Whittlesey Creek

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive

Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 3 (Midwest Region)

Division of Conservation Planning; 

Bloomington, MN 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover Photograph: Fog above Whittlesey Creek; Tom Kerr, USFWS

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is working with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the 

continuing benefit of the American people.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a 

national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management and, 

where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.

Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for 

management decisions; set forth goals, objectives and strategies needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes; and, identify the Fish and Wildlife Service's best 

estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are 

sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are 

primarily for Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. 

The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational 

and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.

(This page intentionally left blank)
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

i

Whittlesey Creek

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Table of Contents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................. v

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. v

Refuge Goals.......................................................................................................................................... v

Issues Addressed ................................................................................................................................... v

Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................................ vi

Management Objectives........................................................................................................................ vi

Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background............................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan .............................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes ............................................................................................... 3

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals.................................................................................................................. 5

Refuge Vision................................................................................................................................... 5

Refuge Goals ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework ............................................................................................................ 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................................................................................... 5

National Wildlife Refuge System...................................................................................................... 6

Wilderness Review........................................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 8

Brook Trout Restoration................................................................................................................... 8

Migratory Bird Programs .................................................................................................................. 8

Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan......................................................................................................... 9

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ..........................................................................................10

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives .........................................................................................10

FWS Climate Change Strategic Plan.............................................................................................11

Chapter 2: The Planning Process ..........................................................................................13

2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................13

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement ....................................................................................................13

2.3 Summary of Issues.........................................................................................................................14

Wildlife............................................................................................................................................14

Habitat............................................................................................................................................15

People ............................................................................................................................................16

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP ............................................................17

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP...............................................................................................18

General...........................................................................................................................................18

Wildlife and Habitat ........................................................................................................................18

People ............................................................................................................................................19

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management...............................................................20

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting ......................................................................................................20

Laurentian Mixed Forest ................................................................................................................20

Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes.................................................................................................20

Other Conservation Lands .............................................................................................................21
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ii

3.2 Physical Environment .....................................................................................................................23

Geology..........................................................................................................................................23

Topography ....................................................................................................................................24

Soils................................................................................................................................................24

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................................24

Climate ...........................................................................................................................................30

3.3 Biological Environment ...................................................................................................................34

Resources of Concern ...................................................................................................................34

Land Cover.....................................................................................................................................36

Fish and Wildlife Communities.......................................................................................................40

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment..........................................................................................................46

Demographics ................................................................................................................................46

Income, Employment, and Local Economy....................................................................................47

Agriculture ......................................................................................................................................47

Tourism and Recreation.................................................................................................................47

3.5 Cultural Resources .........................................................................................................................48

Area History ...................................................................................................................................48

Refuge Cultural Resources............................................................................................................50

Cultural Resources Management ..................................................................................................50

3.6 Refuge Programs ...........................................................................................................................51

Biological........................................................................................................................................51

Visitor Services ..............................................................................................................................64

Administration ................................................................................................................................68

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction .............................................................................71

4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................71

4.2 Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales ..........................................................................................71

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation.............................................................................................88

5.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................88

5.2 Funding and Staffing ......................................................................................................................88

5.3 Priorities..........................................................................................................................................88

5.4 Partnership Opportunities...............................................................................................................89

5.5 Plan Review and Revision..............................................................................................................90

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment .............................................................................91

A.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action ........................................................................................92

A.1.1 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................92

A.1.2 Scoping of the Issues ...........................................................................................................92

A.1.3 Whittlesey Creek NWR Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities .............................................92

A.1.4 Decision Framework.............................................................................................................94

A.2 Description of Alternatives .............................................................................................................95

A.2.1 Formulation of Alternatives...................................................................................................95

A.2.2 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis ...........................................95

A.2.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................................97

A.2.4 Description of Alternatives....................................................................................................97

A.3 Affected Environment...................................................................................................................105

A.4 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................................105

A.4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives ....................................................................................105

A.4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative .....................................................................................106

Appendix B: Species Lists ...................................................................................................114

Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV ....................126

Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance.............................................................................136

Appendix E: Literature Cited................................................................................................146

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations....................................................................150

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations.........................................................................155

Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment....................................................181

Appendix I: List of Preparers ...............................................................................................195
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iii

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: General Location of Whittlesey Creek NWR .............................................................................. 2

Figure 1-2: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge................................................................................. 3

Figure 1-3: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives ...................................................................................11

Figure 3-1: Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes ...........................................................................................20

Figure 3-2: Other Conservation Lands........................................................................................................23

Figure 3-3: Watershed, Streams, Topography............................................................................................26

Figure 3-4: Hydrograph...............................................................................................................................28

Figure 3-5: Groundwater.............................................................................................................................29

Figure 3-6: Refuge Vegetation Map from 2006 Habitat Management Plan................................................37

Figure 3-7: Refuge Land Cover (2013).......................................................................................................38

Figure 3-8: Refuge and Watershed Land Cover (2013) .............................................................................39

Figure 3-9: Historic and Current Range of Self-Sustaining Coaster Brook Trout Populations in the Lake 

Superior Basin.............................................................................................................................................44

Figure 3-10: Genetic brook trout strains in Whittlesey Creek .....................................................................54

Figure 3-11: Habitat Restoration Projects to Date ......................................................................................57

