Sinsinawa River Targeted Watershed Assessment, Grant County

Title

Sinsinawa River Targeted Watershed Assessment: A Water Quality Report to Restore Wisconsin Watersheds
Galena River Watershed (GP01) HUC12: 070600050203, Monitored 2016
Author: James Amrhein, Water Quality Biologist South District
Public review draft

Setting

The Sinsinawa River watershed (HUC 12 = 070600050203) lies in extreme southeastern Grant County (Figure 1). This watershed extends into Jo Daviess County, IL. The Sinsinawa River itself is a 21.1-mile-long seepage and spring fed stream beginning 2 miles east of Louisbourg in the township of Hazel Green. The river flows south approximately 10 miles into Illinois and another 10 miles toward the southwest where it joins the Mississippi River about 3 miles west of Galena, IL.

Biological Communities and Water Quality
Historically, the Sinsinawa River has had a good smallmouth bass fishery and in general has good smallmouth bass habitat. The smallmouth bass fishery, however, has periodically been affected by fish kills that can be attributed to manure spills and runoff events that lead to low dissolved oxygen levels (WDNR, 2001). Water quality and habitat best management practices (BMPs) were installed at some locations on the river as part of the Galena River Priority Watershed Project in the 1980?s to mitigate impacts from the surrounding agriculture-dominated landscape. As with other streams in the watershed, water quality improvements due to the BMP installations has been less than successful due
to the relative lack of participation by landowners, the scattered nature of implementation, and the masking of results by uncontrolled nonpoint pollution sources (Kroner et. al., 1992).

The entire length of the Sinsinawa River in Illinois is on the state?s impaired waters (303(d)) list (IL EPA, 2014). In the 2018 Galena/Sinsinawa River Basin TMDL, the Galena River is explicitly listed for total suspended solids, and both the Galena and the Sinsinawa Rivers are listed for zinc, bacteria and total phosphorus (Il EPA, 2018). The Sinsinawa River has historically had fair to poor macroinvertebrate index of biotic integrity (MIBI) ratings, a sign of significant riparian and watershed perturbations. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) (Hilsenhoff, 1987) has shown some to fairly significant organic loading to the river. Documented fish kills were reported in 1978, 1988, 2009 and 2016. The river corridor is also intensively grazed. Despite these ecosystem pressures, smallmouth bass seem to do quite well in the river.

Overall Recommendations

This study was designed to create an updated assessment of the overall conditions of the Sinsinawa River and the watershed and identify areas of management to help the smallmouth bass and other non-game species to thrive in this agriculturally dominated watershed. A secondary purpose was to determine if other streams in the watershed can serve as nursery streams for smallmouth bass and provide an important role in maintaining healthy smallmouth bass populations. The recommendations below reflect these goals.

1. Proper manure management such as good housekeeping of barnyards and no spreading on steep slopes and during periods of ice and snow cover or prior to significant rain events would reduce the delivery of potentially deadly amounts of nutrients.
2. Managed grazing would help protect streambanks and reduce sediment loads from bank erosion.
3. Planting of cover crops would help prevent soil erosion during the vulnerable months.

Resources

The Sinsinawa River watershed (HUC 12 = 070600050203) lies in extreme southeastern Grant County. This watershed extends into Jo Daviess County, IL. The Sinsinawa River itself is a 21.1-mile-long seepage and spring fed stream beginning 2 miles east of Louisburg in the township of Hazel Green. The river flows south approximately 10 miles into Illinois and another 10 miles toward the southwest where it joins the Mississippi River about 3 miles west of Galena, IL.

The Sinsinawa River is part of the larger Galena River Watershed (GP01) in southwestern Lafayette County and southern Grant County. The watershed is relatively large comprising 242 square miles. Of the 260 miles of streams in the watershed, 115 stream miles are classified as warm water sport fishery. Thirty-five miles of the Galena River are considered Exceptional Resource Water (ERW) under state administrative rules. The remaining 120 miles of smaller streams in the watershed have not yet had the biological use determined. Additional information about the waters in the Galena River Watershed can be found in Appendix I: Outstanding and Exceptional Resource Waters, and Appendix J: Impaired Waters.

