Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Assessment

Foreword | Executive Summary | Summary Table | Narrative Table of Contents
(Close this window to return to St. Croix Valley Community Foundation Site)

Foreword

The mission of the St. Croix Valley Community Foundation is to advance the quality of life in the St. Croix Valley. Fundamental to that quality of life is the preservation of the health and beauty of the region’s natural environment. This understanding was one of the factors that motivated the Foundation’s founding Board of Directors to start a community foundation that would serve the Lower St. Croix region. As women and men who live and work in the Valley we understand that the Foundation’s commitment to serving our “community of communities” includes concern not only for human beings but the for the broader community of life as well. This understanding is further evidenced by our decision to name the natural environment as one of the six primary “fields of interest” – areas of special concern on which the Foundation will focus its outreach and future grant-making.

With this commitment in place, we, the Board and staff, then turned to the question of what the Foundation could and should do on behalf of the environment. With little money available for grant-making at this early stage in our development, the most obvious answer was to launch an effort to raise money to build an environmental endowment fund from which grants eventually could be made. From there it became clear that in order to make such a fund attractive to potential donors, we needed to possess a clear understanding of the issues and challenges facing the Valley. Further, a well-articulated plan outlining the Foundation’s role in dealing with those issues and challenges was also needed.

This Watershed Conservation Assessment report, commissioned by the Foundation, is the first step toward gaining that understanding and developing that plan. It is intended to provide a concise but comprehensive summary of the environmental issues and problems facing the Lower St. Croix Valley at the beginning of the 21^st Century. The report also details the considerable organizational assets and resources -- government and private sector — that are operating in the region and are dealing with environmental concerns. And, perhaps most importantly, the report identifies gaps where needs are not adequately being addressed and points to areas where public opinion remains divided on how best to balance environmental protection and other competing interests. Dealing with those gaps and differing opinions presents a challenge to the public as a whole, if the quality of life we prize is to be preserved and shared with our children and grandchildren. It also offers a variety of opportunities for the Foundation as it defines where it should focus its educational, outreach, and community building activities, along with its future grant-making.

The Foundation’s Board and staff wish to thank the researchers and authors for the many hours of planning, meetings, interviews, research and writing that went into this report. Thanks also to The McKnight Foundation for providing the challenge grant to the Foundation to cover expenses and to the individuals whose donations met that challenge. We owe a special thanks to the individuals on the Watershed Assessment’s advisory panel for their counsel throughout the process of planning, researching and drafting the report. They are: Kelly Cain, University of Wisconsin; Bill Clapp, Standing Cedars Community Land Conservancy; Jim Erkel, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy; James Johnson, Riverway Consensus Standard; Marybeth Lorbiecki; Buck Malick, Minnesota Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission; Dan McGuiness, Audubon Society; Rick McMonagle, Kinnickinnic River Land Trust; and Paul Roelandt, St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. Finally, we wish to thank the more than 75 people from around the region who agreed to be interviewed. (Their names and affiliations at the time of the interview are listed in the appendix.) The information, data, and informed views they offered about the Lower St. Croix Valley provided the foundation for this report.

— St. Croix Valley Community Foundation Board of Directors

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

Executive Summary

From the scenic gorges at St. Croix/Taylors Falls, to its confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott, Wisconsin, the Lower St. Croix is considered one of the most beautiful — and one of the cleanest — large rivers in our region.

The health of the Lower St. Croix River is closely connected to its watershed, the 1,470 square miles in Wisconsin and Minnesota that drain into the river. One of the primary reasons the St. Croix is such a treasure is the fact that, for much of its journey, the river flows through parks and open spaces. But how long will this last?

The watershed is gaining new residents and developments as Minnesota’s Twin Cities metropolitan area sprawls into western Wisconsin. The amenities of this scenic river valley, along with the charm of its communities and the pastoral landscapes that surround them, draw people here to live productive and enjoyable lives.

The migration of people to this region brings new human energy and growth to some segments of the economy. At the same time, the human settlement and use of the region requires that we give attention to the impacts of that growth on the natural environment, scenic character, and quality of life for all who live here — humans and other animal and plant life as well.

Since European settlement, the Lower St. Croix watershed has experienced change. Logging of the area’s forests began in the 1830s. As the loggers moved out in the first decades of the Twentieth Century, much of the land in the watershed was transformed into active farms. Population growth and development are clearly the newest changes underway in the watershed. How this change plays out will determine the kind of river and watershed we leave for future generations.

The Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Assessment is designed to offer an analysis of the watershed’s health at this critical juncture: the issues and challenges it faces, the solution strategies and efforts underway, and areas where stepped up efforts would benefit the watershed most.

More than seventy-five stakeholders — including residents, business people, developers, and representatives of the government agencies and nonprofit organizations working in the watershed — were interviewed for the report. Throughout these interviews two overarching messages came through loud and clear: 1) the Lower St. Croix is a precious resource, and action is urgently needed if it is to remain healthy and 2) there is no single answer to the challenges facing the watershed — there are a number of inter-related factors and solutions.

The matrix on the following page offers a snapshot of the ten Issues and Challenges, eight Solutions Strategies and Efforts and how they interrelate. Also included is a brief summary of how each solution is being carried out in the watershed and steps needed to increase the effectiveness of this work.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

Summary Table

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

Narrative Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Background

A. The Lower St. Croix River and its Watershed

B. The Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Assessment

2. Issues and Challenges Facing the Lower St. Croix Watershed

Land Use in the Watershed

A. Sprawl and Development

B. Loss of Agricultural Lands

C. Infrastructure Issues Related to Development and Population Growth

Air and Water Pollution Impacts to the River and Watershed

D. Air Pollution

E. Runoff Pollution Linked to Development

F. Water Quality Problems Linked to Agriculture

G. Other Water Quality Concerns

Riverway Issues

H. Recreational Use of the River

I. Invasive and Exotic Species

J. Preserving the Scenic Value of the River

3. Solution Strategies and Efforts

A. Land Conservation and Restoration Programs

B. Sustainable Agriculture

C. Planning and Design Frameworks for Managing Growth

D. County, Township, and Municipal Initiatives

E. Coordinated Planning Initiatives

F. Education and Interpretive Programs

G. Active Citizen Stewardship

H. Research

4. Gaps Identified By Stakeholders

A. Implementation of Local Programs to Manage Growth

B. Increased Funding and Technical Assistance for Land Acquisition, Protection and Restoration

C. Improved Watershed-Wide Planning

D. Networked Citizen-Based Stewardship Models

E. Establishment of a Lower St. Croix Nonprofit Organization

F. Increased Public Awareness of Watershed Protection

G. Improved Mechanisms for Measuring and Synthesizing Data

End Notes

Appendices

Appendix A. Organizations Working in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

Nonprofit Organizations

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Farms

Education Organizations/Interpretive Centers

Appendix B. Contact Information for Units of Government in the Watershed

Federal, State, and Regional Agencies

Local Units of Government: Counties

Local Units of Government: Towns, Townships, and Municipalities

Appendix C. Possible Funding Sources for Initiatives in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

Foundations

Federal Government

State Government: Minnesota

State Government: Wisconsin

Appendix D. Environmental Data and Resources

Superfund Facilities in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

Toxic Release Inventory System in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

Sources of Additional Information

Appendix E. Environmental Efforts of Major Valley Businesses

Appendix F. Study Framework

People Interviewed

Format for Formal Interviews

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

Chapter I

Introduction and Background

This chapter provides background and definition of the Lower St. Croix watershed, and information on how the Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Assessment was developed and organized.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

A. The Lower St. Croix River and its Watershed

“The graceful curve of the line of shore, the alternative swelling and sinking of the wooded hills, the deep ravines occasionally opening between them — the dark shadows thrown by the heights of waters, with a narrow line of light near shore making the departure of the sun and now and then projecting headland further out, a dark and shaggy mass — were so beautiful, that one could not regret the scenery of the Mississippi.”

--Travel author Elizabeth Ellet, commenting on the scenic grandeur of the

Lower St. Croix River in 1852[1]

The St. Croix River is renowned for its natural beauty as it flows 164 miles from Upper St. Croix Lake to its confluence with the Mississippi River. It has been a gathering place, a living and transportation corridor for indigenous cultures, a key route for the North American fur trade, and a river highway for logs, people, grain, and coal.

Since nearly the beginning of European settlement in the area, the St. Croix — particularly the wider, winding Lower St. Croix — has been a place where people enjoy boating, swimming, and experiencing the natural beauty of the scenery. It is a river valley that people want to call home.

The Lower St. Croix is the last 52 miles of the main stem of the river — the portion that flows from the twin towns of Taylors Falls, Minnesota and St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin to its confluence with the Mississippi River at Prescott, Wisconsin. This stretch of the river was designated a Wild and Scenic River in 1972 (the Upper St. Croix was designated in 1968 when the original Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was signed). The lower river itself is managed cooperatively by the states of Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the National Park Service. A new Cooperative Management Plan is being revised and is scheduled to be completed in 2000.

The watershed of the Lower St. Croix River includes all the land areas that drain into this portion of the St. Croix and its tributaries. Though not the full watershed, the Lower St. Croix Watershed consists of 1,470 square miles. Approximately 1,053 square miles of the watershed are in Wisconsin and 417 are in Minnesota. Portions of five counties are in the watershed: Wisconsin’s Pierce, Polk, and St. Croix Counties and Minnesota’s Chisago and Washington Counties.

Prior to European settlement in the 1830s, more than half of the Lower St. Croix watershed was covered in forest. More than 33 percent of the land in the valley was covered in oak savannah and prairie, and the rest was a combination of swamp, lake, marsh, and burned areas.[2] Much of what is now eastern Washington, western Polk, and St. Croix Counties was covered with upland prairies of big and little bluestem, Indian grass, needle grass, grama grasses, and a variety of composite forbes.[3]

Following the Treaty of 1837, the United States obtained the area from the Dakota and Ojibwe, and the forests in the Lower St. Croix watershed were intensively logged. From 1839 through 1914, more than 15 billion board feet of timber were removed from the basin. Land use soon shifted to agriculture.

By 1973, more than 60 percent of the land in the watershed was in agricultural use. The amount of forested land had been reduced by half, representing less than 24 percent of the landscape. Native prairie was nearly nonexistent, wetlands had been drained, and 2.4 percent of the landscape was classified as urban. [4] Analysis of 1991 aerial photography revealed an increased trend toward urbanization, with farmland being converted to urban uses. The chart below summarizes data collected by the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission on these land cover changes.

Land Cover Changes in the Lower St. Croix Watershed 1973-1991
Land Cover Type	1973	1991
Urban	2.55%	5.84%
Cultivated	60.5%	56.54%
Grass	6%	6.08%
Forest	23.75%	23.96%
Conifer Plantations	0	.44%
Water	4.44%	4.46%
Wetland	2.75	2.68%

The population of the five counties comprising the Lower St. Croix watershed has nearly doubled since the designation of the Lower St. Croix River as a National Scenic Riverway 25 years ago. Projections for population growth for the five counties indicate that more and more land in the watershed will be converted from farmland and natural areas to developments, roads, and other uses needed to accommodate growth.

While land cover changes and trends are well documented, changes over time in the water quality of the river and its tributaries are more difficult to assess. Overall, water quality tests find the St. Croix River to be in compliance with most standards, most of the time. Research conducted in 1994 comparing water quality data from 1950-1975 with data from 1976-1990 found that general water quality variables did not indicate striking differences over the period of record.[5] It should be noted, however, that changes in methodology, detection limits, and missing values added difficulty to this comparison.

More recent analysis of the Upper and Lower St. Croix River paints a less positive picture of current water quality. An assessment of 1998 data found that within the 195 miles of the basin monitored by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, only 46.4 percent of the water in the St. Croix watershed is safe for full body contact; areas of particular concern are the north branch of the Sunrise and Grindstone Rivers.[6] There are also fish advisories for mercury and PCB contamination in most reaches of the Lower St. Croix River.

The health of the watershed’s groundwater, from which most residents obtain their drinking water, is tracked primarily on a county-by-county basis. In certain areas within the watershed, agricultural runoff has led to contamination of wells and groundwater resources. Leaking septic systems and development in geologically sensitive areas have also led to isolated incidents of groundwater contamination.

The combined, general data on the health of the Lower St. Croix watershed tells a story of land and water that have been affected by humans, but not yet severely degraded. However, there is widespread concern that a new chapter is unfolding — one where increased recreational use, unchecked growth, and other developments place the great river and its watershed in jeopardy.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

B. The Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Assessment

The Lower St. Croix Watershed Conservation Assessment was developed for three primary reasons:

· To guide the St. Croix Valley Community Foundation in setting its agenda for its grant-making and other possible projects it may initiate regarding the natural environment of the region;

· To elevate in the minds of the public the major environmental issues facing the watershed; and

· To enhance the dialogue among stakeholders as the foundation seeks solutions that have strong public involvement and support.

With the guidance of an advisory panel, researchers developed a list of stakeholders in the Lower St. Croix watershed, including citizens, government representatives, non-profit organizations, education and research organizations, developers, businesspeople and others. In all, more than 75 stakeholders were interviewed for this project. These individuals were asked to define what they consider to be the issues and challenges facing the watershed as well as some of the solutions and resources in place. They were asked for success stories and suggestions for what could be done that is not being done.

The results of these stakeholder interviews form the basis for Chapter 2, “Issues and Challenges” and Chapter 3, “Solution Models and Efforts.” The recommendations for “What the Watershed Needs Now” (Chapter 4) were also gleaned from a qualitative compilation of the opinions and assessments of stakeholders interviewed for the report. In addition, these chapters include information supplied by stakeholders and from some of the extensive research that has taken place around the watershed.

The report’s appendices include a range of data and contact information, including organizations, units of government, and potential sources of support for efforts in the Lower St. Croix watershed. Environmental data and resources are also listed as are examples of environmental initiatives by some of the St. Croix Valley's major businesses. Individual stakeholders interviewed for the report and their affiliations can be found in Appendix F.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

Chapter 2:

Issues and Challenges Facing the Lower St. Croix Watershed

In this section, we highlight some of the key challenges and issues identified by stakeholders in the Lower St. Croix watershed, as well as those explored in research studies, polls, and other projects around the watershed. There are ten specific topics included below. Each topic includes a “case in point” as an example of how one issue or challenge is playing out in the watershed. To clarify these issues and challenges, topics are grouped into three main categories: Land Use in the Watershed (topics A, B and C);) Air and Water Pollution Impact to the River and Watershed (topics D, E, F and G); and Riverway Issues (topics H, I and J).

