Fond Du Lac River TWA WQM Plan Public Review Draft (2017)

Title

Fond du Lac River WQM PLAN 2017 (UF03)
Dave Bolha, Author and Investigator
Fond du Lac River WQM PLAN 2017 (PDF Format)Fond du Lac River Watershed

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to monitor the status of portions of the Fond Du Lac Watershed. This assessment was conducted to evaluate water quality improvements made in the Fond Du Lac River Watershed from best management practices installed in the watershed from 1997 through 2008 as part of the Fond Du Lac River Priority Watershed Project [TWA HUC 10: 0403020302].

A secondary goal of this project was to determine Wisconsin Administrative Code ch. NR 102 (NR 102) phosphorus water quality criteria exceedances and degraded biological community and habitat impairments for USEPA Clean Water Act Section 303d (CWA 303d) listing purposes for the creeks in this area of the HUC 10 watershed. The collected data helps determine whether streams are achieving their attainable use to update the state?s Clean Water Act Section 305(b) data, identify waters that are not meeting their designated and attainable uses (Section 303(d)), and assess the overall health of the watersheds as required by Sections 305(b) and 208 of the Clean Water Act. The data, used in conjunction with observations about watershed health, are also used to guide planning for improvements where needed. The following were completed in this study:

- The watershed was monitored with a baseline survey including biological, chemical, and physical parameters.
-The watershed was monitored to understand its Clean Water Act attainment status and the presence of and sources of any water quality impairments.
-The streams were monitored to determine the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) since their installation in the 1990s.
-The waters monitored in this plan are the subject of this watershed-based water quality plan.

Priorities

This project was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs installed in three HUC 12 watersheds in the Fond Du Lac River (HUC 10-0403020302) watershed following the implementation of a Nonpoint Source Priority Watershed Project that began in 1997. This TWA project was designed to determine if the goals of the Priority Watershed Project to protect and improve the watershed water quality were met. The study involved collecting repeatable biological, inorganic chemistry and habitat surveys provide valuable information for future comparison.

Resources

Watershed Overview
The Fond du Lac River watershed is located primarily in Fond du Lac County, but extends north to the southeast corner of Winnebago County along the western shore of Lake Winnebago. Fond du Lac River TWA (Figure 1) is located in the Fond du Lac River watershed. The watershed is 156,632 acres in size and contains 461 miles of streams and rivers, 991 acres of lakes and 16,649 acres of wetlands.

Land Use
The watershed is dominated by agriculture (68%), wetlands (14%) and is ranked high for nonpoint source issues affecting streams and groundwater. Municipalities in the watershed include Fond du Lac, North Fond du Lac, Oakfield, Rosendale, and portions of Oshkosh. The Rosendale and Oakfield wastewater treatment facilities discharge into the watershed. Additionally, a number of industrial facilities also discharge into the watershed. There are large and growing urban areas in the watershed; however these currently only make up 3% of the watershed. Major urban areas in the watershed include large parts of the Cities of Fond du Lac and Oshkosh and a corridor along the lakeshore and U.S. Highway 41 between Oshkosh and Fond du Lac. Other urban areas in the watershed include North Fond du Lac, Oakfield, and Rosendale.

Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters
Waters designated as ORW or ERW provide outstanding recreational opportunities, support valuable fisheries and wildlife habitat, have good water quality, and are not significantly impacted by human activities. Two waters in the watershed are exceptional resource waters, Parsons Creek and East Trib. to Parsons Cr.

Trout Waters
High quality trout waters (Class I) have sufficient natural reproduction to sustain populations of wild trout and require no stocking of hatchery trout. These streams or stream sections are often small and may contain small or slow-growing trout, especially in the headwaters. Class II streams may have some natural reproduction, but not enough to utilize available food and space. Therefore, stocking is required to maintain a desirable sport fishery. These streams have good survival and carryover of adult trout, often producing some fish larger than average size. Class III are marginal trout habitat with no natural reproduction occurring. They require annual stocking of trout to provide trout fishing. Generally, there is no carryover of trout from one year to the next. Parsons Creek (136000) is a Class II, Byron Creek
(137400) is a Class II, and East Tributary. to Parsons Creek (136200) is a Class I.

