HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Committee - Agenda - 9/10/2020C:\Users\pterry\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ADFRTY0Q\E
xec Comm Notice Agenda 2020-09-10.doc
Bayfield County Administrator
117 E 5th Street, PO Box 878, Washburn, WI 54891
Ph: 715-373-6181 Fx: 715-373-6153
Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator
Kristine Kavajecz, Human Resource Director
BAYFIELD COUNTY
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
Brett T. Rondeau, Chair Mary Dougherty
Fred Strand Dennis Pocernich
Jeff Silbert, Vice Chair Larry Fickbohm
*** AGENDA ***
Dear Committee Members:
This letter is written to inform you of the Bayfield County Executive Committee
Meeting scheduled for 4:00pm Thursday, September 10, 2020 in the Bayfield
County Board Room. This meeting will be held in-person and remotely.
Supervisors and the public will be able to participate in the Meeting via voice
either by using the internet link or phone number below.
Join Microsoft Teams Meeting
+1 715-318-2087 United States, Eau Claire (Toll)
Conference ID: 959 550 271#
Local numbers | Reset PIN | Learn more about Teams | Meeting options
______________________________________________________________________________
Contact Bayfield County at 715-373-6181 if you have access questions.
Any person wishing to attend who, because of a disability, requires special accommodations, should
contact the County Clerk’s office at 715-373-6100, at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting
time, so appropriate arrangements can be made.
Notice is hereby given that in the event the standing committee does not have a quorum the County
Board Chair or Vice Chair may act as an ex officio member (County ordinance, Chapter 3, section 2-
3-1 (c)). Notice is hereby given that a majority of the Bayfield County Board may be present at the
meeting to gather information about a subject over which they have decision-making responsibility.
This constitutes a meeting of the Bayfield County Board pursuant to State ex rel. Badke v.
Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis. 2d 553, 494 N.W.2d 408(1993), and must be noticed as such,
although the County Board will not take any formal action at this meeting.
C:\Users\pterry\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\ADFRTY0Q\E
xec Comm Notice Agenda 2020-09-10.doc
1) Call to Order:
2) Public Comment
3) Approval of Minutes of August 13, 2020.
4) Public Health COVID-19 Report
5) 2021 Budget Presentation and establishment of special meeting days and times to consider
the new year’s budget.
Proposed Dates and Times for Budget Meetings, Remote and In-person options
Tuesday, September 15: in person 10am or remote, 4pm.
Wednesday, September 23: 4pm
Tuesday, September 29, 4pm (before board meeting)
Tuesday, October 6, 4pm
6) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Short Term Bond Issuance for 2021 Highway
Reconstruction, recommendation to Board.
7) Land and Water Conservation, South Fish Creek, Comments
https://dnr.wi.gov/water/TwaPlanDetail.aspx?key=111674272
8) Discussion regarding Delta Landfill Repair
9) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Payroll Tax Deferral.
10) Discussion and Possible Action Regarding, Payments to Towns with County Forest, Letter
11) Reports:
a) Tribal County Relations, 9/17/2020
b) Financial Report, end of August
c) Treasurer’s Report, end of August
d) CWD Report
e) Washburn VFW
f) Food Distribution Program
12) The Committee may entertain a motion to move in and out of Closed Session pursuant to
§19.85(1)(g), to confer with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or
written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in
which it is or is likely to become involved.
a) Minutes, July 9, 2020 closed session
b) Litigation regarding Delta Dump Site
13) Adjourn
September 10, 2020 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE NARRATIVE
Item 4. We will have a COVID update at the meeting. An outbreak notice was
sent out on Friday due to a number of new cases in Red Cliff and a larger event in
Washburn. We may have a report for Red Cliff at this meeting. The Health
Department put out a notice regarding the large event in Washburn. Attached
here in the packet.
Item 5: We will present a Proposed, 2021 budget at the Executive Committee
meeting. We also plan on a general overview. The Committee schedules
additional meetings over the next three weeks before finalizing the proposed
budget, publishing the budget summary in the paper and scheduling a hearing at
the October Board meeting. All County Supervisors are encouraged to attend the
Executive Meetings discussing the 2021 budget.
Item 6. The 2021 budget will include funding from a possible short-term bond
issue for highway funding as was done in 2019. The Executive Committee can
make a request to the full board to begin this process. The issuance of the bond
takes place before the budget is approved (October 27) in order to secure tax
funding in the 2021 year.
Item 7. The Chair of the Land Conservation Committee and the Land
Conservationist asked that the South Fish Creek Watershed topic be placed on the
agenda as the DNR is currently accepting comments. A summary document and
more detailed explanation are included.
Item 8. In 2018 a major rainstorm and flood severely eroded a piece land owned
by Bayfield County. The land contained the former, Town of Delta Landfill, owned
by a local business. The business did not pay taxes on the property and it
reverted to Bayfield County over 20 years ago.
This facility was used by the Town for decades. Bayfield County has worked
extensively over the past two years with both FEMA and the DNR. Funding is
secured for both FEMA and DNR assistance with final discussions underway. The
county sent the attached letter to the Town requesting assistance with the
remainder of the project (12.5%, approximately $70k). The Town has declined to
participate. Attached are maintenance commitments the Town signed with the
DNR regarding long term responsibility for the site. We need guidance on how to
proceed.
Item 9. The President has issued a Tax Deferral notice. It provides for an optional
employee social security tax deferral for the rest of this year.
There is question about the mandatory or optional nature of the payroll tax
deferral.
In short there is a good chance that any taxes deferred will have to be paid back
next year. There is chance however that an employer could be responsible for
the unpaid share of these taxes.
WCA has issued the attached memorandum, noting these and other topics.
From a local perspective this could be a lot of work, implementing this for some
employees. The potential liability is also of some concern.
Item 10. Bayfield County has gone on record in the past encouraging the State to
increase compensation to Towns with County forest. The current rate is $.30 per
acre, last set in 1989. A draft letter will be placed in the drop box early in the
week for the committee to review and potentially take action on.
Item 11.
a. We have a Tribal County meeting scheduled for September. Input on
agenda topics is sought.
b. The end of August Financial Report is in the packet.
c. The end of August Treasurer’ report is in the packet.
d. Ben will update us on CWD plans for 2020
e. I would like to review where we are with the VFW building.
f. Red Cliff has hosted a county wide food distribution program. I will review
the scope and nature of the program. It is expected this will continue
through the fall.
1
Minutes of the
Bayfield County Executive Committee Meeting
4:00pm, August 13, 2020
Meeting was held in the County Board Room and Remotely, with phone
and/or video access for members and the public.
Members Present: Jeff Silbert, Dennis Pocernich, Brett Rondeau, Fred Strand, Mary
Dougherty (exited at 5:00pm), Larry Fickbohm
Members Excused:
Others Present: Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator; Kristine Kavajecz-Human
Resource Director (remote); Marty Milanowski, Scott Galetka, Jeremy Oswald, Kay Cederberg,
Kellie Pedersen
Meeting Called to Order at 4:00pm by Rondeau.
Public Comment: None Received
Approval of Minutes of July 9, 2020: Motion Strand, Pocernich to approve minutes of
the July 9, 2020 Executive Committee meeting. Motion Carried (6-0)
Public Health COVID-19 Report: Currently setting up for the Cable testing site taking place
tomorrow. Current status is “High”.
Ashland County Airport, 2021 Funding Request Presentation: Bill Moore explained the
reasons for the $20,000 funding request for 2021, or any amount over the past
contribution of $10,000. He expressed appreciation .
Request to move up item 12 on the agenda. Concensus of the committee is to approve
this. Discussion and Possible Action on Letter regarding Wisconsin Confined Animal
Feeding Operation regulations to the Wisconsin Counties Association.
Daugherty explained that she is requesting that the county issue a letter to the Wisconsin
Counties Association asking for clarification of their position related to CAFO’s.
Daugherty shared an overview of her conversation with a representative of WCA and
indicated that WCA appears to need further information on county abilities with regard to
CAFO’s. Draft letters for WCA were provided in the meeting packet. Committee
discussed having a dialogue rather than issuing a formal letter. Abeles-Allison was
authorized to initiate a conversation.
Budget Presentations by Departments Reporting to Executive.
2
a. Clerk of Court: Kay Cederberg: $487,970 Expenses proposed, down slightly from
2020. Levy $238,995 proposed. Also reviewed a couple of Capital Improvement
project requests for painting and window shades just over $5,000. $10,000 for
courtroom equipment maintenance.
b. Treasurer
c. Clerk: Capital Improvement request of $56,000 for new election equipment and
$6,000 for gas pump hardware and software. County Clerk expense budget
proposal of $414,587. This may decrease slightly as a result of the recent election.
d. Register of Deeds: Capital Improvement request of $19,020 for scanning of 95
volumes of records. Expense budget anticipated to be very similar to 2020.
e. Criminal Justice: Barb Flynn provided and overview of the programming and
grants that are managed through the Criminal Justice Program.
Daugherty exited the meeting at this time.
f. Land Records: Scott Galetka reviewed the staff and activities of the department.
Drone is used to assist the Sheriff’s Office and Zoning office with various
scenarios.
g. County Administrator: Similar revenues anticipated in 2021. Expenses will
increase in 2021 due to the recent position modifications and addition of the part-
time staff in 2020. Potential increase in levy will be approximately $15,000-
$20,000.
h. Major Capital Improvements: Two major improvements being discussed for 2021
are a switch to the WISCOM system for radio communications and a new
generator for the Sheriff’s office. This generator provides back-up energy for the
Jail and dispatch center. Further details on capital improvement items in the
maintenance budget were reviewed.
b. Discussion and Possible Action WHEDA PILOT Project Application: Kellie Pedersen
requested that Bayfield County agree to serve as the lead applicant for the project
application. There is no financial commitment required.
Motion Silbert, Fickbohm to authorize that Bayfield County serve as the lead
applicant for the WHEDA Pilot project application. Motion Carried (5-0)
c. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Washburn VFW Building / Youth Center,
Cooperative Effort between Bayfield County/ UW Extension, City of Washburn and
Washburn Schools: Correspondence from a contractor was reviewed, which outlined
structural concerns with the facility. Recommendation was received to replace the
sanitary system at a cost of approximately $7,000. The estimated total cost of repairs
would be approximately $67,000. A replacement structure is estimated at about
$105,000, including demolition and removal of the existing building.
