Woodland Owner Attitudes on Forest Management

In Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin

Landowner Survey

Report

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

University of Wisconsin Extension

October 2010

N

Executive Summary

Landowners in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin are open and interested in learning more about

what forest management activities and protecting water quality of our streams and Lake

Superior.

Landowners perceived water quality as very high for uses like scenic beauty, fishing and

swimming. Landowners did not perceive that there were many (if any) problems affecting our

water quality.

Yet, landowners recognized that what they do on their land does affect water quality and said

they would be willing to change the way they care for their woods to improve water quality in

Lake Superior. Almost half say it’s important to protect the water quality, even if it costs them

more. The survey results indicated a high level of willingness to learn about and try forest

management activities that protect water quality.

Credits Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

101 S Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53707

Carmen Wagner, Forestry Hydrologist

Kristen Tomaszewski, State Forest Associate Planner

Survey review by Jordan Petchenik, Research Scientist

University of Wisconsin Extension

Environmental Resources Center, 445 Henry Mall, Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Ken Genskow, Water Resources Education Coordinator

Jacob Blasczyk, Evaluation Specialist for Natural Resources Program

Ruth Oppedahl, Lake Superior Basin Educator

Sarah Traaholt, Program Assistant

Report prepared by Ruth Oppedahl, University of Wisconsin Extension

The Lake Superior Forest and Watershed Management Initiative is a cooperative effort between the

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, regional organizations and the USDA Forest Service’s

Northeast Area State and Private Forestry program. The goal is to provide resources for landowners and

land managers on forest management and water quality issues in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin, which

includes portions of Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas and Iron Counties.

University of Wisconsin, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin counties cooperating. An

EEO/AA employer, University of Wisconsin Extension provides equal opportunities in employment and

programming, including Title IX and American with Disabilities (ADA) requirements." "La Universidad

de Wisconsin-Extensión, un empleador con igualdad de oportunidades y acción afirmativa (EEO/AA),

proporciona igualdad de oportunidades en empleo y programas, incluyendo los requisitos del Título IX

(Title IX) y de la Ley para Americanos con Discapacidades (ADA)."

1

Contents Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................

Credits ...............................................................................................................................................

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Demographics ................................................................................................................................. 2

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Rating of Water Quality .............................................................................................................. 4

2. Activities and Your Watershed Use ........................................................................................... 5

3. General Water Quality Attitudes ................................................................................................ 6

4. Consequences of Runoff ............................................................................................................. 8

5. Types of Water Pollutants ........................................................................................................... 9

6. Sources of Water Quality Problems .......................................................................................... 10

7. Experience with water quality practices ................................................................................... 12

8. Making Management Decisions ............................................................................................... 14

9. Information and Activities ........................................................................................................ 15

10. About Your Woodland in the Lake Superior Basin ............................................................... 17

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 21

Footnotes ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry Private Forestry

Program Goals 2006 ..................................................................................................................... 23

Introduction A survey of Wisconsin woodland owners was carried out in May-June 2009 by the University of

Wisconsin Extension and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The survey

population was private woodland owners with ten acres or more, without management plans,

who own land in the Lake Superior Basin.

The number of woodland owners involved in forest education, cost-share programs or forest

management planning is very low. The 2006 Family Forest Owners of Wisconsin report derived

from the U.S. Forest Services' National Woodland Owner Survey reported that:

12% had knowledge of and participation in sustainable forest certification programs

11% participated in a cost-share program

7.6% had a management plan (47% did not remember)

The majority of private woodland owners in Wisconsin can be considered “unengaged”.

2

An important area of research then concerns understanding these “unengaged” landowners and

considering ways in which natural resource professionals might increase their engagement in

sustainable forest management practices.

Purpose In this survey, we were interested in learning more about:

How do landowners perceive the quality of water in the Basin?

What are landowners’ attitudes towards protecting water quality?

Do landowners see a connection between their forest activities and water quality?

What forest management activities have landowners used or area willing to try?

What are the barriers that keep landowners from carrying out forest activities that protect

water?

What conservation programs do landowners use?

Who do landowners trust for information on forest activities?

Demographics Gender 79% of the respondents were male

21% female

Resident (woodland property is primary residence) or Non-Resident (property is not primary residence) 55% Resident

38% Non-Resident

Age N=474 <1% 18-24 years old

3% 25-34 years old

12% 35-44 years old

23% 45-54 years old

34% 55-64 years old

18% 65-74 years old

10% 75 years or older

Education 97% had a high school degree or more education

43% had a 4-year college degree or more education

Methods Population We utilized tax rolls for Ashland, Bayfield, Iron and Douglas County to collect the total number

of private (non-industrial) landowners. After removing duplicates, the result was 19,574 private

landowners.

