Indians of Wisconsin
Tribal code
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
St. Croix Chippewa
Indians of Wisconsin
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
Draft – May 2026
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 3
Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Land Ownership and Designation ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Governance and Management ........................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Key Water Information ........................................................................................................................ 8
2.4 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.5 Public Review Process...................................................................................................................... 12
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Field Data Collection and Timeframes .............................................................................................. 16
3.2 Current Water Quality Efforts ............................................................................................................ 19
3.3 Other Data ......................................................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Long-Term Needs and Objectives .................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Quality Assurance and Data Management, Analysis, & Assessment .............................................. 29
Land Use Summary .................................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Climate .............................................................................................................................................. 30
4.2 Land Use/Land Cover ....................................................................................................................... 32
Surface and Ground Water Quality Summary and Results ........................................................................ 41
5.1 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 42
Upper St. Croix HUC8 07030001 ........................................................................................................ 43
Lower St. Croix HUC8 07030005 ........................................................................................................ 57
5.2 Summary of Water Quality Data ....................................................................................................... 59
Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 60
Upper St. Croix HUC8 07030001 ............................................................................................................ 60
Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12 (070300010501) ............................................................................. 60
Big Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010502 ......................................................................... 62
Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010504.............................................................................. 62
Loon Creek HUC12 070300010505 .................................................................................................... 63
Buffalo Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010506 ............................................................................. 64
Bashaw Brook HUC12 070300010802 ............................................................................................... 65
Sand Creek HUC12 070300010803 ................................................................................................... 65
Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12 070300010904 .................................................................................. 66
Black Brook-Clam River HUC12 070300010906 ................................................................................ 67
Hay Creek-Saint Croix River HUC12 070300011202 ......................................................................... 67
2|Page
Lower St. Croix HUC8 07030005 ............................................................................................................ 68
Straight River HUC12 070300050702 ................................................................................................ 68
Sediment and Nitrogen Recommendations ............................................................................................ 69
Selection of NPS BMPs .............................................................................................................................. 70
7.1 Key Partners for BMP Selection ....................................................................................................... 70
7.2 Existing BMPs ................................................................................................................................... 71
7.3 Future BMP Selection ....................................................................................................................... 72
Existing NPS Control Programs .................................................................................................................. 73
8.1 Available Programs for Controlling NPS Pollution ............................................................................ 73
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 78
References .................................................................................................................................................. 79
Appendix A: Public Response Summary .................................................................................................... 81
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BIA
BMP
CWA
ENRD
HSG
HUC8
HUC10
HUC12
mg/L
NPS
POWTS
QAPP
SWCD
TAS
TP
mg/L
USACE
USDA
USFS
USFWS
WIDNR
WRWAM
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Best Management Practice
Clean Water Act
Environmental and Natural Resources Department
Hydrologic Soil Group
8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
10-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code
Milligrams Per Liter
Nonpoint Source
Private Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Soil and Water Conservation District
Treatment as a State
Total Phosphorus
Milligrams Per Liter
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Rapid Wetland Assessment Methodology
3|Page
Overview
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution delivers pollutants to surface waters from diffuse origins rather
than from one or more discernible point sources. NPS pollution is often the result of runoff from
precipitation and activities on the landscape, such as development and farming, as well as
stressors, such as habitat alteration, dams, or channelization. Eroding lake shores and
streambanks, internal loading of nutrients from lakes, atmospheric deposition, and private onsite
wastewater treatment system (POWTS; e.g., septic systems) discharges are also examples of
NPSs.
This NPS assessment report for the St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (St. Croix)
analyzes NPS challenges and opportunities for tribal waters with emphasis on St. Croix trust
waters that will be included in the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 518(e) Treatment in a Similar
Manner as a State (TAS) application for a CWA Section 319 program. This report addresses the
statutory requirement for an NPS assessment report and will provide background information for
development of an approvable Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 NPS management program
plan for these tribal waters. In order to qualify for CWA Section 319 funding, a Tribe must meet
four criteria (USEPA 2010):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Be a federally recognized Tribe
Complete an approved CWA Section 319(a) NPS assessment report
Complete an approved CWA Section 319(b) NPS management program
Be CWA Section 518(e) approved for Treatment in a Similar Manner as a State
(“treatment as a state” or TAS)
This assessment report will serve to summarize existing data, identify sources of NPS
pollutants, and serve as the basis for targeting reductions of NPS pollution on St. Croix lands.
Through partnerships, future program expansion, and the completion of a Section 319 NPS
management plan, the Nation will focus on activities that will result in improved water quality.
This report addresses each of the Section 319 requirements for an NPS Assessment Report
(Table 1).
Table 1: Section 319 Requirements for Nonpoint Source Assessments
Section 319 Requirement
Section of Assessment
Document Addressing
the Section 319
Requirement
Section 319 (a)(1) - Opportunity for public comment.
Section 2.5
Section 319(a)(1)(A) - Identification of those navigable waters within the
Reservation which, without additional action to control nonpoint sources of
pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable
water quality standards or the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act.
Section 5
4|Page
Section 319(a)(1)(B) - Identification of those categories and subcategories of
nonpoint sources or, where appropriate, nonpoint sources which add
significant pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified under
subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not meeting
such water quality standards or such goals and requirements.
Section 6
Section 319(a)(1)(C) - Description of the process, including
intergovernmental coordination and public participation, for identifying Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
Section 7
Section 319(a)(1)(D) - Identification and description of existing programs for
controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to, and improving the
quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters, including but not limited
to those programs which are receiving Federal assistance under subsections
(h) and (i).
Section 8
5|Page
Introduction
The St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin acquired reservation status in 1854 and became
federally recognized in 1934. St. Croix tribal lands consist of separate (noncontiguous)
communities in northwest Wisconsin mainly located in Barron, Burnett, and Polk Counties, with
small portions in Washburn and Pierce Counties). The four major St. Croix Tribal communities
are Sand Lake, Danbury, Round Lake, and Maple Plain. Reservation lands occupy
approximately 6,423 acres, with tribal headquarters located in the Burnett County reservation
community of Big Sand Lake, near the unincorporated village of Hertel. Current tribal enrollment
is approximately 1984 members.
Table 2: St. Croix land area
County
Total Land
(mi2)
St. Croix Land
(mi2)
Percentage of Total
St. Croix Territory
Burnett
880
5.998
59.77%
Polk
956
3.279
32.68%
Barron
890
0.748
7.45%
Washburn
853
0.008
0.08%
Pierce
592
0.002
0.02%
2.1 Land Ownership and Designation
Current tribal ownership of the 6,423-acre St. Croix territory is 3,974 acres held in fee-simple by
the tribe and the remaining 2,449 acres held in Trust by the United States for the benefit of the
tribe. Trust lands are currently located in Burnett, Polk, and Barron counties. While the tribe’s
Section 106 program applies only to trust lands, upstream fee simple lands could also qualify for
BMP implementation if they are identified as sources of water quality impairment to trust lands
and demonstrate a nexus to trust lands.
6|Page
Figure 1: St. Croix tribal land designations
2.2 Governance and Management
The St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin is a federally recognized tribe governed by a fivemember Tribal Council publicly elected for staggered four-year terms. The Tribal Council
consists of a Chairman, Vice-Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and two Community Representatives
and is responsible for the general welfare of tribal members and the management of day-to-day
tribal business. It serves as a communication tool between Federal, State, and local
governments. The St. Croix Tribal Court handles judiciary matters involving child welfare, St.
Croix Tribal Natural Resource offenses, St. Croix Chippewa Housing disputes, and civil cases.
The St. Croix Tribal Environmental and Natural Resources Department (ENRD) manages
programs including water quality monitoring, indoor air quality monitoring, walleye and sturgeon
restoration, wild rice management, recycling, and examining lands potentially containing
hazardous substances. They also oversee the tribal General Assistance Program and
management of tribal Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, which help inform
7|Page
watershed-based planning and implementation. The ENRD is responsible for developing and
implementing the tribe’s surface water quality program which has been in place since 1996.
Their Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 106 program has historically monitored water quality of
tribal streams, wetlands, and lakes at up to 18 monitoring stations, although only 8 stations are
currently monitored on a rotating basis due to funding and capacity limitations. Monitoring
includes samples and measurements for water chemistry, biology (phytoplankton and
chlorophyll-a), and turbidity. An abbreviated organizational chart showing the Environmental and
Natural Resources Department is below:
Figure 2: St. Croix organizational chart
The ENRD has also delineated, mapped, and classified wetland resources on tribal trust land.
This information is valuable for future land-use planning so these resources can be protected
and continue to provide for the tribal community. The program also implements and/or oversees
projects that will improve or protect water quality on tribal waters, such as the installation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs); storm-water management; upland/wetland habitat restoration
and projects to improve in-stream habitat.
2.3 Key Water Information
Water resources are a vital part of the St. Croix culture, and all St. Croix Chippewa communities
are found near either lakes or rivers. Lakes within tribal lands provide wild rice, which is an
integral part of tribal culture, and the St. Croix River Basin is also an important resource for
tourism. The St. Croix Tribe believes water resource protection is critical to ensure a healthy
environment for all that use the water. Due to the scattered land base of the St. Croix, their
lands include acreage in the Lower St. Croix, Upper St. Croix, and Red Cedar HUC8 watershed
units, as shown on the below map.
8|Page
Figure 3: St. Croix tribal lands and associated HUC8 watershed units
The Upper St. Croix (07030001) and Lower St. Croix (07030005) HUC8s are within the
Wisconsin DNR’s St. Croix Basin Water Management Units, while the Red Cedar (07050007)
HUC8 is within WI DNR’s Lower Chippewa Watershed Management Unit. The St. Croix WMU is
characterized by its abundant streams, lakes, and wetlands and associated forests, making it a
popular tourism destination as well as location to live. The Lower Chippewa WMU contains
more rare species and native prairie than any area of similar size in the state (WIDNR, 2026),
protected by a tradition of land stewardship under the Lower Chippewa River State Natural
Area.
St. Croix trust water resources include portions of large lakes (Clam Lake, Big Sand Lake,
Round Lake, Sand Lake, Rice Lake, Bashaw Lake, and Gaslyn Lake) with total acreages shown
in the below table. Approximately 3 miles of rivers (Yellow River, St. Croix River) and creeks
(Loon Creek, Gaslyn Creek) are located on trust lands.
9|Page
Table 3: Key trust lakes
Name
Total Acres
County
HUC12
Clam Lake
1743.7 Burnett
Clam Lake-Clam River
Big Sand Lake
1466.7 Burnett
Big Sand Lake-Yellow River
Round Lake
1049.9 Polk
Straight River
Sand Lake
335.2 Barron
Sand Creek
Rice Lake
331.9 Burnett
Rice Lake-Yellow River
Bashaw Lake
172.8 Burnett
Bashaw Brook
Gaslyn Lake
165.6 Burnett
Sand Lake-Yellow River
St. Croix trust lands include an estimated 473 acres of wetlands delineated, classified, and
mapped. Wetlands are considered a valuable and critical water resource to the St. Croix people,
and a wetland site was previously included in the ENRD’s Section 106 water quality monitoring
program, but monitoring has not been continued due to financial constraints.
Figure 4: Key trust lakes and associated stream resources
10 | P a g e
2.4 Goals and Objectives
The St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin are striving to assess, protect, and restore water
quality within and adjacent to the St. Croix Reservation and territory. It is the goal of the St.
Croix to reestablish waters of the reservation to more closely resemble pre-European settlement
conditions. Non-point sources in the watershed continue to release pollutants into the tributaries
and the lakes, and changes in forestry practices and agriculture are priority water quality
concerns. Tribal leaders and members are keenly interested in assessing on a continuing basis
the impacts of these pollutants and the chemical and biological quality of the waters.
The St. Croix need continuing information regarding water quality conditions of the reservation
and the surrounding territory to maintain and understand the water quality within the reservation
and determine if it supports the needs of the tribal community. Initial phases of water quality
monitoring were conducted by a cooperative agreement between the St. Croix and the USGS to
document current water quality and data gaps in baseline data. Currently, the St. Croix is
rotationally monitoring four lakes and four river sections per year between three different
counties, and their Section 106 budget has either remained static or decreased over the past 26
years. More funding is sorely needed to boost staffing and time to increase monitoring
frequency and locations. To that end, the St. Croix has identified the following objectives to
meet these goals:
●
●
●
●
●
●
Establish a baseline of surface water quality on selected tribal lands to identify waters
that cannot meet or maintain water quality goals or thresholds for nutrients, bacteria, and
sediment without control of NPS pollution; the state of Wisconsin water quality standards
have been adopted by the St. Croix as interim water quality goals until such a time that
St. Croix water quality standards are implemented.
Determine extent to which surface water quality is changing over time related to NPS
pollutants including nutrients, bacteria, and sediment.
Identify problem areas with poor surface water quality and/or the potential to degrade
surface water quality stemming from NPS pollution and the causes and sources of those
pollutants.
Identify those tribal waters meeting water quality goals and thresholds to identify if
protection measures are needed and at what level.
Continue and expand current monitoring and reevaluation as necessary.
Expand staff monitoring capacity by hiring additional field technicians.
Information regarding water quality will be used in determining trends in water quality and inform
where implementation of restoration activities will be beneficial, to compare and add current
water quality data to baseline/historical conditions and provide data to assess water resources.
This NPS Assessment Report identifies the nature, extent, and effect of NPS pollution for tribal
waters in the St. Croix lands, as well as the sources of such pollution. The assessment
11 | P a g e
evaluates water quality monitoring data and information from various sources and categorizes
NPS pollution sources for those individual waters identified as needing control of NPS pollution.
In addition, this report discusses how the St. Croix will identify best management practices
(BMPs) needed to control NPS pollution on tribal lands and describes existing tribal, state,
federal, and other programs that could provide support for BMP implementation.
2.5 Public Review Process
The St. Croix Tribal Environmental and Natural Resources Department hosted a series of public
meetings in February 2026 to seek feedback for the Assessment Report development.
During the community meetings, presentations covered necessary background information on
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and explained the basics of nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution. The discussion focused on different types of BMPs, with information boards showing
photo examples of the BMPs that were described in the presentations. Following the
presentations, the meetings became open forums where people could share their specific, local
concerns about NPS pollution. Common problems brought up included fertilizer runoff near local
lakes, soil erosion, and ongoing drainage issues in their areas.
Feedback was gathered via written surveys completed by participants after the presentations.
To maximize the response rate, these surveys were also distributed at three additional
community events held during the same week as the meetings. Overall, thirty-one complete
written surveys were collected; survey responses are included in Appendix A.
The survey was designed to see what people knew, how they felt, and what their priorities were
about water quality and managing resources. The six main questions were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Do you think water quality is a problem where you live?
How do you use your water resources?
Do you think local water needs to be protected or made better?
What do you think is the biggest danger to water quality?
What kinds of BMPs have you seen in your community?
How has land use changed over the last 20 years?
The survey results gave clear insights into what the community thinks about water quality. More
than half of the people (51%) said water quality was a very high or high concern. When it came
to water use, the community mostly said they use it for recreation—like fishing or as a food
source harvesting wild rice—making up 75% of responses. A large majority (over 71%) felt that
while water is being managed, there is a need for more proactive steps and improvements.
Identifying what threatens water quality brought up a variety of important concerns. While the
answers were spread out a bit, agricultural runoff, which causes too many nutrients and algal
blooms, was named by the largest group, with 65% calling it the biggest threat. Other serious
threats included worries about failing septic systems, too much soil erosion or land loss (50% of
people), and new contaminants. Contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals, were the top concern
12 | P a g e
for almost 52% of the respondents, showing people are becoming more aware of potential
pollution sources.
The survey also captured the community's interest in specific types of BMPs, which were evenly
split across three main groups. The St. Croix will use these survey results and community input
to help choose which BMPs to put into action. The community showed interest in the following
NPS focus areas:
●
●
●
Agricultural BMPs: Minimizing herbicide applications, cover crops or vegetative buffers
Water Resource BMPs: Stream or lake restoration, maintenance of dams or removal of
infrastructure
Forestry BMPs: Planned harvesting, road management and fire management
In the end, the engagement process clearly showed that the tribal community is deeply worried
about local water quality and strongly supports taking action to improve and protect these vital
resources, including development of the Assessment Report and subsequent Management
Plan. As part of the Section 319 (a)(1) opportunity for public comment, the draft Assessment
Report will be posted on the St. Croix website with an invitation to provide feedback.
Figure 5: One of the information boards used during public events
13 | P a g e
Methodology
The St. Croix Tribal Environmental and Natural Resources Department (ENRD) has been
managing the US EPA CWA Section 106 Program since they became eligible in 1996. The St.
Croix monitoring program includes the following surface water collection methodologies:
Lakes
Lake sampling consists of collecting seven (7) field parameters every month over a sevenmonth period (April – October) and seven (7) lab samples in June, July, and August at one
sample location on each of the four lakes. In the winter months between December and March,
only the seven (7) field parameters are collected. Sample locations are located using GPS
equipment. Preservatives are provided by the lab if needed for samples and samples are stored
in coolers with ice. Samples must be received by the lab within 48 hours.
Nutrient samples are collected using the “Grab-Sampling” method approximately 0.5 meters
from the surface and 0.5 meters from the bottom at the deepest point of each lake (Saad, D.A.
et al, USGS, 2000). Nitrogen series parameters are sampled once during each sampling
season; usually in July or August, and will be collected as a “grab sample” 0.5 meters from the
surface of the water. Samples will be collected with a non-metallic horizontal sampling bottle.
Other parameters collected include chlorophyll-a, orthophosphorus, total phosphorus, alkalinity
and phytoplankton (Clam Lake only).
General water characteristics are sampled at each sample location each month and consist of:
TDS, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, secchi depth, temperature, and specific conductance.
TDS, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and specific conductance samples are
measured every month at each sample location using a Hydrolab HL4. These meters measure
these characteristics at 2.0-foot intervals from 2.0 feet below the surface to 2.0 feet above the
bottom for lakes less than 30 feet deep. For lakes deeper than 30 feet, staff perform depthintegrated measurements at 2-foot intervals for the first 10 feet, then 5-foot intervals after 10
feet. Each multi-meter records and saves the data for each point on its internal memory. Data is
also then transcribed to a field form for each station. All data is entered into the tribe’s internal
database in an excel file.
Streams
Stream sampling consists of collecting eight (8) field parameters monthly over a seven-month
period (April – October) at four sample locations on four streams/rivers hydrologically connected
to Tribal waters. GPS equipment is used to identify each sample location. Permission from
landowners is obtained prior to sampling. A single “grab sample” is collected for lab
measurements near the middle of the stream channel at a uniform location. Field data is
collected in the same location in the upper 40% of the water column. Samples are collected with
a non-metallic horizontal sampling bottle. Parameters such as total nitrogen, phytoplankton,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen, chlorophyll a, sulfate, total phosphorus, and orthophosphate are sampled
as indicated in the current 106 work plan table, shown in Table 5. Preservatives are provided by
14 | P a g e
the lab if needed for samples and samples are stored in coolers with ice. Samples must be
received by the lab within 48 hours.
Field parameters sampled at each sample location consist of: TDS, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
pH, transparency tube, temperature, and specific conductance and are measured every month
at each sample location using a Hydrolab HL4. Data is transcribed to a field form for each
station. Lastly, data is entered into the tribe’s internal database in an excel file. Each sample
location is numerically identified as a sample station accompanied by independent sample
station files.
Wetlands
The Tribe has mapped existing wetlands on trust lands and built the data into a GIS. Wetlands
were classified by the Cowardin system used by USFWS (FGDC, 2013). Detailed classification
information is included in 4.2, Land Use/Land Cover. Past wetland monitoring occurred in 2011
at one site due to potential concerns from WWTP discharges and included all lake and stream
parameters except for secchi-depth transparency and water column profiling. Wetland
monitoring currently occurs only on a need-by-need basis but could be developed into a more
robust program that includes biological monitoring of wetland conditions with increased funding
support.
Figure 6: Mapped wetlands on SCCIW trust land
15 | P a g e
3.1 Field Data Collection and Timeframes
Up to 24 field stations have been identified for water quality monitoring by the St. Croix, with 18
stations monitored non-concurrently between 2001-2025 under the Section 106 program. Due
to financial constraints, only 8 stations are currently being monitored under the Section 106
program. Below is a table of all Section 106 monitoring stations and their years monitored.
Table 4: Section 106 monitoring station locations and timeframes
Currently
Sampled
Type
Site Name
Station Name
Years Monitored
River
Yellow River - North
SCT_01_YRN
2001-2010, 2012-2015
No
River
Loon Creek
SCT_02_LC
2001-2010, 2012-2016
No
River
Yellow River - South
SCT_03_YRS
2001-2010
No
Lake
Gaslyn Lake
SCT_04_GL
2001-2010, 2012-2025
Yes
Lake
Big Sand Lake
SCT_07_BSL
2001-2011, 2015-2016,
2019-2020, 2025
Yes
Lake
Bashaw Lake
SCT_09_BL
2001-2010, 2015-2018,
2021-2022
No
Lake
Sand Lake - Maple Plain SCT_11_SL
2001-2011, 2017-2018,
2023-2024
No
Lake
Clam Lake
SCT_16_CL
2001-2011, 2015-2025
Yes
River
Clam River - Lynch
Bridge
SCT_18_CRLB
2001-2011, 2015-2025
Yes
River
Yellow River - County H SCT_20_YRH
2004-2010, 2017-2018
No
Lake
Yellow Lake
SCT_21_YL
2004-2010
No
River
Clam Lake - Pike Bend
SCT_24_CRPB
2004-2011, 2015-2025
Yes
River
St. Croix River
SCT_25_SCR
2004-2010
No
Wetland Ballfield
SCT_26_BALL
2011
No
Creek
Gaslyn Creek
SCT_28_GC
2012-2025
Yes
River
Straight River - North
SCT_13A_SRN
2001-2014
No
River
Straight River - South
SCT_13B_SRS
2008-2014, 2019-2025
Yes
Lake
Big Round Lake
SCT_15_BRL
2001-2014, 2019-2025
Yes
St. Croix surface water monitoring program includes field measurement and laboratory analysis
of chemical water quality parameters and biological monitoring. The St. Croix Environmental
and Natural Resources Department maintains and updates the monitoring data as more
information is collected. Publicly available monitoring data can be accessed through the U.S.
16 | P a g e
Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Monitoring Portal at
https://www.waterqualitydata.us/provider/STORET/STCROIX_WQX/. Monitoring results are
discussed in more detail in Section 5, Surface and Groundwater Quality. Figure 5 below shows
the locations of past and present St. Croix Section 106 water quality monitoring stations.
Figure 7: Past and present Section 106 monitoring stations
Field measurements are taken by St. Croix staff and consist of analyzing the following
parameters: conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, turbidity, depths, transparency
tube readings, and secchi depth transparency. The Land and Water Resources Manager and
the Field Technician are responsible for calibrating and testing field equipment as directed by
the equipment’s manufacturer. The Land and Water Resources Manager and the Field
Technician are also responsible for following the recommended laboratory standard operating
procedures for ordering and storing sample bottles, sample collection, holding, and shipping of
the samples. A contracted laboratory is responsible for analyzing phosphorus, orthophosphorus,
nitrogen series, total suspended solids, alkalinity, sulfate, chlorophyll-a, and phytoplankton.
Stations are in a rotation chosen every two years. Stations are prioritized due to important
resources like a significant fishery, wild rice health, or if there are issues occurring such as a
chemical treatment, erosion and/or sedimentation issues, a potential threat that may arise, or
projects like dam reconstruction. If no issues are known, the rotation is random. The current
rotation of stations and timeframes, along with collection parameters, is shown below.
17 | P a g e
Table 5: Schedule and parameters for 2023-2028 surface water sampling
Month of Collection
Parameters
Remarks
Apr May
June
July
Aug
Total Phosphorous
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Total Nitrogen
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Phytoplankton
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Dissolved oxygen,
pH, temperature,
specific
conductance,
turbidity, TDS,
Secchi Depth
All
All
All
All
All
Sep Oct
0-0.5 meters from the
surface
All
Vertical profiles are
defined by measuring
the five parameters
from two feet below
the lake surface to the
bottom at two-foot
intervals on lakes 30
All
feet deep or less.
Lakes less than 30
feet deep start at two
feet below the surface
and are measured at
four-foot intervals to
the bottom.
Orthophosphorus
and Sulfate
Streams
Streams
Streams
Combined sample
from both depths 0.5
meter from surface
and 0.5 meter from
bottom
Chlorophyll-a
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
Stations
18, 16, 24
0-0.5 meter from the
surface. Chlorophyll-a
vertical profile.
Secchi Depth
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Index of Clarity
Transparency Tube
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Measure of Clarity
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
All
Notes: L = lakes only; S = streams only
18 | P a g e
3.2 Current Water Quality Efforts [CZ1]
The Tribe’s Section 106 2021-2026 Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Strategy takes a holistic
approach to the water resources of the St. Croix Chippewa. While all waterbody types were
considered in the development of the monitoring strategy, special focus is on surface
waterbodies including lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands. The following specific monitoring
objectives have been identified in the monitoring strategy:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Surface Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Aquatic Plant Surveying
Wetlands
Fish Tissue Sampling
Habitat/Land Use Surveys (macroinvertebrate and fisheries)
The surface water quality assessment program is the Tribe’s base program and has been their
primary focus over the past five years. Continued collection of this data allows the Tribe to add
more data points to their existing database and increases their ability to assess overall water
quality and spot trends in water quality over time. These data collection activities also allow the
Tribe to identify impaired waters and develop solutions to remediate these problem areas.
Based on the water quality of the St. Croix tribal lands, the Tribe will determine whether
restoration or specific protection plans need to be developed. These determinations can only be
made, and remedial options identified, after a period of baseline data collection and analysis,
and subsequent continued monitoring. The period for water quality analysis for each station is
variable and may change by year after the previous year’s water quality data and St. Croix
project plans are reviewed. In compliance with their Section 106 grant funding, Water Quality
Assessment Reports are developed on 2-year cycles with data from the stations monitored
during each cycle and submitted to USEPA.
Future actions may consist of adopting promulgation of US EPA Water Quality Standards, or St.
Croix may develop its own water quality standards in the future, which would require St. Croix
Tribal Council and legal staff approval. Water quality data (field and lab) is currently compared
to threshold values identified in the table below. Key WQ NPS parameters used for Sections 5
and 6 are bolded.
Table 6: Key WQ parameters and threshold values
Parameter
Threshold Comparison Value
Water Temperature
Max. Water Temp:
Coldwater Fishery <22.8 ºC
Warm-water Fishery <31.7 ºC
19 | P a g e
pH
6.0-9.0 or change of >0.5 units outside natural seasonal max (mean) and min
(mean)
Dissolved oxygen
Coldwater Fishery 6 mg/L
Warmwater Fishery 5 mg/L
Specific conductivity
TBD
Secchi Disk
TBD
Transparency Tube
TBD
Turbidity
Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
NO2 + NO3
Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
Total Nitrogen
Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN)
Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
Orthophosphorus
TBD
Total Phosphorus
NR102: 0.075 mg/L
Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
Sulfate
10 mg/L
Alkalinity (total)
TBD
Chlorophyll-a
TBD
Phytoplankton
TBD
Aquatic plant surveying was introduced in FY 2009 and is not currently being done. Aquatic
plants were used as indicators of specific water quality impairments as well as overall water
quality condition. Aquatic plants also influence designated uses identified by the Tribe, including
but not limited to fish harvest and wild rice gathering. Specific surveying objectives the Tribe
would like to address include presence/absence of wild rice, presence/absence of non-native
plant species, and overall determination of plant community health within tribal waterbodies.
With additional resources, the Tribe can conduct more detailed wild rice surveys for both
coverage and density, to help inventory wild rice populations and prioritize restoration efforts.
The wetland program area is one of the least-developed program areas and needs further
development. The Tribe has mapped and delineated all the wetlands within their lands, along
with basic vegetation classification following the Cowardin system used by USFWS (FGDC,
2013). One wetland site, Ballfield, did have water quality monitoring performed in 2011 because
of concerns related to an adjacent development project, but the Tribe does not currently have
20 | P a g e
enough capacity to perform regular monitoring across all wetlands, and wetland monitoring
currently occurs on an as-needed basis. With additional resources and capacity, sampling could
be more regular and include macroinvertebrates, physical parameters (DO, pH, etc), and
aquatic plants to better determine the overall health, function, and value of specific wetland
areas.
Fish tissue sampling has historically been done in the past to support the fish harvest, which is
an important part of the St. Croix Chippewa culture. Fish is harvested for consumption multiple
times throughout the year, and locally caught fish makes up a significant part of both fish diet
and overall diet for many Tribal members. Walleye has been the target species for fish tissue
analysis, with mercury being the target parameter. The Tribe has coordinated with partner
organizations (Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, WIDNR, local Lake
Associations) to sample and analyze walleye populations, with the hope that future fish tissue
sampling, including additional contaminants like pesticides and pathogens could be added back
to the program if funding increases.
The Tribe’s habitat and bioassessment program is also underdeveloped and would benefit from
increased funding. Water quality monitoring currently focuses on chemical and physical
parameters including chlorophyll-a and diatoms, but with increased funding and capacity could
include regular monitoring of macroinvertebrates, fish species, and aquatic plants.
The St. Croix GIS department has collected base layers within their system, including aerial
photos, parcel information, and statewide and federal datasets. They have created tribal
wetland delineation boundaries and water quality station monitoring layers and are working on
increasing the level of local detail by producing ground truthed datasets focusing on lacustrine
shorelines that show impervious surfaces, land use/land cover, substrate types, and other data
relevant to surface water quality. As more data is collected under the Tribe’s Section 106
program, integration of the data in GIS will be fundamental to programmatic success.
3.3 Other Data
Wisconsin DNR evaluates surface waterbodies according to water quality standards in Chapter
NR 102, Water Quality Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters in their state Administrative
Code. State water quality categories of surface water uses are Fish and Aquatic Life,
Recreational, Public Health and Welfare, and Wildlife, with monitoring parameters and criteria
established for each use as described below. For the purposes of this report, the focus will be
on Fish and Aquatic Life and Recreational Uses.
Fish and Other Aquatic Life Uses
Cold Water Communities: surface waters capable of supporting a community of cold-water fish
and other aquatic life or serving as a spawning area for cold-water fish species. This category
includes surface waters identified by WIDNR as trout waters.
21 | P a g e
Warm Water Sport Fish Communities: surface waters capable of supporting an abundant
diverse community of forage fish and other aquatic life.
Limited Forage Fish Communities (intermediate surface waters): surface waters of limited
capacity and naturally poor water quality or habitat. These surface waters are capable of
supporting only a limited community of forage fish and other aquatic life.
Limited Aquatic Life (marginal surface waters): surface waters of severely limited capacity and
naturally poor water quality or habitat. These surface waters are capable of supporting only a
limited community of aquatic life.
Primary parameters used by WIDNR for Fish and Aquatic Life use are dissolved oxygen,
oxythermal layer thickness (two-story fishery lakes only), pH, presence of toxic substances, and
temperature. Water quality criteria for each of these parameters varies for surface water
resources depending on their use categorization and other special factors like Trout Water
designations.
Recreational Use
Recreational Use is predicated on the requirement that all surface waters must be suitable for
supporting recreational contact (swimming, etc.). Recreational Use criteria determinations occur
after bacterial monitoring and are used to protect humans from illness caused by fecal
contamination due to recreational contact with the surface water. Surface waters are assigned
ratings of Excellent, Good, or Poor where applicable.
Public Health and Welfare Use
This use is predicated on the requirement that all surface waters shall be suitable for supporting
public health and welfare and applies to all surface waters regardless of their status as a public
drinking water supply or their applicable fish and aquatic wildlife use. For surface waters used
as a public drinking supply or classified as cold water or warm water sport fish community, there
are specific taste and odor criteria that must be met. With limited exceptions, all discharges to
surface waters must not exceed 120 degrees Fahrenheit. PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and
PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) have concentration thresholds that must be met depending on
different surface water uses and conditions.
