DOCSLIB.ORG

Geologic Atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota §¦35 §¦35 §¦35

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Geologic Atlas of Carlton County, Minnesota §¦35 §¦35 §¦35 STATE OF MINNESOTA Prepared and published with the support of the COUNTY ATLAS SERIES DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST FUND and the CLEAN WATER, LAND, AND LEGACY AMENDMENT ATLAS C-19, PART B, PLATE 7 OF 10 DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES Hydrogeology of the Surficial Aquifer R. 19 W. HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE INTRODUCTION R. 18 W. SURFICIAL AQUIFER This atlas is designed for units of government and citizens to use in planning for land use, water supply, St. Loui s and pollution prevention. The data and maps in this atlas show the distribution and physical characteristics of T. 51 N. Brookston the most important aquifers in the study area. They also describe the groundwater flow patterns, aquifer 36 31 35 By 34 relationships, groundwater chemistry, and sensitivity to pollution of the surficial and buried aquifers. The study ¤2 area consists of Carlton County and the portion of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reserva- A A’ James A. Berg tion extending into St. Louis County. 1 6 3 2 The surficial sand aquifer shown on Figure 1 consists of water-saturated, unconsolidated sand and k gravel. This aquifer is a relatively minor direct source of human water supply for domestic and municipal wells. roo B 2011 Mar River Only eight percent of the approximately 3500 wells in the mapped area draw water from this aquifer; the Martin tin Lake e Jo remaining wells rely on water from buried sand and gravel and bedrock sources. The surficial sand aquifer is, however, a vital source of water for most aquatic habitats of rivers, lakes, and wetlands within the extent of this aquifer. Furthermore, this aquifer is the most important recharge source for the underlying buried sand and 92°30' gravel and bedrock aquifers. LOCATION DIAGRAM R. 17 W. ARROWHEAD STONEY BROOK 18 DATA SOURCES T. 50 N. Well data from the database of well logs (County Well Index [CWI]) maintained by the Minnesota Twin SCALE 1:100 000 FOND DU LAC BAND BREVATOR Geological Survey (MGS) and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) provided much of the information COMPILATION SCALE 1:100 000 Lakes used to produce the maps, cross sections, and tables of this atlas. Electrical resistivity surveys were conducted at nine locations (shown as short magenta lines, Figure 1) to determine the thickness of surficial sand and gravel B Lost B’ 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES Lake deposits. The electrical resistivity surveys were conducted to fill in data gaps where well records or other drill Simian hole data were rare or absent. The sand and gravel was detected by its resistivity difference from other material. 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 KILOMETERS Brook Lake Creek The base of the surficial sand and gravel deposit is interpreted as an abrupt change from the higher electrical 36 31OF LAKE SUPERIOR resistivity values of the sand and gravel to the lower resistivity values of the clay and silt of the underlying 34 36 92°45' 31 Y 93°00' fine-grained glacial materials. T ST. LOUIS COUNTY ST. LOUIS COUNTY N R. 21 W. R. 20 W. R. 16 W. U Hardwood O Lake CHARACTERISTICS OF SAND AND GRAVEL AQUIFERS C Elm 1 6 N 1 S I Creek 6 1 t 6 6 H 6 . 1 K a 1 s Simian 6 L 1 T t y o I Depositional History of the Surficial Sand u A i CHIPPEWA RESERVATION s 46°45' 46°45' Dead Fish )33 Lake Creek Figure 1 shows the distribution and thickness of surficial sand deposits in the study area. The geologic history of surficial sand deposition is derived from descriptions on Plates 3 and 4 of Part A. Most of the surficial Little Cedar R Lake iv e sand deposits shown in Figure 1 are from outwash deposits of several phases of advance and retreat of the Supe- r T amarack Brook River rior ice lobe, which advanced into the area from the present-day area of Lake Superior. The oldest of these 73 Cloquet River ) deposits are associated with the St. Croix phase and occur in the northern and western portions of the Fond du Miller y Cross y Lake one Lac Reservation with other scattered occurrences in the northwestern portion of the county. A subsequent ice Lake RED CLOVER PROGRESS St CLOQUET Midwa T. 49 N. PERCH LAKE aw THOMSON lobe advance and retreat, called the Split Rock phase, deposited much of the surficial sand and gravel in the T. 49 N. Squ C First C’ southeastern portion of the Fond du Lac Reservation and extending two to three miles south of the southern Lake