3

Target audience In this survey, we were looking for “unengaged” landowners to find out why they don’t take part

in forest management activities.

Surveys of woodland landowners have shown that those with management plans are more likely

to carry out management activities1. For this survey, we considered an “unengaged” landowner

to be someone without a management plan.

The best way to find these landowners was to remove from our list all landowner parcels that are

currently enrolled in the Wisconsin Managed Forest Law (MFL) program which requires a

written management plan and implementation of forest management activities. The remaining

landowners on our list would (theoretically) not have written management plans and would not

be engaged in forest management activities.

We chose to include only land parcels that were designated as “Productive Forest Land” by the

tax assessor (category G-6) that was ten acres or more in size.

Using these criteria, the target audience was:

Iron County 246

Ashland County 364

Bayfield County 4,954

Douglas County 650

6,214 total

This represents the total number of Wisconsin land owners (households), not enrolled in MFL,

and with 10 or more acres of woodland in the Lake Superior Basin.

Our sample size was based on recommendations from Social Indicator Planning and Evaluation

System for Nonpoint Source Management-- a Handbook for Projects in USEPA Region 5, edited

by Ken Genskow and Linda Prokopy. For a target audience of 5,000, you need to mail 881

surveys to get a target number of 357 responses. For a target audience of 10,000, you need to

mail 914 surveys to get a target number of 370 responses.

From the target audience population of 6,214 landowners, we selected a random sample of 981.

Surveys were mailed to all 981 landowners. Some surveys were returned for bad or

undeliverable addresses, for a total of 970 valid surveys mailed out.

Process Landowners were sent up to five mailings via first class mail.

1. Letter of introduction

2. Survey with letter enclosed

3. Reminder letter to non-respondents

4. Second survey packet sent to non-respondents

5. Reminder letter to non-respondents

4

478 surveys were returned for a 49% response rate. The results have helped resource managers

in the Lake Superior Basin better understand the audiences we are trying to reach for woodland

and related resource management issues. Results also provide a point of comparison for future

surveys with this population.

Perceptions, Activities & Watershed Knowledge

1. Rating of Water Quality Overall, how would you rate the quality of water in streams that flow into Lake

Superior?

Perception of water quality Landowners in the Lake Superior Basin have the sense that our water resources are in pretty

good shape. A high percentage of respondents rated the water quality okay or excellent.

Less than 5% of the respondents thought any of these uses had poor water quality.

Drinking water uncertainty Respondents were much less sure about the quality of their drinking water. One third (35%) of

the respondents didn’t know the quality of their drinking water, and more than half thought their

drinking water was just okay or poor.

55% of the survey population considers the woodland property their primary residence. It’s

likely, since we searched parcels of ten acres or more, that their source of drinking water is a

private well. The high number of respondents who don’t know the quality of their drinking

water may indicate the need for well-testing programs.

Water quality and fishing are perceived as good Eating fish or fishing were in the top three activities respondents participated in. The

respondents’ overall perception is that existing water quality is not affecting the fish, their

fishing experience or their fish consumption.

76% of the respondents think the water quality is okay or excellent for eating fish. 21% say they

don’t know how/if the water quality affects eating fish.

Later, in question 4, we asked the respondents about whether they thought runoff and poor water

quality contributes to contaminated fish; about half of the respondents did not think there was a

Rank

Resource

% of respondents rating the water quality as Okay or Excellent

N

1 Scenic beauty 92 470

2 Swimming 82 466

3 Fish habitat 80 468

4 Eating fish 76 468

5

problem (27%), or did not know if there was a problem (23%). Others thought fish

contamination was a slight problem (22%) or a moderate problem (20%). Less than 10%

thought fish contamination was a severe problem due to runoff or poor water quality.

When asked if runoff and poor water quality reduced the quality of water recreation activities

like fishing and canoeing, again, 65% of respondents did not think this was a problem or it was

only a slight problem. 19% did not know.

In the Lake Superior Basin, fish managers are very concerned about degradation of water quality

from sand eroding from the stream banks smothering gravel spawning beds and degrading fish

habitat. However, in this survey, most of the public (76%) do not believe the current water

quality affects fish, and another 20-21% doesn’t know. This unawareness provides an

opportunity to increase public outreach and education on the water quality threats to fish and

activities that landowners can do to maintain good water quality and healthy fish.

2. Activities and Your Watershed Use Water-related Activities Viewing scenic beauty and fishing are by far the most important activities respondents

participated in.

