Marengo Marengo rriver Watershed iver Watershed ttest Case:est Caseclean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/pdf/marengotest.pdf · · 2010-11-01analysis to help identify and prioritize projects

Prepared for: Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team

With funding from: Great Lakes Commission – Great Lakes Basin program for Soil Erosion & Sediment Control

Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas & Iron County Land Conservation Committees University of Wisconsin Extension Service Basin Education Program

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

With: Grant Oversight Committee – Technical Work Group

By:

Copies of the report on the Hydrologic Condition of the Marengo River Watershed are available on the Lake Superior Basin partner team’s website basineducation.uwex.edu/lakesuperior/watershedmgmt.htm

August 2007

Community GIS, Inc. 230 E. Superior Street Duluth, MN 55802

Stable Solutions LLC 71245 Lindahl Road Ashland, WI 54806

A Report of the Hydrologic Condition of the Marengo River Watershed

Marengo river Watershed test Case:Marengo river Watershed test Case:

Assessing the Hydrologic Condition

of the Marengo River Watershed, Wisconsin

2

executive summary Report of the Hydrologic Condition of the Marengo River Watershed

The Marengo River is located in central Ashland and Bayfield Counties and is known locally as a river of change. It’s not unusual to find sand filling in part of the stream that was a favorite fishing hole the month before. Stream banks become unstable as water rushes through carrying trees and brush, cutting new paths of travel and sometimes even new river channels. The way water circulates on or below the landscape or in the atmosphere – how much, how fast, the source and which path it takes – is known as hydrology. Knowing the hydrology of a watershed is a first step in understanding why sand is filling in favorite fishing holes or culverts are being washed out. It was the focus of a project sponsored by the Lake Superior Basin Partner Team – Assessing the Hydrologic Condition of the Marengo River Watershed, Wisconsin.

Project ideaThe Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team (the Partner Team) was originally formed in 1998 by the Department of Natural Resources, to help implement the Lake Superior Bi-national Program and Area Lakewide Management Plan in Wisconsin. The Partner Team has since evolved into a unique blend of public, private and nonprofit organizations and individuals, whose mission today is to implement a watershed health initiative known as “slow the flow.”

The Partner Team selected the Marengo River watershed as its test area to develop and demonstrate a process for assessing the hydrologic condition of Lake Superior watersheds. A step by step guide, including lessons learned from the Marengo River test project, was created for other groups that want to do the same in their own watersheds.

Project objectives The Partner Team wanted specifically to learn which hydrologic factors had the most influence on the timing, quality and quantity of water in the Marengo River watershed. They further wanted to use this analysis to help identify and prioritize projects in the watershed.

Project resultsThe hydrologic assessment identified the following specific concerns or areas of concern in the Marengo River watershed:

• areas with more than 50 or 60% open land or young forest; • sand deposition in the lower reaches of the watershed and at the confluence with the Bad River, filling in and channelizing flow and restricting access to floodplains; • cropland tillage, rotation and surface drainage; • water channeled by road and ditch systems; and • drained wetlands contributing to the overall volume and velocity of water added to the river system during major runoff events.

In addition, other ongoing projects in the Marengo River watershed have identified the following areas as areas of concern:

• The area within elevations 750–1,150 feet above sea level, known as the “Lake Superior clay plain,” is considered an erodible area. This band cuts across the entire Wisconsin portion of the Lake Superior Basin.

• A stretch of the Marengo River located between Kyster Road and County Highway C, has been

identified, through a cooperative study by the US Geological Survey and the Bad River Natural

Resources Department, as a high risk area for suspended sediment contributions.

FutureThis assessment of the Marengo River watershed is only the first step. A newly forming committee is soliciting public involvement to help prepare a watershed management plan using the knowledge gained from this test project. People from the ten communities in the Marengo River watershed will work together to identify and recommend strategies that will slow the flow in the watershed to protect water quality, habitat, and infrastructure for future generations. Contact the Lake Superior Basin Educator at (715) 685-2674 for more information or to volunteer to help with this next step for the Marengo River watershed.

3

Contents

Project overview

Pilot Watershed Selection – Marengo River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

assessing the hydrologic Condition of the Marengo river Watershed

Step 1: Strength in Numbers – Assembling a Review Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Step 2: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words – Mapping Your Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Step 3: Get Your Feet Wet – Finding Information About Your Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Step 4: Putting Pen to Paper – Rating Your Watershed Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Step 5: Which Watershed Features Get the Spotlight – Selecting Important Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Step 6: A Watershed Walk through Time – Learning From the Past to Protect the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Conclusion – Using the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

FigUres & taBLes Table 2.1 & 2.3: Map Information Sources & Map Information Beyond the Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11

Table 3.1: Marengo River Watershed Case File Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-19

Table 3.2: Watershed Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20-22

Table 3.3: Marengo Data for National Flood Frequency Model (4/10/06)(Schultz etal, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Table 3.4: Peak Discharge Calculation (NFF) following Technical Work Group Meeting

(4/11/06) (Schultz etal, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Figure 3.1: Results of NFF Model on Marengo River Watershed Base Map (Schultz, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Table 4.1: Marengo River Subjective Ratings & Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25-30

Figure 4.1: Longitudinal profiles of the Bad & Marengo Rivers showing landscape position

(USGS, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Figure 4.2: Relationship of the amount of open land in a subwatershed to the change in

peak flow (Verry, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Figure 4.3: Comparative Analysis of Hydrologic Units (CGIS, 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Figure 4.4: Two distinct cross sections common in the Marengo River Watershed

(USGS, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Table 5.1: Significant Watershed Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Table 6.1: Watershed Recovery Potential & Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38-41

Table 6.1A: Recommendations for the Watershed Planning Process Resulting from the

Hydrologic Condition Assessment for the Marengo River Watershed Pilot Area

(Schultz, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42-43

references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Back cover

4

Superior

LymanLake

BearLake

MudLake

DowlingLake

AmniconLake

SteeleLake

NebagamonLake

MinnisuingLake

IronLake

DeepLake

MillicentHart

Crooked

BellevueLake

PerchLake

LongLake

BladderLake

SiskiwitLake

Star Lake

Delta

Twin Bear

KernLake

MarengoLake

CoffeeLake

MineralLake

SpiderLake

CarolineLake

MederLake

LongLake

LakeGalilee

O'BrienLake

LakeIslandLake Pine

Lake

UptonLake

Pigeon Lake

LakeOwen Diamond

Lake

SpillerbergLake

GileFlowageLake

Flag

Riv

er

White River

N. Fish Creek

Bad

Rive

r

Marengo River

Bois

Bru

le R

iver

Bois Brule River

Am

nico

n

River

Popl

ar

Black R

iver

Mon

trea

l R

iver

W. Fork

Sand Riv

er

Siskiwit River

Cra

nber

ry

Rive

r

Rive

r

Mid

dle

Rive

r

Rive

r

Pokegama

River

S. Fish Creek

Pleasant

EnglishLake

DrummondLake

BassLake

EagleLake

Nemad

ji River Sioux

River

Beart

rap

Creek

Denom

ic Creek

Montreal

Bad

River

Potato River

River

Potato

Forks River

Tyler

Map produced by the UW-Extension Environmental Resources Center

DO

UG

LAS C

O.

BAY

FIELD C

O.

BAY

FIELD C

O.

ASH

LAN

D C

O.

ASH

LAN

D C

O.

IRO

N C

O.

Popular

LakeNebagamon

Brule

Mason

Iron River Ashland

Mellen

HurleyMellen

Washburn

Bayfield

SandBay

Montreal

the Lake superior Basin &its Watersheds

Marengo riverWatershed

Project Overview

The Lake Superior Basin Partner Team developed a water-

shed health strategy aimed at slowing the flow in the Lake

Superior Basin. The focus of the strategy was to develop

a model watershed management guidance that would be

promoted across the entire basin. To aid in developing

the guidance, the group selected a pilot area from the

Wisconsin portion of the basin to try out the approach,

determine the best information sources, and identify

important features that may be common throughout the

basin, as well as assessing the hydrologic condition of

the pilot area. This report, Assessing the Hydrologic

Condition of the Marengo River Watershed, outlines the

steps taken to assess the hydrologic condition of the

pilot area, provides information about the hydrologic

condition of the pilot area, and companions the Guide to

Understanding the Hydrologic Condition of Wisconsin’s

Lake Superior Watersheds.

Watershed – the land that drains to a particular lake or stream

5

PiLot Watershed seLeCtion – Marengo river

The Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team (the Partner Team) was originally formed in 1998 by the Department of Natural Resources, to help implement the Lake Superior Bi-national Program and Lakewide Management Plan in Wisconsin. The Partner Team has since evolved into a unique blend of public, private and nonprofit organizations and individuals, whose mission today is to implement a watershed health initiative known as “slow the flow.”

The Partner Team selected the Marengo River watershed as its test area to develop and demonstrate a process for assessing the hydrologic condition of Lake Superior watersheds. A step by step guide, including lessons learned from the Marengo River test project, was created for other groups that want to do the same in their own watersheds.

the aPProaCh

The approach selected to assess the hydrologic condition of the pilot area and as the basis for develop-ing a guidance document that would easily allow watershed and planning groups to perform a similar assessment was A Framework for Analyzing the Hydrologic Condition of Watersheds (McCammon, Rector, Gebhardt, 1998). This approach outlines a logical method paired with subjective ratings of watershed features to prepare an assessment tool. This tool, when combined with other information, becomes a part of the basis for identifying land management opportunities, setting priorities, and developing alternative management options that could maintain, improve, or restore healthy hydrologic condition to any watershed.

the setting

The Marengo River, located in central Ashland and south central Bayfield counties is a diverse watershed spanning 218 square miles (139,456 acres).

The upper portion of the watershed (elevations 1,443 feet to 1,033 feet above sea level) is forested and owned mostly by the US Forest Service with private land scattered throughout. It is characterized by sandy glacial till with rock outcroppings frequent, deciduous forests prevalent and a poorly developed drainage network with no valleys (USGS, 2005).

The middle portion of the watershed (elevations 1,033 feet to 771 feet above sea level) also known as the soil transitional area is mostly privately owned with a mix of hardwood and coniferous forest. Soils are mixed in this area with shallow sands (post-glacial) and mixed sand and clay as you move toward the clay plain, pockets of perched water and perched groundwater where clay layers are near the surface also occur. Springs and seeps are prevalent and the topography is characterized by steep unstable banks along stream channels, entrenched valleys with steep ravines often inundated with water in the spring and fall.

The lower potion of the Marengo watershed (elevations 771 feet to 711 feet above sea level) also known as the Lake Superior clay plain, typically is comprised of clayey till soils deposited (smeared) across the landscape by glaciers and glacial Lake Duluth. Entrenched, alluvial valleys are also found in a majority of this zone. Areas near the floodplains of the Marengo are frequently farmed as a result of loamier soil deposits from flood events.