Land Use and Population
The Wisconsin portion of the watershed encompasses 24.7 mi2 (21,190 acres). Several unnamed tributaries add flow to the main river along the way. The vast majority of the land use is in cropland or pasture, with scattered woodlands, open space, and residential making up the balance. The communities of Cuba City and Hazel Green both have portions of their boundaries in the watershed, but neither has a wastewater discharge to the watershed. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the smaller Sinsinawa subwatershed at 64% cropland and 29% pasture. Runoff from agricultural fields and barnyards are considered to be the major sources of non-point pollution. Another major non-point source pollution problem common in this and other watersheds, particularly in the Grant-Platte Basin, is overgrazing of stream banks.

Platte River (GP02)

Site Selection & Study Design

This study involved the collection of fish community, macroinvertebrate, water chemistry, and qualitative habitat data at several sites in the watershed. The 2016 watershed survey was conducted by water resources biologists on 11 sites in the HUC 12 (Figure 5). Sites were selected to cover a variety of stream reaches predicted by the Targeted Watershed Site Selection Tool (TWSST) model (WDNR, 2015a). With this model, stream network homogeneity and heterogeneity are estimated based on-stream channel and landscape level physical characteristics. By this method, one can assess differing stream types within a watershed and predict the status of other similar streams in the watershed where little known information exists and without sampling each stream individually. A majority of stations selected were used for habitat and fish monitoring, while a select 6 were used for macroinvertebrate monitoring. Water chemistry, though monitored outside of this study period, took place at one station on the Sinsinawa River near Louisberg Road.

Methods & Procedures

Fish Assemblage
The fish survey was conducted by electroshocking a section of stream with a minimum station length of 35 times the mean stream width (Lyons, 1992). A stream tow barge with a generator and two probes was used at most sites. A backpack shocker with a single probe was used at sites generally less than 2 meters wide. 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. A qualitative habitat survey (Simonson, et. al., 1994) was also performed at each site. The fisheries assemblage was collected using Guidelines for Assessing Fish Communities of Wadeable Streams in Wisconsin.

Habitat Evaluation
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 recorded. A qualitative habitat survey (Simonson, et. al., 1994) was performed at 10 sites in the Sinsinawa River and four unnamed tributaries (see also Guidelines for Qualitative Physical Habitat Evaluation of Wadeable Streams).

Macroinvertebrate Evaluation
Macroinvertebrate samples were obtained by kick sampling and collecting using a D-frame net at six sites in the Sinsinawa River and three unnamed tributaries in the watershed in fall, 2016 and sent to the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point for analysis. Detailed procedures include: Guidelines for Collecting Macroinvertebrate Samples in Wadeable Streams.

Continuous Temperature
Continuous water temperature data loggers (HOBO brand) were placed at two sites on the Sinsinawa River at Louisberg Road and Sinsinawa Road from June to August 2016 and were programed to take hourly water temperature readings during this period. See also: Guidelines and Standard Procedures for Continuous Temperature Monitoring Wisconsin DNR May 2004 (Version 1) .

Results

Natural Community & Fish Assemblage
A total of 19 species were found in the watershed. Despite the natural community model predicting most of these systems to be “cool-cold” transitional streams, no stenothermal coldwater species were found in the watershed. Conversely, most of the species found were considered to be warmwater species (Lyons, et. al., 2009).

On the mainstem of the Sinsinawa River, 12 to 15 warm and transitional species were present and generally dominated by common shiner and white suckers. Common shiner and central stoneroller were the most widely distributed species in the watershed, followed by creek chubs, fantail darters, and johnny darters. The species assemblages of the unnamed tributaries were made up of a subset of the species found in the river. The number of species varied by size of stream and/or place in the watershed with larger streams (greater flow) containing enhanced numbers of species. Smallmouth bass were found at 3 of the 4 sites sampled on the Sinsinawa River and an individual was found at 1 site on a tributary. The numbers of smallmouth bass and associated catch per unit effort increased as one moved downstream on the Sinsinawa River.

Qualitative Habitat Assessment
Qualitative habitat surveys showed overall habitat to be “fair” to “good” at most sites (Table 4, Figure 7). The site on unnamed tributary 941000 had an overall habitat score of 20 or “poor”. The overall scores were buoyed by the width-to-depth ratio, riffle/bend, and fine sediment scores. The lack of a riparian buffer and lack of pools tended to depress the scores. Bank erosion and fish cover varied by site.