Which of the following water-related activities do you participate in? (check all that apply) % N=477

Of these activities, which is the most important to you in the Lake Superior Basin? (check one) % N=399

86 Viewing scenic beauty

36

73 Eating local fish 14

67 Fishing 29

60 Boating activities 6

57 Swimming 4

45 Other activities near water

6

5 None of these activities

6

Knowledge of where the water goes from their land A high number of respondents (76% N=364) wrote an answer about where the water goes from

their property. Although 55 respondents gave the general answer that their water flows into Lake

Superior, many others had very specific information and knew exactly where the water flows

from their land. In most cases, respondents could name the tributary that receives their water:

18-Mile Creek, Alder Creek, Bardon Creek, Billy Creek, Beartrap Creek, and Krause Creek etc.

Some respondents mapped out their watershed connection e.g. “Onion River to Lake Superior”

or “Rocky Run then Brule River then Lake Superior” or “Tributary to Dine Creek to Fish Creek

to Lake Superior”.

6

This knowledge about where the water flows from their land seems to corroborate the strong

sense of stewardship landowners feel toward protecting the water quality of Lake Superior we

see in the next question. That is, landowners know their water eventually goes to Lake Superior

and they feel a strong sense of responsibility about protecting it.

3. General Water Quality Attitudes Indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the statements below.

Protecting water quality is important When asked about their attitudes toward water quality, the strongest response came from our

questions about water quality and economic development. In general, respondents value water

quality over economic development.

Question 3 General Water Quality Attitudes—Economics N=475

As seen in the next figure, even at the personal level, almost half of the respondents are willing

pay more to protect water quality. However, the number of respondents willing to pay more

drops to 25% if the cost for water protection is collected through “fees”. A great follow-up

question would be to ask how or in what way, are landowners willing to pay more to protect

water quality?

Even when the question is asked from the opposite perspective (Question 3b and 3g), around

40% of the respondents don’t think protecting water quality is too expensive or it puts them at an

economic disadvantage.

Many landowners (between 30-40%) did not have an opinion on this issue as seen in the blue bar

of where respondents said Neither.

0 20 40 60 80 100

3 h) It is okay to reduce water quality to promote economic

development.

3 e) It is important to protect water quality even if it slows

economic development.

Agree or strongly agree

Disagree or strongly disagree

Neither

%

7

Question 3 General Water Quality Attitudes—Economics N= 475

Landowners believe forest management affects water quality After economics, the next strongest response on attitudes was about actions and whether the

landowner felt their actions made a difference. To a high degree, landowners believe that what

they do on their land makes a difference to the water quality.

Question 3 General Water Quality Attitudes—Making a Difference N= 475

%

%

8

Attitudes towards Lake Superior

Question 3 General Water Quality Attitudes --Making A Difference N= 475

At the community level, a large number of respondents feel a personal responsibility to protect

the water quality in Lake Superior and recognize its contribution to the quality of life. But at the

individual level the level of agreement drops to 55%. This is similar to the economic version of

this question, that is, in concept, people value the water quality more than the money, but fewer

respondents agree when it comes down to the personal level (taking an action-or paying a fee).

*The personal responsibility question (76% strongly agree or agree) when parsed out in detail

shows 60% strongly agree and 16% agree. Still, having 60% strongly agree that it is their

personal responsibility to help protect water quality in Lake Superior suggests strong potential

for future stewardship success though outreach and education programs.

4. Consequences of Runoff Rainwater runoff and poor water quality can lead to a variety of consequences for

communities. In your opinion, how much of a problem are the following issues in your area?

Not Perceived as a Problem Landowners do not see many problems with runoff. Between 30-40% see no problems caused

by runoff for contaminated drinking water, cost of treating drinking water, beach closures,

reduced beauty of lakes and streams, fishing and canoeing, or flooding.

About the same percentages don’t know if runoff causes any problems at all. If the “Don’t

Know” responses are added to the “Not a Problem” respondents, the values increase to 46-73%.

%

9

A smaller number of landowners perceive that runoff is a more serious problem for loss of

desirable fish (8% severe problem 15% moderate problem) and contaminated fish (9% severe

problem, 20% moderate problem).

Question 4 Consequences of Runoff and Poor Water Quality N=474

Runoff is not seen as problem, or is an invisible problem for half to three-fourths of the

respondents. This response seems to indicate the need to increase awareness about the

consequences of runoff.

5. Types of Water Pollutants Below is a list of types of water pollutants that are generally present in water bodies to some

extent. The pollutants become a problem when present in excessive amounts. In your opinion,

how much of a problem are the following pollutants in local streams?

N=475

Rank Pollutant % of respondents who perceived pollutants as Moderate or Severe Problem

1 Trash and litter 34

2 Fertilizers 30

3 Clay 29

4 Manure 27

5 Pesticides and herbicides 27

6 Salt 26

7 Sand 12

Less than one-third of the respondents perceived any of the pollutants as a Moderate or Severe

Problem.

