about watershed assessmentcetg.weebly.com/.../3/9/7/0/39707378/1.9.15_s10_watershed_assess… ·...

10-1

Section 10

About Watershed Assessment

Introduction This section is an overview of the Bear River

watershed assessment. It presents water quality

goals and summarizes water quality characteristics

like natural resources, population, land and water

use, water quality, existing watershed impairments,

pollutant loading analysis, and potential future

watershed impairments.

Overview of the Bear River Watershed Watersheds delineate areas based on water flow

and direction. A watershed is defined as an area of

land where surface water from rain and melting

snow flow to a certain point, like the rim of a bowl

tipped on edge (Figure 10-1).

The United States Geological Survey has created a

tiered system of hydrologic (water) units to help

understand water flow. Each unit has a unique

hydrologic unit code (HUC), starting at the point

where water enters the oceans and moving up the

landscapes. There are six levels in the hydrologic

unit code system, identified by 2 to 12 digits:

regions, subregions, basins, subbasins, watersheds,

and subwatersheds. Table 10-1 describes the

hydrologic unit levels and their characteristics,

names, and codes.1

This document focuses on primary lakes in the Bear

River watershed. The Bear River flows into the

Flambeau River Subbasin, which flows into the

Upper Chippewa River Basin, which flows into the

Mississippi River Headwaters Region, which flows

into the Lower Mississippi River, and ultimately into

the Gulf of Mexico (See Figure 10-2). The Bear

River Watershed includes four subwatersheds, three

of which include lakes that are addressed in this

Table 10-1. Hydrologic Unit Code Classification Descriptions

Name Level Digits Average size (square miles) Relevant Name Relevant Number

Region 1 2 189,189 Mississippi River 07

Subregion 2 4 9570 Chippewa River 0705

Basin 3 6 1940 Upper Chippewa 070500

Subbasin 4 8 1178 Flambeau River 07050002

Watershed 5 10 140 Bear River 0705000202

Subwatershed 6 12 116 Multiple Lakes 070500020201

070500020202

070500020203

Figure 10-1. Conceptual Drawing of a Watershed

10-2 Section 10: Watershed Assessment

Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake Management Plan

document. Their 12-digit HUCs are as follows:

•••• Subwatershed 070500020201 includes Fence

Lake, Big Crawling Stone Lake, and Little

Crawling Stone Lake

•••• Subwatershed 070500020202 includes White

Sand Lake, Pokegama Lake, Moss Lake, Long

Interlaken Lake, and Flambeau Lake

•••• Subwatershed 070500020203 includes Ike

Walton Lake, and Little Trout Lake

Table 10-2 summarizes the hydrologic area and

volume for each study lake within the sub-

watersheds. These lakes were selected for study

because they are the largest lakes in the watershed

in Lac du Flambeau, associated with high use

landings, and have complete data sets required for a

lake management plan.

The majority of the Bear River Watershed is part of

the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior

Chippewa Indian Reservation, established by treaty

in 1854, and the Town of Lac du Flambeau,

established in 1900. The Tribe has undergone

Intergraded Resource Planning2, but this time it is in

cooperation with the greater community.

The ownership of land in the Bear River Watershed

is divided between Tribal Trust Land (>30%), Tribal

Allotted Land(>30%), County Land, Town Land,

State Land, Federal Land and private land owned in

fee simple.

The Bear River Watershed is in the Northern

Highland Ecological Landscape, which is

characterized by:

•••• Exceptional density of glacial kettle lakes,

•••• Large peatlands (bogs and conifer swamps);

•••• Intense development pressure along lakeshores;

•••• Former enormous pinery with important stands of

white and red pines remaining; and

•••• Very soft water lakes.

Shaped by glaciers, this area is believed to have the

third highest concentration of lakes in the world.

Native people settled here originally because the

water resources supported their subsistence lifestyle.

They gathered wild rice and berries, fished, and

hunted wildlife, practices they continue to this day.

Figure 10-2. Hydraulic Unit Nesting Configuration for Lac du Flambeau Waterbodies

Region: Mississippi

River

Subregion: Chippewa

Basin: Upper

Chippewa

Subbasin:

Flambeau River

Watershed: Bear

River

Subwatersheds:

Multiple Lakes

Section 10: Watershed Assessment 10-3


Figure 10-3. Bear River Watershed and Subwatersheds showing Land use Type



Table 10-2. Hydraulic Summary for Selected Lac du Flambeau Subwatersheds

Subwatershed HUC Number Lake Name

Lake Drainage Area in Acres

Lake Size in Acres Lake Volume

Subwatershed Stream Miles Wetland Acres

070500020201 Fence Lake 9006.57 3482.76 4.21 x1010 5.68 895.74

Big Crawling Stone Lake 5398.50 1483.31 1.53 x1010 5.28 410.96

Little Crawling Stone Lake 5398.50 113.30 6.65 x108 5.28 410.96

070500020202 White Sand Lake 6411.07 1180.87 9.23 x109 7.16 560.57

Moss Lake 1227.63 184.85 8.60 x108 0 109.65

Long Interlaken Lake 4742.30 379.91 4.48 x109 5.89 790.69

Pokegama Lake 4153.79 1041.39 7.61 x109 5.41 448.14

Flambeau Lake 4742.30 1165.55 1.06 x1010 5.89 790.69

070500020203 Ike Walton Lake 3746.29 1416.63 4.62 x109 2.30 1144.86

Little Trout Lake 2989.26 1006.53 8.20 x109 3.23 1415.28

Table 10-3. Relevant Hydraulic Budget Data for Each Study Lake

Subwatershed Lake Drainage area Precipitation in/yr

(percent) Groundwater in/yr

(percent) Evaporation in/yr

(percent) Outflow in/yr (percent)

070500020201 Fence Lake 32 (63%) 15 (30%) 26 (51%) 25 (49%)

Big Crawling Stone Lake

32 (34%) 27 (29%) 26 (28%) 66 (72%)

Little Crawling Stone Lake

070500020202 White Sand Lake

Moss Lake

Long Interlaken Lake

Pokegama Lake

Flambeau Lake

070500020203 Ike Walton Lake

Little Trout Lake

Table 10-3 shows the data used for the hydraulic

budget developed by USGS3 and used in the

WILMS model to determine the Total Phosphorus

loads. Fence Lake is the only lake that is molded

differently due to the large surface area for

evaporation.

The Bear River Watershed also supports large

forests with a sustainable logging industry, and

numerous lakes that provide a variety of recreational

opportunities.

The Bear River Watershed sustains industries like

Simpson Electric and Lake of the Torches Resort

Casino, among others. Agriculture and aquaculture

such as the cranberry marshes and the Tribal Fish

Hatchery are within the Bear River Watershed.

Pollution threatens traditional and current cultural,

recreational, agri/aquaculture, and industrial water

uses. This document identifies the sources of

pollution, categorizes sectors of the economy reliant

on water resources, and suggests a plan for

balancing development with lake protection.



