FISH CREEK WATERSHED
RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
2011
FISH CREEK WATERSHED
RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
2011
Prepared by
Ashland County Land and Water Conservation Department
315 Sanborn Ave. Suite 100
Ashland, WI 54806
Kenneth M. Bro
Thomas W. Fratt
Funding for the development of this plan was provided by the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation in partnership with the City of Ashland
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Fish Creek Watershed Restoration and Management Plan was prepared
with funding provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s
ArcelorMittal Great Lakes Restoration Program, supported by the U.S. Forest
Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Special thanks go out to the dedicated staff of the City of Ashland, specifically
Brea Grace - Director of Planning and Development, and Alyssa Core Environmental Projects Coordinator.
PROJECT PARTNERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
This plan was prepared with the assistance of dozens of individuals and organizations. Sincere
apologies go out to any that may have been unintentionally omitted.
Ashland County Land Conservation Committee
Ashland County Planning and Zoning Department
Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department
Bayfield County Land Records Department
Bayfield County Planning and Zoning Department
Bad River Watershed Association
Bayfield Regional Conservancy
City of Ashland
Northwoods Cooperative Weed Management Area
Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at Northland College
Town of Barksdale
Town of Delta
Town of Eileen
Town of Gingles
Town of Iron River
Town of Kelly
Town of Keystone
Town of Mason
Town of Pilsen
Town of Sanborn
University of Wisconsin-Extension Basin Education Program
University of Wisconsin- Madison
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association Conservation on the Land
Internship Program
Watershed Citizens
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Ackowledgements....................................................................................1
Table of Contents......................................................................................2
Executive summary ...................................................................................5
CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
1.1 Watershed History ..............................................................................6
1.2 Physical Geography ..........................................................................9
1.3 Soils.......................................................................................................10
1.4 Wetlands .............................................................................................12
1.5 Groundwater ......................................................................................12
1.6 Inland Lakes ........................................................................................15
1.7 Streams ................................................................................................15
CHAPTER TWO – WATERSHED COMMUNITIES AND GOALS
2.1 Municipalities ......................................................................................17
2.2 Counties ..............................................................................................18
2.3 State Agencies ...................................................................................19
2.4 Federal Agencies ...............................................................................20
2.5 Non-Governmental Organizations ..................................................21
CHAPTER THREE – PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
3.1 Review Existing Information...............................................................23
3.2 Public Involvement ............................................................................23
3.3 Environmental Monitoring .................................................................24
3.4 Adopting Policies for Future Conservation and
Development.....................................................................................24
3.5 Community Outreach .......................................................................24
CHAPTER FOUR – EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DATA GAPS
4.1 Land Use and Stream Flow ...............................................................26
4.2 Stream Temperatures ........................................................................33
4.3 Water Quality......................................................................................34
4.4 Wetlands .............................................................................................35
4.5 Inland Lakes ........................................................................................36
4.6 Trout Streams.......................................................................................36
4.7 Sensitive Species ................................................................................38
4.8 Invasive Species .................................................................................39
4.9 Data Gaps ..........................................................................................39
CHAPTER FIVE – EVALUATION
5.1 Streambank Stability Analysis ...........................................................41
5.2 Culvert Evaluation..............................................................................45
5.3 Institutional Controls for Managing Runoff .....................................45
5.3.1 Zoning Ordinances..........................................................................46
5.3.2 Urban Street Design Standards .....................................................49
5.3.3 Stormwater Discharge Permit Program (NR 216) ........................49
5.3.4 Stormwater Utility Ordinance.........................................................49
2
5.3.5 Agricultural Runoff Regulations .....................................................50
5.3.6 Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements .........................51
CHAPTER SIX – RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT
6.1 Watershed Management Objectives .............................................53
6.2 Rural Area Best Management Practices.........................................54
6.2.1 Flow Detention and Redirection ...................................................54
6.2.2 Agricultural Practices......................................................................56
6.2.3 Forest Management Practices......................................................57
6.2.4 Rural Residential Practices .............................................................58
6.2.5 Land Conservation and Protection Practices.............................58
6.3 Urban Area Best Management Practices....................................59
6.3.1 Retention and Filtration Systems – Existing
Neighborhoods................................................................................60
6.3.2 Retention and Filtration Systems – New
Development..................................................................................62
CHAPTER SEVEN – EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
7.1 Demonstration Projects .....................................................................63
7.1.1 Upland Dry Dam..............................................................................63
7.1.2 Urban Bioretention Basins...............................................................64
7.2 Information & Education Programs .................................................66
CHAPTER EIGHT – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
8.1 County Activities ................................................................................68
8.2 Municipal Activities ............................................................................69
8.3 Private Landowner Activities ............................................................69
8.4 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Management ..............................70
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Fish Creek Watershed Overview...........................................6
Figure 2. Aerial Photos of Fish Creek Slough, 1938 and
2005..........................................................................................8
Figure 3. Areas of Fill Within Fish Creek Slough ....................................9
Figure 4. Glacial Formation of Lake Superior Watersheds ................10
Figure 5. Generalized Soil Groups Within Fish Creek
Watershed...............................................................................11
Figure 6. Pieziometric Surface Elevation Contours.............................14
Figure 7. Pieziometric Surface Elevation Cross-Section.....................15
Figure 8. Effect of Historic Land Use on Flood Flows ..........................27
Figure 9. Current Land Use ....................................................................29
Figure 10. Open Lands.............................................................................30
Figure 11. Stream Discharge Rates .......................................................30
Figure 12. Distribution of Low-Flow Runoff .............................................31
Figure 13. Land Use in the City of Ashland............................................32
Figure 14. Late Summer Temperatures ..................................................34
Figure 15. Trout Streams in the Fish Creek Watershed .........................37
Figure 16. Historic Annual Sediment Budget for N. Fish
Creek .......................................................................................41
3
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
Figure 21.
Figure 22.
Figure 23.
Figure 24.
Figure 25.
Figure 26.
Figure 27.
Longitudinal Profiles of Major Creeks ...................................42
Bluff Slumping and Erosion ....................................................43
Streambank Stability Survey for S. Fish Creek......................44
Priority Conservation Areas ...................................................52
Potential Locations for Flow Detention................................55
Stormwater Control Structure in Ashland ............................61
Street Design Recomendation .............................................62
Dry Dam Demonstration Project...........................................63
Stormwater Flow Path at WITC .............................................64
Rain Garden Diagram ...........................................................65
WITC Bioretention Basin .........................................................65
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Land Use in the Fish Creek Watershed –
L-THIA Analysis............................................................................................28
Table 2. Estimated Stormwater Runoff for Land Uses
on Clay Soils ...............................................................................32
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Lake Data for the Fish Creek watershed........................71
Appendix B: Summary of Temperature & Water Quality
Monitoring ..........................................................................72
Appendix C: Natural Heritage Inventory Rare Species........................74
Appendix D: Invasive Species in the Fish Creek Watershed...............75
Appendix E: Summary of South Fish Creek Streambank
Stability Study.....................................................................76
Appendix F: Summary of City of Ashland Open Channel
Assessment..........................................................................78
Appendix G: Summary of Fish Creek Watershed Culvert
Inventory ............................................................................79
Appendix H: Urban Clay Plain Bioretention Demonstration Sign........83
APPENDIX I: Partial List of Potential Funding Sources..........................84
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RESERVED
5
CHAPTER ONE – BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The Fish Creek watershed in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior basin occupies 100,096
acres southwest of Chequamegon Bay (Figure 1). Approximately seventy-five
percent of the watershed lies in Bayfield County and twenty-five percent is in
Ashland County. Most of the portion in Ashland County includes several small
creeks and ravines that flow directly to the bay.
Wisconsin
Figure 1. The border of the Fish Creek watershed is shown relative to the municipalities in
Ashland and Bayfield counties in Wisconsin and Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay.
1.1 Watershed History
French explorers and missionaries extolled the biological richness of Fish Creek
and its outflow to Chequamegon Bay on Wisconsin’s Lake Superior shore when
they first came to the area. Pierre Esprit Radisson described seven-foot long pike
and sturgeon “of vast bigness.” He killed a moose -- and could easily kill more,
but he enjoyed the plentiful waterfowl more.1 Father Claude Allouez
evangelized the native communities from a mission between two large villages.
He wrote that the bay formed a center for the native people “because of its
abundance of fish, which constitutes the chief part of the people’s sustenance.”
1
Radisson, Pierre Espirit. "Fourth Voyage" in Voyages of Peter Esprit Radisson, being an account
of his travels and experiences among the North American Indians, from 1652 to 1684. Edited
by Gideon D. Scull. (Boston: Prince Society, 1885).
6
Allouez described the village on Fish Creek as “forty-five or fifty large cabins of
all nations, containing fully two thousand souls.” Allouez recognized that the
nearshore waters and sloughs at the head of Chequamegon Bay were
renowned for their productivity among several tribes from the Upper Great
Lakes region.2
For the next two hundred years, this region, through the post at LaPointe on
Madeline Island, served as a trading hub for the fur trade, first with the French,
then with the British and finally with John Jacob Astor’s American Fur Company.
The fur trade was the beginning of a massive resource extraction era in the
watershed that culminated in the logging of the forest lands from the 1870’s
through the 1920’s. Lumber production peaked in the late1890’s, after
construction of railroads to the area permitted year-round transportation. In
1897 Ashland and Bayfield counties produced more than 263 million board feet
of lumber and nearly 31 million shingles.3 Before saw timber was transported to
mills by railroads, it was floated to Chequamegon Bay through area streams
during the spring snow-melt.
The lumber companies sold much of the cut-over lands to immigrant laborers
who hoped to establish family farms, but the sandy pine lands in the headwaters
of the watershed proved unsuitable for farming.4 By 1927 28 percent of Bayfield
County lands and 20 percent of Ashland County lands were tax delinquent.
From 1928 through the early 1930’s the United States government purchased
much of the sandy cut-over lands and established what is now the
Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. At the same time, the Wisconsin
legislature passed a Forest Crop Law that enabled tax benefits for long-term
management of private forest lands.5 Along with the establishment of the
U.S. Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resource Conservation Service),
this activity enabled the restoration of forestlands in uplands, along stream
banks and floodplains in much of the watershed. In addition, farmers began
adopting soil conservation practices that reduced the massive erosion of soil
into area streams through the 1940’s.
There has also been considerable alteration of Fish Creek Slough, the 1200-acre
coastal wetland that links the watershed with Chequamegon Bay. In the late
2
Kellogg, Louise P. (editor). Early Narratives of the Northwest, 1634-1699. (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1917). Allouez described Sauk, Outagamie, Potawatomie, Christinaux and
three divisions of Ottawa tribes.
3 Nute, Grace Lee. Lake Superior,. (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1944), p.198.
4 Fries, Robert F. Empire in Pine: the story of lumbering in Wisconsin 1830 – 1900 (Madison, WI:
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1951), p.242.
5 Wilson, F.G. E.M. Griffith and the story of Wisconsin forestry 1903 – 1915 (Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, 1982), p.50.
7
1880’s the artesian springs just east of what is now Turner Road were tapped for
a bottled spring water enterprise that provided water to area hotels. A series of
dikes were constructed for trout ponds. In 1895 Ashland County provided a
$65,000 bond to construct the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Ashland Railroad across
the sand spits at the mouth of the slough. The narrow-gauge railroad was built
on pilings and fill stretching from was is now Xcel Energy’s Bay Front Power Plant
up to Cherryville Road. From there, the railroad continued to the west and south
to the communities of Moquah and Delta. The railroad was used largely for
transporting lumber to sawmills at the bayfront site.6
After the railroad was abandoned at the beginning of the twentieth century, fill
was added alongside the railroad grade for a road connecting Washburn and
Ashland. Terwilliger Creek, which previously drained to the mouth of Whittlesey
Creek was redirected by the road fill to the mouth of Fish Creek. In the 1940’s
U.S. Highway 2 was built over North Fish Creek along the western side of the
slough and connected to the highway crossing the former sand spits on the
edge of Chequamegon Bay. Since then, Highway 2 has been expanded from
two to four lanes, and the intersection with what is now State Highway 13 to
Washburn has been reconstructed several times. In addition, fill has been
added for commercial development in the city of Ashland along the highway
and for park roads circling from the highway through Prentice Park. In all,
approximately 90 acres of fill have been added to the slough (Figure 2, Figure
3).
1938
2005
Figure 2. Aerial photos of Fish Creek Slough in 1938 and 2005 show the steady addition and
alteration of fill in the slough. US Hwy 2 now enters from the southwest and is four lanes wide. An
electrical transmission line coridor extends across the bottom third of the photo.
6
Burnham, Guy M. The Lake Superior Country in history and story (Boston, 1930) pp.325-326, 384385.
8
Figure 3. Areas of fill placed for road construction (solid pink) are highlighted in this aerial photo
of Fish Creek Slough. Rights of way for an electrical transmission line (east-west) and a gas
pipeline (north-south) are dashed.
The fill has altered the water flow patterns between Chequamegon Bay and Fish
Creek and contributed to the accumulation of an additional sixty acres of
sediment on the east and west sides of the slough. Sediments accumulate in
areas where culverts constrict the normal ebb and flow of bay waters from the
bay into the slough. Vegetation is also regularly cut in rights-of-way that traverse
the slough for an electrical utility line (east-west) and a gas pipeline (northsouth). Exotic plant species invasions generally occur within the sediment
accumulation areas and along the various rights-of-way.
1.2 Physical Geography
The streams of the Fish Creek watershed owe their existence to the glaciers
whose advance and retreat carved Lake Superior out of soft sandstone
bedrock 30,000 years ago and then retreated to the northeast 10,000 years ago
(Figure 4). The Bayfield Peninsula at that time lay between two lobes of a
massive ice sheet. Outwash sand and giant blocks of ice were deposited on
the “backbone” of the peninsula as thousands of cubic miles of water flowed
between the lobes of the receding glacier. The sandy region left behind is what
we call “the barrens,” a globally rare and imperiled ecosystem. Mounds of
rocks, silt and sand gouged from the lake basin were deposited as “end
moraines” around the edges of each receding lobe. As the glacier receded
into the basin that is now Lake Superior, a lake formed. The current outlet at
Sault St. Marie was blocked by ice extending well over a thousand feet above
the ground surface as glacial Lake Duluth was formed. At that time, the surface
of the lake was nearly 500 feet higher than the current lake surface, and it
drained to the Mississippi River through the Bois Brule River valley. As rocks and
till flowed off of the massive ice sheet, fine sediment settled on the bottom of
the glacial lake and formed what is now the Lake Superior Clay Plain. Beaches
formed where waves lapped the shoreline of fresh glacial deposits. Wedges of
sand were deposited and later covered with clay forming what we now refer to
as “transitional” soils.
9
30,000 Years Ago
11,000 Years Ago
Figure 4. Runoff between the Superior and Chippewa lobes of the last glacier (left) formed “the
barrens”. Beaches from glacial Lake Duluth (right) formed “transitional” sand-over-clay soils.7
As the glacier receded to the northeast past the Keweenaw Peninsula, the lake
level dropped several hundred feet when the outlet shifted to the Whitefish River
valley in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and flowed to Lake Michigan and
eventually on to the Illinois River at the south end of that lake. Once again the
lake level of the Lake Superior’s predecessor stabilized long enough to erode
coastal bluffs and for beach sands to accumulate more than one hundred feet
above the current lake level. As the glacier receded to the northeast of the St.
Mary’s River, the lake level dropped below its current elevation. About 6,000
years ago, as the earth’s surface slowly rebounded from the massive weight of
the glacier, Lake Superior reached its present level and found its outlet through
the St. Mary’s River to Lake Huron. The soils of the Fish Creek watershed
continued to develop on the glacial deposits remaining above the lake’s
waters.
1.3 Soils
The deposits from the last glacier influence critical characteristics of the
watershed (Figure 5). The sandy outwash deposits in the soils of the barrens
allow snow melt and rain to percolate rapidly into a massive groundwater
reservoir along the backbone of the Bayfield Peninsula. This reservoir provides a
steady flow of cool groundwater to the headwaters of North Fish Creek. The
headwaters emerge at the transition between the outwash sands and the clay
plain. The clays that were deposited on the bed of the former glacial lake are
only slightly permeable to rainfall and are highly erodible. As the tributary
7
Martin, Lawrence. The physical geography of Wisconsin (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1965) and LaBerge, Gene L. Geology of the Lake Superior region. (Tucson, AZ:
Geoscience Press, 1994).
10
streams flowed across the former lake bed, they cut steep ravines through the
clay. The clay soils, although relatively impermeable, hold water much better
than the outwash sands of the barrens. Because of their high capacity to hold
water, the clays are quite suitable for agriculture so long as the erodible ravine
slopes and drainages remain well vegetated. Wetlands that formed in shallow
depressions in the clay plain capture runoff water and sediment, and slowly
release clean water to the streams.