Figure 3-12: Refuge Hunting Areas ............................................................................................................65

Figure 3-13: Visitor Services Facilities........................................................................................................70

Figure 4-1: Desired Future Land Cover ......................................................................................................78

List of Tables

Table 3-1: Whittlesey Creek NWR Priority Resources of Concern.............................................................34

Table 3-2: Timeline of Coaster Brook Trout Decline and Restoration ........................................................42

Table 3-3: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Stocking.....................................................................................52

Table 3-4: Whittlesey Creek Fall Trout Population Estimate by Year.........................................................53

Table 3-5: Whittlesey Creek Comprehensive Brook Trout Surveys ...........................................................54

Table A-1: Comparison of Actions by Alternative .....................................................................................101

Table A-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternative.........................................................................................112
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

iv

(This page intentionally left blank)
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

v

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR, Refuge) describes goals and objectives that will guide Refuge management for the next 

15 years, and will ensure that the Refuge fulfills its established purposes and contributes to the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). 

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1999 to protect, restore, and 

manage coastal wetland, floodplain forest, and spring-fed stream habitat on the south shore of 

Lake Superior near Ashland, WI. The Service currently owns 304 acres in fee title out of 540 

acres authorized along lower Whittlesey Creek and 47 acres of easements out of 1,260 acres 

authorized in the 12,000-acre Whittlesey Creek watershed.

Restoration of native coaster brook trout is a high priority for the Service and its partners. 

Migratory birds and many other fish and wildlife species also benefit from protection and 

restoration of habitat on the Refuge and throughout the watershed. The Service is a partner in 

the multi-agency Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC, Visitor Center, Center), which 

offers many opportunities for the public to become more connected with the natural world. The 

Center also serves as headquarters and contact station for the Refuge. 

Refuge Goals

Wildlife: Protect, restore, and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to naturally 

functioning Refuge habitats, with special emphasis on coaster brook trout and migratory birds.

Habitat: Preserve, restore, and enhance the native habitats of Whittlesey Creek and its 

watershed.

People: Provide a diverse audience with opportunities to experience high quality, wildlifedependent activities and to understand and appreciate a natural functioning landscape.

Issues Addressed

The major Refuge management issues identified during the Whittlesey Creek NWR planning 

process represent input from the public, other agencies and organizations, and Service staff. 

The issues focused the planning effort on the most significant topics and were critical in framing 

the various alternatives considered. More information about the specific issues addressed in this 

CCP is included in chapters 2 and 3. The five primary topics are:

• Restoring a self-sustaining coaster brook trout population in Whittlesey Creek.

• Providing habitat for migratory birds.

• Setting priorities for stream, floodplain, wetland, and watershed restoration.

• Enhancing public opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education, and interpretation on the Refuge.

• Service participation in the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center partnership.
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vi

Alternatives Considered

Four issue-based management alternatives were developed and evaluated. The primary 

differences between the alternatives were related to: (1) habitat restoration priorities, and (2) 

Service involvement in the NGLVC. Under all four alternatives, the Refuge would continue to 

participate in the Whittlesey Creek coaster brook trout restoration program. Alternative B was

selected for implementation. The CCP objectives and strategies were developed based on this 

alternative. More details are included in Appendix A: Environmental Assessment.

Alternative A:

1. Opportunistic restoration

2. Maintain Visitor Center involvement

Alternative B:

1. Refuge and watershed restoration

2. Maintain Visitor Center involvement 

Alternative C:

1. Watershed restoration

2. Expand Visitor Center involvement

Alternative D:

1. Refuge restoration

2. Reduce Visitor Center involvement

Management Objectives

The CCP includes three goals and 15 objectives for meeting those goals. Complete details can 

be found in chapter 4. Key elements are listed below.

• Continue to participate in the interagency coaster brook trout program on the Bayfield 

Peninsula of Lake Superior, with Refuge responsibility for restoration of brook trout 

habitat in Whittlesey Creek.

• Develop and implement new criteria to prioritize and integrate all stream, floodplain, 

wetland, and watershed restoration activities to maximize fish and wildlife benefits. 

Emphasize use of existing sediment, hydrology, and climate models. Work with partners 

to determine priorities.

• Continue to use and improve current methods of logjam and culvert design and 

installation. Review road and bridge infrastructure; work with local governments to repair 

deficiencies.

• Restore forest blocks in conjunction with riparian restoration projects to benefit migratory 

birds. Continue to use and improve current tree planting methods.

• Restore historic seasonal wetland basins in the floodplain.
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

vii

• Work with U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources, Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation 

Department, and others to develop a more comprehensive watershed-based 

partnership. Collectively secure funding to implement high-priority projects. Expand 

partnerships with local governments and landowners. 

• Maintain current Service involvement in the NGLVC. Keep Refuge office on-site. 

Participate in partnership events when consistent with Refuge purposes. Develop 

cooperative agreement to clarify the Service’s role and responsibilities.

• Continue the hunting program. Open the Refuge to fishing in accordance with state

regulations.

• Continue to develop Refuge-specific education and interpretive programs; expand 

themes to include the watershed/trout connection. 