6

Step

1strength in

numbers – Assembling a Review Team

Step

2a Picture is

Worth a thousand Words – Mapping Your Watershed

Step

3get Your Feet Wet – Finding

Information About Your Watershed

Step

4Putting Pen to Paper – Rating Your Watershed

Features

Step

5Which Watershed Features get the

spotlight – Selecting Important Features

Step

6a Watershed Walk through

time – Learning From the Past

to Protect the Future

GeneRAL STePS TO WATeRSHed PLAnnInG:

1. Build Partnerships

2. Characterize the Watershed 3. Finalize Goals and Identify Solutions

4. Design an Implementation Program

5. Implement Watershed Plan – take actions!

6. Measure Progress & Make Adjustments

Hydrologic Assessment

is an important part of

characterizing the water-

shed and identifying causes

and sources of pollution for

the Lake Superior basin.

the ProCess

A six step process based on the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management’s Framework for Analyzing the Hydrologic Condition of Watersheds (Framework) was used to assess the hydrologic condition of the Marengo River watershed:

Following the Framework provided the basis for analyzing the hydrologic condition of the Marengo River Watershed. This is not a watershed planning process. It does, however, provide basic hydrologic information necessary for a watershed planning process by helping to characterize the watershed to see both where the watershed is currently, and what the hydrologic condition may have been at an earlier time.

This one step (a part of characterizing your watershed) in your watershed planning process can help you draw conclusions for discussion during later phases of the watershed planning process and narrows down the activities that are most affecting the timing of water, amount of water and quality as it relates to sediment in your watershed. The Marengo River Watershed test case assessment and the Guide for other watershed planners in the Lake Superior Basin both followed the Framework step-by-step to orga-nize, rate and assess the condition of the Marengo River watershed.

7

ASSeSSInG THe HYdROLOGIC COndITIOn OF THe

MARenGO RIVeR WATeRSHed

l determined Project Area: Marengo River Watershed: 139,456 Acres (218 Square Miles) Watershed Length: 167,129 Meters (548,323 Feet) Subwatersheds: Silver Creek Headwaters Marengo River Brunsweiller River

Troutmere Creek

Trout Creek

l Identified Work Group Members & Stakeholders: Town Planning Committees & Boards Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians USDA Forest Service State of Wisconsin DNR Watershed Association Agricultural Producers

l Technical Work Group Members: Agriculture George Mika, Ashland LCC Chairman and agricultural producer Sandra Schultz, Stable Solutions llc

Hydrologist Dale Higgins, USFS Forest Hydrologist

Education Nancy Larson, UWEX Lake Superior Basin Educator; Sue O’Halloran, UWEX Water Resources Specialist Kenneth Bro, Northland College Gene Clark, WI Sea Grant Coastal Engineering Specialist

Forestry Darryl Fenner, WDNR Forestry Supervisor

Fisheries Glenn Miller, USDI FWS Fishery Biologist Scott Toshner, WDNR Fishery Biologist

Mapping Tony Kroska, Community GIS Inc. Sandra Schultz, Stable Solutions llc

Private Sector John Wyssling, Grant Oversight Committee Co-Chair Soils Sandra Schultz, Stable Solutions llc

Water Resources Kirsten Cahow, BRNRD Natural Resources Specialist Watershed Association Karen Danielson, Bad River Watershed Association

Wildlife Todd Naas, WDNR Wildlife Biologist

Other Pam Dryer, USDI FWS Refuge Manager Diane Daulton, ABDI-LCD County Conservationist Amy Eliot, Amy Eliot Consulting

steP 1

strength in numbers Assembling a Review Team

8

l Prepared list of what members could expect and tentative timeline:

January 3 – March 31, 2006 Prepare Watershed Condition Report & Model Guidance

April 1 – May 10, 2006 Grant Oversight Committee Review

May 10 – June 1, 2006 Submit Final Report & Guidance

June 1 & June 7, 2006 Training Sessions

l This schedule was revised to:

January 3 – Sept 1, 2006 Prepare Watershed Condition Report & Model Guidance

Sept 1 - December 1, 2006 Grant Oversight Committee Review

December 1 – 28, 2006 Revise, locate & incorporate photos, provide mock up

Dec 28, 2006 – Jan 3, 2007 Finalize Appendix 2 (Watershed Condition Report)

January 22, 2007 Partner Team Meeting / Project Update

Dec 15, 2006 – Jan 15, 2007 DNR (Brule) Watershed Condition Report (20 copies)

BRNRD prints maps (20 copies)

February 12, 2007 Stakeholder Meeting / Watershed Condition Report

Presentation

Fall 2007 Printing

Fall 2007 Presentation on Assessment Guidance to Public

l Telephoned Potential Members

l notified by postcard of Informational Meeting

l drafted and released Project news Release (See Appendix 1)

l Organized and Prepared news Releases, Presentations & Handouts for Informational Session

9

Hydrology – the science of understanding the properties, distribution and circulation of water on or below the earth’s

surface and in the atmosphere.

natural resource management

professionals meet early in the

assessment to discuss information

that will be used to assess the

hydrologic condition of the

Marengo river Watershed.

Meeting participants discuss the watershed during a break.

l Hosted Informational & Fact Gathering Session

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Ashland Town Hall, Highbridge Wisconsin

6:30 PM – 8:30 PM

ashland County Land Conservation

Committee Chairman george Mika

discusses agriculture’s role in the

Marengo river Watershed at an

information Meeting.

10



This step involved determining the most important mapping needs for the project. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service just recently completed the soil survey in northern Wisconsin.

identiFied MaP needs

l A list of map needs was developed following the January 24, 2006 meeting in Highbridge

• Hydrographylayer 1:12,000fromABDI-LCD/T.Kingwork

• Soils Bayfield,Ashland(USDANRCS/J.Turk)

(additional work done by Community GIS, Inc. to join counties)

• Aerialphotography Bayfield–BayfieldCountyLandRecordsDepartment

Ashland – Community GIS, Inc. consultant obtained from other data source

• HydrologicSoilGroups(USDANRCS/J.Turk)(additionalworkdoneby

Community GIS, Inc. to join counties)

• HydricSoils(USDANRCS/J.Turk)(additionalworkdoneby

Community GIS, Inc. to join counties)

• LakeSuperiorWatershedData(WDNR/S.Toshner)(asdeemedavailable/necessary)

• HydrologicUnit(HUC)Level6(USDAFS/D.Higgins)

• ParcelMappingBayfield–CommunityGIS,Inc.workingwithBayfieldCo.LandRecordsDepartment

Ashland – Community GIS, Inc. Kroska working with Ashland County/City GIS Dept.

• RequestedculvertdatafromBadRiverWatershedAssociation(notyetavailable)

l Identified data Sources – Table 2.1 (Map Information Sources) see pg. 11

l Additional Information for the Marengo Watershed – Table 2.2

steP 2 a Picture is Worth a thousand Words

Mapping Your Watershed

A Slow the Flow Project A Report of the Hydrologic Condition of the Marengo River Watershed

Of The Lake Superior Basin Partner Team

January 2007 Stable Solutions LLC

with Community GIS, Inc.

43

Watershed Features Recommended Maps Where Do-It-Yourselfers Can Find the

Information

More Advanced Information for GIS “Geeks”

Public & Private Land Wisconsin DNR Surface Water Data Viewer –

http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us/imf/dnrimf.jsp?site=S

urfaceWaterViewer

or

County Land Information & Land Records

Department

Bayfield County

http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/landrecords/index.

htm

Ashland County

http://www.ashlandcogiws.com/html/default.htm\

Table 2.2: Map Information - Beyond the Basics

Additional “Nice to

have” Watershed

Features

More Advanced Information for GIS “Geeks” Limitations Cost

Forest Age Class Maps

for the Lake Superior

Basin

ABDI-LCD

315 Sanborn Avenue, Suite 100, PO BOX 267,

Ashland, WI 54806-0267

Phone: (715) 682-7187

Soon to be available on the Partner Team Website

http://basineducation.uwex.edu/lakesuperior/

Free

High Risk Suspended Sediment Stream Data

Digitized by Community GIS Services from

information provided by USGS & BRNRD

Available only in special reports, in some instances, you

can obtain the GIS data from sponsoring agency

Elevation 750 – 1050 from USGS Report

Utilized 30-meter Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

data in Arcview Spatial Analyst software to derive

area where elevation exists from 750 feet and

1050 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL).

Must digitize by hand using USGS topographic map

Special Features

(Use expertise from

your Work Group to

Find Special Features)

Hydrologic Soil Group GIS Data (also

available on Web Soil Survey)

USDA NRCS

http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/

Soils data for Ashland County at the time of this project

was not SSURGO certified. The data had to be obtained

from the USDA NRCS Office in Ashland,

315 Sanborn Avenue, Su. 100, Ashland, WI 54806

(715) 682-9117

May be small

cost for

publications or

databases

table 2.2. additional “nice to have” information

11

A Guide to Understanding the Hydrologic Condition of Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Watersheds Step 2: A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words – Mapping Your Watershed

Table 2.1: Basic Map Information for do-it-yourselfers.

Watershed Features Recommended Maps Where Do-It-Yourselfers Can Find the

Information

More Advanced Information for GIS “Geeks”

USGS Topographic

Maps

USGeological Survey

http://nationalmap.gov

Orthophotography 2005 True Color Aerial Imagery – The imagery

can be obtained from

http://www.wisconsinview.org

Land Use 1996 WISCLAND

GEODISC 3.0, a Geographic Information

Datasharing CD-ROM produced by the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources. To purchase a

copy call the DNR/GEO GIS Datasharing Request

line: (608) 264-8916.

Vegetation Finlay’s Original Pre-European Settlement

Vegetation





line: (608) 264-8916.

Land Features

Soil Map &

Hydrologic Soil Group

Map

Data obtained from the USDA/NRCS Office in

Ashland,

315 Sanborn Avenue, Su. 100, Ashland, WI

54806 (715) 682-9117

Watershed Boundaries

US Geological Survey – National Hydrography

Database

http://nhd.usgs.gov

5th & 6th Level

Hydrologic Units

USDA Forest Service(Polygon Coverage), Forest

Hydrologist, Chequamegon-Nicolet National

Forest

1170 S. 4th Ave, Park Falls, WI 54552

715-762-5181

Lakes & Rivers Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/maps/gis/

geolibrary.html

Surface Water Quality

Data & Ranking

Information

Wisconsin DNR Surface Water Data Viewer –

http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us/imf/

dnrimf.jsp?site=SurfaceWaterViewer

or

Web Soil Survey –

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

WebSoilSurvey.aspx

or

Institute of Water Research at Michigan State

University - Digital Watershed Mapper

http://www.iwr.msu.edu/dw

---

Water Features

Wetlands GEODISC 3.0, a Geographic Information




line: (608) 264-8916.

Local Roads US Geological Survey -

http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless

Municipal Boundaries &

Features

County, Town &

Municipal Boundaries





line: (608) 264-8916.