Impaired Waters
Every two years, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to publish a list of all waters that do not meet water quality standards. Impaired waters in this watershed are impaired for historical discharges, mine tailings, and runoff issues. A number of rivers and streams in the watershed are currently on Wisconsin?s impaired waters list as required by section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act. A majority of these are listed for low dissolved oxygen and degraded habitat due to nonpoint source pollution impairment. The Fond du Lac River has elevated levels of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) which results in contaminated fish tissue and chronic aquatic toxicity. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has been developed for Parsons Creek and its unnamed east tributary. This TMDL was approved by EPA in 2007 but some additional refinements need to be done with regards to waste load allocations.

Fond du Lac River (UF03)

Ecological Landcapes

The Southeast Glacial Plains Ecological Landscape makes up the bulk of the non-coastal land area in southeast Wisconsin. This Ecological Landscape is made up of glacial till plains and moraines. Most of this Ecological Landscape is composed of glacial materials deposited during the Wisconsin Ice Age, but the southwest portion consists of older, pre-Wisconsin till with a more dissected topography. Soils are lime-rich tills overlain in most areas by a silt-loam loess cap.

Agricultural and residential interests throughout the landscape have significantly altered the historical vegetation. Most of the rare natural communities that remain are associated with large moraines or in areas where the Niagara Escarpment occurs close to the surface. Historically, vegetation in the Southeast Glacial Plains consisted of a mix of prairie, oak forests and savanna, and maple-basswood forests. Wet-mesic prairies, southern sedge meadows, emergent marshes, and calcareous fens were found in lower portions of the Landscape. End moraines and drumlins supported savannas and forests.

Agricultural and urban land use practices have drastically changed the land cover of the Southeast Glacial Plains since Euro-American settlement. The current vegetation is primarily agricultural cropland. Remaining forests occupy only about 10% of the land area and consist of maple-basswood, lowland hardwoods, and oak. No large mesic forests exist today except on the Kettle Interlobate Moraine which has topography too rugged for agriculture. Some existing forest patches that were formerly savannas have succeeded to hardwood forest due to fire suppression.

Methods & Procedures

Methods, Equipment and Quality Assurance
Collection of total phosphorus, aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish community, quantitative habitat, and continuous temperature data collection used standard DNR data collection methods and samples were sent to certified laboratories in the state. No specific in-field duplicates, replicates or blanks were collected for the study; however, quality assurance sampling procedures were used in the collection and preservation of samples for all parameters.

Total Phosphorus
Total phosphorus (TP) data was collected using the standard DNR grab sampling method. All TP samples were shipped to Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WISLOH) for analysis. The WISLOH entered all sample analysis data into the Surface Water Integrated Monitoring System (SWIMS) database.

Macroinvertebrates
All sites were sampled using the DNR Guidelines for Collecting Macroinvertebrate Samples from Wadable Streams (2000). A D-shaped kicknet with 600 micron mesh was used at all sites by standing upstream from the net and placing it firmly on the stream bed while digging into the substrate with the heel or toe to free the macroinvertebrates from the substrate. Riffles were targeted at each of the sites, but if none were present then overhanging vegetation, woody debris, or other vegetation would be sampled. This is done by jabbing the net into the vegetation to free the invertebrates. For a representative sample of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community, a minimum of 100 aquatic macroinvertebrates collected in each sample was targeted. The aquatic macroinvertebrates were preserved in a 70-80% ethanol solution inside quart ?Mason? jars. If necessary, multiple ?Mason? jars were used per sample depending upon how much sediment and organic material was collected with the aquatic macroinvertebrates. Within the next 24 hours, the samples were re-preserved with another 70-80% ethanol solution. Samples were taken to the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Aquatic Entomology Laboratory (UWSP AEL) for lowest possible taxonomic identification.

Fish Assemblage and Quantitative Habitat
All sites were surveyed following the DNR Guidelines for Evaluating Habitat of Wadable Streams (2002). The fisheries assemblage was determined by a quantitative survey involving electroshocking a section of stream with a minimum station length of 35 times the mean stream width (Lyons, 1992). All fish were collected, identified, and counted. All gamefish were measured for length. At each site, qualitative notes on average stream width and depth, riparian buffers and land use, evidence of sedimentation, fish cover and potential management options were also recorded.
Each quantitative habitat survey station length was 35 times the mean stream width of the survey station. Following the determination of station length, the station was divided into 12 transects. At each transect, substrate, sedimentation, erosion, water depth, and riparian land use data were collected. DNR staff entered the quantitative habitat data into the DNR Fisheries and Habitat Management Database.

