Carmen Wagner Presentation 0910

  • 599 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
599
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Forestry and Watershed Management in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin Carmen Wagner, Forest Hydrologist, WI DNR Photo: Carmen Wagner
  • 2. Talk • Introduction to Concerns • Past Efforts • Forestry and Watershed Considerations
  • 3. Photo Credit: Jay Gallagher, DNR
  • 4. Photo Credit: Jay Gallagher, DNR
  • 5. Photo Credit: Dennis Pratt, DNR Photo Credit: Mike Miller, DNR
  • 6. 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
  • 7. Mature forest hydrograph With 50% of the upland aspen forest clearcut, snowmelt peaks become de-synchronized yielding two smaller peak flows Marcell Experimental Forest, northern Minnesota, watershed no. 4
  • 8. With all of the aspen upland clearcut, snowmelt peakflow 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
  • 9. 170 150 VLB83 L94 130 Percent change in peak flow 110 FKW99 90 VLB83 Management range for peak flows from basins 70 with less than 60% of their area in open or young forests (<16) 50 30 V86 10 VLB83 -10 Reference to change in peak flow from a mature aspen forest -30 V86 VLB83 -50 -70 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent of entire basin in open or young-forests (<16)
  • 10. 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
  • 11. Total Open Lands 0% - 40% 40% - 55% 55% +
  • 12. Ag / Urban Areas 0% - 40% 40% - 55% 55% +
  • 13. Young Forests 0% - 40% 40% - 55% 55% +
  • 14. 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
  • 15. 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
  • 16. 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
  • 17. 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?
  • 18. 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
  • 19. Ownership
  • 20. Land Cover • 40% Mixed broad-leaved deciduous • 20% Aspen • 14% Mixed deciduous and coniferous • 12% Grassland • 12% Non-forested wetlands
  • 21. 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
  • 22. 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
  • 23. 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
  • 24. Total Open Land
  • 25. Total Ag / Urban Areas
  • 26. Total Young Forests 6 1 2 4 5 3
  • 27. Open Land Distribution 100 95 90 Ag/Urban 85 80 Young Forests 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bark R
  • 28. Location of Open Lands
  • 29. 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
  • 30. 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
  • 31. 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
  • 32. 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
  • 33. 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
  • 34. 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
  • 35. 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%
  • 36. 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%
  • 37. 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
  • 38. 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)
  • 39. Other Components of Project • Regional analysis and compendium of reports and research completed in Basin • Management considerations report highlighting 12 watersheds as examples
  • 40. 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
  • 41. 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
  • 42. Questions?