10

Correspondingly, most pollutants were perceived as Slight or Not a Problem.

Rank

Pollutant

% of respondents who perceived pollutants as Slight or Not a Problem

1 Sand 64

2 Trash and litter 49

3 Clay 47

4 Manure 45

5 Salt 43

6 Pesticides and herbicides 40

7 Fertilizers 39

Between 20-30% of the respondents didn’t know if any of the pollutants are a problem or not.

The biggest perceived pollutant is trash and litter at 34%, maybe because it is more visible than

the other pollutants.

Interestingly, clay and sand which are not identified as much of a problem by the respondents are

indeed serious pollutants in streams and bays of Lake Superior. Sand smothers gravel spawning

beds of fish and can impair drinking water systems for the cities of Ashland and Superior. Also,

woodland management can influence sand and clay more than some other pollutants. The cause

and effect of these pollutants materials as serious pollutants could be the topic of future

educational initiatives.

6. Sources of Water Quality Problems The items listed below are sources of water quality problems across the country. In your

opinion, how much of a problem are the following sources in the area near your woodland

property in the Lake Superior Basin?

When asked about sources of pollution that are common across the country, landowners in

Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin didn’t respond very strongly to any sources, this follows the

general perception that the water is in pretty good shape.

N=475

Rank Source of Water Quality Problems

% of respondents who perceived sources of water quality as a Moderate or Severe Problem

1 Littering and/or illegal dumping of trash 28

2 Improperly maintained septic systems 19

3 Rainwater runoff from town and county roads 17

4 Soil erosion coming from stream banks 17

5 Rainwater runoff from parking lots 16

6 Droppings from geese, ducks and other waterfowl 15

11

7 Excessive use of fertilizers 15

8 Rainwater runoff from farm fields 15

9 Spreading manure on farm fields 14

10 Soil erosion coming from farm fields 13

11 Rainwater runoff from private logging roads 12

12 Dumping of used motor oil and anti-freeze 11

13 Soil erosion coming from construction sites 9

14 Soil erosion coming from woodlands 6

15 Rainwater runoff from woodlands 4

A large majority of the respondents do not perceive any problem, or perceive only a slight

problem, with any of the sources listed as contributors to water quality problems.

If we combine answers where the respondents perceive any problem (see chart below where we

combine Slight, Moderate and Severe answers), then we get an interesting result that indicates

(after littering) that respondents do notice more the soil erosion from stream banks, which is a

real problem in the Superior Red Clay Plain.

Residents of Ashland, Wisconsin commonly see a red plume of clay streaming out of Fish Creek

into Lake Superior after rainfalls in the spring. Red clay sediments from stream banks are

suspended in the bay area for weeks after significant storms.

Rainwater runoff from town and county roads tends to be from failing culverts during rain

events. The public is inconvenienced and takes note when washed out culverts close roads.

Less visible sources like soil erosion from construction sites, farm fields, woodlands and

rainwater runoff from parking lots and woodlands are rated as “not a problem by almost half of

the respondents.

N=475

Rank Source of Water Quality Problems

% of respondents who perceived sources of water quality as a Slight, Moderate or Severe Problem

1 Littering and/or illegal dumping of trash 65

2 Soil erosion coming from stream banks 51

3 Rainwater runoff from town and county roads 50

4 Droppings from geese, ducks and other waterfowl 39

5 Rainwater runoff from farm fields 38

6 Rainwater runoff from private logging roads 37

7 Spreading manure on farm fields 36

12

8 Soil erosion coming from farm fields 34

9 Rainwater runoff from parking lots 34

10 Excessive use of fertilizers 32

11 Soil erosion coming from construction sites 30

12 Soil erosion coming from woodlands 30

13 Dumping of used motor oil and anti-freeze 27

14 Rainwater runoff from woodlands 25

15 Improperly maintained septic systems 22

7. Experience with water quality practices The practices below have the potential to improve water quality and reduce runoff in your

area.

7a. Please indicate which statement most accurately describes your level of experience

with each practice (select only one).

7b. Would you be willing to try or continue doing this practice?

Low Level of Experience, but High Willingness to Try Generally we saw high numbers of “Does Not Apply” answers coupled with high numbers of

willingness to try the practice. More than half of the landowners didn’t think practices like

stream crossings, improving logging roads, relocating road off steep slopes and delaying a

harvest 3-5 years applied to them. Yet, those same practices are identified by slightly fewer

landowners as ones they are willing to try. High levels of willingness to try some forest practices

augur well for future efforts to get more landowners implement forest management activities.