Wisconsin
Soil Groups
Sandy
Till
Transiitional
Clayey
Wetlands
Ravine & Floodplain
Water
Figure 5. Generalized soil groups. Various soils have been lumped together to form generalized
groups. The black lines show County, State and Federal highways in the watershed.
Saturated clays occur throughout the clay plain during spring snowmelt, during
extended rainy periods, and throughout the year in transitional soil areas where
groundwater seeps from the headwaters of streams. The deep clays between
the sandy uplands and Lake Superior are readily eroded by the steady flow of
stream waters over them. The steams have cut steep ravines through the clay
as they flow to the lake. The many wetlands in the clay plain and the organic
matter on the surface of woodland soils help to reduce the volume and speed
of surface water flows and thus, reduce the frequency that streams undercut
the banks of steep ravines.
In addition to the sand, clay, ravine and wetland soils, two other generalized soil
groups are found in the watershed. Till soils are mixtures of sand, silt and rock
that the last glacier deposited as moraines at the ends of the melting glacial
lobes. The sand and rock components of till soils allow surface water to
percolate through the soil, while the fine silt soil particles hold enough water to
sustain good plant growth. Because of these characteristics, till soils pose the
11
fewest limitations for housing construction, road building and agricultural
activities.
The “transitional soils” have greater limitations than till soils. Transitional soils
contain bands of sand that were deposited as beaches along the shorelines of
the former glacial lakes. The sands are often layered within the less permeable
clayey deposits and groundwater often seeps from these soils, especially in the
spring. The headwaters of Fish Creek emerge from the transitional soils in the
upland portions of the watershed. When disturbed by home construction, road
building or logging, these sandy soils are susceptible to cave-ins and washouts
during snowmelt and flood events.
1.4 Wetlands
Many wetlands formed in shallow depressions of the clay plain as the glacier
receded. Small plants pioneered in the wetland depressions and slowly
developed a deep, spongy, organic layer to the point where the landscape
could support shrubs and eventually forests. The forested wetlands and
woodland soils surrounding them were extremely important during the
development of the watershed because they decreased the amount and
speed of surface water flowing across the landscape. By slowing the flow of
runoff and trapping sediment within the forested depressions, wetlands reduced
the frequency of damaging flood flows that undercut the banks of streams and
scoured steep ravines.
During the peak of agricultural development in the late 1920’s, many small
wooded wetlands were lost when the forest cover was removed, the organic
duff layer was burned, and the depressions were ditched and drained for
agricultural use.8
1.5 Groundwater
Groundwater provides a continuous flow of cool water to North Fish Creek
watershed streams, to some headwater areas of South Fish Creek and to the
flowing springs surrounding Fish Creek Slough. The source of groundwater that
feeds the North Fish Creek watershed streams originates from infiltration of rain
and snow into the large area of sandy soils in the barrens of the Bayfield
Peninsula. The groundwater that feeds the small streams and springs on the
eastern side of Fish Creek Slough originates from the tall moraine beneath State
Highway 118 south of Fish Creek Slough.
8
Fitzpatrick, Faith A., Knox, James C. and Whitman, Heather E. 1999. Effects of historical landcover changes on flooding and sedimentation, North Fish Creek, Wisconsin. U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Division Publication. Water Resources Investigation Report No. 99–
4083. Middleton, WI.
12
Lenz and others9 used data from drinking water well borings to plot the elevation
contours of the pieziometric surface of groundwater of the Whittlesey Creek
watershed and much of the Fish Creek watershed (Figure 6). The pieziometric
surface is the elevation to which the water in a well rises after a well boring
penetrates the water table. Just as a topographic map indicates the path of
surface water flow through a landscape, a map of the pieziometric surface
indicates the direction of groundwater flow. Such weakly permeable soil
formations as red clay in the watershed can prevent groundwater springs from
seeping at places where the pieziometric surface is near the soil surface. As a
result, the groundwater is under pressure. When a well is drilled through the clay
near Chequamegon Bay, the groundwater rises above the ground. This is the
case for the many artesian wells along the shoreline of the bay. In areas where
lenses of sand extend through the clay to the sandy formation below, natural
springs emerge. This is the case for the many flowing springs around Fish Creek
Slough and near the edge of the bay.
There are areas containing small springs in the upper reaches of South Fish
Creek, but because the area of sandy soils is much smaller than that for North
Fish Creek, groundwater flow to the South Fish Creek watershed is very low.
Figure 6 shows the many places along North Fish Creek and its tributaries where
groundwater feeds the headwaters of these streams. For much of the South Fish
Creek watershed, the pieziometric surface remains below the ground surface
except for the area north of State Highway 137 (Figure 7). There is a small
stream named Slaughterhouse Creek that flows from the John F. Kennedy
Memorial Airport to the Fish Creek Slough. The steady flow of groundwater to
this stream allows it to support a naturally reproducing trout population along
part of its length, unlike the many other small creeks that flow from the clay plain
to the bay.
Infiltration of surface water in the uplands of the South Fish Creek watershed in
the vicinity of State Highway 118 is the primary source of groundwater that feeds
the artesian springs at Ashland. The forested lands in the uplands of the South
Fish Creek watershed are critical to water infiltration because the vegetation
and undisturbed organic matter on the soil surface slow the flow of surface
water allowing time for water to seep into the ground.
9
Lenz, Bernard N., Saad, David A. and Fitzpatrick, Faith A. 2003. Simulation of Ground-Water
Flow and Rainfall Runoff with Emphasis on the Effects of Land Cover, Whittlesey Creek,
Bayfield County, Wisconsin, 1999–2001. Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4130
Reston, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
13
Figure 6. Pieziometric surface contour elevations of groundwater generated from a
groundwater model. The A-A’ transect (in green, above) indicates the location of
the cross-section shown in Figure 7.
14
Figure 7. Pieziometric surface of groundwater in the southeast area of the South Fish Creek
watershed as indicated by the A-A’ transect shown on Figure 6. The elevation of subsurface
formations is collected from well log data provided by well drillers to the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. The jagged lines between formations show that elevation of the formation
is interpolated from the well data.
1.6 Inland Lakes
The inland lakes of the Fish Creek watershed were formed in the deeper
depressions in the landscape where large blocks of glacial ice were buried in
the sands that washed off the melting glacier. When the ice blocks melted,
they left “pothole” depressions that filled with water in places where the
depressions extended below the groundwater surface. Different from the
wetlands discussed earlier, these lakes are “seepage” lakes where groundwater
moves through the depression rather than only collecting surface water from
runoff. Because of the distinction, seepage lakes do not have a strong, direct
connection with the tributaries of Fish Creek.
1.7 Streams
Within the Fish Creek watershed the primary factor determining stream suitability
as a trout stream is the amount of base flow from groundwater entering the
tributaries as springs. Because of the massive groundwater supply providing
cold, steady base flows to the headwaters of North Fish Creek and its tributaries,
many of the streams in forming North Fish support outstanding trout habitat.
Slaughterhouse Creek is also a trout stream, but a small one that is supported by
the smaller amounts of groundwater arising from the highland areas near State
15
Highway 118 that feed its base flow. The strong groundwater supply in both
North Fish and Slaughterhouse Creeks is also evidenced by the numerous
artesian springs near Ashland and in the headwaters of North Fish Creek and
tributaries.
With limited or no base flows of groundwater, South Fish Creek, Bay City Creek
and the short streams that run directly to Chequamegon Bay flow primarily in
response to rain storms or spring snow-melt and do no support populations of
cold water resident sport fish.
16
CHAPTER TWO - WATERSHED COMMUNITIES AND GOALS
2.1 Municipalities
The geographic area identified by the WDNR as the “Fish Creek Watershed,”
constitutes 100,096 acres in Ashland and Bayfield counties along Wisconsin’s
Lake Superior shore (Figure 1). Almost all of the Town of Eileen and the City of
Ashland, and parts of nine other towns are in the watershed. The City of
Ashland owns approximately 100 acres in Fish Creek Slough at Prentice Park as
well as several parcels fronting Chequamegon Bay.
In addition to the areas that drain into North and South Fish Creeks, the
watershed encompasses the lands that drain to many small creeks and ravines
emptying to Fish Creek Slough or directly to Chequamegon Bay from the City of
Ashland and the towns of Gingles and Sanborn in Ashland County. The largest
of these small creeks is Bay City Creek, which originates at the Ashland/Bayfield
county line in the Town of Gingles and flows northeasterly through the City of
Ashland, entering the bay just west of the former Clarkson Coal Dock. Large
portions of the towns of Keystone, Mason, and Pilsen lie in the watershed, and
small portions of the watershed extend into the towns of Barksdale, Delta, Kelly
and Iron River. A part of the eastern side of the watershed also extends into the
towns of Gingles and Sanborn, including the Bad River Indian Reservation of the
Lake Superior Chippewa.
All of these communities have adopted either land use plans or comprehensive
plans within the past eight years.10 As part of their planning process, each
community conducted surveys of their citizens and land owners to develop a set
of planning goals and objectives for their communities. All of these communities
officially adopted policies to improve and protect their land, water, and other
natural resources. Of the six municipalities that encompass most of the
watershed, all have adopted policies to improve and protect water quality, to
minimize soil erosion, and to prevent development of sensitive areas near stream
corridors and floodplains. These municipalities also specify the implementation
of “best management practices” or conservation practices to protect soil and
water quality.
10
Comprehensive plans for the Bayfield County towns of Barksdale (2009), Delta (2004), Eileen
(2009), Kelly (2009), Keystone (2009), Iron River (2009) and Pilsen (2009) and the Land Use
Plan for the Town of Mason (2003) are available at:
http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/planning.asp.
Comprehensive plans for the Ashland County towns of Gingles (2006) and Sanborn (2006)
are available at: http://www.co.ashland.wi.us/municipalities.
The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan (2004) is available at:
http://www.ci.ashland.wi.us/node/407.
17
2.2 Counties
The Ashland County Comprehensive Plan11, approved by the County Board in
2006, identified goals and objectives to improve and protect the land, water,
and other natural resources of the county. Objectives that most closely relate to
management and restoration goals of the Fish Creek Watershed are:
Encourage the preservation and protection of agriculturally productive soils
Decrease non-point water pollution
Increase the number of acres of land that is protected through conservation easements
Encourage the preservation and protection of environmental corridors for wildlife, water
quality values, habitat protection
Increase protection of the surface and groundwater resources
Maintain and encourage the sustainable use and development of natural resources
Maintain the integrity and viability of forestry and forestry-related practices
Minimize the negative effects of incompatible land uses
Support the Land and Water Conservation Plan
The Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan12 , approved by the County Board in
2010, has a broad goal to “Conserve, protect, manage, and enhance the
County’s natural resources, including but not limited to, lakes, rivers/streams,
wetlands, groundwater, forestlands, and other wildlife habitats in order to
provide the highest quality of life for citizens and visitors. Objectives that most
closely relate to management and restoration goals of the Fish Creek
Watershed are (paraphrased):
Enforce setback requirements for water resources
Educate residents about the importance of natural areas and wildlife corridors
Endorse the initiatives to educate land owners on the appropriate safe levels,
application, timing and safe types of fertilizers and pesticides applied to lawns and fields
in the County
Endorse initiatives to restore altered shoreland vegetation and prohibit removal of natural
vegetation in critical shoreland areas
Promote the establishment and maintenance of natural buffers along water resources
Promote and identify resources to fund buffer strips along streams and the lakeshores
Collaborate to enhance water quality
Educate the public on Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect natural resources
Educate residents on the disposal of hazardous materials
Protect and manage local forested areas and other wildlife habitats
Facilitate enrollment of private forest lands into programs that promote sustainable
forestry
Identify and protect wildlife habitats
Inventory and map sensitive resources to preserve
Encourage “low-impact,” conservation development
Discourage habitat fragmentation
11
Ashland County Comprehensive Plan: 2006 to 2025. Policy Document Adopted by County
Board on November 29, 2006. Vierbicher Associates, Inc.
12 Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan 2010. Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/assets/files/zoning/Comp-Land-UsePlanning/county/2010/2010-Bayfield-County-Comp-Plan-Full.pdf
18
Cooperate with local land trust and others to protect, manage, and preserve wildlife
habitat
Utilize soil data to make appropriate land use decisions based on soil capabilities
The Land and Water Resource Management Plans (LWRMP) for Ashland and
Bayfield counties relate specifically to conservation of the Fish Creek watershed
and parallel the goals and objectives of the county comprehensive plans.13
Both plans included public outreach in their development and were adopted in
2010 by their respective county boards. They share many common elements
with respect to the watershed. They both identify as goals:
to protect and restore water quality
to conserve productive soil resources
to protect and restore aquatic and terrestrial habitats
Specific objectives for water quality include:
manage urban and rural surface water runoff to reduce nutrient and contaminant inputs
to streams and Lake Superior and to reduce the erosive effects of peak flows
restore wetland functions in upland landscapes
Soil conservation objectives include:
restore native vegetative habitat to riparian areas
use agricultural conservation practices to minimize soil erosion and soil nutrient loss
Objectives for aquatic and terrestrial habitats include:
control the spread of invasive species
identify and protect critical habitats
restore fish and wildlife habitat
protect coastal wetlands
restore fish passage through road culverts
The local municipalities and the two counties are key governmental units in the
implementation of restoration and management activities within the watershed.
Except for activities on public lands and individual landowner initiatives, many of
the management programs that apply to watershed restoration and
management involve collaboration with local governments.
2.3 State Agencies
Several state agencies are responsible for watershed management. The WDNR
is not only a major land owner in the watershed but also has the major
responsibility for managing fisheries, wildlife, and waterways; and providing
recreational access to streams. With more than 500 acres, the state owns the
majority of the Fish Creek slough and approximately 1,200 acres of riparian land
upstream of the sloughs along North Fish Creek. As Wisconsin’s primary
environmental quality management agency, the WDNR works in partnership
13
Ashland County Land and Water Resource Management Plan. 2010. Ashland, WI
http://www.co.ashland.wi.us/departments/land-and-water-conservation
Bayfield County Land and Water Resource Management Plan. 2010. Washburn, WI
http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/lwrmp.asp
19
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve the goals of
federal clean water, clean air, and hazardous materials management
programs; and of binational programs related to Great Lakes restoration and
management.
With support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Wisconsin Office of Coastal
Management works cooperatively with state, federal, local, and tribal
governments; and non-governmental organizations in managing the
ecological, economic, and aesthetic resources of coastal communities. The
office has facilitated many assessments of resources in the watershed, local
planning initiatives, and demonstration of best management practices. The
Land and Water Conservation Board (LWCD) of Wisconsin’s Department of
Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) reviews county land and
water conservation plans and provides funds to assist in their implementation.
The University of Wisconsin’s Extension (UWEX) and Sea Grant programs offer
research-based education in support of stewardship and sustainable use of
Great Lakes resources. These programs support several outreach educators
dedicated specifically to water resources education in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior
basin.
2.4 Federal Agencies
Two federal agencies own substantial amounts land within the watershed in
addition to supporting research and education about watershed resources. The
U.S. Forest Service owns most of the sand barrens (more than 21,000 acres)
above the headwaters of North Fish Creek. The Forest Service also owns the
160-acre Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC) property, which lies within
the western portion of the sloughs. The Forest Service manages the health,
diversity, and productivity of its forests and grasslands to meet present and
future public needs. It also provides assistance to state and local governments
and private landowners for the same purposes. Such assistance includes tools
for hydrologic assessment and management of rural watersheds such as Fish
Creek. The Forest Service is one of three federal agencies, two state agencies,
and a local non-profit group that manage the programs of NGLVC to help
people connect with the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the region.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) established the Whittlesey Creek
National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 with the goal of acquiring 540 acres of the Fish
Creek slough and the lower portion of Whittlesey Creek (just north of the Fish
Creek watershed). Most of the refuge’s current ownership is in the Whittlesey
Creek watershed, but approximately 100 acres borders Terwilliger Creek in the
Fish Creek watershed. The refuge seeks to protect and restore the fish and
wildlife values of these coastal wetlands and tributary streams. The USFWS also
20
provides education and financial assistance to landowners interested in
restoring forests, wetlands, and streams to improve fish and wildlife habitat.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) assists landowners with conservation planning and cost-sharing to
improve the productivity and ecological values of their land. The NRCS provides
leadership for soils mapping and also financially supports the implementation of
agricultural best management practices, restoration of riparian lands, and
protection and restoration of wetlands throughout the watershed.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works with the Wisconsin Geological and
Natural History Survey to map the geology and water resources of the
watershed. The USGS has maintained a gauging station on North Fish Creek
and provides basic information on stream hydrology and sediment transport.
Through its Great Lakes Science Center office in Ashland, the USGS also provides
information on the Great Lakes fish, aquatic invertebrates and wetland
resources associated with the coastal wetlands, Chequamegon Bay, and Lake
Superior.
