Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Untitled (2)
• I Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination OfficeOW -, 117 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 FEB - 5 1998 ' (612) 439-7122 �I TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force; Local Governments; Interagency Contacts. FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Randy Thoreson, Coordinator, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force DATE: February 3, 1998 Greetings! The Interagency Team has been busy compiling the great deal of information covered by the Task Force over the past year. We are now ready to get together as a group again and proceed with the next stages of the Lower St. Croix Riverway Management Plan and Watershed Stewardship Statement. Following is a schedule for the next couple of months: Tuesday, February 17 Topics: * Overview of riverway concept alternatives * Refinement of alternatives (Alternatives Matrix) * Management areas slide presentation and discussion * Review of Appendix A and Appendix B Handouts: Information Packet * Contains alternatives matrix, rationale sheet, management areas guidelines, common actions, Draft Appendix A(Suggested Zoning Guidelines), Draft Appendix B (Measures for enhancement of water-based recreational use) Thursday, March 5 Topics: * Final refinement/list of riverway concept alternatives * Refinement of management areas * Refinement of Appendix A and Appendix B * Overview of April Preferred Alternative Workshop Handouts: Information Packet *Contains Alternatives Matrix, management structure table Upcoming: Friday, April 17 (evening) and Saturday, April 18 (day) Topic: Preferred Alternative Workshop Tuesday, May 5 Topic: Management Structure Workshop All meetings held at Phipps Center in Hudson @7:00 p.m. unless otherwise stated Note:Hope to seg you at these timely and important meeting CITY OF LAKE ST. CROIX BEACH 1919 S. QUEBEC AVENUE P. O. BOX 158 LAKELAND, MN 55043 DAWN BEEDLE, MAYOR (612) 436-7031 BETH CAMPBELL, COUNCILMEMBER FAX 1612)436-8310 JOHN JANSEN, COUNCILMEMBER NANCY SCHNEIDER, COUNCILMEMBER SALLY THOMPSON, COUNCILMEMBER (u ,� 11 I SEP 101997 DATE: September 9, 19970 l i TO: Mayors and Councilmembers, Clerks and Administrators of our L "Sister Cities" along the St. Croix River. Cities of: Afton Lakeland Shores Osceola Bayport Marine-on-St. Croix Prescott Hudson North Hudson St. Mary's Point Lakeland Oak Park Heights Stillwater FROM: John Jansen, Councilmember, Lake St. Croix Beach, MN For the past 20 months, a broad-based Planning Task Force has been working toward a new "Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan" which will ultimately replace the "1976 Master Plan". Thus far, the Task Force has been identifying and describing a range of alternative approaches and options to the various issues involved and eventually will be faced with the daunting task of choosing among them, and recommending a specific plan. The current focus of the Task Force is on proposals for management structure, including the role (if any) of local government in management and enforcement. Next, we will consider Land Use Controls (Zoning), and after that, water surface controls and enforcement. It should be obvious that in these areas, the new plan will profoundly affect our cities, not only as regulators, but also as riparian owners of municipal property that we actively manage ourselves. As some of you know, I have lived most of my life within sight and hearing of the beautiful St. Croix, spending as much as possible of my spare time on it or in it, and have spent more years that I like to admit as a local elected official. At most Task Force meetings, I am the only person present, who addresses the issues of riparian cities. I would sincerely appreciate participation,. questions and/or comments from any of my colleagues along the St. Croix, on either side. I look forward to hearing from you. John Jansen 1300 Riviera Avenue; P.O. Box 194; Lakeland, MN 55043 436-8966 (Home), 341-7630 (Office & V.M.) End. • Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office 117 Main St. Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439-7122 TO:_ Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force; Local Governments; Interagency Contacts FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Steve Johnson, Interim Coordinator DATE: Monday, August 25, 1997 This is to remind you that our next Task Force meetings are: Thursday, September 11 and Thursday, September 25 Both meetings will be from 7-9 p.m. at the Phipps Center for the Arts in Hudson, Wis. Both meetings are scheduled to primarily address a single topic—land use controls (zoning). The 1976 Master Plan recommended state zoning guidelines for the two land-use districts developed under that plan (urban and rural). What we're trying to put together are potential recommended zoning guidelines for each of the seven potential land-use districts we're now working with (river town, small town historic, small town, rural residential, park, natural, and minimally disturbed). We've then drafted a potential description of how those zoning guidelines would appear for each of the three major land management alternatives considered for the future of the Lower St. Croix. The result is a bit complicated and may take a little time to evaluate. In addition, land- use control issues tend to be controversial. For those reasons, we've decided we're probably going to need two Task Force meetings to work through our discussion. (We didn't quite finish our discussion of management structure at the Aug. 21 Task Force meeting, so need to complete that at the beginning of the Sept. 11 meeting.) Looking ahead: Our two meetings in October (Oct. 16 and 30) will be devoted to water surface use controls. We have several meaty and very interesting meetings coming up! We hope to see many of you there! i • Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office 117 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 (612) 439-7122 TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force, Local Governments and Interagency Contacts FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force '— Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator' DATE: Monday, July 28, 1997 The Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force has scheduled two working sessions in August. This is the only notice that will be mailed for the meetings, so please note the dates and location of both meetings. 1. Tuesday, August 5, 1997. 7-9:30 p.m. River Room, Phipps Center for the Arts, 109 Locust Street, Hudson. Topics: Riverway Administrative Structure; Winter Recreation. 2. Thursday, August 21, 1997. River Room, Phipps Center for the Arts, 109 Locust St., Hudson. Topic: River Crossings. The August meeting topics have been discussed previously by the Task Force. We began to develop direction for riverway administrative structure on June 9; for winter recreation on July 22; and for river crossings on April 9 and 23. In August, we need to finalize our work on these three topics and incorporate the results into the management alternatives we have been developing for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan. In September, we will be taking up the topics of land use zoning ordinances and water surface use regulations. Steve Johnson will be developing preliminary material for Task Force consideration, based on ideas and concerns raised at various Task Force meetings and workshops over the last year and a half. If you need more information, please contact Kate (612-439-7122) or Buck (715-386-7010). 1--P@MY,E5/11 JUL 2 9 1997 (please see reverse) • • A Note from Kate Hanson: Those of you who were at our last Task Force meeting already know that I have accepted a position with the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, in St. Paul, beginning in September. I wanted to take this opportunity to let the rest of you know about this change. The Lower St. Croix planning coordinator position will sunset with completion of the Cooperative Management Plan, so I have anticipated that I would be seeking employment at that time. I hadn't been actively looking, but this was too good an opportunity to forego. I'll be Chief of the Stewardship and Local Assistance Division--a permanent position which is a good fit with my interests, affords me some job security, and permits me to remain a resident of the St. Croix Valley. While I'm looking forward to the new job, it's also difficult to leave the St. Croix planning at this point. I have great respect for the commitment many people have made to this process, it has meant a lot to me to be a part of it, and I will miss working with all of you as you complete this important work over the next year. You're a great group, and I hope to continue my association with you as a neighbor. • • !ez, [ Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office i l 117 Main Street 'j L) i Stillwater, MN 55082 JUN -- 2 1991 612-439-7122 TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force, Local Governments and Interagency Contacts FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix PI nning Task Force 4/ Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator DATE: Friday, May 30, 1997 For the month of June, the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force has scheduled two working sessions, plus a special meeting with agency heads. This is the only notice that will be mailed for the meetings, so please note all three dates and locations. WORKING SESSIONS: 1. Monday, June 9, 1997; 7-9:30 p.m. River Room, Phipps Center for the Arts; 109 Locust Street, Hudson Topic: Riverway Administrative Structure In keeping with the legislation that designated the National Scenic Riverway, the Lower St. Croix is jointly administered by the National Park Service and the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources. While the law specifies joint management, it does not dictate how that should occur. At this meeting, we'll review the existing administrative structure and discuss other options that should be considered. This might include consideration of how the three managing agencies work together; the role of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission; regulation of private land use by state and local governments; and enforcement of boating laws by federal, state and local governments. A Task Force subcommittee is meeting June 3, 2-5 p.m., at MN DNR (3rd floor conference room), to develop ideas for discussion on June 9. 2. Tuesday, June 24, 1997; 7-9:30 p.m. Music Room, Phipps Center for the Arts; 109 Locust Street, Hudson Topic: Riverway Boundary/Land Protection • The boundary of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was established in the 1970s. The agencies can acquire land within the boundary, and use of private land within the boundary is regulated by local governments. On the 24th, we'll discuss adjustments to the boundary, land acquisition priorities, private (continued on reverse) land protection, and other b dary-related considerations. AForce subcommittee is meeting Ju 10, 2-5 p.m., at MN DNR (2nd *r conference room) to develop ideas for discussion June 24. SPECIAL MEETING WITH AGENCY HEADS: Monday, June 16, 1997; 7-9 p.m. Willow River Elementary School, Lee Auditorium 416 St. Croix Street, Hudson, Wisconsin NOTE: please see attached map for location of meeting National Park Service Midwest Region Director William Schenk, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Rodney Sando, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Secretary George Meyer will meet with the Task Force. This will be an informal meeting, intended to give the agency heads, the Task Force and other interested individuals opportunity to discuss the plan and the planning process at this early stage of alternatives development. At its June 9 meeting, the Task Force will take a few minutes to identify questions and aspects of the plan they would like to bring to the attention of the agency heads. STATUS OF PLAN: * The alternatives workbook was distributed in April. About 60 people mailed back comment response forms; the comments are now being summarized and will be available in June. The workbook outlines 6 alternative approaches to managing land use and water surface use in the Riverway--two key aspects of overall riverway management. * With its June 9 and 24 meetings, the Task Force is continuing work to develop the alternatives--namely, how they should address navigation channel maintenance, river crossings, cultural resources, interpretation, winter recreation, vegetation, riverway administrative structure, and the riverway boundary. This work will continue through July, and possibly into August. * While the Task Force is working on the above, NPS staff at the Denver Service Center are outlining direction for additional topics that will be addressed in the management plan, such as: stewardship role of landowners and users; interagency management of hunting, trapping and fishing; treaty rights; general management of natural resources; threatened and endangered species; exotic species; user safety; access for people with disability; research needs. (The Task Force listed the above topics "common to all alternatives" at the January 1997 Alternatives Workshop.) This information will be reviewed by the Task Force and incorporated into the overall plan. • * A second alternatives workbook, incorporating response from the April workbook and the Task Force's work on additional elements of the alternatives, will be published later this summer or in early fall (depending on how long it takes the Task Force to complete the additional elements). * The Task Force will start work to identify a preferred alternative AFTER the second alternatives workbook is published and comments are received--probably in the last 2 or 3 months of 1997. The preferred alternative will be published in a Draft Cooperative Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. lb Hudson 11Ot.4) 54016 So s> NORr xos �"j{{ ,- _" WILL RIDGEp r irk , 6 ..._. ‘ ,--:-- 3 ! PIN ST P ...-\f‘ , 4t.'-E4T ' Z 4 ni_ PROEFB-'S C_ •MSKIN ST �•.:E.40\\: NORM 5T \' Patk DR Qu .� �— 1 R ST " (.. S • '.4 ST.0R01 ST t N y ii � '''''D � W H . 953‘1. E ' DR VALLEYVIEYI DR rd _ ._:OAK '~' Si 'KN. C ESTNUT _ OAK ST i TLE I illiiiini 0.11 SPRUCE•• s MYR 1,.:4,....;,... E t ST 'Il,� "ST HILLTOP D'.2 # :Grandview <.. I • o ,:Park LN HELM . E o Li �. ST �'. , till 1111 ! I ' - �NN ST \TWELVE oRRs m ® ': P LN Lakefront I 1_ LOCUST ST VPark t M. Park i TAYLOR PL WALNUT _ pi CGWIS ..�..._ rii BRIAR H111 MM; C '' ▪ IST E c, C7• 'reek', Pr6 ect �,:� ON INS P r ,▪ U tF m 0,9 .LL •.. •oIWIS,ONSIN ST t.CT r w z •N j - 1 c KIN ICKI NIC Illiii 1 ST y w .1t` - .,,_____________LAUREL ":,;: AV � C Webster `' William. 4/1/4•4 2 • \O��e. LRST IMPttGOLF .8imO V. elf'-,5 i Park a CUD• '�itdson COjuutryClai't., ��• CIR ..ate n-^ m „,e GREEN�I� ST .UMMER .';.;,:::,,'..74.i,:,'`::::: ;, za ,: r.' I� p MiliglFAIRWA DR x '.;° y.. `' S? ik v .^h'"''.„�xc y .s 2 ^r 'CEDAR p� 8� f- �. rig „: COLONIAL DR y �-�,�n y AV �x ;�tr�eg,�M• ?•COIA.EE `�, COULEE +uet�� I w ID \ \ t• NEW ,/ RD �...C�5 STAGELNE pp: \ a FTilttd• 0 3 e> H Racrtat(.n p S CREST ,,.. WEBSTER ST \ `� ^� FI� 4 OSFOR•ST AY I y 1 CT TARA r M f NAMEKA •NAY •mENTERFoR g 2 g\ . ': t,-;,, BEAUDRY ST SIS p ilei ,e pIPALE( 'TBEAUDRYST MISSISSIPPI S • ...Q----(A.1,%-e., .ri •�� v LIE PO RD c3 7_ 4? , CR;DR • E pV j A �+^j i + f:.' V 11/1) V). / A HANLEY RD 'c V v{/�/ `N`151 Ao %NW••. 