3
Motion Silbert, Fickbohm to approve the youth center Outdoor Charter at the Washburn
VFW building location. The motion does not allocate funding for the effort. Comments
from various committee members that there are many opportunities throughout the
county that could be used for this type of project. Additional concern was expressed that
Washburn is not central in the county and the facility would primarily be accessed by the
Washburn School District. Comment was shared that it seems that a storage facility
appears to be the need rather than a meeting facility. Consensus of the committee is
supportive of the Charter, but not the location.
Silbert offered to withdraw his motion. Motion has a second, so must be voted on.
Motion Failed (0-6)
Consensus of the committee is to move up item 15 on the agenda.
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Pigeon Lake Flood Mapping Grant: Mary
reported that there are currently 9 homes uninhabitable with 2 in danger. Pigeon Lake is
a seepage lake and continues to expand/rise. Municipal Flood Grant application was
submitted by Town of Drummond for flood mapping of the area. The Grant application
was not funded. Request of $33,000 to fund a portion of the flood mapping, with a
matching amount to be funded by the Town and property owners. This item can be
considered for funding in the 2021 budget.
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Budget Transfer from courthouse to jail
capital projects: $680,000 budgeted in 2019. Asking for approval of $30,000 transfer
from courthouse capital projects that will not be completed in 2020 to be allocated to the
Jail project as a result of several change orders.
Motion Pocernich, Fickbohm to transfer up to $30,000 from courthouse capital projects
to the Jail project. Motion Carried (5-0)
Report regarding EDA Infrastructure grant investigation at Bayfield County Business
Park: Abeles-Allison reported that outreach has been expanded to the NGLVC and US
Forest Service regarding partnership on this project.
Discussion and Possible Action NW Regional Planning, CEDS Listing: This is an annual
list provided to NW Regional Planning of potential projects that could be identified for
regional grant funding.
Discussion and Possible Action, 2020 Budget as it relates to CARES, Routes To
Recovery Reimbursements: $249,000 Cares funding was awarded to be used through
November. Approximately $40,000 is remaining. Office entry partitions are being
4
considered for the Zoning, Land Records and Health Departments. Touchless fixtures in
restrooms and for entry doors are also being considered.
Discussion and Possible Action Regarding 2020 Projects on Hold: Forestry is projecting
a significant shortfall in revenues in 2020. Some Capital Improvement projects are being
considered to be delayed. $80,000 for last phase of electrical project at the Fairgrounds.
Consensus is that this could be delayed to the Spring of 2021.
Discussion regarding Wisconsin State Emergency Order #1 Violation Reporting:
Electronic complaint form was taken off of social media and off of the county web site
after concerns were received that these were encouraging complaints. Statement was
made that it was not the intent to encourage complaints.
Reports:
a. Financial Report, end of July: Revenues are at about 62% for the year (58%
benchmark). Forestry revenues are down about $800,000 from the previous year.
Expenses in general fund are at 51%. Highway expenses are up from last year
because a road project was completed earlier in the year.
b. Treasurer’s Report, end of July: Reviewed.
The committee did not go into closed session.
Construction Project Update: Jail project anticipated to conclude end of August.
Meeting adjourned at 6:36pm
South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to
Restore Wisconsin Watersheds
Author: Craig Roesler, Water Quality Biologist North District (retired)
Fish Creek Watershed (LS08) , HUC12: 040103011104
Public review draft
Setting
The South Fish Creek Watershed is a subwatershed of the Fish Creek Watershed
and is located in east central Bayfield County Wisconsin. This watershed was
monitored in 2015 and 2016 through a Targeted Watershed Assessment (TWA)
project to analyze current conditions and to create management goals, objectives,
and recommendations. The study involved gathering fish, habitat, macroinvertebrate,
and chemistry water quality data. Monitoring for in-stream total phosphorus
concentrations was also conducted by Northland College during 2015.
The overall goal of this plan is to identify water quality conditions and work toward
improving and protecting water quality in the South Fish Creek Watershed of the
Lake Superior Basin. This Targeted Watershed Assessment project funded the
collection of data to monitor chemistry, biological and habitat data for analyzing
current conditions and to make recommendations for future management actions in
the area. This plan is designed to present monitoring study results, identify issues or
concerns in the area found during the project and to make recommendations to
improve or protect water quality consistent with Clean Water Act guidelines and state
water quality standards.
About the Watershed
Slightly more than half (58.7%) of the South Fish Creek Watershed is considered
undeveloped with forest, wetland, and grassland/herbaceous land cover. Pasture/hay
is the largest developed land use (33.8%) in the watershed; only 2.9% of the project
area is cultivated cropland. The entire watershed is located in the Lake Superior Clay
Plain (a.k.a. Superior Coastal Plain) (Figure 5). Due to the shallow subsurface clay
layers, South Fish Creek flows are dominated by surface runoff. Groundwater
discharge represents a relatively small contribution to streamflow in South Fish
Creek. Surface runoff dominance produces flashy streams with very high flows
following runoff events and very low base flows.
Biological Communities and Water Quality
Fish populations at all sites sampled are considered warm transition (cool water)
natural communities. Six of the sites are headwater communities, while the most
downstream site (South Fish Creek at STH 137) is a mainstem community. Fish
index of biotic integrity ratings ranged from fair to excellent (1-fair, 4-good, 2-
excellent). Fish communities at all sites were dominated by forage fish species, with
some game fish and panfish present at the most downstream site. The majority of
fish captured at all sites (56% to 93%) are considered to be ?tolerant? to
environmental degradation, which is common for Clay Plain streams due to the flashy
(surface-water dominated) flows, periods of no flow or very low flow, and chronic
turbidity. The six headwater sites had good qualitative fish habitat ratings, while the
mainstem site at STH 137 had a fair rating. The extensive presence of fine sediment
and bank erosion at the mainstem site reduces the stream?s condition relative to
upstream waters. Macroinvertebrate samples had index of biotic integrity (mIBI)
ratings ranging from ?fair? to ?excellent?. Five of the seven sites had ?good? ratings.
These ratings are fairly typical for Clay Plain streams, where macroinvertebrates are
well adapted to the flashy flows and chronic turbidity.
South Fish Creek is considered impaired due to total phosphorus concentrations
exceeding the in-stream water quality standard of 75 ug/l. During fish surveys three
sites that had no flow occurring and only standing pools of water had dissolved
oxygen concentrations below the 5 mg/l standard for warm transition (cool water)
streams. However, fish communities at these sites had fisheries biotic index ratings
of good or excellent, so the low dissolved oxygen concentrations were not having a
large impact on fish. Total suspended solids concentrations were moderate to high,
and transparency was low to moderate, both due largely to the presence of
suspended clay.
Overall Recommendations
Since South Fish Creek is impaired due to high phosphorus concentrations, efforts
should be made to reduce sources of phosphorus. The DNR should work with the
Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Dept. to identify options for reducing
phosphorus inputs to the creek. Potential application of best management practices
for barnyard runoff control and development of farm nutrient management plans
should be explored.
The DNR should also work with the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation
Dept. to identify potential options for reducing peak flows in the watershed (?Slow the
Flow? efforts). Streambank erosion is typically the largest source of suspended
sediment and turbidity in Clay Plain streams. Reducing peak flows can reduce
streambank erosion. This could reduce suspended sediment and turbidity in South
Fish Creek and Chequamegon Bay.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
1 | P a g e
South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed
Assessment: A Water Quality Report to
Restore Wisconsin Watersheds 2020
A Monitoring Report
by the Bureau of
Water Quality in
support of the Clean
Water Act.
South Fish Creek upstream of STH 63.
Photo taken October 2018. A major flood event in June 2018
scoured and reshaped the channel and left sand deposits on
inside bends.
HUC12: 040103011104
Located in the Fish Creek Watershed
(LS08)
To learn more about this area, see this Wisconsin TWA Project Online!
Or, search Fish Creek at Explore Wisconsin’s Waters Online for more detail.
EGAD # 3200-2019-09
Water Quality Bureau
Wisconsin DNR
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT – FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
2 | P a g e
Contents
Figures ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Tables ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Targeted Watershed Assessment Study Summary.............................................................................................. 4
About the Watershed .................................................................................................................................. 4
Biological Communities and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 4
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Wisconsin Water Quality Monitoring and Planning ............................................................................................ 5
Basin/Watershed Partners ........................................................................................................................... 5
Report Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 5
Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................................. 6
WQM Plan Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Resources Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Location and Size ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Land Use, Population ................................................................................................................................... 8
Ecological Landscapes ................................................................................................................................ 10
Soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................. 11
Trout Waters ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Outstanding, Exceptional Resource Waters ................................................................................................. 11
Impaired Waters ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Monitoring Project Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 14
Study Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 14
Site Selection and Study Design .................................................................................................................. 14
Methods, Equipment, and Quality Assurance .............................................................................................. 15
Fish Assemblage and Natural Community ........................................................................................................................ 15
Fish Habitat Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
Macroinvertebrate Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 15
Water Sampling ................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Project Results and Discussion....................................................................................................................... 16
Fish Communities ...................................................................................................................................... 16
Fish Condition ........................................................................................................................................... 16
Habitat Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Condition Values ............................................................................................................................................................... 18
Macroinvertebrate Data ............................................................................................................................ 20
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
3 | P a g e
Water Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 21
Management Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 24
Management Options ................................................................................................................................ 24
Management Recommendations for DNR ........................................................................................................................ 24
Management Recommendations of External Partners ..................................................................................................... 24
Monitoring and Assessment Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 24
Appendix A: References ................................................................................................................................. 25
Appendix B: South Fish Watershed Water Narratives ....................................................................................... 26
Appendix C: Fish Creek Watershed: Fish and Aquatic Life Use Attainment ......................................................... 27
Appendix D: Fish Creek Watershed Water Quality Designations & Listings ......................................................... 30
Figures
Figure 1: South Fish Creek Watershed Location ........................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. South Fish Creek Watershed Boundary. ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 3. South Fish Creek Watershed NLCD Land Cover Percentages (grouped by land cover type) in 2017. ........... 8
Figure 4. South Fish Creek Watershed NLCD 2011 Land Cover. ................................................................................... 9
Figure 5. South Fish Creek Watershed and Wisconsin’s Ecological Landscapes ....................................................... 10
Figure 6. South Fish Creek Watershed NRCS Soil Mapping Units and Percentages. .................................................. 12
Figure 7. South Fish Creek Watershed NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups. ........................................................................ 13
Figure 8. South Fish Creek Watershed Monitoring Sites. ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 9. South Fish Creek Fish IBI Ratings ................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 10. South Fish Creek Fish Habitat Condition (Qualitative Surveys) Values ..................................................... 19
Figure 11. South Fish Creek Macroinvertebrate IBI Ratings ....................................................................................... 21
Figure 12. Fish Creek Watershed Outstanding & Exceptional Resource Waters and Impaired Waters .................... 30
Tables
Table 1. List of impaired waters in the South Fish Creek Watershed ......................................................................... 11
Table 2. South Fish Creek Watershed Monitoring Sites and Data Collected .............................................................. 14
Table 3. South Fish Creek Watershed Fish Survey Taxa Count and Fish Community Data (2012-2015) .................... 17
Table 4. Fish Index of biological integrity Condition Categories ................................................................................. 17
Table 5. South Fish Creek Watershed Fish Survey Data (2012-2015) ......................................................................... 18
Table 6. South Fish Creek Watershed Qualitative Habitat Survey Results ................................................................. 18
Table 7. South Fish Creek Watershed Qualitative Habitat Values .............................................................................. 19
Table 8 Qualitative Habitat Condition Categories ...................................................................................................... 19
Table 9. South Fish Creek Watershed Macroinvertebrate Survey Data (2012-2015) ................................................. 20
Table 10. Indices of Biological Integrity Condition Categories (Macroinvertebrate IBI and Hilsenhoff IBI) ............... 20
Table 11. South Fish Creek Water Quality Survey Data (2015) ................................................................................... 22
Table 12. Monthly Total Phosphorus Concentrations(*) ............................................................................................. 22
Table 13. Fish Creek Watershed Fish and Aquatic Life Designated Use Attainment Table ........................................ 27
Table 14. Trout Classifications and O/ERW waters in the Fish Creek Watershed (LS08). .......................................... 30
Table 15. Impaired Water Listings in the Fish Creek Watershed (LS08). .................................................................... 30
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
4 | P a g e
Targeted Watershed Assessment Study Summary
The South Fish Creek Watershed is a subwatershed of the Fish Creek Watershed
and is located in east central Bayfield County Wisconsin (Figure 1). This
watershed was monitored in 2015 – 2016 through a Targeted Watershed
Assessment (TWA) project to analyze current conditions and to create
management goals, objectives, and recommendations. The study involved
gathering fish, habitat, macroinvertebrate, and chemistry water quality data.