Native American

Tribal Lands

Wisconsin DNR Surface Water Data Viewer –



County Land Records Departments

Parcel Mapping County Land Records Departments

Bayfield County Land Records

http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/landrecords

Ashland County and City of Ashland GIS Website

http://www.ashlandcogiws.com/html/default.htm

Ashland Parcel Data:

http://www.ashlandcogiws.com/html

Public & Private Land Wisconsin DNR Surface Water Data Viewer –



or

County Land Information & Land Records

Department

Bayfield County

http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/landrecords

Ashland County

http://www.ashlandcogiws.com/html/default.htm

12

Marengo river Watershed Project Maps Maps to help assess the hydrologic condition of the Marengo River Watershed were developed by Community GIS, Inc. with Stable Solutions LLC. Because of the level of detail necessary, the maps were designed for printing on 17 inch by 22 inch paper. These large format maps are available on-line at http://basineducation.uwex.edu/lakesuperior/watershedmgmt.htm in PDF format for printing on 17” x 22” paper. They are presented in this document in a smaller format (not to scale).

Base Map

The Marengo River Watershed Base Map contains state and local roads, county and municipal boundar-ies, 1:24,000 hydrography, Hydrologic Unit Code level 6 subwatershed boundaries, important water-shed features including 750 – 1050 feet elevations (also correspond to the Lake Superior clay plain) and the high sedimentation area.

high sedimentation

area(bolder waterways)

(Usgs, 2005)

Lake superior Clay Plain

elevation 750-1,050 ft.

(orange shaded areas)

13

Comparative analysis hydrologic Unit Map

This map contains the information developed by Community GIS Inc after reviewing 16-years of satellite imagery of the entire Lake Superior basin to determine the general age-class of the forests and amount of open land in the watershed. The watershed was subdivided into smaller “hydrologic” units based on stream sinuosity, slope and length, then categorized into a percentage of open land.

areas with greater than 50%

open land in a sub-watershed

(black outlined areas)

14

hydrologic soil group Map

Completion of the soil survey allowed, for the first time, the development of a map based on soil char-acteristics for the Marengo River Watershed. The map shows the hydrologic soil groups (HGS) present in the watershed. The most impervious HSG coincides with important watershed features including 750 – 1050 feet elevations of the Lake Superior clay plain and the high sedimentation area.

15

Map of Land Use & Land Cover

Information from Bayfield and Ashland Counties WISCLAND (WDNR) coverage was used to create this map. Important watershed features including 750 – 1050 feet elevations of the Lake Superior clay plain and the high sedimentation areas are also included on this map.

high sedimentation

area(bolder waterways)

(Usgs, 2005)

elevation 750-1,050 ft.

(orange shaded areas)

16

Map of Moderate & steep slopes

Soil survey information was used to create this map of moderate and steep slopes. Slopes were catego-rized into 0-8%, 8-15% and 15%+, then color-coded for display on the map. Printed in a larger scale, this map will show areas where land managers can concentrate their restorations efforts.

17

Map showing Percentage Land ownership

Land ownership information was obtained from Ashland and Bayfield County’s respective Land Records Departments. The map is categorized into private, municipal, county, state, federal, tribal and USA trust lands. This map will help in a future implementation phase.

18



Using the basic framework outlined by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management in A Frame-work for Analyzing the Hydrologic Condition of a Watershed (USDI BLM / USDA FS, 1998), we identified information that affects the timing, quality and quantity of runoff in the Marengo River Watershed. Some of the information was readily available, and some needed to be modeled. Much information we could not find nor was there time or funding to collect important information as part of this project.

l Organized and Prepared a Case File Index (Table 3.1)

l Identified Information needed for the Assessment

Information needed to assess the hydrologic condition of the Marengo River Watershed included – climate, surface and ground water and drainage basin characteristics. Data we could not find or that was not available was modeled using the best information available at the time of this report.

l Located Sources for the Information

Sources of information used for all of the elements are listed in Table 3.2. (see pg. 20)

steP 3 get Your Feet Wet

Finding Information About Your Watershed





45

Table 3.1: Marengo River Watershed Case File Index

Office Location: Ashland, Wisconsin

Watershed File Number/Name: Marengo River Watershed (Ashland-Bayfield Counties, WI)

Hydrologic Unit Code: 04010302

MARENGO RIVER PILOT WATERSHED CASE FILE INDEX

Data Gaps Data Format Data Location &

File Name

Data Quality Analysis Methods

CLIMATE

Precipitation No specific

Marengo

River

Watershed

data

Table format

Colored Maps

http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/climate_

midwest/historical/precip/wi/47034

9_psum.html

http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/

interactive/html/map.html

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/%7Esco/

stations/470349.html

University

Data, distance

from the

watershed

National Data,

not complete

Snowfall No specific

Marengo

River

Watershed

data

Table Format http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/climate_

midwest/historical/snow/wi/470349

_ssum.html



University

Data, distance

from the

watershed

Air Temperature No specific

Marengo

River

Watershed

data

Table Format http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/climate_

midwest/historical/temp/wi/470349

_tsum.html



University

Data, distance

from the

watershed

Evaporation No specific

Marengo

River

Watershed

data

Table Format http://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov

University

Data, distance

from the

watershed

19





46

Data Gaps Data Format Data Location &

File Name

Data Quality Analysis Methods

Wind No specific

Marengo

River

Watershed

data

Table Format http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/

climate/online/ccd/wndspd.txt

University

Data, distance

from the

watershed

General Data Must request

specific data to

region

Various including GIF,

ASCI II, PDF and other

by request

http://www.climatesource.com

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/

general

SURFACE WATER

Quality Map & Table Format http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us/imf/dnri

mf.jsp?site=SurfaceWaterViewer

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/wdnr_

bio

Quantity Table Format http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/

wi/nwis/annual/calendar

GROUND WATER http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/

nwis/gw

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/public/gw

/MONTHLY/monthly.html

Springs and Wells No Data Data, Graphs, Maps http://www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/map

data.htm

Aquifers Little Data Graphs http://wi.water.usgs.gov/public/gw

/HISTORICAL/Zone1.html

Historic levels





47

DRAINAGE BASIN

CHARACTERISTICES

Watershed Morphometry

Wetlands/Riparian Areas http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/fhp/wet

lands/mapping.shtml

Soils http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov

/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Geology http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/geol

wisc/geowisc.htm

Vegetation http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resour

ce/1998/rlandscp/sub9-8.htm

Human Influence

OTHER WATERSHED

SPECIFIC DATA

Growing Season http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/climate_

midwest/historical/grow/wi/47034

9_gsum.html

Table 3.1: Continued

20




with Community GIS, Inc. 49

Table 3.2 Watershed Information

Climate

INFORMATION

WHO HAS THE INFORMATION

WHERE WE FOUND IT

Rain

Wisconsin Climatological Office / UW Ashland

Agricultural Research Station

National Weather Service – Duluth, MN & NW

WI

Wisconsin State Climatological Office

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/%7Esco/stations/4703

49.html

http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo

=dlh

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/%7Esco/data_links.

html

Snow

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA)



http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/interactive/html/

map.html

http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/climate_midwest/

historical/snow/wi/470349_ssum.html

Wind

Wisconsin Climate Data

Wisconsin Department of Administration – Dept.

of Energy / Wind Monitoring Sites (Cornucopia

& Hurley)

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/%7Esco/windex.html

http://www.undeerc.org/wind/winddb/WIwind

sites.asp

Evapotranspiration

WI-MN Cooperative Extension Agricultural

Weather Page

http://www.soils.wisc.edu/wimnext/et/wimnet.

html

Temperature



http://mrcc.sws.uiuc.edu/climate_midwest/

historical/temp/wi/470349_tsum.html

Table 3.2: Watershed Information

21





Surface & Ground Water

INFORMATION


WHERE WE FOUND IT

Watershed

Boundaries

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

EPA Surf Your Watershed website

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/gmu.html

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/superior/

BasinPlan/Watersheds.html

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/maps/gis/geolibrary.

html

http://www.epa.gov/surf/

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/data_

viewer.htm

Existing Water

Quality


Surface Water Data Viewer

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Natural Resources Department


viewer.htm

Personal contacts

Areas of known

pollutants or issues


Basin Reports


Surface Water Data Viewer

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/gmu/superior/

BasinPlan/Watersheds.html


viewer.htm

River channel

description

Special reports by USGS USGS reports not completed (Bad River or

USGS)

Flow Rates &/or

volume

US Geological Survey –

Real Time Stream Flow Rates

Maps of Floods & High Flows

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/nwis/rt

http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/index.php?

map type=flood&state=wi

Ground water

movement

Wisconsin Ground Water Center


Drinking & Ground Water Program

Department of Natural Resources Habitat &

Fishery Tables

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/gndwater/

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/Index.htm

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/wdnr_bio

(Need Assistance from DNR Fishery Biologist

with this site.)





Surface & Ground Water

Special Project Reports

US Geological Survey Ground-water Climate

Response Network

USGS reports are available at

http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/pubs/.

http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov/StateMaps/

WI.html

(http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html)

Flow Models

USGS National Flood Frequency Program

Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment

Model (L-THIA)

NRCS Technical Release 55 (TR-55)

http://water.usgs.gov/software/nff.html

http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff/lthianew/

index.htm

http://pasture.ecn.purdue.edu/~sedspec/tr55/tr0.

htm

Table 3.2: Continued

22





Drainage Basin Characteristics

INFORMATION


WHERE WE FOUND IT

Topography –

lay of the land

US Geological Survey Topographic Maps or

windshield survey

http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us/imf/dnrimf.jsp?

site=SurfaceWaterViewer

We used a consultant’s services

Elevation at

headwater and

mouth of

watershed


Surface Water Data Viewer (US Geological

Survey Topographic Maps)

http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us/imf/dnrimf.jsp?

site=SurfaceWaterViewer

We used a consultant’s services.

Soils

(Hydrologic Soil

Group)

USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service Center or Web Soil Survey


Areas with Steep

eroding banks

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Service Center or Web Soil Survey


Wetland Areas


Wetland Maps

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/

wetlands/mapping.shtml (inland wetlands)

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/

publications/cw/ (coastal wetlands)

Land Use

County Land Information Departments

http://www.bayfieldcounty.org/landrecords/

index.htm (Bayfield County)

Vegetative Cover


WISCLAND Cover and

Finlay’s Original Vegetation

http://maps.dnr.state.wi.us/imf/dnrimf.jsp?site=

SurfaceWaterViewer

Existing Land

Management

Practices

Divide watershed and have your workgroup

members drive, hunt, bike, fish, run, etc. their

way through a portion of the watershed and

identify on a map where problem areas may exist

and why

Field inventory or interpret from WISCLAND

Agriculture

USDA Agricultural Statistics

http://www.nass.usda.gov/wi/rlsetoc.htm

Continuation of Table 3.2: Located Sources for Information

identiFied ModeLs

Three modeling tools were identified that would provide information necessary to evaluate the hydrologic condition of the Marengo River Watershed. They included the USDI Geological Survey’s National Flood Frequency (NFF) Model, Purdue University’s Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA), and Purdue University offers a simplified version of USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Techni-cal Release-55 (TR-55). Each of these models provides seasoned users easy access to runoff and peak discharge estimates with minimal effort. We focused our efforts on using the National Flood Frequency model as the model was tailored to larger watersheds and the results provided the information we needed. Both L-THIA and TR-55 offer simplified procedures for estimating runoff and peak discharges in small watersheds that would be invaluable to planning committees, developers and town boards looking to evaluate the impact a development may have on the project’s immediate area hydrology.