16 • g ` 45 \I ( 1D oBIttEMANST *E R� , RNER VEW ,10 ' --,, ,.::,_ . .,,,:-,i,,.,,,,,,,: ‘, , ... ,c,2.. R RD b ) c- kSs� o_c. 14. w 8 S +._ _ • �-1 �y/�� A., I 1 T l - TDWEA RD i. � lJ Q FF �,,� - j �- , CvoiiC % c v\ v( • • • Enclosure G Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office j E © E O d [ 117 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 MAR 3 11997 612-439-7122 TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force, Local Governments and Interagency Contacts FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force &4 Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator-7 DATE: Friday, March 28, 1997 The Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force has scheduled two working sessions in April and two in May. This is the only notice that will be mailed regarding the April meetings, so please note both dates. WHEN: Wednesday, April 9, 1997; 7-9:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 23, 1997; 7-9:30 p.m. Wednesday, May 5, 1997; 7-9:30 p.m. Thursday, May 22, 1997; 7-9:30 p.m. WHERE: Phipps Center for the Arts River Room 109 Locust Street; Hudson, Wisconsin At its last meeting, on March 18, the Task Force completed work on alternative management concepts for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Staff are now preparing a workbook that describes the alternative concepts and requests public response. We expect the workbook to be mailed by April 11, with comments due by May 9. At present, the alternatives remain conceptual, and they focus on two key aspects of riverway management: water surface use and land use within the legal boundary of the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. While this material is out for public review, the Task Force will begin to develop additional elements of the plan. On April 9, we will begin to outline options for management guidance on the following topics: * River crossings (bridges, transmission lines, pipelines) * Commercial navigation (for example, barge traffic, tour boats) * Cultural resources * Interpretation (over) • • * Land protection (possible boundary changes, scenic easements) * Winter recreation * Vegetation management/forest management practices * Riverway management structure/riverway administration. Clearly, we won't be able to address all of these topics in a single meeting-- or even in the month of April. We will start with a discussion of navigation and river crossings on April 9. If time permits, we will also discuss cultural resources management and interpretation that evening. The Task Force will continue to develop guidance for the above topics at meetings scheduled for April 23, May 7 and May 22. The results of our work in April and May, like the results of all other Task Force meetings and workshops, will be published in a newsletter or workbook with a request for public feedback. If you'd like more information, please contact Kate (612-439-7122) or Buck (715-386-7010). NOTE: Heads of managing agencies will meet with Task Force on June 16. On the evening of Monday, June 16, the National Park Service regional director and the heads of the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources will meet with the Task Force. This will be an opportunity for informal discussion of the Lower St. Croix Cooperative Management Plan among the Task Force and William Schenk (NPS Midwest Region director), Rodney Sando (Minnesota DNR commissioner) and George Meyer (Wisconsin DNR secretary). You'll receive a future notice of the time and location of this meeting. • Enclosure L • 1 [E © [E Od7 �`,, 1 Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office , 1 117 Main Street FEB 18 1991 !1 Stillwater, MN 55082 612-439-7122 TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force, Local Governments and Interagency Contacts FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Pla ning Task Force ‘))71 Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator' DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 1997 At the end of the January alternatives workshop, the task force set the following date for its next meeting: WHEN: Wednesday, February 26, 1997 7-9 p.m. WHERE: Phipps Center for the Arts, Art Studio One 109 Locust Street; Hudson, Wisconsin Please note that we're meeting in Art Studio One rather than our usual location (the River Room). Art Studio One is on the second floor of the Phipps Center: take the elevator at the north end of the building. At this meeting, we'll do some follow-up work resulting from the January alternatives workshop and get organized for the task of developing the alternatives in greater detail. We'll distribute an agenda the night of the meeting. Thank you to all of you who attended the January workshop. We got a good start on developing the range of potential management alternatives for the Lower St. Croix. It appears that we will need to meet several times a month to further develop and refine the alternatives in the coming months. Please bring your calendars on February 26 so we can set a meeting schedule. National Park Service staff from Denver are hard at work compiling and analyzing the results of our efforts, and we'll have a chance to review the results on February 26. Denver staff are also preparing a newsletter to update people on the status of the Cooperative Management Plan. If you have questions, please call Kate (612-439-7122) or Buck (715-386- 7010). Enclosure H r r $• $ Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office 117 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 612-439-7122 TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force; Local Governments FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Pla ping Task Forcej'1f Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator - DATE: Friday, December 20, 1996 -� Enclosed you will find notes from the December 4, 1996 Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force meeting on the topic of riverway zoning and land protection. Next Task Force Meeting. DATE: Thursday, January 9, 1997 TIME: 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. e, t ; DEC 2 31996 PLACE: Phipps Center for the Arts, River Room ! i il! 109 Locust Street; Hudson, Wisconsin L\.\L_ _________iL, TOPIC: Preparation for Upcoming Alternatives Workshop In the last month, the Planning Team (agency staff, with Buck Malick and Bill Clapp) has been doing some preliminary work on possible management alternatives for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Working with the management area descriptions, landscape unit descriptions and other information generated at previous Task Force workshops and meetings, the Team has outlined some possible alternatives in very rough form. It's going to take a great deal more effort to complete the draft alternatives (involving major revision, reworking, etc.), but the work done to date will give us a starting point for discussion at the alternatives workshop (scheduled for January 28, 29 and 30--see below). On January 9, we'll hand out write-ups and maps of some "working" alternatives, so that the Task Force has time to consider the material in advance of the workshop. We'll also discuss in greater detail the workshop agenda and expected results. If you plan to participate in the workshop, please try to make it to the January 9 meeting. Management Alternatives Workshop (January 28, 29, 30). Staff are still working on details of the agenda for this workshop, but the general timeframe is: afternoon and evening sessions on Tuesday, January 28; Wednesday, January 29; and Thursday, January 30. More information will be available at the Jan. 9 Task Force meeting. For more information, contact Kate (612-439-7122) or Buck (715, 386-7010). • • Notes from Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Meeting December 4, 1996 Task Force Members Present: Buck Malick (Chairman), Kate Hanson (Coordinator), Terry Moe, Kent Johnson, Larry Kennedy, Bertha Hall, Linda Luckey, John Jansen, Bill Clapp, Miles Wittig, Bob Rolle, Jim Harrison, Steve Johnson, Dennis Darnold, Audrey Kelly, Dennis Gimmestad, Jurgen Weidling, Chuck Simpson, Mark Smith, Pete Keppler, Laura Reynolds, Dave Wald, Chris Hayner, Bob Burns, Molly Shodeen, Michael Hudec, Brian Adams (for Tony Andersen). Also Present: Russell Eichman, Linda Heltgi, Scott Heltgi, John Ewing, Robert Rosene, Mary Danagh Schmitz,Tom Nelson, Rick McMonagle,Francis Ogden,Tom Quinn, Dave Forling, Kris Sampson,Janet Roberts, Doug May, David May, Franz Altpeter, David Hovel, Molly MacGregor, Glenn Webster, Paul Mosby, Dennis O'Donnell, Jim Kleinhans,Art Jensen, Paul Roelandt, Kathy Nelson, George Jorgensen, Marlie Morgan, Phil Morgan, Mark Herwig, Marion Heemsbergen, B.D. Sweasy, Colleen Montag, Dan Koich, plus 9 people who did not sign in. Task Force Chairman Buck Malick convened the meeting, noting that this is the last issue- focused meeting the Task Force has scheduled. He reviewed the status of the planning. The last week of January 1997, the Task Force will hold a workshop to develop management alternatives, drawing on the work done in previous workshops and on information from all of the issue-oriented meetings (held between May and December). He referred people to the new newsletter, which contains an update, including the list of issues that have been identified for the plan and a summary of the September planning workshop. (Note: Newsletters are available from Kate Hanson, 612-439-7122). I. Background Information on Riverway Zoning. Minnesota DNR River Supervisor Steve Johnson gave background information on the riverway zoning. He said that land use along the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is regulated by local zoning. The riverway zoning is usually an overlay ordinance. The 1976 Master Plan for the Lower St. Croix Riverway stated that cities and counties shall adopt regulations according to state legislative direction. The states developed model ordinances for the local governments. Steve said that the issue of zoning being a "takings" is being debated throughout the country, but the legality of zoning has been upheld by courts. He referenced p. 2 of the 1976 Lower St. Croix Riverway plan, which states that the overall goal of the plan is "to preserve the existing scenic and recreational resources of the Lower St. Croix River through controlled development." He said there are 3 ways to accomplish this protection:through fee-title ownership,through acquisition of development rights (scenic easements), and through zoning. Steve reviewed how the riverway boundaries were established when the riverway was designated. The viewshed was defined as being the view from the water surface. The wild and scenic legislation restricted the amount of land that could be placed within the riverway boundary to 320 acres/mile. This inherently restricts the amount of the viewshed that can be controlled. However, local governments can voluntarily extend the boundaries of the riverway zone, and this offers another means for viewshed protection. He referenced Appendix A of the 1976 Master Plan, which outlines "Suggested Zoning Guidelines". He noted that in previous task force meetings, people have voiced concern that the area receiving scenic protection is not adequate when the viewshed is defined solely from the perspective of the water surface. Steve noted that all local governments along the Lower St. Croix, with the exception of Taylors Falls, have adopted riverway zoning ordinances. There are different zoning standards for municipal and rural areas in both Minnesota and Wisconsin,and the state Departments of Natural Resources have veto 1 • power over local riverway zoning decisions in both states. Steve said that as a part of the updating of the Lower St. Croix management plan, there likely will be recommendations for changes in the existing Minnesota and Wisconsin rules for the Riverway. A public hearing process would be required in order to amend the state rules. Copies of the Minnesota and Wisconsin rules were available at the meeting;you can get copies from Kate Hanson (612-439-7122). Questions and Discussion: Comment: Task Force member Bob Burns spoke about a new blufflands ordinance for Washington County. He said that one problem with the current zoning is that local governments have to determine how an existing structure, if remodeled, will look as viewed from the river. The current standard of "visually inconspicuous" is difficult to work with, he said, because it requires a subjective evaluation. He said this takes on growing importance as more and more cabins are being converted to all-season homes. He suggested that new technology for computer-generated graphics be used to provide a more objective means to evaluate visual impacts of new construction and modifications to existing structures. Comment: Task Force member Chris Hayner stated he doesn't believe that the Federal government has a right to own property or easements in the riverway. Chairman Malick referred this question to planning staff, and requested that they provide Mr. Hayner with information on enabling legislation. Q: St. Mary's Point has seen a lot of development. If this is within the riverway zone, how can they do that? A: The construction has met setback requirements and other standards. This raises the question of whether the current zoning is adequately protecting visual impacts. Q:Are we appropriately applying the 50 percent rule for redevelopment?(Many zoning ordinances allow improvements of existing noncomforming uses up to 50 percent of the structure's value; improvements beyond 50 percent of the value would require the use to become conforming.) Audience member Bob Rolle suggested that the 50 percent rule applies only to nonconforming uses, not nonconforming structures. (Note: Follow up by WI DNR staff after the Dec. 4 meeting indicates the 50 percent rule does apply to both nonconforming uses and structures; however, legal clarification is needed about the distinction between uses and structures.) Dan Koich (WI DNR) said St. Croix County's ordinances are more restrictive than the state's, and the more restrictive ordinances apply. He also noted that WI DNR had formed a committee to look into the 50 percent rule, but its work has been temporarily disrupted by the agency's reorganization. Comment: It was suggested that elected bodies should make regulations rather than trying to accomplish this through agency administrative changes. Comment: Task Force member Jurgen Weidling pointed out a typographical error in the existing ordinances and said that the language needs to be simplified to be more understandable. II. Panel discussion: Local government perspectives on administration of riverway zoning ordinances. Presenters: Dennis Darnold (City of Hudson), Steve Russell (City of Stillwater), Tom Nelson (St. Croix County), Dennis O'Donnell (Washington County). Points made by Dennis Darnold: * Administrative changes to the riverway zoning ordinances are needed; some don't make sense and need to be rewritten. He gave an example: the current ordinances preclude Hudson from "up-zoning" 2 • • an area near downtown Hudson for senior housing and multi-family housing that could benefit from the downtown location. He suggested that local jurisdictions should have greater freedom to pursue these types of more intensive development that are currently precluded, and said he believes greater density of development could be allowed in incorporated areas without impacting the riverway. He said there is a need for distinct standards for incorporated areas and unincorporated/rural areas. * He supports height limitations and bluffland setbacks, and suggests that there should be a new requirement to set aside a percentage of bluffs. * The language of the rules needs to be simplified to be more understandable and to define terms such as "visually inconspicuous". * Limits on structure color need to be reexamined. * The definition of structures needs to be reexamined (for example, patios). * More flexibility is needed for vegetation removal (for example, along pathways, clearing for safety and to provide river views). * He suggests DNR should not have veto power. He says he has a very positive working relationship with the DNR staff, but their availability is limited and regulations are interpreted inconsistently. Points made by Tom Nelson: * St. Croix County has been working with setback standards since 1972 and adopted a riverway ordinance in 1977. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect the rugged character of the shoreline. * From his point of view, administration of the zoning is getting better over time. He said once you learn how to say "no" to things that violate ordinances, it become easier to continue saying "no". * St. Croix County's ordinances restrict height more than state rules do--25 feet instead of 35 feet. Mr. Nelson cited a number of issues raised with the current ordinances: * Some of the terminology of the ordinances requires judgement calls. For example, what is "visually inconspicuous" and what constitutes an "earth-tone color"? * Tree-cutting. Pruning and limbing are permitted--some large trees have been "pruned" so that only the crown is remaining. * The 200 foot set-back from the ordinary high water mark. A structure on a bluff may be inconspicuous at less than 200 feet, and there has been a recent interpretation that in such situations, can build up to the bluffline. St. Croix County is going with a standard 100-foot setback; people are less inclined to do extensive pruning. * Urban versus rural standards; the 40-foot structure setback from the bluffline in urban districts vs. the 100-foot structure setback from the bluffline in rural districts. * Nonconforming structures; if they are destroyed (for example, by fire) the owner can rebuild in the same footprint rather than meet the setback requirement. * Silviculture issues: forestry management needs to be coordinated with riverway management, we 3 • • r need to be careful if we want to preserve the rugged character of the riverway. He suggests that selective cutting rather than clearcutting be used to remove undesirable species. * He said the DNRs and the Boundary Area Commission have been good partners and have helped with administration of the ordinances, but it is frustrating that over time more of the responsibility has shifted to counties and there is less support from the agencies. Points made by Dennis O'Donnell: * Washington County is the fastest-growing county in Minnesota; Mr. O'Donnell displayed a map showing the urban/rural mix of land use. *The county adopted its riverway ordinance in 1976; it applies only in township areas. The county has been quite supportive of riverway zoning, and there has been consistency over time from staff and the Board of Adjustment. * He said that for the most part the ordinance has worked well and has protected the St. Croix relatively well. He identified the following issues/problems with the ordinances: * Inconsistent enforcement. He said the DNR certification process (veto power) is important for consistency. * It hasn't been a problem to implement the ordinances in conjunction with new development, but the most common issue arises with variance requests for improvements to substandard structures--such as substantial additions and rebuilding of cabins. He said many new owners don't have the same respect and support for Riverway values as many of the older residents. The Board of Adjustment is very concerned with the view from the river and the intent of the ordinances and rules. * He sees fewer tree-cutting violations and believes this is because people realize that the vegetation helps reduce noise. Instead of fining for violations, Washington Co. attempts to get trees replaced. * Some language in the ordinances needs to be clarified--for example, in the exceptions section for adding on to structures. Points made by Steve Russell: * Most of Stillwater is not within the Riverway District. The district is the area between the railroad tracks and the river. The city owns about half of the land that is within the district, and redevelopment does occur in the district. * The current riverway ordinances don't address historic values. A portion of the city has been designated a national historic district (this status is separate from the St. Croix's National Scenic Riverway designation). * The bluffland definition may be too liberal; there is a need to distinguish between bluffland development in urban and rural areas. * Tree-cutting is a big issue. Better resource protection might be accomplished through forestry management plans rather the focus on tree-cutting, but this would require substantial staff effort. 4 I • ist i * Guidelines are needed to define subjective terms such as "visually inconspicuous", in order to get consistency. * In the future, he would like to see zoning standards that are more performance-oriented. This would allow greater flexibility in achieving goals, although it would still be difficult to administer because of all the jurisdictions involved. If performance standards aren't possible, standards need to be spelled out in black and white. * More attention is needed to watershed issues. For example, how does erosion in places such as Brown's Creek affect the river? * The city has a good working relationship with DNR and places a high priority on the river. Questions and Discussion: Task Force chairman Clarence Malick noted that other local government officials not on the panel were present at the meeting. Task Force member Chris Hayner spoke in support of suggestions to clarify language, spell out requirements in black and white. Task Force member Dennis Gimmestad,of the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office,said that the plan developed for the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area provides a good example for how a plan can build in incentives for local historic preservation ordinances. He said grants are available from the Historic Preservation Office. He said that Stillwater is on the National Register of Historic Places, but it is not protected because there are no corresponding ordinances for historic preservation. Steve Russell responded that Stillwater's floodplain ordinances address historic structures,and the city does design review. Comment: need to consider the view not just from the river to banks, but also the banks to the river. Task Force member Jim Harrison (Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission) commented on the availability of BAC assistance. He said that in 1992, BAC decided not to respond to all notices of public hearings on variances, conditional use permits, etc. He said BAC may need to revisit this decision, noting that one reason for BAC's existence is to assist local government. Regarding different zoning standards for urban and rural, he referenced the Columbia River Gorge: urban areas are not in the riverway district there, and he said the quality of development is out of control and that system is not working. He suggested counties be brought on board as part of the riverway management team. Ill. Alternative Methods of Land Protection. Scenic Easements. Terry Moe (WI DNR & Chairman, Lower St. Croix Management Commission) reviewed how the 1976 Riverway master plan addresses scenic easements in the state-administered zone of the Riverway. The plan identifies acquisition of scenic easements by the states as a tool for scenic protection. In Wisconsin, the priority has been to acquire scenic easements adjacent to state parks. He said Wisconsin does not expect to acquire more scenic easements in the future because the protection rights being acquired with easements are not significantly greater than protection provided through riverway zoning. The state does not consider easements a cost-effective use of public funds. Mississippi River Headwaters Board Model of Riverwav Protection. Molly MacGregor,executive director of the Mississippi Headwaters Board, presented information on the joint powers agreement between 5 �f eight counties along the Mississippi River from Itasca to south of Little Falls. The joint powers agreement (authorized by the state) was an alternative to national wild and scenic designation for this stretch of river. The Headwaters Board is made up of elected officials from each of the eight counties. Memorandums of Understanding are also in place between the Headwaters Board and the U.S. Forest Service (Chippewa Natl. Forest), MN DNR and the Leech Lake Tribal Council. Zoning similar to that for the St. Croix is in place. The zoning is at the county level--there are no municipal ordinances. The area is primarily rural--there is less population and there are fewer development pressures than on the St. Croix. The Headwaters Board has certification authority (veto power) over county zoning decisions; it reviews conditional use permits and variances. The Board has made denials. It does extensive training about the zoning for local officials and boards of adjustments. She said the Board makes a big effort to educate people about the zoning rules. She brought sample publications of the Headwaters Board (available from Kate Hanson): the "Mississippi Headwaters Management Plan" and brochures on shoreland zoning, heritage resources protection and forest stewardship. Q: What happens when a municipality annexes county land?A: The county standards are not reduced. Opportunities for Private Land Protection: A. Land Trusts: Task Force vice-chairman Bill Clapp gave an overview of how land trusts work. They are private, non-profit organizations. Landowners can make tax-deductible donations of land to a trust. This can be done by placing conservation easements on land (the trust holds the easement). With an easement, the landowner sells the development rights to the land trust in order to preserve farmland or natural areas. There can be flexibility in easements, so that low levels of development can be allowed. This also reduces the cost of the easement. The easements may allow for public access but this is not required. In the St. Croix Valley, the Minnesota Land Trust has an easement on about 500 acres of a nature center near Afton and an easement on about 100 acres at Cedar Cliff. The Standing Cedars Land Trust in Wisconsin has fee ownership of 1,116 acres south of Osceola and easements on another 245 acres. This was acquired with substantial funding from WI DNR; public access is allowed. He said that if the Minnesota Legislature appropriates funding, there will be a 2-year project to identify a Washington-Chisago Co. greenbelt. This would involve transfer/purchase of development rights. Rick McMonagle, director of the Kinnickinnic River Land Trust, provided information on that organization. It was formed in 1994 to protect this important tributary to the St. Croix. The watershed is about 96,0000 acres, with only one city (River Falls). The trust has about 500 members. The goal is to help people hold on to their property and retain its value. The average age of farmers is 55 years old; property taxes are high, and it is often difficult for farmers to pass on their property. The trust has a Land Registry Program--a voluntary, handshake agreement for the trust to work with landowners on best management practices and be notified if land is to be sold. The trust holds conservation easements and has purchased some property, then placed a perpetual conservation easement on it and sold it to a "conservation buyer". He said conservation easements should produce lower taxes but that the trust needs to educate local assessors about this. He said he thinks land trusts neutralize the issue of takings, because landowners are compensated. B. Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy. Tom Quinn, executive director of the WI Farmland Conservancy, gave information on that organization. Its purpose is to protect the character of the rural countryside. On approach used is to match urban buyers with farmers selling their property. The Wisconsin Stewardship Fund funds 50 percent of easement acquisition. The emphasis is on buying easements for property with natural or habitat value. He emphasized that there is a great deal of opportunity for protection of farmland through partnerships with trusts, local governments (townships and municipalities) and landowners. He mentioned the Archaeological Conservancy, which provides funding to preserve sites of archaeological significance. 6 lk Enclosure K Aker St. Croix Planning CoordinateOffice 117 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 612-439-7122 al 2 1 1997 !1- TO: Local Governments and Other Interested Parties FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator DATE: Thursday, January 16, 1997 This is a reminder of the upcoming task force workshop to develop draft management alternatives for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Cooperative Management Plan. The workshop will be: WHEN: Tuesday, January 28, 1997: 1-4:30 p.m. & 7-9 p.m. Wednesday, January 29, 1997: 1-5 p.m. & 7-9 p.m. Thursday, January 30, 1997: 1-5:30 p.m. WHERE: Phipps Center for the Arts, River Room 109 Locust Street; Hudson, Wisconsin In addition, we have scheduled an Open House for the Task Force to present the results of it's work on the draft alternatives to others who are interested but unable to attend the workshop. The Open House will be on Thursday evening, January 30, 1997: 7-9 p.m., at the Phipps Center, River Room. The agenda for the workshop is enclosed. A workbook outlining material that will be discussed at the workshop has been distributed to the Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force and others who have indicated they plan to attend the workshop. If you'd like a copy of this material, please notify Kate Hanson, 612-439-7122. The workbook describes "working" alternatives that have been developed by a small group of task force members in preparation for the workshop. We emphasize that these are rough, working alternatives intended to serve as a starting point for the Task Force's discussions on January 28-30. They represent the first attempt to assemble information from past workshops and meetings into alternatives; we'll be improving on this "first cut" at the workshop to produce the draft alternatives. The descriptions of alternatives in the workbook will be out of date after January 28. We expect a good turnout of Task Force members and other interested individuals at the workshop, with representation of a wide variety of viewpoints on how the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway should be managed in the future. (please see reverse) After the January worliikop, the Task Force will distributgiginewsletter '' } summarizing the workshop aggbutlining the draft management rnatives. Through the newsletter, we will be asking for comments, and we will revise the draft alternatives accordingly. Also after the workshop, the planning coordinator, TAIVFOrie airman, and others who have been involved in development of the draft alternatives will be available to make presentations. If you're interested in attending the workshop; have suggestions on how we can communicate with local governments, riverway communities and others at this important stage of Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway planning; or have questions, please contact Kate Hanson (612-439-7122) or Clarence Malick (715- 386-7010). Note: Notes from the January 9 Task Force meeting will be distributed at the Alternatives Workshop. The topic of that meeting was workshop preparation. If you would like to receive a copy by mail, please notify Jessie Meschievitz at the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, 612-436-7131 or 715-386-9444. Alter St. Croix National Scenic flerway Cooperative Management Plan Agenda: Draft Alternatives Workshop January 28-30, 1997 River Room, Phipps Center for the Arts 109 Locust Street, Hudson, Wisconsin If you cannot attend a portion of the workshop. but want to make sure the group considers your ideas, please send your comments to Kate Hanson. Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office, 117 Main Street, Stillwater, MN 55082, by Monday morning. January 27. Alternatively. you may give your comments to a task force member that will be attending. We will proceed on the information sent to us and the participants at the meeting. Workshop purpose -To develop a draft set of alternatives for the cooperative management plan. A preferred alternative will not be selected at this workshop. There will be open houses, briefmgs, and newsletters to gather public comment on the draft alternatives developed at this workshop. Based upon the comments the alternatives may be modified or a new one created. A preferred alternative will then be selected. Workshop Organization Participants in this workshop will use the preliminary ideas and alternative concepts developed by the small group in December as a starting point. Some of these concepts may be modified or dropped. Additional concepts may be created based upon the work of members of the task force. Each day will build upon the work done the previous day. The group will maintain a record of the work completed and the rationale for decisions. TUESDAY 1:00 to 4:30 Welcome -purpose and structure of the workshop Planning Process Overview -where have we been, where are we now, and where are we going -how do products we have produced to date influence this workshop -how will the alternatives we develop at this workshop be used Review and Get Agreement on Small Group Work on: -planning assumptions -topics common to all alternatives -proposed changes to management zones -alternatives considered but dropped from further consideration -preliminary alternative concepts TUESDAY 7:00 to 9:00 • • '� , Brief Overview of Tuesday Afternoon Brief Overview of Preliminary Alternative Concepts Break into Small Groups to Address the following questions: -Do the preliminary alternative concepts, along with the common management directions, provide a framework (at least guidance if not specific solutions) for addressing current and future problems (issues)? -Are the values expressed in the desired future condition statements represented in at least one of the preliminary alternative concepts? Is there a need for an additional alternative to address other values that are not covered in one of the four draft alternative concepts? Small Groups Report to Large Group -the product of this work will be the draft alternative concepts the task force will be working with on Wednesday and Thursday WEDNESDAY 1:00 to 5:00 Recap of Tuesday's Work Explanation of Small Group Task -groups divided by alternative concepts -level of detail--topics to cover--format--available tools Break into Small Groups to Refine Draft Concepts and Test and Modify Preliminary Management Area Maps WEDNESDAY 7:00 to 9:00 Continue work from Wednesday afternoon Prepare Presentations on Alternatives (for Thursday) THURSDAY 1:00 to 5:30 Small Groups Present Wednesday's Work to Large Group Discussion: Next Steps in Developing the Cooperative Management Plan -how does uncompleted work get accomplished, by whom and when -what is the best way to reach out to the public (open houses, newsletters, etc) -arriving at a "preferred" alternative -set schedule for future task force activities, meetings THURSDAY 7:00 to 9:00 Open House: Task Force present results of workshop to interested persons who were unable to attend. 4 �1 . ,,;, - . -_ Enclousre J go 7, : �' LOWEST. CROIX : . A MANAGEMENT COMMISSION � �' MEMBER AGENCIES - NATIONAL PARK SERVICE- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . 4 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - STATE OF WISCONSIN MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION (EX-OFFICIO) .; Cooperation Between Responsible Management Agencies , January 14, 1997 - Mayor and Council LOWER ST. CROIX City of Oak Park Heights NATIONAL RIVERWAY City Hall Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The recent determination by the National Park Service of adverse effect of the planned State Highway 36-64 bridge crossing of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway has resulted in numerous inquiries and actions by affected or interested parties. This letter is to advise you of the availability of important background information on this matter. The Lower St. Croix River has been cooperatively managed by the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin and the National Park Service as one of the original components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System since 1972. The Cooperative Agreement for coordinating its administration, entered into by the states'governors and National Park Service in 1973, designated the office of the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission as the Coordination Office for the state-federal Riverway partnership. This to advise you that this office maintains an extensive record of consultations, correspondence and actions regarding this project as it relates to the management of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Should you need or desire such information in connection with future considerations of thio issue, please contact the undersigned to discuss the nature of your request. We will do everything we can to help you. ely yours, 4 / �4 /ji�� •ii7 ames . Harrison, oor inator Enclosure - List of Addressees cc: Governor Arne Carlson, State of Minnesota Governor Tommy Thompson, State of Wisconsin Lower St. Croix Management Commission Members COORDINATION OFFICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission,619 Second Street,Hudson,Wisconsin 54016-1576 Minnesota Telephone(612)436-7131 FAX(715)386-9571 Wisconsin Telephone(715)386-9444 4 LIST OF ADDRESSEES FOR LOWER ST. CROIX MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ADVISORY LETTER ON ST. CROIX RIVER CROSSING INFORMATION SOURCES Congressional Senator Russ Feingold Senator Rod Grams Senator Herb Kohl Senator Paul Wellstone Representative Thomas Barrett Representative Gil Gutknecht Representative Jay Johnson Representative Bill Luther Representative Ron Kind Representative David Minge Representative Gerald Kleczka Representative Jim Oberstar Representative Scott Klug Representative Collin Peterson Representative Mark Neumann Representative Jim Ramstad Representative David Obey Representative Martin Sabo Representative Tom Petri Representative Bruce Vento Representative Jim Sensenbrenner State Legislators Senator Alice Clausing Senator Janet Johnson Senator Brian Rude Senator Jane Krentz Senator Gary Laidig Senator Len Price Representative Bob Duehoim Representative Mark Holsten Representative Sheila Harsdorf Representative Loren Jennings Representative Peg Larsen Representative Doug Swenson Federal Agencies Bill Hartwig, U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service Kenneth Perret, Federal Highway Administration William Schenk, National Park Service Roger Wiebusch, U. S. Coast Guard Col. J. M. Wonsik, Corps of Engineers State Agencies Commissioner James Denn, Minnesota DOT Secretary Charles Thompson, Wisconsin DOT Local Governments County Board, St. Croix County County Board, Washington County Mayor and Council, City of New Richmond Mayor and Council, City of Oak Park Heights Mayor and Council, Village of Somerset Mayor and Council, City of Stillwater Town Board, St. Joseph Township Enclosure F • Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination fice 117 Main Street Stillwater, MN 55082 OCT I 0 iy95 612-439-7122 j TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force; Local Governments; Interagency Contacts }} FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force '- Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator DATE: Monday, October 7, 1996 This is to remind you that our next Task Force meeting is: When: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 7:00 - 9:00 p:m. Where: Phipps Center for the Arts--Music Room Hudson, Wisconsin Two topics are on the agenda for this meeting: 1 . Finalize list of issues to be addressed in the Lower St. Croix Cooperative Management Plan and identify issues to be addressed through other means. At the September workshop, we posted a consolidated list of issues that have been raised to date (at the April planning workshop, responses to the May newsletter, individual letters that have been received, the summer meetings). During the September workshop, the Task Force had a chance to review this list, clarify issues and make additions. On October 29, we'll finalize the issues list and discuss whether some issues would best be addressed through means other than the Cooperative Management Plan. For example, some might be addressed in the Watershed Stewardship Statement, others might be addressed through another planning effort or organizations (such as the St. Croix Basin Water Resources Management Plan, the Lower St. Croix Management Commission, the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission). The goals of our discussion will be to: (a) make sure issues are stated clearly, (b) identify a "home" for all issues, so we have confidence they will be addressed, and (c) identify linkages with other plans, etc. that need to be referenced in the Cooperative Management Plan. 2. Presentation: Tourism in the Lower St. Croix Valley. (Mark Kinders) Mark will give an overview of research that has been done on tourism in the Valley. This will include survey information on who is coming to the area, what they want to do when they are here, what motivates them to come here, how attitudes of visitors compare to attitudes of area residents. Follow-up to September 24-26 workshop: Thank you to everyone who participated in the September planning workshop. The results of this workshop will be published in a newsletter that will go out,in late November or early December. • Notes from Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Meeting September 10, 1996 • Task Force Members Present: Buck Malick(Chairman), Kate Hanson (Coordinator), Jim Harrison, Jurgen Weidling, Stan Narusiewicz, Tom Clarke, Kent Johnson, Deena Bahner, Bill Clapp, Linda Luckey, Pat Nunnally, Steve Johnson, Terry Moe, Tony Andersen, Bertha Hall, Dennis Gimmestad, Mark Kinders. Also Present: John Blickenderfer (Lakeland Shores, MN), Peter Schwarz (Scandia, MN), Polly McGlauflin (Stillwater, MN), Dwayne Brodin (Scandia, MN), Louise Bergeron (Stillwater, MN), Jessie Meschievitz (MWBAC), Betty Clarke (Minneapolis), Helen White (Taylors Falls, MN), Richard Dexter (WI Preservation Office, Madison), Jean Schaeppi (NPS, St. Croix Falls, WI), Marcel Anderson (Prescott, WI), Dorothy Mitchell (Prescott, WI). Task Force Chairman Buck Malick convened the meeting and reviewed the schedule for the upcoming planning workshop to be held September 24, 25 and 26. Kate Hanson handed out an agenda and other materials pertaining to this workshop. Buck asked for volunteers to serve on a subcommitte to review a draft list of issues being prepared by NPS staff in Denver for use in this workshop. This will be a consolidated list of issues from the April 1996 workshop, responses to the newsletter published after the workshop and other letters that have been received, and the Task Force summer meetings. Bill Clapp will chair the subcommittee. The following people volunteered and set a meeting for Tuesday, Sept. 17, 1 p.m. at the Minnesota- Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission Office in Hudson: Molly Shodeen, Steve Johnson, Tom Clarke, Pat Nunnally. Kate distributed notes from the August Task Force meetings. Buck thanked Task Force member Deena Bahner for an offer to do volunteer work for the Task Force and asked for the Task Force's reaction to a project proposed by Deena and Kate: research to compile background information on activities of priority watershed projects,watershed districts,watershed management organizations and any watershed-related plans on the books. This information could be used in the watershed stewardship statement. The Task Force agreed that this would be useful information and gave Deena the go-ahead to proceed. History of the Lower St. Croix Valley Prior to European Settlement and Cultural Significance of the Valley to American Indians. Joe Day (Spirit Walking Around), director of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, noted that where people like to build today is frequently where people resided in the past. Use of sites by native people, he said, was motivated by spirituality. Waterways, like the St. Croix, were used as "highways" and also for hunting and fishing. Mr. Day said that burial sites are of particular concern to Indian people, and 1 • one role of the Indian Affairs Council is to heighten awareness of the importance of burial grounds, respect the spiritual heritage of these sites, and work with the private and public sector to protect them. Minnesota Law now recognizes and protects Indian burial grounds. Federal Law mandates that museums must return remains and artifacts to tribes. Many burial grounds exist along the Lower St. Croix and other rivers and streams. Jim Jones, cultural affairs specialist for the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, gave background information on his past involvement with reburials through a privately owned business. In his present work he is assisting the Indian Affairs Council and the State Archaeology Office with reburials and repatriation of skeletal remains from museums. This also involves work with the DNR, Department of Transportation, private individuals, and local units of government when cemeteries are discovered. He emphasized the responsibility we all have to maintain respect for these Indian cemeteries and heritage. In response to a question about whether there is an inventory of burial sites along the St. Croix River, Mr. Jones stated that a data base of sites is being developed with the help of the Minnesota State Archeology Office and Historical Societies. This list will be available to local government planners as a reference when zoning and building permits are sought. He explained burial sites have been known through family information that has been passed on by word of mouth, but there has been no published information. Thus, burial sites are often found by accident. Don Wedll, Commissioner of Natural Resources for the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa said that sturgeon are of significance to the Chippewa. He said there are many Chippewa stories about sturgeon, which are valued as a high protein-content, high-energy food source. He said one story referenced a sturgeon as big as a 15-foot boat and told another story about a clan around Stillwater that developed around a man who loved the fish. He said name (as in Namekogan) is a Chippewa term meaning "home of sturgeon". Mr. Wedll briefly discussed use of the area. He said Ojibway moved into this area in the 1740s; before that, it was used by Dakota. He cautioned that burial mounds are just one type of artifact and that not all Indian people used mounds as a form of burial; the area was used by people before the Dakota and Ojibway. He said the management plan should take into account the 1837 Treaty, which includes the St. Croix north of the William O'Brien State Park area. He said the treaty, which addresses tribal rights to hunt, fish and gather, is a very complicated issue but is an agreement meant to be honored. He emphasized the importance of separating fact from fiction when dealing with treaty issues. In response to a ,question, Mr. Wedll clarified the terms "Chippewa" and 2 • • "Ojibway." He said Chippewa is a treaty term and Ojibway is a language term. They are acceptably interchangeable. In response to a question regarding environmental concerns relating to the watershed, Mr. Wedll said that they are doing a lot of water quality research, with an interest in wild rice restoration and concern about sturgeon in the St. Croix system. In response to a question about why more of this information doesn't get into the school system, Mr. Wedll said that there is a need to try to inform and educate people. Jim Jones indicated that he would be involved with future Task Force activities. History of the Lower St. Croix Valley post European Settlement: Helen White, St. Croix Valley author and historian, identified numerous cultural resources that exist in the St. Croix River Valley. She said that special areas needing protection include wild rice areas, pictographs in caves, and sturgeon. In the "built" environment, she said, logging sites at the boomsite, and Nevers dam are of historical significance. She cited many other features of interest that need to be preserved: Significant to agriculture: * Century farms in Chisago and Polk Counties * fairgrounds (Washington County) * a seasonal "threshing party" in Chisago County * buildings such as creameries, silos, barns, feed mills Significant to transportation: * Osceola and Dresser depots * Soo Line and Stillwater bridges Others, including: * log buildings, schoolhouses, various architectural building styles * downtowns and neighborhoods * "Little" houses Ms. White encouraged "grassroots" efforts to protect the significant cultural and historic resources of the Valley. Laws and Regulations Relating to Cultural Resources and Programs available to support protection: 3 • Using slides, Dennis Gimmestad, Minnesota Historical Society, showed examples of buildings, structures, sites, districts, objects, and landscape features that are on the National Register. This is an official means to recognize properties that need protection. These sites include: Mauer house, Jackson farmhouse, Copas house, Sifers house (Lakeland), Cushing house (Afton), Croixside, St. Croix Boom Company, Staples Mill, Territorial Prison & wall (Stillwater), Soo Line High Bridge, Pt. Douglas military road, St. Croix River access site, boomsite, Franconia district, Interstate Park district, downtown Stillwater, Angels Falls. He said St. Croix State Park is under review for inclusion in the National Register because of its landscape features. Dennis cited preservation laws on the Federal, State, and local levels. Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that Federal agencies develop cultural resource programs in their agencies. He said local units of government need local ordinances--but there is only 1 such ordinance in the St. Croix Valley (in Stillwater). He emphasized that the National Register status does not necessarily ensure protection and said local zoning and local planning are what identifies resources to protect: the strongest powers to protect are at the local level. Rick Dexter, Wisconsin Preservation Office, emphasized the importance of grassroots preservation efforts. He said federal and state organizations can lend assistance, but local preservation ordinances are key factors in protecting cultural resources. He said that Wisconsin goes to the local level of government for protection- -communities with buildings on the historic register must have local ordinances for protection. Dennis emphasized the need to go beyond the Riverway boundary in planning for preservation of resources, and to promote protection of resources outside boundaries. He suggested looking at the Mississippi River National Recreation Area model of educating the public and passing local preservation ordinances. Also discussed: means to obtain tax credit from the States when restoring old properties. Minnesota has an Old House Law that applies to privately owned "old" homes. There is a similar law in Wisconsin. Overview of Cultural Resources in the Federal Zone of the Lower St. Croix: Jean Schaeppi, Interpretive Ranger for the National Park Service, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, explained that the NPS is responsible for compliance with laws for cultural resource protection. Whenever there is disturbance of land within the area of the riverway managed by NPS, NPS must assess the value as a cultural resource. If a site is determined to be of significance, NPS works with the State Preservation Office to decide the best course of action. 4 S In 1975 the St. Croix National Riverway contracted with the Historical Societies of Minnesota and Wisconsin to inventory the structures within the federal boundaries of the Riverway. Fifteen significant properties were found within the federal section in Minnesota, 2 structures in Wisconsin (in addition to the Soo Line Railroad Bridge which is owned by Wisconsin Central). Of the 15 properties in Minnesota, only 1 was purchased by NPS and it later burned (probably as a result of arson). The two properties in Wisconsin did not quality for the register. There are no federally owned historical properties in the riverway. Wisconsin Historical Society also surveyed some State-owned land at this time. In 1992 NPS did a survey of archaeological resources within the federal zone. Over 80 sites were found, including properties from 1 ,000 B.C. to 1920s dump sites. In general the properties include quarries, occupational sites, and burial mounds. Three areas are extremely rich in archaeological resources. Ms. Schaeppi said that archaeological sites are often found in frequently used areas of the riverway, but precise location are typically not publicly revealed as a means of protecting from vandalism and use that would cause damage. She said archaeological resources may be a consideration in locating any future campsites, because such sites are often subject to erosion. NPS has also reviewed all properties owned by NPS to develop a list of historic structures (50 years or older). Most NPS-owned historic structures are found in the Upper St. Croix (i.e. above St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls). There are 5 properties in the Lower Riverway; 1 is a an old schoolhouse building NPS now owns near County Road S in Wisconsin. The four other properties are in private ownership and will not become NPS property until 2002-2004. This spring, NPS started to develop a Historic Resources Plan for federally- administered properties. Expected to be completed in 1998, it will summarize historical human use and alterations that occurred in the valley, and will compare these resources to a regional context. Ms. Schaeppi said NPS's interpretive current interpretive program focuses on historical aspects of the valley. A question was raised as to the importance of doing a more complete survey of historical structures and archaeological sites in the state zones of the Riverway. Ms. Schaeppi said that in Wisconsin, there has been some historic survey in the state- administered zone of the Riverway. She said archaeological survey would probably be hard to do in state zones because of private ownership. The Historic Resource Study being done in the federal zone will develop a predictive model that can be applied to the state zone. She said most significant properties are in private hands; counties and cities have done some studies and this data could be folded in. 5 a • The following concerns/ideas were raised in discussion: * How much detail should be provided about cultural resources before protection becomes a concern? * Much of what needs to be protected is outside the boundaries of the riverway. * Things,outside boundary can be addressed in watershed stewardship statement (it doesn't need to be limited to water quality). * Location of riverway boundary needs to be discussed. * More education is needed. Lower St. Croix Management Commission chair Terry Moe asked whether cultural resource experts could provide specific recommendations on what is needed. Dennis Gimmestad and Rick Dexter answered yes. In response to a question on the nature of protection provided by local ordinances in Wisconsin, Rick Dexter answered: local ongoing inventory, recommendations to local councils on designation, and review carried out through the local building permit process. He said federal pass-through funding is available for local efforts. Rick said Wisconsin has model ordinances for communities of different sizes. He will furnish these ordinances to the Task Force. Opportunities for Preservation of Cultural Resources: Pat Nunnally, consultant, summarized opportunities as follows: * Take cultural resource and small town ambiance as seriously as other resources. * Historic preservation can be used as a tool for protecting other resources. For example, protecting a historic farm protects the viewshed and accomplishes other benefits--such as providing open space, protecting the watershed. * We need to talk about the river and the valley together. * We have a chance to make the cultural resource aspects of the riverway much more important. 6 • • r *,- /f/V U.S.P0';:TAGE Lower St . Croix 1 OCT-9'96 Interagency Planning Team \ 0 .1 1" Coordination Office \..„ . \WI 68326SOL 117 Main Street Stillwater MN 55082 1#1* 14;• ' fig4e; Mike Robertson City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights City Hall, 14168 N57th St Oak Park Heights, MN 55082 tstscAtava,./46,4433 Wiltdddlinhilndaud IhdAdjbuhdfluddifillidulda • • • Enclosure L Lower St. Croix Planning Coordination Office 117 Main Street [ © Q Stillwater, MN 55082 11 612-439-7122 JUL 81996 ! I TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force; Local Governments; Interagency Contacts FROM: Buck Malick, Chair, Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Kate Hanson, Planning Coordinator DATE: Wednesday, July 17, 1996 This is to remind you that our next Task Force Meeting is: When: Tuesday, July 23, 1996 7:00 - 9:30 p.m. Where: Phipps Center for the Arts, River Room 109 Locust Street, Hudson, Wisconsin Topic: Aquatic Resources 7:00 Convene and Miscellaneous Business (Buck Malick) 7:20 Overview of Aquatic Ecosystem of the Lower St. Croix Gary Montz, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) 7:40 Mussels Native Mussels: Mike Davis, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Zebra Mussels/Zebra Mussel Response Program: Gary Montz, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 8:10 Questions 8:20 Fisheries Ron Benjamin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Henry Drews, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 8:50 Questions 9:00 Discussion of ideas to carry forward in planning Notes from the July 26 meeting are enclosed, along with notice of an upcoming public meeting sponsored by the Lower St. Croix Management Commission Technical Committee. Our schedule of future meetings is on the reverse of this page. • • !P. • Future Meetings: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force (all meetings at Phipps Center, Hudson) Tuesday and Wednesday, August 20 and 20, 7 p.m. Recreation (topics primarily related to water surface use) Tuesday, September 10; 7 p.m. Cultural Resources Week of September 23 (exact dates to be determined) Management Concepts Workshop • 1110 Notes from Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force Meeting July 8, 1996 Task Force Members Present: Buck Malick, Jim Harrison, Bob Burns, Audrey Kelly, Bertha Hall, Bill Clapp, Larry Kennedy, Jim Johnson, Molly Shodeen, Chuck Simpson, John Jansen, Jurgen Weidling, Stan Narusiewicz, Linda Luckey, Miles Wittig, Pete Keppler, Mark Smith, Laura Reynolds, Brian Utecht, Jim Fitzpatrick, Pat Nunnally, Terry Moe, Kate Hanson (coordinator). Also Present: Dan Helwig (MN Pollution Control Agency- St. Paul, MN), Ted Smith (WI DNR-Spooner, WI), Randy Ferrin (NPS-St. Croix Falls, WI), Teresa Jaskiewicz (NPS-St. Croix Falls, WI), Chuck Christenson, (St. Croix Co., LCD- River Falls, WI), Tim Popple (St. Croix Co., LCD- River Falls, WI), Kathy Nelson (WDNR, Baldwin, WI), Rebecca Flood (Met Council Environmental Services-St. Paul, MN), Lloyd Dahlke (St. Joseph Township-Houlton, WI), Dale Homuth (MN DNR-St. Paul, MN), Jessie Meschievitz (MWBAC), Barbara Ohman (MN Board of Water & Soil Resources-St. Paul, MN), Lawrence Foote (Oakdale, MN) . Miscellaneous Business: Jim Johnson, Bill Clapp, Laura Reynolds, Pete Keppler, Juergen Weidling volunteered to serve on a sub-committee with Kate Hanson to plan the agendas for the August Task Force meetings. Overview of Water Quality Conditions; Background on Cooperative Water Resources Management Plan (Jim Harrison, MN-WI Boundary Area Commission). Jim Harrison presented background information on the St. Croix River Basin Water Resources Management Plan. A basin planning group formed as the result of a Cooperative Agreement in 1993 between state and federal agencies to address water quality protection in the St. Croix River. The agencies cooperating in the plan are the National Park Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and MN-WI Boundary Area Commission. He emphasized that one of the unique features of the St. Croix is its cleanliness, but slow deterioration of the water quality in the lower reaches of the St. Croix is becoming evident. The goal of the St. Croix Basin Water Resources Management Plan is to protect and improve the quality of the surface and ground water resources of the St. Croix River drainage area in Minnesota and Wisconsin through coordinated planning and management. Focus of Protection for St. Croix National Scenic Riverway System (Randy Ferrin, National Park Service). Randy explained that the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is a unit of the National Park System, and as such is considered the same as a National Park for purposes of management. However, the National Park Service has very limited jurisdiction in the St. Croix watershed and little authority to control activities in the watershed which might affect the condition of the National 1 Scenic Riverway. There are about 5 million acres in the watershed; 25,000 acres (Upper St. Croix as well as Lower Riverway) are managed by NPS. 98 tributaries drain into the St. Croix. NPS's partnership in the St. Croix Basin Planning Team and cooperation with other agencies & jurisdictions is very important to managing and maintaining water quality in the St. Croix River. State Basin Management Plans & Protection Strategies (Dan Helwig, MN Pollution Control Agency). Dan explained that basin planning is a relatively new approach to managing water resources by the MN Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA). It was started in 1994. He said benefits of basin management include promotion of partnerships with local governments, improved communication, common understanding of water protection needs. Results tend to be measured in terms of environment rather than programs. Basin planning builds on local plans and needs, watershed management plans, and shared understanding of goals for a river. Dan outlined the 5-year cycle involved in basin management: compile and assess data, prioritize issues, develop and implement strategies in concert with stakeholders and agencies, and monitor results. MPCA involves local units of government in prioritizing issues regarding water quality preservation. Financial assistance is available to implement plans. Basin planning is scheduled for the St. Croix and Upper and Lower Mississippi Rivers in 1997. State Watershed Management Programs Ted Smith, WI DNR: (Note: in his comments, Ted also addressed the topic of "State Basin Management Plans & Protection Strategies" for the state of Wisconsin). The WI DNR has been doing basin plans since the 1970s, also on a 5- year cycle. Ted cited some shortcomings with the plans, such as lack of local ownership, lack of cooperation between agencies, lack of funding. He said the new watershed approach is encouraging because of its focus on local ownership and cooperation. Ted distributed a map of Wisconsin watersheds which indicates where there are priority watershed projects. The priority watershed projects address non-point source pollution, and are carried out through state and local government partnerships. The projects involve: inventory of resources protection needs, develop a plan for particular project, and cost-share funding to implement plans (using best management practices and other techniques). There are priority watershed projects along the Lower St. Croix, including Osceola Creek, the Kinnickinnic and Willow River. (Map on file at Lower St. Croix Planning Office.) 2 • S Barbara W. Ohman, MN Board of Water & Soil Resources: Barbara gave an overview of water planning/watershed management in Minnesota. Water planning in the metro area is handled differently than it is outstate. In 1982 Minnesota passed legislation that mandated establishment of Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs) to develop plans for watersheds in the metro area. These plans are unfunded. There are 46 watershed management organizations in the metro area. 11 of these are watershed districts, 35 are joint powers organizations (WMOs). There are 11 WMOs in Washington County; 7 of these 11 watersheds drain into the St. Croix. Watershed districts have district managers, who are appointed by the counties. Joint power WMOs are appointed by member communities. Barbara used overheads which outlined the purposes and functions of the WMOs. (NOTE: Copies of the overheads are on file at the Lower St. Croix Planning Office.) Non-metro local water planning is voluntary and funded. Key successful activities of non-metro water plans are county level involvement, "prevention" rather that "reaction" strategies, grassroots efforts and local ownership of plans. Rebecca Flood, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services: Rebecca attended for task force member Kent Johnson, who was unable to be at the meeting. She gave a brief history of the establishment of the Met Council Environmental Services, a division of Met Council which provides wastewater service and water resource planning in the seven county Metro area. Rebecca distributed a chart and narrative description of future needs for wastewater treatment taken from the "Centralization/Decentralization Planning Study Project" conducted by in 1994. This table charted flow projections for wastewater treatment plants from 1990- 2040. Rebecca highlighted the data regarding the Stillwater/Bayport plant, which is projected to require expansion between 2010 and 2020. She answered questions regarding future plans for centralization and expansion of facilities at Stillwater/Bayport and Woodbury. Even with expansion, discharge at Bayport/Stillwater cannot go higher than the level of discharge allowed in 1988. A new plan being considered in southern Washington County would discharge into the Mississippi. Chuck Christenson, St. Croix County Conservation District: Chuck spoke of the Kinnickinnic Priority Watershed Project, which is just getting underway. It is a joint project of St. Croix and Pierce Counties and the State of Wisconsin. Kim Popple, project manager, described the project as being one of protection rather restoration in the watershed. The goal is to form some partnerships with DNRs and local special interest groups to implement plans/projects for the watershed. 