3-foot

navigation channel from the Arcola sandbar down to river mile 24.5 at Stillwater.

This would allow limited snag removal

when necessary for safe motorized use.

The Corps is also authorized to maintain a

9-foot navigation channel from Stillwater

(river mile 24.5) down to the confluence

with the Mississippi River at Prescott.

While channel maintenance has historically

involved dredging at Hudson, Catfish Bar,

and the Kinnickinnic Narrows, the Corps’

Upper Mississippi River Channel Maintenance Management Plan (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers 1997) indicates that

only the Kinnickinnic Narrows is expected

to require dredging over the next 40 years.

Given this, under the preferred alternative

the managing agencies would support

continued maintenance of the navigation

channel. No changes would be recommended to the channel’s existing vertical

clearance standards, which all existing

bridges meet. However, the managing

agencies would recommend that the Corps

reduce the maintained channel width from

200 feet to 100 feet at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows. A mussel survey would be

required before maintenance dredging

could occur at the Kinnickinnic Narrows.

Dredged material would continue to be

placed where it could be reused for beneficial purposes while minimizing impacts

to aquatic resources, as described in the

Upper Mississippi River Channel Maintenance Management Plan. Any watercraft

entering the riverway to conduct dredging

activities and buoy-tending would be

checked and cleaned if necessary in a

manner consistent with the zebra mussel

prevention plan.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT

For the purposes of this plan, cultural

resources are museum objects, historic

properties listed on the National Register

of Historic Places, or properties that are

eligible for listing on the register. Historic

properties on or eligible for listing on the

national register include archeological

sites, or historic buildings, structures,

objects, sites, and districts. In addition to

national register properties, cultural

resources are also traditional cultural

properties (including those associated with

American Indians) and historic landscapes

(both designed and vernacular). The lower

riverway and adjoining areas include properties currently listed on the national register, properties determined to be eligible for

listing on the register, and some properties

that have been identified but not yet evaluated. (See appendix F for a list of properties that are either on the national register

or eligible for listing.) Cultural resources

within the riverway boundary are located

on NPS fee land, nonfederal public land,

private land (including parcels with NPS

scenic easements), and potentially in the

river itself (e.g. shipwrecks, other

submerged resources).

The National Park Service currently has

several efforts underway to identify and

evaluate historic buildings, structures, and

landscapes in the riverway. These include:

a historic resource study, to establish the

broad historic context of the region; the

List of Classified Structures, which evaluates NPS-owned properties; and the cultural landscape inventory, which identifies

and evaluates significant cultural landscapes in and adjacent to the riverway.

Other efforts currently underway are a

cultural sites inventory and an
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

78

archeological and ethnographic overview

and assessment. These efforts focus solely

on the portion of the lower riverway

administered by the National Park Service

and on historic properties located on

National Park Service fee lands.

In the preferred alternative the managing

agencies would work together to inventory,

evaluate, and protect the riverway’s

cultural resources. All three managing

agencies should better utilize their own

internal expertise on cultural resource

issues to better protect the riverway’s

cultural resources. The National Park

Service would continue its efforts to

identify and evaluate historic buildings,

structures, cultural landscapes, archeological and ethnographic resources, and

other cultural sites on the federally administered portion of the lower riverway in the

state-administered portion of the riverway.

The Minnesota and Wisconsin state

historic preservation offices, American

Indian interests, and private property

owners would be responsible for the

identification, preservation and

interpretation of historic properties. The

National Park Service would support this

effort by performing research on the

historic contexts of the region. National

Park Service staff would work with these

groups where appropriate in developing

protection and treatment strategies and

priorities. Property owners and managing

partners would work together to develop

challenge cost share grants and other

cooperative ventures to preserve historic

properties throughout the stateadministered zone. The National Park

Service would assist the state historic

preservation offices in promoting the

identification, evaluation and protection of

historic properties by local governments,

landowners and private institutions in areas

that visually affect the river outside the

riverway boundary.

Previously unidentified archeological sites

might be encountered as the result of future

excavations or other ground disturbances.

Archeological surveys would precede any

future ground disturbing activities undertaken by the managing agencies. These

surveys would be conducted under the

provisions of section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, in consultation

with the Minnesota or Wisconsin state

historic preservation offices. While section

106 typically applies only to federal

actions, in this case actions by the state

managing agencies within the riverway

would voluntarily comply with the spirit of

section 106, following procedures to be

developed in cooperation with the state

historic preservation office and consistent

with state statutes and rules.

Local governments would be strongly

encouraged and relied upon to play a key

role in protecting historic properties. The

managing agencies, in cooperation with the

state historic preservation offices and local

preservation organizations, would encourage local government efforts. These actions

would include historic preservation

measures in county comprehensive plans

and other regional plans; establishment of

local historic preservation ordinances;

participation in the certified local government program administered by the state

historic preservation offices; and development of incentives (e.g., grants, loans, tax

breaks) for the rehabilitation of historic

buildings or preservation of archeological

sites. The managing agencies also would

increase their efforts to educate the public

on the value of the lower riverway’s

cultural heritage.
Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character

79

Under the preferred alternative, local

governments would be required to adopt

and enforce historic preservation ordinances and historic-theme architectural

standards for use in the river town and

small town historic districts.

LAND PROTECTION/BOUNDARY

ADJUSTMENTS

Land Protection

The goals for riverway land protection are to

protect the ecological integrity, scenic character, geologic resources, and cultural and

historic resources of lands within the boundary of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway while providing for public use

and enjoyment. The National Park Service

has essentially completed acquiring land

and interests in land as identified in the

Land Protection Plan for the federally

administered zone. The state DNRs would

provide the opportunity for landowners to

participate in a variety of land protection

programs, such as forest stewardship plans

and other land stewardship programs. Land

protection needs and opportunities for

areas outside the riverway that affect the

integrity and character of the riverway

would be addressed in the Watershed

Stewardship Initiative.

The following tools and opportunities

could be used in developing the land

protection program:

• At a minimum, local zoning in conformance with state minimum standards

would continue to apply to all lands

within the riverway, as published in the

Federal Register between the dam at St.

Croix Falls/Taylors Falls, and the confluence with the Mississippi River.

(The state departments of natural

resources would pursue revision of the

state minimum standards based on the

suggested land use guidelines in

appendix A.)

• Agencies would evaluate alternative

methods of protection other than acquisition (e.g., cooperative agreements,

environmental regulations, local zoning

ordinances, private land stewardship).

There would be support for greater use

of land trusts and other nonregulatory

and nongovernmental land protection

methods.

• Agencies would renegotiate scenic easements where needed to include provisions for natural and cultural resource

protection and modifications of vegetation management practices.

• NPS and state ownership of lands north

of Stillwater might be modified to improve administration.

• Agencies would encourage inclusion of

historic preservation measures in county

comprehensive plans and other regional

plans and establishment of local historic

preservation ordinances.

• Agencies would encourage state and local incentives (e.g., grants, loans, tax

breaks) for the rehabilitation of historic

buildings or preservation of archeological sites.

The land protection program for the lower

riverway addresses only those lands within

the authorized boundary of the riverway.

However, lands outside the riverway are

also integral to the integrity and character

of the riverway. The Watershed Stewardship Initiative will address land protection

opportunities in the greater watershed.
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

80

Boundary Adjustments

There is a small gap in the boundary on the

north edge of Wisconsin’s St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area resulting from an error

in the original delineation of the riverway

boundary. The riverway boundary would

be extended to cover this area. Another minor boundary adjustment has been proposed in Bayport to remove part of a residential area that is not near the river.

If other minor boundary adjustments were

identified, they would be referred to the

Lower St. Croix Management Commission

for review and possible boundary

adjustments.
81

 ALTERNATIVE A: DIRECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASED

RECREATIONAL USE LEVELS

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

As in the preferred alternative, the managing agencies would seek to maintain long

stretches of the lower riverway’s natural

and rural landscape, while allowing limited, planned, development within the

riverway boundary that was consistent with

the historic character of the riverway’s

communities. Alternative A would differ

from the preferred alternative in that a

greater proportion of the lower riverway

would be included in the river town, small

town historic, or small town management

areas. Users on the river would continue to

find opportunities to engage in a wide

range of recreational experiences. Unlike

the preferred alternative, as long as users

were not causing significant damage to the

riverway’s exceptional resources or posing

safety hazards to others, no efforts would

be made to regulate user activities.

LAND USE

The “Alternative A: Land” map on page 81

shows the location and distribution of

management areas under this alternative;

table 6 shows the percentages of how much

of the riverway would be included in each

management area, while table 7 identifies

the boundaries of the management areas.

The management area allocation is intended to maintain long stretches of the

river in a natural condition, while still

allowing development in the existing

municipalities and areas adjacent to the

municipalities. As the figure and tables

indicate, the majority of the lands along the

riverway would be designated as rural

residential (34%) and natural (32%)

management areas, although most of the

natural management areas would be north

of Stillwater. The remaining lands would

be included in small town, park, river

town, and small town historic management

areas, all of which would be scattered

throughout the riverway.

Limited new residential and commercial

development could occur within the municipalities along the riverway. In the river

town and small town historic management

areas new development would be allowed

provided it was consistent with the historic

character of the communities. New development also could occur in the small town

management areas, provided the large-lot,

single-family character of the areas did not

change. There are few industrial uses within the riverway; should an industrial site

ever be abandoned, the most desirable future use of the riverfront portions of those

properties would be public park.

The emphasis in this alternative would be

to ensure that the overall character of the

communities did not significantly change.

Consequently, there would be less control

by the riverway managing agencies on

specific developments within the municipalities compared to the present. Some

state land use regulations would be relaxed

in the river town, small town historic, and

small town management areas to give local

governments greater flexibility over land

use, development density, structure height,

etc. Standards regarding such features as

decks and residential additions also would

be relaxed in the small town management

areas.
Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

NATURAL

NATURAL

NATURAL

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

PARK

PARK

NATURAL

PARK

PARK

MINIMALLY PARK

DISTURBED

(islands)

PARK

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN 

HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

DSC • 643 • 20016B • 5/00

Cedar

Bend

Somerset 35

64

64 Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

St. Croix Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

36

94 94

35E

alternative a: LAND

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

35

10
Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

83

TABLE 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.

TABLE 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

Slough

Natural

South end of McLeod’s Slough to north end of William

O’Brien State Park

Rural residential

William O’Brien State Park Park

South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern

tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix

Rural residential

Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St.

Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s

Butternut Falls Addition

Small town historic

Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut

Falls Addition to north limits of Stillwater

Rural residential

North limits of Stillwater to the south end of Dutch

Town

Small town

South end of Dutch Town to north end of Bayport River town

North limits of Bayport to north limits of old Afton

Village

Small town

Old Afton Village Small town historic

South end of old Afton Village (north end of River

Road) to north end of Afton State Park

Rural residential
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

84

Land Segment Management Area

Afton State Park Park

South end of Afton State Park to north boundary of St.

Croix Bluffs Regional Park

Rural residential

St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Park

South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north

end of Carpenter Nature Center

Rural residential

Carpenter Nature Center Natural

South end of Carpenter Nature Center to Mississippi

River

Rural residential

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

subdivision

Natural

North end of Twin Springs subdivision to south edge of

St. Croix Station subdivision in North Hudson

Rural residential

South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in North

Hudson to Orange Street

Small town

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

Cedar St. Croix subdivision

Rural residential

North end of Cedar St. Croix subdivision to north end

of Prescott

Small town

North end of Prescott to Mississippi River River town

Although there would be more flexibility

in managing developments in municipalities in alternative A, the riverway

managing agencies would continue to

monitor new development within the

communities and their effects. To ensure

that the character of the municipalities did

not significantly change, and to help

minimize impacts on adjacent rural areas,

the riverway management areas would

encourage local governments to cluster

new development in the riverway towns.

Local governments also would be encouraged to protect historic values in the river
Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

85

town and small town historic management

areas through several methods. Examples

would include adaptive reuse of existing

historic structures, adoption and enforcement of historic preservation ordinances,

and adoption of architectural standards that

require new development to be consistent

with the historic community character.

In areas outside municipalities, limited

new developments would continue to be

allowed, some of which may be visible

from the river, so long as the riverway’s

rural and natural character is maintained.

Specifically, limited new residential and

commercial development could occur in

rural residential management areas, limited

residential development could occur in

natural management areas, and some

recreational facilities could be built in the

park and natural management areas.

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

Under this alternative, more development

would be expected to occur along the riverway, and more native plant communities

likely would be altered. Consequently, the

riverway managing agencies would seek to

minimize decreases in the coverage (acreage) of plant communities. Losses due to

development would be minimized by

educating landowners, encouraging development in areas that have already been

disturbed, limiting the “footprint” of the

development, and encouraging developers

to replant native vegetation.

As described under the preferred alternative, the primary goals for vegetative management would be to screen structures

from view as seen from the river and

prevent disturbance of environmentally

sensitive areas such as steep slopes or

riverfront bluffs.

A secondary goal would be to encourage

and promote vegetative management

actions that would maintain historically

and ecologically significant plant communities and diversity. Successional

climax forest and pre-settlement disturbed

oak savanna would be the preferred forest

ecotype examples of significant plant

communities. However, throughout the

lower riverway, vegetative screening of

existing structures and potential development sites would take priority over restoration and maintenance of significant plant

communities.

This alternative would place emphasis on

voluntary actions, coupled with education

and stewardship, to preserve plant communities. Removal of exotic species would

be encouraged on all lands within the riverway. Control of insects and disease would

be recommended if there would be a high

likelihood that outbreak would threaten

large areas of vegetative cover within the

lower riverway or threaten to infest adjacent lands. In addition, pruning or removal

of hazard trees would continue to be allowed. Hazard trees would be trees that

exhibit damage resulting from insect, disease, age, or storm, and, if they were to

fall, would be a safety risk to people or

property. Pruning of normal tree growth to

prevent property damage would also be

allowed.

On local government lands voluntary

efforts would be encouraged to maintain

preferred forest cover. On state and federal

lands the managing agencies would maintain and restore preferred forest types.

Vegetation on NPS fee lands would continue to be managed in accordance with
LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES

86

NPS policies to perpetuate native plant

communities. Plant succession would

generally not be interfered with except to

protect life or property, convert existing

tree plantations to nonmonocultures or

mixed species communities, maintain

native plant community diversity (e.g.,

prevent loss of prairie and oak savanna),

and maintain habitat for threatened and

endangered species. Manipulation of plant

communities to maintain threatened and

endangered species habitat would be

carried out in a manner designed to restore

or enhance the functioning of the plant and

animal community of which the

endangered species is a natural part.

On private lands voluntary efforts would

also be encouraged to maintain and restore

preferred forest cover so long as these

efforts do not conflict with maintaining

visual screening of existing structures and

potential development sites. State regulations that restrict vegetation management

on private lands would be revised to allow

maintenance and restoration of the natural

diversity and ecological integrity of significant plant communities. A variety of management techniques, such as planting,

seeding, pruning, thinning, harvesting,

prescribed burning, and clearing, would be

allowed and encouraged on private lands in

both states to accomplish this goal. Federal

and state scenic easements would be

revised on a volunteer basis with individual landowners to allow these management techniques.

A specific action that would be taken to

encourage significant plant communities

concerns lands enrolled under forest tax

law programs on the Wisconsin side of the

riverway. (Minnesota does not have an

equivalent law regarding forest management but this action.) Under this alternative

the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources would pursue an amendment to

the state land use standards within the

riverway (Chapter NR 118). Under the

proposed amendment, landowners could

develop a forest management plan with

department approval that would protect the

scenic quality of the river, prevent

disturbance of environmentally sensitive

areas such as steep slopes or riverfront

bluffs, and would allow vegetation to be

managed in a manner that would maintain

and restore significant plant communities.

RIVER CROSSINGS

In alternative A the managing agencies

would encourage safe, compatible, multiple uses of existing corridors and structures

that cross the riverway. All proposed

changes to river crossings or corridors

would require site-specific environmental

evaluations. The impacts of each proposal

would be analyzed and documented before

the managing agencies would permit any

change in a river crossing or corridor.

There would be no increases in the number

of road or railroad bridges in alternative A.

However, the scale and character of existing bridges could be altered so long as the

scale and character was still in keeping

with the values for which the area was

designed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers

Act. Bridges could be made wider to

provide for increased capacity with more

lanes. Road and railroad bridges could be

replaced with new bridges, provided the

existing structures were removed. (Agencies proposing to replace structures on the

National Register of Historic Places or

replace structures that are eligible for

listing would need to comply with section

106 of the National Historic Preservation
Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

87

Act before they could remove the

structures.) Road and railroad bridges also

could be relocated to new sites, as long as

the existing structures are removed.

Utility lines could be replaced with the

removal of the existing structures. Existing

transmission lines also could be increased

in scale (e.g., larger towers, more cables, or

thicker cables could be installed) or

relocated to new sites.

Submarine crossings could be expanded

(i.e., the size and number of lines could be

increased) or relocated. New submarine

crossings also could be permitted. Trenching or directional drilling may be required

for all new submarine crossings, depending

on the resource impacts. Natural vegetation

would be maintained as much as possible

along utility line rights-of-way that cross

the riverway. Clearcutting of rights-of-way

for pipeline inspections would be

prohibited.

ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

North of Stillwater public use of publicly

owned islands and shoreline areas generally would be minimally regulated except

for camping. Camping in the three state

parks in the area would continue to be

allowed only in designated campgrounds.

On federal lands managed by the National

Park Service, camping would continue to

be prohibited in two areas:

• from Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to

1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing

(the upper entrance to Close Slough)

• for 1,200 feet north and south of the

Highway 243 bridge at Osceola

Camping would continue to be allowed in

other public areas, subject to a seven-night

limit at any one site and a 30-night limit

for the entire summer season at all sites.

Camping equipment also could not be left

unattended for more than 24 hours.

South of Stillwater use of the Hudson 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 would continue to be

allowed only in designated areas.

WATER SURFACE USE

On the water surface, increased recreational use would be permitted along some

stretches below Arcola, as long as the

riverway’s exceptional resource values

were not compromised and safety hazards

did not occur. There would be increased

opportunities for social activity (e.g., more

access for motorboats) on designated parts

of the river.

The “Alternative A: Water” map on page

87 and table 8 show the location and

distribution of water management areas.

The largest portion of the lower riverway

in alternative A would be designated as

active social recreation (30 river miles),

followed by quiet waters (22 miles of the

main channel and 5 miles of backwaters)

and natural waters (22 miles of backwaters). This management area allocation

would allow additional recreational use

(particularly social, motorized uses) below

the north limits of Stillwater, while still

providing opportunities for quieter nonmotorized uses above the Arcola sandbar.

Mixed uses would occur between the

Arcola sandbar and the north limits of

Stillwater.
Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

36

94 94

35E

alternative a: water

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

QUIET WATERS

(main channel)

and

NATURAL WATERS

(backwaters including

Rice Lake)

ACTIVE SOCIAL 

RECREATION

(main channel)

and

QUIET WATERS

(backwaters)

ACTIVE SOCIAL

RECREATION

DSC • 643 • 20015B • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

Cedar

Bend

35

10

Somerset 35

64

64
Alternative A: Directed Land Development and Increased Recreational Use Levels

89

TABLE 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

Stillwater

Active social recreation

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

Falls to Arcola Sandbar

On this stretch of the riverway the main

channel (22 miles) would be managed as

quiet waters and the backwaters (22 miles)

would be managed as natural waters.

Management of boating on this stretch

would continue: limited growth in use

levels would be allowed; opportunities for

quiet and solitude would be maintained,

current speed levels would be maintained,

and access opportunities would continue.

Water Use Management From Arcola

Sandbar to the North Limits of

Stillwater

All of the main channel (5 miles) in this

stretch would be an active social recreation

management area and all of the backwaters

5 miles) would be in a quiet waters management area. Under alternative A the

riverway managing agencies would increase opportunities for more people to

pursue a variety of uses. Speed levels also

would be permitted to increase, provided

there were no safety concerns. No changes

in access to this stretch would occur.

Water Use Management From the North

Limits of Stillwater to Prescott

All of this reach of the Lower St. Croix (25

miles) would be an active social recreation

management area. Additional opportunities

would be available for large numbers of

people to engage in a variety of recreational uses under alternative A. To accommodate more people, access opportunities

would be increased, such as by providing

more parking spaces at existing landings,

providing more launch ramps, or allowing

marinas to increase their boat slips. Speed

levels also would be permitted to increase,

provided there were no safety concerns.

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.
90

ALTERNATIVE B: ACCOMMODATE GROWTH BUT MAINTAIN THE

LANDSCAPE’S VISUAL QUALITIES AND MINIMIZE RECREATIONAL USE

CONFLICTS

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

Alternative B would stress maintaining the

natural/rural/town landscape areas within

the riverway boundary and maintaining the

present diversity of water recreational

experiences as much as possible. However,

the overall level of recreational use would

be allowed to increase along with the

expected population growth in the

riverway region.

LAND USE

In alternative B lands within the riverway

boundary would be managed to maintain

the current landscape character. Thus,

existing rural residential and natural conditions along the river would be maintained.

However, this alternative would not be a

complete freeze on new development:

more residential development could occur

within the riverway boundary so long as it

was not visible from the water.

The allocation of land management areas

in alternative B is intended to maintain

existing visual conditions along the

riverway. As the “Alternatives B and C:

Land” map on page 91 and tables 9 and 10

show, the majority of the lands along the

riverway would be designated as rural

residential (36%) and natural (38%)

management areas. Rural residential areas

would be scattered along the river, primarily south of Marine-on-St.-Croix. Most

of the natural management areas would be

north of Stillwater, but a few would be

designated on the lower stretch, adjacent to

state parks or nature centers. The rest of

the lands would be included in small town,

park, river town, and small town historic

management areas, all of which reflect

current conditions along the riverway.

New residential and commercial development could be built within the municipalities along the riverway, provided it was

not visible from the river. Additional state

restrictions (e.g., setback and height requirements) would be placed on new

development to minimize the visual impact

on the landscape. In the river town and

small town historic management areas new

development would only be allowed if it

was consistent with the historic character

of the communities. New development also

could occur in the small town management

areas, provided the existing large-lot,

single-family character of the areas did not

change. There are few industrial uses

within the riverway; should an industrial

site ever be abandoned, the most desirable

future use of the riverfront portions of

those properties would be public park.

Although this alternative generally would

impose more restrictions on new development than now, an exception would be

made for small town management areas:

some state land use regulations would be

eased for small town management areas to

give local governments and landowners

greater flexibility. Specifically, state standards regarding decks and residential additions would be relaxed in the small town

management areas, provided the additions

were not visible from the water.
Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

94 94

alternative b and c: LAND

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

36

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

NATURAL

NATURAL / SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

NATURAL

NATURAL

PARK

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

HISTORIC

NATURAL

PARK

NATURAL

NATURAL

PARK

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

DSC • 643 • 20018B • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

Cedar

Bend

35

10

Somerset 35

64

64

NATURAL

35E
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

92

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

Slough

Natural

South end of McLeod’s Slough to north end of William

O’Brien State Park

Rural residential

William O’Brien State Park Natural

South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern

tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix

Rural residential

Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St.

Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s

Butternut Falls Addition

Small town historic

Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut

Falls Addition to north limits of Stillwater

Rural residential

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

Village

Small town

Old Afton Village Small town historic
Alternative B: Accommodate Growth but Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities

93

Land Segment Management Area

South end of old Afton Village (north end of River

Road) to north end of Afton State Park

Rural residential

Afton State Park Natural

South end of Afton State Park to north boundary of St.

Croix Bluffs Regional Park

Rural residential

St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Park

South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north

end of Carpenter Nature Center

Rural residential

Carpenter Nature Center Natural

South end of Carpenter Nature Center to Mississippi

River

Rural residential

Wisconsin

St. Croix Falls Small town historic

Interstate Park Park

South end of Interstate Park to Twin Springs

subdivision, including the bluffs within Osceola

Natural

Osceola Small town historic

Osceola to Twin Springs subdivision Natural

Twin Springs subdivision to south edge of St. Croix

Station subdivision in North Hudson

Rural residential

South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in North

Hudson to Orange Street

Small town

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

Park

Rural residential

Kinnickinnic State Park Natural

South end of Kinnickinnic State Park to north end of

Prescott

Rural residential

North end of Prescott to Mississippi River River town
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

94

In areas outside municipalities limited new

developments could be allowed in rural

residential, park, and natural management

areas, but they could not be visible from

the river (unlike alternative A). Specifically, limited new residential and commercial development could occur in rural residential management areas, limited residential development could occur in natural

management areas, and recreational

facilities could be built in the park and

natural management areas. State land use

regulations would be strengthened to

ensure that the potential visual impacts of

new developments in rural areas are

minimized.

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

Vegetation management in alternative B

would be the same as alternative A. The

overall emphasis in this alternative would

be on screening structures from view as

seen from the river, preventing disturbance

of environmentally sensitive areas, and

maintaining the existing diversity of plant

communities. As in alternative A, a variety

of actions would be taken or encouraged to

maintain plant communities, but no action

would be taken to alter vegetation that

would conflict with ensuring that developments were visually screened from the

water — vegetative screening of development would take priority over maintenance

of native plant communities. State regulations that restrict vegetation removal on

private lands would be revised to allow

maintenance of the natural diversity and

ecological integrity of the riverway’s plant

communities. The Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources would pursue an

amendment to the state land use standards

within the riverway (Chapter NR 118),

which would allow landowners to write a

forest management plan (with department

approval) that provided for the maintenance of existing native plant communities

and protection of the river’s scenic quality.

Federal and state scenic easements would

be revised on a volunteer basis with individual landowners to maintain native plant

communities.

Vegetation on NPS fee lands also would

continue to be managed to perpetuate plant

communities — actions generally would

not be taken to manipulate plant communities or interfere with native insect or disease outbreaks except to protect to life or

property, convert existing tree plantations

to natural communities, maintain plant

community diversity, or maintain habitat

for threatened and endangered species.

RIVER CROSSINGS

Under alternative B the managing agencies

would continue to encourage safe, compatible, multiple uses of existing corridors

and structures that cross the riverway. As

in all of the alternatives, all proposed

changes to river crossings or corridors

would require site-specific environmental

evaluations and approval from applicable

local and state agencies. The impacts of

each proposal would be analyzed and

documented before the managing agencies

permit any change in a river crossing or

corridor.

Minimal changes would be permitted in

the number, type, scale, or characteristics

of the river crossings — all roads, railroads, utility lines, and submarine lines

would be restricted to existing corridors

(i.e., the existing rights-of-way or the areas

immediately adjacent to the existing rightsof-way). Although road and railroad brid-
Alternative B: Accommodate Growth but Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities

95

ges could be replaced within existing corridors, no change in the scale or character

of the bridges would be permitted. (Agencies proposing to replace structures on the

National Register of Historic Places or

replace structures that are eligible for

listing would need to comply with section

106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act before they could remove the structures.)

Utility line structures could be replaced,

but no changes would be permitted in the

number, scale, or character of the transmission structures.

The number of lines in the existing

submarine crossings would not be

increased, with one exception: utility lines

might be relocated to existing submarine

crossings. If a utility line was replaced by a

submarine line, trenching or directional

drilling might be required, depending on

the resource impacts.

ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

North of Stillwater day use would be minimally regulated. For the three state parks in

the area camping would be allowed only in

designated campgrounds. Camping would

be prohibited in three areas administered

by the National Park Service:

• from Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls to

1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing

(the upper entrance to Close Slough)

• 1,200 feet north and south of the

Highway 243 bridge at Osceola

• from the southern tip of Greenburg

Island to the upper entrance to Dead

Man’s Slough (opposite the city of

Marine-on-St. Croix, generally)

Minor restrictions would apply to camping

in other areas. However, as use levels continued to grow, additional camping restrictions would be imposed in this alternative

to protect riverway resources. Specifically,

at some point camping would be restricted

north of Stillwater to sites designated by

the National Park Service.

Use of the Hudson Islands and publicly

owned shorelines generally would be

minimally regulated in alternative B, with

a couple of exceptions. Camping would

continue to be allowed only in designated

areas in the two state parks and one regional park in the area. Also, users would be

required to have portable toilets to camp on

the islands at Hudson.

WATER SURFACE USE

Users on the river would be assured of

finding opportunities to engage in a wide

range of recreational experiences, ranging

from quiet solitude to faster or more social

experiences. However, as overall use levels

increase, additional use management than

exists today would be required in order to

minimize the potential for conflicts between incompatible uses while maintaining

the diversity of recreational experiences.

The strategy of alternative B would be to

permit overall recreational use levels to

increase on the lower riverway. However,

growth would be limited in some areas and

some recreational uses might be separated

from other uses in space and/or time south
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

96

of the north limits of Stillwater to resolve

user conflicts or safety concerns.

Specifically, certain parts of the river could

be set aside for compatible water uses. For

instance, some segments of the river might

be designated for canoeing and fishing,

while other segments might be set aside for

faster recreational uses such as personal

watercraft and waterskiing. Other areas

might be designated as anchorages. There

also could be speed limits and slow nowake zones at different times and/or days

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.

The “Alternative B: Water” map on page

97 and table 11 show the location and

distribution of water management areas.

The largest portion of the lower riverway

in alternative B would be designated as

quiet waters (22 miles of the main channel)

and natural waters (22 miles of backwaters), followed by active social

recreation waters (13.5 river miles) and

moderate recreation waters (11.5 river

miles). The management area allocation is

intended to allow an increase in recreational use (particularly fast motorized uses)

between the north limits of Stillwater and

Afton, an increase in slower uses below

Afton, and limited growth in quiet, largely

nonmotorized uses, above Arcola.

Water Use Management From Taylors

Falls to Arcola Sandbar

On this stretch of the riverway all of the

main channel (22 miles) would be managed as quiet waters, and all of the backwaters would be managed as natural

waters. This would help ensure that

existing recreational activities did not

significantly change. There would be no

changes from existing conditions with

regard to management of boating on this

stretch: Limited increases in use levels

would be allowed to continue, existing

opportunities for quiet and solitude would

be maintained, current speed levels would

be maintained, and no changes would

occur in access opportunities.

Water Use Management From Arcola

Sandbar to the North Limits of

Stillwater

The riverway managing agencies would

maintain existing recreational opportunities

on this stretch. All of the main channel (5

miles) would be a moderate recreation

management area, while all of the backwaters would be managed as natural

waters. The moderate recreation management designation would provide for moderate numbers of users and a variety of

boat types, primarily powerboats, traveling

at slower speeds. As boating levels

increased, additional speed regulations

might be imposed to ensure user safety or

reduce conflicts. Access to this stretch

would not change.
Somerset

64

Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

94 94

35

alternative b: water

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

64

35

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

QUIET WATERS

(main channel)

and

NATURAL WATERS

(backwaters)

MODERATE

RECREATION

MODERATE

RECREATION

ACTIVE 

SOCIAL

RECREATION

DSC • 643 • 20017A • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

Cedar

Bend

35

10

35E

36
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

98

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

sandbar

Quiet waters

The backwaters from the Taylors Falls Dam south to the Arcola

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

Natural waters

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

Limits of Stillwater to Prescott

Under alternative B the portion of the riverway between the north limits of Stillwater and Afton would be managed differently from the portion between and Afton

and Prescott. The 13.5-mile stretch between the north limits of Stillwater and

Afton, accounting for 54% of the overall

reach, would be designated as an active

social recreation management area. More

users would be permitted to use powerboats and pursue a variety of recreational

uses (particularly powerboat use) compared to the present, although no changes

would be made in existing access points.

Speed levels also would be permitted to

increase, provided there are no safety

concerns.

The 11.5-mile stretch between Afton and

Prescott (46% of the overall reach) would

be designated as a moderate recreation

management area. This management area

would provide for a moderate number of

people to pursue a variety of uses, primarily powerboat uses. No changes would

occur to the existing access points on this

stretch. Increased use levels would be permitted, but powerboats would be encouraged to travel at slower speeds. If boating

levels continue to increase, the managing

agencies might impose additional speed

regulations to address conflicts or safety

concerns.

Under alternative B the managing agencies

would segregate uses either spatially or

temporally if user conflicts or safety problems occurred between the north limits of

Stillwater and Prescott. For example, the

managing agencies would consider permitting only waterskiing in North Hudson

Bay. Another example of segregating uses

would be permitting sailing only on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays on the eastern

two-thirds of Lake St. Croix, between

Interstate 94 and St. Croix Cove, providing

that boats moored on the eastern shore

travel to and from the western third by the

most direct route. A third possible example

would be designating anchorage areas,

with no-wake speed restrictions, just north

of Point Douglas County Park near the

Minnesota shore and just south of

Kinnickinnic State Park near the

Wisconsin shore.
Alternative B: Accommodate Growth but Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities

99

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.
100

ALTERNATIVE C: MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPE’S VISUAL QUALITIES AND

EXISTING RECREATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

Alternative C would achieve the same

conditions in the riverway as described

under alternative B: as much as possible,

the views of the lands within the riverway

boundary and the diversity of river recreational experiences would be kept the same.

The only major difference between the two

alternatives would be in the strategy used

to maintain the existing diversity of recreational experiences: alternative C would

freeze the growth of recreational use.

LAND USE

Like alternative B, lands within the riverway boundary would be managed to maintain the visual quality as seen from the

water. The management area allocation in

alternative C would be identical to alternative B (see the “Alternative B and C:

Land” map on page 91 and tables 9 and 10

on page 92 in the previous section). The

majority of lands along the riverway would

be designated as rural residential and natural management areas. Limited new residential and commercial development could

occur within the municipalities along the

riverway, provided it is not visible from the

river. In addition, in the river town and

small town historic management areas new

development could be allowed if it is consistent with the historic character of the

communities. New development also could

occur in the small town management areas,

provided the existing large-lot, singlefamily character of the areas do not change.

To provide local governments with more

flexibility, state standards regarding decks

and residential additions would be relaxed

in the small town management areas,

provided the additions were not visible

from the water. There are few industrial

uses within the riverway; should an industrial site ever be abandoned, the most desirable future use of the riverfront portions

of those properties would be public park.

In areas outside municipalities, limited

new developments could be allowed in

rural residential, park, and natural management areas, but they could not be visible

from the river. Specifically, limited new

residential and commercial development

could occur in rural residential management areas, limited new residential development could occur in natural management

areas, and recreational facilities could be

built in the park and natural management

areas.

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

Vegetative management in alternative C

would be the same as described in alternative B. The overall emphasis in this alternative would be on screening structures

from view as seen from the river, preventing disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas, and maintaining the diversity of

plant communities. A variety of actions

would be taken or encouraged on riverway

lands to maintain native plant communities, but no action would be taken to alter

vegetation that would conflict with ensuring that developments were visually

screened from the water — vegetative

screening of development would take

priority over maintenance of native plant
Alternative C: Maintain the Landscape’s Visual Qualities and Existing Recreational Characteristics

101

communities. State regulations that restrict

vegetation removal on private lands would

be revised to allow maintenance of the

natural diversity and ecological integrity of

the riverway’s plant communities. The

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would pursue an amendment to the

state land use standards within the riverway (Chapter NR 118). ). Under the proposed amendment, landowners could

develop a forest management plan with

department approval that would protect the

scenic quality of the river, prevent disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas

such as steep slopes or riverfront bluffs,

and would allow vegetation to be managed

in a manner that would maintain significant plant communities. Federal and state

scenic easements would be revised on a

volunteer basis with individual landowners

to maintain plant communities.

Vegetation on National Park Service fee

lands also would continue to be managed

to perpetuate native plant communities.

RIVER CROSSINGS

Management of river crossings would be

the same as described under alternative B.

Minimal changes would be permitted in

the number, type, scale, or characteristics

of the river crossings. Although road and

railroad bridges could be replaced within

existing corridors, no change in the scale or

character of the bridges would be permitted. Existing utility line structures could be

replaced with the removal of the existing

structure in this alternative, but no changes

would be permitted in the number, scale, or

character of the transmission structures. No

increase in the size or number of lines in

the existing submarine crossings would

occur with one exception: existing overhead utility lines could be relocated to

existing submarine crossings.

ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

The riverway managing agencies would

employ several strategies to prevent a

growth in use of publicly owned islands

and shorelines and to prevent additional

resource impacts along the riverway. As in

the other alternatives, north of Stillwater

day use would be minimally regulated. For

the three state parks in the area camping

would be allowed only in designated

campgrounds. Camping would continue to

be prohibited in the same three areas that

were described in alternative B. In alternative C, the National Park Service would

implement camping permit and reservation

systems: users would need reservations and

permits to camp on all NPS administered

lands on the lower riverway. North of Stillwater camping would be restricted to sites

designated by the National Park Service.

South of Stillwater day use of the Hudson

Islands and publicly owned shorelines

generally would continue to be minimally

regulated. Camping would continue to be

allowed only in designated areas in the two

state parks and one regional park. Also,

users would be required to have portable

toilets to camp on the islands at Hudson.

WATER SURFACE USE

Alternative C, like alternative B, would

strive to maintain the existing diversity of

river recreational experiences and minimize the potential for conflicts between

incompatible uses. To achieve this desired

condition, recreational use levels would be
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

102

frozen. In other words, an increase in water

surface recreational use over 1997 levels or

a change in the mix and pattern of uses

would not be permitted. To freeze recreational growth would require more management, monitoring, regulations, and enforcement than presently exist. The alternative

would largely rely on tightly regulating all

access points to the river (including limiting access to the Mississippi River within

boater commuting range of the St. Croix)

and banning new access points to prevent

future growth. Access points would be

closely monitored and closed when their

predetermined capacities were reached.

Other actions that would be taken to

discourage growth include prohibiting new

ramps of any kind, prohibiting the expansion or construction of marinas, promulgating more surface use regulations (e.g.,

designating more slow no-wake zones),

and aggressive enforcement of riparian

owner access limits.

The “Alternative C: Water” map on page

103 and table 12 show the location and

distribution of water management areas. In

alternative C the active social recreation

management area would cover the largest

portion of the lower riverway (25 river

miles), followed by natural waters (22

miles) and quiet waters (22 miles); 5 miles

of the lower riverway would be designated

as a moderate recreation area. The management area distribution above the north

limits of Stillwater would be identical to

alternative B. However, from the north

limits of Stillwater to Prescott, alternative

C differs from B in that all of the riverway

would be designated as an active social

recreation management area, which reflects

how this part of the riverway is now

managed.

Water Use Management From Taylors

Falls to Arcola Sandbar

The main channel (22 miles) from Taylors

Falls to Arcola sandbar would be managed

as quiet waters, and the backwaters would

be managed as natural waters, which

would help ensure that recreational activities did not significantly change. Boat management would continue: increases in use

levels would be discouraged, opportunities

for quiet and solitude and speed levels

would be maintained, and access opportunities would remain the same.

Water Use Management From Arcola

Sandbar to the North Limits of

Stillwater

The riverway managing agencies would

maintain existing recreational opportunities

on this stretch. The main channel (5 river

miles) would be a moderate recreation

management area, while the backwaters

would be managed as natural waters. The

moderate recreation management designation would provide for moderate numbers

of users and a variety of boat types, primarily powerboats, traveling at slower

speeds. Additional speed regulations might

be imposed to ensure user safety or reduce

conflicts. No changes in access to this

stretch would occur.

Water Use Management From the North

Limits of Stillwater to Prescott

This stretch would be designated an active

social recreation management area. Users

would continue to use powerboats and pursue a variety of recreational uses (particularly powerboat use). Existing use levels

and speed levels would be maintained, and

access points would remain the same.
35E

Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

36

94 94

alternative c: water

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

35

64

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

QUIET WATERS

(main channel)

and

NATURAL WATERS

(backwaters)

MODERATE

RECREATION

ACTIVE

SOCIAL

RECREATION

DSC • 643 • 20019A • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

Cedar

Bend

35

10

Somerset

64
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

104

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
105

ALTERNATIVE D: EMPHASIZE RESOURCE PROTECTION AND REDUCE

RECREATIONAL USE

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

As the region surrounding the St. Croix

valley continued to urbanize and grow in

population, people would have less opportunity to experience nature, quiet, and solitude. In alternative D the lower riverway

would be managed to promote and restore

the natural qualities of the riverway. The

predominance of natural features over

modern developments would increase

within the riverway boundary. Natural

landscapes would be restored where feasible. More emphasis would be placed on

promoting user experiences that are

quieter, slower, and less intrusive and

disturbing to others.

LAND USE

Alternative D would place more emphasis

on resource protection than the previous

alternatives. Thus, fewer areas would be

available for new residential or commercial

development than the other alternatives. As

shown on the “Alternative D: Land” map

on page 106 and tables 13 and 14, the

majority of the land in the riverway would

be included in natural (22%) and minimally disturbed (32%) management areas.

Rural residential management areas would

account for 21% of the land in the boundary and would be scattered throughout the

riverway. The remaining lands would be

included in small town, park, river town,

and small town historic management areas,

most of which would cover small areas

south of Stillwater’s northern boundary.

New development would be built within

the municipalities along the riverway,

provided it was not visible from the river.

Additional state and local restrictions

would be placed on new development to

minimize the visual impact on the landscape. In the river town and small town

historic management areas, new development would only be allowed if it was consistent with the historic character of the

communities. In small town management

areas new development would be permitted

only if it was consistent with the large-lot,

single-family character of the areas. Unlike

alternatives A and B, there would be no relaxation of standards for such features as

decks and residential additions. If industrial uses were to be discontinued, local

governments would be encouraged to

redevelop the areas as parklands.

In areas outside municipalities a strong emphasis would be on resource protection to

increase the predominance of the riverway’s natural/rural features over modern

development. Limited new developments

could be allowed in rural residential, park,

and natural management areas, but they

could not be visible from the river. Some

new residential and commercial development could be built in rural residential

management areas, and some recreational

facilities could be built in the park and

natural management areas. State land use

regulations would be strengthened to reduce the potential visual impacts of new

developments in areas outside towns. Natural landscapes would be restored where

feasible. Throughout the riverway, no new

construction or expansion of existing structures would be permitted unless topography (not vegetation) made it impossible

to see from the river.
Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

36

94 94

35

alternative d: LAND

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

Somerset

64

35

64

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

MINIMALLY

DISTURBED

MINIMALLY

DISTURBED

MINIMALLY

DISTURBED

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN 

HISTORIC

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN

SMALL HISTORIC TOWN

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

RIVER TOWN

NATURAL

NATURAL

NATURAL

NATURAL

NATURAL

NATURAL

NATURAL

PARK

NATURAL / SMALL TOWN

SMALL TOWN HISTORIC

NATURAL

PARK

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL RESIDENTIAL

DSC • 643 • 20021A • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

RURAL

RESIDENTIAL

Cedar

Bend

35

10

35E
Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use

107

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.

TABLE 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

Slough

Minimally disturbed

South end of McLeod’s Slough to north end of William

O’Brien State Park

Rural residential

William O’Brien State Park Natural

South end of William O’Brien State Park to southern

tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St. Croix

Rural residential

Southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marine-on-St.

Croix to southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s

Butternut Falls Addition

Small town historic

Southern boundary of Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut

Falls Addition to High Bridge

Rural residential

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

Village

Small town
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

108

Land Segment Management Area

Old Afton Village Small town historic

South end of old Afton Village (north end of River

Road) to north end of Afton State Park

Rural residential

North end of Afton State Park to south end of St. Croix

Bluffs Regional Park

Natural

South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park to north

end of Carpenter Nature Center

Rural residential

Carpenter Nature Center Natural

South end of Carpenter Nature Center to Mississippi

River

Rural residential

Wisconsin

St. Croix Falls Small town historic

Interstate Park Park

South end of Interstate Park to Twin Springs

subdivision, excluding Osceola

Minimally disturbed

Bluffs within Osceola Natural

Osceola Small town

Twin Springs subdivision to south edge of St. Croix

Station subdivision in North Hudson

Natural

South edge of St. Croix Station subdivision in North

Hudson to Orange Street

Small town

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

Prescott

Rural residential

North end of Prescott to Mississippi River River town

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

The primary goals for vegetative management would be to screen structures from

view as seen from the river and prevent

disturbance of environmentally sensitive

areas such as steep slopes or riverfront

bluffs.

A secondary goal would be to encourage

and promote vegetative management

actions that would maintain and restore

historically and ecologically significant

plant communities and enhance diversity.

Successional climax forest and presettlement disturbed oak savanna would be the

preferred forest ecotype examples of significant plant communities. However,
Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use

109

throughout the lower riverway, vegetative

screening of existing structures and

potential development sites would take

priority over restoration and maintenance

of significant plant communities.

This alternative would place emphasis on

voluntary actions, coupled with education

and stewardship, to preserve and restore

plant communities. Removal of exotic

species would be encouraged on all lands

within the riverway. Control of insects and

disease would be recommended if there

would be a high likelihood that outbreak

would threaten large areas of vegetative

cover within the lower riverway or threaten

to infest adjacent lands. In addition, pruning or removal of hazard trees would continue to be allowed. Hazard trees would be

trees that exhibit damage resulting from

insect, disease, age, or storm, and, if they

were to fall, would be a safety risk to

people or property. Pruning of normal tree

growth to prevent property damage would

also be allowed.

On local government lands voluntary efforts would be encouraged to maintain and

restore preferred forest cover. On state and

federal lands the managing agencies would

maintain and restore preferred forest types.

Vegetation on NPS fee lands would

continue to be managed in accordance with

NPS policies to perpetuate native plant

communities. Plant succession would

generally not be interfered with except to

protect life or property, convert existing

tree plantations to nonmonocultures or

mixed species communities, maintain

native plant community diversity (e.g.,

prevent loss of prairie and oak savanna),

and maintain habitat for threatened and

endangered species. Manipulation of plant

communities to maintain threatened and

endangered species habitat would be

carried out in a manner designed to restore

or enhance the functioning of the plant and

animal community of which the endangered species is a natural part.

On private lands voluntary efforts would

also be encouraged to maintain and restore

preferred forest cover so long as these

efforts do not conflict with maintaining

visual screening of existing structures and

potential development sites. State regulations that restrict vegetation management

on private lands would be revised to allow

maintenance and restoration of the natural

diversity and ecological integrity of

significant plant communities. A variety of

management techniques, such as planting,

seeding, pruning, thinning, harvesting,

prescribed burning, and clearing, would be

allowed and encouraged on private lands in

both states to accomplish this goal. Federal

and state scenic easements would be revised on a volunteer basis with individual

landowners to allow these management

techniques.

A specific action that would be taken to

encourage significant plant communities

concerns lands enrolled under forest tax

law programs on the Wisconsin side of the

riverway. (Minnesota does not have an

equivalent law regarding forest management but this action.) The Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources would

pursue an amendment to the state land use

standards within the riverway (Chapter NR

118). Under the proposed amendment,

landowners could develop a forest management plan with department approval that

would protect the scenic quality of the

river, prevent disturbance of environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes or

riverfront bluffs, and would allow vegetation to be managed in a manner that would

maintain significant plant communities.
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

110

RIVER CROSSINGS

As in the other alternatives, the managing

agencies would continue to encourage safe,

compatible, multiple uses of existing corridors and structures that cross the riverway.

Similarly, all proposed changes to river

crossings or corridors would require sitespecific environmental evaluations and

approval of applicable local and state

agencies. The impacts of each proposal

would be analyzed and documented before

the managing agencies permitted any

change in a river crossing or corridor.

In alternative D the managing agencies

would strive to reduce the visual impact of

structures that cross the riverway. Road,

railroad bridges, utility lines, and submarine lines would be restricted to corridors

(i.e., the rights-of-way or the areas immediately adjacent to the rights-of-way). Although road and railroad bridges could be

replaced within corridors, no change in the

scale or character of the bridges would be

permitted. (Agencies proposing to replace

structures on the National Register of

Historic Places or replace structures that

are eligible for listing would need to

comply with section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act before they could

remove the structures.)

The managing agencies would also encourage a reduction in utility lines. The utility

lines could be reduced by consolidating

them onto existing bridges and towers, by

consolidating them onto new structures in

existing corridors (assuming this would

eliminate several existing structures), or by

converting them to submarine lines.

As noted above, new corridors for submarine lines under the river would not be permitted. However, an increase in the size or

number of lines in a submarine corridor

might be permitted if this action would

result in the replacement of a utility line. If

a utility line is replaced by a submarine

line, trenching or directional drilling might

be required, depending on the resource

impacts.

ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

In alternative D the riverway managing

agencies would employ several strategies

to prevent additional resource impacts to

publicly owned islands and shorelines

along the riverway. As in the other alternatives, north of Stillwater day use would be

minimally regulated. For the three state

parks in the area, camping would be allowed only in designated campgrounds.

Camping would continue to be prohibited

in the same three areas as described in

alternatives B and C. The National Park

Service also would limit camping to a few

designated sites. Users would need reservations and permits to camp at these sites.

South of Stillwater day use of the Hudson

Islands and publicly owned shorelines

would continue to be minimally regulated.

Camping would continue to be allowed

only in designated areas in the two state

parks and one regional park in the area.

Camping on the islands at Hudson would

be limited to just a few watercraft. In addition, users would be required to have portable toilets to camp on the islands.

WATER SURFACE USE

Recreational uses would not change. River

users would continue to find opportunities

for a variety of recreational experiences.

However, more opportunities would be
Alternative D: Emphasize Resource Protection and Reduce Recreational Use

111

available for users to find quieter, slower,

peaceful recreational experiences in designated areas than currently exist. This alternative would encourage users to slow

down and appreciate the river’s stories and

the natural and historical qualities that

make the riverway a special place. In other

words, alternative D calls for increased use

management in order to increase opportunities for quiet and solitude, to address

potential user conflicts, and to increase

users’ appreciation of the riverway.

Increased management of use would occur

under this alternative to reduce overall use

levels and the density of recreational use

on the river and to reduce speed levels.

North of the head of Lake St. Croix, use

levels and densities would be reduced to

provide more opportunities for solitude.

South of the head of Lake St. Croix, use

levels would be decreased to improve

users’ experiences by reducing congestion,

noise, and conflicts. Lower speeds would

be encouraged to help increase users’ appreciation of the environment and to reduce conflicts.

Reducing overall use levels would be accomplished by closing some of the existing

publicly owned water access points and by

acquiring and closing some of the existing

privately owned marinas. New access development would be prohibited. Remaining accesses would be closely monitored

and closed when their predetermined capacities were reached (including limiting

access to the Mississippi River within

boater commuter range of the St. Croix).

There would also be aggressive enforcement of riparian owner access limits.

The “Alternative D: Water” map on page

113 and table 15 show the location and

distribution of water management areas.

The largest portion of the lower riverway

would be designated as a moderate recreation management area (25 miles), and as

natural waters (22 miles of backwaters and

10 miles of the main channel). Quiet water

management areas would cover 17 miles

(12 miles of the main channel and 5 miles

of backwaters). No active social recreation

management areas would be designated,

eliminating all fast boating and waterskiing.

Water Use Management From Taylors

Falls to Arcola Sandbar

On this stretch of the riverway 12 miles of

the main channel would be managed as

quiet waters (55% of the entire reach) and

10 miles would be managed as natural

waters (45% of the reach). Backwaters (22

miles) would be managed as natural waters. This allocation of management areas

would help ensure that recreational activities did not significantly change. To increase opportunities for quiet and solitude,

use levels would be decreased and access

opportunities would be reduced.

Water Use Management From Arcola

Sandbar to the North Limits of

Stillwater

All of the main channel and backwaters between Arcola and the north limits of Stillwater (5 river miles) would be a quiet

waters management area. Both motorized

and nonmotorized boats would continue to

be able to use this area. However, alternative D would provide for increased opportunities for quieter, slower boating activities than now. To achieve this, use and

speed levels would be reduced. No changes

in access points would be permitted.
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

112

Water Use Management From the North

Limits of Stillwater to Prescott

All of this stretch (25 river miles) would be

designated as a moderate recreation management area. This management area

would provide for a moderate number of

people to pursue a variety of uses, primarily powerboat uses. However, to improve

the user experience and resolve conflicts,

management actions would be taken to

decrease use levels, reduce speed levels,

and decrease existing access opportunities.

TABLE 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

Slough

Natural waters

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.
Mississippi River

Federal Zone

State Zone

Taylors Falls

Forest Lake

St. Paul

Marine on 

St. Croix

Osceola

Stillwater

Hudson

River Falls 

Prescott

8

10

61

8

35

94 94

35

alternative d: water

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

Major Highways

Lower St. Croix NSR

St. Croix River

0 4.5 9 Miles

Bayport

Lakeland

North Hudson

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Kinnickinnic State Park

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

NATURAL

WATERS

QUIET

WATERS

(main channel)

and

NATURAL WATERS

(backwaters)

QUIET

WATERS

MODERATE 

RECREATION

QUIET

WATERS

DSC • 643 • 20020A • 5/00

St. Croix Falls

Cedar

Bend

35

10

Somerset

64

35

64 35E

36
114

 ALTERNATIVE E: NO ACTION

MANAGEMENT CONCEPT

This alternative is included to satisfy the

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and it provides a baseline for comparing the other alternatives. In

alternative E the managing agencies would

continue to manage the lower riverway as

they have in the past. The agencies would

continue to follow the guidance and management directions in the 1976 Master

Plan (with some changes based on current

management practices) and the current

Lower St. Croix Management Commission’s policy resolution. Management

would focus on maintaining existing land

use and recreational use patterns — no

changes would occur in the permitted uses

of the lower riverway, and no new

management actions would be taken to

limit or restrict existing uses unless there

were safety concerns or users were

adversely affecting the lower riverway’s

exceptional resources. The managing

agencies would react to recreational use as

they have in the past and to issues and

trends that were not addressed in the

Master Plan. Riverway management

would continue to rely on the policy

resolution and potential amendments to

address new issues that arose.