Figure 10-4. Sub-basin with Flow Direction in relation to the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation Waters



Figure 10-5. Flow Obstructions and Channels



Overview of Water Quality Based Goal Assessments The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Natural Resources

Department has been monitoring and assessing the

water quality of numerous lakes in Lac du Flambeau,

including the ten lakes within the Bear River

Watershed, to determine the effectiveness of land use

management practices and best management

processes to achieve or maintain water quality based

goals derived from Tribal Water Quality Standards,

both narrative and numerical criteria.4

Data used in the assessment and development of the

report card/condition assessments were collected by

the Tribal Water Resource Department under a US

EPA approved LdF Tribal Quality Assurance

Protection Plan (QAPP)5, 6, 7, 8

and through the Citizen

Lake Monitoring Network (CLMN QAPP).9 Data

collected under these quality assured protocols are

then compared to water quality standards criteria to

determine if the water quality is in a condition that is

protective of Designated Uses, such as fishing,

swimming, and drinking. Table 10-4 shows the

assessment thresholds which determine whether the

water quality is meeting the water quality standards

and designated uses.

Assessed waters are displayed in a report card that

represents a continuum of water condition ranging

from poor to fair to good to excellent. Only a poor

status denotes a water body not supporting a

designated use for the category. Designated uses

are defined by US EPA as specified beneficial water

uses (like fishing or swimming) to be achieved and

protected using water quality standards.10

Excellent Fully Supporting Designated Use

Good Supporting Designated Use

Fair Supporting Designated Use with Downward Trend

Poor Not Supporting Designated Use

Concern Showing Concern

NA Not Assessed in Category

General Water Condition Continuum

The color-coded Conditions Report Card (Figure

10-6; see coding colors above) shows assessments

that have been made for ten lakes on various

measures of aquatic life, recreation, and fish edibility

as they relate to water quality, including biology,

chemistry, nutrients, habitat, bacteria, aesthetics,

and fish tissue. Report cards detailing assessments

for each of the lakes are in Sections 12–21.

The status ratings (excellent, good, concern, fair,

poor, and not assessed) for each category (such as

biology, chemistry, etc.) summarize data to which

metrics developed under the National Lake Survey

and Tribal Water Quality Standards have been

Figure 10-6. Color-Coded Water Quality Condition Report Card

Edibility

CATEGORY Biology Chemistry Nutrients Habitat Bacteria Aesthetics Fish Tissue Lake Level

OVERALL LAKE STATUS

Big Crawling Stone Lake Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Concern NA

Fence lake Excellent Excellent Excellent Good NA Excellent Concern NA

Flambeau Lake Good Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Concern NA

Ike Walton Lake Excellent Excellent Excellent Good NA Excellent Concern NA

Little Crawling Stone Lake Good Excellent Excellent Fair NA Excellent Concern NA

Little Trout Lake Excellent Excellent Good Good NA Excellent Concern NA

Long Interlaken Lake Good Excellent Excellent Good NA Excellent Concern NA

Moss Lake Good Excellent Good Good NA Excellent Concern NA

Pokegama Lake Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Excellent Excellent Concern NA

White Sand Lake Good Excellent Excellent Good NA Excellent Concern NA

Condition Assessment Report Card Aquatic Life Recreation



applied. Descriptions of the assessments for the

various categories follow.

Aquatic Life Aquatic Life assessments typically include seven

parameters, but data are available for only four of

them – biology, chemistry, nutrients, and habitat.

Biology Category. The assessments for the biology

category are based on a combination of two

measurements: 1) the presence of invasive species,

including aquatic plants, fish, invertebrates, and

wetland plants, and 2) the floristic quality index (FQI)

of native aquatic plants.

Regarding the presence of invasive species,

•••• A status of Excellent means that no invasive

species are known to exist in the lake.

•••• A status of Good means that one invasive

species is known to exist in the lake, but not at a

nuisance level.

•••• A status of Fair means that two or more invasive

species are known to exist in the lake, or, the

presence of one invasive is at a nuisance level.

•••• A status of Poor means that an invasive is in the

lake that is impairing navigation, swimming, or

fish habitat to a nuisance level.

•••• A status of Concern means that a new invasive

was recently found in the lake, or, the lake has an

invasive that is very aggressive.

For native species identified in a point intercept

survey, if the total FQI is:

•••• from 0–12, it is considered Poor

•••• from 12.1–24.2, Fair

•••• from 24.2–35, Good

•••• above 35, Excellent

Condition criteria for the FQI was developed by the

WISCALM botanist review panel for aquatic

macrophyte impairment.11

The WISCALM eight-member panel of botanists

developed the break points for good, fair, and poor

as part of the WDNR WISCALM assessment

protocol.12

The group used both multivariate and

multimetric methods to judge the plant communities

of the assessment lakes. Both methods were used

to complement each other; each method proved

valuable for different reasons. The review panel

sought to decipher the driving factors behind low

scores for either method so both methods were

thoroughly interrogated.12

Chemistry Category. The assessments for the

chemistry category reflect measures of dissolved

oxygen, pH, temperature, ionic strength, and

suspended solids.13

•••• A status of Excellent means that Tribal water

quality standards are met (see appendix), and

there are no measurable variations from the

norm.

•••• A status of Good means that water quality

standards are met, but a trend of decline is

noted.

•••• A status of Fair means that water quality

standards are projected to be approached.

•••• A status of Poor means that water quality

standards are exceeded.

•••• A status of Concern means that there is a health

concern associated with pollution.

Nutrients Category. The assessments for the

nutrient category reflect levels of total phosphorus.

Total nitrogen is not assessed. The excellent rating

is based on WIS CALM and the others are based on

National Lakes Assessment thresholds. If total

phosphorus epilimnetic summer values are;

•••• Less than 15 µg/L, it is considered Excellent 14

•••• From 15–16.5 µg/L, Good 15

•••• From 16.5–36, Fair 16

•••• And more than 36 µg/L, Poor 17



For Chlorophyll a, if the values are18

:

•••• Less than 7.56 µg/L, it is considered Good

•••• From 7.56–12.5, Fair

•••• And more than 12.5 µg/L, Poor

Toxicity, sediments, and flow have not been

assessed.

Habitat Category. The assessments within the

habitat category are based on a combination of

measures: 1) presence of aquatic plants, and

2) assessment of riparian and littoral zone.

For the presence of plants, vegetation is calculated

by dividing the number of sampling points where

plants were found by the total number of sampling

points within the littoral zone as defined by the points

equal to or shallower than the maximum depth

where plants were identified. For plants identified in

a point intercept survey19

, if the percent vegetated in

the littoral zone is

•••• Below 79.7%, it is considered Excellent

•••• from 79.8% - 89.7%, Good

•••• from 89.8% - 94.8%, Fair

•••• from 94.9% - 100%, Poor

The degree of human development in the riparian

zone and littoral zone categories are based indexes

developed under the National Lake Assessment.

Thresholds for good, fair, and poor were developed

for the Upper Mid-west Ecoregion. If the score

developed using riparian zone habitat Index20

is;

•••• Above 0.8074, it is considered Good

•••• from 0.8074 - 0.5906, Fair

•••• below 0.5906, Poor

If the score developed using littoral zone habitat

Index21

is

•••• Above 0.7001, it is considered Good

•••• from 0.7001 - 0.4156, Fair

•••• below 0.4156, Poor

Recreation Recreation includes two segments: bacteria and

aesthetics.

Bacteria Category. The assessments for the

bacteria category include measures of

bacteriological density and are assessed against

Tribal Water Quality Standards Criteria22

to protect

human health.

•••• A status of Excellent means that a single sample

of Escherichia coli taken during the sampling

period does not exceed 235 cfu/100ml.

•••• A status of Good means that a sample of

Escherichia coli exceeds 235 cfu/100ml only

once in the sampling period.

•••• A status of Fair means that a sample of

Escherichia coli exceeds 235 cfu/100ml multiple

times, but never more than the geometric mean

of 126 cfu/100ml.