Land Use in the Watershed

How land is used in the watershed has a significant effect on the health of the Lower St. Croix River. Whether land is a park or natural area, a residential or business development, industrial area or farm field, each acre of the watershed has an impact on the environment — and the character — of the area. Three key stakeholder concerns connected to land use are covered here: sprawl and development, the loss of agricultural lands, and the infrastructure needed to accommodate population growth in the watershed.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

A. Sprawl and Development

Sprawl is a pattern of development through which urban centers expand unchecked into areas that have been converted from farmland, natural areas, or open space. The new residential developments, business districts, roads, sewer systems, and other infrastructure that go along with sprawling growth lead to financial stresses on the community, environmental problems, and abandonment of existing core cities.

Many communities in the United States and around the world are experiencing the problem of urban sprawl, even in areas that are not experiencing population growth. For example, between 1970 and 1990, the population of Cleveland, Ohio area fell by 11 percent. Over the same period the urbanized area around Cleveland — the housing developments, shopping centers, and business districts — grew by one third.[7]

Not all sprawl occurs around large urban areas. Rural sprawl is also a concern as small town populations grow and people begin building houses far apart from one another on what was once the open countryside outside of town. As more and more “baby boomers” retire, and technological advances lead to decentralized workplaces, many people are flocking to areas that were once considered too remote for commuting to large centers of employment.

Both urban and rural sprawl are concerns for the Lower St. Croix watershed, as is the rapid population growth which is taking place in Minnesota’s Washington and Chisago Counties and Wisconsin’s St. Croix, Pierce, and Polk counties.

In the thirteen years from 1985 to 1998, St. Croix County’s population grew by 27 percent. Over the same period of time, Pierce and Polk grew by 11 and 13 percent respectively. St. Croix County’s growth rate leads Wisconsin’s 71 counties.[8] While much of the population growth in the Wisconsin portion of the Lower St. Croix watershed is made up of people who commute to the Twin Cities, data indicate a rise in businesses as well. For example, Hudson, Wisconsin recently completed a 45.5-acre industrial park occupied by 30 businesses, and is planning a new 140-acre industrial park next to it. Wisconsin’s workers compensation and tax rates on business real estate — which are significantly lower than those of Minnesota — are cited by many as reasons for this business boom.

In Minnesota, Chisago County was the third and Washington County the fifth fastest-growing counties in the state based on percentage of growth between 1997 and 1998. Washington County gained 4,742 new residents over this period while smaller but faster-growing Chisago grew by 1,301.[9]

According to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, this growth trend is expected to continue for at least the next 20 years. Between 2000 and 2020, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is expected to grow by 482,400 people. More than 85,000 of these new residents are expected to live in Washington County (the only county in the Lower St. Croix watershed that is included in Metropolitan Council projections).[10]

Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Population Growth Data and Projections[11]
Year	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020
Population	1,985,873	2,288,729	2,608,990	2,838,730	3,091,390
% change	N/A	13%	12%	8%	8%

Population growth is not automatically the same as sprawl. When planned according to “smart growth” principles and other conservation-oriented development patterns, significant population growth can be accommodated without sprawl.

There are a number of data sources on Twin Cities sprawl, and some differences of opinion as to the severity of the situation. The Twin Cities was ranked eighth on the Sierra Club’s most sprawling communities list of 1998. Findings from the U.S. Department of Agriculture have also characterized the Twin Cities as an area where open space and farmland are being lost at an alarming rate. Data released by the Metropolitan Council in June, 2000 portrays a more positive situation, particularly in terms the amount of land set aside for parks and recreation. Even within the Metropolitan Council’s report, however, it is clear that land is being lost to development: 12,000 acres of vacant or agricultural land are developed every year in the metro area, and 4,383 acres have been converted to major four-lane highways since 1980.[12]

The vast majority of stakeholders interviewed feel that sprawl is taking place in the Lower St. Croix watershed. Large-scale urbanization of the land in the watershed was listed as a top concern by all but one of the more than 75 people interviewed for this study.

There is a growing body of research documenting concerns about development’s effect on the St. Croix River ecosystem and local quality of life. In 1997 the University of Minnesota Center for Ecological Risk used risk assessment methodology to identify those human-related factors that pose the greatest risk to the St. Croix River’s ecosystem integrity. Participants in the workshop that was convened for the study identified 12 potential ecosystem stressors — nutrient loading, sediment loading, exotics/invasives, hydrologic alterations, toxics, habitat modification, riverway development, recreation, harvesting, pathogens, dams, and noise. The stressors were ranked based on multiple perspectives, including immediate impacts, time-duration, and difficulty of prevention, and remediation management. In all cases, urban and rural development in the river valley was identified as the most serious stressor to the St. Croix River ecosystem.[13]

Surveys of watershed residents also point to concern about growth, particularly as it changes the rural character of primarily farming areas. For example, in a 1997 survey, residents of Osceola, Wisconsin identified the need to preserve prime farmland for farming as the biggest problem in the town. Eighty-seven percent said the town should maintain its rural character, and 88 percent said growth should be planned.[14]

Despite widespread acknowledgment that Twin Cities’ sprawl is contributing to environmental degradation and loss of farmland and rural character, there does not appear to be an adequate coordinated mechanism for accommodating growth and ensuring it does not damage the watershed. After conducting an extensive analysis of the Lower St. Croix watershed’s changing land use patterns, recreational use, and multi-level management of the river, the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission concluded in a 1994 report that “we are severely lacking in a holistic, integrated approach to managing the resource.”

One of the challenges to addressing sprawl and development stems from the fact that its environmental impacts are manifested in so many arenas. The sections in this chapter on loss of agricultural land, non-point pollution from development, and infrastructure challenges, for example, illuminate specific environmental concerns that are tied directly to sprawl and development. Other issues and challenges, such as recreational use of the river, air quality, and preservation of its scenic qualities are also in some ways linked to development and urbanization. Solutions to the challenges created by sprawl and development are no less complex. As is summarized in the report matrix on page iii, every solution strategy and model described in this report is linked in some way to addressing sprawl.

When considering solutions to sprawl, say stakeholders, it is also important to take into account the fact that development is seen by some people in the watershed as an opportunity as opposed to a problem. In some cases, even the people who want to preserve the rural character of their area do not want to see landowners forbidden to enjoy the financial benefits of selling their property for development. In a Polk County poll conducted in 1997, for example, 93 percent of respondents felt it was somewhat to very important to preserve farms and farmland for agricultural purposes. At the same time, however, 84 percent thought farmers should have a right to sell their farms land for purposes other than farming.[15] State boundaries and perspectives add further complications. Scenarios where Minnesota-based interests engage in projects to prevent sprawl and development in western Wisconsin are becoming common, as exemplified by the case in point below.

Sprawl and Development Case In Point:

St. Joseph Township[16]

St. Joseph Township is a 2,968-person township in western Wisconsin’s St. Croix County. It has no incorporated cities and no municipal sewer system. The township keeps track of new home construction with handwritten entries in a blue spiral notebook.

The fact that St. Joseph Township is at one end of the proposed Stillwater bridge and highway expansion project has made it a focal point of concern about western Wisconsin’s ability to deal with a large influx of new residents. Data indicate, however, that growth and development are already taking place in the township.

While farms still dominate the landscape, a 350-acre home and golf course development is being planned for one former farm field. A freeway-style interchange is on the drawing board and the construction of 16 miles of new four-lane highway is slated to begin in 2003. More than 20 percent of the township’s 17,845 acres are now zoned residential — with 1,000 acres recently rezoned from agricultural. As real estate agent Randy Cudd told the Star Tribune, “We used to sell farmland. Nobody thinks of it as farmland any more. Now it’s just subdivision land.”

New homes are currently required to sit on at least three acres. While minimum lot sizes are considered by some to be a way of preventing urbanization, others see it as a barrier to developments that cluster homes and preserve larger tracts of open space.

In an effort to document the changes that will take place in and around St. Joseph Township if development occurs unchecked, two architects from Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota created a map of the border landscapes “before” and “after” development. The maps, which show a startling shift in development of the area over the next 15 years, are based on 1998 zoning and assume that the proposed four-lane Stillwater Bridge and connecting highways are built. The maps are part of citizen efforts to address concerns about congestion in Stillwater without building a new bridge.

The mostly Minnesota-based activism around preventing unchecked development in St. Joseph Township illustrates another concern for some stakeholders: How can citizens and environmentalists in and outside rural areas work with local officials to carry out zoning and other activities to prevent sprawl? State and political boundaries, and other government and personal barriers often prevent watershed-wide planning to manage growth.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

B. Loss of Agricultural Lands

The shift in land use in the Lower St. Croix watershed over the past 25 years could be summed up with the following statement: Most of the places being developed now used to be farms. An analysis of 1991 aerial photography for the 1,470 square mile watershed revealed a landscape that contained 37,000 fewer acres of farmland than in 1973 and 31,000 more acres of urban lands. [17]

Development of the riverfronts along the St. Croix and its tributaries clearly affects the health of the watershed. While changes in forests, grasslands, and wetlands have also occurred, the sheer acreage involved in the urbanization of former cultivated lands has made the preservation of farmlands an urgent concern for many area stakeholders.

As was noted in Chapter 1, prior to European settlement the St. Croix watershed was a mixture of forest, prairie, and wetlands. In the 1990s, 56 percent of the land in the watershed was cultivated agricultural land.[18] The land being used for farming is not representative of the watershed’s original ecosystem. Farms also can contribute to environmental problems. (See section in this chapter on “Water Quality Problems Linked to Agriculture”).

However, there are many arguments for preserving the watershed’s farmlands. Farmlands are open space that can provide important habitat for turkey, geese, and other wildlife. When managed properly, farms can provide permeable surfaces that capture and filter rainwater and snowmelt, recharging groundwater and preventing runoff. Laws and education around farming practices have led to some farms that improve — not degrade — their environment. In addition, an increasing number of farmers close to or within the Twin Cities metropolitan area are turning to producing food such as fresh fruits and vegetables that are directly marketed to consumers in the area. (See “Sustainable Farming” section of Chapter 3 for more information on sustainable farming solutions and strategies.)

Farms are considered by many to be an important part of the area’s culture and economy. Truly sustainable communities are as self sufficient as possible, especially with regards to food production. Across the country, agricultural landscapes are receiving new appreciation as sites that warrant preservation. For example, in 1998 the Minnesota Historical Society received state funding to explore historic preservation of the state’s agricultural landscapes.

Data from a number of sources also document that land in some types of agricultural use require fewer resources and pollute the watershed less than most development. Consider the following:

· Owners of farm, forest or open space lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local governments to service their properties. Residential land uses, in contrast, are a net drain for municipalities.[19] In three rural communities near the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, farms draw an average of $0.50 in services for every tax dollar paid. Residential properties require an average of $1.04 for every tax dollar.[20]

· More herbicides are applied to turf (lawns) than most agricultural crops on a per-acre treated basis.[21]

· A 1981 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that homeowners apply significantly more pesticides per acre than farmers. While there is some data to indicate that residential pesticide use has decreased, there are continued concerns about pesticide overuse — particularly because, unlike farmers, homeowners receive no special training on the safe use and disposal of pesticides.

· Even housing developments that include large yards or open spaces may degrade the environment by removing topsoil and replacing it with sod. It requires an estimated ten years before sod takes hold on the hard pan of the soil. Until then, even lawns are not effective permeable surfaces and increase the problem of polluted runoff.[22]

There appear to be a number of reasons for the shift from agriculture to urbanization — stresses within the area’s farming communities that make it difficult to turn down large offers from developers.

The changing structure of agriculture is one issue of concern. Prices of major commodities such as corn and soybeans continue to hover at or below the cost of production. Competition with large factory farms threatens family farms or encourages family farms to grow and take over more land that may become available. In Wisconsin, 30% of farmers are over 55 years old. These farmers are likely to leave farming in the next five to ten years, resulting in a high turn over of lands.[23]

It is also challenging for farms to “hang on” when development is occurring around them. Rising property taxes and assessment requirements and fees can bankrupt a small farmer. To counter this pressure, Minnesota provides programs to farm landowners that allow them to waive tax assessments, helping to counter development pressures. Wisconsin is in its second year of a ten-year transition to assessing farmland and development land separately, a move to lessen the tax burden to farmers in developing areas.

Commuters make the roads more dangerous for farm equipment. Neighbors may complain about farm smells and noises. Farmers may also become isolated as their community is transformed through development. As agriculture-related businesses close, surviving farmers must travel further for services, increasing their transportation costs.[24]

Loss of Agricultural Lands Case in point:

Troy Township’s “Ruemmele” Farm[25]

Three years ago, citizens in Troy Township, just south of Hudson, were surprised to learn that one of the oldest and most established farms in the area was being sold to a developer. Comprising more than 400 acres along one of the area’s main roads, the farm was one of the town’s largest dairy farms.

The sale of the farm for development had required that the town board rezone the land out of “exclusive agriculture” and into “agriculture/residential.” This had occurred with little controversy, due largely to lack of public attention and awareness. Once people in the community learned about the sale of the land, however, they responded.

A group of citizens, including farmers and non-farmers, began a discussion with the Town Board to set up a farmland protection committee. Three of these concerned citizens later ran for the Town Board and won seats from long-term incumbents.

Over the past two years, the farmland committee has developed ideas for farmland protection, often engaging in heated debate with a group of farmers and developers who argue there should be no restrictions on their right to develop. In January 1999, the committee sent out a brochure and survey on farmland protection and has been encouraged by the widespread concern expressed over protecting farmland. Based on the results of the survey, the Town Board plans to put a protection program in place.