LAND USE

The managing agencies would continue to

manage land use along the lower riverway

as they have in the past. Emphasis would

continue to be placed on maintaining long

stretches of the lower riverway’s natural

and rural landscape. The makeup of incorporated areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin

is 32% and 16% respectively; the unincorporated areas make up 68% and 84%

respectively. Under this alternative 24% of

the land along the lower riverway would be

maintained as incorporated areas and 76%

would be maintained as unincorporated

areas. In incorporated areas local and state

zoning standards would continue to

determine what uses would be permitted.

New residential and commercial development could be built in communities as

long as the development met state and

local standards designed to limit visual

impacts. Tight controls would continue on

certain development characteristics, such

as development density and height and

color of structures. Lot sizes would not be

restricted, but limits on decks and additions to existing residences would continue. No special actions would be taken to

maintain the historic character of riverway

communities.

In areas outside municipalities no changes

would be made to state land use regulations. Limited new development would

continue to be allowed, some of which may

be visible from the river.

VEGETATIVE MANAGEMENT

This alternative would emphasize minimizing the visibility of development from

the river. Maintenance of the natural abundance, diversity, and ecological integrity of

the riverway’s plant communities would

continue to be limited by state regulations

that restrict vegetation removal on private

lands. Plant communities would not be

afforded any special protection under

alternative E — limited management ac-
Alternative E: No Action

115

tions would be taken to restore or maintain

historically and ecologically significant

plant communities, such as prairie and oak

savanna on private lands. A vegetation

control zone would continue to be in effect

along the lower riverway. In this area,

which is larger in unincorporated areas

than in incorporated areas, large trees

generally could not be cut. (However,

small trees and shrubs can be removed

from this area.)

Vegetative management by private landowners in both states would continue to be

limited to the removal of disease or insect

infested trees, removal of hazardous trees,

pruning of trees, and cutting of understory

vegetation. Plant succession and restrictions on vegetation removal would continue to favor perpetuation and expansion of

closed canopy forest communities.

One action that could be taken to protect

the scenic quality of the river would

concern lands enrolled under the managed

forest law on the Wisconsin side of the

riverway. Current state land use standards

(Chapter NR 118) do not provide for the

removal of vegetation in the riverway to

protect scenic quality. The Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources has

proposed that this oversight be corrected.

Thus, under alternative E the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources would

pursue an amendment to the state land use

standards within the riverway. Specifically,

under the proposed amendment, landowners could develop a forest management

plan, with department approval, that would

allow vegetation to be removed in a manner that would protect the scenic quality of

the river.

Vegetation on NPS fee lands would continue to be managed in accordance with

NPS policies to perpetuate native plant

communities. Plant succession and native

insect or disease outbreaks would generally

not be interfered with except to protect life

or property, convert existing tree plantations to nonmonocultures or mixed species

communities, maintain native plant

community diversity (e.g., prevent loss of

prairie and oak savanna), and maintain

habitat for threatened and endangered

species. Maintenance of native plant

communities would be pursued where it

did not conflict with maintaining visual

screening for development. Manipulation

of plant communities to maintain threatened and endangered species habitat would

be carried out in a manner designed to

restore or enhance the functioning of the

plant and animal community of which the

endangered species is a natural part.

RIVER CROSSINGS

In this alternative there would be no

changes in the number and type of river

crossings. No increases in road and railroad bridges, transmission lines, and

submarine corridors, would be permitted.

Although road and railroad bridges would

be restricted to existing corridors (i.e., the

existing rights-of-way or the areas immediately adjacent to the existing rights-ofway), the scale and character of these

bridges could be changed. For example,

bridges could be widened to allow increased capacity with more lanes. Utility

lines might be replaced or relocated, but no

change in the number, scale, or character of

overhead river crossings would be permitted. Although no new submarine corridors

would be permitted, the size and number of

lines within existing corridors could be

increased. Trenching or directional drilling
LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES

116

could be required to install new submarine

lines, depending on the resource impacts.

ISLAND AND PUBLIC SHORELINE

MANAGEMENT

North of Stillwater, recreational use of

publicly owned islands and shoreline areas

would continue. Three state parks in this

area would allow camping only in designated campgrounds. The National Park

Service would continue to prohibit camping

in three areas under its management:

• Camping would be prohibited on federal

land from Taylors Falls / St. Croix Falls

to 1,200 feet south of Franconia Landing

(the upper entrance to Close Slough)

• Camping would be prohibited on federal

land for 1,200 feet north and south of

the Highway 243 bridge at Osceola

• Camping would be prohibited on federal

land from the southern tip of Greenburg

Island to the upper entrance to Dead

Man’s Slough (opposite the city of

Marine-on-St. Croix, generally)

Camping would be allowed in other areas

under NPS jurisdiction, subject to a 7-night

limit at any one site and a 30-night limit for

the entire summer season at all sites. Camping equipment could not be left unattended

for more than 24 hours at any site.

South of Stillwater use of the Hudson

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.

WATER SURFACE USE

Under alternative E river users would

continue to find opportunities for a variety

of recreational experiences. No new management areas would be implemented and

no changes would occur in the permitted

uses of or access to the lower riverway. No

new management actions would be taken

to limit or restrict the type of existing uses

or user numbers, unless there were safety

issues or users were adversely affecting the

lower riverway’s exceptional resources.

The overall number of access points would

not change.

New user facilities would not be built, with

the exception of developments already

planned (e.g., developing the Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources public

access at the Allen S. King plant). Other

existing user facilities, including campsites, trails, and interpretive facilities, also

generally would not change. The emphasis

would be on maintaining existing facilities.

Water Use Management From Taylors

Falls to Arcola Sanbar

The managing agencies would maintain

existing opportunities for quiet and solitude on this stretch of the lower riverway.

This condition might require the agencies

to limit growth in user numbers here. No

changes would be made to boat speed

limits or to the number of access points

along this stretch.
Alternative E: No Action

117

Water Use Management From Arcola

Sandbar to the North Limits of

Stillwater

Existing opportunities for recreational

uses, primarily powerboat recreation,

would be maintained as they are now on

this stretch. If boating levels increased

additional speed regulations might be

imposed to ensure user safety.

Water Use Management From the North

Limits of Stillwater to Prescott

Existing opportunities would be maintained for large numbers of people to

recreate on this stretch, primarily

powerboat users. If boating levels

increased additional speed regulations

might be imposed to ensure user safety.

Except for the planned access at the Allen

S. King plan, no changes would occur in

access opportunities to this stretch.

USER CARRYING CAPACITY

 No new special actions would be taken

under this alternative to address the lower

riverway’s carrying capacity. Use would be

allowed to continue to increase in the

lower riverway unless one of the conditions noted above were met. The existing

Lower St. Croix Management Commission

policy that prohibits new marinas and

expansion of existing marinas in the lower

riverway would continue. The existing

policy also would continue that limits new

public access sites to no more than 100

car/trailer units, provided they met the

needs of small watercraft and were located

in noncongested use areas. In addition, the

current prohibitions on expanding the

parking capacity of nonpublic launch

ramps and on new nonpublic launching

ramps would continue.

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

MAINTENANCE

No changes would be proposed for the 3-

foot navigation channel between the

Taylors Falls dam and the Arcola sandbar

or the 9-foot navigation channel from

Stillwater to Prescott in alternative E. The

3-foot channel from the Arcola sandbar

down to river mile 24.5 at Stillwater would

continue to be authorized for navigation

and could be maintained if the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers decided it was necessary. The 9-foot navigation channel from

Stillwater to Prescott would continue to be

maintained at its current width by the

Corps. Dredged material would continue to

be placed where it could be reused for

beneficial purposes while minimizing

impacts to aquatic resources. Any watercraft entering the riverway to conduct

dredging activities would be checked and

cleaned if necessary in a manner consistent

with the zebra mussel prevention plan.

CULTURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

The managing agencies would continue to

exercise their responsibility to inventory

and evaluate historic buildings, structures,

landscapes, and archeological, ethnographic, and cultural sites in zones administered

by them. In the federally administered

zone, the National Park Service would

continue to conduct archeological surveys

in conjunction with projects involving

ground disturbing activities, update the List

of Classified Structures inventory for

federally owned properties, and complete a
LAND AND WATER USE ALTERNATIVES

118

cultural landscape inventory. In addition,

the National Park Service would prepare a

historic resource study and an ethnographic

overview and assessment, which would

provide contexts and baseline information

for resources in the federal and state

administered zones of the lower riverway.

This information would assist planners and

resource managers in understanding the

lower riverway’s cultural resources,

determining appropriate treatments, and

establishing priorities for implementing

treatments.

NPS planners and resource specialists

would work closely with the state historic

preservation offices of Minnesota and

Wisconsin, American Indian interests, and

private property owners where appropriate

in developing protection and treatment

strategies and priorities for all historic

properties along the riverway.

LAND PROTECTION /BOUNDARY

ADJUSTMENTS

Land protection within the federally

administered zone (north of Stillwater)

would continue to be guided by the

National Park Service’s Land Protection

Plan (NPS 1984), which identifies those

lands or interests in lands that need to be

acquired to accomplish the intent of the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and/or

riverway management objectives. In large

part, fee title acquisition and scenic

easement acquisition have been completed

in the federally administered zone;

therefore, there would be no major changes

in the status of lands from Taylors Falls to

Stillwater.

Land protection throughout the lower

riverway would continue to rely on special

riverway zoning regulations, which have

been adopted and administered by local

governments based on standards established by the states. The states would continue to provide oversight on local decisions to ensure consistent administration of

the rules. State land use rules could be

amended under this alternative for several

reasons, such as to make the Minnesota

and Wisconsin rules more alike, to make

the rules consistent with new policy resolutions of the Lower St. Croix Management

Commission, and to reflect any changes in

eligibility for the Wisconsin forest management tax program.

Some limited protection in the stateadministered zone (south of Stillwater)

would continue to be provided by scenic

easements acquired by the states. No new

scenic easements would be acquired by the

states. However, the states would continue

to administer their current easements.

Minor boundary adjustments would continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case

basis. Some minor adjustments would

continue to be considered by the managing

agencies, such as where the boundary now

splits a parcel of land, or where an adjacent

road provides a more easily definable

boundary.
119

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED

FROM DETAILED STUDY

The task force identified two other alternatives for managing the Lower St. Croix

but dropped them from further study.

Under the “Lake Minnetonka” concept the

intent would have been to allow portions of

the lower riverway to change so they

would have looked like Lake Minnetonka,

a lake in suburban Minneapolis surrounded

by beautifully landscaped homes, which

users could view from their boats. State

land use controls would have been limited

under this alternative; there would have

been no state restrictions unique to the

Lower St. Croix. Unrestricted residential

development would have been allowed

along parts of the shoreline, enabling river

users to float past a “parade of scenic

homes.” The task force rejected this alternative because it would have been inconsistent with the purposes of the lower

riverway. This alternative would have

allowed increased urbanization in the

riverway corridor, which would have

resulted in the loss of many of the

outstanding natural scenic qualities. The

lower riverway was established by Congress to protect and preserve the scenic

resources and to maintain the area’s natural

character in an urbanizing region. Houses

would not have been considered “scenic

resources” in the context of a river in the

national wild and scenic rivers system.

The other alternative that was dropped

from consideration emphasized resource

protection and slower, nonmotorized uses

on the lower riverway. (Alternative E in

the April 1997 workbook.) Increased

emphasis would be placed on restoring

natural landscapes compared to the other

alternatives. More restrictions would be

placed on new developments to reduce

their visibility from the water. Natural

quiet would be encouraged through

controls on the use of machinery on lands

within the boundary. This alternative also

would ban all motorized watercraft and

would allow increased nonmotorized use

north of the Boomsite. South of the

Boomsite motorized watercraft would be

permitted, but these boats could operate

only at slow speeds except in two designated waterskiing areas: Hudson’s north

bay and north of the Kinnickinnic Narrows. Additional anchorage areas would be

put in the lower part of the river. The task

force dropped this alternative because it

would be inconsistent with the principles

underlying the alternatives. Specifically,

the ban on motorized watercraft north of

the Boomsite and restriction on motorboats

south of the Boomsite would profoundly

change the nature of water-based recreation

on the Lower St. Croix. This management

action would directly contradict the lower

riverway’s purposes, which state that the

riverway “accommodate a diverse range of

recreational opportunities.” It is inconsistent with the riverway’s exceptional

resources and values, which state: “The

exceptional characteristics of the linear

riverway provide for a wide range of highquality recreational experiences. People

could easily find opportunities, ranging

from peace and solitude to dynamic social

interaction.” It is also inconsistent with the

task force’s vision statement, which

includes “a diversity of recreational and

living experiences, ranging from quiet

solitude to highly social, motorized uses.”
121

MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS
123

INTRODUCTION

The current management structure for the

Lower St. Croix has been in place for over

20 years. By law, the lower riverway must

be jointly managed by the Minnesota and

Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources and the National Park Service.

The vehicle for that joint management has

been the Lower St. Croix Management

Commission, established in 1973 by

cooperative agreement. In addition to the

three voting members, the MinnesotaWisconsin Boundary Area Commission

serves as a nonvoting member.

One of the questions dealt with in the

planning process was how the federal,

state, and local agencies should work

together to administer the lower riverway

— who should be involved in management, what roles and responsibilities

should each agency have, and what would

be the best governmental organization for

managing the lower riverway? Five distinct

options were developed for the lower

riverway management structure. Each

option includes directions for which

agency should participate in activities, who

should do policy development, how land

and water surface use should be managed,

and anticipated implementation costs.

Although several of the options shift some

authorities and responsibilities among the

agencies, a “given” for all of the options

would be as follows: by law primary

management responsibility for the lower

riverway would rest with the two state

departments of natural resources and the

National Park Service; the MinnesotaWisconsin Boundary Area Commission

would continue to have public interest

responsibilities as outlined in state laws;

the states would review and comment on

local zoning actions; all three agencies

would participate in and provide staff for

on-water law enforcement, rescue, and

related activities; the National Park Service

would provide staff for management of

lands it owns north of Stillwater.

A summary of the options and their

impacts can be found in tables 20 and 22

at the end of this chapter.
124

PREFERRED OPTION

The preferred management structure being

proposed for administering the Lower St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway would

require more partnerships than now but

would not require additional federal and

state legislation, would not create new

organizations, and would not require

extensive new funding.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

The Lower St. Croix Management Commission (hereafter referred to as the

management commission) would continue

to be the primary policy body for the

riverway — it would be responsible for

policy development, including preparation

and adoption of policy documents as

needed and management plan updates

every 20 years. The management commission also could review and comment on all

actions by government and others that

affect the lower riverway.

The organization of the management

commission would be similar to what it is

today. The Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources, Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources, and the National

Park Service would continue to be the

three voting members. Two nonvoting

members also would serve on the management commission: one member of the

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission, appointed by that commission, and one member of the Lower St.

Croix Partnership Team (a new organization described below), appointed by that

team. In addition, a technical committee,

consisting of field-level staff, would

continue to address day-today issues. The

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission would continue to provide

staff services to the management

commission and its technical committee

and would provide coordination for water

surface law enforcement.

A new organization, called the Lower St.

Croix Partnership Team, would be

established to serve as an advisor to the

management commission. The team would

have the following duties: serve as an

advisor for development and revision of

state water surface use regulations (see

appendix B); serve as an advisor for

development and revision of state land use

regulations (see appendix A); conduct on a

bimonthly basis post-decision review of

local land use actions (variances, etc.) for

consistency with intent; and appoint one

nonvoting member to the Lower St. Croix

Management Commission. The membership of the partnership team would be

based on the Lower St. Croix Planning

Task Force, but its membership would be

more clearly defined: the team would

consist of representatives of local

governments and a balanced list of

stakeholder groups. Staff services to the

partnership team would be provided by the

two state departments of natural resources.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Under the preferred option the two state

departments of natural resources would

adopt state rules that form the basis for

local riverway ordinances. The Lower St.

Croix Partnership Team would serve as a

public forum for development of the state
Preferred Option

125

rules. Local governments would be required to adopt and enforce ordinances

based on the states’ rules (local ordinances

could be more restrictive than state rules,

but not less so); the departments of natural

resources would have review or certification authority over local ordinances and

any amendments to those ordinances. The

departments of natural resources also

would provide regular training for local

government officials on land use

management questions.

In implementing the ordinances, local

governments would provide notice of

hearings to the managing agencies. To

provide for cross-agency consultation, the

management commission’s technical

committee would review all applications

for variances and conditional use permits.

Both the technical committee and the

departments of natural resources could

comment on applications either in writing

or at the local government hearings.

However, no riverway managing agency

would have veto authority over a local

government decision on a conditional use

permit or subdivision. If disagreements

occurred, appeals could be made to the

courts.

The partnership team would meet at least

bimonthly and review all local land use

decisions rendered during the previous

months. It would make periodic reports

and/or recommendations to the management commission and state departments of

natural resources to improve the consistency of local government implementation

of their riverway ordinances.

WATER SURFACE USE

MANAGEMENT

On-water law enforcement would continue

to be provided by the five county sheriff’s

departments, the two departments of

natural resources, and the National Park

Service. Increased coordination among

surface water law enforcement agencies

would be led by staff to the management

commission.
126

OPTION 1: MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT

STRUCTURE

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Under option 1 there would be minor

adjustments to management roles and

responsibilities for the lower riverway,

centering on the Lower St. Croix Management Commission and the Lower St. Croix

Planning Task Force. The management

commission would continue to set overall

policies for the lower riverway. However,

the management commission would be

expanded to include one local government

representative and a support staff and

office in the valley. As a result, the management commission would serve as a

public information source about riverway

management rather than the MinnesotaWisconsin Boundary Area Commission.

However, the boundary commission would

continue to have public interest review

responsibilities as outlined in state laws.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Land use management roles and responsibilities would be similar to what they are

today in this option. Local governments

would continue to be responsible for

adopting and enforcing land use regulations within their jurisdictions. They would

continue to act on proposals to change the

zoning of property, decide if uses should

be permitted in some areas only under

certain conditions, and decide if variances

should be issued from certain zoning provisions. The two state departments of

natural resources would continue to ensure

that local governments provide consistent,

appropriate enforcement of land use

regulations. The departments of natural

resources also would continue to review

and approve or disapprove local decisions.

However, the Lower St. Croix Planning

Task Force would be restructured and

made permanent. The task force would

interpret state land use rules and provide

mediation services when there were

disagreements among landowners, local

governments, and the two departments of

natural resources.

WATER SURFACE USE

MANAGEMENT

On-water law enforcement would continue

to be provided by the five counties, two

departments of natural resources, and the

National Park. The Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force would be restructured and

made permanent to improve coordination

among the law enforcement agencies.
127

OPTION 2: SHIFT AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND WATER USE

REGULATION TO A JOINT POWERS BOARD

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

As in the previous options, the Lower St.

Croix Management Commission would

continue to set overall policies for the

lower riverway. But under this option the

management commission would be

expanded from its current three members

(i.e., the two departments of natural

resources and National Park Service) to

include one local government representative, one landowner representative, one

general public representative, and one

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission representative. The management commission also would have its own

support staff and office in the valley and

would serve as a public information source

on riverway management. The boundary

commission would not serve as a public

information source, but it would continue

to have public interest review

responsibilities.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

In option 2 the local governments would

continue to be responsible for implementing land use regulations within the jurisdictions. However, a new entity, called a joint

powers board, would be created to oversee

land use management. The joint powers

board would be created by all the valley’s

local governments and would include one

representative from each of the 15 municipalities and five counties along the riverway. (Authorization of this board may

require approval by both state legislatures

and Congress.) The board would have the

responsibility to ensure that local governments provide consistent, appropriate

enforcement of land us regulations. It

would review and approve or deny local

government decisions in the same way the

two departments of natural resources now

oversee local decisions — the departments

of natural resources would no longer be

involved in reviewing local decisions. The

board would meet regularly to review local

actions, elect officers, have an office and

staff, and administer its budget.

In addition to the joint powers board, a

citizens review board would be created to

serve as an advisor to landowners, local

governments, and the joint powers board

on the consistency, accuracy, and

appropriateness of local land use decisions.

The citizens review board would have

individuals with technical expertise to

review land use decisions.

WATER SURFACE USE

MANAGEMENT

A new entity, called the St. Croix water

patrol, would perform all water law enforcement on the lower riverway. This

water patrol would be created by a joint

powers board for water, consisting of the

five counties, two departments of natural

resources, and the National Park Service.

(Authorization of the joint powers board

would require the approval of both state

legislatures and Congress.) With a single

law enforcement agency, there would be no

need for coordination noted in the above

options.
128

OPTION 3: SHIFT AUTHORITY FOR LAND USE AND WATER USE

REGULATION TO A RIVERWAY BOARD AND JOINT POWERS BOARD

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

This option is identical to option 2

concerning policy development. The

Lower St. Croix Management Commission

would continue to set overall policies for

the lower riverway, but its membership

would be expanded to include one local

government representative, one landowner

representative, one general public representative, and one Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission representative. The management commission also

would have its own support staff and its

own office in the valley, and would serve

as a public information source on riverway

management. The boundary commission

would continue to exercise its public

interest review responsibilities.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

The only difference between options 2 and

3 would be the method of regulating land

use in the lower riverway. In this option a

single land-use authority would be created

for the valley. Local governments would

not handle riverway zoning matters within

their borders. Instead, a riverway board,

modeled on the Lower Wisconsin State

Riverway Board, would be created to

directly manage land use within the lower

riverway. The board would work directly

with landowners in reviewing development

proposals. It would have the authority to

approve, modify, or reject individual land

development proposals in place of local

governments. Landowners would need

approvals from both local governments and

the riverway board to build new developments within the lower riverway. There

would be no oversight agency reviewing

the board’s decisions. The interpretation of

land use rules and mediation of disputes

would be the board’s responsibility.

Since the riverway board would have

cross-river authority, it would need to be

authorized by both legislatures and Congress. The board would consist of 20

members, with each of the elected governing bodies of the 15 municipalities and five

counties appointing one member. The

board would meet monthly to act on construction applications. It would have an

office, elect officers, administer a budget,

and employ a staff.

WATER SURFACE USE

MANAGEMENT

Like option 2, a new entity, called the St.

Croix Water Patrol, would perform all

water law enforcement on the lower

riverway. This water patrol would be

created by a joint powers board for water,

consisting of the five counties, two departments of natural resources, and the National Park Service. (Authorization of the

joint powers board would require the

approval of both state legislatures and

Congress.)
129

OPTION 4: CONTINUE CURRENT

 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE (NO ACTION)

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Under this option the lower riverway

would continue to be managed as it is now.

There would be no changes in agency

authorities or responsibilities. Overall

management policies would continue to be

set by the three-member Lower St. Croix

Management Commission, consisting of

the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments

of Natural Resources and the National Park

Service. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission would continue to be

a nonvoting member of the management

commission and would serve as a public

information source about riverway

management.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

Option 4 would be similar to option 2

concerning roles and responsibilities for

land use management: local governments

would be responsible for implementing

land use regulations within their jurisdictions, while the two departments of natural

resources would continue to provide oversight on local decisions and enforcement of

land use regulations.

WATER SURFACE USE

MANAGEMENT

Roles and responsibilities for water surface

use management would largely remain as

they are today. Surface water law enforcement would continue to be provided by the

five-county sheriff departments, two

departments of natural resources, and the

National Park Service. One change would

be that the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary

Area Commission would assume leadership in facilitating coordination among the

law enforcement agencies.
130

IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS

Table 16 provides a summary of the implementation costs under each alternative that

would be incurred by the two states, local

governments, and the National Park Service. Table 17 provides a summary of costs

for implementing the management structure options.

Implementation of any alternative or option

would depend on the availability of adequate funding for additional staff or other

costs. Approval of the cooperative management plan would not provide any funding,

nor would it guarantee that money for

implementation of all elements of the plan

would be provided. Each major action

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.

It should also be acknowledged that both

states and the National Park Service are

currently operating with an annual budget

shortfall. That is, the managing agencies

are underfunded to meet the continuing

demands of increased use, internal program

requirements, and outside development

pressure. Regardless of the alternative

selected, both the states of Minnesota and

Wisconsin and the National Park Service

would require additional support funding

to meet current program requirements.

Each partner would continue to seek

funding, through its standard budget

process, to meet these outstanding program

needs.
Implementation Costs of Alterantives and Options

131

TABLE 16: IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF ALTERNATIVES

Preferred

Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

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
LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

132

Preferred

Alternative

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

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
Implementation Costs of Alternatives and Options

133

TABLE 17: IMPLEMENTATION COSTS OF OPTIONS

Preferred

Option

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Riverway

coordinator

$75,000a$75,000 $75,000 $75,000

Organizational

support

$25,000b$25,000 $25,000 $25,000

Clerical 0 $60,000 $90,000 $90,000

Office

operations

0 $50,000 $75,000 $75,000

Law

enforcement

0 0 $400,000 $400,000

Boats, vehicles,

equipment

0 0 $45,000 $45,000

Annual total 0 $210,000c

$710,000d$710,000e

One-time startup costs 0 $50,000f

$75,000g$75,000H

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
134

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES AND OPTIONS

The following Land and Water segment

map for the Lower St. Croix is keyed to

table 18. The keys on the map (i.e., M-1,

W-1) correspond to the reaches of the river

shown on the table, which provides a

summary comparison of land and water

use management alternatives for Minnesota

and Wisconsin. A summary of the four

management structure options are shown in

table 19. Impacts of the alternatives are

presented in table 20 and impacts of the

four options are shown in table 21.
MINNESOTA

WISCONSIN

Mississippi River

Taylors Falls

Marine on 

St. Croix

Stillwater

Prescott

Land and Water Segment Key

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

North

0 4.5 9 Miles

Bayport

Lakeland

Lake St. Croix

Beach

Afton

Afton State Park

Minnesota Interstate

State Park

William O'Brien 

State Park

St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area

DSC • 643 • 20023B • 12/98

Wisconsin Interstate 

State Park

Osceola

Hudson

North Hudson

Kinnickinnic State Park

W-1 C-A

M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

M-5

M-7

M-6

M-8 

M-9

M-10

M-11 M-12

M-13

M-14

M-15

M-16

M-17

M-18

M-19

M-20

M-21

M-22

M-23

W-2

W-3

W-5

W-6

W-7

W-8

W-9

W-11

W-10

W-12

W-13

W-15

W-16

W-17

W-18

W-19

W-20

W-21

W-22

W-14

W-4

C-B

C-C

C-D

C-E

C-F

B-AA

B-AA

B-B

B-A

B-A

B-B

NOTE: The width of the St. Croix River 

on this graphic is exaggerated for clarity.
137

TABLE 18: COMPARISON OF LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY ALTERNATIVES (LAND USE MANAGEMENT )

LAND MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A

Directed land development

ALTERNATIVE B/C

Maintain the landscape’s visual qualities

ALTERNATIVE D

Emphasize resource protection

ALTERNATIVE E (No Action)

Maintain present management approach

based on 1976 Master Plan and subsequent

policy

Development in communities (including

river town, small town historic, and small

town)

Maintain long stretches of the lower

riverway’s natural and rural landscape while

still allowing new development in existing

communities; overall character of

communities would not significantly change;

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

Maintain long stretches of the lower

riverway’s natural and rural landscape; allow

limited new residential and commercial

development that was consistent with the

historic character of the river’s communities

Maintain long stretches of the lower

riverway’s natural and rural landscape; new

residential and commercial development

could be built as long as it was not visible

from the river

Maintain long stretches of the lower

riverway’s natural and rural landscape;

remove existing development that is visible

from the river if or when opportunities arose

Maintain long stretches of the lower

riverway’s natural and rural landscape; new

residential and commercial development could

be built as long as it met development

standards designed to limit visual impact

Some state land use regulations would be

relaxed in river town, small town historic,

and small town management areas to give

local governments greater flexibility in

regulating land use, development density,

structure height, etc.

Some state land use regulations would be

relaxed in river town, small town historic

and small town management areas to give

local governments greater flexibility in

regulating land use, development density,

structure height, etc.; encourage clustering of

new development

More restrictions would be placed on new

development to minimize visibility from the

river

Same as alternative B/C Regulations in incorporated areas would not

be as restrictive as in rural areas, but tight

controls on land use (including zoning

districts), development density, structure

height, etc., would be established

In the small town management areas, the

emphasis would be on retaining the large-lot

single-family character of the area, while

relaxing standards for features such as decks

and residential additions

In the small town management area, the

emphasis would be on retaining the large-lot

single-family character of the area, while

relaxing standards for features such as decks

and residential additions

In the small town management area, the

emphasis would be on retaining the large-lot

single-family character of the area; new

development would not be visible from the

river

Same as alternative B/C In incorporated areas, lot size would not be as

restricted as in rural areas, but there would be

limits on decks and residential additions

In river town and small town historic

management areas, new development would

be allowed if it was consistent with the

historic character of the communities

In river town and small town historic

management areas, new development would

be allowed if it was consistent with the

historic character of the communities

In river town and small town historic

management areas, new development would

be allowed if it was consistent with the

historic character of the communities and not

visible from the river

Same as alternative B/C No special action would be taken to address

the historic character of communities

If an industrial use was discontinued, the

most desirable future use of the riverfront

portions of these properties would be public

park.

If an industrial use was discontinued,

commercial, residential or recreational use of

the site would be considered

Same as alternative A If an industrial use was discontinued,

redevelopment of the area as urban parkland

would be considered

Uses would be determined by the

municipality’s underlying zoning standards

Development outside of communities

(including rural residential, park, natural,

minimally disturbed)

Note: park, natural, minimally disturbed

combined as “Conservation” in Preferred

Alternative.

Limited new developments would be

permitted, so long as they were visually

inconspicuous as seen from the river; more

restrictions would be placed on new

developments to reduce their visibility;

natural landscapes would be restored where

feasible

Limited new development would be allowed,

some of which might be visible from the

river, so long as the riverway’s rural and

natural character was maintained

Land uses would be managed to maintain

visual characteristics as seen from the water;

more restrictions would be placed on new

developments to reduce their visibility

There would be a strong emphasis on

resource protection, increasing the

predominance of natural features over

modern development; more restrictions

would be placed on new developments to

reduce their visibility; natural landscapes

would be restored where feasible

Limited new development would continue to

be allowed, some of which might be visible

from the river
138

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

MINNESOTA SEGMENTS

(north to sot h)

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

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

McLeod Slough

Conservation Natural Natural Minimally disturbed Unincorporated

M-4 South end of McLeod Slough to north

boundary of William O’Brien State Park

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated

M-5 William O’Brien State Park Conservation Park Natural Natural Unincorporated

M-6 South end of William O’Brien State Park

to southern tip of Greenburg Island in Marineon-St. Croix

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential

M-7 Southern tip of Greenburg Island in

Marine-on-St. Croix to southern boundary of

Marine-on-St. Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition

Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Small town historic Incorporated

M-8 Southern boundary of Marine-on-St.

Croix’s Butternut Falls Addition to High Bridge

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated

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

of Dutch Town

Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated

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

railroad bridge

Rural residential Small town Rural residential Natural Unincorporated

M-15 Hudson railroad bridge to north limits of

old Afton Village

Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated

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

south end of River Road

Small town Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Incorporated

M-17B South end of River Road to Afton State

Park

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Incorporated

M-18 Afton State Park Conservation Park Natural Natural Unincorporated

M-19 South end of Afton State Park to north

end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated

M-20 St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park Park Park Park Natural Unincorporated

M-21 South end of St. Croix Bluffs Regional

Park to Carpenter Nature Center

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated

M-22 Carpenter Natural Center Natural Natural Natural Natural Unincorporated

M-23 South end of Carpenter Natural Center to

the Mississippi River

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated
139

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

WISCONSIN SEGMENTS

(north to south)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A

Directed land development

ALTERNATIVE B/C

Maintain the landscape’s visual qualities

ALTERNATIVE D

Emphasize resource protection

ALTERNATIVE E

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

Osceola

Conservation Natural Natural Minimally disturbed Unincorporated

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.

Croix Station subdivision in North Hudson

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated

W-10 South edge of St. Croix Station

subdivision in North Hudson o Willow River

Small town Small town Small town Small town Incorporated

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

Park

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Natural Unincorporated

W-19 Kinnickinnic State Park Conservation Park Natural Natural Unincorporated

W-20 South limits of Kinnickinnic State Park to

Cedar St. Croix subdivision

Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated

W-21 Cedar St. Croix subdivision to north end

of Prescott

Rural residential Small town Rural residential Rural residential Unincorporated

W-22 Prescott to Mississippi River River town River town River town River town Incorporated
140

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

RECREATION MANAGEMENT

CONCEPTS

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE A

Accommodate increased recreation use

levels with few restrictions

ALTERNATIVE B

Accommodate increased recreation use

levels with additional restrictions to

minimize user conflicts

ALTERNATIVE C

Freeze recreation use at present levels

ALTERNATIVE D

Reduce recreation use levels

ALTERNATIVE E

Maintain present management

approach based on 1976 master plan

and subsequent policy

Riverwide Concept River users would continue to find

opportunities for a variety of

recreational experiences; existing access

points would be maintained; if

watercraft density increased, more

restrictions would be imposed to ensure

safe conditions and to avoid conflicts

Use could continue to increase as long as

users were not causing significant damage

to the riverway’s exceptional resources or

posing safety hazards to others

River users would continue to find

opportunities for a variety of recreational

experiences; no new access would be

provided or permitted; as watercraft

numbers continued to increase, more

activity restrictions would be imposed to

segregate uses and ensure safe conditions

River users would continue to find

opportunities for a variety of recreational

experiences; no new access would be

provided or permitted, and existing access

would be strictly controlled to prevent

boat use from increasing; use would be

frozen at current levels

River users would find opportunities

for a reduced variety of recreational

experiences, including social experiences, plus more opportunities would

be available for quieter, slower, peaceful recreational experiences in designated areas than currently exist;

reduce use levels and density of

recreational use of the river

River users would continue to find

opportunities for a variety of recreational

experiences; no new access would be

provided or permitted; more activity

restrictions might be imposed to ensure

safe conditions if watercraft numbers

increased

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Maintain opportunities for quiet and

solitude; maintain current slow speed

levels; maintain access points.

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Maintain existing opportunities for quiet

and solitude; allow limited growth in use;

maintain existing speed levels; maintain

current access

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Maintain existing opportunities for quiet

and solitude; allow limited growth in use;

maintain existing speed levels; maintain

current access

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Maintain opportunities for quiet and

solitude; maintain existing use, speed

levels; maintain current access

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Increase opportunities for quiet,

solitude; decrease use levels; decrease

access

Taylors Falls to Arcola Sandbar:

Maintain existing opportunities for quiet

and solitude; allow limited growth in use;

maintain existing speed levels; maintain

current access

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Maintain existing opportunities for a

mix of powerboat and nonmotorized

recreation

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Allow for increased numbers of people to

engage in a variety of uses; allow an

increase in use levels; allow boat speeds

to increase if safety was not a concern

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Maintain existing opportunities for

recreation, primarily powerboat

recreation; as boating levels increase,

additional speed regulations might be

imposed to ensure user safety and

minimize conflicts

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Maintain opportunities for recreation,

primarily powerboat recreation; prevent

increased use

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Increase opportunities for quieter,

slower activities; decrease use levels;

decrease boat speed

Arcola to north limits of Stillwater:

Maintain existing opportunities for

recreation, primarily powerboat

recreation; as boating levels increased,

additional speed regulations might be

imposed to ensure user safety

North limits of Stillwater to Prescott:

Maintain existing opportunities for large

numbers of people to engage in a variety

of uses; one access point would be

added near the Allan S. King power

plant; overall boat speed limit would be

imposed to ensure safe conditions and

avoid conflicts

North limits of Stillwater to Prescott:

Allow for large numbers of people to

engage in a variety of uses; allow use and

speed levels to increase; allow an increase

in access

North limits of Stillwater to Afton:

Increase opportunities for large numbers

of people to engage in a variety of uses;

allow use and speed levels to increase;

maintain existing access; more activity

restrictions would be imposed to

segregate uses and ensure safe conditions

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

North limits of Stillwater to Prescott:

Maintain opportunities for large numbers

of people to recreate on this stretch,

primarily power-boat users; maintain

existing use levels; maintain existing

speed levels; prevent any increase in

access

North limits of Stillwater to Prescott:

Provide opportunities for moderate

number of users to engage in a variety

of uses; decrease use levels; decrease

speed levels; decrease access

North limits of Stillwater to Prescott:

Maintain opportunities for large numbers

of people to recreate on this stretch,

primarily power-boat users; as boating

levels increase, additional regulations on

boat speeds would be imposed to ensure

user safety; maintain current access
141

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

north end of O’Brien State Park

Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Quiet waters Slow speed zone

B-A Backwaters North end of O’Brien

State Park to Arcola sandbar

Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Natural waters Slow-speed zone

B-B Backwaters Arcola sandbar to north

limits of Stillwater

Natural waters Quiet waters Natural waters Natural waters Quiet waters No speed limit, but weekend

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

McLeod Slough

Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Natural waters Slow speed zone

C-C South end of McLeod Slough to the

Arcola sandbar

Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Quiet waters Slow speed zone

C-D Arcola sandbar to the north limits of

Stillwater

Moderate recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation Moderate recreation Quiet waters No speed limit, but weekend

restriction on waterskiing

C-E North limits of Stillwater to Catfish

Bar

Active social recreation Active social recreation Active social recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation No speed limit, except no-wake at

Hudson Narrows and south Hudson

Bay

C-F Catfish Bar to the Prescott railroad

bridge

Active social recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation Active social recreation Moderate recreation No speed limit, except no-wake at

Catfish Bar, Kinnickinnic Narrows

and Prescott Narrows
142

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

OTHER TOPICS

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

ALTERNATIVE A

Directed land development

ALTERNATIVE B

Allow growth, but maintain the

landscape’s visual qualities

ALTERNATIVE C

Maintain the landscape’s visual

qualities

ALTERNATIVE D

Emphasize resource protection

ALTERNATIVE E

Maintain present management

approach based on 1976 master plan

and subsequent policy

River Crossings Road and railroad bridges could be

replaced with bridges of similar scale in

existing corridors; the total number of

bridge crossings would not increase

No increase in the number of road or

railroad bridges, but the scale and

character of bridges could be altered

(wider, for example); bridges could be

relocated to new sites as long as

existing structures are removed

Road and railroad bridges could be

replaced within existing corridors; no

change in the number, scale or

character of the structures would be

permitted

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Road and railroad bridges could be

replaced within existing corridors and

their scale and character altered; the total

number of bridge crossings would not

increase

No new utility corridor crossings or

increase in size of transmission line

towers; new lines could be added to

existing crossings; consolidation of utility

line crossings would be encouraged

Utility lines could be replaced,

increased in scale or relocated to new

sites

Utility lines could be replaced within

existing corridors; no change in the

number, scale or character of the

structures would be permitted

Same as alternative B The number of utility lines could be

reduced by consolidation of lines or

conversion from overhead to

submarine crossings

Utility lines could be replaced or

relocated (as long as existing crossings

are removed); no change in the number,

scale or character of river crossings

would be permitted

Submarine crossings could be expanded or

relocated to an existing corridor and new

submarine crossings could be permitted if

there were no visual impacts. However, the

crossing technique having the least impact

on the riverway’s outstandingly remarkable

values and impact on the resource would

be required.

Submarine crossings could be

expanded or relocated; new submarine

crossings could be permitted

The number of submarine crossings

would remain the same, except that

existing utility lines could be

relocated to submarine crossings

Same as alternative B The number of submarine crossings

would remain the same; existing

utility lines could be relocated to

existing submarine crossing corridors

No new submarine crossings would be

permitted, but the size and number of

lines within existing corridors might be

increased

Vegetation Management Screen structures from view as seen from

the river; prevent disturbance of

environmentally sensitive areas

Maintain the existing significant

plant communities

Maintain the existing significant plant

communities

Same as alternative B Maintain and restore significant plant

communities

A vegetation control zone (larger in

unincorporated areas than in

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

ecologically 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

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

for significant plant communities

Island and Public Shoreline

Management

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

Camping would be prohibited in two areas

north of Stillwater; near Marine-on-St.

Croix camping would be prohibited until a

comprehensive river use / camping plan

was completed and then would be at

designated sites only.

Camping prohibited in two areas north

of Stillwater

Camping prohibited in three areas

north of Stillwater

Same as alternative B Same as alternative B Same as alternative B

In other areas north of Stillwater zones

would be established that identify where

camping would be permitted; designated

camping sites would be established if

needed

Minor camping restrictions in other

areas.

Camping north of Stillwater restricted

to designated sites

Camping north of Stillwater restricted

to designated sites

Camping north of Stillwater limited to

a few designated sites

Same as alternative A

Camping might be restricted to designated

sites if needed and a reservation system

might be instituted if needed

No camping permit or reservation

system.

Same as alternative A Camping permit and reservation

systems used.

Same as alternative C Same as alternative A

Users required to have portable toilets to

camp on the Hudson Islands unless the

managing agencies or others supply public

facilities

No limits on camping on the Hudson

Islands.(existing conditions)

Users required to have portable toilets

to camp on the Hudson Islands.

Same as alternative B Camping on the Hudson Islands

limited to a few watercraft; users

required to have portable toilets.

Same as alternative A
143

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

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

Same as preferred option Same as preferred option Same as preferred option Same as preferred option

Policy Development Lower St. Croix Management commission

would be responsible for policy development and review all actions that affect the

Lower St. Croix. Organization of the

commission would be similar to what it is

today, but with the addition of one

member from a new organization, the

Lower St. Croix Partnership Team, which

would be established to advise the

commission.

There would be minor adjustments to

management roles and responsibilities.

The Lower St. Croix Management

Commission would continue to set overall

policies.

The management commission would have

a support staff and serve as public

information source rather than the

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission

Same as preferred, except that the

management commission would be

expanded from three members to seven.

Same as option 1.

Same as Option 2 The lower riverway would continue to be

managed as it is now.

Land Use Management State rules would be adopted as a basis

for local riverway ordinances. The Lower

St. Croix Partnership Team would serve

as an advisor for the development,

amendment and implementation of state

rules.

Roles and responsibilities would be

similar to what they are now; however the

Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force

would be restructured and made

permanent. The task force would interpret

state land use rules and provide mediation

services.

Local governments would continue to be

responsible for implementing land use

regulations, however a new entity, called

a Joint Power Board, would oversee land

use management. In addition, a citizens

review board would be created to serve as

an advisor to several land use groups.

Same as option 2, except the method of

regulating land use would be that a single

riverway board, modeled on the Lower

Wisconsin State Riverway Board, would

be created.

Roles and responsibilities for land use

management would remain as they are

today.

Water Surface Use Management On-water law enforcement would

continue to be provided by the fivecounty sheriff’s departments, the two state

departments of natural resources, and the

National Park Service. The Lower St.

Croix Partnership Team would serve as

an advisor to the development,

amendment and implementation of state

rules.

Same as the preferred option. In addition

the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force

would be restructured and made

permanent to improve coordination

among law enforcement agencies.

A new entity, called the St. Croix Water

Patrol, would perform all on-water law

enforcement.

Same as option 2 Roles and responsibilities for water

surface use management would remain as

they are today.
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!

BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE E

Scenic Resources Overall, the preferred alternative

would have a minor positive impact on

scenic resources. Also, potentially

major long-term impacts from changes

to river crossings would be avoided.

Potentially major long-term impacts

from changes to river crossings could

occur. Overall, alternative A would

have a minor negative impact on scenic

resources compared to the no-action.

Overall, alternative B would have a

moderate positive impact on scenic

resources compared to the no-action

alternative. Potentially major longterm impacts from changes to river

crossings would be avoided.

Overall, alternative C would have a

moderate positive impact on scenic

resources. Potentially major longterm impacts from changes to river

crossings would be avoided.

Overall, alternative D would have a

moderate positive impact on scenic

resources. There would be somewhat

greater beneficial impacts than the

other alternatives because it would put

slightly more land within the

management areas that would be more

restrictive to development.

Depending on the magnitude of

change, there could be minor to

major, adverse, long-term impacts

on scenic resources.

Recreational

Resources

Overall, the preferred alternative

would provide minor, possibly

negligible, positive impacts on

recreational use. However, a few

riverway users, those seeking to travel

at high speeds and some island

campers would be displaced.

Alternative A would be similar to the

no-action. Congestion problems would

likely continue in narrow sections of the

river. Extremely high-speed boating

would continue and associated safety

and noise concerns would continue in

some areas. Increased use could alter

the recreational experience, such as

creating more crowded conditions at

peak use times.

Minor, possibly negligible, positive

impacts would be made on

recreational use. Some might be

negatively impacted by additional

regulation. A few riverway users,

those seeking to travel at high speeds,

and some island campers would be

displaced.

Alternative C would have minor

positive impacts on recreational use.

Some safety concerns would continue

where extremely high speed boating

occurred occasionally south of

Stillwater.

Overall boating use would be slightly

reduced. Overall, alternative D would

provide minor, positive impacts on

recreational use. However, those

seeking to travel at high speeds and

some island campers would be

displaced.

Riverway users would continue to be

negatively affected to a minor to

moderate extent by congested

conditions or safety issues in some

areas of the riverway.

Natural Resources Limited localized impacts on natural

resources would occur in connection

with residential development, but these

impacts would be less than under the

no-action alternative. Adverse impacts

to listed mussel species could be

occurring, and conservation actions

would be implemented.

Limited localized impacts on natural

resources would occur in connection

with residential development; these

impacts would be more than any other

alternative. Adverse impacts to listed

mussel species could be occurring, and

conservation actions would be

implemented.

Limited localized impacts on natural

resources would occur in connection

with residential development; these

impacts would be similar to but

slightly less than the preferred

alternative. Adverse impacts to listed

mussel species may be occurring, and

conservation actions would be

implemented.

Limited localized impacts on natural

resources would occur in connection

with residential development; these

impacts would be similar to but

slightly less than the preferred

alternative. Freezing use levels may

not change impacts on listed mussel

species.

Limited localized impacts on natural

resources would occur in connection

with residential development; these

impacts would be slightly less than the

preferred alternative. Adverse impacts

on listed mussel species could be

occurring, and conservation actions

would be implemented.

Water pollution due to construction

would be short term; pollution due to

users would be transient and have

minor to negligible effects. Impacts

on soils, vegetation, and fish and

wildlife would be negligible to

minor. The Karner blue butterfly’s

habitat could be adversely affected

as well as certain mussel

populations.

Cultural Resources Restrictions on new development and

maintenance of historic character of

the landscape would minimize potential impacts.

Restrictions on new development and

maintenance of historic character of the

landscape would minimize potential

impacts. Slightly higher potential to

impact archeological resources from

new development in previously

undeveloped areas.

Greater restrictions on new

development and maintenance of

historic character of the landscape

would reduce potential impacts.

Greater restrictions on new

development and maintenance of

historic character of the landscape

would reduce potential impacts.

Greater restrictions on new

development and maintenance of

historic character of the landscape

would reduce potential impacts.

Greater potential for new development and no emphasis on maintaining historic character of the riverway

communities would pose higher risk

to resources.

Socioeconomic

Environment

Positive impacts to the local economy

and tourism would be negligible to

minor compared to the no-action alternative. Some reduced restrictions on

new development in town and some

increased restrictions on new development outside of towns. Local landowners would benefit from reduced

conflicts with recreational users.

Economic and tourism impacts would

be negligible to minor. Conflicts would

likely increase between some recreational users and local landowners in

some areas, primarily near islands and

where the highest boat speeds would be

allowed on the lake.

Positive impacts to the local economy

and tourism would be negligible to

minor. Landowners would benefit

from reduced conflicts with recreational users, primarily north of Stillwater and on southern part of lake.

Economic impacts would be negligible. More restrictions on landowner

improvements and new development.

Local landowners would benefit from

reduced conflicts north of Stillwater,

but would be negatively impacted by

noise and shoreline erosion on the

lake.

Economic and tourism impacts would

be negligible. More restrictions on

landowner improvements and new

development. Existing development

visible from the river removed when

opportunities arise. Local landowners

would benefit from reduced conflicts

with recreational users along most of

the riverway.

Economic impacts would be negligible. Existing restrictions on development would continue. Conflicts

would likely increase between some

recreational users and local landowners in some areas, primarily near

islands and where the highest boat

speeds would be allowed on the lake.

Implementation Costs

One-time costs:

WI &MN: $55,000

Local Government: $116,500

Annual costs:

WI&MN: $730,000

Local Government: $83,750

NPS: $908,000

One-time costs:

WI&MN: $20,000

Local Government: $100,000

Annual costs:

WI&MN: $505,000

Local Government: $0

NPS: $904,000

One-time costs:

WI&MN: $55,000

Local Government: $115,000

Annual costs:

WI&MN: $730,000

Local Government: $76,250

NPS: $864,000

One-time costs:

WI&MN: $55,000

Local Government: $115,000

Annual costs:

WI&MN: $955,000

Local Government: $152,500

NPS: $953,000

One-time costs:

WI&MN: $24,055,000

Local Government: $115,000

Annual costs:

WI&MN: $1,017,500

Local Government: $152,500

NPS: $919,000

No change
145

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

current management approach.

The management commission would be

retained and a partnership member added.

No managing agency would set authority

over local land use decisions. Existing

water use enforcement would continue.

Minor change in management approach,

with role of the Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commission reduced

The management commission would be

retained and local government

representative would be added. The

planning task force would have role in land

use rules interpretation and mediation and

in water use enforcement coordination.

Most change in management approach, with the

management commission having greater local

representation. A joint powers board and new onwater law enforcement agency (St. Croix water

patrol) would be major undertaking.

Same as option 2, except a riverway board

would implement local zoning.

No change

Implementation Costs $100,000

Note: This cost is already included in the

preferred alternative under the costs for the

Minnesota DNR and Wisconsin DNR

(Manager positions).

Annual $260,000 

One-time $ 56,000

Annual $710,000

One-time $75,000

Annual $710,000

One-time $75,000

No additional costs would

be anticipated.
Affected Environmen t
149

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environment of

the Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway. This is the baseline environment

that the management alternatives would

affect if they were implemented. The focus

of this chapter is on scenic resources,

recreational use, natural resources, cultural

resources, socioeconomic resources, and

land use and management that have the

potential to be affected by the alternatives.

Some features are also discussed because

they provide context, must be considered

in environmental impact statements based

on federal laws, regulations, and orders,

and NPS management policies (e.g.,

wetlands, prime and unique agricultural

lands, threatened and endangered species),

or reflect issues and concerns expressed by

the public and other agencies during the

scoping process (see the issues section in

the “Introduction” and the “Consultation

and Coordination” chapters). The effects of

the alternatives on these impact topics are

also assessed in the “Environmental

Consequences” chapter.

In describing the riverway’s environment

and particularly in evaluating the impacts

of the alternatives, special attention needs

to be paid to the riverway’s outstandingly

remarkable values. The National Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act places special importance on the values for which a particular

river has been set aside. In the case of the

Lower St. Croix, the identified outstandingly remarkable values are its scenic,

aesthetic, recreational and geologic values.

While both the words scenic and aesthetic

are used in the identification of outstandingly remarkable values, they are used

interchangeably.
150

SCENIC RESOURCES

Scenic resources are those landscape features (including the river) that are visible to

riverway users. However, not all that is

visible from the river is included within the

boundaries of the riverway. The following

text defines the landscape features of the

riverway, starting at the NSP dam going

downriver to the confluence with the

Mississippi River at Prescott. The river

experience changes based on physiography, topography, vegetation type, river

characteristics, and the amount and type of

development. Distinct sections of the river

are described below.

The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock

Island; 3.5 miles

The communities of Taylors Falls and St.

Croix Falls lie at the uppermost edge of

this river section. These communities are

historic in character and have a combination of natural and man-made elements in

the landscape. From the dam at Taylors

Falls to beneath the Highway 8 bridge the

river is a series of rapids. Below the bridge

the river proceeds through a deep and

narrow gorge with basalt cliffs known as

“The Dalles of the St. Croix.” Each side of

the river along the highly scenic Dalles is

protected in state parks. Minnesota and

Wisconsin Interstate State Parks both have

developed areas surrounded by less developed lands. The developed areas include

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

there are fewer signs of people with only a

small amount of residential development

visible on the blufftops. The river narrows

again at Rock Island and passes through

another basalt rock gorge. Just above Rock

Island there is a clear-cut swath up the

bluffs from an underground pipeline.

Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod's

Slough; 10.0 miles)

On this relatively undisturbed stretch of

river the natural features are predominant,

with few signs of development or recreational support facilities. Except for the

small blufftop community of Osceola, only

a small amount of development is visible

on the wooded blufftops. Most of the lands

within the riverway are either NPS fee

property or scenic easements. Near the

towering cliffs at Cedar Bend much of this

forested and agricultural area is protected

by land trusts. Throughout this stretch the

river winds back and forth across the

floodplain, leaving islands and braided

channels beneath steep, heavily wooded

bluffs. Just below the Swing Bridge — a

historic railroad crossing — the river splits

into two distinct channels that come

together again at the south end of

McLeod’s Slough. This slough is marked

by floodplain forests and extensive

backwater marshes. Altogether this stretch

of river has a tranquil and natural feel.
Scenic Resources

151

Marine Area (McLeod's Slough to

Arcola Sandbar via Page’s Slough; 8.5

miles)

This stretch of river is similar to the Osceola area but is marked by more residential

development, especially on terraces along

the Minnesota shore. Moderate development is along the Minnesota shore north of

William O’Brien State Park. The National

Park Service has a narrow strip of scenic

easements along this stretch. In the state

park there are recreational facilities, and

many people camp, picnic, and hike there.

Downstream of the park lies the developed

residential shoreline of Marine, which is

predominantly historic in character. Page’s

Slough is another area with residential

development on the Minnesota terrace. The

shoreline here is also managed by NPS

scenic easements. The Wisconsin side of

the river is natural in character with few

signs of development, and the shoreline is

predominantly NPS fee properties with

scenic easements nearer the riverway

boundary. The river throughout this area

flows through a broad floodplain covered

with forests and braided channels, bordered

by heavily wooded bluffs. Below Marine

the main channel is flanked by wooded

islands. The river has a relatively slow

current and shallow conditions.

Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to

Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Management Area; 2.5 miles)

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

Slough, which is a braided, island-rich,

backwater complex on the Wisconsin side

of the river’s main channel. From there this

portion of the river flows slowly through

Rice Lake, a large backwater lake important for migrating waterfowl. The Apple

River then enters the St. Croix and forms

the Arcola sandbar — an extremely

shallow section of the main river channel

that serves as a barrier to motorboat traffic

from the south. Little development is visible in this reach of the river.

Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head

of Lake St. Croix; 5 miles)

The river valley in this area is narrower

than in areas to the north or south, and the

valley walls are steeper, frequently marked

by limestone and sandstone cliffs. Almost

the entire valley lies in the floodplain. Limited development is on this stretch with a

few homes visible atop the bluffs and more

that are noticeable along the Minnesota

side than on the Wisconsin side until the

southern part of this river section. The

historic Arcola High Bridge, 1 mile south

of the Arcola sandbar, spans the blufftops

and dominates views along the river for

several miles. The river flows through a

braided channel where there are numerous

forested islands. Near the head of Lake St.

Croix lies the Boomsite Highway Wayside,

a popular roadside picnic area and national

historic landmark. The river, natural features, and man-made features shape the

landscape of this section of river.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

152

Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St.

Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy

Docks; 2 miles)

The river valley here broadens considerably and the river itself becomes lakelike with some islands at the head of the

lake. The Wisconsin bluffs descend almost

to the water’s edge and are largely forested,

with some large lot residential properties

dotting the blufftops. The Minnesota bluffs

are largely set back from the river with a

large terrace in-between. On this terrace

lies the historic lumbering community of

Stillwater — the St. Croix watershed’s

largest city. Along the Minnesota shore are

Stillwater’s downtown district, some

homes, marinas, and docks, while Lowell

Park’s seawall abuts the river. The historic

highway lift bridge across the river is a

dominant visual feature. This section has a

more developed feel than the upper sections of the riverway.

South Stillwater-Bayport Area

(Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks

to Andersen Point; 3 miles)

The river here remains broad and lake-like.

High bluffs are on either side of the river,

although the Minnesota bluffs recede far

back from the river’s edge. The forested

Wisconsin bluffs are similar to the area

across from Stillwater: the bluffs descend

almost to the water’s edge, and the bluff

tops are dotted with homes. In contrast to

the Wisconsin shoreline, the Minnesota

shoreline is the most developed reach of

the St. Croix: a commercial drydock, marina, large coal-fired electric generating

plant, and large window factory are on the

terrace along the shore. Views are strongly

impacted by the large power plant and its

tall smokestack and by transmission lines

that cross the river.

Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen

Point to Willow River Dam; 2 miles)

This reach of river is again broad and lakelike. Tall bluffs rise from near the water on

the Wisconsin side but recede at North

Hudson. On the Minnesota shore the

wooded bluffs are set back from the river

at Bayport and then come back close to the

river at the south end of town. Fairly dense

residential developments are at North Hudson and Bayport, while homes dot the

wooded blufftops on the Wisconsin shore

north of North Hudson. A park and a marina line the shore in Bayport, and railroad

tracks run along the shore south of town.

Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to

Interstate 94; 2 miles)

Although this stretch of the St. Croix

valley is broad, the main river channel is

narrow and fairly fast-moving, confined to

near the Minnesota shore by dikes built

from the Wisconsin shore to accommodate

a railroad and two highway crossings. A

chain of sandy, sparsely vegetated islands

runs along the Wisconsin side of the main

channel. On the Minnesota shore the valley

bluffs descend near the water’s edge on the

Minnesota shore, except near the Interstate

94 bridges. On the Wisconsin side the

bluffs are set back from the water. This is

another highly developed stretch of the

riverway, with views dominated by Hudson, another one of the valley’s historic

lumbering towns, and the two Interstate 94

bridges at the south end of the unit. On the

Minnesota side the blufftops have fairly

dense residential development, and several
Scenic Resources

153

homes sit on the floodplain at the river’s

edge, but there is some natural vegetation

and landscaped environments. On the Wisconsin side the residential and downtown

neighborhoods of Hudson cover the bluff

tops and the river terrace. A park abuts the

riverfront downtown, just north of the

river’s largest marina.

Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish Bar;

4.5 miles)

This is the river’s widest and deepest section, nearly 2 miles across and up to 70 feet

deep. Tall, wooded bluffs descend to the

shoreline on the Wisconsin side. The Minnesota bluffs are far from the shore. A high

terrace drops abruptly to the water’s edge

between Lakeland and Afton. Developments can be found in several areas on this

stretch. The Wisconsin blufftops are rimmed by large-lot residential development.

More intensive residential development is

found at St. Croix Cove, where most

homes are on a terrace below the rim of the

bluff. The river terrace on the Minnesota

side in this section contains five municipalities and fairly dense residential development. A flood control levee fronts the river

at Lake St. Croix Beach.

Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to

Kinnickinnic Narrows; 5.0 miles)

The river here is uniformly about a ? mile

wide and fronted by tall, wooded bluffs

that drop almost directly into the water.

Directly across the river from Afton is

Catfish Bar, a large sandbar that juts into

the river at the base of a large, wooded

bluff. Black Bass Bar, a similar sandbar on

the Wisconsin side, lies south of Catfish

Bar. Developments and people are common in localized areas. Scattered homes

are on the blufftops. The Wisconsin side of

the river is rural with natural and manmade features in the landscape. In Minnesota the historic river town of Afton lies in

the floodplain, with two marinas, a park,

and scattered commercial and residential

development along the edge of the river.

Just south of town, development thins and

closely resembles the rural residential

character of the Wisconsin side. Many

people use Afton State Park, which offers

boat beaching, hiking, and swimming

areas. A large electrical transmission line

also crosses the river on this stretch.

Kinnickinnic Narrows (Kinnickinnic

Narrows; 0.5 miles)

A sandy, forested delta at the mouth of the

Kinnickinnic River forces the St. Croix

River’s channel against the Minnesota

bluffs, resulting in a narrow river with a

swift current. Kinnickinnic State Park

covers the Wisconsin side of the river and

is an extremely popular boat beaching and

mooring area. Scattered homes sit atop the

Minnesota bluff, which drops almost

directly into the river.

Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic

Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at

Prescott; 6.0 miles)

This area is similar to the CatfishKinnickinnic stretch north of the narrows.

The river is uniformly about ? mile wide

and fronted by tall, wooded bluffs that drop

almost directly into the water. Scattered

homes are along the bluffs. The Minnesota

side has a mix of rural and natural landscapes. The Wisconsin side has a
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

154

predominately rural character until the

southern edge of this river segment where

there are more signs of people and

development. Here the eastern shore has

the residential and downtown

neighborhoods of Prescott, another of the

St. Croix’s historic river towns. A

peninsula extends from the Minnesota shore at the mouth of the river

(Point Douglas), forming a natural dam

that creates Lake St. Croix. The Point

Douglas area has a marina and county

park. A highway and railroad bridge cross

the river in its last few hundred feet before

meeting the Mississippi.
Scenic Resources

155

RECREATIONAL USE

Five state parks and one regional park abut

the river and provide recreational opportunities including hiking, cross-country

skiing, nature observation, swimming,

fishing, car-related camping, and other

activities. Local parks in communities

along the river provide similar opportunities. Considering the proximity to the Twin

Cities metropolitan area, it is not surprising

that many people access the riverway

through these parks. The following summarizes three-year average annual park

visitor data for 1996-98:

Minnesota Interstate State Park 364,499

Wisconsin Interstate State Park 338,131

William O’Brien State Park 239,810

Afton State Park 176,748

Kinnickinnic State Park 226,326

St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park 133,754*

 Total 1,479,268

*Data is for 1998 only; this park opened to the

public for the first time in 1997.

Most of the riverway is not accessible by

public park or by public road; as a result,

much of the riverway is accessed for recreational purposes from the water. Approximately 310,600 people visited the

riverway by water in 1997, the most recent

year for which data is available. Combined

with state and regional park visitation

information, the boating information leads

to the conclusion that the Lower St. Croix

National Scenic Riverway receives approximately 1.8 million visitors per year.

Considering that use data is not kept for

some local parks that receive heavy use,

such as Lowell Park in Stillwater, Lakeside

Park in Bayport, Lakefront Park in

Hudson, Point Douglas County Park, and

the swimming beach in Lake St. Croix

Beach, it would be safe to conclude that

visitation easily exceeds 2 million visitors

per year.

An increasingly popular form of recreation

in the riverway is heritage tourism, which

attracts visitors to a combination of natural

and cultural amenities. In addition to the

riverway's scenic character, visitors are

also attracted to its historic communities.

There is currently no method of

determining the number of visitors to the

riverway that are attracted by heritage

tourism.

Because of its scenic character and high

water quality (suitable for body-contact

recreation), the riverway is popular for all

types of boating recreation. Boating density

is a concern along several sections of the

river. Riverway managing agencies have

agreed that the need for water surface use

regulations should be studied when density

reaches 15 acres of water per moving boat

and should be implemented when density

reaches 10 acres of water per moving boat.

Density is monitored with aerial photographic surveys, which have been conducted in odd-numbered years since 1977.

Because the river changes character several

times through its length, different sections

of the river are popular with different user

groups. Distinct sections of the river are

described below.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

156

RIVER SECTIONS

Backwaters from the Dalles of the St.

Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16

miles

In areas such as Close Slough, Rice Lake,

Peaslee Lake, and Lower Lake, and in back

channels opposite Osceola, at Cedar Bend,

opposite McLeod’s Slough and opposite

Copas, users will find a narrow and intimate riverine experience that suggests

wilderness and provides solitude. The

forested islands and shorelines appear

undisturbed and water quality is high. Very

shallow conditions prevail and motorized

craft are rarely seen, even during periods of

high water. During low-water periods,

even canoes frequently run aground. Few

of the river’s many users explore these

areas, leaving this as a refuge for solitudeseekers.

Backwaters from William O’Brien State

Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles

In areas such as Dead Man’s Slough, users

will find a narrow and intimate riverine

experience that provides moderate solitude.

In Rice Lake is the designated St. Croix

Islands Wildlife Area, a large open backwater similar to those found on the Mississippi River, with vast acres of emergent

vegetation and waterfowl habitat. Very

shallow conditions prevail and motorized

craft are rarely seen, except during periods

of high water when they cross the Arcola

sandbar from the south and motor slowly

through the area. This is an excellent area

for wildlife observation, especially waterfowl. For those seeking quiet and solitude,

this area is second on the river only to the

area described above.

Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to

north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles

The river environment in this area includes

a braided channel environment with many

forested floodplain islands and narrow side

channels, as well as a main channel that

moves back and forth across the valley.

The very steep bluffs wall the valley with

cliffs and sandstone outcrops, creating a

very scenic backdrop. Many, but not all of

the side channels are accessible to slowmoving motorboats, and there are some

island campsites located on the side

channels. While the main channel here can

be busy and noisy, the side channels offer a

quieter alternative.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island:

3.5 miles

The main river channel here meanders

among lush forests and basalt cliffs,

creating a scenic backdrop for the on-river

experience. The two state parks here

provide popular starting points for canoe

trips that involve high scenic quality, no

rapids to challenge the novice, and enough

other people around to make the novice

feel safe. Many Twin Cities residents have

their first canoe experience here, usually in

a group setting; the experience is fairly

social, with relatively large numbers of

people. Shallow conditions generally

ensure that few, if any motorboats are

encountered.
Recreational Use

157

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10

miles

The main river channel here is similar to

the area immediately north, except the

basalt cliffs have been replaced by wooded

bluffs. The bridge and landing at Osceola

serve as an end-point for many rental canoe

trips, so the social nature of the experience

diminishes south of Osceola. The river

remains shallow and motorboats continue

to be uncommon.

McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar:

8.5 miles

After the main river channel emerges from

McLeod’s Slough, water depth increases

enough to permit use by pontoon boats and

other shallow-draft motorboats. Shoreline

residential development increases, as does

the number of docked motorboats. Most

canoeists end their trip at William O’Brien

State Park. This river segment contains a

mixture of nonmotorized and slow-moving

motorized craft. The Arcola sandbar itself,

created by a delta at the mouth of the

Apple River, is extremely shallow during

normal river levels and most motorized

craft do not cross it.

The section of the riverway north of the

Arcola sandbar contains about 42% of the

riverway’s miles of length and receives

about 19% of the total boating use. While

large numbers of canoes are occasionally

seen between Taylors Falls and Osceola,

boating density is generally not a concern

north of the Arcola sandbar.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of

Stillwater: 5 miles

The river environment in this area includes

a braided channel environment with many

forested floodplain islands and narrow side

channels, as well as a main channel that

moves back and forth across the valley.

The very steep bluffs wall the valley with

cliffs and sandstone outcrops, creating a

very scenic backdrop. The main river

channel provides adequate depth for most

motorboats. The islands provide many boat

beaching sites for island camping and day

use, and the steep valley walls provide

shelter from the winds that often buffet

Lake St. Croix to the south. These factors

contribute to this being an extremely

popular area among motorboat users, and

the recreational activity here is clearly

social. This reach of river contains about

9% of the riverway’s miles of length and

receives about 8% of the total boating use.

Boating density in this reach of river has

averaged 9.4 acres of water per moving

craft since 1983.

Waterskiing is prohibited on weekend

afternoons in this area, and designation as a

no-wake zone was considered but not

enacted in the mid-1990s.

Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles

This naturally wide part of the river is

known as Lake St. Croix and is among the

most popular boating areas in Minnesota

and Wisconsin. It is part of the Upper

Mississippi River navigation system,

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
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

158

narrows area at Hudson includes several

sandy islands that are very popular for both

day use and camping. The bay between two

man-made levees at Hudson is very popular for waterskiing because it is protected

from winds that often buffet the open lake.

Boating here is a very social experience,

and some watercraft travel at high speeds.

The portion of the lake north of Hudson

contains about 12% of the riverway’s miles

of length and receives about 12% of total

use; density ranges from about 16 acres of

water per moving boat at Stillwater to about

30 between Stillwater and Hudson. The

Hudson narrows contains about 2% of the

riverway’s miles of length and receives

about 18% of total use; density here averages 2.2 acres of water per moving craft,

making this the riverway’s most congested

area. The area is currently managed as a nowake zone. The waterski bay at Hudson

contains about 1% of the riverway’s length

and receives about 1% of total use; density

averages about 30 acres of water per moving craft. The southerly bay at Hudson,

north of the Interstate 94 bridge, also contains about 1% of the riverway’s length; it

receives about 4% of total use; density

averages 14.7 acres of water per moving

craft. The area is currently managed as a nowake zone. The portion of the lake between

Hudson and Catfish Bar contains about 8%

of the riverway’s miles of length and receives about 6% of total use; density averages 35.9 acres of water per moving craft.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles

This lower section of Lake St. Croix is

narrower than the upper portion of the lake

and tall wooded bluffs fall directly into the

river. Boat beaching is popular at Catfish

Bar and Black Bass Bar, which are privately

owned and leased to boating clubs, and at

Afton State Park, Kinnickinnic State Park

and St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park. Most of

the remaining riverfront is privately owned.

The narrows area at Kinnickinnic State Park

includes a large and extremely popular

sandbar for day use and camping. Water

depth is adequate for very large craft.

Boating here is a very social experience,

and some watercraft travel at high speeds.

The river at Catfish Bar contains about 1%

of the riverway’s miles of length and receives about 4% of total use; density

averages 11.4 acres of water per moving

craft. The area is currently managed as a nowake zone. The portion of river between

Catfish Bar and the Kinnickinnic Narrows

contains about 9% of the riverway’s miles

of length and receives about 5% of total

use; density averages 25.2 acres of water

per moving craft. The Kinnickinnic Narows

contains about 1% of the riverway’s miles

of length and receives about 11% of total

use; density averages 3.8 acres of water per

moving craft. The area is currently

managed as a no-wake zone. The bay on the

south side of Kinnickinnic State Park

contains about 0.5% of the riverway’s miles

of length and receives about 2% of total

use; density averages 4.9 acres of water per

moving craft. The area is currently managed

as a no-wake zone. The area between the

Kinnickinnic Sandbar and Prescott contains

about 11% of the riverway’s miles of length

and receives about 7% of total use; density

averages 18.7 acres of water per moving

craft. The Prescott Narrows contains about

0.5% of the riverway’s miles of length and

receives about 3% of total use; density

averages 4.6 acres of water per moving

craft. The area is currently managed as a nowake zone.
Recreational Use

159

OVERALL USE

Most recreational use of the riverway occurs

during summer months, especially on weekends. Because of its proximity to the Twin

Cities, much activity is day use rather than

as a vacation destination. Fishing is heavy

in early May, and general boating use rises

sharply on pleasant weekend days in May

and September. During the rest of the year,

recreational use of the riverway is low.

Some snowmobiling, snowshoeing, and

cross-country skiing occur in winter, and ice

fishing is popular on Lake St. Croix during

the coldest winter months. Cross-country

skiing is quite popular in the state parks. On

the whole, though, the vast majority of recreational users visit the St. Croix only during summer months.

Watercraft use of the river in summer

months increased rapidly during the 1960s,

1970s, and early 1980s, and many users

complained about crowding. Water surface

use regulations were imposed in the late

1970s in response to concerns about safety

and resource impacts. A study of watercraft

use in 1971 concluded the river was unacceptably overcrowded. A carrying capacity

study conducted in 1977 drew the same

conclusion and observed that boating use

had increased dramatically in that six-year

period. Use began to level off in the 1980s

with the only discernable trend being an

increase in boat size south of Stillwater.

Watercraft crowding remains a controversial subject on the St. Croix. Since many

of the riverway’s boaters are seeking a

relatively social experience, encountering

large numbers of other people on the water

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

satisfaction remains artificially high because

dissatisfied boaters have already left for

other waters. Of the users who remain,

those with a long experience on the river

and many of them riverfront landowners,

are often most concerned about crowding.

Boaters access the river through boat

launching ramps, marinas, private riparian

homes, and from the adjacent Mississippi

River. The states can regulate access on the

inland waterway system (between the two

rivers) to meet certain regulatory needs

(such as preventing the spread of exotic

species), but not for arbitrary purposes such

as controlling overall numbers.

Large numbers of boaters can impact the

river’s environment in two ways that are

worth noting. First, some boaters do not

dispose of human waste appropriately, with

resulting threats to water quality. Because

the river contains a large volume of water,

the river’s assimilative capacity makes that

risk relatively low, but it does exist. Secondly, boaters who visit the river’s sandy

shorelines and islands can trample vegetation and increase erosion of those easily

eroded sandy soils.

CAMPING EXPERIENCE

Island/shoreline boat-in camping is the primary type of camping experience offered in

the Lower St. Croix. Most campsites are undesignated and are created through recreational use. Camping at informal sites has no

limitations on the number of groups or individuals. The island area available for camping use will change within seasons and from

year to year due to water level fluctuation.
Recreational Use

160

There is some evidence that the number and

complexity of islands has significantly

increased between 1969 and 1991. During

this same period, data show that the area of

the islands had significantly decreased. Such

changes have implications for how the island

resources may be managed. Car-accessible

camping opportunities are limited within the

riverway but such experiences are available

at nearby state parks and private

campgrounds.

Camping use is reported as overnight stays

within the riverway. An overnight stay is

one person spending one night within the

riverway for recreational purposes. Overnight stays are counted separate from

recreational users, so they do not correspond exactly. However, overnight use of

the riverway accounted for only a minor

portion of the riverway’s recreational use.

Overnight stays for the lower riverway for

1997 are presented in figure A.

Overnight use within the area north of

Stillwater in 1997 was 16,216 overnight

stays. All overnight stays occurred in April

through October; for five months of the year

(January, February, March, November, and

December) overnight use was nonexistent.

The cold weather limits the numbers of

campers during late fall and winter. Freezing

of the riverway prohibits the usual boating

and other warm weather recreational

activities. However, the frozen lake then

offers opportunities for ice fishing,

snowmobiling, and other wintertime

activities. Overnight use figures for the

riverway south of Stillwater are not collected. However, there is extensive overnight use of the islands near Hudson and

other public lands throughout the summer

season. July is the busiest month for

overnight use throughout the riverway.

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

Figure A. Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

Backcountry Camping (Overnight Stays) for 1997 by Month

0 0 0

1,230

2,313

2,954

4,150

2,986

1,798

785

0 0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

Month

Overnight Stays
Recreational Use

161

Large numbers of boat-in campers can

impact the river’ environment in two ways

that are worth noting. First, some boat-in

campers do not dispose of human waste

appropriately, with resulting threats to water

quality. Because the river contains a large

volume of water, the assimilative capacity

makes that risk relatively low, but it does

exist. Secondly, boaters who camp on the

river’ sandy shorelines and islands can

trample vegetation and increase erosion of

those easily eroded sandy soils.

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

ALONG THE LOWER ST. CROIX

The lower riverway offers parks, recreational sites, wildlife areas, and facilities for

river and land-based recreational activities.

These recreational facilities are managed by

various entities, including the National Park

Service, the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, local governments, and private

entities. These public and additional private

facilities provide a diversity of visitor use

experiences along the riverway, which

include canoeing, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, hiking, bicycling, crosscountry skiing, and environmental education. The upper sections of the Lower St.

Croix from St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls

areas to just north of Stillwater, Minnesota,

offer water-based recreational opportunities

in a natural setting. The lower sections of

the St. Croix downriver from Stillwater to

the confluence with the Mississippi River

provide an almost lakelike setting that

includes more motorized use and larger

watercraft. The various recreational

facilities along the lower riverway are

described below.

National Park Service

The NPS headquarters for the St. Croix

National Scenic Riverway is in St. Croix

Falls, Wisconsin, just above the Taylors

Falls Dam. Facilities available here include

a visitor information center, picnic site, and

canoe landing. The Eagles Nest area

(Minnesota) is 5.3 river miles downstream

of the Taylors Falls Dam and offers canoe

camping and a landing, water, toilets, and a

picnic site. This is a primitive camping site

for canoe access only. The next NPS facility

along the riverway is the Osceola Landing

area on the Minnesota side of the river. This

area has a boat launch and canoe landing,

fishing pier, and picnic areas with restrooms

and drinking water. Somerset Landing

(Wisconsin) is 18.2 river miles from the

Taylors Falls Dam and offers canoe

camping and a landing, boat launch, and

toilet facilities. Canoe campsites are also

available on NPS-managed islands just

above Stillwater, Minnesota. The Lower

River Visitor Center in Stillwater is open

year-round and provides visitor information

and interpretive displays.

Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources

Minnesota Interstate State Park is just

below Taylors Falls and offers boat ramp

access to the river, camping and picnic

facilities, hiking trails, and fishing. This

park provides 37 camping sites, group

campsites for 100 people, canoe rental and

shuttle service, volleyball courts, a seasonal

visitor center, and 3.5 miles of hiking trails.

William O’Brien State Park located just

north of Marine on the St. Croix offers a

variety of recreational experiences including

canoeing, hiking, fishing, and swimming.

Camping opportunities include backpack
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

162

campsites and primitive group campsites

(capacity 75) to semi-modern sites (125)

with electrical hookups (62). Showers and

dump stations are also provided. A boat

launch ramp, hiking and cross-country ski

trails (9.5 miles), access to country bike trail

systems, a year-round interpretive program

and visitor center, and picnic grounds (200

tables) with snack bar and shelters are also

found here. Winter recreation includes

snowmobiling, skate ski, and cross-country

ski trails with a warming house provided.

The St. Croix Boomsite public access is

above Stillwater and has 20 parking spaces

and a boat launch. The next major DNR

facility is Afton State Park just south of the

city of Afton on bluffs overlooking the St.

Croix Valley and river. There is minimal

amount of development in the park in order

to preserve the natural character of the site.

A walk-in backpack campground (24

sites), group campground (two camps), and

one canoe campsite are provided with

dock, fishing, swimming beach, and river

access. The park has a year-round visitor

center, a self-guided trail, and two picnic

grounds, and offers 18 miles of hiking and

cross-country trails, 5 miles of horseback

trails, and 4 miles of bike trails.

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources

Wisconsin Interstate State Park is below

St. Croix Falls and provides boat ramp

access to the river, camping and picnic

facilities, hiking trails, and fishing. It also

offers year-round naturalist programs,

guided hikes, and the Ice Age Interpretive

Center. This park has 85 camping sites

with two group camps, 8.9 miles of hiking

and 10.6 miles of cross-country ski trails,

river and lake fishing, and a swimming

beach.

Wildlife management areas such as the St.

Croix Islands Wildlife Area offer wildlife

viewing, canoeing, hunting, fishing, trapping, and picnicking opportunities. The St.

Croix Islands Wildlife Area is downriver

from Marine on St. Croix and provides

river access to the St. Croix and to the

Apple River. The Apple River flows

through the wildlife area to join the St.

Croix and is known for its tubing opportunities. Also contained within the wildlife

area is the Apple River Canyon, which is

used by the scientific community for

student teaching and research.

Kinnickinnic State Park is on the lower

section of the riverway and provides

recreational opportunities for swimming,

fishing, picnicking, and 7 miles of hiking

and cross-country skiing trails. Day-use

facilities focus on picnicking and hiking

and water-based activities such as water

skiing, sunbathing, boat camping, wind

surfing, and summertime sports. Campsites

(112 sites) have limited facilities. Winter

uses include cross-country skiing, ice

fishing, hiking, and snowshoeing. The

Kinnickinnic River joins the St. Croix at

the park and is known for its trout fishing.

OTHER PUBLIC, TOWNSHIP,

COUNTY, AND NONPROFIT

Sources of information on river recreation

and facilities can be found at the Interstate

94 State Welcome Centers on either side of

the St. Croix River in Minnesota and in

Wisconsin. These Department of Transportation waysides also provide picnic sites.

Public boat ramps and launches can be

found at Franconia, Log House, Somerset,
Recreational Use

163

and St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park. City

boat launch areas include facilities at,

Bayport, Hudson, and Afton. Public

facilities that provide picnic areas, restrooms, and drinking water are at St. Croix

Boomsite Historic Wayside (Minnesota

DOT), Lakeside Park (Bayport), Ferry

Landing Park (North Hudson), and

Lakefront Park (Hudson). Municipal dock

access is available at Lowell Park (Stillwater). Public swimming beaches can be

found at Kalliner Park, Bayport, North

Hudson, Hudson, Lakeland, Troy Beach,

Lake St. Croix Beach, Pt. Douglas Park,

and Prescott.

Hiking trails and educational programs

focusing on the lower river environment

can be found at the Carpenter Nature

Center north of Point Douglas, Minnesota.

This is a private, nonprofit nature preserve

and environmental education facility

encompassing 600 acres with several miles

of hiking trails and an interpretive center.

Still in the development phase is the Standing Cedars Community Land Conservancy

(Osceola, Wisconsin) that will offer public

outdoor recreation and environmental

education programs along the Lower St.

Croix Riverway.

PRIVATE

Many private marinas and docks can be

found along the riverway at Marine on St.

Croix, Boomsite, Stillwater, Bayport,

Hudson, Afton, and Prescott. Private boat

ramps for river access are at Marine on St.

Croix, Stillwater, Bayport, Hudson, Lakeland, and Afton. Many of these facilities

also provide river access, picnic areas,

restrooms, boat docks, and drinking water.

REGIONAL RECREATIONAL

FACILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES

In addition to those recreational facilities

directly along the lower riverway, within a

50 mile radius, there are many other

regional outdoor recreational areas that

provide hiking, biking, equestrian, snowmobile, and cross-country skiing trails;

camping facilities; environmental

education centers; and river recreational

opportunities that include boat and canoe

access, swimming, and fishing.

Within this region Minnesota offers three

state parks, one national recreation area,

two wildlife areas, one state forest, and one

national wildlife refuge. St. Croix Wild

River State Park (Minnesota DNR) is

northwest of Interstate State Park and has

96 semimodern campsites, eight canoe

campsites, eight backpack campsites, a

trailer dump station, picnic grounds, two

river access points, a visitor center and

year-round trail center, 35 miles of hiking

and cross-country ski trails, 18 miles of

horseback trails, a guest house, and two

cabins. The Sand Dunes State Forest

(Minnesota DNR) has hiking, crosscountry skiing, equestrian, and snowmobile

trails, campgrounds, swimming beaches,

and fishing. The Carlos Avery Wildlife

Management Area (Minnesota DNR) west

of Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls offers

hunting and a boat ramp with canoe-carry

access. Fort Snelling State Park

(Minnesota DNR) in the heart of the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area has 150 picnic

sites, a swimming beach, toilets, river and

lake fishing, boat and canoe access, 18

miles of hiking trails, 18 miles of skiing

trails, 5 miles of biking trails, a golf

course, recreational fields, and an interpretive center. The Mississippi National

River and Recreation Area includes 72
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

164

miles of river environment flowing through

the Twin Cities metropolitan area to the

confluence of the St. Croix River. Frontenac State Park (Minnesota DNR) near Lake

Pepin provides bird viewing opportunities,

58 campsites, one group campsite, 15.4

miles of hiking trails, a 2.5-mile selfguided trail, 6 miles of cross-country ski

trail, 8 miles of snowmobile trails, a picnic

area, and fishing. Wildlife management

areas that provide wildlife viewing and

recreational activities include the

Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service) northwest of

Minneapolis and the Gores Pool No. 3

Wildlife Management Area (Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources)

southeast of Minneapolis. Other Minnesota

areas include the Upper Mississippi

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, the

Sandstone National Wildlife Refuge, the

Kettle State Wild and Scenic River, the

Mississippi State Wild and Scenic River,

the Rum State Wild and Scenic River, and

Nerstrand Big Woods State Park.

Wisconsin has three additional recreational

areas within the region of the lower riverway. Willow River State Park (Wisconsin

DNR) northeast of Hudson provides campground facilities (72 sites), beach and boat

lake access, nature center, and hiking and

nature trails (10.2 miles). Hoffman Hills

Recreation Area (Wisconsin DNR) near

Menomonie has an outdoor group camp for

youth groups, an observation tower, a selfguided nature trail, and hiking/skiing trails.

The Red Cedar Trail (Wisconsin DNR) is

also near Menomonie.

Long distance trails in the region provide

links between scenic natural areas and also

connect natural areas with residential parks

and developments. The Minnesota Gateway

Trail is a bike trail connecting St. Paul to

Pine Point Park and is a segment of the

Willard Munger Trail that runs as far north

as Duluth. The Willard Munger Trail is a

164-mile multiuse Minnesota state trail that

offers hiking, bicycling, snowmobiling,

cross-country skiing, and horseback riding.

The 50-mile Gandy Dancer Trail in Wisconsin is used by hikers, bikers, snowmobilers,

and ATVs and connects St. Croix Falls to

Danbury. The Ice Age Trail is a 500-milelong hiking and horseback riding trail that

traverses the glacial landscape of Wisconsin

with a trailhead at the Interstate Park below

St. Croix Falls. Also found in Wisconsin is

the Red Cedar State Trail that is a 14.5-mile

hiking, biking, and cross-country skiing trail

paralleling the Red Cedar River from

Menomonie to the Chippewa River Valley.

The 200 miles of riverine environment of

the Upper St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway complement the recreational

activities in the Lower St. Croix by

providing different types of experiences.

The upper river offers more primitive,

wilderness-like experiences with river

conditions containing mostly class I rapids

(small waves with few or no obstructions)

and some class II rapids (wide clear

channels with waves up to 3 feet). The

upper riverway’s flowages at Hayward,

Trego, and Taylors Falls provide slack

water for small powerboat activities and

deep-water fishing. The numerous public

recreational areas surrounding the Upper St.

Croix provide a wide range of outdoor

recreational activities and facilities, which

occur in primarily wilderness like settings.
165

NATURAL RESOURCES

CLIMATE

The climate is subhumid continental, with

long, snowy, cold winters and relatively

short, warm summers. Average annual

precipitation in the St. Croix Basin ranges

from 28–32 inches. About 75% of the

annual precipitation falls from May to

September (Baker et al. as cited in USGS

1996). Average daily maximum temperatures reach 85° in July and 23° in January.

Early spring months are cool and rainy,

with June usually being the wettest month

of the year. During summer and early fall,

the weather becomes progressively drier.

Snowfall contributes about 15% of the

total annual precipitation; annual snowfall

averages about 45 inches per year in the St.

Croix basin, most of which is in February

and March. Much of the river is usually

frozen from November until April, with the

exception of the Narrows, whose width and

faster current keep the water ice-free most

of the winter.

AIR QUALITY

In general, air quality and visibility are

usually good in the lower St. Croix area.

However, there is some evidence of

pollution from the Minneapolis/St. Paul

(Twin Cities) area. Adjacent to the river at

Stillwater, Minnesota, is the Allen S. King

Power Plant, a coal-fired facility. The Twin

Cities area and Allen S. King plant appear

to be the major sources of pollution along

the lower riverway. Regional haze conditions are noticeable on many days throughout the year (NPS 1995a). Under certain

meteorological conditions, layered haze

forms from nitrogen oxide emissions from

the King Plant.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for certain major air pollutants, including

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate

matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead,

were established under the 1970 Clean Air

Act Amendments. Areas in the United

States that meet or exceed these standards

are known as attainment areas. Areas in

which the standards are not met are

nonattainment areas.

The southwestern part of Wisconsin from

Prescott (Pierce County) to St. Croix Falls

(Polk County) is in attainment with all

national ambient air quality standards.

Overall, Minnesota is in compliance with

nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead

ambient air quality standards. The Twin

Cities seven-county area, which includes

Washington County, is in nonattainment

for carbon monoxide. However, the state is

applying for redesignation to attainment

based on the lack of carbon monoxide

standards violations in recent years. An

ozone monitoring site is in Washington

County, which monitors downwind concentrations of ozone emanating from the

Twin Cities area. This monitoring site is in

attainment with the old 1-hour ozone standard. However, recent promulgation of the

new 8-hour standard calls for reassessment

at the end of 1998 monitoring season, at

which time the attainment status will be

reassessed. The Twin Cities seven-county

area also has a limited problem with

particulate matter (PM10) in the downtown

St. Paul area. EPA’s promulgation of a

new particulate standard (PM2.5) calls for
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

166

monitoring to determine status. That new

monitoring program will start in 1999.

The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments

established a program to preserve, protect,

and enhance the air quality in clean air

areas of the United States. The riverway

was designated as a class II clean air area.

Air quality standards, known as increments, were established for these areas for

certain air pollutants, including sulfur

dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate

matter, from new or modified existing

major stationary sources. Under this

designation, limited development can be

permitted in the vicinity of the riverway as

long as the levels of particulate matter,

sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide do not

exceed the class II increments.

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND

TOPOGRAPHY

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway is 52 miles long, from the

Northern States Power Dam at Taylors

Falls/St. Croix Falls to the confluence with

the Mississippi River. The watershed of the

lower river consists of 1,470 square miles;

approximately 1,053 square miles in Wisconsin and 417 square miles in Minnesota.

Three major tributary streams, the Apple,

Willow, and Kinnickinnic Rivers, all in

Wisconsin, drain much of this lower river

watershed.

The lower St. Croix changes markedly

along this 52-mile course. Through the

upper 27 miles, the river flows through a

relatively narrow valley and is primarily

characterized by shallow water and many

islands, braided channels, and backwaters.

At Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls river flow

is affected by a hydroelectric dam that

produces fluctuating flows downstream.

From the dam, rapids extend to a deep and

narrow gorge with basalt cliffs, known as

the Dalles. Downstream of the gorge the

valley widens and the St. Croix changes to

a shallow, slow-moving river. Tall,

forested bluffs line the heavily wooded

valley. At Rock Island the river narrows

and passes through another basalt rock

gorge. Below Rock Island, the river winds

back and forth across the floodplain, leaving islands and braided channels beneath

steep, heavily wooded bluffs. Just below

the Swing Bridge (historic railroad crossing) the river splits into two distinct

channels, that come together again at the

south end of McLeod’s Slough. This

slough is marked by floodplain forests and

extensive backwater marshes. The river

continues to flow through a broad floodplain, with many braided channels, including Page’s Slough. East of Page’s

Slough, on the Wisconsin side of the

river’s main channel, is a large, island-rich,

backwater complex, which includes Dead

Man’s Slough and Rice Lake. Downstream

of Rice Lake, the Apple River enters the

St. Croix and forms a delta that includes

the Arcola sandbar  an extremely shallow section of the main channel that serves

as a barrier to motorboat traffic from the

south. From the Arcola sandbar downstream to the head of Lake St. Croix the

river valley is narrower, and the valley

walls are marked by limestone and sandstone cliffs. The river flows through a

braided channel with numerous islands,

although the main channel provides

adequate water depth for large watercraft.

Through the lower 25 miles, the river

valley broadens considerably and the river

itself becomes lake-like. The head of Lake

St. Croix lies near Stillwater, Minnesota.

High bluffs line both sides of the valley.
Natural Resources

167

On the Wisconsin side, tall bluffs rise from

near the water, receding back from the

river near North Hudson. The Minnesota

bluffs largely set back from the river,

coming closer to the water south of Bayport. The river remains broad and lake-like,

although it becomes narrow and fairly fastmoving near Hudson, where a chain of

sandy, sparsely vegetated islands runs

along the Wisconsin side of the main

channel. South to Catfish Bar is the river’s

widest and deepest section, nearly two

miles across and up to 70 feet deep. From

Catfish Bar to the Kinnickinnic narrows

the river is about 1/2-mile wide and fronted

by tall bluffs that drop almost directly into

the water. Catfish Bar, which is directly

across from Afton, is a large sandbar that

juts into the river at the base of a large,

wooded bluff. Black Bass Bar, a similar

sandbar on the Wisconsin side, lies south

of Catfish Bar. The Kinnickinnic narrows

is formed by the sandy delta at the mouth

of the Kinnickinnic River, which forces the

river channel west, against the Minnesota

bluffs. Below the narrows the river is much

like the Catfish Bar to Kinnickinnic

stretch. The river is uniformly about 1/2-

mile wide and fronted by tall, wooded

bluffs that drop almost directly into the

water. A peninsula extends from the

Minnesota shore at the mouth of the river

(Point Douglas), forming a natural dam

that creates Lake St. Croix. Water levels

are further influenced by Lock and Dam #3

at Red Wing, Minnesota.

LAND USE / LAND COVER

A comprehensive land use / land cover

study was undertaken by the Minnesota –

Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission in

1993 (Stewardship of the Lower St. Croix

River and its Watershed, MWBAC, 1994).

Analysis compared land use in 1972, when

the Lower St. Croix was first designated as

a national scenic riverway, and 1991,

reflecting then current land use characteristics. Recent land use patterns and

proximity to the Twin Cities metropolitan

area continue to influence the riverway.

Today, the fastest-growing land use in the

St. Croix basin is urban. The acreage of

urban land in the watershed doubled from

1973 to 1991, growing from 3% of the

total land area to 6% of the total land area

of the watershed. That growth has taken

place primarily in western St. Croix

County and eastern Washington County.

Along the Lower St. Croix itself, there are

some areas where land use / land cover

change has been even more dramatic.

Where the northern portion of the Lower

St. Croix is largely influenced by National

Park Service fee and scenic easement

acquisition, the southern portion of the

Lower St. Croix (i.e., between Stillwater,

MN and Prescott,WI ) is largely influenced

by private residential development.

Densities in this area range from larger

homesteads to more dense urban lots in

small town and outlying subdivision

developments.

Other land use patterns are fairly reflective

of characteristics identified in 1972.

Larger river towns like Stillwater, and

Hudson, and smaller communities like

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

in Oak Park Heights and Andersen Window Corporation in Bayport. Undeveloped shoreland and bluff areas, and state as

well as local park areas are also found

throughout the riverway.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

168

The area has been transformed from a

presettlement mixture of forest, prairie and

wetland natural habitat to a watershed that

in the 1990s, was about 56% cultivated

agricultural land, 25% forest, 7% water and

wetlands, 6% grassland, and 6% urban.

GEOLOGY

Geologic resources are one of the three

outstandingly remarkable values for which

the riverway was designated. The basalt

formations form the Dalles, along with

potholes and other geologic features left by

glacial meltwater.

The wide, deep valley of the St. Croix was

formed approximately 9, 000 years ago

when large volumes of water drained

glacial Lake Duluth. Underlying the riverway surface features are a variety of bedock formations, which consists of Precambrian sandstone, lava flows, Cambrian

sandstone, and dolomite. The unconsolidated material under most of the basin

ranges from 100 to 200 feet in thickness. In

the vicinity of the lower St. Croix River,

the basin is characterized by flat-topped,

steep-sided hills with narrow stream

valleys. Below St. Croix Falls, the river

flows through both ground and end

moraines. The Dalles geological formations at Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls

are basalt overlain by sandstone and conglomerate. High bluffs of limestone and

sandstone are distinctive features below

Taylors Falls to Prescott. The area south of

Bayport to Afton on the Minnesota side is

characterized by nearly level terraces composed of sand and gravel. The riverway

substrate is gravel and cobble in the high

velocity areas and coarse to fine sand in the

slower reaches.

The potential for sand and gravel development in and near the riverway continues to

increase due to urban development. Within

the riverway, two private pits are being

expanded. The Park Service holds scenic

easements on many of the private lands

within the upper portion of the riverway,

but easements will not prevent mineral

development on lands of split estate ownership, where sand and gravel is part of the

subsurface estate. The NPS 1984 Land

Protection Plan allows the riverway to

purchase mineral rights if deemed

necessary to protect its resources.

SOILS

Soils on the Wisconsin side of the lower

St. Croix River formed primarily in glacial

outwash and a small portion formed in

glacial till. Polk County general soils are

characterized by well drained and somewhat excessively drained loamy and sandy

soils on pitted outwash plains. St. Croix

County general soils are characterized as

well drained and somewhat excessively

drained, medium to moderately coarse

textured soils on outwash plains and

stream terraces. The soils on the Minnesota

side of the lower St. Croix are generally

characterized as very poorly to moderately

well-drained loamy and sandy soils that

formed in alluvial deposits and glacial till.

However, the soils vary along the riverway,

and also include soils formed primarily in a

sandy or loamy mantle over bedrock and in

sandy alluvium, silty mantle and the underlying sandy outwash, silty mantle over

bedrock, and glacial outwash.

Prime and unique soils are important farmland and orchard production soils best

suited to food, feed, forage, and fiber. They

can be cultivated land, pasture, or wood-
Natural Resources

169

land. It does not include developed or

water areas. In Wisconsin, numerous areas

of prime farmland have been identified

between St. Croix Falls and Prescott along

and adjacent to the lower St. Croix NSR in

Polk, St. Croix, and Pierce Counties. According to individual Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) county soil

surveys, in Wisconsin, more than 54 designated prime and unique farmland soil types

can be found in or along the riverway. On

the Minnesota side of the lower St. Croix

at least 34 prime and unique farmland soil

types have been identified that lie along the

riverway in Chisago and Washington

Counties. Shoreline areas and some bluff

areas in the riverway are generally sandy

and easily eroded.

WATER RESOURCES

Streamflow of the St. Croix River has been

monitored at St. Croix Falls since 1902.

Average discharge through 1990 is 4,206

cubic feet per second (cfs). Seasonally,

highest flow is in the spring, from melting

snow, rains falling on melting snow, or

heavy rains falling on saturated soils. The

largest dam on the river is the Northern

States Power Company (NSP) dam spanning the river at Taylors Falls, Minnesota,

and St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. The dam

was specifically authorized by Congress in

1903 and consequently predates Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

requirements. Because the dam is operated

on a daily peaking schedule, water level

fluctuations are experienced above and

below the dam. In 1931, minimum flows of

1,600 cfs were established from April 1 to

October 31 of each year. Then in 1989, the

NSP agreed to an 800 cfs minimum flow

for the rest of each year. Negotiations are

underway between NSP and riverway

managing agencies to increase winter

minimum flows.

The lock and dam system on the Mississippi River at Red Wing, Minnesota, has a

profound influence on the water level in

the lower riverway. That system was built

in the 1930s when flow in the St. Croix

was at a historical low. It was built to

maintain a flat pool level in Pool 3, which

includes the lower St. Croix, at a level of

675.0 feet above mean sea level at the

Stillwater gauge. At 675.0, the river is 3 to

5 feet above its pre-dam level. However,

when the level is higher than 675.0 the

effect of the lock and dam on the St. Croix

is minimal or nonexistent (Steve Johnson,

MDNR, personal communication, 1996 as

cited in NPS 1997).

Both Wisconsin and Minnesota recognize

the quality of the water of the St. Croix

Riverway and give most of it the highest

level of protection allowed. Wisconsin

classifies the St. Croix River as Exceptional Resource Water (ERW) from the

northern city limit of St. Croix Falls to 1

mile below the State Highway 243 bridge

at Osceola. From this point to the northern

boundary of the Hudson city limits, it is

classified as an outstanding resource water

(ORW). Then, from Hudson to the confluence with the Mississippi River, the St.

Croix is classified as an ERW. Waters

classified as ERW require that any increases in existing discharges must meet

the water quality standards for “fish and

aquatic life purposes” and any new discharge is required to meet “background”

conditions of the receiving water. For

ORW segments of the river both new and

increased discharges must meet “background” conditions. In Minnesota, the

entire lower St. Croix River, is designated

as outstanding resource value waters -
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

170

restricted (ORVW-R). This designation

requires that a proposed new or increased

discharge would not be allowed unless

there was no prudent and feasible

alternative.

The overall water quality of the riverway is

considered to be good relative to other

river systems within the region (Troelstrup

et al. 1993). In general in the St. Croix

River, alkalinity, pH, conductivity, nitrogen, turbidity, and phosphorus increase

downstream, while oxygen tends to decrease (NPS 1997a). Graczyk (1986) and

Boyle et al. (1992) also showed increasing

nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations

downstream along the riverway. Increasing

nutrients, turbidity, chlorophyll a, and

decreasing oxygen could be the result of

the more fertile soils in the lower basin, but

may also suggest increasing human

impacts downstream along the riverway.

Sources of nutrients in the St. Croix River

include municipal sewage, industrial

wastes, septic tanks, feedlot discharges,

detergents, fertilizers, plant detritus, animal

waste, soil erosion, stormwater runoff,

phosphate-bearing rock, precipitation and

atmospheric deposition. Sources of

sediments include erosion of soils and

scouring stream channels.

Preliminary data (Boyle et al. 1992,

Graczyk 1986) suggest that many

tributaries on the riverway have higher

sediment and nutrient concentrations than

the river itself.

Water quality variables usually are well

within acceptable water quality criteria.

There were some isolated instances of

water quality criteria (EPA 1994, 1995 as

cited in NPS 1997a) being exceeded, based

on historical data from four sites that were

monitored on the lower St. Croix. EPA

criteria were exceeded for some parameters, primarily fecal coliform, cadmium,

copper, and lead; mercury, nickel, zinc,

fluoride, pH, dissolved oxygen, and

turbidity were also exceeded, but even less

frequently. It should be emphasized that

the frequency of times the above criteria

were exceeded was relatively low. For

example, dissolved oxygen was below

criteria once and only at Taylors Falls, and

was typically well above the EPA recommended level necessary to maintain fish

populations.

Results of an anti-degradation analysis

(Breidt et al. 1991 as cited in NPS 1997a)

on dissolved oxygen, organic nitrogen, and

phosphorus on a lower St. Croix River site

at Hudson, Wisconsin, showed that water

quality has not degraded, with the possible

exception of organic nitrogen, since

establishment of the riverways.

Fifteen municipal and industrial permitted

waste water facilities discharge directly to

the St. Croix River. Thirteen of these

discharge to the lower riverway. Troelstrup

et al. (1993) examined compliance evaluation reports for NPDES dischargers during

1982-92. Discharger compliance with

permitted limits has generally been good.

Most violations were minor and shortterm, involving some combination of total

suspended solids, residual chlorine,

biochemical oxygen demand and/or fecal

coliform bacteria. The Allen S. King power

plant and the municipal wastewater

treatment plant at Taylors Falls, St. Croix

Falls, Osceola and Hudson had the greatest

number of permit violations (NPS 1997a).

The lower riverway has several communities along its banks with potential storm

sewer drainage (St. Croix Falls, Taylors

Falls, Osceola, Stillwater, and Hudson).
Natural Resources

171

These existing communities along with

increasing development along the river

increase the potential for storm water

impacts. Potential pollutants include

sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding

organic materials, bacteria, pesticides and

toxic pollutants (heavy metals), and

hazardous organic compounds (Kim et al.

1993). These can cause increased turbidity,

lower oxygen levels, human health

hazards, and contaminated biota including

fish.

Minnesota and Wisconsin polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCB) fish consumption advisories have been issued for six fish species

in the Marine on St. Croix area and nine

species below Stillwater. Contamination

levels showed an increasing downstream

trend. Mercury consumption advisories

have been issued for five fish species in the

Marine on St. Croix area and two species

below Stillwater (Minnesota Department

of Health 1994, Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources, Dept. of Health, 1994

as cited in NPS 1997a). Past sampling for

PCBs by the Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency and the Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources have shown the presence of PCBs in both fish and sediment.

Heavy metals have also been found in fish

tissue in the lower portions of the St. Croix

River.

An indicator of exceptional water quality

of the St. Croix River is the presence of 40

species of native mussels. Based on water

quality data (Fago and Hatch 1993), at

present water quality standards are high

and do not pose a threat to the mussel community (Hornbach, D. J. 1996). A number

of water quality factors can limit the distribution and abundance of mussels. These

include suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, calcium, and pH. In addition, toxic compounds such as heavy

metals, pesticides, and herbicides can

influence mussel populations. Increase

levels of sediment can affect metabolism

and feeding.

The principal bedrock in which groundwater occurs along the St. Croix are sedimentary strata. The groundwater in the

riverway area is generally satisfactory for

most domestic, public, and industrial and

irrigation uses (Kanivetsky as cited by

USGS 1996). However, the geology of the

St. Croix River basin makes the basin’s

groundwater vulnerable to contamination,

which has the potential to produce negative

impacts on the quality of water in the St.

Croix River. Groundwater contamination

may result from both point and non-point

sources; point sources are generally related

to spills of hazardous material and improper waste disposal, whereas non-point

sources are most frequently related to

application of fertilizers and pesticides on

agricultural, residential, and commercial

lands.

FLOODPLAINS AND WETLANDS

Flooding is most likely on the lower St.

Croix River from snowmelt in the spring

and occasionally from intense storms in the

summer. But flooding happens at other

times of the year as well. The regional 100-

year flood is generally used to delineate the

limits of floodplains for regulatory purposes. A peak discharge of about 58,100

cfs can be expected on the St. Croix River

at St. Croix Falls once every 100 years and

has a 1% chance of occurring in any one

year (i.e., the 100-year flood). Peak elevation at St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, for the

100-year flood is 718.5 feet. Table 22

shows peak discharge rates of selected
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

172

intervals at St. Croix Falls. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

has mapped the 100-year flood boundary

for much of the riverway for flood

insurance rates. No base flood elevations

were determined by FEMA.

Wetlands are lands where saturation with

water is the dominate factor determining

the nature of soil development and the

types of plant and animal communities

living in the soil and on its surface. Within

the riverway, wetlands exist primarily on

the riverine edge. The types of wetlands

found within the lower riverway include

wet meadows, ponds , sloughs, seeps, and

marshes.

Different classification systems have been

used to map wetlands along the lower

riverway. On the Minnesota side of the St.

Croix, wetlands have been mapped

(1:24,000 scale) using the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Classification of

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the

United States (USFWS 1979). About 500

acres of the land within the riverway

boundary of the Minnesota side is

classified as wetland.

TABLE 22: ST. CROIX RIVER DISCHARGE RATES

AT ST. CROIX FALLS, WISCONSIN

Interval Discharge rate in

cubic feet per second

2 year 22,300

5 year 33,200

10 year 40,000

25 year 47,800

50 year 53,100

100 year 58,100

Wetlands in Wisconsin have been mapped

using a different classification system

developed by the state of Wisconsin. This

system is also based on the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service’s Classification of

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the

United States, but with a few simplifications to make it easier to understand and

use. About 1,030 acres of the lands within

the riverway boundary on the Wisconsin

side of the St. Croix are classified as

wetland.