BESEMAN Third Fond du Lac Reservation boundary. The complex southwest-northeast trending series of sand and gravel depos- Lake its that underlie and surround the Moose Horn River in the south-central portion of the county and Otter Creek ¤61 in the northeast portion were deposited in outwash diversion channels as the Superior ice lobe advanced and Rice Big Esko Portage Creek 35 Lake Perch ¦§ then retreated during the Nickerson Phase. Thick sand and gravel deposits southeast of these diversion channels Otter were also deposited during this phase. During the latest stages of this retreat, glacial Lake Superior formed with Y a shoreline much farther to the southwest than the present day Lake Superior. The thinner sand deposits in the Lake T 31 N U southeastern portion of Carlton County that roughly surround the Nemadji River drainage were near-shore and 31 31 36 36 31 36 36 36 31 k O Woodbury Lake e e 31 9000 C deltaic deposits of glacial Lake Superior. 36 D Lake Jaskari r D’ C S Lake I U Wild Little O L Aquifer Specific Capacity and Hydraulic Conductivity )210 Rice Gill r . amarack e 6 6 T Cromwell 1 Sawyer Lake t River T 1 t 1 n 6 r Th mso R o S 1 6 6 6 O Creek Wright i Island 1 e v v Reservoir e 1 r Lake Ri Estimating the yield of groundwater from an aquifer requires information about an aquifer’s extent and 210 ) Torchlight C saturated thickness, hydraulic conductivity (ability to transmit water), and other information about the ground- reek Tamarack le Lake Cole tt 210 water system, such as the relationship to recharge sources and other aquifers. The map of the surficial sand e Carlton ) Y Lake K Lake r 7 T Little te River N t N I aquifer on this plate (Figure 1) and Figures 3 through 11 on Plate 5 of Part A provide aquifer extent and thick- Creek O St. Louis U S O ness. Data to estimate aquifer specific capacity and hydraulic conductivity are obtained by pumping water from N C r e t O E t S E’ a well at a constant rate for a certain period of time. The simplest test of this type, the specific capacity test, is O A Eagle Creek Creek 23 C Silver ) L S M I Lake Merwin G defined as well discharge, measured in gallons per minute, divided by feet of water-level drawdown (gpm/ft) in o T. 48 N. Mattlia Lake o U s W Walli Lake e Little Otter O the pumped well. Generally the well is pumped for a limited amount of time, such as an hour. High well specific River r D Lake ve Bob Horn Ri Lake Jay Cooke T. 48 N. capacity values indicate that large amounts of groundwater can be withdrawn with limited water-level draw- K State Park ettle down in the well. In addition, a high well specific capacity value usually indicates the aquifer has a high hydrau- W Kettle Chub e LAKEVIEW EAGLE Lake CORONA TWIN LAKES SILVER BROOK s lic conductivity value. t ATKINSON Lake Park Limited specific capacity data were available for the mapped area (Table 1). The data in Table 1 were Wrenshall Lake Venoah grouped by general aquifer type including the surficial sand aquifer that is shown on this plate, buried sand and Br Lake an ch gravel aquifers (Plate 9), and the Fond du Lac aquifer. Data from other bedrock aquifers were not available. Wells in the surficial sand and buried sand and gravel aquifers have much higher specific capacities than wells Lac in the Fond du Lac aquifer; their higher specific capacities indicate that these aquifers, where they are present P Hay 31 a La Belle rk Lake 31 31 31 36 31 Heikkila 36 36 36 in the mapped area, might be better water sources. 36 31 L a 31 ke 36 3000 Table 2 is a summary of available aquifer test data in the mapped area. This type of test requires pump- F F’ ing the well for a longer period of time than the specific capacity tests. These data are from municipal and C re Creek e public water supply wells in Barnum, Kettle River, Moose Lake, Moose Lake correctional facility, Carlton, and k ¤61 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 1 6 Clear 6 Cloquet. These data show that the hydraulic conductivity values of the surficial sand and buried sand and gravel Bear Creek Lake aquifers are roughly comparable, with the surficial sand aquifer having somewhat higher values. Flodin 73 K iver Lake ) in R Mahtowa g Mud Water Table Elevation and Depth W Hizer e B s Lake Ellstrom t Lake la c K khoo The mapped area is within four major surface watersheds (Figure 2): Mississippi River (Grand Rapids), ettle Fo D Creek rk 35 e St.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land and Water Resource Management Plan for Douglas County, WI