2.5 Non-Governmental Organizations
In addition to governmental organizations, there are several non-governmental
organizations that conduct activities in support of the watershed. The Lake
Superior Partnership Team, lead by the UWEX Lake Superior Basin Educator, is
composed of representatives of interested community groups, local, tribal,
regional, state and federal agency representatives, and educational outreach
specialists. The group spearheads efforts in support of water resources
management in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior basin. The Partnership Team
developed the process for assessing the hydrologic condition of Lake Superior
watersheds that has been used in the development of this plan.14
A subset of the Partnership Team is the Chequamegon Bay Area Partnership, led
by the Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at Northland College. This group
developed several funding proposals specifically to enhance management and
understanding of the greater Chequamegon Bay area and its contributing
watersheds. As of 2011, projects have been funded to enhance passage of
aquatic organisms while reducing sedimentation risks, to enhance riparian
habitat and to reduce pathogens affecting swimming beaches.
14
Schultz, Sandra. 2007. A Guide to Understanding the Hydrologic Condition of Wisconsin’s
Lake Superior Watersheds. Ashland, WI: Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team.
(http://basineducation.uwex.edu/lakesuperior/pdf/LakeSuperiorWatershedsHydrologyGuide.pdf ).
21
The Bayfield Regional Conservancy is a land trust organization whose mission is
to protect the natural lands, waters, forests, farms and places of scenic, historic,
and spiritual value in the Bayfield Region. The conservancy works throughout
Ashland, Douglas, Sawyer, and Bayfield Counties, and their service area
includes Wisconsin's entire Lake Superior drainage basin. The conservancy
recently completed a comprehensive Strategic Conservation Plan for Lake
Superior’s Bayfield Peninsula. Their efforts resulted in defining seven “Priority
Conservation Areas” (PCAs) where several high quality conservation values such
as wildlife habitat, water quality, rare species, scenic features, and wetlands
overlap, creating a “hot spot” for conservation. One of the PCAs identified in
this effort is the part of the Fish Creek watershed in Bayfield County, due to its
rich array of habitats, fish spawning and nursery areas, rare plant communities,
and a diversity of aquatic plants, waterfowl, and fish (Appendix C).
Several sportsmen’s organizations are also active in the watershed area. These
include the Wild Rivers Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Ashland/Bayfield County
Sportsmen Association and the Apostle Islands Sport Fisherman's Association.
These organizations promote safe enjoyment of fishing and hunting, habitat
enhancement and access to fishing waters and waterfowl areas.
22
CHAPTER THREE - PLAN DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Review Existing Information
The first step in the development of the watershed plan was to assemble and
review existing sources of data about the watershed from the federal, state and
local agencies listed previously, and to review existing state and local plans. In
addition, we coordinated with a team of collaborators from the Land and
Water Conservation Departments in Ashland and Bayfield Counties, the
Planning and Public Works Departments in the City of Ashland, the coordinator
of the Northwoods Cooperative Weed Management Area, the UWEX Lake
Superior Basin Educator and the Outreach Program Director at Northland
College’s Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute. These representatives were not
only familiar with the watershed but also assisted in compiling data and
implementing demonstration projects for the plan.
3.2 Public Involvement
During the time that this watershed plan was being prepared, the Bayfield
County towns that include the majority of the watershed were preparing
comprehensive plans which contain elements for management of natural
resources. As a result, the public participation process for the development of
natural resource elements in the comprehensive plans also served as an
opportunity for public participation in the watershed plan. Each community
included a planning committee of at least five citizens. These committees
worked with a representative of the Ashland County Land and Water
Conservation Department as they developed their town plans. The county
conservationist and a water resources planner assisted each committee in
obtaining data about their portion of the watershed and understanding the
significance of their town to the watershed. Each committee sponsored local
community meetings and evaluated public responses to a survey of land
owners in their communities. Each committee summarized public concerns and
priorities in their comprehensive plans. In addition, Bayfield County sponsored
several public meetings about the comprehensive planning process. One
informational meeting specifically addressed the status of natural resources.
The City of Ashland and the towns of Gingles and Sanborn had conducted
similar planning processes within the past five years. The information from the
public meetings and surveys were used to develop the goals and objectives for
the natural resource management identified earlier in this document.
The findings and recommendations of the Fish Creek Watershed Plan will be
provided to each of the local governments and to the County Land
Conservation Committees so that the implementation of the watershed plan
can be linked with implementation of comprehensive plans and county LWRMP.
23
3.3 Environmental Monitoring
The planning team conducted environmental monitoring to collect additional
data needed to assess watershed conditions. The most intensive effort was in
compiling information about culverts and other stream crossings in the
watershed. The condition and construction of these crossings can affect stream
flows, cause erosion and sedimentation, and create barriers to passage of
aquatic organisms. At the beginning of the planning process very little data on
stream crossings had been compiled.
Another major monitoring effort was an assessment of the stability of stream
banks along South Fish Creek and for streams flowing directly to Chequamegon
Bay. A previous study of North Fish Creek found that stream banks contributed
the majority of sediment to that stream, but no data was provided for South Fish
Creek and the streams flowing directly to the bay at that time.
There was also limited data available on the temperature profile and water
quality of several streams. Stream invertebrates and other water quality data
were collected in 4 parts of the watershed in order to develop biotic indicators
of water quality, and water temperatures were monitored in 14 locations
(Appendix B).
3.4 Adopting Policies for Future Conservation and Development
Local communities and landowners, working in collaboration with state and
federal agencies, have primary responsibility for adopting and implementing the
recommendations identified in this plan. As a result, a key process for adopting
the watershed plan and tracking its implementation is to align the Fish Creek
plan with policies and implementation steps listed in each community’s
comprehensive plan and in each county’s LWRMP.
Because each community has different effects on the watershed and different
roles in protecting and restoring the watershed, this plan emphasizes the roles of
communities with the greatest effect: The towns of Eileen, Keystone and Pilsen in
Bayfield County and the City of Ashland in Ashland County.
3.5 Community Outreach
Community outreach activities were conducted at the same time that Bayfield
County towns were developing their comprehensive plans. Each community’s
plan was required to include a section on “agricultural, natural and cultural
resources.” Watershed planners met with each town’s plan commission to help
the commissioners to understand key issues impacting the Fish Creek watershed
in their town. Once each town developed a draft of its comprehensive plan,
the plan commission and the town board held one or more public meetings
and a hearing on the draft comprehensive plan. Watershed planners also
provided information at several Bayfield County public meetings relating to the
24
comprehensive planning process. As a result, several elements developed
specifically for the Fish Creek plan were incorporated into town and county
planning policies.
The revision of both Ashland and Bayfield County’s LWRMP also coincided with
the development of the watershed plan. This coincidence provided the
opportunity to incorporate several elements of the Fish Creek plan into each
LWRMP. Information on the LWRMP and the Fish Creek plan were presented at
various community outreach forums, county board meetings, and during the
approval process by Wisconsin’s Land and Water Conservation Board and
DATCP.
In addition to the community outreach efforts that coincided with development
of the Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan and Ashland and Bayfield County’s
LWRMP, there were community presentations and newspaper articles about the
control of invasive plant species in the watershed and regarding the installation
of the demonstration project at the Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College in
Ashland. Both of these demonstration projects included hands-on opportunities
for community members to learn about issues in the watershed and actively
participate in plan implementation activities.
25
CHAPTER FOUR - EXISTING CONDITIONS
4.1 Land Use and Stream Flow
The use of land within a watershed significantly affects the way water flows
across the landscape and into the streams. Surface water flow over a
landscape is slower and steadier in a mature forest that is well developed with a
deep, organic duff layer above the mineral soils below versus a landscape
dominated by pasture and crop land or by large areas of immature forest.
Surface water flow over the landscape to a stream is most rapid in urban areas
dominated by pavement and mowed yards.
Fitzpatrick and others showed how changes in land use over time affected flood
levels and flow rates in the North Fish Creek watershed15. They determined the
age of the layers of sediment in the floodplain and the rate of sediment
accumulation. By modeling the rate of surface water runoff in the watershed for
land use conditions from the late 1800’s to the present time, they demonstrated
how the impacts of deforestation and agricultural development changed water
flows and erosion in the watershed (Figure 8).
The change in use and development of the watershed dramatically altered the
rate of surface water runoff from the land to the creeks after a heavy rain. Prior
to deforestation and agricultural development, rain moved slowly over the land
to drainage ways. Tree leaves and branches reduced the impact of raindrops
on the ground, and the thick organic layer of decaying leaves and moss on the
soil surface acted like a sponge that slowed and filtered surface runoff as it
flowed across the land. Water collected in shallow depressions and supported
wetland plants. The forest canopy provided shade that kept runoff water cool
on the ground below. Figure 8 shows that the peak discharge rates from this
relatively unaltered landscape were less than half the rates they are now.
After the forests were cut and much of the land was converted to farmland in
the late 1920’s, peak discharge rates were 50 percent greater than their current
levels. The removal of trees, plowing of fields and draining of wet depressions,
eliminated shade and the thick organic cover over clayey soils. As surface
water flowed faster toward the creeks, it became more erosive, cutting rills and
gullies in the land and carrying soil into the creek. Flood levels in the creek and
its tributaries also increased with the faster discharge rates. Flooding streams
washed away the soil at the base of stream banks and caused entire bluffs next
the streams to become unstable. As a result, massive blocks of the adjacent
stream bluffs slumped into the creek and choked the creek with sediment.
15
Fitzpatrick et al. 1999. op. cit.
26
Figure 8. Effect of historical changes in land use on flows in North Fish Creek. Fitzpatrick et al
modeled a rain storm event for different land use conditions and compared the stream flows
over time to the actual flows. Surface water flowed off the landscape most rapidly after forests
were cut and farming was at its peak in the late 1920’s (highest flood stage on the graph). The
flood level was lowest before logging occurred.
After the 1920’s many farms were abandoned and restored to forests, and soil
management practices on much of the remaining agricultural land was
modified. Practices such as reduced cropping of steep slopes, establishing
grassed waterways in fields, and planting permanent, vegetative buffers along
streams and ravines became more common practices. As a result of these
changes, peak flow rates and stream sediment loads declined to their current
levels.
The mix of land uses varies from one subwatershed to the next (Figure 9, Figure
10, Table 1). The North Fish Creek subwatershed is dominated by forest land,
particularly in the sandy uplands in the northwest. Agriculture accounts for 34
percent of land use. The South Fish Creek subwatershed is characterized by a
mixture of fields and forests and a large concentration of agricultural lands (65%
of the watershed) in the central area.16
16
WDNR-BWM. 1999. op.cit.
27
Figures 9 and 10 also display that pastures, croplands and urban lands occur
almost entirely on the largely impervious clayey soils of the watershed (Figure 5).
The most dramatic historic land use changes in the watershed (removal of forest
cover and urban development) have occurred on soils with the least ability to
slow the flow of runoff water to drainage ways.
North Fish
Land Use
South Fish
Frontal
Watershed
(acres)
(%)
(acres)
(%)
(acres)
(%)
(acres)
(%)
40,734.0
76.3%
13,934.6
51.8%
9,962.3
55.1%
64,630.9
65.7%
Water/Wet
1,999.3
3.7%
750.2
2.8%
1,716.4
9.5%
4,465.9
4.5%
Pasture/Grassland
8,020.2
15.0%
9,300.4
34.6%
2,479.9
13.7%
19,800.5
20.1%
Agriculture
664.7
1.2%
1,727.6
6.4%
858.4
4.8%
3,250.7
3.3%
Low Density Residential
742.3
1.4%
548.1
2.0%
838.2
4.6%
2,128.6
2.2%
High Density Residential
1,194.5
2.2%
596.8
2.2%
1,790.3
9.9%
3,581.6
3.6%
20.4
0.0%
19.5
0.1%
333.1
1.8%
373.0
0.4%
0.0
0.0%
3.4
0.0%
85.8
0.5%
89.2
0.1%
Forest
Commercial
Industrial
Total
53,375.4
26,880.6
18,064.4
98,320.4
Table 1. Land uses in Fish Creek subwatersheds based on data generated by L-THIA program of
Purdue University’s College of Engineering.17 Acreage estimates differ from Wisconsin DNR data
due to uncertainty in defining watershed boundaries in the sandy barrens where drainage paths
are unclear.
Another way to gain understanding of the impacts of land use on stream flows is
to compare the discharge patterns of nearby streams that have experienced
similar rain events. Stream gauges have measured discharge on both North Fish
Creek and on the Bois Brule River in Douglas County, approximately 20 miles to
the west. The main stem of the Brule is surrounded by state forest land and the
majority of the watershed consists of sandy upland soil. As a result, discharge
rates after rain events appear less “flashy” than do those of North Fish Creek
(Figure 11). The forested landscape in the Bois Brule “cushions” heavy rain
events, prolongs the duration of snowmelt, infiltrates much of the precipitation,
and allows the water to be slowly released to the river system in a network of
springs. The North Fish Creek landscape, with a larger proportion of clayey soils
and open lands, is less capable of slowing the rate of discharge to the stream
after heavy rains.
Of Fish Creek’s subwatersheds, North Fish Creek has the largest percentage of
sandy soils and the largest percentage of forest cover. Therefore, the discharge
rates for South Fish Creek, Bay City Creek and other small creeks that flow
17
Purdue University College of Engineering. 2011. Impacts of land use change on water
resources: long-term hydrologic impact analysis (L-THIA). West Lafayette, IN
(https://engineering.purdue.edu/~lthia/; accessed March 2011).
28
directly to Chequamegon Bay are considerably more “flashy” than the rates for
North Fish Creek. No stream gauges exist to provide data to document the
differences in flow rates between North Fish Creek and other streams in the
watershed.
Monitoring stream flows during periods of little rainfall also helps to understand
the impacts of surrounding land use on the watershed. Streams that maintain
an adequate “base flow” during extended dry periods may be able to support
sensitive fish populations such as brook trout and other cold water fish. The U.S.
Geological Survey conducted such a study for the Wisconsin’s Lake Superior
watershed in 1970,18 and the results for the Fish Creek watershed appear in
Figure 12. . The researchers found that only the portion of North Fish Creek
approximately downstream of County Highway E provides substantial base flow
during the low-rainfall period. This is the area that supports the Class I trout
streams in the watershed (Figure 12). The researchers did not monitor flows on
Slaughterhouse Creek, the one other Class I trout stream in the watershed.
Figure 9. Current land use in the watershed from WiscLand. The dark blue lines show the
boundaries of the subwatersheds for North Fish Creek, South Fish Creek and the small creeks that
flow directly to Chequamegon Bay. Forest lands are shown in shades of green; wetlands are
light blue; cropland and pastureland are shown in yellow and orange, and the entire area of the
City of Ashland is gray.
18
Young, H.L. and Skinner, E. L. 1974. Water resources of Wisconsin Lake Superior basin.
Hydrologic investigations atlas HA-524. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey.
29
Figure 10. Open lands in the Fish Creek watershed. Crop lands, grasslands and urban lands are
shown in yellow. Forest lands where clearcuts have occurred within the past 15 years are shown
in dark red. All other areas, including woodlands and wetlands appear as white (Source:
Community GIS).
Figure 11. Stream discharge rates on North Fish Creek (blue) and the Bois Brule River (green) in
fall 2009. Note that the logarithmic scale for discharge makes peak flows appear less dramatic
than they would with a linear scale (Source: U.S.G.S gauge station data).
30
Figure 12. Distribution of low-flow runoff in the Fish Creek watershed (Aug. 25-27, 1970). Numbers
are mean flows (cubic feet/second) during the 3-day period at monitoring points in North Fish
Creek, South Fish Creek and Bay City Creek. Colors indicate flow rates per square mile of each
subwatershed19.
The City of Ashland comprises a major portion of the Chequamegon Bay frontal
subwatershed. Like other parts of the Fish Creek watershed, the frontal
subwatershed is predominated by forest and open land, but one key difference
is the concentrated urban development along the shores of Chequamegon
Bay and in the lower section of Bay City Creek (Table 1, Figure 13). This is the
only part of the watershed where there is a network of stormwater sewers.20
Storm sewers that collect runoff from approximately 25% of the urban area
discharge directly into the lower three miles of Bay City Creek. The rest of the
storm sewers discharge either directly to Chequamegon Bay or into several
large ravines that then flow to the bay or Fish Creek Slough.
The clayey soils that dominate the frontal subwatershed are nearly impervious.
In other words, very little rainfall seeps through these soils to the groundwater
below. However, the types of land use in the subwatershed have a dramatic
effect on the amount of runoff that enters the city’s stormwater network. When
rain falls on vegetated areas, much of it remains in small depressions where
plants can use it or it evaporates back to the air. In contrast, most rain that falls
on roofs, vehicles, paved streets, or parking lots flows rapidly overland to sewers
and drainage ditches. Runoff on these hard surfaces readily picks up sediment,
19
20
Young and Skinner. 1974. op. cit.
City of Ashland. 2004. op.cit.
