Wisconsin Administrative CodeChapter NR 118

STANDARDS FOR THE LOWER ST. CROIX NATIONAL SCENIC RIVERWAY

Gabriel Benson

Photos by National Park Service

Policy ProblemWisconsin’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:&

Overview

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

Background InformationThe St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (SCNSR) includes 200 miles of river extendingfrom its headwater source near Gordon, WI and along the Minnesota/ Wisconsinborder 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

Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter NR 118

• Originally Drafted in 1976 • Outlines Development Restrictions for St.

Croix Shoreline• Numerous Amendments• Latest Amendments in June 2006

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

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

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

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

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)

Alternatives

A. No Action AlternativeB. Increase WDNR Involvement Through

AmendmentC. Utilize Scenic Easements to Restrict

DevelopmentD. Draft Uniform/ Encompassing Ordinance

Alternative Simplicity Cost Merit Respective RatingsS C M = Total

A No Action

•Very simple, already implemented

•Affordable, already affording it•Equitable cost sharing

•Fails to adequately address the problem of compliance

1 1 4 = 6

B Amended Policy

•Simple amendment but changes may have large implications

•Actual change relatively affordable•Shifts costs to other entities•Reallocation/appropriation of funds

•Utilizes what the entity most capable of addressing the problem by changing problematic language

2 2 1 = 5

C Easements

•Has been utilized in the past so easily implemented•Still Requires Expertise

•Expensive, who will bear the cost? Is it worth it considering results (cost benefit)?

•Will help mitigate development but not outright control it•Supplemental tool

3 4 3 = 10

DEncompassing Ordinance

•Requires administrative changes on part of multiple parties

•Costs may be consolidated but still costly•Financial burden on different tax base

•Increased continuity and consolidation•May overlook specific needs of localities

4 3 2 = 9

Quantitative Comparative AnalysisStage 2 (A vs. B)

Using Meeting Minutes to Determine• # of Total Development Requests• # of Variance/Permit Approvals• # of Questionable AllowancesYielding• % of incompliant permits -Minnesota vs. Wisconsin-LGU vs. LGU

Preliminary FindingsAlternative A , No Action

(NR 118 Present)

• 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)

Alternative BAmended 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.)

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

Preliminary Recommendations

• Alternative B appears to be a viable option

• Stage 2 findings weighed against the cost of amending NR 118

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)

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)

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