23

evaLUated the Watershed Using the nationaL FLood FreqUenCY ModeL

Using maps prepared for this assessment, information about each hydrologic unit was gathered and organized into the Table 3.3 and 3.4 below. The area (acres), drainage area (square miles), length of subwatershed (meters), top elevation (feet), bottom elevation (feet) and slope (feet per mile) were determined for each subwatershed (6th level hydrologic unit). The total acreage of the watershed is 139,456 (218 square miles). The drop in elevation from the upper portion of each subwatershed to their outlet is quite dramatic. Both Trout Brook and Silver Creek watershed slopes were above 65 feet per mile. This large drop in relatively short distance is credited for the flashiness of the peak runoff events and resulting unstable conditions. It also may be more noticeable when any change in land use occurs as these streams (along with downstream receiving water) reflects what is happening in the upper portions of their watersheds and there is no floodplain area to hold runoff from peak events.





NFF

(National Flood Frequency

Model)

USDI Geological Survey

http://water.usgs.gov/soft

ware/nff.html

Overview:

Helps assess peak discharge of a

watershed.

TR-55

(Technical Release – 55)

USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service (simplified version by Purdue

University)

http://www.ecn.purdue.edu

/runoff/sedspec/

Overview:

Simplifies procedures for

estimating runoff and peak

discharge in small “urbanizing”

watersheds.

Identified Models

Three modeling tools were identified that would provide information necessary to evaluate the hydrologic

condition of the Marengo River Watershed. They included the USDI Geological Survey’s National Flood

Frequency (NFF) Model, Purdue University’s Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA), and

Purdue University offers a simplified version of USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service’s

Technical Release-55 (TR-55). Each of these models provides seasoned users easy access to runoff and

peak discharge estimates with minimal effort. We focused our efforts on using the National Flood

Frequency model as the model was tailored to larger watersheds and the results provided the information

we needed. Both L-THIA and TR-55 offer simplified procedures for estimating runoff and peak

discharges in small watersheds that would be invaluable to planning committees, developers and town

boards looking to evaluate the impact a development may have on the project’s immediate area

hydrology.

L-THIA

(Long-Term Hydrologic

Impact Analysis)

Purdue University

http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/r

unoff/

Overview:

Helps community planners model

both short and long-term impacts

of land use changes on their watershed.





Evaluated the Watershed Using the National Flood Frequency Model Using maps prepared for this assessment, information about each hydrologic unit was gathered and

organized into the Table 3.3 and 3.4 below. The area (acres), drainage area (square miles), length of

subwatershed (meters), top elevation (feet), bottom elevation (feet) and slope (feet per mile) were

determined for each subwatershed (6th

level hydrologic unit). The total acreage of the watershed is

139,456 (218 square miles). The drop in elevation from the upper portion of each subwatershed to their

outlet is quite dramatic. Both Trout Brook and Silver Creek watershed slopes were above 65 feet per

mile. This large drop in relatively short distance is credited for the flashiness of the peak runoff events

and resulting unstable conditions. It also may be more noticeable when any change in land use occurs as

these streams (along with downstream receiving water) reflects what is happening in the upper portions of

their watersheds as there is no floodplain area to hold runoff from peak events.

Table 3.3: Marengo Data for National Flood Frequency Model (NFF) (4/10/06) HUC 6 Area

(acres)

Drainage

Area

(mi2)

Main River Length

(m)

Top

Elevation

(ft)

Bottom

Elevation

(ft)

Slope

(ft/mile)

Elevation/

Length

Troutmere Creek-

Marengo River

30,827 48.1 Marengo 36,028.00 1,049.00 718.00 14.79

Trout Creek-

Brunsweiller River

17,680 27.6 Brunsweiller 19,094.20 1,095.00 715.00 32.03

Trout Brook 16,321.90 1,414.00 725.00 67.94

Silver Creek-Marengo

River

18,555 29.0 Marengo 14,013.00 715.00 688.00 3.10

Silver Creek 15,202.00 1,391.00 711.00 71.99

Headwaters-Marengo

River

37,075 58.0 Marengo 37,225.10 1,443.00 964.00 20.71

Brunsweiller River 35,320 55.2 Brunsweiller 29,244.50 1,440.00 1,095.00 18.99

TOTAL 139,456 217.9 3.2808

This information was inputted into the USDI Geological Survey’s National Flood Frequency

Model. Data necessary to run the model is found in Table 3.4 and includes drainage areas and

combined drainage areas (square miles), soil permeability (inches per hour), snowfall (annual

inches), storage available (expressed in percentage of the drainage area), slope (feet per mile)

resulting in a numerical peak discharge rate expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs). The

discharge was further manipulated into discharge per square mile and discharge per acre. When

discharges per square mile approach 15 cfs/mi2, streams tend to display resulting damage more

openly. Although almost all of the subwatersheds are approaching the threshold, Troutmere

Creek / Marengo River and Trout Creek / Brunsweiller River are the closest. These two areas

also are located in areas of concern for the Marengo River Watershed.

Table 3.4: Peak Discharge Calculation (NFF) Following Technical Work Group Meeting (4/11/06)

Work by Dale Higgins / Sandy Schultz with the Technical Work Group

HUC 6 (Unit by Name) Combined DA

(square miles)

HUCs

Included

Soil Permeability

(in per hr)

Annual

Snowfall (in)

Storage

(% of

watershed)

Slope

(ft/mile)

Peak

Discharge

(CFS)

Discharge per

square mile

Discharge

per acre

Troutmere Creek - Marengo

River (mid)

106 Headwaters -

Marengo

River

.02 96 10 17 1500 14 cfs/mi2 0.022 cfs/ac

Trout Creek - Brunsweiller River (mouth)

83 Brunsweiller River (HW)

.02 96 19 25 1050 13 cfs/mi2 0.020 cfs/ac

Silver Creek - Marengo River (mouth)

218 All .02 96 13 15 2510 11 cfs/mi2 0.018 cfs/ac

Headwaters - Marengo River 58 n/a .15 96 18 21 726 12 cfs/mi2 0.020 cfs/ac

Brunsweiller River (headwater) 55 n/a .15 96 30 19 583 11 cfs/mi2 0.017 cfs/ac

This information was inputted into the USDI Geological Survey’s National Flood Frequency Model. Data necessary to run the model is found in Table 3.4 and includes drainage areas and combined drainage areas (square miles), soil permeability (inches per hour), snowfall (annual inches), storage available (expressed in percentage of the drainage area), slope (feet per mile) resulting in a numerical peak discharge rate expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs). The discharge was further manipulated into discharge per square mile and discharge per acre. When discharges per square mile approach 15 cfs/mi2, streams tend to display resulting damage more openly. Although almost all of the subwatersheds are approaching the threshold, Troutmere Creek / Marengo River and Trout Creek / Brunsweiller River are the closest. These two areas also are located in areas of concern for the Marengo River Watershed.

24





It is also interesting to note that the highest estimated peak discharge, found in Silver Creek/Marengo

River, or the confluence of the Marengo River and the Bad River, also is the area where levee building is

taking place. Sand carried from the subwatersheds that have no area to settle out is carried and deposited

in the relatively level topography of the mouth area. According to USGS researchers (2005), the levee

building leads to reduced flood plain area, increased velocity, deeper channels, and pushes the problem

downstream to the next floodplain area. In the process, sediments cover aquatic biota and habitat.

Figure 3.1: Results of NFF model placed on Marengo River Watershed Base Map
















Evaluated the Watershed Using the National Flood Frequency Model Using maps prepared for this assessment, information about each hydrologic unit was gathered and

organized into the Table 3.3 and 3.4 below. The area (acres), drainage area (square miles), length of

subwatershed (meters), top elevation (feet), bottom elevation (feet) and slope (feet per mile) were

determined for each subwatershed (6th

level hydrologic unit). The total acreage of the watershed is

139,456 (218 square miles). The drop in elevation from the upper portion of each subwatershed to their

outlet is quite dramatic. Both Trout Brook and Silver Creek watershed slopes were above 65 feet per

mile. This large drop in relatively short distance is credited for the flashiness of the peak runoff events

and resulting unstable conditions. It also may be more noticeable when any change in land use occurs as

these streams (along with downstream receiving water) reflects what is happening in the upper portions of

their watersheds as there is no floodplain area to hold runoff from peak events.

Table 3.3: Marengo Data for National Flood Frequency Model (NFF) (4/10/06) HUC 6 Area

(acres)

Drainage

Area

(mi2)

Main River Length

(m)

Top

Elevation

(ft)

Bottom

Elevation

(ft)

Slope

(ft/mile)

Elevation/

Length

Troutmere Creek-

Marengo River

30,827 48.1 Marengo 36,028.00 1,049.00 718.00 14.79

Trout Creek-

Brunsweiller River

17,680 27.6 Brunsweiller 19,094.20 1,095.00 715.00 32.03

Trout Brook 16,321.90 1,414.00 725.00 67.94

Silver Creek-Marengo

River

18,555 29.0 Marengo 14,013.00 715.00 688.00 3.10

Silver Creek 15,202.00 1,391.00 711.00 71.99

Headwaters-Marengo

River

37,075 58.0 Marengo 37,225.10 1,443.00 964.00 20.71


TOTAL 139,456 217.9 3.2808

This information was inputted into the USDI Geological Survey’s National Flood Frequency

Model. Data necessary to run the model is found in Table 3.4 and includes drainage areas and

combined drainage areas (square miles), soil permeability (inches per hour), snowfall (annual

inches), storage available (expressed in percentage of the drainage area), slope (feet per mile)

resulting in a numerical peak discharge rate expressed in cubic feet per second (cfs). The

discharge was further manipulated into discharge per square mile and discharge per acre. When

discharges per square mile approach 15 cfs/mi2, streams tend to display resulting damage more

openly. Although almost all of the subwatersheds are approaching the threshold, Troutmere

Creek / Marengo River and Trout Creek / Brunsweiller River are the closest. These two areas

also are located in areas of concern for the Marengo River Watershed.

Table 3.4: Peak Discharge Calculation (NFF) Following Technical Work Group Meeting (4/11/06)

Work by Dale Higgins / Sandy Schultz with the Technical Work Group

HUC 6 (Unit by Name) Combined DA

(square miles)

HUCs

Included

Soil Permeability

(in per hr)

Annual

Snowfall (in)

Storage

(% of

watershed)

Slope

(ft/mile)

Peak

Discharge

(CFS)

Discharge per

square mile

Discharge

per acre

Troutmere Creek - Marengo

River (mid)

106 Headwaters -

Marengo

River

.02 96 10 17 1500 14 cfs/mi2 0.022 cfs/ac

Trout Creek - Brunsweiller River (mouth)

83 Brunsweiller River (HW)

.02 96 19 25 1050 13 cfs/mi2 0.020 cfs/ac

Silver Creek - Marengo River (mouth)

218 All .02 96 13 15 2510 11 cfs/mi2 0.018 cfs/ac

Headwaters - Marengo River 58 n/a .15 96 18 21 726 12 cfs/mi2 0.020 cfs/ac

Brunsweiller River (headwater) 55 n/a .15 96 30 19 583 11 cfs/mi2 0.017 cfs/ac

It is also interesting to note that the highest estimated peak dicharge, found in Silver Creek/Marengo River, or the confluence of the Marengo River and the Bad River, also is the area where levee building is taking place. Sand carried from the subwatersheds that have no area to settle out is carried and deposited in the relatively level topography of the mouth area. According to USGS researchers (2005), the levee building leads to reduced flood plain area, increased velocity, deeper channels, and pushes the problem down-stream to the next floodplain area. In the prcess, sediments cover aquatic biota and habitat.