Macroinvertebrate Evaluation
Macroinvertebrate data was collected on 3 sites on the mainstem of the Sinsinawa River and on 3 unnamed tributaries in the fall of 2016 (Table 5, Figure 8). The macroinvertebrate IBI (mIBI) as developed by Weigel (2003) shows the main branch of the Sinsinawa River to be “poor” to low “fair”, while the 3 tributaries are in the “fair” category. HBI varied between “good” and “fair”, indicating there is some organic loading reaching the streams. One site on unnamed tributary 940700 showed a “poor” score, indicating that there is significant organic loading to that system. s not significantly different. All concentrations except for the October sample taken at CTH O were at or above the state?s water quality criteria of 0.075 mg/l (WDNR, 2013) for total phosphorus. It was noted by biologists that the data collected at North Oak Park Road may have been influenced by cattle activity immediately upstream of the sample site on any particular sampling day.

Continuous Temperature
Temperature data was collected hourly from June to October on the Sinsinawa River at Louisberg Road and Sinsinawa Road. As defined in Lyons et. al. (2009), temperatures at Louisberg Road closely resembled a cool-warm transitional stream in that the maximum daily mean, summer (June August) mean, and July mean were all within the ranges for that temperature subclass (Table 6). Further downstream at Sinsinawa Road, temperatures for these same periods more closely resembled a warmwater system.

Study Discussion

Fish Assemblage, Natural Communities and Habitat Analysis
Most of the streams in this HUC 12 are modelled to be cool-cold transitional headwaters or mainstems (Lyons, 2008). The department 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, 2015). There were no coldwater species found in the watershed, which immediately disqualifies the systems from being cold or cool-cold communities based on the department’s method. A majority of species found in these streams are considered to be warmwater species (Lyons, 2012). These species, combined with several transitional species also found in these streams, showed the streams to more closely resemble cool-warm systems. As reflected in Table 6, water temperature and the verified natural community match up better than the modeled community.

Environmental degradation can sometimes explain the discrepancy between the modeled and actual community where there is a lack of intolerant species and a dominance of tolerant ones (Lyons, 2015). For most systems in this HUC 12, the percentage of tolerant fish fall within expected ranges for cool-cold transitional systems, and therefore a degraded community is not the principle reason for the discrepancy. The discrepancy between the temperature data, the modeled community and the actual fishery community can happen for several other reasons: either the year of the thermal measurement wasn’t representative of the long-term average, the modeled thermal values were inaccurate, or both (Lyons, personal communication). In this case, air temperatures during the 2016 “summer” season over which the thermistors were deployed, while above the respective monthly averages for the period, were not considered abnormal as air temperatures were within the lower 10th and upper 90th percentile. The fishery is a long-term gauge of conditions in the stream and is therefore most important for bioassessment. That’s not to say measured water temperatures or the modeled community aren’t useful, but for natural community determination and IBI purposes, and in the absence of moderate to severe environmental perturbation, the fishery assemblage trumps water temperature data or the model (Ibid).

Stream biologic health as indicated by the fishery IBI varies by site, but generally shows good to excellent quality. As discussed earlier and shown in Table 2, the fishery assemblages show the natural communities to be cool-warm transitional at all but one site. The IBIs for these systems range from 10-100. According to WisCALM (WDNR, 2013), streams that are considered headwaters (90th percentile exceedance flow < 3 cubic feet per second) should be evaluated using the “Small and Intermittent Stream IBI” (Lyons, 2006). When this is applied to the streams where the verified community is confirmed as a headwater, sites are between 40 (fair) and 100 (excellent).

The fishery IBI reflects better environmental health than indicated by the qualitative habitat. The full set of qualitative habitat metrics can be found in Table 4. These habitat metrics were reflective of the nature of the streams in the watershed in that they had high gradient and shallow depth to bedrock, lending themselves to hard substrate, numerous riffles (See Figure 18) and lack of sediment due to scouring. The shallow depth to bedrock tended to limit the presence of pools, and the extensive grazing of the riparian corridors was reflected in the buffer metric and the bank erosion metric to some extent. It is often times more indicative to look at individual metrics within the habitat rating rather than the overall scores to get a better picture of the factors affecting stream habitat. While overall habitat scores can be “fair” or even “good”, lack of buffers, the presence of bank erosion, and lack of fish cover can greatly affect the presence/absence of fish species.

In this watershed, there were few buffers because most of the stream valleys are in pasture, which also exacerbates bank erosion. While the width-to-depth ratios were generally good, the shallow depth to bedrock limits depth. The bank erosion caused by pasturing lends itself to widening of the stream, reducing width-to-depth ratios. While depth, in and of itself, can be a form of fish cover, overall fish cover (i.e. overhanging vegetation, submerged macrophytes, boulders, or woody debris) was lacking in most of the tributary streams (See Figure 7), but very good in most of the sites surveyed on the Sinsinawa River itself.