•••• A status of Poor means that a sample of

Escherichia coli exceeds 235 cfu/100ml multiple

times and exceeds the geometric mean of 126

cfu/100ml.

Aesthetics Category. The Aesthetics Category

reflects an assessment of data and information on

water quality, color, and turbidity as well as an

assessment of reports received by the Tribal Natural

Resources Department on the presence of oil,

grease, nuisance aquatic plants, and trash/debris.

This information is compared to narrative criteria as

described the Water Quality in the Water Quality

Standards. A status of Excellent means no

complaints have been received. Otherwise, the

status is Good.



Table 10-4. Tribal Water Quality Standards Based Assessment Thresholds Categ

ory

Indicator Assessment Data captured

Water Quality Assessment Thresholds Assessment Thresholds Citation

Numeric and Narrative Criteria from Water Quality Standards Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria All Reservation waters (including wetlands), except as otherwise noted, shall be free from pollutants that cause or contribute to the conditions described below: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Biology

Invasive aquatic plant Verified by botanist with proper collection and voucher of invasive plant

No invasive species are known to exist

One invasive species is known to exist

Two or more invasive species are known to exist

Poor means that an invasive is in the lake and impairing navigation, swimming, or fish habitat

Presence Absence

Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria (7) Conditions that produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.

Invasive fish Verified by fisheries biologist proper collection and voucher of invasive fish




Presence Absence


Invasive invertebrate Verified by fisheries biologist proper collection and voucher of invasive invertebrate




Presence Absence


Invasive wetland plant Verified by botanist with proper collection and voucher of invasive plant




Presence Absence


Relatively unaltered Aquatic Plants from those of pre-settlement times

Following Aquatic Plant Habitat Point Intercept Survey of Lakes QAPP

>35 FQI 24.2-35 FQI 12.1-24.2 FQI 0-12 FQI RESULTS OF THE WISCALM BOTANIST REVIEW PANEL FOR AQUATIC MACROPHYTE IMPAIRMENT Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria (1) All waters of the Reservation shall maintain a natural diverse biological community; therefore aquatic life shall be as it naturally occurs.

Chem

istry

Dissolved Oxygen DO Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP

No measurable variation from the norm

Trend of 5% decline noted by more than 10 years of statistically significant data or increase reporting of fish kills

< 8mg/L in the epillimnetic portion of a stratified lake and >5mg/L

< 5 mg/L in the epillimnetic portion of a stratified lake or < 8 mg/L when and where early life stages of cold water fish occur

Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria (2) Dissolved oxygen--Dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L for lakes and rivers. Waters exhibiting stratification may have oxygen levels below 5.0 mg/L in the thermocline and hypolimnion. In waters that have been determined to have a Cold Water Fishery Use, the dissolved oxygen shall not be less than 8 mg/L when and where early life stages of cold water fish occur.

pH pH Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP

Measurable variation from natural conditions described by data collected by the Tribe from reference conditions

Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria (4) pH—No measurable variation from natural conditions described by data collected by the Tribe from reference conditions-except within a mixing zone.

Temperature T Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP

Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria (3) Temperature—No measurable variation from natural conditions described by data collected by the Tribe from reference conditions-except within a mixing zone. In no case will human-introduced heat be permitted when the maximum temperature specified for the water body (66 degrees Fahrenheit for cold water fisheries and 82 degrees Fahrenheit for cool water fisheries) would thereby be exceeded.

Ionic Strength Z Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP


Trend of decline noted by more than 10 years of statistically significant data

Reserved until sufficient data available


Suspended Solids SS Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP


Trend of decline noted by more than 10 years of statistically significant data


Nutrients

Phosphorus P Average Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP

< 15 ug/L 15-16.5 16.5-36 > 36 For Good - Poor, National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010 For Excellent, Wisconsin new Water Quality Standard criteria for two-story fishery lake

Chloro a Average Measurements Following General Chemistry Assessment of Lakes QAPP

<7.56 7.56-12.5 >12.5 National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010

Lake Level

Lake Level Measurements Following LL protocol




Table 10-4. Tribal Water Quality Standards Based Assessment Thresholds Categ

ory

Indicator Assessment Data captured

Water Quality Assessment Thresholds Assessment Thresholds Citation

Numeric and Narrative Criteria from Water Quality Standards Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria All Reservation waters (including wetlands), except as otherwise noted, shall be free from pollutants that cause or contribute to the conditions described below: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Hab

itat

Plants H Following Aquatic Plant Habitat Point Intercept Survey of Lakes QAPP

Below 79.7%, 79.8% - 89.7%, 89.8% - 94.8%, 94.9% - 100%, RESULTS OF THE WISCALM BOTANIST REVIEW PANEL FOR AQUATIC MACROPHYTE IMPAIRMENT

Riparian Zone R Measurements Following Habitat Shoreline Development QAPP

>0.8074 0.8074-0.5906 < 0.5906 National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010

Littoral Zone Measurements Following Habitat Shoreline Development QAPP

>0.7001 0.7001-0.4156 <.4156 National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010

Bacteria Bacteria B Measurements Following

Beach Monitoring QAPP Single sample of Escherichia

coli taken during the sampling period does not exceed 235 cfu/100ml.

Escherichia coli exceeds 235 cfu/100ml only once in the sampling period

Escherichia coli exceeds 235 cfu/100ml multiple times, but never more than the geometric mean of 126 cfu/100ml

Escherichia coli exceeds 235 cfu/100ml multiple times and exceeds the geometric mean of 126 cfu/100ml

Additional General Water Quality Criteria. Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria All Reservation waters (including wetlands), except as otherwise noted, shall be free from pollutants that cause or contribute to the conditions described below:

“Aesthetic qualities of water address the general principles laid down in common law. They embody the beauty and quality of water and their concepts may vary within the minds of individuals encountering the waterway. A rationale for these qualities cannot be developed with quantifying definitions; however, decisions concerning such quality factors can portray the best in the public interest.” US EPA Office of Water Regulation and Standards; Quality Criteria for Water 1986

Additional General Water Quality Criteria. Section 105. Criteria. A. General Water Quality Criteria All Reservation waters (including wetlands), except as otherwise noted, shall be free from pollutants that cause or contribute to the conditions described below:

Aesthetics

Oil & Grease G Report or Complaint from Citizen or Observation of Staff

No Report or Complaint from Citizen or Observation of Staff

One or more Report or Complaint from Citizen or Observation of Staff



(2) Floating or submerged debris, oil, scum or other substance in such amounts as to interfere with designated uses and existing uses on waters of the Reservation.

Taste & Odor O (3) Substances producing color, odor, taste or unsightliness in such amounts as to interfere with designated uses and existing uses on waters of the Reservation.

Turb/Color C Secchi and Turbidity (NTU) are used to inform this section but determination of thresholds is reserved until thresholds are developed

Nuisance Plants V Report or Complaint from Citizen or Observation of Staff

No Report or Complaint from Citizen or Observation of Staff

One or more Report or Complaint from Citizen or Observation of Staff



(5) Water quality that limits the growth and propagation of native vegetation.

Trash /Debris D (1) Substances dispersed in Reservation waters causing objectionable deposits on the shore or in the bed of a water body in such amounts as to interfere with designated uses or existing uses on waters of the Reservation.

Hg Measurement following Hg QAPP

> 0.3 mg/kg mercury in fish tissue

Water Quality Standards numeric criteria



Fish Edibility Fish edibility includes one category: Fish Tissue.