Wildlife Use
This use is predicated on the requirement that all surface waters must be suitable for supporting
wildlife. Wildlife criteria vary depending on the wildlife and are designed to protect wildlife from
adverse effects resulting from ingestion of surface waters of the state and from ingestion of
aquatic organisms taken from surface waters of the state. Specific criteria are found in Chapter
NR 105, Surface Water Quality Criteria and Secondary Values for Toxic Substances.
22 | P a g e
Below are current data and information on key water resources in the St. Croix lands,
summarized from the WIDNR’s water details database with links to the appropriate resource
page. Water Resources noted as not attaining adjacent to St. Croix lands are highlighted.
Table 7: WIDNR water quality data of key water resources
Name
County (St.
HUC12 (St. Croix
Croix
station)
lands)
WI NR102
Classifications
Fish and Aquatic
Life (FAL) Use
Cold - not attaining
(restricted aquatic Poor
life)
Clam Lake Burnett
Clam Lake-Clam
River
Reservoir
Big Sand
Lake
Big Sand LakeYellow River
Deep Seepage, ORW, Default FAL attaining
ERW
Big Round
Polk
Lake
Straight River
Shallow Seepage
Sand Lake Barron
Sand Creek
Deep Lowland, ORW, Default FAL ERW
attaining
Rice Lake Burnett
Rice Lake-Yellow
River
Shallow Lowland
Bashaw
Lake
Burnett
Bashaw Brook
Gaslyn
Lake
Burnett
Yellow
Lake
Burnett
Recreational
Impairments
Use
Unknown
Default FAL - not
attaining (restricted Poor
aquatic life)
Sources
Excess Algal
Growth,
Phosphorus
Eutrophication
None
N/A
Excess Algal
Growth,
Phosphorus
Eutrophication
Excellent
None
N/A
Default FAL attaining
Good
None
N/A
Shallow Lowland
Default FAL attaining
Unknown
None
N/A
Sand Lake-Yellow
River
Shallow Lowland
Default FAL attaining
Unknown
None
N/A
Burnett
Yellow Lake-Yellow
River
Two-Story
Warmwater - not
attaining (restricted Poor
aquatic life use)
Clam
River
Burnett
Clam Lake-Clam
River, Black BrookClam River
Cool-Warm Mainstem,
Cool-Warm
Cold - attaining
Headwater, ORW,
Trout Water
Unknown
None
N/A
Yellow
River
Burnett
Sand Lake-Yellow
River, Buffalo LakeYellow River
Cool-Cold Mainstem, Default FAL Cool-Warm Mainstem attaining
Unknown
None
N/A
Straight
River
Polk
Straight River
Cool-Warm
Headwater, Trout
Water
Cold - attaining
Unknown
None
N/A
Loon
Creek
Burnett
Loon Creek
Cool-Warm Mainstem
Default FAL attaining
Unknown
None
N/A
Macroinvertebrate,
Default FAL Cool-Cold Headwater, attaining on St.
Warm Headwater,
Croix lands u/s of
Coldwater, CoolHWY 243 bridge,
Unknown
Warm Headwater,
not attaining 1 mile
Large River, ORW (14 d/s of HWY 243
miles), ERW (7 miles) bridge to mouth
PCBs in fish
tissue (not at
St. Croix
lands)
PCBs (not at
St. Croix
lands)
No detailed WIDNR
Unknown
Unknown
St. Croix
River
Burnett
Hay Creek-Saint
Croix River
Gaslyn
Burnett
Sand Lake-Yellow
Default FAL - not
Unknown
Excess Algal Mercury,
Growth,
Total
Eutrophication Phosphorus
23 | P a g e
Creek
River
information
monitored
Lakes
Clam Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2656200)
Clam Lake is a shallow lowland lake which is situated in the Clam River watershed in Burnett
County. Clam Lake monitoring data collected between 2021 and 2022 was included in
Wisconsin’s 2024 Water Quality Report to Congress under the state’s Clean Water Act
responsibilities. Per the report, the waterbody is considered impaired, or in poor condition for
designated uses which include the quality of fish and aquatic life, recreational use, and public
health and welfare (fish consumption and related). Pollutants or problems encountered during
sampling (impairments) are determined based on water quality standards outlined in Wisconsin
2020 Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology (WisCALM).
Assessment results show water conditions that are potentially harmful for Aquatic Life use and
Recreation use due to values for total phosphorus and chlorophyll that fall into the range
expected for an aquatic community in poor health, therefore this water is listed as impaired.
Assessment results during the 2020 listing cycle show continued impairment based on total
phosphorus and chlorophyll levels too high for healthy aquatic communities, like plants, fish,
and bugs, according to 2020 WisCALM levels. This water has been listed as impaired since
2012 for total phosphorus. In 2020 eutrophication was added as an impairment alongside the
previous excess algal growth listing. This water changed to category 5W because it is part of
the DNR approved restoration plan Implementation Plan for the Lake St. Croix Nutrient Total
Maximum Daily Load (2025).
Big Sand Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2676800)
Big Sand Lake is located in the Lower Yellow River Watershed in Burnett County. This lake is
an outstanding/exceptional resource water under NR102 under the Fisheries Program. This lake
is managed for fishing and swimming and is currently not considered impaired.
Big Round Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2627400)
This lake is located in the Upper Apple River Watershed in Polk County. The feasibility study for
this lake (1980) documented a eutrophic body of water primarily influenced by in-lake recycling
of sediment phosphorus. The lake has experienced recurring algae blooms and other eutrophic
symptoms. This lake should receive high priority for a lakes planning grant to assess the
priorities of the lake community and work toward a long-range lake management plan. High
priority should also be accorded to this lake for any funding to reasonably implement the
recommendations of the 1980 study. Extensive use is made of the lake by migratory waterfowl;
ranging in importance from most to least use are coots, diving ducks (redheads and
canvasbacks), puddle ducks, Canada geese, and whistling swans. Nesting waterfowl include
mallards, bluewing teal, greenwing teal and ringneck ducks. Fish present include northern pike,
walleyes, largemouth bass, bluegills, black crappies, perch, pumpkinseed, and bullheads.
24 | P a g e
Big Round Lake was recently evaluated during the ten-year period of 2009 through 2018 for
results that were reported to the USEPA for the 2020 Clean Water Act condition report. The
waterbody is considered impaired, or in poor condition for designated uses which include the
quality of fish and aquatic life, recreational use, and public health and welfare (fish consumption
and related). Pollutants or problems encountered during sampling (impairments) are determined
based on water quality standards outlined in Wisconsin 2020 Consolidated Assessment and
Listing Methodology (WisCALM). Assessment results show water conditions that are potentially
harmful for Recreation and Aquatic Life uses due to values for total phosphorus and chlorophyll
that fall into the range expected for an aquatic community in poor health, therefore this water is
listed as impaired.
Assessment results during the 2020 listing cycle show excess algal growth and eutrophication
as a result of total phosphorus levels. Chlorophyll and total phosphorus data were assessed
during the 2020 listing cycle. Both were too high for a healthy waterbody for recreation and
aquatic life. Based on the most updated information, this water was proposed for the impaired
waters list in 2020.
Sand Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2661100)
Sand Lake is in the North Fork Clam River Watershed in Barron County. This lake is an
outstanding/exceptional resource water under NR102 under the Fisheries Program. This lake is
managed for fishing and swimming and is currently not considered impaired.
Sand Lake was assessed during the 2016 WIDNR listing cycle; total phosphorus and
chlorophyll sample data were clearly below 2016 WisCALM listing thresholds for the Recreation
use and Fish and Aquatic Life use. This water was also assessed for chlorides and sample data
were clearly below 2016 WisCALM chronic and acute listing criteria for the Fish and Aquatic Life
use. This water meets these designated uses and is not considered impaired.
Rice Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2677900)
Rice Lake T39n R14w S10 is in the Lower Yellow River and Shell Lake and Upper Yellow River
Watersheds in Burnett County. This lake is managed for fishing and swimming and is currently
not considered impaired.
Bashaw Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2662400)
Bashaw Lake is in the North Fork Clam River Watershed in Burnett County. This lake is
managed for fishing and swimming and is currently not considered impaired.
Gaslyn Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2677700)
Gaslyn Lake is in the Lower Yellow River Watershed in Burnett County. This lake is managed
for fishing and swimming and is currently not considered impaired.
Yellow Lake (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2675200)
Yellow Lake in Burnett County has been historically impacted from point source issues like
untreated city wastewater, creamery waste, and whey. The lake has improved since the point
25 | P a g e
sources were removed but is still impaired, likely from this historical point source loading, as
WIDNR has found no major sources of nonpoint source loading in this area, including from
surrounding agriculture. The lake is impaired for Recreational Uses as blue green algal blooms
restrict swimming. Blue green algae blooms are frequent and macrophyte growth is high.
Currently, Yellow Lake’s TSI-chlorophyll score of 62 puts this lake in the Fair category for a
shallow lowland lake, but its average Total Phosphorus concentration (2004-2008) is 0.048
mg/l, which exceeds the listing threshold for Shallow Lowland lakes of greater than or equal to
0.04 mg/l. Yellow Lake was placed on the impaired waters list for total phosphorus in 2010. The
2018 assessments showed continued impairment by phosphorus; total phosphorus and
chlorophyll-a sample data exceeded the 2018 WisCALM listing thresholds for the Recreation
use and Fish and Aquatic Life use.
Yellow Lake has historically been an excellent and very diverse fishery. It has one of the state’s
best, sustainable sturgeon populations (including a world record), cisco spawning, a rare
naturally reproducing walleye population, and large northern pike and muskies.
Rivers/Streams
Yellow River (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2670300)
Segments 44.74-69.14 of the Yellow River are assessed as Cool-Cold Mainstem, Cool-Warm
Mainstem by WIDNR. The river is attaining its supported default aquatic life use and is capable
of supporting a warm water dependent sport fishery. Representative aquatic life communities
associated with these waters generally require cool or warm temperatures and concentrations of
dissolved oxygen that do not drop below 5 mg/L.
St. Croix River (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2601400)
The St. Croix River is classified as an outstanding resource water for 14 miles within this
watershed and as an exceptional resource water for 7 miles. The entire river is also a national
wild and scenic waterway as designated by the National Park Service. The river is considered a
Macroinvertebrate, Cool-Cold Headwater, Warm Headwater, Coldwater, Cool-Warm
Headwater, Large River under the state's Natural Community Determinations. Cool (WarmTransition) Headwaters are small, sometimes intermittent streams with cool to warm summer
temperatures. Coldwater fishes are uncommon to absent, transitional fishes are abundant to
common, and warm water fishes are common to uncommon. Headwater species are abundant
to common, mainstem species are common to absent, and river species are absent. Cool (ColdTransition) Headwaters are small, usually perennial streams with cold to cool summer
temperatures. Coldwater fishes are common to uncommon (<10 per 100 m), transitional fishes
are abundant to common, and warm water fishes are uncommon to absent. Headwater species
are abundant to common, mainstem species are common to absent, and river species are
absent. Warm Headwaters are small, usually intermittent streams with warm summer
temperatures. Coldwater fishes are absent, transitional fishes are common to uncommon, and
warm water fishes are abundant to common. Headwater species are abundant to common,
mainstem species are common to absent, and river species are absent.
26 | P a g e
The Saint Croix River from its mouth at Prescott to 1 mile below Hwy 243 bridge (miles 17.44 to
44.72), was placed on the impaired waters list in 1998 for PCB contaminated fish tissue. The
river is not attaining its supported default aquatic life use in those reaches, but is attaining
upstream where St. Croix lands are. The river is capable of supporting a warm water dependent
sport fishery. Representative aquatic life communities associated with these waters generally
require cool or warm temperatures and concentrations of dissolved oxygen that do not drop
below 5 mg/L.
Loon Creek (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2670400)
Loon Creek is in the Lower Yellow River Watershed in Burnett County. This river is managed for
fishing and swimming and is currently not considered impaired.
Clam River (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2654200)
The Clam River is considered a Cool-Warm Mainstem and Cool-Warm Headwaters under
Wisconsin’s Natural Community Determinations. Cool (Warm-Transition) Headwaters are small,
sometimes intermittent streams with cool to warm summer temperatures. Coldwater fishes are
uncommon to absent, transitional fishes are abundant to common, and warm water fishes are
common to uncommon. Headwater species are abundant to common, mainstem species are
common to absent, and river species are absent.
The Clam River (miles 43.58-47.58; 50.71-59) was assessed during the 2018 listing cycle; new
biological (fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores) sample data were clearly below the 2018
WisCALM listing thresholds for the Fish and Aquatic Life use. This water was meeting this
designated use and was not considered impaired, however, recommendations were made to
continue monitoring water quality and sediment.
Straight River (https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/water/waterDetail.aspx?WBIC=2626900)
The headwaters of the Straight River flow from an unnamed lake less than a mile west of
Straight Lake. The river runs over 15 miles through Straight Lake, Big Round Lake, and Big and
Little Blake Lake before finally discharging into Fox Creek. Mile 10.75 - 12.27 of Straight River is
classified as a cold Class II Trout stream and further upstream the river is considered a warm
water forage fishery.
Cool (Warm-Transition) Headwaters are small, sometimes intermittent streams with cool to
warm summer temperatures. Coldwater fishes are uncommon to absent, transitional fishes are
abundant to common, and warm water fishes are common to uncommon. Headwater species
are abundant to common, mainstem species are common to absent, and river species are
absent. Representative aquatic life communities associated with these waters generally require
cold temperatures and concentrations of dissolved oxygen that remain above 6 mg/L. Since
these waters are capable of supporting natural reproduction, a minimum dissolved oxygen
concentration of 7 mg/L is required during times of active spawning and support of early life
stages of newly-hatched fish.
Gaslyn Creek
27 | P a g e
Gaslyn Creek is not specifically monitored by WIDNR.
3.4 Long-Term Needs and Objectives
An initial water quality monitoring plan was created in cooperation with the USGS, derived from
the 2000 USGS retrospective report titled “Water-Resource-Related Information for the St. Croix
Reservation and Vicinity, Wisconsin” (Saad and Robertson, 2000). This Retrospective Study
identified numerous data gaps in water quality for the area. Since that study, St. Croix has
developed extensive water quality datasets for each sampling station identified in Table 4 which
has been used to characterize the water quality and identify issues in the past and present.
However, water quality sampling and assessment will need to continue in perpetuity to allow St.
Croix staff to evaluate waterbodies on an annual or multi-year basis based on the level of
funding available. It is important to monitor the described lakes and streams for the purposes of
protecting water quality, aquatic life, human health, and detecting changes in water quality as
they happen. We will continue to try to answer the following questions:
● What is the baseline water quality of tribal waters?
● How is the water quality of tribal waters changing over time with respect to physical,
chemical, and biological parameters?
Nutrient parameters are important to monitor because of the relationship between loadings of
these substances into lakes and lake eutrophication. Nutrients are identified by the St. Croix as
the key pollutants of concern in lake degradation. The parameters monitored as part of this
program will be used as the baseline for data to compare to in the future. Over the longer term,
the Tribe plans to continue monitoring for the selected parameters at representative locations to
note trends in water quality and identify any emerging concerns in perpetuity, as monitoring is
the key to identifying changes in water quality and provides an opportunity to address water
quality degradation proactively. Degradation is determined by comparing single sampling event
data and seasonal averages to established thresholds or to historical water quality datasets
managed by the St. Croix for each sampling station.
However, the ability to establish a baseline of overall water quality for trust waters is limited due
to budgetary constraints. Currently, eight stations are in a rotation chosen every 2 years, while
previous monitoring efforts were able to cover 11 stations over a period of 9 consecutive years.
For a six-year period between 2004-2010, 15 stations were able to be monitored consecutively.
However, the Section 106 budget has either remained static or decreased over the past 26
years and a reduction of monitoring has been necessary to meet rising costs, making it difficult
to develop trends and establish a baseline of water quality. This shortfall is solely due to
budgetary constraints that limit the Tribe’s ability to monitor the rotating stations every year as
was previously done. The following needs would have to be addressed to meet this objective:
●
●
Secure additional funding to hire (2) 1.0 FTE Field Technicians to complete more
monitoring.
Secure additional funding for contractual services, travel and supply costs for additional
monitoring.
