Bark 

River Cranberry River

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5007

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

In cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics 

of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin, and Implications 

for Brook-Trout Habitat

Geomorphic, Flood, and GroundwaterFlow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula 

Streams, Wisconsin, and Implications for 

Brook-Trout Habitat

By Faith A. Fitzpatrick, Marie C. Peppler, David A. Saad, Dennis M. Pratt, and 

Bernard N. Lenz

In cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5007

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Fitzpatrick, F.A., Peppler, M.C., Saad, D.A., Pratt, D.M., and Lenz, B.N., 2015, geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow 

characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin, and implications for brook-trout habitat: U.S. Geological 

Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5007, 80 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145007.

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................3

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................3

Flood History........................................................................................................................................13

Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data .........................................16

Geomorphic Measurements and Data Collection.........................................................................16

Historical Documents and Aerial Photographs ....................................................................16

Data from Inter-Fluve, Inc.........................................................................................................16

Longitudinal Profiles..................................................................................................................16

Helicopter Video Interpretation...............................................................................................20

Valley Cross-Section Surveying and Coring..........................................................................20

Reach Characterization of Geomorphic Processes.............................................................20

Determination of Sediment Sources ......................................................................................20

Evaluation of Previous Erosion-Control Techniques............................................................21

Simulation of Flood Peaks and Hydrographs .................................................................................21

Simulation of Groundwater Flow......................................................................................................24

Base-Flow Measurements.......................................................................................................25

Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity and Recharge.............................................................25

Parameter Sensitivity and Model Calibration .......................................................................25

Delineation of Groundwater Contributing Areas..................................................................27

Geomorphic Characteristics......................................................................................................................27

Longitudinal Profiles...........................................................................................................................27

Valley Development and Stream Meandering ...............................................................................28

Channel-Reach Conditions................................................................................................................31

Cranberry River..........................................................................................................................31

Bark River....................................................................................................................................46

Raspberry River..........................................................................................................................47

Sioux River..................................................................................................................................47

Whittlesey Creek........................................................................................................................47

Bankfull-Channel Shear Stress ........................................................................................................53

Sources of Sediment..........................................................................................................................53

Evaluation of Previous Erosion-Control Techniques.....................................................................57

Flood Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................59

Groundwater-Flow Characteristics ..........................................................................................................64

Base Flow.............................................................................................................................................64

Groundwater-Flow Simulation..........................................................................................................66

Groundwater Divide and Groundwater Contributing Areas ........................................................71

Implications for Brook-Trout Habitat........................................................................................................72

Summary and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................75

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................76

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................77
iv

Figures

1. Maps showing locations of studied streams and sites in the Bayfield Peninsula,

Wisconsin ......................................................................................................................................4

2. Map showing distribution of brook-trout fingerlings in Bayfield Peninsula streams,

2004 .................................................................................................................................................6

3. Map showing digital elevation model of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin ....................7

4. Map showing Quaternary geologic deposits for the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin ......9

5. Schematic cross section showing generalized geology and conceptual model of

the deep groundwater-flow system of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin......................10

6. Geologic cross section through the southern part of the Whittlesey Creek Basin,

Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.................................................................................................11

7. Map showing soil types of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin..........................................12

8. Map showing land cover (1992–93) for the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.....................14

9. Graphs showing flood peaks for the Sioux River, Whittlesey Creek, North Fish

Creek, Bois Brule River, and Bad River flood-peak data from annual and

partial-duration series ...............................................................................................................15

10. Map showing hydrologic features simulated with analytic elements for the 

GFLOW model of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin...........................................................26

11. Graph showing comparison of longitudinal profiles for six Bayfield peninsula

streams.........................................................................................................................................28

12. Schematic diagrams showing valley development and types of meandering for

Bayfield Peninsula streams ......................................................................................................29

13. Map and graph showing Cranberry River and longitudinal profile....................................30

14. Map and graph showing Bark River and longitudinal profile .............................................32

15. Map and graph showing Raspberry River and longitudinal profile ...................................34

16. Map and graph showing Sioux River and longitudinal profile............................................36

17. Map and graph showing Whittlesey Creek and longitudinal profile .................................38

18. Map showing differences in stream network development and channel widths in

the Cranberry River Basin between 1852 General Land Office Survey maps, USGS

7.5-minute topographic maps, and 2002–2003 field surveys ...............................................46

19. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 41 (East Fork Cranberry River) and 

site 63 (Lenawee Creek) ............................................................................................................48

20. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 46 (East Fork Cranberry River)......................50

21. Diagram showing longitudinal profile and valley development for Bayfield

Peninsula streams in response to episodic lowering of postglacial lake levels .............52

22. Cross sections, bank and terrace cut geologic descriptions, and sediment cores 

at site 50 (Cranberry River)........................................................................................................54

23. Photograph showing buried root crown at site 50 along the Cranberry River,

Wisconsin ....................................................................................................................................56

24. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 30 along the Cranberry River........................58

25. Cross sections and sediment cores from North Fish Creek, Wisconsin...........................60

26. Cross section and sediment cores at site 2 along Whittlesey Creek ................................62
v

27. Graph showing bankfull-channel shear stress and median sediment size for

selected sites on Bayfield streams..........................................................................................63

28. Photographs showing two Red Clay Interagency Committee sites before and after

installation of erosion-control techniques .............................................................................65

29. Flood hydrographs for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour rainfalls for the Cranberry

River, Wisconsin .........................................................................................................................67

30. Map showing distribution of unit-area base flow for streams on the Bayfield

Peninsula, Wisconsin, November 2002...................................................................................68

31. Graphs showing relation of measured and simulated head and base flow for the

calibrated GFLOW model for Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.............................................70

32. Graph showing GFLOW groundwater-flow model parameter sensitivities from

UCODE for the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin study area..................................................72

33. Map showing groundwater contours and contributing areas simulated by the

GLFOW model for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin .........................................73

Tables

1. Drainage-area, soil-texture, and land-cover characteristics of five streams,

Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin...................................................................................................8

2. Sites sampled in 2002–2003 as part of the study of the geomorphic, flood, and

groundwater-flow characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin ...............17

3. Physical characteristics of subbasins used in the Cranberry River HEC-1 flood

hydrograph simulations, Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.....................................................22

4. HEC-1 model input-parameter values for Cranberry River, Wisconsin for four

land-cover simulations ..............................................................................................................23

5. Percentages of land-cover types used in the Cranberry River, Wisconsin from

HEC-1 model simulations...........................................................................................................24

6. Comparison of average and range of slopes for selected Bayfield Peninsula

streams, Wisconsin, based on longitudinal profiles.............................................................29

7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five 

Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin .................................................................................40

8. Relative contributions of sediment from seven sources to Bayfield Peninsula

streams, Wisconsin....................................................................................................................64

9. Flood peaks and total storm volume from SCS-design storms for HEC-1 flood

hydrograph simulations of four land-cover scenarios, Cranberry River, Wisconsin ......66

10. Results of field investigations of base flow and streambed temperature for 

Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin, 2002 .......................................................................69

11. Initial estimate and UCODE-optimized parameters used in the GFLOW model for

Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.................................................................................................70

12. Head fit statistics and sum of square weighted residuals for the initial and

calibrated GFLOW model for Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.............................................70
vi

Conversion Factors

Inch/Pound to SI

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Flow rate

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

cubic foot per second per square 

mile (ft3

/s/mi2)

 0.07335 cubic meter per second per kilometer 

(m3/s/km)

inch per hour (in/h) 0 .0254 meter per hour (m/h)

inch per year (in/yr) 25.4 millimeter per year (mm/yr)

mile per hour (mi/h) 1.609 kilometer per hour (km/h) 

Mass

ton, short (2,000 lb) 0.9072 megagram (Mg) 

Pressure

pound per square foot (lb/ft2

) 0.04788 kilopascal (kPa) 

Density

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3

) 16.02 kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3)

Hydraulic conductivity

foot per day (ft/d) 0.3048 meter per day (m/d)

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (°F) may be converted to degrees Celsius (°C) as follows: 

°C=(°F-32)/1.8

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 29).

Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
vii

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square kilometer (km2

) 0.3861 square mile (mi2)

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 70.07 acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 

cubic meter per year (m3

/yr) 0.000811 acre-foot per year (acre-ft/yr) 

meter per second (m/s) 3.281 foot per second (ft/s) 

meter per minute (m/min) 3.281 foot per minute (ft/min) 

meter per hour (m/hr) 3.281 foot per hour (ft/hr)

meter per day (m/d) 3.281 foot per day (ft/d)

meter per year (m/yr) 3.281 foot per year ft/yr) 

cubic meter per second (m3

/s) 35.31 cubic foot per second (ft3/s)

cubic meter per second per square 

kilometer [(m3

/s)/km2]

91.49 cubic foot per second per square 

mile [(ft3/s)/mi2]

cubic meter per day (m3

/d) 35.31 cubic foot per day (ft3/d) 

cubic meter per hour (m3

/h) 39.37 inch per hour (in/h)

millimeter per year (mm/yr) 0.03937 inch per year (in/yr) 

kilometer per hour (km/h) 0.6214 mile per hour (mi/h)

Mass

megagram (Mg) 1.102 ton, short (2,000 lb)

megagram per year (Mg/yr) 1.102 ton per year (ton/yr)

metric ton per year 1.102 ton per year (ton/yr) 

Pressure

kilopascal (kPa) 20.88 pound per square foot (lb/ft2

) 

Density

kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m3

) 0.06242 pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 

gram per cubic centimeter (g/cm3

) 62.4220 pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 

Hydraulic conductivity

meter per day (m/d) 3.281 foot per day (ft/d)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow 

Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin, 

and Implications for Brook-Trout Habitat

By Faith A. Fitzpatrick, Marie C. Peppler, David A. Saad, Dennis M. Pratt,1 and Bernard N. Lenz2

1

Formerly Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

2

Formerly U.S. Geological Survey.

Abstract

In 2002–03, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted 

a study of the geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow 

characteristics of five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin 

(Cranberry River, Bark River, Raspberry River, Sioux River, 

and Whittlesey Creek) to determine the physical limitations 

for brook-trout habitat. The goals of the study were threefold: 

(1) to describe geomorphic characteristics and processes, 

(2) to determine how land-cover characteristics affect flood 

peaks, and (3) to determine how regional groundwater flow 

patterns affect base flow. 

The geomorphic characterization consisted of analyses of 

historical aerial photographs and General Land Office Survey 

notes, observations from helicopter video footage, surveys of 

valley cross sections, and coring. Sources of sediment were 

identified from the helicopter video and field surveys, and 

past erosion-control techniques were evaluated. Geomorphic 

processes, such as runoff sediment erosion, transport, and 

deposition, are driven by channel location within the drainage network, texture of glacial deposits, and proximity to 

postglacial lake shorelines; these processes have historically 

increased because of decreases in upland forest cover and 

channel roughness. Sources of sediment for all studied streams 

mainly came from bank, terrace, or bluff erosion along main 

stem reaches and along feeder tributaries that bisect mainstem entrenched valley sides. Bluff, terrace, and bank erosion 

were the major sources of sediment to Whittlesey Creek and 

the Sioux River. No active bluff erosion was observed on the 

Cranberry River or the Bark River but anecdotal information 

suggests that landslides occasionally happen on the Cranberry 

River. For the Bark River, sources of sediment were somewhat 

evenly divided among road crossings (bridges, culverts, and 

unimproved forest lanes), terrace erosion, bank erosion, and 

incision along upper main stems and feeder channels along 

valley sides. Evaluation of past erosion-control techniques 

indicated that bluffs were stabilized by a combination of 

artificial hardening and bioengineering of the bluff base and 

reducing mass wasting of the tops of the bluffs. 

Flood hydrographs for the Cranberry River were 

simulated for four land-cover scenarios—late 20th century 

(1992–93), presettlement (before 1870), peak agriculture 

(1928), and developed (25 percent urban). Results were 

compared to previous simulations of flood peaks for Whittlesey Creek and for North Fish Creek (southern adjacent basin 

to Whittlesey Creek). Even though most uplands are presently forested, flood peaks simulated for 1992–93 were 1.5 to 

2 times larger than presettlement flood peaks. The increased 

flood peaks caused (1) increased incision along upper main 

stems and tributaries that bisect entrenched valley sides, 

(2) bluff and terrace erosion along reaches with entrenched 

valleys, (3) overbank deposition and bar formation in middle 

and lower main stems, and (4) aggradation in mouth areas.

A base-flow survey was conducted and a groundwaterflow model was developed for the Bayfield Peninsula to delineate groundwater contributing areas. A deep aquifer system, 

which includes thick deposits of sand and the upper part of the 

bedrock, is recharged through the permeable sands in the center of the peninsula. Base flow is unevenly distributed among 

the Bayfield streams and depends on the amount of channel 

incision and the proximity of the channels to the recharge 

area and coarse outwash deposits. Groundwater contributing areas for the five streams do not coincide with surfacewater-contributing areas. About 89 percent of total recharge 

to the deep aquifer system discharges to Bayfield streams; the 

remaining 11 percent directly discharges to Lake Superior. 

Historical land-cover changes have had negligible effects on 

groundwater-flow from the deep aquifer system.

Available brook-trout habitat is dependent on the locations of groundwater upwellings, the sizes of flood peaks, and 

sediment loads. Management practices that focus on reducing 

or slowing runoff from upland areas and increasing channel 

roughness have potential to reduce flood peaks, erosion, and 

sedimentation and improve brook-trout habitat in all Bayfield 

Peninsula streams.
2 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Introduction

Aquatic habitat in many streams that flow into Lake 

Superior along Bayfield Peninsula, Wis. (fig. 1A), is degraded 

because of increased runoff and sedimentation problems associated with past and present land uses such as logging, forest 

fires, agriculture, and development of roads (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1967; Fitzpatrick and others, 1999; Pratt, 

2000). Geomorphic conditions in these streams have been 

altered by changes in sediment erosion, transport, and deposition caused by increased flood magnitudes (Fitzpatrick, 1998; 

Fitzpatrick and others, 1999; Fitzpatrick and Knox, 2001). 

Present flood magnitudes are higher than they were before 

Euro-American settlement and logging in the 1870s (Verry, 

1987; Fitzpatrick and others, 1999; Lenz and others, 2003). 

The Bayfield streams naturally have high runoff rates 

because of clay soils in their drainage basins (Young and 

Skinner, 1974), yet many of the streams also have abundant 

base flow because of their connection to a deep groundwater 

system, which includes thick deposits of sand and the upper 

part of the bedrock, recharged through the permeable sands 

in the center highland area of the peninsula (Lenz and others, 

2003) (area is shown in gray on fig. 1A). The center of the 

peninsula has no surface runoff (note the lack of streams in the 

grey area on fig. 1A) because infiltration rates exceed precipitation rates (Young and Skinner, 1974). Streams intersect the 

deep groundwater aquifer in the middle of their basins; thus, 

headwater reaches have little base flow and lower main stems 

have abundant base flow (Lenz and others, 2003).

Most of the Bayfield streams sustain the spawning, 

rearing, and juvenile-growth needs for a significant lakerun trout and salmon fishery, which annually supports more 

than 50,000 angler trips. Species of fish include steelhead 

(Oncorhynchis mykis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchis kisutch). Additionally, these streams 

presently support small numbers of brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis), the only native stream-dwelling salmonid (fig. 2). 

Brook-trout populations were abundant in coldwater streams 

before Euro-American settlement and logging of the oldgrowth forests (about 1870). Along the Bayfield peninsula 

coastline, migrating brook trout grew to large sizes and 

supported coastal fishing termed “rock trout fishing.” Historically, these rock trout, termed “coasters” today, returned to the 

tributaries to spawn, most likely in common with the stream 

fish (Pratt, 2000). Both population abundance and range rapidly declined during the settlement period and have remained 

low since at least the 1930s, even though millions of hatcheryreared fish were stocked in those streams. By the 1930s, the 

decline of brook trout populations was thought to be caused 

by long-lasting changes accompanying settlement—reforestation with its concomitant effects upon water supply, lowering 

and warming of the waters, scouring of stream beds during 

log drives, and especially the silting over of gravel bottoms 

(Greene, 1935).

In the 1990s interest in the rehabilitation of coastal 

brook-trout populations in Lake Superior was renewed (Newman and others, 1999: Pratt, 2000). In addition to the continued interest in stocking brook trout in streams and coastal 

areas, fisheries biologists were interested in determining how 

aquatic-habitat changes were limiting brook-trout reproduction 

and survival. It was important to gain insight into how existing populations could be protected and develop strategies to 

improve stream habitat. 

In 2001–02, Trout Unlimited brought together several 

government agencies, conservation organizations, universities, and a private consulting firm to assess the geomorphic 

and hydrologic conditions of several Bayfield streams, to 

identify potential problem areas, and to recommend rehabilitation and watershed-management strategies relating specifically to brook-trout populations. The agencies involved 

were the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Great 

Lakes Protection Fund), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red 

Cliff Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, AshlandBayfield-Douglas-Iron County Land Conservation Department, Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute at Northland 

College, Inland Sea Society, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Inter-Fluve, Inc., 

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Five streams from 

the Bayfield Peninsula were selected for a detailed assessment study: the Cranberry River, Bark River, Raspberry River, 

Sioux River, and Whittlesey Creek (fig. 1A). 

Past and present geomorphic, flood, and groundwater 

characteristics directly affect brook-trout habitat, and 

understanding the cause and effects of these on habitat was 

necessary prior to formulating rehabilitation and watershedmanagement strategies. The USGS study’s goals were focused 

on these aspects for the five streams included in the larger 

overall multi-agency study: (1) describing the geomorphic 

characteristics and processes, (2) determining how land-cover 

characteristics affect flood peaks; and (3) determining how 

regional groundwater-flow patterns affect base flow. The two 

main purposes of the overall study were to describe the physical limitations of salmonid rehabilitation efforts and to provide 

background information for use by water-resources and fisheries managers to reduce runoff and erosion and to improve fish 

habitat. 

The USGS efforts built off of previous geomorphology, 

flood, and groundwater studies done in the area. As part of 

the new study, USGS collected additional geomorphic data 

in 2002–03 to enhance and supplement the geomorphic data 

collected by Inter-Fluve, Inc. in 2002. Interpretations from the 

geomorphic data included identification of major causes of 

geomorphic processes, major sources of sediment, and evaluation of past erosion-control techniques. Effects of land-cover 

change on flood peaks were simulated for the Cranberry River 

Basin and compared to results of previous simulations for 

North Fish Creek and Whittlesey Creek (Fitzpatrick, 1998; 

Lenz and others, 2003). Last, a groundwater-flow model 
Introduction 3

was constructed for the Bayfield Peninsula (an expansion of 

the Whittlesey Creek groundwater-flow model described by 

Lenz and others, 2003) to delineate groundwater contributing 

areas for the streams. Methods used in these previous studies 

for individual watersheds in the area were applied across the 

broader region to describe the physical and hydrologic limitations to brook-trout habitat throughout the Bayfield Peninsula.

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present results from the 

study of geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow characteristics for five Bayfield Peninsula streams that flow into Lake 

Superior in Wisconsin. More time and effort were spent identifying geomorphic characteristics of the Cranberry River than 

the other studied streams. Simulations of land-cover effects on 

flood peaks for the Cranberry River are presented and compared to previous simulations for Whittlesey Creek and North 

Fish Creek. Simulated land-cover scenarios included complete 

forest cover before 1870 (pre-Euro-American settlement), 

peak agriculture (about 1928), and the present (1992–93). 

Groundwater-flow characteristics for the five studied streams 

are described through analysis of base-flow measurements and 

results from groundwater-flow simulations. In addition, implications of geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow characteristics for potential brook-trout habitat are discussed.

Description of Study Area

The Bayfield Peninsula is on the south shore of Lake 

Superior in Wisconsin (fig. 1A). The peninsula rises to an 

altitude of about 1,400 ft, or about 800 ft above the mean 

water level of Lake Superior (602 ft) (fig. 3). Stream networks 

on the peninsula generally are oriented perpendicular to the 

lake shoreline. Surface-water-contributing basins are small 

(less than 50 mi2 in area) (fig. 1A, table 1). The surface-waternoncontributing area in the center of the peninsula is 161 mi2

and is composed of sandy deposits with no surface-drainage 

features. The Cranberry and Bark Rivers are on the northwest 

side of the peninsula and generally flow from south to north. 

The Raspberry River drains the northern tip of the peninsula 

and also flows generally from south to north. The mouth of 

the Raspberry River is within the Red Cliff Reservation. The 

Sioux River has the largest surface-water-contributing basins 

of the five study-area basins, and flows from west to east on 

the east side of the peninsula. Whittlesey Creek is similar in 

drainage area to the Bark River and flows from west to east. 

Bedrock underlying the peninsula includes the Precambrian Bayfield Group of the Keweenawan Supergroup 

(referred to hereafter as the Bayfield Group), which mainly 

consists of sandstone, siltstone, and locally abundant shale 

and conglomerate (Morey and Ojakangas, 1982; Mudrey and 

others, 1982; Cannon and others, 1996). The Bayfield Group 

is estimated to be as thick as 6,900 ft (Morey and Ojakangas, 

1982), and crops out at several sites along the Lake Superior 

shoreline around the peninsula (Thwaites, 1911). 

Bedrock is overlain by glacial, glaciolacustrine, and 

fluvial deposits, including sandy till of the Copper Falls 

Formation in the Bayfield Highlands and clayey glaciolacustrine deposits of the Miller Creek Formation at lower altitudes 

towards Lake Superior (fig. 4) (Goebel and others, 1983; 

Clayton, 1984). Unconsolidated deposits are several hundred 

feet thick in the Bayfield Highlands and generally thin toward 

Lake Superior. Where present, the Miller Creek Formation 

overlies the Bayfield Group and the Copper Falls Formation 

up to an altitude of about 1,100 ft. A major geologic feature 

that separates the clayey Miller Creek deposits in the lowland 

from the sandy Copper Falls Formation in the upland is a set 

of relict shorelines from glacial Lake Duluth at altitudes from 

about 900 to 1,100 ft (Clayton, 1984) (figs. 3 and 5). The relict 

shorelines are characterized by local wave-planed topography and about 3 ft of nearshore sand overlying clayey Miller 

Creek deposits; however, Miller Creek deposits may have 

been entirely removed by wave action, exposing older Copper 

Falls deposits of sandy till or stream/shoreline sand and gravel 

(Clayton, 1984). The highest relict Duluth shoreline forms the 

divide between surface-water contributing and noncontributing areas (fig. 1A).

A geologic cross section in the vicinity of Whittlesey 

Creek illustrates the complexity of the texture and origin of 

the glacial deposits (Lenz and others, 2003) (fig. 6). Clay at 

the surface below 1,100 ft is the Miller Creek Formation. Sand 

and hardpan are associated with the Copper Falls Formation. 

Several postglacial shorelines associated with falling levels of Lake Superior are evident on the 10-m digital elevation 

model (DEM) map of the Bayfield Peninsula (fig. 3) and the 

Whittlesey geologic cross section (fig. 6). The ancestral lakes 

were short-lived and existed from about 9,900 to 9,200 yr 

before the present (Clayton, 1984). At least seven shorelines 

have been identified in the area by Clayton (1984) and include 

the Duluth (1,100 ft), sub-Duluth (1,000–1,100 ft), Highbridge 

(980 ft), Moquah (930 ft), Washburn (880–890 ft), Manitou 

(about 750 ft), and Beaver Bay (650 ft). The shorelines are 

apparent on the geologic cross section of Whittlesey Creek 

where the slope steepens temporarily (fig. 6).

Soil types on the peninsula range from sandy to clayey 

and are related to underlying glacial deposits, slope, and 

vertical position in relation to glacial landforms (Hole, 1968) 

(fig. 7; table 1). The Cranberry River basin has the highest percentage of sandy soils, and the Whittlesey Creek basin has the 

highest percentage of clayey soils. Sandy soils are primarily in 

headwater areas. Soils developed in sand over clay (within a 

depth of 5 ft) reflect locations of the ancestral lake shorelines. 

Loamy soils underlain by clay are in the middle and lower 

parts of the basins; many feeder tributaries are cut through the 

loamy soils into the underlying clay. 
A 

LAKE SUPERIOR 46°35’ 46°47’ 91°23’

00

64

Bayfield Peninsula

See Figure 1B

Bois Brule River 

040

040263491

04

04025500

Port Wing

2

67

69

68

66

65

3

5

4 61

40

39

7

6a

6

9

17

18 

20 19

2

67

69 1

66

65

3

5

4 61

40

39

7

6a

6

9

17

18 

20 19

Moquah

Cornucopia 

Boyd Creek 

Flag River 

Fourmile Creek 

Little Sioux

River 

Siskiwit River 

Sand River 

Lost Creek 

No. 2 

Whittlesey Creek 

North Fish Creek 

Bois Brule River 

040

040263491

04

04025500 

Boyd Creek 

Flag River 

Fourmile Creek 

Little Sioux

River 

Siskiwit River 

Sand River 

Lost Creek 

No. 2 

Whittlesey Creek 

Moquah

Cornucopia 

North Fish Creek 

Base from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

Herbster

39

64

1

68

S

Surface-water contributing basin

Cranberry RiverBark RiverRaspberry RiverSioux RiverWhittlesey Creek 

EXPLANATION

Other basin where baseflow data were collectedSurface-water noncontributing areaRed Cliff Indian ReservationDrainage-basin boundaryU.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow 

survey site and field number (table 2)

USGS valley descriptionInter-Fluve, Inc. reach assessmentRestoration evaluation location 

 and field number (table 2)

U.S. Geological Survey streamflowgaging station and number 

 (table 2) 

WISCONSIN

Study

area

04025500

Figure 1. Locations of studied streams and sites in the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin. A, entire study area, and B, Cranberry River and Bark River Ba
Introduction 5

36a

38

37

36

35

34 Lenawee Creek

62

32 28

33

53

43

42

63 41

25

31

52 45

44

22 23

24

21

22a

Bark River

59

58

57

50

30

29

26

27

Cranberry River

55

54

51

49

48 47

46

Base from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

Herbster

B

0 2 MILES

0 2 KILOMETERS

1

1

46°35’

46°47’

91°23’ 90°54’

LAKE SUPERIOR

EXPLANATION

Surface-water contributing basin

Cranberry River

Bark River

Other basin where baseflow data were collected

Surface-water noncontributing area

41a

East Fork

Cranberry

Rive r

East Fork

Cranberry

Rive r

Drainage-basin boundary

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow survey site and field number (table 2)

USGS valley description and field number (table 2)

Inter-Fluve, Inc. reach assessment and field number (table 2)

36

62

63

Figure 1. Locations of studied streams and sites in the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin. A, entire study area, and B, 

Cranberry River and Bark River Basins.—Continued
6 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Sioux River

North Fish Creek

LAKE SUPERIOR

46°35’

46°47’

90°54’

91°23’

North Fish Creek

Chequamegon Bay

Sioux River

Base from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

None

Less than 1

Greater than 1

Not sampled

Primary spawning reach

EXPLANATION

Drainage-basin boundary

Brook-trout fingerlings per 100 feet

WISCONSIN

Study

area

Whittlesey Creek

Raspberry River

Cranberry River

Bark River

0

0

4

4 8 KILOMETERS

8 MILES

Figure 2. Distribution of brook-trout fingerlings in Bayfield Peninsula streams, 2004 (unpublished data, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, 2005).
Introduction 7

Bark River

Cranberry River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

46°35’

46°47’

90°54’

91°23’

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Bark River

Cranberry River

602: Lake Superior

602 to 650

650 to 750

750 to 880

880 to 930

930 to 980

980 to 1,100

1,100 to 1,200

1,200 and above

Elevation in feet above National

Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Surface-water basin

EXPLANATION

Base from 10-meter digital elevation data (Benchmark GIS, 2001) 0

0

4

4 8 KILOMETERS

8 MILES

WISCONSIN

Study

area

Figure 3. Digital elevation model of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin. Resolution of the data is 10 meters 

(Benchmark GIS, 2001).
8 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Table 1. Drainage-area, soil-texture, and land-cover characteristics of five streams, Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.