• Add foot trail from NGLVC boardwalk to Coaster Classroom.
Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

viii

(This page intentionally left blank)
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

In this chapter:

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives

1.1 Introduction

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) was established in 1999 to protect, 

restore, and manage coastal wetland and spring-fed stream habitat in Bayfield County near 

Ashland, WI (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The Refuge is part of a large wetland and floodplain complex 

on the south shore of Lake Superior. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) 

currently owns 304 acres in fee title out of 540 acres authorized along lower Whittlesey Creek 

and 47 acres of easements out of 1,260 acres authorized in the 12,000-acre Whittlesey Creek 

watershed. The Refuge is located entirely within the town of Barksdale.

Restoration of coaster brook trout, an adfluvial (lake-run) brook trout native to Lake Superior, is 

a high priority for the Service and its partners. Migratory birds and many other fish and wildlife 

species also benefit from protection and restoration of stream, wetland, and forest habitat on the 

Refuge and throughout the watershed. The mouth of the creek is a favorite spot for waterfowl 

hunters.

Whittlesey Creek NWR is a partner in the multi-agency Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

(NGLVC, Visitor Center, Center), which offers opportunities for the public to become more 

connected with the natural world through environmental education, interpretive programs, 

special events, exhibits, and hands-on exploration. The Center also serves as headquarters and 

contact station for the Refuge. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Plan

The purpose of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is to guide management and 

administration of Whittlesey Creek NWR for the next 15 years and to help ensure that the 

Refuge meets the purposes for which it was established, contributes to the overall mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System), and adheres to Service policies 

and other mandates. The CCP describes the desired future condition of the Refuge and 

provides guidance for management actions and decisions. The CCP addresses significant 

issues, sets goals and measurable objectives, and outlines strategies for reaching those 

objectives. The planning process informs and involves the general public, state and federal 

agencies, and non-governmental organizations who have an interest, responsibility, or authority 

related to the Refuge.

In addition, the landscape continues to undergo changes that affect habitat and wildlife, new 

threats to the Refuge are emerging, new laws and policies have been put in place, and new 

scientific information is available. Therefore, updated management guidance is needed that 

reflects these changes to help achieve Refuge goals for habitat, wildlife, and people.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

2

Figure 1-1: General Location of Whittlesey Creek NWR
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

3

Figure 1-2: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

1.3 Refuge Establishment and Purposes

Whittlesey Creek NWR was officially established on September 30, 1999, when the first tracts of 

land were purchased by the Service. Historically, the landscape had been dominated by forests, 

streams, and wetlands that provided rich habitat for fish, waterfowl, and other wildlife, but the 

system had degraded significantly due to land use changes including logging, agriculture, and 

residential development long before 1999. The coaster brook trout, once abundant in the Lake 

Superior basin, had disappeared entirely from most of its historic range, including Whittlesey 

Creek.

Whittlesey Creek and its watershed had been the focus of conservation activity since at least 

the 1940s when livestock fencing and willow plantings were used to reduce erosion. Concerns 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

4

about flooding, stream changes, and loss of fish habitat were noted again in the 1950s (Red 

Clay Interagency Committee, 1960) and led to some watershed improvements designed to 

reduce erosion, sedimentation, and flood flows. Measures included plantings, farm pond

construction, fencing to protect stream banks from livestock, and redirection of the lower mile of 

Whittlesey Creek, which previously had been straightened and rerouted by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE).

In the late 1980s, a portion of the lower Whittlesey Creek floodplain was proposed for 

development into an 18-hole golf course. Development began with spreading of fill, fairway 

shaping, and construction of four ponds. Eventually the golf course project faltered, but it 

prompted a coalition of environmental and government groups to propose permanent protection 

and restoration of the area as a national wildlife refuge instead. The proposed boundary 

included the last unprotected piece of a large coastal wetland and floodplain complex with 

spring-fed tributary streams at the head of Chequamegon Bay. 

By then, Whittlesey Creek was recognized as having potential for restoration of coaster brook 

trout. In their joint management plan Fish Community Objectives for Lake Superior (Busiahn 

1990), the agencies responsible for managing Lake Superior’s fisheries called for reestablishing depleted stocks of brook trout by “management of habitat for spawning and rearing 

via habitat inventory, protection, and restoration of degraded habitat,” expressly including 

tributary streams.

Whittlesey Creek also had been designated as an Outstanding Resource Water and as a Great 

Lakes Community stream by the state of Wisconsin and was a priority watershed in the state’s 

non-point-source pollution abatement program (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

[WDNR], 1996).

The new Refuge was approved by the Service in January 1998. The authorized boundary 

included fee title purchase of up to 540 acres of coastal wetlands, floodplain, and limited 

uplands along Whittlesey Creek and up to 1,260 acres of conservation easements within the 

watershed. Congress appropriated $650,000 in fiscal year 1999 to begin land acquisition.

Grants and donations provided additional funding. 

An interim CCP, written prior to Refuge establishment, provided an overview of future 

management until a final CCP could be completed. As an interim plan, it did not provide 

extensive detail but answered questions commonly posed by landowners and the public 

regarding Refuge management and possible public uses that could occur. Goals established at 

the time emphasized habitat protection and restoration for migratory fish and bird species, 

reintroduction of coaster brook trout, managing for priority public uses, an ecosystem-based 

approach to management, and partnerships. The plan specifically noted that stream and 

wetland restoration within the Refuge boundary “would ensure permanent protection for critical 

spawning grounds, providing an ideal situation to begin reintroduction of coaster brook trout.” 

