Table Of Content

"00 0b51-8-07 ZX 29.7G/b: ST FL Final Cooperative Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement P i ge Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Minnesota * Wisconsin 2001-00 $850|NF OQ 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 gencral direction for managing the area for the next 15 to 20 years. The Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources are co-lead agencies with the National Park Service in the preparation of this plan. Six alternatives for land and water use management were considered. The preferred alternative would maintain long stretches of the lower riverway’s natural and rural landscape, while allowing limited, planned development in communities that would be consistent with the historic character of the communities; it would protect and enhance the diverse recreational uses found in the riverway. Alternative A would also maintain long stretches of the natural and rural landscape; however, a slightly greater proportion of the lower riverway would encompass town landscapes; recreational use would intensify. Alternative B would stress maintaining the visual landscape, while maintaining the diversity of water recreational experience. The overall level of recreational use would be allowed to increase slightly, although segments of the river would be designated for specific uses. Alternative C would essentially be the same as alternative B, except there would be a freeze on recreational use levels. —~ Alternative D would emphasize resource protection, development visible from the river would be reduced even in towns, and recreational use would be reduced. The natural qualities of the riverway would be promoted and restored, with an emphasis on promoting quieter, slower, and less intrusive experiences. Alternative E, the no- action alternative, would maintain existing land use and recreational use natterns, 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 esponsibilities and cost. . he 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.C. 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 LT — SLANE PAGE SUMMARY The Lower St. Croix National Scenic River- e Provide an opportunity for the education way, which extends 52 miles from St. Croix and study of the geologic, historic, eco- Falls/Taylors Falls to the confluence with the logical, and aesthetic values to further Mississippi River at Prescott/Point Mouglas, is enhance stewardship of the river. jointly managed by the National Park Service (NPS), Minnesota Department of Natural The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Resources (MDNR), and Wisconsin Depart- Riverway is significant for the following ment of Natural Resources (WDNR). Many reasons: changes have occurred in the St. Croix Valley since the original riverway Master Plan was e The riverway is an exceptional developed by the three managing agencies in combination of high-quality natural and 1976. Recognizing that the Master Plan was cultural resources, and scenic, aesthetic, dated, the managing agencies agreed to jointly and recreational values. develop a cooperative management plan for the lower riverway. ¢ These resources and values exist ina distinctive river valley setting with a The joint plan has been adopted by the federal strong regional identity and character. and state river managing agencies after an adequate analysis of the benefits, environ- e These resources and values exist within mental impacts, and costs of alternative the expanding Twin Cities metropolitan area. courses of action and a thorough consideration of public input. These purpose and significance statements cannot be s\!pported by continuing to implement the 1976 Master Plan; inade- PURPOSE AND SIGNIFICANCE quacies of the current management approach require a new direction. This Lower St. Croix River Cooperative Management Plan / Environmental Impa.t Statement will provide a general direction for OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE managing the area for the next 15 to 20 years, while meeting the following purposes of the VALUES lower riverway: To be eligible for inclusion in the national e Preserve and protect (and restore and en- wild and scenic rivers system a river or its hance where appropriate) the riverway’s rimmediate environment must possess one or ecological integrity, its unimpounded more of the following outstandingly remark- condition, its natural and scenic resources, able values: scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and its significant historic resources and wildlife, historic, cultural, or others that are similar in nature. e Accommodate a diverse range of recreational opportunities that do not detract The Lower St Croix was designated for its from the exceptional natural, historic, outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, scenic, and aesthetic resources and geologic values. e Provide an environment that allows the opportunity for peace and solitude SUMMARY ALTERNATIVES The preferred alternative would emphasize protecting and enhancing the riverway’s Alternatives in this plan describe different diverse character. It would maintain long concepts or visions for the future. A number of stretches of the lower riverway’s natural and common management directions and associ- rural landscape, while allowing limited, ated strategies would be implemented under all planned, development in communities that alternatives. A preferred alternative and four would be consistent with the historic character other alternatives for managing land and water of the communities. Riverway users would in the lower riverway are presented along with continue to find opportunities to engage in a a no-action alternative, which describes how wide range of recreational experiences. The the lower riverway is currently managed and emphasis would be on maintaining and en- would be managed in the