Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

September 2017 Prepared for MFRC / US Forest Service

Information about the Minnesota Forest Resources Council and the Landscape Program can be found at www.frc.state.mn.us.

Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from Minnesota Forest Resources Council programs is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, and marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to the Minnesota Forest Resources Council, 2003 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108; or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.

This information is available in an alternative format upon request.

Document prepared by: Pine River Landscape Stewardship Team; MFRC and DNR staff; written by Mitch Brinks.

Cover photos: Mitch Brinks, Dan Steward Aerial photo (header): Lake Ossawinnamakee, Source: BWSR, DNR Other photos, maps, & graphics: Unless otherwise noted, all maps and graphics were made by Mitch Brinks or Red House Media, under contract with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry.

Please cite this document as: Minnesota Forest Resource Council. Pine River Landscape Stewardship Plan. Minnesota Forest Resource Council, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2017.

MFRC 1-1 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Contents Executive Summary ...... 1-3 Part 1. Purpose and Context: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Today? ...... 1-4 Section 1. Introduction: Pine River Watershed…a Complex Landscape! ...... 1-5 A. Physical Landscape: Geomorphic Shaping Forces ...... 1-6 B. Forest Resources ...... 1-8 C. Water Resources ...... 1-13 D. Ownership Patterns, Land Supply & Demand, and Development / Agricultural Risk ...... 1-19 Section 2. Watershed Protection Approach ...... 2-25 A. Development of a “Protection” Methodology ...... 2-25 B. Pine River Watershed Protection Status ...... 2-26 C. Watershed Protection Goal for Lake-Based Systems ...... 2-27 D. Watershed Protection Goal for Stream-Based Systems ...... 2-29 E. Potential to Protect ...... 2-30 F. Cost to Achieve Watershed Protection Goal ...... 2-31 Section 3. Sub-Watershed Context ...... 3-1 Forest Characteristics: ...... 3-2 Lake Characteristics: ...... 3-2 Stream Characteristics: ...... 3-3 A. Pine River Sub-watershed: Headwaters ...... 3-4 B. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Pine River South Fork ...... 3-9 C. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Whitefish Chain of Lakes ...... 3-14 D. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Lower Pine River ...... 3-19 E. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Little Pine River ...... 3-24 F. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Daggett Brook ...... 3-29

Appendices (separate document)

A Individual Minor Watershed “Potential to Protect” Map B Individual Minor Watershed “RAQ Scoring Map”

MFRC 1-2 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Executive Summary Pine River Landscape Stewardship Plan

Forests play a critical role in keeping water clean by absorbing and filtering water, preventing erosion through soil stabilization, and allowing for groundwater recharge. Clean water is vital to the ecological, economic and social health of the resource-rich North Central Minnesota region. The National Association of State Forests Water recognized the connection of healthy forests to clean water by its policy statement: "Water, in all its uses and permutations, is by far the most valuable commodity that comes from the forest land that we manage, assist others to manage, and/or regulate." Forests also provide important and sustainable social, recreational, and economic benefits for landowners and the public at large.

Because north-central Minnesota still maintains abundant forest and water resources, protecting these resources is critical to not only maintaining the high quality ecological benefits, but also improving the social/recreational and economic value of these areas. A well-designed "protection" methodology is needed that that not only prioritizes watersheds based on the amount of protected lands and locally adopted policy, but also targets implementation (using forest protection tools) based on a parcel based system that scores parcels not only by the amount of acreage, but also their riparian, adjacency (to other protected lands), and quality characteristics. Just as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, employing a "protection" approach is much more efficient and cost-effective than a "restoration" approach.

This plan builds on the efforts of previous plans like the North-central Landscape Plan and the Camp Ripley Landscape Stewardship Plan to solidify the connection between forest land cover and water quality in north-central Minnesota in order to continue promoting collaborative ways to bring partners and stakeholders together strategically to increase implementation of watershed protection strategies and promote private forest management. This Plan can be used to inform forest stewardship planning on non-industrial private forest lands (NIPF); water resource management for quality and quantity; fish and wildlife habitat management; enhancement of recreational opportunities on private and public lands; community land use planning; collaborative project funding and delivery; and to influence state and local policy makers.

The Pine River Landscape Stewardship Plan employs the minor watershed methodology to drill down from the major watershed (HUC8: about 780 sq. miles) to the six sub-watersheds contained within (HUC scale: 130 scale miles), then down to the 69 minor watersheds (HUC 14: about 11 sq. miles) contained within all of the sub-watersheds. The drill-down methodology uses local and state prioritization effors to identify priority minor watersheds and then targets the large-tract (>20 acre) forested landowners within those minor watersheds for in order to implement forest management and forest protection projects in strategic areas of the watershed. The plan starts with establishing the foundation of how geomorphic processes at the end of the last ice age shaped the underlying soils and resulting original forested landscape of the Pine River watershed. The anthropogenic effects on the amount and type of forest cover over the last several hundred years, as well as the current ownership pattern on the landscape are also important topics that are addressed in Part 1. Parts 2 and 3 focus on the tools for private forest management and where to start. These major sections seek to address strategic planning questions:

• Part 1: Purpose & Context—Where Have We Been and Where Are We Today? • Part 2: Strategic Policy Framework—Where Do We Want to Go? • Part 3: Operationalizing the Plan—How Will We Get There?

MFRC 1-3 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Part 1. Purpose and Context: Where Have We Been and Where Are We Today?

MFRC 1-4 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Section 1. Introduction: Pine River Watershed…a Complex Landscape!

“The present topography of Minnesota reflects a unique glacial history that probably represents the most complex occurrence of glaciation in the entire world,” (DNR Bulletin #25 – An Inventory of Minnesota Lakes, 1968). Understanding the glacial context and resulting soils, forest communities, and water features is the first part to understanding the Pine River Watershed. These geophysical features have led to an equally complex ownership pattern across the landscape as well as additional risks. The intermixing of forests and high- quality lakes is especially unique among other forested landscapes (such as Michigan’s Upper Peninsula), and has led to increasing subdivision of the forest into smaller tracts less suitable for forest management. In addition, the proximity of the watershed to the agricultural parts of the state has also resulted in increased pressure to convert the forests to fields. These threats are highest in sub-watersheds there exists large tracts of private land. This section provides the overall watershed context of these forest and water resources and associated risks whereas the following sections will drill down further into the particulars of each sub- watershed.

From the headwaters of the Pine River at Pine Mountain lake, the Pine River dropped approximately 100 feet in elevation until it reaches the Whitefish Chain of Lakes. From the Whitefish Chain, the Pine River flows out through the Army Corps of Engineers Dam in Crosslake and then drops approximately another 50 feet until its confluence with the Mississippi River.

There are six sub-watersheds (HUC 10 scale) within the Pine River Watershed. Three of these (South Fork of the Pine, Daggett Brook, and the Little Pine River) represent tributaries to the Pine River. The differences and similarities in these sub-watersheds are discussed in section ?? of this part of the plan. Pine River elevation profile from its headwaters to its confluence with the Mississippi River.

MFRC 1-5 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

A. Physical Landscape: Geomorphic Shaping Forces

Glacial Origins:

During the last glaciation, much of the Pine River Watershed was covered by ice of the Rainy lobe (which included the Wadena and Brainerd lobes), which moved into the area from the northeast. Following the retreat of the Rainy lobe, the Superior lobe moved into the southeast part of the watershed from the east. Lastly, ice originating to the northwest formed the St. Louis sub-lobe, which also flowed into the watershed from the east. The map to the right shows the statewide glacial context that the Pine River watershed is part of.

Pine River Watershed

The graphics below (from left to right) show a more zoomed-in sequence of glacial advance/retreat that caused the Pine River landscape (outline in black). The color scheme is the same as the map to the right. The extent of Des Moines-lobe deposits is shown in green. The surface extent of the Wadena- and Rainy-lobe deposits are shown in brown, Brainerd-lobe deposits in tan, and Superior- lobe deposits in pink. Moraines are indicated by the labeled dotted or dashed lines. Source: DNR and Minnesota Geologic Survey.

MFRC 1-6 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Current Surface Geomorphology:

The study of geomorphology looks at today’s surface and sub-surface features and seeks to understand the formation of these landscapes. Understanding the geomorphology of a watershed is key to understanding the types of soils and vegetation on the landscape. Because this context is so important, this plan features maps of the geomorphology/major soil type, soils drainage class, and the resulting original (native) vegetation prior to European settlement of this landscape. These native plant communities in Minnesota are generally classified by the vegetation, hydrology, land forms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes.

Nearly all of the natural surface landscape features present today were from the glaciers. These soil deposits can be divided into two major groups: unsorted materials with a mixture of grain sizes like gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited directly by ice (till), and sediment that has been sorted (separated by grain size) by water (outwash). Outwash tends to be sandier than till, which is often made up of more silt and clay. As shown in the map above, much of the central part of the landscape is outwash / lacustrine with the hilly St. Croix moraine on the left making up the western boundary of the watershed and moraine features from the tip of Superior lobe form the boundary on the east. Till plains are also found in the northern part of the watershed.

In general, the forest communities that result from these soil types are pines (on outwash plains) and hardwoods (on the till plains and moraines). The lacustrine areas of the watershed are also very sandy and typically support pines or a mix of pine and hardwoods. Forests/Land Cover by Geomorphic Type Outwash Moraine Till Till Plain Ice Contact Peat Lacustrine (Lake plain)

Pre-European Settlement Pines Pines/Hardwoods Pines/Hardwoods Pines Peat Pines/Hardwoods Current Pines/Hardwoods Hardwoods Agriculture/Hardwoods Hardwoods Peat Pines/Hardwoods

MFRC 1-7 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

As shown to the right, the 500+ lakes in the watershed are Lakes by Geomorphic Type primarily located in the outwash plain, with numerous Outwash Moraine Till Till Plain Ice Contact Peat Lacustrine (Lake plain) smaller lakes located in the moraine till as well. 247 187 90 53 51 48 Note: Some lakes are bordered by more than one type B. Forest Resources

Forests supply people with products we need to survive and others we desire to be more comfortable. Forests provide us with food, paper, lumber, firewood, recreation, clean water, sporting goods, wildlife habitat, scenic beauty, and much more. Without each of these, our life style would change greatly. Forests act as windbreaks from winter storms and noise buffers from traffic. They filter our water supply and protect our soil from erosion while improving air quality and providing habitat for wildlife. A forest is a renewable source of wood that builds our homes and pulp that makes our paper. It is all of these at once and still retains its beauty when managed properly (Source: Wisconsin DNR).

Because forests provide important and sustainable social, recreational, and economic benefits for landowners and the public at large, keeping forests on the landscape is one of the best ways to keep north-central Minnesota healthy. The Pine River watershed, in particular, has the second highest percentage of forest lands on the landscape when comparing land cover types across the major watersheds in the Upper Mississippi Basin. The table below shows several forest-related characteristics in comparison to these other adjacent major watersheds in the Upper Mississippi Headwaters basin. The “FD” (Fire-dependent) and “MH” (Mesic hardwood) native plant communities are the two most common in north-central MN. “FFF” stands for Forests for the Future, which was a DNR effort to prioritize future forest protection efforts based on recreational, economic, and ecological values. The composite score is a result of inputs from these three sets of values. High scores are better (the top score in the state is 174). Please refer to Section ??? for more on this assessment. While the Pine River watershed has abundant public lands (>40%), it still ranks 4th out of 6th in that category among other watersheds.

FFF % % % FD % MH % Major Watershed Watershed Type ECS Subsection (Dominant Classes) Composite Forests Wetland System System Public Mean Mississippi River - Grand Rapids Bi-lateral Flow-Thru Tamarack Lowlands, St. Louis Moraines 49.6% 32.5% 19.6% 31.0% 95.0 44.9% Pine River Major Trib-West Pine Moraines & Outwash Plains 45.0% 25.0% 31.7% 33.0% 94.9 41.0% Leech Lake River Major Trib-West Chippewa Plains, Pine Moraines & Outwash Plains 43.5% 25.4% 21.3% 33.7% 99.1 53.2% Mississippi River - Headwaters Headwaters Chippewa Plains 39.1% 28.8% 28.8% 28.9% 93.9 49.5% Mississippi River - Brainerd Bi-lateral Flow-Thru Hardwood Hills, Mille Lacs Uplands 36.1% 24.2% 17.3% 26.2% 78.8 18.6% Crow Wing River Major Trib-West Pine Moraines & Outwash Plains 31.2% 22.3% 52.1% 14.4% 76.6 18.9%

Notes on above table: % Forests and % Wetland is from University of MN analysis that uses 2013-2014 data and 15-meter grid (vs. 30-meter grid used in National Land Cover Dataset, most recent version: 2011). % FD (Fire-dependent) & % MH (Mesic-hardwood) are from MFRC Potential Native Plant Communities Study (Geospatial Modeling of Native Plant Communities of Minnesota’s Laurentian Mixed Forest, 2013). FFF (Forests for the Future) score is the mean across the entire major watershed (scores range from 11 - 173.75). Public lands are based on parcel data from Cass and Crow Wing Counties.

MFRC 1-8 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Current vs. Past Land Cover:

The map to the right shows the land cover / forest types that existed at the time of European settlement based on the original land survey data assembled into map form by Francis Marschner. As shown in the map to the bottom right, what was once a pine-dominated landscape is now largely dominated by hardwood forest species, such as birch, oak, and aspen. The south fork of the Pine River Watershed (SW part of the major watershed) was converted to agricultural land uses from the original forests land cover. As the table below shows, nearly 200,000 acres of pine (or pine/hardwood mixed) forest was lost or converted to a different forest type.

Presettlement Current % Land Cover Type % % Acreage Acreage Change Pines 202670 40% 28951 6% -86% Mixed Pine & Hardwoods 26038 5% 5882 1% -77% Hardwoods 134875 27% 190495 38% 41% Lowland Forests 71795 14% 112639 22% 57% Open Water 47409 9% 62776 13% 32% Developed 0 0% 24272 5% >1000% Other (prairie, wetlands) 18090 4% 75862 15% 319%

The current land cover map to the right was developed from the University of Minnesota developed “Minnesota Land Cover Classification and Impervious Surface Area by Landsat and Lidar: 2013 update - Version 2” which is a 15-meter raster dataset of a land cover and impervious surface classification.. The classification was created using a combination of multitemporal Landsat 8 data and LiDAR data with Object-based image analysis. It also utilizes the latest updates to the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) dataset.

More detailed maps of the land/forest cover can be found in the sub- watershed section of this plan.

MFRC 1-9 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Potential Native Plant Community Mapping:

According to the DNR, a native plant community is a group of native plants that interact with each other and with their environment in ways not greatly altered by modern human activity or by introduced organisms. These groups of native plant species form recognizable units, such as oak savannas, pine forests, or marshes, that tend to repeat over space and time. Native plant communities are classified and described by considering vegetation, hydrology, landforms, soils, and natural disturbance regimes (such as wildfires, severe droughts, windstorms, and floods).

DNR/MFRC’s potential native plant community modeling shows that by far the largest two native plant community types that exist in the Pine and surrounding watersheds are the fire-dependent (FD) and mesic- hardwood (MH) forest systems. The primary differences are that FD communities are drier, pine-dominated forests situated on sandy outwash plains whereas MH communities are moister hardwood- dominated forests (maple, basswood, birch, and oak) that are located on slightly heavier soils (moraines or till plains) and don’t have fire as a typical type of disturbance.

MFRC 1-10 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Fire Dependent System (source: DNR Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Laurentian Mixed Forest Province)

As the name implies, Fire Dependent (FD) Forest/ Woodland communities are strongly influenced by wildfires. Fires are the major source of species mortality and exert strong influence on patterns of plant reproduction by exposing mineral soil seedbeds, triggering dispersal of propagules, and increasing the amount of light reaching the ground or understory. Fires periodically remove much of the litter, duff, and other organic material from the community and can have a significant effect on nutrient cycling and nutrient availability. In the Larential Mixed Forest Province, FD communities are characterized by prevalence of evergreen species, most visibly pines and other conifers. These species, like most of the species characteristic of FD communities, are adapted to survive repeated fires or to regenerate successfully following fire. FD communities occur in the LMF Province on sites with coarse sandy or gravelly soils or with thin soils over bedrock. These sites are often drought prone, a condition enhanced by removal by fi re of organic material, such as litter and humus, that retains soil moisture. Fires also can contribute to low nutrient availability in FD communities by releasing nutrients from plant material and making them susceptible to being leached below the plant rooting zone or carried away by runoff. In comparison with other communities, such as Mesic Hardwood Forests, in which nutrient availability changes predictably over each year and remains relatively stable from year-to-year, the random behavior of wildfires causes nutrient availability in FD communities to be episodic and unpredictable.

The map on the previous page also highlights the extent of the outwash plains in the watershed. As mentioned previously, the sands and gravels deposited from the glacial meltwater support the extensive pine forest (much of which is FD) that once existed in this watershed and elsewhere in north-central Minnesota.

Mesic Hardwood System (source: DNR Field Guide to the Native Plant Communities of Minnesota: The Laurentian Mixed Forest Province)

Mesic Hardwood Forest (MH) communities are present in the Laurentian Mixed Forest (LMF) Province on upland sites with moist soils, usually in settings protected from fire. They are characterized by continuous, often dense, canopies of deciduous trees, including sugar maple, basswood, paper birch, and northern red oak, and understories with shade-adapted shrubs and herbs. Plants in MH communities have access to predictable supplies of water and nutrients, but they are often limited by light because of the dense forest canopy. Typical sites are buffered from seasonal drought by fine-textured, moisture-retaining soils or dense subsoil layers that perch snowmelt and rainfall. At the same time, soils are well drained and do not experience water logging or saturation except after spring snowmelt or heavy rains. Consequently, plants in MH communities rarely experience diminished respiration due to soil anoxia. Essential nutrients, especially nitrogen, are mineralized from decaying organic matter at twice the rate of that in either Fire-Dependent Forest/Woodland (FD) or Wet Forest (WF) communities. As a result, nutrients in dead plant material quickly become available again for uptake by plants. Resource availability in MH communities follows an annual or seasonal pattern that is more predictable than in FD forests, where nutrients are released mainly following episodic fires.

MFRC 1-11 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Forest Value / Forests for the Future Prioritization:

The Minnesota Forests for the Future Program (MFF) has developed a GIS-based tool to help identify and target parcels for protection. This statewide analysis used recreational, economic and ecological data to provide indices of priority forest lands. The map to the right is the composite map of the sum of the recreational, economic, and ecological values. It shows a gradient of low to high values – the highest values (green) representing areas with high scores for recreational, economic, and ecological values. The map on the bottom right shows the average Forest for the Future composite score by minor watershed.

Generally, the forested portions of the Pine River Major Watershed scored at or slightly above the mean (93.8) for the eight-county Mississippi Headwaters Board Counties. However, few minor watersheds ranked in the top 25 for either the three individual components or the overall composite score. Portions of the Little Pine sub-watershed ranked high in the “Ecological” component as shown below:

MFRC 1-12 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

C. Water Resources

Forests play a critical role in keeping water clean by absorbing and filtering water, preventing erosion through soil stabilization, and allowing for groundwater recharge. Clean water is vital to the ecological, economic and social health of the resource-rich North Central Minnesota region. The National Association of State Forests Water recognized this role of forestland and the connection of healthy forests to clean water by its policy statement: “Water, in all its uses and permutations, is by far the most valuable commodity that comes from the forest land that we manage, assist others to manage, and/or regulate." Water is truly a forest product.

Downstream Source Water Supply:

In their Forest, Water, and People: Drinking Water Supply and Forest Lands in Minnesota publication, the USDA Forest Service also found that in the Northeast and Midwest United States, forests are critically important to the supply of clean drinking water. Protecting and managing forests in source watersheds is an essential part of future strategies for providing clean safe drinking water that citizens can afford. The Forests, Water and People analysis identified private forests that are most important for drinking water supply and most in need of protection from development pressure. The watersheds in northeastern Minnesota scored above average in each step of the analysis. As shown in the table below, the Pine River Watershed was the overall highest ranking source water stream in Minnesota, largely due to its high ranking for the risks to the drinking water supply from development pressure on private forest lands.

The amount of discharge by sub-watershed was determined for the Pine River watershed as part of the Intensive Watershed Monitoring work conducted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and is shown in the map to the right. The Pine River and Pine River South Fork join just south of the city of Pine River and then flow east into the Whitefish Chain of Lakes, the discharge of which is through the Army Corps of Engineers Dam in Crosslake. Overall, 4 of the 6 sub-watersheds contribute to the water flowing through the dam. The Little Pine River and Pelican Brook join the Pine River below the dam where it eventually discharges to the Mississippi River. The primary downstream public water supplies of the Pine River Watershed include the cities of St. Cloud, Minneapolis, and St. Paul (serving over 1,000,000 million people).

MFRC 1-13 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Lakes:

Lakes in the Pine River watershed are among the best in the nation for providing recreational opportunities, and collectively comprise some of the state’s most valuable ecological, economic, and social assets. There are 514 lakes in the Pine River Watershed (based on a count of Ordinance classified lakes) including the iconic Whitefish Chain of Lakes created from the installation of the Army Corps of Engineers Dam in Crosslake, the crystal-clear waters of Pelican Lake, and numerous smaller lakes as shown in the table below.

Lakes by Size (514 lakes total) < 100 100-200 200-300 300-400 400-500 500-750 750-1000 1000+ acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres 394 55 25 14 5 11 3 7 Smaller Larger

Need to add Lake Table/Continuum by fish species/lake type:

MFRC 1-14 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Water Quality Trends and Impairments:

A significant feature of the Pine River Watershed is the lack of impaired waters. Lakes and streams are sampled for a variety of things (transparency, chemistry, turbidity, bacteria, etc.). These measurements are summarized and reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), who is mandated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to maintain water quality standards for Minnesota’s lakes and streams. Those water bodies that do not meet standards are deemed to be impaired and require total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies in order to set pollutant reduction goals needed to restore these waters. The map to the right shows the non-Mercury impairments in the watershed.

Because most of the lakes in the watershed are not impaired, the trend of the unimpaired lakes is an important factor used to identify possible threats and assist with prioritizing. The map to the right shows the trend in transparency using secchi disk as measured by citizens and local and state entities as reported annually to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In addition to secchi data, some lakes have data and trends for phosphorus and chlorophyll a. However, because these measurements require lab analysis to determine a result, the number of lakes with this data is significantly lower. Below is a summary of the lake trends in the Pine River Watershed:

Declining WQ No Trend in WQ Improving Trend (Stable) WQ Trend 24 27 28

MFRC 1-15 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Outstanding Resources and Priority Lakes:

With over 500 lakes in the watershed, prioritization is needed for effective implementation. A number of prioritization strategies exist and are usually based on where “quality” intersects with “risk.” The maps to the right show local and state prioritized lakes in the Pine River Watershed, which include high quality coldwater cisco/trout lakes, wild rice lakes, lakes with outstanding biological diversity significance, and lakes with the highest phosphorus sensitivity significance.