These priorities have guided programs on Whittlesey Creek NWR since it was established.

Each unit of the Refuge System has one or more purposes specified in or derived from the legal 

instruments that established, authorized, or expanded it. Our first obligation is to fulfill the 

purposes of each refuge. Chapter 601 FW 1 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual

provides guidance for determining refuge purposes and using them in administration and 

management of the Refuge System. The purposes of Whittlesey Creek NWR derive from the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956:
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

5

". . . for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources . . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) [and] “. . . for the benefit of the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such 

acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or 

condition of servitude. . .” 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).

1.4 Refuge Vision and Goals

The vision is a descriptive picture of how the Refuge will look in the future and provides a sense 

of direction and purpose. From the vision flow broad goal statements, which in turn provide the 

framework to develop more detailed and measurable objectives that are the heart of the CCP. 

The vision and goals are important as reference points for keeping objectives and strategies 

meaningful, focused, and attainable.

Refuge Vision

Restore and enhance Whittlesey Creek and its watershed for the benefit of coaster brook trout 

and other native wildlife and provide wildlife-based education in collaboration with the NGLVC

partners. 

Refuge Goals

Wildlife

Protect, restore, and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to naturally functioning 

Refuge habitats, with special emphasis on coaster brook trout and migratory birds.

Habitat

Preserve, restore, and enhance the native habitats of Whittlesey Creek and its watershed.

People

Provide a diverse audience with opportunities to experience high quality, wildlife-dependent 

activities and to understand and appreciate a natural functioning landscape.

1.5 Legal and Policy Framework

The Refuge is managed as part of the Refuge System within a framework of organizational 

setting, law, and policy. Key aspects of the framework are summarized below. A listing of other 

laws and executive orders that have guided preparation of the CCP and that guide future 

implementation is found in Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Whittlesey Creek NWR is administered by the FWS, the primary federal agency responsible for 

conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their 

habitats. The Service shares this responsibility with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private 

entities, but also has specific responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

6

species, certain interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and the Refuge System. The 

mission of the Service is: 

“Working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

National Wildlife Refuge System

The Refuge System had its beginning in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt designated 

a three-acre island off the Florida coast, Pelican Island, as a sanctuary for colonial nesting birds. 

Today, the Refuge System has grown to a network of more than 560 refuges and 38 wetland 

management districts across the country, with at least one in every U.S. state and territory.

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. The administration, management, and growth of the Refuge System 

are guided by the following goals: 

• Conserve a diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, including species that 

are endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;

• Develop and maintain a network of habitats for migratory birds, anadromous and 

interjurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations that is strategically distributed 

and carefully managed to meet important life history needs of these species across their 

ranges;

• Conserve those ecosystems, plant communities, wetlands of national or international 

significance, and landscapes and seascapes that are unique, rare, declining, or 

underrepresented in existing protection efforts;

• Provide and enhance opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation); and

• Foster understanding and instill appreciation of the diversity and interconnectedness of 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats.

National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and Related Policy

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and became a true organic act for 

the Refuge System by providing a mission, policy direction, and management standards. The 

Improvement Act’s main components include:

• A strong and singular wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System;

• A requirement that the Secretary of the Interior maintain the biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health of the Refuge System;

• A new process for determining compatible uses on refuges;
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

7

• A recognition that wildlife-dependent public uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation, when 

determined to be compatible, are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the Refuge 

System;

• That these compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general public 

uses of the Refuge System; and

• A requirement to prepare a CCP for each refuge.

Compatibility Policy

No use that the Service has authority to regulate may be allowed on a unit of the Refuge 

System unless it is determined to be compatible (FWS, 2000a). A compatible use is a use that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the Refuge Manager, will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge. 

Managers must complete a written compatibility determination for each use, or collection of likeuses, that is signed by the manager and the Regional Chief of Refuges in the respective Service 

region.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy

The Improvement Act directs the Service to “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” The biological integrity policy (FWS, 2001) helps define and clarify 

this directive by providing guidance on what conditions constitute biological integrity, diversity, 

and environmental health; guidelines for maintaining existing levels, guidelines for determining 

how and when it is appropriate to restore lost elements, and guidelines in dealing with external 

threats to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy

The Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Congress 

directed the Service to grant these six public uses special consideration in the planning, 

management, establishment, and expansion of refuges. In addition, if determined compatible on 

a refuge, these six uses assume priority status over any other uses proposed or occurring on a 

refuge. The Service is to facilitate priority wildlife-dependent public use opportunities when they 

do not interfere with the ability to fulfill refuge purposes or the mission of the Refuge System.

The wildlife-dependent recreation policy (FWS, 2006a) provides additional guidance for 

management of these uses on national wildlife refuges.

Wilderness Review

Refuge planning policy mandates that wilderness reviews be conducted through the 

comprehensive conservation planning process (FWS, 2000b). The criteria for wilderness 

designation are size, naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation, and 

supplemental values. No lands within Whittlesey Creek NWR meet the criteria for wilderness 

established by Congress and described in Service policy (FWS, 2008a). Whittlesey Creek NWR 

does not contain 5,000 contiguous acres of roadless natural lands, nor does the Refuge 

possess any units of sufficient size to make their preservation practicable as wilderness. Refuge 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

8

lands and waters have been substantially altered by humans, especially by logging, agriculture, 

residential development, and transportation networks.

