DOCSLIB.ORG

Mille Lacs Uplands, Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mille Lacs Uplands, Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan Mille Lacs Uplands Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan Strategic Direction and Stand Selection Results - Final - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources June 2008 Division of Forestry Planning Document Copyright 2008, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry Printed June 2008 This document is on the Internet at www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/subsection/millelacs Information about the Division of Forestry Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan (SFRMP) process can be found at www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/subsection Abstract: This document presents the final plan outlining strategic direction for forest management of DNR administered lands in the Mille Lacs Uplands subsection. It includes the criteria used to select stands for the initial seven years of management, lists the stands that satisfy those criteria, and identifies new access needs resulting from stand selection. Mille Lacs Uplands SFRMP Team Members The following DNR personnel participated in the preparation of the Millle Lacs Uplands Subsection Forest Resource Management Plan: Lynn Sue Mizner (Forest Resources Planner/Team Leader) Peter Willis (Timber Program Forester, Little Falls) Lillian Baker (Program Forester, Cambridge – now Timber Program Leader in St. Paul) Daren Wysocki (Timber Program Forester, Aitkin) Dean Makey (Timber Program Forester, Brainerd/Backus) Brian Haugen (Timber Program Forester, Sandstone) Tony Miller (Timber Program Forester, Sandstone) Bruce Schoenberg (Timber Program Forester, Cloquet) David Kanz (Assistant Area Wildlife Manager, Aitkin) Gary Drotts (Area Wildlife Manager, Brainerd) Richard Tuszynski (Manager, Mille Lacs Wildlife Management Area) Chris Balzer (Wildlife Biologist, Cloquet) Beau Liddell (Area Wildlife Manager, Little Falls) David Pauly (Area Wildlife Manager, Cambridge) David J. Johnson (Wildlife Biologist, Sandstone) Doug Tillma (NE Region Silviculturist) Paul Olson (NE Region Forestry GIS* Specialist) Mark Wurdeman (Central Region Timber Program Forester) Rick Dunkley** (Area Forest Supervisor, Sandstone) Kevin Woizeschke (Nongame Wildlife Biologist, Brainerd) Tim Quincer (NE Region Forestry Wildlife Coordinator) Mike Albers (NE Region Forest Health Specialist) John Grossbach (NE Region Forest Manager) Wayne Damerow (Central Region Forest Manager) Jeff Lightfoot (NE Region Wildlife Manager) Kurt Rusterholz(Ecological Services, St. Paul) Bruce Carlson, (Ecological Services, Duluth) *Geographic Information Systems ** Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe asked that Rick Dunkley represent its interests in this process. This document was prepared for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry by the consultant team of Pro-West & Associates, Inc. (Walker, MN) and Applied Insightsnorth (Duluth, MN). Mille Lacs Uplands SFRMP -i - Final Plan Document Contents 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1.1 2. Desired Future Forest Composition: An Overview ................................................................. 2.1 3. Final Issues, DFFC, and Recommended Strategies................................................................. 3.1 4. Stand Selection Criteria ........................................................................................................... 4.1 5. Seven-Year Stand List & New Access Needs ......................................................................... 5.1 Appendix A. Seven-Year Stand Selection List.......................................................................... A.1 Appendix B. List of Selected Stands Containing White Pine.....................................................B.1 Appendix C. Glossary.................................................................................................................C.1 Appendix D: Acronyms ............................................................................................................. D.1 Appendix E. Responses to Public Comments on Issues/Assessment Document .......................E.1 Appendix F. Responses to Public Comments on Step 3 Strategic Direction Document............ F.1 Appendix G. Oak Regeneration Plan......................................................................................... G.1 Appendix H. Red Shouldered Hawk Habitat in the Planning Area........................................... H.1 Appendix I. Patch Size Determination for the Planning Area.....................................................I.1 Appendix J. Early Successional Habitat in the Planning Area ....................................................J.1 Appendix K. The Two-Lined Chestnut Borer ........................................................................... K.1 Appendix L. Historical Disturbance Regimes .............................................................................L1 Appendix M. Brief Descriptions of Landtype Associations (LTAs) in the Mille Lacs Uplands Subsection (212Kb) and Glacial Lake Superior Plain (212Ja) ...................................................M.1 Appendix N. Directions 2000—Forest Resources Section........................................................ N.1 Tables Table 1.1 Steps in the SFRMP Process....................................................................................... 1.4 Table 3.1. Extended Rotation Forests in the Mille Lacs Upland and Glacial Lake Superior Plain* ...................................................................................................................................................... 3.3 Table 3.2. Forest* Over Normal Rotation Age (Mille Lacs Uplands, Glacial Lake Superior Plain, and St. Croix Moraines)..................................................................................................... 3.4 Table 3.3. Extended Rotation Forests1 by LTA Group................................................................ 3.4 Table 3.4.Desired Future Composition of Commercial Forest Types (Mille Lacs Uplands and Glacial Lake Superior Plain)........................................................................................................ 3.6 Table 3.5. Current and Desired Patch Sizes in the Planning Area............................................ 3.15 Table 4.1. Summary of Stand Selection Criteria (Mille Lacs Uplands/ Glacial Lake Superior Plain/St. Croix Moraines) .......................................................................................................... 4.31 Mille Lacs Uplands SFRMP -ii - Final Plan Document Table 5.1 Selected 7-Year Stand Acres by Cover Type by Area Office .................................... 5.2 Table 5.2 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type under Proposed 7-Year Stand List ............................................................................................................................................... 5.3 Table 5.3 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type for Brainerd Area.................. 5.4 Table 5.4 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type for Aitkin Area ..................... 5.5 Table 5.5 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type for Cloquet Area................... 5.6 Table 5.6 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type for Little Falls Area .............. 5.7 Table 5.7 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type for Sandstone Area ............ ...5.8 Table 5.8 Summary of Annual Treatment Acres by Cover Type for Cambridge Area............. .5.9 Table A.1. Seven-Year Stand Examination List by Location....A.Error! Bookmark not defined. Table B.1. Stands With a White Pine Component on the Seven-Year Stand Examination List .B.1 Table I.1. Current and Desired Patch Sizes in the Planning Area ...............................................I.2 Table J.1. Percentage of Forested land in Aspen-Birch Forest Type by LTA.............................J.2 Figures Figure 1.1 Mille Lacs Uplands Subsection................................................................................. 1.1 Figure 3.1. Landtype Associations (LTAs) Identified as Priority Open Landscapes ................ 3.16 Figure 4.1. Change in Ash Abundance From Historical Levels................................................. 4.2 Figure 4.2. Current Age-Class Distribution of Ash Forests......................................................... 4.3 Figure 4.3. Change in Aspen Abundance from Historical Levels .............................................. 4.4 Figure 4.4. Current Age-Class Distriubtion of Aspen and Balm of Gilead Forests ................... 4.5 Figure 4.5. Change in Birch Abundance from Historical Levels ................................................ 4.7 Figure 4.6 Current Age-Class Distribution of Birch Forests ...................................................... 4.8 Figure 4.7. Current Age-Class Distribution of Northern Hardwoods Forests ............................ 4.9 Figure 4.8. Current Basal Area Distribution of Northern Hardwoods Forests ......................... 4.10 Figure 4.9. Change in Red Oak Abundance from Historical Levels ........................................ 4.12 Figure 4.10. Change in Bur Oak Abundance from Historical Levels....................................... 4.13 Figure 4.11. Current Age-Class Distribution of Oak Forests ................................................... 4.14 Mille Lacs Uplands SFRMP -iii - Final Plan Document Figure 4.12. Current Basal Area Distribution in Oak Forests................................................... 4.14 Figure 4.13.Change in wWhite Pine Abundance from Historical Levels.................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests
    United States Department of SSustainingustaining AAmerica’smerica’s Agriculture Forest Service UUrbanrban TTreesrees andand ForestsForests Northern Research Station State and Private Forestry General Technical DDavidavid J.J. NNowak,owak, SusanSusan M.M. Stein,Stein, PaulaPaula B.B. Randler,Randler, EricEric J.J. GreenGreenfi eeld,ld, Report NRS-62 SSaraara JJ.. CComas,omas, MMaryary AA.. CCarr,arr, aandnd RRalphalph J.J. AligAlig June 2010 A Forests on the Edge Report ABSTRACT Nowak, David J.; Stein, Susan M.; Randler, Paula B.; Greenfi eld, Eric J.; Comas, Sara J.; Carr, Mary A.; Alig, Ralph J. 2010. Sustaining America’s urban trees and forests: a Forests on the Edge report. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 27 p. Close to 80 percent of the U.S. population lives in urban areas and depends on the essential ecological, economic, and social benefi ts provided by urban trees and forests. However, the distribution of urban tree cover and the benefi ts of urban forests vary across the United States, as do the challenges of sustaining this important resource. As urban areas expand across the country, the importance of the benefi ts that urban forests provide, as well as the challenges to their conservation and maintenance, will increase. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the current status and benefi ts of America’s urban forests, compare differences in urban forest canopy cover among regions, and discuss challenges facing urban forests and their implications for urban forest management. Key Words: Urban forest, urbanization, land Lisa DeJong The Plain Dealer, Photo: AP management, ecosystem services Urban forests offer aesthetic values and critical services.