While farmland protection efforts in Troy Township move toward implementation, development of what was once the Ruemmele Farm has also progressed. Renamed “Troy Burne,” the property is now home to an upscale housing development and golf course.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

C. Infrastructure Issues Related to Development and Population Growth

When new people come to live in an area, particularly when they move to new housing developments, new schools, road, sewers, power lines, police and fire protection, and other services must be provided by the local government. While some people consider development good for a community’s tax base, there is significant data supporting the fact that most residential developments cost municipalities more for services than they generate in tax revenue.

There are many examples of other communities in the United States where sprawling growth has led to staggering costs. For example:

· The city of Fresno, California has doubled in size since 1980, producing $56 million in yearly revenues, but the cost of services has risen to $123 million (not including costs for roads and sewers).

· Providing services to new development has grown so costly in Prince William County, Virginia, even though the county has the highest property-tax rate in the commonwealth, every new house brings more than a $1,000 shortfall.[26]

In 1999, nonprofit organizations Center for Energy and Environment, Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, and 1000 Friends of Minnesota analyzed infrastructure costs for development to accommodate the 660,000 new residents projected to arrive in the Twin City metro area between 1995-2020. Based on a “sprawling scenario” — development with an average residential density of 2.1 units/net acre — local infrastructure costs would include $5.2 billion for new local roads, sanitary sewers, and water mains. The Smart Growth scenario, with development occurring at 5.5 units/acre, these infrastructure costs would total $2.3 billion.[27]

Schools are another issue for growing counties. In Chisago County, for example, much of the area’s population growth is from families with children. As a result, the county has recently bonded two new schools, and is already facing the need to bond for another. Providing county health services and increasing law enforcement needs are also concerns for this fast-growing county.

Sewage is a particularly challenging issue for communities experiencing population growth, particularly if the growth is low density and poorly planned as individual septic systems may fail and cause groundwater and soil contamination. One way of treating sewage is through municipal wastewater treatment plants. These facilities collect wastewater, treat it and then discharge it through an outlet pipe. Municipal wastewater treatment plants are permitted and regulated by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), created by the Clean Water Act. While some new developments are utilizing conservation-oriented treatment of wastewater and runoff, many new developments require sewer extension, which is expensive for local municipalities.

Sewage is responsible for several types of water pollution, particularly fecal coliform and nutrient loadings. Thus, it is a large environmental as well as fiscal concern for the watershed.

Infrastructure Issues Case In Point:

Growth and Sewage in Chisago County

Over the next 20 years, Minnesota’s Chisago County is projected to be the state’s third fastest-growing non-metro county, according to the State Demographer’s Office. Forty percent more building permits were requested in the county between January and July 1998 than in the same period the year before.

Chisago County Water Plan coordination documents cite the building of a new regional hospital in Wyoming and construction of a state prison near Rush City as stressors on the current wastewater treatment capacity. Also mentioned is the fact that people are moving north of the Twin Cities area because they view large lots in rural areas as an attractive alternative to small lot suburban living.[28] These home sites are served by individual septic systems.

In response to current and projected population growth within the area served by a sewage plant, two municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the county issued expansion plans. These plans have caused concern because this sewage effluent is discharged to tributary streams that eventually drain into the St. Croix River. The county is currently researching alternatives to dumping treated wastewater into water bodies.

Air and Water Pollution Impacts to the River and Watershed

Pollutants in the air, toxic substances that are washed into the river and its tributaries, and facilities along the waterway itself all have an impact on the health of the Lower St. Croix watershed. While the land use and riverway-specific issues are also linked with pollution concerns, the sections below address the following specific topics: air pollution, runoff pollution linked to development, water quality problems linked to agriculture, and other water quality concerns.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

D. Air Pollution

The quality of the air in the Lower St. Croix basin clearly affects the quality of life for people, as well as water quality and wildlife. Stakeholders expressed concern about three key sources of air pollution in the watershed:

· Industries and other facilities that emit air pollution.

· Garbage burning.

· Pollution from motorized vehicles including cars and trucks, watercraft, and lawn and farm equipment.

There are 24 facilities in the watershed conforming to the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements. Emissions reported under this program are primarily to air, though some is release to water or land. Appendix D. includes the names and addresses of the 24 facilities reporting under the TRI.

Some industries in the watershed are working to decrease air pollution. For example, Andersen Corporation is participating in a voluntary pilot program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called Project XL (eXcellence and Leadership).

Project XL provides businesses with greater regulatory flexibility in exchange for their commitment to working toward continued superior environmental performance and increased community involvement. Through this project, Andersen has committed to a unique performance ratio for measuring air emissions that requires continued improvements in environmental performance over time. (See Appendix E. for more information on the environmental efforts of some valley businesses).

In addition to industrial facilities, other sources of air emissions in the watershed can be traced to the burning of garbage by residents and/or small business owners. This burning, which often takes place in barrels, was identified by some stakeholders as a practice that creates nuisance conditions, greatly increases the risk of wildfires, and is the source of dangerous toxic chemicals. Pollutants such as heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, and others), furans, and acids are released in the smoke concentrated in the ash. Mercury and dioxins are also released.[29] According to a Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) study of dioxins (a potent cause of cancer and other serious health related effects), burning 25 pounds of garbage in a burning barrel released about 7,000 times more dioxin than the (former) St. Croix Incinerator at a burn rate of 4.8 tons per hour. A smoldering burning barrel created ideal conditions for dioxin formation.[30]

Automobile-related air pollution in the watershed is linked to the problem of urban sprawl. Many of the people living in the watershed commute to throughout the metropolitan area, generating pollution that includes nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds.[31] Car emissions contribute to the problem of global warming through the production of carbon dioxide. In the Twin Cities, car emissions are up 32 percent between 1989 - 1999. Climate change damages from Minnesota’s vehicles may be $260 million per year.[32] Research in Minnesota shows health problems linked to vehicle related air pollution include bronchitis, asthma, increased cases of cancer, and premature deaths.[33]

In the 1990s, a University of Minnesota Biology Department study of lichen found a decrease in species diversity on the land along the Lower St. Croix River beginning near Stillwater. This change in species diversity was linked to air contamination.[34]

Air pollution from watercraft, lawnmowers, agriculture-related sources, and back-yard garbage burning also pose potential problems. There is a significant body of data on air pollution caused by the two-stroke engines that power many recreational vehicles. However, there is little information on how this source of pollution is affecting the Lower St. Croix watershed. (See “Recreational Use of the River” section of this chapter for data on pollution linked to two-stroke engines.)

Air Pollution Case In Point:

Northern States Power’s Allen S. King Plant

Situated along the river in Bayport, Minnesota, the Northern States Power (NSP) Allen S. King Plant has been generating electricity since 1968. A 1997 Izaak Walton League report notes that like all coal-fired power plants built before the passage of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments, the King plant is not up to modern pollution standards. Further the plant was designated one of the region’s (three state) “worst seven” coal plant polluters in the Izaak Walton League report. For example, of the seven companies studied in this report, the King plant emitted the largest quantities of nitrogen oxide.[35]

The plant’s air emissions include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury. According to sources at NSP, the plant is required to monitor emissions and ensure they are in compliance with state and federal regulatory standards. Environmental and human health impacts associated with regulated pollutants are real and able to be modeled, but in some views they are not unreasonable impacts. For example, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, in a study of power plant emissions, concluded that although there are “…large quantities of emissions, the resulting risk to public health is minimal.”[36] Increasingly, policy makers are concerned about the human health and environmental impacts of both carbon dioxide (global warming) and mercury (a bioaccumulative toxin) and these emissions coming from power plants are not regulated by the Clean Air Act or any subsequent law.

Though it is located in the Lower St. Croix watershed, the plant’s tall stack disperses emissions down wind and pollution control equipment captures most plant waste ash.[37]

Fish advisories for the St. Croix River include warnings about mercury contamination, particularly in the stretch of the river from its headwaters to Stillwater.[38] Mercury exists in the environment from both natural (geological) sources and human activities. Although low background levels of mercury are normal in rocks, soils, and water, significantly elevated levels can damage developing nervous systems and may be particularly harmful for pregnant women, developing fetuses, and children if they are exposed to significant quantities. Mercury bioaccumulates in fish and other species. State agencies have not proven a link between fish contamination and mercury emissions from the King Plant and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) estimates that approximately 90 percent of mercury deposition in the state is due to out of state sources. It is also important to note that Minnesota’s regulations for fish consumption set a lower threshold for mercury than the federal government or neighboring states.[39]

In 1997, operating at 68 percent capacity, the King Plant emitted 68 pounds of mercury, which is 8 mg (0.00001858 pounds) of mercury for every megawatt hour. The King Plant has a mercury removal rate of 69%, among the highest in the country.[40] As the plant plans to begin operating at full capacity, possible increases in emissions of mercury and other pollutants is a topic of concern for some area environmentalists and citizens. Recognizing that mercury is a concern to some people, NSP has and continues to attempt to minimize releases of mercury to the environment. NSP is developing a plan to be submitted to the MPCA to voluntarily further reduce mercury releases to the environment from all their plants. (See Appendix E. for more information on NSP’s environmental activities).

It should be noted that much of the data on the ecological risks from mercury and

greenhouse gases indicate that the causes and effects of these emissions are regional and global as opposed to local or watershed-based. Thus, the environmental risks and damages to the watershed caused by the King Plant are no more or less than those of other older coal plants. However, some area stakeholders feel that because it exists within the boundaries of the watershed, the King Plant is an appropriate focus of local environmental concern.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

E. Runoff Pollution Linked to Development

In a healthy ecosystem, soil structures, grasses, and wetlands filter rain and snowmelt. The water recharges groundwater supplies and seeps into creeks, streams, and rivers.

As land areas are developed, there are increases in the number of hard — or impervious — surfaces, including roads, parking lots, roofs, sidewalks, and driveways.

When stormwater falls on these impervious surfaces, the water cannot seep into the ground. Instead, rain and snowmelt flow along streets or sidewalks, picking up pollutants as they rush into the storm drains and into the nearest body of water. This is called runoff pollution or nonpoint pollution (because it is not linked directly to an industrial discharger or other obvious pollution “point.”)

Precipitation in the watershed averages 30 inches per year, with almost half of it falling in the summer months. Average annual runoff is 6.6 to 10 inches.[41] Depending on the land cover, this precipitation can have a large impact on local water quality and the quantity of water rushing into a stream during a storm. For example, total runoff from a one-acre parking lot is about 16 times that produced by an undeveloped meadow of the same size.[42]

Experts in urban watershed protection have demonstrated links between the amount of impervious surfaces in a community and the health of the area’s waterways. Ten percent impervious surfaces is considered to be the level at which stream degradation tends to occur. Habitat assessment tools have consistently demonstrated that a sharp threshold in habitat quality exists at approximately 10 -15 percent imperviousness. [43]

As of 1993, approximately six percent of the land area in the Lower St. Croix watershed was in urban use. [44] The average urban area is between 60 and 70 percent impervious surfaces.

Within the watershed, some urban areas have grown enough to produce hundreds of acres with large percentages of impervious surfaces. Because the Lower St. Croix includes precious resources, such as trout streams, there is widespread concern that development — even at current levels — is harming the integrity of rivers. Runoff from warm roofs and pavement lead to temperature surges in streams, which has a deleterious effect on trout and other cold water species. Pollution in Brown’s Creek, a trout stream near Stillwater, is one example of environmental concern linked in part to development upstream.

Few municipalities build holding pools or wetlands to filter runoff from developed areas — they simply direct it into tributaries. There is also little attention paid to limiting impervious surfaces to levels that protect local water quality. Even in the City of River Falls, which is a leader in environmentally sound policy making, municipal programs to limit impervious surfaces in the city to 15 percent of available land area are not strict enough to prevent environmental degradation.[45]

In addition to an increase in impervious surfaces, new development may lead to more pollutants on the ground. Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers on home lawns, city parks, businesses, and other institutions can cause severe water quality problems, as can other factors such as automotive fluids on driveways, pet wastes, and yard waste.

When testing water quality, it can be difficult to trace the source of runoff pollution to development as opposed to other sources such as agricultural land use. However, researchers are beginning to connect increased development in the watershed with new signs of water quality degradation. For example, nonpoint source contributions from urban areas below the Apple River confluence were determined to be one contributing factor to the eutrofication of Lake St. Croix and the trace metal contamination of fish tissue.[46]

Runoff Pollution Linked to Development Case in Point:

Analysis of Mussel Tissue Documents Pollution

Some assessments of the Lower St. Croix River’s waterway describe a river that is “relatively unpolluted.”[47] Others point to the fact that the river is showing “some deterioration over time.”[48]

Through freshwater biological monitoring, it is possible to look at more subtle indicators of water quality — indicators of what may come to be in the waterway in terms of pollution. Organisms living within the aquatic environment are affected by water quality conditions throughout their life span. Through monitoring, we can see evidence of pollutants and changes in the ecosystem. Considered by many to be like the proverbial “canary in a coal mine,” mussels are one organism frequently used for this type of research.

Home to more than 40 species of mussels, including two federally listed endangered species, the St. Croix River is regarded as having one of the richest freshwater mussel communities in the upper Midwest. In 1993, the University of Minnesota conducted a study of mussel growth and shell chemistry. Results of the study indicate that the less urbanized Upper St. Croix River had mussel populations that were generally larger, younger, and demonstrated higher growth rates than those collected in the more urbanized Lower St. Croix River below Stillwater. Significantly higher concentrations of heavy metals in mussels and shells were observed from the riverway below Hudson.

The report concludes with the assertion that “relative abundance of elements observed within the shells suggest the probable influence of nonpoint source water contaminants in the lower riverway.” In other words, the Lower St. Croix is being polluted by heavy metals likely from runoff, but also possibly from area power plants and garbage incinerators outside of the watershed.[49]

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

F. Water Quality Problems Linked to Agriculture

The large proportion of land in agricultural use in the Lower St. Croix watershed has a number of ramifications for the area’s water resources. Perhaps the most critical concern for the river ecosystem is related to excess nutrients in the river and its tributaries. Excess nutrients lead to algal blooms which die off and pull oxygen out of the water, depriving aquatic life of the oxygen they need to survive. This adversely affects the ability of the fish and other species to thrive in the aquatic environment.