Glenn-Lewin et al. (1992) surveyed

wetlands along the federal zone of the

riverway. Based on inventory and

reconnaissance sampling and assessment,

the riverway’s wetlands are in excellent

condition. There was little evidence of

disturbance, erosion loss, or sedimentation.

VEGETATION

The St. Croix watershed has dramatically

changed since Euro-American settlement

of the 1840s–150s. Presettlement landcover in the lower St. Croix basin was

primarily dominated by river-bottom

forest, oak openings and barrens, prairie,

and big woods. In Wisconsin, the major

plant communities in Polk County consisted of the southern-hardwood forest,

while the vegetation along the St. Croix in

St. Croix and Pierce Counties was

primarily oak savanna. In Minnesota, vegetation along the riverway in Chisago

County consisted primarily of hardwood

forest and in Washington County, a

mixture of hardwood forests, brushland,

and grassland. The watershed now is a

mosaic of habitat fragmented by suburban,

agrarian, and recreational developments.

The makeup is 56% cultivated agricultural

land, 25% forest, 7% water and wetlands,

6% grassland, and 6% urban.
Natural Resources

173

Historically, presettlement forest acreage

was more than double what it is today.

Some very important remnants of natural

vegetation exist in the watershed, and

many of the most significant ones are

found along the river.

The lower St. Croix Riverway is ecologically significant for many reasons. A

mosaic of biological communities occurs

along the riverway, including southern

hardwood forests, oak savannahs, and

lowland forests. Moreover, the riverway

provides an edge zone where land meets

water, which creates diverse habitats for

both aquatic and terrestrial species. Several

special habitats are rare or unique in this

region: bedrock outcrops, oak savannahs,

and floodplain islands harbor their own

special plant associations and wildlife

populations. With its variety of habitats,

soil types, and landforms, the riverway is

considered to be a hot spot from a biodiversity standpoint, supporting a rich fauna

and flora population.

In general, vegetation communities in the

lower riverway consist primarily of northern hardwood and river floodplain forest,

with south and southwestern facing slopes

in the lower reaches covered by grasslands

typified by sand, basalt bald, and hill

prairies. Vegetation types include: river

floodplain (river bottom forest), dry oak

forest (Wisconsin bluffs), mesic oak forest,

maple-basswood forest, lowland hardwood

forest, white pine-hardwood forest, mixed

emergent marsh, river beach, and to some

degree oak woodland brushland and bedrock prairie (remnants). Plant community

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 communities are also strongly influenced by the

periodicity and duration of flooding as well

as proximity to the water table.

Several aquatic plant communities can be

distinguished along the lower riverway.

Algal communities, composed mainly of

blue-greens, greens, yellow-greens, diatoms, and Cryptophyta are found in both

standing and moving water. Community

composition and abundance vary according

to seasonal changes and local river influences. Stagnant or backwater areas are

more likely to experience “blooms" than

moving water.

Little information is available on nonvascular plants in the riverway. Wetmore

(1991) studied lichens at 77 sites along the

entire riverway. He observed that the

riverway had a diverse lichen flora, with a

total of 265 identified species. Most of the

species were found along the whole length

of the riverway — 10 were found south of

Taylors Falls, and a number were on the

basaltic rocks around Taylors Falls.

Nonnative or exotic plant species are found

throughout the riverway on lands that have

been disturbed by human activities and on

lands populated by seeds from lands

adjacent to or near the riverway. In 1985

more than 80 exotic plant species were

listed for the upper and lower riverway

(NPS 1985). Some of the more pervasive

and aggressive exotics found on the lower

riverway include purple loosestrife, spotted

knapweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, curly

pondweed, Tartarian honeysuckle,

buckthorn, and reed canary grass.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

174

WILDLIFE

The St. Croix River supports one of the

most diverse mussel populations in the

upper Mississippi River system, with 90%

of the potential mussels species being in

the area (NPS 1995a). There have been a

number of surveys for freshwater mussels

in the St. Croix River. Hornbach (1996)

reported 40 species of mussels. The density

and richness of the mussel communities is

quite high. There are two particular areas

of high density and species richness on the

lower riverway. The Interstate Park and

Lakeland sites are found in the two major

habitats in the lower St. Croix  Interstate

in the riverine portion and Lakeland in the

lacustrine portion. Little of the variation in

mussel density and richness is explained by

physical habitat parameters. It appears that

host distribution may greatly influence the

distribution of mussel species in the St.

Croix. The native mussels have a host-fish

requirement to complete their life cycle.

Terrestrial invertebrates have not been well

studied on the lower riverway, and little

data exist for most aquatic macroinvertebrates. Common groups of aquatic

invertebrates known in the lower riverway

include worms, insects, leeches, snails,

clams, crayfish, and mussels. In their

review of studies that have been done in

the St. Croix River basin from 1966–1991,

Fago and Hatch (1993) found specimen

records for 291 species for the lower St.

Croix River based on a study done 1966–

75. Most of the specimens were collected

on the mainstem of the St. Croix, with a

few on tributaries near their confluence’s

with the mainstem. Most of the invertebrate specimens collected were insects,

including mayflies, stoneflies, caddis flies,

dragonflies, beetles, and true flies. A

dragonfly species, the St. Croix snaketail

(Ophiogomphus susbehcha), is of special

interest: this newly discovered species was

first found along the middle reaches of the

St. Croix in 1989.

Boyle et al. (1992) observed significantly

reduced densities and taxa richness of

invertebrates from below the dam to the

confluence with the Apple River. Fluctuating flows from power-peaking activities

at the dam may be influencing invertebrate

communities. Similar effects were found

downstream of the Osceola wastewater

treatment plant outfall. Downstream

declines in macroinvertebrate species

richness were also reported by Montz et al.

(1991 as cited in NPS 1997a).

Fifty-two mammals have been observed in

the lower riverway. There is very little

baseline information on the distribution

and abundance of mammals within the

lower riverway; most data are limited to

fur bearers and game species. Many

mammals may use the riverway as a travel

corridor, moving north and south. Habitat

fragmentation as a result of residential

development has likely reduced the use of

the riverway as a travel corridor for some

mammals, especially sensitive species such

as gray wolf (Canis lupus), mountain lion

(Felis concolor), and bobcat, which are

now rarely seen in the riverway. The whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginanus) is the

big game animal most likely to be seen by

river travelers. The riverway is surrounded

by good to excellent deer habitat. Other

mammals likely to be seen by the average

river traveler in and near the water include

mink (Mustela vison), weasel (Mustela

sp.), striped skunk (Mephitus mephitus),

river otter (Lutra canadensis), muskrat

(Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor

canadensis), woodchuck (Marmota

monax), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Natural Resources

175

Smaller mammals in the area include gray

and red squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis and

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), masked shrew

(Sorex cinereus), short-tailed shrew

(Blarina brevicauda), eastern mole

(Scalopus aquaticus), little brown myotis

(Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat

(Eptesicus fuscus), deer mouse

(Peromyscus maniculatus), and meadow

vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). The mice

and voles prefer the plains and meadows,

while the shrews and moles prefer wetter

areas bordering the river.

The lower riverway also supports a diverse

population of upland and water birds. At

least 133 species are known to breed

within the lower riverway. Birds that river

travelers would most likely see include

song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),

American crow (Corvus brachyrhinchos),

common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas),

great-crested flycatcher (Myiarchus

crinitus), house wren (Troglodytes aedon),

eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), whitebreasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), tree

swallow (Iridoprocne bicolor), blue jay

(Cyanocitta cristata), and northern roughwinged swallow (Stelgidopteryx ruficollis).

Birds commonly seen in the winter include

black-capped chickadee (Poecile

atricapillus), downy and hairy woodpecker

(Picoides pubescens and Picoides villosus),

and purple finch (Carpodacus purpureus).

Raptor species present, at least seasonally,

along the lower riverway include: osprey

(Pandion haliaetus), red-tailed hawk

(Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk

(Buteo lineatus), broad-winged hawk

(Buteo platypterus), sharp-shinned hawk

(Accipter striatus), American kestrel

(Falco sparverius) and bald eagle. Upland

game bird species most frequently seen in

the area are ruffed grouse (Bonasa

umbellus), American woodcock (Scolopax

minor), and wild turkey (Meleagris

gallopavo), which was recently

reintroduced in Polk County.

The St. Croix Riverway is considered to be

productive for wood ducks (Aix sponsa)

and mallard (Anus platyrhynchos). Hooded

mergansers (Lophodytes cucullatus) also

nest along the riverway, and use by Canada

geese (Branta canadensis) is increasing.

Waterfowl that are likely to be seen

include mallard, blue-winged teal (Anas

discors), common and red-breasted

merganser (Mergus merganser and Mergus

serrator), ring-necked duck, wood duck,

and Canada goose.

The north-south orientation of the St.

Croix Riverway attracts and makes it an

important route for migrating birds (NPS

1995a). It connects the western Great

Lakes with the Mississippi flyway. Millions of birds annually pass along the

riverway in spring and fall migrations. The

riverway provides important nesting and

breeding habitat for bald eagles and other

resident and seasonal birds.

Generally, there are very little data on

reptiles and amphibians from the St. Croix

River. In 1993-1995 a reptile and amphibian survey conducted by the U. S. Forest

Service (Deahn Donner Wright) found

seven species of reptiles (turtles), four

herptofauna species (salamander/ newts),

seven species of amphibians (toad/frog)

and four species of lizard/snakes.

The variety of aquatic habitats in the

riverway supports both warm and cold

water (only in tributary streams in the

lower riverway) fisheries, including both

small and large stream species. Fish fauna

in the lower riverway may be strongly

influenced by fish movement to and from
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

176

the Mississippi River. There are also

significant differences in the fish species in

the upper and lower riverway. Fago and

Hatch (1993) listed 22 species in the lower

mainstem that were not in the upper mainstem and 18 species in the upper mainstem

that were not in the lower mainstem. The

dam at Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls is

likely a major cause of this variation,

preventing fish movement from one segment of the river to another, possibly keeping some species from former spawning

grounds, and impacting freshwater mussel

communities.

Historically, 83 fish species have been reported from the lower St. Croix mainstem.

Of these, 15 species have not been observed since 1975 — shovelnose sturgeon

(Scaphirhynachus platorynchus), goldeye

(Hiodon alosoides), skipjack herring

(Alosa chrysochloris), pallid shiner

(Notropis amnis), river shiner (N.

blennius), bigmouth shiner (N. dorsalis),

weed shiner (N. texanus), longnose dace

(Rhinichthys cataractae), yellow bullhead

(Ameiurus natalis), brown bullhead (A.

nebulosus), stonecat (Noturus flavus),

tadpole madtom (N. gyrinus), banded

killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), mud darter

(Etheostoma asprigene), and least darter

(E. microperca). For the lower St. Croix

basin, 103 species have been historically

reported, although the number of species

dropped to 95 since 1975.

There are also a few known exotic species

in the lower riverway. One species of

particular concern is the zebra mussel.

With the introduction of the exotic zebra

mussel into the Great Lakes and subsequently within the Upper Mississippi River

in the early 1990s, this invasive species

poses a serious threat to the biological and

recreational resources of the riverway. The

primary mode of zebra mussel dispersal is

through boat movement from infested

waters into uninvested waters. Of primary

concern is the potential impact on native

mussels. As well, zebra mussels pose a

serious threat to the commercial and

recreational boating industry.

Eight zebra mussel sightings have been

reported for the lower St. Croix from 1994

–1996 (Hornbach 1996). In July 1997,

juvenile zebra mussels were found on a

monitoring device in the St. Croix River.

They were 53 miles north of the Mississippi River/St. Croix River confluence. A

further search of the river substrate, native

mussels, docks, boats, and dam breakwall

was conducted, but no additional zebra

mussels were found (NPS 1997b). There

are no known breeding populations within

the riverway.

Also, the non-native rusty crayfish has

been detected in the riverway, but range,

population, and impact are unknown.

There has been little monitoring of habitats

and changes in habitat that could potentially affect the biological communities

they support (NPS 1997a). It has been

documented as displacing native crayfish

and presents a threat to biological diversity

in the watershed (NPS 1995b).

Several fish species have been introduced

in the lower St. Croix River, including the

common carp (Cyprinus carpio), rainbow

trout, and brown trout.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

SPECIES

The lower St. Croix River serves as a refuge for a number of species that are threatened, endangered, or of special concern.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

177

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified four endangered and one threatened

species that are federally protected in the

counties of the lower riverway. Likewise,

the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments

of Natural Resources also maintain lists of

threatened and endangered species in their

states. Table 23 lists federal and state listed

threatened and endangered species that

have been recorded in the lower riverway.

Native mussels are the most rapidly declining faunal species in the U.S. The St. Croix

River has one of the richest freshwater

mussel communities in the world (Troelstup and Foley 1993) and serves as a major

refuge for both globally and regionally

endangered mussel species. Two mussel

species, the winged mapleleaf and Higgins’

eye, are listed as federally endangered

species. The only known population of the

winged mapleleaf mussel is found in the

St. Croix River, just downstream of Interstate Park. Hornbach et al. (1996) found

that this species was found in areas of

highest mussel density and richness. The

Higgins’ eye is found in the St. Croix from

Interstate Park to the confluence with the

Mississippi River; a significant concentration exists at the Hudson Narrows. In

addition to the two federally listed mussel

species, there are 15 other species of mussels that are state listed as either threatened

or endangered. For many of the listed

species the St. Croix River supports the

most important surviving populations of

the species in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

The federally endangered American peregrine falcon nests on the smokestack at the

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

scattered along the lower St. Croix River.

Most of these eagles migrate in the winter,

although some overwinter where there is

open water. There are no current or historical records for federally endangered Karner

Blue Butterfly within the lower riverway.

In 1983 this butterfly was recorded within

1 mile of the riverway boundary just north

of Hudson. This species is associated with

pine barrens and oak savannas that support

wild lupine (Lupinus perennis), the butterfly’s host species. In addition to the listed

species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and both state departments of natural

resources maintain lists of species of

concern.

Further information is needed on these

species to determine if it is appropriate to

consider them for addition to the federal

and state lists of endangered and threatened

species. The Fish and Wildlife Service

identified 17 animal and 5 plant species of

concern as possibly being within the

riverway; the Wisconsin DNR has identified 18 animal and 17 plant species of

concern; and the Minnesota DNR has

identified 22 animal and 9 plant species of

concern.

Additionally, in Wisconsin, high quality

natural communities have been identified

for protection along the lower riverway.

The Minnesota County Biological Survey

has identified natural and rare species areas

having highest priority for protection along

the lower riverway that are within/ bordering the riverway boundary in Minnesota.

See appendix E for the lists of species of

concern and natural communities.
Natural Resources

178

TABLE 23: FEDERAL & STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Species Federally

Threatened

Federally

Endangered

WI

Threatened

WI

Endangered

MN

Threatened

MN

Endangered

Mammals

Eastern Spotted Skunk

Spilogale putorius

X

Birds

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus anatum

X X

Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

X X

Richardson trumpeter swan

Cygnus buccinator

X

Red-shouldered Hawk

Buteo lineatus

X

Cerulean Warbler

Dendroica cerulea

X

Amphibians & Reptiles

Wood Turtle

Clemmys insculpta

X

Blandings Turtle

Emydoidea blandingii

X

Timber Rattlesnake

Crotalus horridus

X

Fish

Crystal Darter

Ammocrypta asprella

X

Gilt Darter

Percina evides

X

River Redhorse

Moxostoma carinatum

X

Greater Redhorse

Moxostoma valenciennesi

X

Pallid Shiner

Notropis amnis

X

Goldeye

Hiodon alosoides

X

Skipjack Herring

Alosa chrysochloris

X

Blue Sucker

Cycleptus elongatus

X

Speckled Chub

Macrhybopsis aestivalis

X

Paddlefish

Polyodon spathula

X

Mussels & Clams

Higgins’ Eye

Lampsilis higginsi

X X X

Winged Mapleleaf Mussel

Quadrula fragosa

X X X

Wartyback Mussel

Quadrula nodulata

X

Spectacle case

Cumberlandia monodonta

X X

Rock pocketbook X
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

179

Species Federally

Threatened

Federally

Endangered

WI

Threatened

WI

Endangered

MN

Threatened

MN

Endangered

Arcidens confragosus

Monkey Face Mussel

Quadrula metanevra

X X

Pistolgrip (Buckhorn)

Mussel

Tritogonia verrucosa

X X

Salamander Mussel

Simpsonaias ambigua

X X

Elephant-ear Mussel

Elliptio crassidens

X

Purple Wartyback Mussel

Cyclonaias tuberculata

X X

Snuffbox Mussel

Epioblasma triquetra

X X

Butterfly Mussel

Ellipsaria lineolata

X X

Mucket Mussel

Actinonaias ligamentina

X

Elktoe Mussel

Alasmidonta marginata

X

Ebonyshell Mussel

Fusconaia ebena

X

Round Pig Toe Mussel

Pleurobema coccineum

X

Washboard Mussel

Megalonaias nervosa

X

Sheepnose Mussel

Plethobasus cyphyus

X

Butterflies & Moths

Karner Blue Butterfly

Lycaeides melissa samuelis

X X

Vascular Plants

Bog Bluegrass

Poa paludigena

X X

Dotted Blazing Star

Liatris punctata var

nebraskana

X X

Kitten Tails

Besseya bullii

X X

Carolina Anemone

Anemone caroliniana

X

Small Skullcap

Scutellaria parvula var

parvula

X

Ground Plum

Astragalus crassicarpus

X

Rough-seeded (prairie) Fame

Flower

Talinum rugospermum

X

False Mermaid

Floerkea proserpinacoides

X

Blunt-lobed Grapefern

Botrychium oneidense

X

Fernleaf False Foxglove

Aureolaria pedicularia

X

James’ Polanisia X
Natural Resources

180

Species Federally

Threatened

Federally

Endangered

WI

Threatened

WI

Endangered

MN

Threatened

MN

Endangered

Cristatella jamesii

Narrow-leafed Pinweed

Lechea tenuifolia

X

Forked Chickweed

Paronychia fastigiata

X

Brittle Prickly-pear

Opuntia fragilis

X

Lichens, Mosses & Fungi

A species of Lichen

Parmelia stuppea

X
182

CULTURAL RESOURCES

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The complex history of the St. Croix River

is a story of human interaction with and

exploitation of a rich and diverse riverine

environment. As a natural passage between

the Great Lakes and the Mississippi Valley,

the river has for centuries facilitated

exploration and commerce, migration and

conflict. The valley’s natural resource

wealth has drawn numerous cultures —

Native American, European, and EuroAmerican — to use, and often exploit, the

landscape for furs, timber, and water power.

Even now the St. Croix’s water quality,

recreational potential, and near-wilderness

solitude draws thousands of visitors.

Native American cultures have occupied the

lands along the St. Croix River for

thousands of years. Archeological sites in

the riverway have yielded evidence of

diverse hunting and gathering cultures that

span the archaic, woodland, and Mississippian periods. The artifacts unearthed in

these sites include lithic points and tools,

pottery shards, and copper beads and

jewelry. Many of these sites appear to have

been only temporary campsites; others,

however, were permanent settlements. The

archeological evidence describes a gradual

economic and cultural evolution from strictly hunting and gathering to the development

of subsistence agriculture, although hunting

and gathering remained important parts of

Native American economies.

By the mid-17th century, the Dakota tribe

had established control over the St. Croix.

They came into conflict with Chippewa, or

Ojibwa, who had moved West, attracted in

part by the area’s furbearing animals. The

resulting clashes over hunting grounds

resulted in sporadic conflict between the

Dakota, their allies the Fox, and Chippewa,

for the next 175 years.

Competition for furs largely defined the

region’s economy for almost two centuries,

and created the initial incentive for Europeans to explore the St. Croix. The first

verified European incursion in the St. Croix

occurred in 1679, when Daniel Greysolon,

the Sieur du Luth, canoed upstream on the

Brule River, a small stream that flows into

the southwestern portion of Lake Superior.

From the upper reaches of the Brule, du

Luth traversed a short portage to the headwaters of the St. Croix. He then descended

the river and attempted to mediate a settlement between the Dakotas and the Chippewa. French explorers continued to use the

St. Croix as the gateway between the Great

Lakes and the Mississippi River.

Over the next century, French voyageurs

regularly paddled the waters of the St.

Croix, forging relations with the valley

tribes and trading European goods for furs.

Even after France’s defeat in the French and

Indian War in 1763, French-Canadian

traders maintained their commercial contacts in the St. Croix Valley. The fur trade

remained a vital part of life along the St.

Croix in the first decades of the 19th century

as powerful rival fur companies from

Canada competed to monopolize the traffic

in furs harvested by the valley’s native

inhabitants. The Northwest Company, the

XY Company, and the Hudson’s Bay

Company all staked claims in the St. Croix

Valley. These British companies relied

heavily on French contacts who had earlier

formed familial and diplomatic relationships

with the Chippewas.
Cultural Resources

183

American expansion along the upper Mississippi River and the St. Croix had begun

soon after the turn of the 19th century.

Lieutenant Zebulon Pike explored the

headwaters of the Mississippi in 1805 and

also negotiated treaties with the Dakotas to

acquire sites along the Mississippi and the

mouth of the St. Croix for future military

installations. In 1820, the United States

Army began construction of Fort Snelling at

the confluence of the Mississippi and

Minnesota Rivers. The military presence

secured a foothold for other Americans who

moved into the area to compete with British

and Canadian fur traders. Kenneth

McKenzie of the Columbia Fur Company

established a post in 1819 near what is now

Taylors Falls, Minnesota. The powerful

American Fur Company absorbed McKenzie’s firm in 1827 and expanded its reach

into the upper reaches of the St. Croix River

once controlled by the Northwest Company.

With the establishment of the Wisconsin

territory in 1836, exploratory expeditions

alerted Americans to the immense potential

of the St. Croix’s white pine forests. The

1837 treaty with the Chippewas opened the

door to legal settlement in the valley.

Entrepreneurs, many of whom were

experienced lumbermen from established

timber regions in New England, began

small-scale logging and sawmill operations

in the St. Croix valley.

By the 1840s numerous small communities

like Marine on St. Croix, Stillwater, Taylors

Falls, St. Croix Falls, and Hudson had

sprung up around lumber mills on both

sides of the river. In little more than a

decade, mills on the St. Croix were cutting

millions of board feet of logs. Logging

camps were rafting logs in such quantities

that the river was frequently jammed for

weeks at a time, damming the river and

halting navigation on its lower reaches from

the Dalles to the confluence with the

Mississippi. In 1883 a colossal logjam at the

Dalles stopped the flow of water for 57

days. Ironically, the rush to exploit the great

white pine forests often threatened to

destroy the river’s commercial navigation.

Throughout the second half of the 19th

century, the St. Croix served as one of

nation’s major arteries for the transport of

cut timber.

Because of its enormous resources, the St.

Croix valley played an important part in

the post-Civil War urbanization of the

West. Many Midwestern cities used the

valley as a valuable hinterland, exhausting

the St. Croix’s vast, old-growth timber

reserves to fabricate cheap, high-quality

building materials for cities and towns

throughout the Mississippi valley. The

region’s insatiable appetite for wood

products put increasing pressure on the St.

Croix’s timber resources. In 1850 observers had predicted that the valley’s forest

reserves would last 50 years. By the turn of

the century, they were proved correct, as

residents began to anticipate the “total

annihilation of [the] lumber business.”

Although the last log run through the

Stillwater Boom was not made until 1914,

most of the seemingly endless stands of

white pine had long been reduced to vast

wastelands of stumps.

While the St. Croix’s fur and timber

resources were depleted, the river continued

to serve as a significant natural resource in

its own right for recreational and utilitarian

uses. As early as the 1850s, the river was

recognized for high-quality recreational

hunting and fishing. Soon after the end of

the logging era, utility companies constructed dams to generate hydroelectric

power. The river’s limited navigation and
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

184

relative freedom from industrial pollution

combined to maintain the river’s high water

quality. The St. Croix retained its integrity

as a recreational resource even as dozens of

the nation’s rivers were virtually destroyed

by urban and industrial waste.

Congress passed the National Scenic and

Wild Rivers Act to preserve rivers remarkable for their scenic, recreational, and primitive qualities. The St. Croix’s remarkable

features led to its inclusion as one of the

eight rivers protected under the original

Wild and Scenic Rivers bill. In 1968 the

upper St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

was placed under the jurisdiction of the

National Park Service.

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act originally

excluded the lower St. Croix River. Some

recreationists and property owners along the

St. Croix feared such a designation’s impact

on their property rights and ability to use the

rivers. However, many others saw unrestrained development as a greater threat to

the riverway than increased federal involvement. Years of study and political debate

over the lower river’s future led to its designation as a Wild and Scenic River on October 25, 1972. A portion of the lower St.

Croix is under the jurisdiction of the

National Park Service; the remainder is

under the control of Minnesota and Wisconsin. The lower St. Croix has emerged as a

working example of a “partnership park.”

Federal and state officials continue to work

together to ensure the long-term protection

of this valuable resource.

PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Previous cultural resource work for the St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway includes

three major archeological surveys. These

surveys were conducted from 1976–79,

1981–84, and 1992–94. In 1976 the

Wisconsin and Minnesota Historical

Societies, under contract to the National

Park Service, conducted surveys for

historic structures within the riverway

boundary for potential nomination to the

National Register of Historic Places. One

property was identified and subsequently

purchased by the riverway. Other properties were identified but not purchased by

the federal government. An administrative

history for the riverway, completed in

1994, documents the historical context of

the riverway’s creation and past management. The NPS Midwest Regional Office

is continuing work on the list of classified

structures, the historic resource study, and

the cultural landscape inventory for the

riverway.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES

No structures owned by the National Parks

Service are known to be eligible for listing

on the National Register of Historic Places.

The 1976 surveys provided baseline information. The Wisconsin survey identified

one bridge in the Lower St. Croix that met

eligibility criteria, the Soo Line Railroad

Bridge. It was listed on the National Register and remains in private ownership.

The Society noted three additional properties of historic interest that also remain in

private ownership. The Minnesota survey

identified 17 potentially eligible properties.

The Park Service purchased one of those

structures, the Foster summer residence.

Unfortunately after years of restoration

work , fire destroyed the house in 1986.

Arson was the suspected cause.

Since then all structures acquired by the

riverway have been reviewed for historic
Cultural Resources

185

value by Park Service staff and regional

specialists and submitted to the state

historic preservation offices for consultation when appropriate, before any actions

have been taken. None have been found

eligible. When the historic resource study

and list of classified structures are completed, they will help determine if any

remaining structures are potentially

eligible.

Outside the Park Service jurisdiction, many

historic structures remain within the Lower

Riverway. This includes historic districts

as well as individual properties, which are

important resources that add to riverway’s

character (see appendix F).

ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The archeological surveys conducted between 1976 and 1979 for the upper/

original St. Croix National Scenic Riverway identified 217 sites on the riverway.

These surveys designated 22 of these sites

as endangered and in need of further evaluation. The NPS Midwest Archeological

Center (MWAC) began a three-year testing

program in 1981 to evaluate the significance and condition of these 22 sites. None

of these endangered resources were along

the lower St. Croix, however. In 1992

MWAC began the first archeological survey of the lower St. Croix. This effort,

which concluded in 1994, identified an

additional 66 sites in the riverway. Some of

these sites are considered significant and

potentially eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places.

Subsequent compliance surveys have

identified additional sites. The Midwest

Archeological Center now lists 326

archeological sites in the riverway in its

archeological sites management information system.

Some archeological sites in the lower

riverway are listed on the National Register

of Historic Places. These include the St.

Croix River Access Site (21 WA 49) in

Interstate State Park in Washington

County, Minnesota; the Dalles Bluff Site,

in Polk County, Wisconsin; and rock art

sites in Washington and Chisago Counties,

Minnesota.

CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

The St. Croix Valley clearly exhibits the

effects of human habitation and alteration

of the riverine environment. Some settings

within the riverway may be determined to

be important illustrations of the cultural

impacts on the riverway. The National

Park Service is required to identify and

protect significant historic or cultural

landscapes under its jurisdiction.

The NPS Midwest Regional Office has

begun work on a cultural landscape inventory. This inventory will identify the

significant cultural or historic landscapes

that are owned by the National Park

Service. These landscapes may include

logging sites, recreational areas, and river

towns and communities. The character of

adjoining properties will be documented to

determine significance and integrity.

This inventory, like the List of Classified

Structures, will in part depend on the

historic resource study to establish the

appropriate historical context for the

evaluation of landscape significance.

Again, the historic resource study may not

be completed before the cultural landscape

inventory.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

186

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESOURCES

Ethnographic resources can encompass any

of the numerous cultural or natural

resources managed by the National Park

Service, including traditional cultural

properties. Among the more common

ethnographic resources are sacred and

traditional use sites, traditional properties,

ceremonial sites and areas, and sites and

features from the prehistoric or historic

periods. Other cultural resources, including

buildings, structures, and archeological

sites, may also constitute ethnographic

resources.

Less obvious resources, such as vegetation,

wetlands, wildlife, waterways, landscapes,

and other natural features, may also qualify

as ethnographic resources. Determinations

of their status as ethnographic resources

will be made on research and consultation

with the affected groups. These resources

will then be assigned traditional legendary,

religious, subsistence, or other significance

in the cultural system or group traditionally

associated with them.

As part of the overall effort to identify and

inventory significant ethnographic

resources in the riverway, the National

Park Service will work with the affected

bands of the Chippewa Indian Nation and

the Minnesota and Wisconsin State

Historic Preservation Offices. They will

identify and protect archeological and

historic sites as well as cultural landscapes

that have significant associations for the

area’s traditional cultures.

Appendix F contains an inventory of sites

within or immediately adjacent to the

riverway that are listed or are eligible for

listing on the national register.
187

 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

REGIONAL SETTING AND LAND

USE CHARACTERISTICS

The five-county region bordering the

riverway is comprised of Chisago and

Washington Counties in Minnesota, and

Polk, St. Croix, and Pierce Counties in

Wisconsin. From Taylors Falls south to the

Mississippi River, the region surrounding

the riverway becomes more and more

developed. Increasing frequency of humanmade structures and other non-natural

intrusions are noticeable from and along

the St. Croix River. Several larger towns

are found along the banks of the river,

including Osceola, North Hudson, Hudson,

and Prescott in Wisconsin, and Marine-onSt. Croix, Stillwater, and Afton in Minnesota. All of the lower riverway is within a

one-half to 1-hour drive of the Minneapolis

and St. Paul Metropolitan region. Relatively easy access to the riverway is within

the reach of more than 2.5 million people.

The national scenic riverway is a primary

feature of the region. Adjacent to its length

are a few state parks. These public lands

and the access they provide are a popular

recreational resource for the people of

Minnesota and Wisconsin. The recreational

resources of these counties serves as the

basis of a local tourism industry. As with

most tourism it is highly seasonal in nature

dependent on the weather even in the summer season.

The five-county region is less developed

than the nearby urbanized and industrialized Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The

juxtaposition of rural-urban, open spacedeveloped land, and leisure attraction-work

place provides a large part of the area’s

recreational appeal and sets the stage for

large numbers of visitors to become temporary outdoor recreation users of the area.

SERVICES

All necessary services are found within the

region surrounding the scenic riverway.

However, availability depends on location,

with the highest concentration and greatest

variety of services being found in the

Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.

Along the river, services are concentrated

in the nearby towns. The quantity and

quality of services depend on the

population of the town and surrounding

service area.

POPULATION

Populations of the states of Minnesota and

Wisconsin, the five-county region surrounding the Lower St. Croix National

Scenic River, as well as the MinneapolisSt. Paul Metropolitan Statistical Area and

entire country are presented in table 24. As

shown in the table, the years from 1980 to

1995 were ones of population growth for

the geopolitical areas.

Population growth in the five counties has

varied from 1980 to 1995. Washington

County grew by more than 73% while

Pierce County grew at a rate of only

10.7%. All five counties experienced

growth rates that were greater than the

respective state averages. During this 15-

year period, only Polk and Pierce Counties

grew at rates that were lower than the

national average of 15.7%.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

188

ECONOMY

All five counties have services and state

and local government among their top

three industries in terms of earnings (see

table 25). Manufacturing and retail trade

are also important within the region.

Compared to the Minneapolis-St. Paul

Metropolitan Statistical Area, the five

county region has a relatively small

economy as measured by earnings. This is

to be expected given the relative population difference between the two areas.

Average county per-capita incomes for

Chisago, Polk, and Pierce Counties were

consistently below the national average and

the respective state averages (see table 26).

The average county per-capita incomes

for Washington County were consistently

above the national average and the Minnesota state average. In 1995 St. Croix County’s per capita income was higher than both

the state and national averages. Minnesota’s 1995 average per-capita income was

103.2% of the national average while Wisconsin’s was only 96.1% of the national

average.

The states of Minnesota and Wisconsin

both experienced unemployment rates and

poverty rates that were below national

averages (see table 27). Unemployment

and poverty are less of a problem in St.

Croix and Washington counties, than in the

other three. The five counties present a

varied picture when comparisons to state

and national data are made.

TABLE 24: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY

POPULATION DATA AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE FOR SELECTED YEARS

Population

State/County/

Other

1980 1990 1995 % change

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.
Socioeconomic Environment

189

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

Percent of Total

Earnings

Industry and Percent

of Total Earnings

Industry and Percent of

Total Earnings

Total Earnings

(Thousands of $)

Minnesota Services (26.0%) Durable Goods

Manufacturing

(12.9%)

State and Local

Government (11.4%)

$82,301,748

 Chisago Services (26.5%) State and Local

Government (14.6%)

Durable Goods

Manufacturing (13.5%)

$297,023

 Washington Services (20.0%) Durable Goods

Manufacturing

(18.5%)

State and Local

Government (15.0%)

$1,713,964

Wisconsin Services (22.6%) Durable Goods

Manufacturing

(18.0%)

State and Local

Government (12.0%)

$80,827,045

 Polk Services (20.1%) Durable Goods

Manufacturing

(17.0%)

State and Local

Government (15.0%)

$328,820

 St. Croix Durable Goods

Manufacturing

(22.4%)

Services (20.5%) State and Local

Government (11.9%)

$628,346

 Pierce State and Local

Government

(32.8%)

Services (17.3%) Retail Trade (9.2%) $254,693

MSA * Services (26.6%) Durable Goods

Manufacturing

(13.1%)

State and Local

Government (10.0%)

$58,689,762

* 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.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

190

TABLE 26: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY

PER CAPITA INCOME FOR SELECTED YEARS

Per Capita Income

State/County/

Other

1980 1990 1995

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

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic River

is accessible by a well-developed federal,

state, and local highway and road system.

Interstates 35 and 94 bring travelers from

the east and west, and north and south,

respectively, to the Minneapolis-St. Paul

region. U.S. Routes 8, 10, 12, and Minnesota Routes 96 and 97 are the other primary east-west routes through the Lower

St. Croix River region. U.S. Routes 61 and

63, and Minnesota Routes 35 and 95, and

Wisconsin Route 65 also provide northsouth access to the area. Many local roads

throughout the watershed provide

immediate access to the national scenic

riverway for recreational users.

All of the scenic river is within a ? to 1-

hour drive time of the Minneapolis-St.

Paul metropolitan area. The development

of modern highways, the creation of

flexible work schedules and three-day

weekends, people’s higher disposable

incomes, and an increased desire of people

to get away from it all, even for short

periods of time, have all combined to place

the Lower St. Croix National Scenic River

within easy reach of more than 2.5 million

people.
Socioeconomic Environment

191

TABLE 27: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY

UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY (1990 AND 1994)

State/County

Other

Percentage of

Labor Force

Unemployed

(1990)

Percentage of Labor

Force Unemployed

(1994)

Percentage of

Population Below the

Poverty Level (1990)

Percentage of

Population Below the

Poverty Level (1994)

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) [machinereadable 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; <http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/hhes/saipe93/gettable.pl>, and U.S. Census Bureau; “USA Counties 1996, General

Profile;” 1996;<http://www.census.gov/stab/USA96/ / .txt>

Tourism

Tourism is an important economic factor in

the St. Croix Valley. The historic character

of many of the valley’s communities, as

well as the scenic character of the valley

itself, has been emphasized by organizations promoting the valley as a regional

tourist destination. The majority of tourism

visits arrive in the valley by car and visit

such destinations as downtown Stillwater,

Hudson, Prescott, Marine on St. Croix,

Osceola, and Taylors Falls/St. Croix Falls.

Many summer tourism visits, however,

arrive by boat from the Mississippi;

vacationing boaters from places like La

Crosse and even such distant places as the

Quad Cities and St.

Louis are attracted to the riverway’s

amenities.

Land Values

There are about 3,000 private landowners

within the riverway boundary and many

more in close proximity to the river. The

valley’s scenic character and its recreational

values make it attractive for up-scale

residential development, making the St.

Croix Valley a status address for many of

the Twin Cities wealthiest residents.

Residential land values are high and have

continued to climb throughout the last 25

years.
192

LAND AND WATER MANAGEMENT

OWNERSHIP

The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

limits the total acreage within the riverway

boundary to an average of no more than

320 acres of land per linear mile on both

sides of the river (outside the river’s ordinary high water mark). The riverway is 52

miles long and the boundary averages 1⁄4

mile in width on each side of the river.

Lands such as riverbeds and islands that lie

between the river’s ordinary high water

mark on each side of the river are not

included in the total acreage. Therefore, the

total approximate acreage of the riverway

is 25,346 acres.

While most of the land within the riverway

boundary is in private ownership, there are

also significant holdings by federal, state,

and local governments. In addition, there

are many parcels of land where federal or

state agencies have purchased something

less than fee title.

Federal Ownership

The Lower St. Croix Act limits National

Park Service land acquisition activities to

the 27 miles of river north of the north

limits of Stillwater. In this area, the Park

Service has acquired fee title to some land

as well as less-than-fee-title (scenic easements and riverfront easements) to other

parcels. The National Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act limits federal fee title acquisition to an average of 100 acres per river

mile outside the ordinary high water

marks, which in the case of the Lower St.

Croix translates to 2,700 acres. As provided for in federal law, eight sellers

reserved a right of use and occupancy

when they sold their property to the Park

Service; these reservations are either for a

fixed period or a life estate. Two of those

reservations have expired and the last of

the remaining six will expire in 2019.

Within the ordinary high water marks north

of Stillwater there are 2,610 acres of land

that the Park Service can legally acquire;

2,003 acres have been acquired and 607

acres remain to be acquired.

Remaining lands north of Stillwater could

be acquired by the Park Service in fee

either through donation or willing seller.

Scenic easements, which place limits on

future private development, have been

acquired on 3,102 acres. Riverfront easements are more restrictive and essentially

prohibit development; they have been

acquired by the Park Service on 393 acres.

In both cases, these lands remain in private

ownership and remain on the tax rolls.

Other than the remaining 607 acres within

the river and some potential scenic easement purchases, the NPS land acquisition

goals in the land acquisition plan have

been met.

State Ownership

State ownership is far more limited than

NPS ownership in the river valley. The

states have acquired land within the five

state parks along the river, as well as within Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources’ St. Croix Islands Wildlife Area.

There are some additional parcels of state

ownership, most of them small. They

include some highway waysides and a
Land and Water Management

193

Minnesota DNR-owned public water

access site.

The 1976 Master Plan envisioned extensive state acquisition of scenic easements

on rural private lands south of Stillwater as

a backup to land use controls. Because land

values are very high along the river, those

scenic easements proved very expensive

and both states abandoned their acquisition

programs in favor of land use controls.

State scenic easements were purchased on

only a few hundred acres, primarily in the

vicinity of Kinnickinnic and Afton State

Parks.

Local Government Ownership

Many of the communities along the river

own public parkland along the river,

although these parcels are often fairly

small. Larger holdings include Kolliner

Park, which is owned by the city of

Stillwater even though it is located in St.

Croix County, Wis.; Lowell Park in

Stillwater; Lakeside Park in Bayport; Ferry

Landing Park in North Hudson; Lakefront

Park in Hudson; public swimming beaches

in Lakeland and Lake St. Croix Beach, and

Steamboat Park in Afton. Larger holdings

include Point Douglas County Park opposite Prescott, which is owned and managed

by Washington County, and St. Croix

Bluffs Regional Park in southern Washington County. St. Croix Bluffs was acquired

by Washington County in 1997; it had

previously been a private recreation area

for employees of a Twin Cities-based

corporation.

LAND USE MANAGEMENT

The 1976 Master Plan directed that the

states develop land use regulations that

local governments would adopt and

enforce with state oversight. Guidelines for

those state regulations were found in an

appendix to that plan. Both states subsequently adopted state rules and all local

governments adopted and have continued

to enforce special zoning ordinances in the

riverway. Local governments are required

to notify the state of public hearings on

zoning issues such as variances and conditional use permits, as well as adoption or

amendment of the local riverway ordinance. Each state has authority to overrule

a local zoning decision if the state concludes the decision is inconsistent with

state rules for protection of the riverway.

WATER USE MANAGEMENT

The 1976 Master Plan recommended that

the states develop water surface use regulations to control boating activity in busy

sections of the river. Those state rules were

subsequently adopted and have been in

effect since 1977. The Lower St. Croix

Management Commission developed

density standards for consideration of

additional boat speed restrictions, and the

state rules have been amended several

times consistent with those guidelines. Onwater law enforcement is provided by the

five county sheriff’s departments, the two

Departments of Natural Resources, and the

National Park Service.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

194

MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION

The Lower St. Croix Management Commission establishes policy for cooperative

management of the riverway. It consists of

the two Departments of Natural Resources

and the National Park Service, with the

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission serving as a nonvoting

member. The boundary area commission

also provides part-time staff services to the

management commission. Coordination of

day-to-day field management of the riverway is the responsibility of the management commission’s technical committee;

technical committee membership includes

the same agencies represented on the

management commission.



Environmental Consequence s
204

INTRODUCTION

The potential environmental effects of the

five land use/water use management

alternatives on scenic resources, recreational use, natural resources, cultural

resources, socioeconomic resources and

land and water management are examined

in this chapter. These effects provide a

basis for comparing the advantages and

disadvantages of the alternatives.

The impacts of the five management

structure options are presented separately

at the end of this chapter. The impacts of

these options are related to land and water

management and to costs, and are independent of the land use/water use management alternatives.

Because of the conceptual nature of the

alternatives, their potential consequences

can be addressed only in general terms.

The conclusions presented here are based

on the review of information provided by

other agencies and the insights of the

National Park Service and Minnesota and

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources staff who are familiar with the

lower riverway. If and when specific

developments or other actions are proposed

as a result of this Cooperative Management Plan, the staff of the managing agencies would determine whether or not more

detailed environmental documents need to

be prepared, consistent with provisions of

the National Environmental Policy Act and

comparable state laws.

It is important to note that this analysis

only applies to actions being proposed by

the National Park Service and the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources. Many other governmental

organizations and individuals own land

within the lower riverway boundary and

take actions that affect the riverway’s

resources and users. Also, the consequences of the proposed state guidelines

for land use and water-based recreational

use regulations in appendixes A and B are

not assessed — these proposed guidelines

would be approved and implemented

through the states’ separate rule-making

process.

Developments and actions are also being

taken in the watershed, outside the lower

riverway, which affect the river. The

National Park Service and the Minnesota

and Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources have little or no control over

many of these actions, although they would

work with businesses, landowners, local

governments, and others to minimize any

impacts on the lower riverway.

Consequently, this environmental impact

statement does not assess the impacts of

other organizations’ actions in or outside

the riverway, except briefly under the

“Cumulative Effects” section.

To focus the discussion of the potential

consequences of the alternatives, specific

impact topics were identified. These topics

were based on the riverway’s outstandingly

remarkable values, federal laws, regulations and orders, agency management

policies, the planning team’s knowledge of

scarce or easily impacted resources, and

issues and concerns expressed by the

public and other agencies during scoping

(see the issues section in the “Introduction”

and the “Consultation and Coordination”

chapters). Other topics were dismissed

from further consideration. The rationale

for dropping these topics is discussed

below.
Introduction

205

IMPACT TOPICS DISMISSED FROM

FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Under NPS policies and the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations, a number of impact topics must be assessed in

environmental impact statements. However, in the case of the Lower St. Croix

several of these topics are irrelevant and

can be dismissed. Other topics were dismissed because they were not important for

the lower riverway, or because the alternatives would not affect the topics, or the

alternatives would not have discernible

impacts on the topics.

Prime and Unique Agricultural Lands

As noted in the “Affected Environment,”

there are prime and unique agricultural

lands within the boundary of the lower

riverway. However, none of the alternatives being considered would propose

developments or other uses that would

affect these lands. Thus, there is no need to

assess the impacts of the alternatives on

this topic.

Sacred Sites

There are no known sacred sites in the

lower riverway.

Indian Trust Resources

All of the alternatives recognize the

Chippewa Indian tribal treaty rights to

hunt, fish, and gather resources on lands

along the St. Croix north of Cedar Bend.

Thus, Indian trust resources would not be

affected.

Natural or Depletable Resource

Requirements and Conservation

Potential

Resource extraction activities are ongoing

in the lower riverway but the alternatives

are not proposing any such activities.

Consequently, there is no need to assess

resource requirements and conservation

potential.

Energy Requirements and Conservation

Potential

None of the alternatives would encourage a

substantial increase in energy use or would

propose new activities or major facilities in

which energy conservation would need to be

considered.

Mussels

The St. Croix River supports a highly

diverse mussel population. Potential impacts to listed mussel species are discussed

under the “threatened and endangered species” impact topic. Similar types of impacts

to other mussel species would be expected.

Management that benefits the federally

listed Higgins eye pearly mussel should also

effectively protect mussel communities in

general because the Higgins eye is found

throughout the riverway. (However, management that specifically benefits the

winged maple leaf mussel might not benefit

other mussel species in the rest of the

riverway, since the winged maple leaf is

found only in a small area.) A separate

impact topic for mussels has not been

included (see the threatened and endangered

species impact topic).
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

206

Wetlands and Floodplains

No actions or new developments are being

proposed by the management agencies in

any of the alternatives that would adversely

affect either wetlands or the lower St.

Croix floodplain. (New access points could

be permitted in one of the alternatives, but

the NPS floodplain guidelines — Special

Directive 93-4 — do not apply to this

water-dependent development.) In addition, both states have regulations that cover

new developments on floodplains.

Climate/Air Quality/Physiography/

Topography/Geology

These resources were dismissed as impact

topics because they would not be affected

by actions or developments under any of

the alternatives. The climate or overall

physiography or topography of the riverway would not be altered. Air quality

would continue to be monitored for air

pollution impacts. Geologic resources are

one of the three “outstandingly remarkable

values” for which the riverway was designated. The record shows that the geologic

resources of greatest interest to Congress at

the time of designation are the basalt outcrops and evidence of the actions of glacial

meltwater in the Dalles of the St. Croix.

These features are contained within the two

state parks in that portion of the riverway

and will receive the same high level of

protection under all alternatives.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to

Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income Populations,

requires all federal agencies to incorporate

environmental justice into their missions

by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of their programs

and policies on minorities and low-income

populations and communities.

For the purpose of fulfilling Executive

Order 12898, in the context of NEPA, the

alternatives addressed in this plan were

assessed during the planning process. It

was determined that none of these

alternatives would result in significant

direct or indirect negative or adverse

effects on any minority or low-income

population or community.

METHODOLOGY

The impacts on scenic, natural, and

cultural resources, recreational use, and

socioeconomic conditions were generated

based on existing conditions, current

regulations, and likely development trends.

The action alternatives were compared to

the no action alternative to determine the

degree of impact. Experience and professional judgment also contributed to the

analysis and evaluation as well as the

park’s purpose, significance, and exceptional resources and values. In some cases,

a major negative impact on one resource

may prove to be a positive benefit to

another.

The effects were evaluated with the

following levels of impact in mind:

• Negligible — The impact is so slight as

to be difficult to measure or perceive,

and has no meaningful implications.

• Minor — The impact is small, not

always obvious, but is detectable and

measurable.

• Moderate — The impact is readily

apparent.

• Major — The impact is severely adverse

or exceptionally beneficial.
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

207

IMPACTS OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES

Analysis

Scenic resources in the riverway are protected primarily through land acquisition or

through regulatory controls on land development. No significant land acquisition

would occur in implementing the preferred

alternative. The proposed five land management categories, compared to the

current two categories, would provide

additional scenic resource protection in

rural areas with slightly less protection

within municipalities (where scenic values

have already been heavily altered). Under

the no-action alternative, scenic values

would continue to be protected by development standards designed to limit visual

impacts. However, under the preferred

alternative, the riverway managing agencies would require local governments to

protect the historic character of municipalities, which would reduce potential

impacts to scenic values in municipalities

from new development. The no-action

alternative would take no such special

actions.

The following analysis evaluates scenic

impacts created by the application of the

five land management areas on each river

segment.

The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock

Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within

the two state parks in this river segment

would continue to be protected by state

ownership (as they would be under the noaction alternative). No impact to scenic

resources would occur because any future

development would occur at existing

development nodes, and scenic and relatively undisturbed natural areas would be

maintained. Private lands in Minnesota in

the southern portion of this segment would

be classified as conservation and would

receive increased protection (i.e., more

restrictive state land use regulations) as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional development could still occur, but there would

be fewer new structures and those structures would be less visible from the river.

Consequently, they would have less impact

on scenic resources than the no-action

alternative.

Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod

Slough): 10 miles. Osceola is classified as

small town historic, which affords about

the same level of scenic protection as the

existing urban standard, which does not

preclude new development visible from the

river but limits the development’s visibility

and visual impacts. However, protection of

historic character would be required, further reducing potential scenic impacts.

Most of this segment would be classified

as conservation and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural

classification under the no-action alternative. Additional development could still

occur, but there would be fewer new

structures and those structures would be

less visible from the river. Consequently,

they would have less impact on scenic

resources than the no-action alternative.

Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola

Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles.

Marine on St. Croix itself is classified

partly as rural residential and mostly as
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

208

small town historic, which affords about

the same level of scenic protection as the

existing urban standard. However,

protection of historic character would be

required in most the area, reducing

potential scenic impacts. William O’Brien

State Park would receive the same high

level of scenic resource protection as

compared to the no-action alternative.

Most of the remainder of this segment in

Minnesota would be classified as rural

residential, providing a level of protection

similar to the no-action alternative, which

would further limit visibility of development and maintains the rural character in

unincorporated areas. The Wisconsin side

of the river would be classified conservation and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification

under the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but there

would be fewer new structures and those

structures would be less visible from the

river. Consequently, they would have less

impact on scenic resources than the noaction alternative.

Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to

Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix

Islands Wildlife Area would receive the

same high level of scenic resource protection as compared to the no-action alternative, which would maintain the undisturbed

natural appearance. The remainder of this

segment would be classified conservation

and would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but there

would be fewer new structures and those

structures would be less visible from the

river. Consequently, they would have less

impact on scenic resources than the noaction alternative.

Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head

of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minnesota side of the river in this segment would

be classified as rural residential, which

affords a level of protection very similar to

the no-action alternative. The Wisconsin

side of the river would mostly be classified

as rural residential , which would afford a

level of protection similar to the no-action

alternative.

Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St.

Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy

Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of

this segment in Minnesota is not intensively developed; it would be classified as

small town, which would give it a level of

scenic protection similar to the current

urban classification. The southern portion

of this segment includes the heavily

developed downtown Stillwater area; it

would be classified as river town, which

would provide slightly less scenic protection than the current urban classification.

Considering the heavily developed nature

of the area, however, impacts on scenic

resources would be negligible. In addition,

the preferred alternative would require

protection of historic character that would

reduce potential scenic impacts.

The Wisconsin side would be classified as

rural residential, which would afford a

level of protection similar to the no-action

alternative.

South Stillwater-Bayport Area

(Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks

to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this

segment in Minnesota would be classified

as river town, which provides slightly less

scenic protection than the current urban

classification. Considering the heavily

developed nature of the area, however,

impacts on scenic resources would be
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

209

negligible. In addition, the preferred

alternative would require protection of

historic character that would reduce

potential scenic impacts. The Andersen

Point area would be classified as small

town, with the result that its level of scenic

protection would be similar to the current

urban classification. The Wisconsin side

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords a level of protection very

similar to the no-action alternative.

Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen

Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles.

In Minnesota, the area between Andersen

Point and the south limits of Bayport

would be classified as small town, which

would result in a level of scenic protection

similar to the current urban classification.

The southern portion of this segment in

Minnesota would be classified as rural

residential, which affords a level of protection similar to the no-action alternative.

Most of the Wisconsin side would be

classified as rural residential, which affords

a level of protection similar to the noaction alternative. The southern portion of

this segment in Wisconsin lies in North

Hudson and would be classified as small

town, which would result in a level of

scenic protection similar to the current

urban classification.

Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to

Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota

side in this segment would be primarily

classified as small town, which would

result in a level of scenic protection similar

to the current urban classification. The

Wisconsin side north of Orange Street

would be classified as small town, which

would result in a level of scenic protection

similar to the current urban classification.

The area south of Orange Street would be

classified as river town, which would provide slightly less scenic protection than the

current urban classification. Considering

the heavily developed nature of the area,

however, impacts on scenic resources

would be negligible. In addition, the preferred alternative would require protection

of historic character that would reduce

potential scenic impacts.

Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish

Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this

segment would be classified as small town,

with the result that its level of scenic protection would be similar to the current

urban classification. The southern portion

of Hudson would be classified partly as

river town and partly as small town. The

remainder of this segment in Wisconsin

would be classified as rural residential,

which would afford a level of protection

similar to the no-action alternative.

Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to

Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In

Minnesota, the old Afton village area

would be classified as small town historic,

and the residential area to the south would

be classified as small town, with the result

that its level of scenic protection would be

similar to the current urban classification.

The southern portion of Afton and the area

south of Afton State Park, as well as all of

the Wisconsin side, would be classified as

rural residential, which would afford a

level of protection similar to the no-action

alternative. Afton State Park would receive

the same high level of scenic resource

protection as the no-action alternative.

Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The

Minnesota side of the river in this segment

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords a level of protection similar
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

210

to the no-action alternative. Kinnickinnic

State Park in Wisconsin would receive the

same high level of scenic resource

protection as the no-action alternative.

Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic

Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at

Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota

side of the river in this segment would be

classified as rural residential, which affords

a level of protection very similar to the noaction alternative. St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park would receive the same high level

of scenic resource protection as compared

to the no-action alternative. Carpenter Nature Center would be classified as conservation and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification

under the no-action alternative. In Wisconsin, the area north of Prescott would be

classified as rural residential, which would

afford a level of protection similar to the

no-action alternative. Prescott would be

classified as river town, which provides

slightly less scenic protection than the

current urban classification. Considering

the heavily developed nature of the area,

however, impacts on scenic resources

would be negligible.

In addition to the application of land

management areas to segments of the

riverway, encouraging the maintenance and

restoration of the natural diversity and

ecological integrity of significant plant

communities on public and private lands

would result in the visual landscape of the

riverway becoming more representative of

the native acuteness of the area. These

voluntary provisions could have a longterm beneficial impact on the visual

resources of the riverway by aiding in the

perpetuation of a natural mosaic of

indigenous vegetation. However, these

impacts would be minor to negligible

because these actions would be voluntary,

and most individuals would consider these

areas as natural landscapes whether or not

the vegetative mosaics included a diversity

of significant plant communities.

A change in forest tax law programs in

Wisconsin would be pursued, which would

enable landowners within the riverway to

develop a forest management plan that

would allow vegetation to be removed in a

manner that would protect the scenic quality of the river. This change in policy for

Wisconsin would result in a long-term, minor beneficial impact on the scenic resources of the riverway by providing

landowners with more flexibility to

preserve these resources.

Continued adherence to NPS policies that

perpetuate native plant communities would

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial

impact on the scenic resources of the

riverway. Under the current management

approach (no-action), allowed changes in

the scale or character of bridge crossings

and relocation of transmission lines to new

crossing corridors could potentially have a

major long-term effects on scenic

resources. The preferred alternative would

restrict numbers and scale and encourage

multiple uses of river crossing corridors

and structures (including the consolidation

of utility crossings). Replacement of

similar-scale bridges or of larger-scale

bridges would be allowed as long as there

would be no adverse effects on the riverway. Compared to the no-action alternative, the preferred alternative would avoid

potentially major long-term impacts to

scenic quality from construction of largescale bridge crossings or relocation of

transmission lines to highly scenic or

largely undisturbed corridors.
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

211

Flexibility on the use of submarine crossings could allow for accommodation of

infrastructure needs for the surrounding

communities while minimizing impacts on

the riverway. Provisions could include the

relocation, expansion in size or the number

of lines, or the addition of new crossings.

These actions could result in negligible

adverse impacts on scenic resources in the

immediate vicinity because new crossings

would only be permitted provided there

were no visual impacts. Potential impacts

from accommodation of the utility needs

could be reduced.

Prohibiting clearcutting for inspections of

pipeline rights-of-way and maintaining as

much natural vegetation as possible along

utility rights-of-way would result in minor

beneficial impacts on scenic resources.

Conclusion

Overall, the preferred alternative would

have a minor, positive impact on scenic

resources. Also, potentially major longterm impacts from changes to river

crossings would be avoided.

IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE

Analysis

The primary goal of the preferred alternative with respect to boating recreation

would be to preserve the existing diversity

of surface water recreational experiences.

Like the no-action alternative, overall boating use of the riverway would continue to

grow slowly, if at all (existing use patterns

show no clear increase in use since the

mid-1980s). The diversity of boating opportunities would remain, with the exception of extremely high-speed boating activities. Boaters interested in that activity

would be displaced to another resource.

Impacts for each river segment are described below.

Backwaters from the Dalles of the St.

Croix to north limits of Stillwater: 5

miles. The natural waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing no-wake designation; the impact

of the preferred alternative would be the

same as the no-action alternative, which

would be to maintain the quiet and littleused character of the recreational

experience.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island:

3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow-speed zone designation. The

impact of the preferred alternative would

be the same as the no-action alternative,

which would be to maintain the slow

speeds, low noise levels, and the more

social experience associated with relatively

large numbers of canoers.

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10

miles. The quiet waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing slow-speed zone designation; the

impact of the preferred alternative would

be the same as the no-action alternative.

Thus, recreational use would be similar to

the preceding river segment, although less

social interaction would likely occur below

the landing at Osceola where many rental

canoe trips would continue to end.

McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar:

8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

212

existing slow-speed zone designation; the

impact of the preferred alternative would

be the same as the no-action alternative.

Opportunities would be maintained for a

mixture of nonmotorized and slow-moving

motorized craft.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of

Stillwater: 5 miles. The moderate recreation classification for this segment would

involve a speed limit and elimination of

waterskiing. This is slightly different that

the current rule, which involves no speed

limit but a firm restriction on summer

weekend waterskiing. Congestion in this

narrow area has become a concern and the

imposition of a speed limit would be considered a positive impact on congestion

and shoreline erosion concerns.

Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would involve a speed limit;

under the no-action alternative there would

be no speed limit. The existing no-wake

zones in the Hudson area would remain

under the preferred alternative. There has

been growing concern about safety factors

surrounding extremely high-speed boating

(80 mph and greater) that occasionally

occurs in this segment. This would be

eliminated under the preferred alternative,

forcing boaters who want to travel at those

speeds to use a different resource. The

imposition of a speed limit in this area

would be considered a minor positive

impact on the environment.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would involve a speed limit;

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 preferred alternative. There has been growing

concern about safety factors surrounding

extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and

greater) that occasionally occurs in this

segment; this would be eliminated under

the preferred alternative, forcing boaters

who want to travel at those speeds to use a

different resource. The imposition of a

speed limit in this area would be considered a minor positive impact on the

environment.

Camping Experience. A camping

management plan would be developed for

boat-related camping north of Stillwater

that would impose gradually increased

restrictions on camping. This would result

in fewer boat-in campsites than currently

exist, enhancing privacy and reducing

shoreline erosion and visual impacts from

trampled vegetation and exposed soils.

However the opportunity for more social

camping would be reduced, which would

displace some campers to another resource.

At Hudson, campers without on-board

toilets would be displaced. The outcome

would be reduced shoreline erosion

between the Arcola sandbar and Stillwater

and reduced water quality problems there

and at Hudson, but an increase in displaced

recreational users.

Conclusion

Overall, the preferred alternative would

provide minor, possibly negligible, positive

impacts on recreational use. However, a

few riverway users, those seeking to travel

at high speeds and some island campers,

would be displaced.
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

213

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Water Quality

Analysis. Overall boating totals would not

likely change under the preferred alternative, so water quality impacts from petroleum products or day-use boaters who

don’t use proper toilet facilities would be

about the same as the no-action alternative.

Additional restrictions on camping north of

Stillwater and at Hudson would have a

slight positive impact on water quality as

compared to the no-action alternative.

There would be a slight decrease in total

residential development in areas not served

by public sewer, leading to slightly less

risk of water quality impacts from failed

on-site waste treatment systems.

Possible bridge replacements could have

short-term, adverse effects on water quality

during construction, however, mitigation

measures would likely minimize these

impacts.

Conclusion. Water quality impacts from

the discharge of motorboat petroleum

products or day-use boaters who do not use

proper toilet facilities would continue but

would not likely increase because overall

boating totals would not be expected to

change. Additional restrictions on camping

north of Stillwater and at Hudson would

have a slight positive impact on water

quality. Some short-term impacts also

could occur during construction of bridge

replacements.

From a riverwide perspective, it is expected that pollution due to the construction of development would be short term,

while pollution due to users would be

transient and should have minor to negligible effects on pollutant levels.

Soils

Analysis. As under the no-action alternative, additional development could occur,

including residential development in rural

areas. Consequently, some soils would still

be lost to development, although new soil

disturbance would likely be reduced in the

park, natural, and minimally disturbed

management areas (43% of the lower riverway) where less development and more

restrictive land use regulations would be

employed.

Shoreline erosion caused by boat wakes

would be similar to the no-action alternative. The imposition of speed limits from

the Arcola sandbar south would have a

negligible impact on shoreline erosion

caused by boat wakes. The area between

the Arcola sandbar and Stillwater is the

focus of much concern about wakeinduced shoreline erosion, and a moderate

speed limit there would likely do little to

alter current impacts.

Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the

formation of social trails from campers

would be slightly reduced, as compared to

the no-action alternative, by limitations and

overall reductions in camping north of

Stillwater. Localized bluff erosion from

foot trails would be about the same as the

no-action alternative.

Only a few areas would be affected by

bridge and utility line replacements during

the life of this plan. It is expected that

mitigation measures would keep impacts

localized and minor to moderate in magnitude. (Additional environmental docu-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

214

mentation, with mitigation measures,

would be required before these crossings

would be approved.) Because bridge and

utility line replacements would only be

permitted in existing corridors, additional

soil disturbance would be limited to areas

that likely have already been altered.

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to

do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows, this alternative would reduce the

amount of dredged material that would

need to be removed and disposed. If the

dredged material could be reused for other

purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby

would not be altered by the disposal of the

material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance

Management Plan directs that dredged

material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be

placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State

park for beach nourishment.)

Conclusion. Under the preferred alternative shoreline and bluff erosion would

continue from recreational use but would

be less. This would have negligible to

minor long-term positive impacts on soils

in localized areas, particularly on riverbanks and the islands. Additional soil loss

and disturbance would be expected from

new development on some private lands.

However, the land use management area

allocation would be beneficial, minimizing

potential soil disturbance and loss on a

large portion of the riverway. From an

overall riverway perspective, compared to

current conditions, the preferred alternative

would likely have a negligible to minor

positive impact.

Vegetation

Analysis. Special protection would provide maintenance and restoration of

significant plant communities on federal

and state lands and would encourage

private and local government landowners

to maintain and restore these communities.

This beneficial effect would help maintain

the riverway’s diverse plant communities.

As in all of the action alternatives, the

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources would pursue a rule amendment

that would allow landowners to harvest

trees in a manner that would protect the

scenic quality of the river. Many landowners might alter vegetative cover on

their land, but with agency oversight it is

expected to have a minor positive effect on

the riverway’s vegetation.

Application of the land use management

areas along the riverway would have a

positive effect on the riverway’s vegetation. Some vegetation would still be lost

to new development, but in the park,

natural, and minimally disturbed management areas (43% of the riverway) less

vegetation would be lost because of new

development.

Bridge and utility line replacements would

have a minor effect during the life of this

plan. Because bridge and utility line replacements would only be permitted in

existing corridors, little additional vegetation would be lost or disturbed. Mitigation

measures are expected to localize and keep

impacts minor to moderate in magnitude.

New submarine crossings could disturb

and alter vegetation near riverbanks where

the transmission lines/pipelines go underground. (Additional environmental documentation, with mitigation measures,

would be required before these crossings

would be approved.)
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

215

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to

do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows, this alternative would reduce the

amount of dredged material that would

need to be removed and disposed. If the

dredged material could be reused for other

purposes, vegetation in the riverway or

nearby would not be altered by the disposal

of the dredged material.

Motorboat use on the lower St. Croix is

believed to be affecting shoreline vegetation, with boat wakes damaging plants,

exposing root systems, and undercutting

trees. This impact would likely continue

similar to the no-action alternative. The

imposition of moderate speed limits from

the Arcola sandbar south would likely have

a negligible positive impact on shoreline

erosion.

Users would continue to trample vegetation in localized areas when they picnic on

the shoreline and islands and camp on the

islands south of Stillwater (i.e., the Hudson

islands). Some users probably would

continue 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. With overall use levels not

expected to increase greatly on the lower

riverway, alteration and loss of vegetation

would likely continue similar to the noaction alternative.

On the other hand, limiting camping in

areas north of Stillwater to certain zones,

possibly to designated campsites, also

should reduce the loss of vegetation and

encourage native plants to become reestablished (although even with efforts to

prevent this impact, some trampling of

vegetation would likely still occur due to

day users and campers).

Conclusion. The preferred alternative

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. If new bridge replacements and/or

utility crossings were built, there could be

some minor impacts on vegetation. On the

other hand, the application of the management areas in this alternative would have a

beneficial effect, helping prevent the loss

or disturbance of vegetation on a large

portion of the lower riverway. Efforts to

maintain and restore significant plant communities on public and private lands would

also have a positive effect. Restrictions on

camping would reduce impacts to vegetation. From a riverwide perspective, most of

the riverway’s vegetation would not be

affected by users, new developments, or

the management agencies. However, compared to the no action alternative, the preferred alternative would be expected to

have a negligible to minor, long-term, positive impact on the riverway’s vegetation.

Fish and Wildlife

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would be

similar to the no-action alternative. Most of

the lower riverway management actions in

this alternative would continue to promote

the protection of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. No actions would be

taken that would adversely affect areas

known to be of special importance for

breeding, nesting, foraging, or wintering.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

216

However, rural home development would

create patches that disrupt the movement

of some wildlife, especially those most

sensitive to human activity. There would

be slightly less new rural home development under the preferred alternative as

compared to the no-action alternative, but

the differences in terms of wildlife impacts

would not be measurable, especially considering much of the rural home development that could occur in the riverway has

already been built.

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife

populations and habitats have already been

affected in varying degrees by recreational

users and nearby developments. Some

individual animals might be disturbed or

temporarily displaced by the sounds of

motorboats and groups floating down the

river, but this is not expected to substantially affect the lower riverway’s fish and

wildlife populations.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife

populations would be expected to be

negligible to minor.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. Implementation of the preferred

alternative would not significantly change

the number of recreational boats using the

river as compared to the no-action alternative. The potential for recreational

impacts is not expected to change with the

continued use of appropriate mitigation

(e.g., keeping people away from bald eagle

nests). Efforts to maintain and restore the

diversity and ecological integrity of significant plant communities should help protect

species like the Karner blue butterfly.

Therefore, this alternative would not likely

adversely affect threatened and endangered

species (with the possible exception of

certain mussel species). A slight reduction

in new rural home development could

decrease the potential for impacts to some

threatened and endangered species.

Also, since this alternative would promote

the maintenance and restoration of the

natural diversity and ecological integrity of

plant communities on federal and state

lands and encourage private landowners to

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
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

217

are occurring, on the lower St. Croix, it is

not known what the effect, if any, has been

on the Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf

mussel populations. Recreational uses are

likely “taking” individual mussels, which

might be adversely affecting these species.

(Pers com, R. Ferrin, NPS and Dan

Hornbach, Biology Dept., Macalester

College, 11/5/98). The National Park

Service consulted with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service regarding incidental take,

which might be occurring either now or in

the future.

Recommended changes on the navigation

channel between Taylors Falls and the

Arcola sandbar and at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows would avoid potential impacts to

mussels.

Measures to minimize impacts and

recovery of mussels would include the

following measures. Recovery of the

winged mapleleaf mussel would include

preservation of the sole known remnant

population in the lower St. Croix River.

Recovery of the Higgins’ eye mussel

would include preservation of the current

populations and its essential habitat, which

would include one site on the lower St.

Croix near Hudson, Wisconsin and another

essential habitat area in the river near

Franconia. The cooperative management

plan identifies the following goals,

strategies, or actions in support of the

protection and recovery of these species:

protection and improvement of water

quality, development of a 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 mussels, and implementation of the zebra

mussel action plan (see “Management

Directions Common to All Alternatives”

section). The managing agencies would

also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s recovery plans for the winged

mapleleaf mussel and the Higgins’ eye

mussel. These components address a wide

variety of tasks, including actions to

minimize human disturbance and destruction to the federally listed mussels, such as

quantification of the magnitude of potential

threats (harvesting, swimming, wading,

digging, small recreational watercraft, and

commercial paddlewheel watercraft) and

identification of specific geographic

locations of greatest concern; posting of

educational signs; conducting educational

programs; and review of paddleboat

operations to minimize boat operation

impacts.

Conclusion. The uses, user levels, and

developments in the preferred alternative

would not likely adversely affect most

federal and state listed species in the lower

riverway (with adequate surveys, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state biologists, and the application of appropriate mitigation measures).

There are indications that recreational

activities already may be adversely affecting the federally endangered Higgins’ eye

and winged mapleleaf mussel population

on the lower St. Croix. Formal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was undertaken to determine what

actions need to be taken to ensure the conservation of these species and their biological opinion is included in appendix D.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

218

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Analysis

As under the no-action alternative, riverway management would ensure the protection of all significant cultural resources.

These resources would be at low risk of

adverse impacts resulting from recreational

use or neglect, and restrictions on new

development within the riverway would

minimize impacts. Land uses, including

new development, would be managed to

maintain the river’s visual qualities and the

historic character of the river communities.

The preferred alternative would require

local governments in the river town and

small town historic districts to develop

ordinances protecting historic structures

and requiring new development to be

consistent with the historic character of

those communities. As a result, the

preferred alternative would result in minor

improvements in protection of cultural

resources.

The development of specific management

direction for historic resources and cultural

landscapes would depend on the completion of the List of Classified Structures and

the Cultural Landscape Inventory. Determinations of significance for the riverway’s cultural resources, including cultural

landscapes, would help guide appropriate

management decisions. Management

would work cooperatively with the Minnesota and Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Offices, local officials, and private

preservation groups in developing protection strategies for those cultural resources

adjacent to the river but outside the boundaries of the riverway. Effective preservation partnerships would help minimize

impacts from new development.

The managing agencies would work closely with the Minnesota and Wisconsin state

historic preservation offices, American

Indian interests, and private landowners in

developing preservation strategies for any

cultural resources that could be affected by

future development.

Conclusion

Similar to the no-action alternative, restricted development and maintaining the

riverway’s visual qualities would minimize

impacts on archeological and historic resources. Additionally, the preferred alternative would result in minor improvements

in protection of cultural resources in the

river town and small town historic

districts.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Local Economy

Analysis. This alternative does not call for

large expenditures by the Park Service or

the states for the development of infrastructure, so there would be little direct

economic impact. Application of the land

management areas would not result in

greatly different restrictions on new

development for most areas within the

riverway. Placement of most of the new

land management categories would be

similar to the existing incorporated and

unincorporated classifications. Exceptions

to this would be areas designated as

minimally disturbed and natural where

increased restrictions would likely occur
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

219

(although development could still occur)

and in towns where some restrictions

would be reduced (but with historic structure protection). Consequently, limited

additional negligible to minor impacts on

the long-term property tax base of the local

communities due to restrictions on new

development would occur. Existing positive effects on local economy from expenditures from tourists and other recreationists would continue, but would not be

appreciably changed by the preferred

alternative.

Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local

economy would be negligible to minor

compared to the no-action alternative.

Tourism

Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley

is partially linked to the area’s historic

character. In that context, the preferred

alternative’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 tourism would not change,

so impacts would be negligible.

Conclusion. There would be some

negligible to minor positive effects on

tourism.

Land Values

Analysis. Land values would not be

impacted by the preferred alternative.

Local property values have probably been

and would likely continue to be beneficially affected by the presence of the

riverway as under the no-action alternative.

Conclusion. There would be no new

impacts on land values.

Landownership/Landowners

Analysis. The preferred alternative proposes a modest increase in scenic easement

acquisition by the two states; National Park

Service acquisition is essentially complete

and would not change. As a result, the

preferred alternative would have negligible

impact on land ownership.

In general, the preferred alternative could

affect some landowners in a manner that

would have a minor to moderate impact

when compared to the no action alternative. For instance, preserving the scenic

character of the riverway might mean that

some landowners within the riverway’s

boundary might be constrained when they

wanted to make certain improvements to

their property.

There would be a minor to moderate

beneficial impact for local landowners in

some areas of the riverway due to a

reduction in conflicts with recreational

users, particularly in popular camping

areas north of Stillwater. Local landowners

would also likely benefit from a reduction

in the periodic loud noise generated by

higher boat speeds and reduced shoreline

effects from wave action.

Conclusion. There would be negligible

impacts on landownership. Some landowners would benefit from reduced restrictions

on property improvements, although there

would be constraints on new development
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

220

to maintain historic character. Some

landowners would be negatively affected

by restrictions on new development or

improvements in areas outside of towns.

There would also be minor to moderate

benefits to landowners from a reduction in

conflicts and shoreline erosion associated

with recreational use in some areas of the

riverway.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as

seen from the river would not be encompassed within the riverway boundaries,

therefore, visual encroachments outside the

boundary have the potential to impact the

scenic resources of the riverway. In the

federal zone the high bluffs, the rural

character, the predominance of protected

areas along this section of the river, and the

fact that the viewshed outside the boundary

would be less than the state-administered

zone would mean that the concerns would

not be as great here as in the stateadministered zone. In this zone more of the

viewshed would be outside the riverway

boundary, the area would have a series of

benches visible from the river, there would

be less high bluff areas, more of the area

would be incorporated, and its proximity to

the Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely

mean greater growth. For those areas

within the viewshed, yet outside the

riverway boundary, local zoning standards

would be the primary methods of controlling scenic impacts on the riverway.

Mitigating methodologies, such as the

encouragement of the preservation and

maintenance of mature vegetation, planting

of additional vegetative buffering, the

protection of cultural resources, and the

prohibition of the construction of any more

extremely visible towers within the

viewshed, would be beneficial to the

preservation of the riverway’s scenic

quality. Actions taken outside the riverway

boundary could have negligible to major

impacts on the scenic resources of the

riverway, depending on the magnitude of

change. Therefore, the cumulative effects

of NPS/state actions on the scenic quality

of the viewshed would be negligibly to

moderately beneficial, depending on the

magnitude of changes to the scenic

resources outside the riverway boundary.

Land use changes in the riverway and

watershed have had a cumulative effect on

the riverway’s water quality, flows, soils,

vegetation, and wildlife in localized areas.

As the region’s population continued to

grow, new development would likely occur

near the riverway and in the communities

along the river. Further habitat fragmentation of the surrounding watershed landscape would likely continue.

The entire historical distribution of winged

mapleleaf mussel has been significantly

altered by human development in the Mississippi River basin, such as damming,

dredging, channelization, agricultural

application of fertilizers, pesticides, and

herbicides, and municipal and industrial

waste discharges. These developments are

probably responsible for widespread and

precipitous decline in mussel communities

in general, and the extirpation or extinction

of several species, although few studies

have addressed directly the specific impact

of any one of these factors.

Impacts from continued recreational use

within the riverway and managing agency

actions would contribute incrementally to

impacts from the sources noted above.

Overall, the land use management area

allocation and special plant community
Impacts of Preferred Alternative

221

protection would be beneficial, preventing

loss of natural resources on a large portion

of the riverway. This would be a positive,

minor cumulative impact within the riverway and watershed.

None of the management actions are expected to add substantively to the cumulative effects on cultural resources. Growth

and land use changes could affect cultural

resources adjacent to or within the viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative

effects of the management actions would

help mitigate the effects of population

growth and development.

Many communities and counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the process of

revising their comprehensive plans and

related ordinances. Some of these revised

plans and ordinances may include land use

and development provisions applicable to

the river corridor that would go beyond

guidance provided in this document.

Therefore, in some areas, cumulative

impacts of land management measures may

have negligible to moderate additional

effects on certain property owners as

compared to current conditions.

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

would only have a minor effect on the

expected growth of the total economy of

the region. Therefore, there would be no

appreciable socioeconomic cumulative

impacts from the implementation of this

alternative occurring in conjunction with

the region’s expected overall population

and economic growth.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation,

restrictions on island, shoreline, and

boating use, along with the proposed

inventory, monitoring, and research

programs for the riverway would

contribute to the long-term protection and

preservation of resources and scenic

character of the landscape. The maintenance and restoration of plant communities

would also enhance long-term productivity

of natural communities.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Some minor adverse impacts to natural

resources would occur. An adverse effect

on some users, such as those seeking to

boat at high speeds and some island

campers, would also occur. To meet the

scenic and resource protection purposes of

the riverway, development restrictions on

local landowners would be implemented.

To meet the recreational purposes of the

riverway, 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

occur on private lands within the riverway

boundary, particularly in the existing

municipalities. Potentially, new river

crossings might also occur. It is expected
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

222

that this new development would result in

the long-term localized loss of vegetation,

soils, and wildlife habitat.

Any action that led to the loss of individual

federally listed mussel species or their

habitat would contribute to the loss of the

species as an ecological and genetic

resource. It is possible that the preferred

alternative would contribute to their

decline. However, it is expected that the

implementation of actions outlined in the

recovery plans for these species would

avoid this situation and contribute to their

conservation.
Impacts of Alternative A

223

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE A

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES

Analysis

Scenic resources in the riverway are protected primarily through land acquisition or

through regulatory controls on land

development. No significant land acquisition would occur in implementing alternative A. The establishment of seven land

management categories compared to two

under the existing management program

would provide additional scenic resource

protection in rural areas, with slightly less

protection within municipalities (where

scenic values have already been heavily

altered), as compared to the no-action

alternative. Also under this alternative, the

riverway managing agencies would require

local governments to protect the historic

character of municipalities, which would

reduce potential impacts to scenic values in

municipalities from new development. The

no-action alternative would take no such

special actions. Alternative A differs from

the preferred alternative in that a greater

portion of the riverway would be included

in the river town, small town, and small

town historic districts, essentially reducing

scenic resource protection when considering the riverway as a whole.

The following analysis evaluates scenic

impacts created by the application of the

seven land management areas on each river

segment.

The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock

Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within

the two state parks in this river segment

would continue to be protected by state

ownership (as they would be under the noaction alternative). No impact to scenic

resources would occur because any future

development would occur at existing

development nodes, and scenic and relatively undisturbed natural areas would be

maintained. Private lands in Minnesota in

the southern portion of this segment would

be classified as natural and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. Additional development could

still occur, but there would be fewer new

structures and those structures would be

less visible from the river. Consequently,

they would have less impact on scenic

resources than the no-action alternative.

Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod

Slough): 10 miles. Osceola itself is classified as small town historic, which affords

about the same level of scenic protection as

the existing urban standard, which does not

preclude new development visible from the

river but limits the development’s visibility

and visual impacts. However, protection of

historic character would be required, further reducing potential scenic impacts. An

area just north of Osceola would be classified as small town, providing for community growth along the riverway but allowing

development that has more scenic impact

than the existing rural classification. Most

of this segment would be classified as natural, however, and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative. Additional development could still occur, but

there would be fewer new structures and

those structures would be less visible from

the river. Consequently, they would have
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

224

less impact on scenic resources than the

no-action alternative.

Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola

Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles.

Marine on St. Croix itself is classified

mostly as small town historic, which

affords about the same level of scenic

protection as the existing urban standard,

but with additional protection of historic

character. William O’Brien State Park

would receive the same high level of

scenic resource protection as compared to

the no-action alternative. Most of the

remainder of this segment in Minnesota

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords a level of protection similar

to the no-action alternative, which further

limits visibility of development and maintains the rural character in unincorporated

areas. The Wisconsin side of the river

would be classified as natural and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but there would be fewer

new structures and those structures would

be less visible from the river. Consequently, they would have less impact on scenic

resources than the no-action alternative.

Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to

Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix

Islands Wildlife Area is owned by Wisconsin DNR and would receive the same high

level of scenic resource protection as compared to the no-action alternative, which

would maintain the undisturbed natural

appearance. The remainder of this segment

would be classified as natural and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but there would be fewer

new structures and those structures would

be less visible from the river. Consequently, they would have less impact on scenic

resources than the no-action alternative.

Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head

of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minnesota side of the river in this segment would

be classified as rural residential, which

affords a level of protection very similar to

the no-action alternative. The Wisconsin

side of the river would be classified partly

as natural and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.

Additional development could still occur,

but there would be fewer new structures

and those structures would be less visible

from the river. Consequently, they would

have less impact on scenic resources than

the no-action alternative. About the southern half of this segment in Wisconsin

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords a level of protection similar

to the no-action alternative.

Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St.

Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy

Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of

this segment in Minnesota is not intensively developed; it would be classified as

small town with the result that its level of

scenic protection would be similar to the

current urban classification. The central

portion of this segment includes a relatively undeveloped area north of downtown Stillwater; it would be classified as

river town, which provides slightly less

scenic protection than the current urban

classification and would accommodate

downtown growth, while reducing scenic

protection. The southern portion of this

segment includes the heavily developed

downtown Stillwater area; it would be

classified as river town, which provides
Impacts of Alternative A

225

slightly less scenic protection than the

current urban classification. Considering

the heavily developed nature of the area,

however, impacts on scenic resources

would be negligible. In addition, alternative A would require protection of historic

character that would reduce potential

scenic impacts.

The Wisconsin side would be classified

partly as rural residential, which would

afford a level of protection similar to the

no-action alternative, and partly as small

town, which would provide significantly

less scenic protection than the rural classification in the no-action alternative.

South Stillwater-Bayport Area

(Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks

to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this

segment in Minnesota would be classified

as river town, which would provide slightly less scenic protection than the current

urban classification. Considering the

heavily developed nature of the area,

however, impacts on scenic resources

would be negligible. In addition, alternative A would require protection of historic

character that would reduce potential

scenic impacts. The Andersen Point area

would be classified as small town, with the

result that its level of scenic protection

would be similar to the current urban

classification. The Wisconsin side would

be classified as rural residential, which

would afford a level of protection similar

to the no-action alternative.

Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen

Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. In

Minnesota, this area would be classified as

small town, with a level of scenic protection similar to the current urban classification in a part of the area, but significantly

less than the southern portion of this

segment, which is classified as rural

residential under the no-action alternative.

Most of the Wisconsin side would be

classified as rural residential, which would

afford a level of protection similar to the

no-action alternative. The southern portion

of this segment in Wisconsin lies in North

Hudson and would be classified as small

town, with a level of scenic protection

similar to the current urban classification.

Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to

Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota

side in this segment would be classified as

small town, with the result that its level of

scenic protection would be similar to the

current urban classification. The Wisconsin

side would be classified as river town,

which would provide slightly less scenic

protection than the current urban classification. Considering the heavily developed nature of the area, however, impacts

on scenic resources would be negligible. In

addition, alternative A would require protection of historic character that would

reduce potential scenic impacts.

Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish

Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this

segment would be classified as small town,

with the result that its level of scenic protection would be similar to the current

urban classification. The southern portion

of Hudson would also be classified as

small town as would the St. Croix Cove

area, which would be rural under the noaction alternative. The level of scenic

resource protection in the St. Croix Cove

area would be reduced. The remainder of

this segment in Wisconsin would be

classified as rural residential, which affords

a level of protection similar to the noaction alternative.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

226

Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to

Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In

Minnesota the old Afton village area

would be classified as small town historic,

with the result that its level of scenic

protection would be similar to the current

urban classification, but with additional

protection of historic character. The

southern portion of Afton and the area

south of Afton State Park, as well as all of

the Wisconsin side, would be classified as

rural residential, which affords a level of

protection similar to the no-action

alternative. Afton State Park would receive

the same high level of scenic resource

protection as compared to the no-action

alternative.

Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The

Minnesota side of the river in this segment

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords a level of protection similar

to the no-action alternative. Kinnickinnic

State Park in Wisconsin would receive the

same high level of scenic resource

protection as compared to the no-action

alternative.

Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic

Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at

Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota

side of the river in this segment would be

classified as rural residential, which affords

a level of protection very similar to the noaction alternative. St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park would receive the same high level

of scenic resource protection as provided

under the no-action alternative. Carpenter

Nature Center would be classified as natural and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification

under the no-action alternative. In Wisconsin, most of the area north of Prescott

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords a level of protection similar

to the no-action alternative. An area north

of Prescott would be classified as small

town to allow urban growth; this would

result in significantly less scenic resource

protection for that area than the current

rural classification. Prescott would be

classified as river town, which provides

slightly less scenic protection than the

current urban classification. Considering

the heavily developed nature of the area,

however, impacts on scenic resources

would be negligible.

Provisions for vegetative management

would be similar to the preferred alternative, except there would be no emphasis on

voluntary actions or efforts to restore the

natural diversity or ecological integrity of

significant plant communities on private or

state or local government lands. Also under

this alternative more development could be

expected; therefore, more plant communities would likely be affected. These actions

would have an adverse impact on visual

resources because there would be less of

the natural mosaic of vegetation that is

indigenous to the riverway. These impacts

would be minor to moderate (depending on

the amount of development) and long term

because it could take years to restore

vegetative patterns.

An amendment to the Wisconsin-managed

forest law (Chapter NR 118) would be

pursued, which would result in a longterm, minor, beneficial impact for the

scenic resources of the riverway by providing landowners with more flexibility to

preserve these resources.

Continued adherence to NPS policies that

perpetuate native plant communities would

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial

impact to the scenic resources.
Impacts of Alternative A

227

Alternative A would restrict the overall

number and encourage multiple uses of

existing river crossing corridors and

structures. However, because this alternative allows for changes in the scale and

character of or the relocation of road and

railroad bridges, utility lines, and submarine lines, there could be negligible to

major impacts on the scenic resources of

the riverway, depending on the magnitude

of the change. Allowance of new additional submarine crossings could result in

minor to negligible adverse impacts on

scenic resources in the immediate vicinity

depending on the extent and duration of

ground disturbance and vegetation removal

during installation. By prohibiting clearcutting for inspections of pipeline rightsof-way, there would be minor beneficial

impacts to scenic resources.

Conclusion

Overall, alternative A would have a minor,

negative impact on scenic resources compared to the no-action alternative. Also,

potentially major long-term impacts from

changes to river crossings could still occur.

IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE

Analysis

Alternative A would allow recreational

boating use levels to increase as long as

resource impacts and safety concerns did

not reach unacceptable levels. This increased use could alter the recreational

experience, such as creating more crowded

conditions at peak use times. Providing for

a larger number of users would take

precedence over maintaining a variety of

recreational opportunities. The existing

diversity of boating opportunities would be

reduced somewhat. Some boaters would be

displaced to other resources. These impacts

are evaluated for the following river

segments.

Backwaters from the Dalles of the St.

Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16

miles. The natural classification for this

segment would be identical to the existing

no-wake designation; the impact of

alternative A would be the same as the noaction alternative, which would be to

maintain the quiet and little-used character

of the recreational experience.

Backwaters from William O’Brien State

Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The

natural classification for this segment

would be identical to the existing no-wake

designation; the impact of alternative A

would be the same as the no-action

alternative, which would be to maintain the

quiet and little-used character of the

recreational experience.

Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to

north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The

quiet waters classification for this segment

would permit slow-speed boating, compared to the existing no-wake designation;

the impact of alternative A would be to

allow moderately faster boating than the

no-action alternative.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island:

3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation. The

impact of alternative A would be the same

as the no-action alternative, which would

be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

228

levels, and the more social experience

associated with relatively large numbers of

canoers.

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10

miles. The quiet waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing slow-speed zone designation; the

impact of alternative A would be the same

as the no-action alternative. Thus, recreational use would be similar to the preceding river segment, although less social

interaction would likely occur below the

landing at Osceola where many rental

canoe trips would continue to end.

McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar:

8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation; the

impact of alternative A would be the same

as the no-action alternative. Opportunities

would be maintained for a mixture of

nonmotorized and slow-moving motorized

craft.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of

Stillwater: 5 miles. The active social

recreation classification for this segment

would be similar to the current rule for this

segment, which involves no speed limit but

a restriction on summer weekend

waterskiing. Congestion which has become

a concern in this narrow area would likely

continue.

Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would allow extremely highspeed 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.

The concern about safety factors surrounding extremely high-speed boating (80 mph

and greater) that occasionally occurs in this

segment would continue.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would allow extremely highspeed boating to continue, although speed

limits might be set in certain areas. The

existing no-wake zones in the Catfish Bar

and Kinnickinnic State Park areas would

remain under alternative A. The concern

about safety factors surrounding extremely

high-speed boating (80 mph and greater)

that occasionally occurs in this segment

would continue.

Camping Experience. Camping would

continue to be allowed with little or no

restriction in the same way as the no-action

alternative.

Conclusion

Overall, alternative A would be similar to

the no-action alternative. Congestion problems would likely continue, primarily in

the narrow section of river between Arcola

sandbar and Stillwater, in the Hudson Narrows, and the Prescott Narrows. Extremely

high-speed boating would continue, and

associated safety and noise concerns would

therefore continue. Increased use could

alter the recreational experience, such as

creating more crowded conditions at peak

use times.
Impacts of Alternative A

229

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Water Quality

Analysis. Overall boating totals are

expected to increase under alternative A,

so water quality impacts from petroleum

products or day-use boaters who do not use

proper toilet facilities would increase

slightly as compared to the no-action

alternative. Unrestricted camping north of

Stillwater and at Hudson would have a

slight negative impact on water quality as

compared to the no-action alternative.

There would be a modest increase in total

residential development in areas not served

by public sewer, leading to slightly greater

risk of water quality impacts from failed

on-site waste treatment systems.

Under alternative A there could be some

bridge relocations. These projects could

have short-term, adverse effects on water

quality, such as increased sedimentation

due to the installation of new bridge piers,

although mitigation measures would likely

minimize the impacts. (More detailed

environmental documents would be prepared before these projects would be

approved.)

Conclusion. With increased use levels, the

potential for pollution due to user activities

would increase as compared to the noaction alternative. There could be localized

increases in impacts to water quality in

heavily used areas where users are picnicking, camping, and boating, particularly

near the islands. Some short-term impacts

also could occur if bridges were relocated.

From a riverwide perspective, it is expected that pollution caused by potential developments would be short term. Pollution

created by increased use would be transient

and should have minimal effects on nutrient loads and on pollutant levels. Compared to current conditions, alternative A

would be expected to result in a negligible

to minor, long-term negative impact on the

riverway’s overall water quality.

Soils

Analysis. As under the no-action alternative, additional development could occur,

including residential development in rural

areas. Consequently, some soils would still

be lost to development, although new soil

disturbance would likely be reduced in the

park and natural management areas (42%

of the lower riverway) where less development and more restrictive land use regulations would be employed.

With increasing boating use, shoreline

erosion caused by boat wakes would be

slightly increased as compared to the noaction alternative. The area between the

Arcola sandbar and Stillwater would

continue to be the focus of much concern

about wake-induced shoreline erosion.

Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the

formation of social trails from campers

would also slightly increase, as compared

to the no-action alternative, due to relatively unrestricted camping outside the two

prohibited camping areas. Bluff erosion

from foot trails would be about the same as

the no-action alternative.

Some bridge relocations could occur. Any

bridge relocations would disturb additional

soils along the riverbanks. However, with

mitigation measures, it is expected that
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

230

impacts from these developments would be

localized and minor to moderate in magnitude. (As indicated under the preferred

alternative, additional environmental

documentation, with mitigation measures,

would be required before these crossings

would be approved.)

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to

do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows, this alternative would reduce the

amount of dredged material that would

need to be removed and disposed. If the

dredged material could be reused for other

purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby

would not be altered by the disposal of the

material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance

Management Plan directs that dredged

material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be

placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State

park for beach nourishment.)

Conclusion. Under alternative A, shoreline

erosion would continue or accelerate as

river use increased. This would have

minor, additional negative, long-term

impacts on soils in localized areas on

riverbanks and the islands. There would

also be the potential for soil loss and

disturbance due to new developments on

private lands and from bridge relocations.

From an overall perspective, compared to

current conditions, alternative A probably

would have a long-term, minor, negative

impact on the soils in the lower riverway.

Vegetation

Analysis. Alternative A would share many

of the same beneficial and negative

impacts described under the preferred

alternative. The alternatives would have

the same beneficial effects in minimizing

the loss of vegetation due to new development in the park and natural zones (42% of

the riverway in alternative A); however,

more vegetation could be lost due to new

development in some other areas in

alternative A, particularly adjacent to the

municipalities. Both alternatives would

have a minor positive effect on plant

communities if the Wisconsin Department

of Natural Resources proposed amendment

to the state land use standards within the

riverway was adopted. If dredging occurred

between Stillwater and Prescott, alternative

A would reduce the amount of vegetation

that would be lost due to the deposition of

dredged material.

Under alternative A bridge and utility line

relocations would result in the loss or

alteration of vegetation in localized areas.

With mitigation measures, it is expected

that these impacts would be minor to

moderate in magnitude.

Alternative A would have the same type of

impacts as the preferred alternative due to

motorboat use and use of the shoreline and

islands, but the impacts would likely be

greater in alternative A due to increased

user numbers. With increased motorboat

use, boat wakes would continue or accelerate damage to plants along the shoreline

and islands, particularly in heavily used

stretches and/or stretches where boats are

going at higher speeds.

In addition, more users would adversely

affect vegetation in areas where they picnic

and camp on the shoreline and islands,

with vegetation being trampled, harvested,

and cut for firewood. Disturbance of soils

also would increase the likelihood of

exotic plants like spotted knapweed and

purple loosestrife becoming established.

With use expected to increase on the lower

riverway, and only limited restrictions on
Impacts of Alternative A

231

the use of most islands and shoreline,

vegetation in more areas would likely be

altered or lost.

Conclusion. Alternative A 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. With

increased use levels, this impact would be

expected to increase and more areas would

be affected, particularly in heavily used

areas on the islands and the shoreline,

resulting in increases in localized, longterm impacts. Some minor to moderate

vegetation loss also would occur if bridges

and utility lines were relocated and/or

submarine crossings were built. On the

other hand, the land use 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 also would 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 management

agencies. However, with increased use

levels and new developments vegetation

still would be lost or altered. Compared to

the current situation, alternative A would

be expected to result in an overall minor,

long-term, adverse impact on the

riverway’s vegetation.

Fish and Wildlife

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be

significantly different for alternative A

than the no-action alternative. Most of the

lower riverway management actions in this

alternative would continue to promote the

protection of fish and wildlife populations

and habitats. No actions would be taken

that would adversely affect areas known to

be of special importance for breeding,

nesting, foraging, or wintering.

However, rural home development creates

patches that disrupt the movement of some

wildlife, especially those most sensitive to

human activity. There would be slightly

more new rural home development under

Alternative A as compared to the no-action

alternative, but the differences in terms of

wildlife impacts are likely not measurable,

especially considering much of the rural

home development that could occur in the

riverway has already been built.

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife

populations and habitats have already been

affected in varying degrees by recreational

users and nearby developments. Some

individual animals might be disturbed or

temporarily displaced by the sounds of

more motorboats and groups floating down

the river, but this is not expected to

substantially affect the lower riverway’s

fish and wildlife populations. Fishing

would increase because of expanded use,

but with careful monitoring and enforcement of the states’ regulations, there

should be no adverse effects on the

fisheries.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife

populations would be expected to be

negligible to minor.

Threatened and Endangered Species
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

232

Analysis. Implementation of alternative A

would allow an increase in the number of

recreational boats using the river as

compared to the no-action alternative, so

the potential to impact threatened and

endangered species could increase slightly.

It is not anticipated that increased use

levels under alternative A would result in

adverse impacts on listed species or their

habitats with the continued use of appropriate mitigation. A slight increase in new

rural home development could also increase the potential for impacts on some

threatened and endangered species.

The potential adverse effects on the

federally listed Higgins’ eye and winged

mapleleaf mussels would be the same as

described under the preferred alternative.

Although these activities have occurred or

might be occurring on the lower St. Croix,

the effects on the Higgins’ eye and winged

mapleleaf mussel populations are unknown

— recreational uses are likely “taking”

individual mussels, which could be adversely affecting these species. Additional

use might or might not exacerbate this

possible impact.

The following goals, strategies, or actions

would support the protection and recovery

of these species: protection and improvement of water quality, development of a

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 mussels, and implementation of the zebra

mussel action plan (see “Management

Directions Common to All Alternatives”

section). The managing agencies would

also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s

recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf

mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These

components address a wide variety of

tasks, including actions to minimize human

disturbance and destruction to the federally

listed mussels, such as quantification of the

magnitude of potential treats (harvesting,

swimming, wading, digging, small

recreational watercraft, and commercial

paddlewheel watercraft) and identification

of specific geographic locations of greatest

concern; posting of educational signs;

conduction of educational programs; and

review of paddleboat operations to

minimize boat operation impacts.

Conclusion. The uses, use levels, and

developments under alternative A would

not likely adversely affect most federal and

state listed species in the lower riverway

(with adequate surveys, consultation with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

state biologists, and the application of

appropriate mitigation measures). Recreational activities already might be adversely

affecting the federally endangered Higgins’

eye and winged mapleleaf mussel populations on the lower St. Croix. Increased use

levels near Hudson and in the Interstate

Park area (where the mussels primarily

occur) would be expected in the future,

which might increase the potential for

impacts. Formal consultations need to be

initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to determine what actions need to

be taken to ensure the conservation of

these species.
Impacts of Alternative A

233

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Analysis

The impacts on cultural resources under

this alternative would be similar to those

under the preferred alternative. Limited

new development could be built within

existing towns and communities. As in the

preferred alternative, municipal governments would be encouraged to preserve the

historic character of their communities by

adopting and enforcing historic preservation ordinances and architectural standards

that would require new development to be

compatible with the design elements of the

historic community. Management would

work to maintain visual characteristics,

thus helping to ensure the preservation of

any significant historic structures identified

as eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places.

Limited new development would be

allowed outside the municipalities in

relatively undeveloped rural portions of the

riverway. Some of this new development

might be visible from the riverway, which

could pose potential impacts on cultural

landscapes. However, new development

would be consistent with the riverway’s

rural and natural character. The completion

of the cultural landscape inventory would

help ensure that new development in outlying areas was appropriate and consistent

with the riverway’s rural and natural

character, thereby minimizing impacts on

significant cultural or historic landscapes.

Archeological resources could be at a

slightly higher risk as a result of new

development in previously undeveloped

areas.

Conclusion

The impacts on cultural resources under

this alternative would be similar to those

under the preferred alternative. Limited

development would be allowed outside

municipalities in relatively undeveloped

rural portions of the riverway. Municipal

governments would be encouraged to

preserve the historic character of their

communities by adopting and enforcing

historic preservation and architectural

standards that would require new development to be compatible with the design

elements of the historic community.

Archeological resources may be at a

slightly higher risk because of new

development in previously undeveloped

areas.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Local Economy

Analysis. This alternative does not call for

large expenditures by the Park Service or

the states for the development of

infrastructure, so there would be little

direct economic impact. Existing positive

effects on local economy from expenditures from tourists and other recreationists

would continue. Increased riverway use

would result in more people accessing the

riverway and perhaps encourage additional

commercial activity along the riverway.

Alternative A would also allow some

growth in urban areas, with the conversion

of some existing rural landscapes. Consequently, limited additional impacts on the

long-term property tax base of the local
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

234

communities due to the increased potential

for new development would occur.

Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local

economy would be negligible to minor

compared to the no-action alternative.

Tourism

Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley

is partially linked to the area’s historic

character. In that context, alternative A’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

tourism would increase slightly.

Conclusion. There would be some minor

positive effects on tourism.

Land Values

Analysis. Land values would not be

impacted by the alternative A. Local

property values have probably been and

would likely continue to be beneficially

affected by the presence of the riverway as

described under the no-action alternative.

Conclusion. There would be no new

impacts on land values.

Landownership/Landowners

Analysis. Alternative A proposes a modest

increase in scenic easement acquisition by

the two states; National Park Service

acquisition is essentially complete and

would not change. As a result, this alternative would have negligible impact on

landownership.

In general, alternative A could affect some

landowners in a manner that would have a

minor to moderate impact when compared

to the no-action alternative. For instance,

preserving the scenic character of the riverway might mean that some landowners

within the riverway’s boundary might be

constrained when they wanted to make

certain improvements to their property.

However, expansion of urban areas would

allow some landowners more flexibility in

developing their property.

Conclusion. There would be negligible

impacts on landownership. Some

landowners would benefit from reduced

restrictions on property improvements in

and near towns, although there would be

constraints on new development to maintain historic character. Some landowners

would be negatively affected by restrictions on new development or improvements in some areas outside of towns.

There would also be minor to moderate

benefits to landowners from a reduction in

conflicts and shoreline erosion associated

with recreational use in some areas of the

riverway.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as

seen from the river would not be encompassed within the riverway boundaries,

therefore, visual encroachments outside the

boundary have the potential to impact the

scenic resources of the riverway. In the

federal zone, the high bluffs, rural character, predominance of protected areas

along this section of the river, the primarily
Impacts of Alternative A

235

unincorporated zoning, and the fact that the

viewshed outside the boundary would be

less than the state-administered zone would

mean that the concerns would not be as

great here as in the state- administered

zone. In this zone more of the viewshed

would be outside the riverway boundary,

the area would have a series of benches

visible from the river, there would be less

high bluff areas, more of the area would be

incorporated, and its proximity to the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely

mean greater growth. For those areas

within the viewshed, yet outside the

riverway boundary, local zoning standards

would be the primary methods of controlling scenic impacts to the riverway. Mitigating methodologies such as the encouragement of the preservation and maintenance of mature vegetation, planting of

additional vegetative buffering, the protection of cultural resources, and the prohibition of the construction of any more extremely visible towers within the viewshed

would be beneficial to the preservation of

the riverway’s scenic quality. Actions

taken outside the riverway boundary could

have negligible to major impacts on the

scenic resources of the riverway, depending on the magnitude of change. Therefore,

the cumulative effects of NPS/state actions

on the scenic quality of the viewshed

would be negligibly to moderately beneficial, depending on the magnitude of

changes to the scenic resources outside the

riverway boundary.

Impacts from increased recreational use

within the riverway and managing agency

actions would contribute incrementally to

impacts from land use changes and population growth in the watershed and larger

region. Overall, the land use management

allocation would contribute to a minor

positive cumulative impact within the

riverway and watershed.

None of the management actions are

expected to add substantively to the cumulative effects on cultural resources. Growth

and land use changes could affect cultural

resources adjacent to or within the viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative

effects of the management actions would

help mitigate the effects of population

growth and development.

Many communities and counties in

Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the

process of revising their comprehensive

plans and related ordinances. Some of

these revised plans and ordinances might

include land use and development provisions applicable to the river corridor that

would go beyond guidance provided in this

document. Therefore, in some areas, cumulative impacts of land management

measures might have negligible to moderate additional effects on certain property

owners as compared to current conditions.

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 would only have a minor effect

on the expected growth of the total

economy of the region. Therefore, there

would be no appreciable socioeconomic

cumulative impacts from implementation

of this alternative occurring in conjunction

with the region’s expected overall

population and economy of the region.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

236

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation,

restrictions on island, shoreline, and boating use, along with the proposed inventory,

monitoring, and research programs for the

riverway, would contribute to the longterm protection and preservation of resources and scenic character of the landscape. Maintenance of plant communities

would also enhance long-term productivity

of natural communities.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Some minor adverse impacts to natural

resources would occur. This alternative,

would place the fewest restrictions on

recreational use. In order to meet the scenic

and resource protection purposes of the

riverway development, restrictions on local

landowners would implemented. To meet

the recreational purposes of the riverway,

some conflicts between local landowners

and recreational users would continue and

likely increase.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF

RESOURCES

Some new residential and commercial

development would likely continue on

private lands within the riverway boundary. Potentially, new river crossings might

also occur. It is expected that this new

development would result in the long-term

localized loss of vegetation, soils, and

wildlife habitat.

Any action that led to the loss of individual, federally listed mussel species or their

habitat would contribute to the loss of the

species as an ecological and genetic

resource. It is possible that this alternative

would contribute to their decline. However, it is expected that the implementation

of actions outlined in the recovery plans

for these species would avoid this situation

and contribute to their conservation.
237

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE B

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES

Analysis

Scenic resources in the riverway are

protected primarily through land acquisition or through regulatory controls on

land development. No significant land

acquisition would occur in implementing

alternative B. The establishment of seven

land management categories compared to

two under the existing management

program would provide additional scenic

resource protection, as compared to the noaction alternative. However, under this

alternative, more restrictions would be

imposed to avoid additional rural development that would be visible from the river.

The riverway managing agencies would

also require local governments to protect

the historic character of municipalities,

which would reduce potential impacts to

scenic values in municipalities from new

development.

The following analysis evaluates scenic

impact associated with the application of

the land management areas on each river

segment.

The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock

Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within

the two state parks in this river segment

would continue to be protected by state

ownership (as they would be under the noaction alternative). No impact to scenic

resources would occur because any future

development would occur at existing

development nodes, and scenic and

relatively undisturbed natural areas would

be maintained. Private lands in Minnesota

in the southern portion of this segment

would be classified as natural and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but there would be fewer

new structures and those structures would

not be visible from the river. Consequently,

they would have no impact on scenic

resources.

Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod

Slough): 10 miles. Osceola itself is

classified as small town that would afford

an increased level of scenic protection

compared to the existing urban standard to

minimize new development visible from

the river. Most of this segment would be

classified as natural, however, and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but there would be fewer

new structures and those structures would

not be visible from the river. Consequently,

they would have no impact on scenic

resources.

Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola

Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles.

Marine on St. Croix itself is classified as

small town historic, which would afford an

increased level of scenic protection compared to the existing urban standard.

Additional restrictions would be placed on

development to minimize new development visible from the river and also to

protect historic character. William O’Brien

State Park would receive the same high

level of scenic resource protection as
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

238

compared to the no-action alternative.

Most of the remainder of this segment in

Minnesota would be classified as rural

residential and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural

classification under the no-action

alternative. The Wisconsin side of the river

would be classified as natural and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but there would be fewer

new structures and those structures would

not be visible from the river. Consequently,

they would have no impact on scenic

resources.

Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to

Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix

Islands Wildlife Area is owned by

Wisconsin DNR and would receive the

same high level of scenic resource protection as compared to the no-action alternative, which would maintain the undisturbed

natural appearance. The remainder of this

segment would be classified as natural and

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but there

would be fewer new structures and those

structures would not be visible from the

river. Consequently, they would have no

impact on scenic resources.

Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head

of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minnesota side of the river in this segment would

be classified as rural residential and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. The Wisconsin side of

the river would mostly be classified as

natural and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.

Additional development could still occur,

but there would be fewer new structures

and those structures would not be visible

from the river. Consequently, they would

have no impact on scenic resources. A

small portion of the southern part of this

segment in Wisconsin would be classified

as rural residential and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative.

Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St.

Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy

Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of

this segment in Minnesota is not intensively developed; it would be classified as

small town with the result that its level of

scenic protection would be increased

compared to the current urban classification. The southern portion of this segment

includes the heavily developed downtown

Stillwater area; it would be classified as

river town, and additional restrictions

would be placed on development to

minimize new development visible from

the river and also to protect historic

character. This would provide slightly

more scenic protection than the current

urban classification, which would reduce

potential scenic impacts.

The Wisconsin side would be classified as

rural residential and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative.

South Stillwater-Bayport Area

(Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks

to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this

segment in Minnesota would be classified

as river town, and additional restrictions
Impacts of Alternative B

239

would be placed on development to

minimize new development visible from

the river and also to protect historic

character. This would provide slightly

more scenic protection than the current

urban classification, which would reduce

potential scenic impacts. The Andersen

Point area would be classified as small

town, with its level of scenic protection

increased compared to the current urban

classification. The Wisconsin side would

be classified as rural residential and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative.

Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen

Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. In

Minnesota, the area between Andersen

Point and the south limits of Bayport

would be classified as small town, with the

result that its level of scenic protection

would be increased compared to the

current urban classification. The southern

portion of this segment in Minnesota

would be classified as rural residential and

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Most of the

Wisconsin side would be classified as rural

residential and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.

The southern portion of this segment in

Wisconsin lies in North Hudson and would

be classified as small town, with the result

that its level of scenic protection would be

increased compared to the current urban

classification.

Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to

Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota

side in this segment would be primarily

classified as small town, with its level of

scenic protection increased compared to

the current urban classification. The

Wisconsin side would be classified as river

town, and additional restrictions would be

placed on development to minimize new

development visible from the river and

also to protect historic character. This

would provide slightly more scenic protection than the current urban classification,

which would reduce potential scenic

impacts.

Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish

Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this

segment would be classified as small town,

with the result that its level of scenic

protection would be increased compared to

the current urban classification. The southern portion of Hudson would also be classified as small town. The remainder of this

segment in Wisconsin would be classified

as rural residential and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative.

Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to

Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In

Minnesota, the old Afton village area

would be classified as small town historic,

with its level of scenic protection increased

compared to the current urban classification, with additional restrictions on development to minimize new development

visible from the river and also to protect

historic character. The southern portion of

Afton and the area south of Afton State

Park, as well as all of the Wisconsin side,

would be classified as rural residential and

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Afton State Park

would receive the same high level of
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

240

scenic resource protection as compared to

the no-action alternative.

Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The

Minnesota side of the river in this segment

would be classified as rural residential and

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Kinnickinnic

State Park in Wisconsin would receive the

same high level of scenic resource

protection as compared to the no-action

alternative.

Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic

Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at

Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota

side of the river in this segment would be

classified as rural residential and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park would receive the same high level

of scenic resource protection as compared

to the no-action alternative. Carpenter

Nature Center would be classified as natural and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification

under the no-action alternative. In Wisconsin, the area north of Prescott would be

classified as rural residential and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Prescott would be

classified as river town, which would

provide slightly more scenic protection

than the current urban classification.

By encouraging the maintenance of

significant plant communities on both

public and private lands through voluntary

actions, education, and awareness-building,

these resources would remain part of the

visual landscape of the riverway. These

voluntary provisions could have a longterm beneficial impact on the visual

resources of the riverway by preserving

existing parcels of indigenous vegetation.

However, these impacts would be minor to

negligible because these actions would be

voluntary, and most individuals would

consider these areas as natural landscapes

whether or not the vegetative mosaics

included a diversity of significant plant

communities.

An amendment to the Wisconsin-managed

forest law (Chapter NR 118) would be

pursued, which would result in a long-term

minor beneficial impact for the scenic

resources of the riverway by providing

landowners with more flexibility to

preserve these resources.

Continued adherence to NPS policies that

perpetuate native plant communities would

result in a long-term, minor, beneficial

impact to the scenic resources. Because

minimal changes would be permitted in the

number, type, scale, or characteristics of

the river crossings (including the restriction of road, railroad, and overhead lines to

existing corridors), there could be little

noticeable change in the overhead visual

intrusions on the riverway. Even though no

increases would be allowed in the size or

number of lines in existing submarine

crossings, overhead utility lines could be

relocated to existing submarine crossings.

This latter action could reduce the amount

of overhead visual intrusions on the

riverway landscape. Otherwise, there

would be negligible change to the visual

resources of the riverway related to river

crossings. Compared to the no-action

alternative, the alternative B would avoid

potentially major long-term impacts to

scenic quality from construction of largescale bridge crossings or relocation of
Impacts of Alternative B

241

transmission lines to highly scenic or

largely undisturbed corridors.

Conclusion

Overall, alternative B would have a

moderate, positive impact on scenic

resources compared to the no-action

alternative. Also, potentially major, longterm impacts from changes to river

crossings would be avoided.

IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE

Analysis

The primary goal of alternative B with

respect to boating recreation would be to

allow modest growth in total boating and

to minimize user conflicts through increased regulation. The existing diversity

of boating opportunities would remain,

with the exception of extremely high-speed

boating activities. Boaters interested in that

activity would be displaced to another

resource. These impacts are evaluated for

each river segment.

Backwaters from the Dalles of the St.

Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16

miles. The natural waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing no-wake designation; the impact

of alternative B would be the same as the

no-action alternative, which would be to

maintain the quiet and little-used character

of the recreational experience.

Backwaters from William O’Brien State

Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The

natural classification for this segment

would be identical to the existing no-wake

designation; the impact of alternative B

would be the same as the no-action

alternative.

Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to

north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The

natural waters classification for this segment would be identical to the existing nowake designation; the impact of alternative

B would be the same as the no-action alternative, which would be to maintain the

quiet and little-used character of the

recreational experience.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island:

3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation. The

impact of Alternative B would be the same

as the no-action alternative, which would

be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise

levels, and the more social experience

associated with relatively large numbers of

canoers.

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10

miles. The quiet waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing slow-speed zone designation; the

impact of alternative B would be the same

as the no-action alternative. Thus,

recreational use would be similar to the

preceding river segment, although less

social interaction would likely occur below

the landing at Osceola where many rental

canoe trips would continue to end.

McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar:

8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow-speed zone designation; the

impact of alternative B would be the same

as the no-action alternative. Opportunities

would be maintained for a mixture of
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

242

nonmotorized and slow-moving motorized

craft.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of

Stillwater: 5 miles. The moderate recreation classification for this segment would

involve a speed limit and a possible restriction on waterskiing. This is slightly different that the current rule, which involves no

speed limit but a firm restriction on summer weekend waterskiing. Congestion in

this narrow area has become a concern and

the imposition of a speed limit would be

considered a positive impact on congestion

and shoreline erosion concerns.

Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would allow extremely highspeed 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 B. The

concern about safety factors surrounding

extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and

greater) that occasionally occurs in this

segment would continue.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The

moderate recreation classification for this

segment would involve a speed limit and a

possible restriction on waterskiing; under

the no-action alternative there would be no

speed limit. The existing no-wake zones in

the Catfish Bar and Kinnickinnic State

Park areas would remain under alternative

B. There has been growing concern about

safety factors surrounding extremely highspeed boating (80 mph and greater) that

occasionally occurs in this segment; which

would be eliminated under alternative B,

forcing boaters who want to travel at those

speeds to use a different resource. The

imposition of a speed limit in this area

would be considered a minor positive

impact on the environment.

Camping Experience. A camping management plan would be developed for boatrelated camping north of Stillwater that

would impose gradually increased restrictions on camping. This would result in

fewer boat-in campsites than currently

exist, enhancing privacy and reducing

shoreline erosion problems, but reducing

the opportunity for more social camping

situations and reducing the overall number

of camping occasions, displacing some

campers to another resource. At Hudson,

campers without on-board toilets would be

displaced. The outcome would be reduced

shoreline erosion between the Arcola

sandbar and Stillwater and reduced water

quality problems there and at Hudson, but

an increase in displaced recreational users.

Conclusion

Overall, alternative B would provide minor, possibly negligible, positive impacts

on recreational use. Some people might be

negatively impacted by the additional

regulation. Also, a few riverway users,

those seeking to travel at high speeds and

some island campers, would be displaced

from part of the riverway.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Water Quality

Analysis. Overall boating totals are expected to increase slightly under alternative

B, therefore, water quality impacts from

petroleum products or day-use boaters who

do not use proper toilet facilities would be
Impacts of Alternative B

243

slightly higher than the no-action alternative. Additional restrictions on camping

north of Stillwater and at Hudson would

have a slight positive impact on water

quality as compared to the no-action alternative. There would be a slight decrease in

total residential development in areas not

served by public sewer, leading to slightly

less risk of water quality impacts from

failed on-site waste treatment systems (as

compared to the no-action alternative).

Under alternative B there could be some

bridge and utility line replacements, which

could have short term adverse effects on

water quality, such as increased sedimentation due to the installation of new bridge

piers. Mitigation measures would likely

minimize these impacts. (More detailed

environmental documents would be prepared before a bridge replacement would

be approved.)

Conclusion. With slightly increased use

levels, the potential for pollution due to

user activities would be slightly higher.

Additional restrictions on camping north of

Stillwater and at Hudson would have a

slight positive impact on water quality.

Some short-term impacts also could occur

if bridges or transmission lines are replaced. From a riverwide perspective, it is

expected that pollution due to construction

of potential developments would be short

term, while pollution due to increased

users would be transient and should have

minor to negligible effects on pollutant

levels.

Soils

Analysis. As under the no-action alternative, additional development could occur,

including residential development in rural

areas. Consequently, some soils would still

be lost to development, although new soil

disturbance would likely be reduced in the

park and natural management areas (43%

of the lower riverway) where less development and more restrictive land use regulations would be employed.

Slower boat speed limits in some areas

would, to some extent, reduce the amount

of shoreline erosion that occurs as a result

of boat wakes. The area between the

Arcola sandbar and Stillwater is the focus

of much concern about wake-induced

shoreline erosion, and a moderate speed

limit there would likely do little to alter

current impacts. With increasing boating

use, shoreline erosion caused by boat

wakes would be slightly increased as

compared to the no-action alternative.

Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the

formation of social trails from campers

would be slightly reduced, as compared to

the no-action alternative, by limitations and

overall reductions in camping north of

Stillwater. Localized bluff erosion from

foot trails would be about the same as the

no-action alternative.

There could be some bridge and utility line

replacements under alternative B, although

only a few areas would likely be affected

during the life of this plan. Since these

replacements would only be permitted in

existing corridors, additional soil disturbance would be limited to areas that likely

have already been altered. (Additional

environmental documentation, with

mitigation measures, would be required

before these crossings would be approved.)

Potential soil disturbance that could occur
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

244

from new submarine crossings would be

prevented.

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to

do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows, this alternative would reduce the

amount of dredged material that would

need to be removed and disposed. If the

dredged material could be reused for other

purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby

would not be altered by the disposal of the

material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance

Management Plan directs that dredged

material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be

placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State

park for beach nourishment.)

Conclusion. Under alternative B, shoreline

erosion would continue or slightly accelerate as river use increased. This would have

minor negative, long-term impacts on soils

in localized areas on riverbanks and the

islands. However, the actions proposed for

managing the islands and public shoreline

north of Stillwater would be expected to

have a positive effect, reducing erosion and

soil compaction. There would also be the

potential for soil loss and disturbance due

to new developments on private lands and

from bridge relocations. However, the land

use management areas would prevent potential soil disturbance and loss on a large

portion of the lower riverway. From an

overall perspective, compared to current

conditions alternative B probably would

have a long-term, negligible to minor,

positive impact.

Vegetation

Analysis. Alternative B would share many

of the same beneficial and negative impacts described under the preferred alternative. The alternative would have a beneficial effect in minimizing the loss of

vegetation due to new development in the

park and natural zones (43% of the

riverway in alternative B). Alternative B

also would have a minor positive effect on

plant communities if the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources proposed

amendment to the state land use standards

within the riverway is adopted.

Both alternative B and the preferred

alternative would have the same effects on

vegetation due to bridge/utility line

replacements and dredging. Very little

additional vegetation would be lost or

disturbed due to bridge and utility line

replacements, and this disturbance

probably would be limited to areas that

already have been altered. If dredging

occurred between Stillwater and Prescott,

alternative B would reduce the amount of

vegetation that would be lost due to the

deposition of dredged material. However,

unlike the previous action alternatives,

alternative B would not allow additional

submarine crossings. This would prevent

potential impacts on vegetation due to the

construction of new pipelines near the

riverbanks.

Alternative B would have the same type of

impacts as the preferred alternative due to

motorboat use. Boat wakes are believed to

be affecting vegetation along the shoreline

and islands, and this impact would continue, particularly in heavily used stretches

and/or stretches that high-speed boats use.

Imposition of moderate speed limits from

Arcola sandbar to Stillwater and below

Catfish Bar would a have negligible

positive impact on shoreline erosion.

Users would continue to trample vegetation in localized areas when they picnic on

the shoreline and islands and camp on the
Impacts of Alternative B

245

islands south of Stillwater (i.e., the Hudson

islands). Some users probably would continue 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,

long-term, positive impact on the riverway’s vegetation.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

246

Fish and Wildlife

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be

significantly different for alternative B than

the no-action alternative. Most of the lower

riverway management actions in this

alternative would continue to promote the

protection of fish and wildlife populations

and habitats. No actions would be taken

that would adversely affect areas known to

be of special importance for breeding,

nesting, foraging, or wintering.

Rural home development creates patches

that disrupt the movement of some wildlife, especially those most sensitive to

human activity. There would be slightly

less new rural home development under

alternative B as compared to the no-action

alternative, but the differences in terms of

wildlife impacts are likely not measurable,

especially considering much of the rural

home development that could occur in the

riverway has already been built.

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife

populations and habitats have already been

affected in varying degrees by recreational

users and nearby developments. Some

individual animals might be disturbed or

temporarily displaced by the sounds of

more motorboats and groups floating down

the river, but this is not expected to

substantially affect the lower riverway’s

fish and wildlife populations.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife

populations would be expected to be

negligible to minor.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. Implementation of alternative B

would not significantly change the number

of recreational boats using the river as

compared to the no-action alternative. The

potential for recreational impacts is not

expected to change with the continued use

of appropriate mitigation (e.g., keeping

people away from bald eagle nests). This

alternative would maintain the diversity of

native plant communities on federal and

state lands, and encourage private landowners to do likewise, which should help

protect species like the Karner blue butterfly. A slight reduction in new rural home

development could decrease the potential

for impacts to some threatened and

endangered species. Therefore, this alternative would not likely adversely affect

threatened and endangered species (with

the possible exception of certain mussel

species).

Like all of the action alternatives, there is

the potential in alternative B that the

federally listed Higgins’ eye and winged

mapleleaf mussels could be adversely

affected. However, it is not known what

effect these activities are having on the

Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel

populations — recreational uses are likely

“taking” individual mussels, which may be

adversely affecting these species.

The following goals, strategies, or actions

would support the protection and recovery

of these species: protection and improvement of water quality, development of a

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-
Impacts of Alternative B

247

sels, and implementation of the zebra

mussel response plan (see “Management

Directions Common to All Alternatives”

section). The managing agencies would

also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s

recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf

mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These

components address a wide variety of

tasks, including actions to minimize human

disturbance and destruction to the federally

listed mussels, such as quantification of the

magnitude of potential threats like

harvesting, swimming, wading, digging,

and small recreational watercraft and

identification of specific geographic

locations of greatest concern; posting of

educational signs; presenting educational

programs; and review of paddleboat

operations to minimize boat operation

impacts.

Conclusion. The expected uses, user

numbers, and developments under alternative B are not likely to adversely affect

most federal and state listed species in the

lower riverway (with adequate surveys,

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state biologists, and the

application of appropriate mitigation

measures). Recreational activities already

might be adversely affecting the federally

endangered Higgins’ eye and winged

mapleleaf mussel on the lower St. Croix.

Formal consultations would need to be

initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to determine what actions need to

be taken to ensure the conservation of

these species.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Analysis

This alternative would focus on maintaining the current (1997) visual qualities

of the riverway . There would be less

potential for new development under this

alternative than under alternative A.

Maintaining the landscape’s visual

qualities would pose no adverse impacts

for the cultural resources in the riverway.

Alternative B would require local governments in the river town and small town

historic districts to develop ordinances

protecting historic structures and requiring

new development to be consistent with the

historic character of those communities.

As a result, alternative B would result in

minor improvements in protection of

cultural resources.

Archeological resources would be at a

lower risk due to increased restrictions in

areas within the riverway. Any increased

use of public shoreline should pose no

impacts on these resources, since these

areas were previously disturbed. Minor

restrictions placed on camping would be

used to protect sensitive archeological

sites.

The number, significance, and condition of

the riverway’s cultural landscapes currently

is unknown. However, this alternative

would pose no adverse impacts on any

significant cultural or historic landscapes

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
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

248

landscape inventory would enhance future

planning efforts to protect these resources.

Conclusion

Cultural resources would be at minimal

risk under this alternative because of the

emphasis on maintaining the riverway’s

visual qualities. Additionally, this alternative would result in minor improvements in

protection of cultural resources in the river

town and small town historic districts.

Archeological resources would face minimal risks cue to restrictions on development within those portions of the riverway

that would be visible from the riverway.

Restriction on development would help

safeguard any significant cultural landscapes that might be identified in the

cultural landscape inventory.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Local Economy

Analysis. There would be little direct economic impact because no additional large

expenditures by the states or by the Park

Service are proposed. Application of the

land management areas would not result in

greatly different restrictions on new development for most areas within the riverway.

Placement of the new land management

categories would be similar to the existing

incorporated and unincorporated classifications. Exceptions to this would be areas

designated as natural where increased restrictions would likely occur (although

development could still occur) and in

towns where some restrictions would be

reduced (but with historic structure protection). Consequently, limited additional

negligible to minor impacts on the longterm property tax base of the local communities due to restrictions on new development would occur. Existing positive

effects on the local economy from expenditures from tourists and other recreationists

would continue, but would not be

appreciably changed.

Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local

economy would be negligible to minor

compared to the no-action alternative.

Tourism

Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley

is partially linked to the area’s historic

character. In that context, alternative B’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

tourism would increase slightly.

Conclusion. There would be some negligible to minor positive effects on tourism.

Land Values

Analysis. Land values would not be

impacted by the preferred alternative.

Local property values have probably been

and would likely continue to be beneficially affected by the presence of the

riverway as under the no-action alternative.

Conclusion. There would be no new

impacts on land values.

Landownership/Landowners

Analysis. Alternative B proposes a modest

increase in scenic easement acquisition by
Impacts of Alternative B

249

the two states; National Park Service

acquisition is essentially complete and

would not change. As a result alternative B

would have negligible impact on landownership.

In general under alternative B, land use

regulations would be slightly more restrictive than under the no-action alternative,

considering much of the rural home development that could occur has already been

built. Thus, alternative B could affect some

landowners in a manner that would have a

minor to moderate impact on flexibility in

developing their property when compared

to the no-action alternative.

There would be a minor to moderate

beneficial impact for local landowners in

some areas of the riverway due to a

reduction in conflicts with recreational

users, particularly in popular camping

areas north of Stillwater. Local landowners

would also likely benefit from a reduction

in the periodic loud noise generated by

higher boat speeds and some minimal

reduced shoreline effects from wave

action.

Conclusion. There would be negligible

impacts on landownership. Some landowners would benefit from reduced restrictions

on property improvements, although there

would be constraints on new development

to maintain historic character. Some landowners would be negatively affected by

restrictions on new development or improvements in areas outside of towns.

There would also be minor to moderate

benefits to landowners from a reduction in

conflicts and shoreline erosion associated

with recreational use in some areas of the

riverway.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as

seen from the river would not be encompassed within the riverway boundaries,

therefore, visual encroachments outside the

boundary have the potential to impact the

scenic resources of the riverway. In the

federal zone, the high bluffs, rural character, predominance of protected areas along

this section of the river, the primarily unincorporated zoning, and the fact that the

viewshed outside the boundary would be

less than the state-administered zone would

mean that the concerns would not be as

great here as in the state- administered

zone. In this zone more of the viewshed

would be outside the riverway boundary,

the area would have a series of benches

visible from the river, there would be less

high bluff areas, more of the area would be

incorporated, and its proximity to the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area would mean

greater growth.

For those areas within the viewshed, yet

outside the riverway boundary, local

zoning standards would be the primary

methods of controlling scenic impacts to

the riverway. Mitigating methodologies

such as the encouragement of the preservation and maintenance of mature vegetation, planting of additional vegetative

buffering, the protection of cultural resources, and the prohibition of the

construction of any more extremely visible

towers within the viewshed would be

beneficial to the preservation of the riverway’s scenic quality. Actions taken outside

the riverway boundary could have negligible to major impacts on the scenic

resources of the riverway, depending on

the magnitude of change. Therefore, the

cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

250

the scenic quality of the viewshed would

be negligibly to moderately beneficial,

depending on the magnitude of changes to

the scenic resources outside the riverway

boundary.

As under the previous alternatives, impacts

from recreational use within the riverway

and managing agency actions would contribute incrementally to impacts from land

use changes and population growth in the

watershed and larger region. Overall, the

land use management allocation would

contribute to a minor positive cumulative

impact within the riverway and watershed.

None of the management actions are expected to add substantively to the cumulative effects on cultural resources. Growth

and land use changes could affect cultural

resources adjacent to or within the viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative

effects of the management actions would

help mitigate the effects of population

growth and development.

Many communities and counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the process of

revising their comprehensive plans and

related ordinances. Some of these revised

plans and ordinances may include land use

and development provisions applicable to

the river corridor that would go beyond

guidance provided in this document.

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

would only have a minor effect on the

expected growth of the total economy of

the region. Therefore, there would be no

appreciable socioeconomic cumulative

impacts from implementation of this

alternative occurring in conjunction with

the region’s expected overall population

and economy of the region.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation,

restrictions on island, shoreline, and boating use, along with the proposed inventory,

monitoring, and research programs for the

riverway, would contribute to the longterm protection and preservation of resources and scenic character of the landscape. The maintenance of plant communities would also enhance long-term productivity of natural communities.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Some minor to locally moderate adverse

impacts to natural resources would occur.

In the process of resolving conflicts among

different uses or reducing resource impacts, restrictions would be placed on

particular uses, having an adverse effect on

some users. In order to meet the scenic and

resource protection purposes of the riverway development restrictions on local

landowner would implemented. To meet

the recreational purposes of the riverway,

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

occur on private lands within the riverway
Impacts of Alternative B

251

boundary. Potentially, new river crossings

may also occur. It is expected that this new

development would result in the long-term

localized loss of vegetation, soils, and

wildlife habitat.

Any action that led to the loss of individual

federally listed mussel species or their

habitat would contribute to the loss of the

species as an ecological and genetic resource. It is possible that this alternative

would contribute to their decline. However, it is expected that the implementation

of actions outlined in the recovery plans

for these species would avoid this situation

and contribute to their conservation.

.
252

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE C

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES

Scenic resources would be affected under

alternative C in exactly the same fashion as

alternative B. Overall, alternative C would

have a moderate positive impact on scenic

resources compared to the no-action

alternative. Also, potentially major longterm impacts from changes to river crossings would be avoided.

IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE

Analysis

The primary goal of alternative C with

respect to boating recreation is to freeze

the amount of total boating in the riverway

at current levels and to minimize user

conflicts through boating regulations.

Impacts are evaluated for each river

segment.

Backwaters from the Dalles of the St.

Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16

miles. The natural waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing no-wake designation. The impact

of alternative C would be the same as the

no-action alternative, which would be to

maintain the quiet and little-used character

of the recreational experience.

Backwaters from William O’Brien State

Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The

natural waters classification for this segment would be identical to the existing nowake designation; the impact of alternative

C would be the same as the no-action

alternative.

Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to

north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The

natural waters classification for this segment would be identical to the existing nowake designation; the impact of alternative

C would be the same as the no-action

alternative.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island:

3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation. The

impact of alternative C would be the same

as the no-action alternative, which would

be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise

levels, and the more social experience

associated with relatively large numbers of

canoers.

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10

miles. The quiet waters classification for

this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation. The

impact of Alternative C would be the same

as the no-action alternative.

McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar:

8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation; the

impact of alternative C would be the same

as the no-action alternative.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of

Stillwater: 5 miles. The moderate recreation classification for this segment would

involve a speed limit and a possible

restriction on waterskiing. This is slightly

different that the current rule, which involves no speed limit but a firm restriction

on summer weekend waterskiing. Congestion in this narrow area has become a

concern and the imposition of a speed limit
Impacts of Alternative C

253

would be considered a positive impact on

congestion and shoreline erosion concerns.

Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would allow extremely highspeed 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 C. The

concern about safety factors surrounding

extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and

greater) that occasionally occurs in this

segment would continue.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The

active social recreation classification for

this segment would allow extremely highspeed boating to continue, although speed

limits might be set in certain areas. The

existing no-wake zones in the Catfish Bar

and Kinnickinnic State Park areas would

remain under alternative C. The concern

about safety factors surrounding extremely

high-speed boating (80 mph and greater)

that occasionally occurs in this segment

would continue.

Camping Experience. A camping

management plan would be developed for

boat-related camping north of Stillwater

that would impose gradually increased

restrictions on camping. This would result

in fewer boat-in campsites than currently

exist, enhancing privacy and reducing

shoreline erosion problems. However, the

opportunity for more social camping and

overall number of camping occasions

would be reduced, displacing some

campers to another resource. At Hudson,

campers without on-board toilets would be

displaced. The outcome would be reduced

shoreline erosion between the Arcola

Sandbar and Stillwater and reduced water

quality problems there and at Hudson, but

an increase in displaced recreational users.

Conclusion

Overall, alternative C would have minor

positive impacts on recreational use. The

existing diversity of boating opportunities

would remain, however, safety concerns

would continue where extremely highspeed boating activities occurred occasionally south of Stillwater.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Water Quality

Analysis. Slower boat speed limits would,

to some extent, reduce the amount of

shoreline erosion that occurs as a result of

boat wakes. The area between the Arcola

sandbar and Stillwater is the focus of much

concern about wake-induced shoreline

erosion, and the proposed moderate speed

limit there would likely do little to alter

current impacts.

Overall boating totals are expected to

remain unchanged under alternative C, so

water quality impacts from petroleum

products or day-use boaters who do not use

proper toilet facilities would be less than

the no-action alternative. Additional

restrictions on camping north of Stillwater

and at Hudson would have a slight positive

impact on water quality as compared to the

no-action alternative. There would be a

slight decrease in total residential development in areas not served by public sewer,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

254

leading to slightly less risk of water quality

impacts from failed on-site waste treatment

systems (as compared to the no-action

alternative).

River crossings would be affected the same

way under alternative C as described under

alternative B. There could be some bridge

and utility line replacements, which could

have short term adverse effects on water

quality, although mitigation measures

should minimize these impacts. (More

detailed environmental documents would

be prepared before a bridge or a utility line

replacement would be approved.)

Conclusion. With use levels being frozen,

the potential for pollution due to user

activities would remain the same as now.

Additional restrictions on camping north of

Stillwater and at Hudson would have a

slight positive impact on water quality.

Some short-term impacts could be caused

by bridges or utility line replacements.

From a riverwide perspective, it is expected that pollution due to construction of

potential developments would be short

term, while pollution due to users would be

diluted and dispersed. Compared to current

conditions, alternative C would likely have

a minor, positive, long-term impact on the

riverway’s overall water quality.

Soils

Analysis. As under the no-action alternative, additional development could occur,

including residential development in rural

areas. Consequently, some soils would still

be lost to development, although new soil

disturbance would likely be reduced in the

park and natural management areas (43%

of the lower riverway) where less development and more restrictive land use regulations would be employed.

Shoreline erosion caused by boat wakes

would be similar to the no-action alternative. The imposition of speed limits from

the Arcola sandbar south would have a

negligible impact on shoreline erosion

caused by boat wakes.

Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the

formation of social trails from campers

would be slightly reduced, as compared to

the no-action alternative, by limitations and

overall reductions in camping north of

Stillwater. Localized bluff erosion from

foot trails would be about the same as the

no-action alternative.

Only a few areas would be affected by

bridge and utility line replacements during

the life of this plan. It is expected that

mitigation measures would keep impacts

localized and minor to moderate in

magnitude. (Additional environmental

documentation, with mitigation measures,

would be required before these crossings

would be approved.) Because bridge and

utility line replacements would only be

permitted in existing corridors, additional

soil disturbance would be limited to areas

that likely have already been altered.

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to

do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows, this alternative would reduce the

amount of dredged material that would

need to be removed and disposed. If the

dredged material could be reused for other

purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby

would not be altered by the disposal of the

material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance

Management Plan directs that dredged

material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be
Impacts of Alternative C

255

placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State

park for beach nourishment.)

Conclusion. With a freeze on use levels,

alternative C would have a lower potential

for impacts on soils than the previous

alternatives. Shoreline and bluff erosion

would continue from recreational use, but

would be less in areas used by campers.

This would have negligible to minor longterm positive impacts on soils in localized

areas, particularly on riverbanks and the

islands. Additional soil loss and disturbance would be expected from new development on some private lands. However, the

land use management area allocation

would be beneficial, minimizing potential

soil disturbance and loss on a large portion

of the riverway. From an overall riverway

perspective, compared to current conditions, alternative C would likely have a

negligible to minor positive impact.

Vegetation

Analysis. Alternative C would have the

same beneficial and negative impacts

described under alternative B. The alternative would have a beneficial effect in minimizing the loss of vegetation due to new

development in the park and natural zones

(43% of the riverway in alternative B).

Alternative C also would have a minor

positive effect on plant communities if the

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources proposed amendment to the state

land use standards within the riverway is

adopted.

Both alternative C and the preferred

alternative would have the same effects on

vegetation due to bridge/utility line

replacements and dredging. Little additional vegetation would be lost or disturbed

due to bridge and utility line replacements,

and this disturbance probably would be

limited to areas that already have been

altered. If dredging occurred between

Stillwater and Prescott, alternative C

would reduce the amount of vegetation that

would be lost due to the deposition of

dredged material. However, unlike the

previous action alternatives, alternative C

would not allow additional submarine

crossings. This would prevent potential

impacts on vegetation due to the

construction of new pipelines near the

riverbanks.

Alternative C would have the same type of

impacts as the preferred alternative due to

motorboat use. Boat wakes are believed to

be affecting vegetation along the shoreline

and islands, and this impact would continue, particularly in heavily used stretches

and/or stretches that high-speed boats use.

Imposition of moderate speed limits from

Arcola sandbar south would a have negligible positive impact on shoreline erosion.

Users would continue to trample vegetation in localized areas when they picnic on

the shoreline and islands and camp on the

islands south of Stillwater (i.e., the Hudson

islands). Some users probably would continue 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 C 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
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

256

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 C 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 management agencies. Compared to the

current situation, alternative C would be

expected to have a negligible to minor,

long-term, positive impact on the riverway’s vegetation.

Fish and Wildlife

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be

significantly different for Alternative C

than the no-action alternative. Most of the

lower riverway management actions in this

alternative would continue to promote the

protection of fish and wildlife populations

and habitats. No actions would be taken

that would adversely affect areas known to

be of special importance for breeding,

nesting, foraging, or wintering.

Rural home development creates patches

that disrupt the movement of some wildlife, especially those most sensitive to

human activity. There would be slightly

less new rural home development under

Alternative C as compared to the no-action

alternative, but the differences in wildlife

impacts would not likely be measurable,

especially considering much of the rural

home development that could occur in the

riverway has already been built.

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife

populations and habitats have already been

affected in varying degrees by recreational

users and nearby developments. Some

individual animals might be disturbed or

temporarily displaced by the sounds of

more motorboats and groups floating down

the river, but this is not expected to substantially affect the lower riverway’s fish

and wildlife populations.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife

populations would be expected to be

negligible to minor.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. The potential for recreational

impacts is not expected to change with the

freeze in use levels and continued use of

mitigation as necessary. This alternative

would maintain the diversity of plant

communities on federal and state lands,

and encourage private landowners to do

likewise, which could benefit species like

the Karner blue butterfly. A slight reduction in new rural home development could

decrease the potential for impacts to some

threatened and endangered species.
Impacts of Alternative C

257

Overall, this alternative would not likely

adversely affect threatened and endangered

species (with the possible exception of

certain mussel species).

There is the potential in alternative C that

the federally listed Higgins’ eye and

winged mapleleaf mussels could be

adversely affected as described in the

previous alternatives. However, it is not

known how the Higgins’ eye and winged

mapleleaf mussel populations would be

affected — recreational uses would likely

“take” individual mussels, which may be

adversely affecting these species. It is not

known if freezing use at current levels

would affect this.

The same goals, strategies, or actions to

support protection and recovery of these

species described in alternative B would be

applied under alternative C (see “Management Directions Common to All Alternatives” section). The managing agencies

would also implement their respective

components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s

recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf

mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These

components address a wide variety of

tasks, including actions to minimize human

disturbance and destruction to the federally

listed mussels, such as quantification of the

magnitude of potential treats (harvesting,

swimming, wading, digging, small recreational watercraft, and commercial paddlewheel watercraft) and identification of

specific geographic locations of greatest

concern; posting of educational signs;

conduction of educational programs; and

review of paddleboat operations to

minimize boat operation impacts.

Conclusion. The expected uses, user

numbers, and developments under alternative C are not likely to adversely affect

most federal and state listed species in the

lower riverway (with adequate surveys,

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state biologists, and the

application of appropriate mitigation

measures). With regard to the federally

endangered Higgins’ eye and winged

mapleleaf mussel populations, there are

indications that recreational activities

already may be adversely affecting the

populations on the lower St. Croix. In

particular, existing use levels near Hudson

and in the Interstate Park area (where the

mussels primarily occur) may be affecting

these populations. Freezing existing use

levels may not change the impacts that are

occurring. Thus, formal consultations

would still need to be initiated with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine what actions need to be taken to

ensure the conservation of the two mussel

species.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Analysis

This alternative would focus on maintaining the current visual qualities of the

riverway. Maintaining the landscape’s

visual qualities would pose no adverse

impacts for the cultural resources in the

riverway. Alternative C would require

local governments in the river town and

small town historic districts to develop

ordinances protecting historic structures

and requiring new development to be

consistent with the historic character of

those communities. As a result, alternative
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

258

C would result in minor improvements in

protection of cultural resources.

Archeological resources would be at a

lower risk due to increased restrictions on

areas within the portion of the riverway

that is visible from the river. Minor

restrictions placed on camping would be

used to protect sensitive archeological

sites.

The number, significance, and condition of

the riverway’s cultural landscapes currently

is unknown. However, this alternative

would pose no adverse impacts on any

significant cultural or historic landscapes

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

landscape inventory would enhance future

planning efforts to protect these resources.

Conclusion. Cultural resources would be

at minimal risk under this alternative

because of the emphasis on maintaining

the riverway’s 1997 visual qualities.

Additionally, this alternative would result

in minor improvements in protection of

cultural resources in the river town and

small town historic districts. Archeological

resources would face minimal risks due to

restrictions on development. Restriction on

development would help safeguard any

significant cultural landscapes that might

be identified in the cultural landscape

inventory.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Local Economy

Analysis. There would be little direct

economic impact because no additional

large expenditures by the states or by the

Park Service is proposed. Application of

the land management areas would not

result in greatly different restrictions on

new development for most areas within the

riverway. Placement of the new land management categories would be similar to the

existing incorporated and unincorporated

classifications. Exceptions to this would be

areas designated as natural where increased

restrictions would likely occur (although

development could still occur) and in

towns where some restrictions would be

reduced (but with historic structure

protection). Consequently, limited additional negligible to minor impacts on the

long-term property tax base of the local

communities due to restrictions on new

development would occur. Existing

positive effects on local economy from

expenditures from tourists and other

recreationists would continue, but would

not be appreciably changed.

Conclusion. Positive impacts to the local

economy would be negligible to minor

compared to the no-action alternative.

Tourism

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
Impacts of Alternative C

259

tourism would not be permitted to increase,

possibly offsetting the minor positive

impact noted above.

Conclusion. There would be some negligible to minor positive effects on tourism,

that may possibly be offset by precluding

any increase in boating-related tourism.

Land Values

Analysis. Land values would not be

impacted by Alternative C. Local property

values have probably been and would

likely continue to be beneficially affected

by the presence of the riverway as under

the no-action alternative.

Conclusion. There would be no new

impacts on land values.

Landownership/Landowners

Analysis. Alternative C proposes a modest

increase in scenic easement acquisition by

the two states; National Park Service

acquisition is essentially complete and

would not change. As a result, alternative

C would have negligible impact on land

ownership.

In general under alternative C, land use

regulations would be slightly more

restrictive in rural areas than under the noaction alternative, considering much of the

rural home development that could occur

has already been built. Thus, alternative C

could affect some landowners in a manner

that would have a minor to moderate

impact on flexibility in developing their

property when compared to the no action

alternative.

There would be a minor to moderate

beneficial impact for local landowners in

some areas of the riverway due to a

reduction in conflicts with recreational

users and some shoreline erosion, particularly in popular camping areas north of

Stillwater.

Conclusion. There would be negligible

impacts on landownership. Some

landowners would benefit from reduced

restrictions on property improvements,

although there would be constraints on

new development to maintain historic

character. Some landowners would be

negatively affected by restrictions on new

development or improvements in areas

outside of towns. There would also be

minor to moderate benefits to landowners

from a reduction in conflicts and some

shoreline erosion associated with

recreational use in some areas of the

riverway.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as

seen from the river would not be encompassed within the riverway boundaries,

therefore, visual encroachments outside the

boundary have the potential to impact the

scenic resources of the riverway. In the

federal zone, the high bluffs, the rural

character, the predominance of protected

areas along this section of the river, the

primarily unincorporated zoning, and the

fact that the viewshed outside the boundary

would be less than the state-administered

zone would mean that the concerns would

not be as great here as in the state-
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

260

administered zone. In this zone more of the

viewshed would be outside the riverway

boundary, the area would have a series of

benches visible from the river, there would

be less high bluff areas, more of the area

would be incorporated, and its proximity to

the Minneapolis/St. Paul area would mean

greater growth. For those areas within the

viewshed, yet outside of the riverway

boundary, local zoning standards would be

the primary methods of controlling scenic

impacts to the riverway. Mitigating

methodologies such as the encouragement

of the preservation and maintenance of

mature vegetation, planting of additional

vegetative buffering, the protection of

cultural resources, and the prohibition of

the construction of any more extremely

visible towers within the viewshed would

be beneficial to the preservation of the

riverway’s scenic quality. Actions taken

outside the riverway boundary could have

negligible to major impacts on the scenic

resources of the riverway, depending on

the magnitude of change. Therefore, the

cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on

the scenic quality of the viewshed would

be negligibly to moderately beneficial,

depending on the magnitude of changes to

the scenic resources outside the riverway

boundary.

As described under the preferred alternative, impacts from recreational use within

the riverway and managing agency actions

would contribute incrementally to impacts

from land use changes and population

growth in the watershed and region. Overall, the land use management allocation

and special native plant community

protection would contribute to a minor to

moderate positive cumulative impact

within the riverway and watershed.

None of the management actions are

expected to add substantively to the

cumulative effects on cultural resources.

Growth and land use changes could affect

cultural resources adjacent to or within the

viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative

effects of the management actions would

help mitigate the effects of population

growth and development.

Many communities and counties in

Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the

process of revising their comprehensive

plans and related ordinances. Some of

these revised plans and ordinances may

include land use and development

provisions applicable to the river corridor

that would go beyond guidance provided in

this document.

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 would only have a minor effect

on the expected growth of the total

economy of the region. Therefore, there

would be no appreciable socioeconomic

cumulative impacts from implementation

of this alternative occurring in conjunction

with the region’s expected overall

population and economy of the region.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation,

restrictions on island, shoreline, and

boating use, along with the proposed

inventory, monitoring, and research

programs for the riverway would contribute to the long-term protection and

preservation of resources and scenic
Impacts of Alternative C

261

character of the landscape. The maintenance and restoration of native plant

communities would also enhance longterm productivity of natural communities.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Some minor to locally moderate adverse

impacts to natural resources would occur.

In the process of resolving conflicts among

different uses or reducing resource impacts, restrictions would be placed on

particular uses, having an adverse effect on

some users. To meet the scenic and

resource protection purposes of the riverway development restrictions on local

landowner would implemented. To meet

the recreational purposes of the riverway,

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

occur on private lands within the riverway

boundary, particularly in the existing

municipalities. Potentially, new river crossing and navigation channel maintenance

may also occur. It is expected that this new

development would result in the long-term

localized loss of vegetation, soils, and

wildlife habitat.

Any action that led to the loss of individual

federally listed mussel species or their

habitat would contribute to the loss of the

species as an ecological and genetic resource. It is possible that this alternative

would contribute to their decline. However, it is expected that the implementation

of actions outlined in the recovery plans

for these species would avoid this situation

and contribute to their conservation.
262

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE D

IMPACTS ON SCENIC RESOURCES

Analysis

Scenic resources in the riverway are protected primarily through land acquisition or

through regulatory controls on land development. No significant land acquisition

would occur in implementing alternative

D. The establishment of seven land

management categories compared to two

under the existing management program

would provide additional scenic resource

protection. More restrictions would be

imposed to avoid additional development

that would be visible from the river.

Alternative D would restrict development

outside municipalities more aggressively

than other alternatives. Also, as under the

previous alternatives, the riverway

managing agencies would require local

governments to protect the historic

character of municipalities, which would

reduce potential impacts to scenic values in

municipalities from new development.

The following analysis evaluates scenic

impacts created by the application of the

seven land management areas on each river

segment.

The Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock

Island: 3.5 miles. Scenic resources within

the two state parks in this river segment

would continue to be protected by state

ownership (as they would be under the noaction alternative). No impact to scenic

resources would occur because any future

development would occur at existing

development nodes, and scenic and

relatively undisturbed natural areas would

be maintained. Private lands in Minnesota

in the southern portion of this segment

would be classified as minimally disturbed

and would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but there

would be fewer new structures and those

structures would not be visible from the

river. Consequently, they would have no

impact on scenic resources.

Osceola Area (Rock Island to McLeod

Slough): 10 miles. Osceola itself is

classified as small town, which would

afford an increase level of scenic protection compared to the existing urban

standard to minimize new development

visible from the river. Most of this segment

would be classified as minimally disturbed,

however, and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.

Additional development could still occur,

but there would be fewer new structures

and those structures would not be visible

from the river. Consequently, they would

have no impact on scenic resources.

Marine Area (McLeod Slough to Arcola

Sandbar via Page’s Slough): 8.5 miles.

Marine on St. Croix itself is classified as

small town historic, which afford an increased level of scenic protection compared to the existing urban standard.

Additional restrictions would be placed on

development to minimize it being visible

from the river and also to protect historic

character. William O’Brien State Park

would receive the same high level of

scenic resource protection as compared to

the no-action alternative. Most of the

remainder of this segment in Minnesota

would be classified as rural residential and
Impacts of Alternative D

263

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. The Wisconsin

side of the river would be classified as

minimally disturbed and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. Additional development could

still occur, but there would be fewer new

structures and those structures would not

be visible from the river. Consequently,

they would have no impact on scenic

resources.

Rice Lake Flats (Dead Man’s Slough to

Arcola Sandbar via St. Croix Islands

Wildlife Area): 2.5 miles. St. Croix

Islands Wildlife Area is owned by

Wisconsin DNR and would receive the

same high level of scenic resource

protection as compared to the no-action

alternative, which would maintain the

undisturbed natural appearance. The

remainder of this segment would be

classified as minimally disturbed and

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but there

would be fewer new structures and those

structures would not be visible from the

river. Consequently, they would have no

impact on scenic resources.

Arcola Gorge (Arcola Sandbar to Head

of Lake St. Croix): 5 miles. The Minnesota side of the river in this segment would

be classified as natural and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. Additional development could

still occur, but new structures would have

no impact on scenic resources. The Wisconsin side of the river would mostly be

classified as minimally disturbed and

would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but new

structures would have no impact on scenic

resources. A small portion of the southern

part of this segment in Wisconsin would be

classified as natural and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. Additional development could

still occur, but new structures would have

no impact on scenic resources.

Urban Stillwater (Head of Lake St.

Croix to Stillwater Downtown Courtesy

Docks): 2 miles. The northern portion of

this segment in Minnesota is not intensively developed; it would be classified as

small town with the result that its level of

scenic protection would be increased

compared to the current urban classification. The central portion just north of

downtown would be classified as natural

and would receive increased protection as

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Additional

development could still occur, but new

structures would have no impact on scenic

resources. The southern portion of this

segment includes the heavily developed

downtown Stillwater area; it would be

classified as river town, and additional

restrictions would be placed to minimize

new development being visible from the

river. In addition, this alternative would

require protection of historic character that

would reduce potential scenic impacts.

The Wisconsin side would be classified as

natural and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

264

Additional development could still occur,

but new structures would have no impact

on scenic resources.

South Stillwater-Bayport Area

(Stillwater Downtown Courtesy Docks

to Andersen Point): 3 miles. Most of this

segment in Minnesota would be classified

as river town and additional restrictions

would be placed to minimize new development being visible from the river. In addition, this alternative would require

protection of historic character that would

reduce potential scenic impacts. The

Andersen Point area would be classified as

small town, with the result that its level of

scenic protection would be increased

compared to the current urban classification. The Wisconsin side would be classified as natural and would receive increased

protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.

Additional development could still occur,

but new structures would have less impact

on scenic resources than the no-action

alternative.

Bayport-North Hudson Area (Andersen

Point to Willow River Dam): 2 miles. In

Minnesota, the area between Andersen

Point and the south limits of Bayport

would be classified as small town, with the

result that its level of scenic protection

would be increased compared to the

current urban classification. The southern

portion of this segment in Minnesota

would be classified as natural and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but new structures would

not impact scenic resources. Most of the

Wisconsin side would be classified as

natural and would receive increased protection as compared to the rural classification under the no-action alternative.

Additional development could still occur,

but new structures would have not impact

scenic resources. The southern portion of

this segment in Wisconsin lies in North

Hudson and would be classified as small

town, with the result that its level of scenic

protection would be increased compared to

the current urban classification.

Urban Hudson (Willow River Dam to

Interstate 94): 2 miles. The Minnesota

side in this segment would be primarily

classified as small town, with the level of

scenic protection increased compared to

the current urban classification. The Wisconsin side would be classified as river

town and additional restrictions would be

placed to minimize new development

being visible from the river. In addition,

this alternative would require protection of

historic character that would reduce

potential scenic impacts.

Open Lake (Interstate 94 to Catfish

Bar): 4.5 miles. The Minnesota side in this

segment would be classified as small town,

with the result that its level of scenic protection would be increased compared to the

current urban classification. The southern

portion of Hudson would also be classified

as small town. The remainder of this

segment in Wisconsin would be classified

as rural residential, which affords an

increased level of protection compared to

the rural classification under the no-action

alternative.

Catfish to Kinnickinnic (Catfish Bar to

Kinnickinnic Narrows): 5 miles. In

Minnesota the old Afton village area

would be classified as small town historic,

with the result that its level of scenic

protection would be increased compared to

the current urban classification. The
Impacts of Alternative D

265

southern portion of Afton would be

classified as rural residential and would

receive an increased level of protection

compared to the rural classification under

the no-action alternative. Afton State Park

would receive the same high level of

scenic resource protection as compared to

the no-action alternative. The area south of

Afton State Park in Minnesota and all of

the Wisconsin side in this segment would

be classified as natural and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. Additional development could

still occur, but new structures would have

no impact on scenic resources.

Kinnickinnic Narrows: 0.5 miles. The

Minnesota side of the river in this segment

would be classified as natural and would

receive increased protection as compared

to the rural classification under the noaction alternative. Additional development

could still occur, but new structures would

have no impact on scenic resources. Kinnickinnic State Park in Wisconsin would

receive the same high level of scenic

resource protection as compared to the noaction alternative.

Kinnickinnic to Prescott (Kinnickinnic

Narrows to Mississippi Confluence at

Prescott): 6 miles. Much of the Minnesota

side of the river in this segment would be

classified as natural and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. Additional development could

still occur, but new structures would have

no impact on scenic resources. St. Croix

Bluffs Regional Park would receive the

same high level of scenic resource

protection as compared to the no-action

alternative. Carpenter Nature Center would

be classified as natural and would receive

increased protection as compared to the

rural classification under the no-action

alternative. There would be small areas

north and south of Carpenter Nature Center

that would be classified as rural residential,

which affords an increased level of protection compared to the no-action alternative.

In Wisconsin, the area north of Prescott

would be classified as rural residential,

which affords an increased level of protection compared to the no-action alternative.

Prescott would be classified as river town

and additional restrictions would be placed

to minimize new development being

visible from the river. In addition, this

alternative would require protection of

historic character that would reduce

potential scenic impacts.

By encouraging the maintenance and

restoration of natural diversity and

ecological integrity of plant communities

through a variety of actions, the visual

landscape of the riverway would become

more representative of the native ecotones

of the area. These provisions would have a

long-term beneficial impact on the visual

resources of the riverway by preserving

and enhancing indigenous vegetation.

However, these impacts would be minor to

negligible because these actions would be

voluntary, and most individuals would

consider these areas as a natural landscapes

whether the vegetative mosaics included a

diversity of significant plant communities

or not.

An amendment to the Wisconsin managed

forest law (Chapter NR 118) would be

pursued which would result in a long term

minor beneficial impact for the scenic

resources of the riverway by providing
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

266

landowners with more flexibility to

preserve these resources.

Continued adherence to NPS policies

which perpetuate native plant communities

would result in a long term minor beneficial impact to the scenic resources.

This alternative would result in the least

impacts to scenic resources related to river

crossings because its goal is to reduce the

visual impacts of structures that cross the

riverway. By encouraging a reduction in

the utility lines, restricting road, railroad

bridges, utility lines, and submarine lines

to existing corridors, and not allowing any

change in scale or character of road and

railroad crossings, the visual landscape of

the river corridor could eventually have

less visual encroachments over the river

corridor than currently exist. Compared to

the no-action alternative, alternative D

would avoid potentially major long-term

impacts to scenic quality from construction

of large-scale bridge crossings or

relocation of utility lines to highly scenic

or largely undisturbed corridors.

Flexibility on the use of existing submarine

crossings to allow for the replacement of

an existing overhead transmission lines

could reduce the amount of overhead

visual intrusions upon the riverway

landscape, however, ground disturbance

and vegetation removal during installation

could result in minor to negligible adverse

impact to scenic resources in the

immediate vicinity.

Conclusion. This alternative would result

in the somewhat greater beneficial impacts

to scenic resources of all the alternatives

because it would put slightly more of the

land within the management areas that

would be most restrictive to development.

Also, its goal would be to reduce the visual

impacts of structures that cross the riverway, possibly resulting in less visual

encroachments over the river corridor than

currently exist. Like the preferred alternative, it encourages the maintenance and

restoration of plant communities on both

public and private lands. Overall, alternative D would have a moderate, positive

impact on scenic resources compared to the

no-action alternative.

IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE

Analysis

The primary goal of alternative D with

respect to boating recreation is to reduce

total recreational use and to enhance

opportunities for quieter, slower, more

passive boating recreational experiences.

Impacts are evaluated for each river

segment.

Backwaters from the Dalles of the St.

Croix to William O’Brien State Park: 16

miles. Under alternative D, this segment

would be classified silent boating and

internal combustion motors could not be

used. This would slightly enhance the

exceptionally quiet and little-used character of the recreational experience in this

segment compared to the current no-wake

rule. While motorboats cannot navigate

this segment during normal river levels,

they are occasionally found in the area

during high water periods. Consequently,

restrictions on use of motors would slightly

decrease the flexibility of movement for

some motorized watercraft but would

ensure locations for boaters seeking areas

free from encounters with noisier

motorized watercraft.
Impacts of Alternative D

267

Backwaters from William O’Brien State

Park to Arcola Sandbar: 6 miles. The

natural waters classification for this segment would be identical to the existing nowake designation. The impact of alternative D would be the same as the noaction alternative, which would maintain

the quiet little-used character of the

recreational experience.

