Lower Peshtigo River Watershed Assessment TWA 2017

Title

Lower Peshtigo River TWA WQM Plan (GB07) 2017
Andrew Hudak, Primary Author and Investigator, WDNR

Lower Peshtigo River TWA WQM Plan (GB07) 2017

Purpose

The purpose of this project was to monitor the contemporary status of streams within the Lower Peshtigo Watershed. The Department and Marinette County desired current fish, habitat, macroinvertebrate, and water chemistry data for streams in this watershed. The data are used to determine whether these streams are achieving their designated use, assess the overall health of the watershed, and provide guidance to Marinette County for developing a 9 Key Element Plan to address non-point source issues in the watershed.

Priorities

Watershed Goals
The overall goal of this plan is to improve and protect water quality in the basin. This Targeted Watershed Assessment monitoring project provided substantial data to analyze 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.

Study Summary
Streams in the Lower Peshtigo River Watershed can typically be characterized as cool-warm to cool-cold headwater streams. Although 46 different species of fish were observed during survey work, over 50% of the streams surveyed contain five or fewer species. Eight of the species surveyed were considered intolerant and were most often observed in Left Foot Creek, Gravelly Brook, and the Peshtigo River. Intolerant species were largely absent with the exception of Mottled Sculpin and Rock Bass which were observed at low frequencies in scattered tributary streams along with a few other rare occurrences of Brook Trout, Spottail Shiner, and Lamprey Ammocoetes.

Management Priorities
Focus efforts to reduce non-point source impacts in the Trout and Bundy Creek Subwatershed and the small tributaries to Lake Michigan and the Peshtigo River below Hwy 64. Efforts should focus on landowners willingness to improve stream buffers, manage manure and inorganic nutrient application, improve tillage practices to prevent upland soils losses, and improve overall soil health in the watershed.

Resources

Watershed Overview
The Lower Peshtigo River Watershed is situated in southeastern Marinette County. The Peshtigo River (WBIC: 515500) is the major surface waterbody in the watershed. The community of Peshtigo and part of the city of Marinette are located in this watershed. Soils in the watershed are primarily poorly drained, sandy and mucky soils in glacial lake basins. Wetlands are abundant around Gravelly and Mud brooks in the north and along the Green Bay shoreline in the southwestern portion of the watershed.

Land Use
Lower Peshtigo River watershed is 194.98 mi?. Land use in the watershed is primarily wetland (36%), agricultural (30%) and a mix of forest (23%) and other uses (12%) (Figure 2). This watershed has 281.45 stream miles, 7,822.68 lake acres and 39,769.86 wetland acres.

Trout Waters
High quality trout waters (Class I) that have sufficient natural reproduction to sustain populations of wild trout, at or near carry capacity. Consequently, streams in this category 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. The following streams are trout waters: Left Foot Creek, Peterman Brook, Creek 30-10.

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. Green Bay (Great Lakes Shoreline), Peshtigo Flowage, Peshtigo River are impaired with mercury and PCBs.

Lower Peshtigo River (GB07)

Ecological Landcapes

The Lower Peshtigo River Watershed is located primarily within the Northern Lake Michigan Coastal Ecological Landscape which is located in northeastern Wisconsin, and includes Green Bay and the northern part of the Door Peninsula. Its landforms consist of the Niagara escarpment, a prominent dolomite outcropping along the east side of Green Bay, a lacustrine plain along the west side of Green Bay, and ground moraine elsewhere Low sand dunes and beach ridges that support Great Lakes endemics and many other rare species are found along the Great Lakes shoreline. The influence of Lake Michigan moderates extreme temperatures. Soils are very diverse; in some areas, lacustrine sands are found overlying clays or bedrock within only a few feet of the surface. In the Door Peninsula, soils are typically stony loamy sands to loams. Poorly drained sands are common in the lake plain or in depressions between dunes and beach ridges.