    Land and Water Resource Management Plan For Douglas County, WI Douglas County Land Conservation Committee and Land and Water Conservation Department Review Draft September 2009 For Implementation 2010 - 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This plan was prepared under the authority of Chapter 92, Wisconsin Statutes and under the direction of the Douglas County Land Conservation Committee, Douglas County Board and the Land and Water Conservation Department Douglas County Land Conservation Committee Chair Kathryn McKenzie Vice Chair Sue Hendrickson Member Mary Lou Bergman Member Robert Browne Member Mark Liebaert Citizen Member Larry Luostari Farm Service Agency Representative Amy Colby Douglas County Board Chair Douglas Finn Vice-Chair Keith Allen County Clerk Susan Sandvick County Administrator Steve Koszarek Douglas County Land and Water Conservation Department Douglas County Conservationist Christine Ostern Douglas County Engineering Technician/ Conservation Planner Cameron Bertsch Douglas County Aquatic Invasive Species Coordinator Amy Eliot Douglas County Student Intern Don Lisdahl Wildlife Damage Specialist David Schultz Lake Superior Grazing Specialist Robert Mika Harmony Environmental, Inc. Work group facilitation, plan writing, plan editing. i Other Cooperators Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service USDA Farm Service Agency Douglas County Planning & Zoning Department Douglas County Land Information Department University of Wisconsin
    [Show full text]
  • Pine County Local Water Management Plan 2010 – 2020
    Pine County Local Water Management Plan 2010 – 2020 Prepared by with the direction and assistance of the Pine County Local Water Management Task Force, and the Water Plan Working Group PINE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................... 3 A. DESCRIPTION OF PRIORITY CONCERNS....................................... 6 B. CONSISTENCY OF PLAN WITH OTHER PERTINENT LOCAL, STATE & REGIONAL PLANS........................................................................ 9 C. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS OF OTHER PLANS AND OFFICIAL PLANS AND OFFICIAL CONTROLS.................. 9 III. ASSESSMENT OF PRIORITY CONCERNS ......................................... 10 A. WATER QUALITY................................................................................ 10 1. IMPROVING IMPAIRED WATERS 2. MAINTAINING UNIMPAIRED WATERS B. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION, UTILIZATION, AND EDUCATION .................................................... 18 IV. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS ................................................ 19 A. PRIORITY CONCERN: WATER QUALITY ...................................... 19 1. IMPROVING IMPAIRED WATERS 2. MAINTAINING UNIMPAIRED WATERS B. PRIORITY CONCERN: NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION, UTILIZATION, AND EDUCATION ................... 21 V. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ......................................................... 23 A. PRIORITY CONCERNS....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Black River Targeted Watershed Assessment: a Water Quality Report to Protect Wisconsin Watersheds, 2020]
    December 19, 2019 [Black River Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Protect Wisconsin Watersheds, 2020] A Water Quality Black River Targeted Watershed Monitoring Report Assessment: A Water Quality Report to created by the Bureau of Water Quality in support Protect Wisconsin Watersheds, 2020 of the Clean Water Act. Black and Upper Nemadji River Watershed LS02 HUC 12 - 040103010301 HUC 12 - 040103010302 HUC 12 - 040103010303 Black River at Manitou Valley Site Photo by Craig Roesler, North District Water Quality Biologist Department of Natural Resources To learn more about this area, see Wisconsin Targeted Watershed Assessments (TWA) Online! Find more about these waters, watersheds and projects on Explore Wisconsin’s Waters Online ! EGAD # 3200-2019-02 Water Quality Bureau Wisconsin DNR P a g e 1 | 45 December 19, 2019 [Black River Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Protect Wisconsin Watersheds, 2020] Contents Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Figures .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Targeted Watershed Assessment Study Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4 About the Watershed .................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nemadji River Watershed WRAPS