31
oil, leaves, animal droppings, litter, and other pollutants and discharges them
into the storm sewer network.
Figure 13. Land Use in the City of Ashland (Source: Ashland comprehensive plan, 2004).
The amount of rainfall that runs off of any surface also depends on how heavy
the particular rain storm is. A much larger proportion of water from a heavy rain
storm runs into the stormwater network. During even small rain events, most of
the water that hits parking lots and paved roads flows into storm sewers or
ditches, whereas virtually all the rain from light rains stays on vegetated area
such as lawns, grasslands, or forests. Table 2 shows how the proportion of runoff
increases as the amount of rainfall on different landscapes increases. The
amount of vegetated land in a landscape dramatically influences the quantity
of stormwater that discharges to the stormwater network.
Land Use
Runoff to Stormwater Network (%)
½-inch Rain
1-inch Rain
2-inch Rain
Parking lot or Street
64
79
89
Commercial
34
56
74
Residential
18
40
62
Park or hayfield
0
8
28
Forest
0
7
26
Table 2. Estimated stormwater runoff for land uses on clayey soils (Source: NRCS, 1986).
32
4.2 Stream Temperatures
Temperature data was collected in 14 sites across the Fish Creek watershed
during the warmest months of 2009 using Onset Optic StowAway temperature
data loggers (Figure 14, Appendix B). The range and variation in temperatures
of a stream is critical to its ability to support trout populations. At temperatures
above 60 degrees Fahrenheit, dissolved oxygen escapes to the atmosphere
and too little remains in the water for trout to survive for extended periods. In
order to support trout populations, a stream needs to maintain a cool, steady
flow of water with relatively little fluctuation in temperature. The difference
between the temperature fluctuations of North Fish Creek and South Fish Creek
is dramatic. Because of the steady supply of groundwater from the sandy
barrens headwaters of North Fish Creek and its tributaries, the summer water
temperatures there remain close to 50 °F. In contrast, South Fish Creek and Bay
City Creek have a much smaller proportion of sandy formations in their
headwaters and a larger proportion of clay soils in their subwatersheds. As a
result, surface water runoff accounts for a much larger proportion of their flows,
summer water temperatures are higher, and temperatures are more variable.
While restoration efforts in South Fish Creek and Bay City Creek may be able to
reduce sediment loads and stabilize flows, it is unlikely that the temperatures of
these streams will ever be suitable for trout populations.
Slaughterhouse Creek exhibits a temperature profile very similar to that of North
Fish Creek and its tributaries (Figure 14). There is a steady flow of groundwater to
this stream from the highlands near Wisconsin Highway 118 at the southern
border of the Fish Creek watershed (Figure 7). Slaughterhouse Creek is unusual
among streams in the eastern half of the watershed. While groundwater
discharge to Slaughterhouse Creek maintains stable flows and colder
temperatures suitable for brook trout, the other creeks of the eastern part of the
watershed are dominated by surface water runoff and higher temperatures.
33
Figure 14. Late summer temperatures in several creeks within the Fish Creek watershed. The
graph shows a two-week period in mid-September 2009. Pine and Farkas creeks are in the North
Fish Creek subwatershed. Farkas Creek is identified by most records as an unnamed tributary to
Pine Creek (T47N, R6W, Section 10). Slaughterhouse Creek is a small trout stream flowing into Fish
Creek Slough just west of the City of Ashland.
4.3 Water Quality
Sampling at 4 sites in the watershed was completed in early June 2010 to
provide basic data on stream water quality. In addition to conducting field
measurements of turbidity (NTU), dissolved oxygen (DO%) and flow (cubic feet
per second), project staff collected samples of benthic invertebrates from riffle
areas of the streams (Appendix B).
Sampling indicated that the water of all four streams was very clear on the
sampling dates (< 10 NTU); however, upon inspection following heavy rains, it
was noted that all streams showed indications of turbidity caused by suspended
clay particles. Further baseline sampling will provide a more detailed picture of
average levels of turbidity in the streams.
The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) was used as an overall indicator of stream health
and water quality. The HBI takes into account the species of aquatic
34
invertebrates inhabiting a stream and correlates the species to levels of pollution
tolerance. Organisms which are very tolerant of pollution receive high scores,
while species that require very clean water get low scores. The index is
calculated from the scores of each species in a sample and the number of
organisms of each species found in the sample. The lower the HBI score, the
lower the extent of organic pollution in the stream. Organic pollution comes
from topsoil, decomposing leaves, manure and septage that may enter a
stream in runoff from the surrounding landscape.
Another measure used to determine water quality was taxa richness. Taxa
richness excluding pollution tolerant species (EPT) is a measure of the variety of
types of sensitive species found in each sample of benthic invertebrates.
Slaughterhouse Creek, for example, is a sandy bottomed trout stream plentiful
with shrimp-like scuds in the sediment. Farkas Creek has higher flows than
Slaughterhouse Creek and is comprised of a wide range of rocks, pebbles, and
submerged logs that support a wider range of sensitive species, including a rare
larval midge fly (Pseudodiamesa). South Fish Creek has a wide range of
sensitive species, but has more pollution-tolerant species than the other streams
sampled. Bay City Creek, downstream from several storm sewer outfalls for
streets and parking lots in the City of Ashland, has no sensitive invertebrate
species, only pollution-tolerant ones.
The biotic index scores from this limited sampling show that organic pollution is
very severe in Bay City Creek. Such pollution is slight in South Fish Creek
upstream of U.S. Highway 63, and none is apparent in Farkas Creek and
Slaughterhouse Creek. The “possibly slight” degree of organic pollution and
“very good” HBI value for South Fish Creek suggests that barnyard, septic system
or other pollutants coming from upstream of the sampling point are not currently
degrading this stream (Appendix B).
4.4 Wetlands
There are two major wetland complexes in the watershed in addition to many
smaller wetlands that currently occupy shallow depressions in the clay plain
(Figure 5). The largest and most significant wetland complex in the watershed is
the Fish Creek Slough. The slough is a “drowned river mouth” of more than 1,200
acres at the southwest end of Chequamegon Bay and is identified by the State
of Wisconsin as a “priority coastal wetland.”21 Near Chequamegon Bay, the
slough consists of several hundred acres of emergent vegetation including
21
Epstein, Eric J., Judziewicz, Emmet J. and Smith, William A. 1997. Wisconsin's Lake Superior
coastal wetlands evaluation, including other selected natural features of the Lake Superior
basin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Endangered Resources,
Natural Heritage Inventory Program. Publication No. ER-095-99. Madison, WI.
35
reeds, cattails, rushes, sedges and arrowheads. Farther away from the bay, the
slough transitions to willow and alder shrubs and woodlands. The many mudflats
at the edges of the open water portions of the marsh are important feeding
areas for resident and migratory shorebirds and waterfowl. The sloughs provide
spawning habitat for northern pike and nursery habitat for nearly all of the
warm-water fish species found in Chequamegon Bay. Twenty-nine species of
amphibians and reptiles occur in the Fish Creek slough, including the threatened
wood turtle.22
The other large wetland, the Ino Swamp, is an 800 acre wetland at the
headwaters of North Fish Creek contains one of the few remaining examples of
clay plain boreal forest in Wisconsin.23
4.5 Inland Lakes
There are thirty-two small lakes in the sandy soils of the western side of the
watershed. These lakes are depicted in the generalized soils map as “water”
(Figure 5). Lake Louise is a man-made impoundment at the head of Little Pine
Creek and thus is different from the other lakes due to its direct connection to
the Fish Creek tributary. Most of the named lakes support some warm-water fish
species. Private land abuts twelve lakes, and public access is defined for three
lakes (Appendix A).
The most developed of the lakes are Spider Lake and the three “Twin Lakes,” all
of which Bayfield County ranks in the “most sensitive” category of its lake
classification system. Because these lakes are small relative to the length of
shoreline surrounding them (Appendix A), they are particularly sensitive to
pollution from shoreline development such as septic drain fields and surface
runoff. The lakes were developed prior to the adoption of county zoning
standards for sensitive lakes. The other lakes in the watershed with private land
adjoining them have relatively few residences. The U.S. Forest Service provides
public access to two lakes, but many of the small lakes in the national forest
lands are remote and have no defined access.
4.6 Trout Streams
There are several streams that support naturally reproducing populations and
provide spawning habitat for migratory populations of rainbow trout, brown
trout and coho salmon. The WDNR estimated that the Fish Creek watershed
accounted for twenty percent of Wisconsin’s self sustaining migratory fisheries in
the 1990s, but recognized that the fishery had been declining through the
22
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Watershed Management (WDNRBWM). 1999. Lake Superior Basin Water Quality Management Plan. Publication No. PUBLWT-278-99-REV. Madison, Wisconsin.
23 WDNR-BWM. 1999. op. cit.
36
previous twenty years. From a fish population survey in the early 1990s the
department estimated that 47,000 one-year-old migratory trout and young-ofthe-year coho salmon were produced in the watershed. The Fish Creek Slough
provides important spawning and nursery habitat for northern pike in
Chequamegon Bay. The slough also supports many species of waterfowl,
amphibians and reptiles, including rare wood turtles.24
Trout streams within the watershed (Figure 15) include North Fish Creek and
unnamed tributaries in Sections 13 and 29, Pine Creek and unnamed tributaries
in Sections 10 and 11 (including “Farkas Creek”), and Little Pine Creek.
Slaughterhouse Creek, a small creek that starts near the John F. Kennedy
Memorial Airport and flows to the eastern side of Fish Creek Slough evidently
supports a Class I brook trout fishery in one mile of its three mile length. The lower
segment of this stream also has artesian springs that provide a steady flow of
cool water.25
Figure 15. Trout streams in the Fish Creek watershed. Dark blue indicates Class I streams and
light blue indicates Class II trout streams. The red X’s indicate the assumed limits of fish migration.
Major roads are identified as black lines.
With limited or no base flows of groundwater, South Fish Creek, Bay City Creek
and the short streams that run directly to Chequamegon Bay flow primarily in
conjunction with events such as rain storms or spring snow-melt. As a result they
do not support resident cold water sport fisheries.
24
25
WDNR-BWM. 1999. op.cit.
WDNR-BWM. 1999. op.cit.
37
4.7 Sensitive Species
The Wisconsin Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) identifies habitats and species
that are “at risk”. The Bayfield Regional Conservancy (BRC) prepared a list of
these species and habitats in the Bayfield County portion of the Fish Creek
watershed as part of their Strategic Conservation Planning process26. Because
of the rich array of habitats, fish spawning and nursery areas, rare plant
communities, and a diversity of aquatic plants, waterfowl, and fish, the BRC
identified the Fish Creek watershed in Bayfield County as one of their seven
Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs). The rare and threatened species identified
by the NHI have habitat requirements that extend across the watershed
(Appendix C). The sloughs provide coastal wetland habitat and exposed mud
flats. The head of Chequamegon Bay is an important flyway for hawks and
other migratory birds. Several rare species require the dry, sandy, open lands of
the barrens. Others require mixed conifer and broad-leaved forests. Several of
the rare bird species require grasslands. More information on the process used
to identify the Fish Creek watershed as a Priority Conservation Area can be
found on the Bayfield Regional Conservancy’s website at:
http://www.brcland.org/index.php/projects/strategic-conservation-planning
26
Bayfield Regional Conservancy. 2009. A strategic conservation plan for Lake Superior’s
Bayfield Peninsula. Bayfield, WI.
38
4.8 Invasive Species
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission maintains a Geographic
Information System database of invasive species in northern Wisconsin,
Minnesota and Michigan. In September of 2009, the WDNR developed a
comprehensive invasive species program and rule (NR 40) to identify, classify,
and control invasive species. NR 40 defines invasive species as “Prohibited”,
“Restricted”, or “Not Regulated”. Prohibited species are not found in Wisconsin
with the exception of small pioneer populations. Prohibited species may not be
transported, possessed, transferred (including sale), or introduced. Restricted
species are already established in the state. They may not be transported,
transferred (including sale), or introduced. If they are already on private
property, the landowner is encouraged, but not required, to remove them.
Some species that are not regulated by NR 40 have been observed to be
invasive in parts of Wisconsin or in regions of the US that are similar to Wisconsin.
While it is not necessary to report these species, control of them is encouraged
but not required by the law. Appendix D lists invasive species that are known to
be present in the Fish Creek watershed along with their Wisconsin classification
under NR 40.
4.9 Data Gaps
A major limitation of available data for the Fish Creek watershed is information
on water flows and sediment loads for waterways other than North Fish Creek.
The data provided for North Fish Creek can be expanded to provide a better
baseline measure of total watershed sediment loads to Chequamegon Bay.
The stream bank erosion estimates for the City of Ashland and for South Fish
Creek offer preliminary estimates but are not sufficient for monitoring the
effectiveness of management practices adopted in the future. Even the data
and analysis for North Fish Creek is over 20 years old. It would be beneficial to
repeat the research of Fitzpatrick to determine if peak flood flows and sediment
loads have continued to decrease. Lack of funding to maintain the stream
gage on North Fish Creek has resulted in it recently going “off line” during an era
when more monitoring is being called for.
There are currently limited data on water quality throughout the watershed.
Data on possible fecal contamination and phosphorus concentrations are not
at all available. Only a few basic measurements of water quality were
collected as a result of this watershed plan effort. Other water quality data from
the WDNR is outdated, and a basin-wide analysis of conditions has not been
published since 1999, and that report used data that may have been collected
in the 1960s and 1970s. There is a need for a comprehensive, continual
monitoring program for perennial streams within the watershed.
This report provides the first information on culverts and other stream crossings in
the watershed, but additional data are needed to complete the survey and
39
verify the field notes. The first priority for these evaluations should be crossings in
trout streams and other perennial streams. The second priority would be to
complete inventories of crossings in intermittent flow drainages. Along with
refinement of crossing evaluations there is a need to gather more information
about the distribution of fish and other aquatic organisms within the watershed,
especially related to brook trout populations and the degree of protection (or
hindrance) provided by man-made or natural migration barriers. We do know
that brook trout were the only salmonid found historically in the Fish Creek
watershed and that they are virtually non-existent now, but we know very little
about where remnant resident populations exist and if they are being hindered
or protected by barriers.
Bay City Creek, because it flows through lands owned by the Ashland School
District, Northland College, and the City of Ashland, has been subjected to
dozens of efforts to gather water quality, vegetation, wildlife, and land use data.
There is a need to coalesce these data into a “compendium of knowledge”
about the creek that could be used in future planning and restoration efforts.
40
CHAPTER FIVE - EVALUATION
5.1 Streambank Stability Analysis
The most extensive analysis of streambank stability in the watershed was a study
by Fitzpatrick and others in 1999.27 In addition to the study of sediment and flows
conducted in the North Fish Creek watershed, a watershed sedimentation
model was used to estimate sedimentation prior to European settlement in the
1870’s and during the peak of agricultural development in the mid-1920’s to the
mid-1930’s. It was estimated that sediment loads during this time were probably
5 times larger and peak floods were 3 times larger than the pre-settlement level.
With reforestation and adoption of agricultural conservation practices, modern
flood peaks and sediment loads in North Fish Creek have been reduced to
about 2 times the pre-settlement level. The authors estimated that 22,410 metric
tons of sediment per year is produced in North Fish Creek from bluffs, uplands,
streambanks, gullies, and channels. Of this total, 15,900 metric tons per year is
delivered to Chequamegon Bay, 4,940 metric tons is deposited on the
floodplain and 1,570 metric tons is left within the stream channel. Of the total
sediment delivery from North Fish Creek, an astounding 67% comes from erosion
of the tall, sandy bluffs in the transitional soils areas of the upper main stem of
the creek (Figure 16, Figure 17). The results of this research indicate that
continued conversion from pasture and cropland to forest, addition of runoff
detention basins, and bank or in-stream stabilization projects in the upper main
stem of North Fish Creek will help reduce peak floods and reduce erosion and
sedimentation.
Figure 16. Historical annual sediment budget for North Fish Creek near Moquah and near
Ashland Junction, WI.
27
Fitzpatrick et al. 1999. op. cit.
41
Figure 17. Longitudinal profiles of major creeks in the Fish Creek watershed. Distances are in
stream length (following the flow path of the creeks) rather than in straight-line distances from
Lake Superior.
Bluff erosion results from scouring at the base of the bluff near river bends,
primarily during flood events when the speed and volume of water is greatest.
During these events, the creek undercuts the bank, and the entire bluff face
above it becomes unstable (Figure 18). When the ground is saturated or water
is seeping from the face of the bluff, massive blocks of soil may slump into the
creek and be carried downstream. Sediment is the major water quality problem
known for North Fish Creek, and bluff erosion is the greatest source of the
sediment. As sediment moves downstream it can cover the gravel substrates
that provide spawning areas for trout and living space for important riffle
invertebrates. The creek carries sand, silt, and clay downstream to the lower
part of the watershed during flood events, depositing it in the floodplain or
along the stream banks. Sediments that accumulate along the banks create an
increasingly tall barrier between the stream channel and its floodplain. One
effect of this “bank building” is that the ability of the stream to spread out across
the floodplain and dissipate energy is greatly reduced during regular high flows.