Rank N Level of experience with this activity (currently doing or have done this activity)

% willing to try activity

N

1 458 Seeding bare areas of soil 73 392

2 460 Encouraging long-lived species of trees near streams 72 387

3 460 Harvesting timber in stages to avoid cutting all at once 70 390

4 458 Keep equipment off logging road two days after heavy rains 64 360

5 454 Limit the use of equipment on steep slopes 62 365

6 460 Plant trees in open fields 54 404

7 463 Improve and maintain logging roads 51 355

8 454 Delay a timber harvest 3-5 years 45 367

9 462 Relocate or close logging roads on steep slopes 44 338

10 460 Use temporary stream crossings during timber harvest 43 367

11 458 Follow a written management plan for my woodlands 40 421

Activities 1-6 are less resource intensive and don’t require a lot of time, equipment and labor.

Keeping equipment off the roads after a rainfall and limiting equipment use on steep slopes don’t

require any resources except the willingness to prohibit or delay that activity.

13

For most landowners, activities 7-11 require more specialized knowledge and money to hire road

builders, loggers and foresters to carry out the work. Since respondents did indicate that the out-

of-pocket expenses are a concern, it makes sense that activities that have to be hired out are less

likely to be done. Perhaps if landowners were aware of sources of knowledge and money to help

with these activities, we could be removing a barrier to action. For example,

Woodland information and outreach programs could focus on including more specific

information on cost-share grants that will pay for activities. Programs could also focus helping

landowners find the specialists who will have the knowledge, like DNR foresters, consultant

foresters and landowner cooperatives and woodland organizations to help them plan for

management activities.

Activities In Use Of the entire list of forest management practices listed, only a few are currently done by

landowners. The practices in use are: encouraging long-lived species of trees (24%) near

streams, and seeding areas of bare soil (23%).

In question 7 we cross-tabulated Resident and Non-Resident woodland owners and found that

they are very similar in their willingness to try the top seven practices. But further down the

ranked list, Non-Residents are more willing to try practices 7-11 than Residents. Perhaps

Residents are more likely to have the equipment or know the right people to help them

implement the activities.

Question 7 Willingness to Try Activities N=460

This information can help tailor woodland owner classes, workshops and field days towards the

activities landowners are most willing to try.

% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

k) Seed any areas of bare soil

h) Encourage long-lived tree species near streams

g) Harvest timber in stages to avoid cutting all of property at once

j) Keep equipment off my logging roads for tw o or more days after heavy

rains

i) Limit the use of equipment on steep slopes

d) Improve and maintain my logging roads

b) Plant trees in open fields

a) Follow a w ritten management plan for my w oodlands

f) Delay a timber harvest for 3-5 years to provide long-term w ater quality

benefits

c) Use temporary stream crossings during timber harvests

e) Relocate or close my logging roads on steep slopes

Residents

Non-Residents

14

8. Making Management Decisions When you make decisions about new management activities for your woodland, how

important is each of the following considerations?

When woodland owners make decisions about managing their woods several factors are very

important to them. The top considerations are:

1) Out-of-pocket expenses

2) My own views about effective woodland management

3) Environmental benefits of management activity

4) Environmental damage caused by management activity

N=462

Not at all

Important (1) Not too Important (2) Uncertain (3)

Fairly

Important (4)

Very

Important (5)

.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

a) Personal out-of-pocket expenses

b) My own views about effective woodland management

q) Environmental benefits of management activity

p) Environmental damage caused by management activity

c) How easily a new practice fits with my current woodland management

e) Lack of funds available for cost share

n) Possible interference with my flexibility to change management activities as conditions warrant

g) Not having access to the equipment that I need

d) The need to learn new skills or methods

m) Requirements or restrictions of government programs

h) Lack of available information about a management activity

f) Too much time required to implement

o) Don’t know where to get information and/or assistance

r) Need to hire professional help for management activity

l) Don’t want to participate in government programs

j) Concerns about reduced timber harvest profits

i) No one else I know is implementing the management activity

k) Approval of my neighbors

Residents

Non-Residents

15

The #1 concern is out-of-pocket expenses. One of the most frequently asked questions at the

Learn About Your Land woodland owner classes was about the cost of different management

activities. More information about how much out-of-pocket expense is expected in various cost-

share programs, and also more information on the cost of different forest activities, would help

answer this concern. For example, we could make a list of activities and estimated expense and

create a class on budgeting for woodland management, where landowners could see exactly how

much it costs them to implement a forest management plan to meet their vision.

The #2 concern is “my own views about effective woodland management” seems to indicate that

landowners don’t want to be told what to do. Perhaps this could be explored in a focus group or

interviews. This doesn’t seem to be a negative obstacle, since #3 and #4 concerns are about

environmental benefits or damage that could occur with management activities. In Learn About

Your Land classes, many participants expressed regret over logging on their property that didn’t

turn out the way they had hoped. This type of regret may be what is driving the environmental

concerns. These concerns can be addressed in a forest management plan, but most landowners

may not realize that. The fact that working with a forester on setting up and supervising a

harvest (or other activity) can pay for itself in better yield and more peace of mind, is one

concept that could address this landowner concern.