Wild rice is typically found in shallow lakes and rivers and in shallow bays of deeper lakes and provides some of the most important habitat for wetland- dependent wildlife species in Minnesota, especially migrating and breeding waterfowl. Although once found throughout most of the state, wild rice is now concentrated in the Pine River and adjacent watersheds. Wild rice is Minnesota’s state grain and provides unique recreation opportunities and has cultural significance to Native Americans.

Cisco (also known as tullibee or lake herring) is a coldwater fish that live in many of the nicest lakes in Minnesota. They provide excellent forage for trophy walleye, northern pike, muskellunge, and lake trout. A requirement for cold, well-oxygenated water allows them to primarily live in deep lakes that have good water quality.

Trout lakes and streams require cool, well oxygenated water. The presence of trout in a lake or stream is often a result of the overall quality of that water body as well as suitable groundwater and substrate. Natural shorelines as well as cover and spawning habitat within the water body are critical to the long term health of trout lakes and streams.

MFRC 1-16 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Lakes of Biological Significance were identified and classified by DNR subject matter experts on objective criteria for four community types (aquatic plants, fish, amphibians, birds). Unique plant or animal presence was the primary measure of a lake's biological significance. Lakes were rated and grouped for each of the following communities: aquatic plants, fish, birds, and amphibians. Lakes were assigned one of three biological significance classes (outstanding, high, or moderate).

IBI ??

Lakes of Phosphorus Sensitivity Significance was a system developed by the Minnesota DNR to objectively prioritize lakes based on their sensitivity to phosphorus pollution. Phosphorus sensitivity was estimated for each lake by predicting how much water clarity would be reduced with additional phosphorus loading to the lake. A phosphorus sensitivity significance index was formulated to prioritize lakes as they relate to MPCA's policy objective of focusing on high quality, unimpaired lakes at greatest risk of becoming impaired. The phosphorus sensitivity significance index is a function of phosphorus sensitivity, lake size, lake total phosphorus concentration, proximity to MPCA's phosphorus impairment thresholds, and watershed disturbance.

MFRC 1-17 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

In the Pine River Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy (WRAPS) report, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) used many of these previously mentioned criteria and more to develop a list/map of priority lakes in the watershed as shown below: Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

MFRC 1-18 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

D. Ownership Patterns, Land Supply & Demand, and Development / Agricultural Risk

As a result of the natural shaping forces that resulted in the outstanding forest and water resources described previously, the Pine River Watershed and much of the forested north-central Minnesota landscape has one of the most complex land ownership patterns in the United States. There is significant private development along the shoreline of the larger recreational lakes and large blocks of public lands in the headwaters of most of the sub-watersheds where lakes are more scarce. The rest is a patchwork of public and private lands intermixed with the numerous lakes in the watershed. Despite the subdivision over the last half-century, there remains abundant land in large-tract status (parcels > 20 acres), which represent lands where forest land protection and management is the most viable. The map below shows this complex ownership pattern.

MFRC 1-19 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Public Land Distribution:

40% of the lands in the watershed are in Public Ownership (primarily County and State). 80% of these public lands are located on higher elevations within the watershed (>1300 ft in elevation) as shown in the map to the right. This trend of having much of the public lands located at the higher elevations nearer the headwaters of the watershed is common in many landscapes throughout north-central Minnesota. The reason for this is because these lands are typically more topographically rugged, less well drained, contain fewer large lakes, and are more difficult to develop and farm. Thus, many of these lands were never desired as land grants in the early years of the state and much of the private lands in these areas went tax forfeit since.

MFRC 1-20 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Growth and Development Pressure:

The influx of visitors from the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has been long known to have a significant effect on the Brainerd Lakes Area, and the Pine River Watershed by extension. Some have estimated that the population of the Brainerd Lakes area expands 3–4x in the summer months in particular. The University of Minnesota Extension created the Market Area Profile (MAP) program to assist Minnesota communities to develop their retail and service sectors. In their report from November 2008, they found that customers that stay at the largest, most popular resorts and lodging facilities in the Brainerd Lakes area are concentrated in select suburban and ex-urban areas of the twin cities metropolitan area (approximately 60% from the Twin Cities area, compared to Fargo, Duluth, and Rochester which are only about 2% each, St. Cloud and Brainerd are at 3% and 2% respectively). Hennepin (24%), Dakota (8%), Ramsey (8%), Anoka (5%), and Washington (5%) counties were the top 5 counties of origin for these customers. In addition, the large demographic group known as the Baby Boomers Generation (ages 53-71 as of 2017) are in the process of retiring. Many of those are choosing to retire in the Brainerd Lakes Area, the area where they previously grew accustomed to visiting and vacationing at. This has created additional demand for shoreline living and related services. The map to the right shows this population increase from 2000-2010 based on Census Bureau statistics. Another way to track development changes is by using E911 Address Pt density. This often gives a more accurate picture of development as many counties require an E911 number be assigned for a structure placed on a previously undeveloped parcel of land. The GPS data from these new E911 pts, can show the spatial patterns of development over time by comparing the density of these pts (per sq. mile) across the landscape.

Development Density (E911 Address Points per Square Mile): Current density (left) and increase in density in the last 20 years (right)

MFRC 1-21 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Land Supply:

Cities and counties regulate subdivision of lands based on a number of characteristics, such as lot size requirements (width, depth, acreage, etc), frontage along lakes/streams, lake and stream types, etc. These zoning and land use classification systems (along with the amount of available buildable upland) dictate the number of potential smaller tracts of land (lots) that can be generated from the original, parent parcel. For example, a parcel zoned Rural Residential 10 Acres, means that all new parcels created from sub-dividing the parcel must be at least 10 acres in size. Generally, larger lot sizes are used in agricultural and forested areas to maintain these rural types of uses. More dense development is generally allowed nearer to municipalities, road infrastructure, and recreational lakes. By looking at the various residential zoning/land use classification systems in the watershed, a picture of the available land supply can be determined. The map below shows the 33,000+ new parcels (maximum) that could be generated in the Pine River Watershed based on the limits imposed by the local zoning / land use Ordinance (where available). For lots under 10 acres, the amount of available upland is also a limiting factor. To determine the amount of new lots in these smaller zoning classes, the amount of upland was simply prorated. For example, if the zoning / land use classification on a 20 acre parcel was RR 2.5 acres, it would normally allow for a maximum 8 new lots if all the land was upland. If 10 acres was mapped as wetland (based on the National Wetland Inventory), the amount of new lots would be reduced by 50% to only 4.

MFRC 1-22 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Forest Conversion / Disturbance:

The Minnesota Forest Resources Council’s (MFRC) Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines for Landowners, Loggers and Resource Managers, establishes best management practices (guidelines) for timber harvesting and forest management (TH/FM) on forested lands in Minnesota. Implementation monitoring of these guidelines has been conducted on over 1000 timber harvest sites across public and private forest lands since 2000 As part of this analysis, forest cover change detection is performed to identify recent harvest sites for field monitoring and provide overall estimates of forest disturbance by major watershed to provide additional context for field monitoring findings (source: DNR 2016 Report). Analysis was done by the DNR and relied on satellite detected disturbances in the “forest cover”, which may also include forested wetlands. These are disturbances from a variety of activities, including but most certainly not limited to harvests. In some cases that includes complete a land use change, but in most cases the detected disturbed areas are likely still forest cover. Below is the forest disturbance map by minor watershed as well as a prorated version that assigns a percentage based on the year of disturbance (ie. disturbance in 2000 would be 1/15 of the value of the disturbance in 2015) to account for regeneration. Using this method, the relative level of forest disturbance in the Pine River watershed at any given point in time is mostly below 5% with some areas between 5- 10%.

MFRC 1-23 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Agricultural Conversion Risk:

The 2017 Conversion to Row Crop Agriculture Risk Assessment combines information from multiple GIS layers to assign a relative likelihood of parcel risk for land conversion, including:

• land cover eligibility for conversion (grassland and forest land are ranked the highest) • land ownership eligibility for conversion (i.e. private lands only) • parcel size (must be >30 acres in size) • proximity to other irrigated or non-irrigated agricultural lands • land capability class according to Soil Survey data (lower classes are more suitable).

MFRC 1-24 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Section 2. Watershed Protection Approach

Planning and implementing forest and watershed “protection” strategies has always been a challenge as has determining how much “protection” of the forested landscape is needed to maintain forest and watershed functions and to sustain high-quality water resources within this landscape. The importance of quantifying the amount of protection was largely recognized after the passage of the 2008 Clean Water Land and Legacy Amendment which made it important for protection-related projects to have defendable, science-based methods and metrics in order to compete for grants against projects that aimed to fix (or “restore”) impaired resources, which were the bulk of projects funded prior to the Legacy Amendment. Below is the protection model that was developed as part of recent local and state planning. A. Development of a “Protection” Methodology

Over the past 5-10 years, a number of studies and plans have been developed that have helped to define the amount of protection needed in the forested landscape. These studies have defined “protected” lands as public lands (local, state, federal), public waters (lands & streams), wetlands on private lands, and perpetual conservation easements on private lands. A key aspect of this protection approach is that the designation of “protected” does not preclude active and sustainable management of these lands for ecologic, economic, and social benefits.

The Generalized Landscape Protection Model shown to the right details that in many watersheds across the north-central Minnesota, private forested uplands make up a significant portion of the landscape. While many of these lands will remain in private, large tracts, many will convert into developed lands and many are highly desirable for conservation. Locally adopted policy (via a water/watershed plan) results in local priorities, with the emphasis often being on the water-forest interface. This riparian segment of private forest lands then becomes the target for conservation efforts.

MFRC 2-25 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

This plan is based on the minor watershed “drills down” methodology developed by local and state conservation professionals to encourage targeted private forest management that is the basis for a number of other conservation-related tools in the private forest landowner toolbox. The methodology was developed in light of the growing recognition by state and federal governments of the threats facing privately-owned forestlands across the nation, specifically the challenge of the USDA Forest Service’s Landscape Stewardship Initiative to “develop more effective approaches, strategies and tools that will enable the broader forestry community to dramatically expand the reach and effectiveness of services provided to private woodland owners” MFRC North Central Landscape Plan – PFM Amendment, 12/16/14.

B. Pine River Watershed Protection Status

On average, the Pine River Watershed is relatively undisturbed at only 17%. This means that only 17% of the forest land has been converted to another land cover type, such as agriculture, developed, or other open uses (source: 2013 University of MN Land Cover Data). That makes the General Landscape Protection Approach discussed above particularly applicable because much of the watershed remains in a forested condition. The amount of protection in the watershed is currently at approximately 64% (which includes lands enrolled in the Sustainable Forest Incentives Act (SFIA) and provides incentive payments to encourage sustainable use of forest lands of greater than 20 acres. Enrollees must remain in the program for 8 years and have a forest stewardship plan in place.