While urban land use, sewage, and industrial sources can cause excess nutrients, this water quality issue is often linked to agricultural land use and farming practices. Excess nutrients — or “nutrient loading” — from agricultural lands occurs when manure or chemical fertilizers run off fields into creeks and streams. When cattle cross and/or drink from these waterways, it can also cause contamination as well as stream bank erosion.

Trend analysis between 1974 and 1981 for selected parameter loads in the St. Croix River at St. Croix Falls showed that water quality did not significantly change over this period, with the exception of an apparent increase in total ammonia as N (this type of ammonia is associated with agricultural practices). In fact, while other components stayed the same or decreased over this period, ammonia-loading increases were determined to be more than 26 percent.[50] 1996 data on the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer, the primary water source for domestic wells in the St. Croix watershed, found nitrates and phosphorous to be “nutrients of concern” due to their potential effects on human health and streams and rivers in the watershed. [51]

Feedlots, which are large cattle or hog operations generating large quantities of manure and other potentially damaging substances, have been linked to severe pollution problems. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, manure runoff has been identified as a culprit in the contamination of fisheries along 60,000 miles of streams nationwide. In addition, in 17 states groundwater is impaired by animal manure containing fecal streptococci and fecal coliform bacteria, according to tests conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.[52]

In the summer of 1999, a feedlot permit was under consideration in Martell Township in Pierce County. This feedlot, near the Rush River a Mississippi River tributary, proposed to house 850 animals with an annual manure output of five million gallons. Because Martell Township, which generally opposed this proposal, does not have the power to create new zoning or implement ordinances, they requested support at the county and state levels. Further, this feedlot proposal galvanized a proactive citizen group that is looking for ways to protect their watershed beyond simply opposing this feedlot. Another large farming operation, Emerald Dairy, was in the permitting process in St. Croix County. This proposed 1,200 cow farm would generate 11.5 million gallons of manure annually. These are examples of issues being dealt with by towns throughout the watershed.

While nutrient loading is the most frequently cited agriculture-related environmental concern, use of chemical pesticides can also cause water quality problems. For example, research shows that rain samples taken in Minnesota during the growing seasons had detectable levels of pesticides. Most frequently detected compounds were alchlor, atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor, and acetochlor. Highest concentrations were found nearest the areas in which these chemicals were used.[53]

Soil erosion is also a problem around many farms, as is runoff from buildings and other impervious surfaces on farms. When wetlands are drained for agricultural purposes, it removes important filters for runoff. In addition to affecting the health of the river ecosystem in the watershed, agriculture-related pollution may also affect groundwater and drinking water supplies. As was noted in the “Air Pollution” section of this chapter, some farms also produce air pollution from farm machinery and other sources.

Nutrient Loading Linked to Agriculture Case In Point:

The Kinnickinnic Priority Watershed

The Kinnickinnic River is a high quality Class I trout fishery that originates in the agricultural lands of St. Croix County, flows through the City of River Falls, and eventually drains into the St. Croix River. The watershed is 174 square miles, and includes numerous perennial streams, which support cold water fish communities.[54] Concern about protecting this resource led to the examination of pollution to the river and its watershed, which is made up primarily of land in agricultural use.

Inventory work conducted by the Pierce and St. Croix Land and Water Conservation Departments, municipalities, and the Wisconsin DNR uncovered the critical role agricultural land use plays in the health of the watershed. For example:

· Of 99 barnyards inventoried, two were identified as “critical.” Controlling the runoff from those two will reduce pollutant loadings by 37 percent.

· In the Kinnickinnic watershed, an estimated 73,000 acres of cropland deliver 16,800 tons of soil each year to lakes, wetlands, and streams in the watershed.

· About 1,300 acres (31 percent) of wetlands have been disturbed by draining, farming, or other human uses.

Past history has made it clear that one spill or accident on a farm in the watershed can have widespread consequences. In May 1998, for example, a farmer spread manure on a dry creek bed near Parker Creek, a Kinnickinnic River tributary. The next day it rained, and the manure flowed into Parker Creek, killing 10,000 fish and significantly affecting the creek ecosystem. The Wisconsin DNR, which investigated the site, estimates that it will take from three to five years for the ecosystem to become reestablished. The farmer was fined $200 for the incident and was required to develop a 10-year farm management plan. For many stakeholders in the area, this event made it clear that education and technical assistance are needed for local farmers.[55]

In addition to agriculture-related pollution, urban runoff is another concern in the watershed. The City of River Falls, for example, contributes runoff to the river and is addressing this issue through municipal initiatives. Plans for reducing both forms of runoff are part of the Kinnickinnic River Priority Watershed project, which was selected in 1995 as a large scale Priority Watershed Project through the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Programs.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

G. Other Water Quality Concerns

Runoff pollution from urbanized land and/or those in agricultural use were the water quality concerns most frequently mentioned by interviewees. However, there are other factors that contribute to the deterioration of the water quality of the Lower St. Croix Watershed. Three included here are large permitted dischargers, commercial cranberry operations, and failing septic systems.

Within the basin as a whole, 46 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits were in effect between September 1997 and August 1998, discharging to the river and its tributaries.[56] Fourteen permitees in the basin were industrial facilities and 31 were municipal facilities. Over approximately the same time period there were 15 municipal and industrial permitted wastewater facilities that discharge directly to the St. Croix River. Thirteen of these 15 dischargers are on the Lower St. Croix River itself.

An analysis of permit compliance published in 1997 documented few serious violations. However, most violations were some combination of total suspended solids, residual chlorine, biochemical oxygen demand, and/or fecal coliform bacteria — all of which have an adverse effect on water quality.[57] The Allen S. King power plant and the municipal wastewater treatment plants at Taylors Falls, St. Croix Falls, Osceola, and Hudson had the greatest number of permit violations.[58]

In addition to permitted point sources, there are concerns over dischargers to the river that are currently not governed by the NPDES. One example is the commercial cranberry industry located in the Upper St. Croix River watershed. The National Park Service has conducted biomonitoring programs, one of which examined whether pesticides and nutrients enter the Namekagon River from commercial cranberry marshes. Biomonitoring tests of fathead minnows demonstrated toxic effects in streams receiving water from the Trego and Pacwawong cranberry marshes.[59] Published accounts of cranberry operations in Wisconsin document a history of conflict with the state DNR over environmental studies and oversight of environmental impacts of the industry. A 1980s court decision exempted a grower from having to apply for a permit to divert water, leaving DNR officials with little control over the growers’ farming practices.[60]

Another issue affecting water quality in the watershed is individual septic system failure. For homes in rural areas, beyond the reach of sewer services, septic tanks and drainfields are used to treat wastewater. Wastewater is channeled to a septic tank, where water rises to the top and is discharged to a drainfield where it is supposed to be filtered as it seeps into the ground. If it is not maintained or pumped out, septic systems can fail. Failing septic systems are acknowledged as a source of groundwater pollution.

Landfills, superfund sites, and underground storage tanks also appear to be contaminating groundwater quality in certain sections of the watershed. There are four sites in the Lower St. Croix watershed contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOCs); three of these sites are in Hudson.[61] VOC contamination is linked to leaking underground storage tanks and landfills. There are two well construction advisories in Washington County, declared by the Department of Health. Both areas — one in Lakeland and one near Lake Elmo airport — are near superfund sites.[62]

Other Water Resource Concerns Case in Point:

The St. Croix Falls Dam

Unlike most dams in the United States, the St. Croix Falls Dam is not regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and it is not required to address the environmental and resource concerns that are part of the FERC relicensing and review process. Because the dam predated the Federal Power Act of 1920, FERC does not have regulatory authority over the project. Rather, the dam was authorized by an Act of the U.S. Congress under the Federal War Powers act of 1903.

Its licensure is not the only thing unusual about the St. Croix Falls dam. Analysis of waters below the dam has revealed the presence of the most diverse and abundant assemblage of freshwater mussels in the St. Croix River. Several rare species of mussels are present, including the winged mapleleaf, Quadrula fragosa. The species were found in a short, five-mile stretch of river below the dam – a population that is considered the one of only two remaining documented population of that mussel in North America. This mussel community has co-existed with fluctuating flow patterns resulting from peaking operations of the Northern States Power dam at St. Croix Falls for more than 90 years.[63] However, it is believed by some that such dam operations currently threaten the population.[64] One study showed that 1,980 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water is needed to adequately protect mussel beds. Northern States Power has agreed to monitor its releases to adequately protect the mussel beds, but there is concern that not enough water is being released during the non-navigation season. Representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin DNRs and the National Park Service have met to address the situation.

Throughout the country there is an active movement calling for “run of river,” meaning the removal of dams to free the natural flow pattern of the river. Environmental concerns and changing energy needs have led to the removal of obsolete dams on other rivers in the region. For example, the Minnesota DNR’s efforts led to the removal of a dam on the Kettle River in the Upper St. Croix watershed. The area is now a recreational asset, used by kayakers and canoeists. The Wisconsin DNR recently removed two dams in Willow River State Park.

Some stakeholders interviewed highlighted the increased asset the removal of the St. Croix dam could bring to the river’s ecology and the surrounding communities. At the same time, NSP officials emphasize, it must be recognized that dam removal would have its own environmental consequences, such as the loss of a non-polluting renewable energy source, and eliminating a barrier to zebra mussels migration.

Riverway Issues

While the entire 1,470-square mile Lower St. Croix watershed is the focus of this report, some key issues and challenges are based specifically on the river itself. Three topics connected to the main stem of the riverway are discussed in the sections below: recreational use of the river, invasive and exotic species (particularly those within the river itself), and issues that affect the scenic value of the river.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

H. Recreational Use of the River

Over the last 23 years, use of the St. Croix River has risen to over 2 million visitors each year.[65] With more than 10 million people living within a day’s drive of the river, many consider recreational over-use of the river to be one of the major threats to its future. Data developed by the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission uncovered the following trends:

· During the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s, the riverway has seen significant increases in watercraft traffic.

· Watercraft density is increasing most rapidly in areas with desirable sand beaches and accessibility for powerboats.

· There is size segregation among boats on the river, with smaller craft in the upper reaches of the Lower St. Croix River.

· The average size and horsepower of boats is increasing on the lower reaches of the river.

In its draft Cooperative Management Plan, led by the National Park Service and implemented by the Lower St. Croix Management Commission, newer data is included on the recreational use of the Lower St. Croix River. The draft plan highlights boating density as a concern along several sections of the river. It notes that riverway managing agencies have agreed that the need for surface water use regulations should be studied when density reaches 15 acres of water per moving boat, and should be implemented when density reaches ten acres of water per moving boat.

Some sections of the river currently exceed this density. The 5-mile section between Arcola sandbar and the northern limits of Stillwater, for example, has averaged 9.4 acres of water per moving craft since 1983. Designation of this area as a no-wake zone was considered, but not enacted, in the 1990s. The portion of the river at Hudson is the Lower St. Croix’s most congested area, with an average of 2.2 acres of water per moving craft. This area is managed as a no-wake zone.

The draft Cooperative Management Plan lists two ways large numbers of boaters and boat-in campers can negatively affect the area’s environment: inappropriate disposal of human waste can result in water quality problems, and visitors to sandy shorelines and islands can trample vegetation and increase erosion.

There is an ongoing study that is measuring possible connections between erosion and recreational activities in the waterway.[66] Other findings, such as high levels of lead in sediment in Lake St. Croix, have been connected to boat harbors, among other possible sources.[67] Transport of zebra mussels, an invasive exotic species, to the Lower St. Croix is also connected to recreational boating on the river, particularly by people who use their boat in infected lakes and rivers. (See next section).

Data on two-stroke engines, which power snowmobiles and many watercraft, all terrain vehicles, and personal watercraft, are known to generate significant air, water, and noise pollution. Chemicals emitted by these engines include known and probable human carcinogens as well as carbon monoxide and ozone precursors.[68] According to emissions data, in one hour a single snowmobile produces more smog-forming pollution than a modern car creates in a year.[69] Further, the technical advances in motorized recreational vehicles have outpaced public agencies ability to effectively manage their use, causing concerns about their appropriateness as a recreational activity in some areas.[70]

An additional component of recreational use of the river is that visitors to the watershed, like new residents, require infrastructure — boat launches, roads, parking lots, and services such as gas stations. This infrastructure results in more impervious surfaces and more polluted runoff flowing throughout the watershed. An additional issue mentioned in stakeholder interviews was alcohol use on the St. Croix and its tributaries such as the Apple River and resulting safety concerns.

Indian treaty rights have also recently emerged as an issue in the St. Croix Valley. An 1837 treaty ceded Indian lands to the U.S. government in a large area of eastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin, including lands along the St. Croix River north of Cedar Bend (a few miles south of Osceola). Courts have recently affirmed tribal hunting and fishing rights in the ceded territory, including tribal rights to take fish by netting and spearing. While some recreational fishing interests have contested tribal fishing rights in some parts of both states, little public attention has been paid thus far to the exercise of these rights on the St. Croix.

Recreational Use of the River Case In Point:

Personal Watercraft (PWC)

Personal Watercraft (PWC), also known as Jet Skis, waterbikes, and Sea-Doos are aquatic craft that can be operated at high speeds in shallow areas close to shore. PWCs are marketed as “thrill” vehicles and common practices include weaving between vessels, jumping wakes, and radical changes of course.

PWC are the fastest growing segment of the boating industry in the United States and now account for one third of all boat sales. Use of PWCs has an unprecedented effect in terms of degraded wilderness and toxic water pollution. They also use and emit relatively large quantities of gasoline. For example, many PWCs have three-gallon tanks that a user can go through in two hours. Increased conflicts with other recreational users, noise pollution, harassed and injured wildlife, and extreme numbers of PWC-related accidents and deaths are also cited as problems.[71]

In 1998, the National Park Service moved to “strictly regulate” use of PWC on the Upper St. Croix. In 1999, they extended the strict regulation to include the river down to Stillwater. With this additional regulation, PWCs are not allowed on the Lower St. Croix River above Stillwater. Despite regulation, there is concern that enforcement of PWC use may be difficult, particularly in the first years of the new limits.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

I. Invasive and Exotic Species

Ecosystems function as an interdependent whole. The plants and animals interrelate based upon a delicate balance. Changes in habitat, food sources, or temperature affect all plants and animals living in an ecosystem.