Site Selection & Study Design

Site Selection and Study Design
This watersheds 2014 and 2015 studies involved collection of water chemistry, macroinvertebrates, fish assemblage, and qualitative habitat, at sites in the targeted HUC 12.

Total Phosphorus and Total Suspended Solids
During the growing season of 2015, inorganic chemistry (TP and TSS) monitoring was conducted at 9 locations, once per month, May through October. In 2015, phosphorus data was collected 6 times during the growing season from the pour point of the sub watershed. Data was collected during the field season of the 2015 calendar year and was entered into the Fish Database and SWIMS. Updated streams narratives and watershed reports are entered into SWIMS and WATERS.

Macroinvertebrates
Each of the six locations were sampled for aquatic macroinvertebrates in October 2015. Habitat Surveys Qualitative habitat surveys were conducted at each of the 7 locations from August through September 2015.

Fish Assemblage
Between July and September 2015, wadable fish surveys were conducted at 7 sites (Table 7) (all quantitative habitat sites). The wadable fish surveys were conducted following the WDNR Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities of Wadable Streams in Wisconsin (2001). All 7 sites were surveyed in July and September 2015 during the guidance-recommended summer time survey period. Stream flow and water chemistry was recorded at each site prior to conducting the fish survey. As in the quantitative habitat survey station lengths, the fish survey stations were a minimum of 35 times the mean stream width. A 12 Volt, 18 Amp Hour battery-powered backpack shocker was used for sites based upon the smaller stream width and depth. An otter sled stream shocker with a 4000 Peak Watt generator was used for 1 of 6 sites with appropriate stream width and/or depth (White Creek). Catch per effort sampling procedures were used for this project (no particular species was targeted, all captured). A single upstream pass was made using 0.125 inch mesh nets to collect the fish. At the end of the station, captured fish were identified and counted and all game fish were measured for length. Once all data was collected, the fish were returned to the creek. Fish data was entered into the FMDB.

Continuous Temperature
Temperature devices were deployed at 7 locations from June to September.

Natural Communities

Most of the streams in this watershed are modelled to be coldwater or cool-cold headwater cool-warm headwater (Lyons, 2008). The department has recently developed a draft method to determine whether or not the modeled natural community is accurate based on the fishery assemblage and climate conditions (Lyons, 2013). Natural community validation work indicated that the following streams were verified:

- Parsons Creek Upstream of Hwy B as Cool-Cold Headwater
- Campground Creek Upstream of Hwy Y Updated to Cool-Warm Headwater
- Campground Creek Downstream of Hwy Y Updated to Cool-Warm Mainstem
- Sevenmile Creek Updated to Cool-Warm Headwater
- East Branch of the Fond du Lac River Upstream of County D Updated to Cool-Warm Mainstem
- East Branch of the Fond du Lac River Downstream of County D Updated to Warm Mainstem Continuously to the Confluence with West Branch of the Fond du Lac River
- Parsons Creek Downstream of Hwy B Updated to Cool-Warm Mainstem

Results

Total Phosphorus
The 2015 TP sample analysis results in the Fond Du Lac River Watershed ranged from 0.043 mg/L in Parsons Creek in October to 0.752 mg/L in the West Branch of the Fond Du Lac River in July. All 9 locations in this project had an average TP concentration (mg/L) exceeding the Wisconsin Administrative Code ch. NR 102.06(3)(b) water quality criteria (WQC) for the Fond Du Lac River and its tributaries at 0.075 mg/L. The average TP concentrations for the 9 sites in this project ranged from 0.0826 mg/L in Parsons Creek at County Hwy B to 0.49 mg/L in Sevenmile Creek at Vielbig Road.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Watershed locations during the same sampling events as TP in 2015. TSS samples were collected once per month from May through October. Wisconsin does not have a water quality standard for TSS; however, this data provides useful information about the watershed, background information for future comparison, and additional support for adding these waterbodies to the USEPA Clean Water Act Section 303d Impaired Waters List (CWA 303d list) for habitat degradation.

The TSS concentration of the Fond Du Lac River and its tributaries ranged from No Detection (ND)?which is <2.0 mg/L?at multiple locations to 461.0 mg/L in July in Parsons Creek at County Hwy B. In July, Parsons Creek was very turbid; therefore, the high TSS concentration was not surprising. The average TSS concentrations of the Fond Du Lac River Watershed samples ranged from 5.5 mg/L in the West Branch of the Fond Du Lac River at Hwy 23 to 88.9 mg/L in Parsons Creek at County Hwy B.