28 | P a g e
The Tribe’s goal is to increase the number and frequency of stations monitored in order to
collect an adequate amount of data to meet monitoring objectives, but this is dependent on the
ability to secure more program funds. Section 319 funding can be used where monitoring is
needed to track nonpoint source issues. More funding would result in each waterbody having
significantly more data to use for the establishment of baseline conditions, water quality
assessment and development of trends.
3.5 Quality Assurance and Data Management, Analysis, &
Assessment
Data collection activities associated with surface water quality are outlined in the approved
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) titled: QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
(QAPP) FOR SURFACE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 2023-2028 (St. Croix Chippewa
Indians of Wisconsin, May 24, 2023). The St. Croix reviews and updates the QAPP as needed
approximately every five years unless significant changes warrant a QAPP revision.
The St. Croix Project Director is responsible for overall direction and assuring that the project
and project activities are compatible with the goals of the St. Croix Tribe. The Project Manager
is responsible for assuring quality reporting to the US EPA. The Field Technician is responsible
for overseeing both laboratory field-sampling standard operating procedures and the
recommended manufacturers field-testing equipment standard operating procedures. The Data
Manager is responsible for managing the water quality data, data analysis, and compiles and
organizes the data for reporting purposes. All data is entered into the St. Croix Tribe’s network
for central data storage, data interpretation, trend analysis, and graphic representation of the
data for project reporting purposes. The St. Croix Project Manager in coordination with the US
EPA Project Officer/Program Analyst/Program Manager is responsible for initiating, developing,
approving, and implementing any needed corrective actions. Specific information about the QA
processes, auditing procedures and corrective actions can also be found in the QAPP.
29 | P a g e
Land Use Summary
4.1 Climate
Local climatological data is available within the region containing St. Croix trust lands.
Temperature and precipitation datasets from the Grantsburg (Grantsburg 0.6 SSW, WI US,
US1WIBT0001, 45.7728, -92.6886) station in Burnett County and Spooner AG (SPOONER
EXPERIMENTAL FARM, WI US, USC00478027, 45.8236, -91.8761) station in Washburn
County, were used to show climatological trends. Examining these data over a period of 20
years, winter temperatures on St. Croix lands typically range from a little above 45 degrees F to
10 degrees F and peak summer temperatures range from 70 degrees F down to mid-60s.
Average annual precipitation from 2005 through 2025 was approximately 33.7 inches per year.
Figure 8: Monthly maximum, minimum, and average temperatures (°F) (2005-2025)
30 | P a g e
Figure 9: Average monthly precipitation and snowfall (inches) (2005-2025)
Figure 10: Total annual precipitation (in.) and average annual temperature (°F) (2005-2025)
When compared to climate normals for Wisconsin’s Division 1 Northwest climate division
(https://climatology.nelson.wisc.edu/wisconsin-climate-divisions/climate-normals) as depicted in
the below figure, the local data are relatively on-trend.
31 | P a g e
Figure 11: Climate normals for Division 1 (Northwest)
4.2 Land Use/Land Cover
Various types of forested land make up the majority of the land cover on St. Croix lands.
Deciduous forest and woody wetlands dominate, with mixed forest and evergreen forest making
up smaller percentages for a total of 69.5% forested cover. Emergent wetlands, scrub/shrub,
and grassland/herbaceous cover make up about 15.3% of the land cover, meaning
approximately 84.8% of St. Croix lands are undeveloped or not in agricultural use. Development
overall is low intensity, and total developed areas represent about 9.24% of St. Croix lands.
Agriculture makes up about 4.2% of St. Croix land cover.
32 | P a g e
Figure 12: Regional St. Croix land cover
Table 8: St. Croix land cover (NLCD, 2024)
Land Cover Type
Percentage of St. Croix Lands
Deciduous Forest
41.80%
Woody Wetlands
20.19%
Shrub/Scrub
7.68%
Mixed Forest
6.69%
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
6.61%
Developed, Open Space
4.97%
Developed, Low Intensity
2.75%
33 | P a g e
Pasture/Hay
2.54%
Cultivated Crops
1.69%
Open Water
1.66%
Grassland/Herbaceous
1.03%
Developed, Medium Intensity
0.98%
Evergreen Forest
0.81%
Developed, High Intensity
0.55%
Barren Land
0.05%
The receding glaciers left many pitted outwash areas that are fairly flat and dotted with potholes,
wetlands, lakes, and marshes. As noted in the above table, wooded areas also cover a large
portion of St. Croix communities and development is low, which helps maintain water quality.
A significant amount of St. Croix lands are adjacent to large lakes; water resources are a vital
part of the St. Croix culture, and all St. Croix Chippewa communities are found near either lakes
or rivers. Lakes within tribal lands provide wild rice, which is an integral part of tribal culture, and
the St. Croix River Basin is also an important resource for tourism. Large lakes adjacent to trust
lands include Clam Lake, Big Sand Lake, Round Lake, Sand Lake, Rice Lake, Bashaw Lake,
and Gaslyn Lake. Hundreds of smaller lakes also provide important habitat and recreational
opportunities near St. Croix lands. The area is home to numerous high-quality fisheries, wild rice
lakes, and wetlands of great significance to tribal and non-tribal communities. Pressure from
forestry and agriculture are primary water quality concerns of the Tribe.
St. Croix lands are found within three HUC8 watersheds: Upper St. Croix, Lower St. Croix, and
Red Cedar. As a relatively small percentage of St. Croix land and no trust land or monitoring
stations are found in the Red Cedar HUC8, this assessment report will focus on the Upper and
Lower St. Croix HUC8s.
Upper St. Croix (07030001)
The Upper St. Croix HUC8 comprises portions of Minnesota and Wisconsin. It is approximately
2,026 square miles, with the larger portion within Wisconsin and mainly within Burnett County.
The HUC8 portion within the state lies primarily within Wisconsin’s Forest Transition and
Northwest Sands ecological landscapes. The Forest Transition Ecological Landscape lies along
the northern border of Wisconsin's Tension Zone, through the central and western part of the
state, and supports both northern forests and agricultural areas. The western portions within the
HUC8 are on moraines of the Wisconsin glaciation. Soils range from sandy loam to loam or
shallow silt loam, and from poorly drained to well drained. Historic vegetation was primarily
northern hardwood forest dominated by sugar maple and hemlock with some yellow birch, red
pine and white pine. Current forest vegetation is primarily northern hardwoods and aspen, with
smaller amounts of oak and lowland hardwoods. Small areas of conifer swamp are found near
the headwaters of streams and associated with lakes in kettle depressions on moraines. The
34 | P a g e
Northwest Sands Ecological Landscape is a large glacial outwash system consisting of flat
plains or terraces along glacial meltwater channels, and pitted outwash plains containing kettle
lakes. Soils are deep sands, low in organic material and nutrients. Historic vegetation was jack
pine/scrub oak forest and barrens, with white and red pine forests. Numerous barrens occurred
in the southwest half of the landscape, along with oak savannas in the south central portion.
Current vegetation is a mix of forest (pine, aspen-birch, and oak, with smaller areas of maplebasswood, spruce-fir, and lowland hardwoods), agriculture, and grassland with some wetlands
in the river valleys. Within the open lands, there is a relatively large proportion of grassland and
shrub land, a small but locally significant amount of emergent/wet meadow and open water, and
very little row-crop agriculture.
The Upper St. Croix contains many significant, high-quality streams and rivers; the St. Croix
River and the North Fork and South Fork of the Clam River are classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters and the Clam River is designated an Exceptional Resource Water by WIDNR.
Parts of the Clam River are also classified as Class I and III Wisconsin trout waters. At least six
other smaller unnamed trout streams in the watershed are also designated as Outstanding
Resource Waters. Large lakes significant to the St. Croix within this HUC8 include Big Sand
Lake, Clam Lake, Sand Lake, and Gaslyn Lake. Big Sand Lake and Sand Lake are both
designated Outstanding Resource Waters.
Lower St. Croix (07030005)
The Lower St. Croix HUC8 covers about 2,616.8 square miles and is located entirely within the
Forest Transition ecological landscape, described above. The hydrology of the watershed
around St. Croix lands is heavily influenced by land characteristics and land uses. Nearly half of
the watershed consists of flat glacial plains that have been clear cut and drained to support
intensive agricultural activities. The streams and rivers in agricultural regions of the watershed
are flashy and erosive, carrying large sediment and nutrient loads to the watersheds lakes and
reservoirs. However, the remainder of the watershed is covered with glacial moraines, kettle
lakes and predominantly forested wetlands, which allow for precipitation to infiltrate into the
groundwater, resulting in significantly less stormwater runoff. Dominant soils are typically
derived from weathered sandstone and glacial till materials deposited from alluvial processes,
including the formation of sandy outwash fans. Soils with a higher organic content have hydric
characteristics and are concentrated mainly in lowlands. Colluvial deposits weathered from
sedimentary stone and wind-formed loess deposits with glacial till characterize loamier soil
units. Large lakes significant to the St. Croix within this HUC8 include Round Lake.
Groundwater
Groundwater contamination is a concern for the St. Croix; a significant amount of drinking water
comes from a mix of community and private wells. St. Croix lands lie within the CambrianOrdovician aquifer system. This aquifer system is a complex, multi-aquifer system that consists
of individual aquifers that are separated by leaky confining units. The aquifers are capped by the
Maquoketa confining unit, which bounds them as an aquifer system.
35 | P a g e
Hydrogeologic units that comprise the aquifer system include (in descending order): the
Maquoketa confining unit, the St. Peter-Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer, the St. LawrenceFranconia confining unit, the Ironton-Galesville aquifer, the Eau Claire confining unit, and the
Mount Simon aquifer. Portions of St. Croix lands are located within the Ironton-Galesville aquifer
and the Mount Simon aquifer.
Ironton-Galesville Aquifer
The Ironton and Galesville Sandstones comprise the Ironton- Galesville aquifer. These
formations are predominantly medium- to coarse-grained sandstone that has a combined
thickness that ranges from 50 to 150 feet. The direction of groundwater flow is towards the
Mississippi, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Rivers in southeastern Minnesota and western
Wisconsin and southeastward towards the Illinois Basin in eastern Iowa. The Ironton-Galesville
aquifer has the lowest water level of the three aquifers that make up the Cambrian-Ordovician
aquifer system and has a transmissivity of approximately 1,100 square feet per day. Water in
the aquifer is a mixed-ion type.
Mount Simon Aquifer
The Mount Simon aquifer, which is the lowermost aquifer of the Cambrian-Ordovician aquifer
system, consists of the coarse to fine-grained Mount Simon Sandstone and the Bayfield Group.
The top of the aquifer slopes southward and southwestward from southeastern Minnesota and
western Wisconsin, where it is 1,000 feet or more above sea level, to southwestern Iowa, where
it is about 2,500 feet below sea level. This aquifer is confined above by the Eau Claire confining
unit and overlies less permeable rocks of Precambrian age.
Wetlands
The St. Croix trust lands contain approximately 473 acres of wetlands, mainly wooded with
some emergent wetlands. Many wetlands are associated with adjacent large lakes. The table
below, based on GIS data maintained by the St. Croix, shows approximate total wetland acres
in Trust parcels delineated by the St. Croix and the watersheds they are located in.
Table 9: Wetlands in St. Croix trust lands
HUC8
Number
7030001
HUC8
Name
HUC10
Number
HUC10 Name
HUC12
Number
HUC12 Name
Wetland
Acres
0703000104
Shell Lake-Yellow
River
070300010405
Rice Lake-Yellow River
5.33
070300010501
Sand Lake-Yellow River
39
070300010502
Big Sand Lake-Yellow
River
109.17
070300010505
Loon Creek
6.4
070300010506
Buffalo Lake-Yellow River 8.44
Upper St.
Croix
0703000105
Yellow LakeYellow River
36 | P a g e
0703000108
7030005
Lower St.
Croix
North Fork Clam
River
0703000109
Clam River
0703000507
Beaver BrookApple River
070300010802
Bashaw Brook
16.72
070300010803
Sand Creek
20.1
070300010904
Clam Lake-Clam River
143.9
070300050702
Straight River
62.6
070300050704
Rice Bed Creek-Apple
River
61
Specific wetland communities that have been identified to date within trust lands include:
● Forested (186 ac): needle-leaved/deciduous, needle-leaved, broad-leaved deciduous,
needle-leaved evergreen, and deciduous vegetation. Several wetlands in the Buffalo
Lake-Yellow River HUC12 are noted as associated with a floodplain complex.
● Forested/Emergent Wet Meadow (3.23 ac): broad-leaved deciduous, narrow-leaved
persistent, and needle-leaved vegetation. One wetland in the Clam Lake-Clam River
HUC12 is noted as having its vegetation recently removed.
● Forested/Scrub-Shrub (49.5 ac): broad-leaved deciduous, needle-leaved, needle-leaved
evergreen, broad-leaved evergreen, and evergreen vegetation. Two wetlands in the Rice
Bed-Apple Creek HUC12 are noted as having associated floating vegetated mats.
● Scrub/Shrub (25.6 ac): broad-leaved, broad-leaved deciduous, broad-leaved evergreen,
and evergreen vegetation. Several wetlands in the Straight River and Rice-Bed Apple
Creek HUC12s are noted as having associated floating vegetated mats.
● Scrub/Shrub, Emergent/wet meadow (110.3 ac): broad-leaved, broad-leaved evergreen,
narrow-leaved persistent, and broad-leaved deciduous vegetation. Wetlands in the Big
Sand Lake-Yellow River, Bashaw Brook, Straight River, and Rice Bed-Apple Creek
HUC12s are noted as having associated floating vegetated mats.
● Emergent/Wet Meadow (51.5 ac): narrow-leaved persistent and nonpersistent
vegetation. Some wetlands in the Clam Lake-Clam River and Straight River HUC12s are
noted as having associated floating vegetated mats.
● Emergent/Wet Meadow, Aquatic Bed (8.28 ac): nonpersistent, floating, and rooted
floating vegetation. Hydrologic regimes include standing and flowing water from
associated lakes and rivers.
● Aquatic Bed (0.06 ac): floating vegetation. Only one instance of this wetland, associated
with standing water from a lake in Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12.
● Open Water (28.49 ac): no noted characteristic vegetation owing to class type;
hydrologic regimes are all palustrine standing water. Three wetlands in the Sand LakeYellow River and Loon Creek HUC12s are noted as having been excavated.
Detailed biological monitoring of tribal wetland conditions has not been performed. Wetland
monitoring for nutrients and other chemical parameters has occurred on one wetland site,
Ballfield, in 2011, and is included in Section 5.1, Data Analysis.
37 | P a g e
Ecoregions
St. Croix lands lie primarily within two Level III ecoregions: North Central Hardwood Forests and
Northern Lakes and Forests. Some non-trust St. Croix lands are within the Western Corn Belt
Plains. Level III ecoregions are important for watershed-based planning in Wisconsin, as
several state water quality thresholds are set based on the Level III ecoregion the water body is
located in. Below are descriptions of each relevant ecoregion (Omernik, 2000).
50. NORTHERN LAKES AND FORESTS
The Northern Lakes and Forests is a region of relatively nutrient-poor glacial soils, coniferous
and northern hardwood forests, undulating till plains, morainal hills, broad lacustrine basins, and
extensive sandy outwash plains. Soils in this ecoregion are thicker than in those to the north
and generally lack the arability of soils in adjacent ecoregions to the south. The numerous lakes
that dot the landscape are clearer and less productive than those in ecoregions to the south.
51. NORTH CENTRAL HARDWOOD FORESTS
The North Central Hardwood Forests ecoregion is transitional between the predominantly
forested Northern Lakes and Forests (50) to the north and the agricultural ecoregions to the
south. Land use/land cover in this ecoregion consists of mosaic forests, wetlands and lakes,
cropland agriculture, pasture, and dairy operations. The growing season is generally longer and
warmer than that of Ecoregion 50 and the soils are more arable and fertile, contributing to the
greater agricultural component of land use. Lake trophic states tend to be higher here than in
the Northern Lakes and Forests, with higher percentages in eutrophic and hypereutrophic
classes.
47. WESTERN CORN BELT PLAINS
Once mostly covered with tallgrass prairie, over 80 percent of the Western Corn Belt Plains is
now used for cropland agriculture and much of the remainder is in forage for livestock. A
combination of nearly level to gently rolling glaciated till plains and hilly loess plains, an average
annual precipitation of 26 to 37 inches, which occurs mainly in the growing season, and fertile,
warm, moist soils make this one of the most productive areas of corn and soybeans in the
world. Agricultural practices have contributed to environmental issues, including surface and
groundwater contamination from fertilizer and pesticide applications as well as concentrated
livestock production.