On the western side of Green Bay, the ground moraine is composed mostly of moderately well drained, rocky sandy loams, interspersed with lacustrine sands and clays, and peat and muck also common. Historic vegetation included maple-basswood-beech forest, hemlock-hardwood forest, northern white cedar swamp, hardwood-conifer swamp, wet meadows, and coastal marshes. Conifer dominated upland forests that resemble the boreal forest were present along Lake Michigan; they contain a significant component of white spruce and balsam fir.

Cliffs, sinkholes, and dolomite ledges are associated with the Niagara Escarpment. Current vegetation consists of more than 60% non-forested land, most of which is in agricultural crops, with smaller amounts of grassland, wetland, shrubland, and urbanized areas. Forested lands are dominated by maple-basswood, with smaller amounts of lowland hardwoods, aspen-birch, and lowland conifers. High quality areas of exposed alkaline bedrock beach occur on the northern Door Peninsula, providing habitat for many rare plants. Several islands lie off the Door Peninsula and these also provide critical habitat for rare species and colonially nesting birds.

Methods & Procedures

Methods, Equipment and Quality Assurance
Collection of total phosphorus (TP), continuous water temperatures, quantitative habitat, fish, and aquatic macroinvertebrates used standard DNR data collection methods and samples were sent to certified laboratories in the state for specific analysis. 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 (TP)
TP samples were collected by a Water Action Volunteer, Greg Cleereman with Marinette County, at the specific pour point locations of the major tributaries to the Lower Peshtigo River. Standard DNR grab sampling methods were used to collect a total of 48 samples (Table 4). All 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.

Continuous Temperature
Onset continuous temperature loggers were placed in 26 sites in 2014 and collected water temperature readings at 15 minute intervals to ascertain daily maximum average temperatures throughout the summer, approximately May through October.

Fish Assemblage
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. All other DNR sampling protocols were used to assess the fish community for purposes of calculating the index of biotic integrity. DNR staff entered the fish data into the DNR Fisheries Database.

Habitat Surveys
Habitat was evaluated throughout each fish survey station. Quantitative habitat survey station lengths were 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 (FHMD).

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. 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. Staff at the UWSP AEL entered the data into the SWIMS database upon final taxonomic identification.

Site Selection & Study Design

The initial monitoring work was completed in 2014 at 30 sites and follow-up monitoring was conducted at 20 sites in 2015. Sites were selected so data was not biased toward stream order, location, or natural community; however sites were targeted based on access and the desire to focus a sample station on a particular stream reach. Sample stations were established to limit outside influences and set-up using DNR field procedures manuals of 35 times the mean stream width (Modified from Simonson, et al. 1994). Stations were no less than the minimum of 100 meters and no more than the maximum of 400 meters. The main branch of the Peshtigo River is largely considered non-wadeable. Two non-wadeable sites were sampled in 2014 in the lower sections and two were sampled using wadeable protocols in 2015 in the upper sections.

Results

Total Phosphorus
All inorganic chemistry samples were sent to the WISLOH in Madison for analysis. Three of the 15 stream samples in this project had an average TP concentration (mg/L) exceeding the NR 102 water quality criteria (WQC) for creeks and rivers of 0.075 mg/L (Table 4). Wisconsin Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WisCALM 2018) requires a parametric statistical approach to assess creek TP data against the applicable water quality criterion found in NR 102. This approach involves the calculation of a 90% confidence limit around the median of a TP sample dataset. If the lower 90% confidence limit (LCL) exceeds the criterion for TP, then that creek segment (assessment unit) is considered to be exceeding the criterion. The LCLs were calculated for each creek?s TP samples (Table 4). None of the streams sampled calculated LCLs met the water quality criterion for TP (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

Continuous Water Temperature
Continuous water temperature loggers were placed at 26 sites in the Lower Peshtigo River Watershed in 2014 (Table 5 and Appendix C). Continuous water temperatures were recorded on 15 minute intervals to assess water temperatures compared to their modeled natural community thermal regime. Three loggers were damaged, lost or removed by fisherman so 23 sites have data available.