Macroinvertebrates
In October 2015, each of 6 streams were sampled for aquatic macroinvertebrate communities. Some aquatic macroinvertebrate species are tolerant of environmental degradation, while some species are moderately tolerant, and some others are intolerant. Based upon the representative macroinvertebrate sample collected and their associated tolerance to environmental degradation, an Index of Biotic Integrity (MIBI) was calculated to indicate the water quality condition of the stream.

In May of 1996, aquatic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 13 locations in the Fond Du Lac River Watershed. The samples were collected following the same kicknet protocol used during the 2015 surveys; therefore, the MIBI scores from 1996 can be compared to the MIBI scores from 2015.

Of the 13 1996 surveys, 5 were close enough in location for comparison with the 2015 surveys. In addition, Campground Creek near Thill Rd was sampled in 2001 and compared with the MIBI results from the 2015 survey. Two of the 6 MIBI scores decreased or indicated lower water quality Condition Category. Parsons Creek at Hobbs Woods County Park (upstream Hickory Rd) and Sevenmile Creek at Vielbig Rd had MIBI scores that increased and indicated a higher water quality Condition Category. Two of the 6 MIBI scores were similar and remained in the same Condition Category.

The largest difference between a historical MIBI score and the 2015 MIBI score was a 3.56 increase in Parsons Creek at Hobbs Woods County Park indicating improvement. The largest decrease from historical MIBI scores to 2015 MIBI scores was reported at the East Branch of the Fond Du Lac River at County Hwy Y, indicating a decline in condition.

In the 1997 Nonpoint Source Control Plan, the 1996 macroinvertebrate sample results were evaluated using the Hilsenhoff?s Biotic Index (HBI) score which refers to William H. Hilsenhoff?s 1987 ?An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution?. One of the basic differences between understanding the HBI scores versus the MIBI scores is that the higher the MIBI the better condition while the higher the HBI the poorer the condition. One of the fundamental differences between the HBI and MIBI is that the HBI focuses more on impacts to the macroinvertebrate community from organic pollution and increased nutrients while the MIBI also ties in impacts from habitat degradation.

The historical HBI scores and water quality Condition Category were compared to the 2015 HBI scores for additional reference. The largest difference between the 1996 and 2015 HBI scores was an increase of 1.59 at the East Branch of the Fond Du Lac River at County Hwy Y. The largest improvement to water quality or decrease in HBI score from 1996 to 2015 was recorded in Parsons Creek upstream Hickory Rd.

Qualitative Habitat Surveys
Between August and September 2015 qualitative habitat surveys were conducted at the 7 locations. Quantitative habitat assessments evaluate a representative stream reach (35 X Mean Stream Width) for the quantity and quality of habitat for game fish and compare the habitat to reference streams in Wisconsin. Based upon the assessment data collected during the 2015 surveys, a habitat rating was calculated.

Fish Index of Biotic Integrity Surveys
In July 2015, 8 locations in the Fond Du Lac River Watershed were surveyed for representative fish communities. The West Branch of the Fond Du Lac River at County Hwy C was also surveyed in September 2016. Some fish species are tolerant of environmental degradation, while some species are moderately tolerant, and some others are intolerant. Based upon the representative fish collected during the survey and their associated tolerance to environmental degradation, an Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI) was calculated to indicate the water quality of each creek or river (Table 14, Figure 13). The FIBI scores ranged from 10 in Parsons Creek at Church Rd to 90 in Parsons Creek at Hickory and Lost Arrow Rd (Table 14, Figure 13). The Condition Category for the 9 sites ranged from Poor to Excellent. Two of the 9 survey locations demonstrated a Condition Category of Excellent, while 5 of the 9 locations demonstrated a Condition Category of Good. One site each had a Condition Category of Fair and Poor.

Each fish community surveyed was used to verify or update the modeled Natural Community for that stream segment. Each of the streams� Natural Community was verified or changed based upon the fish caught in the survey (and any historical known surveys in that stream segment). Verifying or changing the modeled Natural Community was important since the Natural Community determines what FIBI scoring scale was used to determine the water quality of that stream segment. The results of the calculated FIBI calculations displayed in Table 14 and Figure 13 are based upon the verified or changed Natural Community.