[mi2, square miles; <, greater than; na, data not available. Land-cover data from Reese and others (2002). Soils data from Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (2006). Noncontributing area has no surface-drainage features.]

Characteristic Cranberry River Bark River Raspberry River Sioux River Whittlesey Creek Surface-water noncontributing area

Drainage area (mi2

) 31 8.2 14 44 7.4 161

Soil texture (percent)

Sand 30 4.1 6.9 20 22 89

Sand over clay 12 19 24 22 10 <0.1

Sand over loam 7.1 9.1 7.7 10 7.4 0.6

Loam 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.8 0.1

Loam over clay 17 22 36 30.3 9.0 8.5

Loam over sand <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.2

Loam over rock 0.0 0.0 0.4 <0.1 0.0 0.0

Clay 24 28 12 4.7 36 0.0

Silt/muck 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.4

Muck over sand 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 <0.1

Cut or fill 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0

Pits <0.1 0.0 0.3 <0.1 0.0 <0.1

Water 0.1 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.3

Undefined/ ravines 6.0 14.3 10 9.3 11 0.0

1992–93 Land cover (percent)

Agriculture <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.3 <0.1

Grassland 7.9 7.0 13 12 26 3.0

Total forest 87.6 88.2 84.9 82.7 64 85

Coniferous forest 6.6 2.2 2.9 3.7 3.0 20

Deciduous forest 69 74 59 63 48 52

Mixed forest 12 12 23 16 13 13

Water 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Wetland 2.5 5.0 2.3 1.7 3.1 0.4

Barren/shrubland 2.5 0.0 0.0 3.3 4.5 12

1928 Land cover (percent)

Agriculture 4.4 2.8 6.1 10 28.2 na

Pasture 0.7 0.1 2.6 5.2 0.0 na

Forest 91 97 91 84 60.2 na

Orchard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 na

Water 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 na

Wetland 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 11.6 na

Open land 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 na
Introduction 9

Bark River

Cranberry River

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Raspberry

River

Cranberry River

0

0

4

4 8 KILOMETERS

8 MILES

46°35’

46°47’

90°54’

91°23’

Base from digital elevation data (Benchmark GIS, 2001)

WISCONSIN

Study

area

Surface-water contributing basin

Outwash sand

Peat

Ice-contact sand

Sandy loamy till

Clayey till

Quaternary deposits

EXPLANATION

Figure 4. Quaternary geologic deposits for the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin (Goebel and others, 1983).
Lake Superior

A 

1,600

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 600 400 2000 -200 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Land surface ? ? ?

Vertical scale greatly exaggerated

Primary recharge area for deep groundwater 

flow system 

Lake Superior

Miller Creek Formation—Glaciolacustrine clay or glaciofluvial depositsCopper Falls Formation—Sandy till, sand, and gravelBayfield Group of the Keweenawan Supergroup—Sandstone and 

siltstone, locally absorbent shale and conglomerate. "?" indicates area where location of geologic contact is inferred

General direction of groundwater flowPotentiometric surface of the deep groundwater flow system—

Dashed where inferred

Bend in section

EXPLANATION

00

4

4

8 MILES

8 KILOMETERS

WEST 

A

Figure 5. Schematic cross section showing generalized geology and conceptual model of the deep groundwater-flow system of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.
1,3001,2001,1001,000

900800700600500400

Miles inland of Lake Superior

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Surface-water noncontributing basin

Surface-water contributing basin

Main stem Whittlesey Creek confluence with North Fork Whittlesey Creek

Postglacial lake shorelines

Duluth

Sub-Duluth

Highbridge

Moquah

Washburn

Manitou

?

?

Beaver Bay

FEET

Vertical scale greatly exaggerated

? ?

?

? ?

Data not available

Bayfield Group

Bayfield Peninsula

B

B'

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

WEST EAST

B

B'

Figure 6. Geologic cross section through the southern part of the Whittlesey Creek Basin, Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.
12 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

0

0

4

4 8 KILOMETERS

8 MILES

Bark River

Cranberry River

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

46°35’

46°47’

90°54’

91°23’

Bark River

Cranberry River

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Base from digital elevation data (Benchmark GIS, 2001) 

Soil type

Clay

Loam

Loam over clay

Loam over rock

Loam over sand

Muck

Muck over sand

Sand

Sand over clay

Sand over loam

Sand over rock

Undefined, ravines/escarpments

Cut or fill

Pits

Water

EXPLANATION

Surface-water contributing basin

WISCONSIN

Study

area

Figure 7. Soil types of the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006).
Introduction 13

The groundwater-flow system in the study area has deep 

and shallow components. The deep system, which includes 

thick deposits of sand and the upper part of the bedrock, 

underlies the entire study area, and groundwater moves primarily through the Copper Falls Formation and the upper part 

of the Bayfield Group (fig. 5). The deep system is unconfined 

at higher altitudes and confined at lower altitudes near Lake 

Superior, where the Miller Creek Formation overlies it. The 

deep system discharges to Lake Superior and deeply incised 

streams. The extent of the shallow system is difficult to delineate, but includes much of the area underlain by the Miller 

Creek Formation. The alternating layers of clay and sand in 

this area result in isolated areas of perched water that may 

be separated from the deep system by 100 ft or more (Lenz 

and others, 2003). The shallow system receives less recharge 

than the deep system because the Miller Creek Formation 

is less permeable than the Copper Falls Formation. Some 

groundwater from the shallow system discharges to streams, 

and some likely recharges the deep system. The two systems 

merge where the deep system intersects the channels of gaining streams. The deep system and the nonperched part of the 

shallow system are included in simulations of groundwater 

flow, whereas perched flow is included in simulations of 

surface-water flow. 

The regional climate is characterized by cold snowy 

winters, cool or moderately warm summers, and evenly 

distributed precipitation (Eichenlaub, 1979). Large local 

variations in average weather conditions are caused by lake 

effects because the peninsula is surrounded by Lake Superior. 

Average annual precipitation across the peninsula is 29–30 in., 

with 16 in. of average annual evapotranspiration and 10–12 in. 

of runoff (Young and Skinner, 1974). Mean daily maximum 

air temperatures range from 22 °F in January to 78 °F in July 

(Eichenlaub, 1979).

The Bayfield Peninsula is mainly forested, with the drainage basins of the five streams having 64 to 88 percent forest 

cover in 1992–93 (Reese and others, 2002) (fig. 8, table 1). 

The Whittlesey Creek basin has the most agricultural land and 

grassland. Grassland is composed of pasture and abandoned 

farmland. For the middle of the peninsula in the surface-water 

noncontributing area, 84 percent is forested with 12 percent 

barren/shrubland. The barren/shrubland consists of a mix 

of recently logged areas and shrubland with pine barrens 

(extremely dry areas with small jack pine).

Old-growth forests on the Bayfield Peninsula were 

extensively logged and burned from about 1880 to 1900. The 

Cranberry River, Bark River, Sioux River (including Fourmile Creek and the Little Sioux River), and Whittlesey Creek 

were used for log drives (no records were found for Raspberry 

River log drives). By the early 1900s, the entire peninsula had 

been logged and burned and agriculture activity was increasing (Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin 

Geological and Natural History Survey, 1928). After peak 

agricultural activity in the late 1920s to early 1930s, the 

amount of forested land remained nearly constant, but much of 

the cropland was converted to pasture or grassland (table 1). 

In 1928, over 90 percent of the trees had a diameter of less 

than 6 in. and were mainly poplar (Wisconsin Department of 

Agriculture and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey, 1928). Ditches commonly were constructed in poorly 

drained clayey areas to speed drainage in spring and allow for 

earlier planting (Extension Service of College of Agriculture, 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1942). 

Flood History

Long-term streamflow data, especially flood-series data, 

are useful for putting interpretations of geomorphic characteristics and processes into the proper hydrologic context. 

Four USGS streamflow-gaging stations in the vicinity of 

the Bayfield Peninsula have continuous streamflow data for 

various lengths of record. Nearby streamflow-gaging stations 

are on the Bois Brule River (USGS site identification number 

04025500, record from 1944–2003), North Fish Creek (USGS 

site identification number 040263491; 1990–91, 1995–96, 

2001–03), Whittlesey Creek (USGS site identification number 040263205, 1999–2003), and the Bad River (USGS site 

identification number 04027000; 1915–21, 1946, 1949–2003) 

(fig. 1A; the Bad River streamflow-gaging station is not shown 

on figure 1 but is 15 mi southeast of Ashland). A USGS creststage gaging station is on the Sioux River (USGS site identification number 04026300, 1959–2003) (fig. 1A). 

Annual flood peak data from the Sioux River crest-stage 

gaging station are probably the most useful in an assessment 

of historical geomorphic conditions for Bayfield streams 

because of the station’s location in the middle of the peninsula; 

however, its record only extends back to 1959 (fig. 9). The 

Sioux River had large floods in 1960, 1964, 1985, and 2001. 

Historical newspaper accounts and anecdotal information from 

landowners indicate that a flood in June of 1946 from intense 

rainfall on North Fish Creek was the largest flood on record. 

The 1946 flood also was the largest flood on the Bad River 

(fig. 9). For the Bois Brule River, a flood in April 2001 was 

the largest flood on record, and a flood in 1944 was the second 

largest (fig. 9). Thus, it is possible that the April 2001 flood for 

Bayfield streams was the largest or second largest flood during 

the preceding 57 or more years. The 2001 flood was caused by 

a combination of snowmelt and rainfall. Streamflow records 

for Whittlesey Creek and North Fish Creek show that the 2001 

flood was the largest flood recorded so far at these two stations, both of which have relatively short records (fig. 9).
14 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

46°35'

46°47'

90°54'

91°23'

Bark River

Cranberry River

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Bark River

Cranberry River

Raspberry

River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Base from digital elevation data (Benchmark GIS, 2001)

Surface-water contributing basin

Urban

Agriculture

Grassland

Forest

Water

Wetland

Barren/shrubland

Land cover

EXPLANATION

WISCONSIN

Study

area

0

0

4

4 8 KILOMETERS

8 MILES

Figure 8. Land cover (1992–93) for the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin (Reese and others, 2002).
Introduction 15

1915192019251930193519401945195019551960196519701975198019851990199520002005

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Discharge, in cubic feet per second

Bad River partial-duration

series

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Bois Brule River 

partial-duration series 1944

2001

1946 1960

1992 2003

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

North Fish Creek annual series 2001

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Whittlesey Creek annual series 2001

Sioux River annual series

1960 1964

1985

2001

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Discharge, in cubic feet per second Discharge, in cubic feet per second Discharge, in cubic feet per second Discharge, in cubic feet per second

Figure 9. Flood peaks for the Sioux River, Whittlesey Creek, North Fish Creek, Bois Brule River, and Bad 

River flood-peak data from annual and partial-duration series.
16 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, 

Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data

Understanding aquatic habitat requires a thorough 

characterization of the geomorphic, flood and groundwater 

conditions over multiple temporal and spatial scales. The 

characterization helped to describe the natural and historical 

and modern anthropogenic factors important in the Bayfield 

streams for affecting base flow, water temperature, sedimentation, and scour.

Geomorphic Measurements and Data Collection

Historical and present geomorphic conditions were 

assessed by use of historical documents and aerial photographs, longitudinal profiles, data from valley cross sections and cores, and video footage from a helicopter survey (table 2). Sites with erosion-control techniques used 

by the Red Clay Interagency Committee (RCIC) were 

revisited in 2003 to determine if the techniques were still 

controlling erosion. 

Historical Documents and Aerial Photographs

Historical documents and aerial photographs were used 

to identify locations with bluff, terrace, or bank erosion, 

midchannel bar formation, or channel migration. Bluff and 

terrace erosion were distinguished from bank erosion because 

the higher altitudes of bluffs and terraces could have produced 

increased volumes of eroded sediment. Bank erosion is defined 

as stream cuts into flood-plain deposits with erosion heights of 

generally less than 10 ft. Terrace erosion is defined as stream 

cuts into terraces (remnant/ancient flood-plain surfaces), with 

heights of generally 20 ft or less. Bluff erosion is defined as 

stream cuts into valley sides (usually glacial deposits). Erosion 

heights may be greater than 50 ft, depending on the degree of 

valley incision. Aerial-photograph interpretation was limited 

to main-stem channels because of resolution restraints and forest cover. USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps from the 1980s 

also were used to document channel migration.

Notes and maps from 1852 General Land Office (GLO) 

surveys were used to compare presettlement and 2002–2003 

channel widths for the main stem of the Cranberry River. The 

GLO survey notes and maps contained information on vegetation, soils, and topography, as well as stream location and 

direction, width, depth, substrate, and flow before widespread 

logging and burning. 

Data from a 1928 Land Economic Inventory (Wisconsin 

Department of Agriculture with the Wisconsin Geological 

and Natural History Survey, 1928) were used to characterize 

land cover during peak agricultural activity. Township maps 

were obtained from the Wisconsin State Historical Society 

Archives, scanned, georectified, and digitized. The Land 

Economic Inventory uses 25 categories for land cover, which 

were grouped for this study into 8 categories that most closely 

matched the 1992–93 land-cover categories (table 1). 

Data from Inter-Fluve, Inc.

Inter-Fluve, Inc. and the USGS worked together on 

characterizing present and historical geomorphic conditions 

of the five Bayfield streams. Inter-Fluve, Inc. conducted 

reconnaissance surveys and collected channel-geometry and 

fish-passage data on all five streams in fall 2002 (fig. 1A and 

B) (Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber, 2003). Inter-Fluve, Inc.’s 

reconnaissance surveys included qualitative and quantitative 

data for channel vertical and lateral stability, bank erosion, 

sediment composition and characteristics, general salmonidhabitat quality, flood-plain characteristics, human influences, 

riparian vegetation and canopy characteristics, deposition, 

stream classification (Rosgen, 1996), and channel evolution (Schumm, 1977). Channel-geometry surveys included 

cross-section and longitudinal profiles, streambed-substrate 

characterization through pebble counts (Wolman, 1954), and 

channel-roughness estimates. Inter-Fluve, Inc. used these data 

to estimate bankfull flow, channel shear stress, and stream 

power. Fish-passage data at culvert and bridge crossings 

included slope, culvert and bridge dimensions, velocity at low 

flow, characteristics of upstream and downstream approaches, 

and tailwater conditions. 

Inter-Fluve, Inc. calculated average channel shear stress 

for bankfull conditions from channel cross-section and reach 

slope data. Average channel shear stress is the force exerted on 

a channel bottom and is calculated by the following equation:

τ =γRS, (1)

where 

τ is shear stress, in lbs/ft2, 

γ is the specific weight of water (62 lbs/ft3), 

R is the hydraulic radius at bankfull stage, in 

ft (which is equal to the channel crosssectional area divided by the channel 

perimeter), and 

S is the channel slope, in ft/ft (Chang, 1992). 

Thus, the slope and the shape and size of the channel determine shear stress. High shear stress indicates a greater 

potential for erosion of particles along channel bed and banks. 

As slope or hydraulic radius increases, the potential for 

erosion increases. 

Longitudinal Profiles

Longitudinal profiles were constructed for the five 

streams. A longitudinal profile represents the changes in 

altitude of a stream along its length, from the mouth to its 

headwaters. Stream lengths were measured with a map wheel 

between contour lines on USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps 
Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data 17

Table 2. Sites sampled in 2002–2003 as part of the study of the geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow characteristics of Bayfield 

Peninsula streams, Wisconsin.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square miles; na, data not available; Wis., Wisconsin; Rd., road; Cty., County; Hwy., highway; Trib., tributary; DNR, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Purpose column abbreviations: B, USGS base-flow survey; I, Inter-Fluve, Inc. reach assessment; V, USGS valley 

transect; C, USGS coring; and E, erosion-control evaluation.]

USGS 

field 

number

USGS station 

number

Inter-Fluve, 

Inc. station 

code

Stream name Purpose Latitude/longitude Drainage 

area (mi2

)

1 040263491 na North Fish Creek near Moquah, Wis. B 46°32ʹ56ʺ, 91°03ʹ43ʺ 38

2 040263205 WHGAUGE Whittlesey Creek near Ashland, Wis. BIVC 46°35ʹ40ʺ, 90°57ʹ47ʺ 7.4

3 04026318 na Boyd Creek at Ondassagon Rd. near Ashland, 

Wis.

B 46°37ʹ14ʺ, 90°58ʹ10ʺ 3.1

4 04026290 na Sioux River—low flow site—near Washburn, 

Wis.

B 46°39ʹ16ʺ, 91°00ʹ36ʺ 2.5

5 04026295 na Sioux River at Church Corner Rd. near 

Washburn, Wis.

B 46°40ʹ35ʺ, 90°59ʹ22ʺ 10

6 04026305 na Fourmile Creek at County C near Washburn, 

Wis.

B 46°42ʹ50ʺ, 91°00ʹ02ʺ 4.0

6a 04026304 na Tributary Fourmile Cr. at Cty. C near Washburn, 

Wis.

B 46°42ʹ510ʺ, 91°00ʹ09ʺ 0.17

7 04026300 SXC Sioux River near Washburn, Wis. BI 46°41ʹ20ʺ, 90°57ʹ02ʺ 14

8 04026308 na Sioux River at Big Rock Rd. near Washburn, 

Wis.

B 46°42ʹ37ʺ, 90°55ʹ33ʺ 27

9 04026311 na Little Sioux River at Little Sioux Rd. near 

Washburn, Wis.

B 46°45ʹ37ʺ, 90°58ʹ02ʺ 2.9

10 04026309 na Sioux River at Friendly Valley Rd. near 

Washburn, Wis.

B 46°43ʹ32ʺ, 90°54ʹ27ʺ 29

11 04026315 na Little Sioux River near Washburn, Wis. B 46°43ʹ36ʺ, 90°54ʹ27ʺ 12

12 04026316 na Sioux River near Washburn, Wis. B 46°44ʹ03ʺ, 90°52ʹ35ʺ 44

13 04026207 na Tributary Raspberry River at Hwy. 13 near 

Sand Bay, Wis.

B 46°53ʹ06ʺ, 90°53ʹ51ʺ 0.31

13a 040262075 na Raspberry River at Hwy. 13 near Sand Bay, Wis. B 46°53ʹ05ʺ, 90°53ʹ47ʺ 0.23

14 04026209 na Raspberry River at Hwy. K near Sand Bay, Wis. B 46°54ʹ52ʺ, 90°51ʹ31ʺ 8.2

15 04026211 na North Branch Raspberry River at Blueberry Rd. 

near Sand Bay, Wis.

B 46°55ʹ58ʺ, 90°51ʹ12ʺ 0.48

16 04026213 na South Branch Raspberry River at Emil Rd. near 

Sand Bay, Wis.

B 46°54ʹ07ʺ, 90°49ʹ01ʺ 0.13

17 04026215 na Raspberry River near Sand Bay, Wis. B 46°55ʹ24ʺ, 90°49ʹ51ʺ 14

17a 04026200 na Sand River tributary near Red Cliff, Wis. B 46°53ʹ53ʺ, 90°56ʹ47ʺ 1.1

18 04026190 na Sand River near Red Cliff, Wis. B 46°54ʹ0ʺ, 90°57ʹ20ʺ 27

19 04026160 na Siskiwit River at Cornucopia, Wis. B 46°51ʹ17ʺ, 91°5ʹ29ʺ 22

20 04026150 na Lost Creek No. 2 near Cornucopia, Wis. B 46°50ʹ33ʺ, 91°8ʹ4ʺ 1.9

21 04026135 na Bark River at Bark River Rd. near Herbster, Wis. B 46°47ʹ35ʺ, 91°12ʹ18ʺ 0.92

22 04026137 na Bark River near Bark River Rd. near Herbster, 

Wis.

B 46°49ʹ18ʺ, 91°10ʹ42ʺ 5.9

22a 04026138 na Tributary Bark River near Bark River Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°49ʹ21ʺ, 91°10ʹ36ʺ 0.14

23 04026139 BTRIB East Branch Bark River near Bark River Rd. 

near Herbster, Wis.

BI 46°49ʹ25ʺ, 91°10ʹ36ʺ 1.1

24 04026140 na Bark River near Cornucopia, Wis. (at Hwy. 13) B 46°50ʹ27ʺ, 91°10ʹ49ʺ 8.2
18 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

USGS 

field 

number

USGS station 

number

Inter-Fluve, 

Inc. station 

code

Stream name Purpose Latitude/longitude Drainage 

area (mi2

)

25 04026127 na East Branch East Fork Cranberry River near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°46ʹ53ʺ, 91°14ʹ6ʺ 5.0

26 04026130 na East Fork Cranberry River at Touve Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis. 

B 46°47ʹ20ʺ, 91°16ʹ25ʺ 19

27 04026131 na S. Branch Cranberry River at Touve Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°47ʹ21ʺ, 91°16ʹ37ʺ 5.4

28 040261261 na Tributary Lenawee Cr. near Lenawee Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°45ʹ32ʺ, 91°14ʹ15ʺ 0.40

29 040261315 na Trib. Cranberry River at Lenawee Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°48ʹ7ʺ, 91°15ʹ31ʺ 0.18

30 04026132 na Cranberry River near Herbster, Wis. (at Old 

Hwy. 13)

BVC 46°49ʹ47ʺ, 91°16ʹ2ʺ 31

31 04026128 na East Fork Cranberry River at Lenawee Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°47ʹ6ʺ, 91°14ʹ47ʺ 18

32 040261248 na East Fork Cranberry River near Lenawee Rd 

near Herbster, Wis.

B 46°45ʹ34ʺ, 91°14ʹ8ʺ 4.5

33 04026126 na Lenawee Creek near Lenawee Rd. near Herbster, 

Wis.

B 46°45ʹ31ʺ, 91°14ʹ15ʺ 4.2

34 040261258 na Lenawee Creek at Seven Mile Rd. near Herbster, 

Wis.

B 46°43ʹ48ʺ, 91°14ʹ24ʺ 2.7

35 04026125 na Lenawee Cr. Trib. #2 at Sand Trap Rd near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°42ʹ51ʺ, 91°13ʹ37ʺ 0.17

36 040261254 na Lenawee Creek Trib. at Sand Trap Rd near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°42ʹ47ʺ, 91°13ʹ43” 0.14

36a 040261255 na Trib. #3 Lenawee Cr. at Sand Trap Rd. near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°42ʹ54ʺ, 91°13ʹ55” 0.16

37 04026124 na East Fork Cranberry River Tributary #2 near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°43ʹ13ʺ, 91°11ʹ49” 0.08

38 040261244 na East Fork Cranberry River Tributary near 

Herbster, Wis.

B 46°44ʹ12ʺ, 91°11ʹ48” 0.34

39 04026120 na Flag River at Port Wing, Wis. B 46°46ʹ58ʺ, 91°22ʹ25” 28

40 04026117 na Flag River near Port Wing, Wis. B 46°41ʹ25ʺ, 91°16ʹ59” 0.57

41 na CR01 East Fork Cranberry River upstream of Lenawee 

Creek

I 46°45ʹ23ʺ, 91°14ʹ01” 4.5

41a na na East Fork Cranberry River upstream of Lenawee 

Creek

VC 46°45.471ʹ, 91°14.097ʹ 4.4

42 na CR02 East Fork Cranberry River downstream of 

Lenawee Creek

I 46°45ʹ39ʺ, 91°14ʹ15ʺ 9.1

43 na CR03 East Fork Cranberry River near Pearson and 

Issakson property

I 46°45ʹ48ʺ, 91°14ʹ20ʺ 9.4

44 na CR04 East Fork Cranberry River near Koehn property I 46°46ʹ28ʺ, 91°14ʹ18ʺ 9.7

45 na CR05 East Fork Cranberry River near Lourma property I 46°47ʹ02ʺ, 91°14ʹ35ʺ 10

46 na CR06 East Fork Cranberry River at Lenawee Road IVC 46°47ʹ12ʺ, 91°15ʹ36ʺ 18

Table 2. Sites sampled in 2002–2003 as part of the study of the geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow characteristics of Bayfield 

Peninsula streams, Wisconsin.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square miles; na, data not available; Wis., Wisconsin; Rd., road; Cty., County; Hwy., highway; Trib., tributary; DNR, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Purpose column abbreviations: B, USGS base-flow survey; I, Inter-Fluve, Inc. reach assessment; V, USGS valley 

transect; C, USGS coring; and E, erosion-control evaluation.]
Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data 19

Table 2. Sites sampled in 2002–2003 as part of the study of the geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow characteristics of Bayfield 

Peninsula streams, Wisconsin.—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; mi2, square miles; na, data not available; Wis., Wisconsin; Rd., road; Cty., County; Hwy., highway; Trib., tributary; DNR, 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Purpose column abbreviations: B, USGS base-flow survey; I, Inter-Fluve, Inc. reach assessment; V, USGS valley 

transect; C, USGS coring; and E, erosion-control evaluation.]

USGS 

field 

number

USGS station 

number

Inter-Fluve, 

Inc. station 

code

Stream name Purpose Latitude/longitude Drainage 

area (mi2

)

47 na CR07 East Fork Cranberry River at south edge of 

Section 20

I 46°47ʹ20ʺ, 91°15ʹ58ʺ 19

48 na CR08 East Fork Cranberry River upstream from Touve 

Rd.

I 46°47ʹ21ʺ, 91°16ʹ18ʺ 19

49 na CR09 Cranberry River at western edge of section 20, 

DNR property

I 46°47ʹ37ʺ, 91°16ʹ45ʺ 25

50 na CR10 Cranberry River downstream of Touve Rd. IVC 46°48ʹ23ʺ, 91°16ʹ42ʺ 27

51 na CR11 Cranberry River at Klienh./Issakson canoe 

takeout

I 46°49ʹ05ʺ, 91°16ʹ03ʺ 30

52 na CR12 East Tributary Cranberry River downstream of 

Campbell Rd.

I 46°46ʹ56ʺ, 91°14ʹ12ʺ 5.0

53 na CR13 Lenawee Creek near Paulson property I 46°45ʹ33ʺ, 91°14ʹ13ʺ 4.6

54 na CR14 Cranberry River 0.5 miles upstream of Touve 

Rd.