38 | P a g e
Figure 13: Level III Ecoregions of St. Croix lands
Socioeconomic
The St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin have approximately 1984 enrolled tribal members.
St. Croix Tribal Government and Tribal Enterprises are the largest employers in Burnett County
and the 2nd largest employer in Barron County (Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce
Development). The Tribal Government employs many community members within the Tribal
Government Center, which include a Health Department/Clinic, Family Resource Center,
Housing Authority, Construction Company, Youth/Education, Elders, Food Distribution, EPA,
Natural Resources, Police Department and many other departments and agencies dedicated to
service in the St. Croix Tribal community. Government employment is about 50% Native
American and 50% non-Native American, and Enterprise employment is 25% Native American
and 75% non-Native American. Businesses owned by the St. Croix also include casinos and
hotels, gas stations, office space complexes, an aquaculture facility, health services clinic,
smoke shop, IT software company, travel agency, and campground.
Hunting, fishing, and gathering are integral to St. Croix tribal culture. In order to promote the
conservation and management of reservation natural resources, the St. Croix have passed a
tribal ordinance setting up rules for the control and regulations of hunting, fishing, and gathering
on the lands and waters of the St. Croix reservation. The Tribe has recognized the following
39 | P a g e
protected species which cannot be hunted, fished, trapped, or gathered on St. Croix reservation
lands: paddlefish, marten, wolverine, badger, flying squirrel, timber wolf, lynx, cougar, moose,
and homing pigeons or any wild bird not regulated for harvest by their ordinance. The ordinance
places many restrictions on fishing to protect and conserve St. Croix water resources; for
example, the ordinance prohibits the use of goldfish or alewife for bait and prohibits the
transport of any live fish into or within tribal lands except for minnows. Unused bait minnows can
only be released if they were naturally obtained from the fishing water source; unused bait
minnows from a different lake or from a bait seller cannot be released on St. Croix lands.
The ordinance makes provisions for gathering of plants for household or ceremonial use.
Harvest of timber on tribal lands is prohibited, except for limited circumstances. Some historic
timber clears occurred in 2019 related to windstorms, but typically timber activity on tribal lands
has been very limited. However, timber sales and forestry practices have crept up in St. Croix
lands, so a more strategic and proactive forestry management program is being put in place.
Wild Rice Cultivation & Harvest
Wild rice is sensitive to water levels altered by dams as well as road construction, pollution, poor
harvesting practices, invasive species (plant and animal), genetic engineering (genetic
contamination of the wild rice from the paddies), and climate change. The Wisconsin DNR and
representatives of area Ojibwe Tribes cooperate to determine when rice on date-regulated lakes
is ripe. The WIDNR, with input from respective Ojibwe rice chiefs, will determine when the
season is open for
harvesting or gathering
wild rice on a specific lake.
Wild rice harvest on any
waters within Native
American reservations is
typically limited to tribal
members. Big Sand Lake,
Clam Lake, Round Lake,
Gaslyn Lake, and Rice
Lake are all St. Croix tribal
lakes designated as Wild
Rice Lakes by WIDNR
harvested by both tribal
and state harvesters.
Figure 14: Aerial image of wild rice on Clam Lake
40 | P a g e
Surface and Ground Water Quality Summary and
Results
Surface water quality of St. Croix trust land has become increasingly threatened in recent years
due to the increase in development and shifts to other intensive land-uses within the watersheds
that encompass tribal land. Existing high-quality and attaining lake and stream resources on
trust lands are sensitive to these pressures and maintenance of good water quality is essential
to the St. Croix way of life. Lake eutrophication, in particular, is a major concern of the St. Croix
due to tribal lakes’ uses for recreation, fisheries, and wild rice. Baseline water quality monitoring
results continue to be of concern regarding the current water quality found on tribal lands.
Overall, water quality in the St. Croix trust lands is good, with several high-quality water
resources. However, concerns with water quality stemming primarily from non-point source
contributions continue to be apparent and protection strategies will be an important approach
going forward.
The Tribe is challenged with maintaining an adequate baseline monitoring program in the face
of budgetary constraints. The baseline monitoring activity includes in-stream measurements for
physical, chemical, and biological indicators, including the collection of water samples for
laboratory analysis. Currently, the St. Croix has 8 active rotating stations (four stream, four lake)
out of a total of 18 stations which are in the following watersheds:
Table 10: Monitoring stations by HUC watershed units
Station Name
Site
Name
Type
SCT_04_GL
Gaslyn
Lake
Lake
SCT_20_YRH
Yellow
River County H
River
SCT_28_GC
Gaslyn
Creek
Creek
SCT_07_BSL
Big Sand
Lake
Lake
SCT_26_BALL Ballfield
HUC12
Number
HUC12 HUC10
Name Number
HUC10
Name
HUC8
Number
HUC8 Name
Yellow
Lake0703000105
Yellow
River
07030001
Upper St.
Croix
Sand
Lake070300010501
Yellow
River
Big
Sand
070300010502 LakeYellow
Wetland
River
SCT_21_YL
Yellow
Lake
Lake
Yellow
Lake070300010504
Yellow
River
SCT_02_LC
Loon
Creek
River
070300010505
Loon
Creek
41 | P a g e
SCT_01_YRN
Yellow
River North
River
SCT_03_YRS
Yellow
River South
River
SCT_09_BL
Bashaw
Lake
Lake
SCT_11_SL
Sand Lake
- Maple
Lake
Plain
SCT_16_CL
Clam Lake Lake
Clam
River SCT_18_CRLB
Lynch
Bridge
River
St. Croix
River
River
Straight
SCT_13A_SRN River North
River
Straight
SCT_13B_SRS River South
SCT_15_BRL
070300010802
Bashaw
Brook
0703000108
070300010803
Sand
Creek
North Fork
Clam River
Clam
Lake070300010904
Clam
River
0703000109 Clam River
Clam Lake
SCT_24_CRPB - Pike
River
Bend
SCT_25_SCR
Buffalo
Lake070300010506
Yellow
River
River
Black
Brook070300010905
Clam
River
Hay
Creek070300011202 Saint
Croix
River
Chases
Brook0703000112
Saint Croix
River
Beaver
BrookStraight
070300050702
0703000507
Apple
River
River
07030005
Lower St.
Croix
Big Round
Lake
Lake
5.1 Data Analysis
The water quality data that is represented was collected at the following St. Croix monitoring
stations during various sampling periods depending on the station. Some stations have been
monitored more extensively than others. Stations are sampled on a random rotational basis
unless certain stations are identified for priority sampling, such as ahead of a scheduled culvert
project. All monitoring followed methods outlined in 3.1 Field Collection and Timeframes.
42 | P a g e
Summaries of the water quality results for turbidity (as proxy for suspended sediment
concentration), Nitrate of Nitrite (NO 3 +NO 2 ), Kjeldahl nitrogen, total Nitrogen, and total
Phosphorus are given below for each sampling station organized by the relevant HUC8,
HUC10, and HUC12 watersheds. Where relevant, chlorophyll-a data is included for lakes as an
indicator of lake productivity which can be influenced by nutrients. Waters assessed include lake
and river/stream sites, with one wetland site. Where applicable, exceedances for each
parameter are measured based on Wisconsin’s NR 102 guidance and/or US EPA reference
criteria for Nutrient Ecoregion VI (Corn Belt and Northern Great Plains) as noted in Table 6 in
Section 3.2, Current Water Quality Efforts.
Upper St. Croix HUC8 07030001
St. Croix has sampled 15 sampling stations at varying intervals in the Upper St. Croix HUC8 for
their Section 106 program, listed below by HUC10 and HUC12.
Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC10 0703000105
St. Croix sampled three rivers (Gaslyn Creek, Yellow River (three locations), and Loon Creek),
three lakes (Gaslyn Lake, Big Sand Lake, and Yellow Lake), and one wetland (Ballfield) in this
HUC10.
Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
070300010501
At station SCT_04_GL, Gaslyn
Lake (sampling years 2001-2010,
2012-2025), 41 samples (54%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.028 mg/L with 4 samples (5%)
exceeding the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR
NR 102 threshold. Six hundred and
seventeen samples (95%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.84 NTU for turbidity. Two samples
(29%) exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3
threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while 37
samples (100%) exceeded the total
N threshold of 0.33 mg/L and 41
samples (100%) exceeded the
Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_28_GC, Gaslyn
Figure 15: Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
Creek (sampling years 2012-2025),
28 samples (64%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 4 samples (9%) exceeding
the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold. Eighty samples (94%) exceeded the EPA threshold
of 0.84 NTU for turbidity. Three samples (17%) exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L,
43 | P a g e
while 34 samples (100%) exceeded the total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L and 32 samples (100%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_20_YRH, Yellow River - County H (sampling years 2004-2010, 2017-2018), 42
samples (86%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 3 samples (6%) exceeding the
0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold. Forty-nine samples (92%) exceeded the EPA threshold
of 0.84 NTU for turbidity. Five samples (83%) exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L,
while 6 samples (100%) exceeded the total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L and 5 samples (83%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
Table 11: Sand Lake-Yellow River monitoring stations
SCT_04_GL Gaslyn Lake
SCT_28_GC Gaslyn Creek
SCT_20_YRH Yellow River
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*) NR102: 76 (4); Lvl III: 76 (41) NR102: 44 (4) ; Lvl III: 44 (28) NR102: 49 (3); Lvl III: 49 (42)
Range (mg/l)
0.016 -0.12
0.015 - 0.082
0.025 - 0.091
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
647 (617)
85 (80)
53 (49)
Range (NTU)
0 - 530
0 - 44.8
0 - 88
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
7 (2)
18 (3)
6 (5)
0.0125 - <0.3
0 - 0.16
0.039 - 0.73
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
37 (37)
34 (34)
6 (6)
Range (mg/l)
0.36-1.4
0.35 - 1
0.74 - 1.1
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
41 (41)
39 (32)
6 (5)
0.36 - 1.4
0.25 - 1
0.26 - 1
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where exceeded, red
indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74% of samples exceeded. Yellow
indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for
WIDNR NR 102.
44 | P a g e
Big Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010502
At station SCT_07_BSL, Big
Sand Lake (sampling years
2001-2011, 2015-2016, 20192020, 2025), 11 samples (20%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.028 mg/L with no samples
exceeding the 0.075 mg/L
WIDNR NR 102 threshold.
Eight hundred and twenty-two
samples (68%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.84 NTU for
turbidity. Two samples (29%)
exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3
threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while
15 samples (100%) exceeded
the total N threshold of 0.33
mg/L and 15 samples (100%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N
threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_26_BALL,
Ballfield (sampling year 2011), Figure 16: Big Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
5 samples (71%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 1 sample (14%) exceeding the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102
threshold. Seven samples (100%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.84 NTU for turbidity. Zero
samples exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while 1 sample (100%) exceeded the
Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L. Total N was not sampled.
Table 12: Big Sand Lake-Yellow River monitoring stations
SCT_07_BSL Big Sand Lake
SCT_26_BALL Ballfield
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 56 (0), Lvl III: 56 (11)
NR102: 7 (1); Lvl III: 7 (5)
0.007 - 0.7
0.019 - 0.13
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
Range (NTU)
1209 (822)
7 (7)
0 - 999
2.58 - 35.8
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
7 (2)
1 (0)
0.019 - 0.56
0.044
45 | P a g e
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
15 (15)
N/A
0.37 - 0.74
N/A
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
15 (15)
1 (1)
0.34 - 0.79
1.1
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74% of
samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010504
At station SCT_21_YL, Yellow
Lake (sampling years 20042010), 28 samples (88%)
exceeded the EPA threshold
of 0.028 mg/L with 8 samples
(25%) exceeding the 0.075
mg/L WIDNR NR 102
threshold. Three hundred and
eighty-five samples (90%)
exceeded the EPA threshold
of 0.84 NTU for turbidity.
NO 2 +NO 3 , total N, and
Kjeldahl N were not sampled.
Figure 17: Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC12
Table 13: Yellow Lake-Yellow River monitoring stations
SCT_21_YL Yellow Lake
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 32 (8), Lvl III: 32 (28)
0.013 - 0.17
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
46 | P a g e
n (n*)
428 (385)
Range (NTU)
0 - 240
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
N/A
Range (mg/l)
N/A
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
N/A
Range (NTU)
N/A
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
N/A
Range (mg/l)
N/A
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
Loon Creek HUC12 070300010505
At station SCT_02_LC, Loon
Creek (sampling years 20012010, 2012-2016), 32 samples
(47%) exceeded the EPA
threshold of 0.028 mg/L with no
samples exceeding the 0.075
mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold.
Sixty-six samples (80%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.84 NTU for turbidity. Two
samples (22%) exceeded the
NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L,
while 3 samples (75%) exceeded
the total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L
and 7 samples (78%) exceeded
the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33
mg/L.
Figure 18: Loon Creek HUC12
47 | P a g e
Table 14: Loon Creek monitoring stations
SCT_02_LC Loon Creek
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 68 (0), Lvl III: 68 (32)
0.012 - 1.15
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
83 (66)
Range (NTU)
0 - 101
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
9 (2)
0.0125 - 0.3
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (NTU)
4 (3)
0.24 - 0.48
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
9 (7)
0.21 - 0.67
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
48 | P a g e
Buffalo Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010506
At station SCT_01_YRN, Yellow
River - North (sampling years
2001-2010, 2012-2015), 56
samples (82%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L
with 5 samples (7%) exceeding
the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102
threshold. Sixty-seven samples
(91%) exceeded the EPA
threshold of 0.84 NTU for
turbidity. One sample (20%)
exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3
threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while
one sample (100%) exceeded
the total N threshold of 0.33
mg/L and 4 samples (80%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N
threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_03_YRS, Yellow
River - South (sampling years
2001-2010), 34 samples (72%)
Figure 19: Buffalo Lake-Yellow River HUC12
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.028 mg/L with 4 samples
(9%) exceeding the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold. Thirty-eight samples (88%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.84 NTU for turbidity. Three samples (100%) exceeded the
NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while one sample (100%) exceeded the total N threshold of
0.33 mg/L and 3 samples (100%) exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
Table 15: Buffalo Lake-Yellow River monitoring stations
SCT_01_YRN, Yellow River - North
SCT_03_YRS, Yellow River - South
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR 102: 68 (5); Lvl III: 68 (56)
NR 102: 47 (4); Lvl III: 47 (34)
0.007 - 0.42
0.016 - 0.094
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
74 (67)
43 (38)
Range (NTU)
0 - 119
0 - 173
NO3+NO2: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
5 (1)
3 (3)
49 | P a g e
Range (mg/l)
0.085 - 0.12
< 0.3
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
1 (1)
1 (1)
Range (mg/l)
0.63
0.59
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
5 (4)
3 (3)
0.31 - 0.67
0.5 - 0.63
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
North Fork Clam River HUC10 0703000108
St. Croix sampled two rivers (Bashaw Lake, Sand Lake) in this HUC10.
Bashaw Brook HUC12 070300010802
At station SCT_09_BL, Bashaw
Lake (sampling years 20012010, 2015-2018, 2021-2022),
56 samples (95%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L
with 26 samples (44%)
exceeding the 0.075 mg/L
WIDNR NR 102 threshold.
Three hundred and twenty-six
samples (97%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.84 NTU for
turbidity. Ten samples (83%)
exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3
threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while 18
samples (100%) exceeded the
total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L
and 19 samples (100%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N
threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
Figure 20: Bashaw Brook HUC12
50 | P a g e
Table 16: Bashaw Brook monitoring stations
SCT_09_BL, Bashaw Lake
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 59 (26), Lvl III: 59 (56)
0.024 - 0.29
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
337 (326)
Range (NTU)
0 - 317
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
12 (10)
0.019 - 1.9
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
18 (18)
Range (NTU)
0.79 - 1.8
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
19 (19)
Range (mg/l)
0.77 - 1.8
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
51 | P a g e
Sand Creek HUC12 070300010803
At station SCT_11_SL, Sand
Lake - Maple Plain (sampling
years 2001-2011, 2017-2018,
2023-2024), 10 samples (40%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.028 mg/L with 5 samples (20%)
exceeding the 0.075 mg/L
WIDNR NR 102 threshold. One
thousand ninety-five samples
(84%) exceeded the EPA
threshold of 0.84 NTU for
turbidity. One sample (13%)
exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3
threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while 11
samples (85%) exceeded the
total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L
and 11 samples (85%) exceeded
the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33
mg/L.