Other consequences of this bank building is that the stream is narrowed, forcing
even faster flows, increasing downward cutting of the stream channel, and
ultimately depositing more sediment in the slough and Chequamegon Bay.
42
Figure 18. An example of bluff slumping and erosion. This photo is from South Fish Creek, but is
similar to sites found along North Fish and Bay City Creeks.
While there are high bluffs along the upper main stem of South Fish Creek, these
bluffs are not as sandy as the upper main stem of North Fish Creek. A
preliminary analysis of bluff erosion along this portion of South Fish Creek
estimated that the high eroding bluffs contribute 6,400 metric tons of sediment
per year to the creek (Figure 19, Appendix E).
The City of Ashland contracted for a similar analysis of sediment from bank and
bluff erosion along Bay City Creek and smaller creeks that flow directly to
Chequamegon Bay (Appendix F). These creeks are considerably shorter in
length and generally have bluff heights lower than those on Fish Creek. The
stream banks and bluffs that the contractor evaluated were estimated to erode
more than 219 metric tons of sediment and 7.1 kilograms of phosphorus per
year. The method used to estimate sediment from eroding banks in South Fish
Creek and in the City of Ashland followed Steffen’s training manual28, but did
not estimate the amount of sediment that would be deposited on floodplains or
within the channels as was done for North Fish Creek.
28
Steffen, L.J. 1982. Pollutants Controlled Calculation and Documentation for Section 319
Watersheds Training Manual. Reproduced by Wisconsin NRCS. 2003. Streambank Erosion,
printed in Field Office Technical Guide
43
Figure 19. General location of the streambank stability survey along South Fish Creek and
representative photos of eroding banks and bluffs.
44
Overall, the amount of sediment eroding from bluffs and high banks in North Fish
Creek, South Fish Creek, and the City of Ashland channels are estimated to
exceed 72,000kg/km2/year. Assuming the delivery rate of sediment to
Chequamegon Bay is similar to that estimated for North Fish Creek (67%), over
48,000kg/km2/year of sediment is deposited in Lake Superior from the Fish Creek
watershed. This rate of sediment loading is among the highest in Wisconsin for
Great Lakes tributaries, and is comparable to the rate of sediment loading from
the Nemadji River watershed 64 kilometers (40 miles) to the west.29 Both the
Nemadji and the Fish Creek watersheds have similar geology and land use.
5.2 Culvert Evaluation
Roads and trails that intersect concentrated flow areas are known to disrupt
and concentrate natural flow patterns, create barriers to the migration of
aquatic organisms, and cause sedimentation from eroding road embankments
or stream banks. In the past several years, extensive efforts have been made
throughout the area to inventory and evaluate these crossings; provide training
to agencies, organizations, and road crews on proper replacement techniques;
and secure funding to replace or otherwise mitigate the effects on soil, water,
and biological resources.
In 2009, 385 crossings within the Fish Creek watershed were identified for
inventory by a visual intersection of roads and the stream network in a
geographic information system (GIS). Inventory efforts in 2009 and 2010 resulted
in data for 307 culverts and 28 bridges within the watershed. Discrepancies
between culverts identified in the GIS and those identified on-the-ground were
noted and added to the inventory. Field crews were not able to access all
culverts due to location or private ownership; those culverts were not
inventoried as part of this project. These data can be used to identify and
prioritize crossings for structure replacement or modification, embankment and
stream armoring, or simple maintenance. Example results of the crossing
inventory are found in Appendix G.
5.3 Institutional Controls for Managing Runoff
Institutional controls affect the watershed either through regulating the types,
density, and methods of activities that may occur; or by providing knowledge,
assistance, or incentives to encourage watershed improvements and
disincentives for actions that degrade watershed conditions. Water quality in a
watershed is affected by land use in several ways. The amount and type of
various land uses within a watershed affect the amount and type of pollution
29
Robertson, Dale M., Saad, David A. and Heisey, Dennis M. 2006. Present and reference
concentrations and yields of suspended sediment in streams in the Great Lakes region and
adjacent areas. Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5066. Madison, WI: U.S. Geological
Survey.
45
leaving the area through runoff. For example, croplands are likely to deliver
more fertilizer and pesticides to the streams than would come from a hayfield;
plowed fields produce more sediment than forested areas; and runoff from
commercial areas with parking lots, or urban areas with lots of “impervious
surfaces” are likely to contain oil, antifreeze, and other pollutants that wouldn’t
necessarily be found in more rural areas.
Another way that land use patterns affect the watershed is in the speed with
which water runoff moves from one point to another. Forest lands, especially
mature forests with a well developed duff layer and a mix of conifers and
hardwoods slow runoff the most. The forest canopy, leafy ground cover and
limited roads and ditches allow runoff to flow gradually across the landscape
and to gather in shallow depressions. Rural areas (containing a mix of housing
development along with open space) generally have intermediate levels of
runoff because of the impervious roofs, driveways, roads, and ditches that are
associated with these areas. Urban and commercial development generally
results in the fastest runoff due to the concentration of rooftops, driveways,
parking lots and roads within a relatively small area. The position of a particular
land use can also determine the extent of impacts in a watershed. For
example, if pollutants enter groundwater high in the watershed it could taint
drinking water for everyone that lives “downstream” of the groundwater flow.
The use of land in upland areas of the clay plain where water drains to the
headwaters of streams can dramatically affect undercutting of stream banks by
increasing the quantity and speed of the runoff reaching the stream.
Restrictions on removing vegetation from the top of streamside bluffs may limit
surface soil erosion into the stream but will do little to limit the undercutting that
causes bluff erosion unless the amount and velocity of the water in the stream is
controlled from upstream sources.
5.3.1 Zoning Ordinances
Zoning ordinances administered through counties and municipalities are the
primary method for publicly controlling the size of lots (density of development),
and the types of uses permitted on the landscape. The requirement for local
building and land use permits provides an additional encouragement for
property developers to obtain state erosion and stormwater control permits
where required. The local zoning administrators often coordinate action on a
development with state regulatory staff.
Both Ashland and Bayfield counties have zoning ordinances that control the
density of development adjacent to navigable streams and lakes. The minimum
permissible lot size in Bayfield County is 120,000 square feet (about 2.8 acres)
with 300 feet of frontage for Class 3 lakes and all streams. The minimum
permissible stream-front lot in Ashland County is 62,500 square feet (about 1.4
46
acres) with 250 feet of frontage. Bayfield County also requires maintaining a 75foot buffer of undisturbed vegetation along streams and Class 3 lakes.
All of the areas in the towns of Gingles and Sanborn in Ashland County that do
not adjoin navigable water are in an “unrestricted” zoning district. In other
words, there are no county zoning restrictions on the density or type of
development that may occur there. The Town of Gingles proposes that most of
its land in the watershed be used for rural residential (1 house per 5 acres),
except for some existing industrial development areas that they propose to
maintain near the airport and a natural gas pipeline facility. This proposal would
allow much more residential development in the headwaters of Bay City Creek
and would likely increase the rate of runoff into drainage systems.30 The Town of
Sanborn has not set policies for the Bad River Reservation lands on the eastern
part of the watershed. Further development in much of the unincorporated
areas of Ashland County within the Fish Creek watershed is constrained by state
and county controls on filling of wetlands.31
In Bayfield County most of the land in the clay plain is in an Agriculture-1 District
and most of the remaining private land is in a Forestry-1 District. These two
districts allow a minimum lot size of 4.5 acres. Because the current density of
development in the private, unincorporated areas of the Fish Creek watershed is
about one house per 80 acres, much more housing development within the
watershed is possible under current zoning density standards.32 Because many
of the land uses that may occur in the Forestry-1, Agriculture-1 and Residential-2
(rural residential) zoning districts are similar, the Bayfield County zoning
ordinance does little to assure that areas designated for agriculture and forestry
will be dedicated primarily to those uses. In developing their future land use
plans, Bayfield County towns identified land use categories that call for lower
density development for most of the watershed and recommends uses and
density more consistent with the current levels. Much of the existing private
forest land is designated for “long-term forest management and low-impact
recreation.” A large proportion of current farm and pasture land is designated
for “areas where agriculture is well-established and intended to be
permanent.”33 If Bayfield County adopts zoning districts that limit uses and
30
Town of Gingles. 2006. Town of Gingles comprehensive plan: 2006-2025. Madison, WI.
Vierbicher Associates, Inc.
31 Town of Sanborn. 2006. Town of Sanborn comprehensive plan: 2006-2025. Madison, WI
Vierbicher Associates, Inc.
32 U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary file (SF-1): H001 – housing units. Washington,
D.C. (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml)
33 Imagine Bayfield County. Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan 2010. Short Elliott Hendrickson
Inc. http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/assets/files/zoning/Comp-Land-UsePlanning/county/2010/2010-Bayfield-County-Comp-Plan-Full.pdf
47
density to the conditions proposed in the town and county comprehensive
plans, the zoning ordinance could help to prevent development that increases
the flow of runoff into drainages of the Fish Creek watershed.
The City of Ashland has the highest density of development in the watershed at
1 house per 2 acres, including residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural
land. More than half of the city area is used as agricultural or forest land and
approximately one third of the area is comprised of high-density residential,
commercial, and industrial land. The city zoning map sets the minimum lot size
for agricultural land at 5 acres, and sets lot sizes for residential uses at 5,000 –
10,500 square feet. The city’s comprehensive plan calls for preserving the
agricultural and forest lands around the city’s perimeter and along streams and
major drainages while promoting additional development within existing
residential and commercial areas. Specific open lands are targeted for
development as part of a “staged growth plan” within the City of Ashland.34
The staged growth plan will help reduce the potential impact of future
development within the city more so than a more open-ended approach to
development. The city’s existing zoning ordinance calls for assuring proper
drainage from new development but does not set performance standards for
runoff quality or flow rates. The ordinance includes a schedule of parking
spaces required for new developments but does not promote designs to reduce
runoff to the city’s stormwater network. The city has developed a draft
comprehensive revision of its zoning ordinance that proposes to extend state
stormwater and erosion control requirements to future development that would
disturb 20,000 square feet or more of land. Developers would be required to
limit erosion during construction and plan for the protection of water quality and
minimize discharge rates after construction.35 The draft city ordinance calls for
reducing the suspended solids in runoff by 40% to 80% less than were in runoff
prior to the development and for capturing runoff for the heaviest rainfalls
expected to occur every two years. The standard in the draft city ordinance is
consistent with state standards for non-point source pollution in urban areas
when disturbing areas one or more acres in size.36 In addition, the draft city
ordinance calls for protecting existing natural vegetation where possible and
avoiding encroachment on wetlands, Bay City Creek, and other concentrated
flow channels that drain an area greater than 130 acres. The city’s draft
ordinance would greatly improve the regulation of runoff quality and quantity
from new development and redevelopment within the city.
34
City of Ashland. 2004. The City of Ashland's comprehensive plan (2004-2024): the making of
an exceptional city. Ashland, WI.
35 City of Ashland. 2010. Unified Development Ordinance Revised Draft: September 9, 2010.
Ashland, WI.
36 State of Wisconsin. 2010. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Madison, WI
48
5.3.2 Urban Street Design Standards
Most of the stormwater runoff arising from the urban Ashland area is directed to
creeks, drainages, and directly to Chequamegon Bay through a network of
storm sewers that collect runoff flowing in gutters along paved residential streets
and highways. The city’s current street construction standards call for a
minimum width of 36 feet of paved surface with concrete curb and gutter in
areas where on-street parking will be allowed. The roadway width can be
reduced to 24 feet of pavement in areas where on-street parking is not allowed.
The city previously has enforced these requirements for new or improved streets
regardless of the number of residences that the street serves. The unwanted
effect of these standards is to maximize rates of runoff into storm sewers and to
minimize the filtration of pollutants arising from paved surfaces and adjoining
lawns. The City of Ashland comprehensive plan calls for reviewing the street
design and parking lot standards in order to reduce the required impervious
surface and to “minimize adverse impact on the environment” while assuring
safe and functional streets. By encouraging narrower paved surfaces on minor
residential streets with gravel shoulders for parking and vegetated swales to
direct runoff, the city could promote more stormwater detention and filtration
than traditional curb and gutter design allows. The street design standards
ordinance should be modified to encourage standards that do not require more
pavement than is necessary and that also encourage the flow of runoff through
vegetated swales rather than through gutters and pipes.
5.3.3 Stormwater Discharge Permit Program (NR 216)
The State of Wisconsin has set standards for erosion control and stormwater
runoff from areas where one acre or more of non-agricultural land disturbance
occurs.37 These performance standards apply throughout the state and are
similar to the stormwater performance standards described in the previous
section for the City of Ashland. These provisions regulate new development but
do not apply to runoff arising from existing development. The provisions of NR
216 also don’t offer incentives for property owners to alter conditions that
contribute to runoff or in situations where pollutants may be entering waterways
from their property.
5.3.4 Stormwater Utility Ordinance
A stormwater utility ordinance is a tool that many communities use to charge
property owners for stormwater service based on the amount of runoff that they
contribute to the local stormwater system. Without a utility, fees for maintaining
and improving surface water and stormwater infrastructure are based solely on
property values. Tax-exempt institutions such as schools, local governments,
hospitals and churches do not pay anything toward maintaining or improving a
stormwater network even though many of these large developments may
37
State of Wisconsin. 2010. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 216. Madison, WI
49
contribute huge quantities of runoff to the system. Communities that adopt
stormwater utility ordinances determine fees according to each parcel’s
“equivalent runoff units” (ERU). Units are determined by the average amount of
roof and pavement surface for residences and the measured roof and
pavement area for non-residential property. Utilities can offer credits when
property owners adopt recognized management practices that improve the
quality and reduce the quantity of runoff from their parcels to the stormwater
network. Revenues generated from a stormwater utility can be dedicated to
expenses such as:
paying for stormwater system maintenance, improvements, and additions
retrofitting storm sewer inflows and outfalls to reduce pollution loads and
runoff velocities
providing education and assistance to land owners to create rain
gardens, rain barrels, or use other techniques to reduce loads on the
stormwater network
enforcing erosion control and stormwater regulations
monitoring runoff quantities and quality38
5.3.5 Agricultural Runoff Regulations
The State of Wisconsin adopted performance standards for controlling non-point
source pollution from agricultural operations in 2002.39 All cropland and
livestock operations in Wisconsin, regardless of size, must abide by the
agricultural performance standards and four common-sense manure
management prohibitions.
Agricultural performance standards:
• control cropland erosion to meet tolerable rates
• build, modify or abandon manure storage facilities to accepted
standards
• divert clean runoff away from livestock and manure storage areas
located near streams, rivers, lakes or areas susceptible groundwater
contamination
• Apply manure and other fertilizers according to an approved nutrient
management plan.
Manure management prohibitions:
• no overflow of manure storage facilities
• no unconfined manure piles near waterbodies
• no direct runoff from feedlots or stored manure into state waters
• no trampled streambanks or shorelines from livestock
38
City of Ashland. 2007. Stormwater Utility Preliminary Feasibility Study, City of Ashland,
Wisconsin. MSA Project No. 06270601.
39 State of Wisconsin. 2010. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 151. Madison, WI
50
For the most part, NR 151 relates to the quality of water running off of agricultural
property directly to a navigable waterway rather than to the quantity or velocity
of runoff. While state statute allows for counties to adopt ordinances to regulate
erosion and stormwater runoff, both Ashland40 and Bayfield41 counties have
opted to collaborate with the WDNR in implementing the state performance
standards. The counties will assist in identifying areas requiring improvement.
They will educate and recruit farmers willing to share costs to install best
management practices to control non-point source pollution. They will allocate
funds to willing land owners according to the extent of water quality
improvement and the effectiveness of the practices, and they will coordinate
communication with land owners about water quality problems. Without local
ordinances, the WDNR remains ultimately responsible for enforcement of the
water quality regulations under NR 151.
To help set priorities for agricultural runoff management the state and counties
identified protection of streams classified by the state as “Outstanding Resource
Waters” (ORW) and “Exceptional Resource Waters” (ERW). 42 In the Fish Creek
watershed, the classified ORW are all of the Class I trout streams of North Fish
Creek and its tributaries. The one ERW within the watershed is Slaughterhouse
Creek, also a Class I trout stream.
5.3.6 Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements
Another institutional method for enhancing watershed health is through the
purchase of land and conservation easements designed to protect and restore
critical areas. As mentioned in the section on conservation organizations, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is actively purchasing land in and adjacent to the
sloughs for the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge. The Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources has also purchased more than 500 acres in
the slough and 1,200 acres along the mainstem of North Fish Creek.