Humans are most often to blame for introducing new exotic species into ecosystems. European buckthorn, which takes over American forests and chokes out native species, was first brought to the United States and sold as an ornamental shrub.[72] It continues to be sold today. Eurasion watermilfoil, once brought into the country for use in aquariums, is most often brought into a waterway clinging to a ship’s hull or propeller.

Land disturbances, such as construction of roadways, destroy existing vegetation and open up areas to aggressive invasion by exotic plants such as spotted knapweed and leafy spurge, which are taking over remaining prairies in the watershed. Woodlands are also affected by these disturbances.[73]

Testing and research conducted by the Minnesota DNR, Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission and others have uncovered exotic plant species across the Lower St. Croix watershed. Perhaps more disturbing, is a range of exotic plants, fish, and birds that are near — but not yet in — the watershed.

There are hundreds of plants of European origin in and around the Lower St. Croix watershed. This chart offers a sample of recently noted species.

Recent exotic species that have been found in the Lower St. Croix watershed [74]

Species Name	Type	Habitat	Pathway of Introduction	Means of spread
European, tallhedge buckthorn	Shrub	Woodlands	Sold as an ornamental	Human purchasing and planting. Pollination by birds.
Purple loosestrife	Perennial	Wetlands, river banks	Sold as an ornamental	Wind, water and illegal planting.
Eurasian watermilfoil	Aquatic plant	Lakes, rivers	Boats, seaplanes, aquariums.	Boats, equipment-carrying clippings.
Spotted knapweed	Terr plant	Grasslands	Accidental	Mowing and seed mulch.
Leafy spurge	Terr plant	Grasslands	Accidental	Mowing and seed mulch.

Exotic species that have been found near the Lower St. Croix Watershed

Species Name	Type	Habitat	Closest locations	Means of spread
Round goby	Fish	Lakes, rivers	Chicago waterways and in the Duluth/ Superior area.	Ballast, bait, and connected watercourses.
Ruffe	Fish	Lakes, rivers	Duluth-Superior area.	Ballast water and anglers.
Zebra mussels	Mussel	Lakes, rivers	Mississippi River	Boats, equipment, water transfer.
Garlic mustard	Plant	Woodlands	Twin Cities	Animals, nursery propagation and sales.
Mute swan	Bird	Lakes, rivers	Wisconsin	Wild birds in WI, escaped captive birds.

Invasive and Exotic Species Case in Point:

The Threat of Zebra Mussels[75]

The environmental and economic impacts of the zebra mussel are almost impossible to calculate. They kill native mussels and plug water intakes for power plants, water supplies, and boat motors. They litter beaches with razor sharp shells. Great Lakes municipalities, industries, and other large water users spend an average of $360,000 per year to control zebra mussels. Unfortunately, they continue to spread.

Zebra mussels first entered Lake Erie in the mid-1980s in the ballast water of an ocean traveling ship. Since then, they have spread to every Great Lake, the Illinois, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ohio, and Hudson rivers. Now they are being found in inland lakes.

As of 1999, there are no reports of reproducing zebra mussel populations in the St. Croix. But their ability to take hold quickly is of great concern — as is the fact that they are already in the Mississippi River and isolated individual zebra mussels have been found in the St. Croix below Stillwater. Mussels have also been found on the bottom of boats that have not been cleaned upon returning from the Mississippi River. There is substantial worry that, should the zebra mussel spread upstream, it would pose a significant hazard to native species, many of which are already at extreme risk from other factors.[76]

In addition to commercial barge traffic, recreational boaters, fishermen and scuba divers can transport zebra mussels. Because they are invisible in their early life stages, zebra mussels can be transported by live wells, bilge water, and recreational equipment holding water.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

J. Preserving the Scenic Value of the River

The scenic value of the St. Croix River is at the forefront of many people’s interest in the waterway. It is why many consider the river a top priority for preservation and why many people want to live in the watershed and come to the river for recreation.

The Lower St. Croix’s designation as a National Wild and Scenic River, and its designation in Minnesota as both a state and federal Wild and Scenic River affects how it is managed and what can be built along its banks.

The designation took place in 1972, and was followed by development of a 1976 Master Plan that had as its stated goal to: “preserve existing scenic and recreational resources of the Lower St. Croix River through controlled development.” The plan provided a range of options for land protection that included outright purchase of property, purchase of scenic easements on lands within the boundary, and local zoning restrictions in the viewshed outside the boundary. The National Park Service purchased 4790 acres and 3490 acres of scenic easements in the lower St. Croix riverway. A citizen-government task force is currently updating the 1976 Master Plan, now called the Cooperative Management Plan.

Sorting out the current allowable uses of land within the riverway can be difficult, because of differences between Minnesota and Wisconsin regulations, and distinctions between urban and rural areas. Minimum requirements include provisions for setbacks (distance from the river or bluffline), lot sizes and dimensional requirements, height and color of structures, placement of structures and prohibited uses. Variances are allowed, however, and there is a sense among some stakeholders that local municipalities that implement the minimum requirements lack the will, tools, and information needed to adequately enforce regulations associated with the river’s “Wild and Scenic” designation.

In its 1994 report, the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission identified and illustrated the visual impacts of land use changes on the Lower St. Croix River’s scenic and recreational resources. Included in this study was the establishment of a framework for identifying and delineating “picturesque values” for different landform and land cover conditions.

One of the largest issues concerning the scenic value of the river is the proposal for a new river crossing near Stillwater. Still under review is the future of the existing bridge. National Park Service staff and others are discussing whether a portion or all of the bridge will be removed.

Preserving the Scenic Value of the River Case in Point:

Northern States Power’s Proposed Chisago Powerline[77]

In 1996, Northern States Power (NSP) and Dairyland Power Cooperative applied for permission to build a 230-kilovolt (kV) line that would cross the St. Croix River near Taylors Falls, Minnesota and St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin. NSP says the $46 million project is critical to meet the energy demands in the northwest quadrant of Wisconsin, particularly the Ashland area.

Opponents to the project say that NSP’s primary motivation is to sell more electricity to eastern Wisconsin and ultimately transport bulk power to Milwaukee and Chicago. While no one denies that Wisconsin needs new power sources, opponents note the fact that Wisconsin could work to establish its own sources — including alternative sources —and prevent the need for such extensive centralized inter-state power lines.

According to Northern States Power, the proposed powerline would consist of towers ranging from 90 to 120 feet in height, depending upon location and final design determined by the permitting agencies. The proposal includes a 230 kV transmission line double circuited with a 115 kV transmission line in Minnesota to a new substation near Taylors Falls. From that point the 230 kV line is proposed to be double circuited with an existing 69 kV line from the new substation to Wisconsin over Amery. The right-of-way for the transmission line would be 120 feet wide.[78]

Besides crossing the St. Croix River, the line would run nearly 38 miles between North Branch, Minnesota and Amery, Wisconsin. Some landowners in the watershed underneath the proposed powerline have already indicated that the powerline is a disincentive to donate or sell conservation easements on their property.[79] Concerns about impacts to property values and aesthetics of the area have also been expressed by landowners.

Concern about the scenic effects of the new powerline has spurred extensive citizen opposition to the project. A group known as Concerned River Valley Citizens, Inc. has formed around the issue and currently boasts some 400 dues-paying members. The cities of St. Croix Falls and Taylors Falls retained legal counsel in order to fight the proposal. Wisconsin officials approved the powerline in 1999. Ruling by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is expected in 2000.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

Chapter 3: Solution Strategies and Efforts

Across the Lower St. Croix watershed, people are working to improve the health of the river and land areas and tributaries that drain into it. From land trusts to local governments, farmers groups, planners, and educational institutions, a vibrant array of solution strategies are in action. This chapter includes a summary of some of these efforts — projects frequently held up as examples of positive change underway. Innovative efforts and strategies outside the watershed are also discussed as models that could be put to use in the Lower St. Croix. Each section includes contextual information, definitions of terms when appropriate, and descriptions of specific projects. A list of some of the organizations working through each strategy is included at the end of each section. Appendix A. includes more detailed information on organizations, programs and resources.

Matching the “Solution” to the “Problem”

The challenges facing the Lower St. Croix watershed are complex. Defining the path to achieving the long-term health of this beautiful area is no less complicated. In Chapter 2, Issues and Challenges were grouped into three primary categories. However, there is not a simple solution to each challenge listed. For this reason, the solution models identified by stakeholders are presented here as approaches that address aspects of, and combinations of, the many areas of concern in the watershed. On page iii of this report is a summary table that illustrates the relationships between the watershed’s problems and solutions, with additional information on the status of these efforts.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

A. Land Conservation and Restoration Programs

Land is at the heart of many challenges facing the St. Croix River watershed. Protecting land is a key way to curtail sprawl. How land is ultimately used also impacts pollution — particularly runoff pollution. Working for parcel-by-parcel protection is thus a clear solution, and a strategy being utilized by land trusts and other conservation organizations.

Land conservation efforts usually focus on protecting undeveloped open space,

farmlands, and other areas of particular environmental and scenic value. Some private

landowners agree to sell, donate, or transfer their land to a land trust or other agency for

permanent protection. In other cases, landowners retain ownership, but agree to

conserve their property through one of the following mechanisms:

Conservation Easement: A voluntary, legally binding agreement made between a landowner (public or private) and a qualifying organization (government agency, land trust or other private organization) in which permanent limits are established on a property’s use and development.

Purchase of Development Rights (PDR): Landowners who meet certain criteria can sell the right to develop their property to a nonprofit organization or government agency. Once rights are purchased, a conservation easement is placed on the land.

Transfer of Development Property Rights (TDR): Through local or regional ordinances,

certain land areas are designated for “sending” (an area to be preserved), or “receiving”

(an area that is already developed). Landowners in the “sending” area receive

development right credits that they can sell in exchange for not developing their land.

Local governments play an important role in land conservation, particularly in passing

ordinances and implementing PDR and TDR programs. (See “County, Township and Municipal Initiatives” section of this chapter). Land conservation work is also often led by land trusts and other nonprofit conservation organizations.

The urgency involved in preventing development of farmlands and open space has made protection the top priority for many public and private organizations. However, the next step — restoration — is underway in some areas. Here, replanting of native species and other programs are designed to create enhanced habitat areas and restored wetlands, shoreland buffers, and other features that improve water quality.

Land Conservation and Restoration Programs

Models and Trends

Land Trusts

Nationwide, there are 1,200 land trusts in operation, and a new one is formed every

week. In Minnesota, there is a single trust, The Minnesota Land Trust, with 12,000 acres under protection and 156 easements in 41 counties. In Wisconsin, there are 43 separate land trusts that have protected 15,000 acres. In the Lower St. Croix watershed, the Minnesota Land Trust estimates that it has preserved 1,000 acres in Washington and Chisago Counties. In Wisconsin, a number of smaller land trusts are at work in the watershed. These land trusts often work through partnerships, and many efforts focus on land along the St. Croix and its tributaries. The Standing Cedars Community Land Conservancy and Philadelphia Community Farm are working to permanently conserve a 5-mile greenway and buffer of wildlife habitat and farmlands along the St. Croix in the Osceola area.[80] Though these two land trusts are very active, they cover only a minor portion of the watershed.

In addition to the organizations at work in the Lower St. Croix Watershed (which are listed below), the regional Upper St. Croix Land Trust was formed in 1998 to protect private land in the Upper St. Croix and Namekagon River Watershed. Gathering Waters, a coalition of Wisconsin land trusts, works to coordinate efforts and provide technical assistance to the many land trusts in the state.

Nonprofits Taking the Lead in Promoting PDR and TDR Programs

PDR and TDR programs have been successful in a number of communities across the

country. Wisconsin communities are just beginning to use these land protection tools,

and in 1997 the State of Minnesota passed legislation to explicitly allow units of

government to develop PDR and TDR programs.

A major push is underway in Minnesota — and across the watershed — to educate

stakeholders about PDRs and TDRs. The Green Corridor Project (described

below) has taken on this work in Minnesota’s Washington and Chisago Counties. A

growing number of land trusts, and other organizations such as The Trust for Public

Land, are also teaming with and/or encouraging local governments to make use of these land protection strategies.

The Green Corridor Project

The Green Corridor Project is a collaborative effort to preserve and link open space,

farmlands, and natural areas in Washington and Chisago Counties – both of which are in the Lower St. Croix watershed. The eight primary partners in the project are 1000 Friends of Minnesota, Chisago County, Land Steward Project, Minnesota Farmer’s Union, Minnesota Land Trust, Rural Community Initiative, The Trust for Public Land, and Washington County. Funding for the project comes from individual donors, foundations, and a state grant from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources.

The project includes mapping, researching, developing, and promoting land conservation tools, public opinion survey work, and broad public education and involvement campaigns. The project has developed and published handbooks for local governments, residents and landowners, and is providing technical assistance to landowners, communities, and watershed districts.

Land Conservation Publications and Guidebooks

There are several guidebooks and other resources on land conservation. In 1997, the Minnesota DNR published and distributed “Natural Areas: Protecting a Vital Community Asset,” a sourcebook for local governments and citizens in the state. In 1996 the Nature Conservancy, Minnesota DNR, Trust for Public Land, and Minnesota Land Trust published “Land Protection Options: A Handbook for Minnesota Landowners.” The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission’s “Lower St. Croix Scenic Riverway River Stewardship Guide” includes a landowners guide with information specific to the watershed. In March 1999, the Minnesota DNR published “Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality” a guide for lakeshore property owners and developers. Literature tailored for Wisconsin landowners includes Gathering Waters’ “Conservation Options for Landowners” and the “Wildlife and Your Land” series produced by the Wisconsin DNR and Natural Resources Foundation of Wisconsin, Inc. In 1998 the 1000 Friends of MN published “Planning for Open Space in your Community”, a guidebook on how to develop an open space conservation plan. They also published “Protecting Your Communities Natural Resources: A Land Protection Toolbox for Local Government”, a guidebook for local governments implementing land conservation programs using donated conservation easements, PDR, TDR and land acquisition. A video discussing tools to keep open space while accommodating growth is also available from 1000 Friends of Minnesota.