Figure 21: Sand Creek HUC12
Table 17: Sand Creek monitoring stations
SCT_11_SL, Sand Lake - Maple Plain
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 25 (5), Lvl III: 25 (10)
0.009 - 0.21
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
Range (NTU)
1301 (1095)
0-361
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
8 (1)
0.033 - 0.12
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
13 (11)
Range (NTU)
0.17 - 2.9
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
52 | P a g e
n (n*)
13 (11)
Range (mg/l)
0.27 - 2.9
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
Clam River HUC10 0703000109
St. Croix sampled the Clam River in two locations and Clam Lake in this HUC10.
Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12 070300010904
At station SCT_16_CL, Clam
Lake (sampling years 20012011, 2015-2025), 82 samples
(98%) exceeded the EPA
threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 40
samples (48%) exceeding the
0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102
threshold. Three hundred and
fifty-one samples (98%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.84 NTU for turbidity. Five
samples (36%) exceeded the
NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13
mg/L, while 35 samples (100%)
exceeded the total N threshold
of 0.33 mg/L and 36 samples
(100%) exceeded the Kjeldahl
N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_18_CRLB, Clam
River-Lynch Bridge (sampling
Figure 22: Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12
years 2001-2011, 2015-2025),
85 samples (98%) exceeded
the EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 24 samples (28%) exceeding the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR
102 threshold. One hundred twenty-five samples (99%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.84
NTU for turbidity. Twenty-three samples (68%) exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L,
while 29 samples (94%) exceeded the total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L and 24 samples (71%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
53 | P a g e
Table 18: Clam Lake-Clam River monitoring stations
SCT_16_CL, Clam Lake
SCT_18_CRLB, Clam River-Lynch Bridge
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*) NR102: 84 (40), Lvl III: 84 (82)
Range (mg/l)
0.02 - 0.734
NR102: 87 (24), Lvl III: 87 (85)
0.01 - 0.38
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
358 (351)
126 (125)
Range (NTU)
0 - 999
0 - 134
NO3+NO2: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
14 (5)
34 (23)
0.019 - 0.19
0.045 - 0.3
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
35 (35)
31 (29)
Range (mg/l)
0.39 - 3.4
0.25 - 1.2
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
36 (36)
34 (24)
Range (mg/l)
0.36 - 3.3
0.22 - 0.94
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74% of
samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
54 | P a g e
Black Brook-Clam River HUC12 070300010906
At station SCT_24_CRPB, Clam
Lake - Pike Bend (sampling
years 2004-2011, 2015-2025),
74 samples (91%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L
with 39 samples (48%)
exceeding the 0.075 mg/L
WIDNR NR 102 threshold. One
hundred fifteen samples (96%)
exceeded the EPA threshold of
0.84 NTU for turbidity. No
samples exceeded the
NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13
mg/L, while thirty-five samples
(100%) exceeded the total N
threshold of 0.33 mg/L and 38
samples (100%) exceeded the
Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33
mg/L.
Figure 23: Black Brook-Clam River HUC12
Table 19: Black Brook-Clam River monitoring stations
SCT_24_CRPB, Clam Lake - Pike Bend
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 81 (39), Lvl III: 81 (74)
0.012 - 0.84
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
120 (115)
Range (NTU)
0 - 153
NO3+NO2: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
4 (0)
0.041 - 0.13
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
35 (35)
Range (NTU)
0.41 - 1.9
55 | P a g e
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
38 (38)
Range (mg/l)
0.41 - 1.8
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
Chases Brook-Saint Croix River HUC10 0703000112
St. Croix sampled the St. Croix River in one location in this HUC10.
Hay Creek-Saint Croix River
HUC12 (070300011202)
At station SCT_25_SCR, St. Croix
River (sampling years 2004-2010),
13 samples (37%) exceeded the
EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with
2 samples (6%) exceeding the
0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102
threshold. Turbidity, NO 2 +NO 3 ,
total N, and Kjeldahl N were not
sampled.
Figure 24: Hay Creek-St. Croix River HUC12
Table 20: Hay Creek-St. Croix River monitoring stations
SCT_25_SCR, St. Croix River
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 35 (2), Lvl III: 35 (13)
0.01 - 0.15
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
56 | P a g e
n (n*)
N/A
Range (NTU)
N/A
NO3+NO2: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
N/A
Range (mg/l)
N/A
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
N/A
Range (NTU)
N/A
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
N/A
Range (mg/l)
N/A
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where
exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74%
of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is zero
exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
Lower St. Croix HUC8
07030005
St. Croix has sampled one
lake (Big Round Lake) and
one river (Straight River, two
locations) at varying
intervals in the Lower St.
Croix HUC8 for their Section
106 program, listed below.
All sampling locations are in
the Beaver Brook-Apple
River HUC10 (0703000507)
and the Straight River
HUC12 (070300050702).
At station SCT_15_BRL, Big
Round Lake (sampling
years 2001-2014, 20192025), 43 samples (58%)
exceeded the EPA threshold
of 0.028 mg/L with 20
Figure 25: Straight River HUC12
samples (27%) exceeding
the 0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold. Six hundred and eighty-four samples (90%)
57 | P a g e
exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.84 NTU for turbidity. No samples exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3
threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while 19 samples (95%) exceeded the total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L
and 22 samples (96%) exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_13B_SRS, Straight River - South (sampling years 2008-2014, 2019-2025), 30
samples (68%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 2 samples (23%) exceeding the
0.075 mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold. Seventy-nine samples (89%) exceeded the EPA
threshold of 0.84 NTU for turbidity. No samples exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L,
while 19 samples (90%) exceeded the total N threshold of 0.33 mg/L and 22 samples (92%)
exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L.
At station SCT_13A_SRN, Straight River - North (sampling years 2001-2014), 9 samples
(100%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.028 mg/L with 2 samples (22%) exceeding the 0.075
mg/L WIDNR NR 102 threshold. Sixteen samples (94%) exceeded the EPA threshold of 0.84
NTU for turbidity. No samples exceeded the NO 2 +NO 3 threshold of 0.13 mg/L, while 3 samples
(100%) exceeded the Kjeldahl N threshold of 0.33 mg/L. Total N was not sampled.
Table 21: Straight River monitoring stations
SCT_15_BRL, Big Round Lake
SCT_13B_SRS, Straight River South
SCT_13A_SRN, Straight River North
total Phosphorus: NR102: 0.075 mg/L, Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.028 mg/L
n (n*)
Range (mg/l)
NR102: 74 (20); Lvl III: 74 (43)
NR102: 44 (10) ; Lvl III: 44 (30)
NR102: 9 (2) ; Lvl III: 9 (9)
0.011 - 0.51
0.013 - 0.14
0.03 - 0.14
Turbidity: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.84 NTU
n (n*)
762 (684)
89 (79)
17 (16)
Range (NTU)
0 - 356
0 - 49.8
0 -17.4
NO2 + NO3: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.13 mg/L
n (n*)
1 (0)
19 (0)
2 (0)
Range (mg/l)
0.125
0.0125 - 0.07
0.0125 - 0.062
total Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
20 (19)
21 (19)
N/A
Range (mg/l)
0.021 - 2
0.021 - 1.7
N/A
Kjeldahl Nitrogen: Level III Ecoregion 51: 0.33 mg/L
n (n*)
23 (22)
24 (22)
3 (3)
Range (mg/l)
0.021 - 2
0.021 - 1.9
0.7 - 1.1
n = number of samples; n* = number of exceeded samples (in parentheses). Where exceeded, red indicates 75% or greater of
samples exceeded. Orange indicates 50-74% of samples exceeded. Yellow indicates 25-49% of samples exceeded. Green is
zero exceedances. P exceedance color coding is for WIDNR NR 102.
58 | P a g e
5.2 Summary of Water Quality Data
The table below summarizes the overall water quality status of the monitored waterbodies in the
St. Croix Section 106 monitoring program based on past sampling. The following classification
is used to sort the waterbodies into three categories of water quality goal attainment:
•
•
•
Impacted – Sites that had at least three pollutants with data in exceedance of the goal
or are in exceedance of phosphorus are considered Impacted by NPS pollution.
Threatened –. Sites that had one to two pollutants with data in exceedance of the goal
are considered Threatened by NPS pollution.
Protection – Sites without any data that exceeded goals are identified solely for
Protection activities.
Table 22: WQ summary table
Upper St. Croix HUC8 07030001
Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC10
0703000105
Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
070300010501
Big Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
070300010502
N
Turbidity
Goal
Attainment
Gaslyn Lake
X
X
Threatened
SCT_20_YRH
Yellow River County H
X
X
Threatened
SCT_28_GC
Gaslyn Creek
X
X
Threatened
SCT_07_BSL
Big Sand Lake
X
X
Threatened
X
X
Threatened
N/A
X
Impacted
Station ID
Station Name
SCT_04_GL
P
SCT_26_BALL Ballfield
Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC12
070300010504
SCT_21_YL
Yellow Lake
Loon Creek HUC12 070300010505
SCT_02_LC
Loon Creek
X
X
Threatened
Buffalo Lake-Yellow River HUC12
070300010506
SCT_01_YRN
Yellow River - North
X
X
Threatened
SCT_03_YRS
Yellow River - South
X
X
Threatened
North Fork Clam River HUC10
0703000108
Station ID
Station Name
P
N
Turbidity
Goal
Attainment
Bashaw Brook HUC12
070300010802
SCT_09_BL
Bashaw Lake
X
X
X
Impacted
Sand Creek HUC12 070300010803
SCT_11_SL
Sand Lake - Maple
Plain
X
X
Threatened
Clam River HUC 10 0703000109
Station ID
Station Name
P
N
Turbidity
Goal
Attainment
SCT_16_CL
Clam Lake
X
X
X
Impacted
SCT_18_CRLB
Clam River - Lynch
Bridge
X
X
X
Impacted
SCT_24_CRPB
Clam Lake - Pike
Bend
X
X
X
Impacted
Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12
070300010904
Black Brook-Clam River HUC12
070300010905
X
59 | P a g e
Chases Brook-Saint Croix River
HUC10 0703000112
Station ID
Station Name
Hay Creek-Saint Croix River HUC12
070300011202
SCT_25_SCR
St. Croix River
P
N
Turbidity
Goal
Attainment
N/A
N/A
Protection
N
Turbidity
Goal
Attainment
Lower St. Croix HUC8 07030005
Beaver Brook-Apple River HUC10
0703000507
Station ID
Station Name
SCT_13A_SRN
Straight River North
X
X
Threatened
Straight River HUC12 070300050702 SCT_13B_SRS Straight River South
X
X
Threatened
X
X
Impacted
SCT_15_BRL
Big Round Lake
P
X
Discussion
For each HUC12 watershed listed in Section 5, a summary of the pollutants of concern,
stressors or causes of NPS pollution, and NPS category focus areas are provided. NPS
category focus areas were selected based on review of available data, best professional
judgement, and tribal feedback.
Upper St. Croix HUC8 07030001
Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
(070300010501)
The Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12
(070300010501) is ranked by the state for
ecological health in the top third of 36 HUC12s
identified as the top 30% healthiest watersheds
within the St. Croix HUC6 (includes Upper and
Lower St. Croix HUC8s). This HUC12 is specifically
noted by WIDNR for its high-quality lakes and
rivers. Less than 10% of tribal samples taken at
each station (Gaslyn Lake, Gaslyn Creek, and
Yellow River- County H) in the HUC12 exceeded
the WIDNR’s NR 102 total P criteria of 0.075 mg/L,
which reinforces available state data.
Gaslyn Lake was categorized by the St. Croix in
Figure 26: Gaslyn Lake
2022 as mesotrophic, meaning it typically has a
moderate supply of nutrients, experiences
moderate algal blooms, and has occasional oxygen depletions at depth. Phosphorus trends
60 | P a g e
over the last five years of sampling at Gaslyn Lake and Gaslyn Creek show some minor
fluctuations in total P within the lake year to year, but no significant trending increases or
decreases. It is worth noting that there is very little residential development along Gaslyn Lake.
Development is restricted along the entire east shoreline due to County Highway H, and only
one house is directly on the lakefront while less than 10 houses are within 500 feet of the
shoreline. This lack of lakefront development is likely contributing to Gaslyn Lake’s trophic
status, and protection/natural enhancement of the remaining undeveloped shoreline should be a
priority to maintain water quality.
Gaslyn Creek flows into Gaslyn
Lake from the west and flows out in
the southeast corner. The creek’s
headwaters are primarily wooded
wetland and forested upland land
cover, and its outlet from Gaslyn
Lake down to its confluence with
the Yellow River flows through St.
Croix lands that are very lowdensity development and mostly
forested. Prioritizing continued
forest canopy cover along Gaslyn
Creek is a recommended
protection strategy to maintain
water quality.
Figure 27: Gaslyn Creek
The Yellow River sampling site is
located upstream of Gaslyn Creek’s confluence with the Yellow River, at State Highway H. This
section of the Yellow River is undeveloped with a large percentage passing through county
owned forest land. Some small wild rice beds also exist along this section from sparse to dense
densities in given years. Sampling there shows generally more elevated total P than the Gaslyn
Lake and Gaslyn Creek sites, as well as a slight upward trend in total P over the last five
sampling years (2008-2010 and 2017-2018). This may be the result of increasing P sources
further upstream in the watershed. None of those recent samples exceeded the state total P
criteria, but they all exceeded the USEPA Level III Ecoregion 51 criteria.
Pollutants of concern
● Phosphorus
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
61 | P a g e
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Big Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010502
The Big Sand Lake-Yellow River HUC12 (070300010502) is ranked by the state for ecological
health in the middle third of 36 HUC12s identified as the top 30% healthiest watersheds within
the St. Croix HUC6 (includes Upper and Lower St. Croix HUC8s). It includes two tribal
monitoring stations at Big Sand Lake and a wetland monitoring that occurred in 2011 at the
Ballfield site. Given that the Ballfield site was a single monitoring year in response to a project,
NPS water quality discussion will be centered on Big Sand Lake. Total P levels at Big Sand
Lake across all monitoring years showed zero exceedances of the WIDNR NR102 threshold of
0.075 mg/L. The lake is classified by WIDNR as a Deep Seepage lake, an Outstanding
Resource Water, and an Exceptional Resource Water. Past trophic state index calculations by
St. Croix classified the lake as mesotrophic. Shoreline stabilization in various locations along the
lake has been performed by St. Croix in the past to prevent excessive sediment from washing
into the lake. Tribal members fish for a variety of species in Big Sand Lake including bluegill,
black crappie, walleye, largemouth bass, yellow perch, and northern pike. Areas of wild rice also
exist on Big Sand Lake and historically were larger. Continued shoreline protection and
enhancement actions to protect and restore native lakeside vegetation including wild rice is
recommended to maintain the lake’s high level of water quality.
Pollutants of concern
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Yellow Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010504
Surrounding land use at Yellow Lake has significantly more lakeside development than Gaslyn
or Big Sand Lakes, as well as more surrounding agriculture; however, WIDNR has found no
major sources of nonpoint source loading in this area, including from surrounding agriculture.
The lake has legacy impairments from past point source pollution and excess phosphorus is
62 | P a g e
likely from internal loading. Blue green algae blooms are frequent and macrophyte growth is
high. Yellow Lake was placed on the state impaired waters list for total P in 2010. Tribal
sampling covered 2004-2010 and showed 25% of samples taken across those years exceeding
state total P criteria, and 88% of samples exceeding USEPA total P criteria. WIDNR
assessments from 2018 showed continued impairment by phosphorus with total phosphorus
and chlorophyll-a sample data exceeding the 2018 WisCALM listing thresholds for the
Recreational and Fish and Aquatic Life uses.