1.6 Other Conservation Initiatives

The Service works closely with other government agencies and conservation organizations to 

develop and implement regional, national, and international conservation plans and initiatives. 

Several of these efforts relevant to Whittlesey Creek NWR are described below; their 

recommendations and priorities were reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this CCP.

Brook Trout Restoration

A Brook Trout Rehabilitation Plan for Lake Superior

The Great Lakes Fisheries Commission was established in 1955 by the Convention on Great 

Lakes Fisheries between Canada and the United States. The Commission has two major 

responsibilities: (1) to coordinate Great Lakes fisheries research and recommend measures that 

will sustain the productivity of fish species of concern, and (2) to formulate and implement a 

program to control sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes. 

A brook trout sub-committee of the Lake Superior Technical Committee developed this plan 

(Newman et al., 2003) to provide guidance for brook trout rehabilitation initiatives around Lake 

Superior. The goal is to maintain widely distributed, self-sustaining populations throughout their 

original range. The plan outlines actions needed to reach that goal under three categories: 

restore tributary habitat, regulate harvest, and introduce genetically appropriate strains through 

stocking.

Wisconsin Lake Superior Brook Trout Plan

The completion of the 2003 lake-wide brook trout plan resulted in the development of a similar 

plan in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior specific to its tributaries and near-shore waters

(WDNR and FWS, 2005). The goal of this plan is to “protect and improve self-sustaining brook 

trout populations and their habitat in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior basin and attempt to establish 

several populations that exhibit life history diversity (both stream resident and migratory 

‘coaster’ life history types).”

The Wisconsin plan, developed jointly by the WDNR and the Service, emphasizes the 

importance of understanding brook trout resource requirements and the impact of human 

activities, and seeks to address errors in past actions that may have involved responding to 

symptoms of resource loss while failing to address the root problems brook trout face. The plan 

states that success will depend on a long-term commitment to watershed management and 

tributary habitat-forming processes, as well as partnerships between management agencies and 

citizens. Strategies are described for stream habitat and watershed health, harvest, 

rehabilitation stocking, genetics management, life history and management, interaction with 

non-native species, and outreach.

Migratory Bird Programs

Several partnership-based bird conservation initiatives have produced continental, national, 

and/or regional plans that help guide management decisions for refuges. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

9

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) began in 1986. The 2004 plan 

update states that its purpose is to “sustain abundant waterfowl populations by conserving 

landscapes, through partnerships, that are guided by sound science.” The NAWMP is 

international in scope but is implemented through regional partnerships called "Joint Ventures." 

Whittlesey Creek lies within the Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture. 

Partners in Flight began in 1990 in response to growing concerns about declining populations of 

many landbird species. Its regional plans are based on a system of Bird Conservation Regions 

(BCRs). Whittlesey Creek NWR lies within the U.S. portion of BCR 12, the boreal hardwood 

transition zone, which extends across portions of northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. 

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a continental effort to integrate all 

migratory bird conservation programs under one umbrella. NABCI has defined BCRs as its 

planning units. The U.S. NABCI Committee promotes conservation delivery via existing and new 

Joint Ventures nationwide, thus eliminating redundant partnership structures and separate 

biological planning processes. The Service is a member of the U.S. NABCI Committee.

Many bird conservation initiatives have a process for determining priority species using 

assessment scores based on factors such as population trends, threats, distribution, 

abundance, and relative density. The Service and other agencies often use these scores in 

developing their own lists of priority bird species. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (FWS, 

2008b) identifies migratory nongame bird species (beyond those already designated as 

federally threatened or endangered) that represent the highest conservation priorities of the 

Service. The list includes three distinct geographic scales—Bird Conservation Regions, FWS 

Regions, and National—and uses assessment scores from the North American Landbird 

Conservation Plan, the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan. 

Wisconsin Wildlife Action Plan

Congress created the State Wildlife Grants Program in 2001 to address the unmet needs of 

wildlife species in greatest conservation need and required that each state develop a 

comprehensive wildlife conservation plan to remain eligible for federal funds through the 

program. These plans address the needs of a wide array of wildlife but focus primarily on 

Species in Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) and their habitats. SGCN are defined as 

animals whose populations are rare, declining, or vulnerable to decline and are below levels 

desirable to ensure their long-term health and stability. Wisconsin’s Wildlife Action Plan (WDNR, 

2005) provides a conservation roadmap that lists 149 vertebrate and 530 invertebrate SGCN 

and includes a menu of over 1,700 conservation actions to help secure the future of wildlife in 

the state. 

The implementation strategy (WDNR, 2008) identifies the most critical conservation actions and 

locations to meet the state’s long-term goal of conserving SGCN. Whittlesey Creek NWR is part 

of Fish Creek Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) within the Superior Coastal Plain 

Ecological Landscape. The Fish Creek COA is considered a high quality wetland community of 

state significance. The implementation strategy for the Superior Coastal Plain lists 19 high 

priority SGCN and 12 priority conservation actions for the Superior Coastal Plain including:

• Protect and restore harbor and river mouth shoreline and wetland habitats.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

10

• Preserve and maintain large expanses of sedge meadow, coastal fen, and forested 

wetlands along the coast and manage in the context of a mosaic of community types.