Monitoring for in-stream total phosphorus concentrations was also conducted by
Northland College during 2015.
About the Watershed
Slightly more than half (58.7%) of the South Fish Creek Watershed is considered
“undeveloped,” with forest, wetland, and grassland/herbaceous land cover.
Pasture/hay is the largest developed land use (33.8%) in the watershed; only 2.9% of the project area is cultivated cropland. The entire
watershed is located in the Lake Superior Clay Plain (a.k.a. Superior Coastal Plain) (Figure 5). Due to the shallow subsurface clay layers,
South Fish Creek flows are dominated by surface runoff. Groundwater discharge represents a relatively small contribution to streamflow
in South Fish Creek. Surface runoff dominance produces flashy streams with very high flows following runoff events and very low base
flows.
Biological Communities and Water Quality
Fish populations at all sites sampled are considered warm transition (cool water) natural communities. Six of the sites are headwater
communities, while the most downstream site (South Fish Creek at STH 137) is a mainstem community. Fish index of biotic integrity
ratings ranged from fair to excellent (1-fair, 4-good, 2-excellent). Fish communities at all sites were dominated by forage fish species,
with some game fish and panfish present at the most downstream site. The majority of fish captured at all sites (56% to 93%) are
considered to be “tolerant” to environmental degradation, which is common for Clay Plain streams due to the flashy (surface-water
dominated) flows, periods of no flow or very low flow, and chronic turbidity.
The six headwater sites had good qualitative fish habitat ratings, while the mainstem site at STH 137 had a fair rating. The extensive
presence of fine sediment and bank erosion at the mainstem site reduces the stream’s condition relative to upstream waters.
Macroinvertebrate samples had index of biotic integrity (mIBI) ratings ranging from “fair” to “excellent”. Five of the seven sites had
“good” ratings. These ratings are fairly typical for Clay Plain streams, where macroinvertebrates are well adapted to the flashy flows and
chronic turbidity.
South Fish Creek is considered impaired due to total phosphorus concentrations exceeding the in-stream water quality standard of 75
ug/l. During fish surveys three sites that had no flow occurring and only standing pools of water had dissolved oxygen concentrations
below the 5 mg/l standard for warm transition (cool water) streams. However, fish communities at these sites had fisheries biotic index
ratings of good or excellent, so the low dissolved oxygen concentrations were not having a large impact on fish. Total suspended solids
concentrations were moderate to high, and transparency was low to moderate, both due largely to the presence of suspended clay.
Recommendations
• Since South Fish Creek is impaired due to high phosphorus concentrations, efforts should be made to reduce sources of
phosphorus. The DNR should work with the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Dept. to identify options for
reducing phosphorus inputs to the creek. Potential application of best management practices for barnyard runoff control and
development of farm nutrient management plans should be explored.
• The DNR should also work with the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Dept. to identify potential options for
reducing peak flows in the watershed (“Slow the Flow” efforts). Streambank erosion is typically the largest source of
suspended sediment and turbidity in Clay Plain streams. Reducing peak flows can reduce streambank erosion. This could
reduce suspended sediment and turbidity in South Fish Creek and Chequamegon Bay.
Figure 1: South Fish Creek Watershed Location
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
5 | P a g e
Wisconsin Water Quality Monitoring and Planning
This Water Quality Management Plan was created under the state’s Water Resources Planning and Monitoring Programs. The plan
reflects water quality program priorities and Water Resources Monitoring Strategy 2015-2020 and fulfills Wisconsin’s Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan requirements under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. Condition information and resource management
recommendations support and guide program priorities for the planning area.
This WQM Plan is approved by the Wisconsin DNR and is a formal update to Lake Superior Basin Areawide Water Quality Management
Plan and Wisconsin’s statewide Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (AWQM Plan). This plan will be forwarded to USEPA for
certification as a formal update to Wisconsin’s AWQM Plan.
_________________________________________ __________________
Craig Roesler, North District Water Quality Biologist Date
__________________________________________ __________________
Tom Aartilla, North District Water Quality Field Supervisor Date
_________________________________________ __________________
Greg Searle, Water Quality Field Operations Director Date
___________________________________________ __________________
Timothy Asplund, Water Quality Monitoring Section Chief Date
Basin/Watershed Partners
• Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department
Report Acknowledgements
• Craig Roesler, Primary Author and Investigator, North District, Wisconsin DNR
• Lisa Kosmond Helmuth, Program Coordinator & Publications, Wisconsin DNR
This document is available electronically on the DNR’s website. The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources provides equal opportunity in its employment, programs, services, and functions under an
Affirmative Action Plan. If you have any questions, please write to Equal Opportunity Office, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240. This publication is available in alternate format (large print,
Braille, audio tape, etc.) upon request. Call 608-267-7694 for more information.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street • PO Box 7921 •
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921 608-266-2621
WDNR PUB- WY-066-2015 EGAD #3200-2019-09
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
6 | P a g e
Abbreviations
AEL: Aquatic Entomology Laboratory at UW – Stevens Point: the primary laboratory for analysis of macroinvertebrate taxonomy in the
State of Wisconsin.
BMP: Best Management Practice. A land management practice used to prevent or reduce nonpoint source pollution such as runoff, total
suspended solids, or excess nutrients.
DATCP: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection – the state agency in partnership with DNR responsible
for a variety of land and water related programs.
DNR: Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is an agency of the State of Wisconsin created to
preserve, protect, manage, and support natural resources.
END: Endangered Species - Wisconsin species designated as rare or unique due to proximity to the farthest extent of their natural range
or due to anthropogenic deleterious impacts on the landscape or both.
ERW: Exceptional Resource Water- Wisconsin’s designation under state water quality standards to waters with exceptional quality and
which may be provided a higher level of protection through various programs and processes.
FHDB Fishs and Habitat Database – or Fish Database – the state’s repository for fish taxonomy and auto-calculated metrics involving fish
assemblage condition and related.
FIBI: Fish Index of biological integrity (Fish IBI). An Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is a scientific tool used to gauge water condition
based on biological data. Results indicate condition and provide insight into potential degradation sources. In Wisconsin, specific fish IBI
tools are developed for specific natural communities. Biologists review and confirm the natural community to use the correct fish IBI tool.
HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code. A HUC is a code that represents nested hydrologic watersheds delineated by a multiple agencies at the
federal and state level including USGS, USFS, and Wisconsin DNR.
MDM: Maximum Daily Averages – maximum daily average is a calculated metric that may be used for temperature, dissolved oxygen and
related chemistry parameters to characterize water condition.
mg/L: milligrams per liter - a volumetric measure typically used in chemistry analysis characterizations.
MIBI: Macroinvertebrate Index of biological integrity. In Wisconsin, the MIBI, or macroinvertebrate Index of biological integrity, was
developed to assess macroinvertebrate community condition.
Monitoring Seq. No. Monitoring Sequence Number refers to a unique identification code generated by the Surface Water Integrated
Monitoring System (SWIMS), which holds much of the state’s water quality monitoring data.
NC: Natural Community. A system of categorizing water based on inherent physical, hydrologic, and biological components. Streams and
Lakes have uniquely derived systems that result in specific natural community designations for each lake and river segment in the state.
These designations dictate the appropriate assessment tools which improves the condition result, reflecting detailed nuances reflecting
the modeling and analysis work foundational to the assessment systems.
ND: No detection – a term used typically in analytical settings to identify when a parameter or chemical constituent was not present at
levels higher than the limit of detection.
NRCS: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service - the federal agency providing local support and land management outreach work
with landowners and partners such as state agencies.
ORW: Outstanding Resource Water- Wisconsin’s designation under state water quality standards to waters with outstanding quality and
which may be provided a higher level of protection through various programs and processes.
SC: Species of Special Concern- species designated as special concern due to proximity to the farthest extent of their natural range or due
to anthropogenic deleterious impacts on the landscape, or both.
SWIMS ID. Surface Water Integrated Monitoring System (SWIMS) identification number is the unique monitoring station identification
number for the location of monitoring data.
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
7 | P a g e
TDP: Total Dissolved Phosphorus – an analyzed chemistry
parameter collected in aquatic systems positively correlated with
excess productivity and eutrophication in Wisconsin waters.
TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load – a technical report required for
impaired waters Clean Water Act. TMDLs identify sources, sinks and
impairments associated with the pollutant causing documented
impairments.
