Sponsored

Change along the St. Croix Riverway: 1990–2020

A summary of landscape change based on satellite imagery collected over three decades.

By

Alan Kirschbaum, Great Lakes Inventory & Monitoring Network, National Park Service

/

/

3 minute read

Share: Facebook Bluesky LinkedIn Email Other
View of the St. Croix River from Minnesota Interstate Park. (National Park Service)

We monitor landscape disturbances such as forest harvest, blowdowns, fire, and development activities in and around parks using an automated, satellite-based change detection program called LandTrendr.

For this second look at the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (SACN), we analyzed 31 years (1990–2020) of satellite imagery to identify and quantify landscape changes in and around SACN, including six sub-watersheds: the Upper Namekagon River, the Upper Tamarack River, the Clam River, the Sunrise River and North Branch of the Sunrise River, and the Willow River (Map 1). The sub-watersheds were chosen to represent the gradient in land cover types and ownerships within the St. Croix River watershed (Map 2). Monitoring encompassed 347,055 hectares (ha) of land (857,591 acres), of which 31,983 ha/7,903 ac was inside the riverway boundary.

Map 1 (left): The St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (in gray) and six sub-watersheds comprise 857,591 acres. Map 2 (right): Land cover and land use classes in the analysis area, as mapped by the National Land Cover Database.

Cutting trees and raising roofs

Forest harvest accounted for the most widespread and ubiquitous change both inside and outside the riverway boundary. It was most prominent in the northern sub-watersheds (Figure 1, top), two of which—the Upper Tamarack River and the Upper Namekagon River—contain the largest percentages of county-owned lands. Inside the park boundary, forest harvest activities affected 10.60% of the total land area (3,389.29 ha/8,375 ac), with the greatest amount of activity occurring in 2010 and 2011. Meanwhile, outside the riverway boundary, forest harvest occurred every year of the 31-year analysis period, averaging 940.27 ha/2,323 ac per year (Figure 2).

Development was the most common disturbance in the southern half of the study area (Figure 1, bottom), with most development occurring in the three watersheds closest to the Minneapolis area. Overall, the watersheds closer to the metro area experience lower amounts of disturbance, but because the prevalent disturbance agent is development, changes there could have a greater impact on ecosystem function.

Figure 1. Percent of land disturbed within each watershed, by disturbance agent and year, 1990–2020. Sub-watersheds are arranged from north (Upper Namekagon) to south (Willow) beginning at top left.
Figure 2. Percent of land disturbed inside and outside the park, by disturbance agent and year. Note: Y axis scale varies by disturbance agent.

Managing “Downstream Effects”

The disturbance regime at SACN, both inside and outside the riverway boundary, is unique among the nine network parks because of the latitudinal gradient from suburban/agricultural lands in the south to extensive forests in the north. Half of the watersheds are dominated by development and the other half are experiencing steady rates of forest harvest on public and private lands. With little land under federal ownership, this type of monitoring can help riverway managers to know what is happening around them, predict what could happen to the rivers themselves, and work to mitigate the worst of the effects.

For More Information

Read the full reports:
Kirschbaum, A.A. 2024. Landsat-based monitoring of landscape dynamics at Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway: 1990–2020. Science Report NPS/SR—2024/155. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36967/2304342.

Kirschbaum AA and Gafvert UB. 2013. Landsat-based monitoring of landscape dynamics at St. Croix National Scenic Riverway: 2005-2010. Natural Resource Technical Report. NPS/GLKN/NRTR—2013/715. National Park Service. Fort Collins, Colorado. Available at: https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2193936

Visit the Great Lakes Network landscape dynamics monitoring page:
ww.nps.gov/im/glkn/landscape-dynamics.htm. 

Support st. croix 360

Comments

St. Croix 360 offers commenting to support productive discussion. We don’t allow name-calling, personal attacks, or misinformation. This discussion may be heavily moderated and we reserve the right to block nonconstructive comments. Please: Be kind, give others the benefit of the doubt, read the article closely, check your assumptions, and stay curious. Thank you!

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard

2 responses to “Change along the St. Croix Riverway: 1990–2020”

  1. D. Ted Eastlund Avatar
    D. Ted Eastlund

    Thank you for the very interesting article
    Overall I was surprised at the very small but important percentages of land disturbances.
    I was surprised also that beaver disturbances were much more common of outside lands than inside park lands where I thought they would be left undisturbed more often.
    Ted

    Reply
  2. Mark Hove Avatar
    Mark Hove

    Interesting, thank you. I look forward to reading these reports more carefully.

    Reply

Comment

Follow:

Recent News: