Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 118

1. Wisconsin Administrative CodeChapter NR 118 STANDARDS FOR THE LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY Gabriel Benson Photos by National Park Service

2. Policy Problem Wisconsin’s NR118 Is Not Adequately Protecting the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway In a Manner Consistent With Its Federal Designation. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://images.vrbo.com/vrbo/images/39310&imgrefurl=http://www.vrbo.com/43490&h=260&w=340&sz=24&hl=en&start=91&um=1&tbnid=LyWFO0XMgaVvdM:&

3. Overview • Background Information • Problem Description/ No Action • Methods • Alternatives • Preliminary Findings • Recommendations • Limitations • Future Research

4. Background Information The St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (SCNSR) includes 200 miles of river extending from its headwater source near Gordon, WI and along the Minnesota/ Wisconsin border to Taylor's Falls ( 1968) • The Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway extends 52 miles from St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls to the confluence with the Mississippi River • Managed by the National Park Service, Wisconsin DNR (WDNR), and Minnesota DNR (MNDNR) • WDNR has statutory authority to develop to develop guidelines and standards to ensure the continued eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System

5. Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 118 • Originally Drafted in 1976 • Outlines Development Restrictions for St. Croix Shoreline • Numerous Amendments • Latest Amendments in June 2006

6. The New NR 118 • New revisions were based on concepts contained within the Cooperative Management Plan (2002) • Includes updated standards for shoreline development • Provides local zoning authorities more discretion through zoning mandate

7. Problems • There has Been Little Involvement by WDNR in Local Zoning Decisions (Lower St. Croix Partnership, 2004) • Attributed To • Vague language that does not clearly state the circumstances where LGUs are to solicit DNR consultation • Local zoning authorities are not making the department aware of new permit applications, or, WDNR is not exercising its right to review under the NR 118, 2b-h

8. Other Possibilities • Local zoning authorities exploit the new standards • Local zoning authorities do not have the resources or the aptitude • Local zoning authorities have pro development attitudes

9. Methods For Alternative EvaluationStage 1 • Administrative Operability, Political Viability, Effectiveness • Literature review • Analogous Policies Comparative Analysis (MN 6105) • Stakeholder Input • Walker’s Evaluation Criteria (Walker, 1988) -Simplicity -Cost -Merit • Employ a Version of Alternative Consequences Matrix Determine the best alternatives

10. Methods For Alternative EvaluationStage 2 • Utilize More Quantitative and Specific Methods for Comparative Analysis of Stage 1 Selected Alternatives • Allows unique circumstances of each alternative to be evaluated in a more effective manner • Compares two outlying and competing alternatives further (no clear winner in Stage 1)

11. Alternatives • No Action Alternative • Increase WDNR Involvement Through Amendment • Utilize Scenic Easements to Restrict Development • Draft Uniform/ Encompassing Ordinance

13. Quantitative Comparative AnalysisStage 2 (A vs. B) Using Meeting Minutes to Determine • # of Total Development Requests • # of Variance/Permit Approvals • # of Questionable Allowances Yielding • % of incompliant permits -Minnesota vs. Wisconsin -LGU vs. LGU

14. Preliminary Findings Alternative A , No Action (NR 118 Present) Alternative B Amended Policy with Required Consultation No such action (variance/conditional use) shall be effective unless and until the commissioner has certified that the action complies with the Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (6105.0230,Subp. 2.) •  Conditional use and variance applications must supply pertinent information adequate for the appropriate local zoning authority to make a decision based on the type of project to be undertaken. Nr 118, 2b • Other information that the local zoning authority or the department requests. If the local zoning authority or the department requests additional information, it shall be submitted by the applicant to the local zoning authority and the department prior to any hearing on the application. (NR 118, 2b-h)

15. Preliminary Findings To Date • 61 Decisions Reviewed in Wisconsin(19) and Minnesota(42) * • Infractions generally do not greatly impact the Riverway but may be outside the confines of law • Local Governments in Wisconsin justify variance and conditional use through undue hardship (is the lack of a screen porch a hardship?) • Variance and conditional use are often well justified in Minnesota

16. Preliminary Recommendations • Alternative B appears to be a viable option • Stage 2 findings weighed against the cost of amending NR 118

17. Potential Problems • This analysis largely assumes that department consultation in Minnesota is the reason for better compliance • Meeting minutes readily available in LGUs with better resources within Wisconsin (inadequate representation) • Minnesota LGUs Are More Transparent and Accessible (42v.19)

18. Where To Go From Here • Continue To Amass Data • Total number of permits needed within a time parameter • Further Comparisons • Additional opinions and literature to Increase assumption credibility • Organize development stages of a dynamic NR 118 (find if previous renditions were better)

19. Data and References Dep't. of Natural Resources Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers, Minn. Rules § 6105 (MN Dep't. of Natural Resources 2003). Standards for the Lower St. Croix Nat'l. Scenic Riverway, Wis. Administrative Code § NR 118 (Wis. Dep't. of Natural Resources 2006). Special Thanks to Ron Carlson and the Lower St Croix Partnership Team