A permanent conservation easement is a voluntary landowner agreement that
limits the type or amount of development on specified parcels of land in
perpetuity. The sale or donation of conservation easements is a way to assure
perpetual protection of conservation values that may not otherwise be possible
through regulatory incentive programs. The Bayfield Regional Conservancy is a
local land trust that is acquiring conservation easements to protect priority
habitats and maintain or improve watershed health in Ashland and Bayfield
counties and elsewhere. The Conservancy prepared a “strategic conservation
40
Ashland County Land and Water Conservation Department. 2010. Ashland County Land &
Water Resource Management Plan. Ashland, WI.
41 Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department. 2010. Bayfield County Land &
Water Resource Management Plan. Washburn, WI.
42 State of Wisconsin. 2010. Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 102. Madison, WI
51
plan” for Bayfield County that identifies the Fish Creek Watershed as a Priority
Conservation Area (Figure 20). The plan identifies the protection of riparian
lands adjacent to North and South Fish Creeks and their tributaries and the
protection of upland habitat in the towns of Eileen, Pilsen and Keystone as
priorities. 43
Figure 20. Fish Creek Watershed Priority Conservation Area.
43
Bayfield Regional Conservancy. 2009. A strategic conservation plan for Lake Superior’s
Bayfield Peninsula. Bayfield, WI.
52
CHAPTER SIX - RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT.
When the first Europeans came to the Fish Creek watershed, they found a
community of 2,000 people whose primary food source was fish. The clayey soils
on forested landscape encompassing those communities was covered with a
layer of decaying sticks and leaves that absorbed rains and slowly released
runoff to drainage ways. In springtime the sun melted snow gradually as its rays
penetrated past shadows from the tree trunks and branches of conifers. Many
small depressions in the landscape held pools of runoff so that only the heaviest
rainfalls flooded the streambeds and undercut the steep slopes beside the
creek. When floods occurred, the stream rose over its banks downstream and
spread across the floodplain where the silty waters slowed and deposited much
of their sediment before it reached Chequamegon Bay. There was no asphalt
or concrete. There were no culverts, road ditches or storm sewers to
concentrate and speed the flow of water runoff into the creeks.
Americans have brought about many improvements in agriculture, forestry,
transportation and community infrastructure over the centuries, but the key to
wise management is to provide benefits safely and efficiently while conserving a
base of land and water resources to sustain the community. While people have
changed the landscape of the Fish Creek watershed dramatically, it still has
many miles of productive trout streams important for both the resident species
and the many thousands of Lake Superior fish that depend on the streams for
spawning habitat. The sloughs, grasslands, forests and barrens support a rich
diversity of plant and animal life. Some ecological landscapes, such as the pine
barrens, are now globally rare. Their conservation is important not only to local
people but also to the world.
6.1 Watershed Management Objectives
The major objectives for the health of the watershed are:
• to conserve the healthy landscapes, flows and quality waters that are in
place
• to adopt management practices that slow the flow of water and filter
runoff from the clay plain uplands to drainage ways
• to restore the drainage infrastructure (culverts, ditches, bridges and storm
sewers) so that flows will be less erosive and include features that detain
runoff and promote settling of particulate matter in runoff
• to control invasive species that threaten the health and productivity of
native habitats
• to restore degraded wetland, floodplain and shoreland habitats
damaged by filling, waste dumping, and invasive species
• to minimize the amount of surface runoff that flows rapidly from roofs and
pavement to drainage ways, storm sewers and water ways
53
One of the earlier attempts to describe a variety of best management practices
for the Lake Superior Basin was sponsored by the Land Conservation
Committees of Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas, and Iron Counties; along with the
WDNR.44 This project, funded by a grant from the Great Lakes Protection Fund,
describes important aspects of project planning along with BMPs for roads,
forestry, agriculture, critical areas, habitat, and urban development.
6.2 Rural Area Best Management Practices
6.2.1 Flow Detention and Redirection
The major impediment to the watershed’s health is the quantity of sediment that
is clogging streams and wetlands, narrowing stream channels and flowing to the
bay. The major source of sediment is bluff erosion caused by flood flows from
the upland clay plain that rise over the stream channels and undercut high,
steep bluffs beside the streams. Water resources engineers from the University of
Wisconsin-Madison evaluated flow patterns in North Fish Creek and found that
installing a network of dry dams and restored wetland basins in upland
drainages could reduce peak flood flows by 40 percent at the upstream end of
the reach of most erodible bluffs and by 25 percent at the downstream end.45
Using computer simulations and data on rainfall patterns and local topography,
they set priorities for the most cost effective placement of control structures
(Figure 21).
44
Best Management Practice Guidelines for the Wisconsin Portion of the Lake Superior Basin.
2003. Prepared by Stable Solutions, Sandra Dee Schultz.
45 Blodgett, David L. 2009. Modeling flood flow reduction for bluff erosion mitigation using
upland runoff attenuation on north Fish Creek, Bayfield County, Wisconsin. Masters thesis.
Water Resources Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI.
54
Figure 21. Potential locations for flow detention structures in upland drainages to North Fish
Creek (green circles) and South Fish Creek (blue circles). The brown circle is the location of the
project demonstrating the practice for this plan. As part of the demonstration, David Blodgett
ranked the North Fish Creek projects in order of their downstream flow detention value (#1 =
highest value). The red areas indicate wetland soils with potential for wetland restoration.
The simulations showed the importance of using a network of control structures.
A more random approach with individual land owners would not be as costeffective in reducing downstream flooding. Therefore, working with several
landowners in advance to agree on a coordinated plan for installation in an
upland basin area would be more effective than simply dealing with one land
owner at a time. The simulations showed that dry dams were most effective at
reducing peak flows and that wetland structures were most effective at
reducing the volume of flows. As a result, a combination of both approaches is
suitable for restoring the natural flow patterns of North Fish Creek and reducing
the amount of sediment entering the creek.
Preliminary estimates of bluff erosion in South Fish Creek found a pattern similar
to that in North Fish Creek and similar sediment yields from the watershed to
Chequamegon Bay. It would be useful to conduct an evaluation of watershed
flows similar to that done for North Fish Creek to determine the most effective
network of practices to reduce peak flood flows in the reach of most erodible
bluffs. Some possible locations for detention structures in South Fish Creek are
shown in Figure 21.
The engineers also tested the use of in-stream vanes to redirect stream flows so
that sediment is deposited rather than scoured from the toe of the most erodible
55
bluffs.46 Over the course of several years, the vanes succeeded in building such
deposits. However, because one major flood event washed out the
accumulated deposits and the vanes a few years later, it is best to consider
upland controls on flooding before placing vanes in streams where the entire
practice may be washed away.
6.2.2 Agricultural Practices
The Land and Water Resource Management Plans for Ashland and Bayfield
counties identify a wide array of practices that will mitigate negative effects of
farming on the watershed. Of particular importance to reducing peak flows
from the upland clay plain to watershed drainages is installing water and
sediment control basins, restoring wetlands and stabilizing drainages from
farmlands to waterways. These practices are most crucial to detaining flows in
the short term. Wetlands can be designed to drain slowly so as to provide
sedge meadow habitat for grassland species of birds whose native habitat is
becoming increasingly scarce. Longer term practices that will reduce flashy
flows are to re-establish woodlands in areas no longer used for hay or pasture,
especially in basins that generate larger flows to erodible bluffs downstream.
Established mixed-conifer woodlands will reduce the speed of runoff to
drainage ways.
The county plans also identify a number of other practices that reduce surface
soil erosion, nutrient runoff, and protect or restore riparian zones adjacent to
streams and critical drainages. Surface soil erosion controls include: no-till
seeding, contour cropping, strip cropping, planting cover crops, and
establishing grassed waterways and filter strips. Practices that reduce livestock
damage to waterways include fencing of waterways, steep slopes and
drainages; constructing cattle crossings and access roads over streams and
drainages, constructing manure storage facilities and controlling barnyard
runoff. Developing nutrient management plans and grazing plans can improve
manure spreading and grazing practices to maximize soil productivity while
reducing pollutants entering waterways. Restoring buffers of native vegetation
along streams and drainages will also provide a filter for runoff and improve
aquatic habitat. Cost-sharing for agricultural producers and other owners of
agricultural and rural lands is available from the County Land and Water
Conservation Departments, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
others.
46
Fitzpatrick, F.A., Peppler, M.C., Schwar, H.E., Hoopes, J.A. and Diebel, M.W. 2005. Monitoring
channel morphology and bluff erosion at two installations of flow-deflecting vanes, North
Fish Creek, Wisconsin, 2000–03. Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5272. Reston, VA: U.S.
Geological Survey.
56
6.2.3 Forest Management Practices
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) evaluated forest
management practices that are best for the Lake Superior clay plain and
headwaters of streams. Following these recommended practices is crucial to
protecting the health of watershed streams.47 The recommendations address
the composition of tree species, harvest methods, forest road management and
management of areas near waterways. The WDNR also published several other
brochures and documents in 2007 that describe forestry BMPs.48 49 50
The DNR cites research showing that clearcutting to harvest timber increases the
rate at which water flows off the landscape much more so than thinning.51 It
recommends that no more than 40 percent of a sub-watershed be in open land
or trees 0-15 years old at any one time. In addition, it recommended
encouraging a diverse mix of later successional species in order to foster the
development of the organic “duff” layer on the surface of soils. The species mix
should include coniferous species that enhance shade in areas near streams.
Clearcuts and road construction should not be concentrated in a way that
would speed runoff into drainages.
The DNR recommends showing particular care in harvesting timber in transitional
soil areas where groundwater seeps and ephemeral headwater channels are
common but not easily found in seasons other than early spring. Harvesting near
these seeps should be avoided and the growth of large, older successional
coniferous trees should be promoted. Down and dead trees should remain near
streams and seep areas to maintain organic matter on the soil and protect
aquatic habitat.
As much as possible construction of new forest roads should be avoided to
prevent concentrating the flow of runoff to drainage ways. There should be no
long, straight roadside ditches. Whenever possible, sediment traps should be
installed to reduce the particulate matter in runoff. The timing and methods of
47
48
49
50
51
Shy, Kristin and Wagner, Carmen. 2007. Management Recommendations for Forestry
Practices on Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Red Clay Plain. PUB FR-387 2007. Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Shy, Kristin and Wagner, Carmen. 2007. Management Recommendations for Forestry
Practices along Wisconsin’s Coastal trout streams. PUB FR-388 2007. Madison, WI: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.
Managing Woodlands on Lake Superior’s Red Clay Plain - Slowing the Flow of Runoff. 2007.
PUB FR-385 2007. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Managing Woodlands for Wisconsin’s Coastal Trout Streams – Protecting Water Quality and
Trout Stream Habitat. 2007. PUB FR-386 2007. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
Graber, Brian. 2003. Bayfield peninsula stream assessment final report: fluvial geomorphology,
hydrology and management recommendations. Inter-fluve, Inc., Lake Mills, Wisconsin.
57
harvesting should be done in ways that avoid compacting soil. Wherever
feasible, temporary stream crossings should be used rather than permanent
culverts, which can concentrate surface flows downstream. Whenever culverts
are installed in streams, they should be designed to allow passage of aquatic
organisms and they should be aligned with the natural flow and gradient of the
stream. A compendium of forestry best management practices for water
quality was updated in 2010 and is available from the WDNR.52
In addition, the WDNR and others recognized that invasive species
management must be an integral part of forest management, not only for the
productivity of the forests under management, but also for the overall health of
the watersheds that sustain them. In this light, the WDNR produced a best
management guide for invasive species management.53
6.2.4 Rural Residential Practices
Many of the agricultural and forestry practices for drainages, woodlands, steep
grades and areas near streams should also be used in rural residential areas. In
general, larger sized lots should be maintained in the transitional soil areas and
clay plain uplands of the watershed in order to avoid adding roads, driveways
and culverts that concentrate and speed the flow of runoff into stream
drainages. New residential developments will have fewer negative impacts if
smaller lots are developed lower in the watershed near existing roads. When
rural residences are planned in clusters that share driveways and open space, it
is easier to protect sensitive drainage areas and to leave larger blocks of open
space. Rural landowners can also reduce the speed and improve the water
quality of runoff from their property by installing gutters and directing the flows to
rain gardens or other retention structures. Rain barrels also offer options to the
rural landowner to slow the flow of roof runoff, and the captured water can be
used to water flower beds or gardens. Rural landowners can also do their part
to protect surface and groundwater quality by following common sense
practices such as properly disposing household chemicals, automotive waste oil
and antifreeze, batteries, pesticides and herbicides, pharmaceuticals,
electronic devices, and other common waste products.
6.2.5 Land Conservation and Protection Practices
Zoning is a land use authority that communities can use to maintain low densities
of development in the sensitive upland areas of the watershed and to reduce
52
Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality. Field Manual for loggers,
landowners, and land managers. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Division of
Forestry. Publication FR-093-2010.
53 Wisconsin’s Forestry Best Management Practices for Invasive Species. Field Manual for
loggers, landowners, and land managers. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Division of Forestry. 2009
58
certain types of uses in areas that are particularly sensitive to clearing and road
construction. Such areas include seepage areas in the transitional soil regions,
wetland soils with poor drainage, and along the steep bluffs adjacent to streams
and drainage ways. Some planning commissions have already considered
these recommendations when developing the future land use maps for their
municipalities. The current zoning maps used develop land use plans are out of
date. Most zoning districts in Bayfield County were established in the 1970’s
before any towns had plans. The zoning districts in Ashland County were
established in 1934 in order to protect rural forest areas. The zoning ordinance in
Ashland County does not reflect the county’s comprehensive plan. If the efforts
of the town planning commissions are to be effective, an important step will be
to update the counties’ ordinances so that they are consistent with the official
land use plans.
Another tool for conserving sensitive lands and assuring a sufficient area for
agricultural and forest lands is through conservation easements. A conservation
easement is a voluntary agreement that allows landowners to limit the type or
amount of development on their property while retaining private ownership of
the land. The easement is signed by the landowner and a land trust or owners
association that holds the easement. The organization that owns the easement
accepts it with the understanding that terms must be enforced in perpetuity.
After the easement is signed, it applies to all future owners of the land. The
Bayfield Regional Conservancy prepared a “strategic conservation plan” for
Bayfield County that includes a set of priorities for the Fish Creek watershed
(Figure 20, Appendix C). The plan identifies areas near the sloughs, the drainage
system leading to major tributaries, and all the perennial streams in the
watershed as priorities for conservation, along with several grassland and
wetland locations. The conservancy currently holds an easement for a remnant
hemlock forest beside South Fish Creek.54
6.3 Urban Area Best Management Practices.
The City of Ashland is the only urban area in the watershed. The quality of water
in Bay City Creek is degraded by pollution from runoff and many of the ravines
that run through the city are impacted by fill, debris, concentrated dumping
areas, and storm sewer outfalls. Since the 1800’s fill and wastes were dumped in
the shallow waters along the lakefront so that most of the shallow water habitat
and coastal wetland areas east of the Fish Creek sloughs were eliminated.
Several large storm sewers discharge directly to Chequamegon Bay.
The primary need for improving watershed health in the city is to reduce the
volume and velocity of stormwater entering the existing stormwater network and
Bayfield Regional Conservancy, 2009. Strategic conservation plan for Bayfield County,
Wisconsin. Bayfield, WI.
54
59
filtering the stormwater before it enters waterways or Chequamegon Bay.
Because installing new streets and storm sewers is extremely expensive, water
quality goals often can be attained by retrofitting landscapes to capture and
filter runoff before it enters sewers and waterways. There are many vegetated
spaces throughout the residential areas that could be used for these purposes,
but runoff often crosses more than one lot before flows to the street. By
providing property owners (either individually efforts or in collaboration with their
neighbors) with incentives to control runoff before it reaches the streets and
sidewalks, the city could reduce the load on its aged stormwater infrastructure
and improve aquatic habitat.
The Barr Engineering Company produced a useful manual of stormwater
management practices for small urban communities. Detailed information
about all of the practices described here is available in this manual.55 A
particular challenge for stormwater management in Ashland is that the clay soils
throughout the city are nearly impervious. To make landscapes more suitable
for filtering runoff or supporting landscape plantings, landowners need to
amend the compacted clay with sand and topsoil or they need to excavate
clay and install more porous soil with “under drains” that slowly release runoff
from landscaped areas.
Another need for the City of Ashland is a proactive program to control invasive
species that have spread along Bay City Creek and the ravines, through public
parks and private woodlots, along most of the Chequamegon Bay shoreline,
and throughout the coastal and interior wetlands. Although these areas are
vegetated and do provide some benefit to slowing and filtering runoff, diverse
and healthy native vegetation is more effective and brings other positive
benefits such as increased beauty and productive wildlife habitat.