I 46°47ʹ02ʺ, 91°16ʹ46ʺ 3.8

55 na CR15 Cranberry River near western edge of section 29 I 46°46ʹ58ʺ, 91°16ʹ40ʺ 3.8

56 na na Surface-water non-contributing area na na 160

57 na B3 Bark River I 46°48ʹ03ʺ, 91°11ʹ57ʺ 1.5

58 na B4 Bark River I 46°48ʹ12ʺ, 91°11ʹ38ʺ 2.0

59 na B5 Bark River I 46°49ʹ10ʺ, 91°11ʹ02ʺ 5.7

60 na SX6 Sioux River I 46°42ʹ09ʺ, 90°56ʹ07ʺ 26

61 na SX13 Sioux River I 46°39ʹ15ʺ, 91°00ʹ41ʺ 2.5

62 na CR16 Lenawee Creek downstream of Seven Mile Rd. I 46°44ʹ05ʺ, 91°14ʹ34ʺ na

63 na na Lenawee Creek upstream of the East Fork 

Cranberry River

V 46°45ʹ28ʺ, 91°14ʹ15ʺ na

64 na na Brule River bluff E 46°32ʹ35ʺ, 91°35ʹ4ʺ na

65 na na South Fish Creek grassed waterway E 46°32ʹ16ʺ, 91°03ʹ13ʺ na

66 na na Whittlesey Creek bluff E 46°36ʹ24ʺ, 91°00ʹ32ʺ na

67 na na Whittlesey Creek bank stabilization E 46°35ʹ43ʺ, 90°58ʹ33ʺ na

68 na na Fish Creek bluff upstream of gaging station E 46°32ʹ55ʺ, 91°04ʹ0ʺ na

69 na na Fish Creek bluff downstream of Town Dump Rd. E 46°31ʹ57ʺ, 91°07ʹ29ʺ na
20 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

published between 1964 and 1984. Longitudinal profiles were 

used to identify large-scale slope changes that are usually 

related to geologic features or channel location within the 

drainage network. Slope may have changed in specific reaches 

after the maps were published. 

Helicopter Video Interpretation

Windway Capital Corporation conducted a low-altitude 

video survey with a helicopter of four of the five studied 

streams in 2003. The video camera was linked with a global 

positioning system (GPS). The Cranberry River, Whittlesey 

Creek, Sioux River, and the Sand River were videotaped 

on April 30 and May 1, 2003. No helicopter video footage 

was shot of the Raspberry River or the East Fork Cranberry 

River upstream of the confluence with the East Branch of the 

East Fork Cranberry River. The Bark River was videotaped 

on November 14, 2003. The main stems of the Sioux River, 

Fourmile Creek, and the Little Sioux River were videotaped. 

Locations of bank, bluff, and terrace erosion, large depositional bars, log jams, boulder bars, and beaver activity were 

tabulated from the videos. 

Valley Cross-Section Surveying and Coring

Field data for valley cross sections and cores were collected by the USGS from fall 2002 through fall 2003. These 

data were used to determine rates of incision and sedimentation for five sites along the Cranberry River and one site near 

the mouth of Whittlesey Creek (figs. 1A and B). Results were 

compared with core data from North Fish Creek (Fitzpatrick, 

1998). A GPS was used to verify the location of each cross 

section. Semipermanent benchmarks consisting of 4-ft concrete reinforcing bars pounded into the ground or lag bolts in 

nearby tree trunks were established at each cross section. 

The thickness, texture, chemistry, and age of sediment in 

the flood plain and channel were examined by sediment coring and sampling with a 1-in. diameter hand-held soil probe 

and a Geoprobe. The hand-held soil probe was useful for 

quick exploratory and reconnaissance coring and for coring in 

remote areas. The Geoprobe®, a tapping-type coring device 

mounted on a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle, was used to collect deeper cores from accessible flood-plain areas. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture textural triangle and 

color chart (Munsell Color, 1975; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff, 1951) 

were used in the field to classify all cores for texture and color. 

Grading of texture was done by one person by rubbing soil 

between the fingers and using techniques described in Milfred 

and others (1967). Core-recovery ratios (the retrieved length 

of sample in the corer compared to the depth interval sampled) 

were recorded. If present in the cores, wood pieces were frozen and archived for possible radiocarbon-age determinations 

in the future if funding becomes available.

Buried soils are commonly found in flood-plain deposits 

and can be good indicators of flood-plain surface stability. 

Buried soils are developed in older flood-plain surfaces (Birkland, 1984; Retallick, 1985). In general, modern flood-plain 

soils are usually poorly developed because of the possibility 

for a fast rate of burial, high water table, and anthropogenic 

disturbance. Many buried flood-plain surfaces have the beginnings of an A horizon or only a thin layer of organic matter 

and remnants of decaying vegetation. The A horizon is a dark 

zone at the surface of the soil caused by accumulation of 

decomposing organic matter. The buried flood-plain surfaces 

can be recognized by one or more of the following characteristics: presence of an A horizon, organic matter accumulation 

from decaying vegetation, lateral extent (a buried surface is 

parallel to the land surface and may truncate geologic bedding), root traces, and soil structure (Birkland, 1984; Retallick, 

1985). Sometimes part of a buried soil will be removed by 

scour activity associated with flooding, channel migration, or 

channel avulsion. 

Reach Characterization of Geomorphic 

Processes

Helicopter video footage and historical aerial photographs provided evidence of incision, lateral- migration, 

avulsion, bluff and terrace erosion, bank erosion, overbank 

sedimentation, and lateral and midchannel-bar formation. 

These data were supplemented with valley cross sections and 

cores, which provided information on the vertical stability of 

the channels and overbank sedimentation. GLO survey notes 

were useful for determining channel-width changes after 

pre-Euro-American settlement and logging. Inter-Fluve, Inc.’s 

reach-assessment data were used for comparison and verification (Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber, 2003). More detailed 

information was collected for the Cranberry River basin than 

for the basins of streams on the eastern side of the peninsula, 

such as North Fish Creek, Whittlesey Creek, and the Sioux 

River; the geomorphic impacts from logging and clearing for 

agricultural land were expected to be less in the Cranberry 

River basin than in the basins for the eastern streams. 

Determination of Sediment Sources

Observations from helicopter video footage, combined 

with field notes from USGS and Inter-Fluve, Inc. field surveys, 

were used primarily to estimate relative contributions of 

sediment from upland, road crossings, bluff/terraces, banks, 

incision, feeder channels, and gullies. These observations were 

compared to a sediment budget previously done for North 

Fish Creek on the basis of valley cross sections, core data, and 

three years of total sediment-load data (Rose and Graczyk, 

1996; Fitzpatrick and others, 1999). The previously published North Fish Creek sediment budget also was updated to 

include sediment inputs from two additional sources—channel 
Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data 21

incision in tributaries that directly feed to the main stem valley 

and road crossings.

Evaluation of Previous Erosion-Control 

Techniques

Six sites of previous erosion-control projects were 

revisited in May 2003 (fig. 1). The six sites were evaluated for 

geomorphic stability and effectiveness of the erosion-control 

techniques. The sites included eroding bluffs on the Bois Brule 

River (site 64), North Fish Creek (site 68, 69), and Whittlesey Creek (site 66); another site on the lower main stem of 

Whittlesey Creek with bank erosion problems (site 67); and 

an eroding waterway from a farmstead (tributary to South Fish 

Creek) (site 65). A geomorphic-assessment form was used 

that included detailed measurements and observations of the 

valley, channel, and bank characteristics based upon Thorne 

(1998) and an assessment of the restoration structure and 

effectiveness based upon Brown (2000).

Three of the six evaluated sites (sites 64, 65, 66) were 

RCIC projects. The RCIC was established in 1956 with 

members from seven federal, state and local agencies, who 

worked with local landowners to evaluate erosion problems 

and potential solutions (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 

1957). Restoration practices that were implemented include: 

resloping banks; testing seed, fertilizer and mulch mixtures 

for vegetative stabilization; toe stabilizations; and smoothing 

small gullies and rills prior to seeding (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1957, 1960, 1967, 1971, 1972, 1977). In 1971, 

the Governor of Wisconsin requested that the RCIC develop 

a large-scale plan for reducing erosion in all of the Wisconsin 

streams that flow into Lake Superior (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1971). They assisted in the creation of the Red 

Clay Project, a larger restoration project that involved five 

counties and had 21 cooperators in two states (Andrews and 

others, 1976). As part of that project, the RCIC was asked 

to evaluate the restoration practices that had been installed 

between 1958 and 1967 (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 

1972, 1977, Andrews and others, 1979). After ten to twenty 

years, the majority of the sites were still intact and functioning 

well (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1977). The lessons 

learned by the RCIC were the importance of toe stabilization 

when stabilizing a bluff or bank, and the necessity proper 

slope modification and seeding mixtures for establishing good 

vegetation cover. 

The Ashland-Bayfield-Douglas-Iron Counties Land Conservation Department (ABDI-LCD) and the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) installed a demonstration restoration project on the lower main stem of Whittlesey Creek 

in 1995–96 (site 67, fig. 1). The project combined several soft 

engineering and bioengineering techniques including vortex 

weirs, rock barbs, brush mattresses, live fascine, live stakes, 

and brush layers. The purpose of the project was to reduce 

bank erosion and sedimentation and to improve fish habitat in 

Whittlesey Creek (Gardner and Johnson, circa 1997). 

Two bluff-erosion sites on North Fish Creek where erosion control had previously been attempted were qualitatively 

evaluated (sites 68 and 69, fig. 1). With the assistance of the 

ABDI-LCD, design plans for a 1977 stabilization of the bluff 

at site 68 were found. The plans for site 68 detailed the construction of a new riprapped channel through the flood plain 

on the inside of a meander bend to divert flow away from the 

base of an eroding bluff. The plans were to seed and mulch 

the bluff face and fill the old channel with material from the 

new channel. Funding was never obtained for this project, but 

previously in the 1930s there had been an attempt to divert the 

channel away from bluff face through the point-bar side of the 

flood plain by dynamiting a new channel (Florence Koleski, 

landowner, Ashland, Wis., oral commun., 2003). At site 69, 

live willow stakes were planted in 1991 at the base of the 

bluff, but were killed by blight during the first year.

Simulation of Flood Peaks and Hydrographs

The HEC-1 flood hydrograph package (U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, 1998) was used 

to simulate flood peaks and hydrographs for the Cranberry 

River. The Cranberry River basin was divided into 21 subbasins on the basis of tributary junctions and similarities in 

soils, land cover, and slopes (table 3). Basin and subbasin 

boundaries were derived from 10-m DEM data (Benchmark 

GIS, 2001). The surface water-contributing basin derived 

from DEM data and used in the HEC-1 model had an area 

of 30.2 mi2

, compared to the basin area of 31.0 mi2 derived 

from hand-digitizing drainage divides from USGS 7.5-minute 

topographic maps. Soils data (scale 1:12,000) (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

in press) (fig. 7) were generalized into nine categories by 

hydrologic soil group (all soils in a hydrologic soil group are 

assumed to have the same runoff amounts under similar storm 

and ground-cover conditions) and texture (table 4). A soil 

category was considered significant if it made up 15 percent 

or more of a subbasin area. Land-cover data (Reese and others, 2002) were generalized into six categories (table 4), and 

mixed and deciduous forest categories were grouped into one 

category. Land cover was considered significant if it made up 

10 percent or more of a subbasin area.

Each of the 21 subbasins was further subdivided into 

Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) on the basis of the 

significant land cover and soil type. An HRU was created for 

every combination of soil and land cover. Areas of land cover 

and soil type that were not significant were divided among the 

significant HRUs based on the ratio of HRU area to total area. 

Thus, if 60 percent of the basin was in HRU1, then 60 percent 

of the insignificant area was classified as the same land cover 

and soil type as HRU1. The area-weighted average of all HRU 

areas in each subbasin was input into the HEC-1 model.

The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve-number 

method was used for runoff-volume estimation and the 

SCS unit-hydrograph method was used for flow routing 
22 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

(U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 

1986). Soil and land-cover data were used to determine SCS 

curve numbers. For the SCS unit-hydrograph method, slope 

and roughness for both overland and channel were used to calculate the timing of runoff through each subbasin. A detailed 

description of both methods can be found in the National 

Engineering Handbook (Soil Conservation Service, 1972). 

Overland-flow roughness coefficients are based on Engman 

(1986). Inter-Fluve, Inc.’s channel-survey data were used for 

channel cross-section inputs.

Design storms were used to estimate rainfall distributions, because no long-term precipitation stations are near 

the Cranberry River. The design storms included the 24-hour 

rainfalls for Bayfield County with return intervals of 2-, 10-, 

and 100-years (2.77, 4.04, and 5.98 in., respectively) (Huff 

and Angel, 1992). Rainfall volumes were distributed by 

using the SCS type-II rainfall distribution (Soil Conservation 

Service, 1972). 

Four alternative land-cover scenarios were simulated with 

the Cranberry River HEC-1 model (table 5). The first simulation used 1992–93 land cover WISCLAND data to represent 

present land-cover conditions. Percentages for 1992–93 land 

cover in the Cranberry River watershed are slightly different 

in table 5 compared to table 1 because, as explained above, 

only land-cover categories that made up 10 percent or more of 

a subbasin area were included. The second simulation (peak 

agriculture) used land-cover data from the 1928 Land Economic Inventory (Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and 

Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 1928) and 

represents the 1920s and 1930s, when row-crop agriculture 

was at its peak. A third simulation (developed) was made by 

adjusting all curve numbers for each land cover in each HRU 

(except for wetland) to include 25-percent urban residential 

land. For the fourth simulation (presettlement), all landcover categories from the 1928 Land Economic Inventory 

(other than wetland) were replaced with forest. Additionally, 

Table 3. Physical characteristics of subbasins used in the Cranberry River HEC-1 flood hydrograph simulations, Bayfield Peninsula, 

Wisconsin.

[mi2, square miles; ft, feet; mi, miles]

Subbasin Area (mi2) Average basin 

slope length (ft)

Average basin 

slope

Average width of 

channel at top of 

bank (ft)

Average depth of 

main channel; top of 

bank to bottom (ft)

Main 

channel 

slope

Main 

channel 

length (mi)

Channel 

width to 

depth ratio

1 1.2 60 0.199 58 2.4 0.007 1.6 24

2 0.94 60 0.188 7.2 0.6 0.057 0.30 12

3 1.6 0.2 0.326 10 0.8 0.065 2.0 13

4 2.6 50 0.202 53 2.3 0.011 2.3 23

5 1.2 60 0.173 43 2.0 0.018 2.3 21

6 0.52 80 0.160 21 1.2 0.030 0.35 17

7 1.4 60 0.193 9.0 0.7 0.038 0.05 13

8 0.60 60 0.166 17 1.1 0.035 0.42 16

9 2.1 80 0.148 12 0.8 0.025 1.3 14

10 1.0 60 0.165 20 1.2 0.026 1.6 17

11 0.96 0.2 0.288 30 1.6 0.029 2.0 19

12 0.94 200 0.080 7.2 0.6 0.017 0.11 12

13 2.2 50 0.226 12 0.8 0.061 2.6 14

14 3.1 0.2 0.268 15 1.0 0.047 3.1 15

15 0.91 50 0.230 7.1 0.6 0.040 0.31 12

16 1.6 0.2 0.340 19 1.1 0.063 2.0 16

17 1.3 0.2 0.331 18 1.1 0.035 1.7 16

18 1.3 50 0.242 8.6 0.7 0.010 0.92 13

19 0.47 0.2 0.335 11 0.8 0.031 0.80 14

20 3.0 60 0.187 15 1.0 0.036 1.35 15

21 1.4 0.2 0.332 9.3 0.7 0.061 0.63 13
Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data 23

Table 4. HEC-1 model input-parameter values for Cranberry River, Wisconsin for four land-cover simulations.

[SCS, Soil Conservation Service (1972); —, no data]

Land cover Soil 1992–93 Presettlement 

(before 1870)

Peak agriculture 

(1928) Developed

SCS curve number

Forest, pine Sand 30 28 30 30

Forest, pine Loam A 42.5 — — 42.5

Forest, deciduous/mixed Sand 45 — — 45

Forest, deciduous/mixed Loam A 55.5 42 56 55.5

Forest, deciduous/mixed Loam B 66 55 66 66

Forest, deciduous/mixed Sand over loam 66 — — 66

Forest, deciduous/mixed Sand over clay 66 55 66 66

Forest, deciduous/mixed Loam over clay 77 70 77 77

Forest, deciduous/mixed Clay over loam 83 77 83 83

Forest, deciduous/mixed Clay 83 77 83 83

Rangeland/brush Sand 49 — — 49

Rangeland/brush Loam A 50 — — 50

Rangeland/brush Loam B 61 — — 61

Grassland Sand over clay 69 — — 69

Grassland Loam B 69 — — 69

Grassland Loam over clay 79 — — 79

Grassland Clay over loam 84 — — 84

Grassland Clay 84 83 83 84

Wetland Sand — 60 60 —

Wetland Loam B — 72 72 —

Wetland Sand over clay — 76 76 —

Wetland Silt/muck — 83 83 —

Wetland Clay 83 — — 83

Agriculture Loam B — — — —

Agriculture Clay over loam — — — —

Agriculture Clay — — — —

Developed Sand — — — 61

Developed Loam A — — — 68

Developed Loam B — — — 75

Developed Sand over loam — — — 75

Developed Sand over clay — — — 79

Developed Loam over clay — — — 83

Developed Clay over loam — — — 87

Developed Clay — — — 87

Overland flow roughness coefficient

Forest, pine All 0.40 0.8 0.8 0.25

Forest, deciduous All 0.60 0.8 0.8 0.25

Rangeland/brush All 0.13 — — 0.13

Grassland All 0.15 — — 0.15

Wetland All 0.15 0.8 0.8 0.15

Agriculture All — — 0.14 —

Channel roughness coefficent (Manning’s n)

All All 0.035–0.05 0.15 0.035–0.05 0.035–0.05
24 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Table 5. Percentages of land-cover types used in the Cranberry River, Wisconsin from HEC-1 model 

simulations.

[All data are percentages. 1992–93 land cover from WISCLAND land cover (Reese and others, 2002). Peak agriculture data from 1928 Land Economic Inventory (Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin Geological and 

Natural History Survey, 1928). —, no data]

1992–93 Peak agriculture 

(1928) Developed Presettlement (before 1870)

Agriculture — 3.4 — —

Forest 91.1 94 68.3 97.4

Brushland 1.6 — 1.2 —

Grassland/pasture 6.8 — 5.1 —

Wetland 0.5 2.6 0.5 2.6

Urban — — 24.9 —

overland and channel roughness coefficients in the model 

were increased to the maximum published values for forest to 

simulate the greatest reasonable amount of organic debris in 

the upland forest floors and the greatest reasonable amount of 

woody debris in the stream channel. 

The flood hydrographs simulated with HEC-1 could not 

be calibrated because there are no streamflow-gaging stations 

in the Cranberry River Basin. Data sources and model inputs 

were similar to data sources and inputs used in the Whittlesey 

Creek rainfall-runoff model (Lenz and others, 2003) and the 

North Fish Creek HEC-1 model (Fitzpatrick, 1998). Results 

from the Cranberry River HEC-1 simulations, however, should 

be used only for comparisons among land-cover scenarios for 

the Cranberry River and rough comparisons to the Whittlesey 

Creek and North Fish Creek models. The Whittlesey Creek 

and North Fish Creek models, on the other hand, were calibrated to historical rainfall data and streamflow and stage data 

from USGS streamflow-gaging stations.

Simulation of Groundwater Flow

A groundwater-flow model was used to determine the 

general hydrogeologic characteristics of the study area and the 

base-flow characteristics for the streams of interest. Additionally, the model was used to determine the groundwater 

divide between the east and west sides of the peninsula and to 

delineate the groundwater contributing areas to the streams of 

interest. 

Groundwater flow for the study area was simulated by 

using a two-dimensional analytic-element model (GFLOW, 

Haitjema, 1995). The analytic-element methodology is not 

as widely utilized for numerical modeling as finite-difference 

techniques, but has been successfully employed by others for 

basin- and regional-scale investigations (Hunt and Krohelski, 

1996; Hunt and others, 1998, 2000). A complete description 

of analytic elements is beyond the scope of this report; a brief 

description is given below. Strack (1989) and Haitjema (1995) 

provide detailed discussions of this method.

An infinite aquifer is assumed in analytic-element modeling. The problem domain does not require a grid or involve 

interpolation between cells. To construct an analytic-element 

model, features that affect groundwater flow (such as surfacewater bodies, aquifer characteristics, and recharge) are entered 

as mathematical elements or strings of elements. The amount 

of detail specified for the features depends on distance from 

the area of interest. Each element is represented by an analytic 

solution. The effects of these individual solutions are added 

together to give a solution for the groundwater-flow system. 

Because the solution is not confined to a grid, heads and flows 

can be computed anywhere in the model domain without nodal 

averaging. In the GFLOW model, the analytic elements are 

two dimensional and are used to simulate only steady-state 

conditions. Groundwater-flow systems are three dimensional; 

however, two-dimensional models can provide reasonable 

approximations of groundwater flowlines when the lengths 

of the flowlines are large compared to the aquifer thickness 

(Haitjema, 1995, p. 23). In the study area, most groundwater 

is assumed to move through unconsolidated deposits that have 

a maximum saturated thickness of several hundred feet or less 

and the upper part of the bedrock. The lengths of flowlines 

from recharge areas to discharge areas are typically several 

miles or more in length. 

The GFLOW model domain included all major streams 

in the vicinity of the peninsula, ranging from the Bois Brule 

River in the west to the Bad River in the east (fig. 1). Other 

surface-water features included Lake Superior to the north and 

several streams to the south of the peninsula. The geometry of 

the single model layer includes a flat bottom altitude initially 

set at approximately 550 ft and an aquifer thickness ranging 

from about 100 to 600 ft. The single model layer represents all 

of the saturated unconsolidated deposits overlying the Bayfield 
Methods of Collecting Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Data 25

Group and upper parts of the Bayfield Group. The bottom of 

this one layer model is assumed to be a no-flow boundary. 

Zones of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh

) and recharge 

to the groundwater system are represented in the GLFOW 

model as inhomogeneities, and primarily represent the sandy 

deposits of the Copper Falls Formation and the clayey Miller 

Creek Formation (fig. 5). 

The GFLOW model includes near-field and far-field linesinks, which are lines of flow that transcend surface-water and 

groundwater systems (fig. 10). Streams are simulated as coarse 

linesinks that have little or no resistance between the surfacewater and the groundwater systems. The near field is the area 

of interest and includes the nearshore area of Lake Superior 

and streams around the perimeter of the peninsula from the 

Flag River to North Fish Creek. The far field surrounds the 

near field and is used to simulate the regional groundwaterflow field in the vicinity of the area of interest. Many of 

the near-field streams are used for flux calibration; far-field 

streams are not. Near-field streams are simulated as slightly 

more detailed linesinks with streambed resistance to control 

groundwater/surface-water interaction. In GFLOW, resistance is calculated by dividing streambed sediment thickness 

by the vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kv

) of the sediments 

and is in units of days. Values of resistance for near-field 

streams ranged from 0.01 to 10 days and correspond to values 

measured and estimated for Whittlesey Creek and vicinity 

(Lenz and others, 2003). High resistance values (10 days) 

were assigned to small streams like Boyd Creek (fig. 1). Low 

resistance values (0.01 to 0.02 days) were assigned to all 

other near-field streams. The linesinks representing streams 

and lakes were assigned altitudes based on USGS 7.5-minute 

quadrangle maps. Near-field streams were assigned stream 

widths (ranging from 2 to 75 ft) based on field measurements 

and stream order. The linesink representing Lake Superior was 

given a very high resistance (100 days) based on the value 

used in a calibrated groundwater model for Whittlesey Creek 

(Lenz and others, 2003) and width of 612 ft (based on stream/

lake linesink-width calculations (Hunt and others, 2003).

Base-Flow Measurements

Base flow is the discharge entering a stream channel from 

groundwater or other sources that release water in a gradual 

manner (American Society of Civil Engineers, 1949). Baseflow discharge was measured over 2 days during a low-flow 

period in November 2002 at 45 sites in 11 watersheds on 

the Bayfield Peninsula by use of standard USGS techniques 

(Buchanan and Somers, 1984) (fig. 1, table 2). Streambed temperature also was measured at the discharge locations using a 

thermometer inserted into the streambed about 2 cm (Shelton 

and Capel, 1994). Sites were chosen on the five study-area 

streams as well as six adjacent streams. Discharge measurements deemed to represent base flow were used as flux targets 

in the groundwater-flow simulation. Sites were not included in 

the model for three reasons: (1) the stream was not included in 

the GFLOW model, (2) the site was too close to Lake Superior 

to adequately measure discharge, or (3) measured discharge 

was less than 0.1 ft3

/s, which can be difficult to simulate accurately using a regional model.

Estimates of Hydraulic Conductivity and 

Recharge

Initial estimates of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh) 

for the areas underlain by the Copper Falls and Miller Creek 

Formations were based on previously estimated values used 

in the simulation of groundwater flow for Whittlesey Creek 

(Lenz and others, 2003). Hydraulic conductivity was estimated 

to be about 70 ft/d in the area underlain by the Copper Falls 

Formation and about 34 ft/d in the area underlain by the Miller 

Creek Formation. For this study, the area underlain by the 

Miller Creek Formation was divided into two zones (inhomogeneities): one for the north and west side of the peninsula and 

one for the east side (fig. 10). Available well logs, in addition 

to geologic (Soller and Packard, 1998) and soils (Schwarz 

and Alexander, 1995) data, indicate that the Miller Creek 

Formation on the north and west sides of the peninsula may 

be slightly thinner and less permeable than on the east side. 

Thinner, less permeable materials could result in lower Kh

 and 

recharge for the north and west sides of the study area. Dividing the Miller Creek Formation area into two zones allowed 

this hypothesis to be tested during model calibration.

Initial estimates of groundwater recharge in the study 

area were also based on previous estimates from the Whittlesey Creek groundwater-flow model (Lenz and others, 2003). 

The value used for the area underlain by the Copper Falls Formation was 17 in/yr. Recharge for both areas underlain by the 

Miller Creek Formation was estimated to be 2 in/yr. Estimates 

of Kh

 and recharge were updated during model calibration. 

Groundwater pumping was not included in model simulations. 

Groundwater pumping in the study area is typically from 

domestic wells and several municipal wells. Municipal pumping is typically from the Bayfield Group and generally from 

parts of the aquifer that are deeper than that simulated by the 

GFLOW model. 

Parameter Sensitivity and Model Calibration

Forty-five head targets (groundwater levels) and 26 flux 

targets (base flows) were used for the GFLOW model calibration (fig. 10). Head targets were compiled by using depthto-water information from drillers’ logs. Depth to water was 

converted to water-level altitude based on site location and 

land-surface altitudes on USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. 

Flux targets included base-flow measurements made during 

November 2002 at multiple locations for the 11 streams in the 

study area. Model parameters were adjusted within expected 

ranges until simulated heads and base flows were similar to 

measured values. 

The computer program UCODE (Poeter and Hill, 1998) 

was used for parameter sensitivity testing and automatic 
26 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Analytic element representing far-field linesink

Analytic element representing near-field linesink

Analytic element representing area of high recharge and high 

hydraulic conductivity (Copper Falls Formation) 

Analytic element representing area of low recharge and low 

hydraulic conductivity (Miller Creek Formation, east)

Analytic element representing area of low recharge and low 

hydraulic conductivity (Miller Creek Formation, north 

and west)

Base-flow flux target

Head target

EXPLANATION

0

0

5 10 15 20

KILOMETERS

MILES

5 10 15 20

BAYFIELD

COUNTY

SAWYER

COUNTY

IRON

COUNTY

PRICE

COUNTY

WASHBURN

COUNTY

DOUGLAS

COUNTY

ST. LOUIS

COUNTY

ASHLAND

COUNTY

VILAS

COUNTY

LAKE

COUNTY

LAKE SUPERIOR

LAKE SUPERIOR

92° 91° 90°

47°

46°

Figure 10. Hydrologic features simulated with analytic elements for the GFLOW model of the Bayfield Peninsula, 

Wisconsin.
Geomorphic Characteristics 27

calibration of the GFLOW model. Observations used for 

sensitivity testing and model calibration include those for 

the 45 head and 26 flux targets. Observation weights were 

assigned as follows: all heads, standard deviation = 5 ft; 

streams with measured base flow greater than or equal to 

1 ft3/s, coefficient of variation = 0.1; streams with measured 

base flow less than 1 ft3

/s, coefficient of variation = 0.15. 

