Download Wisconsin Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health PDF

TitleWisconsin Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health
File Size9.3 MB
Total Pages111
Table of Contents
                            Front Cover
Table Of Contents
List of Tables
List of Figures
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
	1.1 Purpose and Intended Use
	1.2 The Healthy Watersheds Initiative
	1.3 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
	1.4 Overview of Wisconsin’s Ecoregions
2 Methods Overview
	2.1 Healthy Watersheds Assessment Process
	2.2 Conceptual Framework
	2.3 Spatial Framework
	2.4 Landscape Condition Metrics and Data Sources
		Percent Natural Land Cover
		Percent Intact Active River Area
		Percent Hubs & Corridors
		Percent Wetlands Remaining
	2.5 Aquatic Ecosystem Health Metrics and Data Sources
		Hydrologic Condition Metrics
		Habitat Condition/Geomorphology Metrics
		Water Quality Metrics
		Biological Condition Metrics
	2.6 Aquatic Invasive Species Metrics and Data Sources
	2.7 Watershed Vulnerability Metrics and Data Sources
		Climate Change Vulnerability Metrics
		Land Use Vulnerability Metrics
		Water Use Vulnerability Metrics
	2.8 Metric Rank-Normalization
	2.9 Index Development
3 Results & Discussion
	3.1 Landscape Condition
	3.2 Aquatic Ecosystem Health
	3.3 Aquatic Invasive Species
	3.4 Watershed Vulnerability
	3.5 Assumptions & Limitations
4 Next Steps & Applications
	4.1 Assessment Applications
	4.2 Recommendations for Future Updates
5 References
Appendix A Map Atlas
	A1 Landscape Condition
	A2 Aquatic Ecosystem Health
	A3 Aquatic Invasive Species
	A4 Watershed Vulnerability
Appendix B Metric Modeling
	B1 Introduction
	B2 Methods
		Preparation of Response Data
		Preparation of Predictor Data
		Model Development
		Model Evaluation
	B3 Results & Discussion
Appendix C Active River Area Delineation
Back Cover
Document Text Contents
Page 1


ort on the Status and Vulnerability of
Watershed Health in Wisconsin

March 2014

A Rep

Page 2



March 2014

EPA 841-R-14-001

Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Support for this project was provided by the US EPA Healthy Watersheds Initiative


The information presented in this document is intended to support screening level assessments of watershed
protection priorities and is based on modeled and aggregated data that may have been collected or
generated for other purposes. Results should be considered in that context and do not supplant site-specific
evidence of watershed health or vulnerability.

At times, this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions, which contain legally binding
requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation
itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized tribes, or the public
and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or
product endorsement purposes.

Cover photos courtesy of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Left: Turtle-Flambeau Scenic Waters
Area in Iron and Pierce Counties; Upper Right: Devil’s Lake in Sauk County; Lower Right: Bad River in Ashland

Page 55


This Appendix contains full page maps for all metrics, indices, and sub-indices of watershed health and

The following guidelines were used for map development:

 Maps display rank-normalized metric or index scores and therefore depict relative conditions. For
reference, summary statistics for watershed health and vulnerability metrics are provided in Table 6;

 Maps were created using 10 equal-interval color classes. Because scores are rank-normalized, these
classes generally correspond to deciles;

 To ease interpretation, maps display metrics in their original directionality (see Table 4) rather than
directionally aligned scores used for index calculations. For example, areas labeled as having “high”
road crossing density scores in Figure 24 correspond to areas with a high density of road crossings.
The inverse of these scores (1-x) were used to calculate the Aquatic Ecosystem Health Index so that a
higher road crossing density contributed to a lower Aquatic Ecosystem Health Index score.


Metric Name Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Percent Natural Land Cover 0% 56% 58% 100%
Percent Intact Active River Area 0% 59% 68% 100%
Percent Hubs & Corridors 0% 28% 0% 100%
Percent Wetlands Remaining 0% 70% 76% 100%
Streamflow Ecochange 0% 11% 9% 60%
Stream Patch Size (meters) 0 1,198,902 378,163 7,630,500
Canal/Ditch Density 0% 3% 0% 100%
Road Crossing Density (#/mi2) 0 6E-041 6E-041 0.02
Stream Total Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L) 0.012 0.092 0.074 1.641
Stream Nitrate-Nitrite Concentration (mg/L) 1E-112 1.3 0.5 24.9
Stream Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/L) 2.0 12.7 8.8 372
Lake Water Clarity (ft) 0.1 5.7 5.5 26.8
Projected Absolute Change in Surface Runoff (mm) 5E-043 0.029 0.0 12.5
Projected Change in Total Phosphorus Yield (lbs/mi2) -6.3 11.8 9.7 59.8
Projected Change in Total Nitrogen Yield (lbs/mi2) -110.1 174.4 151.1 832.6
Projected Change in Total Suspended Solids Yield

-1,079.9 3,948.6 3,164.1 19,763.6

Projected Change in Anthropogenic Land Cover 0% 0.2% 0% 69%
Percent Protected Lands 0% 15% 0% 100%
Groundwater Dependency Index 0 0.2 0.2 0.7
Groundwater Withdrawal Volume
(thousands of gallons)

530 49,291 22,294 2,071,729

Surface Water Withdrawal Volume
(thousands of gallons)

402 1,212,506 172,767 90,532,646

1 6E-04 = 6 x 10-4 2 1E-11 = 1 x 10-11 3 5E-04 = 5 x 10-4

Page 56


Page 110


 ARA Step 2: Reclass Cost Distance Surface

o This step classified the cost distance grids produced from Step 1 into binary classes. We used
thresholds of 75, 150, and 300 for headwaters, medium-sized rivers, and large rivers,

 ARA Step 3: Create Moisture Index to Build Wetflats

o This step used the flow accumulation and slope rasters created in Step 1 to generate a moisture
index. No adjustments were made to default tool settings.

 ARA Step 4: Option A – Refine Wetflats and Add to Base Riparian Zones

o This step used the moisture index created in Step 3 to create a wetflat grid. No adjustments
were made to default tool settings.

 ARA Step 5: Generate Non-Headwater Material Contribution Zones and Add to Wetflats and Base
Riparian Zones

o This step added material contribution zones adjacent to flowlines to the ARA. No adjustments
were made to default tool settings.

Page 111

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (4503T)
Washington, D.C. 20460

Similer Documents