6.3.1 Retention and Filtration Systems for Existing Neighborhoods.
Bioretention systems such as those installed around new construction at
Northland College or the one installed at the entrance to the Wisconsin
Indianhead Technical College in Ashland serve to capture, filter, and slowly
release roof and parking lot runoff to Bay City Creek. More simplistic raingarden
designs are possible on most residential sites, and capturing roof runoff water in
rain barrels for use on lawns and gardens can reduce loads on sewers and
provide a water source for landscape maintenance. In some cases, a simple
grassed swale with a permeable berm constructed between a downspout and
the street or alley can provide infiltration and temporary water storage while
allowing easy maintenance for land owners.
Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Minnesota urban small sites BMP manual: stormwater best
management practices for cold climates. Minneapolis, MN: Metropolitan Council.
55
60
The city has installed some bioretention basins at storm sewer outflows in
situations where space was not available to capture and treat runoff before it
entered the system. These include a basin near the marina downslope of the
band shell and a system off of St. Claire Street. Designs at the terminal end of a
storm sewer have to accommodate large volumes of water and generally
require more intensive maintenance than those installed higher in the drainage.
In Ashland’s commercial district where green space around buildings is very
limited, installing “green roofs” on buildings that have the capacity to support
them could reduce the volume and flow rates of runoff to city storm sewers. In
these systems, soil and plants on the roof capture much of the runoff. Water
flowing from rooftops is slowed and cooled before it enters sewers and flows to
the bay.
Memorial Medical Center and Northland College installed stormwater storage
ponds to capture runoff from their large parking lots. These ponds detain runoff
water and allow some particulate matter to settle, but they do not provide
much filtration for pollutants or reduce much of the volume of stormwater that
enters waterways. Similarly, the City of Ashland constructed a large stormwater
detention facility under a parking lot that traps sediment and trash and slows the
discharge to the bay during large storm events (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Stormwater control structure being installed under a parking lot in downtown
Ashland in 2007, and the finished parking lot 6 months later.
In the more rural parts of the urban area, roadside swales can incorporate
features, not found in traditional road ditches to slow runoff flows and to filter
pollutants.56 Such features may include “underdrains”, permeable berms, or
check dams and weirs.57
56
Center for Watershed Protection. 2000. Grassed channel fact sheet. Ellicott, City, MD.
http://www.stormwatercenter.net.
57 Valley Branch Watershed District. 2000. Alternative stormwater best management practices
guidebook. Lake Elmo, MN.
61
6.3.2 Retention and Filtration Systems for New Development
In new construction projects where paved roads and parking areas are
required, the city should consider requiring only the minimum amount of
pavement necessary. Wherever possible, runoff from paved surfaces and
rooftops should pass through filter strips, swales or bioretention facilities before it
enters sewers, ditches or waterways. For example, standards for new streets in
areas with low traffic volumes should call for narrower paved areas with gravel
shoulders for roadside parking and roadside swales to handle runoff (Figure 23).
The city’s current street ordinance exacerbates stormwater runoff impacts on
waterways.
Erosion control and stormwater management standards in the city’s proposed
unified development code will do a great deal to reduce negative impacts of
development on waterways and the bay. The draft standards for vegetated
islands in parking lots should recommend collecting runoff in vegetated swale
depressions rather than in raised and curbed features that do nothing to slow
and cool runoff on large asphalt surfaces.
As the city reviews proposed road layouts for new development, they should
discourage grid layouts that maximize paved surfaces and encourage more
clustered designs that maximize neighborhood use of paved surfaces while also
allowing for more undisturbed open space, parks, or woodlands.
Figure 23. Street design for reduced pavement and runoff filtration in areas with low traffic
volumes (Sources: Center for Watershed Protection and Valley Branch Watershed District).
62
CHAPTER SEVEN - EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
7.1 Demonstration Projects
As part of preparing this plan, project staff installed two structural best
management practices to demonstrate methods to restore watershed health.
A dry dam in the agricultural upland of North Fish Creek demonstrates a cost
effective method to reduce peak flows that lead to the undercutting of highly
erodible streambanks downstream. A series of bioretention basins constructed
in Ashland demonstrate a method for retrofitting a parking lot stormwater system
to filter pollutants and reduce runoff to the city’s stormwater network and Bay
City Creek.
7.1.1 Upland Dry Dam
As explained earlier, sediment loads resulting from undercutting of the tall,
erodible bluffs adjacent to North Fish Creek and South Fish Creek are the
primary, negative condition in the rural parts of the watershed. The removal of
mature forests and the ditching and leveling of uplands dramatically increased
flood discharges to Fish Creek. Current management and natural recovery of
the watershed has reduced flood levels and sediment loads, but large areas of
eroding streambanks and bluffs remain. The Water Resources Engineering
Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison developed a hydrologic
model of the rates and patterns of runoff into North Fish Creek. Their research
indicated that a network of strategically-placed dry dams in drainages of the
upland clay plain could reduce flood levels by 40 percent upstream of the most
erodible reach of bluffs and by 25% at the downstream end of the highly
erodible area.58
The Bayfield County Land Conservation
Department installed a dry dam in
cooperation with the university
researchers at an existing farm field
crossing. The design is simply an inverted
T-culvert with the leg of the culvert
pointing up to catch overflow from
extreme rainfall events. The “upstream”
end of the culvert has a cap with an
inverted V-notch (Figure 24). Runoff from
small rainfall events passes through the
culvert unimpeded, but runoff from
heavy rains is detained in the drainage
58
Figure 24. Dry dam demonstration project.
Blodgett, David L. 2009. Modeling flood flow reduction for bluff erosion mitigation using upland
runoff attenuation on north Fish Creek, Bayfield County, Wisconsin. Masters Thesis. Water
Resources Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI.
63
above the dry dam as it flows steadily through the notch in the cap. The length
of the culvert T-opening is set at the same height as the top of the dry dam, and
the dam is armored sufficiently to hold water and withstand occasional overflow
events.
7.1.2 Urban Bioretention Basins
The city’s stormwater network is most heavily impacted by runoff from roofs and
pavement, as discussed previously. Stormwater on these surfaces rapidly flows
to sewer inlets and drainage ways and carries pollutants into Bay City Creek and
Chequamegon Bay. The key to reducing the sediment load on the city’s
stormwater network is to reduce the speed of runoff flowing to storm inlets. The
solution to improving the quality of the water discharging to the creek and the
bay is to capture and filter stormwater before it enters the storm sewers.
The urban demonstration
project is a series of three
bioretention basins that
capture runoff water from an
82,000 square foot parking lot
at the entrance to the Ashland
campus of the Wisconsin
Indianhead Technical College
(WITC). Prior to installing the
basins, parking lot runoff ran
through a drainage ditch to a
storm sewer that discharges in
a ravine flowing to Bay City
Creek (Figure 25).
Figure 25. Stormwater flow path for WITC parking lot
runoff.
The bioretention basins are gardens of wildflowers, shrubs and sedges that are
native to area wetlands. Installation of the gardens required removing the
existing clay soil and grass from the drainage ditch at the college entrance and
replacing it with 360 cubic yards of custom-mixed topsoil and sand. The soil
mixture provides place where the plants can take root, allows percolation, and
provides a medium that filters pollutants from runoff before it enter the storm
sewer. Under the soil is a network of drain tiles that collect the filtered runoff and
release it slowly to the storm sewer (Figure 26).
During a heavy rain, the basins become inundated with several inches of
parking lot runoff as the gardens detain stormwater. Particulate materials
washed from the parking lot settle out of the ponded water. During
approximately three days the water slowly filters down through the rooting zone
to the drain tile (Figure 27). Water from light rains is absorbed by the soil or used
64
by the plants and never leaves the gardens, but heavy rains saturate the soil
forcing water through the drain tile to gradually flow out to the storm sewer.
Figure 26. Rain garden diagram from the interpretive sign at the entrance to WITC's Ashland
campus.
Figure 27. WITC bioretention basin during a heavy October rain (top) and three days later. The
plants were installed a few weeks earlier and had not yet been through their first growing
season.
65
The project is located at the college, not only because it demonstrates how
businesses can help reduce negative environmental effects from their facilities,
but also because of the many people throughout the region use the college’s
classrooms and conference center. The college offers continuing education
programs on environmental design, and instructors are pleased to have an
attractive garden on campus to demonstrate how rain gardens work. The
college also has a “Green Team” of staff, faculty and student volunteers who
agreed to take responsibility for the on-going maintenance and weeding of the
gardens, especially during the first few years when the native plants take root
and spread throughout the garden. An interpretive sign explaining the purpose
and function of the basins will be installed at the college entrance near the
gardens in the spring of 2011(Appendix H). College receptionists will have
brochures about rain gardens and stormwater management for visitors who
want to learn more.
There are challenges to retrofitting a landscape to improve stormwater
management. The system at WITC needed to work in concert with the
stormwater drains and buried utility lines that were already in place. In addition,
it was necessary to use smaller, lighter equipment for excavation and installation
in order to avoid damaging the parking lot’s asphalt surface. As a result, the
hours required for construction were greater than what would be expected for
incorporating stormwater treatment with the construction of new buildings.
These challenges are like those that property owners have to consider when
adding stormwater treatment to their landscape. How to work within the
confines of such challenges will be a part of educational workshops offered at
the college.
7.2 Information and Education Programs
Project staff conducted several information and education programs as part of
developing this plan. One effort was aimed at educating members of town
plan commissions in Bayfield County who were preparing future land use plans.
None of the commissions had soil maps to use to identify sensitive landscape
features such as steep ravines, poorly drained soils, and transitional soils. The
staff used the information from detailed soil surveys to prepare maps of general
soil groups (Figure 5) for each town and then met with each plan commission to
explain how land uses on each general type of soil could affect watershed
conditions and development issues in their town.
Another set of education programs provided local students and community
members with hands-on experience in controlling invasive species in Fish Creek
Slough. Eurasian honeysuckle and European buckthorn have spread from
residential gardens and formed dense thickets in all of Ashland’s waterways and
most of their parks. These infestations are crowding out native plants and are
reducing the natural diversity the parklands, wooded lots, and riparian areas.
66
Project staff worked with the Northwoods Cooperative Weed Management
Area, Northland College, and the City of Ashland to advertise work parties at
Prentice Park in the City of Ashland. Participants learned how to differentiate
invasive species from native species and how to carefully apply herbicide to
stumps in order to prevent re-growth of these persistent invaders. After a lesson
in the safe use of tools and chemicals, several teams of volunteers removed four
dump truck loads of the invasive shrubs from a two acre area at the entrance of
the park. The project received front-page coverage in the local newspaper
and quoted volunteers who said they were going to continue controlling these
species in woodlands near their homes. The project also raised awareness on
the part of city officials with the hope that the hard work will lead to more
intensive control efforts within the city.
67
CHAPTER EIGHT – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
8.1 County Activities
County governments in Ashland and Bayfield counties have lead responsibilities
for implementing land and water resource management plans, county
comprehensive plans, and maintaining county roads.
County planning and zoning departments should:
• Update zoning ordinances to promote retention of large blocks of forest in
clay plain uplands and transitional soil areas. Doing so requires the
development of larger minimum lot sizes for private forest lands.
Establishing such areas is particularly important for transitional soil areas in
headwaters, clay plain uplands above the most erodible bluff reaches on
North and South Fish Creeks, and on the Highway 118 hill (groundwater
source area).
• Update zoning ordinances to promote retention of large blocks of
agricultural land in clay plain uplands. Larger parcels in these areas are
needed to reduce the accumulation of roads and driveways that
concentrate surface flows, making it more erosive as it enters drainage
ways.
• Update zoning district maps so that they are consistent with the plans on
which they should be based.
County land and water conservation departments should:
• Implement the broad array of conservation measures identified in their
recently adopted plans.
• Develop plans for a coordinated network of dry dams and wetland
detention structures for the clay plain uplands of North Fish Creek and
South Fish Creek. A network plan, based on simulations of flood levels at
the transitional main stems of the creeks will help to assure that efforts to
find willing landowners and to allocate cost share funds are efficient and
effective to reduce peak flows.
• Continue to assess the condition of culverts and stream crossings in the
watershed to identify problem structures that are exacerbating erosion
and blocking passage of aquatic organisms.
County highway departments should:
• Replace problem culverts on county roads.
• Routinely assess and maintain existing culverts to ensure that potential
problems are corrected before washouts occur.
• Assist local municipalities with proper methods for replacing culverts.
68
8.2 Municipal Activities
Town boards and plan commissions should:
• Work with county zoning committees to update their zoning maps to be
consistent with the future land use plans they recently adopted.
• Adopt appropriate land use controls to discourage development in
headwater areas with transitional soils and to focus new roads and
development where town services can be provided safely and efficiently.
• Retrofit roadside ditches to slow runoff flowing to major drainage ways
and streams within the watershed.
• Work with land conservation departments and county highway
department to replace problem culverts and road crossings in a manner
that does not exacerbate erosion problems or cause barriers to migration
of aquatic species.
The City of Ashland should:
• Adopt the erosion and stormwater management provisions in the draft
unified development code.
• Revise the streets standards ordinance to minimize requirements for
pavement, curbs and gutters to heavily used roads and to encourage
lower pavement widths and roadside swales on lightly traveled streets.
• Adopt a stormwater utility ordinance or other financial mechanism to
provide incentives to owners of existing developments to retrofit their
landscapes to minimize the flow of runoff to the city’s aged and
overtaxed stormwater network.
• Develop a community stormwater plan that identifies areas where
retention/filtration facilities will most improve stormwater quality and
reduce loads to the stormwater network.
• Create a plan and funding mechanism to control invasive species
occurring on city property.
• Enforce the existing ordinances relating to construction erosion control,
stormwater management, invasive species control and others.
8.3 Private Landowner Activities
Private landowners should:
• Identify the flow paths of runoff from roofs and pavement and identify
possible locations for landscape features that minimize flows and volumes
of runoff entering drainage ditches and storm sewers.
• Install stormwater management features such as rain gardens, rain barrels
and grassed swales in areas where they are attractive, safe and
functional.
• Collaborate with neighbors to reduce stormwater flows from alleys and
yards that share a common flow path.
69
•
•
•
Rural landowners should identify opportunities for cost-sharing on land
and water conservation measures, including the restoration of forest lands
and wetlands in old fields no longer used for crops or grazing.
Work with the Bayfield Regional Conservancy to protect critical habitats,
farmlands and forests to enhance the health of the watershed.
Identify invasive species that have infested their property adopt
appropriate control methods to prevent their spread to neighboring
properties.
8.4 Monitoring the Effectiveness of Management
In order to assess the effectiveness of plan implementation, watershed
communities need to establish baseline data and track changes as efforts are
implemented.
• Continue monitoring stream flows and sediment concentrations in North
Fish Creek. Assure that funding is restored and continues for the existing
gauging station on North Fish Creek.
• Collect data on current flows and sediment concentrations in South Fish
Creek and Bay City Creek. Update assessments every ten years to
evaluate system improvements.
• Extend the preliminary analysis of sediment loading sources and sinks in
South Fish Creek to complement the analysis done for North Fish Creek.
• Conduct water quality tests for phosphorus and pathogens in North Fish
Creek, South Fish Creek and Bay City Creek.
• Promote the establishment of volunteer citizen monitoring networks to
identify flow regimes, temperature ranges, water quality, and invasive
species throughout the watershed. Establish a program for collecting
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index samples from North Fish Creek, South Fish Creek and
Bay City Creek every five years.
• Collect wetland biotic index samples from Fish Creek Slough at least every
five years.
• Assess urban peak flows and volumes of runoff to Ashland’s stormwater
network and update the assessment every five years.
70
Appendix A: Lake Data for the Fish Creek watershed.
The types of fish are northern pike (n), walleye (w), largemouth bass (l),
smallmouth bass(s), panfish(p) and trout (t). Abundance is expressed as
“present” (lowercase), “common” (uppercase) and “abundant” (bold
uppercase). Public access, if available, is expressed as “boat ramp” (BR) and
“walk-in trail” (T). Plus (+) sign shows lakes ranked by Bayfield County as
“moderately sensitive to development; all others are “most sensitive.” Asterisks
(*) show lakes abutted by private land. (Sources: WDNR, 2009 and Bayfield
County Planning and Zoning Dept).
Named
Lake
Fish
Abundance
Public
Access
Boris*
Buck
l, p
BR
Area
(acres)
T/R/S
Unnamed Lake
Location
Area
(acres)
T/R/S
47 7 35
2
SW¼*
46 7 04
5
47 7 19
6
NE¼*
46 7 08
6
47 7 33
37
NW¼
47 7 07
14
Camp One+*
w, l, P
Camp Two+*
W, l, p
46 7 04
4
SW¼
47 7 09
2
Deep*
L, P
46 7 04
13
SW¼*
47 7 17
4
Finger*
w, l, P
47 7 32
76
SW¼
47 7 17
1
47 7 18
10
SE¼
47 7 18
2
t
47 6 10
4
NW¼
47 7 19
9
l, P
47 7 30
8
NW¼
47 7 23
2
47 7 20
4
SW¼
47 7 27
5
47 7 22
75
NE¼
47 7 32
1
47 7 32
11
NW¼
47 7 32
3
Honey
Louise*
Nokomis
Patsy
Spider*
n, w, l, P
Tub
l, P
BR
Twin-NE*
s, P
47 7 17
8
NE¼NE¼NE¼
47 7 33
3
Twin-NW*
l, p
47 7 17
7
SW¼NE¼NE¼
47 7 33
3
Twin-SE*
l, p
47 7 17
14
SW¼
47 7 33
2
Wanoka
t
47 7 20
15
46 7 04
12
T
Wolf*
Development factors for two inland lakes in the Fish Creek watershed.