Higher values of standard deviation and coefficient of variation represent a greater level of uncertainty in those measured values. Parameters tested for sensitivity were: Kh

 of 

the Copper Falls and Miller Creek Formations (three zones), 

recharge (three zones), Lake Superior linesink resistance, and 

the altitude of the model-layer bottom. Parameters used in 

model calibration were: Kh

, recharge, and model-layer bottom 

altitude.

Delineation of Groundwater Contributing Areas

The groundwater contributing areas for the five Bayfield 

streams were delineated by using the particle-tracking options 

in GFLOW. Particles were tracked forward from recharge 

areas to determine the groundwater contributing areas. The 

areal extent of the pathlines traced by the particle movement 

was manually digitized and represents the groundwater contributing area. In this report, “groundwater contributing area” 

refers to the two-dimensional land-surface area projected from 

the three-dimensional subsurface volume of water discharging 

to the streambed of the five streams.

Geomorphic Characteristics

The geomorphic characteristics of the five Bayfield 

streams are described in this section from multiple sources 

and for several scales of data. First, the general effects of 

geologic setting (glacial and post-glacial history) on longitudinal profiles and valley types for the streams are described. 

Next, geomorphic characteristics and processes for individual 

main stem channels are described longitudinally from their 

headwaters to their mouths at Lake Superior. Site specific 

estimates of bankfull-channel shear stress are related to reachscale geomorphic processes and reaches identified with brooktrout fingerlings. Relative contributions of sediment sources 

are compared among the streams. Lastly, results from the 

evaluation of previous erosion-control and bank-stabilization 

activities are described.

Longitudinal Profiles

Bayfield Peninsula streams have somewhat similar 

concave-up longitudinal profiles with steep, erosional zones in 

the headwaters, low-slope, depositional zones near the Lake 

Superior shore, and irregularities caused by bedrock outcrops 

and post-glacial shorelines (fig. 11). Geomorphic characteristics and processes along a particular reach are dependent 

on the location of the reach within the drainage network and 

along the longitudinal profile. The headwaters of the Cranberry River, Sioux River, and Whittlesey Creek start near the 

boundary between the clayey Miller Creek Formation and the 

sandy Copper Falls Formation at about 1,100 ft. This altitude 

also is the approximate upper limit of the altitude of glacial 

Lake Duluth at about 9,900 years before present (yr BP) 

(Clayton, 1984). The headwaters of the Bark River extend to 

an altitude of only about 850 ft.

Longitudinal profiles from the headwaters to the mouth 

of a stream are usually concave up (steep slopes in the headwaters transitioning smoothly to low slopes near the mouth) 

if the stream flows through homogeneous geologic deposits 

and landforms (Schumm, 1977). The concave curve that 

represents the profile is attributed to the exponential relation 

of downstream increases in stream length to drainage area 

and discharge (Hack, 1960). In general, relatively steep slopes 

are prone to long-term erosional conditions, whereas reaches 

with relatively low slopes are prone to long-term depositional 

conditions (Knighton, 1998). Irregularities in the profiles are 

attributed to differences in the erodibility of geologic materials 

(bedrock, clay till, outwash), existing landforms, or changes in 

base level (Hack, 1965). 

Channel slopes for the entire length of main-stem streams 

ranged from 0.44 (North Fish Creek) to 1.6 percent (Whittlesey Creek) (table 6). The stream length of Whittlesey Creek is 

similar to that of the Bark River, but it drops 250 ft more than 

the Bark River. Slopes for segments of the main stems near 

the mouths were the lowest and ranged from 0.07 (North Fish 

Creek) to 0.36 percent (Whittlesey Creek). Upper main-stem 

segments had the highest slopes where the streams intersect 

the glacial Lake Duluth shoreline (1,000–1,100 ft). One exception is the Bark River, whose steepest slope is at 690–860 ft. 

Although North Fish Creek has a large watershed compared to most Bayfield Peninsula streams, the longitudinal 

profile of North Fish Creek is similar to the profiles of the 

five studied streams (fig. 11). From altitudes of about 920 to 

680 ft, eroding bluffs are common along North Fish Creek 

and geomorphic processes of channel incision and lateral 

migration are characteristic (Fitzpatrick, 1998; Fitzpatrick 

and others, 1999). The slope through this reach of North Fish 

Creek is 1.6 percent. Downstream, the slope decreases to 

0.13 percent in the lower main stem and 0.07 percent near the 

mouth. Overbank sedimentation, channel aggradation, and 

channel avulsion (a sudden and abrupt change in the course 

of a river) are common geomorphic processes in the lower 

main stem of North Fish Creek. In general, Bayfield streams 

above about 650+30 ft with greater than 1-percent slopes 

are likely erosional, whereas streams below about 650+30 ft 

with slopes less than 1 percent are likely depositional. Each 

stream may have a short intermediate reach with mainly 

sediment transport.
28 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Valley Development and Stream Meandering

Valley development and meandering for Bayfield Peninsula streams were grouped into four types (fig. 12). These 

types were based on modifications of categories assigned to 

valleys for streams in the western part of the Upper Peninsula 

of Michigan by Hack (1965). The valley types are evident on 

the DEM maps of individual basins (figs. 13A–17A). Headwater streams in the upstream parts of the watersheds have no 

valleys, are unconfined (U), and flow over glacial deposits. 

As drainage area increases and altitude decreases, the streams 

have confined (C), V-shaped valleys as they cut through the 

steep, post-glacial shoreline areas. With further increases in 

drainage area and decreases in altitude, the valleys become 

well developed but stream meanders follow the valley meanders (E). This type of valley and stream-meander pattern was 

called entrenched by Hack (1965). The stream-meander pattern for this valley type tends to be irregular and determined 

by the intersection of the stream and valley with bedrock 

outcrops, and in the case of Bayfield streams, probably old 

postglacial-lake shorelines. Channels commonly intersect 

valley sides, which, combined with enough flow and shear 

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

25 20 15 10 5 0

River mile, from mouth at Lake Superior

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

Upper extent of Glacial Lake Duluth

Altitude of Lake Superior

Bluff erosion, 

channel incision, 

lateral migration

Channel incision, 

overbank sedimentation, 

lateral migration, bank 

erosion

Overbank sedimentation, 

channel aggradation, 

channel avulsion

EXPLANATION

North Fish Creek

Cranberry River

Whittlesey Creek

Bark River

Raspberry River

Sioux River

Figure 11. Comparison of longitudinal profiles for six Bayfield peninsula streams.

stress, can cause bluff and terrace erosion. Near the mouths, 

valleys are wide and unconfined and stream-meander patterns 

are alluvial (A). The valleys are wider than the meander belt 

and stream meanders are a reflection of fluvial processes of 

runoff and sediment transport. Compound stream meanders 

are formed when alluvial meanders are superimposed over 

entrenched meanders (Hack, 1965). 

At an altitude of about 650 ft, all streams exhibit some 

slope steepening (figs. 11, 13B–17B). At this altitude the valleys are narrow, with wider valleys and lower slopes above 

and below. The courses of the stream and sometimes the valley 

shift at this altitude as well. Some streams in the vicinity of the 

peninsula have outcrops of sandstone at this altitude, such as 

South Fish Creek, the White River, and the Bad River to the 

south and east of Ashland. Big Rock Falls on the Sioux River 

is at an altitude of about 650 ft (site 8 in reach K, figs. 16A–B). 

Other streams have similarly steepened longitudinal profiles at 

650 ft but no evidence of rock outcropping, such as North Fish 

Creek, Whittlesey Creek, Raspberry River, Bark River, and 

Cranberry River. 

The narrow valleys and steep slopes at about 650 ft on 

the longitudinal profiles give some indication of how the 
Geomorphic Characteristics 29

Table 6. Comparison of average and range of slopes for selected Bayfield Peninsula streams, 

Wisconsin, based on longitudinal profiles.

[Reaches are delineated as stream lengths between contour-line crossings on U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps.]

Slope for entire 

main stem 

(percent)

Minimum slope for 

main-stem reaches 

(percent)

Maximum slope for 

main-stem reaches 

(percent)

Cranberry River 0.76 0.08 5.0

Bark River 0.90 0.24 2.5

Raspberry River 1.4 0.10 10

Sioux River 0.61 0.10 5.0

Whittlesey Creek 1.6 0.36 10

North Fish Creek 0.44 0.07 5.0

Unconfined valley with alluvial meanders, 

stream meanders reflect fluvial processes, 

valley wider than the meander belt (wide 

flood plain) 

A

Unconfined valley with entrenched 

meanders, stream meanders follow valley 

meander pattern, change in valley course 

caused by change in geology, some flood 

plain, high probability of bank, terrace, and 

bluff erosion 

E

Confined, V-shaped valleys, headwaters, C tributaries to main stems, no flood plain 

No valley development, stream unconfined U and flows on glacial deposits 

Figure 12. Valley development and types of meandering for Bayfield Peninsula streams.
30 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Figure 13. Cranberry River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.

A

Inter-Fluve, Inc. site and field number (table 2)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow survey site and field number (table 2)

USGS transect and core and field number (table 2)

A

EXPLANATION

A Geomorphic reach

Bark River Basin

Cranberry River Basin

Base from digital elevation model (Benchmark GIS, 2001)

Photos from November 2002−May 2003

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48 47

45

44

43

42

41a

62

46

63 41

28

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

27

26

25

36a

(

( (

(

(

(

(

((

(

((

(

(

( W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W W

W

W

W

W

WW

A

B C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

B C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48 47

45

44

43

42

41a

62

46

63 41

28

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

27

26

25

36a

W

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

62

63

36

N
Geomorphic Characteristics 31

stream networks and valleys developed when postglacial 

lake levels (and base level) dropped from the postglacial 

Lake Duluth level of 1,100 ft to below the present level of 

Lake Superior (602 ft) from about 9,600 to 9,200 yr BP, and 

then rose to near the present lake level by about 4,000 yr BP 

(Clayton, 1984). More than seven shorelines have been identified in the vicinity near the Bayfield Peninsula, but it is not 

known how long it took for each one to form (Clayton, 1984) 

(fig. 6). Valley and stream patterns change from unconfined 

with alluvial meanders upstream of 650 ft, to confined at about 

630–650 ft, and then to back to unconfined with entrenched or 

alluvial meanders downstream of 630–650 ft. 

Channel-Reach Conditions

Channel conditions within the five studied basins were 

categorized into reaches by evidence of incision, bank erosion, 

terrace or bluff erosion, widening, lateral migration, overbank 

sedimentation, mid-channel bar formation, and aggradation (table 7). The reaches are shown on DEM maps and on 

longitudinal profiles (figs. 13–17). The following detailed 

descriptions of channel conditions for reaches within each 

studied basin are ordered from upstream to downstream. More 

detailed geomorphic assessment and coring was done for the 

Cranberry River compared to the other rivers.

Cranberry River

Headwater streams in the Cranberry River basin (reaches 

A, C, F, and K) are sources for runoff but generally not 

sediment, except for point sources at road crossings (fig. 13, 

table 7). Forested lands have limited or negligible upland 

erosion (fig. 13A, photos at sites 36a and 38). Channels are 

generally vertically and laterally stable (table 7, fig. 13A). 

Incipient valleys are present but some headwaters have poorly 

defined channels in wetlands. Headcutting and gully development of headwater streams are limited but may have been a 

factor during logging and clearing in the late 1800s. Culverts 

at gravel-road crossings may act as grade-control structures, 

but also are major sources of sediment because of frequent 

washouts. Eroded sections of unimproved gravel or sand roads 

or trails at swales or ephemeral channel crossings with no 

culverts are typically regraded as needed after flood events. 

The lower altitude for these reaches depends on the size of 

the drainage area (linked to amount of runoff), slope, and 

texture of surficial deposits and soils. For example, Lenawee 

Creek reach A extends downstream to about 1,070 ft, whereas 

Q

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

River mile, from mouth at Lake Superior

51 50

49 48 54

55

47 46

52 45

44

43

42 41 53

62

East Fork

East Branch East Fork

Lenawee Creek

South Branch

Cranberry River

Section crossing

B

54

A B

C

D

E

F

G

H I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P Q

U.S. Geological Survey site 

and field number (table 2)

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

EXPLANATION

Figure 13. Cranberry River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.—Continued
32 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

A

B

C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

A

B

C

D

E F

G

H

I

J

K

59

58

57

24

23 22a

21

22

!(

!(!( !(

!(

XW

XW

XW

XW

A

A

Base from digital elevation model (Benchmark GIS, 2001)

Photos from November 2002

59

58

57

24

23 22a

21

22

57

21

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

N

Inter-Fluve, Inc. site and field number (table 2)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow survey site 

and field number (table 2)

EXPLANATION

Geomorphic reach

Bark River Basin

Cranberry River Basin

Figure 14. Bark River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.
Geomorphic Characteristics 33

reach C for the East Fork of the Cranberry River extends 

downstream to 817 ft. The East Fork upstream of Lenawee 

Creek has abundant large woody debris (LWD) and brook 

trout; Lenawee Creek does not. The East Fork basin has more 

sand soils than the Lenawee Creek basin (81 percent compared 

to 73 percent) (fig. 7), the valley was cut deeper into glacial 

deposits (potentially from glacial meltwater) (fig. 13A), and 

channel slopes are less (1.5 percent compared to 2.0 percent) 

(fig. 13B). Historical log drives and hauling lanes also may 

have influenced geomorphic conditions—the East Fork had 

no log drives upstream of the Lenawee Creek confluence and 

the Lenawee Creek valley had hauling lanes. A comparison 

of photos upstream (site 41a) and downstream (site 32) of 

a historical loading point for log drives at the confluence of 

Lenawee Creek and the East Fork of the Cranberry River 

(fig. 13A) illustrates that channels used for log drives have less 

roughness (less LWD) and larger cross-sectional area compared to channels not used for log drives. Thus it is possible 

that the headwater channels currently reflect enlargement, 

incision, and low roughness because of log drives and logging 

access during the late 1800s.

An 1852 GLO map of the Cranberry River shows fewer 

headwater channels and narrower widths of main-stem channels compared to USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps and 

field surveys (fig. 18; table 7). This suggests that the drainage network possibly had headward expansion caused by 

increased runoff from clear-cut areas in the late 1800s, or 

possibly the 1852 maps of stream networks were less detailed 

in some areas than in others. Channels have widened over the 

last 130 years by up to 8 ft.

Comparison of a valley cross section at site 63 (Lenawee 

Creek) and valley cross section and cores at site 41 (East Fork 

Cranberry River) indicates differences in valley development 

and channel size between the two tributaries (figs. 19A–B). 

The Lenawee Creek valley at site 63 is confined, whereas the 

East Fork Cranberry River valley is less confined because it 

is formed in sandy glacial outwash deposits with abundant 

springs (fig. 13A). The flood-plain deposits at site 41 are variable, but generally contain 0.5–2.0 ft of muck (silt/clay rich 

in organic matter with a high water content) or organic-rich 

loam over sand, sand and gravel, or an occasional clay deposit 

(fig. 19B). The flood-plain surface at site 41 does not have any 

23 59

58

57

600

700

800

900

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

River mile, from mouth at Lake Superior

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Bark River

Tributary

23 U.S. Geological Survey site 

and field number (table 2)

EXPLANATION

Figure 14. Bark River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.—Continued
34 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

17

16

15

14

13

13a

17

16

15

14

13

13a

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

((

(

(

(

(

A

Base from digital elevation model (BenchmarkGIS, 2001)

Photos from November 2002. Photos from sites 13–15 were taken by T. Popowski

N

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

13a U.S. Geological Survey base-flow 

survey site and field number 

(table 2)

Geomorphic reach

Raspberry River Basin

A

EXPLANATION

Figure 15. Raspberry River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.
Geomorphic Characteristics 35

overbank sand sedimentation, LWD is common on the flood 

plain and channel, and the channel appears to be laterally and 

vertically stable (reach C). In contrast, the channel at site 63 

(reach B) appears to be downcutting, and widening and bank 

erosion are common.

Continuing downstream, slopes remain steep (fig. 13B) 

and channels become unstable with evidence of downcutting and incision, widening, and bank erosion (reach D on the 

East Fork, reach G on the East Branch, reach L on the South 

Branch) (fig. 13A, table 7). Valleys are confined. Between 

about 730 and 760 feet, the valleys are confined, but there is 

some evidence of the beginnings of a flood plain. Channels 

show evidence of widening, bank erosion, terrace and bluff 

erosion, lateral migration, overbank sand deposition and sandbar formation, and possibly incision (reach E on the East Fork, 

reach H on the East Branch, reach M on the South Branch. 

Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber (2003) noted an abandoned 

channel that was 1–2 ft higher than the 2003 channel. This 

reach appears to be highly unstable (laterally and possibly 

vertically). Evidence of beaver activity (old beaver dams) also 

is common.

Downstream of about 730 ft on the East Fork 

(reach I), valleys widen, but the meander pattern is entrenched 

(fig. 13A). Terrace and bluff erosion, bank erosion, channel 

widening, and overbank sedimentation are common features. 

Reach J on the East Fork (695–660 ft) has less evidence 

for lateral migration and bank erosion than reach I, and valley 

development and stream meandering changes from entrenched 

to somewhat alluvial. The modern channel is vertically stable 

in this reach, based on data from core 46-4 from an old 

abandoned channel (predates maps and GLO survey notes 

(figs. 20A–B). The gravel layer on top of clay in core 46-4 at 

689.5 ft is an older channel bottom (fig. 20B). The modern 

channel bottom is at an altitude of approximately 690 ft. The 

relict channel is filled with sand, probably from the same flood 

that caused it to be cut off. Cores 46-5, 46-8, 46-9, and 46-12 

had recent fine-sand deposition at the surface with no forest 

litter; this sand was presumably deposited during the large 

flood in 2001. [A landowner indicated that there had also been 

a large flood in 1996 that seemed worse than the 2001 flood, 

but the Sioux River crest-stage gaging station did not record 

a large flood in 1996 (fig. 9)]. Multiple layers of fine sand, 

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

A

B

C

D

E

F

G H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G H

Raspberry River

Lower Fork

Upper Fork

B

River mile, from mouth at Lake Superior

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

EXPLANATION

Figure 15. Raspberry River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.—Continued
36 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

61

60

9

8

7

6

5

4

12

11

10

6a

A

Base from digital elevation model (Benchmark GIS, 2001)

Photos from November 2002 and April 2003 

Photos at sites 4, 5, 6, 6a, and 12 were taken by T. Popowski. 

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R S T U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R S T U

V

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

XW

XW

XW

61

60

9

8

7

6

5

4

12

11

10

6a

0 1 2 MILES

0 1 2 KILOMETERS

N

EXPLANATION

USGS crest-stage gaging station

A Geomorphic reach

Sioux River Basin

Whittlesey Creek Basin

61

4

Inter-Fluve, Inc. site and field number (table 2)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow survey site 

and field number (table 2)

Figure 16. Sioux River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.
Geomorphic Characteristics 37

organic-rich loam, and buried A horizons in the flood-plain 

cores indicate that episodic overbank sedimentation was common during small and large floods in this reach. 

The South Branch (reach M) appears to be a major 

contributor of sediment and runoff to the Cranberry River 

compared to the East Fork. The South Branch watershed is 

almost entirely clay, and slopes are steep (figs. 7 and 13B). 

Geomorphic processes in reach M include bank erosion, channel widening, lateral migration, and overbank sedimentation. 

Stream cuts into terraces and sand bars also are common. 

Reach N on the Cranberry River (660–640 ft) downstream of the confluence of the South Branch and East Fork 

Cranberry River is unstable (table 7). Several points of valley 

constriction are located along reaches N and O, with the one 

at 650 ft being the most pronounced on almost all Bayfield 

streams. Bedrock outcrops are common from about 630 to 

650 ft on nearby streams such as the South Fork Fish Creek, 

Bad River, White River, and the Sioux River, and as described 

earlier, longitudinal profiles for most of the streams have a 

step-like feature in this altitude range, whether or not bedrock 

crops out in the channel. This suggests that valley narrowing 

and steep slopes may be related to postglacial lake shorelines 

(fig. 21). Figure 21 illustrates how an episodic drop in lake 

level, with some time period of stable water levels between 

drops, may cause the formation of a steep stream reach and 

corresponding narrow valley. Regardless of the cause, this 

geologic feature seems to be related to unstable channels. As 

the valley widens downstream, overbank sedimentation is 

common as well as bank erosion, lateral migration, widening, 

and sand-bar formation. 

Downstream in reach O on the Cranberry River (640 

to 615 ft), bank heights are lower, and fewer terrace cuts are 

present than in reach N. At site 50, core data indicate evidence 

of overbank sedimentation (about 4 ft or more during the 

last 100 years) (fig. 22). The area near site 50 was inundated 

because of a landslide in 1975 about 500 ft downstream of 

this site; the landslide temporarily backed up water for days 

(fig. 22A) (Scott Anderholm, U.S. Geological Survey, written 

commun., 2004). Trees with buried root crowns are on top of 

a buried soil, assumed to be a presettlement soil because of its 

thickness, amount of organic material, and presence of LWD 

at the top (remnants from logging and log drives) (figs. 22B 

and 23). The vertical stability of the channel through this 

reach could not be verified with the core data (deeper cores are 

60

7

61

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Sioux River

Little Sioux River

Fourmile Creek

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P Q

R

S

T U V

River mile, from mouth at Lake Superior

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

60 U.S. Geological Survey site

and field number (table 2)

EXPLANATION

Figure 16. Sioux River A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.—Continued
38 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

^!(XW

"

"

"

2

1

67

68

66

16-1, 17-2

G-1

G-7

!(

A

B

C

D

E

F G

H

I

A

B

C

D

E

F G

H

I

A

2

1

67

68

66

x

x

x

16-1, 17-2

G-1

G-7

Base from digital elevation model (Benchmark GIS, 2001)

Photos from November 2002. Photos from sites 13–15 

were taken by T. Popowski

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

N

EXPLANATION

USGS transect and core A Geomorphic reach

x Previous core and transect for North Fish Creek 

(Fitzpatrick, 1998) and number Restoration evaluation location and field number (table 2)

USGS streamflow-gaging station

"

Sioux River Basin

Whittlesey Creek Basin 1

Inter-Fluve, Inc. site

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow survey site and 

field number (table 2)

68

G-1

Figure 17. Whittlesey Creek A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.
Geomorphic Characteristics 39

needed), but the high amount of overbank sedimentation and 

levee formation at site 50 makes the channel look entrenched. 

Overbank sediment consists of layers of fine sand and organicrich loam (figs. 22B and C). 

Two terrace cuts were described (50-1 and 50-11), one 

near the landslide and the other upstream near the valley 

constriction (figs 22A and D). The downstream terrace cut 

is about 13 ft above the low-flow water surface. The terrace 

consists of a medium sand with a well developed A horizon 

at the surface overlying a boulder zone, with red clay near the 

low-flow water surface. Upstream at 50-11, the terrace appears 

to be a remnant of the top part of an old landslide because red 

and gray clay are over sand and organic-rich loam deposits. A 

gravel/boulder zone is present in both terrace cuts at about 6 ft 

above the modern channel bottom. This zone indicates incision, most likely during the early Holocene when lake levels 

were at their lowest (9,000 yr BP). 

At about 615 ft, the Cranberry River valley widens and 

the stream-meandering pattern becomes alluvial and continues to be alluvial downstream to the mouth (reaches P and Q) 

(fig. 13). Banks are higher and more prone to erosion and sand 

bars are more prevalent in reach P than in reach Q. An extensive LWD layer in the abandoned channel at site 30 at 603.5 ft 

is at an altitude similar to the low-flow water surface in the 

2002 channel (fig. 24B). The altitude of the bottom of the 2002 

channel is similar to that of the abandoned channel bottom, 

but levees are up to 10 ft above the channel bottom. Higher 

banks through formation of levees lead to the potential for 

avulsion and bank erosion. Downstream, cores 30-6, 30-7, and 

30-8 indicate that historical alluvium consists of about 3-4 ft 

of fine sand and organic-rich loam and clay layers (fig. 24B). 

Core 30-7 has sand at the surface, probably from the 2001 

flood. Natural levee formation along banks at site 30-5 is less 

pronounced than at site 30-1, and banks are about 4 ft high. 

Gravel at the base of core 30-8 possibly indicates an old channel bottom. 

Sediment cores previously collected along North Fish 

Creek indicate similar geomorphic conditions to the Cranberry 

River (Fitzpatrick, 1998) (figs. 25A–C). Lateral instability, overbank deposition, and unknown vertical stability are 

evident in North Fish Creek cores 16-1 and 17-2 at an altitude 

of about 650 feet, similar to site 50 on the Cranberry River 

(fig. 25A). For North Fish Creek, approximately 6 to 7 ft of 

alluvium overlies buried root crowns and abundant LWD. 

A gravel lag deposit near the base of the banks at the North 

Fish and Cranberry River sites suggests that the channel-bed 

altitude has been relatively constant. Regardless of whether 

these channels are aggrading or incising, they function as 

River mile, from mouth at Lake Superior

2

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

B

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H I

Whittlesey Creek

North Fork Whittlesey Creek

Altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

60 U.S. Geological Survey site

and field number (table 2)

EXPLANATION

Figure 17. Whittlesey Creek A, map, and B, longitudinal profile.—Continued
Table 7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin. Reaches are shown on f[ft, feet; mi, mile. Stream: R., River; us, upstream; Cr., Creek; ds, downstream; S., South; Br., Branch. Valley type: U, unconfined; C, confined; A, alluvial; E, entrenched. ChannU, unstable. Geomorphic processes: X, geomorphic characteristic or process is present. Comments: LWD, large woody debris.]

Reach

Stream

Upstream altitude (ft)

Downstream altitude (ft)

Reach length in mi

Valley type

Channel stability

Geomorphic processes

Tributaries to main stem are 

source of sediment

Incision

Bank erosion

Bluff or terrace erosion

Widening

Lateral migration

Overbank sedimentation

Midchannel, lateral bar 

formation

Aggradation

Cranberry River Basin

A Lenawee Creek 1,120 1,070 1.6 U/C S Runo

prorea

B Lenawee Creek 1,070 817 1.8 C U X X X X Headc

C East Fork Cranberry R. 

us of Lenawee Cr.

1,115 817 2.7 U/C/A S Water

caudriv

D East Fork Cranberry R. 

ds of Lenawee Cr.

817 770 0.8 C U? ? X X X 2003 

cha

E East Fork Cranberry R. 

us of the East Branch

770 720 0.9 C U X X X X X X X X 2003 

cha

F East Branch of the East 

Fork Cranberry River

1,080 830 3.5 U/C S No da

conat 8no 

G East Branch of the East 

Fork Cranberry River

830 780 0.7 C U? X ? Helico

nelpos

H East Branch of the East 

Fork Cranberry River

780 720 1.2 C U X X X X X X X X Old b

higvidtha

I East Fork Cranberry R. 

ds of the East Branch

720 695 1.2 E U X X X X X X Bluff 

chacha
Table 7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin. Reaches are shown on f[ft, feet; mi, mile. Stream: R., River; us, upstream; Cr., Creek; ds, downstream; S., South; Br., Branch. Valley type: U, unconfined; C, confined; A, alluvial; E, entrenched. ChannU, unstable. Geomorphic processes: X, geomorphic characteristic or process is present. Comments: LWD, large woody debris.]