Fish Tissue Category. The assessments for the

fish tissue category reflect the presence of mercury

in fish tissue. Considering the dangers associated

with mercury, all of the lakes have as assessment of

Concern. The water quality standard for mercury is

0.3mg/kg and all of the lakes, larger fish (>18

inches) have mercury >0.3mg/kg, posing a human

health risk.23

Water Quality Summary Presentation and Analysis of Data The Bear River Watershed overall is in very good

condition. The condition of Chemistry, Bacteria, and

Aesthetics for all lakes is Excellent.

The biology category, consisting of the measure of

invasive species and FQI, only has a divergence

from Excellent for the lakes with purple loosestrife

(Flambeau, Moss, and White Sand Lakes). Little

Crawling Stone Lake is the one lake that does not

have purple loosestrife but rates Good due to a

lower FQI. Little Crawling Stone Lake also has a Fair

Habitat condition due to the Riparian and Littoral

Zone assessment. The remainder of the lakes have

a Good condition in the Habitat category.

Nutrient is another category that has lakes diverging

from Excellent. Little Trout Lake Nutrient Category is

Good instead of Excellent most likely due to the

cranberry operation that is on the northern third of

the lake. Moss Lake also has a Good condition due

most likely to a combination of runoff from the

downtown area and the waste water lagoon.

Lastly Fish Tissue Category is a Concern for all

lakes as all lakes have fish with mercury

concentration in fish tissue that is higher than what

is protective for human health.

Each subwatershed has some room for

improvement yet with the level of development in the

watersheds the condition is very good.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR) developed a healthy watershed

assessment titled, Wisconsin Intergraded

Assessment of Watershed Health.24

In this

assessment they looked at the status and

vulnerability of the watershed based on existing data

intended for screening-level assessment. From the

WDNR watershed assessment HUC 70500020201

(Fence Lake Subwatershed) had an Aquatic

Ecosystem Health Index of 70.5 and a Watershed

Vulnerability Index of 59.56 (100 being best health

and most vulnerable). HUC 70500020202

(Flambeau Lake Subwatershed) and HUC

70500020203 (Little Trout) respectively has a value

for Aquatic Ecosystem Health Index of 75.63 and

48.87; and Watershed Vulnerability Index of 61.86

and 62.23. This screening-level assessment reveals

similar overall results in that the watershed is in

good health (over the 50th percentile) but has room

for improvement.

The Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake

Management Plan takes an in-depth, site-specific

look at the three watersheds on a lake-by-lake

subwatershed level to determine priorities for

protection and restoration. The report card reveals

that attention for restoration and protection are in

habitat/shoreline and nutrient health.

Shoreline Development Shoreline development is the primary source of local

pollution. Inappropriate or irresponsible construction

practices lead to increased erosion and

sedimentation. Increases in impervious surface

areas – coupled with decreases in natural shoreline

vegetation – contribute greatly to erosion and loss of

habitat. Increases of erosion and sedimentation lead

to the introduction of unwanted nutrients, and to

turbidity, or cloudiness of the water.



Lakeshore residents are at times tempted to remove

aquatic vegetation and downed trees from the lake.

When this occurs, valuable habitat areas for fish and

other aquatic organisms are lost and conditions

favorable for aquatic invasive species are created.

Most soils in Lac du Flambeau are very porous and

not well suited for the treatment of septic waste,

especially near lake shorelines. Poorly treated septic

waste leads to excessive turbidity, nutrients, and

loss of habitat for native plants, fish, and wildlife.

To reduce anthropogenic nutrients and pathogen

loads – and to restore and maintain aquatic habitats

where commercial and housing developments exist

or will be developed – Tribal Water Resource

Program staff conduct site inspections on all permits

for construction near the water and recommend best

management practices (BMPs) to insure that

construction is completed according to applicable

codes and water quality standards.

Applying control and structural BMPs that provide for

stormwater runoff storage and infiltration reduces

peak flows and volume and filters pollutants, while

enhancing habitat and protecting and preserving

water quality.

The Town of Lac du Flambeau government has a

zoning ordinance for fee property within the

watershed and the Tribe regulates allotted and trust

land with a zoning and shoreline protection

ordinance.25

Enforcement of the shoreline

development code and participation in the “green

sheet” (land management/construction permits)

process helps limit pollution associated with land

development. This information is detailed in the

tribes nonpoint source pollution management plan.26

Nuisance and invasive plants may proliferate under

high nutrient conditions, especially when

exacerbated by shoreline development. Such growth

can devastate a lake ecosystem where the aquatic

plant community is the nursery for fish and other

aquatic animals, a source of oxygen for all

organisms, a refuge for prey as well as foraging area

for predators, and a buffer against erosion and

sediment from waves and shoreline runoff.

Moreover, it can significantly contribute to overall

lake productivity. Fish, especially walleye, are

extremely important to Ojibwe culture and the Lac

du Flambeau way of life, and are dependent on a

healthy aquatic plant community.

The Tribal Natural Resources Department

conducted point intercept surveys on ten lakes in the

Bear River Watershed per the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources point intercept

protocol as adapted by the Tribe and approved by

US EPA in the Tribal QAPP.27

When conducting the point intercept surveys, a rake

was dropped at points marked on a grid. The

distance between the points varied from 50-100 feet,

depending on lake size (see attachments). The

plants brought up on the rake were assessed for

abundance on a 0-3 scale. The substrates were

identified as muck, sand, or rock, and lake depths

were also recorded. The data were then compiled

and transferred to maps which display the most

dominant plant species, plant types (emergent,

submerged, floating leaf plants), and substrates.

Floristic quality index values, described in Section 8,

were established during the plant surveys. Those

values and values for the riparian cover index

(developed under the National Lake Survey) are

shown in Figure 10-7.



The FQI, developed by Dr. Stanley Nichols of the

Wisconsin Geological & Natural History Survey, is a

measure of a plant community’s response to

development and human influence on the lake. It

takes into account the species of aquatic plants

found and their tolerance for changing water quality

and habitat quality. The index uses a conservatism

value assigned to various plants ranging from 1 to

10. A high conservatism value indicates that a plant

is intolerant to disturbance while a lower value

Figure 10-7. Floristic Quality Index and Riparian Cover Index Values for Selected Lakes



indicates tolerance. Therefore, a higher FQI

indicates a healthier aquatic plant community. Those

plants with higher values are less apt to tolerate

water quality and habitat changes due to human

influence.

The riparian cover index is calculated using the

National Lake Survey Habitat Assessment method

developed28

by US EPA. In the riparian cover index,

high values equate with greater riparian cover along

the shoreline. The values present in Figure 10-7 for

riparian cover have been normalized by a

multiplication of 40 so the indices can be placed on

the same scale.

The FQI (health of rooted water plants) and riparian

cover index (health of shoreline plants) are similar

for the lakes in the Bear River Watershed with the

exception of Little Crawling Stone Lake, which has a

greater degree of development, considering its size.

Simpson’s diversity index is a measure of diversity in

a lake’s plant community. (See Figure 10-8). This

value can be from 0 to 1.0; the greater the value, the

more diversity in a lake’s plant community. Diversity

in a lake’s plant community is related directly to the

resiliency of the lake’s overall ecosystem. Figure

10-7 and Figure 10-8 show that aquatic plant

distribution among lakes is fairly consistent and

above the average for the eco-region, with the

exception of Little Crawling Stone Lake.