    [Show full text]
  • FPS Sitegrid Methods for Forest Inventory, Forest Growth and Forest Planning
    FPS SiteGrid Methods for Forest Inventory, Forest Growth And Forest Planning Extract from The Forester’s Guidebook December 14, 2015 by James D. Arney, Ph.D. Forest Biometrics Research Institute 4033 SW Canyon Road Portland, Oregon 97221 (503) 227-0622 www.forestbiometrics.org Information contained in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on behalf of the Forest Biometrics Research Institute, Portland, Oregon. No part of this document may be transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without the expressed written permission of the Forest Biometrics Research Institute, 4033 SW Canyon Road, Portland, Oregon 97221. Copyright 2010 – 2015 Forest Biometrics Research Institute. All rights reserved worldwide. Printed in the United States. Forest Biometrics Research Institute (FBRI) is an IRS 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt public research corporation dedicated to research, education and service to the forest industry. Forest Projection and Planning System (FPS) is a registered trademark of Forest Biometrics Research Institute (FBRI), Portland, Oregon. Microsoft Access is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. Windows and Windows 7 are registered trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. ArcMap is a registered trademark of the Environmental Services Research Institute. MapInfo Professional is a registered trademark of MapInfo Corporation. Stand Visualization System (SVS) is a product of the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Trademark names are used editorially, to the benefit of the trademark owner, with no intent to infringe on the Trademark. Technical Support: Telephone: (406) 541-0054 Forest Biometrics Research Institute Corporate: (503) 227-0622 URL: http://www.forestbiometrics.org e-mail: [email protected] Access: 08:00-16:00 PST Monday to Friday ii FBRI – FPS Forester’s SiteGrid 2015 Background of Author: In summary, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Article 3 Definitions
    1 Commentary is for information only. Proposed new language is double-underlined; Proposed deleted language is stricken. ORDINANCE NO. XX AMENDMENTS TO VOLUME 3 DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE GRESHAM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT-6 TREE CODE UPDATE THE CITY OF GRESHAM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS Section 1. Volume 3, Section 3.0100 is amended as follows: Proposed Text Amendment Commentary ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS 3.0150 Tree Related Terms and Definitions [3.01]-1 *** ” D. Tree Related Terms and Definitions. Section 3.0150 *** Buffer Tree – See Tree [3.01]-2 - [3.01]-6 *** Tree Caliper – See Tree *** Clear Cutting – See Tree Related Section 3.0150 Definitions, *** Critical Root Zone – See Tree Related Definitions, Section 3.0150 Crosswalk *** Crown Cover – See Tree Related Definitions, Section 3.0150 *** Diameter Breast Height – See Tree Related Definitions, Section 3.0150 *** DRAFT - City of Gresham Development Code (10/29/14 open house review) 2 Dripline – See Tree Related Section 3.0150 Definitions, *** Major Tree – See Tree *** Hazardous Tree – See Tree *** Hogan Cedar Tree – See Tree *** Imminent Hazard Tree – See *** Tree *** Pruning – See Tree Related Definitions, Section 3.0150 *** Regulated Tree – See Tree *** Ornamental Tree – See Tree *** – See Tree Parking Lot Tree *** Perimeter Tree – See Tree *** Severe Crown Reduction – See Tree Related Definitions, Section 3.0150 *** Shade Tree – See Tree *** Significant Tree, Significant Grove – See Tree *** Stand - See Tree Related Definitions, Section
    [Show full text]
  • Site Potential Tree Heights WP
    WHITE PAPER F14-SO-WP-SILV-33 Site Potential Tree Height Estimates for the Pomeroy and Walla Walla Ranger Districts 1 David C. Powell and Betsy Kaiser, Silviculturists Supervisor’s Office; Pendleton, OR Initial Version: NOVEMBER 2006 Most Recent Revision: FEBRUARY 2017 CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2 Analysis assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 2 Table 1: Source of site index curves for tree species of the Umatilla National Forest ............ 3 Data Sources ................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 1 – Location and distribution of CVS plots, and river and stream segments ................ 5 Analysis Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 6 Results ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2 – Site index measurements for CVS site trees within buffered stream areas ............. 8 Table 3 – CVS site trees not used in the site potential tree height analysis ........................... 15 References ...................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sass Forestecomgt 2018.Pdf