3 • • • Bob Burns, St. Croix River Association, MN Parks and Trails, St. Croix Valley River Network: Bob spoke of work being carried out through the St. Croix River Association to assess the possibility of changing legislation for Water Quality Planning and Watershed Planning to include establishment of "Conservation Buffer Zones." These zones would be tools to help prevent soil erosion, pollution, and sedimentation in sensitive areas. They would filter sediments but also provide other benefits, such as green space and habitat. Questions and Discussion of Ideas to Carry Forward in Planning: * Local governments play a major role in watershed management and protection. Does this provide for adequate protection over the long-term? * How can coordination take place among all the entities involved in watershed management. How can their various roles be defined? * Are existing laws adequate to protect water quality. In long-term planning, the door should be open to reviewing legal changes. * Are protection mechanisms in place to adequately protect from nonpoint source pollution? Nonpoint is a more serious threat than point source (there may be 10 times more nonpoint pollution than point. Major sources are stormwater runoff and agricultural runoff). * Currently operating according to a non-degradation standard. This standard needs to be addressed in the St. Croix River planning. * The watershed stewardship statement needs to include tools for reducing non- point source pollution. * Need to look at new technologies for sewage treatment. Discharge limits are not the only option. * The different water quality standards and terminology of Minnesota and Wisconsin are a problem. Both states should have the same water quality standards, and they should be the most restrictive standards (i.e. don't lower standards). * RE: particulates from the NSP King Plant. Particulates are regulated by air quality standards--but do they also affect water quality? How does air quality affect water quality? (Mercury would be the most relevant concern.) 4 • , 114w.!. s LOWER ST. CROIX �. MANAGEMENT COMMISSION oop MEMBER AGENCIES _ "^ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE-U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES-STATE OF MINNESOTA • • • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- STATE.OF WISCONSIN MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION (EX-OFFICIO) ' Cooperation Between Responsible Management Agencies " .- • NOTICE OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE MEETING LOWER ST. CROIX MANAGEMENT COMMISSION TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TUESDAY, JULY 23, 1996 LOWER ST. CROIX CITY HALL NATIONAL RIVERWAY MARINE ON ST. CROIX, MINNESOTA - TENTATIVE AGENDA - 3: 00 p. m. 1. Call to Order - Bernie McGaver, Chairman 1A. Introductions and Announcements 1B. Approval of Minutes of June 18, 1996 Committee Meeting 1C. Approval of Meeting Agenda 2 . Opening Statements Concerning Purpose of the Meeting - Recreational Use Management of Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway in Area of Special Concern: Cedar Bend to Dunrovin Retreat Center 2A. Chairman McGaver 2B. National Park Service Officials 2C. Local Government Representatives 3 :30 p. m. 3 . Proposal for Regulation of Uses by National Park Service (may be restated at later times for those not present at this time) 3:45 p. m. 4. Open Discussion of Recreational Use and Enjoyment of the Riverway in the Area of Special Concern: Cedar Bend to Dunrovin Retreat Center - Public Comments and Recommendations 5: 00 p. m. BREAK 5: 15 p. m. 5. Continuation of Open Discussion from Items 3 and 4 Above - Public Comments and Recommendations 6: 15 p. m. 6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Investigations, Discussion or Actions 6: 30 p. m. 7. Adjournment COORDINATION OFFICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, 619 Second Street. Hudson, Wisconsin 54016-1576 Minnesota Telephone (612)436.7131 Wisconsin Telephone (715)386-9444 . • . . , -77114K. ...., LOWER ST. CROIX r ., y MANAGEMENT COMMISSION y MEMBER AGENCIES \ _ ,`` NATIONAL PARK SERVICE- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR a s DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- STATE OF WISCONSIN y MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION (EX-OFFICIO) R' f Cooperation Between Responsible Management Agencies ( �- July 1, 1996 Dear Lower St. Croix Riverway Stakeholder: LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL RIVERWAY The National Park Service proposes to designate a seven-mile segment of the federally-administered portion of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway as a no-camping zone. It would extend from Cedar Bend, just upstream of the railroad swing bridge below Osceola, to the Dunrovin Retreat Center, below the City of Marine on St. Croix. The Service is making this proposal, for implementation beginning next year, in response to reports from many riparian landowners disturbed by noise and litter caused by people camping in this river zone. At the request of the Service, the Lower St. Croix Management Commission Technical Committee will hold a special public meeting on this issue at the Marine on St. Croix City Hall on Tuesday, July 23, from 3:00 p. m. to 6:30 p. m. (Notice enclosed) . The purpose of the meeting will be to gather information and comments regarding the recreational use of the Cedar Bend-Dunrovin area of special concern, including the proposed camping prohibition. Everyone is welcome at this meeting. Local government officials in this area have also been asked to have representation there. If you cannot attend the meeting and wish to provide input to this management discussion, please provide your written comments to the National Park. Service Representative on the LSCMC Technical Committee, at the following address: Brian Adams, Chief Ranger St. Croix National Scenic Riverways National Park Service P. 0. Box 708 St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin 54024 FAX (715) 483-3288 Comments would be appreciated by August 5, 1996. Thank you for your interest and concern for the values and enjoyment of the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. cerely yours, ;•/' , J/ James M. Harrison, Coordinator COORDINATION OFFICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission. 619 Second Street. Hudson, Wisconsin 54016-1576 Minnesota Telephone (612)436-7131 Wisconsin Telephone (715)386-9444 a t 1 . LOWER ST. CROIX -. • MANAGEMENT COMMISSION ,, . MEMBER AGENCIES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- STATE OF MINNESOTA • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES - STATE OF WISCONSIN — a-� MINNESOTA-WISCONSIN BOUNDARY AREA COMMISSION (EX-OFFICIO) Cooperation Between Responsible Management Agencies V z July 17, 1996 1: • MEMORANDUMCROIX TO: Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force LOWER sr. ERWA Members and Other Interested Persons NATIONAL RIVRWAY FROM: Jim Harrison, LSCMC Coordinator SUBJECT: Information Regarding Lower St. Croix Management Commission Meeting and Ongoing Activities The current Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force work to help develop an updated Cooperative Management Plan for the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway is focused on the long-term needs and opportunities for protection, use and development of the valley and its watershed. However, the day-to-day management of the Riverway, begun 23 years ago by the state and federal partner managing agencies, keeps on going and, as necessary, changing to meet current and projected needs and challenges. An information packet is being enclosed in this Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force mailing to people involved or interested in the Lower St. Croix Riverway planning process for two reasons: 1. To advise of the special meeting on the afternoon of July 23 at Marine on St. Croix concerning a proposed change in Riverway camping policy in a seven-mile stretch of the Riverway (see attached letter and meeting notice) ; and 2. To give those who may want to know more about the current Riverway management program a chance to get on the meeting notice and minutes mailing list of the Lower St. Croix Management Commission and its Technical Committee (coupon below) . Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force members, please note: The Marine meeting on July 23 is an exploratory one; the long-term management of recreational use will also be addressed at the August 20/21 Task Force meetings. (Don't forget the 7:00 p. m. Task Force meeting at Hudson on July 23 on flora and fauna. ) Please put me on the meeting notice/minutes mailing list of the Lower St. Croix Management Commission and Technical Committee - NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP (Bring to Task Force meeting or mail to address _below. ) COORDINATION OFFICE Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, 619 Second Street. Hudson, Wisconsin 54016-1576 Minnesota Telephone (612)436-7131 Wisconsin Telephone (715) 386-9444 Enclosure 4 • Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) DUAL NOTICE: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT RULES WITHOUT A PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS 25 OR MORE PERSONS REQUEST A HEARING,AND NOTICE OF HEARING IF 25 OR MORE REQUESTS FOR HEARING ARE RECEIVED Proposed Amendment to the Wetland Conservation Act(WCA); Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420. Introduction. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) intends to adopt rules without a public hearing following the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, Minnesota Statutes, sections 14.22 to 14.28, and rules of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Minnesota Rules, parts 1400.2300 to 1400.2310. If,however, 25 or more persons submit a written request for a hearing on the rules within 30 days or by 4:30 p.m. on February 11, 1998, a public hearing will be held on February 25, 1998 from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. in the Stearns County Historical Society Heritage Center,235 So. 33rd Avenue(on Highway 15 just north of Interstate 94), St. Cloud, MN 56302 (phone#: 320-253-8424). To find out whether the rules will be adopted without a hearing or if the hearing will be held, you should contact the agency contact person after February 11, 1998 and before February 25, 1998. Agency Contact Person. Comments or questions on the rules and written requests for a public hearing on the rules must be submitted to the agency contact person. The agency contact person is: John Jaschke, MN BWSR, 1 West Water Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55107, phone (612)297-3432, FAX: (612)297-5615, e-mail:jolin.jaschke@bwsr.statemn.us. Subject of Rules and Statutory Authority. The proposed rules are an amendment to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Rules. The BWSR is proposing a rule amendment that will simply convert the existing exempt("emergency') rules developed to incorporate the 1996 legislative changes—and which expire on June 10, 1998—into permanent rules without any change. Minnesota Statutes sections 103B.101, Subd. 7, 103B.3355 and 103G.2242. Subd. 1 authorize the BWSR to adopt rules related to replacement of wetlands. A copy of the proposed rule is published in the State Register and a free copy of the proposed rule is available from the MN Board of Water and Soil Resources by contacting Robyn Molina at 1 West Water Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55107,phone (612)296-3767, FAX: (612)297-5615, e-mail: robyn.molina@bwsr.state.mn.us. Since the proposed rule is identical to the current exempt ("emergency")rules currently in use as Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420, copies of this rule are also available (for a small charge) at Minnesota's Bookstore, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55155. The phone numbers for Minnesota's Bookstore are metro: (612)297-3000, MN toll- free 1-800-657-3757, and TDD metro: (612)282-5077, MN toll-free: 1-800-657-3706. Comments. You have until 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th, 1998 to submit written comment in support of or in opposition to the proposed rules or any part or subpart of the rules. Your comment must be in writing and received by the agency contact person by the due 1 ITE © [EIWE ..1\ DEC 3 1 1997 • • date. Comment is encouraged. Your comments should identify the portion of the proposed rules addressed, the reason for the comment, and any change proposed. You are encouraged to propose any change desired. Any comments that you would like to make on the legality of the proposed rules must also be made during this comment period. Request for a Hearing. In addition to submitting comments, you may also request that a hearing be held on the rules. Your request for a public hearing must be in writing and must be received by the agency contact person by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11th, 1998. Your written request for a public hearing must include your name and address. You must identify the portion of the proposed rules to which you object or state that you oppose the entire set of rules. Any request that does not comply with these requirements is not valid and cannot be counted by the agency for determining whether a public hearing must be held. You are also encouraged to state the reason for the request and any changes you want made to the proposed rules. Withdrawal of Requests. If 25 or more persons submit a written request for a hearing, a public hearing will be held unless a sufficient number withdraw their requests in writing. If enough requests for hearing are withdrawn to reduce the number below 25, the agency must give written notice of this to all persons who requested a hearing, explain the actions the agency took to effect the withdrawal, and ask for written comments on this action. If a public hearing is required, the agency will follow the procedures in Minnesota Statutes, sections 14.131 to 14.20. Alternative Format/Accommodation. Upon request, this Notice can be made available in an alternative format, such as large print, Braille, or cassette tape. To make such a request or if you need an accommodation to make this hearing accessible, please contact the agency contact person at the address or telephone number listed above. Modifications. The proposed rules may be modified, either as a result of public comment or as a result of the rule hearing process. Modifications must be supported by data and views submitted to the agency or presented at the hearing and the adopted rules may not be substantially different than these proposed rules. If the proposed rules affect you in any way, you are encouraged to participate in the rulemaking process. Cancellation of Hearing. The hearing scheduled