DOCSLIB.ORG

Vernon County Comprehensive Plan 2030—Phase I Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vernon County Comprehensive Plan 2030—Phase I Document Comprehensive Plan of the County of Vernon Wisconsin Phase I Inventory and Trends Report for Vision 2030 Recommended Draft September 2009 Prepared by the Vernon County Comprehensive Plan Commission Lynn Chakoian - Commission Chair, Economic Development Work Group Jim Servais - Commission Vice-Chair, Land Use and Ag, Natural and Historic Resource Work Groups Karen Ehle-Traastad and Armand Bringe - Housing Work Group Cliff Peterson – Transportation Work Group Dennis Brault – Utilities Work Group Brad Steinmetz – Intergovernmental Cooperation Work Group Phil Hooker – Land Use Maynard Cox and Tom Spenner –Implementation Staff Support Doug Avoles - Planner/GIS Coordinator Lori Polhamus – Clerks Office, Deputy II Greg Lunde – County Corporation Counsel 2 | Vernon County Comprehensive Plan Phase I Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... iii Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iv Maps ................................................................................................................................................ iv Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... v 1. Issues and Opportunities ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Regional Perspective ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Planning Process ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Planning Framework and Reporting Process. ........................................................................... 2 1.5 Public Participation Efforts. ...................................................................................................... 3 1.6 Trends and Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 5 2. Population and Housing................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Population Characteristics and Trends ..................................................................................... 7 2.2 Housing Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Housing Unit Forecast ............................................................................................................ 20 2.4 Household Forecast ............................................................................................................... 22 2.5 Housing Agencies and Programs ............................................................................................ 23 2.6 Population and Housing Trends and Outlook ......................................................................... 26 3. Transportation ............................................................................................................................ 27 3.1 Existing Road System ............................................................................................................. 28 3.2 Road Functional/Jurisdictional Classification .......................................................................... 30 3.3 Traffic Volume Trends ............................................................................................................ 33 3.4 Crash Trends .......................................................................................................................... 35 3.5 Additional Modes of Transport .............................................................................................. 39 3.6 Existing Transportation Plans ................................................................................................. 45 3.7 Planned Transportation Improvements .................................................................................. 47 3.8 Transportation Programs ....................................................................................................... 48 3.9 Transportation Trends and Outlook ....................................................................................... 51 4. Utilities and Community Facilities ................................................................................................ 53 4.1 County Administrative Facilities and Services ......................................................................... 53 4.2 Local Administration .............................................................................................................. 55 4.3 Protective Services................................................................................................................. 55 4.4 School Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 59 4.5 Quasi Public Facilities ............................................................................................................. 61 4.6 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ........................................................................................ 62 4.7 Spatial Distribution of Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ..................................................... 69 4.8 Trails...................................................................................................................................... 70 4.9 Private Park and Recreational Facilities .................................................................................. 70 4.10 Solid Waste Management and Recycling .............................................................................. 71 4.11 Communication and Power Facilities.................................................................................... 72 4.12 Sanitary Sewer Service ......................................................................................................... 75 4.13 Private On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems (POWTS).................................................... 76 4.14 Drinking Water Supply ......................................................................................................... 