% Disturbed Land Cover (Developed, Agricultural Uses) % Protected (Public Lands/Waters, Wetlands (private), Easements, SFIA)

Protected Lands in the Pine River Watershed Additional Lands (not considered “protected”): Public Lands Public Waters Wetlands (Private) Easements (no wtl) SFIA (no wtl) Total Managed Forest 2C Lands (upland only) = 2% 40% 13% 8% 1% 2% 64% Forest Stewardship Plans (on file with DNR) = 5%

MFRC 2-26 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

C. Watershed Protection Goal for Lake-Based Systems

Protection Goal = 75%

Modeling of over 1300 lakes by the Minnesota DNR Fisheries Research Unit has revealed that phosphorus concentrations in lakes are directly related to land use disturbance in the watershed. Phosphorus concentrations become elevated when land use disturbance reaches 25% of a lake’s watershed and are greatly elevated when land use disturbances exceed 60%. These thresholds set the foundation for identifying appropriate water quality management strategies for lakes. Lakes with relatively undisturbed watersheds need protection, while lakes with heavily disturbed watersheds need restoration. Many watersheds in the forested ecoregions of Minnesota are protected by public ownership (federal, state, and county lands). Lakes in the northern part of the state benefit from extensive public holdings within the Superior and Chippewa National Forests, state forests, state and national parks, state and federal wildlife areas and county lands. Lands in public ownership are usually maintained with relatively undisturbed land cover, including forests, grasslands, and wetlands. Lakes with undisturbed watersheds, with high levels of protection, should maintain good water quality. Considerably less public land exists in the southern, agricultural part of the state.

Using land use disturbance and protection status allows for the categorization of lakes into a protection vs. restoration framework:

• Vigilance (dark green): Lakes with watershed disturbances less than 25% and protection greater than 75% can be considered sufficiently protected. These lakes have the suggested approach of “vigilance” (keeping public lands protected in a forested land cover).

• Protection (light green): Lakes with watershed disturbances less than 25%, but levels of protection less than 75% are excellent candidates for protection efforts.

MFRC 2-27 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

• Full Restoration (yellow): Lakes with watersheds that have moderate levels of disturbance (25-60%) have realistic chances for full restoration of water quality.

• Partial Restoration (red): Restoration of lakes with intensive urban and agricultural watersheds (>60% disturbance) to natural levels may not be realistic. The suggested approach for these lakes is partial restoration of water quality that restores some degree of ecological integrity (e.g., reducing phosphorus concentrations sufficiently to allow for the establishment of rooted aquatic vegetation in turbid, eutrophic prairie lakes to benefit fish habitat.)

The map and graph to the right shows the geographic and data breakdown of this approach for the DNR’s managed fish lakes across Minnesota. Source: Mike Duval & Pete Jacobson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Pine River Watershed Protection/Restoration Status:

The map below shows the breakdown of these strategies for the Pine River Watershed. The majority of the watershed is in the light green “Needs Protection” category, which is the “sweet spot” for implementation because the forest and water resources are in good shape (ie. forests are not highly disturbed and there is low phosphorus delivery to downstream water bodies) and because the protection level is below the goal of 75%.

Note: the cross-hatched catchments in the southern part of the watershed were identified by DNR as stream- based systems for which the above classification may or may not fully apply.

MFRC 2-28 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

D. Watershed Protection Goal for Stream-Based Systems

Protection Goal = 60%

U.S. Forest Service Hydrologist Sandy Verry determined that the amount of mature forest cover on the landscape is a driving factor in sediment and nutrient delivery to downstream water bodies. As forested watersheds become more open or pasture becomes row crop or agriculture lands become urban, the, channel-forming flow in channels doubles, triples or quadruples. Land use change sets in motion an accelerated cycle of channel erosion and deposition that impacts the habitat quality of streams and increases the frequency of infrastructure repair and replacement. Channels may get either wider, deeper or both and get steeper as they adjust to a new channel-forming flow. The relation between forest land and open land in watersheds and the size of bankfull / channel-forming flow peaks is shown in the graphic to the right, which uses data from controlled watershed studies in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The amount of forest land in the watershed can be thought of as watershed roughness, thereby intercepting and slowing the delivery of water to the soil where a porous soil also retards water flow. Forest management guidelines often strive to keep forests in at least 40- to 60% of the watershed in order to avoid the habitat degradation and infrastructure failure caused by larger channel- forming peak flows and to keep sources of timber available for landowner objectives of habitat and financial returns. This aligns with Sandy’s graphic above that shows that negative changes to watershed hydrology begin to occur when the percentage of forest converted to open lands reaches 40%. That number forms the basis for establishing a protection goal of 60% in forested landscapes.

Sandy also found that in minor watersheds in steeper landscapes (e.g. moraines and dissected till plains), land use change on only a half square mile (320 acres) can initiate accelerated channel erosion and deposition cycles in these generally steeper channels. In flat landscapes (e.g. glacial lake beds and outwash plains) land use change on 10 square miles will initiate accelerated channel erosion and deposition cycles in these lower-sloped channels. Channels experiencing land use change with increased bankfull velocities and discharge are dynamically unstable where channel slope, width, depth proceed in an accelerated cycle of increased water flow and sediment transport and deposition. Erosion of the channel bottom may lower the channel so that even increased bankfull flows do not reach the floodplain elevation. When this happens, the channel is incised and the eroding power of the water begins a valley long process of caving the banks of the entire channel. Narrowing of the floodplain to a width less than three times the channel width will also accelerate bank and channel erosion and channel sediment buildup. More of Sandy’s research can be found in Appendix E: The Hydrology of Minor Watersheds

MFRC 2-29 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

E. Potential to Protect

It is important to not only know the amount of protection that exists in any given watershed, but it is also important to know if there are enough large tracts of land remaining in the watershed in order to achieve a protection goal of 60% or 75%). Parcels larger than 20 acres are the primary target for implementation using this drill-down methodology. The reason for this is because many conservation programs require a minimum enrollment acreage of 20. Using tax parcel data (parcel polygons as well as associated tax data) provided by county assessors et. al., a simple geographic information systems (GIS) analysis can reveal which parcels in any given watershed are 20 acres or larger. These parcels make up a watershed’s potential for protection. The last remaining class of property in a given watershed are those lands that are less than 20 acres, which are generally already developed or subdivided into smaller tracts that will be developed in the future. Often, these smaller tracts are found along lakes and streams and have relatively high land value/acre costs.

The thermometer graphic to the right illustrates the amount (and type) of protection, potential for protection, and developed (<20 acres) / agricultural (>50% ag) lands in relation to a goal of 75% protection (for a lake-based system). In each watershed, it is important to note the relative proximity of the protection goal (60 or 75%) to the line between the “developed/ag” (yellow) and the “potential to protect” (light green). If this line for the “developed/ag” lands is at or even beneath the goal, there is a potentially a higher level of urgency that exists in that watershed in order to keep those larger forested tracts from converting to smaller tracts. Once the potential to protect is below the goal of 60 or 75%, it may be difficult to reach the goal using standard conservation programs that have the 20-acre minimum acreage requirement. Forest stewardship plans can be still be written for landowners with less than 20 acres, but depending on the location, there may not be a mechanism to enroll those lands into a protection program.

As part of developing the minor watershed drill down methodology, an entire atlas sheet has been devoted to showing the amount of protected lands in a watershed (map) as well as the amount of lands that have the potential to be protected. Please refer to Appendix ?? for the atlas pages for each of the 69 minor watersheds in the Pine River major watershed.

MFRC 2-30 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

F. Cost to Achieve Watershed Protection Goal

Once the amount of watershed protection is known and a protection goal has been set, the next logical step is to determine the cost to achieve the goal. Because the costs for conservation programs vary and also because the landowner makes the ultimate decision, scenarios are typically used to illustrate potential costs for achieving the protection goal. A couple of potential scenarios are highlighted below based on the average of 800 acres needed per minor watershed to get to the 75% protection goal for the Pine River Watershed.

Scenario: 50% SFIA, 50% Easements: 800 Acres Needed

50% Conservation Easements = 400 acres. Conservation easements are Protection Cost Scenario working lands where timber management is encouraged. Land remains Watershed on the tax roles and does not require public access. The effect of a 75% Avg. Acres Needed: 800 conservation easement on a parcel’s property value depends on a variety Protection Goal: of factors, including the location of the property and the restrictions on Toolbox Option: Acres: Cost Basis: Total Cost: use and development of the property put in place by the easement. A 60% of Land Value forest stewardship plan may or may not be required, depending on the Conservation 400 (avg. $1972/acre, $473,200 program. Many easements in the state of Minnesota are part of the Easements: 60% = $1183/ac) Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) program, which pays the landowner 60% of the land value. Easements can also be part of the Forests for the Future SFIA: 8 Yr 400 $8 per acre $25,600 program (DNR), which requires an appraised value. or SFIA: 20 Yr 400 $11 per acre $88,000

Easements Cost = $473,200 (60% of the $1972/ac land value = or SFIA: 50 Yr 400 $15 per acre $300,000 $1183/acre x 400 acres) $498,800- Total: 800 acres 50% SFIA = 800 acres. SFIA stands for Sustainable Forest Incentives $773,200 Act (SFIA) and provides incentive payments to encourage sustainable use Conservation easements are working lands where timber of forest lands of greater than 20 acres. Enrollees must remain in the management is encouraged. Land remains on the tax program for either 8, 20, or 50 years and have a forest stewardship plan roles and does not require public access. in place. SFIA stands for Sustainable Forest Incentives Act (SFIA) SFIA Cost Range = $25,600 - $300,000 (depending on SFIA contract and provides incentive payments to encourage length selected, as illustrated in the table to the right). sustainable use of forest lands of greater than 20 acres. Total Cost for Scenario = $498,800 - $773,200 (see table to the right) Enrollees must remain in the program for 8 years and

have a forest stewardship plan in place.

MFRC 2-31 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

The cost of protection has the potential to vary by the cost of the land. While most of the higher land values are driven by shoreline property values as shown in the map below, the land value per acre of the larger (20+ acre) tracts is less influenced by shoreline valuation as there are fewer large-tracts adjacent to lakes as compared to smaller parcels. The overall average land value / acre in the Pine River Watershed of the private, 20+ acre parcels is $1920/acre.

MFRC 2-32 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Section 3. Sub-Watershed Context

Developing water resource protection strategies within a watershed context is a logical, scientific approach because it acknowledges what landowners have known for years: that upstream activities affect those downstream. The question becomes at what scale is appropriate? Watersheds are classified at many scales, from region and basin scales down to smaller watershed and sub-watersheds, including minor watersheds and catchments. The Pine River Major Watershed is divided into 6 smaller or “sub” watershed units (HUC10 scale) as shown in the map to the right. Within each of these HUC10 sub-watersheds, are 7 to 13 minor watersheds, which are on average are 7,259 acres (11.3 sq. miles). Although major watersheds can be analyzed and modeled, it is difficult to implement since they typically cross municipal, county, and/or state boundaries.