The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Water Resource

Program monitors lakes for pH, temperature, ionic

strength, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, total

phosphorus, total nitrogen, Chlorophyll a, turbidity,

mercury in fish tissue, and aquatic plant habitat.

Also, three beaches on the chain of lakes are

monitored weekly for E. coli, and seven lakes for

aquatic plant habitat and substrate.

E. coli samples were collected by Tribal water staff

from public swimming beaches in the Bear River

watershed and analyzed by the Vilas County Health

Department certified laboratory. Data have been

collected, managed and interpreted using calibrated

equipment, statistical analysis, and QA/QC

procedures outlined in the beach monitoring

QAPP.29

Figure 10-8. Simpson’s Diversity Index Scores



The Wisconsin’s Citizen Lake Monitoring Network

(CLMN) measures Secchi Depth on many of the

lakes as well as water temperature, dissolved oxygen,

total phosphorus, and Chlorophyll a . Data are

compared to the Tribal water quality standards, land

use data, and data for other waters in the same

ecoregion to determine health of the lakes and

sources of stressors. The data are summarized in the

report cards of lake health (Figure 10-6).

Figure 10-9 illustrates a comparison between

phosphorus and average number of aquatic plant

species per vegetated site. It shows that total lake

phosphorus is likely to influence the number of

plants at suitable depth for rooted vegetation.

Comparisons can also be made between habitat

and the macrophytes, fish, and other aquatic biota.

Human disturbance is measured following the

National Aquatic Resource Survey lakes protocol30

by noting the presence or absence of buildings,

parks, beaches, docks, boats, walls, dikes or

revetments, landfills, trash, roads, power lines, row

crops, pastures, ranges, hayfields, orchards, and

lawns that are within or in sight of the survey plots.

The Tribal water quality standards include narrative

standards on the absence of nuisance aquatic

vegetation. Figure 10-10 implies that people are less

likely to invest in use of the lake by placing

structures close to lakes with more vegetation.

Figure 10-9. Comparison of Photic Zone Vegetation and Total Average Phosphorus for Selected Lakes

Figure 10-10. Comparison of Vegetated Sites vs the National Lake Survey Human Disturbance Index



The Tribal Natural Resources Department is just

beginning to set a baseline for assessing the

absence/presence of nuisance aquatic vegetation.

The intent is to be able to determine whether

increases in specific vegetation are due to the

nature of the plant or because the lake is simply

ecologically more productive than other lakes.

Figure 10-9 shows that total phosphorus is

associated with aquatic vegetation, which could be

managed to reduce nuisance plants.

Surveys to determine public perceptions of lake

quality, and then subsequent juxtaposition of those

perceptions with hard data can reveal whether

specific aquatic plants are indeed a nuisance.

Currently Moss Lake, Pokegema Lake, and

Flambeau Lake are on the upper range of aquatic

vegetation. They are also the lakes associated with

downtown Lac du Flambeau and receive the most

watershed impact. Ecologically, these lakes are also

lower in the landscape/watershed, so the other lakes

ultimately flow through them.

Currently, all lakes assessed for aquatic plant

habitats are attaining water quality goals. Moss Lake

is also impacted by the wastewater treatment lagoon

and is the most productive lake assessed. However,

it maintains dissolved oxygen levels that support a

healthy fish population.

Substrate was also assessed, but there is no index

to assess health of substrate at this time. Therefore,

this information will be used to identify protection of

critical habitat, establish a baseline, and identify

areas of restoration (see specific lake chapters).

Only Pokegama Lake falls below 8mg/l for dissolved

oxygen (DO) in the epilimnion. The lower values were

not found during the early life stage period for cool

water fish present in Lac du Flambeau Lakes.

Pokegama Lake had a DO reading of 7.72 mg/l in the

month of March, but Pokegama Lake is connected to

the chain of lakes, so sturgeon or trout (the two cold

water fish found in Lac du Flambeau Lakes) can find

refuge in other lakes like Flambeau Lake.

Table 10-5. Dissolved Oxygen in mg/l for the Month, Averaged Over the Top Four Meters of the Lake Surface

Lake Jan Feb March May July Aug

Big Crawling Stone Lake

13.6 10.9 10.3 9.3 8.8

Fence Lake 14.3 10.6 13.5 11.3 8.7 8.4

Flambeau Lake 14.3 11.9 10.3 8.8 8.8

Ike Walton Lake 11.7 12.5 8.4


12.0 10.2 10.0 9.1 8.6

Little Trout Lake 13.8 13.1 11.2 9.0 8.4

Long Lake 13.0 9.7 10.9 8.6

Moss Lake 10.8 12.9 10.9 8.4 8.7

Pokegama Lake 11.9 5.4 9.8 9.1 8.4

White Sand Lake 14.3 11.1 9.3 9.3 8.6

Table 10-6. Assessed Waters for Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

Lake OTRW

Acreage

Param

eter

Severity

Source

Big Crawling Stone Lake 1506 DO Fully Supporting

Fence Lake 3487 DO Fully Supporting

Flambeau Lake 1168 DO Fully Supporting

Ike Walton Lake 1423 DO Fully Supporting


186 DO Fully Supporting

Little Trout Lake X 977 DO Fully Supporting

Long Lake 352 DO Fully Supporting

Moss Lake 184 DO Fully Supporting

Pokegama Lake 975 DO Fully Supporting

White Sand Lake 1229 DO Fully Supporting

OTRW = Outstanding Tribal Resource Water

E. coli is measured in the summer at the swimming

beaches to determine the safety of lake water for

recreational purposes (Table 10-7). Pathogens such

as E. coli can cause waterborne illness in bathers

and other recreational users through exposure or

accidental ingestion.



Table 10-7. Data for E. coli (MPN/ml) During the Summer Months of 2012 and 2013

Range

Crawling Stone Lake

(Leech Beach)

Flambeau Lake (Campground

Beach) Pokegema Lake (Casino Beach)

Average 10.1 15 16.7

Minimum 0.0 0 0

Maximum 42.2 139.6 111.2

Median 6.9 9.1 4.1

Fecal contamination of recreational waters may

originate from many sources, including shoreline

development, wastewater collection and treatment

facilities, onsite wastewater treatment (septic)

systems, urban runoff, disposal of human waste

from boats, swimmers themselves, pet wastes, and

natural animal sources such as wildlife. People who

swim and recreate in water contaminated with fecal

pollution are at an increased risk of becoming ill

because of pathogens from the fecal matter. The

Tribal beach monitoring program, in collaboration

with Vilas County, helps to identify contamination so

notification can be given to the public. The beaches

identified to be sampled are areas where the public

congregates for swimming. The beach monitoring

program has three main objectives:

•••• Estimate the current status, trends, and changes

in fecal indicators of the condition of the Tribe’s

high recreational lakes, with a statistical

confidence of 95%, and compare values to

National Lake Survey results, human health data,

and water quality standards.

•••• Determine if bacteriological density exceed a

monthly geometric mean of 126 colony-forming

units (cfus) of Escherichia coli per 100 ml, or a

single sample maximum of 235 cfus of

Escherichia coli /100 ml. Waters will be put on

the impaired waters list if Escherichia coli exceed

this criterion or the approved water quality

standards criteria at the time.

•••• Serve as a means to notify the public of a health

concern at a public beach. Determine if

bacteriological density exceeds a monthly

geometric mean of 126 cfus of Escherichia coli

per 100 ml, or a single sample maximum of 235

cfus of Escherichia coli /100 ml. Notification is

posted to the public if these criteria are

exceeded.