*Streams approaching 15 cfs per square mile tend to show greater hydrologic impacts

*

*

25



After identifying where to find watershed information for the Marengo River, the information was col-lected and organized in tables using the Framework guidance. Much information was not available specifically for the Marengo River Watershed. Some interpretation from surrounding communities was necessary, as explained in Step 3. Subjective ratings were assigned to each watershed feature. These rating were performed by comparing each of the watershed features against each other, then assigning an importance ranking. This step emphasizes the need to have someone on the review team who is very familiar with the watershed.

steP 4 Putting Pen to Paper

Rating Your Watershed Features





53

Climate

Table 4.1: Marengo River Watershed Subjective Ratings & Rationale

INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Rain

Amount

Duration

Frequency

Intensity

Rainfall directly impacts stream flow on lake

Superior’s clay plain. This is especially apparent

once heavy clay soils are saturated or frozen with

almost zero infiltration. Normal infiltration is

1.1 inches per hour. Streams rise and fall in

direct relation to the amount, duration and

frequency/intensity of rainfall events.

• General 25-year, 24-hour precipitation is

4.66 inches (USGS, 2002)

• Annual precipitation ranges from 30.02 –

33.46 inches per year (USGS, 2002)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Snow

There is great variability in the Marengo

Watershed as a portion of the pilot area is in the

snow belt and a portion is not. Neighboring

watershed comparisons (USGS, 2002) –

• Bad River Watershed 94.5 – 96 inches

• Trout Brook 91.5 inches

(tributary near Marengo)

• White River 66.1 inches

(near Ashland)

• Used 96 inches annual snowfall

1

1

1

Wind

Wind speeds and direction early in the spring

contribute to both the amount and timing of flow

in the Marengo River Watershed and for all Lake

Superior watersheds for that matter.

• Average wind speeds are 10 miles per hour.

1

2

1

Evapotranspiration

No information source found. We do know that

evaporation and transpiration play a part in

spring runoff events and peak flow events. We

just don’t know the impact and importance of

this process.

2

3

2

Temperature

Annual mean, max., min. and average

temperatures for the years 1971 – 2000 (seasonal

mean temperatures will vary)

• Maximum 51.3 degrees Fahrenheit

• Minimum 29.7 degrees Fahrenheit

• Average 40.5 degrees Fahrenheit

1

3

1

3

1

3

26





54

Surface & Ground Water Table 4.1: Marengo River Watershed Subjective Ratings & Rationale

INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Watershed

Boundaries

Boundary information obtained from WDNR.

• Marengo River Watershed

Drainage Area = 218 square miles

Existing Water

Quality

Water quality parameters were not measured as

part of this assessment. The focus for this

project is on how water moves through the

watershed and which factors directly link to and

influence the flow, habitat quality and timing of

flow in the watershed.

Failing or unmanaged private septic systems are

known to have influence on the quality of water

in the Marengo River, as are uncontained manure

piles, unmanaged grazing animals and poor

nutrient management practices. These issues

should be part of a full watershed planning

process and organized into the Module on

Agriculture and Rural Development.

No rating

No rating

No rating

Areas of known

pollutants or

issues

Areas of known sediment loading and erosion

are identified in Drainage Basin Characteristics.

Areas of other known pollutants should be

determined during the watershed planning

process.

No rating

No rating

No rating

River channel

description

Discussed under Drainage Basin Characteristics. No rating No rating No rating

Flow Rates &/or

volume (Actual

Flow or Flow

Models)

No stream gauge on the Marengo River.

Neighboring streams including the Bad River

and White River have USGS gauges. NFF

model estimates peak discharge:

• 2510 cfs (peak discharge estimate) at

confluence of Marengo & Bad River

• For reference, Bad River stream gauge data

estimates the average annual flow

(mean) at 618 cfs (1914 – 2004)

(USGS, 2006).

1

1

1

Ground water

No ground water information was found.





55

Surface & Ground Water Table 4.1: Marengo River Watershed Subjective Ratings & Rationale

INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

movement

Peak Runoff

Months

Peak runoff months have changed and are now

considered to be earlier by at least a month

according to USGS (Fitzpatrick etal, 2005).

• March is considered the peak runoff month.

1

1

1

27





56

Drainage Basin Characteristics Table 4.1: Marengo River Watershed Subjective Ratings & Rationale

INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Topography – lay

of the land &

Elevation at

headwater and

mouth of

watershed

Topography plays a major role in how water

moves through the Marengo River Watershed.

• Headwater Elevation: 1443 feet above sea

level

• Elevation at Mouth: 711 feet above sea level

• Slope (NFF estimated)1: footnote

• Reference Slopes (USGS gauges on

neighboring watersheds):

Bad River (Odanah) 18.8 feet/mile (USGS,2002)

Bad River (Mellen) 11.2 feet/mile (USGS,2002)

Trout Brook Tributary near Marengo -

17.9 feet/mile (USGS, 2002)

2

2

1

Landscape

Position2 &

Geology

River landscape position is an excellent indicator

for planners where to focus their planning and

implementation efforts. Transition areas between

two soil types are typically areas where major

shifts in water’s energy can have big impacts on

the river and surrounding floodplains. This

impact is also noticeable just below the transition

areas where suspended sediments fall out and are

deposited, covering aquatic biota and habitat.

This is evident in the erosion areas found in the

transition area between sands and clays and then

again in the area where levee building occurs.

Recent USGS findings clearly demonstrate this

phenomenon.

1

2

1

Soils (Hydrologic

Soil Group)3

Infiltration rates of the soils in the Marengo

watershed vary widely and are affected by

subsurface permeability as well as surface intake

rates. Because there are well over 95 soil types

in the Bayfield portion of the Marengo watershed

alone, most comprised of complexes of 2-4 soils,

we specifically looked at Hydrologic Soils

Groups (HSG) in order to narrow the soils down

into four groups – A, B, C and D. HSG ratings

are based according to each soil’s minimum

infiltration rate, which is obtained for bare soil

after prolonged wetting. Soil transitional areas

discussed under landscape position are evident in

viewing these soil groups.

1

2

1

28





57


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Transitional Areas

and Areas of

Concern

Areas of Elevation

750 – 1050 ft

Above Sea Level

High Erosion

Areas

Levee Building

• “Excessive lateral migration and channel

instability exist at the confluence of the

Marengo and Bad Rivers” (USGS/BRNR,

2005)

• Southern Tributaries (streams) flowing into

the main stem of the Marengo River were

identified as having substantial erosion and

runoff problems because they flow directly

down off the wave-planed topography into

the Marengo River.” (USGS/BRNR, 2005)

• “Stream reaches in the Bad River watershed

with the highest amount of erosion are

located in steep reaches of the White,

Marengo, Bad, and Potato River between

altitudes of 750 to 1,050 feet above sea

level. This altitude range corresponds to the

north side of the Penokee range and to a

post-glacial lake shoreline. The abandoned

shoreline has wave-planed topography

developed in sandy unconsolidated deposits.

The shoreline also marks the boundary

between loamy glacial deposits in the

southern, upper part of the watershed and

clayey deposits in the northern, lower part of

the watershed” (soil transition area).

(USGS/BRNR, 2005)

• “A combination of high local relief, clay

over sand, and clearing or road development

in this area (750 – 1050 elevation and high

erosion area) leads to high erosion rates.”

(USGS/BRNR, 2005)

• “drainage networks above altitudes of about

1,200 feet, have loamy soils and poorly

developed stream networks – streambanks

for the most part are stable and high runoff

rates are less of a problem than at altitudes

below 1,200 feet.” (USGS/BRNR, 2005)

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1





58


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Wetland Areas

Natural

Constructed

Thirty percent of the upper portion of the

watershed (transition area south) is wetland and

the clay plain contains about fifteen percent

wetlands.

• About 20,833 acres of wetland and open

water are in the Marengo Watershed

• Estimated 15 % wetland acres in the

watershed.

• Some constructed wetlands in the watershed.

If more are constructed to restore hydrology

in areas that were drained, incorporate

drawdown capability.

1

3

2

3

1

3

Land Use4

WISCLAND (1992) land use information shows

very little development, about 2% agriculture,

15% wetland in an otherwise mostly forested

watershed. Note – agriculture is mostly located

in the clay plain (elevation 750 – 1050 feet above

sea level) and is therefore more concentrated

than the table indicates.

1

2

1

Vegetative Cover

Forest Age

Class5

Riparian Buffers

Vegetation plays a key role in how water moves

through the Marengo River watershed. The

generally accepted threshold of open land in a

subwatershed is 40 – 60% to desynchronize peak

discharge resulting from snowmelt (Verry etal,

1983). We chose 60% threshold as there is a

point where peak discharge from snowmelt

levels off or is slightly reduced between 40-60%

open land.

• Using results from the Comparative Analysis

of Hydrologic Units (CGIS, 2004), units

where the combined amount of agriculture

and forest land in 0-16 age class was greater

than 60%.6

1

2

2

1

1

1

Watershed

Morphometry

Refers to the physical characteristics of the river.

Many are discussed under previous items.

• Channel Geometry7 (cross section)

1

1

1

29





58


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Wetland Areas

Natural

Constructed




wetlands.




watershed.





1

3

2

3

1

3

Land Use4








1

2

1

Vegetative Cover

Forest Age

Class5

Riparian Buffers









open land.





than 60%.6

1

2

2

1

1

1

Watershed

Morphometry




1

1

1





58


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Wetland Areas

Natural

Constructed




wetlands.




watershed.





1

3

2

3

1

3

Land Use4








1

2

1

Vegetative Cover

Forest Age

Class5

Riparian Buffers









open land.





than 60%.6

1

2

2

1

1

1

Watershed

Morphometry




1

1

1





59


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Human Influence

Agriculture

Grazing

Nutrient Mgt

Cropland

Mining

Transportation

Rural-

Residential

Human influences have an impact on the

Marengo, however geologic processes are the

driving force in the watershed. Human activities

do, however, accelerate the problem by

channeling and re-routing water, removing

vegetation, and concentrating animal activity.

• Livestock grazing, nutrient management and

cropland management all have an impact on

the hydrologic condition. Unmanaged

grazing impacts water quality, habitat and

stream channels. Nutrient and bacterial

loading (i.e. phosphorus, nitrogen, etc)

occurs through runoff from uncontained

stacked manure, unmanaged grazing, poor

spreading practices.

• Several nonmetallic mines are located in the

watershed. These will be located on the base

map. Nonmetallic mines often change

hydrology, sometimes have an affect on

ground water and remove vegetation.