    Forest Ecology and Management 419–420 (2018) 31–41 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Forest Ecology and Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foreco Lasting legacies of historical clearcutting, wind, and salvage logging on old- T growth Tsuga canadensis-Pinus strobus forests ⁎ Emma M. Sassa, , Anthony W. D'Amatoa, David R. Fosterb a Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA b Harvard Forest, Harvard University, 324 N Main St, Petersham, MA 01366, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Disturbance events affect forest composition and structure across a range of spatial and temporal scales, and Coarse woody debris subsequent forest development may differ after natural, anthropogenic, or compound disturbances. Following Compound disturbance large, natural disturbances, salvage logging is a common and often controversial management practice in many Forest structure regions of the globe. Yet, while the short-term impacts of salvage logging have been studied in many systems, the Large, infrequent natural disturbance long-term effects remain unclear. We capitalized on over eighty years of data following an old-growth Tsuga Pine-hemlock forests canadensis-Pinus strobus forest in southwestern New Hampshire, USA after the 1938 hurricane, which severely Pit and mound structures damaged forests across much of New England. To our knowledge, this study provides the longest evaluation of salvage logging impacts, and it highlights developmental trajectories for Tsuga canadensis-Pinus strobus forests under a variety of disturbance histories. Specifically, we examined development from an old-growth condition in 1930 through 2016 across three different disturbance histories: (1) clearcut logging prior to the 1938 hurricane with some subsequent damage by the hurricane (“logged”), (2) severe damage from the 1938 hurricane (“hurricane”), and (3) severe damage from the hurricane followed by salvage logging (“salvaged”).
    [Show full text]
  • LAND USE PLANNING NOTES Number 3 April 1998 Updated for Clarity April 2010
    LAND USE PLANNING NOTES Number 3 April 1998 Updated for Clarity April 2010 PURPOSE: These technical notes have been developed by the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) to help landowners and local governments when they must use an alternative to the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey or other established data sources to determine the productivity of forestland. Under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-006-0005, where sources of data referenced in the rule are not available or are shown to be inaccurate, an alternative method for determining productivity that provides equivalent data may be used. These notes describe the methodologies that the Department of Forestry approves, provides information necessary to use the methodologies and gives direction to counties in evaluating forest productivity reports. Background information is also included to answer commonly-asked questions about forest productivity rating systems. These technical notes and the related tables can be found on the Oregon Department of Forestry’s website at: http://egov.oregon.gov/ODF/STATE_FORESTS/FRP/RP_Home.shtml#Land_Use_Planning. Please note the Department of Forestry does not measure forest site productivity for landowners. The Department’s involvement is focused on establishing a list of approved data sources and methodologies other than those cited in the administrative rule. The Department of Forestry will not issue findings on whether these data sources or alternate methodologies have been employed correctly or if the resulting forest site productivity determinations are accurate. The Department of Forestry is not responsible for verifying field measurements. Included on page 9 of this guide is a flowchart, which provides a visual aid for counties to step through the process of determining site productivity.