Reach

Geomorphic processes

Stream

Upstream altitude (ft)

Downstream altitude (ft)

Reach length in mi

Valley type

Channel stability

Incision

Bank erosion

Bluff or terrace erosion

Widening

Lateral migration

Overbank sedimentation

Midchannel, lateral bar 

formation

Aggradation

Tributaries to main stem are 

source of sediment

Cranberry River Basin—Continued

J

K

L

East Fork Cranberry 695

R. us of the South Branch

S. Br. Cranberry River 1,080

S. Br. Cranberry River 780

660

780

730

1.1

2.5

0.6

E/A

U/C

C

U

S

U X

X

X

X X X X

?

Reach 

thamo

Contr

Helico

ate 

M S. Br. Cranberry River 730 660 1.1 C/E U X X X X ? X X Stream 

helerobeadepwa

N Cranberry River 660 640 1.2 E U ? X X X X X X X Bank 

cut heawid

O Cranberry River 640 615 1.6 E U X ? X X X X X Bluff 

few zon

P

Q

Cranberry River 615

Cranberry River 605

Cranberry River total miles

605

602

1.4

0.6

24.5

A/E

A 

U

S?

X

5.2 9.9 6.7

X

X

10.9

X

X

9.2

X

10.3

?

7.4 0.0

Very l

sititudft n

his

Banks 

pla
Reach

Geomorphic processes

Stream

Upstream altitude (ft)

Downstream altitude (ft)

Reach length in mi

Valley type

Channel stability

Incision

Bank erosion

Bluff or terrace erosion

Widening

Lateral migration

Overbank sedimentation

Midchannel, lateral bar 

formation

Aggradation

Tributaries to main stem are 

source of sediment

Bark River

AB

Bark RiverBark River

850820?

820?665

0.31.9

U/C

C

S?

U

?

X X X X ? X X

Stream 

flyocutGra

Inter-

obssio

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

Bark RiverBark River

Bark River tributary

Bark River tributary

Bark River tributary

Bark River tributary

Bark River tributary

Bark River

Bark River

665650

890

830

700

690

650

630

615

650630

830

700

690

650

630

615

602

3.31.2

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.7

0.8

0.9

EE

U/C

C

E

C/E

E

E/A

A

S?

U

S?

U

?

U

U

U?

S?

X 

?

?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

?

X

X

X

X

?

X

X

X

Small 

row 

Heavy 

BeaveBeave

Beave

Bark River total miles 10.4 2.5 3.7 5.2 1.5 4.9 1.2 4.1 2.9

Raspberry River

ABC

D

E

Raspberry RiverRaspberry RiverRaspberry RiverRaspberry River

Raspberry River

1,1901,100

900820

780

1,100

900820780

690

0.40.70.80.6

1.5

U

C

U

C

C/E

S

U?U?

U

U

X?

X

X?

XX

X X

X X?

X?

X

X

X

X

X

ContrBeave

Bluff 

Table 7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin. Reaches are shown on f[ft, feet; mi, mile. Stream: R., River; us, upstream; Cr., Creek; ds, downstream; S., South; Br., Branch. Valley type: U, unconfined; C, confined; A, alluvial; E, entrenched. ChannU, unstable. Geomorphic processes: X, geomorphic characteristic or process is present. Comments: LWD, large woody debris.]
Table 7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin. Reaches are shown on f[ft, feet; mi, mile. Stream: R., River; us, upstream; Cr., Creek; ds, downstream; S., South; Br., Branch. Valley type: U, unconfined; C, confined; A, alluvial; E, entrenched. ChannU, unstable. Geomorphic processes: X, geomorphic characteristic or process is present. Comments: LWD, large woody debris.]

Reach

Stream

Upstream altitude (ft)

Downstream altitude (ft)

Reach length in mi

Valley type

Channel stability

Geomorphic processes

Tributaries to main stem are 

source of sediment

Incision

Bank erosion

Bluff or terrace erosion

Widening

Lateral migration

Overbank sedimentation

Midchannel, lateral bar 

formation

Aggradation

Raspberry River—Continued

F Raspberry River 690 655 0.6 E U X X? X X X X

G Raspberry River 655 610 1.7 A U X X X X X Depo

air 

H Raspberry River 610 602 1.5 A U X? X? Wetla

bea

Raspberry River total miles 7.8 2.8 5.2 1.5 3.1 2.3 6.1 4.4 1.5

Sioux River

A Sioux River 1,080 950 1.8 U S? ? ProvidB Sioux River 950 890 1.2 U/C U X X? Beave

par

C Sioux River 890 860 1.3 E/A U ? X X X ?

D Sioux River 860 745 3.2 E U X X X X X X X X Bluff 

gra

E Sioux River 745 690 1.9 C U X X X X X X X Erodi

F Fourmile Creek 1,270 970 1.7 U S? Provid

G Fourmile Creek 970 890 1.7 A S? X Beave

H Fourmile Creek 890 770 2.1 C U? Ripar

see 

I Fourmile Creek 770 700 1.1 C U/S? ? ? Possib

ibil

J Sioux River 690 660 1.2 E/C U/S? X X X X X X Confi

mindow

K Sioux River 660 630 0.8 C U/S? X X Bedro
Table 7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin. Reaches are shown on f[ft, feet; mi, mile. Stream: R., River; us, upstream; Cr., Creek; ds, downstream; S., South; Br., Branch. Valley type: U, unconfined; C, confined; A, alluvial; E, entrenched. ChannU, unstable. Geomorphic processes: X, geomorphic characteristic or process is present. Comments: LWD, large woody debris.]

Reach

Geomorphic processes

Stream

Upstream altitude (ft)

Downstream altitude (ft)

Reach length in mi

Valley type

Channel stability

Incision

Bank erosion

Bluff or terrace erosion

Widening

Lateral migration

Overbank sedimentation

Midchannel, lateral bar 

formation

Aggradation

Tributaries to main stem are 

source of sediment

Sioux River—Continued

L

M

NO

P

Q

R 

Sioux River

Little Sioux RiverLittle Sioux RiverLittle Sioux River

Little Sioux River

Little Sioux River

Little Sioux River

630

1,090

970870

795

770

755

615

970870795

770

755

720

1.3

1.21.21.4

0.7

0.3

0.6

A

A/C

CC

C/E

C

C

U

S?

UU

U

U

U

XX

X

?

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

?

X

X

X

?

Very u

ProvidBeave

Very u

Beave

jamsan

S 

T

Little Sioux River

Little Sioux River

720

630

630

615

1.0

0.6

C

A

U

U

X

X

X

X X X X

?

?

Bedro

depbed

U Sioux River 615 608 0.9 A U X X X X X

V Sioux River

Sioux River total miles

608 602 1.1

28.3

A U

9.6

X

16.8 12.0 12.6

X

11.6 12.6

X

12.7 3.1

Bluff 
Table 7. Summary of geomorphic characteristics and processes by altitude for five Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin. Reaches are shown on f[ft, feet; mi, mile. Stream: R., River; us, upstream; Cr., Creek; ds, downstream; S., South; Br., Branch. Valley type: U, unconfined; C, confined; A, alluvial; E, entrenched. ChannU, unstable. Geomorphic processes: X, geomorphic characteristic or process is present. Comments: LWD, large woody debris.]

Reach

Geomorphic processes

Stream

Upstream altitude (ft)

Downstream altitude (ft)

Reach length in mi

Valley type

Channel stability

Incision

Bank erosion

Bluff or terrace erosion

Widening

Lateral migration

Overbank sedimentation

Midchannel, lateral bar 

formation

Aggradation

Tributaries to main stem are 

source of sediment

Whittlesey Creek

A Whittlesey Creek 1,110 1,020 0.4 A/C S Contr

sed

B Whittlesey Creek 1,020 970 0.2 C U X X Ephem

mo

C

D

Whittlesey Creek

Whittlesey Creek

970

880

880

760

0.7

1.4

C

C/E

U

U

X

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X

X

Erodi

subcassplLW

Erodi

widmoblu

E Whittlesey Creek 760 670 1.1 C/E U X X X X X X X Erodi

granel bet

F

G

Whittlesey Creek

Whittlesey Creek

670

640

640

620

0.6

0.8

C/E

A

U

U X?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

conflu

gra

bould

enitree

H

I

Whittlesey Creek

Whittlesey Creek

Whittlesey Creek total miles

620

610

610

602

0.4

0.46

A

A

U

U

X

3.1 5.0 3.2

X

X

3.9

X

X

4.7 3.3

X

X

3.9 0.8

Avuls
46 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

entrenched channels because of the accumulation of overbank 

sediment. Flood-plain attenuation of high flows is limited, 

except for large floods that are high enough to spill over onto 

terrace surfaces. 

Near the mouth of North Fish Creek at similar altitudes as 

cores from site 30 on the Cranberry River indicate that 5–7 ft 

of historical alluvium was deposited after Euro-American 

settlement (Fitzpatrick, 1998) (fig. 25B–C). Radiocarbon ages 

from wood samples from core G-7 indicate that historical 

sedimentation rates for North Fish Creek are four to six times 

higher than presettlement sedimentation rates. Presettlement 

sedimentation rates for the mouth area of the Cranberry River 

were not determined, but the depth of historical sedimentation 

near the mouth of the Cranberry River appears to be somewhat 

less than that of North Fish Creek (3–4 ft vs. 5–7 ft).

Bark River

Similar to the Cranberry River, headwater channels of the 

Bark River (reach A and reach E) act as conduits for runoff, 

and road crossings are point sources for sand (fig. 14, table 7). 

No terrace or bluff erosion was observed from helicopter 

video footage along the upper main stems (reaches B, C, F, G), 

but Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber (2003) observed terrace and 

bluff erosion in reach B from about 700 to 650 ft in their field 

surveys. Sand deposition is present in reaches with beaver 

dams (reaches D, H, and I). The Bark River from 650 to 630 ft 

(reach I) also shows evidence of lateral instability, including 

bank erosion, widening, lateral migration, overbank sedimentation, and bar formation. No evidence for bedrock outcrops 

was observed, but boulder zones were common in the channel 

from about 630 to 650 ft, with major boulder zones from 660 

EXPLANATION

Cranberry River Basin

Streams shown on U.S. Geological Survey 

7.5-minute topographic maps

Increase 

Decrease

Width data not available, streams shown 

on 1852 General Land Office maps

No change/no data

0–2 feet

3–4 feet

5–7 feet

8–9 feet

Amount of change in stream width

Change in stream width and amount of change in feet

Cranberry River

Basin

0 0.5 1 MILE

0 0.5 1 KILOMETER

Figure 18. Differences in stream network development and channel widths in the Cranberry River Basin between 1852 

General Land Office Survey maps, USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps, and 2002–2003 field surveys.
Geomorphic Characteristics 47

to 700 ft. Downstream of about 630 ft, the Bark River valley 

changes from entrenched to alluvial. Sedimentation rates near 

the mouth are not known. 

Raspberry River

Helicopter-based video footage for the Raspberry River 

was not available and interpretations of channel conditions are 

based on 2000 aerial photography, base-flow survey photos 

from 2002, and Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber (2003) observations (fig. 15, table 7). The headwaters of the Raspberry River 

start at 1,190 ft, and the channels may be stable down to about 

1,100 ft or less (reach A). The valley is confined from 1,100 

to 900 ft as the stream cuts down through the old Duluth 

shoreline (reach B). From 900 to 820 ft, the valley widens 

and the slope decreases as the stream flows across the level 

lake-plain areas from postglacial Lakes Moquah and Washburn (reach C); bank erosion is common (Inter-Fluve, Inc. 

and Graber, 2003). Eroding bluffs were evident on 2000 aerial 

photographs from an altitude of 820 to 690 ft (reaches D and 

E). Reach F (690–655 ft) has bank erosion and bar formation 

and possibly lateral migration and overbank sedimentation. 

Downstream of 655 ft (reach G), bank erosion, lateral migration, and depositional bar formation are common, and possibly 

overbank sedimentation. On the basis of conditions in other 

streams with this same altitude range, terrace and bank erosion 

and overbank sedimentation are probably common. Downstream of 610 ft, the channel most likely is aggradational 

as the valley widens considerably and the slope decreases 

(reach H).

Sioux River

Similar to the Cranberry River and Bark River, 

headwaters of the Sioux River (reaches A, F, and M) provide 

runoff but little sediment to downstream reaches (fig. 16, 

table 7). Downstream in reach B (950–890 ft), beaver activity 

is common (dams and evidence of old dams). Bluff and terrace 

erosion is common in reaches C, D, and E (890–690 ft). Along 

this 6.5-mile reach, at least 26 bends had bluff or terrace erosion in the helicopter video. This reach is very similar to the 

zone of bluff erosion on North Fish Creek from about 920 to 

680 ft (fig. 11). In reach J (690–660 ft), channel conditions are 

somewhat more stable compared to upstream and downstream 

reaches. This is similar to the same, more stable reach J of the 

Cranberry River for the same altitude range. Bedrock crops 

out along the Sioux River between 660 and 630 feet (reach K).

Observations of channel conditions from the helicopter 

video of Fourmile Creek (reaches G, H, and I) are limited 

because of thick evergreen forest cover in the riparian zone for 

most of the creek’s length. Glimpses of the channel between 

the trees however suggest that conditions are stable except for 

some occasional bank and terrace erosion. Fourmile Creek 

drains the east side of a glacial meltwater valley; the same 

valley is drained on the west side by the upper main stem of 

the East Fork of the Cranberry River. The remnants of this 

glacial meltwater valley can be seen on the 10-m DEM map 

(fig. 3), the Quaternary geologic map (fig. 4) and the soils map 

(fig. 7). The two streams are similar in that they both extend 

into the sand deposits of the Bayfield Highlands more than 

the other streams. Valleys of the East Fork Cranberry River 

and Fourmile Creek are over-widened compared to valleys 

for other streams at the same altitude, possibly because of 

thick sand deposits and valley development during glacial 

meltwater events. 

The Little Sioux River appears incisional in reaches N, 

O, and P (970–770 ft) with some bank erosion. Bluff and 

terrace erosion was observed in reaches O and R (870–795 ft 

and 755–720 ft). Bedrock crops out in reach S (720–630 ft), 

and sand and gravel bars are common in depositional areas 

between falls and rapids. 

Downstream of the confluence of the Little Sioux River 

(reach U from 615–608 ft), with the Sioux River, bank erosion, widening, lateral migration, and bar formation are common. The Sioux River near its mouth (below 608 ft in reach V) 

is aggradational.

Whittlesey Creek

Similar to the other streams, there is little or no erosion 

in headwaters of Whittlesey Creek (fig. 17, table 7) above an 

altitude of about 1,020 ft. The headwater channels are sources 

of runoff for downstream reaches which have incision, terrace 

and bluff erosion. The Whittlesey Creek watershed has the 

highest percentages of pasture/grassland and cropland of the 

five studied streams, with more than double the area of grassland/pasture than the Sioux River basin and more than three 

times the area of grassland/pasture than the Cranberry River 

and Bark River basins (fig. 7, table 1). Thus, more runoff from 

headwaters and erosion along the main stem are possible in 

Whittlesey Creek than in the other studied streams (table 1).

Similar to North Fish Creek, terrace and bluff erosion are 

common on Whittlesey Creek from about 970 to 670 ft. In the 

helicopter video, more than 30 meander bends had extensive terrace or bluff erosion in this 3.2-mile reach. The main 

Whittlesey Creek and the North Fork channels above 670 ft 

receives little base flow and may be completely filled with 

sand or gravel between floods. This is especially evident in 

reach D, which appeared to have been perennial as late as the 

1930s but filled with sediment in the 1940s causing the reach 

to dry up (RCIC, 1957).

Base flow increases substantially in reaches F and G 

(670–620 ft) because a regional aquifer intersects the stream 

channel (Lenz and others, 2003) (fig. 6). At about 670 ft, a 

terrace surface along the main stem of Whittlesey Creek had 

about 3 ft of historical alluvium (medium-grained sand) overlying an organic-rich presettlement soil developed in loamy 

fine sand. The top of the buried soil was 2.5 ft above the 1999 

channel thalweg. Reaches F and G have sand overbank sedimentation, levee formation, and common gravel and sand bars 

(bars are mainly gravel in reach F and sand in reach G). Bank 
48 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

53

33

32

28

42

41

Site 63 Site 41a

33

32

28

5 8

A

East Fork Cranberry River

Lenawee Creek

4

3

6 7

2 1

4

3

6 7

2 1

Lenawee Creek

East Fork Cranberry River

Base from 1992 aerial photography and Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

41

33

Section line 3

River

Transect location

Core location and number

Inter-Fluve, Inc. site and field number (table 2)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) base-flow survey 

site and field number (table 2)

0

0

0.12 

0.12 

0.06

0.06 KILOMETERS

 MILES

EXPLANATION

N

Figure 19. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 41 (East Fork Cranberry River) and site 63 (Lenawee Creek): A, site 

map, and B, cross section and core descriptions.

erosion is common and local lateral migration is common 

at treefalls. In reach G, there was some evidence of channel 

incision; the channel bottom in an undated abandoned channel near site 67 was 0.5 ft higher in altitude than the active 

channel bottom. This small difference in channel altitude, 

however, needs to be field-verified with core data from other 

abandoned channels. Overbank sedimentation is high in this 

reach and natural levees are present, especially along the 

outside of meander bends; the levees give the channel an 

entrenched look.

Near the mouth of Whittlesey Creek, conditions change 

from being dominated by bank erosion and lateral migration 

to aggradation. Site 2 is located in reach H, where overbank 

sedimentation (levee formation) and channel aggradation 

are dominant geomorphic processes. Geologic descriptions 

of sediment cores along a channel cross section at site 2 

(figs. 26A–B) illustrate the amount of aggradation in this 

reach. Willows line the reach and were probably planted in the 

late 1940s through 1960s (the trees need to be cored and dated 

to verify their ages). A root crown from a willow along the 
820825830835840845850855

0 50 100 150 200 250 

Springs Springs

Lenawee Creek (site 63)

East Fork Cranberry River (site 41)

Terrace

WEST 

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Distance from west terrace looking downstream, in feet

4

3

6

2 7

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

1

5

Red clayMottled red and gray clayGray clayFine sandMedium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, clay or muckSiltLoam

1

Core and identification number

EXPLANATION

B

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soilLow-flow waBankfull elev

Figure 19. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 41 (East Fork Cranberry River) and site 63 (Lenawee Creek): A, site map, and B, crodescriptions.—Continued
50 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

East Fork Cranberry River

Ditch

10

11

9

5

7

6

8

12

4

A

Base from 1992 aerial photograph and Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

11

EXPLANATION

Section line

River

Transect location

Core location and number

0

0

0.11

0.11 

0.055

0.055 KILOMETERS

 MILES

N

Figure 20. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 46 (East Fork Cranberry River): A, site map, B, west-east cross 

section and core descriptions, and C, north-south cross section and core descriptions.

cross section at site 2 was buried by 1.6 ft of fine to medium 

sand deposits with two buried A horizons. There was also a 

buried A horizon at the same altitude as the root crown. The 

sand was deposited episodically during large floods. The sand 

at the surface was probably deposited during the 1999 and 

2001 floods (fig. 9).

The 30-ft core at site 2 (core 2-1) illustrates the aggradational setting of the reach and episodic deposition of sand 

before and after Euro-American settlement (fig. 26B). Approximately 8 ft of sand and small gravel overlies fine-grained, 

organic rich silty clay interpreted to be the pre-Euro-American 

settlement soil. This is somewhat more than the 5–7 ft of 

historical alluvium deposited along the flood plain of the lower 

main stem of North Fish Creek (fig. 25B–C) and twice the 

amount of historical alluvium on the flood plain of the Cranberry River near its mouth at site 30 (fig. 24B). Because the 

North Fish Creek watershed has percentages of pasture/grassland and cropland similar to those in the Whittlesey Creek 

watershed, sedimentation rates would be expected to be similar. Some of the presettlement soil may have been removed 

during the 1946 flood from scour. About 4.5 ft of coarse sand 

and gravel (from about 613.5 to 617 ft in core 2-1) above the 

pre-Euro-American settlement surface was probably deposited 

during the 1946 flood. Anecdotal evidence from a previous 
Geomorphic Characteristics 51

675

680

685

690

695

700

705

710

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

46-6

Gravel

46-5

Diamicton

x

x x x

x x

x x

46-7

x

x x x

x x

46-10

Decomposing organics

Clay with organic debris

Clay with wood bits

Gravel

46-11

C

NORTH SOUTH

Channel

Flood plain

Terrace

Terrace

Distance from channel looking downstream, in feet

675

680

685

690

695

700

705

710

Distance from west terrace looking downstream, in feet

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

x x x x x x

46-9

Clay with 

organic bits

Loam with charcoal

and organic bits

Diamicton

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

46-8

Loam with 

occasional 

organic 

debris

Sand with 

clay 

laminations

Gravel

Sand with organic laminations

Loam with sand laminations and clay lenses

46-12 46-4

Organic-rich loam, muck, wood

Gravel

Wood

Stratified loam

x

x x

x

B

WEST EAST

Abandoned channel Flood plain Channel Abandoned channel

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, 

clay or muck

Silt

Loam

46-10

Core and identification 

number

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull elevation

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

EXPLANATION

Figure 20. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 46 (East Fork Cranberry River): A, site map, B, west-east cross section and 

core descriptions, and C, north-south cross section and core descriptions.—Continued
52 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin Elevation

Distance

Longitudinal profile

Plan view

Modern lake level

9,200 years before present

4,000 years before present to present

About 4,000 years before present to present

Elevation

Distance

Longitudinal profile

Plan view

Post-glacial lake shoreline

About 9,200 years before present

Elevation

Distance

Longitudinal profile

Plan view

Post-glacial lake shoreline

About 9,300 years before present

Elevation

Distance

Longitudinal profile

Plan view

Post-glacial lake shoreline

About 9,400 years before present

Figure 21. Longitudinal profile and valley development for Bayfield Peninsula streams in response to episodic lowering of postglacial 

lake levels.
Geomorphic Characteristics 53

landowner at site 2 indicates that an old trolley car on the bank 

at the farmstead at this location slipped into Whittlesey Creek 

during the 1946 flood and was covered with sediment from 

subsequent floods (Silver and Lichtenheld, 2003).

Episodes of sand deposition alternate with fine-grained, 

organic- and wood-rich loam and clay below the presettlement surface in Whittlesey Creek core 2-1 (fig. 26B). This 

is similar to deposits in cores G-1 and G-7 along the flood 

plain near the mouth of North Fish Creek (figs. 17A, 25B–C). 

No radiocarbon-age dating was done on wood samples from 

core 2-1 along Whittlesey Creek; however, based on radiocarbon ages of wood in Fish Creek cores G-1 and G-7, the 30-ft 

Whittlesey core probably extends back to about 4,000 14C yr 

BP (fig. 25B–C). The valley bottom is likely at an altitude of 

about 560 ft, based on the presence of red-clay diamicton and 

clay/silt deposits at about this altitude in the North Fish Creek 

cores (fig. 25B). 

The channel along reach I was dredged to a due east 

course between Hwy 13 and the mouth in September of 1949 

by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (RCIC, 1957; 1964; 

1977). The channel filled with sediment after a few years, 

causing upstream flooding and a tendency to reoccupy its 

previous location. In 1958, the Bayfield County Conservation 

Department channelized the reach which the channel currently 

occupied in 2003. 

Bankfull-Channel Shear Stress

Estimates of bankfull-channel shear stress for the studied streams give an idea of the general size of material that 

potentially can be moved during bankfull conditions. Plots of 

bankfull-channel shear stress and median sediment size (calculated at Inter-Fluve, Inc. sites by Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber, 

2003, fig. 1) are shown in figure 27. Site numbers on the plots 

are on the location map (fig. 1). These bankfull shear-stress 

calculations are approximate and represent rough averages for 

the channel. Shear stress can be defined is a function of slope 

and hydraulic radius (equation1) (Leopold and others, 1964). 

Most of the data are from the Cranberry River.

The bankfull-channel shear stress data were compared 

to a curve of critical shear stress as a function of sediment 

size for quartz sediment in water (Shields, 1936) and a relation for critical shear stress determined by the Highway 

Research Board (1970) for riprap (fig. 27). The Shields and 

the Highway Research Board curves represent empirically 

derived thresholds for particle motion. The Shields curve is 

based on experiments in flumes for noncohesive sediment 

and has some known limitations for natural channels; however, the curve commonly is used for channel design and 

predicting scour (Vanoni, 1975; Chang, 1992; Rosgen, 1996; 

Fischenich, 2001). 

Comparison of bankfull channel shear stress and sediment size with the Shields curve indicates that bottom sediment has the potential to move during bankfull flow at almost 

all the sites with median sediment sizes of less than 40–50 mm 

(fig. 27). However, this comparison cannot be used to predict 

incision. Some of the Bayfield sites that have the potential for 

sediment movement during bankfull flow are not incisional 

because the sites are on middle or lower main stems with 

abundant supplies of sediment from upstream. 

The dependence of shear stress on stream size is apparent 

when comparing East Fork Cranberry River site 43 with Bark 

River site 58 and Sioux River site 7 (fig. 27). All sites have 

channel slopes of about 1 percent. The East Fork Cranberry 

River site has a shear stress of 1.23 lb/ft2 and the Sioux River 

site has a shear stress of 1.04 lb/ft2

, whereas the Bark River 

site has a shear stress of 0.62 lb/ft2

. The East Fork Cranberry 

River, Sioux River, and the Bark River sites have basin areas 

of 9.4 mi2

, 13.6 mi2, and 2.0 mi2, respectively. The Sioux River 

and East Fork Cranberry River sites had a mix of sand and 

gravel substrate and the channels were historically incised 

but currently vertically stable, lateral erosion was common 

(including eroding bluffs near the Sioux River site), and overbank deposition and natural levees were common (Inter-Fluve, 

Inc. and Graber, 2003). The Bark River site also had indications of historical incision but is currently vertically stable, 

and the substrate consists of gravel and cobble with some sand 

deposition in pools (Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber, 2003).

Brook-trout fingerlings are at sites with and without the 

potential sediment motion during bankfull flows (fig. 27). Sites 

with particle sizes greater than 40–50 mm have less potential 

for particle motion; some of these sites had brook-trout fingerlings, but others did not. This suggests that brook trout are in 

streams with bankfull shear stresses of up to about 1.0 lbs/ft2

, 

and most of the Bayfield middle and lower main stems 

have bankfull shear stresses below this value. It may be that 

bankfull shear stress is not the limiting factor for brook trout; 

but instead, they may be limited by shear stresses larger than 

1.0 lb/ft3

 associated with large infrequent floods, the proximity 

of groundwater upwellings, or the transport or deposition of 

fine sediment.

Sources of Sediment

A summary of rough estimates for the relative contributions of sediment from seven sources to Bayfield Peninsula 

streams is shown in table 8. Bluff and terrace erosion are 

major contributors of sediment to the Sioux River, Whittlesey Creek, and North Fish Creek. Multiple sources of 

sediment in the Cranberry River and Bark River are more 

evenly distributed.