• Manage forested wetlands and fens as part of a vegetation mosaic that includes other 

open wetland communities, shrub swamp, and swamp conifer forest.

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

The Service established the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (PFW, Partners Program) in 

1987 to work beyond the boundaries of refuges with landowners and other partners to improve 

habitat on private lands for fish and wildlife. The program is voluntary, relies heavily on a 

partnership approach, and leverages both ideas and funding from a variety of sources. Cost 

sharing agreements and technical assistance are important components. Service biologists 

work one-on-one with landowners to plan, implement, and monitor their projects.

The overall goal of Partners Program projects is to return a site to the ecological condition that 

likely existed prior to loss or degradation. Priority ranking is given to proposed projects that meet 

these conditions:

• Improve habitat for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, interjurisdictional fish, marine mammals, and other declining species. 

• Complement activities on Refuge System lands, or contribute to the resolution of 

problems on refuges that are caused by off-refuge practices. 

• Address species and habitat priorities that have been identified through Service planning 

teams (with our partners), or in collaboration with state fish and wildlife agencies. 

• Reduce habitat fragmentation or serve as buffers for federal or state conservation lands. 

• Result in self-sustaining systems that are not dependent on artificial structures. 

Whittlesey Creek NWR is located within the Superior Coastal Plain focus area of the Wisconsin 

PFW program. Priority species for the focus area are mallard, wood duck, Canada goose, bluewinged teal, black duck, American bittern, and coaster brook trout. Five-year targets include 

restoration and enhancement of 150 acres of wetland and 100 acres of upland, as well as 

removal of two fish barriers. 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

Secretarial Order 3289, signed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in 2009, directed Department 

of Interior bureaus, including the Service, to stimulate the development of a network of 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to address landscape-scale stressors such as 

habitat fragmentation, genetic isolation, spread of invasive species, and water scarcity, all of 

which are magnified by accelerating climate change. LCC partnerships include states, tribes, 

federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, universities, and others. They recognize that 

conservation challenges transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries and require a more 

networked approach to ensure the sustainability of North America’s land, water, wildlife, and 

cultural resources.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

11

LCCs are intended to provide a strong link between science and conservation delivery and to 

connect site-specific protection, restoration, and management to larger goals supporting fish 

and wildlife populations and the natural systems that sustain them. By functioning as a network 

of interdependent units, LCC partnerships can accomplish a conservation mission no single 

agency can accomplish alone. Each LCC operates within a specific landscape. Whittlesey 

Creek NWR lies within the boundary of the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes LCC (Figure 1-3).

Figure 1-3: Landscape Conservation Cooperatives

FWS Climate Change Strategic Plan

The Service’s strategic plan for responding to climate change (FWS, 2010) establishes a basic 

framework for efforts to ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, and habitats and includes three 

key elements: 

Adaptation: Minimizing the impact of climate change on fish and wildlife through the 

application of cutting-edge science in managing species and habitats. 

Mitigation: Reducing levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Engagement: Joining forces with others to seek solutions to the challenges and threats 

to fish and wildlife conservation posed by climate change. 
Chapter 1: Introduction and Planning Background

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

12

The plan recognizes the role of healthy ecosystems in helping fish and wildlife populations 

adapt to a changing climate. It also allows resource managers to be responsive as science, 

technology, and experience evolve over time:

“We will increase our adaptation efforts significantly in the near term as we respond to 

increasing climate change impacts. Our initial emphasis will be on reactive adaptation, 

as we work to build resilience in ecosystems through our management efforts and, in 

some cases, to buy additional time to increase our certainty regarding future landscape 

conditions . . . Over the long-term, however, we will work with partners to assemble the 

technical and institutional capability to increase anticipatory adaptation efforts, 

particularly as the impacts of climate change become more certain.”
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

13

Chapter 2: The Planning Process

In this chapter:

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement

2.3 Summary of Issues

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP 

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP

2.1 Introduction

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process for Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR, Refuge) meets the dual requirements of compliance with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Both require that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) actively seek public 

involvement in the preparation of environmental documents. NEPA also requires that the 

Service seriously consider all reasonable alternatives to its Preferred Alternative, including the 

“No Action” alternative, which represents continuation of current conditions and management 

practices. 

Key steps in the CCP process include:

• Form the planning team and conduct pre-planning;

• Initiate scoping and public involvement;

• Identify issues and develop vision and goal statements;

• Develop alternatives and assess their environmental effects;

• Identify the preferred alternative;

• Publish the draft CCP and NEPA document for public comment;

• Revise and publish the final plan; and

• Implement the CCP.

2.2 Scoping and Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP and Environmental Assessment (EA) for Whittlesey 

Creek NWR was published in the Federal Register dated January 17, 2013 (Vol. 78, No.12, 

page 3909–3910). 