Restoration Projects

Because so little of the watershed’s native habitat remains, there are some efforts that focus on recreating pre-settlement, pre-agriculture plant communities on conserved parcels of land. For example, Standing Cedars Community Land Conservancy has been managing existing native prairie and restoring new prairie lands in the watershed. The St. Croix Watershed Research Station is sponsoring a project to restore native plant communities at the research station. By collecting local seeds, planting, and managing the fields, the station will establish a “seed orchard” of local native plant species. Other restoration and preservation efforts include the Wisconsin DNR’s Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area in Polk and St. Croix Counties, Minnesota DNR’s prairie and oak savannah restoration underway in Bayport, and restoration work at the St. Croix Valley Nature Center. Promoters of restoration and preservation efforts in the watershed also include The Prairie Enthusiasts and Citizens for Protecting and Restoring Prairies.

Other restoration projects in the watershed take the form of incentive-based, cost sharing efforts that focus on private landowners. For example, the Carnelian-Marine Watershed District and Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District have launched a Best Management Practices Program that provides private landowners with 75% of the cost of improvements such as planting vegetative buffers on lakes. Other restoration projects on private lands in the watershed include the efforts of Andersen Corporation to restore native prairie/oak savannah on its property.

Land Trusts and Conservation and Restoration Organizations

Working in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

(An alphabetized list of organizations with addresses and other contact information is included in Appendix A.)

1000 Friends of Minnesota – is a nonprofit organization working to encourage sustainable development patterns that promote healthy, livable communities, and conserve farmland, forests, and natural resources.

Friends of the Mississippi River – a nonprofit organization, will be coordinating work between landowners and various conservation projects in Washington County.

Gathering Waters – is a nonprofit information clearinghouse and technical assistance center to help individuals and nonprofit conservation organizations to preserve, protect, maintain and enhance the beauty and ecological integrity of the lands and waters in the state of Wisconsin.

Great River Greening – carries out habitat and native ecosystem restoration activities along the Mississippi River in St. Paul. In 1999 the organization launched the Big Rivers Partnership which includes restoration efforts with private landowners other areas of Minnesota.

Kinnickinnic River Land Trust – is a nonprofit organization that works with the community to conserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the Kinnickinnic watershed.

Land Stewardship Project – is an Upper Midwest nonprofit organization working to foster an ethic of stewardship for farmland, to promote sustainable agriculture, and to develop sustainable communities.

Land Trust Alliance – is a national organization that provides services and programs for local and regional land trusts to increase their skills and competence, and fosters public policies that further land trusts’ goals.

Minnesota Land Trust – is a private nonprofit organization that promotes the protection and enhancement of open space, including farmland, wetlands, woodlands bluff lands, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas in Minnesota.

The Nature Conservancy – is an international private nonprofit organization. Its mission is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting the land and waters they need to survive. The Nature Conservancy protects land through acquisitions, management agreements, conservation easements, assistance to citizen groups, and cooperation with state and local units of government.

Standing Cedars Community Land Conservancy – is a land trust aimed at protecting and restoring field and forest along the Lower St. Croix River in the Osceola and Farmington areas of Polk County, Wisconsin. They also support rural community life in these areas.

Trust for Public Land – is a national organization that plays a number of roles in land transactions, including acting as an interim title holder while public agencies procure the funds and authorizations needed for land purchases. It also helps community groups implement campaigns to mobilize support for parks and open space projects. The organization’s Midwest Headquarters is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Western Prairie Habitat Restoration Area – is a long-term partnership spearheaded by the Wisconsin DNR to protect 20,000 acres of grasslands, oak savanna and wetlands in Polk and St. Croix Counties. Key to the success of this project is Citizens for Protecting & Restoring Prairies (CPRP) whose mission is to promote stewardship and assist interested parties in preserving and restoring lands.

Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy – is a private, nonprofit land trust organization dedicated to empowering rural communities to protect their agricultural, natural, and economic resources; to assisting in the transfer of farms to a new generation of family farmers; to promoting sustainable land use and land conservation practices; and to encouraging locally-based economic development.

Government Programs and Resources

Ongoing government programs and resources around land conservation include initiatives sponsored by the following agencies:

Minnesota DNR

Wisconsin DNR

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

County Soil and Water Conservation Districts

County water resource planners

Minnesota Extension Service

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance

Wisconsin Agricultural Extension

U.S. Department of Agriculture

President Clinton’s $1 billion “Lands Legacy Initiative” will be creating new funding sources for land acquisition and restoration. Announced in January 1999, this program, if approved by Congress, will include $200 million for a revised grant program that will distribute funding to states, localities, and nonprofits through a competitive grant process. Another aspect of the initiative features a $10 million revolving loan program to support land acquisition of land and easements.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

B. Sustainable Agriculture

Most new development in the watershed is taking place on lands that were once farms.[81] For this reason, protecting farmlands in the Lower St. Croix watershed is seen by many as a way to preserve open space and slow development. Helping farmers keep their farms, inspiring a new generation of farmers, and promoting land conservation that targets farmlands are key strategies being used to prevent further urbanization of the watershed.

To be beneficial to the watershed, however, it is also critical that farms do not themselves pollute or otherwise degrade area land and water resources. Programs that help farms stay on the land and encourage sustainable farming practices that are beneficial to the environment are therefore the primary solution models mentioned. These solutions speak to both land use concerns, and the issue of runoff pollution linked to agriculture.

The term “sustainable agriculture” generally refers to profitable farming practices that don’t degrade the surrounding environment and that create soil or ecosystems that can regenerate without outside inputs such as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. Depending on the location and type of farming, sustainable farming practices may include avoiding or minimizing the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, and encouraging biodiversity through crop selections and rotation.

Agricultural lands in the Lower St. Croix watershed include countless small streams and creeks. Farming practices on areas around these tributaries have a particularly large impact on the health of the St. Croix. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) for managing crops and animals near shorelands include detailed suggestions for preventing erosion of stream banks and water pollution caused by manure and water running off fields and buildings.[82] Shoreland BMPs, include:

· Planting buffer strips of vegetation along lakes and streams

· Managing tillage practices to control erosion on cropped land

· Creating a stream-crossing area for livestock

· Fencing animals from sensitive areas

· Storing and managing manure so it does not wash into a nearby waterway

· Properly containing silage and haylage so it does not contaminate ground and surface water.

· Converting highly erodible cropland or pastures into other uses such as wildlife habitat.

Farmers are also encouraged to have wind breaks, smaller fields, and edged areas left to natural species. The illustration below shows how concepts work: 1) cropped land erosion control, 2) diversions and roof gutters, 3) & 4) manure catchment, 5) grass filter strips, 6) buffer strips, 7) stream crossing, 8) pasturing livestock, and 9) unusable land conversion. (Numbers correspond to numbers in the illustration, reprinted courtesy of the University of Minnesota Extension Service).

While environmentalists and farmers have not always seen eye-to-eye, conservationists increasingly are looking at farming as a land use that can protect open space and water quality.[83] Thus, instead of purchasing farmlands so they can be restored for habitat and watershed protection, conservationists are working with farmers to achieve environmental benefits while farmers stay in business — earning a living, raising their families, and contributing to the local community and economy.

The Carufel family dairy farm, for example, won a conservation farmer award from the St. Croix County Land Conservation Department. The 150 acres of land in use on the farm include six acres of woodland and 11.2 acres of wildlife land. The soils on the farm are diversified with slopes ranging from gentle to moderately steep with well-drained silt loams. There is one acre in windbreaks and 29 acres in pasture renovation. Another farm, the Robert and Nancy Johnson farm in central St. Croix County, has been involved with the Kinnickinnic Priority Watershed Project. The farm has many acres of conservation tillage, waterways, diversion, and strip cropping. The Johnsons have also put together a nutrient management plan for the entire operation, and they installed a manure storage structure in 1998.

Dan Pearson, a farmer in River Falls with 160 acres and 70 milk cows, has 95% of his farm in grasslands. His work is based on the fact that with rotational grazing, more grasslands are established to filter runoff. John Vrieze, owner and operator of two dairy farms with a total of 2,400 cows, has returned 24 acres of his farm to wetlands.

There are government programs at the county, regional, state, and national level designed to assist farmers as they implement projects to decrease the negative effects of their farms on the surrounding environment, and enhance the positive ones. There are also programs at these levels to help protect farmlands — from planning initiatives to programs that purchase farmlands for conservation.

Work in the private sector on preserving farms and promoting sustainable farming includes efforts led by farmers and nonprofit land trusts and other organizations. A number of programs include a teamwork-based approach through which farmers and nonprofits such as the Land Stewardship Project and Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy work together with government officials.

Sustainable Agriculture

Models and Trends

Programs that Provide Resources to Farmers

Both private and public entities provide education, assistance, and networking opportunities to farmers working to practice sustainable, profitable farming in the watershed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, for example, offers programs that help farmers set up buffer zones and carry out other on-the-ground projects.

Several nonprofit organizations actively combine sustainable agriculture and environmental protection with programs to increase the economic viability of small farms. For example, the Land Stewardship Project’s resources include a “Monitoring Tool Box” for farmers interested in learning easy-to-use techniques for monitoring the impact of management decisions on their land, finances, and family. This organization offers many other services to farmers, and links farming communities and those interested in sustainable farming issues through outreach and communication projects.

The Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy combines farmland protection work, environmental concerns, and initiatives designed to increase the economic viability of small farmers in the area. For example, in addition to protecting bluff lands, the organization is working to establish a mobile Poultry Processing Co-op for small-scale producers of natural and organic chicken.

Conservation Efforts that Target Agricultural Lands

Among the land protection efforts underway in the Lower St. Croix watershed, many target farms in danger of being sold for development. The Kinnickinnic River Land Trust, for example, works with landowners in St. Croix and Pierce County, many of whom are farmers.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

CSA farms are funded by consumers who pay a subscription fee in exchange for food that is grown, raised, and harvested on the farms. By involving consumers in the risk and benefits of farming, the CSA farmers receive guaranteed financial support for their farms. This makes it possible for small farms to start up and stay in operation. The close relationship between farmers and consumers also helps build a community around farming operations and enhances consumers’ sense of connection to food production.

Most CSA farms are organic and utilize sustainable farming practices. Many encourage consumers to visit the farm, take part in gatherings, attend workshops, and assist in farm activities such as planting and harvesting. Internships and other programs that encourage young people to learn about farming and land stewardship are part of the activities of a number of farms. For example, the Wilder Forest Farm near Marine on St. Croix is used as a resource for youth development, education, and community building programs as well as being a CSA.

There are currently approximately nine CSA farms in operation in the Lower St. Croix watershed[84]. Some CSA farms are affiliated with nonprofit organizations engaged in education, land conservation or programs for youth. In addition, a number of nonprofit organizations, including the Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy, Land Stewardship Project, and Minnesota Food Association are engaged in supporting the expansion of CSA farms in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Community Supported Agriculture Farms

See Appendix A. for a list of CSA farms in the watershed with contact information.

Nonprofit organizations protecting farmlands and providing services to farmers in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

(An alphabetized list of organizations with addresses and other contact information is included in Appendix A.)

American Farmland Trust – is a national nonprofit conservation organization working to stop loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment.

Gathering Waters – see page 32.

Kinnickinnic River Land Trust – see page 32.

Land Stewardship Project – see page 32.

Minnesota Farmers Union – works through the principles of education, cooperation and legislation. Since its founding in 1929, it has worked through its grassroots membership to improve health care, education, transportation, the environment and social justice.

Minnesota Land Trust – see page 32.

Rural Communities Initiative – is a Minnesota nonprofit dedicated to preserving natural resources and developing sustainable rural economics through environmental and economic education.

Wisconsin Farmers Union – works through the principles of education, cooperation and legislation. Since its founding, it has worked through its grassroots membership to improve health care, education, transportation, the environment and social justice.

Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy – see page 33.

National Programs for Farmers

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service: Provides rental payments, technical assistance, and cost sharing to farmers for establishing vegetative cover on land that is highly erodible or contributing to water quality problems. To qualify for this program farmers must submit a conservation plan to their Soil and Water Conservation District in order

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Wetlands Reserve Program: Provides payment to agricultural landowners for establishing permanent or 30-year easements and provides cost-share assistance for wetland restoration and protection.

Environmental Quality Incentive Program: Provides a 75 percent cost share and technical assistance to farmers and ranchers who have problems related to soil, water resources, and wildlife habitat.

State Agencies Involved in Sustainable Agriculture

(These agencies offer a combination of education, technical assistance, funding, planning, and oversight that involves agricultural practices.)

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Minnesota DNR

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

University of Minnesota Extension Service

University of Wisconsin Extension Service

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture

Wisconsin DNR

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

C. Planning and Design Frameworks for Managing Growth

In addition to on-the-ground land conservation efforts, planning was highlighted by stakeholders as an important strategy for protecting the health of the Lower St. Croix watershed and addressing land use concerns. Of particular relevance are planning efforts around managing the population growth projected to occur in the watershed.

Communities around the country are struggling to accommodate population growth and take control of development as it sprawls into the countryside. In recent years, a variety of terms have been used to describe visions for the future of our towns, cities and suburbs. There are no universally agreed upon definitions for these planning frameworks and design concepts, but a broad definition of some commonly-used terms are included below:

New Urbanism – promotes the creation of thriving town centers that combine attractive but densely populated residential areas and pedestrian-friendly business districts. Closely connected to what is called neo-traditional town planning, new urbanism strives to recreate the traditional sense of community that once existed in towns in the United States with the added benefit of new technology and planning.

Watershed-based Planning or Basin Planning – encourages communities to identify key watershed uses and make decisions based on what is best for the watershed as a whole. Protection of sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains, shorelands, and forests are a top priority for this growth-management strategy that also promotes erosion sediment controls during construction, ongoing community-sponsored watershed monitoring, and public education programs.

Sustainable Development and Livable Communities – are broadly used terms that often encompass social and economic issues, such as development of mixed income housing and access to jobs.

Smart Growth – is a strategy that focuses on development that reduces public costs and increases private returns, saving natural resources, improving property values, and creating a sense of place. In some cases, smart growth refers to a specific strategy through which state guidelines provide incentives for local governments to adopt certain planning, zoning, and other programs that manage growth.