The minor watershed is a sub-watershed unit of the HUC12 unit, which is a sub-watershed of the HUC10 unit. “The character of the minor watersheds drives the character of larger watersheds” (Sandy Verry, 2016). Implementation is also easier since many minor watersheds are within a single jurisdiction, focused on one or two primary surface water resources, and strategies can be better targeted and designed for optimal success and cost efficiencies. Each of the 69 minor watersheds are unique in their amount of protection, quality forest and water resources, and risk factors. These minor watersheds are highlighted in the following 6 sections, which are organized by the HUC10 sub-watershed unit. These HUC10 sub-watersheds are summarized in the table below and on the following pages:

Basic Sub-watershed Characteristics # of HUC 12 sub- # of Minor % % Land Cover % Forest Total Building Total Property Value Name HUC 10 # Acres Sq. Miles Total Land Value watersheds Watersheds Protected Disturbance Cover Value (Land + Building) Headwaters 701010501 95510 149 4 11 60.3% 18.1% 41.4% $389,377,400 $292,253,700 $681,631,100 South Fork Pine R. 701010502 74074 116 4 13 56.8% 35.1% 35.8% $131,499,900 $79,896,800 $211,396,700 Daggett Brook 701010503 95494 149 4 11 77.4% 8.6% 55.9% $733,780,800 $373,416,500 $1,107,197,300 Whitefish Lake 701010504 83980 131 6 10 53.2% 23.2% 39.5% $1,780,421,500 $931,143,900 $2,711,565,400 Little Pine R. 701010505 90743 142 4 17 71.0% 8.9% 53.1% $253,920,700 $118,228,000 $372,148,700 Lower Pine R. 701010506 61086 95 4 7 56.1% 12.6% 40.3% $808,200,000 $639,979,600 $1,448,179,600 Totals (or avg if %) N/A 500887 783 26 69 64% 17.3% 45.0% $4,097,200,300 $2,434,918,500 $6,532,118,800

MFRC 3-1 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Forest Characteristics: Below is a summary of the Forest Characteristics of the Pine River Watershed by Sub-watershed (HUC10):

Forest Characteristics Potential Native Plant Communities (NPC) Acreages / % FFF Score AP (Acid OP (Open Rich FF (Floodplain FP (Forested FD (Fire MH (Mesic WF (Wet WM (Wet Total NPC Name (Composite Mean) Peatland) Peatland) Forest) Rich Peatland) Dependent) Hardwood) Forest) Meadow-Carr) Acreage Headwaters 97.7 2,783 3% 154 0% 0 0% 3,754 5% 37,535 45% 25,976 31% 2,553 3% 10,418 13% 83,172 South Fork Pine R. 90.1 1,325 2% 363 1% 0 0% 5,418 8% 32,536 45% 18,819 26% 4,977 7% 8,566 12% 72,005 Daggett Brook 98.7 2,627 3% 97 0% 0 0% 2,078 2% 15,950 19% 46,535 55% 3,550 4% 14,168 17% 85,006 Whitefish Lake 91.7 926 1% 190 0% 0 0% 1,571 2% 31,900 47% 22,971 34% 1,990 3% 8,402 12% 67,950 Little Pine R. 100.8 7,938 9% 167 0% 0 0% 4,282 5% 15,767 19% 37,528 44% 13,187 16% 5,685 7% 84,555 Lower Pine R. 86.1 317 1% 123 0% 0 0% 412 1% 25,212 55% 13,538 30% 1,933 4% 4,175 9% 45,711 Totals (or avg for FFF) 94.2 15,917 4% 1094 0% 0 0% 17,516 4% 158,900 36% 165,367 38% 28,190 6% 51,414 12% 438,398

Lake Characteristics: Below is a summary of the Lake Characteristics of the Pine River Watershed by Sub-watershed (HUC10). More information on the lakes will be detailed in the individual sub-watershed sections to follow.

Lake Summary by size Lakes < Lakes 100- Lakes 200- Lakes 300- Lakes 400- Lakes 500- Lakes 750- Lakes 1000+ Impaired Lakes and Streams Name 100 acres 200 acres 300 acres 400 acres 500 acres 750 acres 1000 acres acres Headwaters 113 16 6 1 2 3 1 1 Jail Lake South Fork Pine R. 67 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 Wilson Creek, Pine River (S. Fork) Daggett Brook 100 11 7 2 2 1 0 2 Kego Lake, Mitten Lake Whitefish Lake 41 6 4 2 0 3 1 3 Arvig Creek, Willow Creek Little Pine R. 28 7 5 4 1 3 0 0 Lake Emily, Lows Lake Lower Pine R. 45 13 3 4 0 1 1 1 None Totals 394 55 25 14 5 11 3 7 9 water bodies

Lakes of Phosphorus Sens. Significance Lakes of Biodiversity Significance Lake WQ Trends Outstanding Water Resources Moderat Outstandin Stable Cisco/ Local Priority Name High Higher Highest High Improving Declining State Priority Wild Rice e g (no Tullibee Wild Rice Headwaters 8 10 4 6 2 10 6 3 7 1 8 7 South Fork 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 Daggett 14 7 3 3 2 6 5 8 8 4 4 3 Whitefish 3 3 8 0 1 12 2 7 3 7 3 2 Little Pine R. 4 5 5 1 3 7 1 4 2 0 3 3 Lower Pine R. 2 13 7 1 1 6 12 0 5 5 5 0 Totals 31 39 27 14 9 42 26 22 26 17 25 15

MFRC 3-2 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Stream Characteristics:

According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, there are 341 miles of streams in the Pine River Watershed (Source: 2017 Public Watercourses Data). The protection status of the shorelines of the streams was analyzed by Sub-watershed (HUC10) and minor watershed as well as by primary stream segment as shown in the maps below. Also shown below is the location and percentage of altered watercourses (streams that have been channelized or re-routed or otherwise disturbed from their natural state). These are most prevalent in the minor watersheds west of Whitefish Lake (source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency/MnGEO).

MFRC 3-3 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

A. Pine River Sub-watershed: Headwaters

Description:

The Headwaters Sub-watershed of the Pine River Major Watershed includes the drainage area above the confluence of the Pine River with the South Fork of the Pine River (which is a separate sub-watershed that enters from the west). There are numerous lakes in this sub-watershed, many of which the Pine River flows through as it makes it way out of Pine Mountain Lake and meanders toward the City of Pine River. In fact, it has the highest number of lakes compared to the other 5 sub-watersheds, many of which are outstanding resources (see table in previous section). It has over 40% forest cover and is 60% protected. The following maps and table highlight the key forest and water resources of this sub-watershed.

Geomorphology:

The hills of the St. Croix moraine dominate the far upper reaches of this sub- watershed. This area is mostly public land. The Pine River flows through much of the sandy, outwash plain where most of the lakes reside. There were once vast stands of white and red pine in this outwash plain that have now been largely replaced by hardwoods as the maps on the following page illustrate.

MFRC 3-4 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Past, Current, and Potential Future Forest Conditions:

The presettlement and current forest maps show the changes in forest composition over the past several hundred years in this sub- watershed. Of particular note is the decline in the amount of pine forest communities. Despite this decline, the Potential Native Plant Communities Systems map shows that the potential is there for pines to return as the pine-dominated “Fire-Dependent” forest community resides largely in the sandy, outwash plain which comprises much of the sub-watershed. The “Fire Dependent” potential NPC community makes up 45% of all potential NPCs in the sub-watershed, with the “Mesic-Hardwood” community making up 31% and “Wet meadow- carr” at 13%.

The forests in this sub-watershed are of a fairly high quality, with an average Forests for the Future composite score of 97.7. This score is a sum of ecological, economic, and recreational forest values, as measured by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

MFRC 3-5 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Water Resources Summary:

The map below shows the abundant water resources in the Headwaters Sub-watershed, most of which have a stable or improving trend in water quality. Deep Portage, Big Portage East Bay (aka Rice Portage), Rainy, and Norway have declining water quality trends. The only impairment is Jail Lake, which is impaired for nutrients. As shown, nearly all of the larger, recreational lakes in the watershed are located in the outwash plain.

MFRC 3-6 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Minor Watershed Summary:

The table below summarizes the 11 minor watersheds that make up the Pine River Headwaters Sub-Watershed. More detailed maps of each of these minors can be found in Appendix ??. Specific implementation recommendations can be found in Part ?, Section ??.

Basics Risk / Disturbance Protection Forests / Biodiversity / Potential Native Plant Community System Outstanding Lake % Altered % Land Surface Water DNR Lake Land Value Acres Potential % % Forest FFF % Fire % Mesic % Wet Average % Terrestrial % Other Minor # Acres Sq Miles Risk Factors Phosphorus Water- Disturb- Resources Protection / Ac (20+ ac Needed to Protect Forest Steward- Composite Dependent Hardwood Meadow % Slope Protected Biodiversity Systems Sensitivity courses ance Classification* parcels) for 75% (ac) Cover ship Plans Mean Score (FD) (MH) (WM) Lakes of Bio- diversity Protection / Moderate- 11006 7,696 12 Higher 14.2% 53.5% 15% 75% $941 Goal Met 853 40% 3% 101.8 21% 38% 7% 7% Significance, Vigilance High Wild Rice Lakes of Bio- Declining Water Protection / diversity 11007 8,457 13 Quality Trend, Highest 9.6% 0.0% 24% Full 41% $1,246 2845 2043 31% 6% 96.6 Moderate 54% 13% 9% 7% Significance, Feedlot (1) Restoration Wild Rice Lakes of Bio- diversity Moderate- 11008 5,895 9 High 13.2% 0.0% 12% Protection 64% $1,572 635 1128 45% 18% 98.3 52% 14% 11% 8% Significance, High Wild Rice Lakes of Bio- diversity 11009 4,087 6 High 7.4% 15.1% 20% Protection 44% $1,770 1255 1053 39% 17% 98.4 Moderate 55% 5% 10% 14% Significance, Wild Rice Lakes of Bio- Protection / Declining Water diversity Moderate- 11013 10,617 17 Higher 10.9% 0.0% 33% Full 31% $1,392 4695 2974 24% 7% 89.9 69% 11% 7% 7% Quality Trend Significance, High Restoration Wild Rice Lakes of Bio- diversity Protection / Moderate- 11026 20,541 32 Higher 13.3% 0.0% 15% 74% $771 251 2941 45% 2% 102.8 31% 40% 14% 9% Significance, Vigilance High Wild Rice Cisco, Lakes of Declining Water Higher and Biodiversity Protection / Moderate- 11027 8,642 14 15.5% 0.0% 14% 58% $1,230 1447 1560 43% 5% 97.1 40% 27% 5% 6% Quality Trend Highest Significance, Vigilance High Trout, Wild Rice Lakes of 11028 3,909 6 Highest 5.1% 0.0% 32% Biodiversity Protection 23% $1,757 2029 1325 32% 9% 91.1 High 67% 6% 14% 6% Significance Lakes of Bio- diversity Protection / Moderate- 11029 8,771 14 Higher 6.9% 0.0% 11% 71% $1,191 393 1142 37% 5% 95.0 33% 15% 6% 21% Significance, Vigilance High Wild Rice 11030 10,745 17 7.9% 8.3% 16% Protection 69% $885 640 2208 58% 6% 99.9 Moderate 19% 45% 19% 14% 11031 6,151 10 Impaired Highest 8.3% 0.0% 18% Protection 74% $570 72 959 56% 5% 93.8 Moderate 25% 47% 13% 6% Total/Avg: 95,510 150 N/A N/A 10.8% 3.4% 11% N/A N/A 60% $806 14,261 18,186 41% 6% 97.7 N/A 39% 27% 11% 10%

*Because the DNR’s Lake Protection Framework analysis was conducted at the Catchment Scale (Level 8), which is slightly more fine-scale than the Minor Watershed (Level 7) there are often multiple catchments within each minor watershed, thus the possible presence of multiple Lake Protection Classifications.