• (Harr etal, 1975) showed that road ditches

duplicate a stream system and road systems

whose total right-of-way area makes up 15%

of the basin will increase peak flow. “Road

crossings on the southern tributaries to the

Marengo River from County Line Road to

the confluence with the Bad River now

function as grade control structures

(USGS/BRNR, 2005). Road ditch systems

create hydrologic connectivity between

uplands and river systems (Technical Work

Group 2006).

Impacts from rural residential development,

more specifically, septic systems are an issue

that should be dealt with in an implementation

phase for the Marengo River Watershed.

2

3

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

1

3

30





58


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Wetland Areas

Natural

Constructed




wetlands.




watershed.





1

3

2

3

1

3

Land Use4








1

2

1

Vegetative Cover

Forest Age

Class5

Riparian Buffers









open land.





than 60%.6

1

2

2

1

1

1

Watershed

Morphometry




1

1

1





59


INFORMATION

RESULTS

FLOW

HABITAT

QUALITY

TIMING

Human Influence

Agriculture

Grazing

Nutrient Mgt

Cropland

Mining

Transportation

Rural-

Residential

Human influences have an impact on the

Marengo, however geologic processes are the

driving force in the watershed. Human activities

do, however, accelerate the problem by

channeling and re-routing water, removing

vegetation, and concentrating animal activity.

• Livestock grazing, nutrient management and

cropland management all have an impact on

the hydrologic condition. Unmanaged

grazing impacts water quality, habitat and

stream channels. Nutrient and bacterial

loading (i.e. phosphorus, nitrogen, etc)

occurs through runoff from uncontained

stacked manure, unmanaged grazing, poor

spreading practices.

• Several nonmetallic mines are located in the

watershed. These will be located on the base

map. Nonmetallic mines often change

hydrology, sometimes have an affect on

ground water and remove vegetation.

• (Harr etal, 1975) showed that road ditches

duplicate a stream system and road systems

whose total right-of-way area makes up 15%

of the basin will increase peak flow. “Road

crossings on the southern tributaries to the

Marengo River from County Line Road to

the confluence with the Bad River now

function as grade control structures

(USGS/BRNR, 2005). Road ditch systems

create hydrologic connectivity between

uplands and river systems (Technical Work

Group 2006).

Impacts from rural residential development,

more specifically, septic systems are an issue

that should be dealt with in an implementation

phase for the Marengo River Watershed.

2

3

2

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

1

1

1

3

rating Categories: Each factor is given a numerical rating of 1 to 3, and each factor’s relative importance is subjectively rated against the other factors.

Footnote exPLanations:

nFF ModeLed toPograPhiC inForMation For the Marengo river Watershed

relative influence on Flow, quality, or timing

high = 1

Moderate = 2

slight / none = 3





60

Rating Categories: Each factor is given a numerical rating of 1 to 3, and each factor’s relative

importance is subjectively rated against the other factors.

Rating Relative Influence on

Flow, Quality, or Timing

1 High

2 Moderate

3 Slight / None

1 NFF Modeled topographic information for the Marengo River Watershed

HUC 6 Area

(acres)

Drainage

Area (mi2)

Main River Length

(m)

Top Elevation

(ft)

Bottom

Elevation (ft)

Slope (ft/mile)

Elevation/Length

Troutmere Creek-Marengo

River

30,827 48.1 Marengo 36,028.00 1,049.00 718.00 14.79

Trout Creek-Brunsweiller River 17,680 27.6 Brunsweiller 19,094.20 1,095.00 715.00 32.03

Trout Brook 16,321.90 1,414.00 725.00 67.94

Silver Creek-Marengo River 18,555 29.0 Marengo 14,013.00 715.00 688.00 3.10

Silver Creek 15,202.00 1,391.00 711.00 71.99

Headwaters-Marengo River 37,075 58.0 Marengo 37,225.10 1,443.00 964.00 20.71


TOTAL 139,456 217.9 3.2808

2 Figure 4.1: Longitudinal profiles of the Bad & Marengo Rivers showing landscape position (USGS, 2006).

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

020406080100120

AL

TIT

UT

E, IN

ME

TE

RS

Bad RiverMarengo

River

Sandy glacial till,

Poorly developed

drainage network, no valley

Sandy post -glacial

shorelines,

entrenched valley

Clay plain,

entrenched/alluvial valley

Bedrock outcrop

Longitudinal Profiles

x

!

31

hYdroLogiC soiL groUPs (USDA SCS, 1986)

groUP a soils have low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sand or gravel and have a high rate of water trans-mission (greater than 0.30 in/hr).

groUP B soils have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep , moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15 – 0.30 in/hr).

groUP C soils have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impeded downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils have a low rate of water transmission (0.05 – 0.15 in/hr).

groUP d soils have high runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious mate-rial. These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0 – 0.05 in/hr).

hsg soiL textUres

a sand, loamy sand

B silt loam or loam

C sandy clay loam

d Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay or clay

@

eLeva

tio

n i

n M

et

er

s

LandsCaPe Position Figure 4.1: Longitudinal profiles of the Bad & Marengo Rivers showing landscape position

#

32





61

3 Hydrologic Soil Groups (USDA SCS, 1986)

HSG Soil Textures

A Sand, loamy sand, or sandy loam

B Silt loam or loam

C Sandy clay loam

D Clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy clay, silty clay,

or clay

Group A soils have low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They

consist chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sand or gravel and have a high rate of water

transmission (greater than 0.30 in/hr).

Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of moderately

deep to deep , moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures.

These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15 – 0.30 in/hr).

Group C soils have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer

that impeded downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils

have a low rate of water transmission (0.05 – 0.15 in/hr).

Group D soils have high runoff potential. They have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted

and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table,

soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material.

These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0 – 0.05 in/hr).

4 Marengo River Watershed Land Use – Land Cover Totals (WISCLAND, 1992)

Class Acres Percent

Agriculture 2,498 1.79

Urban - Developed 30 0.02

Deciduous Forest 44,486 31.91

Coniferous Forest 3,475 2.49

Mixed Forest 45,744 32.81

Forested Wetland - Deciduous 3,739 2.69

Forested Wetland - Coniferous 4,581 3.29

Forested Wetland - Mixed 4,669 3.35

Grassland 22,338 16.02

Open Water 2,172 1.56

Shrub Land 525 0.38

Wetland 5,147 3.69

Totals 139,404 Acres 100 %

sandy verry, hydrologist with the Usda Forest service (retired), researched the relationship of the

amount of open land in a watershed to the change in peak flow (bankfull flow). verry showed that young

forest (0-15 year age class) affect runoff rates in the same way that open land does. For that reason, per-

cent open land is considered both unforested and forested land < 16 years old.

FigUre 4.2: Relationship of the amount of open land in a subwatershed to the change in

peak flow (Verry, 2006)





5Figure 4.2: Relationship of the amount of open land in a subwatershed to the change in peak flow

(Verry, 2006)

Sandy Verry, Hydrologist with the USDA Forest Service (retired), researched the relationship of the

amount of open land in a watershed to the change in peak flow (bankfull flow).

Verry showed that young forest (0-15 year age class) affect runoff rates in the same way that open land

does. For that reason, percent open land is considered both unforested and forested land < 16 years old.

RESULTS: In a small watershed, with 50-60% open land, there is a marked increase in runoff rate.

Bankfull flow:

Maximum amount of discharge (usually measured in cubic feet/sec.) that a stream channel can carry

without overflowing.

-70

-50

-30

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of entire basin in open or young-forests (<16)

Pe

rce

nt

ch

an

ge

in

pe

ak

flo

w

VLB83

VLB83

VLB83

VLB83

V86

V86

FKW99

L94

Reference to change in peak flow from a mature aspen forest

Management range for peak flows from basins

with less than 60% of their area in

open or young forests (<16)

Marengo river Watershed Land Use - Land Cover Totals (WISCLAND 1992)$

%

Bankfull flow – maximum amount of discharge (usually measured in cubic feet/sec.) that a stream channel

can carry without overflowing

33





63

6 Figure 4.3: Comparative Analysis of Hydrologic Units (CGIS, 2004) - Units with greater than 60% open

land/young forest





63

6 Figure 4.3: Comparative Analysis of Hydrologic Units (CGIS, 2004) - Units with greater than 60% open

land/young forest

FigUre 4.3: Comparative Analysis of Hydrologic Units (CGIS, 2004) - Units with greater than 60% open land/young forest.

^

34





7 Channel Geometry

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

DISTANCE IN METERS FROM LEFT SIDE

AR

BIT

RA

RY

EL

EV

AT

ION

, IN

ME

TE

RS

Marengo River—Cross Sections

60-m eroding bluff

buried

channel

Natural

leveePre -settlement soil

sand

gravel/cobble/boulder

glacial deposits

Figure 4.4: Two distinct cross sections common in the Marengo River Watershed (USGS, 2006). This

situation is fairly common in streams along Lake Superior’s South Shore.



The rationale helped to determine the role and importance of many of the watershed features in the Marengo River watershed. From Table 4.1, we selected the most important features that have the biggest impact on the flow amount, habitat quality and timing of flow in the watershed. Because so many of the watershed features have a big impact on the Marengo River watershed, we applied the following ques-tion to each watershed feature:

Can a Change in Land ManageMent oF eaCh Watershed FeatUre inFLUenCe

hoW MUCh and hoW Fast Water Moves throUgh YoUr Watershed or

hoW Water aFFeCts haBitat in YoUr Watershed?

If the answer to the question was yes, it was included in Table 5.1 (Summary Table of the Most Important Watershed Features). The features included here all have an impact on the hydrologic condition of the Marengo River watershed. Just how much of an impact is expressed as significant, moderately significant or not significant. Again, these watershed features were compared and rated against each other, not against any standard.

steP 5 Which Watershed Features get the spotlight

Selecting Important Features

& ChanneL geoMetrY

35

Figure 5.1: Summary Table Factors Influenced by Management and their significance in their affect on the Amount, Quality & Timing of Water Flow for Marengo River Pilot Area

Flow Amount Habitat Quality Timing (related to sediment)

OVERALLAFFECT

Features

Vegetation

• Areas with greater than 50% or 60 % open land

Transitional Areas & Areas of Concern:

• Areas within 750 and 1,150 feet above sea level

• High risk areas for suspended sediment contributions

• Levee building

Agricultural Areas

• Livestock Grazing

• Nutrient Management

• Cropland (tillage, pasture, row crops, cropping sequence, etc.)