76 4.15 Stormwater Management .................................................................................................... 76 4.16 Health Care Facilities ........................................................................................................... 77 4.17 Day Care Facilities ................................................................................................................ 78 Vernon County Comprehensive Plan Phase I | i 4.18 Utilities and Community Facilities Programs......................................................................... 78 4.19 Utilities, Community Facilities, and Services Trends and Outlook ......................................... 79 5. Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 81 5.1 Watersheds ........................................................................................................................... 81 5.2 Geology ................................................................................................................................. 82 5.3 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 83 5.4 Farmland and Agricultural Production.................................................................................... 84 5.5 Forests and Woodlands......................................................................................................... 91 5.6 Metallic and Non-Metallic Mineral Resources ........................................................................ 92 5.7 Wetlands and Floodplains ...................................................................................................... 93 5.8 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 108 5.9 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 108 5.10 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 110 5.11 Environmentally Sensitive Areas ........................................................................................ 110 5.12 Wildlife Habitat.................................................................................................................. 111 5.13 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................. 113 5.14 Historic and Cultural Resources.......................................................................................... 117 5.15 Community Design............................................................................................................. 136 5.16 Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources Programs
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Master Plan Report (Final)
    MASTER PLAN FOR HIDDEN FALLS - CROSBY FARM REGIONAL PARK SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION ADOPTED JUNE 26, 2019 Adopted June 26, 2019 St. Paul Parks and Recreation Mission: To build a city that works for all of us, Saint Paul Parks and Recreation will facilitate the creation of active lifestyles, vibrant places and a vital environment. St. Paul Parks and Recreation Vision: Saint Paul Parks and Recreation will make Saint Paul a city that works for all of us by: Responding creatively to change. Innovating with every decision. Connecting the entire city. Hidden Falls / Crosby Farm Regional Park Master Plan | iii This page intentionally left blank iv | Hidden Falls / Crosby Farm Regional Park Master Plan CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 2 4. IMPLEMENTATION 33 Development Concept 33 1. PLANNING FRAMEWORK 3 Plan Approach 33 Park Overview 3 Project Ranking 33 Purpose of the Plan 3 Projects and Cost Estimates 33 Introduction 3 Project Priorities 35 Context Plan 4 1 - Park-Wide Recommendations 38 Guiding Principles 6 2 - Trails & Connectivity Recommendations 42 Vision Statement 6 3 - Hidden Falls North Recommendations 45 History and Culture 7 4 - South Hidden Falls Recommendations 51 5 - West Crosby Farm Recommendations 53 Related Projects and Agencies 9 6 - East Crosby Farm Recommendations 55 Demand Forecast 11 Stewardship Plan 57 Conflicts/Opportunities 58 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS 13 Ordinances 59 Overview 13 Operations 60 Map 1: Existing Conditions 14 Map 2: Boundaries and Acquisitions 16 Operating Hours 60 Map 3: Floodway and Flood Fringe 20 Public Awareness 60 Natural Resources 23 2019 Crosby Farm Park NRMP 5.
    [Show full text]
  • LF0071 Ch6.Pdf
    Figure 6.2: Watersheds (HUC 10) and Sub‐Watersheds (HUC 12) of the Kickapoo River Region. 6‐2 1. OVERVIEW a) Physical Environment This region encompasses both the Kickapoo and La Crosse rivers with a long, large upland ridge running from Norwalk in La Crosse County, south‐southwest to Eastman in Crawford County. On either side of this ridge are numerous narrow hills and valleys that are home to countless headwater creeks. Fed by springs and seeps, these cold waters form some of the most popular trout angling streams in the Driftless Area. Much of the region is covered with deep loess deposits over bedrock (primarily dolostone, sandstone or shale). Soils are primarily silt loams. The region is home to many dry and wet cliffs. The valleys contain stream terraces and floodplains. Streams are high gradient with fast water flow in the headwaters transitioning to meandering low gradient segments as they move toward the Kickapoo and Mississippi Rivers. Groundwater is recharged directly through precipitation. This area has no natural lakes. Figure 6.3: Land cover of the Kickapoo River Region. b) Land Cover and Use The region’s most common land cover is upland forest which blankets most of the hillsides. Crop land is restricted to the uplands and valley floors. The broad, high ridge around Westby and Viroqua is the largest block of upland farmland in the region. The La Crosse River valley floor is also heavily farmed. Very little of the region is prime farmland. c) Terrestrial Habitats This region is especially noteworthy for its current opportunities for the management of big block forests and dry prairie/oak openings near the Mississippi and Kickapoo rivers as well as oak barrens and southern mesic forest in portions of Monroe County.