On Pokegama Lake’s public beach there was a one-

time occurrence of the single sample maximum of

235 cfus of Escherichia coli /100 ml exceeded due to

a nesting family of geese in 2011. The beach was

posted and resampled, the casino started picking up

the geese feces and the levels went back down to

normal (Table 10-7).

Table 10-7 and Table 10-8 show that for water

assessed for E. coli did not exceed water quality

thresholds.

Table 10-8. Assessed Waters for E. coli

Lake Shoreline Area O

TRW

Acreage

Pollu

tant

Severity

Source

Big Crawling Stone (Leach) Beach

1506 E. coli Fully Supporting

Pokegama (Casino) Beach

975 E. coli Mostly Supporting

Geese

Flambeau (Campground) Beach

1168 E. coli Fully Supporting

Water temperature, pH, turbidity and ionic strength

are the other parameters collected as part of the

Tribal monitoring strategy31

(Table 10-9). These

parameters are discussed in the water quality

standards in the narrative section. Temperature is

protected in accordance with the standard that “no

measurable variation from natural conditions

described by data collected by the Tribe from

reference conditions-except within a mixing zone. In

no case will human-introduced heat be permitted

when the maximum temperature specified for the

water body (66 degrees Fahrenheit for cold water

fisheries and 82 degrees Fahrenheit for warm water

fisheries) would thereby be exceeded.” Also, pH is

protected at a standard which requires “no



measurable variation from natural conditions

described by data collected by the Tribe from

reference conditions-except within a mixing zone.”

Table 10-9. Data for pH, Temperature, and Turbidity for Larger Lakes in Lac du Flambeau

pH (none) Temperature (F) Turbidity (NTU)

Average 7.3 49.8 2.4

Median 7.3 49.1 0.4

Maximum 8.6 77.5 376.2

Minimum 5.5 32.1 -1.3

Standard Deviation

0.6 13.6 19.0

The pH, temperature, and turbidity are fairly

consistent and do not exceed any water quality

standards. This data will be used to set a baseline

for future permit requests, as the water quality

standards state that for these parameters there

should be “no measurable variation from natural

conditions as described by data collected by the

Tribe.”

Waters assessed for habitat, DO, temperature,

turbidity, and pH did not exceed Tribal water quality

standards. Yet information was gained to assist the

Tribe in issuing and commenting on permits for

future development. Also more data is needed to

compare habitat to biological indicators like, fish,

macro invertebrates, and aquatic vegetation. DO,

temperature, turbidity, and pH will continue to be

measured to establish a good baseline as

development continues.

Mercury contamination is widespread, especially in

larger game fish, e.g. walleye. This phenomenon

can be more problematic in northern Wisconsin

where soft water lakes are predominant, and

conversion of mercury to methylmercury

(bioaccumulative form) is more rapid, resulting in

higher levels of mercury accumulating in fish living in

such lakes. This is of particular concern for the Lac

du Flambeau Tribe, whose members are

subsistence fishers.

Mercury data collected in accordance with the Tribal

mercury QAPP32

were compared to the water quality

standard. Tribal fish consumption advisories are

based on actual concentrations of mercury in fish

tissue (collected in early 1991, 2001, 2007) and

projected mercury levels in fish tissue of different

size classes of fish. The projected mercury levels

were generated using a line of best-fit formula from

data from all years. The ranges of mercury

concentrations are based on new human health

recommendations – an oral reference dose of

0.1 ug/kg-day – published by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. The new reference dose is now

more protective of unborn and developing children.

The data revealed a decrease in mercury in fish

tissue during 1991–2007. Figure 10-11 shows a

general trend of decreasing mercury over the years.

Wisconsin DNR also noted mercury in walleye

decreased 0.5% per year in northern lakes.33

To

develop a conservative fish consumptions advisory,

all years were used in the regression. The fish

consumption guide was created based on the known

human health effects of mercury in blood. US EPA’s

document on fish consumption Guidance for

Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in

Fish Advisories, Volume 2, Risk Assessment and

Fish Consumption Limits (EPA 823-B-97-009), was

followed. A risk level of 10-34

, a human body weight

of 70kg, meal size of 8oz, and a reference dose

(RfD) of 0.0001 mg/kg-day was used to determine

recommendations for the sensitive group (women of

childbearing age and children) and 0.0003mg/kg-day

for other people. The data, when compared to water

quality standards and/or nationally recommended

water quality criteria of 0.3mg/kg, show that five

lakes dropped below the criteria in 2007 (Figure

10-11). Yet the 95% confidence interval still exceeds

the criteria for two of those lakes (large fish over 18

inches). If the 95% confidence interval from one lake

exceeds the criteria then the lakes are listed as a

concern for exceeding the criteria.



The Lac du Flambeau Reservation Lakes when

compared to National Lakes Assessment condition

criteria35

revealed medium human disturbance, but

mostly good habitat. The shoreline human

disturbance index was based on field observations

tallying the presence and proximity of 12 types of

human activities or disturbances at 10 systematically

located shoreline positions (A-J Figure 10-12). As

noted in Figure 10-13, the condition criteria for

human disturbance is a direct reflection of human

alteration of the lakeshore, and shows Lac du

Flambeau Lakes to be higher than the average total

Figure 10-11. Data Trends for Mercury in Fish Tissue for Selected Lakes During 1991–2007

Figure 10-12. Shoreline Positions for Lake Monitoring and Assessment Activities



lakes and the upper Midwest lakes sampled in the

NLA. When compared to the observed vs. expected

values for riparian and littoral cover, Lac du

Flambeau lakes were better than average. Riparian

cover included cover-class estimates of large and

small diameter tree cover in the >5m high vegetation

layer; woody and non-woody vegetation in the mid-

layer (0.5 to 5 m); and woody, non-woody,

inundated, and barren classes in the ground cover

layer (<0.5 m) of the 10 lakeshore plots. Littoral

cover index excludes submerged aquatic

macrophytes, but increases the weighting of floating

and emergent macrophytes in addition to snags as

detailed in the LdF habitat QAPP protocol.36

Figure 10-13. Assessment Comparisons for National, Upper Midwest, and Lac du Flambeau Lakes

The medians for Lac du Flambeau lakes, are higher

(greater) than the expected values for riparian and

littoral cover for the country and upper mid-west

lakes. This means that even though there is

considerable human disturbance in LdF lakes, the

riparian and littoral zones are far better than

expected when compared to lakes across the nation

and the upper mid-west.

The National Lake Survey Report noted that poor

lakeshore habitat is the biggest problem in the

nation’s lakes, with over one-third of the lakes

studied exhibiting poor shoreline condition. This is

important because poor biological health is three

times more likely in lakes with poor lakeshore

habitat, the report concluded.37

Lac du Flambeau

lakes show an above average amount of shoreline

human disturbance but good riparian cover, littoral

cover and in-lake total phosphorus as compared to

the nationally surveyed lakes.

Watershed Impairments and Pollutant Loading Analysis The Flambeau subwatershed (HUC12-

070500020202) includes five lakes in the local area

of study, including Flambeau Lake, Pokegama Lake,

White Sand Lake, Long Interlaken Lake, and Moss

Lake. It also includes many smaller lakes not directly

included in this study. The Flambeau subwatershed

is the terminus subwatershed in our study, with lakes

from the Fence subwatershed flowing into Long

Interlaken from Big Crawling Stone through a

channel.