The differences between Residents and Non-Residents were only significant in three areas; that

is, residents:

feel a greater lack of available information

are less interested in participating in government programs

are not as concerned about approval of neighbors as Non-Resident

In summary, it appears more like landowners don’t want to put out a lot of their own money and

they want the activities to reflect their values and not be detrimental to the environment.

Knowing this, we can plan landowner outreach that focuses on cost-share scenarios that save

landowners money, and addresses the benefits of having a management plan (and working with a

forester) to control the activities so the landowner is satisfied with the result.

9. Information and Activities People get information about forestry from a number of different sources. To what extent do

you trust those listed below as a source of information about forestry?

People get information about forestry from a number of different sources. The top three sources

included all levels of government: local, state and federal agencies. Respondents named County

Land Conservation Departments, US Forest Service and University of Wisconsin Extension as

their most trusted places to go for forestry information.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the US Fish & Wildlife Service are next in

rank.

16

To what extent do you trust those listed below as a source of information about forestry?

Not At All (1) Slightly (2) Moderately (3) Very Much (4)

Rank Source of information Mean N

Other:______________________* 3.36 393

1 US Forest Service 3.01 470

1 University of Wisconsin Extension 3.01 468

1 County Land Conservation Department 2.98 471

2 US Fish and Wildlife Service 2.87 468

3 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 2.83 471

4 US Natural Resources Conservation Service 2.72 466

5 Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection 2.68 467

5 Trout Unlimited – Wild Rivers Chapter 2.68 468

6 Northland College/Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute 2.57 471

7 Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association 2.55 469

8 Living Forest Cooperative 2.46 467

9 Your neighbors 2.44 470

10 Bad River Watershed Association 2.3 468

10 A local land trust 2.29 466

11 A local lake association 2.19 469

Question 9 Information and Activities

* Woodland Coop Eagle River, West Wis Land Trust, "Vegetation of Wis. (Curtis), Private Forester, Brule Preservation, Data, County Forestry Depts., Court House Superior Land Dept., Izaak Walton League, Local loggers, Use my own skills and judgment, Programs affecting private landowners, My wife, Personal judgment & based on observation & research, National Park Service, Some loggers and most foresters, ME - 35 years experience in logging, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Old Growth Ideas, County Forestry Office, Town & County, My forestry degree, The local pub, My own experience, education & time spent in woodland and on streams

17

The Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas and Iron County Land Conservation Departments (LCDs) are a

valued resource for landowners. LCDs generally work with farmers on developing conservation

plans that reduce surface runoff and control nutrient loads onto land and water. Their top

ranking may be a result of ongoing education classes, field days and cost-share programs they

administer for landowners. In addition, the LCDs sponsor an annual tree sale (which now

includes, native shrubs, rain garden and shore land plants) that encourages tree planting and

native plant restoration. The tree sale order forms and planting tips and guidelines is mailed to

every landowner in each county.

The Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest is a major recreational resource used by residents and

tourists for snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, hiking, ATVing, camping and fishing. The large

landscape of national forest in the Basin is an outstanding resource which includes multiple

public uses of forested land, rivers and lakes and contributes significantly to the quality of life

for local communities.

The University of Wisconsin Extension is a well-known institution providing educational

programs and publications on a wide variety of topics. The county-based network of Extension

offices are spread throughout the state and bring the research and resources of the University of

Wisconsin to citizens, communities, businesses and organizations. The University of Wisconsin

Extension’s educational (and non-regulatory) role is integrated strongly into the communities

found in the Lake Superior Basin.

Continued outreach in partnership, such as the Learn About Your Land classes for landowners

utilize all of these trusted partners. Perhaps we can look at other joint outreach opportunities in

written materials or other means.

10. About Your Woodland in the Lake Superior Basin

10 a) How many years have you owned your woodland property? N=452

Woodland owners have owned their land for an average of 22 years.

10 b) Did a family member own the woodland before you did? N=475

For 37% of the landowners, the land had been in their family and the average family ownership

was 57 years. N=172

10 c) How likely is it that a family member may continue to own your woodland after you?

N=473

Sixty-one percent of the respondents indicated that it was “likely” or it “will definitely happen”

that a family member will continue to own the land after them. The University of Wisconsin

Extension’s Ties to the Land landowner workshops (adapted from Oregon State University),

facilitates succession planning for woodland owners. The high interest in passing the land down

through generations should be a focus for future landowner programs.