    [Show full text]
  • References & Appendix
    References & Appendix 6. Daniel B. Shaw and Carolyn Carr (for Great River Document References Greening). 2002, Mississippi River Gorge (Lower Gorge): Ecological Inventory and Restoration Manage- 1. Aaron Brewer (for the Seward Neighborhood Group). ment Plan 1998, The Ecology and Geology of the Mississippi River Gorge 7. Metropolitan Council. 2015, Thrive MSP 2040: Regional Parks Policy Plan 2. Carolyn Carr and Cynthia Lane (for Friends of the Mississippi River). 2010, Riverside Park Natural Area: Ecological Inventory and Restoration Management Plan 8. Metropolitan Council. 2016, Annual Use Estimate for the Regional Park System for 2016 3. Close Landscape Architecture (for The Longfellow Community Council and MPRB). 1997, A Concept Plan 9. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2007, for the Mississippi River Gorge Trail Planning, Design and Development Guidelines 4. David C. Smith. 2018, Minneapolis’s Amazing River 10. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2015, Parks: West River Parkway Mississippi River Trail Bikeway U.S. Bicycle Route (USBR) 45 5. David C. Smith. 2018, Minneapolis’s Amazing River Parks: East River Parkway 11. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2016, Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) MISSISSIPPI GORGE REGIONAL PARK MASTER PLAN REFERENCES AND APPENDIX 8-1 12. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2007, 2007 – 28. City of Minneapolis. 2001, Southeast Minneapolis 2020 Comprehensive Plan Industrial (SEMI), Bridal Veil Refined Master Plan 13. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 1982, Missis- 29. City of Minneapolis. 2007, Seward Longfellow Green- sippi River Master Plan way Area Land Use and Pre-Development Study 14. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2007, Mis- 30. City of Minneapolis. 2006, Mississippi River Critical sissippi River Gorge Slope Stabilization Inventory and Area Plan Analysis 31.
    [Show full text]
  • The Driftless Area – a Physiographic Setting (Dale K
    A Look Back at Driftless Area Science to Plan for Resiliency in an Uncertain Future th Special Publication of the 11 Annual Driftless Area Symposium 1 A Look Back at Driftless Area Science to Plan for Resiliency in an Uncertain Future Special Publication of the 11th Annual Driftless Area Symposium Radisson Hotel, La Crosse, Wisconsin February 5th-6th, 2019 Table of Contents: Preface: A Look Back at Driftless Area Science to Plan for Resiliency in an Uncertain Future (Daniel C. Dauwalter, Jeff Hastings, Marty Melchior, and J. “Duke” Welter) ........................................... 1 The Driftless Area – A Physiographic Setting (Dale K. Splinter) .......................................................... 5 Driftless Area Land Cover and Land Use (Bruce Vondracek)................................................................ 8 Hydrology of the Driftless Area (Kenneth W. Potter) ........................................................................... 15 Geology and Geomorphology of the Driftless Area (Marty Melchior) .............................................. 20 Stream Habitat Needs for Brown Trout and Brook Trout in the Driftless Area (Douglas J. Dieterman and Matthew G. Mitro) ............................................................................................................ 29 Non-Game Species and Their Habitat Needs in the Driftless Area (Jeff Hastings and Bob Hay) .... 45 Climate Change, Recent Floods, and an Uncertain Future (Daniel C. Dauwalter and Matthew G. Mitro) .........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Community Development Committee Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 for the Metropolitan Council Meeting of January 24, 2018
    Business Item No. 2018-2 Community Development Committee Meeting Date: January 16, 2018 For the Metropolitan Council meeting of January 24, 2018 Subject: Robert Piram Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment, Saint Paul District(s), Member(s): District 13, Richard Kramer Policy/Legal Reference: MN Statute 473.313; Planning Strategy 1 2040 Regional Park Policy Plan Staff Prepared/Presented: Michael Peterka, Planner (651-602-1361) Division/Department: Community Development / Regional Planning Proposed Action That the Metropolitan Council: 1. Approve the Robert Piram Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment. 2. Require Saint Paul to submit estimated development costs related to the overpass of Barge Channel Road to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval prior to seeking grants for its development. 3. Require that prior to initiating development of the regional trail, preliminary plans must be sent to Scott Dentz, Interceptor Engineering Manager at Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, for review in order to assess the potential impacts to the regional interceptor system. Background Saint Paul has submitted a master plan amendment for the Robert Piram Regional Trail, formerly named the Harriet Island-South St. Paul Regional Trail. When complete, the regional trail will travel 3.4 miles and connect Lilydale-Harriet Island Regional Park in Saint Paul to the River to River Greenway and Mississippi River Regional Trails at Kaposia Landing in South St. Paul. The regional trail will complete an important gap in the system and make connections to existing and planned trails that lead to downtown Saint Paul and Hastings along the Mississippi River, and Burnsville along the Minnesota River. The current master plan for the regional trail was approved by the Metropolitan Council in April 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan
    Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Trails September 2016 Mississippi Blufflands State Trail Master Plan The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Parks and Trails Division would like to thank all who participated in this master planning process. Individuals and groups in local communities have been working for years to support this trail. Many DNR staff, city, county and state officials, trail committee members, and local citizens contributed their time and energy to the planning process. Project Team: • Craig Blommer, area supervisor • Andrew Grinstead, planning specialist, Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa • Kevin Hemmingsen, regional trails specialist • Caleb Jensen, manager, Frontenac State Park • Darin Newman, planner Copyright 2016 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources For more information on this management plan, please contact the DNR Parks and Trails Division at (651) 259-5600. This information can be made available in alternative formats such as large print, braille or audio tape by emailing [email protected] or by calling 651-259-5016. The Minnesota DNR prohibits discrimination in its programs and services based on race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, public assistance status, age, sexual orientation or disability. Persons with disabilities may request reasonable modifications to access or participate in DNR programs and services by contacting the DNR ADA Title II Coordinator at [email protected] or 651- 259-5488. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4049; or Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Trail Interpretive & Experience Design
    DAKOTA COUNTY MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL INTERPRETIVE + EXPERIENCE DESIGN Dakota County Mississippi River Trail Interpretive + Experience Design 9.16.2014 This project has been financed in part with funds provided by the State of Minnesota from the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund through the Minnesota Historical Society Adopted by the Dakota County Board of Commissioners September 23, 2014 RSPDREAMBOX 1 JUNE 2014 RSPDREAMBOX DAKOTA COUNTY MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL INTERPRETIVE + EXPERIENCE DESIGN CONTENTS Project Overview + Goals Ten Nodes: Arriving at Content Audience Analysis Experience Assessment Introduction to the MRT The MRT Pathway Overarching Themes for the MRT Nodes + Trails Tilden’s Principles of Interpretation Experience Design Framework + Goals Visual Language + Brand of the Trail Experience Nodes + Trails Node 1. Kaposia Landing . 29 Node 2. South St. Paul + Stockyards. 47 Node 3. Wakota Bridge. 68 Node 4. Swing Bridge . 83 Node 5A + B. Pine Bend Bluffs. 104 Node 6. Spring Lake Park 1 . 122 Node 7. Spring Lake Park 2 Schaar’s Bluff . 138 Node 8. Town of Nininger. 154 Node 9. Lock + Dam No. 2 . 171 Node 10. Hastings . 184 Trail. Lenticulars . 201 Trail. Virtual Experiences . 210 2 JUNE 2014 RSPDREAMBOX DAKOTA COUNTY MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL INTERPRETIVE + EXPERIENCE DESIGN CONTENTS CONT. Each Experience Node Contains the Following History Summary at a Glance Context: Related Activities, Attractions, etc. Experience Assessment Site Images Historic Reference Site Plan + Amenities Detailed Site Plan Story Structure Interactive Elements Interpretive Elements Cost Estimate for Node Elements 3 JUNE 2014 RSPDREAMBOX DAKOTA COUNTY MISSISSIPPI RIVER TRAIL INTERPRETIVE + EXPERIENCE DESIGN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dakota County Board of Commissioners District 1 – Mike Slavik District 2 – Kathleen A.