m          -                   -mo-                                  -mm m
Table XIII-13
CHARACTERISTICS OF STREAMS REACHES IN THE ROOT RIVER WATERSHED
Fish                           Water Quality Problemsb                                                  Ph
Stream     Population    Recorded                                                  Biotic                          Modif
Length        and          Fish                    Total     Fecal                  Index          Streambed
Stream Reach                (miles)    Diversitya      Kills      DO    NH3      P      Coliform    Toxics      Ratingc      Sedimentation        Ch
Root River upstream Grange
Avenue . . . . . . . . . . .          4.8        Poor          No       Yes    No      Yes       Yes        - -     Fairly poor            - -
Root River downstream
Grange Avenue to Ryan Road            9.8        Poor          No       No     No      Yes       Yes        - -        Fair                - -
Root River downstream Ryan
Road to County Line Road .            3.4        Poor          No       Yes    No      Yes       Yes        - -     Fairly poor            - -
Root River downstream County
Line Road to Nicholson Road           5.7        Poor          No       Yes    No      No        No         - -     Fairly poor            - -
Root River downstream
Nicholson Road to STH 38 .           12.5        Poor          No       No     Yes     Yes       Yes        - -     Fairly poor            - -
Root River downstream STH 38           6.0        Poor          No       No     No      Yes       Yes        - -     Fairly poor            - -
West Branch Root River Canal          13.5        Poor          No       Yes    No      - -       Yes        - -     Fairly poor            - -
Root River Canal   . . . . . .         4.9        Poor          No       Yes    No      - -       Yes        - -     Fairly poor            - -
East Branch Root River Canal          11.6        Poor           No      Yes     No     - -       Yes        - -      Very poor             - -
Tess Corners/Whitnall Park
Creek . . . . . . . . . . .           9.9        Poor          No       No     No     Yes        Yes        - -        Fair               - -
Husher Creek . . . . . . . .          3.4         Poor          No       Yes    No      No        No         - -        Fair               - -
Hoods Creek . . . . . . . . .         8.6         Poor         Yese      Yes    No      No        Yes        - -     Fairly poor           - -
TOTAL                          94.8
a Based upon professional judgment of area fish managers.
b The most recent water quality data available as described in Figure XIII-1 were used to evaluate water quality in the Root River system. Reported v:
of the water quality standards set forth in Chapter II were indicated as water quality problems. In cases where no updated water quality data were a
simulation modeling analyses data developed in the initial plan were used to estimate current water quality for Root River stream reaches based upon3
land use conditions and current level of pollution control
c Biotic Index ratings are based upon the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) discussed in Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin No. 13
a Biotic Index to Evaluate Water Quality in Streams," Hilsenhoff, 1982. Biotic index ratings are from sampling conducted in 1990. Sampling was also conc
the watershed in 1987.
d Physical modifications to the channel were defined as: major if 50 percent or more of the stream reach was modified by structural measures or was dee
straightened; moderate if 25 to 50 percent of the stream reach was modified; and low if up to 25 percent of the reach was modified.
e Unknown cause.

ysical
ications
to
anneld
iolations
vailable,
year 2000
2, "Using
ducted in
pened and

Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and SEWRPC.