Many people advocate for the creation of a hard line between urban and rural areas — keeping people together in a town center, and preserving open space and agricultural lands. Ideally, higher density urban areas are designed to provide:

· Convenient access to jobs, goods, and services, limiting the need for long commutes.

· Features such as a town centers and other public gathering places that enhance a shared sense of community.

· Natural amenities such as parks, bike trails and open space.

· Street design and planning to make areas pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly and reduce paved surfaces.

· Public transit options within the town and for commuters traveling to larger urban areas.

There are planned communities built along these principles listed above — including the Disney Corporation’s Celebration community in Florida. There are also larger urban areas such as Portland, Oregon that have focused on transit and pedestrian friendly development. In Toronto, Vancouver and other Canadian cities, land use combines a compact downtown area with several outlying high-density areas linked by a public transport system. Maryland, which has passed smart growth legislation, is one often-mentioned model for this strategy.

Wisconsin’s “Smart Growth” legislation, part of the state’s 1999-2000 budget, is an important new strategy for developing and implementing local comprehensive plans that promote smart growth. This legislation is summarized on page 44.

Despite some successes, accommodating population growth without sprawl — and creating high-density, attractive town centers — remains a complex task. Some of the activities and challenges involved in implementing this vision include:

· Zoning changes to allow mixed land uses – i.e. residential areas next to businesses.

· Ordinances that encourage high-density development, such as residential cluster developments.

· Commitment to developing or redeveloping under-utilized lands within existing urban centers. “Brownfields redevelopment” is the term used for development of lands that are environmentally degraded, such as former factory sites.

· Programs for acquiring or purchasing the development rights to farmland and open space the community does not want to see developed.

· Establishing transit systems that serve high-density areas.

A great deal of the responsibility for managing urban growth within the watershed falls to municipal governments. Many of the activities listed above must be conducted by these governments, and are explored in more detail in the next section of this chapter. Also included in that section are “success stories” near or within the watershed that document how local governments have taken steps to decrease sprawl in their communities.

Planning and Design Frameworks for Managing Growth

Models and Trends

Cluster Developments — the Fields of St. Croix and Jackson Meadow

Situated just outside the watershed in Lake Elmo, the Fields of St. Croix is considered by many to be an excellent model for environmentally conscious residential development. The developer approached the city with a plan to create a residential neighborhood one-mile outside of the town center, with houses clustered on small lots. The idea was to leave a maximum of open space for common use and preserve ecological functions of the topography. At the time, Lake Elmo required lots to be 2.5 acres. Spurred on in part by the developer, Lake Elmo worked with the Minnesota Design Team to craft an open space ordinance that made way for developments such as the Fields of St. Croix which ultimately preserved 60 percent of the area’s 225 acres.

In addition to preserving open space, the Fields of St. Croix includes a constructed wetland to provide sewage treatment, environmentally-sound stormwater management design, energy-efficient homes, 30 acres of restored prairie, a public transit stop at the entrance of the community, and preservation of existing wooded slopes. A CSA farm is also in operation adjacent to the development.

Jackson Meadow, another cluster development in the Lower St. Croix watershed, broke ground in fall 1998. The illustration on the following page, provided by Jackson Meadow, shows the difference between a traditional development and a cluster development.

Situated on a 145-acre parcel of high ground in open meadows and wooded hills that overlook the St. Croix Valley, the 64-house development is connected to the town of Marine On St. Croix by a half-mile walking path. The site is organized topographically and made up of a series of neighborhoods connected by means of a loop road and pedestrian corridors that surround a large central public green or “Commons.” Adjacent to the site are 150 acres of land protected by conservation easement established by the developer, the City of Marine, and the Minnesota Land Trust.

While conservation-oriented cluster development is considered preferable to traditional rural residential development, growth management advocates warn that clustered homes are not “the answer” to development challenges in the watershed. These developments are still turning open space into places for people to live outside urban centers. They are almost exclusively residential — which means that residents must travel to jobs and services. Finally, most cluster developments include only higher-priced homes and therefore are not an affordable alternative for many people.

The Dunn County Livable Communities Initiative

Located just outside the Lower St. Croix watershed, this project promoting sustainable development is led by the Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy with the cooperation of WestCAP and the Dunn County Land Conservation Office. In May, 1998 the Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy published a concept paper outlining planning and design frameworks that provide a traditional neighborhood atmosphere, offer affordable and well-designed housing, integrate businesses and commercial districts, and build a feeling of “community.”

The Dunn County Board has agreed to a moratorium on decisions about property in the county to give the Livable Communities Initiative time to develop a plan for land use in the area. The EPA’s Livable Communities Fund recently granted $45,000 to support community involvement in the planning process.

Resources for Designing Development Around the Land in Southern Washington County

In 1998 Washington County completed a GIS mapping project for the southern reaches of its jurisdiction. The maps include groundwater, surface water, prairie cover, soil type, slope, and other environmental resources. They are being used by the City of Afton to develop its comprehensive plan and make zoning decisions based on how best to preserve the area’s environmental and cultural resources. Ultimately, people involved in the project hope to see the maps used as a tool for other planning in the county and ideally across the entire watershed.

Environmentally-Sound Infrastructure

There are several excellent models for innovative, large-scale treatment of sewage and stormwater in communities outside the Lower St. Croix watershed. For example, a water treatment plant in Renton, Washington combines sewage treatment and stormwater management with public art, open space and parklands.[85] Located 20 minutes from downtown Seattle, this project includes a Waterworks Garden offering wetlands, native plants, public trails, and educational interpretation adjacent to the grounds of the 95-acre sewage plant. Lake George, New York offers a different type of model. Here, legislation was enacted that requires municipal stormwater regulatory programs that prevent increased pollution of surface water and groundwater from development.[86]

Urban Revitalization in the Twin Cities

The Lower St. Croix watershed is particularly susceptible to urban sprawl due to its proximity to Minnesota’s Twin Cities. Many people are continuing to work in Minneapolis or St. Paul, but moving out to new residential developments in eastern Minnesota suburbs or western Wisconsin. Thus, making it attractive for people to stay in the Twin Cities urban centers is one way to address sprawl into the Lower St. Croix watershed.

There are a wide variety of programs underway to revitalize the existing metropolitan area — improving the housing stock, creating natural amenities, developing new jobs, and improving business districts. These efforts are not taking place within the watershed, but bear consideration because of their goal to prevent sprawl by revitalizing the Twin Cities.

On St. Paul’s East Side, for example, a coalition of community interests is working to restore natural areas along the Mississippi River, Phalen Chain of Lakes and Swede Hollow Park. A bike trail is planned to connect the area to the Lowertown community, a thriving urban village offering many cultural activities and other services. The Phalen Corridor Initiative is bringing new businesses and jobs to the area, and the Upper Swede Hollow Neighborhoods Association is promoting restoration of the area’s turn-of-the-century homes.

Urban revitalization is also the focus of the Design Center for American Urban Landscape’s program that targets the metropolitan area’s first-ring suburbs. Working with citizens and local officials, the organization is pushing for community centers, reducing strip mall development and promoting other projects that increase livability. The Alliance for Metropolitan Stability — a Twin City-based coalition of religious, social justice, and environmental communities — works on sprawl-related issues including transit and brownfields redevelopment.

Organizations involved in research, education and promotion of growth management strategies that affect the Lower St. Croix watershed

(An alphabetized list of organizations with addresses and other contact information is included in Appendix A.)

1000 Friends of Minnesota – see page 32.

Alliance for Metropolitan Stability – a coalition that links religious, social justice, and environmental communities to address the issues of economic development, fair and affordable housing, transit, and the environmental consequences of sprawling growth.

Center for Energy and the Environment – uses engineering and science-based research to develop practical programs and public policies that conserve energy and natural resources.

Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy (ME3) – is a coalition of 13 organizations working to improve the quality of life, the environment, and the economy of Minnesota by promoting efficiency in energy and land use and increased reliance on home-grown renewable energy.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

D. County, Township, and Municipal Initiatives

Poorly-planned development — and the water pollution, loss of open space and other concerns that go with it — is played out at the local level in the Lower St. Croix watershed. Zoning, local ordinances, and tax structures provide the carrot and the stick to guide development and other activities that affect the quality of life of the community. Local officials and citizens have the most to lose from poor decision-making and can play a key role in making sure regulations are enforced. For example, though the St. Croix riverway has been nationally designated a Wild and Scenic River, it is up to local governments to inform landowners of the development limits placed on property by this designation, and to enforce regulations. (The National Park Service holds and enforces scenic easements on land outside of municipalities within the Federal zone of the riverway).

The Role of the Counties

County-level policies set the standards that guide development of unincorporated areas and dictate some township and citywide decision-making within the county boundaries. For example, county land-use plans can provide a framework for development and land preservation priorities, and offer incentives for townships and cities.

There are currently no requirements for counties to create land-use and development plans and policies or to coordinate these plans with each other. Wisconsin and Minnesota require county water plans. In many cases, lack of resources limit counties’ planning ability. In the Lower St. Croix watershed, Chisago and Polk County have recently issued water-resources plans. St. Croix County’s plan has been completed but is waiting approval while the Pierce County plan is in process.

Zoning

There are many ways in which zoning decisions affect how areas are developed. Some communities, such as the town of River Falls, have preserved farmlands by zoning large areas for agricultural use only and restricting housing to marginal lands. Particularly within existing towns, allowing a mix of residential and business development can decrease reliance on cars, prevent suburban-style sprawl, and enhance sense of community. For example, corner stores and neighborhood business areas encourage people to walk for errands and entertainment. People have an opportunity to interact with neighbors rather than traveling great distances to the nearest strip mall or convenience store.

Ordinances

A number of communities have density ordinances that require new developments to have a minimum number of acres per lot. In the Lower St. Croix watershed, these requirements are as low as one acre/lot in some townships. While communities may have passed these ordinances to prevent urbanization, minimum lot sizes have had the opposite effect as more and more acres or open space and farmland are developed to accommodate a small number of new residents. As communities explore cluster development and other conservation-oriented planning to accommodate growth, they are changing these ordinances to allow smaller lots as long as the extra space is allotted to wetlands or common green space. Some communities also have ordinances banning development on certain types of property and other provisions for managing growth.

Land Conservation Programs to Acquire Land or Development Rights

While there are no programs in place within the Lower St. Croix watershed, communities in other areas are preventing development of farmland or open space by buying property or acquiring development rights to certain areas. Land acquisition and Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs are ways for government and/or private organizations to conserve land in danger of development. (See Land Conservation section for definitions of these strategies.)

PDR and TDR programs have been used successfully in many areas around the nation. Particularly on the East Coast, these strategies have been in use for nearly two decades — much longer than in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where legislation allowing PDR programs was passed in 1997. For example, the Agriculture Preserve Board of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania has preserved some 23,500 acres of farmland since 1981. Using a TDR program, Montgomery County, Maryland has been able to slow the rapid loss of open space and save the escalating costs of infrastructure related to sprawl. Prior to 1980, when the county established its TDR program, farmland was being lost to development at a rate of 3,500 acres per year. Between 1980 and 1990, only 3,000 acres were converted to non-farm uses — a drop of approximately 92 percent.

Locally, the towns of Clifton, River Falls and Troy have active farmland preservation committees and Lake Elmo is currently in the process of implementing a TDR program. This program will create denser developments near the town center, while outlying natural areas and farmland will be remain in its current state. Chisago and Washington Counties are also moving closer to starting PDR and TDR programs.

The established PDR program closest to the watershed is in Wisconsin’s Town of Dunn. Located just 10 minutes away from downtown Madison, Dunn Township is a prime site for urban sprawl. Local officials used zoning as a way to prevent growth but as new developments managed to creep in, they realized they needed something more permanent. In September 1996, the township residents voted 531 to 412 to establish a PDR program. As of early 1999, the township had protected 174 acres and spent $260,000. The program is funded by a property tax increase of 50 cents per $1,000 of estimated market value.

While there are costs associated with land conservation, there is a growing body of data confirming that conserving open space saves money for communities in the long run, and makes adjacent land more valuable. According to a study of the Salem, Oregon metropolitan area, urban land adjacent to protected rural farmland is worth approximately $1,200 more per acre than urban land more than 1000 feet away from the greenbelt boundary.[87]

In addition to making adjacent land more valuable, preservation of open space has also been known to lower property taxes. For example, studies of the relationship between land conservation and property taxes in Massachusetts found short term increases in property taxes after land conservation projects. However, in the long term, Massachusetts towns that had protected the most land enjoyed, on average, the lowest property tax rates in the state — perhaps because they had less development, which requires roads, schools, sewer and water infrastructure and other services.[88] (See “Infrastructure Issues Related to Development and Population Growth” section of Chapter 2 for additional information).

County, Township and Municipal Initiatives

Models and Trends

Wisconsin’s Smart Growth Legislation[89]

Part of the state’s 1999-2000 biennial budget, this legislation is intended to provide local governmental units (counties, cities, villages, towns and regional planning commissions) with the tools to create comprehensive plans, to promote more informed land use decisions, and to encourage state agencies to create more balanced land use rules and policies. The legislation includes a substantive definition of a comprehensive plan, and breaks the planning process into nine elements, including housing, transportation, agricultural, natural and cultural resources, land use, and implementation.

In addition, the legislation establishes 14 local comprehensive planning goals to guide state land use action and local planning efforts. These goals include promoting redevelopment of lands with existing infrastructure, encouraging neighborhood designs that support a range of transportation choices, protecting natural areas, and protecting economically productive areas including farmland and forests. (Only those local governmental units that want to receive funding priority are required to meet these goals).

Under the legislation, comprehensive plans must be adopted by January 1, 2010. To assist local governmental units in their planning efforts, the legislation provides state funded grants totaling $3.5 million over the biennium.

Initiatives in River Falls

The city of River Falls is home to a number of initiatives to protect land and water resources. In the early 1980s, the city passed an ordinance that bans building on Class 1, 2 or 3 lands (flat, fertile, or drained agricultural land). There is also interest among city officials in starting a PDR program.