All lakes in the study area have a direct surface

water connections. White Sand Lake is the highest

lake in the landscape and flows into Pokegama Lake

through Hutton’s Creek. Hutton’s Creek is a natural

creek. A small static (~2 ft of head) manmade dam

was installed in approximately 1915 for logging

purposes. Flambeau Lake receives the flow from

Pokegama Lake, and Long Interlaken Lake through

navigable channels, and Moss Lake flows into Long

Interlaken Lake through a manmade navigable

channel. Long Interlaken Lake is connected to

Crawling Stone Lake through a channel that drains

the Fence Lake subwatershed. Flambeau Lake is

the last lake in the chain of lakes, before cumulative

flows enter the Bear River. The outflow of Flambeau

Lake is controlled by a dam approximately 6 ft high

and 24 ft wide that was installed in 1887 for logging

purposes. Public access to these lakes is located on

the north end of Flambeau Lake at the Tribal

campground and Natural Resource Complex boat

landing and picnic area.

Subwatershed HUC12-070500020201 includes

Fence Lake, Big Crawling Stone Lake, and Little

Crawling Stone Lake. This subwatershed is

dominated by lakes with considerable lakeshore

housing and shoreline modification. The lakes in this

watershed are the highest in the landscape and



receive their water from springs and rain. The lakes

are large, deep, clear, and sandy bottomed.

Subwatershed HUC12-070500020203 includes Ike

Walton Lake and Little Trout Lake. This

subwatershed is dominated by the Powell Marsh, a

12,000 acre peat land complex containing several

wetland types and plant communities that support a

wealth of wildlife.

Each lake in the watershed has been modeled using

the Wisconsin Lake Modeling Suite (WiLMS) model,

a lake water quality-planning tool.38

The WiLMS

model structure is organized into four principal parts,

which include the front-end data, phosphorus

prediction, internal loading, and trophic response.

The model uses an annual time step and predicts

spring overturn, growing season mean, and annual

average total phosphorus concentration in lakes.

The phosphorus prediction portion contains the

13 phosphorus prediction regressions and the

uncertainty analysis routines. The internal load

estimation portion contains four methods to estimate

and bracket a lake’s internal loading. The inputs to

these portions of WiLMS are not saved after each

model run but the output can be saved as a rich text

file or printed out. The trophic response portion of

the program contains two levels of trophic

evaluation, summary and expanded. The summary

portion contains only Wisconsin trophic response

relationships, while the expanded version contains

Wisconsin regressions plus other commonly used

regressions and allows for user defined regressions.39

Model results are displayed in Table 10-10.

Stressors to the lakes include high density urban

development, septic tanks, sewage treatment, and

agricultural loading of total phosphorus – the limiting

nutrient for lake health. Habitat is also stressed by

shoreline development for each of these lakes.

Potential Future Watershed Impairments The Flambeau, Pokegama, Long Interlaken, and

Moss Lake watershed is the most developed

subwatershed in the Bear River Watershed.

Downtown Lac du Flambeau is located at the south

end of Pokegama and the north end of Moss and

Long Interlaken Lakes. Downtown Lac du Flambeau

includes Simpson Electric, Lake of Torches Resort

and Casino, the Tribal Fish Hatchery, Tribal and

Town Government Buildings, the wastewater

treatment lagoon system, a gas station, restaurants,

and local retail business.

To handle polluted runoff – stormwater – from the

Table 10-10. Characteristics and Pollutant Loads and Sources for Selected Lac du Flambeau Lakes

Lake Drainage Area

(acre) Volume (acre-ft)

Residence time (year)

Mean Depth (ft)

Non-point Source

Phosphorus Load (lb)

Point Source Load (lb)

Largest Anthropogenic

Load

Flambeau and Long Interlaken

3377 43277 9.33 28.5 556.6 0 High Density Urban

White Sand 5328 29946 4.42 24.4 742.1 0 Septic Tanks

Pokegama 3118 20542 4.98 19.2 564.5 0 High Density Urban

Moss 1047 1496 1.03 8.1 250.7 1142 Sewage Treatment

Fence 8683 129164 11.01 37.1 943.8 0 Septic Tanks

Big and Little Crawling Stone

3964 47212 8.82 29.8 649.4 0 Septic Tanks

Little Trout 2619 24593 7.02 25.1 674.8 0 Agricultural

Ike Walton 2410 13658 3.94 9.6 293.3 0 Septic Tanks



developing downtown area, the Lac du Flambeau

Tribe, in coordination with surrounding governments

and non-governmental-organizations, partnered in

sponsoring education and proactive green

development to hold the line in water quality as

development boomed.

The Tribe passed lake protection ordinances in

1997, and implemented a green sheet land use

review process for environmental review of all

construction projects happening on Tribal land. This

enabled the tribe to take a proactive approach to

development projects to insure that on-the-ground

best management practices were followed to protect

water quality. This included installing constructed

wetlands and sediment traps for larger projects and

maintaining a 75 foot buffer around all waters where

possible.

The Tribe also installed shoreline restoration

demonstration projects to educate the public and

staff on lake steward techniques. In 1996, the Tribe

held the first of a continuing annual Lakes Fest to

showcase lake protection activities and educate the

public regarding lake protection. Lakes Fest has

been the hallmark of the Tribe’s water protection

program, with over 30 lake protection partners

present during the latest protection activities,

designed as a fun family and community celebration.

Figure 10-6 shows that the majority of the waters in

Lac du Flambeau are in good to excellent quality.

This is because of the protective action the Tribe

and Town have taken over the years. Still with

proactive protection the reservation waters receive

stress from mercury deposition, nutrient loading, and

loss of habitat from development.

Figure 10-14. Shoreline Restoration and Water Sampling Locations for Lac du Flambeau Chain of Lakes

Sources of Impairment Under the Federal Clean Water Act, impaired waters

are waters that do not meet one or more water-

quality standards and are considered too polluted for

their intended uses. For the ten lakes of focus in the

Bear River Watershed Comprehensive Lake

Management Plan, the only standard not being met

is mercury in fish tissue (Figure 10-6).

Lac du Flambeau is home to high quality waters and

all parties work hard to insure protection of the

waters. Even so, there is pollution causing

impairment (Figure 10-15) in the sense that certain

functions are being weakened and if they are not

addressed could lead to non-attainment of

designated uses so critical to a culture closely linked

to the water. (See Section 3)



The three major non-point sources of pollution

leading to impairment within the watersheds are

mercury deposition, shoreland development, and

cranberry operations.

Mercury deposition originates from coal fired electric

utilities and other small source anthropogenic loads.

The closest coal utility is in Wausau, Wisconsin,

eighty miles south of the reservation. At this time the

impairment is quantified based on mercury in fish

tissue (Figure 10-11), but further research needs to

be done to quantify sources of mercury. Mercury

deposition is a complex pollutant as it can be

dispersed over thousands of miles. Watershed-level

estimates of necessary pollution control will be

refined by participating in statewide and national

mercury load reductions.

Development in the watershed is expanding in the

downtown and shoreline areas, increasing over 10%

a year, stressing habitat, septic, and sewage

treatment facilities (Figure 10-15). Table 10-10

shows that the majority of nutrient load is related to

septic, sewage treatment, and development of

impervious areas. Habitat conditions in the outlying

lakes are also declining due to increasing

development, mostly within the near shore area.