for February 25, 1998 will be canceled if the agency does not receive requests from 25 or more persons that a hearing be held on the rules. If you requested a public hearing, the agency will notify you before the scheduled hearing whether or not the hearing will be held. You may also call the agency contact person at 612-297- 3432 after February 11, 1998 to find out whether the hearing will be held. Notice of Hearing. If 25 or more persons submit written requests for a public hearing on the rules, a hearing will be held following the procedures in Minnesota Statutes, sections 14.131 to 14.20. The hearing will be held on the date and at the time and place listed above. The hearing will continue until all interested persons have been heard. Administrative Law Judge Allan W. Klein is assigned to conduct the hearing. Judge Klein can be reached at the Office of • • Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Square, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-2138, telephone 612/341-7609 and FAX 612/349-2665. Hearing Procedure. If a hearing is held, you and all interested or affected persons, including representatives of associations or other interested groups, will have an opportunity to participate. You may present your views either orally at the hearing or in writing at any time before the close of the hearing record. All evidence presented should relate to the proposed rules. You may also submit written material to the Administrative Law Judge to be recorded in the hearing record for five working days after the public hearing ends. This five-day comment period may be extended for a longer period not to exceed 20 calendar days if ordered by the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing. Following the comment period, there is a five-working-day response period during which the agency and any interested person may respond in writing to any new information submitted. No additional evidence may be submitted during the five-day response period. All comments and responses submitted to the Administrative Law Judge must be received at the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than 4:30 p.m. on the due date. All comments or responses received will be available for review at the Office of Administrative Hearings. This rule hearing procedure is governed by Minnesota Rules, parts 1400.2000 to 1400.2240, and Minnesota Statutes, sections 14.131 to 14.20. Questions about procedure may be directed to the Administrative Law Judge. The agency requests that any person submitting written views or data to the Administrative Law Judge prior to the hearing or during the comment or response period also submit a copy of the written views or data to the agency contact person at the address stated above. Statement of Need and Reasonableness. A statement of need and reasonableness is now available from the agency contact person. This statement contains a summary of the justification for the proposed rules, including a description of who will be affected by the proposed rules and an estimate of the probable cost of the proposed rules. The statement may also be reviewed and copies obtained at the cost of reproduction from either the agency or the Office of Administrative Hearings. Lobbyist Registration. Minnesota Statutes, chapter 10A, requires each lobbyist to register with the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board. Questions regarding this requirement may be directed to the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board at: First Floor South, Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, telephone 612/296-5148 or 1-800-657-3889. Adoption Procedure if No Hearing. If no hearing is required, the agency may adopt the rules after the end of the comment period. The rules and supporting documents will then be. submitted to the Office of Administrative Hearings for review for legality. You may ask to be notified of the date the rules are submitted to the office. If you want to be so notified, or want to • 111 receive a copy of the adopted rules, or want to register with the agency to receive notice of future rule proceedings, submit your request to the agency contact person listed above. Adoption Procedure After a Hearing. If a hearing is held, after the close of the hearing record,the Administrative Law Judge will issue a report on the proposed rules. You may ask to be notified of the date when the Administrative Law Judge's report will become available, and can make this request at the hearing or in writing to the Administrative Law Judge. You may also ask to be notified of the date on which the agency adopts the rules and files them with the Secretary of State, and can make this request at the hearing or in writing to the agency contact person stated above. Order. I order that the rulemaking hearing be held at the date, time, and location listed above. to Ronald D. Harnac Executive Director, BWSR 4 qo eu dt i si IA rsc s js gm - s �n fin 1. ,"`9 ver sd ,,1 ( ' " s yI sc 1. A !' f;� n ih = 'hvnh -�j`� �� �� �Ai ���► ���� �) nv, sk vk sc �k sk, �I S t_ l - e' ' I ' WO ..,f /1 ,:kks ikvn dk L v i ��r...w Issue 19 October - December 1997 BRW, Inc PEERING THROUGH THE RUSHES cannot be replaced. To the contrary, I believe wetlands can be replaced and I have a number of successful BY BETH KUNKEL, EDITOR mitigation sites to back me up.The point I amtrying to make is that in many cases mitigation monitoring is As another year slips-away into the past I am compelled not.being completed, even with the requirements, and to lock back to see what we have learned or gained for those cases that are completed, no one is required from the past twelve months. Other•than being to evaluate whether or not the wetland functions have another year older and gaining a. been replaced. few more grey hairs, it seems that " not much has changed. In regards 1111',0 e:' The purpose of wetland mitigation to'wetlands, I believe that our A -� monitoring is not to simply doeu- 7.:' ment that a wetland has been knowledge and understanding of 1 created. The WCA rules (MN wetlands continues to grow,which . has changed some attitudes °� Rule 8420.0600) say that the put- towards wetlands; however I think . pose of monitoring is to determine our actions are still lagging behind whether or not the functions and in some regards. , , �� .r values of the impacted wetland ?; ,` have been replaced. How is this Over the summer I have collected �1 �, " '.�` done? The rules do not give ade-, data on a number of wetland 6 4a �.` �: � quate guidance or requirements mitigation sites for the purpose to get consistent results. of preparing monitoring reports ` � " as required by the Wetland , Currently wetland mitigation Conservation Act. As I collected i`:� monitoring ranges anywhere from • this data I couldn't help but look , � visual observation of the'site with x back on the mitigation laps of a a �,t out any significant documentation g p w to monthl site visits with corre- decade ago and wonder what we , �.,1'.,,,,..,''':',' � ; � - :�. , i Y have learned. Are today's wetland ' '" - , ,.' sponding documentation on '' vegetation and water levels. The creations better or more successful ��- � -, in replacing wetland functions ''''':::.'1::::' ;Pr ` • � level of detail required for a �� . " mitigation site reallydepends on and values than those of a few � � � � �' g p ' years ag6? There was little, if any, ":„... 'a ,t gi.� , ... r, _ � the level.of detail provided in the documentation completed or "i ,,, mitigation plans. Successful p Is it real, oris it miri�>ati��t,. gation starts with the replacement miti- required on the success of mitigation sites until recently. However, even today with the muni- plans. If the replacement plans do not identify the . toring requirements, I am not sure we can conclusively functions that are to be replaced, and how that is to be determine whether the functions and values of accomplished, there is no way to measure or monitor - impacted wetlands are being replaced by mitigation. its success. Now, don't get me wrong,J am not a Doubting Thomas Anyone can dig a hole, add water and seeds and or.an environmental zealot who believes wetlands create a wetland. But does that wetland replace the one that was lost? Wetlands have many functions; 11,-ball 1 • • • o� 4.14 which one(s) should be replaced? Can all of the wetland id. functions lost be replaced in the same location, or on- Qual14,i g efii l ice. or mot!. con st. of varied, progrestve,non-rppatvc:ani practical f:: site?These are tough questions that are usually over- wort in sail science:Followir are the nine-areas f looked in both the development of the replacement experience required as well as examples for each areal.. plans and the monitoring that follows. Research-basic research on the application of Ideally, mitigation monitoring should tell us if the func- view soil science techniques tions of the impacted wetland areas are being replaced' by the constructed wetlands. However, currenrmonitor- Planning-planning and.designing a Project ing requirements can also provide us with valuable such as a soil sutvey or remediation protect information. Comparing what was planned with what -• Technical Specifications-particpating in con- was constructed can teach us important lessons on what ducting a soil survey, soil sampling fol water works and what doesn't in creating different wetland quality, laboratory''analysis of soil and crater characteristics. This is an invaluable tool in improving `samples or evaluating the results of soil.and replacement plans.The more we know about replace- water analyses ment design and the results of those designs, the easier • Codes and Standards,evaluating and designing • it is to define specific objectives for functional replace- a project to meet local, state or federal regular, . ment. Wetland replacement is an evolving science tions such.as hydric soil identification and mitigation monitoring is a critical component of • Research and Analysis-utilization of existing its evolution. tecl no ldgy for ap licatio s tc�sails such as the It used to be that if a mitigation area looked like a use of UPSfor soil,survey wetland it was considered successful. Today we should •` Economics:detertiningthe cost of a project • be a little more specific about our successes. Next or the economic impact of a project time you find yourself peering through the rushes, • Safety,-evaluating the,potential impact of a don't just ask is it real or is it mitigation, but rather, is . practice such as pesticide application on water it successful? quality or humanposure •'Ob ervation-'ort-site observation of b os, lid applied to a"land treatment site LICENSING FOR SOIL SCIENTISTS • Inspection-ensuring that a soilvvater car. BY LYDIA NELSON vadose zone water monitoring device has been properly installed an is properly sampled Licensing of technical specialists has become more common in recent years. While not guaranteeing The geoscience statute requires at least a baccalaureate - performance, licensing of specialists is meant to provide the public/client with confidence that the degree and five years of qualifying experience in the work performed by the licensed specialist is consistent practice of soilscience.The broad categories of soil with the quality and ethical standards of the licensing science practice include wetland soils; soil chemistry; _ board. Recently, the State of Minnesota published the soil physics and water relations; soil biology and bio chemistry; soil fertility, nutrient and chemical manage- Geoscience Rule to license soil scientists in Minnesota. ment; soil and water conservation; soil genesis, The Minnesota Association of Professional Soil classification and morphology; forest and range soils; . Scientists (MAPSS)has worked to promote licensing and soil and environmental quality. As of August 5, and described the licensing requirements in a recent 1997, practicing soil scientists have one year to prepare newsletter article (The Auger, October, 1997). an application to be licensed through grandparenting. After August 5, 1998, applicants will he required to pass the written fundamentals exam and written 2 \ . 40 410 _ professional exam, as well as show proof of education WETLAND DELINEATORS and experience. Licenses from other states or graduate degrees may also provide qualification requirements. ASSOCIATION HAS BUSY SCHEDULE Knowledge of soil science is one branch of the three- BY LYDIA NELSON parameter approach used for wetland delineation. While routine wetland delineations may not require The Wetland Delineators Associationrecentlyheld the expertise of a licensed soil scientist, the the annual meeting and Board of Directors election. credibility, experience and skills of a licensed soil Newly elected and returning Board members include scientist could prove invaluable in atypical and Steve Eggers (COE), Beth Kunkel(BRW), Rob Bouta disturbed site evaluations. (Westwood), Ron Peterson(Peterson Environmental), Barbara Ohman(BWSR), Kelly Bettendorf(SEH), • For more information about Soil Scientist licensing Brian Watson(Dakota SWCD), Shane Missaghi (City in Minnesota, contact the Board of Architecture, of Plymouth) and Dave Thill(Hennepin Conservation Engineering, Land Surveying, Landscape Architecture, District). The new Board will elect officers at their. Geoscience and Interior Design at(612) 296-2388. next meeting. For information about the Minnesota Association of Professional Soil Scientists write to MAPSS, 4915 East The,WDA is currently in the process of forming corn- Superior Street, Suite 100, Duluth, MN 55804-2448. mittees to increase membership participation in administrative duties. New and returning members are encouraged to get involved to make the organizational WCA RULE UPDATE activities as informative and worthwhile as possible. BY LYDIA NELSON On-going administrative committees include Member ship,Forums.,Web Page and Newsletter.Two special The existing Wetland Conservation Act(WCA) Rules committees were formed, one to plan the upcoming are "emergency" rules which expire on June 10, 1998. Society of Wetland Scientists (SWS)-North Central The law requires that the emergency rules be adopted Chapter meeting and one to investigate the possibility into permanent rules through the rule amendment ' - of a Floristic Assessment for Minnesota. process.The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR)recently announced.that it is considering a The SWS North Central Chapter,will be holding their annual conference in the Metro area next fall. rule amendment process that will simply convert the existing exempt("emergency")WCA rules into perma Barbara Ohman of BWSR is heading up the efforts nent rules without any changes, during the spring 1998 to plan-the meeting. The planned topic for the -legislative session. Substantive rule amendments to the conference is Function and Value Assessments. WCA will likely be made in late 1998 or early 1999. Logistics, field trips and activities will need to be planned: The WDA SWS Conference Committee Public comment or questions on the proposed will be looking for all the help and ideas available to • action should be sent to John Jaschke,at BWSR make the conference a success. Barbara can be (612/297-3432). ® contacted at 612/297-1894. The Floristic Quality Committee has been formed to - review the existing Floristic Quality Assessments used - in Illinois and Michigan. The assessment is used to determine the quality of a plant community ona site- for uplands as well as wetlands. The WDA would like to assist in the development of a similar assessment system for Minnesota. The Floristic Quality 4 3 VIO.4 1 I 46°I I I) - . • Committee will review the current literature and see ART1CLES WELCOME! how it fits with ecosystems in Minnesota. Michigan and,Illinois plant lists will be reviewed and the Articles from guest editors often provide another per- assigned floristic indicatots will be modified based on spective on wetland issues. Please contact Beth Kunkel the field experience of the committee members. It is at 612/373-6461 if you have a topic you would like to ' anticipated that the floristic quality plant list discuss. The next deadline for articles is January 26. produced by the committee may be incorporated into a function and value assessment or other tool for Marsh Memos is published by BRW,Inc.as a service to individuals inter- upland and wetland quality determinations. - ested in wetlands and wetland issues.The opinions expressed_ire those of . the editor or guest authors,and do not necessarily represent the views.of The next two WDA Forum meetings are scheduled for BRW,Inc. afternoon times, so be sure to mark your calenders for The material in Marsh Memos is not intended,nor should it be used,as a 7 - substitute for specific legal advice or opinion,and readers are advised to January and February.4, from 2:00 to 4:00 pm. The ,consult their legal counsel or regulatory.agencies for assistance regarding times were changed to try to fit into busy schedules! . actual unique situations. Meetings will be held at the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Harting Lists Refuge. Scheduled topics are Landscape Restoration Address corrections,duplicates or • additions should be sent to: (Jan. 7) and Disturbed/Problem Sites (Feb. 4). M - BRW,Inc. ,- . Thresher Square 700 Third Stfeet South Minneapolis,MN 554153 • • Beth Kunkel,Editor B R YVBULK RATE U.S.POSTAGE PAID - PERMIT NO.847 BRW INC. Mpls.,MN • Thresher Square ' 700 Third Street So. Minneapolis, MN 55415 _ R B D p ��/ 612/370-0700 W 700 Third Street So.Minneapolis,MN 55415 Fax 612/3704378 - - • City of Oak Park Heights City Hall - 14168 57th Street North PO Box 2007 ' - -: _ J5 1J Itt- .. �, Stillwater, MN 55082 I �, I\ • JAN 6 1998 .i'' , it , • 4 z Wetland Conservation„..