Wisconsin DNR’s Lake Superior Basin Tributary / Watershed Strategy
11-18-05
Rationale:
Why is the DNR Lake Superior Basin Tributary and Watershed Team developing this
strategy?
 1. Communicate to managers
 2. Integrate
 3. Communicate to public.
The common problem identified for many Lake Superior tributaries is excess water
runoff rates leading to habitat degradation and sedimentation. Work has been
underway to develop strategies to slow water runoff rates from the landscape.
However, strategies to address this problem may be counterproductive to ecosystem
goals forwarded by other programs. An example would be an effort to increase forest
cover where grassland bird habitat initiatives are underway by the wildlife program.
Although there has been work to identify important habitats for some important
species or communities in the basin, more is needed, and it is needed on an integrated
cross-program basis. We do not have a common understanding on an integrated basis,
of critical habitat locations or threats.
Goal: A collaborative inter-agency process with the goal of maintaining and
restoring the ecological integrity and habitat features of the Lake Superior basin
landscape.
As a first step, develop an inter-program approach within DNR. Promote
watershed health in the basin as an ecosystem approach considering habitat
needs and ecological processes for fisheries, wildlife, endangered resources,
and other features.
A. Problem Lack of shared identified priorities that are integrated between DNR
programs in the basin. Priorities may be in conflict in some geographic areas. We do not
know, on an integrated basis, where the critical habitats are located.
Objective A1: Develop long-term goals and priorities for geographic areas in the
basin, such as watersheds or regions with similar soil types. Identify long term priorities
for geographic areas based on optimizing ecosystem potential and balancing needs and
issues of programs.
Tactics: (Strategy):
1. Suggested approach: Start by focusing on certain pilot watersheds or areas
(Suggested candidates include: Bark, White, Marengo – because of on-going DNR
and Partner Team involvement)
1
2. Identify “critical” sites (starting within DNR) and clarify key attributes. Examples
of critical sites would include critical spawning areas, key wildlife areas, coastal
and other wetlands, habitat for ER species of concern.
3. Develop GIS coverages of critical site information with access by all DNR
programs through fGIS.
4. Identify threats and information needs for critical sites.
5. Develop a system to share our collective knowledge about geographic areas and
watersheds between programs via GIS. This would be a way to share files between
field managers in different programs. For a watershed or other geographic area, a
manager could look up what has happened through DNR in that area: Chapter 30
permits, stormwater permits, fisheries info, wildlife info, forestry. It would be
helpful in our work with landowners.
6. Develop a way to more effectively disseminate endangered resources data on
critical species locations, special habitats, and aquatic feature (non-fish)
considerations. Develop management guidelines for same – prioritize these by
importance, need, location.
Objective A2: Evaluate the priorities for geographic areas, and evaluate where on the
landscape, for example, forest or grassland should be promoted. Use this evaluation as
the basis for watershed plans that will encourage programmatic integration between the
goals of wildlife, fisheries, endangered resources, forestry, water resources, and other
programs.
Objective A3: Share information with the public and other resource management and
environmental agencies. Acquire wider input into the long-term goals and priorities for
geographic areas or watersheds in the basin.
Tactics (Strategy)
7. Use the information on critical habitat locations, threats and information needs to
develop long-term inter-program goals for resource management by DNR, in
consultation with key interest groups, and other agencies. Use this information to
develop integrated plans and strategies, especially where there are overlapping
interests or jurisdictions, and high potential for conflicts. Share information with the
public about our collective knowledge.
Objective A4: Pursue actions to promote long-term goals and priorities for geographic
areas or watersheds in the Lake Superior basin.
Tactics (Strategy)
8. Use the long-term priorities for geographic areas to prioritize DNR workloads when
this is necessary. For example, stormwater permitting by DNR could be prioritized
based on watershed goals.
9. Where critical aquatic habitats are impacted by watershed degradation, evaluate
those impacts in light of other long-term ecosystem priorities that may exist for that
location in the landscape. Address watershed protection and rehabilitation through
objectives and steps listed under “Problem B,” if appropriate
10. Agree on management strategies / goals so Lake Superior CREP can be
implemented to help achieve our ecosystem objectives along eligible waterways.
2
Lake Superior CREP provides incentives for forested buffers and will be available
to all eligible landowners, but outreach can be targeted.
11. Identify targeted areas for sharp-tailed grouse restoration (Ashland core area).
Support grassland enhancement and grassland / brushland incentives where it is
aligns with long-term priorities.