TP: Total Phosphorus - an analyzed chemical parameter collected in
aquatic systems frequently positively correlated with excess
productivity and eutrophication in many of Wisconsin’s waters.
THR: Threatened Species - Wisconsin species designated as
threatened due to proximity to the farthest extent of their natural
range or due to anthropogenic deleterious impacts on the
landscape, or both.
TWA: Targeted Watershed Assessment. A study design centered
on watersheds that uses a blend of geometric design and targeted
site selection to gather baseline data and additional collections for
unique, site-specific to answer environmental questions including
effectiveness monitoring of management actions, evaluation
surveys for site specific criteria or permits, protection projects, and
generalized watershed planning studies.
TSS: Total suspended solids – an analyzed physical parameter
collected in aquatic systems that is frequently positively correlated with excess productivity, reduced water clarity, reduced dissolved
oxygen and degraded biological communities.
WATERS ID. The Waterbody Assessment, Tracking, and Electronic Reporting System Identification Code. The WATERS ID is a unique
numerical sequence number assigned by the WATERS system, also known as “Assessment Unit ID code.” This code is used to identify
unique stream segments or lakes assessed and stored in the WATERS system.
WBIC: Water Body Identification Code. WDNR’s unique identification codes assigned to water features in the state. The lines and
information allow the user to execute spatial and tabular queries about the data, make maps, and perform flow analysis and network
traces.
WSLH: Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene– the state’s certified laboratory that provides a wide range of analytical services including
toxicology, chemistry, and data sharing.
South Fish Creek at CTH E (Map Site No. 1) October 31, 2018. Photo by
Craig Roesler.
March 23, 2020
[South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore
Wisconsin Watersheds 2020]
8 | P a g e
WQM Plan Goals
The overall goal of this plan is to identify water quality
conditions and work toward improving and protecting
water quality in the South Fish Creek Watershed of the
Lake Superior Basin. This Targeted Watershed Assessment
project funded the collection of data to monitor
chemistry, biological and habitat data for analyzing
current conditions and to make recommendations for
future management actions in the area. This plan is
designed to present monitoring study results, identify
issues or concerns in the area found during the project
and to make recommendations to improve or protect
water quality consistent with Clean Water Act guidelines
and state water quality standards.
Resources Overview
Location and Size
The South Fish Creek Watershed has an area of 110 km2 (42.4 mi2) (27,120 acres) and is in Bayfield County, Wisconsin (Figure 2). South
Fish Creek merges with North Fish Creek to form Fish Creek, which flows for 1.3 miles before flowing into Chequamegon Bay, Lake
Superior.
Land Use, Population
South Fish Creek Watershed land use is shown in Figures 3
and 4.
• Slightly more than half (58.7%) of the watershed has
undeveloped land uses (forest, wetland, grassland/
herbaceous).
• Pasture/hay is the largest developed land use (33.8%).
• Only 2.9% of the watershed is cultivated cropland.
The South Fish Creek Watershed includes the Towns of
Eileen, Keystone, and Mason (Combined 2016 Population:
1,385). Assuming an even distribution of population in
these towns suggests the South Fish Creek Watershed has a
population of about 545 persons. The City of Ashland
(2016 population: 7957) is located a few miles to the the
northeast of the South Fish Creek Watershed (Figure 2).
Figure 3. South Fish Creek Watershed NLCD Land Cover Percentages (grouped
by land cover type) in 2017.
Figure 2. South Fish Creek Watershed Boundary.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT TO RESTORE WISCONSIN
WATERSHEDS 2020]
9 | P a g e
Figure 4. South Fish Creek Watershed NLCD 2011 Land
Cover.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
10 | P a g e
Ecological Landscapes
The South Fish Creek Watershed is located within the Superior Coastal
Plain (Figure 5). The Superior Coastal Plain (aka Lake Superior Clay Plain)
is Wisconsin's northernmost Ecological Landscape, bordered on the
north by southwestern Lake Superior and on the south by the Northwest
Sands, the Northwest Lowlands, and the North Central Forest. The
climate is strongly influenced by Lake Superior, resulting in cooler
summers, warmer winters, and greater precipitation compared to more
inland locations. The watershed soils in this area heavily influence water
color, streambank stability, and water clarity.
Soils
The watershed is in the Lake Superior Clay Plain and most soils have high clay
content. The four most common soil mapping units are (Figure 6):
• 480B (34.5%) Portwing-Herbster complex
• 580B (20.6%) Sanborg-Badriver complex
• 756B (8.2%) Superior-Sedgwick complex
• 713B (8.2%) Kellogg-Allendale-Ashwabay complex
The two most common units (480B and 580B; 55% of watershed) have surficial
soil textures of silt loam or clay loam. An underlying clay layer begins 9-to-17
inches below the soil surface. Depth to water table ranges from 0 to 12 inches
below the surface. The runoff class is high.
The third and fourth most common units (756B and 713B; 16% of watershed)
have coarser surficial textures ranging from fine sandy loam to loamy sand. For the
Superior-Sedgwick complex (756B) - an underlying clay layer begins at 14 to 16
inches below the surface; depth to water table is 6 inches below the surface; runoff class is very high. For the Kellogg-Allendale-
Ashwabay complex (713B) – an underlying clay or silty clay layer begins at 26 to 45 inches below the surface; depth to water table is 6 to
30 inches below the surface; runoff class is very low. Hydrologic soil groups are shown in Figure 7. The majority of soils are included in
hydrologic soil group D. These are soils having a very slow infiltration rate and a high runoff potential when thoroughly wetted. The
widespread presence of shallow subsurface clay layers in the watershed is the primary cause of this condition.
Figure 5. South Fish Creek Watershed and
Wisconsin’s Ecological Landscapes
Read more at Wisconsin DNR
South Fish Creek at HWY 63, 2018
(Map Site No. 3). Photo by Craig Roesler.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT TO
RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
11 | P a g e
Hydrology
Due to the shallow subsurface clay layers, South Fish Creek flows are dominated by surface runoff. Most soils are somewhat poorly
drained. Relatively small contributions to streamflow are from groundwater discharge. This produces a flashy stream with very high
flows following runoff events and very low base flows.
During 2015 South Fish Creek was observed to have no surface flow above County Highway
F during most of the summer and early fall. Only standing pools of water were present.
Base flow near the Creek mouth was only 1.5 cfs on August 8th, 2015.
Trout Waters
DNR classifies trout streams as either Class I, II or III. Class I are naturally reproducing
populations; class II are supplemented by stocking, and class III are wholly supported by
stocking. There are no trout waters in the South Fish Creek watershed. See Appendix C
(Table 13) and Appendix D (Table 14) for a list of trout waters in the larger Fish Creek
Watershed.
Outstanding, Exceptional Resource Waters
Wisconsin designates the highest quality waters as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) or
Exceptional Resource Waters (ERWs), these are surface waters that provide outstanding
recreational opportunities, support valuable fisheries and wildlife habitat, have good water
quality, and are not significantly impacted by human activities. ORW and ERW status
identifies waters that the State of Wisconsin has determined warrant additional protection
from the effects of pollution. There are no ORW or ERW waters in the South Fish Creek
watershed. See Appendix C (Table 13) and Appendix D (Table 13 and Figure 14) which show
ORW/ERW waters in the larger Fish Creek Watershed.
Impaired Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to publish a list of waters that do not meet water quality standards. South Fish
Creek and an unnamed tributary to South Fish Creek are impaired waters due to total phosphorus concentrations exceeding the state
stream standard of 75 ug/l (Table 1). Impaired waters in the larger Fish Creek Watershed are listed in Appendix D (Table 15).
Table 1. List of impaired waters in the South Fish Creek Watershed
Waterbody Name WBIC Start End Pollutant Impairment
South Fish Creek 2889900 0 mi 22.5 mi Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown
Unnamed Trib. to South Fish
Creek 2890200 0 mi 6.7 mi Total Phosphorus Impairment Unknown
South Fish Creek at Colby Road (Map Site No.
2), 10/2018. Photo by Craig Roesler.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
12 | P a g e
Figure 6. South Fish Creek Watershed NRCS Soil Mapping Units and Percentages
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
13 | P a g e
Figure 7. South Fish Creek Watershed NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
14 | P a g e
Monitoring Project Discussion
Study Summary
The South Fish Creek Targeted Watershed Assessment was designed to assess the overall chemical, physical and biological condition of
South Fish Creek and its tributaries. There was a preliminary proposal to site a hog CAFO in the watershed at the time that the
monitoring was conducted, so the assessment was also useful for evaluating potential impacts of such an operation on water quality. A
completed CAFO proposal was never submitted to the DNR.
Site Selection and Study Design
This study involved collection of fish community, macroinvertebrate, qualitative habitat, and water chemistry data at seven sites in the
South Fish Creek watershed. Monitoring stations from 2015 and 2012 are listed in Table 2 and displayed in Figure 8. Monitoring during
2012 and 2015 included:
• Fish community surveys at seven sites.
• Water chemistry samples and a flow measurement were made at the time of each fish survey. Parameters measured were
total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, and transparency.
• Qualitative habitat assessments at seven sites.
• Macroinvertebrate samples at seven sites.
• Also during 2015 extensive monitoring for total phosphorus at three stream sites was conducted by Northland College.
Figure 8. South Fish Creek
Watershed Monitoring Sites.
Map
Site No. WBIC Station Water Location Lat Long Fish Invertebrate Qualitative
Habitat
1 2889900 043095 South Fish Cr. 50 m US STH 137 46.57 -90.95 2015 2015 2015
2 2889900 043056 South Fish Cr. 30 m US Colby Road 46.54 -91.01 2015 2015 2015
3 2889900 10044095 South Fish Cr. 80 m US STH 63 46.54 -91.05 2015 2015 2015
4 2889900 10043950 South Fish Cr. 60 m US CTH F 46.51 -91.08 2015 2015 2015
5 2889900 10038083 South Fish Cr. 130 m DS Benoit Rd 46.48 -91.09 2012 2012 2012
6 2889900 10043949 South Fish Cr. 60 m US CTH E 46.47 -91.11 2015 2015 2015
7 2890200 10043551 Un. Tributary at Colby Road 46.53 -91.01 2015 2015 2015
Table 2. South Fish Creek Watershed Monitoring Sites and Data Collected
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
15 | P a g e
Methods, Equipment, and Quality Assurance
Fish Assemblage and Natural Community
Fish surveys at seven sites were conducted by electroshocking a section of stream with a station length of 35 times the mean stream
width (100 m minimum and 400 m maximum station length) (Lyons, 1992). One backpack shocker was used at sites with mean stream
widths less than 3 meters and two backpack shockers were used at sites with mean stream widths greater than 3 meters. All fish were
collected, identified, and counted. Surveys were conducted using the following methods:
• Wadeable Stream Fish Community Evaluation Form 3600-230 (R 7/00)
• Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities of Wadeable Streams in Wisconsin
Fish Habitat Evaluation
At each site, qualitative fish habitat ratings were determined using the following methods:
• Qualitative Habitat Rating less that 10m Form (3600-532A) (R 6/07)
• Guidelines for Qualitative Physical Habitat Evaluation of Wadeable Streams (2007)
Macroinvertebrate Evaluation
Macroinvertebrate samples were obtained at seven sites by kick sampling gravel or cobble
riffle substrate using a D-frame net. Samples were preserved and sent to the University
of Wisconsin-Stevens Point for analyses. Standard metrics were calculated for the
macroinvertebrate communities found. Methods used were:
• Guidelines for Collecting Macroinvertebrate Samples in Wadeable Streams
• Wadeable Macroinvertebrate Field Data Report Form 3200-081 (R 08/14)
Water Sampling
Water samples were collected at seven sites at the time the fish surveys were conducted.