10 d) Estimate the total acreage of your property in the Lake Superior Basin 91.29 acres n=462

18

… how much of this is woodland?: 69.41 acres N=456

10 e) How important are the following as to why you own woodland property?

Not only our target population of unengaged landowners, but most woodland owner surveys

show the same response. Enjoying the beauty, privacy and connecting with nature are the top

reasons people own woodlands.

Rank Very Important & Fairly Important reasons to own property

% N

1 Enjoy the scenery 92 475

2 Protect wildlife habitat 90 473

3 Having a personal connection with nature 87 473

4 Protect the environment 83 472

5 Recreation other than hunting 77 471

6 Protect woodland from development 73 473

7 Keep property in the family Hunting Sell Timber

70 70 70

473 468 470

8 Investment 64 468

9 Primary residence 56 471

10 Harvest personal firewood 45 471

11 Location for secondary residence 38 452

12 Produce products other than timber 14 470

10 f) Are you planning any activities for your woodland in the next five (5) years? N=478

51% do have planned activities for the next five years.

49% do not have any planned activities for the next five years

10 g) Do you have a written management plan for your woodland? N=477

No 88%

Yes 9%

I don’t know 2%

This survey shows that of the 51% who do plan activities for their land, those who have

management plans are much more likely to plan forest activities for the next five years. In fact,

for every kind of activity (except dividing up the land to sell) people with management plans for

their land are up to twice as likely to have plans for some activity. (Still, we have to remember

that this was only 9% of the respondents.)

19

Question 10 Planned Activities N=477

Program participation

10 h) Do you participate in any of the following land management or conservation programs?

N=478 % Conservation Programs for Landowners

8.8 Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law (MFL) or Forest Crop Law Programs (FCL)

1.3 Wisconsin Forest Landowner Grant Program (WFLGP)

0.8 Conservation Reserve Program(CRP) or Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program(CREP)

0.2 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

0.4 Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)

0.8 A conservation easement program or land trust – Please specify:

3.1 Other – please specify: _______________**

** My own plan - Keep planting original species of trees (pre-settlement), Community Comprehensive Planning Commission, Town of Maple, Forest Inventory & Analysis, Farm Preservation, Would be interested in learning about these!, School of Common Sense, Living Forest Coop helps with harvest, Enrolled as a consolidated papers tree farm now Storo-Enso, USFWS conservation agreement considering WFLGP & CREP, Lake Association, DNR- Gypsy moth testing, Leave forest as is, Living Forest Cooperative, recreational use, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, I plan to have some trees planted in 2010, Conservation Trust may apply when we retire & get older

.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

0) I have planned activities

1) Cut trees for f irew ood for personal use

2) Harvest saw logs or pulpw ood

5) Give some or all of my w oodland to my children or other heirs

7) Buy more w oodland

4)Sell some or all of my w oodland

8) Clear w oodland for a building site

6) Divide all or part of my w oodland and then sell the subdivisions

3) Convert some or all of my w oodland to another use

Mgmt Plan

No Plan

20

Even though we tried to exclude landowners in Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law (MFL)

program in our target audience, we still see 9% respondents participating in MFL. This could be

due to the time lag county land records departments face in recording MFL contracts. In

addition, although we selected our target audience based on criteria that a parcel is not enrolled

in MFL, a landowner may have other holdings enrolled in MFL that they were thinking of when

they completed the survey.

9% of those surveyed are involved in Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law program. 9% is also

exactly the number of respondents that had management plans. This seems to indicate that very

few landowners prepare management plans, except when required, by a cost-share or other

program. Increasing participation in the Wisconsin MFL program may the key to increasing the

number of landowners developing management plans leading to more management of forested

land.

All other programs are utilized by 1% or less of the respondents. Tree-planting cost-share

programs, set aside programs, easements or other landowner incentive programs are not being

used by this population of landowners.

11 d) How do you prefer to receive information about water quality and forestry issues?

Check all that apply). N=475

Landowners prefer to receive written information, and they prefer to have it mailed directly to

their home. The majority of respondents are not interested in receiving information via

electronic media like emails, online presentations, television and radio. Very few landowners are

interested in two-hour classes, half day tours or full day tours. N=475

Rank % Type of information

1 62 Newsletters, magazines or newspapers

2 48 Direct mailings to your house

3 32 Talking with a forester or other natural resource professional

4 30 Websites

5 25 Television or radio programs

6 21 Emailed newsletters and articles

7 20 Talking with other woodland owners

8 19 Video tapes or DVDs for home viewing

9 13 Two hour class within easy driving distance

10 13 Half day tours of nearby woodlands

11 12 Talking with a logging contractor

12 8 None of the above

13 7 Membership in a landowner organization

14 4 Full day tours of nearby woodlands

15 4 Live presentations online

16 3 All-day Conferences

21

Conclusions The woodland owners in this survey clearly recognized that forest management activities can

impact water quality. 70% agree or strongly agree that the quality of life in my community

depends on good water quality in Lake Superior.