    [Show full text]
  • DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: Board of Water and Soil Resources
    DATE: March 20, 2018 TO: Board of Water and Soil Resources’ Members, Advisors, and Staff FROM: John Jaschke, Executive Director SUBJECT: BWSR Board Meeting Notice – March 28, 2018 The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) will meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2018, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held in the lower level Board Room, at 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul. Parking is available in the lot directly in front of the building (see hooded parking area). The following information pertains to agenda items: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Water Management and Strategic Planning Committee One Watershed, One Plan Operating Procedures and Plan Content Requirements – The One Watershed, One Plan Operating Procedures and Plan Content Requirements are the two policy documents that describe program requirements according to Minnesota Statutes §103B.801. These documents, which were based on policies for the pilot program (developed in 2014), were updated in 2016 when the program was formally established. Since that time, BWSR’s Water Planning Program Team has identified a need to improve the organization and clarity of these documents, along with minor changes to policy elements. The team recommends re-formatting both documents with the new State of Minnesota logo and style. For both documents, the majority of non-policy information (background, context, and optional items) have been removed. DECISION Other changes include: • Policy o High level summary of changes (see the last page of each document for more detail) • Operating Procedures o Removed automatic exemption for LGUs with less than 5% of their area in the planning boundary o Added requirements for sharing public comments during the plan review and approval process • Plan Content Requirements o Land and Water Resources Inventory changed to Narrative; added requirement for discussion of watershed context o Fairly extensive wording changes in Plan Administration and Implementation Programs sections resulting in minor changes to policy elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Forestry· Wildlife Guidelines to Habitat Management
    11111111~113 0318 r~1~1 mmmr1~1~11~1~r11~11111111 00028. 8449 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) FORESTRY· WILDLIFE GUIDELINES ·, TO HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1985 Revision FOREST - --·----·- ~ ... / -T-R A N S I T I 0 N PRAIRIE ·MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GENERAL CON:rENrS SEr.rION PAGES .EOLICY - WILDLIFE/FORESTRY COORDINATION •••••••••••••••• A-G I - I'NI.'RC.>IXJC'I ION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 - 12 Foreword, Approval, Vegetative Zones and Habitat Evaluation, Vegetative Zone Map II - MANAGEMEN.r IN!'EGRATION BY GENERAL PRACI'ICES •••••••••••• 13 -24 Rationale, Soils Evaluation, Timber Harvest, Reforestation, Tirrber stand Improvement III - MANAGEMENI' IN!'EGRATION BY TIMBER TYPE •••••••••••••••••• 25 - 42 References, Aspen and Paper Birch, Oaks, Northern Hardwoods, Central Hardwoods, Lowland Hardwoods, Conifers, Deforested Areas IV - WILDLIFE PROJECTS FOR HABITAT MANAGEMEN.r IN CONJUN:TION WITH TIMBER MANAGEMENI' •••••••••••••••••• 43 - 54 Wildlife Openings, Roads and Trails, Non­ corrmercial Cover Type Regeneration, Brush Piles, Fruit Trees V - WILDLIFE PROJECTS FOR HABITAT MANAGEMENI' SEPARATE FROM TIMBER MANAGEMENI' ••••••••••••••••••••••• 55 - 60 Browse Regeneration, Agriculture Leases
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Land Management Plan
    2009 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (Updated Annual Harvest Plan -2014) Itasca County Land Department 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN Itasca County Land Department Acknowledgements This Land Management Plan was produced by Itasca County Land Department employees Garrett Ous, Dave Marshall, Michael Gibbons, Adam Olson, Bob Scheierl, Roger Clark, Kory Cease, Steve Aysta, Tim Stocker, Perry Leone, Wayne Perreault, Blair Carlson, Loren Eide, Bob Rother, Andrew Brown, Del Inkman, Darlene Brown and Meg Muller. Thank you to all the citizens for their sincere input and review during the public involvement process. And thank you to Itasca County Commissioners Lori Dowling, Karen Burthwick, Rusty Eichorn, Catherine McLynn and Mark Mandich for their vision and final approval of this document. Foreword This land management plan is designed for providing vision and direction to guide strategic and operational programs of the Land Department. That vision and direction reflects a long standing connection with local economic, educational and social programs. The Land Department is committed to ensuring that economic benefits and environmental integrity are available to both present and future generations. That will be accomplished through actively managing county land and forests for a balance of benefits to the citizens and for providing them with a sustained supply of quality products and services. The Department will apply quality forestland stewardship practices, employ modern technology and information, and partner with other forest organizations to provide citizens with those quality products and services. ________________________________ Garrett Ous September, 2009 Itasca County Land Commissioner 1177 LaPrairie Avenue Grand Rapids, MN 55744-3322 218-327-2855 ● Fax: 218-327-4160 ICLD - LMP Section i., page 1 of 3 Itasca County Land Department Land Management Plan Table of Contents i.