Macroinvertebrate Data
Based on the 2014 Wisconsin Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WisCALM) guidance (WDNR, 2013 ), the fishery IBI scores indicating a non-impaired status are in contrast to the macroinvertebrate community which indicate an impaired status for all or parts of many streams in this watershed. The macroinvertebrate community, as seen in Table 5, tends to reflect the land use and to some extent the overall habitat score. All of the MIBI scores are in the “poor” to “fair” range Figures 8 and 10).

The macroinvertebrate IBI has shown the combination of watershed land cover and local riparian and instream conditions strongly influence one another (Weigel, 2003). While watershed and local variables explain a significant portion of variance among sites, Weigel found that in the driftless region, localized stressors were of greater importance to explain the IBI than in other parts of the state. Livestock grazing measured disturbance intensity and indicated its proximity to the stream. A majority of stream sites had poor buffer scores due to the prevalence of pasturing in stream valleys throughout the watershed. Overall, macroinvertebrate scores were typical of streams in the driftless area south of the Military Ridge, which tend to be depressed. This is likely a reflection of the intensity of agriculture in the region combined with a vulnerable landscape (i.e. steep slopes, shallow soils, and highly erodible land). The HBI scores varied but show there is organic loading to these systems. Potential sources of this include unfettered cattle access to streams, and runoff from barnyards and loafing areas. Historic macroinvertebrate data suggests this is of a chronic issue (WDNR, unpublished data).

Land Use and Stream Chemistry
Over 90 percent of the land use in these watersheds is in agriculture, either row crops or grazing. Intense grazing in the riparian stream corridors is fairly common. Spring melt and early season rains, especially before crops are of sufficient size to reduce rain impact, or in fall after crops are harvested, can greatly increase the amount of sediment and nutrients reaching the streams. Nutrient enrichment has been a problem in this watershed. Periodic fish kills, at least two of which happened during summer months, appear to be caused by excessive nutrient loading from cumulative barnyard runoff throughout the watershed that lead to low dissolved oxygen levels (Mason, et. al., 1993, WDNR, 2003, WDNR, 2016).

In addition to lending itself to reduced oxygen levels, the nutrient loads enhance algal and periphyton growth, which then enhances available food for grazers and this pattern is repeated up the food chain. Contrary to the conventional thinking that more fish equates to a healthier system, the enhanced abundance of fish, particularly omnivores, is actually a sign of nonpoint source pollution impact. While these streams may not necessarily be considered as impaired, it does indicate excessive eutrophication of these systems.

Although not a part of this particular study, total phosphorus data was collected during the growing season (May to October) in 2014 and 2015 as part as a follow-up to an impairment decision (WDNR, 2013). Grab samples were collected monthly at Louisberg Road by volunteer monitor,

For phosphorus, the department’s listing methodology for impaired waters lists waters where the median concentration exceeds 0.075 mg/l on wadable streams and 0.1 mg/l on rivers (WDNR, 2017). Although Sinsinawa is named a “river”, by definition, it is considered a stream as the 90th percentile exceedance flow is less than 110 ft3/second (Lyons, 2008). Thus, it is subject to the 0.075 mg/l phosphorus criterion that is applied to streams (WDNR, 2013). Based on the 2 years of monitoring, in addition to the median concentration being 0.104 mg/l, the lower 95th percentile of 0.087 mg/l exceeded the criteria as well.








Management Recommendations

The Sinsinawa River flows through a highly agricultural watershed which results in phosphorus loading in excess of the criteria and a biological impact in the form of a depressed macroinvertebrate community. While the Sinsinawa River is on the Illinois list of impaired waters due to sedimentation and siltation, the high gradient of the river in Wisconsin allows adequate scouring of sediment. However, this does not mean there are not high loads of sediment reaching the streams in the watershed. Habitat scores are depressed by the extensive grazing which occurs in the riparian stream corridors. On the other hand, fish communities of the Sinsinawa watershed have shown themselves to be resilient as indicated by the fish IBI. This is not to say that the fishery is not impacted. Periodic fish kills affect the stream and could limit what could potentially be an exceptional smallmouth bass fishery.