In all the Bayfield streams an upland source for sediment through surface sheet erosion, rill development, or 

head cutting is negligible because the uplands are mainly 

forested (fig. 8). Forested uplands provide more runoff than 

they did before Euro-American settlement, however, because 

of a reduction in interception (forests are younger), roughness (less ground cover and organic material), and infiltration 

(organic horizon on the forest floor is thinner). Presently, 

LWD is absent in most channels, which was a source of 
54 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

1

8

Cranberry RiverCranberry River

9 10

2

11

12

6

7

4

5

3

13

N

EXPLANATION

Section line

River

Transect location

Core location 

 and number

1951 1966 1992

A

0

0

0.11

0.11 

0.055

0.055 KILOMETERS

 MILES

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Distance from left terrace, in feet

50-13

Presettlement soil

Postsettlement alluvium

Buried root crown

Channel bottom

Bank top 50-3

Postsettlement 

 alluvium

Large logs

Presettlement soil

Gravel/cobble

Channel bottom

Bank top

50-6

Diamicton

50-4 50-7

50-5

B

Right flood plain

Bank cut descriptions

Right flood plain Right flood plain

Abandoned

channel

Abandoned

channel

Terrace

High terrace ridge

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, 

clay or muck

Silt

Loam

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull elevation

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

EXPLANATION

Core and identification 

number

50-4

6

Figure 22. Cross sections, bank and terrace cut geologic descriptions, and sediment cores at site 50 (Cranberry River): A, site map 

comparing aerial photographs from 1951, 1966, and 1992, B, bank-cut and core descriptions, C, cross section and core descriptions, and 

D, terrace-cut descriptions.
Geomorphic Characteristics 55

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Distance from left terrace looking downstream, in feet

x x

x

50-9

Presettlement soil

Buried A horizons

50-10

50-8

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x x x

Boulder/gravel

C

NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

Terrace

Flood plain Flood plain

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, 

clay or muck

Silt

Loam

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull elevation

50-11

Core and identification 

number

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

EXPLANATION

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

620

625

630

635

640

645

650

655

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

50-1

Red clay diamicton

Buried soil

Gravel/boulders

D

Terrace

Terrace

50-11

Buried

Figure 22. Cross sections, bank and terrace cut geologic descriptions, and sediment cores at site 50 (Cranberry River): A, site map 

comparing aerial photographs from 1951, 1966, and 1992, B, bank-cut and core descriptions, C, cross section and core descriptions, 

and D, terrace-cut descriptions.—Continued
56 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Figure 23. Buried root crown at site 50 along the Cranberry River, 

Wisconsin.

roughness in presettlement channels, including main stems 

and feeder tributaries. 

As flow is concentrated in the narrower channels of upper 

main stems, signs of incision are present, indicating that erosion of the upper main-stem channels is a source for sediment. 

As the streams flow through the steep slopes associated with 

postglacial shorelines, valleys are confined and conditions 

are optimal for bluff and terrace erosion in meander bends 

that intersect valley or terrace sides. Bluff and terrace erosion in Whittlesey Creek and the Sioux River was similar to 

that observed in North Fish Creek (range in reach altitude 

from about 890 to 660 ft in the Sioux River and 880 to 670 ft 

in Whittlesey Creek, and was the main source of sediment 

to downstream reaches of these rivers. Large bluff cuts are 

uncommon in the Cranberry River and only small bluff or terrace erosion was common through a smaller altitude drop from 

about 780 to 640 ft. The Bark River had some small bluff and 

terrace erosion from about 820 to 665 ft. Less bluff erosion in 

the Cranberry and Bark Rivers is probably because of less runoff because of a combination of more forest cover, wider valley development (especially the East Fork of the Cranberry), 

smaller watershed size, or shorter stream length.

Unimproved logging roads and road crossings provide 

local sources of sediment. Sediment inputs from crossings 

of unimproved roads were especially noticeable in the upper 

parts of the Cranberry and Bark River watersheds. Inter-Fluve, 

Inc. and Graber (2003) also observed this in the upper parts of 

the Sioux River.

Erosion of bluffs at meander bends is episodic and thus 

hard to measure on a year-to-year basis, especially watercaused toe erosion at the base of the bluffs. In the Sioux River 

and Whittlesey Creek, however, exposed terraces and bluffs 

are common (about 30 actively eroding bluffs or terraces were 

observed in the helicopter video footage). Landslides and 

failures of large bluff sections are episodic but can be longterm sources of sediment. A typical small block failure with 

a size of about 30 ft x 50 ft x 5 ft can contribute 300 tons of 

sediment (if the density of a mixture of sand, silt, and clay is 

assumed to be 80 lbs/ft3

 [U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, 1983)]. A typical size of a landslide for 

larger streams like the Sioux River and North Fish Creek may 

be 100 ft long by 150 ft high by 15 ft thick (9,000 tons). Most 

of the sediment from the landslides is moved downstream 

within a few years after the failure. In some cases, such as 

the 1975 valley side failure along the lower Cranberry River, 

the addition of a large amount of sediment overwhelmed the 

small channel and caused a slowing of flow and increased 

overbank sedimentation upstream. Downstream effects from a 

single landslide may last for years or decades as the sand load 

is transported episodically in waves during large floods. It is 

not known exactly how long it takes for downstream reaches 

to adjust to this episodic dump of sand and gravel. In addition, 

the nonvegetated vertical bluff faces are prone to rill and gully 

erosion. The prevalence of gravel bars and channel widening 

downstream of every eroding bluff and terrace is evidence of 

their large contribution of sediment. 

Another important source of sediment during runoff 

events is small ephemeral feeder channels that bisect the 

entrenched valley sides. Observations of several of the feeder 

channels on the Cranberry River, Sioux River, and North 

Fish Creek during the 2003 snowmelt event indicated that the 

channels were incised beginning about one-third to two-thirds 

of the way down the valley’s side slopes. Flow from melting 

snow became turbid in the channels at this point, and erosion 

was concentrated on the channel bed. The exact point along 

the valley side slope at which the channels were eroding 

appeared to depend on the size of the watershed (amount of 

runoff), aspect of the channel and valley side, amount of nonforested land cover on the upland, and possibly the texture of 

glacial deposits in the valley sides. For example, south-facing 

slopes with grassland on the upland produced more runoff 

and sediment than north-facing slopes with forested uplands. 

During the 2003 snowmelt, these channels provided clay, silt, 

and sand to the main stems as well as locally distributing sand 

from overland flow across flood plains and terrace surfaces. 

Many of the feeder channels have hanging junctions with 

upper and middle main stems, and develop knickpoints as they 

bisect flood-plain and terrace surfaces. Where observed, these 

features suggest historical incision of the main stem (InterFluve, Inc. and Graber, 2003).

Overbank deposition of sand and natural levee formation 

are common features downstream of the reaches with bluff 

and terrace erosion and downstream of reaches with narrow 

valleys and bedrock controls. The accumulation of sediment 

in overbank areas tends to give the channels an entrenched 

look; without adequate flood-plain-stratigraphy data, it would 

appear that incision is the dominant geomorphic process. The 

accumulation of overbank sediment leads to a loss of floodplain storage for smaller floods (concentrating flood flows) and 

causes subsequent increases in the probability of bank erosion, 
Geomorphic Characteristics 57

block failure, and avulsion. Thus, even though the channel 

may not be incising, it functions like an incised or entrenched 

stream by concentrating flood flows to downstream reaches.

The five studied Bayfield streams have shorter depositional or aggradational reaches near their mouths than North 

Fish Creek (fig. 11). Main stems with more stream length and 

lower slopes near their mouths have more potential for some 

sediment from upstream sources to be deposited in overbank 

areas and within the channel before being carried out to Lake 

Superior. This is especially the case for Whittlesey Creek, 

which has the steepest profile (fig. 11), the steepest overall 

slope (table 6), and a relatively short aggradational zone near 

its mouth (fig. 17, table 7). 

Last, every Bayfield stream has sand deposits that have 

accumulated in flood plains and channels during the last 

125 years. If eroding bluffs and terraces were stabilized, road 

crossings were improved, and incision and gullying were 

abated, there is still ample and available sand stored in flood 

plain and channel deposits. It may take decades or centuries 

for the sand to move through the entire river system. 

Evaluation of Previous Erosion-Control 

Techniques

Bluff erosion historically was recognized as a widespread 

problem for Lake Superior streams and was thought to be a 

major source of sediment to Lake Superior (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1967). Thus, five of the six evaluated sites 

had stabilizations installed to reduce bluff erosion (sites 64, 

66, 68, 69; fig. 1). One site was a grassed waterway entering North Fish Creek (site 65) and another site evaluated on 

Whittlesey Creek was geared toward bank erosion (site 67).

At the Bois Brule River site (site 64), gabions (wire baskets filled with rock) and willow plantings were installed on 

a large south-facing bluff in 1964 by the RCIC. The bluff toe 

was stable and well vegetated in 1964 (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1967); however, in 1976, the gabions were failing 

and there were no live willows, although other woody vegetation had invaded (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1977). In 

2003, no evidence of gabions or any rock material was found 

near the toe of the bluff. There was a stable toe along 40 percent of the length of the bluff base; the development of this 

toe could be caused by the original placement of the gabions, 

which lasted long enough for the woody vegetation to get 

established. The remainder of the toe had exposed roots and 

uprooted alders. Old willow logs with young sapling sprouts 

were along the bluff base. The top of the bluff had mass wasting; and vegetation was sparse because of seeps and earth 

flows. Although the gabions eventually failed and most of the 

willow planting died, they may have helped to maintain the 

toe long enough for vegetation to become established. 

One of the larger RCIC projects was stabilizing an eroding bluff on Whittlesey Creek (site 66, fig. 28B). In 1958, 

the top of the bluff was graded, and runoff from the upland 

fields was diverted away from the bluff (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1964, 1977). The toe was stabilized with cement 

bagging and willow stakes. By 1960, the cement bagging had 

washed out, but the willows remained (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1964). The landowner made additional improvements to the top of the bluff in 1967 (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1977). At the time of the 1976 RCIC evaluation, 

the bluff was 90 percent vegetated with good cover and minor 

tree invasion (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1977). In 

2003, the bluff had a stable base with a few second-growth 

willows and no bare soil on the bluff face. A few slumps were 

present from seeps. Overall, the project goals were accomplished at this site, because both the base and the top of the 

bluff were stabilized. 

The bluff on North Fish Creek upstream of the streamflow-gaging station (site 68, fig. 1) was recognized as a problem by the RCIC. The 1977 design plans to reroute the channel away from the bluff were not funded; however, a nearby 

landowner remembered an attempt by a previous landowner 

to reroute the channel by use of dynamite (in the 1930s?). The 

anecdotal evidence from the present landowner indicated that 

the dynamited channel failed and the bluff became unstable 

after the attempt. In 2003, the length of the exposed face of the 

bluff was 470 ft. On the upstream end, the bluff had a vertical 

face with no vegetation and no toe at the base for 150 ft. The 

middle 170 ft of the bluff had some vegetation (about 50 percent), slumping at the top, gullies and seeps through the midsection, and a toe at the base. The downstream end of the bluff 

had a vertical face with no vegetation and no toe at the base 

for 150 ft. A survey of eroding bluffs along North Fish Creek 

in 2003 and 2004 (unpublished field notes) indicated that this 

bluff was in worse condition than many of the other eroding 

bluffs identified in the mid-1990s (Fitzpatrick, 1998). 

Farther upstream on North Fish Creek at another eroding 

bluff site (site 69), 27 dead willow posts were counted along 

the base of the bluff in 2003. No design plans were available 

for this site and the date of installation is not known. The 

top 20 percent of the bluff had a vertical face; the rest was 

partially vegetated with slumping, gullying, and mudslides 

common. Along the base of the bluff was a toe along its entire 

length with the willow posts half buried from mudslides. 

Large boulders were present (originating from glacial deposits in the top of the bluff) along the base of the bluff. Even 

though the willows did not survive, their temporary presence, 

in combination with a natural buildup of boulders, may have 

helped stabilize the base of the bluff and allow the building 

out of a toe. 

The 1995 demonstration project to control erosion and 

stabilize banks on Whittlesey Creek was fulfilling its design 

goals as of 2003 (site 67, fig. 1). All of the rock barbs were 

in place and the middle weir had only slight damage. The 

barbs had stopped bank erosion on the outside of the meander 

bend and the weirs had kept the main part of the flow toward 

the center of the channel and had created mid-channel pools. 

The planted vegetation showed signs of heavy deer browsing. 

Upstream and downstream of the demonstration project were 

substantial bank erosion and sand and gravel bar formation.
58 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

!

6

6

5

7

30

8

A

30

0

0

0.11

0.11 

0.055

0.055 KILOMETERS

 MILES

EXPLANATION

U.S. Geological Survey base-flow survey site 

and field number (table 2)

Section line

Water

Transect location

Core location and number

!(

Base from 1992 aerial photograph and Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

Cranberry

River

Cranberry

River

N

Figure 24. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 30 along the Cranberry River: A, site map, and B, cross sections and 

core descriptions.

Grassed waterways and ditches were widely tested by 

the RCIC. At site 65 along South Fish Creek (fig. 1), the 

landowner and the RCIC shaped, seeded, and mulched a 

field waterway in 1961 (fig. 28A). An evaluation in 1962–63 

indicated that grazing needed to be prevented and by 1976 

the waterway was deemed to be in “excellent condition” (Red 

Clay Interagency Committee, 1977). In 2003, the waterway 

was completely vegetated and is contributing no sediment to 

South Fish Creek. 

The RCIC met its goals of reducing erosion at two bluff 

sites evaluated in this study even though there was little or no 

evidence of the original structures in 2003. The RCIC conclusions in 1977 were that (1) most of the practices that were 

implemented lasted for one or two decades, (2) for bluff erosion, the toe is the most important area to stabilize, and (3) for 

slope stabilization, soil preparation and specific seeding mixes 

are necessary to establish protective vegetation (Andrews and 

others, 1979). According to the limited evaluation done in 

2003, the RCIC met its goals of reducing erosion and stabilizing slopes at the Whittlesey Creek site. The Bois Brule River 

bluff (site 64) showed a limited amount of erosion in 2003 

(loss of toe and midbluff slumping). The partial success of 

bluff-erosion control at site 69 indicates that stabilizing a bluff 

toe will reduce some erosion, but block failures and mudflows from the top of the bluff if not reduced, may destroy toe 

stabilization efforts. Channel rerouting to reduce bluff erosion, 
Flood Characteristics 59

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, 

clay or muck

Silt

Loam

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull elevation

30-6

Core and identification 

number

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

EXPLANATION

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

Thalweg

Thalweg

Thalweg

30-7

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

30-5

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x

x

x

x x x x

30-6

Diamicton

x x x

Not sampled

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x

x x

x

30-8

x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x x

x

x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x x x x

2

xxxxxxxxx

1 3 4

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Left flood plain

Channel

Left flood plain

Channel

Left flood plain

Channel

Abandoned

channel

Natural

levee

B

Granules/pebbles

Horizontal distance not to scale

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Figure 24. Cross sections and sediment cores at site 30 along the Cranberry River: A, site map, and B, cross sections and core 

descriptions.—Continued

such as that attempted at site 68, is more problematic because 

channel relocations usually result in a shorter stream length 

and subsequent increase in slope that may cause local scour 

and head cutting. 

Activities to control erosion and installation of new sites 

or evaluation and maintenance of older sites tend to follow 

floods. For example, erosion-control activities began on the 

Bayfield Peninsula after frequent moderate floods in the mid1950s (fig. 9). The number of site evaluations rose after the 

1960 flood. This study took place after the 2001 flood. This 

may be caused by the possibility that floods increase erosion 

and raise awareness of erosion issues. The floods may instigate 

erosion-control projects and promote funding of erosioncontrol measures. 

Flood Characteristics

The combination of historical geomorphic data, floodhydrograph modeling, and sediment-transport data is useful 

for understanding the complex responses of runoff, sediment movement, and geomorphic processes to historical 

changes in forest cover. Flood-hydrograph simulations were 

done with HEC-1 for the Cranberry River Basin (near site 

30 at the mouth, fig. 1) for four land-cover scenarios: present (1992–93), presettlement (before 1870), peak agriculture 

(1928), and developed (possible future scenario). Floodhydrograph simulations for the Cranberry River were compared to flood-hydrograph simulations for North Fish Creek 
60 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, 

clay or muck

Silt

Loam

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull elevation

Core and identification 

number

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

EXPLANATION

640

645

650

655

660

665

670

675

x x x x x x

17-2

16-1

Root crowns 

underlain by gravel

Woody zone 

in bank

17-2

Eroding clay diamicton

LEFT RIGHT

LEFT RIGHT

A

Horizontal distance not to scale

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Figure 25. Cross sections and sediment cores from North Fish Creek, Wisconsin (Fitzpatrick, 1998): A, cross section and core 

descriptions for cores 16-1 and 17-2, B, cross section and core description for core G-1, and C, core description for core G-7. Core 

locations shown on figure 17A.

(site 1, fig. 1) (Fitzpatrick, 1998; Fitzpatrick and others, 1999) 

and Whittlesey Creek (site 2, fig. 1) (Lenz and others, 2003) 

for similar land-cover scenarios. Because the Cranberry River 

does not have a streamflow-gaging station, thus simulated 

design hydrographs for the Cranberry River are more uncertain than the North Fish Creek and Whittlesey Creek hydrographs, which were based on rainfall records and calibrated 

and verified against streamflow.

Simulated flood peaks and volumes for the Cranberry 

River were smallest for the presettlement scenario and greatest for the developed (25 percent urban) scenario (table 9, 

fig. 29). Presettlement flood peaks were 57 to 46 percent less 

than 1992–93 flood peaks, but runoff amounts were lower than 

the 1992–93 runoff amounts by only 5 percent or less. In the 

presettlement scenario, overland and channel-roughness coefficients were increased to represent a thicker organic debris 

layer on the forest floor and more LWD in the stream channel. 

These changes slowed the rate of runoff (lowered the peak and 

increased the duration), but did not decrease the total volume 

of runoff, because the potential for infiltration was similar 

to infiltration with the 1992–93 land cover. The impacts of 

increased channel roughness and overland roughness are more 

important in steep fast-flowing streams like the Cranberry 

River, because stream energy is proportional to the square of 

the roughness coefficient (for example, a 2-fold increase in 

roughness results in a 4-fold loss of kinetic energy).

Flood peaks for peak agriculture (1928) for the Cranberry River were similar to flood peaks for 1992–93 (fig. 29, 

table 9). Unlike the Sioux River and Whittlesey Creek basins, 

the percentage of agriculture in 1928 the Cranberry River 

basin was only slightly higher than in 1992–93 (table 1). 

The amount of agriculture in the Cranberry River basin in 

1928 was also less than in the basins on the east side of the 

peninsula. In 1928 the Cranberry River basin had 4.4 percent 
Flood Characteristics 61

0 50 100

555

560

565

570

575

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

625

Diamicton

xxxxxxxxxx

G-1

x x Granules, pebbles and wood

A.D. 30–380 (1,830 ± 60 14C yr BP)

Presettlement soil

Poor or no recovery Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled

B

Left flood plain

Distance from left bank, in feet

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

580

585

590

595

600

605

610

615

xxxxxxxxxxx

G-7

xxxxxxxxx

xxx Not sampled

Not sampled

x

C

545

550

555

560

565

570

575

x

x

Silty clay, laminated

Not sampled Not sampled Not sampled

A.D. 1280–1440 (610 ± 70 14C yr BP)

A.D. 990–1260 (950 ± 60 14C yr BP)

B.C. 2,200–1830 (3,650 ± 55 14C yr BP)

B.C. 4890–4540 (5,850 ± 60 14C yr BP)

G-7

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, clay 

or muck

Silt

Loam

Core and identification 

number

xxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull stage

After Death

Years

EXPLANATION

A.D.

± Plus or minus

yr

Carbon-14 14C

BP Before Present

B.C. Before Christ

Figure 25. Cross sections and sediment cores from North Fish Creek, Wisconsin (Fitzpatrick, 1998): A, cross section and core 

descriptions for cores 16-1 and 17-2, B, cross section and core description for core G-1, and C, core description for core G-7. Core 

locations shown on figure 17A.—Continued
62 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

4

1 5

A

EXPLANATION

Section line

River

Transect location

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

streamflow-gaging station

Core location and number

Inter-Fluve, Inc. site

USGS base-flow survey site and 

field number (table 2)

2

040263205

4

2 040263205

Base from 1992 aerial photograph and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

0

0

0.075

0.075

0.038

0.038 KILOMETERS

 MILES

N

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

590

595

600

605

610

615

620

625

x

x

x

x x

2-1

x x

x

x

Presettlement soil?

NORTH SOUTH

Left flood plain Right flood plain

2-5

Buried willow 

root crown

2-4

B

Distance from left terrace, in feet

Fine sand

Medium/coarse sand

Gravel

Organic-rich loam, 

clay or muck

Silt

Loam

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wood

Buried soil

Low-flow water elevation

Bankfull elevation

2-1

Core and identification 

number

Red clay

Mottled red and gray clay

Gray clay

EXPLANATION

Approximate altitude, in feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

Figure 26. Cross section and sediment cores at site 2 along Whittlesey Creek: A, site map, B, cross section and core descriptions.
Flood Characteristics 63

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Median sediment size, in millimeters

Shear stress, in pounds per square foot

62

53

60

58

61 7

48

49 47

42 55

44 54

59 51

23

45

41

52

43

2

57

MOTION 46

NO MOTION

EXPLANATION

Bark River

Cranberry River

Sioux River

Whittlesey Creek

Shields (1936) criteria

Highway Research Board (1970)

Brook trout present (2004)

Brook trout absent (2004)

Figure 27. Bankfull-channel shear stress and median sediment size for selected sites on Bayfield 

streams. Curves are thresholds for motion for noncohesive quartz particles (Shields, 1936) and riprap 

(Highway research Board, 1970). Site numbers are on figures 1A and B.

agricultural land cover, whereas the Sioux River basin had 

10 percent and the Whittlesey Creek basin had 28.2 percent. 

The lower percentage of grassland and higher percentage of 

forest cover in the Cranberry River in 1928 offset any additional peak flow that may have been caused by the small addition of agriculture (table 5). In 1928, the Cranberry River had 

2.1 percent more wetland than in 1992–93. 

Results of the developed scenario indicate that if 25 percent of the forested land in the Cranberry River were to be 

developed into urban land, flood peaks would be expected 

to increase by 19 to 24 percent and runoff by 8 to 13 percent 

compared to flood peaks and runoff for the 1992–93 scenario 

(fig. 29, table 9). The time from antecedent base-flow conditions to peak flow in the developed scenario is less than in the 

1992–93 scenario. 

A previous flood hydrograph and sediment-transport 

model for North Fish Creek indicated that 1992–93 flood 

peaks and sediment loads for a historical flood with a 2-yr 

recurrence interval are twice that expected under presettlement forest cover, and during peak agriculture, 2-yr flood 

peaks probably were three times larger and sediment loads five 

times larger than expected under presettlement forest cover 

(Fitzpatrick and others, 1999). The flood-hydrograph model 

for North Fish Creek was done by use of the event-based 

HEC-1, similar to the modeling that was done for the Cranberry River, with a 15-minute time interval. Because overland 

and channel-roughness coefficients were not increased in the 

North Fish Creek presettlement simulation, however, presettlement flood peaks probably were lower than the simulated 

peaks. The North Fish Creek basin had more pasture/grassland (31 percent) and cropland (3 percent) in 1992–93 than 

the Cranberry River basin (7 percent pasture/grassland and 

0 percent cropland). 

In a previous study, simulations of flood hydrographs 

for Whittlesey Creek were done with the Soil and Water 

Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Lenz and others, 2003). SWAT is 

a continuous model with a mean daily time step that accounts 

for runoff as well as infiltration and shallow groundwater 

flow. Results from the Whittlesey Creek SWAT simulations 

indicated that changing the 1992–93 land cover to complete 

forest resulted in a 12–14 percent decrease in peak daily mean 

flow for a flood with a 100-yr recurrence interval. Changing 
64 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Table 8. Relative contributions of sediment from seven sources to Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin.

[All data are percentages. nd, not determined]

Upland Road 

crossings

Bluffs and 

terraces Banks Incision along main stem

Feeder 

channels Gullies

Cranberry River 0 10 35 15 10 25 5

Bark River 0 15 20 10 20 20 15

Raspberry River nd nd nd nd nd nd nd

Sioux River 5 5 50 10 15 10 5

Whittlesey Creek 5 5 55 10 10 10 5

North Fish Creek (Fitzpatrick, 1998) 5 0 67 6 18 0 4

North Fish Creek (updated, this study) 5 5 50 10 15 10 5

the 1992–93 land cover to 25 percent urban land resulted 

in a 7–18 percent increase in peak daily mean flow. For the 

1928 peak agriculture scenario, the peak daily mean flow 

was 0–7 percent higher. Streamflow data from the Whittlesey 

streamflow-gaging station indicated that instantaneous flood 

peaks (based on 15-minute intervals) may be more than double 

flood peaks based on daily mean flow. 

In summary, flood peaks for Bayfield streams are currently 1.5 to 2 times greater than before Euro-American settlement. Runoff volumes are probably similar or only slightly 

larger than presettlement runoff volumes. For the Cranberry 

River and other primarily forested, steep streams like the 

Bark River, increased flood peaks are most likely caused 

by decreases in roughness provided by forest cover and soil 

organic debris in overland flow areas and LWD in channels. 

Currently, in upland areas and valley-side slopes, the forests 

are generally young (less than 50 years old) and the organic 

debris layer on the forest floor is thin. The amount and size 

of woody debris in the channels likely is less then during 

presettlement, because the riparian forest cover is younger and 

smaller than before Euro-American settlement (according to 

presettlement accounts of fishing expeditions), and because 

channels were likely scoured of LWD before or during log 

drives in the late 1800s. For Whittlesey Creek and other basins 

that have more agriculture and grassland, reductions in upland 

roughness are caused by reductions in the age and amount of 

forest cover and amount of evergreen forest. Regardless of 

the reason for decreased roughness, if the rate of runoff from 

uplands is decreased and channel roughness is increased, flood 

peaks would be expected to decrease in all streams. 

Simulation results of sediment loads for the different 

land-cover scenarios for North Fish Creek indicate that, if 

flood peaks decrease, sediment transport and sediment loads 

decrease (Fitzpatrick and Knox, 2001). The benefit of reducing 

sediment loads through a reduction in flood peaks is exponential because the empirical relation between sediment load and 

streamflow is best represented by power function (Fitzpatrick 

and Knox, 2001). Implications for geomorphic conditions are 

that decreasing flood peaks should reduce the potential for 

incision, bank erosion, bluff and terrace erosion, lateral migration, and widening. Slowing the runoff from uplands also will 

reduce the potential for incision of feeder tributaries that bisect 

the entrenched valley sides.

Groundwater-Flow Characteristics

Groundwater-flow characteristics for the Bayfield 

Peninsula included field measurements of base flow, a model 

simulation of groundwater flow to distinguish sources of 

base flow, and delineations of groundwater contributing areas 

and divides.

Base Flow

The amount of base flow in a stream is controlled by 

the amount of groundwater entering a stream. The amount of 

groundwater entering a stream, in turn, is dependent on rock 

and soil characteristics, rates of precipitation and evaporation, 

surface and subsurface relief, and the retention of water in 

lakes, marshes, and reservoirs (Young and Skinner, 1974). In 

order to compare groundwater contributions among different 

streams, base flow traditionally is weighted by surface-watercontributing area (Young and Skinner, 1974). The overall distribution of unit-area base flow (base flow divided by surfacewater-contributing area) in the five Bayfield Peninsula streams 

is complex and ranges from 0.00 (ft3

/s)/mi2 in the Raspberry 

River to 4.00 (ft3

/s)/mi2 in the Bark River (fig. 30, table 10). 