Lake
Area
(acres)
Shoreline
(miles)
Public
Shoreline
(miles)
Houses
Private
Parcels
Mean
Lot Size
(acres)
Pressure
(ac/house)
Development
Index
(ac/mile)
Spider
75
3.2
0.0
34
38
4.9
2.0
23.4
Twin Lakes
30
2.3
0.6
11
13
5.4
2.3
13.1
Lakes
71
Appendix B: Summary of Stream Temperature and Water Quality Monitoring
September 2009
Temperatures (°F)
Max Min Avg Var AvAmp
North Fork Fish Creek
Unnamed (Farkas Ck)
Pine Creek
Little Pine Creek
N. Fish - Old Hwy 2
South Fork Fish Creek
Jones S (NW Soderlund Rd)
Jones E (Soderlund & HwyE)
Hwy 63
Heart (oil pipeline)
Hwy 137
Slaughterhouse Creek
Bay City Creek
Northland College Pathway
Hwy 13
Third St. East
Lake Superior
Period
Installed
Start
End
Location
(Decimal Degrees)
Latitude
Longitude
51.5 45.1 48.6 1.6
1.6
07/26/09 10/25/09 N 46.5642 W 91.1013
52.6 45.1 49.7 2.4
1.8
07/26/09 10/25/09 N 46.5598 W 91.0894
53.3 46.6 50.0 1.7
1.7
07/26/09 10/25/09 N 46.5600 W 91.0892
54.1 42.7 50.4 4.7
1.8
09/10/09 10/17/09 N 46.5492 W 91.0621
67.1 42.1 55.9 34.6
7.2
08/22/09 10/17/09 N 46.4757 W 91.1558
77.4 37.8 57.0 96.7
12.8
08/22/09 10/17/09 N 46.4724 W 91.1599
70.5 47.3 59.5 25.7
4.1
09/10/09 10/17/09 N 46.5372 W 91.0538
68.2 57.0 62.6 5.9
1.3
08/11/09 10/17/09 N 46.5602 W 90.9674
69.0 53.6 62.1 8.1
2.7
07/31/09 12/04/09 N 46.5708 W 90.9520
53.4 46.5 49.9 1.9
1.9
07/16/09 11/13/09 N 46.5739 W 90.9312
71.6 31.9 59.0 42.9
5.5
07/31/09 12/04/09 N 46.5704 W 90.8751
63.7 46.9 58.7 11.4
1.4
07/31/09 11/13/09 N 46.5816 W 90.8746
62.9 45.8 57.2 9.4
1.5
07/31/09 11/13/09 N 46.5937 W 90.8715
73.4 51.6 66.3 18.1
3.1
07/31/09 11/13/09 N 46.6008 W 90.8755
72
Appendix B (continued): Summary of Stream Temperature and Water Quality
Monitoring
Water quality samples collected in early June 2010 from the Fish Creek
watershed. HBI is interpreted above. Other measures are taxa richness
excluding pollution tolerant species (EPT), stream flow in cubic feet per second
(CFS), the dissolved oxygen concentration in the stream water (DO), the water
temperature, and the turbidity (cloudiness) of the water from suspended
particles expressed in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Farkas Creek is a
tributary to Pine Creek in the North Fish Creek watershed, and Slaughterhouse
Creek drains directly to the eastern part of Fish Creek Slough.
Stream
HBI
EPT
CFS
DO (mg/L)
Temp (°F)
NTU
Slaughterhouse Creek (Hwy 137)
3.21
7
0.6
88
50
< 10
Farkas Creek (Pine Creek Trib.)
3.50
11
2.6
93
51
< 10
South Fish Creek (Hwy 63)
4.41
14
0.7
110*
55
< 10
Bay City Creek (Hwy 13)
7.96
0
0.2
49
56
< 10
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) Interpretation
HBI Value
Water Quality
Degree of Organic Pollution
0.00 – 3.50
Excellent
None apparent
3.51 – 4.50
Very Good
Possibly slight
4.51 – 5.50
Good
Some
5.51 – 6.50
Fair
Fairly significant
6.51 – 7.50
Fairly Poor
Significant
7.51 – 8.50
Poor
Very significant
8.51 – 10.00
Very Poor
Severe
* Possible inaccurate reading
73
Appendix C: Species and habitats in the Fish Creek watershed that are listed in
Wisconsin's Natural Heritage Inventory.
Common Name
Species
Habitat
Rank
Plants
Arrow-leaved Sweet-coltsfoot
Crinkled Hairgrass
Large Roundleaf Orchid
Marsh Willow-herb
Slim-stem Small-reedgrass
Petasites sagittatus
Deschampsia flexiosa
Platanthera orbiculata
Epilobium palustre
Calamagrostis stricta
Aquatic
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
Aquatic
Aquatic
S3
S3
S3
S3
S3
Mammal
Gray Wolf*
Canis lupus
Terrestrial
S2
Botaurus lentiginosus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Dendroica tigrina
Spiza americana
Accipiter gentilis
Buteo lineatus
Bartramia longicauda
Sturnella neglecta
Aquatic
Aquatic
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
Aquatic
Terrestrial
S3
S2
S3
S3
S2
S1
S2
S3
Turtle
Wood Turtle*
Glyptemys insculpta
Aquatic
S2
Butterflies
Chryxus Arctic*
Lakota Crescent
Oeneis chryxus
Phycoides batesii lakota
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
S2
S3
Moths
Owlet Moth*
Macrochila bivittata
Aquatic
G3, S3
Chromagrion condetum
Aquatic
S3
Birds
American Bittern*
Bald Eagle*
Cape May Warbler
Dickcissel*
Northern Goshawk*
Red-shouldered Hawk*
Upland Sandpiper*
Western Meadowlark*
Migratory Bird Concentration Site
Dragonfly
Aurora Damselfly
Global Rank
G3
State Rank
S1
S2
S3
*
Either very rare and local throughout its range or local in a restricted range.
Critically imperiled in Wisconsin because of extreme rarity.
Imperiled in Wisconsin because of rarity.
Rare or uncommon in Wisconsin.
Denotes species of greatest conservation need in state wildlife action plan.
74
Appendix D: Invasive Species Known to Occur in the Fish Creek Watershed
Invasive species known to occur in the Fish Creek watershed and Chequamegon Bay of Lake
Superior. The NR 40 classification is “Prohibited” (P), “Restricted” (R), or “Not Regulated” (N).
Species indicated as “n/a” were not included in the NR 40 rule. Additional information on
invasive species classification can be found at: http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/classification
Common Name
Species
NR 40 Class
Terrestrial Plant Species
Japanese Barberry
Oriental Bittersweet
Berberis thunbergii
Celastrus orbiculatus
N
R
Knapweeds
Canada Thistle
Centaurea spp.
Cirsium arvense
R
R
Bull Thistle
Crown Vetch
Russian Olive
Leafy and Cypress Spurge
Glossy Buckthorn
Common St. Johnswort
Eurasian Honeysuckles
Wild Parsnip
Knotweeds
Common Buckthorn
Black Locust
Crack, White and Hybrid Willow
Tansy
Garden Valerian
Cirsium vulgare
Coronilla varia
Elaeagnus angustifolia
Euphorbia spp
Frangula alnus
Hypericum perforatum
Lonicera spp.
Pastinaca sativa
Polygonum spp.
Rhamnus cathartica
Robinia pseudoacacia
Salix spp.
Tanacetum vulgare
Valeriana officinalis
n/a
N
n/a
R
R
n/a
R
R
R
R
N
n/a
R
n/a
Aquatic Plant Species
Purple Loosestrife
Lythrum salicaria
R
Eurasian and Hybrid Watermilfoil
Phragmites or Common Reed
Myriophyllum spp.
Phragmites australis
R
R
Watercress
Reed Canary Grass
Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum
Phalaris arundinacea
n/a
N
Aquatic Animal Species
Spiny Water Flea
Bythotrephes longimanus
P
Zebra Mussel
Alewife
Dreissena polymorpha
Alosa pseudoharengus
R
R
Ruffe
Gymnocephalus cernuus
Rainbow Smelt
Osmerus mordax
R
R
75
Appendix E: Summary of South Fish Creek Streambank Stability Study
In November 2009 project staff used topographic maps and aerial photographs
to identify the most erodible reach of the South Fish Creek to estimate the extent
of erosion from bluffs adjacent to the stream. The reach selected is 4 river miles
long and extends from County Highway F to U.S. Highway 63. The erosion
estimation method was the same as that used for the City of Ashland’s bank
erosion assessment.59
Staff walked the stream reach and stopped at every bank that showed active
erosion. They either marked GPS coordinates at the upstream and downstream
ends of the eroding area or measured the bank length with a tape measure in
cases where stream depths and bluff slopes made it impossible to stand at
either end of the eroding area. The team filled out an assessment sheet for
each site noting the soil composition, bluff height, slope angle, percent of
vegetation and stream channel cross-section. In addition, they photographed
each site. This information was used to estimate bluff recession rates and bluff
erosion to the creek.
.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Understanding
fluvial systems: wetlands, streams, and floodplains. Technical Note No. 4. Washington, DC.
59
76
Appendix E (continued): Summary of South Fish Creek Streambank Stability Study
Estimation of stream bank and bluff erosion from a four mile reach of South Fish Creek extending from County Hwy F. to US Hwy 63.
Site
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Bank
Left
Left
Left
Right
Right
Right
Left
Right
Right
Left
Right
Right
Right
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Left
Right
Left
Right
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Upstream Location
North
West
Deg
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
Min
30.508
30.503
30.463
30.444
30.513
30.555
30.691
30.649
30.710
30.702
30.828
31.096
31.166
31.235
31.276
31.329
31.348
31.538
31.605
31.588
31.660
31.702
31.830
31.944
32.137
32.114
32.247
Deg
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
Min
4.729
4.700
4.692
4.681
4.473
4.463
4.533
4.450
4.490
4.527
4.501
4.330
4.331
4.340
4.453
4.414
4.323
4.360
4.307
4.158
4.219
4.013
3.987
3.933
3.705
3.632
3.599
Downstream Location
North
West
Deg
Min
Deg
Min
46
30.499
91
4.698
46
30.520
91
4.456
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
46
30.682
30.686
30.707
30.762
30.839
31.123
31.186
31.279
31.287
31.325
31.360
31.473
31.545
31.610
31.630
31.678
31.736
31.838
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
4.531
4.460
4.505
4.571
4.510
4.349
4.346
4.386
4.454
4.428
4.329
4.426
4.336
4.299
4.174
4.185
4.009
3.979
46
46
32.128
32.123
91
91
3.668
3.619
Length
Ft
40
30
40
100
80
50
60
230
70
410
80
180
140
330
70
60
80
250
110
50
260
180
210
60
40
160
80
40
77
Bank
Height
Ft
15
30
15
60
70
70
20
80
50
15
70
70
70
30
120
100
30
50
65
90
80
90
120
70
15
25
35
40
Slope
Angle
Degrees
45
30
80
45
45
45
45
70
50
75
45
45
45
80
70
65
70
65
45
45
45
70
65
45
85
50
50
45
Bank
Veg.
Eroding
Area
Recession
Rate
%
50
75
30
10
15
50
40
5
5
70
50
35
40
15
5
50
10
50
70
70
80
10
50
10
5
90
50
70
Ft2
850
1800
610
8490
7920
4950
1700
19580
4570
6370
7920
17820
13860
10050
8940
6620
2550
13790
10110
6360
29420
17240
27810
5940
600
5220
3660
2260
Ft/Year
0.2
0.05
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.05
Sediment Load
Ft3/Year
170
90
305
5094
3960
990
510
13706
3199
318.5
396
8910
2772
3015
6258
1986
1275
2758
1011
318
1471
8620
5562
2970
300
522
732
113
Tons/Year
15.7
8.3
28.2
471.7
366.7
91.7
47.2
1269.1
296.2
29.5
36.7
825
256.7
279.2
579.4
183.9
118.1
255.4
93.6
29.4
136.2
798.1
515
275
27.8
48.3
67.8
10.5
Appendix F: Summary of City of Ashland Open Channel Erosion Assessment
The Open Channel Erosion Assessment included over 10 miles of stream bank
within the City of Ashland
Assessment of creek bank erosion was completed using the method outlined
in the document, "Pollutants Controlled Calculation and Documentation for
Section 319 Watersheds Training Manual" by L.J. Steffen, 1982.
In total, there were 107 erosion sites identified that contribute an estimated
242 tons of sediment annually to Lake Superior.
The approximate total length of stream bank erosion is 2,304 feet.
There are 5 major sites that individually contribute 9 or more tons per year of
sediment to Lake Superior for a total annual load of 112 tons. Together these
sites comprise approximately 40% of the total erosion from open channels in
the City of Ashland.
The entire annual non-point source sediment load within stormwater runoff
from developed urban areas in the City of Ashland totals 430 tons per year.
During the course of the creek bank inspections, 4 soil samples were
collected and sent to the University of Wisconsin Extension laboratories in
Madison for analysis of phosphorus concentrations.
Phosphorus concentrations ranged from 8 ppm to 78 ppm in the soil samples.
Applying the weighted average phosphorus loads to the entire length of
eroding creek results in a total approximate phosphorus load of 15.6 Ibs per
year.
78
Appendix G: Summary of Fish Creek Watershed Culvert Inventory
385 crossings identified through GIS, a total of 307 culverts and 28 bridges
were inventoried.
28 bridges were inventoried. 10 of the bridges displayed erosion of the
embankments or the adjacent stream banks. Obstructions were noted at 1
bridge, and 2 of the bridges were identified in poor condition.
52 of the 335 culverts or bridges evaluated were identified to be in “poor”
condition, usually from damage to the ends or the presence of holes, splits,
and bends.
33 of the 335 culverts or bridges inventoried had some sort of obstruction
indicating the pressing need for maintenance.
of the 335 culverts or bridges inventoried had “moderate” or “severe”
streambank erosion near both the inlet and outlet of the structure. An
additional 42 culverts exhibited moderate or severe streambank erosion near
one end of the culvert only.
Nearly 80% of the culverts or bridges inventoried displayed erosion of one or
more of the road embankments.
108 of the 335 culverts or bridges inventoried identified drops from the outlet
of 0.5 to 72 inches, although 50 culverts had missing data on outlet drops. Of
the 80 culverts identified as having adequate flow for fisheries, 26 of these
had drops to the outlet pool of greater than 2” indicating potential barriers to
movement of aquatic wildlife.
79
Appendix G (continued): Summary of Fish Creek Watershed Culvert Inventory
Structures with obstructions
80
Appendix G (continued): Summary of Fish Creek Watershed Culvert Inventory
Structures with drops from the outlet
81
Appendix G (continued): Summary of Fish Creek Watershed Culvert Inventory
Structures in “poor” condition
82
Appendix H: Urban Clay Plain Bioretention Demonstration - Interpretive Sign
The interpretive panel is constructed of
fiberglass-embedded material 24” wide and
18” tall. The single pedestal exhibit base is
constructed of painted aluminum.
83
APPENDIX I: Partial List of Potential Funding Sources
Grant opportunities for implementing projects to protect or improve watershed
health are extensive and constantly changing. Many grants are restricted in the
type of activities allowed, or are only available to local governments or
qualifying non-profit organizations. Private landowners should be aware of
these funding opportunities, but be prepared to enlist the assistance of the Land
and Water Conservation Department or a knowledgeable non-profit group to
assist them in finding the best fit for their project ideas.
Ashland County Land and Water Conservation Department
Bayfeld County Land and Water Conservation Department
Department of Administration (DOA) – WI Coastal Management Program (WCMP)
Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection (DATCP)
Ducks Unlimited (DU)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Forestry Education Grant Program
Forest Productivity Council (FPC)
Great Lakes Basin Program (GLBP)
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)
Individual Contributions
Lake Organizations
Local Sports Clubs
National Farmers Organization (NFO)
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF)
North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA)
Pri-Ru-Ta Resource Conservation & Development (RC & D)
Private Foundations
River Organizations
Trout Unlimited (TU)
University of Wisconsin Extension (UWEX)
US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
Wisconsin Environmental Education Board (WEEB)
Wisconsin Forest Landowners Grants Program (WFLGP)
Wisconsin Geologic & Natural History (WGNHS)
Wisconsin Greens
Wisconsin Tree Farm Commission
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association (WWA)
Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association (WWOA)
84