Despite these listed impairments, Yellow Lake has historically been an excellent and very
diverse fishery. It has one of the state’s best, sustainable sturgeon populations, cisco spawning,
a rare naturally reproducing walleye population, and large northern pike and muskies. Because
of this, there is a recommendation by WIDNR to remove Yellow Lake from impairment of its Fish
and Aquatic Life use. Given the quality of its fisheries and the likelihood of internal loading
contributing to high total P, this HUC12 is not on St. Croix’s priority list for addressing NPS
pollution.
Loon Creek HUC12 070300010505
The Loon Creek HUC12 includes one tribal sampling station on Loon Creek, which is a small
tributary of the Yellow River. The creek contains gravel/cobble substrate at the sampling
location but shifts to sand and silt in other locations. Total P sampled at this location across all
sampling years showed zero exceedances of the WIDNR total P criteria, and less than half of
the samples exceeded the USEPA total P criteria. Past tribal sampling at this location has
included macroinvertebrates, which showed a high degree of taxonomic richness with almost
80% EPT taxa, a strong indication of good water quality and reinforced by the total P data. The
HUC12 is ranked by the state for ecological health in the lower third of 36 HUC12s identified as
the top 30% healthiest watersheds within the St. Croix HUC6 (includes Upper and Lower St.
Croix HUC8s), a further indicator of good water quality. NPS recommendations for this HUC12
include protection of existing riparian cover and adjacent wetlands, and implementation of best
practices for forestry management.
Pollutants of concern
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
63 | P a g e
Buffalo Lake-Yellow River HUC12 070300010506
The Buffalo Lake-Yellow River HUC12 is ranked by the state for ecological health in the lower
third of 36 HUC12s identified as the top 30% healthiest watersheds within the St. Croix HUC6
(includes Upper and Lower St. Croix HUC8s). The HUC12 includes two tribal monitoring
stations, Yellow River-North and Yellow River-South, both situated along the Yellow River. Total
P sampled across all years at each station showed less than 10% exceedance of the WIDNR
total P criteria; however, it showed over 70% exceedance of the USEPA total P criteria at each
station which was higher than other HUC12s attaining WIDNR total P criteria. The Yellow RiverNorth sampling station is situated at the mouth of the Yellow River where it confluences with the
St. Croix River, and the YR-South station is just upriver of that, so these stations are influenced
by a large drainage area. Fortunately, the drainage area consists of mostly forested wetland and
upland with a very low level of development, which contributes to the HUC12’s overall good
water quality. NPS recommendations for this HUC12 include protection of existing riparian cover
and adjacent wetlands, and implementation of best practices for forestry management.
Pollutants of concern
● Phosphorus
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
64 | P a g e
Bashaw Brook HUC12 070300010802
The Bashaw Brook HUC12 includes the Bashaw
Lake sampling station. The lake does have some
tribal land adjacent to it, but without local
cooperation any NPS implementation activities to
reduce nutrient and sediment loads may be
difficult. Total P sampled from 2001-2010, 20152018, and 2021-2022 indicated 44% of all
samples exceeding the WIDNR total P criteria,
and 95% of samples exceeding the USEPA total
P criteria. Bashaw Creek upstream of Bashaw
Lake flows through an agricultural area, which
may be the reason for the higher P content and
resultant algae blooms. Bashaw Lake and the
creek just downstream of the lake supported a
modest rice bed in the past, and tribal elders have
noted the area as a “good ricing spot” historically.
Over 50% of the lakeshore is developed, which
could impact water quality and the ability to
restore past ricing locations. Tribal members fish Figure 28: Bashaw Lake
the lake for panfish, northern pike and largemouth
bass. The lake is not currently considered impaired for total P by the WIDNR, and it is not a high
priority for NPS implementation for the St. Croix at this time.
Sand Creek HUC12 070300010803
The Sand Creek HUC12 contains the Sand Lake-Maple Plain monitoring station. Sand Lake is
classified as a Deep Lowland, ORW, and ERW by WIDNR and it is fully attaining both its
Aquatic Life and Recreational uses. It is considered a high-quality body of water with a good
fishery; muskellunge, panfish and walleye are fished by tribal members and the lake is stocked
with walleye fingerlings by the St. Croix. Past tribal trophic status index calculations have
classified the lake as mesotrophic. Total P sampling across all years at Sand Lake show it
exceeding only 20% of samples using the WIDNR NR102 criteria, and 40% of all samples using
the USEPA criteria. NPS recommendations for this HUC12 include protection of existing riparian
cover and adjacent wetlands around the lake, and implementation of best practices for forestry
management.
Pollutants of concern
● Phosphorus
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
65 | P a g e
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12 070300010904
The Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12 includes two tribal monitoring stations, Clam Lake and Clam
River-Lynch Bridge. Clam Lake is listed as impaired by WIDNR for excess P due to excess algal
growth and eutrophication. In contrast, the Clam River is identified by WIDNR as an
Outstanding Resource Water and is currently attaining its cold water Aquatic Life Use. Total P
sampled across all years at Clam Lake show 48% of samples exceeding the WIDNR total P
criteria, and 98% of samples exceeding the USEPA total P criteria. Algae blooms are noted as
problematic at Clam Lake. The Clam River sampling location had only 28% of samples
exceeding the WIDNR total P criteria, but also 98% of samples exceeding the USEPA total P
criteria. Continued monitoring of both stations is important to stay on top of NPS trends, as the
past five years of total P monitoring shows recent upward trends of total P at each station in
exceedance of the WIDNR total P criteria. Clam Lake is likely affected by upstream agricultural
use in the Clam River headwaters. St. Croix priorities for Clam Lake are to restore wild rice,
water quality, fisheries, and waterfowl populations. Wild rice acreage at Clam Lake is
considered to be one of the best lakes in Northwest Wisconsin.
Pollutants of concern
● Phosphorus
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
agricultural runoff, erosion
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Agriculture
66 | P a g e
Black Brook-Clam River HUC12 070300010906
The Black Brook-Clam River HUC12 includes the Clam Lake-Pike Bend monitoring station,
which is located at the furthest downstream outlet of Clam Lake on Clam River. As mentioned
earlier, the Clam River is identified by WIDNR as an Outstanding Resource Water and is
currently attaining its cold-water Aquatic Life Use, with parts of the river being class
I and III trout water. The monitoring station at Pike Bend is likely influenced by algal blooms and
excessive P in Clam Lake, with 48% of all samples taken exceeding the WIDNR total P criteria
and 91% exceeding the USEPA criteria. NPS recommendations for this HUC12 are tied to the
recommendations in the Clam Lake-Clam River HUC12, as well as protecting and restoring
adjacent riparian and wetland areas along the Clam River downstream of Clam Lake.
Pollutants of concern
● Phosphorus
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
agricultural runoff, erosion
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Agriculture
Hay Creek-Saint Croix River HUC12 070300011202
This HUC12 includes the tribal monitoring station along the St. Croix River. Only total P has
been sampled at this station, and only 6% and 37% of samples exceeded the WIDNR total P
and USEPA total P criteria, respectively. This HUC12 is ranked by the state for ecological health
in the top third of 36 HUC12s identified as the top 30% healthiest watersheds within the St.
Croix HUC6 (includes Upper and Lower St. Croix HUC8s). This HUC12 is specifically noted by
WIDNR for its high-quality rivers, including the St. Croix River. The river is classified as an
Outstanding Resource Water and as an Exceptional Resource Water. The entire river is also a
national wild and scenic waterway as designated by the National Park Service. Within tribal
lands, NPS recommendations for this HUC12 are focused on wetland/riparian areas and
forestry management.
Pollutants of concern
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
67 | P a g e
Stressors of concern
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Lower St. Croix HUC8 07030005
Straight River HUC12 070300050702
The Straight River HUC12 includes three tribal sampling stations: Big Round Lake, Straight
River-South, and Straight River-North. St. Croix lands are located on the northeast corner of the
lake, and over 75% of the lakeshore is developed. The Straight River enters Big Round Lake on
the northern end and exits at the southern end. The Straight River-North and South sampling
stations are upstream and downstream of Big Round Lake, respectively. The Straight RiverSouth station has been sampled more frequently and recently than Straight River-North. Total P
sampling across all years at Big Round Lake shows 27% of samples exceeding the WIDNR
total P criteria and 58% exceeding the USEPA criteria. Algal blooms occur at Big Round Lake
annually, and were observationally getting worse in spread as of 2019 per tribal information. As
with Yellow Lake, internal P loading is suspected to be the issue at Big Round Lake, and alum
has been discussed as a treatment. Small, remnant crops of wild rice are located near the
Straight River-North sampling station and at the tribal lands on the northeast shore. Given the
level of lakeside development, it may be difficult to restore additional wild rice populations. Tribal
members spear and fish Big Round Lake for walleye, largemouth bass, yellow perch, bluegill,
black crappie, and northern pike, and the lake has been used in the past to collect walleye eggs
for tribal nurseries. Extensive use is made of the lake by migratory waterfowl; ranging in
importance from most to least use are coots, diving ducks (redheads and canvasbacks), puddle
ducks, Canada geese and whistling swans. Nesting waterfowl include mallards, bluewing teal,
greenwing teal and ringneck ducks. The lake is currently not attaining its Fish and Aquatic Life
or Recreational uses due to algal blooms and eutrophication. A long-term NPS-focused lake
management plan is recommended to directly address the legacy P in the lake sediments and
manage the lakeshore to minimize further nutrient and sediment inputs.
The Straight River, in contrast, is listed by WIDNR as a trout water and is in attainment of its
Cold Water Fish and Aquatic Life use. Total P data for the Straight River-South sampling station
downstream of the lake shows 23% of all samples exceeding the WIDNR criteria and 68%
exceeding the USEPA criteria, and data for the Straight River-North station upstream of the lake
shows 22% of all samples exceeding the WIDNR criteria and 100% of all samples exceeding
68 | P a g e
the USEPA criteria, which are similar to or significantly exceeding the percentages in Big Round
Lake. These sites, despite being on a high-quality river, are likely heavily influenced by the
excess P in Big Round Lake. NPS recommendations are therefore tied to the recommendations
for Big Round Lake, as well as protecting and restoring adjacent riparian and wetland areas
along the Straight River upstream of Big Round Lake.
Pollutants of concern
● Phosphorus
● Sediment
● Nitrogen
Stressors of concern
Legacy P loading
Removal of streamside vegetation
Timber harvesting
Road construction and road use
Loss of wetland/riparian areas
agricultural runoff, erosion
Streambank erosion
NPS category focus areas
Wetland/Riparian Areas
Forestry
Agriculture
Sediment and Nitrogen Recommendations
Tribal sampling across all HUC12s in both the Upper and Lower St. Croix HUC8s shows large
exceedances of turbidity (a proxy for suspended sediment) and nitrogen following USEPA Level
III Ecoregion 51 thresholds. These parameters are not part of the state’s water quality criteria for
aquatic life use, but excess sediment can cloud waters, embed in substrates, and affect the
ability for fish to breathe, while excess nitrogen in water bodies can lead to harmful algal blooms
and other negative impacts on aquatic ecosystems. As sediment and nitrogen are important
NPS pollutants, these have been listed as Pollutants of Concern for all HUC12s. Further
monitoring is needed to identify whether these thresholds represent appropriate criteria for tribal
water resources and work towards St. Croix goal of establishing their own federal water quality
standards. Best practices for NPS nutrient reduction typically target both phosphorus and
nitrogen as well as excess sediment, so implementation of BMPs in phosphorus-impaired tribal
HUC12s will likely also reduce excess nitrogen and sediment.
69 | P a g e
Selection of NPS BMPs
This section discusses St. Croix process for selecting BMPs to address the NPS issues and
concerns discussed in this Assessment. It provides an overview of the core participants that will
participate in St. Croix’s BMP selection process and the approaches for public participation and
governmental coordination. Existing BMPs are also identified in this section.
7.1 Key Partners for BMP Selection
The St. Croix intends to lead the effort of BMP selection on trust lands in collaboration with key
participants and partners. The nature of this collaboration may depend on the NPS category, the
type of BMP, and the geographic location targeted for implementation. BMP selection on St.
Croix trust lands will be made in collaboration with local, state, and federal agencies that could
provide technical assistance, aid in education and outreach efforts, implement demonstration
projects, or provide financial assistance to promote implementation. Table 23 presents the core
participants, the mission of each agency, and their roles in BMP selection and implementation.
Table 23: Key partners for BMP selection
Partner
Mission
Role in BMP selection
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin
St. Croix Tribal Council
Legislative Branch of St. Croix Chippewa
Indians of Wisconsin
Provide funding and oversight,
adopt/pass ordinances and laws,
government to government relations.
St. Croix Environmental and
Natural Resources Department
(lead role)
Identify and alleviate any environmental
hazards that may harm the health of the
Tribal Members and surrounding natural
resources
Lead role in BMP selection,
implementation, and coordination
Federal
USDA-NRCS also USGS
Deliver conservation solutions so
agricultural producers can protect natural
resources and feed a growing world.
Partner in identifying resource
concerns, BMP selection and
implementation; provide cost-sharing
for conservation practices.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA),
Region 5
Administers the Section 319 Nonpoint
Source Management program
Technical assistance, partner in BMP
selection, provide funding for BMP
installation.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Maintain government to government
relationships with Tribes
Technical assistance and provide
funding for BMP installation.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE)
Assist tribes with water resources issues
BMP selection and implementation,
permitting, funding, technical
assistance.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Provide assistance for programs related to
fish and wildlife resources.
Technical and financial assistance,
permitting/review for T&E species,
BMP selection for fish passage.
70 | P a g e
State and County
Technical assistance with
Provide a forum for the 11 Native American identification of resource concerns
WI Tribal Conservation Advisory
Tribes in Wisconsin to identify and solve
and selection of BMPs; BMP
Council
natural resource issues on tribal lands.
engineering services and oversight
during construction.
County Land Conservation
Departments
Develop strategies, implement programs,
and provide technical assistance to protect
and enhance the soil and water resources
of the county.
Partner in BMP selection and
implementation; provide cost-sharing
for conservation practices.
WI Dept. of Transportation
Provide safe and effective transportation
infrastructure
Technical assistance, partner in BMP
selection and ROW management.
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
Assist tribes with water resources issues
Technical and financial assistance
7.2 Existing BMPs
The St. Croix have completed several NPS BMPs on tribal lands, including the following:
•
The St. Croix Tribe has been protecting the shoreline along Big Sand Lake in areas
owned by the tribe by partnering with the USDA-NRCS to place gabion structures filled
with rock at the toe of the banks and rock lined waterways below culvert structures to
reduce the amount of sediment being transported to the lake. The Tribe partnered with
Burnett County, Big Sand Lake Preservation Association, the Town of Sand Lake, and
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to replace an outlet culvert in the
northwest portion of Big Sand Lake. The culvert restricted the outflow of the lake and
often flooded the town road crossing the creek which flows out of Big Sand Lake to the
Yellow River. The culvert replacement caused an increase in water flow near the lake
outlet, which is beneficial to wild rice growth.
•
At Sand Lake, the Tribe has assisted the Sand Lake Association in the treatment of
Eurasian watermilfoil with 2,4-D herbicide. The Tribe also stocks Sand Lake with walleye
fingerlings.
•
At Gaslyn Lake, the St. Croix Tribal Natural Resources Department constructed four
half-acre ponds (400,000 gallon capacity) each in an abandoned field within 500 feet of
Gaslyn Lake’s south shore. These ponds are being used for St. Croix’s walleye culture
program. Fry walleye are stocked into the ponds in May and grown to fingerling size until
July. A high capacity well (300 gpm) is used to fill the ponds along with a small amount
(<1,200 gallons) of surface water from an unconnected pond for plankton. These ponds
are drained for harvest into a common settling pond that can hold the drainwater until it
either evaporates or infiltrates, which helps protect the surface water quality of Gaslyn
Lake and Gaslyn Creek.
71 | P a g e
•
The Tribe has also partnered with NRCS to implement forestry best management
practices on tribal lands, and wild rice planting projects along priority wild rice lakes
through their EQIP program.
7.3 Future BMP Selection
The St. Croix has developed a list of potential BMP types to address sources of NPS pollution.