Backwaters from Arcola Sandbar to

north limits of Stillwater: 5 miles. The

quiet waters classification for this segment

would permit slow-speed boating, compared to the existing no-wake designation;

the impact of alternative D would be to

allow moderately faster boating than the

no-action alternative.

Dalles of the St. Croix to Rock Island:

3.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow-speed zone designation. The

impact of alternative D would be the same

as the no-action alternative, which would

be to maintain the slow speeds, low noise

levels, and the more social experience

associated with relatively large numbers of

canoers.

Rock Island to McLeod’s Slough: 10

miles. The natural waters classification for

this segment would provide for a no-wake

designation, which is more restrictive than

the existing slow speed zone designation;

the impact of alternative D would be a

reduction in boat speed in this area

compared to the no-action alternative.

McLeod’s Slough to Arcola Sandbar:

8.5 miles. The quiet waters classification

for this segment would be identical to the

existing slow speed zone designation; the

impact of alternative D would be the same

as the no-action alternative. Opportunities

would be maintained for a mixture of nonmotorized and slow-moving motorized

craft.

Arcola Sandbar to north limits of

Stillwater: 5 miles. The quiet waters

classification for this segment would result

in a slow speed designation; under the noaction alternative there would be no speed

limit, but there would be a restriction on

weekend waterskiing. Congestion in this

narrow area has become a concern and the

imposition of a slow speed designation

would be considered a positive impact on

congestion and shoreline erosion concerns.

Stillwater to Catfish Bar: 13.5 miles. The

moderate recreation classification for this

segment would involve a speed limit and a

possible restriction on waterskiing; under

the no-action alternative there would be no

speed limit. The existing no-wake zones in

the Hudson area would remain under

alternative D. There has been growing

concern about safety factors surrounding

extremely high-speed boating (80 mph and

greater) that occasionally occurs in this

segment; that would be eliminated under

alternative D, forcing boaters who want to

travel at those speeds to use a different

resource. The imposition of a speed limit

in this area would be considered a minor

positive impact on the environment.

Catfish Bar to Prescott: 11.5 miles. The

moderate recreation classification for this

segment would involve a speed limit and a

possible restriction on waterskiing; under

the no-action alternative there would be no

speed limit. The existing no-wake zones in

the Catfish Bar and Kinnickinnic State

Park areas would remain under alternative

D. There has been growing concern about
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

268

safety factors surrounding extremely highspeed boating (80 mph and greater) that

occasionally occurs in this segment. This

would be eliminated under alternative D,

forcing boaters who want to travel at those

speeds to use a different resource. The

imposition of a speed limit in this area

would be considered a minor positive

impact on the environment.

Camping Experience. A camping

management plan would be developed for

boat-related camping north of Stillwater

that would impose gradually increased

restrictions on camping. This would result

in fewer boat-in campsites than currently

exist, enhancing privacy and reducing

shoreline erosion problems, but reducing

the opportunity for more social camping

situations and reducing the overall number

of camping occasions, displacing some

campers to another resource. At Hudson,

campers without on-board toilets would be

displaced. The outcome would be reduced

shoreline erosion between the Arcola

sandbar and Stillwater and reduced water

quality problems there and at Hudson, but

an increase in displaced recreational users.

Conclusion

Overall boating use of the riverway would

be reduced under Alternative D, while

additional water surface use regulations

would be imposed to preserve slower

recreational uses and to reduce boat speeds

in significant sections of the river. The

existing diversity of boating opportunities

would be reduced. Overall, alternative D

would provide minor positive impacts on

slower recreational uses, while reducing

recreational boating diversity.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Water Quality

Analysis. Overall boating totals are expected to decrease slightly under alternative D, so water quality impacts from petroleum products or day-use boaters who

do not use proper toilet facilities would be

slightly lower than the no-action alternative. Additional restrictions on camping

north of Stillwater and at Hudson would

have a slight positive impact on water

quality as compared to the no-action

alternative. There would be a slight decrease in total residential development in

areas not served by public sewer, leading

to slightly less risk of water quality impacts

from failed on-site waste treatment systems

(as compared to the no-action alternative).

With regard to river crossings, the impacts

of alternative D would be identical with

alternatives B and C. There could be some

bridge and utility line replacements, which

could have short term adverse effects on

water quality; however, mitigation measures should minimize these impacts.

(More detailed environmental documents

would be prepared before a bridge or a

transmission line replacement would be

approved.)

Conclusion. With use levels being

lowered, the potential for pollution due to

user activities should decrease. Some

short-term impacts could occur if bridges

or utility lines were replaced. From a

riverwide perspective, it is expected that

pollution due to construction of potential

developments would be short term, while

pollution due to users would be diluted and

dispersed. Overall, alternative D would be

expected to have a minor to moderate,
Impacts of Alternative D

269

positive, long-term impact on the riverway’s overall water quality compared to

current conditions.

Soils

Analysis. As under the no-action alternative, additional development could occur,

including residential development in rural

areas. Consequently, some soils would still

be lost to development, although new soil

disturbance would likely be reduced in the

park, minimally disturbed, and natural

management areas (58% of the lower

riverway) where less development and

more restrictive land use regulations would

be employed.

With motorboat use levels and speeds

being decreased, the potential for soils

being eroded along the river’s banks and

islands should be reduced. Some riverbanks would continue to be undercut and

some erosion due to motorboat wakes

would continue, but the magnitude of this

impact would be the lowest of all the

alternatives being considered.

Shoreline erosion, soil compaction, and the

formation of social trails from campers

would be slightly reduced as compared to

the no-action alternative by limitations and

overall reductions in camping. Localized

bluff erosion from foot trails would be

about the same as the no-action alternative.

Alternative D would have the same effects

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. (Additional environmental documentation, with

mitigation measures, would be required

before these crossings would be approved.)

Alternative D also would prevent soil

disturbance that could be caused by new

submarine crossings.

If the Army Corps of Engineers needed to

do some dredging at the Kinnickinnic

Narrows, this alternative would reduce the

amount of dredged material that would

need to be removed and disposed. If the

dredged material could be reused for other

purposes, soil in the riverway or nearby

would not be altered by the disposal of the

material. (The 1997 Channel Maintenance

Management Plan directs that dredged

material from the Kinnickinnic Narrows be

placed on the delta at Kinnickinnic State

park for beach nourishment.)

Conclusion. Shoreline erosion caused by

boat wakes would be moderately less than

the no-action alternative. Soil erosion and

compaction from campers should also be

reduced in localized areas, particularly on

riverbanks and the islands. There is the

potential for soil loss and disturbance due

to new developments on private lands and

from bridge replacements. However, the

management area allocation would help

minimize potential soil disturbance and

loss on a large portion of the lower

riverway. From an overall perspective,

compared to present conditions, alternative

D would have a minor to moderate,

positive effect on the soils in the lower

riverway.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

270

Vegetation

Analysis. The alternative would have a

beneficial effect in minimizing the loss of

vegetation due to new development in the

minimally disturbed, park and natural land

management areas (58% of the riverway).

Alternative D also would have a minor

positive effect on plant communities if the

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources proposed amendment to the

state land use standards within the

riverway is adopted.

Very little additional vegetation would be

lost or disturbed due to bridge and utility

line replacements, and this disturbance

would be limited to areas that already have

been altered. If dredging occurred at the

Kinnickinnic Narrows, alternative D would

reduce the amount of vegetation that would

be lost due to the deposition of dredged

material. Alternative D also would not

allow additional submarine crossings,

which would prevent potential impacts on

vegetation.

Some vegetation would continue to be

affected in areas where users picnic or

camp on the shoreline and islands, with

vegetation being trampled, harvested, and

cut for firewood. Any disturbance of soils

also would increase the likelihood of

exotic plants like spotted knapweed and

purple loosestrife becoming established.

However, with a reduction in use levels,

impacts from motorboat use and use of the

shoreline and islands would be reduced.

Conclusion. Some vegetative communities

would continue to be altered and lost due

to the activities of users and new developments in the riverway. But with use levels

being decreased, potential future impacts

would be reduced. The land management

areas also would have a beneficial effect,

helping ensure the protection of vegetation

on a large portion of the lower riverway.

Some minor vegetation loss also would

occur if bridge or transmission line replacements were built. Efforts to maintain

and restore significant plant communities

on public and private lands also would

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 management agencies, and

efforts would be made to restore native

plant communities. Thus, compared to

current conditions, alternative D would be

expected to have a moderate, beneficial,

long-term impact on the riverway’s

vegetation.

Fish and Wildlife

Analysis. Impacts on wildlife would not be

significantly different for alternative D

than the no-action alternative. Most of the

lower riverway management actions in this

alternative would continue to promote the

protection of fish and wildlife populations

and habitats. No actions would be taken

that would adversely affect areas known to

be of special importance for breeding,

nesting, foraging, or wintering.

Rural home development creates patches

that disrupt the movement of some wildlife, especially those most sensitive to

human activity. There would be slightly

less new rural home development under

alternative D as compared to the no-action

alternative, but the differences in terms of

wildlife impacts would likely not be measurable, especially considering much of the

rural home development that could occur

in the riverway has already been built.
Impacts of Alternative D

271

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife

populations and habitats have already been

affected in varying degrees by recreational

users and nearby developments. Some

individual animals might be disturbed or

temporarily displaced by the sounds of

more motorboats and groups floating down

the river, but this is not expected to

substantially affect the lower riverway’s

fish and wildlife populations.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife

populations would be expected to be

negligible to minor.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. Reductions in use levels would

not be expected to affect listed species and

their habitats. Alternative D would maintain and restore significant plant communities on federal and state lands, and encourage private landowners to do likewise,

which could benefit species like the Karner

blue butterfly. A slight reduction in new

rural home development could decrease the

potential for impacts to some threatened

and endangered species.

Like all of the alternatives, there is the

potential in alternative D 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; mussels could be scraped off

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. These activities have

occurred, or are occurring, on the lower St.

Croix. Although alternative D would

decrease use levels, it is not known how

much of an impact this would have on the

Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel

populations — even with lower use levels,

recreational users may continue to “take”

individual mussels, which may adversely

affecting these species.

The following goals, strategies, or actions

support the protection and recovery of

these species: protection and improvement

of water quality, development of a 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

mussels, and implementation of the zebra

mussel action plan (see “Management

Directions Common to All Alternatives”

section). The managing agencies would

also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s

recovery plans for the winged mapleleaf

mussel and the Higgins’ eye mussel. These

components address a wide variety of

tasks. The tasks include actions to

minimize human disturbance and

destruction to the federally listed mussels,

such as quantification of the magnitude of

potential threats (harvesting, swimming,

wading, and small recreational watercraft)

and identification of specific geographic

locations of greatest concern; posting of

educational signs; presentation of

educational programs; and review of

paddleboat operations to minimize boat

operation impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

272

Conclusion. The expected uses, user

numbers, and developments under alternative D would not likely adversely affect

most federal and state listed species in the

lower riverway (assuming adequate surveys, consultation with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and state biologists, and

the application of appropriate mitigation

measures). Recreational activities could

adversely affect the federally endangered

Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel

populations on the lower St. Croix. In particular, even with reductions in user numbers, boaters near Hudson and in the Interstate Park area (where the mussels primarily occur) might affect these populations. Formal consultations would still

need to be initiated with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service to determine what other

actions need to be taken to ensure the

conservation of the two mussel species.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Analysis

Archeological resources and any cultural

landscapes in the riverway that might be

identified in the future would face no

adverse impacts under this alternative, due

to greater restrictions on new development.

Minor restrictions placed on camping

would be used to protect sensitive archeological sites. Alternative D would require

local governments in the river town and

small town historic districts to develop

ordinances protecting historic structures

and requiring new development to be

consistent with the historic character of

those communities. As a result, alternative

D would result in minor improvements in

protection of cultural resources.

Conclusion

Cultural resources would be at minimal

risk under this alternative. Additionally,

this alternative would result in minor

improvements in protection of cultural

resources in the river town and small town

historic districts. Archeological resources

would face minimal risks due to restrictions on development. Restriction on

development would help safeguard any

significant cultural landscapes that might

be identified in the cultural landscape

inventory.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Local Economy

Analysis. There would be little direct

economic impact because no additional

large expenditures by the states or by the

Park Service is proposed. Application of

the land management areas would not

result in greatly different restrictions on

new development for most areas within the

riverway. Exceptions to this would be

areas designated as natural and minimally

disturbed where increased restrictions

would likely occur (although development

could still occur) and in towns where some

restrictions would be reduced (but with

historic structure protection). Consequently, limited additional negligible to

minor impacts on the long-term property

tax base of the local communities due to

restrictions on new development would

occur. Existing positive effects on local

economy from expenditures from tourists

and other recreationists would continue but

would not be appreciably changed. An

exception to that would be the loss of
Impacts of Alternative D

273

economic activity associated with marinas

that would be puchased and closed.

Conclusion. Impacts to the local economy

would be negligible to minor compared to

the no-action alternative.

Tourism

Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley

is partially linked to the area’s historic

character. In that context, alternative D’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

tourism would decrease slightly.

Conclusion. There would be some

negligible to minor positive effects on

tourism that might possibly be offset by a

decrease in boating-related tourism.

Land Values

Analysis. Land values would not be

impacted by alternative D. Local property

values have probably been and would

likely continue to be beneficially affected

by the presence of the riverway as under

the no-action alternative.

Conclusion. There would be no new

impacts on land values.

Landownership/Landowners

Analysis. Alternative D proposes a modest

increase in scenic easement acquisition by

the two states; National Park Service

acquisition is essentially complete and

would not change. As a result, the alternative D would have negligible impact on

landownership.

In general under alternative D, land use

regulations would be slightly more restrictive than under the no-action alternative,

considering much of the rural home

development that could occur has already

been built. Thus alternative D could affect

some landowners in a manner that would

have a minor to moderate impact on flexibility in developing their property when

compared to the no-action alternative.

There would be a minor to moderate

beneficial impact for local landowners in

some areas of the riverway due to a

reduction in conflicts with recreational

users, particularly in popular camping

areas north of Stillwater. Local landowners

would also likely benefit from a reduction

in the periodic loud noise generated by

higher boat speeds and reduced shoreline

effects from wave action.

Conclusion. There would be negligible

impacts on landownership. Some

landowners would benefit from reduced

restrictions on property improvements,

although there would be constraints on

new development to maintain historic

character. Some landowners would be

negatively affected by restrictions on new

development or improvements in areas

outside of towns. There would also be

minor to moderate benefits to landowners

from a reduction in conflicts and shoreline

erosion associated with recreational use in

some areas of the riverway.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

274

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as

seen from the river would not be

encompassed within the riverway

boundaries, therefore, visual encroachments outside the boundary have the

potential to impact the scenic resources of

the riverway. In the federal zone, the high

bluffs, the rural character, the predominance of protected areas along this section

of the river, the primarily unincorporated

zoning, and the fact that the viewshed

outside the boundary would be less than

the state-administered zone would mean

that the concerns would not be as great

here as in the state- administered zone. In

this zone more of the viewshed would be

outside the riverway boundary, the area

would have a series of benches visible

from the river, there would be less high

bluff areas, more of the area would be

incorporated, and its proximity to the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely

mean greater growth.

For those areas within the viewshed, yet

outside of the riverway boundary, local

zoning standards would be the primary

methods of controlling scenic impacts to

the riverway. Mitigating methodologies

such as the encouragement of the preservation and maintenance of mature vegetation, planting of additional vegetative

buffering, the protection of cultural

resources, and the prohibition of the

construction of any more extremely visible

towers within the viewshed would be

beneficial to the preservation of the

riverway’s scenic quality. Actions taken

outside the riverway boundary could have

negligible to major impacts on the scenic

resources of the riverway, depending on

the magnitude of change. Therefore, the

cumulative effects of NPS/state actions on

the scenic quality of the viewshed would

be negligibly to moderately beneficial,

depending on the magnitude of changes to

the scenic resources outside the riverway

boundary.

Overall the land use management allocation, special plant community protection,

and restoration efforts would contribute to

a minor to moderate positive cumulative

impact within the riverway and watershed.

None of the management actions would be

expected to add substantively to the

cumulative effects on cultural resources.

Growth and land use changes could affect

cultural resources adjacent to or within the

viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative

effects of the management actions would

help mitigate the effects of population

growth and development.

Many communities and counties in Minnesota and Wisconsin are in the process of

revising their comprehensive plans and

related ordinances. Some of these revised

plans and ordinances might include land

use and development provisions applicable

to the river corridor that would go beyond

guidance provided in this document.

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

would only have a minor effect on the

expected growth of the total economy of

the region. Therefore, there would be no

appreciable socioeconomic cumulative

impacts from implementation of this

alternative occurring in conjunction with

the region’s expected overall population

and economy of the region.
Impacts of Alternative D

275

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed management area allocation,

restrictions on island, shoreline, and boating use, along with the proposed inventory,

monitoring, and research programs for the

riverway, would contribute to the longterm protection and preservation of

resources and scenic character of the

landscape. The maintenance and restoration of plant communities would also

enhance long-term productivity of natural

communities.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

In the process of resolving conflicts among

different uses or reducing resource impacts, restrictions would be placed on

particular uses, having an adverse effect on

some users. In order to meet the scenic and

resource protection purposes of the riverway development restrictions on local

landowner would implemented. To meet

the recreational purposes of the riverway,

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

occur on private lands within the riverway

boundary, particularly in the existing municipalities. Potentially, new river crossings may also occur. It is expected that this

new development would result in the longterm localized loss of vegetation, soils, and

wildlife habitat.

Any action that led to the loss of individual

federally listed mussel species or their

habitat would contribute to the loss of the

species as an ecological and genetic resource. It is possible that this alternative

would contribute to their decline. However, it is expected that the implementation

of actions outlined in the recovery plans

for these species would avoid this situation

and contribute to their conservation.
276

IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE E (NO ACTION)

IMPACT ON SCENIC RESOURCES

Analysis

The use of current state and local zoning

standards to limit development in urban

and rural areas would ensure that future

development was comparable to development that has occurred in the valley in the

last 20 years. Additional development

would continue, although structure size

and placement would be limited to reduce

visual impact.

Additional development in urban areas

would result in a negligible to minor

addition of visible structures. However, the

character of some communities could

change. The impact on scenic resources

could be minor to major depending on the

magnitude of change. In rural areas,

considering that much of the rural home

development that could occur in the

riverway has already been built, expected

additional development would likely have

negligible to minor impacts on scenic

resources.

The state of Wisconsin could elect,

independent of this planning process, to

amend the Wisconsin-managed forest law

(chapter NR118). The consequences of this

action would be considered as part of the

state’s established rule-making process,

which would result in a long-term minor

beneficial impact for scenic resources by

providing landowners with more flexibility

to preserve these resources.

Continued adherence to NPS policies that

perpetuate native plant communities would

result in a long-term minor beneficial

impact to the scenic resources. (Please see

the “Impacts on Natural Resources” section for additional impacts related to

vegetation management.)

Restriction of the numbers and types of

road and railroad bridge crossings would

prevent additional visual encroachments

over the river corridor. Road and railroad

bridges, however, could change in scale

and character. These impacts would have

to be determined on a case-by-case basis

and could be negligible to major, based on

the magnitude and visibility of the change.

Restriction of the number, scale, or character of utility lines would also prevent

additional visual encroachments over the

river corridor. Utility lines, however, could

be replaced or relocated provided that the

existing structures were removed. These

scenic impacts would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and their

impacts could also be negligible to major,

based on the magnitude of change.

Submarine corridors could change in size

or the number of lines with negligible to

minor adverse impacts to scenic resources

in the immediate vicinity. The degree of

change would depend on the extent and

duration of ground disturbance and

vegetation removal during installation.

Conclusion

Additional development would continue to

occur, although structure size and

placement would be limited to reduce

visual impact. The character of some

communities could change, resulting in

minor to major impacts on scenic

resources, depending on the magnitude of
Impacts of Alternative E: No Action

277

change. In unincorporated areas limited

development would continue to be allowed

and could be visible from the riverway.

Road and railroad bridges could change in

scale and character, and utility lines could

be replaced or relocated. These actions

would have a minor to major, adverse,

long-term impact on the scenic resources

of the riverway, depending on the

magnitude of the change.

IMPACTS ON RECREATIONAL USE

Analysis

Water surface use regulations would remain in place to preserve the existing

diversity of surface water recreational

experiences. Overall boating use of the

riverway would continue to grow slowly, if

at all (existing use patterns show no clear

increase in use since the mid-1980s). The

existing diversity of boating opportunities

would remain. Congestion problems would

likely continue, primarily in the narrow

section of river between the Arcola sandbar

and Stillwater, in the Hudson Narrows, the

Catfish Bar area, the Kinnickinnic Narrows, and the Prescott Narrows. Extremely

high-speed boating would continue to be

unregulated, and associated safety and

noise concerns would continue in areas

south of Stillwater.

There would continue to be limited regulation of camping in the riverway. The social

nature of the camping experience north of

Stillwater and at Hudson would not

change.

Conclusion. The recreational experiences

and opportunities provided by the riverway

would not change. Riverway users would

continue to be negatively affected to a

minor to moderate extent by congested

conditions or safety issues in some areas of

the riverway.

IMPACTS ON NATURAL

RESOURCES

Water Quality

Analysis. Water quality impacts from

petroleum products or day-use boaters who

do not use proper toilet facilities would

continue, as would impacts from camping

north of Stillwater and at Hudson. There

would continue to be some new residential

development in areas not served by public

sewer, leading to a slight risk of water

quality impacts from failed on-site waste

treatment systems.

Under alternative E there could be some

bridge and utility line replacements that

could have short-term adverse effects on

water quality, such as increased sedimentation due to the installation of new bridge

piers. Mitigation measures would likely

minimize these impacts. (More detailed

environmental documents would be

prepared before a bridge or utility line

replacement would be approved.)

Conclusion. Pollution due to user activities would continue on the lower St. Croix.

From a riverwide perspective, however, it

is expected that pollution due to construction of developments would be short term,

while pollution due to users would be transient and should have minor to negligible

effects on pollutant levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

278

Soils

Analysis. Under alternative E, additional

development could occur. Consequently,

some soils would be lost or disturbed by

development. The area between the Arcola

sandbar and Stillwater is the focus of much

concern about wake-induced shoreline erosion; new regulations would not be imposed to address this problem. Shoreline

erosion caused by boat wakes would continue to occur. Shoreline erosion from

campers and bluff erosion from foot trails

would also continue.

There could be some bridge and utility line

replacements under alternative E, although

only a few areas would likely be affected

during the life of this plan. Since these

replacements would only be permitted in

existing corridors, additional soil disturbance would be limited to areas that likely

have already been altered.

Conclusion. Under alternative E, shoreline

and bluff erosion would continue from

recreational use. This would have minor to

moderate, negative, long-term impacts on

soils in localized areas, particularly along

the riverbanks and the islands. Some soil

also would be lost or disturbed due to new

developments in the lower riverway. From

an overall perspective, the impact of

alternative E would likely be minor

compared to existing conditions.

Vegetation

Analysis. In this alternative no special

protection would be afforded significant

plant communities on non-NPS lands. This

would likely result in the gradual perpetuation and expansion of closed canopy forest

communities — desirable native plant

species/communities, such as oak savanna

communities, would likely be crowded out

by invasive exotic species or more tolerant

closed canopy plant species.

Motorboat use on the lower St. Croix is

believed to be affecting shoreline vegetation, with boat wakes damaging plants,

exposing root systems, and undercutting

trees. With continued motorboat use, this

impact would likely continue, particularly

in heavily used stretches and/or stretches

where there would be high-speed boats. In

addition, users would continue to affect

vegetation in localized areas; when they

picnic and camp on the shoreline and

islands, users deliberately and inadvertently trample plants. Some users probably

would continue to damage trees, stripping

bark from birch trees, cutting saplings, and

pulling down branches for firewood. Disturbance of soils would increase the likelihood of exotic plants like spotted knapweed and purple loosestrife becoming

established. With use not expected to

increase greatly on the lower riverway, and

no additional management of use on the

islands and shoreline, degradation of vegetation would likely continue and result in

minor to moderate, localized impacts.

However, the prohibition of camping in

three NPS areas north of Stillwater would

likely result in a moderate beneficial effect,

with plants becoming re-established in

those areas.

Some new residential and commercial

development would likely continue on

private lands within the riverway boundary. It is expected that this new development would result in additional vegetation

being lost or altered.

Conclusion. Under alternative E significant vegetative communities would con-
Impacts of Alternative E: No Action

279

tinue to be altered and lost due to the

activities of users and new developments

in the riverway, primarily in heavily used

areas on the islands and the shoreline,

resulting in minor to moderate, long-term

impacts. From a riverwide perspective,

most of the riverway’s vegetation would

not be affected by users or the management

agencies.

Fish and Wildlife

Analysis. Most of the lower riverway

management actions in this alternative

would continue to promote the protection

of fish and wildlife populations and habitats. No actions would be taken that would

adversely affect areas known to be of

special importance for breeding, nesting,

foraging, or wintering. Rural home development creates patches that disrupt the

movement of some wildlife, especially

those most sensitive to human activity.

There would be some new rural home

development under alternative E, but

wildlife impacts are likely not measurable

considering that much of the rural home

development that could occur in the

riverway has already been built.

Many of the lower riverway’s wildlife

populations and habitats have already been

affected in varying degrees by recreational

users and nearby developments. Some

individual animals might be disturbed or

temporarily displaced by the sounds of

more motorboats and groups floating down

the river, but this is not expected to

substantially affect the lower riverway’s

fish and wildlife populations.

Conclusion. Impacts on fish and wildlife

populations would be expected to be

negligible to minor.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Analysis. Continued and possibly slightly

higher recreational use and limited new

rural home development would have the

potential to affect some species that are

sensitive to human disturbance, or areas

that provide habitat for listed species could

be altered. But with appropriate mitigation

(e.g., keeping people away from nesting

eagle nests) such impacts are not

anticipated.

Although no Karner blue butterflies have

been recorded in the lower riverway,

butterflies might use open savanna areas

along the river. This habitat has historically

been declining along the riverway. Under

the no-action alternative, there would be no

additional management on public lands to

prevent savannas from succeeding to

closed canopy forests, and private landowners would not be encouraged to maintain savannas. Thus, there is the potential

that this alternative might indirectly adversely affect the habitat of the Karner blue

butterfly.

As described in the action alternatives,

there is the potential that the federally

listed Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf

mussels could be adversely affected,

however, it is not known what effect these

activities are having on the Higgins’ eye

and winged mapleleaf mussel populations.

Recreational uses are likely “taking”

individual mussels, which might be

adversely affecting these species.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

280

Measures to minimize impacts and

recovery of mussels would include the

following measures. Recovery of the

winged mapleleaf mussel would include

preservation of the sole known remnant

population in the lower St. Croix River.

Recovery of the Higgins’ eye mussel

includes preservation of the current

populations and its essential habitat, which

includes one site on the lower St. Croix

near Hudson, Wisconsin. The Cooperative

Management Plan identifies the following

goals, strategies, or actions in support of

the protection and recovery of these

species: protection and improvement of

water quality, development of a 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

mussels, and implementation of the zebra

mussel action plan (see “Management

Directions Common to All Alternatives”

section). The managing agencies would

also implement their respective components of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s recovery plans for the winged

mapleleaf mussel and the Higgins’ eye

mussel. These components address a wide

variety of tasks, including actions to minimize human disturbance and destruction to

the federally listed mussels, such as

harvesting, swimming, wading, digging,

small recreational watercraft, and commercial paddlewheel watercraft; identification

of specific geographic locations of greatest

concern; posting of educational signs;

conduction of educational programs; and

review of paddleboat operations to minimize boat operation impacts.

Conclusion. It is believed that current users

and use levels are not adversely affecting

most federal and state listed species in the

lower riverway, and there is no indication

that these uses would adversely affect the

populations in the future (assuming

surveys, consultation with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and state biologists,

and the application of appropriate

mitigation measures).

Alternative E potentially could adversely

affect the Karner blue butterfly’s habitat

indirectly. Recreational activities could

adversely affect the federally endangered

Higgins’ eye and winged mapleleaf mussel

populations. Formal consultations would

be initiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to determine actions needed to

ensure the conservation of these species.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Analysis

Cultural resources would be at a slightly

higher risk under this alternative. There

would be greater potential for new residential and commercial development along

the riverway. Increased development and

more opportunities for camping could pose

an increased risk for archeological

resources.

This alternative would provide for no

special actions to address the historic

character of the riverway’s communities.

Increased development could pose some

impacts on historic structures, districts, and

other significant resources along the

riverway.

Potential impacts on any cultural or

historic landscapes include the following:

allow new development that would be
Impacts of Alternative E: No Action

281

visible from the river; take no steps to

protect the historic character of the

riverway’s communities; allow changes in

the scale and character of railroad bridges

and other bridges that would replace

existing structures; and allow increases in

the size and number of utility lines within

existing corridors. All of these actions

could pose adverse impacts on any

significant cultural landscapes.

Conclusion. Cultural resources would face

slightly higher risks because of the greater

potential for new residential and

commercial development along the

riverway. Increased development and more

opportunities for camping could pose

greater risks of adverse impacts to

archeological resources.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT

Local Economy

Analysis. The no action alternative would

not change the manner in which the riverway is currently being managed. Current

management conditions would continue.

As a result, there would be no change in

the regional short- or long-term social or

economic conditions related to the riverway. Existing positive effects on the local

economy from expenditures from tourists

and other recreationists would continue.

Conclusion. Overall effects on the regional social or economic conditions would be

negligible compared to existing conditions.

Tourism

Analysis. Tourism in the St. Croix Valley

is partially linked to the area’s historic

character. In that context, alternative E’s

lack of emphasis on historic structure

protection and enhancement of the historic

character of valley communities would not

enhance tourism. The loss of historic

community character could have a minor

negative impact on some tourism. Boatingrelated tourism would increase slightly or

stay the same, so impacts would be

negligible.

Conclusion. There could be some minor,

negative impacts on tourism.

Land Values

Analysis. Land use values would not be

affected. Local property values have probably been and would likely continue to be

beneficially affected by the presence of the

riverway.

Landownership/Landowners

Analysis. Alternative E proposes no land

acquisition by the two states; National Park

Service acquisition is essentially complete

and would not change. As a result, alternative E would have negligible impacts on

landownership.

Landowners would still be constrained by

existing restrictions on new development

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.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

282

Shoreline erosion associated with

recreational use would also continue.

Conclusion. There would be negligible

impacts on landownership. Some

landowners would continue to be affected

by restrictions on development. Existing

conflicts between local landowners and

recreational users would likely continue in

some areas of the riverway.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The entire viewshed of the riverway as

seen from the river would not be encompassed within the riverway boundaries,

therefore, visual encroachments outside the

boundary have the potential to impact the

scenic resources of the riverway.

In the federal zone, the high bluffs, rural

character, predominance of protected areas

along this section of the river (primarily

unincorporated zoning), and the fact that

the viewshed outside the boundary would

be less than the state-administered zone

would mean that the concerns would not be

as great here as in the state- administered

zone. In this zone more of the viewshed

would be outside the riverway boundary,

the area would have a series of benches

visible from the river, there would be less

high bluff areas, more of the area would be

incorporated, and its proximity to the

Minneapolis/St. Paul area would likely

mean greater growth. For those areas

within the viewshed, yet outside the

riverway boundary, local zoning standards

would be the primary methods of

controlling scenic impacts to the riverway.

Mitigating methodologies such as the

encouragement of the preservation and

maintenance of mature vegetation, planting

of additional vegetative buffering, the

protection of cultural resources, and the

prohibition of the construction of any more

extremely visible towers within the

viewshed would be beneficial to the

preservation of the riverway’s scenic

quality. Actions taken outside the riverway

boundary could have negligible to major

impacts on the scenic resources of the

riverway, depending on the magnitude of

change. Therefore, the cumulative effects

of NPS/state actions on the scenic quality

of the viewshed would be negligibly to

moderately beneficial, depending on the

magnitude of changes to the scenic

resources outside the riverway boundary.

Land use changes in the riverway and

watershed have had a cumulative effect on

the riverway’s water quality, flows, soils,

vegetation, and wildlife in localized areas.

As the region’s population continued to

grow, new development would be likely

near the riverway and in the communities

along the river. Further habitat fragmentation of the surrounding watershed landscape would likely continue.

The entire historical distribution of the

winged mapleleaf mussel has been significantly altered by human development in

the Mississippi River basin, such as

damming, dredging, application of

fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, and

municipal and industrial waste discharges.

These developments are probably responsible for widespread and precipitous decline

in mussel communities, and the extirpation

or extinction of several species, although

few studies have addressed directly the

specific impact of any one of these factors

(USFWS 1997). Impacts from continued

recreational use and managing agency

actions would contribute incrementally to

impacts noted above.
Impacts of Alternative E: No Action

283

None of the management actions are expected to add substantively to the cumulative effects on cultural resources.

Growth and land use changes could affect

cultural resources adjacent to or within the

viewshed of the riverway. The cumulative

effects of the management actions would

help mitigate the effects of population

growth and development, however, actions

could be less effective under the no-action.

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

would only have a minor effect on the

expected growth of the total economy of

the region. Therefore, there would be no

appreciable socioeconomic cumulative

impacts from implementation of this

alternative occurring in conjunction with

the region’s expected overall population

and economy of the region.

RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM

USES AND LONG-TERM

PRODUCTIVITY

Existing development standards, proposed

inventory, monitoring, and research programs, along with some restrictions on

recreational use within the riverway would

contribute to the long-term protection and

preservation of resources and scenic

character of the landscape.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Some minor to locally moderate adverse

impacts to natural resources would occur.

In the process of resolving conflicts among

different uses or reducing resource impacts, restrictions would be placed on

particular uses, having an adverse effect on

some users. To meet the scenic and

resource protection purposes of the riverway, development restrictions on local

landowners would be implemented. To

meet the recreational purposes of the

riverway, some conflicts between local

landowners and recreational users would

continue and likely increase.

IRREVERSIBLE AND

IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT

OF RESOURCES

Some new residential and commercial

development would likely continue on

private lands within the riverway boundary. Potentially, new river crossing and

navigation channel maintenance could also

occur. It is expected that this new development would result in the long-term localized loss of vegetation, soils, and wildlife

habitat.

Any action that led to the loss of individual

federally listed mussel species or their

habitat would contribute to the loss of the

species as an ecological and genetic resource. It is possible that this alternative

would contribute to their decline. However, it is expected that the implementation

of actions outlined in the recovery plans

for these species would avoid this situation

and contribute to their conservation.
284

IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS

PREFERRED OPTION

This option would involve the least cost,

but some minor adjustments would be

made from the current management

approach. The Lower St. Croix Partnership

Team would provide access to the

decision-making process for citizens and

local interest groups. Staff services to the

partnership team would be provided by the

Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of

Natural Resources.

The states would retain “certification/

objection/veto” authority over ordinance

adoptions, amendments, and variances, but

not over conditional use permits or subdivisions. On-water law enforcement would

remain the same.

OPTION 1: MINOR ADJUSTMENT

This option would be more expensive to

implement that the preferred option but

significantly less costly than options 2 or 3.

The role of the Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area commission would be

reduced in this option. The Lower St.

Croix Planning Task Force would provide

access to the decision-making process for

citizens and local interest groups. State

agency veto authority over local land use

decisions would not change. On-water law

enforcement would remain the same.

OPTION 2: JOINT POWERS BOARD

This option and option 3 would be the

most expensive to implement. The role of

the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission would be reduced, but the

Lower St. Croix Management Commission

would have a larger and more independent

role and would have great local representation. The joint powers board would provide greater access to the decision-making

process for local governments. The joint

powers board, rather than state agencies,

would have veto authority over local landuse decisions. Creation of the joint powers

board and the St. Croix water patrol would

require action by both state legislatures and

the Congress, a significant undertaking. A

new on-water law enforcement agency (the

St. Croix water patrol) would be created,

significantly raising the cost of this option.

OPTION 3: RIVERWAY BOARD

Options 2 and 3 would be the most

expensive to implement. The roles of the

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission and the Lower St. Croix

Management Commission would be the

same as described under option 2. The

riverway board would directly implement

local zoning in riverway communities,

supplanting local decision-making. As

indicated under option 2, creation of a

riverway board and the St. Croix water

patrol would require action by both state

legislatures and Congress undertaking.

Creation of a new on-water law enforcement agency (St. Croix water patrol) would

significantly raise the cost of this option.

OPTION 4: NO ACTION

The riverway would continue to be

managed as it has been in the past. Costs

would be the same as they are now.
285

COMPLIANCE

In implementing the cooperative management plan for the Lower St. Croix National

Scenic Riverway, the National Park Service and the states of Minnesota and

Wisconsin would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations,

statutes, laws, and executive orders, such

as the Endangered Species Act, Clean

Water Act, and National Historic Preservation Act. Several of the key federal and

state statutes and regulations that affect

management of the lower riverway are

summarized below.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT (82

STAT. 906) AS AMENDED

As a designated wild and scenic riverway,

the National Park Service and the states of

Wisconsin and Minnesota will comply

with all provisions of the Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act. If any water resource projects,

including bridges, are proposed that might

affect the lower riverway, the National

Park Service is required to conduct an

evaluation under section 7 of the act.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA)

This act sets forth the federal policy to

preserve important historic, cultural, and

natural aspects of our national heritage. It

requires federal agencies to use a systematic, interdisciplinary, approach that

integrates natural and social sciences in

planning and decision making that may

impact the human environment.

The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to this act and its implementing regulations and guidelines. Implementation of this plan will require ongoing

adherence to the National Environmental

Policy Act. Additional documentation may

need to be prepared in the future if NPS

facilities are moved or altered, or other

actions are taken to manage visitor use.

WISCONSIN ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT OF 1971 (WEPA)

Wisconsin has an Environmental Policy

Act(WEPA), approved by the legislature in

1971 as Wisconsin Stats. 1.11, which is

largely patterned after NEPA in purpose,

content, and process. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR),

as a Lower St. Croix Riverway management partner and whose future management activities will be guided by the

cooperative management plan, is required

to satisfy WEPA requirements. Wis.

Admin. Code NR 150 contains applicable

substantive and procedural requirements to

comply with WEPA for all WDNR actions,

including management plans (NR 150.03

(6)(a)(6)(a)) such as the cooperative management plan. To avoid duplication, NR

150 allows WDNR to adopt an environmental review document of another agency

provided it meets the minimum requirements of WEPA. By cooperating with NPS

in development of the cooperative management plan and design of the public review

process, WDNR has been assured that

WEPA requirements are being satisfied.
Consultation & Coordinatio n
287

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Cooperative Management Plan /

Environmental Impact Statement for the

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

is the product of a collaboration of the

Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of

Natural Resources, the National Park

Service, and the public. Consultation and

coordination among the agencies and the

public were vitally important throughout

the planning process. The public had two

primary avenues by which it participated in

the development of the plan — participation in the Lower St. Croix Planning Task

Force and responses to newsletters and

workbooks.

LOWER ST. CROIX PLANNING

TASK FORCE

The task force was established in February

1996 to guide the development of the

cooperative management plan, facilitate

participation of riverway stakeholders and

the public in the planning process, provide

feedback on the three riverway management agencies’ work, and help build stakeholder consensus on the future management of the riverway. Membership of the

task force was open throughout the planning process to all interested citizens.

Attendees at the task force meetings

included staff of the riverway management

agencies, interested individuals, and

citizens representing boaters, businesses,

landowners, environmental groups, local

governments, and various other groups. A

diversity of interests was always present.

Attendance at meetings was usually between 30 and 50, although some meetings

had over 200 in attendance. Notices of task

force meetings were sent to 53 people on

the task force mailing list, 78 other individuals, 56 interagency contacts, 112 individuals in local government, and the media.

All meetings were advertised and open to

the public.

Between February 1996 and August 1998

the task force met 53 times. Some of these

meetings were informational, intended to

educate task force members, while others

were workshops where the task force

worked on specific topics and developed

recommendations. All of the task force’s

recommendations for the cooperative

management plan were developed through

consensus.

The task force held a workshop in April

1996 to formulate preliminary statements

on the lower St. Croix’s purposes, significance, and exceptional resources and

values. Meetings were then held through

the summer of 1996 to discuss various

issues and concerns regarding future use

and management of the lower riverway.

Issues that were covered included such

topics as river crossings, vegetative cover,

water quality, land protection, and recreation.

In September 1996 a workshop was held to

begin identifying the range of experiences

and resources conditions for which the

lower riverway could be managed. This

information, along with information from

the April workshop and from the summer

meetings was used to develop management

areas.

In January 1997 the task force held a third

workshop to develop management alternatives for the lower riverway. The task force

agreed to an overall vision that described
CONSULATION AND COORDINATION

288

what the riverway ideally would look like

in 20 years. Based on the riverway’s

resources and uses, and differing views

regarding the future use and management

of the lower riverway, the task force identified preliminary alternative management

concepts. A series of meetings were then

held through the winter and summer of

1997 to provide more detail on specific

topics such as riverway crossings and to

identify actions that were common to all of

the alternatives.

In the summer of 1997 the task force examined different organizational structures

for managing the land and water surface.

From September through November 1997

the task force turned its attention to developing guidelines for revising the states’

regulations on land and water surface uses.

In the winter of 1997-1998 the task force

concentrated on refining the management

alternatives for the lower riverway. Using

information generated at earlier meetings,

the alternatives were revised and clarified.

Beginning with a two-day workshop in

April 1998, the task force held seven meetings attempting to reach agreement on a

preferred alternative for managing the

lower riverway and on the guidelines for

revising the states’ regulations. Unresolved

issues were forwarded to the Lower St.

Croix Management Commission. On August 10, 1998, the management commission

met with the task force and resolved these

outstanding issues for the preferred alternative.

NEWSLETTERS AND WORKBOOKS

Newsletters and workbooks were the other

avenue used to keep the public informed

about and involved in the planning process

for the lower St. Croix. A mailing list

consisting of 685 names was compiled

during the planning process. This mailing

list included members of the planning team

from the three riverway management agencies (12), other governmental agencies (75)

[combined interagency team + other agencies], nongovernmental groups/ nonprofit

organizations (57), businesses and commercial interests (143), legislators (22),

local governments (112), and interested

citizens (264).

During the course of the planning process

two newsletters and three workbooks were

published and mailed to the public. In May

1996, the first planning newsletter was

published, alerting people that the planning

process was beginning. Newsletter #1

included the draft purpose, significance,

and exceptional resource/value statements,

and asked for public comments on these

statements, on desired futures, and on

issues the plan should address. About 430

newsletters were distributed and 23 separate responses were mailed back along with

four letters from individuals who voiced

opinions about what should be addressed

in the plan. Most people who responded

supported or did not disagree with the draft

purpose, significance, and exceptional

resource/value statements. Most respondents also had similar desires for the future

of the lower riverway. Many wanted to see

the riverway remain as it is today, wanted

new development to be minimized, and the

small-town flavor of the river communities

to be maintained. There were widely differing views on boating, with some wanting

less motorized boat traffic and/or more

restrictions, and others wanting fewer

restrictions on boating and more

opportunities for access.
Consultation and Coordination

289

Newsletter #2, published in November

1996, summarized the response to the May

newsletter and identified changes that were

made in the purpose, significance, and

exceptional resource/value statements

based on the public’s comments. The

newsletter also identified the issues and

concerns that would be addressed by the

cooperative management plan, described

landscape units of the lower St. Croix, and

described the activities of the task force.

No response form was included in the

newsletter.

In April 1997 an alternatives workbook

was published. The workbook included the

descriptions of potential land and water

management areas, and five preliminary

management alternatives, plus a “no

action” alternative. A vision for the lower

riverway also was presented. A response

form was included in the workbook, asking

the public to comment on the vision

statement and the management alternatives. Fifty-three responses were received

on the workbook. Some of the respondents

felt that conditions were fine and no

changes were needed regarding land use

regulation, while some felt that additional

restrictions were needed to ensure that

conditions stay the way they are now.

Landowners wanted less regulation on

their private property. There was a notable

lack of discussion about river use conflicts

among those who responded to the

workbook.

Workbook #2, published in April 1998,

was intended to compile the existing

products of the task force and serve as a

reference tool for participants at the

preferred alternative workshop. No

response form was included in this

workbook.

Workbook #3, also published in April

1998, focused on the guidelines for

revising the state land use and surface

water use regulations. The workbook

included summary matrices describing the

preferred alternative and guideline

comparison matrices. The public was

asked to indicate its support for different

options being considered by the task force

and the rationale for supporting the option.

Approximately 125 written responses were

received on the options.

CONSULTATION WITH THE STATE

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

OFFICES AND THE ADVISORY

COUNCIL ON HISTORIC

PRESERVATION

Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16

USC 470, et seq.) requires that federal

agencies that have direct or indirect interest

jurisdiction take into account the effect of

undertakings on national register properties

and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to

comment. Toward that end the National

Park Service would work with the Minnesota and Wisconsin State Historic

Preservation Offices and the advisory

council to meet requirements of 36 CFR

800. Both state historic preservation

offices were invited to participate in the

planning process, and each had an opportunity to review and comment on the draft

document. In addition to federal agency

consultation, the state riverway managing

agencies will also consult with the SHPOs

as appropriate, and as directed by state

statute and rule.
CONSULATION AND COORDINATION

290

CONSULTATION WITH AMERICAN

INDIANS

Consultation with American Indian groups

who historically occupied the area of the

riverway was initiated during the planning

process. Two Ojibway Bands (the St. Croix

Band and the Mille Lacs Band), the Prairie

Island Community of Dakota, and the

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife

Commission were invited to participate in

this planning effort. All planning task force

mailings and newsletters have been sent to

the tribes. The Minnesota Indian Affairs

Council and Mille Lacs Band presented

information at a task force meeting concerning the cultural significance of the St.

Croix valley to American Indians. Conversations have been ongoing throughout the

planning process to inform the tribes about

the progress of the plan and identify how

and to what extent they would like to be

involved. The tribes will also have the

opportunity to review and comment on this

draft plan.

CONSULTATION WITH THE U.S.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service began in May 1995

with a request for a list of endangered and

threatened species that may occur in or

near the lower riverway. A response dated

July 1995 was received. An updated list

was requested in April 1997 and a response

dated June 1997 was received and is included in appendix D. The National Park

Service initiated formal consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding management directions that may

adversely affect the federally endangered

Higgins’ eye mussel and the winged

mapleleaf mussel. The biological opinion

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

included in appendix D of this Final

Environmental Impact Statement.

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The Draft Cooperative Management

Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for

the Lower St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway was released to the public on

September 17, 1999. The public comment

period ended November 30, 1999. Approximately 650 copies of the document

were distributed to federal and state officials and agencies, local governments,

organizations, individuals, and public

libraries. The document was also available

for review on the internet. Informational

open houses were held in Hudson, Wisconsin, on October 25 and in Stillwater,

Minnesota, on October 26. The purpose of

the open houses was to discuss and answer

questions about the document and solicit

written comments concerning the plan.

The managing agencies received almost

900 written responses during the public

review period, including written letters, email comments, form cards, and comment

forms that were either filled out and

submitted at the open houses or mailed in.

Of these responses, 37 were from agencies,

organizations, and businesses, including

one federal agency, four state agencies, two

regional and interstate agencies, 10 local

agencies and governments, and 20 organizations and business interests. Responses

were also received from about 850 individuals, including approximately 600 form

cards. Almost all of the form cards supported Alternative E, no action. The

majority of the other responses did not say

which alternative they favored. Of those
Consultation and Coordination

291

that did, approximately an equal number,

around 30, expressed support for the preferred alternative or alternative D, about

half as many supported alternative E, and

only a couple individuals supported alternatives A or C.

Comment letters from all agencies, governments, organizations, and businesses are

reproduced. Responses are provided to

substantive comments questioning supporting information or environmental

analysis, comments recommending actions

or alternatives beyond the range of alternatives in the draft plan, comments that

caused changes or revisions in the preferred alternative, or comments requesting

clarification of the draft. No response was

given to comments simply expressing preference for an alternative. Because of the

volume of written comments received, only

individuals’ letters that contained comments not covered by the agency and

organization letters have been printed and

are listed below. Where appropriate, the

text in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement has been revised to address the

comments. These changes are identified in

the managing agencies’ responses.

Federal Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency

Regional Agencies

Metropolitan Council

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission

State Agencies

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Minnesota Historical Society

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

State Historical Society of Wisconsin

Local Agencies

City of Afton

City of Bayport

City of Lake St. Croix Beach

City of Marine on St. Croix

City of Prescott

City of Stillwater

Village of Osceola

Pierce County

St. Croix County

Washington County

Organizations and Businesses

Andersen Corporation

Beanies

Carpenter Nature Center

Cedar St. Croix Landowners Association

Thousand Friends of Minnesota

Empson Archives

Minnesota River Valley Audubon Chapter

Northern States Power Company

Port of Sunnyside

Riverway Consensus Standard

Sierra Club

St. Croix River Marina Managers

St. Croix River Association

St. Croix Waterways Association

Steamboat Inn

Stillwater Heritage Preservation

Commission

Upper Mississippi Waterway Association

Wildlaw

Wolf Marine, Inc.

Citizens for Responsible Zoning and

Landowner Rights

Individuals

Larry Wolf

Gene Anderson

Dennis O’Donnell

Clarence Nelson

Bill and Sharon Clapp

Kathryn M. Nelson
292

LETTERS (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 initiatedactions to correct them. Detailed water quality information, planned correctiveactions, and ongoing monitoring plans are being developed as part ofpreparation 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 onpages 159-161. Language has been added to the discussion of water quality andquantity management directions (page 32 of the draft) that clarifies therelationship between this plan and the St. Croix River Basin Water ResourcesPlan. Additional text describing existing land cover has been prepared andinserted in the “Affected Environment” chapter, referencing the “Atlas of LandCover and Land Cover Change,” MWBAC, 1993. Planned land management isdescribed in the description of the preferred alternative on pages 61-67 and inappendix A. Endangered species are discussed throughout the plan. Asignificant potential threat to endangered species in the riverway is a threat tonative mussels from the zebra mussel. Zebra mussel control is addressed in theZebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan, which includes a monitoring componentand is updated annually. That plan is described on pages 33-34 of the draft andis found in appendix G. Water quality problems can affect mussels; waterquality issues are being addressed in the planning process noted above. Peakingoperations 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 toeliminate this threat, and the text on page 34 has been corrected. 

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Federal Agencies
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 underthe preferred alternative. The discussion of user carrying capacity found onpage 71 has been revised to help ensure that user numbers do not degradenatural resources; standards and indicators would be developed and amonitoring program initiated. The discussion of island and public shorelinemanagement found on pages 67-68 has been revised to clarify that campingwould be more aggressively managed to reduce the impacts of trampling andinappropriate 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 Dwould provide greater protection for natural resources, the land use controlsnecessary for implementation would be difficult to enact. This would be themost expensive alternative to implement and it would be difficult to acquirenecessary funds. The implementation costs section found on pages 124-126 hasbeen revised to more accurately reflect the costs of implementing eachalternative. The description of alternative D on pages 100-104 has been revisedto more clearly describe how it would be implemented. Enhanced naturalresource management common to all alternatives is discussed on pages 31-35of the draft plan.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 eachcommunity lies in the riverway, and the Metropolitan Council cannot expectcommunities to meet growth goals in environmentally sensitive districts,something that was confirmed by the Metropolitan Council’s LivableCommunities Committee on December 20, 1999.

Regional Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 ofthe plan; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Regional Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 limitof 40 mph between sunrise and sunset and 20 mph between sunset and sunriseon the river between the north limits of Stillwater and the confluence with theMississippi 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 toadopt riverway ordinances, ordinance amendments and variances, but not overlocal government actions on conditional use permits and subdivision plats.

6. The plan has been revised to show the high-water, no-wake rule would remain

at 683 feet.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Regional Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
3. The relationship of this plan with the bridge project is clarified on page 18 of

the draft plan.

4. River crossings have a profound affect on the river environment and on the

outstandingly remarkable values for which the riverway was designated. Assuch, they must be carefully controlled. MnDOT and WisDOT have bothreported that they do not see any need for new bridges across the river duringthe 20-year life of this plan. The text on page 67 of the draft plan has beenrevised to more clearly state how future river crossings would be evaluated.

5. See the response to Metropolitan Council comment 4.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

State Agencies
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 riverwayboundary as defined in the Federal Register excludes the state parks (their

protection was assumed) and therefore excludes the land on the Wisconsin sideof the bridge, but does include the land on the Minnesota side of the bridge.The Highway 8 bridge is within the riverway. 

7. The error has been corrected.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 specificpurposes and showing many highways would only serve to clutter them.

9. See previous comment.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

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

State Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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(pages 124-126 of the draft plan) has been rewritten to include the cost of thesesurveys.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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.

4. Comment noted.5. Comment noted.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.

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 townhistoric districts.

9. The text on page 73 of the draft plan has been revised to clarify that all three

managing agencies should take better advantage of their internal expertise oncultural resources.