    Nemadji River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report wq-ws4-30a June 2017 Project Contributors Nemadji Watershed Stakeholders and Citizen Representatives A special thanks to James Scheetz and Christine Carlson for securing boats, volunteers and organizing lake sediment core field days. Board of Water and Soil Resources Carlton County Highway Department Carlton County Land Commissioner Carlton County Soil and Water Conservation District Carlton County Zoning and Environmental Services Chub Lake Association Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Minnesota Department of Agriculture Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency St Croix River Watershed Research Station Tetra Tech U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service i Table of Contents Project Contributors ................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... ii Key Terms ............................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ iv What is the WRAPS Report? .................................................................................................... 1 1. Watershed Background & Description .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed and Stream Channel Relationships in Unstable Clay
    LAND USE IMPACTS ON FLUVIAL PROCESSES IN THE NEMADJI RIVER WATERSHED MARK S. RIEDEL1, ELON S. VERRY2, AND KENNETH N. BROOKS3 1Correspondent: Fax: (828) 369.6768, email: [email protected] Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, 3160 Coweeta Lab Road, Otto, NC, 28734 2North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1831 Hwy 169 E, Grand Rapids, MN, 55744 3Department of Forest Resources, 115 Green Hall, 1530 Cleveland Ave N, St. Paul, MN, 55108 Citation: Riedel, Mark S., Elon.S. Verry and Kenneth N. Brooks. 2002. Land use impacts on fluvial processes in the Nemadji River watershed. Hydrological Science and Technology, 18 (1-4): 197-205. ABSTRACT The Nemadji River drains 1100 km2 of eastern Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin. Channel incision and mass wasting are natural responses to glacial rebound in this area and account for more than 95% of the annual sediment load. However, the clay and sand delivered by the Nemadji to Lake Superior has increased over the past 150 years. We researched land use history across the upper 520 km2 of the Nemadji River Watershed, surveyed channel characteristics, identified relic channels and employed dendrochronology to date floodplains and terraces. Results indicate that two episodes of channel incision began propagating through the Nemadji River and its tributaries. One associated with timber harvesting in the mid 1800’s and another associated a large fire in 1894. Streams impacted by incision had increased slope, reduced sinuosity, increased entrenchment, and reduced width depth ratios. Subsequent erosion from steep banks, mass wasting, and upstream incision provides sediment and space needed for the reconstruction of stable channels. The new channels are similar to the relic channels and un- impacted streams.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Louis and Lower Nemadji River Watershed
    Wisconsin St. Louis and Lower Nemadji Watersheds River Watershed 2010 Water Quality Management Plan Update Lake Superior Basin, Wisconsin August, 2010 The t.S Louis River, the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior, drains 3,634 square miles, entering the southwestern corner of the lake between Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. The river flows 179 miles through three distinct areas: coarse soils, glacial till and outwash deposits at its headwaters; a deep, narrow gorge at Jay Cooke State Park in Minnesota; and red clay deposits in its lower reaches. As the St. Louis River approaches Duluth and Superior, the river takes on the characteristics of a 12,000 Contents acre freshwater estuary. The upper estuary has some Watershed Details 1 wilderness-like areas, while the lower estuary is character- Population and Land Use . 1 ized by urban development, an industrial harbor, and Ecological Landscapes . 3 a major port. The lower estuary includes St. Louis Bay, Other Details . 3 Map 1: St Louis River and Lower Nemadji Superior Bay, Allouez Bay, Kimball’s Bay, Pokegama Bay, River Watershed Invasive Species . 3 Howard’s Bay, and the lower Nemadji River. Historical Note . 4 Watershed Details Watershed Condition 4 Priority Issues . 4 Water Quality Goals . 4 Population and Land Use Overall Condition . 4 The watershed is dominated by Point and Nonpoint Sources . 5 forests (65%), agriculture (9%), Fish Consumption Advice . 5 followed closely by open water River and Stream Condition . 5 and open space (8%) (Figure 1). Lakes and Embayments . 16 Wetlands . 17 In 1987, the International Joint Waters of Note: . .22 Commission, an advisory com- mission on U.S-Canadian border Watershed Actions 23 Figure 1: Land Use in the St Louis and Lower Nemadji River Partnership Activities .