Fish Assessments
Fish surveys were completed on 30 stream sites between May and September in 2014 and on 20 follow-up stream sites between May and September in 2015. Some fish species are tolerant of environmental degradation, 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, a Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (FIBI) was calculated to indicate the water quality of the streams in the Lower Peshtigo River Watershed. The FIBI scores ranged from 0 to 100. Sites with lower scores that were suspected to have environmental degradation were sampled a second time in 2015. Of the 50 fish surveys completed, 24 had a condition of poor, 12 had a condition of Fair, 9 had a condition of Good, and 5 had a condition of excellent (Table 6, Figure 7 and 8).

Macroinvertebrates
In the fall of 2014, macroinvertebrate samples were collected from streams for the purpose of calculating macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic integrity (MIBI). Some aquatic macroinvertebrate species are tolerant of environmental degradation, some species are moderately tolerant, and some others are intolerant. Based upon the representative macroinvertebrate samples collected and their associated tolerance to environmental degradation, the MIBI was calculated to indicate the water quality condition of the stream (Table 7, Figure 9). The MIBI scores ranged from 0.63 to 11.10. A few sites with suspected environmental degradation were sampled a second time in 2015. Of the 40 samples analyzed from 32 sites, 18 samples rated poor to fairly poor and scored less than 4.00 which demonstrated these sites are likely impacted from environmental degradation.

Habitat Assessments
Quantitative habitat assessments evaluate a representative stream reach (35 X Mean Stream Width) for the quantity and quality of habitat for fish and compare the habitat to reference streams in Wisconsin. Based upon the assessment data collected during the 2014 surveys, a habitat rating was calculated for the 30 small streams less than 10m wide and two large streams greater than 10 m wide. (Table 8, Figure 11). The habitat rating scores were relatively similar for all streams and half scored in the Fair range and half scored in the Good range. The greatest factor influencing the score and rating of Fair to Good is the amount of fish cover present and the mean buffer width.

Discussion of Results

Overall River and Stream Health
Most of the streams in the Lower Peshtigo River watershed are modeled to be cool-warm transitional headwater streams (Lyons, 2008). The department has developed a methodology to determine whether or not the modeled natural community is accurate based on the fishery assemblage and climate conditions (Lyons, 2013). The modeled natural community was accurate about 70% of the time. When the methodology was applied, additional cool-warm transitional streams were identified and two additional streams had sufficient flow and size to be considered main-stem streams rather than headwater stream. It is interesting to note that almost two-thirds of the streams are considered cool-warm transitional headwater streams, yet when looking at the continuous temperature readings from the summer of 2014, most streams in the system were in the range of cool-cold to Coldwater thermal regimes. During the summer season of 2014 and 2015, over which the temperature loggers were deployed, air temperatures were slightly cooler and precipitation was slightly drier in both years than normal but these were not considered extreme weather occurrences. It is unlikely the weather during these periods affected the fish community assemblages observed in 2014 or 2015.

Environmental degradation can sometimes explain the discrepancy between the modelled and actual community where there is a lack of intolerant species and a dominance of tolerant ones. For the streams surveyed only three contained tolerant fish communities that prevented a new natural community classification from being proposed and two of these had low numbers of fish species collected. For all the newly proposed natural community changes, only four changes required an alternative IBI to be calculated. With the application of the new IBI all four sites improved in both score and rating. For all other changes in natural community between cool-cold, cool-warm, and warm headwater streams, the proposed change did not alter the IBI that was applied and thus scores and ratings stayed with the original under the small stream IBI.

