8. 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
9. 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
10. 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
11. 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)
12. 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
16. 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
17. 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
18. 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
19. 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?
20. 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
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
31. 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
32. 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
33.
34. 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
35. 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
36.
37. 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
38. 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
39.
40. 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%
41. 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%
42. 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
43. 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)
44. Other Components of Project
• Regional analysis and
compendium of reports and
research completed in Basin
• Management considerations
report highlighting 12 watersheds
as examples
45. 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
46. 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