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

historic structures has been added.

State Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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.

14. The organizations have been added to agency mailing lists.15. The text has been revised to include reference to cultural and historic

resources.

16. The text has been revised to include the information provided.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
17. The bibliography has been corrected to include an additional reference. Other

reports on archeological surveys exist, but they contain sensitive informationabout archeological sites protected under the Archeological ResourcesProtection Act and it would be inappropriate to reference them in thebibliography.

State Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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. 

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
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 thedraft is consistent with the definitions on page 67.

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

State Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. Comment noted.

2. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 9.3. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 2.

State Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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.

6. See the response to Minnesota Historical Society comment 11.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
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.

State Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 theexisting industrial facility in Bayport.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

Public Comments
Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 differentboundary adjustment than proposed by the city, the Lower St. CroixManagement Commission would take action on specific boundary changesafter completion of this plan.

Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Lcal Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 consistentwith the district. The city does not have the historic character emblematic ofthe “small town historic” district.

Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 “netproject area” is not applicable to Lake St. Croix Beach. 

3. A minimum lot width requirement of 100 feet in the “small town” district is

reasonable. The current Minnesota rules require a minimum lot width of 100feet in sewered areas and 150 feet in unsewered areas. Many lots in Lake St.Croix Beach do not meet those current standards.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
4. See the response to Afton comment 1.

5. The states, in development of land use regulations that will implement

elements of this plan, are preparing a definition of screening and aredeveloping language that protects views of the river from residences as well asviews 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 MinnesotaRules since 1974 and has not prevented yard maintenance in this community.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
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 theMississippi at Prescott. This is consistent with speed limits on LakeMinnetonka 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 statewideprograms in both states.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
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 programestablished in 1977 that is not discussed in this plan.

12. The text on page 291 has been revised to resolve these concerns.13. Nonmotorized craft can operate outside the marked 9-foot-deep maintained

channel, as can most motorized recreational vessels. Shoaling at the mouth ofthe Kinnickinnic River has not reduced the width of the 9-foot channel belowthe current 200 foot standard for many years, and it is unlikely dredging wouldever 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 pearlymussel has colonized the Kinnickinnic Narrows since the most recent dredgingevent, avoiding the need to dredge the channel in the future is a priority.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
COMMENTS RESPONSES

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

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 themanaging agencies. The Lower St. Croix Management Commission acted in1985 to move the boundary west (from a section line) to the railroad bridge;Front, Orange, and Broad Streets; and Highway 10. However, the boundarychange was not published in the Federal Register so never took effect. Thaterror will be corrected when other boundary corrections, discussed on page 75of 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 layalong the railroad bridge, Front, Orange, and Broad streets, and Highway 10.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. Congress established that the riverway shall extend from the dam at St. Croix

Falls to the confluence with the Mississippi River.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 likedowntown. The Dutchtown area is residential in character, with the exceptionof the two marinas, and bears a greater resemblance to Lake St. Croix Beach orAfton than to downtown Stillwater or Hudson.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
3. The text has been changed to reflect the comment.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 wasconsidered during the planning process but rejected. The Natural ResourceConservation Service advised keeping the standard at 12%, stating there wasmore evidence today than 25 years ago that erosion problems can occur tooquickly on slopes greater than 12%.

COMMENTS

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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 notfacing the river may be handled differently as noted in the Wisconsin DNRmemo dated December 29, 1999, addressed to Rep. Kitty Rhoades, but this is alevel of detail beyond the scope of this plan that will be addressed as the statesdevelop land use regulations.

3. The two states have different statutes that may prevent a consistent approach to

substandard structures and nonconforming uses. Further, the Wisconsinlegislature was considering changing the Wisconsin statute as this plan wasbeing finalized. This issue will be addressed in state land use rulemakingprocesses subsequent to completion of this plan; all references to this topichave been removed from the plan.

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

comment 6.

Local Agencies

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

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION

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.

Local Agencies

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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

part of Washington County (among other areas) would be restricted to largerand wider lots, with greater structure setbacks and lower structure height. The“minimally disturbed” district and the “natural” district that appeared in thedraft plan turned out to be virtually identical and they were merged in thepreferred alternative into the similar “conservation” district.

6. Cluster development will be provided for in the regulations being developed to

implement this plan.

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

RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS
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 controlplanning 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 includesome 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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Local Agencies
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
1. See the response to Afton comment 1.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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.

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

comment 2.

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
1. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

comment 2.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses 
2. See the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

comment 6.

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION

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 ManagementCommission was created to be the vehicle for coordinating that jointmanagement. The agencies originally asked to Minnesota-Wisconsin BoundaryArea Commission to sit as a nonvoting member to enhance public input; thisplan adds the input of a representative of the Lower St. Croix PartnershipTeam, 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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
1. Concur. While the boards described in Options 2 and 3 provide for coordinated

management, they add considerable cost to plan implementation and in somecases create a new layer of government.

2. Concur. While the plan no longer contains the seven land use districts

described in the draft, the five districts it contains provide significantly greaterland use management flexibility than the two districts created by the originalplan.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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 andStillwater, and the area between Afton State Park and St. Croix Bluffs RegionalPark, will remain classified as “rural residential.”

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 thatvegetation would continue to screen structures on the top of the bluff, whilebluff prairie restoration could occur further down the bluff.

5. See the response to Washington County comment 4.6. Comment noted.7. Comment noted.8. Comment noted.9. Comment noted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
10. The preferred alternative encourages a reduction in utility crossings. It would

also reduce camping on islands.

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. Withstatewide requirements in place in Minnesota that lots must have adequate landarea for two drainfields, the water quality goals of that lot width or size aremet.

12. See the response to Afton comment 1.13. The inconsistent statements have been corrected.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
4. Comment noted.

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
1. Comment noted.

2. Comment noted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses 
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
1. The plan does not propose creating the no-wake zone recommended in this

comment.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
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 oflands within Afton and Kinnickinnic state parks; the 1976 plan did not proposeany other state fee acquisition activity, other than a few small boater waysidesthat proved impractical.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
2. Alternative A remains an implementable alternative and therefore was

considered in development of the draft plan. The old alternative E (which wasnot the no-action alternative described in the draft plan) would havesignificantly reduced recreational diversity in violation of the first purposestatement on page 10 of the draft plan, and was therefore eliminated followingextended public discussion.

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION

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

indisputable.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
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 page19 of the draft plan.

5. The referenced sentence is within a section of the plan intended to describe

issues and concerns relevant to the cooperative management plan. The textaccurately describes issues related to navigation channel maintenance.

6. The plan clearly states the managing agencies’ commitment to science (see

page 31 of the draft plan, for example). Performance evaluation will beaccomplished through standard monitoring and evaluation processes of eachplan implementation component, rather than as a separate component.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
9. The reference is clearly not intended to be a complete list but only a few

obvious examples.

10. The text has been corrected.11. Photographs used in the final plan have been changed to better reflect the

character of the land use areas.

12. See the response to comment 11 above.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
13. The exact boundary will be used as recommended when detailed district

boundary maps are prepared.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
14. See the response to comment 2 above.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
15. The recommendation is noted, but is beyond the level of detail of this

management plan. An annual meeting with utilities is just one toolmanagement may consider for advancing the goal to reduce utility lines.

16. The text is intended to describe the general character of the area.17. Detailed maps delineating the shore activity zones (and where they overlap)

will be prepared when water surface use regulations are being developed toimplement portions of this plan.

18. Comment noted. The section is intended to provide a general description of the

stretch of river, not to detail ownership patterns.

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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
20. The text has been corrected.

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

make the recommended statement.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
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 notincreased. MWBAC data cannot determine horsepower. See also page 150 ofthe draft plan.

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’BrienState Park north is nonmotorized. Use between O’Brien State Park and theArcola Sandbar is a compatible mix of nonmotorized use, small fishing boats,and slow-moving pontoon boats. All types of motorboat use occurs south of theArcola Sandbar. The trend toward increasing size among motorboats south ofthe 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 speedlimits will prevent increasing size from impacting the diversity of uses in thatsouthern area (see the response to Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary AreaCommission comment 2.

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

been a trend toward larger craft south of Stillwater.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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 managersto respond as needed to changes in technology that might occur in the next 20years. 

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
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, whichis defined as “a leisurely speed, whereby the wake or wash created by themotorboat is minimal, but in no case greater than 15 mph.”

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 theriverway 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 eyemussel, and with the Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan. Implementation ofthe Zebra Mussel Task Force Action Plan has prevented infestation of the

riverway by zebra mussels.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
29. Thank you for your confidence in the measures proposed to help protect

cultural resources. However, we believe the impacts that can be reasonablyexpected are most consistent with the definition of a “minor impact” asdescribed on page 193 of the draft plan.

30. The plan has been revised to clarify that conflicts between landowners and

recreational users would be reduced by boat speed limits, restrictions oncamping, and increased law enforcement.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
1. Comment noted. Actions to implement the Zebra Mussel Task Force Action

Plan have thus far been successful in preventing an infestation of zebra musselsin the riverway.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 beaffected by implementation of any of the alternatives, as noted on page 193 ofthe 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 toencourage 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 thisplan.

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

managed as “conservation” lands, similar to the recommendation that they beclassified as “natural.”

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
7. Since protection of scenic values is one of the outstandingly remarkable values

for which the riverway was designated and protection of ecologicallysignificant vegetation is not, screening of structures does take precedence overprotection of ecologically significant vegetation. In most cases, both values canbe protected together and management for ecologically significant vegetativecommunities is an improved resource management objective over the 1976plan.

8. The statement has been corrected.9. Under the preferred alternative, there would be no net increase in the number

of transportation corridors. Increases in traffic associated with wider bridgeswould be evaluated (under the provisions of section 7(a) of the National Wildand Scenic Rivers Act) on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts on waterand air quality, habitat, and hydrology in the riverway and necessary mitigationwould be required.

10. Comment noted.11. The plan has been revised to eliminate the “silent boating” water management

area. The original goal of that water management area was to provide an areawhere users would be completely free of the sounds of internal combustionengines. 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 beachieved. The backwaters that had been proposed as “silent boating” will bemanaged as “natural waters” with a no-wake speed requirement. The adjacentmain channel will be managed as “quiet waters” with a modified slow-speedrequirement. See also the response to the Riverway Consensus StandardsFoundation comment 26.

12. While quiet and solitude are to be protected in the riverway, the plan does not

propose to protect them everywhere and there is no proposal to protect thosevalues along the river’s shore in Afton State Park, where boat speeds have notbeen 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 atthe mouth of the Kinnickinnic River should eliminate the need for futurechannel maintenance dredging.

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

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 oran individual, family or community, the landscape reflects the physical,biological, and cultural character of everyday lives. Function plays a significantrole in vernacular landscapes. This can be a farm complex or a district ofhistoric farmsteads along a river valley. Examples include rural historicdistricts and agricultural landscapes. Additional information can be found in theSecretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,With Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, National ParkService, 1996.

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 alternativedoes, as recommended, designate the entire community “small town historic.”

16. See the response to comment 7 above.17. Comment noted.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 onlyat the Hudson Islands and the state parks.

19. Comment noted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Organizations and Businesses
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

COMMENTS RESPONSES
Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES

1. From the north city limits of Stillwater south to Prescott, the plan proposes a

daytime speed limit of 40 mph and a night-time limit of 20 mph.

2. Enhanced public education is an important component of riverway management and the plan has been amended to identify this need. In addition,

increased public education is needed when implementing amended water surface use regulations.
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. See the response to St. Croix River Marina Managers comment 1.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 thecomment notes, this reach of river is heavily used and provides diverse motorboat experiences, including waterskiing. The area will be managed with a daytime speed limit of 40 mph and a night-time limit of 20 mph. The “moderaterecreation” classification is applied between the Arcola Sandbar and the northlimits of Stillwater, with a 24-hour speed limit of 20 mph. Most waterskiingoccurs between 25 mph and 36 mph; a 30-mph speed limit would prevent asignificant amount of waterskiing activity.

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

COMMENTS RESPONSES

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

Organizations and Businesses

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

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

authorization is no longer needed. Snagging and dredging has not occurred ator north of the Arcola Sandbar since at least the 1960s and probably not since1915. As discussed on page 72 of the draft plan, shallow conditions at theArcola 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 alevel 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 fundamentallyimportant element of this plan.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
5. Language has been changed in Appendix B to respond to the concern about

adequate dock length and to eliminate the implication that docks cannot extendbeyond four feet. The dock width issue will be addressed in state rulemaking.

6. A “30% visibility rule” is not proposed in this plan.7. Tall structures are likely to impact scenic quality to a greater degree than smaller structures. See the response to comment 4, above.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 onsoil stability, strongly recommended using the 12% slope figure to guardagainst increased erosion. In developing this plan, the Natural ResourceConservation Service (the SCS’s successor agency) reported that data collectedin the last 20 years showed even stronger evidence that the slope standardshould remain at 12%.

9. While restrictions on camping need to be limited to accommodate public interest in that activity, camping activity cannot be permitted to destroy the very

resources the agencies are charged to protect and the campers are there toenjoy.

10. Technological advances have made it possible to operate at high speeds in very

narrow and shallow areas. The plan proposes continuing the existing no-wakerule in back channels.

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 relevantissue with respect to extremely high speeds in daylight hours, but safety is onlya small part of the justification for speed limits on the riverway. The riverwaywas designated for its scenic and recreational characteristics, and there is amplejustification to slow traffic to enhance visitor enjoyment. It is analogous to thedifference in speed limit on an interstate highway versus a scenic road. 

12. The plan has been revised to propose prohibiting waterskiing north of

Stillwater and to establish a 24-hour speed limit of 20 mph between the northlimits of Stillwater and the Arcola Sandbar. The river there is very narrow andlends itself to more passive activities. Waterskiing is proposed to continue to beallowed south of the north limits of Stillwater.

Organizations and Businesses

S ́

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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

government land use decisions for consistency and provide comments to theLower 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 takenindependent of this plan.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. There are portions of Prescott, Afton, and Hudson that have blufflines within

the riverway boundary. Steep slopes deserve protection regardless of whetheror not they lie within municipal boundaries.

2. Comment noted.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. See the response to St. Croix Waterways Association comment 2.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
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 theMississippi River. It is important that all government vessels be inspected toensure compliance.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
1. Development of a regional, interstate transportation and land use strategy is

beyond the scope of this plan. The managing agencies are exploring such astrategy, however, in discussions with state transportation agencies and others.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

2. Comment noted.3. Comment noted.4. See the response to Upper Mississippi Waterway Association comment 3.
Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
1. Comment noted.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION ANDCOORDINATION
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. TheMinnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission was invited to serve on theLower St. Croix Management Commission as a nonvoting member to providepublic 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

of the 1976 Master Plan. The plan proposes a general policy statement appear

in state rules.

4. See the response to St. Croix Waterways Association, comment 8.5. The managing agencies provide technical assistance to local governments on a

regular basis. However, it would not be appropriate to spend public funds tosurvey all lands within the riverway for the purpose of providing site plandetails for private land developers.

6. Steep slopes deserve protection regardless of their location.7. See the response to comment 6 above.8. See the response to comment 5 above.9. See the response to St. Croix County comment 3.

10. The plan has been changed to provide for a 35-foot structure height limit in the

rural residential district.

11. Comment noted.

Organizations and Businesses

COMMENTS RESPONSES
12. The “uppermost point” issue will be addressed in state rulemaking subsequent

to completion of this plan.

13. See the response to Afton comment 1.14. Comment noted.15. See the response to St. Croix County comment 3.16. The plan has been revised to eliminate reference to a range of speeds.17. See the response to comment 2 above.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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 southern25 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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
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 beused during busy times and would add watercraft to an already crowdedresource, it would be unfair to suggest the general public is responsible forreducing crowding when watercraft from private homes, private marinas, andfee-based access points are not.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
1. The plan does not propose creating the no-wake zone recommended in this

comment.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. Local governments are encouraged to protect the viewshed outside the formal

riverway boundary by voluntarily extending their riverway controls to all landswithin the viewshed.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
1. Appendixes A and B will provide guidance for development of state land and

water surface use regulations.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
COMMENTS RESPONSES

Individuals
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.

COMMENTS RESPONSES

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
Appendixes / Bibliography / Preparer s
431

APPENDIX A: LAND USE REGULATION GUIDELINES

The purpose of this appendix is to provide

suggested zoning guidelines for lands within

the riverway boundary (as published in the

Federal Register), between the dam at St.

Croix Falls / Taylors Falls and the confluence

with the Mississippi River.

Rationale: Local governments adopt zoning

ordinances based on state rules. Special zoning

guidelines are needed in the riverway to protect the river’s outstanding values as discussed

in the cooperative management plan. Lot development standards are needed to protect

steep slopes to minimize erosion, prevent

water quality degradation, and prevent negative visual impacts. River setback standards are

needed for structures to minimize erosion,

prevent water quality degradation, and prevent

negative visual impacts. Minimum lot width

and lot size standards are needed to ensure that

development in certain areas does not change

the character of the setting and to prevent additional impacts as seen from the river. Structure

height standards are needed to help limit visual

impacts. Limits on types of uses are needed to

ensure that additional development does not

change the character of the setting and to help

prevent additional impacts. Vegetative

management standards are needed to protect

scenic character, reduce erosion potential,

maintain and restore historically significant

plant communities, and enhance diversity.

Standards for nonconforming or substandard

structures are needed to minimize visual and

natural resource impacts.

Ordinances will have a general policy statement based on the following: “In order to

reduce the effects of overcrowding and poorly

planned shoreland development, to provide

sufficient space on lots for sanitary facilities,

to minimize flood damage, to maintain property values, and to preserve and maintain the

exceptional scenic, natural and cultural characteristics of the waters and related lands of the

Lower St. Croix River Valley in a manner

consistent with the National Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act (PL 90-542), the Lower St. Croix

Act (PL 92-560), the Minnesota Lower St.

Croix Act (M.S. 103F.351 and the Wisconsin

Lower St. Croix Act W.S. 30.27), the (local

government) hereby adopts the following

provisions to be applicable to the St. Croix

River District of the (local government) as

herein designated, and as a section of the (local

government) zoning code.”

All codes will include the following

definitions:

Bluffline is the top of a slope preservation

zone.

Net project area means developable land area

minus slope preservation zones, floodplains,

road rights-of-way, required setbacks, and

wetlands.

St. Croix River District includes all lands within the riverway boundary (as published in the

Federal Register) between the dam at St. Croix

Falls / Taylors Falls and the confluence of the

Mississippi River.

Slope preservation zone means areas with

slopes greater than 12%, with the horizontal

interval of measurement not exceeding 50 feet.

Visually inconspicuous means difficult to see

or not readily noticeable in summer months as

viewed from the river.

All codes will include the following

standards:

In slope preservation zones, there will be no

structures and no grading or filling, and vegetation management will follow standards described elsewhere. Structures will be set back at

least 40 feet from all blufflines.

Bluffline setback: On blufflines visible from

the river (without vegetation), structures will

meet the following setback requirements: 40

feet in river town, small town-historic, and

small town districts; 100 feet in the rural resi-
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

432

dential district; 200 feet in the conservation

district.

Structure color: In all districts, structures designated as historic or in designated historic

districts may use earthtone colors, or may use

colors appropriate to the period in history for

which they were designated. Other new or

expanded structures will conform to the following standards: Earthtone color will be used

for all new or expanded structures in all districts except the river town district. In the river

town district, structure color requirements will

be determined by local ordinance.

Minimum lot width: In the rivertown zoning

district, minimum lot width will be determined

by the community’s underlying zoning ordinance. In other districts, the following minimum lot width standards will apply (at building line and at side nearest and parallel to the

river): 100 feet in the small town-historic and

small town districts, 200 feet in the rural

residential district, 250 feet in the conservation

district.

Minimum lot size: In the river town, small

town, and small town historic districts, minimum lot size will be determined by the community’s underlying zoning ordinance. In the

rural residential and conservation districts, all

lots will be a minimum of 2.5 acres and contain at least 1 acre of net project area. Where

city sewer services are not available, each lot

will have adequate land area for one principal

dwelling structure and two onsite sewage

treatment systems.

River setback: Structures will meet the following setback requirements from the river’s

edge: 100 feet in the rivertown, small townhistoric, and small town districts and 200 feet

in the rural residential and conservation

districts.

Structure height: New or expanded structures

will meet the following maximum height requirements: 45 feet in the rivertown district; 35

feet in the small town-historic, small town, and

rural residential districts; and 25 feet in the

conservation district. Structure height will be

measured between the lowest exposed surface

of the structure on the side facing the river and

the uppermost point of the structure.

Vegetation management: All districts will

require a restriction on disturbing vegetation in

slope preservation zones within 200 feet of the

rivers edge and within 40 feet of blufflines to

protect scenic character and reduce the potential for erosion. Vegetative management standards will not prevent the removal of diseased

or hazard trees, designated noxious weeds, or

exotic species. These standards will also allow

management practices to restore and promote

preferred plant communities, such as successional climax forest and presettlement

disturbed oak savanna ecotypes. Vegetative

screening of structures will be emphasized

over maintenance of preferred plant communities. Management actions will encourage, but

not require, maintenance and restoration of

preferred plant communities on private lands.

Codes will include appropriate sections of the

following concerning permitted uses: In the

rivertown district, permitted uses will be those

allowed by the community’s underlying zoning

ordinance. In the small town-historic and small

town districts, permitted uses include singlefamily structures; other uses permitted by the

comunity’s underlying zoning ordinance may

be allowed as conditional uses. In the rural

residential and conservation districts, permitted

uses include single-family structures and agriculture. In the rivertown and small townhistoric districts, there will be historic preservation ordinances and historic-theme architectural standards for new development. In the

small town-historic and small town districts,

new commercial and multifamily uses will not

be allowed, but commercial and multifamily

uses will become conditionally permitted uses

and not be “nonconforming.” Permitted uses in

the rural residential and conservation districts

include waysides, rest areas and overlooks,

government resource management, and public

and quasi-public natural resource educational

facilities.
433

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 –

river town, small

town, small town

historic

40’ 40’ 40’ Existing standards adequately protect resources in

developed areas

Bluffline setback –

rural

100’ 100’ 100’ Existing standards adequately protect resources

Bluffline setback –

conservation

100’ 100’ 200’ Greater level of protection

needed for these very

natural areas

Structure color –

river town

Earthtone Earthtone Local standards* Structure color standards

determined by local ordinance to meet riverway

character.

Structure color –

rural, conservation,

small town, small

town historic

Earthtone Earthtone Earthtone* Existing standards

adequately protect

resources

Minimum lot width

– river town

100/150’** 100’ Determined by

underlying local

zoning code

Local zoning is adequate to

protect lot width in

developed urban areas

Minimum lot width

– small town, small

town historic

100/150’** 100’ 100’ Existing standards adequately protect resources;

uniformity between states

desirable

Minimum lot width

rural

200 200 200 Existing standards

adequately protect

resources

Minimum lot width

– conservation

200 200 250 Greater level of protection

needed for these very

natural areas

Minimum lot size –

river town, small

town, small town

historic

20,000 sq.ft./1

acre**

Local zoning in

effect 1/1/76

Local zoning*** Local zoning is adequate to

protect lot size in developed

urban areas, provided there

is adequate area for on-site

sewage treatment

Minimum lot size –

rural, conservation

2.5 acres 1 acre of net

project area 

2.5 acres and

contain at least 1

acre of net project

area, whichever is

greater ** *

To protect density,

character, and resource

values of these areas, a

minimum lot size is

applicable

River setback in

river town, small

town, small town

historic

100’ 100’ 100’ Existing standards

adequately protect

resources

River setback in

rural, conservation

200’ 200’ 200’ Existing standards

adequately protect

resources

Structure height –

river town

35’ 35’ 45’ Greater flexibility

appropriate for developed

urban areas
434

Topic MN Rules WI Rules Proposal Rationale

Structure height –

small town, small

town historic, rural

35’ 35’ 35’ Existing standards

adequately protect

resources

Structure height –

conservation

35’ 35’ 25’ Increased level of

protection needed

Vegetation

management

(all districts)

Vegetative cutting

restricted within

100 feet of river in

river town, small

town, small town

historic; 200 feet

of river in rural,

conservation; on

steep slopes

Vegetative cutting

restricted within

200 feet of river;

within 40 feet of

bluffline; on steep

slopes; exemption

provided for

woodland tax law,

forest crop law

Vegetative cutting

restricted within

200 feet of riveredge; within 40

feet of bluffline;

on steep slopes;

exemption for restoration of preferred plant communities in areas

where no impact

on screening of

structures

Interstate standardization

needed to protect visual

character; flexibility

valuable for restoration of

native species

Permitted uses –

river town

Conservancy,

agriculture,

single-family

residential, parks;

other uses

permitted by local

zoning will be

conditionally

permitted

Conservancy,

agriculture, singlefamily residential,

parks; other uses

permitted by local

zoning

All uses permitted

by local zoning

Increased flexibility

appropriate in developed

urban areas

Permitted uses –

small town, small

town historic

Conservancy,

agriculture,

single-family

residential, parks;

other uses

permitted by local

zoning will be

conditionally

permitted

Conservancy, agriculture, singlefamily residential,

parks; other uses

permitted by local

zoning

Conservancy,

agriculture, singlefamily residential,

parks; other uses

permitted by local

zoning will be

conditionally

permitted.

Some increase in flexibility,

especially for existing

structures, appropriate in

these largely developed

areas

Permitted uses –

rural, conservation

Conservancy,

agriculture,

single-family

residential, parks

Conservancy,

agriculture, singlefamily residential,

parks

Conservancy,

agriculture, singlefamily residential,

parks

Existing standards

adequately protect

resources

*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.
435

APPENDIX B: WATER SURFACE USE GUIDELINES

Watercraft speed regulations were first established on the lower St. Croix River in the mid1960s in the form of limited slow-no-wake

zones in the Hudson, Kinnickinnic, and Prescott narrows. Those limits were established by

order of the Washington County Sheriff.

As boating activity on the river grew rapidly in

the 1960s and 1970s, there were increasing

concerns that the river was becoming unsafe

and that additional speed regulations would

need to be imposed. The Scenic River Study of

the Lower St. Croix, prepared in 1971 as

directed by Congress (National Wild and

Scenic Rivers Act, 1968), concluded boating

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

enhance safety and to reduce the impacts of

boat wakes.

Following designation of the Lower St. Croix

(Lower St. Croix Act, 1972) the interagency

planning team undertook development of a

management approach for regulating boating.

The result was appendix B of the Master Plan

(1976), which contained a framework for state

and federal boating regulations. Based on that

framework, the states and the National Park

Service in 1977 imposed water surface use

regulations on the riverway.

In 1978 the Lower St. Croix Management

Commission developed a Riverway Management Policy Resolution that provided guidance

for future changes in those regulations.

Based on that guidance, the state-federal

regulations were amended in 1978, 1981,

1984, 1987, 1991 and 1996.

The purpose of this appendix is to provide a

framework for future changes in the regulations. It is based on the following four water

management districts:

WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS

Active Social Recreation

In this district are found large numbers of both

people and watercraft. The types of boats

found in this area would vary widely: while

most would be motorized, nonmotorized

watercraft may be present. Boat speeds would

also vary significantly; they would be strictly

controlled in some limited areas (such as

narrows areas), but the highest boat speeds

allowed on the river would be in this district.

Moderate Recreation

This district may contain large numbers of

watercraft at times, but use in this area would

tend to be more moderate in terms of numbers

of people and watercraft on the water, and in

terms of the intensity of activity. A variety of

boat types, primarily motorized watercraft,

may be present. Boats may travel at different

speeds, but tend toward slower speeds than the

Active Social Recreation District, although

faster than the Quiet Waters and Natural

Waters districts. Boat speeds may be very

strictly controlled in some limited areas (such

as narrows areas); there would be an overall

limit on boat speeds.

Quiet Waters

This district would provide for low-impact

boating activities, but during peak use periods

large numbers of watercraft could be encountered. Management would be directed toward

recreational uses that leave the surface of the

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.
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

436

Natural Waters

This district would provide an experience

emphasizing a sense of peace and quiet, with

some opportunities for solitude. Watercraft

numbers would usually be very low. Most

watercraft would be human-powered. Watercraft speeds would be kept low.

BOATING MANAGEMENT

The following regulatory approach to

managing boating is recommended:

Speed Limits

Speed limits should be imposed on the St.

Croix as follows, based on management area

classification in the plan:

Active Social Recreation: 40 mph

between sunrise and sunset, and 20 mph

between sunset and sunrise

Moderate Recreation: 20 mph

Quiet Waters: slow speed, but in no case

greater than 15 mph

 Natural: slow-no-wake

Shore Activity Zone

A shore activity zone is needed to reduce boat

speeds near shore to ensure the safety of

swimmers and moored and beached boats and

to prevent erosion. Boat speeds should be

restricted to slow-no-wake within 100 feet of

all shore, including islands, within 100 feet of

swimmers, and within 100 feet of

nonmotorized craft.

Slow-No-Wake Zones in Narrows Areas

Slow-no-wake zones have reduced boat speed

(to increase safety, reduce resource damage

and preserve diverse experiences) in narrows

areas of parts of the Lower St. Croix since the

1960s. They exist to increase safety, reduce

resource damage and preserve diverse

experiences. Slow-no-wake speed limits have

historically been established in areas that

exceed density standards.

High-Water No-Wake

During periods of high water, the river

contacts the shore in areas that are highly

susceptible to erosion. Watercraft traveling at

speeds above a slow-no-wake speed produce

wakes that accelerate erosion on these unstable

shore areas, so speeds need to be restricted

during these high-water events. All boating

should be limited to a slow-no-wake speed

whenever river levels reach or exceed 683 feet

as measured at the Stillwater gauge.

Density Policy

The potential need for speed regulations

should be studied when density exceeds 15

acres of water per moving boat, and speed

regulations need to be imposed when density

exceeds 10 acres of water per moving boat.

Craft Type Restrictions

Amphibious craft should not be permitted to

drive onto publicly owned shore areas except

at boat ramps. Personal watercraft are required

to operate at no-wake speeds near all shore,

including islands and swimmers. This distance

is set by state law and is 150 feet in Minnesota

and 200 feet in Wisconsin.

Boat Noise

Watercraft noise limits are established by state law

in each state.
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

437

ACCESS

Large numbers of watercraft use the Lower St.

Croix on summer weekends. Management

issues associated with high use include potential safety problems, potential resource damage

and strong management interest in preserving

the existing diversity of recreational uses. In

addition to water surface use controls aimed at

managing existing use, access controls are

justified to prevent significant growth in

boating activity. Access to the river comes

through private property, unlimited access

from the Mississippi River at the mouth of the

St. Croix, and public and quasi-public access

from boat ramps and marinas.

Private Property

Residential riparian owners have a right to

access the water through their property, but the

exercise of that right is limited to their personal needs. Unless limited by other requirements, a dock may extend waterward the

greater distance of: 1) a boat length, 2) the

distance to the 4-foot water depth contour (at

normal low water, which is 675 feet elevation

from Stillwater south), or 3) the distance to a

deeper contour if required by the draft of the

craft using the dock but in no case should the

dock extend beyond the 100-foot shore activity

zone. The states should establish standards for

allowable dock size.

Mooring buoys must be the minimum size and

number necessary (in combination with

berthage) to meet the owner’s personal needs

and must be placed within the 100-foot shore

activity zone adjacent to the owner’s property.

Single riparian parcels in common ownership

may be allowed a combinaton of berthage and

moorage that total one watercraft per buildable

frontage lot equivalent to what would be

allowed if the property was developed for

single-family homes. The total number of

watercraft must be served by one common

dock or pier.

Resource limitations of the site and river

cannot be exceeded.

Mississippi River

The states should work with other agencies to

improve the recreational appeal of this portion

of the Mississippi as a way to encourage

boaters to stay on that river.

Boat Ramps

There should be no new or expanded boat

ramps or car-trailer parking on the Lower St.

Croix, except for completion of the Minnesota

public water access planned in the stretch of

river near the A.S. King Generating Plant.

State and local units of government are

strongly encouraged to restrict parking

adjacent to all launch ramps, public and

private, on lands under their jurisdiction.

Marinas

New marinas should not be allowed on the

riverway, and existing marinas should not be

permitted to expand in any way, including dry

storage. Marina capacity should not be

transferred from one marina to another.
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: SACN_Superintendent@nps.gov

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.

(c) Undertake projects to improve surface water quality and surface water flow.

(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: SACN_Superintendent@nps.gov

PAGES OMITTED: (pp. 445-472)
473

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)
APPENDIXES/BIBLIOGRAPHY/INDEX

474

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)
Appendix E: Federal and State Listed Species of Concern

475

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)
476

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

Style Historic District

MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 6/92

Interstate State Park CCC/WPA Rustic

Style Campground

MN-Chisago-Taylors Falls Listed - 6/92

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

Freight House and Depot

MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 7/77

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

Barn

MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 6/80

St. Croix Lumber Mills Power House MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 4/82

The St. Croix River Access Site (21

WA 49)

MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 8/84

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

Prison (old)

MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 12/74

Washington County Courthouse MN-Washington-Stillwater Listed - 8/71

Second Street Commercial Historic

District

Wisconsin-St. Croix-Hudson Listed - 10/84

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

Courthouse

Wisconsin-Polk-Osceola Listed - 12/78

Alvah A. Heald House Wisconsin-Polk-Osceola Listed - 12/85

Lamar State Grade School, District No.

5 - Lamar Community Center

Wisconsin-Polk- St. Croix Falls Listed - 3/82

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
477

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
478

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
479

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).
480

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)
481

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)
482

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)

484

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.
485

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.
486

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boyle, T.P., N.J. Hoefs, and D.R. Beeson

1992 “An Evaluation of the Status of

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities in the Saint Croix

National Scenic Riverway,

Minnesota and Wisconsin.”

Internal report for the Water

Resources Division, National Park

Service. On file at riverway

headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI.

Curtis, J.T.

1971 The Vegetation of Wisconsin. An

Ordination of Plant Communities.

University of Wisconsin Press:

Madison, WI.

Fago, Don; Hatch, Jay

1993 Aquatic Resources of the St.Croix

River Basin, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Interior National

Biological Survey; Biological

Report 19. Proceedings of the

Symposium on Restoration

Planning for the Rivers of the

Mississippi River Ecosystem.

Fannes, C. A.

1981 Birds of the St. Croix River Valley:

Minnesota and Wisconsin. North

American Fauna.

Glenn-Lewin, T.R. Rosburg, and J. M. Ver

Hoef

1992 “A Survey of the Wetlands of the St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway,

Wisconsin and Minnesota, from

Stillwater to the Headwaters of the

St. Croix and Namekagon Rivers.”

Iowa State University: Ames, IA.

Graczyk, D.J.

1986 Water Quality in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Wisconsin.

Geological Survey. Water

Resources Division. Madison, WI.

Hornbach, Daniel J., Ph.D.

1996 “Bivalves in the St. Croix River.” A

report for the Water Resources

Management Plan, National Park

Service, Department of Biology,

Macalester College: St. Paul, MN.

Hudick, Joe

1982 “Breeding Bird Survey” (spring

1982). Unpublished National Park

Service document. St. Croix Falls,

WI.

Karamansky, Theodore J.

 1992 “Saving the Saint Croix: An

Administrative History of the Saint

Croix National Scenic Riverway”,

Omaha, NE: National Park Service.

Kuss, F.R., A.R. Graefe, and J.J. Vaske

1990 Visitor Impact Management, vol. 1:

A Review of Research. National

Parks and Conservation Association,

Washington, D.C.

Maercklein, R. A.

1998 “1998 Breeding Bird Survey: A

Comparison to the 1982/83

Surveys, St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway.” Unpublished National

Park Service document. St. Croix

Falls, WI.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

Minnesota County Biological Survey

1990 “Department of Natural Resources,

Natural Heritage and Nongame

Wildlife Programs.,Chisago County,

Minnesota.” Map Series No. 5.

1993 “Department of Natural Resources,

Natural Heritage and Nongame

Wildlife Programs, Washington

County, Minnesota.” Map Series

No. 1.
Bibliography

487

1996 Significant Biological Features of

the St. Croix Watershed

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area

Commission

1994 Stewardship of the Lower St. Croix

River and Its Watershed. Hudson,

WI. Copy on file at riverway

headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI.

Mossman, M. J.

1991 “Breeding Birds of the St. Croix

River, Wisconsin and Minnesota.”

Passenger Pigeon 53:39-77.

Natural Resource Conservation Service,

Department of Agriculture

1968 Soil Survey of Pierce County,

Wisconsin. In cooperation with

University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin

Geological and Natural History

Survey, Soil Survey Division and

Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment

Station.

1978 Soil Survey of St. Croix County,

Wisconsin, In cooperation with

Research Division of the College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences,

University of Wisconsin.

1979 Soil Survey of Polk County,

Wisconsin, In cooperation with

Research Division of the College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences,

University of Wisconsin.

1980 Soil Survey of Washington and

Ramsey Counties, Minnesota, In

cooperation with the Minnesota

Agricultural Experiment Station.

1994 Soil Survey of Chisago County,

Minnesota, In cooperation with the

Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station.

National Park Service, U.S. Department of the

Interior

1976a Final Environmental Impact

Statement, Master Plan for St. Croix

National Scenic Riverway. Prepared

by the NPS Midwest Regional

Office and the Minnesota and

Wisconsin Departments of Natural

Resources. On file at riverway

headquarters, St. Croix Falls, WI.

1976b Final Master Plan. Saint Croix

National Scenic Riverway. On file

riverway headquarters, St. Croix

Falls, WI.

1983 Land Protection Plan. Copy on file

at riverway headquarters, St. Croix

Falls, WI.

1985 Problem Exotic Plants in Selected

Parks of the Midwest Region and a

Bibliography on Their Management.

Prepared by Karen E. Pestana.

Research/Resources Management

Report MWR-6. Omaha, NE.

1991Statement for Management. Copy on

file at riverway headquarters, St.

Croix Falls, WI.

` 1995a Resources Management Plan for St

Croix and Lower Saint Croix

National Scenic Riverway. On file at

the riverway headquarters, St. Croix

Falls, WI.

 1995b St. Croix River Basin, Water

Resources Management Plan, Phase

II, Interagency Team Members -

Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency, National Park

Service, Wisconsin Department of

Natural Resources. On file at

riverway headquarters, St. Croix

Falls, WI.
APPENDIXES/\BIBLIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

488

 1997a “Water Resources Management

Plan.” St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway, Minnesota and Wisconsin, Holmberg, K., J. Perry, R.

Ferrin, D. Sharrow. Copy on file at

riverway headquarters, St. Croix

Falls, WI.

 1997b Staff meeting notes/report by Sue

Jennings, Resource Management

Specialist, St. Croix National Scenic

Riverway, Stillwater, MN.

Troelstrup, N. H. Jr., J. L. Foley, and J. A.

Perry

1993 Changing Patterns of Water Quality

and Biology Within the Lower St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway.

Department of Forest Resources,

University of MN, St. Paul, MN

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers

1997 Upper Mississippi River Channel

Maintenance Managmeent Plan.

U.S. Department of Commerce

1997 Regional Economic Information

System 1969-95. Bureau of

Economic Analysis, Economics and

Statistics Administration.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the

Census

1992 Census of Population and Housing,

1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CDROM (Minnesota and Wisconsin)

Washington, D.C.

1996a “USA Counties 1996, General

Profile.”Available on Internet @

http://www.census.gov/stab/

USA96/27/000.

1996b “USA Counties 1996, General

Profile.” Available on Internet @

http://www.census.gov/stab/

USA96/27/025.

1996c “USA Counties 1996, General

Profile.” Available on Internet @

http://www.census.gov/stab/USA96/

27/163.

1996d “USA Counties 1996, General

Profile.” Available on Internet @

http://www.census.gov/stab/USA96/

55/000.

1997 “Estimated Number and Percent

People of All Ages in Poverty by

State: US 1993.” Available on

Internet @ http://www. census.gov/

cgibin/ hhes/ saipe93/gettable.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Department of

the Interior

1979 Classification of Wetlands and

Deepwater Habitats of the United

States. Office of Biological Services,

FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the

Interior

1995 “Long-term Water Quality Monitoring - Saint Croix National Scenic

Riverway.” Progress report and

scope of work proposal. Unpublished report. Mounds View, MN.

Wetmore, C. M.

1991 “Lichens and Air Quality in St.

Croix National Scenic Riverway -

Final Report.” Unpublished Report

for the National Park Service. University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN.

Winker, K. D., D. W. Warner, and A.R.

Weisbrod

1992 “Timing of Songbird Migration in

the St. Croix River Valley,

Minnesota, 1984–1986.” The Loon

64:131-37.
489

PREPARERS AND CONSULTANTS

PLANNING TEAM

Lower St. Croix Management Commission

Tony Andersen, National Park Service

Kent Lokkesmoe , Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources

Terry Moe, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources

Clarence Malick, Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commision

Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force

Clarence Malick, chairman

A.W. Clapp, Vice-chairman

Interagency Planning Team

Tony Andersen, National Park Service

Steve Johnson , Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources

Terry Moe, Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources

James Harrison, Minnesota-Wisconsin

Boundary Area Commision

LOWER RIVERWAY PLANNING

COORDINATOR

Randall Thoreson

Kate Hanson (former coordinator)

TECHNICAL EXPERTS/CONSULTANTS

Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources

Molly Shodeen

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources

Ronald Benjamin

David Heath

Tom Lovejoy

National Park Service

Brain Adams, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway

Brian Carlstrom, Denver Service Center

John Daugherty, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway

Judy Dersch, Denver Service Center

Randy Ferrin, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway

John Haubert, Washington Office

Jan Harris, Denver Service Center

Glenda Heronema, Denver Service Center

John Hoestery, Denver Service Center

Al Hutchings, Midwest Regional Office

Dave Kreger, Denver Service Center

Michael Madell, Midwest Regional Office

Robin Maercklein, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway

Paul Roelandt, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway

Sandy Schuster, Denver Service Center

Sandra Washington, Midwest Regional Office

Mark Weekley, Midwest Regional Office

Marianna Young, St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Nick Rowse

Chuck Kjost

Rick Sayers

DOCUMENT PREPARERS

Nola Chavez, Landscape Architect, Denver

Service Center, National Park Service.

Bachelor of Landscape Architecture and

Environmental Planning and Master of

Landscape Architecture. Twenty years with the

National Park Service as a landscape architect.

Responsible for writing the “Land and Water

Status,” “Recreational Facilities along the

Lower St. Croix,” and the “Scenic Impacts”

sections of the EIS.

Steve Johnson, River Management Supervisor,

Division of Waters, Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources. B.A., Sociology. Eleven

years with Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary

Area Commission, 12 years with Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources. Responsible

for coordinating parts of the planning process,

including public involvement, and writing

portions of the document.
APPENDIXES/BIBLIIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

490

Richard Lichtkoppler, Resource Economist,

Denver Service Center, National Park Service,

B.S., Business Administration, M.S., Natural

Resources, Ph.D., Resource Economics. Nine

years with the National Park Service. Responsible for socioeconomic resources and

analyses.

Lynn Peterson, Natural Resource Specialist,

Denver Service Center, National Park Service.

B.S.(Forestry) and A.A. (Conservation). Six

years with the South Dakota Dept. of Game,

Fish & Parks; 11 years with the National Park

Service. Responsible for writing portions of

the natural resource sections in the “Affected

Environment” and “Environmental Consequences” chapters of the EIS.

Michael Rees, Outdoor Recreation Planner,

Denver Service Center, National Park Service.

B.A.(Environmental Studies), Master of Forest

Science (MFS). Eight years with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, seven years with the

National Park Service. Responsible for writing

the “Introduction,” the “Management Alternatives,” and portions of the “Environmental

Consequences” for the EIS.

Elaine Rideout, Natural Resource Specialist,

Denver Service Center, National Park Service.

B.S. (Environmental Studies). Four years with

the Ohio Department of Transportation; 17

years with the National Park Service.

Responsible for managing the planning

process, coordinating the overall document,

and writing portions of various sections of the

document.

Tom Thomas, Historian, Denver Service

Center, National Park Service. Ph.D., History,

University of Colorado, 1996. Seven years

with the Denver Service Center. Responsible

for “Historical Overview” and “Cultural

Resources” sections, and cultural resource

inventories.

Randy Thoreson, Planning Coordinator, Lower

St. Croix Planning Office. B.A., Planning and

Resource Biology, M.A., Urban and Regional

Studies/Planning. Twenty-three years

experience in the Midwest and Mountain West

in planning and environmental fields for public

and private sectors. Two years with the

partnership team (replacing Kate Hanson,

previous planning coordinator in 1997).

Responsible for office management, project

coordination, and facilitation of the Lower St.

Croix Planning Task Force. Provided input to

and review of the document.
491

INDEX

access, 5, 6, 14, 17, 36-37, 49-51, 65, 68-69, 82, 84,

93-94, 97, 106, 111-112, 132, 146, 152-154,

175, 178, 180, 193, 270, 277

acreage, 14, 75, 80, 163, 180

air quality, 33, 156, 157

alternative A, 76, 78-79, 81, 82- 85, 89-90, 125,

129, 134, 136, 210, 212, 214-221, 233

alternative B, 86, 88, 90-91, 93-97, 125, 129, 134,

136, 224, 227-235, 238, 240-241, 243

alternative C, 95-97, 99, 125, 134, 136, 238-245

alternative D, 100-102, 105-108, 125, 136, 248,

252-259

alternative E, 26, 109-112, 114, 136, 262-267

archeological, 16, 34, 73-75, 112, 136, 171, 173-

174, 206, 234, 244, 258, 266-267

boaters, 12, 14, 17, 69, 91, 97, 150-151, 179, 199-

200, 214, 216, 229, 239, 252-254, 258, 263, 275

boundary, 3, 5-7, 12, 14-15, 19-20, 26, 29, 31-32,

43, 46, 63-64, 73-79, 85-89, 94-95, 99-100, 102,

108, 113-114, 117-118, 120-123, 126, 130, 135,

137, 143, 160, 162, 167-168, 179-180, 182, 191-

192, 207, 209, 221, 223, 235, 237, 245, 247,

260-261, 264, 268-269

carrying capacity, 71, 85, 94, 99, 108, 112, 149

climate, 156, 193

costs, 25, 74, 117, 124-26, 136-137, 191, 270

cultural landscape, 16, 73, 112, 173-174, 205, 220,

234, 244, 258, 267

cultural resources, 10-14, 16, 72, 73, 113, 136, 141,

171, 174, 191, 193, 205-208, 219, 220, 222, 233-

234, 236, 243-244, 246, 258, 260, 266, 268- 269

economy, 136, 171, 176, 206, 208, 220, 222, 234,

236, 244, 246, 258-260, 267, 269

federal, 9, 18, 21, 26, 29, 30, 35, 36-38, 66, 68, 80-

82, 90, 96, 104, 111, 113, 117-118, 134, 141,

162, 167, 173, 178, 180, 191, 193, 202, 204-205,

207, 219, 221, 233, 235, 242, 243, 245, 257,

260, 266, 268, 271, 277, 280

fishing, 5, 17, 30, 34-37, 46, 52, 55, 56, 91, 146,

149, 150-155, 172, 204, 257

floodplains, 162, 193

geologic resources, 74, 193

historic resources, 74, 205-206

impacts, 3, 9, 14-17, 25, 32-33, 36-37, 65, 67-68,

72, 79, 81-82, 89-91, 96, 100, 105, 109-110,

112, 117, 127, 134, 136-137, 141, 149, 160- 161,

174, 191-198, 200-210, 212-214, 216-246 248-

252, 254, 256-269

issues, 12-14, 18-19, 26, 29-32, 109, 111, 118, 136,

141, 181, 191, 263, 275-277

joint powers board, 121-122, 137, 270

jurisdiction, 5, 36, 111, 173-174, 277

land use, 3, 12, 14, 20, 25-26, 29, 30, 34, 43, 61,

64-66, 74, 76, 81, 85-86, 89-90, 94, 96, 99-100,

104, 108-109, 110, 113-114, 118-123, 125, 129-

131, 135, 137, 141, 175, 181, 191, 194, 201-

202, 208, 216-218, 222, 230-231, 235- 236, 240-

241, 245-246, 255-256, 259-260, 269-270, 277

management area, 6, 12, 25, 26, 29, 36, 41, 43-50,

53, 57, 61, 64-65, 69, 71, 76, 79-80, 82, 84, 86,

89, 91, 93-95, 97, 100, 102, 106, 111, 129, 136,

152, 154, 194, 197, 201-203, 206, 208, 210, 216,

218, 222, 224, 230-232, 234, 236, 240-242, 244,

246, 248, 252, 255-256, 258, 260, 275, 277

management commission, 26, 75, 109, 112-113,

117-123, 135, 137, 181-182, 270, 276

managing agencies, 3, 5, 11, 12, 16-18, 21, 25-26,

29-38, 43, 65-68, 71-73, 75-76, 79-81, 84, 90,

93-94, 96-97, 104-105, 109, 111-113, 119, 124,

134, 146, 191, 194, 204-205, 210, 219, 224, 232-

233, 243, 257, 266

mussels, 11, 15, 16, 19, 33-35, 161, 164, 166-167,

192, 204, 219, 233, 243, 257-258, 265-266

natural resources, 3, 11, 12, 14-21, 29, 31-32, 35-

38, 61, 66, 68, 74, 81, 90, 96, 104, 110-111, 117-

123, 135-136, 141, 152, 154, 156, 159, 161, 167,

174, 180-182, 191, 202, 208-209, 217, 222, 229,

231, 237, 239, 241, 246, 254, 256, 262-263, 269,

271, 275, 279

option, 12, 25, 33, 68, 117-24, 126, 135, 137, 270,

277

physiography, 142, 157, 193

policy development, 117-118, 122, 135

preferred alternative, 13, 21, 25-26, 61, 63, 67-69,

71-76, 80, 85, 94, 99, 108, 125, 129, 131-134,

136, 194, 196, 198-201, 203, 205-206, 209-

210, 213, 216-217, 219-220, 231, 235, 241, 246,

252, 276-277

private, 5, 14, 29, 31, 36-37, 39, 44-47, 49-51, 66,

68, 73-74, 81, 90, 96, 104, 109-110, 113, 134,

150-151, 153, 158, 179-181, 197, 201-205, 209,
APPENDIXES/BIBLIIOGRAPHY/PREPARERS

492

213, 217, 223, 227, 231, 233, 237, 241-242, 247,

252, 255-257, 261, 264-265, 269, 277

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,

117, 119-123, 134-135, 141, 146, 151, 153, 155,

161, 175, 180-181, 191, 197, 200, 203-204, 216,

219, 227, 230-234, 239, 241, 252, 254, 256- 257,

263, 265-266, 271, 275-278

recreational facilities, 3, 65, 80, 89, 95, 100, 143,

151, 153

recreational use, 3, 14-15, 17, 31, 36-37, 55, 61, 69,

76, 82, 84, 86, 91, 93-97, 100, 105-106, 109,

111, 129, 132, 136, 141, 149-150, 178, 191, 193,

199-201, 203, 205, 207-209, 215, 218- 219, 221-

222, 228-229, 232-233, 235-237, 239, 241-243,

245-247, 252, 254, 257, 259, 261, 263- 265,

268-269

river crossing, 12, 25, 67, 81, 90, 96, 105, 110, 134,

136, 198, 209, 214, 223, 227-228, 237-238, 247,

252, 254-255, 261, 269, 275

socioeconomic environment, 12, 136, 175, 220,

234, 267

soils, 15, 136, 150-151, 159-160, 163, 200-202,

208-209, 216-217, 223, 230-231, 237, 240-241,

247, 255-256, 261, 264, 268-269

threatened and endangered, 35, 66, 81, 90, 104,

110, 141, 167, 192, 204, 218, 233, 242, 257

topography, 142, 193

tourism, 39, 175, 179, 206, 220-221, 235, 244, 259,

267, 279

vegetation, 12, 15, 16, 30, 33, 44-47, 49-51, 65-67,

74, 80-82, 90, 95-96, 104, 109-110, 134, 136,

142, 144, 147, 150-151, 163, 174, 197-198, 200,

202-203, 207-209, 213-214, 217, 221, 223, 227,

231-232, 236-237, 241-242, 246,-47, 251-252,

256, 260-262, 264-265, 268-269

vision, 9, 11-13, 26, 31, 114, 276-277

water surface use, 26, 30, 43, 61, 117-120, 123,

135, 146, 181, 254, 276

watercraft, 14, 18, 52-56, 68, 72, 91, 105, 112, 114,

132, 134, 148-149, 151, 157, 198, 205, 219, 233,

243, 252, 257, 266

Watershed Stewardship Initiative, 9, 13, 19, 31, 74,

75

wetlands, 141, 162-164, 174, 193

wild and scenic river, 3, 5, 6, 9-10, 26, 38, 75, 81,

113-114, 141, 154, 173, 180, 271

wildlife, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 20, 29-31, 33-36, 44, 46-

49, 51, 57, 75, 136, 147, 151-152, 154, 163, 174,

203, 208-209, 218, 223, 232, 237, 242, 247, 256-

257, 261, 265, 268-269

winged mapleleaf mussel, 19, 167, 204-205, 208,

219, 233, 243, 257-258, 265-266, 268, 278

zebra mussel, 15-16, 20, 33-34, 72, 112, 166, 204,

219, 233, 257, 266