12. Target priority areas for wetland restoration programs.
Objective A5. Monitor environmental condition and monitor results of strategy
implementation
Tactics:
13. Support evaluation and monitoring for Lake Superior Partners (NAWCA?) wetland
restoration projects.
14. Monitor vegetation changes in coastal wetlands: gross habitat changes in structure
and composition, finer scaled changes in composition at “key” sites (e.g. those with
lots of rare spp.); functional changes related to L. Superior water level fluctuations,
inputs from feeder streams (sediments, pollutants), invasives.
15. Monitor nutrient and sediment status of Chequamegon Bay and St. Louis River
estuary.
Problem B. Tributary Damage from excess water runoff rates in the Lake Superior
basin. From Brook Trout Plan, 2005: Land-use and subsequent changes in cover types
with the basin watersheds have reduced stream habitat quality (which limits trout
sustainability). As a first step, prevent further degradation of watersheds.
Objective B1: Stream Habitat and Watershed Health
To develop watershed-based ecosystem approaches that will protect and restore
watershed function that in turn rehabilitates dysfunctional channel form and function, and
damaged stream habitat (DNR-USFWS Lake Superior Brook Trout Plan, 2005)
Tactics (Strategy)
1. Identify critical fishery and other aquatic life habitat features (as described in Part
A).
2. Develop list of threats to these habitat features. Develop strategies and tactics to
over come threats.
3. Identify strategies to improve sub-watershed health in critical fishery reaches and
other priority aquatic habitats.
a. Support continued development of GIS tools to assist in this work.
b. Continue research into habitat protection techniques. Monitor results of
habitat techniques (i.e. flow deflection vanes and other techniques).
4. Use the information on critical aquatic resources to set workload priorities for
DNR programs where prioritization is necessary, for example, stormwater
permitting.
5. Prioritize subwatersheds with excessive runoff.
6. Encourage greater forest component in those subwatersheds, unless this tactic
would run counter to a long-term goal identified through our team’s integrated
goal-setting process in support of another key species or community.
3
7. Use satellite mapping results (comparative analysis of subwatersheds – Kroska
project) to identify open land and young forest in watersheds with critical aquatic
features. Use this information in watershed planning.
8. Acquire better staff training in the use of the comparative analysis project results
(Kroska).
9. Use the comparative analysis / satellite imagery project to influence timber
harvest schedules in critical watersheds, primarily in Bayfield County.
10. Identify old agricultural drainages in reforested land that continue to act as
landscape drainage features.
11. Seek funding for landowner incentives to enter into agreements to modify land
management in key areas to facilitate meeting our watershed objectives.
12. Target EQIP, CREP, county agriculture cost-share programs in watersheds where
agricultural land use practices contribute to watershed degradation for important
aquatic habitat.
13. Develop riparian forest management goals.
a. Develop riparian forest strategies to shift forest succession away from
beaver
b. Discuss and agree upon how riparian areas differ depending on size and
location of stream – then propose recommendations for enhancing large
woody debris in waterways by managing the riparian woodlands.
14. Develop strategies to rehabilitate beaver flowages: Convert old beaver flowage on
headwaters of Four Mile Creek to forest. Project will involve volunteers from
local sports club. Work will consist of planting trees on state land.
15. Develop recommendations for forest lands in Lake Superior red clay region and in
trout stream watersheds draining to Lake Superior (next generation BMPs).
16. Evaluate aquatic community interactions that influence habitat or sustainability of
key species.
Objective B2: Support partnerships and encourage public support for watershed
protection and rehabilitation.
Tactics (Strategy)
17. Based on L. Superior watershed analysis, identify a couple / few watersheds that
have accelerated runoff and after our Team consults, visit the Town Board and
explain our story and how it relates to their watershed. Use watershed mailing
based on existing county databases.
18. Update and improve visual appeal of the Lake Superior Best Management
Practice guidance (Schultz, 2003). Make it public friendly but retain the
information. Use the guidelines in development of watershed plans.
19. Pursue improved outreach on stormwater program requirements.
20. Encourage a stormwater program in Ashland
21. Support public outreach on forest recommendations for Lake Superior red clay
and trout stream areas
22. Discourage intensive resource focus on high profile projects with limited
watershed benefits, such as the Highway 13 Slump group. Attempt to use public
and political interest in “fixing” certain spots as an opportunity for education on
watershed processes.
4
23. Support efforts to educate local governments on proper culvert sizing and
installation to protect watershed processes.
24. Support and participate in watershed projects with local citizens as resources
allow.
a. Continue the White River project
b. Support WI Lake Superior Partner Team’s Marengo River pilot project
c. Outreach to citizens about work on the Bark River watershed
5