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Minnesota April 2014 Foundation Document Map of Mississippi National River and Recreation Area R u m G 35 re a t R R i iv v e RAMSEY e r r R o a d 880 North US 10 Wayside Riverside Park 10 C oo 0 5 Kilometers n Creek Mississippi West Regional Park 0 5 Miles Cloquet 875 Mississippi River Community Park City, county, and state parks City park Lock and dam Visitor Canoe access Overlook information Park within Mississippi National River and Recreation Area are partners helping visitors Boat launch County park 845 River milepost Marina iver experience the Mississippi R Donie Galloway Park ANOKA River. Akin Riverside Park Peninsula Point Two Rivers Historical Park State managed Mississippi National DAYTON Mississippi River and Recreation Point Park Area authorized boundary 870 M i s COON RAPIDS s is w CHAMPLIN s ro ip C p i Coon Rapids Dam Rush Creek 169 Regional Park (Anoka Co.) Coon Rapids Dam Overlook 610 Coon Rapids Dam 94 865 10 Regional Park 35W (Three Rivers Park District) R i v e 252 r BROOKLYN PARK Riverview Heights Park River Park 10 35E Manomin Park MINNESOTA FRIDLEY WISCONISN 694 Islands of Peace Park White Bear Lake 494 BROOKLYN CENTER 860 694 Vadnais Lake Anoka County North Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park Regional Park 35W MINNESOTA Marshall Terrace Park Upstream limit of 9 foot navigation channel Gluek Park er iv R Boom Island 94 35E 694 Riverboat tours and public boat dock MAPLEWOOD w lo il W Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park Upper St.
    [Show full text]
  • Above the Falls Regional Park Master Plan Draft
    DRAFT DRAFT Above the FAlls RegionAl PARk MAsteR PlAn DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT JUNE, 2013 MINNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD Acknowledgements The Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board is grateful to the many individuals, organizations and agency staff who contributed to this regional park plan. The planning process began in 2010 and continued through early 2013, and included the following outreach: • The Minneapolis Riverfront Development Initiative’s 6 large pubilc meetings and dozens of community events in 2011; • Ongoing collaboration with the Above the Falls Citizen Advisory Committe to help shape the planning process and plan content; • More than 60 meetings with community organizations, and 3 large public engagement meetings dedicated to the plan in 2012 and 2013, including multi-lingual outreach conducted in English, Spanish, Hmong and Lao; • Press releases, web postings and comment cards; and • Ongoing inter-agency coordination through the Riverfornt Technical Advisory Committee: • City of Minneapolis • Hennepin County • Mississippi Watershed Management Organization • University of Minnesota • National Park Service • Friends of the Mississippi River • Minneapolis Riverfront Partnership • US Army Corps of Engineers • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Minnesota Historical Society • Minnesota Department of Transportation • Minneapolis Park an&d Recreation Board Images used in this document are property of the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board unless otherwise credited. More information about this plan and the planning process is available here: http://www.minneapolisparks.org/abovethefalls Notes about this document This DRAFT Above the Falls Regional Park Master Plan (ATF Park Plan) is for public review and comment. Following a 45-day public comment, a final draft will be presented to the Park Board for their consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Trails
    REGIONAL TRAILS Three regional trail facilities were included in The following park packets follow the required and submit each to the Metropolitan Council the NSAMP planning process. The Luce Line Metropolitan Council format for regional trail for approval. Council approval is necessary prior Regional Trail, Shingle Creek Regional Trail master plans. The Luce Line is considered a to any expenditure of state or regional funds on (which includes the Creekview and Shingle Creek regional linking trail, while Shingle Creek and these regional trails. Park areas), and the Theodore Wirth Parkway Victory (Wirth) are destination regional trails, section of the Victory (Wirth) Memorial Parkway because they have wide corridors with significant Regional Trail do not have master plans and are natural resources. The Metropolitan Council inextricably intertwined with the neighborhood requires descriptions of community engagement, facilities in the NSAMP project area. The other which is included in this document in Chapter 2. regional parks and trails in the area (Theodore After adoption of the NSAMP document, MPRB Wirth Regional Park, Victory Memorial Parkway staff will separate each of these regional trail Regional Trail, North Mississippi Regional Park— master plan packets from this overall document, including the 49th Avenue Corridor, and Above add back in this document’s introductory the Falls Regional Park) already have adopted sections on process and community engagement, master plans. MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATION BOARD 239 NORTH SERVICE AREA MASTER PLAN This page was intentionally left blank LOCATION AND HISTORY The trail travels through Bassett’s Creek Park until it reaches the end of Chestnut Avenue. It then LUCE LINE The Luce Line is an existing regional trail corridor moves onto the street again to follow Chestnut that connects the Cedar Lake Regional Trail and Cedar Lake Road to the entrance of Bryn westward through Theodore Wirth Regional Park Mawr Park, another Minneapolis neighborhood REGIONAL TRAIL and then farther west to other regional parks and park.