Samples were shipped on ice to the State Laboratory of Hygiene where they were
analyzed for total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and total suspended solids. Field
parameters measured were flow, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, conductivity, and
transparency. Methods used were:
• Guidelines and Procedures for Surface Water Grab Sampling (Dec. 2005 Version 3)
• Guidance for Flow Monitoring Wadeable Streams (v1.0) 2016
• Guidance for Dissolved Oxygen Meter Sampling
During 2015, extensive monitoring for total phosphorus at three stream sites was also
conducted by Northland College.
South Fish Creek at Colby Rd (Map Site No. 2),
10/2018. Photo by Craig Roesler.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
16 | P a g e
Project Results and Discussion
Fish Communities
A summary of fish survey data is shown in Table 3 and Table 5. Four of the seven sites had
intermittent flow, and no surface flow was occurring at three sites at the time of the surveys. Fish
were restricted to standing pools of water. Some limited sub-surface flow between pools was
probably seeping through stream channel bed materials (hyporheic flow).
The number of fish species found per site ranged from 6 to 19. The two sites with the least species (6
and 8) are intermittent flow sites. The site with the most species (South Fish Creek at STH 137; 19
species) is the most downstream site. It has the most flow and is closest to downstream water bodies
such as Fish Creek and Chequamegon Bay.
Fish communities at all sites were dominated by forage fish species. The majority of forage fish were
cool water (thermally transitional) species. Game fish or panfish were uncommon at headwater sites,
with only one brown trout found at Colby Road and one pumpkinseed found at Benoit Road. Game
fish or panfish were more common at the mainstem site at South Fish Creek at STH 137 where one
brown trout, one walleye, six yellow perch, and eight rock bass were found.
The majority of fish captured at all sites (56 - 93%) are considered to be “tolerant” to environmental
degradation. The four sites with intermittent flows have the highest percentages of tolerant fish (84 -
93%). The most downstream site (South Fish Creek at STH 137) with the most flow has the lowest
percentage of tolerant fish (56.5%). A high percentage of tolerant fish is a common feature of many
small Lake Superior tributary streams with watersheds strongly influenced by clayey soils. These streams have very low base flows or are
intermittent, and have chronic turbidity from suspended clay. These conditions, which are to some extent naturally occurring, are
probably a primary reason for the high percentages of tolerant fish. Young of year forage fish were observed at all sites including standing
pools in intermittent segments.
This indicates that even
intermittent stream segments
serve as nursery areas for these
species.
Fish populations at all sites
indicated warm transition (cool
water) natural communities are
present. Six of the sites are
headwater communities, while the
most downstream site (South Fish
Creek at STH 137) is a mainstem
community. The previously
estimated modeled natural
communities were all colder than
the field-verified natural
communities (Table 3). The model
probably overestimates
groundwater inflow in this area.
Fish Condition
Fish index of biotic integrity (IBI)
scores ranged from 60 to 100, with
ratings of “fair” to “excellent”
(Table 3, Figure 9). Only one site
(South Fish Creek downstream of
Benoit Rd) had a “fair” rating, while the other six sites were “good” or “excellent”. The “small stream” IBI (Lyons 2006) was applied to the
six headwater sites. The cool-warm IBI (Lyons 2012) was applied to the mainstem site (South Fish Creek at STH 137). The IBI is an index
that compares the existing structure, composition, and functional organization of the fish community with regional and habitat-specific
expectations derived from comparable high-quality ecosystems (Lyons, et al. 1996). IBI ratings of “fair”, “good”, or “excellent” indicate
moderate to low levels of impairment to fish communities are currently resulting from human disturbances.
Figure 9. South Fish Creek Fish Condition (Fisheries IBI) Values
White Sucker
Creek Chub
Common Shiner
Brown Trout
Figure 9. South Fish Creek Fish IBI Ratings
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
17 | P a g e
Table 4. Fish Index of biological integrity Condition Categories
Map Site No: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Water South Fish Creek Tributary
Station ID 043095 043056 10044095 10043950 10038083 10043949 10043551 Fish
Tolerance
Rating
Description STH 137 Colby Rd Hwy 63 CTH F Benoit Rd CTH E Colby Rd
Survey Date 8/13/2015 8/13/2015 8/28/2015 8/12/2015 8/8/2012 8/12/2015 7/23/2015
Black Bullhead 1 Tolerant
Blacknose Shiner 10 Intolerant
Bluntnose minnow 31 7 Tolerant
Brassy Minnow 1 Intermediate
Brook Stickleback 1 16 10 35 35 Tolerant
Brown Trout 1 1 Intermediate
Central Mudminnow 6 6 11 82 304 Tolerant
Common Shiner 86 117 67 30 26 24 16 Intermediate
Creek Chub 105 164 116 237 89 42 39 Tolerant
Fathead minnow 1 2 9 11 22 5 Tolerant
Finescale Dace 3 Intermediate
Golden Shiner 1 1 Tolerant
Hornyhead Chub 45 15 2 Intermediate
Iowa Darter Intolerant
Johnny Darter 45 18 17 39 1 2 Intermediate
Logperch 3 Intermediate
Longnose Dace 1 19 10 Intermediate
Mottled Sculpin 10 3 6 Intolerant
Pearl Dace 1 Intermediate
Pumpkin seed 1 Intermediate
Rock Bass 8 Intolerant
Trout Perch 11 Intermediate
Walleye 1 Intermediate
Western Blacknose Dace 12 103 34 83 2 Tolerant
White Sucker 127 23 49 34 13 17 43 Tolerant
Yellow Perch 6 Intermediate
Verified Natural
Community
Warm
transition
mainstem
Warm
transition
headwater
Warm
transition
headwater
Warm
transition
headwater
Warm
transition
headwater
Warm
transitio
n
headwat
er
Warm
transition
headwater
Modeled Natural
Community
Cold
transition
mainstem
Coldwater Coldwater
Cold
transition
headwater
Coldwater Coldwat
er Coldwater
Small Stream IBI 80 80 100 60 90 70
Warm Transition IBI 90
IBI Rating Excellent Good Good Excellent Fair Good Good
% Tolerant Individuals 56 78 69 84 88 93 89
Total Species 19 10 11 8 9 11 6
Total Fish 501 472 320 456 234 452 140
Table 3. South Fish Creek Watershed Fish Survey Taxa Count and Fish Community Data (2012-2015)
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
18 | P a g e
Table 5. South Fish Creek Watershed Fish Survey Data (2012-2015)
Map
Site
No. Site
SWIMS
Station#
Flow Status
Survey
Date
No. of
Species
Best-fitting
Natural
Community
Fish IBI
Applied
IBI
Score
IBI
Rating
% Tol.
(1)
1
South Fish Ck.
@ STH 137 043095 perennial 08/13/2015 19
warm transition
mainstem
Warm
Transition 90 Excellent 56.5
2
South Fish Ck.
@ Colby Rd 043056 perennial 08/13/2015 10
warm transition
headwater Small Stream 80 Good 78.5
3
South Fish Ck.
@ STH 63 10044095 perennial 08/28/2015 11
warm transition
headwater Small Stream 80 Good 69.1
4
South Fish Ck.
@ CTH F 10043950 intermittent 08/12/2015 8
warm transition
headwater Small Stream 100 Excellent 83.6
5
South Fish Ck.
@ Benoit Rd 10038083 intermittent 08/06/2012 9
warm transition
headwater Small Stream 60 Fair 88.2
6
South Fish Ck.
@ CTH E 10043949 intermittent 08/12/2015 11
warm transition
headwater Small Stream 90 Good 93.4
7
Un Trib. to S
Fish Ck. @
Colby Rd. 10043551 intermittent 07/23/2015 6
warm transition
headwater Small Stream 70 Good 88.6
(1) Percent Tolerant Species
Habitat Quality
Condition Values
Qualitative fish habitat ratings for the seven South Fish Creek watershed sites are shown in Table 6 and Figure 10. The six headwater sites
had “good” ratings, while the mainstem site at STH 137 had a “fair” rating. The mainstem site lost rating points mostly due to the
extensive presence of fine sediment and extensive bank erosion. Moderate to extensive presence of fine sediment also resulted in lost
rating points for most headwater sites.
Map Site No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SWIMS Station ID 043095 043056 10044095 10043949 10038083 10043950 10043551
Description STH 137 Colby Rd Hwy 63 CTH E Benoit Rd CTH F Colby Rd
So. Fish Cr. So. Fish Cr So. Fish Cr. So. Fish Cr. So. Fish Cr. So. Fish Cr. Tributary
Habitat Metric (Score) 8/13/2015 8/13/2015 8/28/2015 8/12/2015 8/8/2012 8/12/2015 7/23/2015
Riparian Buffer Width
(15) 15 15 15 10 15 15 15
Bank Erosion (15) 0 10 10 10 10 5 10
Pool Area (10) 3 10 7 7 7 10 10
Width/Depth Ratio (15) 5 10 10 10 10 10 10
Riffle: Riffle or Bend:
Bend Ratio (15) 5 10 10 10 10 10 10
Fine Sediments (15) 0 10 5 5 5 5 0
Cover for Fish (15) 10 15 10 10 10 10 10
Total Score 38 80 67 62 67 65 65
Rating Fair Good Good Good Good Good Good
Table 6. South Fish Creek Watershed Qualitative Habitat Survey Results
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
19 | P a g e
Map
Site # Site Description Station ID Qualitative
Habitat Score
Qualitative
Habitat Rating
1 South Fish Creek @ STH 137 043095 38 Fair
2 South Fish Creek @ Colby Rd 043056 80 Good
3 South Fish Creek @ Hwy 63 10044095 67 Good
4 South Fish Creek @ CTH F 10043950 65 Good
5 South Fish Creek @ Benoit Rd 10038083 67 Good
6 South Fish Creek @ CTH E 10043949 62 Good
7 South Fish Creek tributary @ Colby Rd 10043551 65 Good
Table 7. South Fish Creek Watershed Qualitative Habitat Values
Figure 10. South Fish Creek Fish Qualitative Habitat Ratings
Table 8. Qualitative Habitat Condition Categories
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
20 | P a g e
Macroinvertebrate Data
Macroinvertebrate sample results are summarized in Table 9 and Figure 11. Macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (MIBI) values
ranged from 4.48 to 7.88, with condition categories ranging from fair to excellent. The two most downstream sites (South Fish Creek at
STH 137, and South Fish Creek at Colby Road) had the highest MIBI’s.