    [Show full text]
  • Posted Boundaries and Fish Sanctuaries on Lake Superior Tributaries
    Division of Fish and Wildlife Section of Fisheries May 2020 Posted Boundaries and Fish Sanctuaries on Lake Superior Tributaries The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-Section of Fisheries has established regulations and fish sanctuaries on Lake Superior tributaries to protect migratory fish species from Lake Superior, particularly native coaster Brook Trout, and also to extend fishing seasons for other species. Fish sanctuaries have permanent or seasonal closures (Minnesota administrative rule 6264.0500) to protect fish in vulnerable locations during spawning seasons and to restrict fishing near dams, fish traps and egg collection stations. Fish sanctuaries are marked by signs hung by cables, attached to natural features or on posts. Posted boundaries for areas covered by Lake Superior and below-boundary tributary regulations are marked by yellow signs posted near the stream at the upstream end of the boundary. Posted boundaries specify the location on a stream where fishing regulations change and generally correspond to areas accessible to fish migrating upstream from Lake Superior. When a stream has no impassible barrier, such as a waterfall, the posted boundary is marked at a road crossing or other landmark. Streams with a posted boundary at the stream mouth or Minnesota/Wisconsin state line will not have a physical sign posted. Regulations for below posted boundary areas are: Most people fishing Lake Superior or its tributaries will need a trout/salmon stamp validation in addition to a Minnesota angling license (see MNDNR fishing regulations). Many special possession limits and size restrictions apply for trout and salmon caught below the posted boundaries (see MNDNR fishing regulations).
    [Show full text]
  • Nemadji River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    Nemadji River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report November 2014 Authors MPCA Nemadji River Watershed Report Team: The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs Nathan Mielke, Benjamin Lundeen, Scott by using the Internet to distribute reports and Niemela, Jesse Anderson, Dave Christopherson, information to wider audience. Visit our David Duffey, Sophia Vaughan, Bruce Monson, website for more information. Shawn Nelson, Kris Parson, Andrew Streitz, MPCA reports are printed on 100 percent post- Stacia Grayson, Mike Bourdaghs, Karen Evens, consumer recycled content paper Jeff Jasperson, Tom Schaub manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Contributors/acknowledgements Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture AW Research Laboratories Carlton County Soil and Water Conservation District Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Carlton County Water Management Program Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: wq-ws3-04010301b List of acronyms AUID Assessment Unit Identification MINLEAP Minnesota Lake Eutrophication Determination Analysis Procedure CCSI Channel Condition and Stability Index MLRA Major Land Resource Area CD
    [Show full text]
  • Red Clay Proj Rep. Sum I.Pdf
    _.,., n ....... , 7 ,...,,..., Agency Great Lakes National Program Office &EPA Final Report on the Red Clay Project -Summary Report Preface The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) of the U.S. EPA was established in Region V, Chicago, to provide specific focus on the water quality concerns of the Great Lakes. The Section 108(a) Demonstration Grant Program of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500) is specific to the Great Lakes drainage basin and thus is administered by the Great Lakes National Program Office. Several sediment erosion-<:ontrol projects within the Great Lakes drainage basin have been funded as a result of Section 108(a). This report describes one such project supported by this office to carry out our responsibility to improve water quality in the Great Lakes. We hope the information and data contained herein will help planners and managers of pollution control agencies to make better decisions in carrying forward their pollution control responsibilities. Dr. Edith J. Tebo Director Great Lakes National Program Office January 1979 IMPACT OF NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL ON WESTERN LAKE SUPERIOR "Western Lake Superior Basin Erosion-Sediment Control Project" RED CLAY PROJECT FINAL REPORT: SUMMARY A Cooperative Interstate Effort Between the Ashland, Bayfield, Carlton, Douglas and Iron County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Prepared by: Stephen C.