MFRC 3-7 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Protection Status:

“Protected” lands consist of public lands, public waters, permanent conservation easements, lands enrolled in SFIA, and wetlands. The map to the right shows the type and distribution of these “protected” lands. The map below shows the percentage by minor watershed. The upper reaches of the watershed, where the topography is steeper and where it was less desirable for development or agriculture have the most public lands, which (along with lakes) make up the highest percentage of “protected” lands.

MFRC 3-8 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

B. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Pine River South Fork

Description:

The South Fork of the Pine River Major Watershed includes the drainage area west of the confluence of the Pine River with the South Fork of the Pine River. There are few lakes in this sub-watershed. It has the highest percentage of land converted from forest / prairie to agriculture (17.2% disturbance) of all of the sub-watersheds in the Pine River Watershed. Because of the agricultural nature of this sub-watershed, it also has the lowest percentage of forest cover (35.8%). Due to the public lands in the headwaters at the edge of the watershed, it does have 56.8% protected lands. The following maps and minor watershed table highlight the key forest and water resources of this sub-watershed.

Geomorphology:

Just like the headwater sub-watershed, the hills of the St. Croix moraine dominate the far upper reaches of this sub- watershed. This area is mostly public land and part of the Foot Hills State Forest. There is a relatively abrupt transition from the forested foot hills of the moraine down to the flatter till plain in the southern part and the outwash plain in the northern part. This largely agricultural area has numerous tributaries to the South Fork, including Bungo Cr., Behler Cr., Dabill Cr., Miller Cr., and Cedar Creek.

MFRC 3-9 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Past, Current, and Potential Future Forest Conditions:

As is typical in the Pine River Watershed, a comparison of the presettlement and current forest maps show the shift from a pine- dominated forested landscape to the modern hardwoods-dominated forested landscape. In addition, the influx of agriculture in the flatter, more well drained portions of the sub-watershed is readily visible with hay/pasture lands more common south of the South Fork of the Pine River while row crops are more common to the north as shown in the “Current Forest” map below. Another reason for the agriculture in this sub-watershed is the fact that there was some native prairie present, which would have been easier for the early European settlers to farm than the forested lands.

The South Fork of the Pine River sub-watershed has the 2nd lowest Forests for the Future Composite score (90.1), which is a sum of the ecological, economic, and recreational values of the forests.

MFRC 3-10 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Potential Native Plant Communities:

As in the Headwaters sub-watershed, the Potential Native Plant Communities (NPC) Systems map to the left shows that the potential is there for pines to return as the pine-dominated “Fire-Dependent” forest community generally coincides with the sandy, outwash plain which comprises much of the northern part of the sub- watershed. However, competition with agricultural uses, rather than the change in forest composition, may be the largest challenge to overcome in that area. The “Fire Dependent” potential NPC community makes up 45% of all potential NPCs in the sub-watershed, with the “Mesic-Hardwood” making up 26% and “Wet meadow-carr” at 12%.

Water Resources Summary:

The map to the right shows that most of the sub-watershed's water resources are streams. Most of the lakes in the sub- watershed are smaller, natural environment lakes. Therefore, only one had any water quality data for which water quality trends could be established (Eagle L.: stable). According to MPCA's WRAPS document, the only impaired resources are Wilson Creek (biological: bugs) and a portion of the South Fork of the Pine River (biological: fish) from Bungo Cr. to Hoblin Cr. as shown on the map to the right. The cause of these impairments is reported to be increased bedded sediment and a lack of physical habitat.

MFRC 3-11 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Minor Watershed Summary:

The table below summarizes the 13 minor watersheds that make up the Pine River South Fork Sub-Watershed. More detailed maps of each of these minors can be found in Appendix ??. Specific implementation recommendations can be found in Part ?, Section ??.

Impaired, Full 11018 5,422 8 8.1% 32.0% 62% Trout 31% $1,849 2367 1031 36% 13% 82.7 Moderate 47% 27% 11% 14% Feedlots (1) Restoration

Full 11019 3,206 5 Impaired 7.1% 76.4% 46% Trout 48% $1,403 868 409 21% 1% 81.3 Moderate 44% 17% 13% 26% Restoration Protection / Lakes of Biodiversity Moderate- 11020 6,001 9 Feedlots (4) 7.3% 13.0% 50% Full 32% $1,984 2574 1162 25% 8% 84.3 55% 19% 9% 17% Significance, Trout High Restoration

Lakes of Biodiversity Moderate- 11021 4,778 7 12.9% 6.6% 40% Protection 71% $665 200 788 43% 0% 93.4 31% 38% 11% 15% Significance, Trout High

Protection / Moderate- 11022 4,648 7 9.7% 0.0% 24% Trout 84% $436 Goal Met 347 43% 4% 87.1 38% 29% 9% 20% Vigilance High Moderate- 11023 5,589 9 12.3% 4.6% 22% Trout, Wild Rice Protection 73% $598 105 966 48% 4% 94.2 41% 30% 16% 12% High Protection / Moderate- 11024 3145 5 13.0% 0.0% 11% Trout 100% N/A Goal Met 0 60% 0% 97 17% 51% 12% 19% Vigilance High Lakes of Biodiversity Protection / Moderate- 11025 7034 11 14.6% 0.0% 17% Significance, Trout, 85% $903 Goal Met 919 53% 5% 95 23% 46% 12% 10% Vigilance High Wild Rice

Protection / 11070 5902 9 14.2% 13.4% 16% Trout 88% $354 Goal Met 396 60% 2% 101.9 Moderate 18% 54% 10% 13% Vigilance Total/Avg: 74074 114 N/A N/A 9.7% 31.0% 17% N/A N/A 57% $736 16129 11783 36% 5% 90.1 N/A 44% 25% 12% 16%

MFRC 3-12 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Protection Status:

“Protected” lands consist of public lands, public waters, permanent conservation easements, lands enrolled in SFIA, and wetlands. The map to the left shows the type and distribution of these “protected” lands. As with the Headwaters Sub-watershed, the upper reaches of the watershed on the moraine, where the topography is steeper and where it was less desirable for development or agriculture have the most public lands, which make up the highest portion of “protected” lands, (now largely making up the Foot Hills State Forest). A small amount of forest land is also enrolled in SFIA.

The map below shows the distribution and percentage of protected lands by minor watershed. The lack of protected lands in the

eastern portion of the sub-watershed coincides with the location of abundant, privately-held agricultural lands.

MFRC 3-13 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

C. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Whitefish Chain of Lakes

Description:

Below the confluence of the main stem of the Pine River and the South Fork of the Pine River (just south of Pine River) is the Whitefish Chain of Lakes sub-watershed. There is only a 4-5 mile stretch of the river in this sub-watershed, which is a scenic, forested stretch that extends from the confluence down through a number of series of small rapids to Upper Whitefish Lake. The rest of the sub-watershed is largely dominated by the Whitefish Chain of Lakes, a very large, high-quality, and economically important lake chain in north-central MN, including lakes like Whitefish, Big Trout, and Cross. Although much of the lakes in the chain are deep-water recreational lakes, there are plenty of smaller bays and lakes with outstanding biological diversity and unique features (such as wild rice). Due to the amount of shoreline (which is mostly private), the sub-watershed has the highest land and building values but the lowest amount of protected lands at 53.2%. The percentage of land converted from forest to development or other human uses is 13.0%. Just under 40% of the sub-watershed is forested.

Geomorphology:

There is a very large till plain in the northern portion of this sub- watershed that extends north into the Leech Lake Major Watershed as well. It is shown by the darker colors on the

MFRC 3-14 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

elevation map in the upper right and by the tan color in the geomorphology map to the right. Over 50 large lakes are found at the edge of this large geomorphic feature, which is several hundred feet higher in elevation and comprised of heavier, less well-drained soils, fewer (and smaller) lakes, and large wetland complexes. For more information, see Appendix ?? for a detail of this “Stewart Lake Till Plain.”

Past, Current, and Potential Future Forest Conditions:

Although still forested, most of the till plain has transitioned from a pine-dominated landscape to a hardwoods-dominated landscape. Some of the original pines are still present in small patches around the Whitefish Chain of Lake and elsewhere on the outwash plain. As with it’s neighbor to the west (the South Fork of the Pine River), portions of the wetern part of this sub-watershed have been converted to agricultural uses.

The Whitefish Chain of Lakes sub-watershed has the 3nd lowest Forests for the Future Composite score (91.7, just above the South Fork of the Pine River which was at 90.1), which is a sum of the ecological, economic, and recreational values of the forests.

MFRC 3-15 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Potential Native Plant Communities:

The Potential Native Plant Communities (NPC) map to the left shows that unlike the pre-settlement forest map on the previous page, the Stewart Lake Till Plain in the northern part of the sub-watershed is best suited for hardwood species and not pines, which are best suited for the sandier areas in the rest of the sub-watershed. The pine-dominated “Fire Dependent” potential NPC community makes up 47% of all potential NPCs in the sub-watershed, with the “Mesic- Hardwood” making up 34% and “Wet meadow-carr” at 12%.

Water Resources Summary: Lakes dominate the southern, sandy portion of this sub- watershed. Many of the lakes in the Whitefish Chain became connected as part of the installation of the dam at the outlet of the Pine River (and this sub-watershed) from Cross Lake. Water quality is generally good across the chain, but the trend varies and there is concern over the declining trend on Whitefish and Big Trout lakes. Arvig Creek (tributary to the Pine River) and Willow Creek (tributary to Whitefish lake) are the only two impaired water resources, which have biological impairments due to habitat alteration resulting from livestock grazing near and into the streams (Source: WRAPS). 14 of the lakes in this sub-watershed have high (3), higher (3), or highest (8) sensitivity to phosphorus loading according to the DNR. 12 Lakes have outstanding biological significance, with 7 cisco/tullibee lakes, and 3 priority wild rice lakes.

MFRC 3-16 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Minor Watershed Summary:

The table below summarizes the 10 minor watersheds that make up the Whitefish Chain of Lakes Sub-Watershed. More detailed maps of each of these minors can be found in Appendix ??. Specific implementation recommendations can be found in Part ?, Section ??.