Transportation - Road Systems

Drained Wetlands

Significant Significant Significant SIGNIFICANT

Not Significant Significant Significant Moderately Significant

Significant Significant Not Significant Moderately Significant


Not Significant Significant Not Significant Slight/No Significance

Not Significant Significant Not Significant Slight/No Significance



Significant Not Significant Significant Moderately Significant

rating deFinitions For CoLUMns 2 - 4

significant – watershed feature has a great affectNot Significant – watershed feature does not have a great affect

rating deFinitions For CoLUMns 5

significant – has a great affect on the quality, amount and timing of flow (3 of 3)Moderately significant – has a modest affect on the quality, amount or timing of flow (2 of 3)Slight/No Significant – slight or no affect on quality, amount or timing of flow (1 of 3)>

36

Levee building in the lower reaches of the watershed and at the confluence with the Bad river





Watershed features identified as most significant include:

Areas with greater than 50 or 60 % open land

(Map: Community GIS Inc., 2006)

Levee building in the Cropland (tillage, pasture, row crops,

lower reaches of the watershed cropping sequence, surface drainage)

and at the confluence with the Bad River

(Photo: USGS, 2003) (Photo: Stable Solutions LLC, 2005)

Transportation – road systems

(Photo: Stable Solutions LLC, 2004)














Photo: USGA, 2003

Cropland (tillage, pasture, row crops, cropping sequence, surface drainage)














transportation - road systems

Watershed FeatUres identiFied as Most signiFiCant inCLUde:

Photo: Stable Solutions LLC, 2003


37

ModerateLY signiFiCant Watershed FeatUres inCLUde:

high risk areas for suspended sediment contributions

drained wetlands & agricultural surface drainage

Photo: USGA, 2003


(light orange shaded area)

38



In this step, the most significant watershed features from Step 5 are evaluated to determine their impact on the recovery potential of the watershed. Recovery potential can be defined as the likelihood of watershed improvement if land management changes occur. The logic for the recovery potential rating and recommendations for land management changes are included here to assist in a future watershed planning process.

Before determining recovery potential, we looked back at reference or historic levels for each signifi-cant watershed feature. Taking a look back at what the watershed looked like before humans intervened gives a sense of how much of an impact humans actually have on the hydrologic condition of the water-shed. By comparing the current levels with the historic, a snapshot of the watershed can be evaluated and decisions about land management can be made.

For example, areas with 50 or 60 percent open land were virtually nonexistent in pre-European settle-ment. This does not mean that we manage land for that level of vegetative cover, but it does indicate that planting marginal agricultural areas and managing timber cutting schedules, we could more closely reflect the hydrology of an earlier time, while maintaining a healthy agricultural community. How fea-sible is this? Only time will tell whether residents and natural resource managers will “buy-in” to the concept. Many scientists believe that this is one way to desynchronize snowmelt, holding water back under the canopy of trees and avoid the deluge of water that may occur in open areas now. A watershed planning process can provide the in-depth look and public feedback necessary to determine whether the recommendations from this report will be accepted, or if there are better ways to achieve the same outcome.

steP 6 a Watershed Walk through time

Learning From the Past to Protect the Future





67

Table 6.1: Hydrologic Assessment Summary Table for the Marengo River Watershed Pilot Area

Watershed Features Current

Level

Reference

Level

Overall Affect on the

Watershed (from

Table 5.1 translated to

a numerical value)

“Recovery

Potential”

Logic & Recommendations

Vegetation

• Areas with greater than

50 or 60 % open land

46,485 ac

(estimated)

Area

encompassed

in Elev. 750

– 1150 ft

above sea

level

0 ac (except

for some

open water

areas)

(from

Finlay’s

Original

Vegetation)

1

1

Recovery potential is high.

There is potential for reducing the amount

of open land and still maintaining an

agricultural component by focus on

conservation planning with landowners to

create a balance of open land and forest.

• Focus agricultural programs to reduce

runoff. Increase intensive farm

conservation planning.

• Implement CREP program

• Implement the livestock grazing

program.

• Coordinate and schedule timber

harvest timing to minimize open land.

• Complete Module 1: Sediment

Reduction Strategy for Forestry

• Complete Module 3: Sediment

Reduction Strategy for Agriculture.

This is not a recommendation to plant

all agricultural fields to trees, but a

recommendation to take opportunities

to improve vegetation in marginal

agricultural areas (i.e. areas where

erosion is occurring, surface drainage

areas, marginal wet areas, etc.)

Draw-down capable Wetland restoration

Tree planting on marginal agricultural lands

Agricultural production

39





68


Level

Reference

Level


Watershed (from


a numerical value)

“Recovery

Potential”


Same as

above

Same as

above

2

2

Recovery potential is moderate.

• This area is shown to be more prone to

erosive forces of water as a result of

hydrologic soil group, amount of open

land and natural geologic processes.

Land use planning including cropland

planning, transportation management,

and coordination of forestry practices

may improve the conditions.

Transitional Areas & Ares

of Concern

• Areas within elevation

750 – 1150 feet above

sea level

• High risk areas for

suspended sediment

contributions

Same as

above

Troutmere

Creek-

Marengo

River 6th

level HUC

Same as

above

2

2

Recovery potential is moderate. Much of

this is natural geologic process and may be

difficult to slow.

• The potential for stream recovery is

not as great because historically this

area was prone to erosion.

• Some in-stream structures (vanes) are

showing potential (UW-Madison

Engineering Dept.). Stabilizing the

toe of the in-stream slope is the key to

stabilizing the bluffs and bringing

them to an appropriate angle of

repose (stable slope).

• Other upland land use practices may

have an impact by reducing the

volume and velocity of water entering

the Marengo River and tributaries.





69


Level

Reference

Level


Watershed (from


a numerical value)

“Recovery

Potential”


• Pay particular attention to zoning

requests and clearing in areas draining

to this zone.

• Levee building

Same as

above

Same as

above

1

2


This area requires particular attention in

watershed planning. Sediment reduction

relies heavily on reducing velocity and

volumes of water in peak run-off events in

the Marengo River Watershed.

Some

grazing

occurs in ag

area

0 acres

3

1


• Working with landowners on grazing

plans and installing fencing to

improve and change riparian

vegetation and water access.

Agricultural Areas


• Nutrient

Management

Data needed

from USDA

or other Farm

Group

Over the past

60-75 years

manure

nutrients

were not

credited and

manure

stacking and

application

was common

near surface

3

1


• Working on nutrient management

planning with landowners will help to

improve manure storage (long-term

and temporary) and use and

management of manure by crediting

nutrients in manure and managing

commercial fertilizer applications to

only what is necessary.

40





70


Level

Reference

Level


Watershed (from


a numerical value)

“Recovery

Potential”


water.

• Cropland (tillage,

pasture, row crop,

cropping sequence)

2,500 acres 0 acres

(from

Finlay’s

Original

Vegetation)

1

1


• Conservation planning efforts with

landowners. Reduce continual row

crop rotations; reduce soil losses

through crop rotation planning,

introduce more conservation tillage

practices.

Road System Need to

determine the

percentage of

road & road

ditch system

in the

watershed.

0 acres 1 2 Recovery potential is moderate.

Transportation is important. Changing

how our roads & culverts are maintained

and constructed (in some areas) can help

reduce problems caused by runoff.

• It may not be feasible to reduce the

amount of hydrologic connectivity, the

amount of road ditch, culvert

crossings, road area or upland

drainage to road ditches should be

reduced to less than 15% (surface

area) of the watershed. This is

especially important in the transition

area and the clay plain. Evaluate ways

to reduce ditch area/volumes.

• Evaluate culvert installations and

whether some runoff could be

controlled by placement or inlet

controlled culverts.





71


Level

Reference

Level


Watershed (from


a numerical value)

“Recovery

Potential”


• Continue fish-friendly culvert

program.

• Maintain stable slopes on all culverts

placed and control erosion in areas

where water enters road ditches and

culverts. Use and promote Best

Management Practice Guidelines for

the Wisconsin Portion of the Lake

Superior Basin for guidance.

• In areas where washouts are

continuous, provide technical

assistance to municipalities or

landowners with evaluation of the

crossing and determining the BMPs

for the situation.

• Complete Module II: Sediment

Reduction Strategy for Transportation.

Drained Wetlands and

Agricultural surface

drainage

(surface

drainage

agricultural

lands)

0 acres 1 1 Recovery potential is high.

• Through the multi-agency wetland

restoration program, identify and

target priority restorations and obtain

landowner support through targeted


• Utilize drawdown capability (trickle

tube, stop-log structure, etc.) to better

manage water collection and as a side

benefit, vegetation.

Rural Development Private --- 2 2 Recovery Potential is moderate.

41





72


Level

Reference

Level


Watershed (from


a numerical value)

“Recovery

Potential”


Septic

Systems

Assist in land use planning. Assist Tribal

efforts to improve private septic systems

in the watershed.

Pay particular attention to zoning requests

and the affect that development would

have on the watershed. Use the prediction

models L-THIA, TR-55 or NFF to predict

changes in peak runoff resulting from land

use changes.

Overall Affect on the Watershed

Significance: 1 Moderately Significant: 2 Slight / no difference: 3

Recovery Potential

High Potential: 1 Moderate Potential: 2 Slight / no potential: 3

overaLL aFFeCt on the Watershed:

significance: 1

Moderately significant: 2

Slight / no difference: 3

reCoverY PotentiaL:

significance: 1

Moderately significant: 2

Slight / no difference: 3

COnCLUSIOn: using the result

The Marengo River Watershed runs from south to northeast and is a major tributary of the Bad River Watershed. Over seventy-six percent (76%) of the watershed is forested. With that said, there are sub-watersheds within the Marengo River watershed that are predominately agricultural; mostly located in the northern 1/3 of the watershed. Much of the watershed is in public ownership, chiefly located in the southern headwaters of the watershed.

The Marengo River Watershed is divided into three basic soil or geologic zones:

(1) sandy glacial till (headwater area), separated by a bedrock outcrop (2) the sandy post-glacial shorelines, separated by a transitional area between sand and clay material and leading to the (3) clay plain.

The headwater area encompasses about ½ of the watershed, while the other two distinct areas equally share in the other half. (Fitzpatrick etal, 2005) (USDA NRCS Soil Survey, 2006) This geology can be found in similar proportions in watersheds across the Wisconsin southern shore of Lake Superior. It is this very geology that creates many of the problems we see with sand loading, mass slumping of large unstable river banks, levee building causing a change in the stream channel capacity and access to floodplains, and loss of quality habitat.

So why is the Marengo River Watershed the way it is? Historically, logging and farming dominated land management. Both still exist in the watershed, along with an extensive network of roads and trails, and along with them, road ditches. By their very nature, road ditches become in themselves little rivers and streams during peak runoff events. They are the fastest way to move water from the uplands to the riv-ers and streams. Too many of these in a watershed and water entering the rivers can have a detrimental effect on the river systems by eroding banks already at high risk for erosion, increasing volume and velocity, carrying debris that may block flow down stream in more narrow channels, and carrying pol-lutants from upland land management practices. Upland water storage areas may be altered because of agriculture, rural development, road crossings, and even forestry. Semi-impervious red clay till soils convey water quickly, rather than absorbing it into the ground. Soil transition areas become focal points for water movement as steep terrain and springs and seeps cause erosion and mass wasting. These are a few of the problems isolated during this project.

42

The focus of this project was to determine how humans impacted the hydrologic condition of the water-shed. That is, what is the impact of human activity on the amount of flow, the timing of the flow and the habitat quality (related to sediment loading). The Framework presents a logical process of collecting and analyzing information that is necessary for the watershed planning process.