Hilsenhoff biotic index (HBI) values ranged from 3.02 to 7.01, with condition categories ranging from excellent to fairly poor. HBIs reflect
the amount of organic loading and the resultant availability of oxygen at a site. The site with the poorest HBI (South Fish Creek at CTH E)
had no flow for several weeks in late summer and early fall. It also has a narrow channel with an abundance of reed canary grass
overhanging channel edges. These factors contributed to the relatively poor HBI value.
Table 9. South Fish Creek Watershed Macroinvertebrate Survey Data (2012-2015)
Map
Site
No. Site
SWIMS
Station
Sampling
Date MIBI
MIBI
Condition
Category
Hilsenhoff
Biotic
Index (HBI)
HBI
Condition
Category
Species
Richness
% EPT*
Individuals
% EPT*
Genera
% Chironi-
midae
Individuals
1
South Fish
Ck.@ STH 137 043095 09/10/2015 7.88 Excellent 5.6 Fair 28 25 19 67
2
South Fish
Ck.@ Colby Rd 043056 09/10/2015 7.2 Good 3.27 Excellent 35 66 41 9
3
South Fish
Ck.@ STH 63 10044095 09/10/2015 5.59 Good 3.02 Excellent 28 55 33 17
4
South Fish
Ck.@ CTH F 10043950 10/30/2015 5.38 Good 5.58 Fair 31 66 17 16
5
South Fish
Ck.@ Benoit
Rd 10038083 10/26/2012 4.48 Fair 5.81 Fair 24 7 13 28
6
South Fish
Ck.@ CTH E 10043949 10/30/2015 6.86 Good 7.01
Fairly
Poor 36 8 14 36
7
Un Trib. to S
Fish Ck @
Colby Rd. 10043551 10/30/2015 6.03 Good 4.66 Good 22 50 18 23
* EPT = ephemeroptera (mayflies), plecoptera (stoneflies), trichoptera (caddisflies)
Complete sample result information is available on DNR's SWIMS data base.
Table 10. Indices of Biological Integrity Condition Categories (Macroinvertebrate IBI and Hilsenhoff IBI)
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
21 | P a g e
Figure 11. South Fish Creek Macroinvertebrate IBI Ratings
Water Quality
Water quality data collected during fish surveys and macroinvertebrate sampling is shown in Table 11.
Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations ranged from 110 – 262 ug/l. All samples exceed Wisconsin’s stream standard for TP concentration
of 75 ug/l. Intermittent stream sites with standing pools of water had higher TP concentrations than the perennial stream sites with
flowing water. Sample collection dates vary, which limits comparisons. However, this does indicate that TP is not settling out in standing
pools. TP may be largely attached to suspended clay particles which have extremely long settling times. Biological activity by fish and
wildlife might also contribute to sediment resuspension in pools.
Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations were moderate and ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 mg/l. Intermittent stream sites with standing pools of
water also had higher TN concentrations than the perennial stream sites with flowing water.
Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations were moderate to high ranging from 5.6 – 29.3 mg/l and are probably largely due to
suspended clay. Transparency measurements were low to moderate ranging from 18 to 89 cm and are again largely influenced by
suspended clay.
Summer dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 10.3 mg/l. The intermittent stream sites with standing pools of water had
dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 5 mg/l (1.6 - 4.3mg/l), the water quality standard. Low dissslved oxygen concentrations are
probably not chronic.
The site with the lowest dissolved oxygen concentration (Unnamed tributary to South Fish Creek at Colby Rd.; 1.6 mg/l) had a good fish
population present, including numerous young of year fish.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
22 | P a g e
Conductivities were variable, ranging from 108 to 364 umhos/cm. Some of the variability is due to relative water contributions from
surface runoff and groundwater. Runoff typically has much lower conductivities than groundwater. The pH values ranged from 6.5 to
8.2.
More extensive total phosphorus (TP) testing was conducted by Northland College during 2014. The three sites monitored are South Fish
Creek at STH 137, South Fish Creek at Colby Road, and at the Unnamed tributary to South Fish Creek at Colby Road. Monthly TP sample
results are displayed in Table 12. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of those samples exceed 75 ug/l.
Table 11. South Fish Creek Water Quality Survey Data (2015)
Map
Site
No. Site Date
SWIMS
Station #
Flow
(cfs)
TP
(ug/l)
TN
(mg/l)
TSS
(mg/l)
Cond.
(umhos/cm)
D.O.
(mg/l)
Transparency
(cm) pH (s.u.)
Temp.
(C)
Values collected during fish survey sampling
1 STH 137 08/13/2015 043095 1.5 142 0.544 8 317 10.3 59 8.2 22.3
2 Colby Rd 08/13/2015 043056 0.4 110 0.502 5.6 269 7.9 81 7.8 22.1
3 STH 63 08/28/2015 10044095 0.8 136 0.903 15 238 8.6 41 7.5 16.1
6 CTH F 08/12/2015 10043950 0 262 1.2 29.3 236 4.3 18 7.3 17.8
5 Benoit Road
4 CTH E 08/12/2015 10043949 0 165 1.52 13.3 326 4.3 35 7.3 20.9
7 Trib @ Colby
Rd 07/23/2015 10043551 0 219 1.11 5.6 364 1.6 77 7 18.2
Values collected during macroinvertebrate sampling
1 STH 137 09/10/2015 043095 254 8.6 60 16.3
2 Colby Rd 09/10/2015 043056 203 9.6 89 17.1
3 STH 63 09/10/2015 10044095 204 9.1 75 16.4
4 CTH F 10/30/2015 10043950 206 9 33 7.3 6.4
5 Benoit Road
6 CTH E 10/30/2015 10043949 108 9.5 29 6.5 6.5
7 Trib @ Colby
Rd 10/30/2015 10043551 319 7.5 78 7.4 6.7
1 All total phosphorus samples exceed Wisconsin’s stream standard for TP concentration of 75 ug/l.
Site Name/Description Sample Date Total Phosphorus (ug/l)
South Fish Creek at Hwy 137 07/15/2014 128
08/12/2014 178
09/02/2014 353
5/12/2015 203
6/16/2015 110
07/15/2015 275
08/18/2015 122
09/22/2015 124
10/20/2015 69
2015 median = 123
2014/15 mean = 174
South Fish Creek at Colby Rd 05/09/2014 721
06/16/2014 302
07/15/2014 119
08/12/2014 72
09/10/2014 859
10/14/2014 109
05/12/2015 140
Table 12. Monthly Total Phosphorus Concentrations(*)
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
23 | P a g e
(*) Data Collected by Northland Colllege (2014-2015)
06/16/2015 111
07/15/2015 229
08/18/2015 110
09/22/2015 102
10/20/2015 55
2015 median = 110.5
2014/15 mean 244
Unnamed tributary to South Fish Creek at Colby Rd 05/11/2015 173
06/16/2015 160
07/15/2015 311
08/18/2015 267
09/22/2015 116
10/20/2015 92
2015 median = 166
2015 mean = 186
South Fish Creek at CTH F (Map Site No. 6) 2018. Photo by Craig Roesler.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
24 | P a g e
Management Recommendations
Management Options
• Since South Fish Creek is impaired due to high phosphorus concentrations, efforts should be made to reduce sources of
phosphorus.
• Suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity are also high in South Fish Creek watershed streams. Streambank erosion is
typically the largest source of suspended sediment and turbidity in Clay Plain streams. Reducing peak flows can reduce
streambank erosion which could contribute to reduced suspended sediment and turbidity in South Fish Creek and
Chequamegon Bay.
Management Recommendations for DNR
• The DNR should work with the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department to identify options for reducing
phosphorus input to watershed streams, such as barnyard runoff control and development of farm nutrient management plans.
• The DNR should work with the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department to identify options for reducing peak
flows in the watershed (“Slow the Flow” efforts).
Management Recommendations of External Partners
• Bayfield County should continue to apply for grants to fund best management practices with landowners to implement
practices and continue ongoing work with specific farmers for reduction of manure and nutrient runoff.
• Local communities should apply for grants to continue best management practices designed to reduce runoff of total
phosphorus and sediment.
Monitoring and Assessment Recommendations
• After land management practices and restoration work are conducted, DNR should monitor and assess watershed streams to
determine if conditions are improving.
• After land management practices and restoration work are conducted, engage water quality monitoring volunteers to support
monitoring watershed streams.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
25 | P a g e
Appendix A: References
Hilsenhoff, William L. 1987. An Improved Biotic Index of Organic Stream Pollution. The Great Lakes Entomologist. 20: 31-39.
Lyons, John. 1992. Using the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) to Measure Environmental Quality in Warmwater Streams of Wisconsin.
United States Department of Agriculture. General Technical Report NC-149.
Lyons, John. L. Wang and T. Simonson. 1996. Development and Validation of an Index of Biotic Integrity for Coldwater Streams in
Wisconsin. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:2, 241-256.
Lyons, John. 2006. A Fish-based Index of Biotic Integrity to Assess Intermittent Headwater Streams in Wisconsin, USA. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 122: 239-258.
Lyons, John. 2008. Using the Wisconsin Stream Model to Estimate the Potential Natural Community of Wisconsin Streams (DRAFT).
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Fish and Aquatic Life Research Section. November 2008.
Lyons, John. 2008. Revised Stream Thermal Classification Thresholds. Wisconsin DNR Fish Researcher.
Guidance in 02/21/2008 e-mail.