Internal scoping began in January 2013 when Service planning staff and staff from Whittlesey 

Creek NWR, St. Croix Wetland Management District, and Ashland Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office developed a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and opportunities 

associated with management of the Refuge. A second internal scoping session was held with 

the Service’s Midwest Regional Office staff in Bloomington, MN in May 2013 to get input on 

issues from regional supervisors, biologists, planners, and other program specialists.
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

14

Public scoping began in April 2013 when Refuge staff hosted an open house event at the 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC, Visitor Center, Center) in Ashland, WI, to inform 

the public of the planning process and to solicit their input on issues of concern. About 20 

people attended. In addition, a news release was distributed to area media, informational 

posters were displayed in the local community, and a notice inviting public participation was

sent to more than 600 names on the Refuge mailing list. Written comments were received from 

11 stakeholders. The Refuge Manager also met with numerous partners to explain the 

importance of the CCP process and to encourage active participation. An invitation for 

participation and comments was also extended to partnership agency staff at the NGLVC as 

well as the Friends of the Center Alliance.

2.3 Summary of Issues

The following paragraphs summarize the significant issues that were identified and analyzed as 

part of the CCP process. They represent input from the public, other agencies and 

organizations, and Service staff. These issues focused the planning effort on the most important 

topics. They were critical in framing the objectives for the various alternatives considered and 

formed the basis for evaluating environmental effects. Detailed information about these issues is 

included in chapter 3.

Wildlife

Coaster Brook Trout

The coaster brook trout was common prior to European settlement, but numbers soon 

plummeted due to overharvest and habitat degradation. Conservation partners have been 

collaborating since the 1990s on projects to reestablish coaster brook trout in the Lake Superior 

basin. 

The Whittlesey Creek project, begun in 2003, is a partnership between the Service and the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Notable progress has been made on all four highpriority actions: improve habitat, establish protective harvest regulations, stock coaster brook 

trout, and assess and monitor. The goal of the experimental protocol is to reestablish a selfsustaining population of migratory brook trout in Whittlesey Creek within 30 years. The role of 

the Refuge is to restore suitable habitat in the creek.

Brook trout numbers have increased since the experiment began and movement into and out of 

Whittlesey Creek has been documented, although a breeding population has not yet been 

verified. Habitat restoration is incomplete and the effects of competition from non-native 

salmonids are not well understood. Because these fish are migratory, conditions outside the 

local watershed could affect the likelihood of successful coaster reestablishment within 

Whittlesey Creek. Climate change is a serious threat to brook trout in most of the Lake Superior 

basin, but Whittlesey Creek habitat is expected to remain highly suitable.

Migratory Birds

Restoration of forests and wetlands on the Refuge improves habitat for many migratory bird 

species, including songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, and shorebirds. Improved water quality in 

Whittlesey Creek benefits birds using downstream habitat at the creek mouth and in 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

15

Chequamegon Bay. The Refuge is included within the boundary of the Lower Chequamegon 

Bay Important Bird Area.

Some additional improvements in habitat quality are possible (e.g., forest stand management), 

but may not be cost effective. Additional bird population benefits would be minimal because the 

Refuge is small and not located along a major flyway. Bird-specific management actions have 

not been a high priority to date. Surveys and monitoring have been sporadic due to limited 

resources and not always closely tied to habitat restoration activities.

Habitat

Habitat protection and restoration is underway in the creek, on Refuge wetlands and floodplains, 

and within the watershed, although much work remains. The habitat management plan for 

Whittlesey Creek NWR (FWS, 2006c) provides comprehensive guidance for habitat restoration 

and management on Refuge lands and conservation actions within the watershed but does not 

set priorities. Management actions should be focused on the highest priority projects to make 

the best use of limited resources and to maximize the fish and wildlife benefits of the Refuge.

Stream

Habitat activities in recent years have centered on in-stream habitat and fish passage. Large 

woody debris has been restored to parts of Whittlesey Creek, reducing bank erosion, providing 

cover for fish and invertebrates, and exposing beneficial gravel substrate. About 12 miles of instream habitat restoration is still needed, and none has occurred yet on either Little Whittlesey 

or Terwilliger Creeks. Fourteen new culverts have reduced erosion and sedimentation and 

improved fish access to approximately five miles of Whittlesey, the North Fork, Little Whittlesey, 

and Terwilliger Creeks. Additional culverts still need replacement. Five recently installed rock 

crossings and four runoff detention basins reduce erosion and sedimentation from watershed 

agricultural lands. Bridges that cross Whittlesey Creek are too narrow for the width of the stream

(thus increasing velocity, erosion, and sedimentation) and should be replaced. One on a Town 

Road in the Refuge is scheduled for replacement during 2015. The lower mile of Whittlesey, 

Little Whittlesey, and Terwilliger Creeks were dredged and straightened in the 1940s and 

1950s; the quality of wetland and aquatic habitat on the Refuge would improve if historic 

floodplain hydrology were restored.

Floodplain and Coastal Wetland

Roughly 62 acres of native conifers and shrubs have been planted in degraded riparian zones, 

floodplain hayfields and on the limited upland areas on the Refuge; about 180 acres still need to 

be planted. 

Ditches have been plugged in some floodplain wetlands, but additional hydrologic restoration is 

needed. Sedge meadows would benefit from management with prescribed fire. Non-native 

invasive plants found on the Refuge include reed canarygrass, buckthorn, and common tansy. 