Controlling sediment and nutrient - particularly manure - runoff will 1) enhance spawning habitat and prevent valuable spawning areas from becoming covered in silt; 2) maintain good pool depth so that older fish can seek refuge in winter or in periods of low flow; and 3) prevent potentially fatal dissolved oxygen sags or ammonia induced toxicity. The department should continue to work with the Grant County Land Conservation Department (LCD) and landowners to encourage best management practices in this watershed to enhance water quality and protect a valuable fishery. BMPs to promote include:

-Proper manure management such good housekeeping of barnyards and no spreading on steep slopes and during periods of ice and snow cover or prior to significant rain events to reduce the delivery of potentially deadly amounts of nutrients.
-Managed grazing to help protect streambanks and reduce sediment loads from bank erosion.
-The planting of cover crops to help prevent soil erosion during the vulnerable months.

The department and Grant County LCD should explore ways to educate landowners on the valuable resources of the Sinsinawa River and to gain consensus and interest in ways to increase profitability of farms while protecting and enhancing water quality of the watershed potentially through farmer-led programs and/or demonstration areas.

Monitoring Recommendations

Expand monitoring efforts as needed to measure potential changes in water quality as best practices are implemented.
Natural Community updates based on fish species found in recent surveys:
Station 10021757, Sinsinawa River off Center Drive was modeled as a Cool-Cold Headwater but is recommended as a Cool-Warm Headwater based on the 2017 Natural Community temperature evaluation analysis tool.
Station 223323, Sinsinawa River Louisberg Rd. was modeled as a Cool-Cold Headwater but is recommended as a Cool-Warm Headwater based on the 2017 Natural Community temperature evaluation analysis tool.
Station 223251, Sinsinawa River STH 11, near Hazel Green WI was modeled as a Cool-Cold Headwater but is recommended as a Cool-Warm Headwater based on the 2017 Natural Community temperature evaluation analysis tool.
Station 223232, Sinsinawa River Sinsinawa Rd. was modeled as a Cool-Cold Headwater but is recommended as a Cool-Warm Headwater based on the 2017 Natural Community temperature evaluation analysis tool.
The department should update the natural community classification for the Sinsinawa River from cool-cold to cool-warm using the guidance provided by Lyons (2015).

Partner Recommendations

The department should continue to work with the Grant County Land Conservation Department (LCD) and landowners to encourage best management practices in this watershed to enhance water quality and protect a valuable fishery. BMPs to promote include:
-Proper manure management such good housekeeping of barnyards and no spreading on steep slopes and during periods of ice and snow cover or prior to significant rain events to reduce the delivery of potentially deadly amounts of nutrients.
-Managed grazing to help protect streambanks and reduce sediment loads from bank erosion.
-The planting of cover crops to help prevent soil erosion during the vulnerable months.

The department and Grant County LCD should explore ways to educate landowners on the valuable resources of the Sinsinawa River and to gain consensus and interest in ways to increase profitability of farms while protecting and enhancing water quality of the watershed potentially through farmer-led programs and/or demonstration areas.

Monitoring and Planning

This Water Quality Management Plan was created under the state?s Planning and Water Resources Monitoring programs. The plan reflects Water Quality Bureau and Water Resources Monitoring Strategy goals and priorities and fulfills Areawide Water Quality Management Planning milestones under the Clean Water Act. Condition information and resource management recommendations support and guide program priorities for the plan area. This plan is approved by the Wisconsin DNR and is a formal update to the Grant Platte Water Quality Management Plan and Wisconsins Statewide Areawide Water Quality Management Plan. This plan will be forwarded to USEPA for certification as a formal plan update.

Contributors

Jim Amrhein, Primary Author and Investigator, Southern District, Wisconsin DNR
Amanda Smith, Program Support, Water Quality Bureau, Wisconsin DNR
Lisa Helmuth, Program Coordinator, Water Quality Bureau, Wisconsin DNR

Partners

Grant County Land Conservation Department

Water Details

Click for link to water descriptions (GP02)

Sinsinawa River WBIC: 94020
The Sinsinawa River rises in south central Grant County and flows into Illinois. Historically, it has had a good smallmouth bass fishery. In general, the river has good smallmouth bass habitat (WDNR, 1990). The smallmouth bass fishery, however, has periodically been affected by fish kills that can be attributed to manure spills and runoff events that lead to low dissolved oxygen levels (Mason et.al, 1993). DNR fish surveys, conducted annually between 1989 and 1997 on an 1800-meter reach of the river, have found that the smallmouth bass population can be extremely variable. The greatest evidence of this can be seen by looking at the 1989 to 1991 data. In 1989, 445 smallmouth bass were collected at this site. In 1990 and 1991, however, zero smallmouth bass were found at the same site.