Lyons, John. T. Zorn, J. Stewart, P Seelbach, K Wehrly, and L. Wang. 2009. Defining and Characterizing Coolwater Streams and Their Fish
Assemblages in Michigan and Wisconsin, USA. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 29:1130-1151.
Lyons, John. 2012. Development and Validation of Two Fish-based Indices of Biotic Integrity for Assessing Perennial Coolwater Streams
in Wisconsin, USA. Ecological Indicators 23 (2012) 402-412.
Lyons, John. 2013. Methodology for Using Field Data to Identify and Correct Wisconsin Stream “Natural Community” Misclassifications.
Version 4. May 16, 2013. IN DRAFT.
Simonson, Timothy D., J. Lyons, and P.D. Kanehl. 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams. U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-164.
WDNR. 2001. Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities of Wadable Streams in Wisconsin.
WDNR. 2007. Guidelines for Qualitative Physical Habitat Evaluation of Wadeable Streams. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Bureau of Fisheries Management Monitoring and Data Analysis Section; modified from Simonson et al. 1994. Guidelines for Evaluating
Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report NC-164.
Weigel, Brian. 2003. Development of Stream Macroinvertebrate Models That Predict Watershed and Local Stressors in Wisconsin.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 22(1): 123-142.
WDNR. 2018. Wisconsin 2018 Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WisCALM). Clean Water Act Section 305(b), 314, and
303(d) Integrated Reporting. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bureau of Water Quality Program Guidance. September 2017
(2018).
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
26 | P a g e
Appendix B: South Fish Watershed Narratives
South Fish Creek (WBIC 2889900)
South Fish Creek flows through a severely eroded channel and experiences large floods
that destroy bank cover. The watershed is located in the Lake Superior Clay Plain and
has clay-rich soils. Streamflow is provided mostly by surface runoff, with very limited
groundwater inflow. This results in “flashy” hydrology, with very high flows occurring
during runoff events, and very low base flows. The upstream half of the creek is
intermittent with no flow at times.
Fish populations found at six sites monitored during 2012-2015 indicated warm
transition (coolwater) natural fish communities. Five of the six sites were headwater
communities, while the most downstream site (STH 137) was a mainstem community.
The fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) was fair at one site and good to excellent at the
other five sites. Fish communities at all sites were dominated by forage fish, with some
gamefish and panfish present at the most downstream site. The majority of fish at all
sites are considered “tolerant” to environmental degradation. This is probably due to
the unstable habitat resulting from the flashy hydrology and the chronic turbidity from
suspended clay. The macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity (MIBI) was fair at one
site and good to excellent at the other five sites. The number of macroinvertebrate
species present in samples was moderate to high at the six sites, ranging from 24 to
36.
South Fish Creek is identified as impaired due to total phosphorus concentrations (>75
ug/l). However, the available biological data does not indicate impairment (i.e. no
macroinvertebrate or fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scored in the "poor" condition
category). Sampling in the past identified fecal coliform bacteria exceedences. This is
probably common for Clay Plain streams due to high rates of surface runoff and little
infiltration. Total suspended solids concentrations were moderate to high, and
transparencies were low to moderate due to the influence of suspended clay.
Streambank erosion is typically the largest source of total suspended sediment and
reduced transparency in Clay Plain streams. Runoff from barnyards and other livestock
areas is probably a substantial phosphorus source in the South Fish Creek watershed.
Cropland runoff is another phosphorus source, although only 2.9% of the watershed is
cropland. Streambank erosion also delivers phosphorus to the stream, although this is
typically a minor phosphorus source in Clay Plain streams.
Unnamed Tributary to South Fish Creek (WBIC 2890200)
The 6.73-mile clay-dominated intermittent unnamed tributary to South Fish Creek is a
warm transition headwater and is considered impaired, or not meeting water quality
standards. This stream was monitored at Colby Road (map site 7). The results indicate
total phosphorus exceeds water quality standards. Biological impairments, however,
were not present at the time of monitoring. Biological data gathered for this study
showed a “good” condition based on fish index of biological integrity (F-IBI) and “good”
condition for both the Hilsenhoff Index of Biological Integrity (HIBI) and the Wisconsin
Macroinvertebrate Index of Biological Integrity (mIBI).
This water was assessed during the 2016 listing cycle; total phosphorus sample data
exceeded 2016 WisCALM listing criteria for the Fish and Aquatic Life use. The stream was placed on the impaired waters list (category
5P). However, available data did not indicate biological impairment (i.e. no macroinvertebrate or fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scored
in the "poor" condition category). This water was again assessed during the 2018 listing cycle; new total phosphorus sample data
exceeded 2018 WisCALM listing criteria for the Fish and Aquatic Life use. However, available data once again did not indicate biological
impairment. Chloride data was also assessed and did not exceed 2018 WisCALM listing criteria for Fish and Aquatic Life use.
South Fish Creek at CTH F (Map Site No. 6)
10-31-18, Photo by Craig Roesler.
South Fish Creek Unnamed Tributary at
Colby Road (Map Site No. 7) 10-31-18,
Photo by Craig Roesler.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
27 | P a g e
Appendix C: Fish Creek Watershed: Fish and Aquatic Life Use Attainment
Table 13. Fish Creek Watershed Fish and Aquatic Life Designated Use Attainment Table
WBIC Waterbody Name Start Mi End Mi/
Lake ac
Current
Use
Attainable
Use
Supporting
Attainable Use
Designated
Use
Assessment ORW/E
RW
DNR
Category
2891100 Bay City Creek 0 7.77 FAL WWFF Not Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 5A
2756600 Boris Lake 0 2.58 Small FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2756900 Buck Lake 0 6.24 Small FAL Supporting Default FAL Not Assessed None Category 3
2965600 Camp One Creek 0 1.67 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL Not Assessed None Category 3
2965700 Camp One Lake 0 32.61 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2757600 Camp Two Lake 0 3.41 Small FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2753770 Chequamegon Bay
(Ashland Coal Tar Site)
0 16.62 FAL FAL Not Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 5A
2760000 Deep Lake 0 10.3 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2887700 Eileen Creek 0 1.3 Cold (Class II
Trout)
Cold (Class
II)
Not Assessed Cold Evaluated:
Older Data
ORW Category 3
2965500 Finger Lake 0 46.14 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2887800 Fish Creek 0 4.55 Shallow
Lowland
Cold (Class
II)
Not Assessed Cold Evaluated None Category 3
2888200 Fish Creek Spring 0 0.74 Small FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2763800 Honey Lake 0 10.12 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2764600 Island Lake 0 32.61 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2765500 Lake Nokomis 0 8.58 Small FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2765700 Lake River 0 13.98 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2751220 Lake Superior 0 156.01 Cold Cold Not Assessed Default FAL Monitored None Category 5A
2751220 Lake Superior (mouth
Fish Creek)
0 36.04 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL Not Assessed ORW Category 3
2751220 Lake Superior (mouth
Whittlesey Creek)
0 63.47 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL Not Assessed ORW Category 3
2889000 Little Pine Creek 0 1.59 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Fully Supporting Cold Monitored ORW Category 2
2767400 Loon Lake 0 37.29 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2769900 NE Twin Lake 0 10.15 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2888000 North Fish Creek 0 7.45 Cold (Class II
Trout)
Cold (Class
II)
Not Assessed Cold Evaluated:
Older Data
ORW Category 3
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
28 | P a g e
WBIC Waterbody Name Start Mi End Mi/
Lake ac
Current
Use
Attainable
Use
Supporting
Attainable Use
Designated
Use
Assessment ORW/E
RW
DNR
Category
2888000 North Fish Creek 7.46 17.07 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Fully Supporting Cold Monitored ORW Category 2
2888000 North Fish Creek 17.05 17.47 FAL FAL Fully Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2888000 North Fish Creek 17.47 25.37 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2889600 North Fish Creek Trib
(S13, T47N R6W)
0 3.27 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Not Assessed Cold Evaluated ORW Category 3
2770200 NW Twin Lake 0 8.44 Small FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2770600 Patsy Lake 0 4.65 Small FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2888600 Pine Creek 0 5.64 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Fully Supporting Cold Monitored ORW Category 2
2773200 Sawdust Lake 0 18.87 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2773400 SE Twin Lake 0 17.34 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
5001388 Slaughter House Creek 0 1.69 Class I Trout Class I Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment ERW Category 3
2890700 Slaughterhouse Creek
(T47N R5W S01 NESE)
0 1 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I
Trout)
Not Assessed Cold No Assessment None Category 3
2890700 Slaughterhouse Creek
(T47N R5W S01 NESE)
1 3 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2889900 South Fish Creek 0 22.51 FAL FAL Not Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 5P
2774200 Spider Lake 0 65.76 Shallow
Seepage
FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2775700 Topside Lake 0 66.02 Shallow
Seepage
FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2776000 Tub Lake 0 9.94 Small FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
76 lakes Unnamed Lakes 0 108.71 Small FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2890600 Unnamed Bay 0 12.42 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL Evaluated None Category 3
50 waters Unnamed Streams 0 97.74 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
5001665 Unnamed Trib to N Fish
Creek
0 2.18 FAL FAL Fully Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2890200 Unnamed Trib to S Fish
Creek
0 6.73 FAL FAL Not Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 5P
2889100 Unnamed Trib. To Little
Pine Creek (T47N R6W
S10 NENE)
0 1 Cold (Class II
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2889700 Unnamed Trib. To N.
Fish Creek( T47N R6W
S29)
0 4.11 Cold (Class II
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
29 | P a g e
WBIC Waterbody Name Start Mi End Mi/
Lake ac
Current
Use
Attainable
Use
Supporting
Attainable Use
Designated
Use
Assessment ORW/E
RW
DNR
Category
5001445 Unnamed trib. to North
Fish Creek (T47-R6W-
S22-5c)
0 0.27 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2888900 Unnamed Trib. To Pine
Creek (T47n R6W S11
SWSE)
0 2 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL Evaluated:
Watershed
Tables
None Category 3
2889400 Unnamed Trib. To Pine
Creek (T47N R6W S11
SWSW)
0 0.62 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Fully Supporting Cold Monitored ORW Category 2
2889500 Unnamed Trib. To Pine
Creek (T47N R6W S11
SWSW)
0 0.87 Cold (Class I
Trout)
Cold (Class I) Not Assessed Cold Evaluated:
Watershed
Tables
ORW Category 3
4000035 Unnamed (T47-R6W-
S10-4b)
0 0.12 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL Not Assessed None Category 3
5001450 Unnamed(T47-R6W-
S22-6a)
0 0.38 FAL FAL Not Assessed Default FAL No Assessment None Category 3
2890200 Unnamed tributary to
South Fish Creek
0 6.73 FAL FAL Not Supporting Default FAL Monitored
Impaired
None Category 5a
2832400 Wanoka Lake 0 15.2 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2832500 Wentzel Lake 0 21.35 Deep Seepage FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
2833000 Wolf Lake 0 9.12 Small FAL Supporting Default FAL Monitored None Category 2
The table reflects the condition of waters in the study area watershed. This table data is stored in the Water Assessment Tracking and Electronic Reporting System (WATERS) and is
updated on an ongoing basis via monitoring data and assessment calculations. The following definitions apply:
• Current Use – current condition of water based on monitoring data.