Basics Protection Forests / Biodiversity / Potential Native Plant Community System Risk / Disturbed Outstanding % Lake % Land Surface DNR Lake Land Value / Acres Potential % Forest FFF % Fire % Mesic % Wet Risk Average Altered % % Forest Terrestrial % Other Minor # Acres Sq Miles Phosphorus Disturb- Water Protection Ac (20+ ac Needed to Protect Steward- Composite Dependent Hardwood Meadow Factors % Slope Water- Protected Cover Biodiversity Systems Sensitivity ance Resources Classification* parcels) for 75% (ac) ship Plans Mean Score (FD) (MH) (WM) courses Lakes of Impaired, Protection / Biodiversity 11014 11,103 17 Feedlots 5.3% 35% Full 46% $1,303 3214 2140 40% 6% 84.3 Moderate 50% 24% 15% 8% Significance, (1) Restoration Wild Rice Protection / Higher or 11015 2,988 5 7.3% 32% Full 19% $2,579 1680 1064 40% 21% 99.1 60% 25% 12% 3% Highest Restoration Feedlots Higher or 11016 9,492 15 5.7% 64% Protection 40% $1,822 3317 877 27% 6% 87.0 Moderate 49% 16% 18% 17% (2) Highest Protection / 11032 9,971 16 5.9% 10.6% 13% 83% $668 Goal Met 986 54% 4% 95.0 Moderate 19% 48% 18% 9% Vigilance Cisco, Lakes of Protection / Feedlots 11047 8,542 13 Highest 6.6% 0.0% 28% Biodiversity Full 34% $1,949 3543 2051 30% 6% 88.9 61% 10% 7% 4% (1) Significance Restoration Cisco, Lakes of 11060 5,274 8 Impaired Higher 8.0% 0.0% 11% Biodiversity Protection 65% $294 516 181 19% 0% 91.0 26% 12% 4% 1% Significance Declining Cisco, Lakes of Water Biodiversity 11065 8,263 13 Highest 9.1% 0.0% 11% Protection 58% $3,635 1395 1644 50% 18% 97.4 Moderate 32% 44% 4% 2% Quality Significance, Trend Trout Lakes of Biodiversity Feedlots 11066 5,698 9 High 9.3% 0.0% 16% Significance, Protection 52% $1,156 1317 1504 67% 8% 92.5 Moderate 38% 49% 6% 1% (1) Trout, Wild Rice 11067 6,916 11 Impaired 7.6% 3.6% 14% Protection 57% $1,047 1232 2192 66% 19% 100.9 Moderate 31% 48% 16% 6% Declining Cisco, Lakes of Water Biodiversity Moderate- 11068 15,733 25 Highest 5.5% 0.0% 9% Protection 65% $1,072 1581 1837 22% 7% 90.6 28% 13% 3% 1% Quality Significance, Outstanding Trend Wild Rice Total/Avg: 83,980 132 N/A N/A 6.70% 20.1% 13% N/A N/A 53% $947 17,797 14,477 40% 9% 91.7 N/A 38% 27% 10% 6%

MFRC 3-17 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Protection Status:

“Protected” lands consist of public lands, public waters, permanent conservation easements, lands enrolled in SFIA, and wetlands. The map to the left shows the type and distribution of these “protected” lands in the Whitefish Chain of Lakes sub- watershed. Just as with the St. Croix moraine to the west, the upper reaches of this sub-watershed (the “Stewart Lake Till Plain”) where the topography is steeper and where it was less desirable for development and more difficult for agriculture have the most public lands. Many of the public lands in this portion of the watershed are tax- forfeited lands where early settlers likely tried to farm but decided to move elsewhere after experiencing soils and geomorphic conditions.

The map to the right shows the percentage of these lands by minor watershed. As with the South Fork of the Pine River sub-watershed, the lack of protected lands in the western portion of the sub-watershed coincides with the location of abundant, privately-held agricultural lands. The relatively high percentage of protection in the Whitefish Lake minor watershed is largely due to the amount of public waters.

MFRC 3-18 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

D. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Lower Pine River

Description:

The Lower Pine River sub-watershed is the portion of the Pine River Major Watershed that starts just below the dam in the City of Crosslake and extends south and east to the confluence with the Mississippi River. As shown in the elevation profile to the lower right, the river drops quickly as it exits the Cross Lake reservoir and then winds its way more gradually down to the Mississippi. The Pelican Brook and the Little Pine River are the main tributaries to the Pine River along this stretch, which is generally very forested and well protected (56% overall in the sub-watershed, but higher along much of the river itself, see Section ??). There are also numerous high-quality lakes in this sub-watershed. Land use disturbance is low at 8%, with the percentage of forest cover at 40%. The following maps and table highlight the key forest and water resources of this sub- watershed.

Geomorphology:

Most of this sub- watershed lies in the sandy (and topographically flat) outwash plain, with some moraine till present along the edges. Pelican Lake sits in sandy lacustrine (lake- bed) sediment.

MFRC 3-19 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Past, Current, and Potential Future Forest Conditions:

Because of the sandy outwash in this sub-watershed, much of the pre-settlement and current forest is comprised of pine. Of all the sub-watersheds, this one shows the most mixture of both hardwoods and pine (both past and present). In addition to shoreline development, some off-lake development has occurred in this sub-watershed, especially in the cities of Breezy Point (NW side of Pelican Lake) and Crosslake. Very little agriculture exists in this sub-watershed.

Despite having abundant forests, this sub-watershed had the lowest Forests for the Future composite score of just 86.1, which is a sum of the ecological, economic, and recreational values of the forests.

MFRC 3-20 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Potential Native Plant Communities:

The Potential Native Plant Communities (NPC) map to the left shows the same patchwork of the “Fire- Dependent” (pines) and “Mesic-Hardwood” communities on the outwash plain that were shown in the pre-settlement forest and current forest maps on the previous page. The moraine till areas that form the southeast and southwest boundaries of the sub- watershed are more hardwood dominated on both the potential NPC map and the current forest map. Overall, the pine-dominated “Fire-Dependent” potential NPC community makes up 55% of all potential NPCs in the sub-watershed (the highest among the 6 sub-watersheds), with the “Mesic- Hardwood” making up 30% and “Wet meadow-carr” at 9%.

Water Resources Summary:

This sub-watershed has some of the highest quality of water resources in the entire Pine River Major Watershed, with 12 lakes having an improving trend in water quality and none with a declining trend. There are no impairments. Pelican Lake, a deep, clear Oligotrophic lake, is the premeir lake in the sub- watershed. Ossawinnamakee and the Horseshoe are the other large, high quality recreation lakes. There are a disproportionately high number of relatively small (100-200 acre), high quality lakes in this sub-watershed, compared to the others and include lakes like Kimball, Bass, Star, Duck, Fawn, O'Brien, Big Bird, Velvet, and Young.

MFRC 3-21 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Minor Watershed Summary:

The table below summarizes the 7 minor watersheds that make up the Lower Pine River Sub-Watershed. More detailed maps of each of these minors can be found in Appendix ??. Specific implementation recommendations can be found in Part ?, Section ??.

Basics Risk / Disturbed Protection Forests / Biodiversity / Potential Native Plant Community System Outstanding Lake % Altered % Land DNR Lake Land Value Acres Potential % Forest FFF % Fire % Mesic % Wet Risk Average Surface Water % % Forest Terrestrial % Other Minor # Acres Sq Miles Phosphorus Water- Disturb- Protection / Ac (20+ ac Needed to Protect Steward- Composite Dependent Hardwood Meadow Factors % Slope Resources Protected Cover Biodiversity Systems Sensitivity courses ance Classification* parcels) for 75% (ac) ship Plans Mean Score (FD) (MH) (WM) Lakes of 11051 4,919 8 High 10.9% 0.0% 14% Biodiversity Protection 66% $932 460 1365 52% 8% 73.9 Moderate 22% 44% 8% 21% Significance Protection / 11052 6,562 10 Highest 7.1% 0.0% 15% 78% $834 Goal Met 1499 42% 4% 76.9 Moderate 60% 12% 9% 4% Vigilance Lakes of Biodiversity 11053 5,025 8 High 8.6% 0.0% 20% Protection 49% $813 1330 866 42% 2% 88.9 Moderate 52% 26% 9% 2% Significance, Wild Rice Lakes of Biodiversity 11059 8,354 13 Higher 8.1% 0.0% 9% Protection 54% $1,078 1756 2333 51% 16% 89.0 Moderate 46% 27% 9% 4% Significance, Wild Rice Cisco, Lakes of Higher and Biodiversity 11061 12,893 20 12.9% 3.2% 13% Protection 34% $1,199 5298 3780 50% 13% 91.9 Moderate 44% 31% 7% 2% Highest Significance, Trout, Wild Rice Lakes of Feedlots Higher and Biodiversity 11062 17,816 28 6.0% 68.2% 12% Protection 63% $858 2169 1867 22% 7% 86.1 High 29% 14% 3% 1% (1) Highest Significance, Wild Rice, Cisco Lakes of Feedlots Biodiversity Protection / 11063 5,518 9 Higher 7.5% 0.0% 10% 63% $787 662 1378 46% 9% 87.2 Moderate 53% 10% 10% 10% (1) Significance, Wild Vigilance Rice Total/Avg: 61,086 96 N/A N/A 8% 1.9% 8% N/A N/A 56% $953 11,675 13,087 40% 9% 86.1 N/A 41% 22% 7% 5%

MFRC 3-22 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Protection Status:

“Protected” lands consist of public lands, public waters, permanent conservation easements, lands enrolled in SFIA, and wetlands. The map to the left shows the type and distribution of these “protected” lands. Much of the public lands in the central part of the sub-watershed are part of the Crow Wing State Forest. The large block of easements along the Pine River is a result of the DNR’s Forest Legacy Program which worked with Potlatch to put easements on many of their lands in this sub-watershed.

The map to the right shows the percentage by minor watershed. The relative lack of protected lands in the Ossawinnamakee minor watershed was highlighted in the 2013 Crow Wing County Local Water Management Plan as a focal point due to the risk these unprotected lands present to the abundant forest lands (<10% disturbance) and high quality waters. The primary risk factor is development, as the Ossawinnamakee minor watershed is right between two of the fastest growing areas in the County (the cities of Breezy Point and Crosslake.

MFRC 3-23 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

E. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Little Pine River

Description:

The Little Pine River is one of the main tributaries to the Pine River and has its confluence with the Pine below the Crosslake dam, near the Pine's confluence with the Mississippi. It is one of the 3 largest sub-watersheds (along with the Headwaters and Daggett Brook) with its headwaters in Aitkin County and flows southwest through a mix of larger lakes, wetlands, and rural forested areas. By several measures, the Little Pine River sub-watershed has some of the highest quality forests in the Pine River major Watershed. Part of this is because it has the lowest disturbance level (3.6%) and the 2nd highest percentage of both forested cover (53%) and protected lands (71%).The following maps and table highlight the key forest and water resources of this sub-watershed.

Geomorphology:

Much of the geomorphology of the sub-watershed is made up of the Mille Lacs Moraine, which forms its eastern boundary. A mix of till and outwash plains comprise the remainder of the sub- watershed.

MFRC 3-24 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Past, Current, and Potential Future Forest Conditions:

Although a few areas in the Emily area still have stands of pine remaining, much of the forest landscape now consists of hardwoods as shown in the “Current Forest” map below. Because of the variety of soils (due to the geomorphic setting), the biodiversity of the area is quite high. The Little Pine sub-watershed has by far the highest Forests for the Future (FFF) Composite score (100.8), which is a sum of the ecological, economic, and recreational values of the forests. It is the only sub-watershed that has any minor watersheds with a top 25 FFF score statewide (#11048, #11002, 11044 all score in the top 25 in the Ecological Category, see map on map 1-14).

MFRC 3-25 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Potential Native Plant Communities:

With little of the outwash plain present in the Little Pine sub- watershed, the predominant potential native plant community (NPC) system type is “Mesic Hardwood,” which makes up 44% of all potential NPC communities as shown in the map to the right. The “Fire-Dependent” potential NPC community makes up only 19% (the lowest of all the sub-watersheds) with “Wet Forest” making up a significant amount (16%, highest) and “Wet meadow-carr” at only 7% (lowest).

Water Resources Summary: The Little Pine sub-watershed has the smallest number of lakes of all six sub-watersheds. This is largely due to the geomorphology (limited outwash, abundant moraine). There are 4 lakes with a declining trend in water quality, with 2 being impaired: Emily Lake and Lows Lake. Both of these lakes are shallow lakes. The impairment for Lows is being considered natural background and no TMDL is being prepared (Source: WRAPS). Many of the lakes in the sub-watershed are shallow, wildlife lakes with the exception of the large recreational lakes like Ruth, Mary, and Emily. 10 lakes have high or outstanding aquatic biodiversity and 3 are locally prioritized wild rice lakes.