The peninsula-wide average based on previous studies is 

0.30 (ft3/s)/mi2 or roughly 4.1 in/yr (Young and Skinner, 1974). 

Unit-area base flow is high in streams downstream from 

where the channels intersect the regional aquifer system. 

The exact location of this intersection is dependent on the 
Groundwater-Flow Characteristics 65

B

1958 - bluff before restoration circa 1960 - bluff after restoration

2003 - bluff vegetated with second-growth willows at base

A

1961 - eroding waterway in a pasture 1963 - same waterway after grading and seeding

2003 - same waterway vegetated and not eroded

Figure 28. Two Red Clay Interagency Committee sites before and after installation of erosion-control 

techniques: A, South Fish Creek waterway (site 65), and B, Whittlesey Creek bluff (site 66).
66 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Table 9. Flood peaks and total storm volume from SCS-design storms for HEC-1 flood hydrograph simulations of four land-cover 

scenarios, Cranberry River, Wisconsin.

[%, percent; yr, year; ft3/s, feet per second; —, not applicable; in., inches]

1992–93 Presettlement (before 1870) Peak agriculture (1928) Developed (25% urban)

100-yr 10-yr 2-yr 100-yr 10-yr 2-yr 100-yr 10-yr 2-yr 100-yr 10-yr 2-yr

Maximium peak 

flow (ft3

/s)

7,980 3,760 1,610 5,100 2,430 1,100 7,580 3,650 1,670 9,810 4,740 2,110

Difference from 

1992–93 (%)

— — — -57 -55 -46 -5 -3 4 19 21 24

Total watershed 

runoff (in.) 2.56 1.25 0.56 2.45 1.20 0.56 2.48 1.23 0.57 2.78 1.39 0.65

Difference from 

1992–93 (%)

— — — -5 -4 -1 -3 -2 2 8 10 13

proximity of the channel to the groundwater contributing area 

and the location and distribution of underlying coarse-grained 

deposits (fig. 30). The regional aquifer system intersects 

Whittlesey Creek at about 650 ft (fig. 6). Upstream from about 

710 ft in Whittlesey Creek, base flow is negligible (Lenz and 

others, 2003). Thus, unit-area base flow in Bayfield streams 

may increase disproportionately from the headwaters and 

upper main stem to middle and lower main stems. For the 

Sioux River and Bark River, the main gain in base flow also is 

near 650 ft. Unit-area base flows remain low in the Raspberry 

River along its entire length. Unit-area base flows are high 

along the entire East Fork of the Cranberry River. For North 

Fish Creek, springs fed by the regional aquifer system are 

along the channel from altitudes of about 650 to 900 ft. Thus, 

the unit-area base flow of 1.35 (ft3

/s)/mi2 at the North Fish 

Creek streamflow-gaging station is high and increases slightly 

at the mouth to 1.6 (ft3

/s)/mi2 (Lenz and others, 2003). Sections of streams with brook trout (fig. 2) have relatively high 

unit-area base flows. 

Comparison of base flow in Cranberry River tributaries illustrates the importance of proximity of a basin to the 

surface-water noncontributing area (fig. 30). The East Fork 

of the Cranberry River at site 32 (fig. 1B) has a unit-area base 

flow of 3.06 (ft3

/s)/mi2 and Lenawee Creek at site 33 has a 

unit-area base flow of 0.37 (ft3

/s)/mi2. The subbasins have 

similar drainage areas and land cover. The headwaters of the 

East Fork of the Cranberry River are surrounded on two sides 

by the surface-water noncontributing area and drain the postglacial outwash valley that contains coarse-grained deposits 

(fig. 4). On the eastern side of the peninsula, Fourmile Creek 

at site 6 is similarly situated and has more base flow than the 

Little Sioux River at site 9 and the main stem of the Sioux 

River at site 4.

Groundwater-Flow Simulation

Simulation of groundwater flow was used to distinguish 

sources of base flow for all the Bayfield Peninsula streams. 

An initial GFLOW model for the Bayfield Peninsula was 

developed by modifying an existing GFLOW model that was 

constructed for a hydrologic study of Whittlesey Creek (Lenz 

and others, 2003). The initial model was refined, tested for 

parameter sensitivity, and automatically calibrated by using 

the computer program UCODE. Initial and optimized model 

parameters for the Bayfield Peninsula GFLOW model are 

listed in table 11. A summary of head and base flow statistics for the initial and calibrated GFLOW model is shown in 

table 12.

The initial GFLOW model for the Bayfield Peninsula was 

modified from the existing Whittlesey Creek GFLOW model 

in the following ways: (1) The nearfield area was expanded 

to include the entire peninsula from the Flag River to North 

Fish Creek; (2) The new nearfield linesinks were updated with 

more detailed, improved data for stream altitudes, streambed 

resistance, and streamflow routing; (3) The stepped-base 

altitude for the area underlain by the Copper Falls Formation 

was removed and replaced with a uniform-base altitude for the 

entire model area (the hydraulic conductivity (K) for this area 

was decreased to produce the same transmissivity as that in 

the stepped model); and (4) The inhomogeneity representing 

the Miller Creek Formation was divided into two zones, one 

for the north and west parts of the peninsula and one for the 

east part. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (Kh

) for the north 

and west zone was anticipated to be 10ft/d lower than Kh

 for 

the east zone. The Kh

 for the east side zone was maintained 

at the original value of 34 ft/d from the Whittlesey model. 

Except for the lower value of Kh

 used in the north and west 

side inhomogeneity zone, this initial GFLOW model used 

the same parameter values for K and recharge as the existing 
Groundwater-Flow Characteristics 67

0 10 20 30 40 50

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Time, in hours

2 year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

10 year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Discharge, in cubic feet per second Discharge, in cubic feet per second Discharge, in cubic feet per second

100 year

1992–93

Presettlement

Peak agriculture

Developed

1992–93

Presettlement

Peak agriculture

Developed

1992–93 

Presettlement

Peak agriculture

Developed

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

EXPLANATION

Figure 29. Flood hydrographs for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year 24-hour rainfalls for the Cranberry River, 

Wisconsin. Rainfall data from Huff and Angel (1992). Rainfall volumes were distributed by using the 

SCS type-II rainfall distribution (Soil Conservation Service, 1972).
68 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

0

0

4

4 8 KILOMETERS

8 MILES

WISCONSIN

Study

area

46°35’

46°47’

90°54’

91°23’

Base from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

hydrography: 1:24,000 digital data

EXPLANATION

Drainage-basin boundary

! Unit-area base flow in cubic feet per second per square mile

LAKE SUPERIOR

!

!

!

! !

!

!!

!

!!! !

!

!!!

! !

!

! !

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Chequamegon Bay

Cranberry River

Surface-water contributing basin

Bark River surface-water contributing basin

Raspberry River surface-water contributing basin

Sioux River

Other basin where base-flow data were collected

Surface-water noncontributing basin

Whittlesey Creek

0.00

0.18

0.02

0.74

0.12

2.7

1.22

0.41

0.45

0.27

0.17

0.38

2.69

0.12

1.22

0.18

0.02

0.48

0.95

0.18

0.96

0.41

0.19

1.18

0.48

0.95

0.74

0.18

0.96

0.41

0.19

0.12

2.69

1.35

1.22

0.41

0.45

0.27

0.17

0.38

0.11

0.19

0.11

0.19

na

1.18

1.53 3.71

4.00

0.57

1.53 3.71

4.00

0.57

2.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

na

1.29

0.03

1.34

0.37

1.29

3.06

0.03

1.34

0.12

0.00

Figure 30. Distribution of unit-area base flow for streams on the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin, November 2002.
Groundwater-Flow Characteristics 69

Table 10. Results of field investigations of base flow and streambed temperature for Bayfield Peninsula streams, Wisconsin, 2002.

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, mi2, square miles, ft3/s, feet per second; °C, degrees Celsius; Wis., Wisconsin; na, not applicable; nd, not determined; Rd., road; 

Cty., County; Hwy., Highway; Trib., tributary; S., South; E., East]

USGS 

field 

number

USGS 

station 

number 

Name

Drainage 

area 

(mi2

)

Date 

sampled

Discharge 

(ft3

/s)

Unit-area 

baseflow 

[(ft3

/s)/mi2]

Stream-bed 

temperature 

(°C)

1 040263491 North Fish Creek near Moquah, Wis. 38.3 11/4/2002 51.8 1.35 4.5

2 040263205 Whittlesey Creek near Ashland, Wis. 7.37 11/4/2002 19.8 2.69 5.5

3 04026318 Boyd Creek at Ondassagon Rd. near Ashland, Wis. 3.12 11/4/2002 0.377 0.12 1.5

4 04026290 Sioux River near Washburn, Wis. 2.50 11/4/2002 0.47 0.19 0.2

5 04026295 Sioux River at Church Corner Rd. near Washburn, Wis. 9.95 11/4/2002 4.0 0.41 3.0

6 04026305 Fourmile Creek at County C near Washburn, Wis. 3.98 11/5/2002 3.81 0.96 6.0

6a 04026304 Tributary Fourmile Creek at Cty. C near Washburn, Wis. 0.17 11/5/2002 0.03 0.18 6.0

7 04026300 Sioux River near Washburn, Wis. 13.6 11/4/2002 10 0.74 4.0

8 04026308 Sioux River at Big Rock Rd. near Washburn, Wis. 26.7 11/4/2002 25.2 0.95 4.0

9 04026311 Little Sioux River at Little Sioux Rd. near Washburn, Wis. 2.92 11/5/2002 1.4 0.48 6.0

10 04026309 Sioux River at Friendly Valley Rd. near Washburn, Wis. 29.3 11/5/2002 28.7 0.98 3.5

11 04026315 Little Sioux River near Washburn, Wis. 11.6 11/5/2002 13.63 1.18 4.0

12 04026316 Sioux River at Hwy. 13 near Washburn, Wis. 43.9 11/5/2002 na na 3.0

13 04026207 Tributary Raspberry River at Hwy. 13 near Sand Bay, Wis. 0.31 11/5/2002 0.06 0.19 1.5

13a 040262075 Raspberry River at Hwy. 13 near Sand Bay, Wis. 0.23 11/5/2002 0.005 0.02 nd

14 04026209 Raspberry River at Hwy. K near Sand Bay, Wis. 8.17 11/5/2002 0.86 0.11 1.5

15 04026211 North Branch Raspberry River near Sand Bay, Wis. 0.48 11/5/2002 0 0.00 3.0

16 04026213 South Branch Raspberry R near Sand Bay, Wis. 0.13 11/5/2002 0.05 0.38 3.0

17 04026215 Raspberry River near Sand Bay, Wis. 13.8 11/5/2002 2.32 0.17 3.0

17a 04026200 Sand River tributary near Red Cliff, Wis. 1.11 11/5/2002 0.2 0.18 nd

18 04026190 Sand River near Red Cliff, Wis. 26.9 11/5/2002 7.21 0.27 2.0

19 04026160 Siskiwit River at Cornucopia, Wis. 21.7 11/5/2002 9.7 0.45 2.5

20 04026150 Lost Creek No. 2 near Cornucopia, Wis. 1.94 11/5/2002 0.79 0.41 1.5

21 04026135 Bark River at Bark River Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.92 11/5/2002 0.53 0.57 3.0

22 04026137 Bark River near Bark River Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 5.86 11/5/2002 8.97 1.53 5.0

22a 04026138 Tributary Bark River near Bark R. Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.14 11/5/2002 0.56 4.00 6.5

23 04026139 East Branch Bark River near Bark R. Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 1.08 1/8/2003 4.00 3.71 nd

24 04026140 Bark River near Cornucopia, Wis. (at Hwy. 13) 8.19 11/5/2002 18.32 2.24 4.0

25 04026127 East Branch East Fork Cranberry River near Herbster, Wis. 4.95 11/5/2002 3.49 0.71 3.0

26 04026130 East Fork Cranberry River near Port Wing, Wis. 18.7 11/4/2002 25.09 1.34 4.5

27 04026131 S. Branch Cranberry River at Touve Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 5.38 11/4/2002 1.22 0.23 3.0

28 040261261 Trib. Lenawee Creek near Lenawee Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.40 11/4/2002 0.1 0.25 7.0

29 040261315 Trib. Cranberry River at Lenawee Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.18 11/4/2002 0.0315 0.17 nd

30 04026132 Cranberry River near Herbster, Wis. (at Old Hwy. 13) 31.0 11/4/2002 na na nd

31 04026128 East Fork Cranberry River at Lenawee Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 17.6 11/4/2002 22.67 1.29 5.0

32 040261248 E. Fork Cranberry River near Lenawee Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 4.51 11/20/2002 13.8 3.06 6.0

33 04026126 Lenawee Creek near Lenawee Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 4.16 11/4/2002 1.55 0.37 6.0

34 040261258 Lenawee Creek at Seven Mile Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 2.70 11/4/2002 0.07 0.03 2.5

35 04026125 Lenawee Creek Trib. #2 at Sand Trap Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.17 11/4/2002 0 0.00 nd

36 040261254 Lenawee Creek Trib. at Sand Trap Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.14 11/4/2002 0 0.00 nd

36a 040261255 Lenawee Creek Trib. #3 at Sand Trap Rd. near Herbster, Wis. 0.16 11/4/2002 0 0.00 nd

37 04026124 East Fork Cranberry River Tributary #2 near Herbster, Wis. 0.08 11/4/2002 0 0.00 nd

38 040261244 East Fork Cranberry River Tributary near Herbster, Wis. 0.34 11/4/2002 0 0.00 nd

39 04026120 Flag River at Port Wing, Wis. 27.7 11/4/2002 33.73 1.22 3.5

40 04026117 Flag River near Port Wing, Wis. 0.57 11/4/2002 0.07 0.12 2.0
70 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Table 11. Initial estimate and UCODE-optimized parameters used in the GFLOW model for Bayfield 

Peninsula, Wisconsin.

[Kh, horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Fm, Formation ; ft/d, feet per day; in/yr, inches per year; ft, feet]

Parameter

UCODE

Initial estimate Optimized value

Kh

 Copper Falls Fm 46.5 ft/d 47.8 ft/d

Kh

 Miller Creek Fm (east side) 34.4 ft/d 23.6 ft/d

Kh

 Miller Creek Fm (north/west side) 10 ft/d 6.9 ft/d

Recharge through Copper Falls Fm 17 in/yr 13.6 in/yr

Recharge through Miller Creek Fm (east side) 2 in/yr 3.5 in/yr

Recharge through Miller Creek Fm (north/west side) 2 in/yr 2.1 in/yr

Model layer bottom altitude 550 ft 526 ft

Lake Superior linesink resistance1 100 days 100 days

Stream linesink resistance2 0.01–10 days 0.01–10 days

1

Parameter not optimized because of model insensitivity.

2

Parameter not tested for sensitivity.

Table 12. Head fit statistics and sum of square weighted residuals for the initial and calibrated GFLOW model for 

Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin.

[ft, feet; RMS, root mean square]

Simulation 

description

Mean absolute 

difference (MAD), 

head (ft)

RMS error, 

head 

(ft)

Error range, 

head 

(ft)

Sum of square 

weighted residuals 

for all targets

Sum of square 

weighted residuals 

for base flow

GFLOW, initial 18.4 21.9 -39.4 to 48.3 1,558 695

GFLOW, calibrated 18.4 22.5 -49.4 to 48.4 1,487 573

A B

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1,000

600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000

Measured head, in feet above NGVD 29 Measured base flow, in cubic feet per second

Simulated head, in feet above National 

GeodeticVertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) 

Simulated base flow, in cubic feet per second

Figure 31. Relation of measured and simulated A, head and B, base flow for the calibrated GFLOW model for Bayfield 

Peninsula, Wisconsin.
Groundwater-Flow Characteristics 71

GFLOW model for Whittlesey Creek (table 11). The removal 

of the stepped-base altitude made the simulated saturated 

thickness of the area underlain by the Copper Falls Formation 

about 150 ft thicker (increased from approximately 300 ft for 

the stepped base altitude to about 450 ft for the uniform-base 

altitude). To account for this change in thickness, the initial 

Kh

 for the Copper Falls Formation was changed from 69.8 to 

46.5 ft/d in the GFLOW model’s inhomogeneity attribute. This 

change results in a transmissivity similar to that used in the 

Whittlesey Creek model for the area underlain by the Copper 

Falls Formation. 

The mean absolute difference (MAD) between simulated and measured head was 18.4 ft, and the total sum of 

squared weighted residuals for all targets was 1,558 (with 695 

from base flow targets alone) for the initial GFLOW model 

(table 12, fig. 31). In general, the initial GFLOW model 

simulated heads and base flows reasonably well throughout 

the peninsula. Simulated base flows were similar to measured 

base flows near river mouths; however, there were several 

headwater locations where the model indicated no base flow 

when actual flows, on the order of 0.2–4 ft3

/s, were measured 

in the field. This is likely because of the simplifying assumptions used in the model and the accuracy of the elevation data 

used for simulated streams. This discrepancy was particularly 

noticeable in the vicinity of the Sioux River headwaters. 

Input parameters for the initial GFLOW model were 

evaluated for model sensitivity by means of UCODE (fig. 32). 

The model was most sensitive to recharge through the Copper 

Falls Formation (composite-scale sensitivity = 56.9), followed 

by the model-layer bottom altitude (26.3), and Kh

 of the Miller 

Creek Formation on the east side of the peninsula (22.8). The 

model was least sensitive to resistance of the Lake Superior linesink (0.806). [The Lake Superior linesink resistance 

parameter was not optimized by using UCODE.]

After calibration and optimization, the UCODEoptimized input parameters were only slightly changed from 

initial values (table 11). With the optimized parameter values 

from UCODE, the MAD between simulated and measured 

head for the calibrated GFLOW model was 18.4 ft and the 

total sum of squared weight residuals was 1487 (with 573 

from base-flow targets alone) (table 12). Simulated heads 

remained relatively unchanged in the calibrated model, 

whereas base flows were slightly improved. Even with the 

slight base-flow improvement, several flowing headwater 

reaches of the Sioux River were still simulated as dry. It 

should be noted that the GFLOW model described here is 

a simplified version of a complex groundwater system. The 

groundwater system is simulated by using a single layer model 

and some groundwater does likely flow through parts of the 

system that are deeper than that represented by the model. 

Calibration and simulation of base flow in headwater reaches 

of streams might be improved with additional inhomogeneity 

zones in the GFLOW model or a more complex three-dimensional model. 

Groundwater Divide and Groundwater 

Contributing Areas

Results from the calibrated GFLOW model were used to 

delineate the location of the groundwater divide between the 

east and west sides of the peninsula as well as the groundwater 

contributing areas for the streams of interest. Groundwater 

pathlines were simulated by using the particle-tracking options 

of GFLOW. 

To delineate groundwater contributing areas, an array 

of particles were tracked forward from recharge areas to 

discharge locations at the streams of interest. Particle movement to the east and west indicated the location of the divide 

(fig. 33). The land-surface area projected from the volume 

of aquifer encompassing the pathlines for a particular stream 

represents the groundwater contributing area for that stream 

(fig. 33). Groundwater contributing areas ranged in size from 

9.6 mi2

 for the Raspberry River to 62.9 mi2 for the Sioux 

River. Particle-tracking results indicated that the groundwater 

contributing areas generally did not coincide with the delineated surface-water contributing areas. For Whittlesey Creek, 

average travel time for particles was 215 years; the median 

travel time was about 94 years (Lenz and others, 2003). 

The GFLOW model estimated an average of 

304 (ft3

/s)/yr of recharge for the Bayfield Peninsula, with 

230 (ft3

/s)/yr (76 percent) from the area underlain by the sandy 

Copper Falls Formation. On the basis of base-flow measurements (table 10) and estimates from the GFLOW model, about 

89 percent of total recharge discharges to Bayfield Peninsula 

streams; the remaining 11 percent discharges to Lake Superior. 

The effects of changes in land cover on groundwater 

recharge or discharge were not evaluated for this study; 

however, results from a previous groundwater-flow model 

done for Whittlesey Creek (Lenz and others, 2003) indicated 

that changing the total recharge in the entire groundwater 

contributing area by 25 percent (an extreme case) resulted in a 

change of about 6 percent in base flow. In addition, changing 

the recharge in an individual groundwater contributing area 

changed the boundaries of the groundwater contributing area. 

For example, when a decrease in recharge was simulated in the 

Whittlesey Creek groundwater contributing area, a depression 

in the potentiometric surface formed that resulted in an expansion of the groundwater contributing area (at the expense of 

contributing areas for adjacent streams), which in turn limited 

the decrease in base flow because of the decreased recharge. 

If trees were absent from the sandy groundwater contributing 

area of Whittlesey Creek, evapotranspiration would be less, 

and there would likely be an increase in recharge of possibly 25 percent. This would potentially cause an increase in 

base flow to Whittlesey Creek of about 4 percent (Lenz and 

others, 2003).
72 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

7.23

22.8

9.14

5.98

10.8

26.3

0.806

56.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Kh Copper

Falls Fm

Kh Miller Ck

Fm (east)

Kh Miller Ck

Fm

(north/west)

Recharge

through Copper

Falls Fm

Recharge

through Miller

Ck Fm (east)

Recharge

through Miller

Ck Fm

(north/west)

Model layer

bottom altitude

Lake Superior

linesink

resistance

Composite-scale sensitivities (dimensionless)

Horizontal hydraulic conductivity

Formation

Creek

EXPLANATION

Kh

Fm

Ck

Figure 32. GFLOW groundwater-flow model parameter sensitivities from UCODE for the Bayfield Peninsula, Wisconsin 

study area. Kh is horizontal hydraulic conductivity; Fm, Formation; Ck, Creek.

Implications for Brook-Trout Habitat

All five of the studied streams were described as important brook trout streams in local newspapers during the 1870s 

and 1880s. Although initial declines in brook-trout populations 

in the late 19th century were attributed to angler and commercial overharvesting, land-cover changes were soon implicated. 

Human-induced landscape changes have long been noted to 

cause broad declines in brook-trout populations over their historical range. As early as 1900, a federal document noted that 

land-cover changes were influencing brook trout by stating 

that “owing to the clearing of the lands at the sources of the 

streams, which has produced changed conditions in and along 

waters not agreeable to brook trout’s wild nature” (Bowers, 

1900). A more direct statement in a U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 

document implicated surface runoff changes: “... through the 

cutting away of forests and the cultivation of the land, many 

streams in the eastern part of the United States have become 

unsuited to brook trout” (Leach, 1923). By the 1930s, Wisconsin scientists began noting that critical brook-trout habitat had 

been affected by surface runoff, log-transport activities and 

sedimentation. For example, a Wisconsin fish biologist noted 

“Deforestation with its concomitant effects upon water supply, 

lowering and warming of the waters, scouring of the stream 

beds by the logs and especially the silting over of gravel bottoms had done much to lessen the productivity of trout waters” 

(Greene, 1935). 

Brook trout have a narrow tolerance window regarding their habitat needs. The four major habitat components 

are water quality/temperature, spawning and egg incubation, 

cover, and food production (Pratt, 2000). Moderate water 

temperatures are best, neither too warm in summer or too cold 

(freezing) in winter. Stable substrates are needed for spawning and egg incubation. Cover near food is important after 

fry emerge from spawning gravels until the fingerlings reach 

about 2 in. in length. Brook trout hatch in early spring from 

spawning beds on small-size gravel near groundwater upwelling (Newman and others, 1996). 

The most limiting factor in present-day brook-trout populations in Bayfield streams seems to be poor survival from 

the time the egg is laid to the time the young fingerlings are 

about 2 in. in length. Spawning beds (redds) may be scoured 

or mobilized during floods in upper and middle main stems 

and tributaries and buried by sand in lower reaches. Many 

of the largest floods resulted from rainfall combined with 

snowmelt from mid-March to early May. Early spring floods 

are especially hard on the fry. LWD provides cover and substrate for juveniles and adults and serves as attachment sites 

for aquatic insects. Juveniles can easily be swept downstream 

during floods if there are no LWD refugia (Wisconsin Natural 

Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 2005). Groundwater 

upwelling areas may be buried in sand. Suitable pool habitat 

in downstream reaches may be filled in with sand. Filling of 

pools minimizes winter pool cover—deep water is needed 

to survive winter freezes. Sand bed load negatively affects 
Implications for Brook-Trout Habitat 73

EXPLANATION

Groundwater contributing area

Cranberry River basin

Bark River basin

Raspberry River basin

Sioux River basin

Whittlesey Creek basin

General direction of groundwater flow

Potentiometric-surface contour

Stream reach not gaining base flow 

Stream reach not simulated

Analytic element representing area of high 

recharge and high hydraulic conductivity 

(Copper Falls Fm)

Potentiometric-surface contour

Stream reach not simulated

0

0

8

8

4

4 KILOMETERS

MILES

N

Figure 33. Groundwater contours and contributing areas simulated by the GLFOW model for five Bayfield Peninsula 

streams, Wisconsin.
74 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

spawning habitat, incubation success, emergent success, and 

living space quality. 

The reduced brook-trout fishery in Bayfield streams is 

the direct result of geomorphic responses to increased runoff 

and flood peaks. Beginning in the late 1800s, logging, forest fires, and settlement activities reduced watershed storage, interception, infiltration, upland and channel roughness; 

shortened drainage pathways; and increased overland runoff 

rates and flood peaks. Surface runoff, flood peaks, erosion, 

and sedimentation reached their highest levels during the 

1940s and 1950s, corresponding to a period of large, frequent 

floods (Fitzpatrick and Knox, 2001). Floods during this period 

enlarged channel cross sections, and caused incision, scour, 

and transport of sand, gravel, and LWD. Flood peaks and 

resulting incision, bank erosion, and sedimentation decreased 

after about 1960 at the same time as reforestation and 

decreases in row-crop agriculture. Presently, flood peaks are 

still higher than presettlement peaks. Geomorphic responses 

to increased runoff rates and flood peaks are (generally from 

upstream to downstream): (1) incision in headwaters, (2) incision or bluff erosion in upper main stems, (3) local aggradation and excessive sand sedimentation in reaches with beaver 

activity or poorly constructed road crossings, (4) increased 

erosion of bluffs, terraces, and banks and unstable gravel-bar 

formation along upper or middle main stems, (5) transport of 

sediment from upper and middle main stems to lower main 

stems, (6) increased incision in feeder tributaries to main-stem 

channels, (7) loss of flood-plain storage in upper and middle 

main stems, (8) stream widening and pool filling in middle and 

lower main stems, and (9) aggradation in lower main stems. 

LWD in streams can provide important controls on the 

formation and physical characteristics of pools, bars and steps, 

and can influence channel type, sediment storage, and channel 

roughness (Montgomery and Buffington, 1997). In the past, 

an extensive amount of wood debris characterized all streams 

described in historical accounts. Abundant LWD provided 

habitat diversity, protection from floods, increased gravel 

storage, and spawning-site stability (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005). 

The combination of direct removal (log-driving era) and the 

young age and composition of present-day riparian forests 

leading to sparse LWD, along with increased flood peaks 

and channel incision in the upper to middle main stems, has 

resulted in unstable streambeds and the flushing of gravel of 

the most critical size for brook trout spawning. 