Specifically with regard to the Kinnickinnic River, River Falls city officials have worked to address the possible impacts of polluted stormwater on the health of this trout stream and St. Croix River tributary. The city has adopted erosion control ordinances (in 1982), developed and enforced floodplain zoning, aggressively pursued acquisition of land for public purposes along the Kinnickinnic, including two acquisitions in 1990 that brought 42 acres into public control. In 1997 the city passed an ordinance establishing a city of River Falls Stormwater Utility which creates a user tax on stormwater generators.

Polk County Land and Water Resources Plan

Published in 1998, this plan includes goals to: 1) Retain and restore vegetative buffers on lakes, rivers, and intermittent streams; 2) Protect wetlands by eliminating their loss and degradation, and encourage restoration of wetlands; 3) Reduce cropland soil erosion in the shoreland corridor; 4) Minimize the adverse effects of urban sprawl and land fragmentation on water resources; 5) Reduce environmental risks to water quality through proper animal waste management; and 6) Reduce erosion from construction sites. The plan includes a two-year work plan to implement these goals. In addition, a cooperative agreement designed to clarify roles and responsibilities of agencies that manage natural resources in Polk County is under development. While this plan is a positive step in conserving resources in the county, it is a program still in its infancy. It should be noted that there are no clear mechanisms for enforcement of the plan, and that municipalities can ignore it.

Browns Creek

Browns Creek is a trout stream that enters the St. Croix River just north of Stillwater. It requires cold, clean water to remain a viable trout stream, but its upper reaches are on the flats above the river where residential development has increased impervious surfaces and generated concern about runoff pollution. The Browns Creek Watershed District hired consultants to conduct a computer modeling study comparing how different management scenarios would affect the water quality and flow patterns of the creek. The study team also helped to identify stakeholders and get them involved. Objectives developed as a result of the study include provisions that include no net increases in phosphorous, and no increase in stormwater runoff under certain conditions. The interagency team managing this project included the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s St. Croix River basin program.

The St. Croix County Development Management Plan

As of 1999 St. Croix County drafted and is in the process of adopting its first-ever countywide land use plan. The plan consists of a socio-economic analysis, physical features analysis, community involvement efforts, and policy analysis. There was an emphasis on public input in the process, including surveys, workshops, and public meetings. The plan is designed to accommodate projected growth within a policy and implementation framework that includes open space protection, environmental corridors, and farmland protection.

There are a total of 24 specific environmental protection policies in the plan, including requirements that all development in the county shall attain pre-development levels of stormwater runoff, and there will be no development, drainage of, or filling in of wetlands within the shoreland area of a stream, lake, or pond and other wetlands of at least one acre in size. The plan highlights the use of Best Management Practices and also promotes Open Space or Conservation Site/Subdivision Design, which allow for “cluster developments.”

Throughout the county, there can only be 8 homes per 40 acres. Within each town, however, 25 houses per 40 acres can be developed if conservation design techniques are used. These provisions are considered by some to not be a viable solution to preserving the rural character of the county. In addition, like other county plans, this management plan lacks clear enforcement mechanisms. However, some counties have regulations in place. In Washington County regulations allow four homes per 40 acres, with an increase to eight if conservation design techniques are used.

Resources for Local Initiatives

There are many places for local governments to find materials that will help them take action — from examples of other communities codes and ordinances, to step-by-step workbooks on how to initiate community-wide dialogues around smart growth. Below is a sample of some of the types of resources available. An alphabetized list of organizations with addresses and other contact information is included in Appendix A.

American Planning Association – provides a wealth of information for local efforts, see www.planning.org.

Environmental Protection Agency Water Program Information Systems Compendium – includes profiles of more than 140 water management information systems from the Office of Water, EPA, and other federal agencies, and non-government organizations.

Joint Center for Sustainable Communities – offers many resources, including examples of local codes, ordinances, policies, and resolutions related to sustainability.

Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway River Stewardship Guide – This handbook by the Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission is particularly useful because it is specific to the Lower St. Croix watershed. Published in December 1994, it offers information to landowners as well as local governments.

New Urban News – is a periodical covering traditional town planning and development. The magazine’s November-December 1998 issue, for example, summarizes ordinances including “infill” ordinances to foster development of small parcels within existing municipalities and ordinances focused on retaining rural character in villages and towns surrounded by open space in semi-rural settings.

Smart Talk for Growing Communities – is a step-by-step guide for bringing citizens and public officials together through “study circles” around growth issues. The guidebook is published by, and available through, the Topsfield Foundation, which offers assistance in implementing community-wide study circles through its sister organization the Study Circles Resource Center.

Sprawl Watch – is an online newsletter on the latest news and research on sprawl, smart growth, and livable communities. It can be accessed at: www.sprawlwatch.org/newsletter.html.

Sustainable Communities Network – provides lists of reports, organizational contacts, web sites, and other resources. Resources and case studies related to specifically to policies, ordinances and taxes are available in the community government section of their web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin Historical Societies – offer assistance to local governments on zoning and planning to protect cultural and historical resources. The Minnesota Historical Society has a certified local government program which helps local governments pass preservation ordinances, and provides a small amount of federal money to support these efforts.

Watershed Tools Directory – is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency directory describing several hundred methods, models, data sources, and other approaches that communities can use to maintain and improve water quality for human health and ecological purposes.

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

E. Coordinated Planning Initiatives

One of the most frequently mentioned barriers to watershed-wide improvements around the Lower St. Croix is lack of coordination — between Minnesota and Wisconsin, between local governments, and between land development and water planning.

The 48 government agencies and programs listed later in this section not only affect the watershed, they affect each other. The planned siting of the Stillwater Bridge, which was discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, is an example of how the Minnesota and Wisconsin Departments of Transportation can make decisions that have a large impact on a Wisconsin township and the western portion of the watershed.

There are several organized partnerships and programs that look at the Lower St. Croix watershed as a whole. These programs are conducting important research and education that may lead to implementation-oriented activities. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission is in a position to coordinate activities between the states, but as is noted below, there is some debate as to how effective the organization can be due to political forces and other issues.

By 1999, some changes in region-level, coordinated planning were in process. The change in Minnesota’s administration may alter the role the Metropolitan Council provides in growth management strategizing at the regional level. There is some evidence that new collaborative efforts between the Metropolitan Council and western Wisconsin may take place. A new study conducted by Calthorpe Associates which features design of six new urbanism-style demonstration communities in the St. Croix Valley — four in Minnesota and two in Wisconsin — is the first Metropolitan Council effort to include Wisconsin communities. Other recent events include issuance of a Minnesota Governor’s Order that would require coordination of water plans with regard to water quality.

Coordinated Planning Initiatives

Models and Trends

The Lower St. Croix Management Commission (LSCMC)

This commission was convened to oversee the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway. It includes voting members from the Wisconsin DNR, Minnesota DNR and National Park Service. The Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission is a non-voting member. The LSCMC develops policies that state and federal agencies use in making decisions about land, water and water-surface use. The Lower St. Croix Planning Task Force, a project of LSCMC, has recently worked with a number of stakeholders to develop a watershed stewardship initiative. Task Force efforts also include educating and inspiring people to play a positive role in planning, and providing technical information and references. A new Cooperative Management Plan, a 20-year planning effort for the Lower St. Croix, was developed in 1999.

The St. Croix River Basin Water Resources Management Planning Team

Often referred to as the “interagency basin team,” this cooperative effort includes representatives from the National Park Service, Minnesota and Wisconsin DNRs, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, with active participation from the US Geologic Survey, Metropolitan Council, University of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission, and some tribal participation. The task force is also conducting a monitoring program and offers the first systematic program addressing nutrient management in the basin. The planning team has nearly completed a Water Resource Management Plan. The overall focus of the team appears to be study and persuasion. There are no clear mechanisms for enforcing or implementing management plans developed by the team.

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

This commission is made up of ten commissioners, with five appointed by each state’s governor. Two legislative Advisory Committees, one from each state, advise the commission and assist in its work. Occasionally, the commission forms and coordinates committees and work groups to address special issues and foster interagency cooperation. This organization has conducted extensive research and published reports that offer invaluable data and strategies on watershed protection. Other organizational activities include outreach, education programs, and fostering networking among Minnesota and Wisconsin stakeholders. The commission has no regulatory authority but is in a good position to steward the Lower St. Croix. However, the effectiveness of the commission is a topic of some debate, particularly with regard to how its political nature limits its ability to take action.

Government agencies and programs in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

There is a vast array of units of government and programs that have the potential to affect the Lower St. Croix Watershed, including the following:

Federal, State and Regional Agencies:

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Lower St. Croix Management Commission

Metropolitan Council (Minnesota)

Minnesota Department of Health

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

National Park Service

US Army Corps of Engineers

US Coast Guard

US Environmental Protection Agency

West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Counties

Chisago County

Pierce County

Polk County

St. Croix County

Washington County

Local Units of Government

Afton

Bayport

Baytown Township

Clifton Township

Denmark Township

Farmington Township

Franconia Township

Hudson

Hudson Township

Kinnickinnic

Lake St. Croix Beach

Lakeland

Lakeland Shores

Marine on St. Croix

May Township

New Richmond

New Scandia Township

Village of North Hudson

Oak Park Heights

Village of Osceola

Osceola Township

Prescott

River Falls

River Falls Township

St. Croix Falls

St. Croix Falls Township

St. Joseph Township

St. Mary’s Point

Somerset

Somerset Township

Stillwater

Stillwater Township

Taylors Falls

Troy Township

West Lakeland Township

Watershed Districts and Watershed Management Organizations

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

F. Education and Interpretive Programs

Educating and involving people in learning about the Lower St. Croix watershed is an important means of ensuring its long-term health, according to many stakeholders. With education, people can become active in campaigns, and make personal decisions that impact the land use, river health, and pollution issues facing the watershed. In the Lower St. Croix watershed, programs take the form of:

· Parks and nature centers that combine recreation and environmental education.

· Programs in schools that emphasize the special characteristics of the watershed and steps for protecting it.

· Watershed protection information geared toward local residents, businesspeople, farmers, and people who travel to the St. Croix area for boating and other recreation.

· Programs created by or for local government officials and other decision-makers.

As new environmental indicators shed light on the health of the watershed, there is a need to make sure the public is informed, and encouraged to play a role in protection.

As urbanization changes the face of the watershed, there is also a perceived need to bring landowners, government officials, and members of the public into long-term planning for the area’s future.

Through “citizen science,” both children and adults can learn about the watershed while at the same time generating data on its health. For example the Minnesota DNR is working with students at Stillwater High School to monitor species that are indicators of watershed health. The Land Stewardship Project provides materials for farmers to monitor wildlife and other environmental indicators on their property. The National Park Service’s “Rivers are Alive” curriculum includes activities on bio-indicators and water quality.

Within the Lower St. Croix watershed there are many parks, nature centers, and schools as well as 34 units of government, many of which have their own public information and education resources. There is also an extensive body of data on the water quality, plants and wildlife in the watershed. Information on obtaining this data is included in Appendix D.

Education and Interpretive Programs

Models and Trends

Education on Cultural Resources

The National Park Service is involved in an effort on the river that links environmental health and education about the area’s culture — from the Indian burial mounds to past logging in the area and the effect it has had on erosion. The National Park Service offers a number of educational resources, including “A Logger’s Day” program. County historical societies are also playing a role in educating the public on cultural and archeological resources in the watershed, and the Minnesota Historical Society is interested in encouraging local governments to adopt preservation ordinances.

Government-Based Education

As counties and other local governments begin to address environmental concerns in their area, they are initiating public education and involvement programs. For example, in the winter of 1999 Chisago County offered a series of seminars for “Living in Harmony with Our Lands and Waters.” Programs included discussions of how to keep well water safe, information for landowners on how to manage natural resources, protecting river and stream quality, and grazing tips for hobby farmers.

Programs for Recreational Users

The people from outside the watershed who visit the area’s nature centers and parks have access to a great deal of educational information. However, people who come to boat or jet ski on the river may have little information on the watershed and how their actions affect the health of the river.

One particular area of education is focused on the problem of zebra mussels — an invasive exotic species that is often transported by boaters. For example, there is an extensive interagency task force that is involved in testing for the presence of zebra mussels in the river. They have also pushed for improved signs for warning boaters, held public seminars on the issue, and conducted outreach to marina operators on how to prevent the spread of this mussel species, which threatens the health of the river.

Education and Interpretive Programs

in the Lower St. Croix Watershed

(An alphabetized list of organizations with addresses and other contact information is included in Appendix A.)

Afton State Park

Belwin Outdoor Education Laboratory

Burnett County Historical Museum

Camp St. Croix/Environmental Center

Carpenter St. Croix Valley Nature Center

Eco Education

Governor Knowles State Forest

Kinnickinnic State Park

Lee and Rose Warner Nature Center

Minnesota-Wisconsin Boundary Area Commission

National Park Service St. Croix National Scenic Riverway Visitors Center

Riverbend Nature Center

St. Croix Bluffs Regional Park

St. Croix Wild River State Park

Interstate Park

Wilder Forest

William O’Brien State Park

Willow River Nature Center

YMCA Camp St. Croix

----------------------- Top of Page | Table of Contents -----------------------

G. Active Citizen Stewardship

Citizen-driven efforts — through schools, community groups, government sponsored planning processes individual efforts — can make a large difference in the health of the Lower St. Croix watershed. Achieving widespread citizen stewardship of the river and its tributaries is a goal mentioned by many stakeholders. Protection initiatives that focus on the resources in people’s “back yards” are a proven means of encouraging long-term stewardship.

Whether it’s a classroom “adopting” the creek that flows near their school to a group of neighbors cleaning up trash, to incorporated creek or sub-watershed based organizations, these small efforts add up to watershed-wide protection.

Land use issues, efforts dealing specifically with the Lower St. Croix River itself, and air and water pollution prevention initiatives can all be driven by citizens. There are a number of excellent models for citizen-based organizations. For example, the Mill Stream Association of Marine on the St. Croix was formed in 1997 to protect the local trout stream, Mill Stream. In 1999, the Association conducted a resource inventory of their watershed. This information will now be used as a tool for local residents to protect the natural features of this sub-watershed, increase environmental awareness, and conduct water quality improvement activities.