future if no changes hancing the diverse landscape character and occurred. A public workshop was held using a the diverse water-based recreational caucus/negotiation process to develop the opportunities. preferred alternative. Most elements of the plan were agreed upon at the caucus, but a few Alternative A would provide for more devel- were forwarded to the Lower St. Croix opment and more recreational activity than the Management Commission for decision. preferred alternative. Managing agencies would seek to maintain long stretches of the A set of options, including a preferred option, lower riverway’s natural and rural landscape, is also presented that identifies different while allowing limited, planned development organizational structures for future manage- within the boundary that was consistent with ment of the lower riverway. Any option could the historic character of the riverway’s com- be combined with any land and water use munities. However, under alternative A, a management alternative. slightly greater proportion of the lower riverway would encompass town landscapes, allowing greater opportunities for development within or adjacent to riverway towns. Addi- MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS tional residential development would also COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES occur in rural areas. Riverway users would continue to find an array of recreational Some elements of future riverway manage- opportunities, including increased oppor- ment will occur no matter what alternative tunities for more social activity on parts of the strategy for management is selected. Topics river, but unlike the preferred alternative, no include government coordination and coop- efforis would be made to regulate user eration, land use management, American activities if they were not causing significant Indian treaty rights, riverway stewardship, damage to the resource or posing safety natural resources management, management of hazards to others. hunting, fishing, and trapping, recreational use management, and interpretation. Alternative B would stress maintaining the current landscape character within the riverway boundary and maintaining the diversity of LAND AND WATER USE water recreational experiences as much as ALTERNATIVES possible. However, the overall level of recreational use would be allowed to increase but This Cooperative Management Plan / some use would be reallocated and separated. Environmental Impact Statement presents and New development would be more limited than evaluates six alternatives. alternative A and slightly more limited than the preferred alternative. iV Summary Alternative C would achieve the same condi- development in rural areas and enhanced tions as alternative B — views of the lands management of recreational use. Protection of within the boundary and the diversity of river scenic resources would be improved compared recreational experiences would be maintained. to the no-action alternative. Limited localized The major difference from other alternatives impacts on natural resources would occur in would be that the strategy used to maintain the connection with residential development (e.g., diversity of recreational experience would be soil and vegetation disturbance and disruption to freeze the growth of recreational use. of wildlife), but these impacts would be less than under the no-action alternative. Protection Alternative D would promote and restore the of cultural resources would be improved. Rec- natural qualities of the lower riverway — the reational diversity would be enhanced and the predominance of natural features over modern resource impacts of recreational use would be developments would increase. Natural land- reduced compared to the no action alternative. scapes would be restored where feasible, and Conflicts between recreational users and managing agencies would strive to make the landowners would be reduced. There would be landscape appear more natural than it is now. negligible impacts on the regional economy. Emphasis would be placed on promoting quieter, slower, and less intrusive experiences Alternative A would allow more development that would not disturb others. Overall in rural areas and increased recreational use. recreational use would be reduced. Residential construction would negatively impact scenic resources more than the other Alternative E, the no-action alternative, alternatives. Limited localized impacts on provides a baseline for comparing the other natural resources would occur in connection alternatives. The managing agencies would with residential development (e.g., soil and continue to manage the lower riverway as they vegetation disturbance and disruption of have in the past. The agencies would continue wildlife); these impacts would be more than to follow the 1976 Master Plan (with some any other alternative. Protection of cultural changes based on current management resources would be improved compared to the practices) and the Lower St. Croix Manage- no-action alternative, but not as much as the ment Commission’s pcelicy resolution. preferred alternative. Recreational diversity Management would focus on maintaining would not be enhanced and the resource existing land use and recreational use patterns impacts of recreational use would be greater and would react to recreational use as they than any other alternative. Conflicts between have in the past. Rural residential development recreational users and landowners would would be allowed to a greater degree than all increase. There would be negligible impacts of the alternatives except alternative A. Policy on the economy. resolution would be used to address new issues that arose. Alternatives B and C would allow slightly less development in rural areas than the preferred alternative. Protection of scenic resources would be improved compared to the ENVIRONMENTAL