There was great diversity throughout the watershed including 41 different fish species, which was not to be unexpected with the close proximity of some sites to Lake Michigan and the mainstem of the Peshtigo River. The most dominant fish species as far as percent of total catch (35%) and number of surveys (n=46%) was the Central Mudminnow. Other species that comprised a high percentage of the total catch include White Sucker (14%), Common Shiner (8%), Hornyhead Chub (6%), Creek Chub (5%), Burbot (5%), Brook Stickleback (4%), Northern Pike (3%), Johnny Darter (2%), and Yellow Perch (2%). Species that were captured in a large number of surveys include White Sucker (29), Northern Pike (26), Johnny Darter (19), Brook Stickleback (18), Mottle Sculpin (15), Burbot (14), Creek Chub (13), Common Shiner (12), Rock Bass (10), and Yellow Perch (8).

The percent of tolerant verses intolerant species is weighted heavily toward a tolerant community based in part from the Central Mudminnow and White Sucker comprising almost 50% of the total catch alone. It was promising to see that two intolerant species the Mottled Sculpin and Rock Bass were located in 18 surveys but at a much lower percentage of the overall percent catch.

Overall, habitat scores in the Lower Peshtigo River Watershed were fair to good. Generally habitat scores throughout the watershed were depressed from lack of pools, poor riffle sequences, extensive fines, and lack of cover for fish. Extensive deposits of sand exist in many of the streams which have filled in pools and buried rock and gravel. The extensive deposits of sand may be legacy sand during the late 1800?s logging era when white pine forests were clear-cut and extensive sedimentation into streams and rivers occurred. Given current land use, hydrologic modifications, and Biologists? observations in the Trout and Bundy Creek sub-watershed, small tributary streams to Lake Michigan and the Peshtigo River, there are suggestions of environmental degradation. Streams such as Gravelly Brook, Mud Creek, Peterman Brook, Little River and Left Foot Creek are generally in good conditions with limited environmental degradation.

Nutrient management is a growing concern in the watershed. Grazing pressure appears light with a few exceptions of cattle that were allowed free access to Bundy Creek. Banks within this area were in good conditions and showed little to no erosion and appear to be managed appropriately to at least prevent bank trampling and instability. A general trend in the watershed appears to be fewer dairy farms but existing farms are favoring larger herd sizes housed in barns with reduced pressure to pasturing of dairy herds. This provides unique challenges in manure management, storage and application. Cash cropping practices are the most significant portion of agricultural land use in the watershed, promoting limited crop residue after harvest.

The macroinvertebrate data showed a consistent theme with streams such as Gravelly Brook, Mud Creek, Peterman Brook, Little River and Left Foot Creek having good to excellent MIBI scores. Streams identified as being subject to environmental degradation such as streams in the Trout and Bundy Creek sub-watershed and tributaries to Lake Michigan and the Peshtigo River scored in the poor to fair range with a few exceptions. The MIBI has shown the combination of watershed land cover and local riparian and in stream conditions strongly influence one another (Weigel, 2003). This relationship was reaffirmed through biologists? observations and comparison of the FIBI, MIBI, and the habitat scores on streams within the watershed.

Growing season TP concentrations were fairly consistent between the streams and sites in 2014 and 2015 with the exception of Trout Creek and an UNT to Trout Creek. The department?s listing methodology for impaired waters (WDNR, 2013) recommends listing sites where the median phosphorus concentration exceeds 0.075 mg/l on wadeable streams and 0.1 mg/l on rivers. The impairment listing protocol uses a 95% confidence interval about the median for listing streams and rivers as impaired for total phosphorous. This guidance may have been exceeded in Trout Creek in 2014 and the UNT to Trout Creek in 2015. It is likely the yearly TP concentrations in these two streams are influenced by non-point sources in the watershed and may vary depending on agricultural practices.

Growing season TP samples were not collected on the Peshtigo River for this project however the DNR collects quarterly samples on the Peshtigo River downstream of US 41. These samples indicate that the Peshtigo River clearly meets the water quality criteria for Total Phosphorous and is not impaired by TP concentrations.