    [Show full text]
  • Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT) Has Prepared the Enclosed Paper That Provides Additional Background, As Well As Some Recommended Modifications to the RTP
    February 11, 2011 The Honorable John L. Mica The Honorable Nick Rahall Chair, Transportation and Ranking Member, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Infrastructure Committee U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. The Honorable Peter DeFazio Chair, Highways and Transit Ranking Member, Highways and Transit Subcommittee Subcommittee U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Representative Mica, Representative Rahall, Representative Duncan and Representative DeFazio: The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) was created in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and plays an absolutely essential role in funding state trail programs and projects all across the country. As national, regional and local organizations that support recreational trails, we urge you to support the reauthorization of the RTP as a discrete program in new surface transportation legislation. Funding for the RTP is derived from federal taxes paid on gasoline used in nonhighway recreation and is administered by the Federal Highway Administration. Funding is distributed to the states based on a formula that honors the user-pay/user-benefit character of the program. RTP funds are utilized by state transportation departments and natural resource agencies in cooperation with citizen advisory committees and a network of organizations and communities. These partners leverage available funding with cash and in-kind support – often doubling available federal funds. Work for these projects is primarily done by youth corps, volunteers, and small businesses, providing employment opportunities for many hardest hit by the recession and the finished projects are catalysts for tourism, providing valuable access to public lands.
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 to 2010
    KICKAPOO RIVER WATERSHED ASSESSMENT 2000 TO 2010 VALLEY STEWARDSHIP NETWORK SARAH GRAINGER, M.A.SC. DECEMBER 2011 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Kickapoo River Watershed Assessment has been created by the Valley Stewardship Network (VSN) to provide a critical look at the health of the watershed based on surface water data. Surface water quality data, while one of many components used to assess the health of a watershed, is among the most informative. Thanks to the extraordinary commitment of citizen monitors VSN has provided a quantity of surface water quality data in the Kickapoo River Watershed that compares to that of the regulatory agencies. This assessment will review both Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and VSN data since 2000. Data was analyzed for each watershed, waterbody and station. The Kickapoo watershed was divided into five smaller watersheds as defined by the WDNR; Upper, Middle and Lower Kickapoo Watersheds, West Fork of the Kickapoo Watershed and Reads and Tainter Watershed. For the purpose of this assessment, data was separated into six assessment categories; temperature, core, nutrients, macroinvertebrate, bacteriological and chemical. Data was assessed using WDNR and US Environmental Protection Agency water quality limits and recommendations. In most cases the data available was not extensive enough for a conclusive determination. As such the data was used to provide an indication of the watershed health. The water quality data shows varying watershed health conditions. Some data shows no degradation, while other data showed evidence of human impact. Only a few streams had values that could be considered impaired by WDNR classification system. Most streams showed temperature ranges that could be classify it as a cold stream.
    [Show full text]