    [Show full text]
  • Kanabec County Water Plan) Appendix B
    INVENTORY of RESOURCES (Kanabec County Water Plan) Appendix B This inventory to the Water Plan contains many general summaries of the natural resources within Kanabec County such as lake statuses, groundwater sources, topography, soils, original vegetation and wildlife habitat. Also included is data on population, ordinances, dams, floodplains and shoreland management. Table of Contents Table of Figures 3 Flood Plain Management 5 Precipitation 6 Dams 8 Groundwater 9 Aquifers 9 Wells 10 Special Geologic Conditions 12 Hazardous Waste 13 Lakes 14 Water Recreation 14 Trophic State Index 14 Ordinances 17 Townships 18 Municipals 19 Shoreland Management & Zoning 20 Population 22 Soils 25 Topography 31 Vegetation - Original 34 Water Resources 36 Protected Waters 36 Public Ditches 42 Water Quality Classification 42 Subwatersheds 44 Wetlands 51 Wildlife Habitat 54 Bibliography 59 TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE NAME PAGE Ditch, Public Map 40 Elevation, Digital Model Map 31 Kanabec County Map – Townships & Cities 3 Population Density & Distribution Table 22 Precipitation Discharge Table 33 Protected Waters List 36 Slope Map 32 Soils Erodibility – K-Factor Map 28 Soils Map – General 23 Species of Concern, Plant & Animals List 56 Vegetation – Pre-Settlement 34 Watersheds, Sub-Watershed Map 45 2 3 INVENTORY - WATER PLAN FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103E delegates the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Kanabec County, Arthur Township, the City of Mora, and the City of Ogilvie administer flood plain ordinances within the County. Flood Plain Management Ordinance No.9 The Flood Plain Management Ordinance No.9 applies to the Snake River from Co. Rd.
    [Show full text]
  • Kettle River, Minnesota
    Kettle River, Minnesota 1. The region surrounding the river: a. The Kettle River is located in east-central Minnesota. The river has its headwaters in Carlton County and flows generally north-south, passing through Pine County and into the St. Croix River. The basin has a long history of faults and glacial activity. The bedrock formations are of pre-Cambrian metamorphic and volcanic rock. This layer is covered by Cambrian sandstone and unconsolidated glacial till. Outcroppings of sandstone and pre-Cambrian lava are frequent. The area is ragged and rolling with dramatic local relief. The area has gone through a dramatic ecological change since the logging days when the white pine was the dominant vegetation. Today the region has a varied pattern of red pine, spruce, white pine, white birch maple, oak, aspen, and basswood. Major transportation lines in the area include Interstate 35 running north-south through the basin and Minnesota 23 running northeast- southwest through the basin. Minnesota 48 crosses the river east-west just east of Hinckley, Minnesota, and Minnesota Route 65 runs north-south about 25 miles west of the river. Land use in the basin is limited to agriculture and timber production. The Mhmeapolis-St. Paul area to the south supports heavy industry and manufacturing. b. Population within a 50-mile radius was estimated at 150, 700 in 1970. The Duluth, Minnesota/Superior, Wisconsin, metropolitan area lies just outside the 50-mile radius and had an additional 132, 800 persons in 1970. c. Numerous state forests are found in this part of Minnesota. They are Chengwatona State Forest, DAR State Forest, General C.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Age Class Change Simulator (FACCS): a Spreadsheet-Based Model for Estimation of Forest Change and Biomass Availability
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy Forest Age Class Change Simulator (FACCS): A spreadsheet-based model for estimation of forest change and biomass availability by David C. Wilson, Grant M. Domke and Alan R. Ek February 2014 Staff Paper Series No. 228 Department of Forest Resources College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota 1 For more information about the Department of Forest Resources and its teaching, research, and outreach programs, contact the department at: Department of Forest Resources University of Minnesota 115 Green Hall 1530 Cleveland Avenue North St. Paul, MN 55108-6112 Ph: 612.624.3400 Fax: 612.625.5212 Email: [email protected] http://www.forestry.umn.edu/publications/staffpapers/index.html and see also http://iic.umn.edu/ The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. 2 Forest Age Class Change Simulator (FACCS): A spreadsheet based model for estimation of forest change and biomass availability by David C. Wilson, Grant M. Domke and Alan R. Ek February 23, 2014 Technical Report Interagency Information Cooperative 3 Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Interagency Information Cooperative, University of Minnesota Department of Forest Resources and the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station under project MIN 42-019. The authors wish to thank Professor Thomas E.
    [Show full text]