1. Base flow, Floods, and Sediment Loads of Lake Superior Tributaries By Faith A. Fitzpatrick U.S. Geological Survey, WRD, Middleton, Wis.

2. Base Flow, Floods, and Sediment Loads How do tributaries vary in these characteristics because of geology geomorphology, and land use? What implications do these natural and human-caused variations have for fisheries management and restoration?

3. Other Clay Loam Peat Sand/gravel Pigeon Washington Knife Montreal Trap Rock Ontonagon Fish St. Louis Deer Bois Brule Bad Whittlesey White Sturgeon Tahquamenon Au Train Nemadji

4. Base flow – geologic setting important

5. # # # ## # # # # # # # # # #.. tm. Baseflow, August 2002 (cubic feet per second) Whittlesey Creek Base flow complexities…….. 0-0.10 0.1-10 10-19

6. Contributing Area from Deep Flow System Whittlesey “watershed” North Fish Creek Whittlesey Creek Sioux River

7. Floods—geologic setting and land use

8. U.S. Suspended Sediment Contributions to Lake Superior Average Daily Loads (Robertson, 1996)

9. Post-settlement annual sediment budget (metric tons per year) North Fish Creek

10. Sediment—Importance of Bed Load and Yield Descriptions Suspended load Total load (kg/ha/yr) Bad River 1,030 no data Fish Creek 1,450 4,380 Suspended load Total load (dump trucks/day) (dump trucks/day) Bad River58176?? Fish Creek 2 5

12. North Fish Creek—Floods 2 times and sediment loads 2.5 times pre-settlement rates

13. Estimated bankfull discharge, m 3 /s 15 1995 10 <1906 60 0 8 DISTANCE FROM MOUTH (KILOMETERS) ALTITUDE (METERS) 40 20 0 200 300 400 25 meters 1995 10 <1946 60 0 12 4 Brook trout originally found throughout entire stream Limited sustained brook trout in headwaters

14. Habitat Protection and Restoration: l Focus efforts on reducing watershed runoff and erosion-control in upper main stem l Use restoration techniques similar to those for urban streams–keep/restore pre- development storm hydrographs

15. Rehabilitation techniques geared toward reducing watershed runoff and bank erosion l Detention, infiltration basins in headwaters l Increase forest cover in watershed l Grade control structures in upper main stem l Bank protection in upper main stem l Large woody debris l Beaver l (Do nothing)

16. Acknowledgments This presentation contains results from cooperative studies among the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Bayfield County, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey Special thanks to Dennis Pratt (WDNR) and Dave Saad (USGS) for slide contribution