Discussion of Results

Total Phosphorus The inorganic chemistry data collected during this project established that instream TP concentrations were above reference conditions; therefore, an impairment assessment was conducted to evaluate if NR 102 WQC were being met or if the creeks should be placed on the CWA 303d Impaired Waters List. The requirements to demonstrate if WQC for TP were being met, clearly exceeded, or overwhelmingly exceeded were accomplished through this project. WisCALM 2018 requires that a minimum of 6 monthly samples for TP from May through October occur within two years to have sufficient data to calculate the LCL. The LCL is what determines if the creek was meeting, clearly exceeding, or overwhelmingly exceeding the water quality standard.

If the lower 90% confidence limit (LCL) is less than 0.075 mg/L TP, then that stream or river segment (assessment unit) is considered to meet the WQC. Conversely, if the LCL for a sample dataset exceeds the WQC for TP, then that stream or river segment is considered to be exceeding the criterion. The LCLs were calculated for each complete set of TP samples. Eight of the 9 streams? and rivers? LCLs exceeded the WQC for TP, while 1 met (Parsons Creek at B). If a stream or river LCL is more than 2X the WQC or >0.15 mg/L TP, then that waterbody is determined to overwhelmingly exceed the WQC (WisCALM 2014). Seven of the 9 LCLs overwhelmingly exceeded the WQC.

To complete the CWA 303d impairment assessment, WisCALM 2014 was referenced to determine impairment status and the associated pollutant. Seven of the 9 locations in this project overwhelmingly exceeded the TP WQC. All of the East and West Branches of the Fond Du Lac River sample dataset LCLs overwhelmingly exceeded the WQC and verified their need to be listed on the CWA 303d IWL. Most of the East Branch of the Fond Du Lac River was added to the CWA 303d list in 2014. The monitoring data from 2015 indicate that the remaining portion in the upper East Branch of the Fond Du Lac River should be recommended for the 2018 CWA 303d list. The West Branch of the Fond Du Lac River was recommended for the 2016 CWA 303d list. Sevenmile Creeks TP LCL overwhelmingly exceeded the WQC and should be recommended for the 2018 CWA 303d list. Campground Creek at Millpond Rd exceeded the TP WQC, but did not overwhelmingly exceed. According to impairment assessment protocol (WisCALM 2014), biological monitoring was needed to determine which CWA 303d listing was necessary for Campground Creek at Millpond Rd. Biological confirmation is considered to be at least a FIBI or MIBI score or both in the Poor Condition Category (WisCALM 2014). The 2015 MIBI and FIBI scored in the Good condition category for Campground Creek at Millpond Rd. The Good IBI scores indicate that Campground Creek should be CWA 303d listed due to pollutant TP, but without bioconfirmation (Category 5P).

Habitat Degradation
Habitat degradation by sedimentation is also a common driver of fish and aquatic life use impairments due to the nature of the land use in the SWTP. Sediment (specifically TSS) is the pollutant that must be addressed to attain the designated use. Fine sediment covers the creek substrate and fills in pools, reducing the suitable habitat for fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Filling-in of pools reduces the amount of available cover for juvenile and adult fish. Sedimentation of riffle areas reduces the reproductive success of fish by reducing the exposed gravel substrate necessary for appropriate spawning conditions. Suspended sediment also increases turbidity, reducing light penetration necessary for photosynthesis in aquatic plants. Increased turbidity also reduces the feeding efficiency of visual predators and filter feeders, and lowers the respiratory capacity of aquatic invertebrates by clogging their gill surfaces.

To conduct an impairment assessment of each of these creeks based upon habitat degradation by sedimentation, biological and qualitative habitat surveys were conducted in 2015. Historical FIBI and the 2015 FIBI and MIBI results from Parsons Creek at Church Road indicated a Poor Condition Category; however, the TP LCL met the WQC. Therefore, habitat degradation was evaluated as a fish and aquatic life use impairment by reviewing the habitat assessment conducted in 2015. The limited pool areas, extensive fine sediments covering the stream substrate, and lack of cover for fish lowered the qualitative habitat score to the Fair Condition Category. Parsons Creek at Church Road undergoes occasional summer time low flows which limits available habitat as well for both game and forage fish species. Based upon professional opinion, the Poor IBI scores, and lower quality habitat, the segment of Parsons Creek at Church Road is recommended for the CWA 303d list for degraded habitat.

Sediment and Phosphorus Sources
- Limited buffer protection along the stream corridors
- Eroding streambanks
- Cropland erosion
- Agricultural Tile Drainage for Crop Production
- Urban development

Recommended buffer widths vary significantly in published research (there is no one-size-fits all), but the majority of research recommends vegetative buffers >35, with 35 being on the lower end of recommended buffer widths. In general, as the land slope along a creek increases, the riparian buffer width recommendation increases.