Little Trout Lake is the only lake that is not degraded

with lakeshore development, but it has large

agricultural cranberry operations on the northern

third of the lake (Figure 10-15). that contribute to

increased nutrients and habitat degradation. Table

10-3 maps the source of nutrient loads that informed

the WILMS model used to quantify nutrient loads.

Expected Load Reductions from Management Measures

Load reductions for mercury are modeled on a

statewide and national scale. Lac du Flambeau

participates based on comments to national and

statewide rule making, sharing local fish tissue data

for development of TMDL’s (Total Maximum Daily

Loads) for mercury, and by reducing their energy

demand by implementing energy conservation

practices. Proposed management measures are to

continue to comment on national and regional

permits to eliminate new sources of mercury

emission. Management measures along with

technical and financial assistance needs, schedule

and milestones, load reduction criteria, and

monitoring component are detailed in Setting the

Pace (Table 11-3) and detailed prioritized action.

Each lake has its own unique set of stressors – and

its own unique set of responses to those stressors –

as detailed in the subsequent sections. Much of the

management is based on reducing impact from

future development. Lac du Flambeau waters are

very high quality waters and protection is most cost

effective. Setting the Pace details three priority

areas for restoration and load reduction. The

majority of the management measures are ongoing

protective measures as outlined in Section 3, Table

3-1.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the management

measures the Tribe will assess biology, chemistry,

nutrients, habitat, bacteria, aesthetics, and fish

tissue to water quality standards as detailed in

Figure 10-6 to show minimal degradation from

baseline while growth continues. The management

measures are expected to reduce loads by not

increasing loads as Lac du Flambeau develops.

.



Figure 10-15. Sources leading to Impairment



Notes for Section 10 1. http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html.

2. Integrated Resource Management Plan, IRMP.

3. Simulation of Groundwater Flow and Interactions of Groundwater and Surface Water on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation, Wisconsin. Prepared in cooperation with the lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and Indian Health Service. published by U.S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. By Paul F. Juckem, Michael N. Fienen, and Randall J. Hunt: Scientific Investigations Report 2014, Draft.

4. Tribal Water Quality Standards.

5. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, General Chemistry Assessment of Waters within the Lac du Flambeau Reservation 2012 (QAPP) for General Chemistry.

6. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, (QAPP) for Beach Monitoring, 2008.

7. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, (QAPP) Shore land Development Habitat, 2008.

8. Quality Assurance Protection Plan (QAPP) , Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Aquatic Plant Habitat Point Intercept Survey of Lakes for Plants, 2010.

9. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/CLMN/qualityassurance/CLMNQAPP2010.pdf.

10. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/uses.cfm.

11. Results of the WISCALM Botanist Review Panel for Aquatic Macrophyte Impairment.

12. Wisconsin 2012 Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WIS CLAM) for Clean Water Act Section 305(b), 314, and 303(d) Integrated Reporting, April 2012 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/documents/FINAL_2012_WisCALM_04-02-12.pdf.


14. Wisconsin 2012 Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WIS CLAM) for Clean Water Act Section 305(b), 314, and 303(d) Integrated Reporting, April 2012 http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/documents/FINAL_2012_WisCALM_04-02-12.pdf.

15. National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010 Pg 10-12.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Tribal Water Quality Standards.

23. Ibid.

24. Wisconsin Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 2014, EPA 841-R-14-001. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/index.cfm

25. Reservation Water and Shoreline Protection and Enhancement Ordinance. http://www.ldftribe.com/Courts/CHAP23%20Reservation%20Water%20and%20Shoreline%20Protection%20and%20Enhancement%20Ordinance.pdf.

26. Non-point Source Assessment and Management Plan.


28. National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs January 2010 Pg 10-12.

29. Quality Assurance Protection Plan, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, (QAPP) for Beach Monitoring 2008

30. Quality Assurance Protection Plan (QAPP) , Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Aquatic Plant Habitat Point Intercept Survey of Lakes for Plants, 2010.

31. Monitoring strategy.


33. Paul W. Rasmussen, Schrank S., Campfield, C., (2007) Temporal trends of mercury concentrations in Wisconsin walleye (Sander vitreus), 1982–2005, 27 July 2007; Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007.


35. National Lakes Assessment: Technical Appendix, Data Analysis Approach; Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs, January 2010, Pg 10-12.


37. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/CLMN/qualityassurance/CLMNQAPP2010.pdf

38. http://dnr.wi.gov/lakes/Model/WiLMSDocumentation.pdf Wisconsin Lake Modeling Suite Program Documentation and User’s Manu, Version 3.3 for Windows Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, October 2003, PUBL-WR-363-94 Natural Resources Board, Nutrients.

39. Ibid.

Figures Figure 10-1. Conceptual Drawing of a Watershed ........... 10-1

Figure 10-2. Hydraulic Unit Nesting Configuration for Lac du Flambeau Waterbodies ............................ 10-2

Figure 10-3. Bear River Watershed and Subwatersheds showing Land use Type .............. 10-3



Figure 10-4. Sub-basin with Flow Direction in relation to the Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation Waters ................................................................. 10-5

Figure 10-5. Flow Obstructions and Channels ................ 10-6

Figure 10-6. Color-Coded Water Quality Condition Report Card ......................................................... 10-7

Figure 10-7. Floristic Quality Index and Riparian Cover Index Values for Selected Lakes ............. 10-14

Figure 10-8. Simpson’s Diversity Index Scores ............. 10-15

Figure 10-9. Comparison of Photic Zone Vegetation and Total Average Phosphorus for Selected Lakes ................................................................. 10-16

Figure 10-10. Comparison of Vegetated Sites vs the National Lake Survey Human Disturbance Index ................................................................. 10-16

Figure 10-11. Data Trends for Mercury in Fish Tissue for Selected Lakes During 1991–2007 ............... 10-20

Figure 10-12. Shoreline Positions for Lake Monitoring and Assessment Activities ................................. 10-20

Figure 10-13. Assessment Comparisons for National, Upper Midwest, and Lac du Flambeau Lakes .... 10-21

Figure 10-14. Shoreline Restoration and Water Sampling Locations for Lac du Flambeau Chain of Lakes .................................................. 10-23

Figure 10-15. Sources leading to Impairment ............... 10-25

Tables Table 10-1. Hydrologic Unit Code Classification

Descriptions ......................................................... 10-1

Table 10-2. Hydraulic Summary for Selected Lac du Flambeau Subwatersheds ................................... 10-4

Table 10-3. Relevant Hydraulic Budget Data for Each Study Lake3 ......................................................... 10-4

Table 10-4. Tribal Water Quality Standards Based Assessment Thresholds .................................... 10-10

Table 10-5. Dissolved Oxygen in mg/l for the Month, Averaged Over the Top Four Meters of the Lake Surface ..................................................... 10-17

Table 10-6. Assessed Waters for Dissolved Oxygen (DO) .................................................................. 10-17

Table 10-7. Data for E. coli (MPN/ml) During the Summer Months of 2010 and 2011 .................... 10-18

Table 10-8. Assessed Waters for E. coli ....................... 10-18

Table 10-9. Data for pH, Temperature, and Turbidity for Larger Lakes in Lac du Flambeau ................ 10-19

Table 10-10. Characteristics and Pollutant Loads and Sources for Selected Lac du Flambeau Lakes .. 10-22

about watershed assessmentcetg.weebly.com/.../3/9/7/0/39707378/1.9.15_s10_watershed_assess… ·...

Documents