Sand entering stream channels degrades brook-trout 

success by burying essential remaining spawning habitat and 

food sources. Sand-sized particles plug the interstitial spaces 

between the gravel, which suffocates incubating eggs and 

blocks fry emergence. Brook trout are very susceptible to these 

losses because they choose low-velocity areas as spawning 

sites. An experiment in a Michigan trout stream where sand 

was added to a stream reduced brook-trout numbers by half 

and severely degraded stream habitat (Alexander and Hansen, 

1986). The population decrease was attributed to poor survival 

rates, particularly in the egg-to-fry and fry-to-fall-fingerling 

stages of life cycle. In that study, the addition of the sand 

caused the channel to widen, become shallower, and have less 

pool habitat. Historical newspaper accounts described deep 

pools in lower main stem reaches. Scoured-sand deposits from 

log drives and large flood peaks have since buried the pools 

and reduced habitat quality. 

The degradation of critical brook-trout habitat in Bayfield 

streams has resulted in small counts of brook trout in middle 

to lower main stems. The present-day brook-trout populations 

are confined to small reaches with groundwater upwelling 

and relatively low stream power. These reaches are mainly in 

upper main stems or feeder tributaries. Beaver activity in these 

reaches is common and causes local aggradation and sand 

deposition in critical spawning areas. 

Whether watershed- or site-specific, rehabilitation techniques are geared toward reducing runoff from upland areas 

and erosion from upper and middle main stems and feeder 

channels, with the goal of stabilizing gravel beds, reducing 

sand bed load, increasing habitat diversity, the amount of pool 

habitat, and cover and food production. The streams represent 

dynamic geomorphic systems that drain a steep landscape with 

clayey soils. Thus the main goals for the rehabilitation efforts, 

in recognition of this dynamic nature, are to reduce flood 

peaks and sediment loads so that they are similar to presettlement conditions, rather than to hold the channels in one location or reduce sediment loads to zero. 

The study of Bayfield streams by Inter-Fluve, Inc. and 

Graber (2003) made several recommendations for management activities that could improve brook-trout habitat. The 

recommendations were based on an understanding of the 

watershed and of longitudinal connections among sediment 

transport and geomorphic processes. They include watershedmanagement practices that reduce runoff from uplands and 

flow rates in tributaries and increase upland roughness. Sitespecific techniques are tailored to decrease incision and stream 

power, decrease gullying, stabilize eroding bluffs and terraces, 

and increase channel roughness. Previous techniques used by 

the RCIC to control erosion and incision in pastured feeder 

channels (grassed waterways) and stabilize bluffs (combination of bioengineering and hard structures) are useful examples for future rehabilitation efforts.

Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber’s (2003) watershed recommendations include adherence to Wisconsin’s Administrative 

Code NR115 for riparian management zones along perennial 

streams. In addition, they recommend no timber harvesting 

within a primary buffer of 50 ft and limited selective cutting within a secondary 300-ft buffer on intermittent, nonnavigable headwater reaches. They recommend that forest 

cover be preserved near headwater channels and that land in 

these areas be enrolled in conservation easements or landpurchase programs so that mature forest cover is maintained. 

For riparian zones, white pine and hemlock restoration was 

suggested to increase LWD recruitment. Engineered log jams 

were suggested as possible means to increase channel roughness in stream reaches with incision and high stream power. 
Summary and Conclusions 75

Detention basins can decrease flood peaks but do not 

reduce runoff volumes (Fitzpatrick, 1998; Fitzpatrick and 

others, 1999). Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber (2003) noted 

that detention basins may increase water temperature. In the 

North Fish Creek model, the flood hydrograph for the watershed lasted about 40 hours with detention basins compared 

to about 15 hours for 1992–93 land cover and 25 hours for 

the presettlement scenario. The base-flow survey results and 

groundwater-flow model from this study and Lenz and others 

(2003) indicate that groundwater upwellings are along main 

stem reaches; thus, ephemeral headwater channels and tributaries are generally not the main sources for cold water for 

Bayfield streams. Detention basins as a technique for slowing 

flow may be applicable in areas where it is not possible to 

maintain a mature forest. Infiltration basins offer an alternative 

that could decrease flood peaks and runoff volumes without 

the potential impacts from warming. Unlike detention basins, 

infiltration basins have permeable bottoms that allow water to 

sink into the ground rather than to run off. 

During the field investigation for this study, another 

source for increased runoff became apparent. Abandoned farm 

fields (a large part of the grassland category in the 1992–93 

land cover) with extensive systems of improved drainage 

ditches are abundant throughout all the basins except the 

Bark River basin, which did not have as much agricultural 

development historically as did the other four studied streams. 

Many of these abandoned fields are now public lands, held 

in public trust, or owned by landowners who are not farmers 

and are interested in having aesthetically pleasing landscapes 

that attract wildlife. Even though the fields are abandoned, 

the drainage ditches still are serving their original purpose. 

Examples of these ditches are shown on the aerial photograph 

(fig. 20A) of the fields to the south of site 46. Removal of the 

drainage networks from abandoned fields would reduce runoff 

from uplands. 

The percentages of contributions of sediment from different sources shown in table 8 can be used with the critical 

brook-trout reaches shown in figure 2 to prioritize management decisions regarding brook-trout habitat. The priority of 

managing a particular sediment source is dependent on the 

source’s proximity to reaches that could provide current and 

future habitat as well as on the source’s relative contribution 

to the total sediment load. For example, unimproved road 

crossings on the upper main stem may contribute only a small 

amount of sediment to downstream reaches, but may locally 

affect a high-quality spawning area in the vicinity of the road 

crossing. Bluff and terrace erosion along meander cuts in 

the Sioux River are in spawning reaches. Adequate stream 

power is needed to maintain gravel bars and keep them from 

becoming buried with sand. Bank erosion along the lower 

main stem is downstream of most spawning areas and the 

source for the majority of the sand is from upstream bluff and 

terrace erosion. 

Summary and Conclusions

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a study 

of the geomorphic, flood, and groundwater-flow characteristics 

of five Bayfield Peninsula streams from 2002 to 2003 through 

cooperative efforts with the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Trout Unlimited, and Inter-Fluve, Inc. with the 

purpose of determining the link between these characteristics 

and the physical requirements of brook trout. The project 

findings were used to provide a better understanding of the 

physical limitations for rehabilitation of brook trout and to 

provide background information for water-resources and fisheries managers in their efforts to reduce runoff and erosion and 

improve fish habitat. The five studied streams were the Cranberry River, Bark River, Raspberry River, Sioux River, and 

Whittlesey Creek. The goals of the USGS part of the study of 

the five Bayfield streams included: (1) comparing the geomorphic characteristics of the five streams described in this study 

to the results of previous studies done on North Fish Creek 

by the USGS; (2) expanding the understanding of the causes 

for present and historical geomorphic processes; (3) identifying major sources of sediment; (4) describing how land-cover 

characteristics affect flood peaks in different streams; and 

(5) describing how regional groundwater flow patterns affect 

base flow. The study built upon previous USGS studies, 

including a geomorphic and flood study of North Fish Creek 

done in the mid-1990s, and a rainfall-runoff and groundwaterflow study of Whittlesey Creek done in 1999–2001. The study 

also complemented a geomorphic and hydrologic assessment 

of the same five streams by Inter-Fluve, Inc. that was done 

in 2003.

Geomorphic characteristics and processes for the five 

studied streams were dependent on longitudinal position 

within the drainage network. Geomorphic processes are also 

controlled by the texture of glacial deposits, proximity to 

postglacial-lake shorelines, and by historical changes in forest cover on uplands and valley-side slopes. These changes 

have increased runoff by decreasing roughness and ultimately 

increasing flood peaks in main-stem channels. Moreover, 

historical log drives combined with lack of large trees in riparian zones have likely caused a long-term lack of large woody 

debris in channels and consequently decreased channel roughness and increased flood peaks. 

Although most upland area is forested, flood peaks are 

still 1.5 to 2 times larger than presettlement flood peaks, most 

likely because the forest cover and soils and channels are not 

the same as before Euro-American settlement. Forests are 

generally young, the duff layer is thin, ditches may be present, 

channels are entrenched, and upland and channel roughness 

are less. The increased flood peaks potentially increase shear 

stress and have caused increased incision along upper main 

stems and feeder tributaries along valley sides, bluff and terrace erosion along reaches with entrenched valleys, overbank 

deposition and bar formation in middle and lower main stems, 

and aggradation in mouth areas. The Whittlesey Creek basin 

has the most evidence for erosion, and the Bark River basin 
76 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

has the least. The Bark River has had the most historical and 

present forest cover and the shortest steep stream segment and 

smallest drainage area of the five studied streams.

Sediment sources were mainly from channel erosion 

(incision, bluff, terrace, and bank erosion) along main-stem 

reaches and feeder tributaries with entrenched-valley side 

slopes rather than from upland erosion. The basins of Whittlesey Creek and the Sioux River had similar amounts of bluff 

and terrace erosion as the North Fish Creek basin; therefore, 

bluff and terrace erosion was considered to be the main source 

of sediment to these two streams. No active bluff erosion was 

observed on the Cranberry River or the Bark River, but anecdotal information suggests that landslides happen occasionally 

on the Cranberry River. More terrace erosion was observed 

along the Cranberry River than along the Bark River; therefore, the largest source of sediment to the Cranberry River 

is thought to be from bluff and terrace erosion, but in lesser 

amounts than in Whittlesey Creek and the Sioux River. For 

the Bark River, sources of sediment were somewhat evenly 

divided among road crossings, terrace erosion, bank erosion, 

incision of main stems and feeder channels. (Not enough data 

on sediment loads were available for the Raspberry River 

to compare to North Fish Creek sediment loads.) Additional 

studies on sediment transport and source areas are needed to 

quantify and verify the rough percentages for sediment loadings provided in this study. 

Evaluation of past erosion-control techniques indicated 

that bluff erosion could be reduced by stabilizing the toe at the 

base of the bluff through a combination of artificial hardening 

and bioengineering, and reducing mass wasting of the top of 

the bluffs by grading to stable slope angles. Limited evidence 

suggests that even though artificial-hardening structures 

degraded in a few years, this was enough time for the planted 

vegetation to get a start at building up enough root mass to 

prevent further erosion. Reduction in mass-wasted material 

from the top of the bluff also allowed the vegetation to grow 

on the bluff toe. These bioengineering techniques used alone 

were not adequate to reduce toe erosion. 

Base-flow measurements and a groundwater-flow model 

for the Bayfield Peninsula indicate that headwaters do not 

receive groundwater contributions from the deep aquifer system that is recharged through the permeable sands in the center of the Bayfield Peninsula. Instead, base flow is unevenly 

distributed among the streams within and among basins 

depending on the proximity of the channels to groundwaterdischarge zones from the deep aquifer system. Groundwater 

contributing areas for the five studied streams are not the same 

as surface-water-contributing areas. About 89 percent of total 

recharge to the deep aquifer system discharges to Bayfield 

Peninsula streams; the remaining 11 percent discharges to 

Lake Superior. 

Available and potential brook-trout habitat is dependent 

on the location of groundwater-discharge zones, the size of 

flood peaks, and the sediment load. Management practices 

focused on reducing runoff from upland areas (increasing 

roughness) and increasing channel roughness in upper main 

stems will potentially reduce flood peaks, shear stress, and 

sediment loads along main-stem channels. It must be kept 

in mind; however, that these streams are dynamic systems 

that will continue to have geomorphic changes. Management 

practices are best implemented with an understanding of 

geomorphic processes within the context of their longitudinal 

positions within their drainage networks. These processes 

may produce undesirable erosion in some locations, but can 

produce pools, increase channel complexity, and renew gravel 

and spawning beds in other locations.

Acknowledgments

The Bayfield Stream Assessment Partnership Team, led 

by Laura Hewitt and later continued by Todd Breiby (Trout 

Unlimited), was influential at guiding the goals and approach 

of this study. The partnership consists of Gerald Bauman 

(Windway Capital Corporation, Sheboygan, Wis.), Diane 

Dalton (ABDI-LCD, Ashland, Wis.), Pam and Mark Dryer 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland, Wis.), Michael 

Gardner (Sigurd Olson Environmental Institute, Northland 

College, Ashland, Wis.), Brian Graber (Water Resources 

Consulting, Boston, Mass.), Gary Haughn (NRCS, Ashland, 

Wis.), William Heart (Wild Rivers Chapter, Trout Unlimited), 

Michael Kroenke, (University of Wisconsin-Extension, Ashland, Wis.), Leah La Pointe (Red Cliff Tribe, Red Cliff, Wis.), 

Marty Melchior, (Inter-Fluve, Inc., Lake Mills, Wis.), Lee 

Newman (USFWS), Dennis Pratt, and Faith Fitzpatrick.

Our thanks to James Rauman (USGS, Madison, Wis.) for 

Geoprobe coring assistance and Thomas Popowski (USGS, 

Rice Lake, Wis.) for assisting with base-flow survey and 

operation and maintenance of the streamflow-gaging stations. 

Mike Gardner, Diane Dalton, and Eric Maki (ABDI-LCD, 

Ashland, Wis.) assisted in evaluating sites with previous 

erosion-control techniques. Watershed delineation and GIS 

work was done with assistance from James Kennedy (USGS, 

Middleton, Wis.), Cheryl Buchwald (USGS, Middleton, Wis.), 

and Rebecca Woll (USGS, Middleton, Wis.).

For historical insights into channel changes, logging and 

farming practices, and site access we are thankful to Bonnie 

Davis, Sylvester Franchek, Thomas Galligan, James Held, 

Stewart Isaksson, Florence Koleski, and Dale Paulson. We 

also thank Gerald Bauman for doing the helicopter video surveys and Terry Kohler (Windway Capital Corp.) for donating 

Mr. Bauman’s time and helicopter use.

Martin Melchior and Brian Graber provided technical assistance and insights into geomorphic characteristics 

and processes, sources of sediment, and fish passage. The 

manuscript was improved on the basis of technical reviews 

provided by John Moody (USGS, Denver, Colo.), Paul 

Juckem (USGS, Middleton, Wis.), Ulf Gafvert (National 

Park Service, Ashland, Wis.), Martin Melchior, and Brian 

Graber. Editorial review was done by Mary Ashman (USGS, 

Northborough, Mass.). 
References Cited 77

References Cited

Alexander, G.R., and Hansen, E.A., 1986, Sand bed load in a 

brook trout [Salvelinus fontinalis] stream: North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 6, no. 1, p. 9–23.

American Society of Civil Engineers, 1949, Hydrology Handbook: American Society of Civil Engineers, Manuals of 

Engineering Practice, No. 28, New York, p. 106.

Andrews, S.C., Christensen, R.G., and Wilson, C.D., 1976, 

Impact of Nonpoint Pollution Control on Western Lake 

Superior: Red Clay Project: Work Plan: Environmental 

Protection Agency 905/9-76-002, 175 p. 

Andrews, S.C., Houtman, D.S., and Lontz, W.J., 1979, Impact 

of Nonpoint Pollution Control on Western Lake Superior: 

Red Clay Project Final Report: Summary: Environmental 

Protection Agency 905/9-79-002, 32 p. 

Benchmark GIS, 2001, Digital Elevation Model: Chapel Hill, 

N.C., scale 1:24,000.

Birkland, P.W., 1984, Soils and geomorphology: Oxford University Press, New York, 372 p.

Bowers, 1900, Artificial propagation of Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, and brook trout: U.S. Commission of Fish and 

Fisheries, p. 62.

Brown, K., 2000, Urban Stream Restoration Practices: An 

Initial Assessment. Final Report: Ellicott City, Md., Center 

for Watershed Protection, 125 p.

Buchanan, T.J., and Somers, W.P., 1984, Discharge measurements at gaging stations: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. A8, 

65 p.

Cannon, W.F., Woodruff, L.G., Nicholson, S.W., and Hedgman, C.A., 1996, Bedrock geologic map of the Ashland and 

the northern part of the Ironwood, 30’ X 60’ quadrangles, 

Wisconsin and Michigan: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2566, scale 1:100,000.

Chang, H.H., 1992, Fluvial processes in river engineering: 

Malabar, Florida, Krieger Publishing Company, 432 p.

Clayton, Lee, 1984, Pleistocene geology of the Superior 

Region, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey Information Circular 46, 40 p.

Eichenlaub, V.L., 1979, Weather and climate of the Great 

Lakes region: Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 

335 p.

Engman, E.T., 1986, Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff: Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 

v. 112, no. 1, p. 39–53.

Extension Service of College of Agriculture, University of 

Wisconsin-Madison, 1942, Drain level lands: Stencil Circular 230, September 1942, Madison, Wis., 9 p.

Fischenich, C., 2001, Stability thresholds for stream restoration materials: EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC 

TN-EMRRP-SR-29), Vicksburg, MS, U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center, 10 p.

Fitzpatrick, F.A., 1998, Geomorphic and hydrologic responses 

to vegetation, climate, and base level changes, North Fish 

Creek, Wisconsin: Madison, Wis., University of WisconsinMadison, Ph.D. dissertation, 275 p.

Fitzpatrick, F.A., and Knox, J.C., 2001, Spatial and temporal 

sensitivity of hydrogeomorphic response and recovery to 

deforestation, agriculture, and floods: Physical Geography, 

v. 21, no. 2, p. 89–108.

Fitzpatrick, F. A., Knox, J. C., and Whitman, H. E., 1999, 

Effects of historical land-cover changes on flooding and 

sedimentation, North Fish Creek, Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99–4083, 

12 p.

Gardner, M., and Johnson, P.W., circa 1997, Whittlesey Creek 

Watershed Project, Bayfield County, Wis.: Streambank 

Stabilization & Restoration Demonstration Project Report, 

Ashland Land and Conservation Office unpublished report, 

Ashland, Wis., 27 p.

Goebel, J.E., Mickelson, D.M., Farrand, W.R., Clayton, L., 

Knox, J.C., Cahow, A., Hobbs, H.C., and Walton, M.S., Jr., 

1983, Quaternary geologic map of the Minneapolis 4 x 6 

quadrangle, United States: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map 1-1420(NL-15), scale 

1:1,000,000.

Greene, C.W., 1935, The distribution of Wisconsin fishes: 

Wisconsin Conservation Committee, 235 p.

Hack, J.T., 1960, Interpretation of erosional topography in 

humid temperate regions: American Journal of Science, v. 5, 

p. 258-A, p. 80–97.

Hack, J.T., 1965, Postglacial drainage evolution and stream 

geometry in the Ontonagon area, Michigan: U.S. Geological 

Survey Professional Paper 504–B, 40 p.

Haitjema, H.M., 1995, Analytic element modeling of groundwater flow: Academic Press, San Diego, 394 p.

Highway Research Board, 1970, Scour at Bridge Waterways: 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Highway Practice, Washington D.C., Report No. 5, 

37 p.
78 Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin

Hole, F.D., Beatty, M.T., Milfred, C.J., Lee, G.B., Klingelhoets, A.J., Sale, R.D., and Liu, J.T., 1968, Overlay soil 

map of Wisconsin: Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin, 

Geological and Natural History Survey, Madison, Wis., 

scale 1:250,000.

Huff, F. A. and Angel, J.R., 1992, Rainfall Frequency Atlas 

of the Midwest, Bulletin 71, Midwestern Climate Center 

Research Report 92-03, 140 p.

Hunt, R.J., Anderson, M.P., and Kelson, V.A., 1998, Improving a complex finite-difference ground water flow model 

through the use of an analytic element screening model: 

Ground Water, v. 36, no. 6, p. 1011–1017.

Hunt, R.J., Haitjema, H.M., Krohelski, J.T., and Feinstein, 

D.T., 2003, Simulating groundwater-lake interactions: 

approaches and insights: Groundwater, v. 41, no. 2, 

p. 227–237.

Hunt, R.J., and Krohelski, J.T., 1996, The application of an 

analytic element model to investigate groundwater lake 

interactions at Pretty Lake, Wisconsin: Journal of Lake and 

Reservoir Management, v. 12, no. 4, p. 487–495.

Hunt, R.J., Lin, Y., Krohelski, J.T., and Juckem, P.F., 2000, 

Simulation of the shallow hydrologic system in the vicinity 

of Middle Genesee Lake, Wisconsin, using analytic elements and parameter estimation: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water Resources Investigations Report 00–4136, 16 p.

Inter-Fluve, Inc. and Graber, B., 2003, Bayfield Peninsula 

stream assessment, final report: fluvial geomorphology, 

hydrology, and management recommendations: Lake Mills, 

Wisconsin, Inter-Fluve, Inc., variable pagination.

Knighton, D., 1998, Fluvial forms and processes: New York, 

Oxford University Press, Inc., 383 p.

Leach, Glen, C., 1923, Artificial propagation of brook trout 

and rainbow trout, with notes on three other species: Appendix IV to the report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries 

for 1923, Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 955, 74 p.

Lenz, B.N., Saad, D.A., and Fitzpatrick, F.A., 2003, Simulation of ground-water flow and rainfall runoff with emphasis 

on the effects of land cover, Whittlesey Creek, Bayfield 

County, Wisconsin, 1999–2001: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4130, 47 p.

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P., 1964, Fluvial 

processes in geomorphology: San Francisco, W.H. Freeman 

and Company, 522 p.

Milfred, C.J., Olson, G.W., and Hole, F.D., 1967, Soil 

resources and forest ecology of Menominee County, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, Geological and Natural 

History Survey, Soil Survey Division, Bulletin 85, Soil 

Series No. 60: Madison, Wis., 203 p. and 3 plates.

Montgomery, D.R., and Buffington, J.M., 1997, Channel-reach 

morphology in mountain drainage basins: Bulletin of the 

Geological Society of America, v. 109, no. 5, p. 596–611.

Morey, G.B., and Ojakangas, R.W., 1982, Keeweenawan 

sedimentary rocks of eastern Minnesota and northwestern 

Wisconsin, in Wold, R.J., and Hinze, W.J., eds., Geology 

and tectonics of the Lake Superior basin: Geological Society of America Memoir 156, p. 135–146.

Mudrey, M.G., Brown, B.A., and Greenberg, J.K., 1982, Bedrock geologic map of Wisconsin: Wisconsin Geological and 

Natural History Survey, scale 1:1,000,000.

Munsell Color, 1975, Munsell soil color charts, Baltimore, 

Munsell color Division of Kollmorgen Corp., variable 

pagination.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006, Soil Survey of 

Bayfield County, Wisconsin.

Newman, L.E., DuBois, R.B., and Halpern, T. (editors), 1999, 

A brook trout rehabilitation plan for Lake Superior: Ann 

Arbor, Mich., Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, 25 p. 

Poeter, E.P., and Hill, M.C., 1998, Documentation of UCODE, 

a computer code for universal inverse modeling: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

98–4080, 116 p.

Pratt, D., 2000, Lake Superior Basin brook trout management 

plan—2000; Superior, Wis., Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (October 2000 Draft), 20 p.

Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1957, Whittlesey watershed: a report: Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation Board, 

32 p. 

Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1960, Whittlesey watershed: a progress report: Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation 

Board, 20 p.

Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1964, Second progress 

report: Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation Board, 40 p. 

Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1967, Erosion and sedimentation control on the red clay soils of northwestern Wisconsin: Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation Board, 23 p.

Red Clay Inter-Agency Committee, 1971, Preliminary report: 

erosion and sedimentation control, Lake Superior Basin, 

Wisconsin: Madison. Wis., Soil Conservation Board, variable pagination. 

Red Clay Inter-agency Committee, 1972, Erosion and sedimentation in the Lake Superior Basin: Madison, Wis., 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 81 p.

Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1977, 1976 Evaluation of 

RCIC works project: Madison, Wis., Soil Conservation 

Board, 56 p. 
References Cited 79

Reese, H.M., Lillesand, T., Nagel, D.E., Stewart, J.S., Goldmann, R.A., Simmons, T.E., Chipman, J.W., and Tessar, 

P.A., 2002, Statewide land cover derived from multiseasonal Landstat TM data—A retrospective of the WISCLAND project: Remote Sensing of Environment, v. 82, p. 

224-237.

Retallick, G., 1985, Laboratory exercises in paleopedology: 

Course Handout, University of Oregon, Eugene, 74 p.

Rose, W.J., and Graczyk, D.J., 1996, Sediment transport, particle size, and loads in North Fish Creek in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, Water Years 1990-91: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 95–4222, 18 p.

Rosgen, D., 1996, Applied River Morphology, Pagosa Springs, 

Colorado, Wildland Hydrology, variable pagination.

Schumm, S.A., 1977, The Fluvial System: New York, John 

Wiley and Sons, Inc., 338 p.

Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander, R.B., 1995, State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base for the conterminous United 

States (ed. 1.1): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

95–449, geo-dataset on CD-ROM, scale 1:250,000.

Shelton, L.R., and Capel, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for collecting 

and processing samples of stream bed sediment for analysis 

of trace elements and organic contaminants for the National 

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–458, 20 p.

Shields, A., 1936, Anwendung der Aelichkeitsmechanik und 

der Turbulenzforschung auf die Geschiebebewegung: Mitteilungen der Preussischen Versuchsanstalt fuEr Wasserbau 

und Schiffbau, Berlin, Germany, translated to English by 

W.P. Ott and J.C. van Uchelen, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.

Silver, Mary, and Lichtenheld, Andy, 2003, Oral history 

interview with Helen and Jerry Jack on March 28, 2003: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished document, 

Ashland, Wis. 

Soil Conservation Service, 1972, National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, Washington D.C., variously paginated.

 Soller, D.R., and Packard, P.H., 1998, Digital representation 

of a map showing the thickness and character of Quaternary 

sediments in the glaciated United States east of the Rocky 

Mountains: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 

DDS-38, one CD-ROM.

Strack, O.D.L., 1989, Groundwater mechanics: Englewood 

Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 732 p.

Thorne, C.R., 1998, Stream reconnaissance handbook: Chichester, West Sussex, John Wiley and Sons, 133 p.

Thwaites, F.T., 1911, Geological map of part of west end of 

Lake Superior: Wisconsin Geological and Natural History 

Survey, scale 1:190,080.

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 1998, HEC-1 Flood hydrograph 

package-User’s manual: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Hydrologic Engineering Center, Version 4.1, April 1991, 

433 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, (in press), Soil survey for Bayfield County, 

GIS-based map, scale 1:12,000.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1983, National Engineering Handbook, Section 3, Sedimentation: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation 

Service 210-VI-NEH-03, variable pagination.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

1986, Urban hydrology for small watersheds: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Technical 

Release 55, variable pagination.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 

Soil Survey Staff, 1951, Soil survey manual, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Handbook No. 18, Washington, D.C., 503 p.

Young, H.L., and Skinner, E.L., 1974, Water resources of 

Wisconsin-Lake Superior Basin: U.S. Geological Survey 

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-524, 3 sheets.

Vanoni, V.A., (ed.) 1975, Sedimentation engineering: New 

York, American Society of Civil Engineers, 745 p.

Verry, E.S., 1987, The effect of aspen harvest and growth on 

water yield in Minnesota: Forest Hydrology and Watershed 

Management, Proceedings of the Vancouver Symposium, 

August 1987, p. 553-562.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2005, Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin 

Brook Trout Plan: Ashland, Wis., Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, May 2005, 47 p.

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 1928, Land economic 

survey: Bayfield County, Wis., scale 1:63,360.

Wolman, M.G., 1954, A method of sampling coarse river-bed 

material: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 

v. 35, no. 6, p. 951–956.
Publishing support provided by the U.S. Geological Survey Science 

Publishing Network, Columbus and Rolla Publishing Service Centers

For more information concerning the research in this report, contact: 

Director, Wisconsin Water Science Center 

U.S. Geological Survey 

8505 Research Way 

Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 

http://wi.water.usgs.gov/

Fitzpatrick and others—Geomorphic, Flood, and Groundwater-Flow Characteristics of Bayfield Peninsula Streams, Wisconsin—SIR 2014–5007

ISSN 2328-0328 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145007