„„ Act Update Boa d of to NOV - 71987 Water&Soil October 1997 Resources BWSR, One West Water Street, Suite 200, St. Paul, MN 55107 612/296-3767 WCA Permanent Rule Adoption 1)to reduce the paperwork for Corps staff allowing them more time to provide on-site John Jaschke, Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) field reviews, training, and wetland planning program manager, and Matt Seltzer, attorney participation with LGUs; general's office, have begun the Wetland Con- servation Act (WCA) Rule amendment process 2)to provide "one-stop shopping” for land- that will simply convert the existing exempt owners at the local government level by ("emergency") rules developed to incorporate reducing regulatory duplication; and the 1996 legislative changes into permanent 3)to enhance wetland protection while rules without any changes. (Unless this happens, accomplishing items 1) and 2) without any the "emergency" rules will expire on June 10, changes to federal and state regulations, and 1998.) This process began with a request for without any extra effort required of LGUs. comments mailed to all potential parties that have an interest in the WCA and publication in All of these goals have been identified as action the State Register. The rule adoption process, items in the State Wetland Plan. which is very exacting, will be completed in The twelve local government units that have May 1998 or possibly earlier if no hearing is been implementing GP-17 on a pilot basis for requested. A substantive WCA rule amendment over two years have recognized its benefits. that will address proposed improvements to the rule will begin in late 1998 or early 1999. State and federal agencies met on October 23 to resolve the issue of wetland mitigation location. Wetland Regulatory Simplification The main question is: when is it best to require The Programmatic General Permit (GP-17/96) mitigation onsite or nearby and when does it effort has been revived after a meeting between make more sense to allow wetland impacts to be Ron Harnack and Col. J.M. Wonzik, district replaced in areas of greater need? The federal engineer for the St. Paul District Army Corps of policy generally states "closer is better;" the state Engineers, earlier this month. Although the policy, in contrast, allows transfers from greater details of such a general permit are complex, the than 80 percent areas to less than 50 percent concept is simple: persons or project sponsors areas. There is a need, as identified through the who are now required to get both WCA and State Wetland Planning Process, to merge the Federal Clean Water Act wetland permits would two policies into one unified approach that only need to get the WCA approval if the federal landowners can use as a basis for their project agencies concur that the WCA approval meets or proposals. exceeds federal requirements. The goal of the GP is threefold: 411 • Minnesota Routine Assessment Method widely, having a web site dedicated to for Evaluating Wetland Functions wetlands in Minnesota will provide a valu- (MNRAM) able service to both the public and the private sectors. A web page could make research The Interagency Wetland Group has drafted a items, regulatory topics, etc., accessible to second version of the MNRAM wetland func- landowners, local governments and interest tional►+ aessment method and distributed it for groups that would otherwise require search- review to potential users. Changes to the method ing many sources. include refinement of the wildlife habitat and 3)Forest road wetland crossing demonstra- hydrology sectios. Eric Mohring, BWSR tion: Jim Lemmerman, BWSR forester, and hydrogeologist, used research and hands-on Mark Nelson, Duluth board conservationist, empirical testing to thoroughly revise the will be developing a workshop in Northeast- Groundwater Interaction section. Barbara ern Minnesota to demonstrate some new Ohman, BWSR wetland specialist, coordinated a technology that allows the placement of workshop on October 21, 1997, to discuss removable mats across wetlands so that MNRAM and the other functional assessment logging equipment can be moved in and methods presently under development or in use. retrieved without permanent fill into wet- Invited guests included Dick Novitsky from lands. This workshop will be scheduled in Oregon and Dr. Sue Galadowitch from the the summer of 1998. University of Minnesota. Many local govern- ment staff and wetland consultants attended this Wetland Banking session. A larger conference on the same topic is being planned for fall 1998 in conjunction with John Jaschke and Matt Seltzer, in conjunction the Society of Wetland Scientists and the Minne- with Michael Fleming, a recent law school sota Wetland Delineators Association. graduate, have developed a package of reforms to the wetland banking process and new docu- EPA Wetland Grants mentation forms that will lead to a more consis- BWSR has been successful in receiving EPA tent and legally sound process for record-keeping Wetland Grant funds for several projects over of wetland banking credits. A meeting to review these potential reforms with local governments the past years, three of which are now in the early stages of development: and some buyers and sellers of wetland credits has been scheduled for November 20, 1997. 1)"Wetlands of Minnesota": This publication An interagency report on wetland banking, as being developed via a contract with the required by the 1996 Legislature, is nearly University of Minnesota(with editorial finished and will be approved by the agency contributions and oversight by the Inter- leaders within the next month. Included in the agency Wetlands Group) will be a complete report are recommendations for improving the scientific description of the wetlands of banking system, some of which are already Minnesota with color photos, charts and underway, and recommendations for additional other technical information. It will include resources for managing a database and tracking detailed information on wetland soils, hy- projects from impacts to replacements. Copies drology and vegetation, as well as some of the report are available by contacting John discussion of wetlandfunctions and values Jaschke or Barbara Ohman. and the history of wetlands in Minnesota. 2)Wetlands of Minnesota web page: Be- Road Replacement Program cause agency responsibilities, and the types Dan Eklund and Barbara Ohman, wetland of wetland issues agencies generate, vary • S specialists, with assistance from Steve Miller, conservation easement specialist, and the board conservationists (BCs), have been finalizing the appraisals, agreements and designs for the sites selected for replacement of the wetland impacts caused by public road authorities over the last two years. With a little luck some of these projects will get started yet this fall. Also, a meeting is scheduled for November 19, 1997, with some of the local road authorities and agency staff to review ways to improve the process based on experiences of the past year. There have been some concerns expressed about the level of technical review and the process for notifying interested persons of a road project that comes up unexpectedly. Wetland Plans Several wetlands plans in greater than 80 percent counties (Beltrami, St. Louis and Koochiching) are now in the early stages of development. Ron Harnack will be traveling to Koochiching County on November 4 to kick-off their wetland planning effort. Mark Nelson and John Jaschke have been involved in preliminary discussions with Koochiching County and SWCD staff. Dan Eklund and Mark Nelson are working with St. Louis County and Brian Dwight (Bemidji BC) has been appointed to the Beltrami County Wetland Management Planning Policy Commit- tee. Development of these plans will be watched carefully as the 1996 amendments to the WCA were targeted at counties with more than 80 percent of their original wetlands remaining and these are areas where the most flexibility is possible. Earnest participation from agency and local staff will help lead to sound plans that can be supported by both local and statewide inter- ests. s Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Planning WorkTeam Report Update, News, Calendar October 1997 - Final Issue • PLAN COMPLETION under its State Wetland Protection Development Grant Program(Clean Water Act Section 104),and matching Version 1 .0 of Minnesota funds from the sponsoring state agencies. Wetlands Conservation Public information distributed Plan released in June Over 2,000 copies of the plan have been mailed to individuals,organizations,and government units around the state. The plan can also be viewed on the DNR web Version 1.0 of the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation site at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us. Call DNR Ecological Plan(MWCP)is available as of June 1997. The plan, Services at 612-296-2835 regarding copy requests. which is voluntary and contains no regulatory authority, Public feedback is invited at any time on this first version was developed to guide local government units,state of the plan,which should be reviewed and updated over agencies,and private landowners through the tangle of the years as it is used. Of particular interest would be wetlands laws and public policy. examples of how the plan is being used and how it could be improved in future versions. Plan adds geographic approach The goal stated in the plan is to increase the overall • ERRATA • quality of Minnesota wetlands while taking into account regional differences in wetland types,quantity,and value. Corrections to Version 1 .0 Any jurisdiction or landowner can use the plan's rational framework to make plans and decisions about wetlands, A few minor errors were found in the original printing of and to improve the effectiveness of wetland programs. the MWCP. The affected pages were reprinted as The plan addresses four basic challenges for the state's Version 1.01 in June 1997. Please mark these corrections wetlands conservation system in the mid-1990s: in your copy of the plan. * The need to recognize and apply regional differences PAGE CORRECTION in wetlands policies and decision-making. * The need to simplify the permitting system and make 1 Second line under Regulatory Simplification: the it more accessible,responsive,and efficient. redundant"so that"was removed from the text. * The need to develop and deliver better information to 6 2nd bullet in Wetland Values box corrected to read: the people who make decisions about wetlands. "Flood water retention [A,B)" * The need to give resource agencies a common set of 22 The first sentence under Starting Point for Plan strategies for wetland restoration,protection,and Development was corrected to read as follows: management. "The state wetlands planning project was designed The plan adds a geographic and coordinated approach to to start with existing wetlands policies and move the existing wetland conservation system in Minnesota. forward with policy improvements and enhanced information for decision-making." Broad-based participation in project 52 Incomplete last sentence under Management Needs The plan was created by a diverse group of local for Rural Settings was corrected to read as follows: "Broad and specific training and education government staff,farmers and other business people, opportunities to integrate water resource and environmental advocates,and agency staff. The entire wetland concerns related to defmition and project was a voluntary initiative,sponsored by the delineation of jurisdictional wetlands,performance Minnesota Departments of Natural Resources, controls,and growth management." Transportation,and Agriculture;Minnesota Pollution Control Agency;and Minnesota Board of Water and Soil 67 Bullet(c),first paragraph,was corrected to read: Resources. Project funding came from a planning grant "The technical panel certifies the wetland for a by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), deposit in the form of"credits." Wetland credits are based on the wetland type,acreage,the extent • • SZ06-SSISS uY Yid is pnog ana,fnfn7 00S SZ xog saopuas lnar8oloog/JNQ .ro nurprooj palord `nos/.rnj ylagvzrlg 9NIANANV7d NOI1VA83SN03 SGA1N7L3A1 ELOSINNIJQ •spaau ie3l8ololp,Cq so ie0u80103a uo pose('utopias s!saes lunq Jo uousooi ata • „sn nut aluls•iup@sluou 8nop,,:latualuI •s3l1sualoereg3 aus 1uauraazidal 3gwads-130Coid 1I8I-96Z-Z19 :xu.3 6LL0-96Z-Z19 :auogd SZOt-SSicc MIN`Ined'IS utO13 lamp sails 3iueg pueilam3o sollsualoerego ata • peoll asa,C(Ju'I 005 •pasn potlaut uouonrlsuoo atl 01 p01ma1 Aiivlaua2 SZ xag 503 U0So33 are pue Ann saws Iueq puepam jo,tigenb aq j • 10;erls!ulutpv luu1)`suloiNN Snou :ssulpug asagl uo suolloe puaututooar!!!m nodal aqs „sn•uuralels•iup@n uosireo•glaq„:lauralui L661 Qua alai u!palaidutoa 1181-96Z-Z19 :Xd 068P-L6Z-ZI9 :au0gd aq ii!M nodal,Cpnls auZ •utals,Cs Suniueq puepam SZOb-cc I SS MIN`fried'IS s,elosauum anoidun of s,Cum 103 SU!goreas iCpnls e puog ona,CuJul OOS Ino paureo pue pauueid ureas voikk a413o aaulututoogns SZ xog saolnlaSoog'UNU u`01112uisl8a'aIEIS S66I alp wag 321E43 a II'In3 a.L loleulplooDIoaCo1<i`uosileotpageZlig paysiug. Apeau pod al NO/l VfV1101N/ 11311111174 1101 ' Apnls 6uipueq pueliem iL66I Aiunuuf-S66I laquta/tom Suunp luautdoianap ueid 0l paingtlluoo >INV9 C INV113M 31V1S • pue s8ullaaut urea L u!paled!3p.red 0qm tie 01 Drama •airrj alu!paututf aq1 u!paledl3Uue are s8ullaaut ratlin3 ON „(I"1v2IMW sulpniou!)sieualnyAi aouepm9 •reiuiitM u!,Crenae f u!Nall sum luautdoIanap pueilaM pue 2upiueg pueila j 103 sloeluoD„ ueid 1o3 Suuaauu ureas,lraM pug ata :smoiio3 se peal o1 paloanoo Sulpeaq puooas 16 11VON17VJ 9N/11111 „'luautaonidar„oI po8ueto sem „sluauiaoeidal„prom 041`gdulSered luauraanldag puVILaA aof s;rpa rj 041 Jo aoualuas lsn3 aqI uI Z8 ;alai puai paouenpu mut a 0111!M012 •,Cdoo paluud u Isanbal 0I(moiaq aas)s!.uoN 8noci `aauarladxa pun aunt twin`pinoo uos!u!I o!seq V. I3e1u03 •(sn•uuralnls•1up•mmm/�:duq)alp gam Nmig atl :smoiio3 se peal 02 paloa1103 SEM xog 041 moiag uo palsod aq fpm podal,Cpnls 8uplueg pueilam mug aqy tdul8ered puooas 041 u!aoualuas puooas ats IL •alaidmun oou!salautos are sueid Iuautaonidal pueilaM • „'puu[lam 041103 aiglsuodso1 ulnutar puuilam pawpalo a413o slaumopuei OMIT supine!s!slap alglssaooe,Cllsna pue an!suataidutop • pun •Iuautlsanu!alp apeui ogm raumo •alenbapeu!are uOIInoglltao pun Suuol!uout lua.unD • alp icq pros aq ueo s1pa1D •pueilam a413o,Clliunb •lua!3•33nsu!are sao!Aras a4101 alnquluoo le4l sarnlu03„amen ollgnd„ anUnrls!ulutpu pun Suuun000n 8upiuuq puuilam luarmD • 10410 pue`aws a41 le spueilam 8utlslxa-aid,Cuu 30 anssi !rum - L66I aaciop0 ♦ i,zodag ureas JXOM Z