• Current status of factor or watershed features influencing water flow, quality or timing

• The factors that had the most influence on water flow, quality or timing

• Management actions that affect water flow, quality, or timing

This information when added to other interdisciplinary information will lead to the development of management opportunities during a watershed planning process. Specific recommendations for a future watershed planning process are included in Table 6.1A that follows.A Slow the Flow Project A Report of the Hydrologic Condition of the Marengo River Watershed




Table 6.1A: Recommendations for the Watershed Planning Process Resulting from the Hydrologic

Condition Assessment for the Marengo River Watershed Pilot Area ( Table 6.1, complete with current

and reference levels, rating of the overall affect on the watershed and recovery potential rating can be found in the

addendum to this report.)

Watershed Features Logic & Recommendations

Vegetation

• Areas with greater than 50

or 60 % open land


There is potential for reducing the amount of open land and still maintaining an

agricultural component by focus on conservation planning with landowners to


• Focus agricultural programs to reduce runoff. Increase intensive farm



• Implement the livestock grazing program.

• Coordinate and schedule timber harvest timing to minimize open land.

• Complete Module 1: Sediment Reduction Strategy for Forestry

• Complete Module 3: Sediment Reduction Strategy for Agriculture.

This is not a recommendation to plant all agricultural fields to trees, but a

recommendation to take opportunities to improve vegetation in marginal

agricultural areas (i.e. areas where erosion is occurring, surface drainage



• This area is shown to be more prone to erosive forces of water as a result of

hydrologic soil group, amount of open land and natural geologic processes.

Land use planning including cropland planning, transportation management,

and coordination of forestry practices may improve the conditions.

Recovery potential is moderate. Much of this is natural geologic process and

may be difficult to slow.

• The potential for stream recovery is not as great because historically this


• Some in-stream structures (vanes) are showing potential (UW-Madison

Engineering Dept.). Stabilizing the toe of the in-stream slope is the key to

stabilizing the bluffs and bringing them to an appropriate angle of repose

(stable slope).

• Other upland land use practices may have an impact by reducing the volume

and velocity of water entering the Marengo River and tributaries.

• Pay particular attention to zoning requests and clearing in areas draining to

this zone.

Transitional Areas & Ares of

Concern

• Areas within elevation 750

– 1150 feet above sea level


suspended sediment

contributions

• Levee building


This area requires particular attention in watershed planning. Sediment

reduction relies heavily on reducing velocity and volumes of water in peak run-

off events in the Marengo River Watershed.

Agricultural Areas

43







• Working with landowners on grazing plans and installing fencing to

improve and change riparian vegetation and water access.


• Working on nutrient management planning with landowners will help to

improve manure storage (long-term and temporary) and use and

management of manure by crediting nutrients in manure and managing

commercial fertilizer applications to only what is necessary.




pasture, row crop,

cropping sequence)


• Conservation planning efforts with landowners. Reduce continual row crop

rotations; reduce soil losses through crop rotation planning, introduce more

conservation tillage practices.

Road System Recovery potential is moderate.

Transportation is important. Changing how our roads & culverts are maintained

and constructed (in some areas) can help reduce problems caused by runoff.

• It may not be feasible to reduce the amount of hydrologic connectivity, the

amount of road ditch, culvert crossings, road area or upland drainage to road

ditches should be reduced to less than 15% (surface area) of the watershed.

This is especially important in the transition area and the clay plain.

Evaluate ways to reduce ditch area/volumes.

• Evaluate culvert installations and whether some runoff could be controlled

by placement or inlet controlled culverts.

• Continue fish-friendly culvert program.

• Maintain stable slopes on all culverts placed and control erosion in areas

where water enters road ditches and culverts. Use and promote Best

Management Practice Guidelines for the Wisconsin Portion of the Lake


• In areas where washouts are continuous, provide technical assistance to

municipalities or landowners with evaluation of the crossing and

determining the BMPs for the situation.

• Complete Module II: Sediment Reduction Strategy for Transportation.


Agricultural surface drainage


• Through the multi-agency wetland restoration program, identify and target

priority restorations and obtain landowner support through targeted


• Utilize drawdown capability (trickle tube, stop-log structure, etc.) to better

manage water collection and as a side benefit, vegetation.

Rural Development Recovery Potential is moderate.





Table 6.1A: Recommendations for the Watershed Planning Process Resulting from the Hydrologic

Condition Assessment for the Marengo River Watershed Pilot Area ( Table 6.1, complete with current

and reference levels, rating of the overall affect on the watershed and recovery potential rating can be found in the

addendum to this report.)


Vegetation

• Areas with greater than 50

or 60 % open land


There is potential for reducing the amount of open land and still maintaining an

agricultural component by focus on conservation planning with landowners to


• Focus agricultural programs to reduce runoff. Increase intensive farm



• Implement the livestock grazing program.

• Coordinate and schedule timber harvest timing to minimize open land.

• Complete Module 1: Sediment Reduction Strategy for Forestry

• Complete Module 3: Sediment Reduction Strategy for Agriculture.

This is not a recommendation to plant all agricultural fields to trees, but a

recommendation to take opportunities to improve vegetation in marginal

agricultural areas (i.e. areas where erosion is occurring, surface drainage



• This area is shown to be more prone to erosive forces of water as a result of

hydrologic soil group, amount of open land and natural geologic processes.

Land use planning including cropland planning, transportation management,

and coordination of forestry practices may improve the conditions.

Recovery potential is moderate. Much of this is natural geologic process and

may be difficult to slow.

• The potential for stream recovery is not as great because historically this


• Some in-stream structures (vanes) are showing potential (UW-Madison

Engineering Dept.). Stabilizing the toe of the in-stream slope is the key to

stabilizing the bluffs and bringing them to an appropriate angle of repose

(stable slope).

• Other upland land use practices may have an impact by reducing the volume

and velocity of water entering the Marengo River and tributaries.

• Pay particular attention to zoning requests and clearing in areas draining to

this zone.

Transitional Areas & Ares of

Concern

• Areas within elevation 750

– 1150 feet above sea level


suspended sediment

contributions

• Levee building


This area requires particular attention in watershed planning. Sediment

reduction relies heavily on reducing velocity and volumes of water in peak run-

off events in the Marengo River Watershed.

Agricultural Areas






Assist in land use planning. Assist Tribal efforts to improve private septic

systems in the watershed.

Pay particular attention to zoning requests and the affect that development would

have on the watershed. Use the prediction models L-THIA, TR-55 or NFF to

predict changes in peak runoff resulting from land use changes.







• Working with landowners on grazing plans and installing fencing to

improve and change riparian vegetation and water access.


• Working on nutrient management planning with landowners will help to

improve manure storage (long-term and temporary) and use and

management of manure by crediting nutrients in manure and managing

commercial fertilizer applications to only what is necessary.




pasture, row crop,

cropping sequence)


• Conservation planning efforts with landowners. Reduce continual row crop

rotations; reduce soil losses through crop rotation planning, introduce more

conservation tillage practices.

Road System Recovery potential is moderate.

Transportation is important. Changing how our roads & culverts are maintained

and constructed (in some areas) can help reduce problems caused by runoff.

• It may not be feasible to reduce the amount of hydrologic connectivity, the

amount of road ditch, culvert crossings, road area or upland drainage to road

ditches should be reduced to less than 15% (surface area) of the watershed.

This is especially important in the transition area and the clay plain.

Evaluate ways to reduce ditch area/volumes.

• Evaluate culvert installations and whether some runoff could be controlled

by placement or inlet controlled culverts.

• Continue fish-friendly culvert program.

• Maintain stable slopes on all culverts placed and control erosion in areas

where water enters road ditches and culverts. Use and promote Best

Management Practice Guidelines for the Wisconsin Portion of the Lake


• In areas where washouts are continuous, provide technical assistance to

municipalities or landowners with evaluation of the crossing and

determining the BMPs for the situation.

• Complete Module II: Sediment Reduction Strategy for Transportation.


Agricultural surface drainage


• Through the multi-agency wetland restoration program, identify and target

priority restorations and obtain landowner support through targeted


• Utilize drawdown capability (trickle tube, stop-log structure, etc.) to better

manage water collection and as a side benefit, vegetation.

Rural Development Recovery Potential is moderate.

AW Research Laboratories, Inc. 2004. Marengo River Watershed Influence Maps. Brainerd, MN. AW Research Laboratories, Inc and Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Natural Resources Department, no publication number.

Fitzpatrick, F.; etal. 2005. Project Update - Investigation of Erosion, Sedimentation, Channel Migration, and Streamflow Trends for the Bad River, Wisconsin. U.S.D.I. Geological Survey and Bad River Tribe of Lake Superior Chippewa Natural Resources Department, project update/no publication number.

McCammon, B.; Rector, J.; Gebhardt, K. 1998. A Framework for Analyzing the Hydrologic Condition of Watersheds. U.S.D.A. Forest Service and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, BLM/RS/ST-98/004+7210.

Red Clay Interagency Committee. Erosion and Sedimentation Control on the Red Clay Soils of Northwestern Wisconsin. Soil Conservation Board, Madison WI, 1967.

Schultz, S.D. et al. 2003. Best Management Practice Guidelines for the Wisconsin Portion of the Lake Superior Basin. Stable Solutions LLC & Technical Review Group, and the ABDI-Land Conservation Department, no publication number.

U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Ashland and Bayfield Counties Soil Survey. Data obtained from Soil Survey Crew in Ashland, WI.

Verry, E.S. 1997. Hydrological processes of natural, northern forested wetlands. Chapter 13. Northern forested wetlands, ecology and management, eds. C.C. Trettin, et al. New York: Lewis Publishers: 163-188.

Verry, E.S. 1992. Riparian systems and management. In Forest practice and water quality workshop: a Lake States Forestry Alliance initiative, 1992 May 27-29, Green Bay, WI. The Lakes States Forestry Initiative, Hancock, MI B1-B24.

Verry, E.S., J.R. Lewis, and K.N. Brooks. 1983. aspen clearcutting increases snowmelt and storm flow peaks in north central Minnesota. Water Resour. Bull.19(1):59-67.

Verry, E.S., J.W. Hornbeck, C.A.. Dolloff, eds. 2000. Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers (CRC Press LLC.) 2000. 402 pp.

Verry, E.S. 2001. Land Use and Steam Condition. USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN. 2pp.

REFERENCES:

Marengo River Watershed Test Case: Assessing the Hydrologic

Condition of the Marengo River Watershed, Wisconsin was funded

by a grant from the Great Lakes Commission Great Lakes Program

for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control to the Ashland Bayfield

Douglas Iron County Land and Water Conservation Department

on behalf of the Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team.

Funding was also provided by the USDA Forest Service.

The project benefited from in-kind support provided by the

following organizations: Ashland Bayfield Douglas Iron County

Land and Water Conservation Department, Bad River Band of

Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians Natural Resources

Department, University of Wisconsin Extension, University of

Wisconsin Sea Grant, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

and the Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin Partner Team Grant Over-

sight and Technical Committees.

Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas & Iron CountyLand Conservation Committees

assessing the hydrologic Condition of

the Marengo river Watershed

Documents

Marengo Marengo rriver Watershed iver Watershed ttest Case:est Caseclean-water.uwex.edu/pubs/pdf/marengotest.pdf · · 2010-11-01analysis to help identify and prioritize projects