Since the population crash in the early 1990�s, the smallmouth bass population in the Sinsinawa has been slowly recovering and recent field observations indicate the smallmouth bass fishery has improved (Wang, et.al., 1997, Kerr, 1998). Water quality and habitat best management practices were installed at some locations on the river as part of the priority watershed project in the 1980�s. As with other streams in the watershed, water quality improvements due to the BMP installations has been masked by uncontrolled non-point pollution sources. Macroinvertebrate sampling over the years have shown that the Sinsinawa�s Hilsenhoff biotic index (HBI) ranges from good to fairly poor (Kroner et.al., 1992; Lillie and Schlesser, 1993). The fair and poor HBI ratings indicate significant water quality impairment due to agricultural non-point sources of pollution.

Fish IBI values on this stream in the current study were largely �excellent� condition, while habitat was a mix of fair to good.

Unnamed Tributary WBIC: 941100
Unnamed Tributary to Sinsinawa River (941100) is a 5.93-mile river that falls in Grant County. This river is managed for fishing and swimming. It was assessed during the 2016 listing cycle; the regional biologist recommended listing for degraded biological community based on current and historical Poor mIBI scores. This water was considered impaired and not meeting its Fish and Aquatic Life use.

Unnamed Tributary WBIC: 941400
Unnamed Tributary 941400 is a 3.43-mile river that falls in Grant County. This river is managed for fishing and swimming and is currently not considered impaired. It was assessed during the 2018 listing cycle; new biological (fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores) sample data were clearly below the 2018 WisCALM listing thresholds for the Fish and Aquatic Life use. This water was meeting this designated use and was not considered impaired.

References

Appendix A: References
IL EPA, 2014. Galena, Sinsinawa Rivers Watershed TMDL. Stage 1 Report. Final Report for Public View. October 2014.

IL EPA. 2017. Galena River Watershed Resource Inventory, Galena River Watershed Plan. Mike Malon, C.P.E.S.C., C.L.M., Galena, Il, November 2017

IL EPA. 2018. Galena/Sinsinawa Rivers Watershed-Based Plan: Phase I. Illinois EPA TMDL Report. September 2018.

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 and Kristi Minahan. 2017. Natural Community Validation 2017 spreadsheet. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Lyons, John and Paul Kanehl. 2016. Status and Trends in Sportfish Populations of Southwestern Wisconsin Warmwater Streams. Period Covered: July 1, 2015 June 30, 2016. Fisheries and Habitat Research Section. Project F-95-P.

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. 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. 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.

Lyons, John. 2015. Methodology for Using Field Data to Identify and Correct Wisconsin Stream “Natural Community” Misclassifications. Version 5. May 29, 2015.

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. 2000. Guidelines for Collecting Macroinvertebrate Samples from Wadable Streams. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Monitoring and Data Assessment Section.

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

WDNR. 2004. Guidelines and Standard Procedures for Continuous Temperature Monitoring. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

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.

WDNR. 2013. Wisconsin 2014 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 2013.

WDNR. 2015a. Optimizing a Monitoring Design in Targeted Watersheds: The Targeted Watershed Site Selection Tool. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. EGAD #3200-2015-05.

WDNR. 2015b. The ecological landscapes of Wisconsin: An assessment of ecological resources and a guide to planning sustainable management. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PUB-SS-1131 2015, Madison. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/documents/1805Ch22.pdf#page=20&view=Fit

WDNR. 2017. 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.

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 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.

FMDB: Fisheries Management Database or Fish Database the states 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. Therefore, biologists must review and confirm the natural community to use the correct fish IBI tool.

HUC: Hydrologic Unit Code. A sequence of numbers that represent one of a series of nested hydrologic catchments delineated by a consortium of agencies including USGS, USFS, and Wisconsin DNR.

MIBI: Macroinvertebrate Index of biological integrity. The mIBI is the primary tool used to assess stream macroinvertebrate community condition. 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.

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 except for fisheries taxonomy and habitat data.

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.

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.

mg/L: milligrams per liter - a volumetric measure typically used in chemistry analysis characterizations.

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ? a federal agency responsible for water / aquatic related activities involve the open waters, seas and Great Lakes.

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 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.

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.

TWA: Targeted Watershed Assessment. A monitoring study design centered on catchments or watersheds that uses a blend of geometric study design and targeted site selection to gather baseline data and additional collection work for unique and site-specific concerns for complex 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 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.