The landowners also felt that what they do on their land does affect water quality and that it is

their personal responsibility to protect the water quality in Lake Superior. 55% said they would

be willing to change the way they care for their woods to improve water quality in Lake

Superior. Almost half say it’s important to protect the water quality, even if it costs them more.

The survey shows a high understanding of soil erosion from undercut stream banks creating

water quality problems. But sand deposition covering up fish habitat is not recognized as a

problem by most landowners.

Littering and/or illegal dumping of trash (57%) topped the list as the main source of water

quality problems. Other invisible sources are not perceived as problems.

Of the entire list of forest management practices listed, only a few are currently done by

landowners. The practices in use are: encouraging long-lived species of trees (24%) near

streams, and seeding areas of bare soil (23%). But high levels of willingness to try some forest

practices augur well for future action

People get information about forestry from a number of different sources. The top three sources

included all levels of government: local, state and federal agencies. Respondents named County

Land Conservation Departments, US Forest Service and University of Wisconsin Extension as

their most trusted places to go for forestry information.

The high levels of personal responsibility, concern for quality of life and willingness to try

management activities indicate great potential for more woodland management for water quality.

The more landowners that have plans, the greater number of forest management activities are

implemented. Providing more educational programs that encourage landowners to develop

management plans, may encourage more forest management activity. MFL plans in particular

must be implemented using Best Management Practices that protect water quality, so getting

land under management plans is a key to maintaining or improving water quality.

Landowners in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin are open, and interested in learning more about

what they can do for their woodlands and to protect the streams and Lake Superior.

Future actions to consider:

1) Use fish and fishing as a way to educate about water quality since that is one of the most

important aspects of living here related to water.

2) Establish a well-testing program that will provide information to residents about the quality

of their drinking water and connect to other water quality issues.

22

3) Determine how to share the very high responses that people really care about their water

quality and Lake Superior, so landowners know that not only they, but also their neighbors, care

strongly about our water resources.

4) Provide examples of landowners “doing their part” to protect water through their forest

activities. This highlights the survey response that people care about our streams and Lake

Superior and make the connection between their activities on their woodlands and water.

5) Consider how to raise awareness about runoff and its effects on streams and lakes.

Determine how to describe pollutants that are not as visible as litter and trash.

6) Help landowners calculate the costs of planning and forest management activities.

7) Promote easy-to-do activities that are less resource intensive and don’t require a lot of time,

equipment and labor:

• Keeping equipment off the roads after a rainfall

• Limiting equipment use on steep slopes

• Seeding bare ground

• Promoting long-lived trees near streams

8) Work more closely with county conservation departments and the US Forest Service to

design and deliver woodland owner programs and information. Landowners indicate they are

interested in programs that address the benefits and/or damage caused by different activities.

9) Acknowledge that most landowners own their land to enjoy the natural beauty. Look for

ways to validate this and connect stewardship activities to the enhancement of the natural beauty

and health of the woodlands and water.

Footnotes 1

Sudiksha Joshi and Kathryn G. Arano, “Determinants of private forest management decisions:

A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners,” Forest Policy and Economics Volume 11, Issue 2,

(March 2009): Pages 118-125

23

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource

Division of Forestry Private Forestry Program

8/6/2009

Vision: Sustainable forest management across all privately owned forests1.

Mission (purpose): To work in partnership to promote and support Wisconsin’s privately

owned forests and its sustainable management.

Goals:

1. Increase education and outreach to woodland owners, the public and policy makers

that helps them identify and understand the value and benefits of maintaining and

sustainably managing Wisconsin’s private forests.

2. Maintain the amount of privately owned forests in Wisconsin and minimize

parcelization.1

3. Maximize privately owned forests managed based on generally accepted forest

management practices1.

4. Support and engage private forestry partners1 whose actions extend and strengthen

capacity in reaching the private forestry mission.

1 Terms forests, forest land and woodlands are used synonymously. 2 “Maintain” covers offsetting the loss of private forest lands to development, conversion

to other uses and state/local government forest land purchases. Maintaining the amount

of private forest land is a realistic goal for private forestry while increasing the total

amount of forest land in Wisconsin may be a goal of the Division as a whole. 3 Wisconsin Forest Management Guidelines (Pub-FR-226 2003) and the DNR’s Silvicultural

Handbook contain the generally accepted practices for sound forest management. 4 Private forestry partners are organizations and businesses that provide assistance or

support to private forest owners.

Appendix 1 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry Private Forestry Program Goals 2006