no-action alternative and slightly improved CONSEQUENCES compared to the preferred alternative. Limited localized impacts on natural resources would The potential consequences of the six occur in connection with residential develop- alternatives on scenic resources, natural ment (e.g., soil and vegetation disturbance and resources, cultural resources, recreational use, disruption of wildlife); these impacts would be and the socioeconomic environment were similar to but slightly less than the preferred evaluated. In general, the preferred alternative. Protection of cultural resources alternative would allow limited private SUMMARY would be improved compared to the no-action wildlife); these impacts would be greater than alternative and would be very similar to the the preferred alternative but less than alterna- preferred alternative. Recreational diversity tive A. Protection of cultural resources would would be enhanced and the resource impacts not improve. Recreational diversity would not of recreational use would be reduced com- be enhanced and resource impacts of recrea- pared to the no-action alternative. Under tional use would continue to increase. Con- alternative B there would be limited growth in flicts between recreational users and land- recreational use, with impacts similar to the owners would continue to slowly increase. preferred alternative. Under alternative C there Like the action alternatives, there would be would be no growth in recreational use, so negligible impacts on the regional economy. enhancement of recreational diversity, and the resource impacts of recreational use would be less th _ the preferred alternative. Conflicts MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE between recreational users and landowners OPTIONS would be reduced, and more so under alternative C. Like alternative A, there wouk Five options were developed for the lower be negligible impacts on the regional riverway management structure. Each one economy. would provide a direction for determining agencies’ roles and responsibilities for policy Alternative D would allow less development development and land and water use manage- in rural areas than the other alternatives. Pro- ment. In all cases, the state would review and tection of scenic resources would be improved comment on local zoning actions; the two state compared to the other alternatives. Limited departments of natural resources and the localized impacts on natural resources would National Park Service would participate in and occur in connection with residential develop- provide staff support for the Lower St. Croix ment (soil and vegetation disturbance and Management Commission; the three agencies disruption of wildlife); these impacts would be would provide staff for on-water law enforce- slightly less than the preferred alternative. ment, rescue, and related activities; the Park Protection of cultural resources would be Service would provide staff for management improved compared to the no-action alterna- of lands it owns north of Stillwater. tive and would be similar to the preferred alternative. Recreational diversity would be The preferred option would retain the significantly reduced; the resource impacts of management commission and include an recreational use would be reduced compared additional nonvoting member from the newly to all other alternatives. There would be created partnership team that would serve an negligible impacts on the regional economy. advisory role. The Minnesota- Wisconsin Some people would feel negative impacts from Boundary Area Commission would continue in displaced recreational use, and some landown- its administrative support and nonvoting ers would experience negative impacts be- advisory roles. Managing agencies would have cause of development restrictions. no veto authority over a local government's decision on a conditional use permit, or The no-action alternative, alternative E, would subdivision; if there was disagreement, continue to allow development in rural areas in appeals could be made to the courts. Existing the same way as in the past 24 years. Protec- water use enforcement roles would continue. tion of scenic resources would continue to Option 1 would also retain the management slowly decline. Limited localized impacts on commission but would include a local govern- natural resources would occur in connection ment representative. The planning task force with residential development (e.g., soil and would be restructured and made permanent. It vegetation disturbance and disturbance of would assist in rules interpretation, mediation, vi Summary and coordination for land management and/or IMPACTS OF MANAGEMENT water use management. Options 2 and 3 STRUCTURE OPTIONS would further expand the management com- The preferred option would create the least mission and create a water patrol. Option 2 change from the current management would create a joint powers board for land use approach. Option | would involve a minor management, whereas option 3 would create a change. Options 2 and 3 would involve the riverway board to manage land use. Option 4 most change, with each establishing a new would continue the existing management management board. There would be no change structure for policy direction and land and from the current management approach under water use. option 4. Vil Vil BLANE PAGE a a Oars 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 12 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 33 Natural Resources Management 34 Management of Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping 37 Recreational Use Management 38 Interpretation and Education 41 Management Areas Land Management Areas 46 Water Management Areas 57 Land and Water Use Alternatives Background 65 | Preferred Alternative: Protect and Enhance Riverway’s Diverse Character 66 Management Concept 66 Land Use 66 iX