Monitoring Recommendations

1. The lower segment of Trout Creek should be considered for listing on the State?s 303(d) list of impaired waters for a degraded macroinvertebrate community.
2. Five Unnamed Tributaries should be considered for listing on the State?s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for degraded biological communities. The UNT to Lake Michigan at Spitzmacher (498000) and CTH BB (3000624) along with the UNT to Peshtigo River at River Dr. (5008538), the Snowmobile Crossing (5008359) and CTH BB (515600).
3. Conduct follow-up monitoring on Mud Brook to re-evaluate for impairments by pollutant other than TP.
4. Conduct additonal surveys in the Left Foot Creek HUC 12 wateshed to determine suitability to continue to manage
5. Left Foot Creek as Trout water. Additonal temperature monitoring, fish surveys, and habitat survyes should be completed above and below Left Foot Lake.
6. Conduct temperature monitoring and fish surveys in mid to upper reaches of Peterman Brook to verify natural community and trout stream classification.
7. Conduct temperature monitoring and fish surveys on the Unnamed Tributary to Little River within the designated Class III segment to verify natural community and trout stream classification.
8. Conduct additional TP monitoring, Fish and Macroinvertebrate monitoring on Trout Creek upstream of Jandt Road.

Management Recommendations

1. The lower segment of Trout Creek should be considered for listing on the State?s 303(d) list of impaired waters for a degraded macroinvertebrate community.
2. Conduct additional TP monitoring, Fish and Macroinvertebrate monitoring on Trout Creek upstream of Jandt Road.
3. Five Unnamed Tributaries should be considered for listing on the State?s 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies for degraded biological communities. The UNT to Lake Michigan at Spitzmacher (498000) and CTH BB (3000624) along with the UNT to Peshtigo River at River Dr. (5008538), the Snowmobile Crossing (5008359) and CTH BB (515600).
4. Investigate the installation of an unauthorized rock dam upstream of Loop Lake Road that may act as a fish passage barrier.
5. Conduct follow-up monitoring on Mud Brook to re-evaluate for impairments by pollutant other than Total Phosphorous.
6. Conduct additonal surveys in the Left Foot Creek HUC 12 wateshed to determine suitability to continue to manage Left Foot Creek as Trout water. Additonal temperature monitoring, fish surveys, and habitat survyes should be completed above and below Left Foot Lake.
7. Conduct temperature monitoring and fish surveys in mid to upper reaches of Peterman Brook to verify natural community and trout stream classification.
8. Conduct temperature monitoring and fish surveys on the Unnamed Tributary to Little River within the designated Class III segment to verify natural community and trout stream classification.
9. Conduct culvert passage assessment within the watershed to evaluate crossings for fish passage.
10. Support the development, implementation, and post implementation monitoring for a 9-Key Element Plan in coordination with Marinette County in the Lower Peshtigo River Watershed.

Partner Recommendations

1. Support the development, implementation, and post implementation monitoring for a 9-Key Element Plan in coordination with Marinette County in the Lower Peshtigo River Watershed.

Water Quality Monitoring and Planning

This Water Quality Management Plan was created under the state�s Water Quality Management Planning and Water Resources Monitoring Programs. The plan reflects Water Quality Bureau and Water Resources Monitoring Strategy 2015-2020 goals and priorities 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 Green Bay 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

Andrew Hudak, 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

Marinette County Land and Water Conservation
Marinette County Chapter of Trout Unlimited

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.

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. 2013. Wisconsin 2016 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.

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

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 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.

FHMD: Fisheries and Habitat Management 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 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 agencies including USGS, USFS, and 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). mg/L: milligrams per liter. A volumetric measure typically used in chemistry analysis characterizations.

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.

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.

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.

WISSLOH: Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (aka WSLOH) � the state�s certified laboratory that provides a wide range of analytical services including toxicology, chemistry, and data sharing.