    [Show full text]
  • Douglas County Outdoor Recreation Plan
    OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN APPENDIX F-II DOUGLAS COUNTY OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN DOUGLAS COUNTY WISCONSIN JULY 2003 – JUNE 2008 OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN APPENDIX F-II DOUGLAS COUNTY OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN DOUGLAS COUNTY, WISCONSIN July 2003 – June 2008 Forest, Parks & Recreation Committee Robert Browne, Chair Carl Zukowski, Vice Chair Carol Johnson Keith Allen James J. O’Brien Mark Liebaert James “Pat” Cosgrove Douglas County Forestry Department Richard Moore, Administrator Mark Schroeder, Resource and Recreation Manager Prepared by: OUTDOOR RECREATION PLAN APPENDIX F-II TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................................2 The Region.....................................................................................................................................2 Population ......................................................................................................................................2 Regional Recreation Areas ............................................................................................................4 History............................................................................................................................................7 Geography......................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan
    COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010-2020, Amended 2014 Carlton County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan 2010-2020 Carlton County Local Water Management Plan Contributors Local Water Management Task Force Diane Felde-Finke Township Representative Ann Gustafson City Representative Kari Jacobson Hedin Fond du Lac Representative Barb Dahl Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor Merrill Loy Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor Dave Beal Lake Association Representative Gary Peterson County Commissioner Water Plan Technical Committee Heather Cunningham Zoning Administrator Greg Bernu Land Commissioner Ryan Hughes Board of Water and Soil Resources Brad Matlack Soil and Water Conservation District Manager Kelly Smith Soil and Water Conservation Technician Neva Widner Soil and Water Conservation Water Resources Patricia Fowler Department of Natural Resources – Waters Division Karen Evens Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Carlton County Zoning & Environmental Services is the local government unit responsible for the Local Water Management Plan Program. The Water Plan coordinator is: Karola Dalen Resource and Recycling Coordinator P.O. Box 220 301 Walnut Avenue, Room 101 Carlton, Minnesota 55718 Phone number (218) 384-9178 or 1-800-862-3760 (218 only) The Plan is available on the Carlton County website www.co.carlton.mn.us ~ 1 ~ Carlton County Comprehensive Local Water Management Plan 2010-2020 ABBREVIATIONS ACOE Army Corps of Engineers AIS Aquatic Invasive Species BMP Best Management Practices BWSR Board of
    [Show full text]
  • Glacial Lake Superior Plains S U B S E C T I O N P R O F I L E
    for the Wild & Rare An Action Plan for Minnesota Wildlife Glacial Lake Superior Plains S u b s e c t i o n P r o f i l e Minnesota’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Glacial Lake Superior Plain Glacial Lake Superior Plain SGCN ELEMENT OCCURRENCES BY TOWNSHIP SUBSECTION OVERVIEW Quick facts The Glacial Lake Superior Plain Subsection occupies a small area Acres: 109,673 (0.2% of state) This map depicts the number of validated records of just south Duluth, Minnesota, but it is part of a larger unit in Ownership species in greatest conservation need since 1990 per Wisconsin. Topography is level to gently rolling except along rivers township and public land/conservancy land. It suggests and streams where the Nemadji River and its tributaries have worn Public Private Tribal 29.1% 70.9% 0.0% relationships between known SGCN occurrences and gorges up to 150 feet deep. There are no natural lakes found here. conservation management lands. It also displays areas Before settlement by people of European descent, the forest was Population density (people/sq. mi.) that have not been surveyed for rare animals by MCBS. mostly white spruce, white pine, and aspen-birch. Following logging, Current Change today’s forest is largely quaking aspen. (2000-2010) 42.4 +2.7 Forestry is the most predominant land use, and significant portions of this area remain undeveloped. Natural erosion of the predominantly Current Land Use/Land Cover red clay soils by rivers, which deposit extensive clay sediments into Lake Superior, is a significant problem. Developed 0% Water Row crop 1% 11% SPECIES IN GREATEST CONSERVATION Pasture NEED 11% 55 Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are known or Wetland/ Forest Open predicted to occur within the Glacial Lake Superior Plain.
    [Show full text]