MFRC 3-26 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Minor Watershed Summary:

The table below summarizes the 17 minor watersheds that make up the Little Pine River Sub-Watershed. More detailed maps of each of these minors can be found in Appendix ??. Specific implementation recommendations can be found in Part ?, Section ??.

Basics Risk / Disturbed Outstanding Protection Forests / Biodiversity / Potential Native Plant Community System % Altered % Land Surface Land Value / Acres % Forest FFF % Fire % Mesic % Wet Lake Phosphorus Average % DNR Lake Protection % Potential to % Forest Terrestrial % Other Minor # Acres Sq Miles Risk Factors Water- Disturb- Water Ac (20+ ac Needed for Steward- Composite Dependent Hardwood Meadow Sensitivity Slope Classification* Protected Protect (ac) Cover Bio-diversity Systems courses ance Resources parcels) 75% ship Plans Mean Score (FD) (MH) (WM) Moderate- 11001 7,063 11 4.9% 0.0% 7% Vigilance 95% $236 Goal Met 250 47% 0% 101.7 10% 36% 2% 48% High Moderate- 11002 4,673 7 5.1% 78.4% 12% Wild Rice Protection 73% $577 100 795 47% 11% 106.5 13% 38% 8% 39% High Moderate- 11003 6,089 10 5.7% 49.7% 12% Vigilance 89% $527 Goal Met 451 49% 9% 103.3 12% 36% 3% 47% High Lakes of Moderate- 11004 5,259 8 6.7% 0.0% 6% Biodiversity Vigilance 85% $592 Goal Met 602 53% 4% 103.7 11% 47% 1% 33% High Significance Protection / Moderate- 11005 5,433 8 6.5% 0.0% 10% 85% $519 Goal Met 687 51% 3% 101.3 4% 51% 4% 39% Vigilance High Protection / 11044 3,938 6 6.7% 95.8% 8% 88% $267 Goal Met 302 59% 8% 99.5 High 10% 50% 13% 26% Vigilance Lakes of Declining Water Biodiversity 11045 4,658 7 Higher 7.3% 35.5% 5% Protection 60% $829 716 1142 53% 2% 106.6 High 16% 44% 9% 19% Quality Trend Significance, Wild Rice Lakes of Biodiversity Protection / Moderate- 11046 5,312 8 5.8% 6.2% 6% 91% $401 Goal Met 414 56% 2% 99.4 7% 32% 8% 49% Significance, Vigilance High Wild Rice Lakes of Biodiversity 11048 7,307 11 Impaired High 5.8% 0.0% 11% Protection 74% $554 78 1423 47% 8% 108.4 High 13% 39% 5% 39% Significance, Wild Rice

Declining Water 11049 4,043 6 Higher 9.6% 0.0% 6% Protection 63% $1,384 487 908 59% 10% 106.4 High 4% 52% 6% 23% Quality Trend

Lakes of Declining Water Moderate- 11050 8,118 13 Highest 15.5% 0.0% 8% Biodiversity Protection 44% $1,550 2515 3444 68% 13% 104.8 16% 59% 5% 15% Quality Trend High Significance Lakes of Biodiversity Moderate- 11054 6,224 10 Highest 10.4% 0.0% 13% Protection 55% $1,237 1237 1829 59% 9% 89.4 20% 47% 7% 15% Significance, High Wild Rice 11055 2,593 4 10.3% 0.0% 6% Protection 52% $1,195 590 888 61% 17% 92.3 Moderate 40% 29% 10% 20% Declining Water Moderate- 11056 4,725 7 9.5% 0.0% 6% Protection 57% $1,166 868 1550 56% 8% 102.8 25% 44% 5% 26% Quality Trend High

Lakes of Declining Water Higher and Biodiversity 11057 4,033 6 6.9% 0.0% 10% Protection 62% $769 543 635 36% 2% 90.1 High 28% 27% 6% 10% Quality Trend Highest Significance, Wild Rice Higher and 11058 7,697 12 6.6% 0.0% 10% Trout Protection 62% $664 1037 1552 54% 5% 99.3 High 32% 39% 11% 8% Highest 11064 3,577 6 Highest 6.1% 0.0% 12% Protection 54% $1,245 745 1233 42% 14% 85.9 Moderate 56% 12% 10% 14% Total/Avg: 90,743 140 N/A N/A 7.7% 1.1% 4% N/A N/A 71% $528 8,917 18,105 53% 7% 100.8 N/A 17% 41% 6% 28%

MFRC 3-27 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Protection Status:

“Protected” lands consist of public lands, public waters, permanent conservation easements, lands enrolled in SFIA, and wetlands. The map to the left shows the type and distribution of these “protected” lands. The upper reaches of the watershed, where the topography is steeper and where it was less desirable for development or agriculture have the most public lands, which make up the highest portion of “protected” lands.

The map below shows the percentage by minor watershed. In general, the minor watersheds surrounding the Little Pine River itself are fairly well protected (>50%). The headwaters are also well protected as those minors are mostly at or above 75%.

MFRC 3-28 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

F. Pine River Sub-Watershed: Daggett Brook

Description:

The Daggett Brook sub-watershed is a large sub-watershed that drains south into Little Pine and Daggett lakes, which are connected to the Whitefish Chain of Lakes because of the Crosslake dam. It has the highest percentage of both forested lands and protected lands and very low land disturbance (3.6%). It is second only to the Headwaters sub-watershed in the number of lakes. The following maps and table highlight the key forest and water resources of this sub-watershed.

Geomorphology:

As shown in both the elevation and geomorphology maps to the right, the Stewart Lake Till Plain is the dominant feature in much of the northern part of the sub- watershed, with the exception of the moraine soils that extend through the area with Roosevelt, Washburn, and George lakes. Most of the lakes present are in the moraine till and ice contact sediments.

MFRC 3-29 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Past, Current, and Potential Future Forest Conditions:

This sub-watershed shows perhaps the most striking contrast between the pre-settlement and current forest. Much of the pre-settlement forest consisted of pines or a mix of hardwoods and pines. Few large tracts of pine remain in today’s forested landscape.

The Daggett Brook sub-watershed has the second highest Forests for the Future (FFF) Composite score (98.7), which is a sum of the ecological, economic, and recreational values of the forests.

MFRC 3-30 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Potential Native Plant Communities:

As with the Little Pine sub-watershed, little outwash plain is present in the Daggett Brook sub-watershed. The predominant potential native plant community (NPC) system type is “Mesic Hardwood,” which makes up 55% of all potential NPC communities as shown in the map to the right. The “Fire- Dependent” potential NPC community makes up only 19% with “Wet meadow-carr” at 17%.

Water Resources Summary:

The Daggett Brook sub-watershed has the 2nd highest number of lakes, most of which are less than 100 acres in size. There are 8 with declining trends, 5 with improving trends, and 8 with stable trends. The only 2 water resources that are impaired are Kego and Mitten. Outstanding resources consist of 8 lakes of high or outstanding biological significance, 4 cisco/tullibee lakes, and 4 local prioritized wild rice lakes. Washburn, Roosevelt, Mitchell, Eagle, East/West Fox, and Daggett/Little Pine Lakes are the significant large, recreational lakes in this sub-watershed.

MFRC 3-31 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Minor Watershed Summary:

The table below summarizes the 11 minor watersheds that make up the Daggett Brook Sub-Watershed. More detailed maps of each of these minors can be found in Appendix ??. Specific implementation recommendations can be found in Part ?, Section ??.

Basics Protection Forests / Biodiversity / Potential Native Plant Community System Risk / Disturbed Outstanding % % Land Surface DNR Lake Land Value Acres Potential % Forest FFF % Fire % Mesic % Wet Lake Phosphorus Average Altered % % Forest Terrestrial % Other Minor # Acres Sq Miles Risk Factors Disturb- Water Protection / Ac (20+ ac Needed to Protect Steward- Composite Dependent Hardwood Meadow Sensitivity % Slope Water- Protected Cover Biodiversity Systems ance Resources Classification* parcels) for 75% (ac) ship Plans Mean Score (FD) (MH) (WM) courses Declining Water Protection / Moderate- 11033 8,592 13 High 10.6% 13.2% 8% Cisco 85% $522 Goal Met 684 62% 3% 97.1 14% 57% 11% 3% Quality Trend Vigilance High Protection / Moderate- 11034 9,317 15 High 7.0% 0.0% 10% 99% $25 Goal Met 62 70% 1% 96.0 4% 64% 21% 7% Vigilance High Protection / 11035 5,923 9 5.5% 0.0% 9% 100% $72 Goal Met 21 59% 0% 95.8 Moderate 10% 44% 30% 16% Vigilance Lakes of Biodiversity 11036 6,736 11 Impaired Higher 11.6% 85.1% 8% Protection 83% $755 Goal Met 655 49% 5% 98.0 Moderate 11% 47% 16% 13% Significance, Wild Rice Lakes of Biodiversity Protection / 11037 7,481 12 High 6.0% 4.6% 7% 87% $567 Goal Met 579 50% 8% 97.7 Moderate 8% 39% 23% 20% Significance, Vigilance Wild Rice Cisco, Lakes of Biodiversity 11038 7,405 12 Higher 12.4% 0.0% 5% Significance, Protection 80% $1,061 Goal Met 663 52% 5% 99.4 Moderate 12% 50% 9% 4% Trout, Wild Rice

11039 5,370 8 High 10.5% 0.0% 8% Trout Protection 89% $557 Goal Met 319 54% 16% 100.0 Moderate 25% 46% 15% 9%

Lakes of Declining Water Biodiversity Moderate- 11040 16,968 27 Quality Trend, Higher 12.1% 0.0% 12% Protection 52% $1,237 3987 4120 55% 9% 98.4 33% 44% 7% 3% Significance, High Feedlot (1) Wild Rice Cisco, Lakes of Declining Water Biodiversity Moderate- 11041 13,588 21 Highest 11.5% 0.0% 7% Protection 65% $802 1317 2101 56% 7% 100.7 16% 51% 12% 4% Quality Trend Significance, High Trout Protection / 11042 4,264 7 10.0% 0.0% 8% Trout 85% $478 Goal Met 503 61% 2% 98.3 Moderate 16% 58% 16% 6% Vigilance Declining Water Protection / Moderate- 11043 9,850 15 Higher 8.7% 0.0% 7% 81% $330 Goal Met 681 49% 2% 101.2 17% 39% 17% 21% Quality Trend Vigilance High Total/Avg: 95,494 150 N/A N/a 9.9% 5.2% 4% N/A N/A 77% $513 5,303 10,386 56% 6% 98.7 N/A 17% 49% 15% 9%

MFRC 3-32 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan

Protection Status:

“Protected” lands consist of public lands, public waters, permanent conservation easements, lands enrolled in SFIA, and wetlands. The map to the left shows the type and distribution of these “protected” lands. Like the other sub-watersheds, the upper reaches of the watershed, where the topography is steeper and where it was less desirable for development or agriculture have the most public lands, which make up the highest portion of “protected” lands. The public land that dominates the Stewart Lake Till Plain is plainly visible in the northwestern portion of the sub-watershed. The map below shows the percentage of protected lands by minor watershed.

MFRC 3-33 Pine River Watershed Landscape Stewardship Plan