• Attainable Use – “ecological potential” of water based on water type, natural community, lack of human-induced disturbances.
• Supporting Use – decision on whether the water’s current condition is supporting its designated use under “water quality standards”.
• Designated Use – the water’s classified use under NR102, Wisconsin Water Quality Standards, for Fish and Aquatic Life.
• Assessment – field indicates what type of data or information supports the decisions in the table (current, attainable, and supporting attainable).
• Data – Specific data areas used for the decision (see below)
• DNR Category -- Is water meeting or not meeting standards
Category 2: Water has been assessed and meetings at least standards for the assessed designated use.
Category 3: Insufficient data exists to determine if water quality standards are met.
Category 4A: Water is impaired and a TMDL or other restoration plan is in process.
Category 5A: Waters is impaired and a TMDL or other process is required.
Category 5P: Waters that have total phosphorus levels that exceed the State water quality standard, but which currently do not exhibit biological impairment.
March 23, 2020
[SOUTH FISH CREEK TARGETED WATERSHED ASSESSMENT: A WATER QUALITY REPORT
TO RESTORE WISCONSIN WATERSHEDS 2020]
30 | P a g e
Appendix D: Fish Creek Watershed Water Quality Designations & Listings
Table 14. Trout Classifications and O/ERW waters in the Fish Creek Watershed (LS08).
Waterbody Name WBIC Start Mile End Mile Trout Class ORW/ERW
Fish Creek 2887700 0 1.29 CLASS II
Little Pine Creek 2889000 0 1.59 CLASS I ORW
North Fish Creek 2888000 0 17.05 CLASS II ORW
North Fish Creek 2888000 17.05 17.47 CLASS I
Pine Creek 2888600 0 5.64 CLASS I ORW
Unnamed 2889400 0 0.62 CLASS I ORW
Unnamed 2889500 0 0.87 CLASS I ORW
Unnamed 2889600 0 3.27 CLASS I ORW
Unnamed 4000035 0 0.12 CLASS I
Unnamed 5001388 0 1.69 CLASS I ERW
Unnamed 5001445 0 0.27 CLASS I
Unnamed 5001450 0 0.38 CLASS I
Table 15. Impaired Water Listings in the Fish Creek Watershed (LS08).
Waterbody Name WBIC Start
Mile
End
Mile Pollutant Impairment
Bay City Creek 2891100 0 7.77
Total Phosphorus
Degraded Biology
South Fish Creek 2889900 0 22.51 Impairment Unknown Unnamed 2890200 0 6.73
Maslowski Beach 2751220 E. coli Recreational Restrictions - Pathogens
Lake Superior 2751220 Mercury, PCBs Contaminated Fish Tissue
Chequamegon Bay, Ashland
Coal Tar Site 2753770 PAHs Aquatic Toxicity, Contaminated Sediment
Figure 12. Fish Creek Watershed Outstanding & Exceptional Resource Waters and Impaired Waters
Bayfield County Administrator
117 E 5th Street, PO Box 878, Washburn, WI 54891
Ph: 715-373-6181 Fx: 715-373-6153
Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator
Kristine Kavajecz, Human Resources Director
Paige Terry, Clerk
August 18, 2020
Town of Delta
Wayne Seeger, Town Chair
Tom Erickson, Town Clerk
Dear Wayne and Tom:
I wanted to update you on the Delta Dump restoration project. We are close to a crossroads and decision
point.
To review, the Delta Dump was operated for the Town of Delta residents for decades. It was closed in
1990 and then as the result of unpaid taxes the property reverted to Bayfield County in 1998. At that time
and today, the town retained environmental cleanup responsibility.
In June of 2018 a 12” rain inundated the site and caused the failure of the remediated dump site.
Since that time Bayfield County Forestry has invested hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars
in temporary restoration, planning, research and coordination. More recently Bayfield County Land
Conservation and DATCP have developed repair plans for the site. These pro-active efforts have paid off.
The State of Wisconsin and FEMA approved funding of 87.5% of a “basic” ($400k) restoration project.
At present the county together with DATCP is recommending an enhanced restoration plan reducing the
chance of future failure. Bayfield County feels that in light heavier rainfalls, a basic restoration would be
subject to failure and is not a wise investment.
At present we are waiting on State determination of whether an the enhanced (preferred) plan would be
eligible for state and FEMA (87.5%) funding levels. If this enhanced project was approved and state and
FEMA funds covered 87.5% the remaining portion 12.5% would be $68,750.
We are asking for the Town’s consideration in covering this amount, $68,750.
Sincerely,
Mark Abeles-Allison
County Administrator
Beginning
Balance
Account 1/1/2020 January February March April May June July August September October November December
Office $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
No. 2 Account $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Bremer Checking $594,341.62 $19,639.40 $232,995.29 $461,548.51 $511,798.49 $459,357.57 $1,095,439.29 $1,859,247.00 $275,576.12
Bremer Money Market $3,370,953.61 $3,561,706.84 $6,476,667.40 $3,082,454.68 $3,242,492.18 $2,769,205.14 $2,545,196.87 $9,054,502.80 $2,305,323.71
Bremer Investment Trust $1,395,578.41 $1,213,530.41 $1,104,934.02 $1,106,363.00 $953,111.07 $327,541.57 $7,338.75 $34.12 $0.00
H.R.A. / Flex Benefits $1,463,416.30 $1,579,259.09 $1,554,142.44 $1,499,898.72 $1,484,440.49 $1,224,732.64 $1,223,393.18 $1,223,192.57 $1,214,217.49
Jail Assessment $25,623.86 $27,202.64 $28,591.67 $30,113.09 $31,891.35 $33,249.87 $34,156.97 $22,466.55 $20,797.51
# 85.21 $98,849.44 $99,003.99 $99,146.94 $99,275.91 $99,371.27 $99,425.07 $99,453.72 $99,477.16 $99,496.45
Credit Card Acct. (clerk)$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Credit Card Acct. (taxes)$1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00
Co Rehab. Fund $148,142.95 $148,602.31 $149,041.62 $149,235.25 $149,578.59 $149,659.50 $149,702.64 $149,987.91 $150,016.99
L.G.I.P.$21,242.42 $21,754.83 $21,784.55 $4,021,812.51 $4,023,697.83 $7,025,372.72 $7,026,216.36 $7,027,043.62 $4,027,889.36
OTHER INVESTMENTS $12,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00
N.L. Debt Service Fund 380 $8,013.57 $445,743.09 $446,117.32 $446,697.64 $447,126.71 $447,368.77 $41,151.46 $41,161.15 $41,169.13
N.L. Collateral Pledge (250K)$250,000.00 $250,394.37 $250,755.90 $251,082.09 $251,323.27 $251,459.33 $251,531.80 $251,591.07 $251,639.87
N.L. Collateral Pledge (75.032K)$75,032.00 $75,151.31 $75,259.82 $75,357.72 $75,430.10 $75,470.94 $75,492.69 $75,510.48 $75,525.13
Ending Monthly Balance $19,452,296.18 $19,443,090.28 $22,440,538.97 $23,224,941.12 $23,271,363.35 $22,863,945.12 $22,550,175.73 $29,805,316.43 $20,462,753.76 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2019 Balances $18,045,161.00 $21,832,798.83 $22,237,684.41 $21,925,528.67 $21,606,991.52 $22,128,650.41 $31,870,207.25 $21,522,039.97 $21,168,567.50 $21,412,514.44 $20,253,753.16 $19,452,296.18
2018 Balances $20,812,570.87 $23,499,888.91 $23,755,773.98 $23,519,738.72 $23,081,242.60 $22,900,248.27 $32,008,164.17 $22,203,243.28 $21,578,713.04 $21,324,769.20 $21,175,553.33 $16,874,631.86
2017 Balances $20,923,479.36 $24,882,039.31 $23,116,826.95 $22,990,456.96 $22,628,007.19 $23,528,937.74 $32,965,824.56 $23,697,897.80 $20,311,997.35 $19,979,973.63 $19,908,168.56 $19,187,234.41
2016 Balances $19,614,812.17 $22,687,249.11 $23,710,009.04 $22,854,702.81 $22,938,784.63 $23,125,197.77 $32,235,685.99 $23,825,526.13 $21,521,323.85 $21,550,842.27 $21,050,046.46 $20,077,235.25
2015 Balances $17,667,630.09 $21,186,444.09 $22,263,556.87 $21,030,287.90 $20,901,022.81 $20,768,338.22 $33,140,667.23 $20,567,555.45 $20,979,539.97 $19,538,852.72 $19,732,588.28 $19,558,422.50
2014 Balances $15,353,101.08 $18,902,722.81 $19,639,536.71 $19,840,176.31 $18,716,226.11 $18,824,505.68 $28,878,016.44 $19,645,475.42 $19,605,134.87 $19,144,107.69 $18,337,111.23 $17,001,367.41
$209,000.00 Promissory Note $11,567.46 $10,709.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
(I.R. Incubator Bldg-June 2003)
$200,000.00 Invest. Agreement $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
(I.R. Incubator Bldg.-June 2003)
$240,019.64 World Class Loan $156,272.76 $155,286.77 $154,316.07 $153,256.80 $152,235.35 $151,209.72 $151,209.72 $88,498.93 $87,854.43
(Bayfield- Nov. 2009)(Forgave $61,415.58)
$500,000.00 Loan to Northern $500,000.00 $492,189.55 $484,362.11 $476,517.65 $468,656.13 $460,777.51 $452,881.75 $444,968.82 $437,038.68Lights (November 2019)
Totals $867,840.22 $858,185.74 $838,678.18 $829,774.45 $820,891.48 $811,987.23 $804,091.47 $733,467.75 $724,893.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
County Loans
(Short Term Loans)-$1,650,000.00 -$1,650,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TREASURER'S REPORT 2020
End Of Month Account Balances 2020
Notes / Agreements - (Principal Balance)