Monitoring Recommendations

1. Monitor highest priority waters to develop a clear understanding of overall water conditions, pollutant loads, and reduction goals.

Management Recommendations

1. Identify opportunities for wetland restoration and reestablishment.
2. Identify and reduce sediment and nutrient loads from agricultural and urban sources.
3. Implement the Upper-Fox Wolf River TMDL with specific meaures and monitoring on key waters.
4. Seek opportunities to award River Planning and Protection Grants to external partners to improve water quality.

Partner Recommendations

1. Prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species in the watershed.
2. Prioritize highest sources of pollutants.
3. Educate and work with land owners to reduce phosphorus and sediment runoff.
4. Work with farmers to implement cover crops to reduce cropland erosion during late fall and spring.

Water Quality Monitoring and Planning

This Water Quality Management Plan was created under the state�s Water Quality Management Planning and Water Resources Monitoring Program. The plan reflects Water Quality Bureau goals and priorities and Water Resources Monitoring Strategy 2015-2020 and fulfills Areawide Water Quality Management Planning milestones under the Clean Water Act, Section 208. Condition information and resource management recommendations support and guide program priorities for the plan area.

This plan is hereby approved by the Wisconsin DNR Water Quality Program and is a formal update to the Upper Fox Areawide Water Quality Management Plan and Wisconsin�s Statewide Areawide Water Quality Management Plan. This plan will be forwarded to USEPA for certification as a formal plan update.

Contributors

- Dave Bolha, Primary Author and Investigator, Eastern District, Wisconsin DNR
- Victoria Ziegler, Program Support, Water Quality Bureau, Wisconsin DNR
- Lisa Helmuth, Program Coordinator, Water Quality Bureau, Wisconsin DNR>

Partners

-Natural Resource Conservation Service
-USGS

Bibliography

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. 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. 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.

USGS (United States Geological Survey) (Robertson, D.M. et. al.). 2006. Nutrient Concentrations and Their Relations to the Biotic Integrity of Wadeable Streams in Wisconsin.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2014. Total Phosphorus Sampling Methods: Water Action Volunteers Manual 2014.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2000. Guidelines for Collection Macroinvertebrate Samples from Wadable Streams.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2002. Guidelines for Evaluating Habitat of Wadable Streams.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2001. Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities of Wadable Streams in Wisconsin.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 2018. Wisconsin Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology Guidance Document. Clean Water Act Section 305(b), 314, and 303(d) Integrated 31 Reporting. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bureau of Water Quality Program Guidance. September, 2018.

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.

Abbreviations

BMP: Best Management Practice. A practice that is determined effective and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations) in preventing or reducing pollution generated from nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.

DNR: Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is an agency of the State of Wisconsin created to preserve, protect, manage, and maintain natural resources.

FIBI: Fish Index of biological integrity (Fish IBI). An Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) is a scientific tool used to identify and classify water pollution problems. An IBI associates anthropogenic influences on a water body with biological activity in the water and is formulated using data developed from biosurveys. In Wisconsin, Fish IBIs are created for each type of natural community in the state?s stream system.

HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code. A code or sequence of numbers that identify one of a number of nested and interlocked hydrologic catchments delineated by a consortium of agencies including USGS, USFS, and Wisconsin DNR.

MIBI: Macroinvertebrate Index of biological integrity. In Wisconsin, the MIBI, or macroinvertebrate Index of biological integrity, was developed specifically to assess Wisconsin?s macroinvertebrate community (see also Fish IBI).

Natural Community. A system of categorizing waterbodies based on their inherent physical, hydrologic, and biological assemblages. Both Streams and Lakes are categorized using an array of ?natural community? types.

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.

SWIMS ID. Surface Water Integrated Monitoring System (SWIMS) Identification Code is the unique monitoring station identification number for the location where monitoring data was gathered.

TWA: Targeted Watershed Assessment. A statewide study design a rotating watershed approach to gathering of baseline monitoring data with specialized targeted assessments for unique and site specific concerns, such as effectiveness monitoring of management actions.

WATERS ID: The Waterbody Assessment, Tracking and Electronic Reporting System Identification Code (WATERS ID) is a unique numerical sequence number assigned by the WATERS system, also known as ?Assessment Unit ID code?.

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.