This list is based on current tribal staff capacity, implementation resulting from existing
partnerships, and feedback from tribal members. The various departments and programs within
the St. Croix will give input on BMP selection and the St. Croix will leverage existing planning
efforts and reach out to specific non-tribal entities as needed.
The St. Croix is seeking TAS approval through the Section 319 Program to increase their staff
capacity to more proactively manage the NPS pollution challenges. As previously mentioned,
the ENRD developed a five-year QAPP to support data collection activities that will help assess
NPS issues and aid in BMP selection. The QAPP also identifies unmet objectives and long-term
needs of the ENRD. In addition, regional, state, and federal guidance exists to help select
BMPs. Examples include the WIDNR’s Wisconsin's Forestry Best Management Practices for
Water Quality Field Manual that provides simple and cost-effective methods for protecting water
quality in lakes, streams and wetlands from nonpoint source pollution and soil disturbance
before, during and after forest management activities; the WIDNR’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy
to help identify specific sediment and nutrient reduction programs and activities; and the
NRCS’s Wisconsin-specific Field Office Technical Guide and the Forest Service Manual.
Additional input and discussions with tribal departments and programs, and non-tribal area
partners will refine existing goals.
The St. Croix will undertake the following process for evaluating and selecting BMPs to address
NPS pollution. St. Croix staff will coordinate with the agencies listed above as well as interface
with the public in order to select target BMPs. The steps to select BMPs include:
● Review monitoring data, recent watershed planning work, and other resources and use
best professional judgment for determining which locations will be areas of initial focus.
● Consult with tribal partners regarding prioritization list, key NPS pollutants, relative
magnitude of pollutants in each sub watershed, and opportunities for implementation.
● Identify applicable BMPs appropriate for the type and source of NPS pollution, with the
technical assistance and consultation of partners.
● Narrow and rank the list of applicable BMPs using evaluation factors of estimated
performance and feasibility.
● Identify BMPs that have the potential for collaborative, coordinated implementation with
key partners.
● Pursue funding for approved suite of BMPs with tribal council, tribal member, and public
support.
72 | P a g e
Existing NPS Control Programs
8.1 Available Programs for Controlling NPS Pollution
A wide range of local, state, and federal programs exist that could support the St. Croix as they
address NPS pollution. For some of the funds the St. Croix can apply directly, while some
opportunities will require additional partnership with non-tribal governmental units. Entities that
have programs and may provide technical assistance are summarized below. Additional
information on potential partnerships and opportunities for collaboration is provided in the
Management Plan.
USEPA
CWA Section 106: Section 106 of the CWA authorizes USEPA to provide financial assistance to
states, eligible interstate agencies, and eligible Tribes. USEPA provides this financial assistance
in the form of water pollution control (Section 106) grants. Section 106 grants provide funding to
build and sustain effective water quality programs that ensure the health of our nation’s water
bodies. The available funds are allocated, by formula, among the nine EPA Regions that have
federally recognized tribes. Base allotment provides the Region with $65,167 per TAS-eligible
tribe in the Region. Variable allotment provides the Region with a portion of the allotment based
on three characteristics of federally recognized tribes in the Region: land area, population, and
surface water area.
(https://www.epa.gov/water-pollution-control-section-106-grants/about-water-pollution-controlsection-106-grant-program)
CWA Section 319: Under Section 319, states, territories, and Tribes receive grant money to
support a wide variety of activities including training, technology transfer, demonstration
projects, and monitoring to assess the success of specific nonpoint source implementation
projects. Tribal governments with approved TAS for 319 can receive a non-competitive grant of
$50,000 annually. (https://www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-program-states-and-territories)
CWA Section 319 NPS Competitive CWA Grants: USEPA's National NPS Program solicits
applications via a national competition from §319-eligible Tribes and intertribal consortia to
implement on-the-ground projects to manage NPS pollution. Competitive §319 grants may be
used to develop and/or implement watershed-based plans and other on-the-ground projects that
will result in significant steps towards solving NPS impairments on a watershed-wide basis.
Tribal applicants may request up to $100,000 in federal §319 funds through this competition.
(https://www.epa.gov/nps/current-tribal-ss319-grantinformation#:~:text=Competitive%20%C2%A7319%20grants%20may,319%20funds%20through
%20this%20competition.)
73 | P a g e
CWA Section 104(b)(3) Wetlands Program Development Grants: Wetland Program
Development Grants (WPDGs) provide eligible applicants an opportunity to conduct projects
that promote the coordination and acceleration of research, investigations, experiments,
training, demonstrations, surveys, and studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention,
reduction, and elimination of water pollution. WPDGs assist state, tribal, local government
agencies and interstate/intertribal entities in building programs to protect, manage and restore
wetlands. Applicants for Wetland Program Development Grants will need to meet the applicable
required 25% match at time of award. The 2023 grant round provided projects with funding
between $75,000 and $220,000. (https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/wetland-program-developmentgrants-and-epa-wetlands-grant-coordinators)
CWA Tribal Set-Aside Program, Wastewater Infrastructure: The purpose of the Clean Water Act
Indian Set-Aside Program is to provide funding for wastewater infrastructure to federally
recognized tribal governments and Alaska Native Villages. Funds may be used for planning,
design and construction of wastewater collection and treatment systems. The program is
administered by the USEPA in cooperation with the Indian Health Service. Project components
eligible for funding include:
• Project planning, design, and Preliminary Engineering Report
• Infrastructure construction and major sewer rehabilitation
• Wastewater treatment facilities (conventional or alternative)
• Correction of combined sewer overflows
• Collector sewer pipelines
• On-site wastewater treatment systems (e.g., SSTS, septic systems)
• Follow-up and as-built drawings of funded wastewater projects
• Operator training on new infrastructure equipment for first year
Since FY 2016, the CWISA appropriation from Congress has been either 2 percent of the
CWSRF or $30 million, whichever is greater. This money is split between all applicants for the
given year.
(https://www.epa.gov/small-and-rural-wastewater-systems/clean-water-indian-set-asideprogram#:~:text=The%20Clean%20Water%20Indian%20Set,Indian%20Health%20Service%20(
IHS).)
Environmental Education Grants: Under the Environmental Education Grants Program, EPA
seeks grant applications from eligible applicants to support environmental education projects
that promote environmental awareness and stewardship and help provide people with the skills
to take responsible actions to protect the environment. This grant program provides financial
support for projects that design, demonstrate, and/or disseminate environmental education
practices, methods, or techniques. Since 1992, EPA has distributed between $2 and $3.5
million in grant funding per year, supporting more than 3,920 grants. EE grants are required to
have a non-federal match of 25% of the total cost of the project. Additionally, 25% of EPA
funding must be used for subawards, with each subaward having a value of $5,000 or less.
(https://www.epa.gov/education/grants#awarded)
74 | P a g e
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Grants
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) North American Wetlands Conservation Act: The U.S.
Standard Grants Program is a competitive, matching grants (1:1) program that supports publicprivate partnerships carrying out projects in the United States that further the goals of the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act. These projects must involve long-term protection,
restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and associated uplands habitats for the benefit of
all wetland-associated migratory birds.
(https://www.fws.gov/service/north-american-wetlands-conservation-act-nawca-grants-usstandard)
USFWS Tribal Wildlife Grants: Tribal Wildlife Grants are used to provide technical and financial
assistance to Tribes for the development and implementation of programs that benefit fish and
wildlife resources and their habitat. Activities may include but are not limited to planning for
wildlife and habitat conservation, fish and wildlife conservation and management actions, fish
and wildlife related laboratory and field research, natural history studies, habitat mapping, field
surveys and population monitoring, habitat preservation, and public education that is relevant to
the project. In 2023 the expected award amount was between $10,000 and $200,000.
(https://fws.gov/nativeamerican/grants.html)
NRCS Grants
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): EQIP provides financial and technical
assistance through Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) to agricultural producers and nonindustrial forest managers to address natural resource concerns and deliver environmental
benefits such as improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased
soil health and reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife habitat, and
mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility. Grants are a 1:1 match program
with the maximum CIG award set annually by the NRCS Chief and historically has been either
$1 million or $2 million.
(https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/)
Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HRFP): The HFRP helps landowners restore, enhance, and
protect forestland resources on private lands through easements and financial assistance.
HRFP aids the recovery of endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act, improves plant and animal biodiversity and enhances carbon sequestration. HFRP provides
landowners with 10-year restoration agreements and 30-year or permanent easements for
specific conservation actions. For acreage owned by an American Indian Tribe, there is an
additional enrollment option of a 30-year contract. (https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programsinitiatives/hfrp-healthy-forests-reserve-program)
75 | P a g e
State of Wisconsin Grants
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Surface Water Grants - The Surface Water Grant
Program supports surface water management from start to finish. Tribal governing bodies are
automatically eligible for these grants and can assist with outreach, data collection, planning,
project design or implementation. The grants do have a cost share with the amounts variable
depending on the grant. The award amounts also vary depending on the grant. The four grant
categories are listed below and have multiple grants within each of them:
● Education and Planning Grants
● Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention and Management Grants
● Surface Water Restoration and Management Grants
(https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/aid/SurfaceWater.html)
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Clean Water Fund - Grants provide financial
assistance to municipalities for wastewater and stormwater infrastructure projects. It includes
projects for compliance with a municipality's WPDES permit. The program funds are for
reasonable and necessary costs directly related to the planning, design, & construction of
eligible projects. Funds may be used to construct, improve, modify, purchase, replace, restore,
and upgrade wastewater systems and infrastructure, such as collection, transmission, storage,
treatment, and disposal. Specific funding priorities are identified each round, so not all projects
may be eligible in a given funding round.
(https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/aid/EIF.html)
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: Producer-Led
Watershed Protection Grants - Grants provide support to groups to deliver cost share programs,
on-farm demonstration and research projects, and education and outreach efforts on
conservation systems and innovative practices that improve water quality to farmers and other
community members within their local watersheds. Grants are a (1:1) cost share and the max
award per group is $40,000. Each grant is for one group of at least five farmers within the same
watershed and one collaborator from County Land Conservation, UW-Division of Extension, WI
DNR, or nonprofit organization.
(https://datcp.wi.gov/Pages/Programs_Services/ProducerLedProjects.aspx)
Natural Resources Foundation of Wisconsin: C.D. Besadny Conservation Fund - This fund was
established to invest in grassroots conservation and education projects that benefit Wisconsin’s
lands, waters, and wildlife, and that connect people to Wisconsin’s natural resources. Grants
range from $500 to $2,000 and require a (1:1) match and the total project budget cannot exceed
$10,000. Proposals should address one or more of the following priorities:
Projects that benefit Wisconsin’s most imperiled natural communities and native plant or wildlife
species.
76 | P a g e
Projects that engage and impact underserved communities in Wisconsin and/or support
diversity, equity and inclusion efforts within Wisconsin’s conservation and environmental
education sectors.
Projects that build climate resiliency of Wisconsin’s natural resources through natural climate
solutions or climate adaptation.
(https://www.wisconservation.org/grants/cd-besadny-conservation-grants/)
77 | P a g e
Conclusions
The St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin are unique from most other Native American
tribes in that they do not have one large contiguous reservation. The St. Croix Reservation
comprises approximately 6,423 acres and is scattered within five (5) counties of Wisconsin.
The St. Croix seek to control NPS pollutants by implementing practices and changing behavior
through an NPS management program. Tribal members utilize water resources for everyday
needs including recreation, cultural practices and as a source of food. The St. Croix continually
works to preserve the culture of their people and is therefore dedicated to protecting and
improving water quality within their reservation. The Tribe has become increasingly concerned
with surface water quality in recent years due to the increase in lakeshore development,
agriculture, and overall shifts to more intensive land-uses within the watersheds containing tribal
resources. With dramatic increases in development in northwestern Wisconsin, especially in
lake frontage property, it is the goal of the St. Croix Tribe to re-establish waters of the
reservation to more closely resemble pre-European settlement conditions, and to protect and
enhance existing high-quality waters.
The NPS pollution issues affecting the St. Croix, as described in Sections 5 and 6 of this report,
include nutrients (phosphorous, nitrogen) and sediment. The Tribe has performed some water
quality monitoring (discussed in more detail in Section 3, Methodology) but there is a significant
need to further assess waterbodies associated with St. Croix lands and refine assessment
methodologies, with a goal towards establishing federally recognized tribal water quality
standards. St. Croix assessment data often indicates that many waterbodies qualify as nonimpaired for total phosphorus while turbidity and nitrogen remain high.
The St. Croix has many high-quality surface waters including streams and lakes that meet
WIDNR and St. Croix designated uses. Goals and objectives of the St. Croix NPS program will
focus on protecting, enhancing and restoring these water resources for future generations of the
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin. The NPS program will also focus on environmental
education and public outreach to raise awareness around the significance of these resources.
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin are committed to development of a NPS Management
Program Plan that will detail the steps and measures to be taken to protect our sacred waters.
The plan will build upon the information presented in this assessment report and ensure these
resources are protected for future generations.
78 | P a g e
References
Bloomquist, Jeremy; Songetay, Chad; and Spafford, David. 2025-2026. Personal communications.
Eggers and Reed, 2015. Wetland plants and plant communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Available online at
https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/2845.%20Accessed%20October%202018/
Bloomquist, Jeremy, 2024. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) FY
2021-2022. Prepared under EPA Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Grant #BG-02E02113.
Bloomquist, Jeremy, 2021. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Tribal Water Quality Monitoring Strategy 20212026.
Bloomquist, Jeremy, 2021. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) FY
2019-2020. Prepared under EPA Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Grant #BG-00E02109.
Bloomquist, Jeremy, 2019. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) FY
2017-2018. Prepared under EPA Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Grant #BG-00E02113.
Bloomquist, Jeremy, 2017. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) FY
2015-2016. Prepared under EPA Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Grant #BG-00E02112.
Bloomquist, Jeremy, 2016. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) FY
2013-2015. Prepared under EPA Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Grant #BG-01E02113.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States.
FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Havranek, Tony, 2014. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report FY 2011-2013.
Prepared under EPA Clean Water Act Section 106 Program Grant #BG-00E2109.
MRLC (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium). 2026. National Land Cover Database (NLCD 2024).
Retrieved from: http://www.mrlc.gov.
Saad, D.A., and Robertson, D.M., 2000. Water-resources-related information for the St. Croix Reservation and
vicinity, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 2000-4133, v, 65 p.,
https://doi.org/10.3133/wri004133.
St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, 2026. Available online at https://stcroixojibwe-nsn.gov/.
St. Croix Environmental and Natural Resources Department, 2023. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for
Surface Water Quality Assessment, 2023-2028.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil
Survey. Available online at the following link: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
Sweetkind, D.S., and Simon, J.L., 2023, Digital data from previous USGS hydrogeologic studies of the CambrianOrdovician aquifer system in the northern Midwest, United States: U.S. Geological Survey data release,
https://doi.org/10.5066/P9UJOR3U.
79 | P a g e
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2026. Divisional Climate Normals. Available
online at https://climatology.nelson.wisc.edu/wisconsin-climate-divisions/climate-normals/.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2002. Wisconsin Field Office
Technical Guide. Available online at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/wisconsinengineering-resources.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Handbook for Developing and Managing Tribal Nonpoint
Source Pollution Programs Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. (EPA 841-B-10-001). United States
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Nonpoint Source Control Branch – 4503(T) 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022a. Types of Nonpoint Source Pollution. Available online at
https://www.epa.gov/nps/types-nonpoint-source-pollution.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Office of Water. Office of Wastewater Management. 2006. Final
Guidance on Awards of Grants to Indian Tribes under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act for Fiscal Years
2007 and Beyond. EPA 832-R-06-003.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). Water Quality Report to Congress 2024. Available online at
https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/Congress.html.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). Wisconsin’s Nutrient Loss Reduction Strategy. Available
online at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/SurfaceWater/NutrientStrategy.html.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) Division of Forestry. 2009. Wisconsin’s Forestry Best
Management Practices for Invasive Species. PUB FR-444-2009. Available online at
https://councilonforestry.wi.gov/Pages/InvasiveSpecies/Forestry.aspx.
WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) Division of Forestry. 2010. Wisconsin’s Forestry Best
Management Practices for Water Quality Field Manual. PUB FR-093 2010. Available online at
https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/forestmanagement/bmp.
80 | P a g e
Ap
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.