Forestry and Watershed Managementin Wisconsin’s Lake Superior BasinCarmen Wagner, Forest Hydrologist, WI DNR

Photo: Carmen Wagner

Talk

• Introduction to Concerns

• Past Efforts• Forestry and Watershed

Considerations

Photo Credit: Jay Gallagher, DNR

Photo Credit: Jay Gallagher, DNR

Photo Credit: Mike Miller, DNR

Photo Credit: Dennis Pratt, DNR

Historic Efforts• 1954 – Red Clay Interagency

Committee starts work• 1972 & 1980 – Red Clay Reports• 1998 – Nemadji River Plan• 2000 – Lake Superior LaMP• 2007 – Managing Woodlands on

Lake Superior’s Red Clay Plain

With 50% of the upland aspenforest clearcut, snowmelt peaks becomede-synchronized yielding two smaller peak flows

Mature foresthydrograph

Marcell Experimental Forest, northern Minnesota, watershed no. 4

With all of the aspenupland clearcut, snowmeltpeakflow is synchronized, occurring 4 days earlier than mature forest conditions, and at twice the peakflow rate.

Mature forest hydrograph

Marcell Experimental Forest, northern Minnesota, watershed no. 4

-70

-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of entire basin in open or young-forests (<16)

Perc

ent c

hang

e in

pea

k flo

w

VLB83

VLB83

VLB83

VLB83

V86

V86

FKW99

L94

Reference to change in peak flow from a mature aspen forest

Management range for peak flows from basins with less than 60% of their area in open or young forests (<16)

Effects Are 1st Observed• For flat outwash or lake bed

basins (< 3% slopes) they need to be 10 sq. miles before there is enough power in the flowing water to cause excessive in-channel erosion

• For steep glacial moraine basins(3-40% hillslopes) they need to be 1 sq. mile

Total Open Lands

0% - 40%

40% - 55%

55% +

Ag / Urban Areas

0% - 40%

40% - 55%

55% +

Young Forests

0% - 40%

40% - 55%

55% +

Agriculture / Urban Area Management Considerations

• Landscape-Level– Amount of agriculture and urban

areas in watershed• Site-Level

– Capture runoff from fields and roads

– Break ag drainage systems– Plant trees in old fields

Forestry Considerations• Landscape-Level

– Amount of young forest in watershed– Amount of aspen likely to be harvested soon

in watershed– Amount of aspen in watershed

• Site-Level– Balance future harvests against maturing

young forests– Delay or move up harvests– Harvest in larger or smaller blocks– Convert aspen to different cover types

Other Considerations• Wildlife Habitat Objectives

– Important grassland habitat?– Important forest interior habitat?– Trout stream and beaver

interactions?• Site Characteristics

– Soils, slopes, drainage patterns– Current vegetation– Current land use

Other Considerations• Landowner Objectives

– Management goals• Income• Wildlife habitat• Scenic beauty

– Hands-on or hands-off management style

• Timeframe– Short-term or long-term solution?– Immediate or gradual impact?

Bark River Watershed

• Nearly 20,650 acres in size• Includes Bark River and three branches of

Lost Creek• 70% of watershed in private ownership• 20% in county ownership• 5% in state ownership

Ownership

Land Cover

• 40% Mixed broad-leaved deciduous

• 20% Aspen• 14% Mixed deciduous and

coniferous• 12% Grassland• 12% Non-forested wetlands

Ecological Subsection

• Superior – Ashland Clay Plain– Generally heavy red clay soils– Flat to gently rolling topography– Smaller streams draining to Lake

Superior have cut steep-sided channels

– Clay soils are underlain by sandier soils

Water Resources

• Bark River– Medium-sized spring-fed trout

stream– Classified as an Outstanding

Resource Water (ORW)• Lost Creek 1 & 2

– Small spring-fed trout streams– Shallow and sandy

• Lost Creek 3– Warm water stream with minnows

Bark River Watershed

• 19% total open lands– 12% young forests– 8% ag/urban areas

• Contains 6 hydrologic units, or smaller discrete watersheds, at which open land impacts are first observable

Total Open Land

Total Ag / Urban Areas

Total Young Forests

12

3

45

6

05

101520253035404550556065707580859095

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 Bark R

Ag/UrbanYoung Forests

Open Land Distribution

Location of Open Lands

Landscape-Level

• HUs at 20% or less open lands• Contain a balanced mix of

mature forests, young forests, and ag lands, providing a variety of benefits

• Room to increase open land acreage

Landscape-Level• Maintenance of aspen provides

important early successional wildlife habitat

• Beaver may be a concern on trout streams

• Most aspen currently along stream channels

• Fishery goals, rather than watershed goals, may lead to aspen conversion along streams

Landscape-Level• Ag and urban areas are smaller

percentage of watershed– 8% of entire watershed– 5% - 12% of HUs

• Grasslands are most common ag feature and can provide important wildlife habitat

• HU 1 drains primarily to Lake Superior and watershed connection not as strong

Site-Level• Bayfield County Forest• 227 acre stand of 50-year old aspen

– 150 acres in HU 3– 75 acres in HU 4

• Lost Creek is a warm water stream

Site-Level• Harvest, with no maturation of

young forests, would result in– HU 3 from 20.2% to 23% open lands– HU 4 from 19.8% to 21.5% open lands

• Bankfull flows should remain at historic levels

• Beaver impacts limited on warm water stream

Site-Level in Troutmere-Marengo Watershed• 30 acre field• Unnamed tributary to Marengo

River flows through property• In HU 6

– 0% young forests– 77.7% agricultural lands

Site-Level

• Landowner could:– Break ag drainage system– Plant trees in field

• In 15 years, total open lands would be reduced from 77.7% to 74.3%

• Over 200 acres of tree planting needed in HU to reduce total open lands to less than 55%

Other Components of Project

• Woodland Owner Survey in 2009– Landowners with at least 10 acres

of woodland that are not participating in MFL Program

– Sent out 981 surveys and had a response rate of 49%

Other Components of Project• Woodland Owner Survey in 2009

– 88% of landowners did not have a management plan

– 1% participated in some landowner assistance program

– Over 80% thought water quality in Lake Superior Basin was okay or excellent for scenic beauty, swimming, and catching fish

– Over 65% did not perceive any pollutants as moderate or severe problems

Other Components of Project

• Landowner Workshops in Feb –April 2010– Series of 6 sessions in 3 locations– Attended by over 100 landowners– 86% interested in implementing

management practices at conclusion of workshops

– 43% intend to develop management plans (91% did not have plans at start of workshops)

Other Components of Project

• Regional analysis and compendium of reports and research completed in Basin

• Management considerations report highlighting 12 watersheds as examples

Other Components of Project

• Regional analysis and compendium of reports and research completed in Basin

• Management considerations report highlighting 12 watersheds as examples

• Report discussing management options and benefits of ecosystems services in area

Goals of Project

• Educate landowners on links between land management and water quality in basin

• Provide resources to land managers to prioritize and focus efforts in times of limited budgeting and staffing

• Describe ecosystem services and benefits in Basin

Questions?