Early detection and treatment are critical to controlling invasives, but inventory and control 

efforts are limited by lack of resources. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

16

Watershed

The Whittlesey Creek watershed has good quality surface and groundwater; the primary 

concern is sediment that degrades fish and wildlife habitat. Bank erosion is the main source of 

sediment, so consideration of the ongoing impacts of ground-disturbing activities (logging, 

farming, grazing, ditch and road construction, and stream channelization) and flash flood 

characteristics of the watershed on stream bank stability remains important. Protecting 

groundwater, slowing runoff, facilitating surface water infiltration, and controlling erosion in the 

upstream watershed are crucial to successful restoration of downstream fish and wildlife habitat 

on the Refuge. 

Continued success depends upon strong partnerships. The Refuge is collaborating with 

landowners in the watershed to acquire conservation easements and implement conservation 

practices on private land. Defining the highest priority locations for such activities could help 

make the most effective use of limited funding. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is an active 

conservation partner in the area, and Whittlesey Creek watershed lies partly within the 

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Additional opportunities may exist to share resources 

and expertise with the USFS to achieve mutual objectives for protection and restoration of the 

watershed. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department, Town of Barksdale, and numerous 

other partners are also committed to watershed protection, enhancement and restoration efforts.

Climate Change

Climate models show projected temperature increases of 5 to 11 °F in Wisconsin by the mid21st century. Precipitation is likely to increase in winter, spring, and fall, but expected changes in 

summer precipitation are unclear. A fisheries model developed by Lyons et al. (2010) indicates 

that the effects of a warming climate are expected to eliminate brook trout habitat in many 

Wisconsin streams by mid-century, but Whittlesey Creek is expected to remain highly suitable. 

Boreal and lowland forests will be subject to increased stress and may be lost altogether in 

northern Wisconsin. Hardwood trees are predicted to expand their range in the state.

Climate change will interact with other stressors―including habitat loss and fragmentation, 

invasive species, and pollution―amplifying the challenges they pose to natural habitats and 

biodiversity. Through proper stewardship, protected habitats such as the Refuge can be 

maintained to promote the highest levels of natural resilience to change.

People

Hunting and Fishing

The Refuge offers opportunities for archery deer hunting and waterfowl hunting in designated 

locations. Should more or fewer opportunities be available? The small size of the Refuge and 

patchwork land ownership can result in trespass issues on adjacent private lands. Fishing is 

allowed within Whittlesey Creek waters in accordance with state regulations. The Refuge itself, 

however, has never been opened to fishing per Service regulations, so anglers must be in the 

water to fish legally within the Refuge boundary. Should streambank fishing be allowed in the 

Refuge?
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

17

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Ideas to enhance wildlife observation and photography on the Refuge have included new foot 

trails and construction of an overlook at the mouth of the creek. Additional facilities and 

increased visitation on such a small Refuge must be carefully evaluated to limit wildlife and 

habitat disturbance.

Another idea for enhancing visitor use of the Refuge was to develop a biking/hiking trail along 

the old railroad alignment through the Refuge. This was suggested as part of an idea to link 

Washburn with the NGLVC.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education has been a high priority at the Refuge, but capabilities currently are 

limited due to lack of visitor services staff. The biologist provides inventory, monitoring, sampling 

techniques, and habitat restoration experiences to local students and participates in (NGLVC)

programs that contribute to the mission of the Service. The biologist provides habitat restoration 

experiences to local students and participates in NGLVC programs that contribute to the 

mission of the Service. There is a need to define the vision and priorities for environmental 

education and interpretation on the Refuge, and Refuge staff participation in special events at 

NGLVC. The Coaster Classroom is underutilized; creative ideas are needed to make better use 

of this high quality Refuge facility. 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

The Service is a partner in the NGLVC, which is adjacent to Whittlesey Creek NWR. The 

partnership includes five agencies and one non-profit group: U.S. Forest Service, National Park 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wisconsin State Historical Society, University of 

Wisconsin Extension, and Friends of the Center Alliance Limited―that together provide a 

unique combination of perspectives and opportunities. The mission of the NGLVC is to help 

people connect with the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the region. It also serves as 

Refuge headquarters and point-of-contact for Refuge visitors. The NGLVC partnership offers 

many opportunities for mutually beneficial collaboration and enhancement of Service identity in 

the region, but current Service involvement in day-to-day activities is limited. The Refuge 

biologist is the only staff biologist at the NGLVC and therefore assists with habitat restoration, 

land management and natural resources projects. Refuge staff previously included a full-time 

visitor services professional, but that position is now vacant, and the Refuge Manager is located 

several hours away. 

Participation in the partnership occurs through an annual Intergovernmental Transaction 

Agreement between the Service and the USFS. The agreement provides a general description 

of the use of the NGLVC and the Service role in the partnership. The agreement does not 

address the Service’s long-term commitment to the partnership nor does it provide clearly 

defined roles and expectations.

2.4 Preparation, Finalization, and Implementation of the CCP

The CCP was prepared by the staff of Whittlesey Creek NWR, the Ashland Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Office, and the Service’s Midwest Regional Office. The document was published 

in two phases in accordance with NEPA. The EA (Appendix A: Environmental Assessment) 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

18

presented four alternatives for future management and identified the preferred alternative. A 30-

day public review period, including a public open house, followed release of the draft plan.

The alternative that was selected has become the basis of the final CCP, which will guide

management of the Refuge over the next 15 years. It will guide the development of more 

detailed step-down management plans for specific resource areas, and it will underpin the 

annual budgeting process through Service-wide allocation databases. Most importantly, it lays 

out the general approach to managing wildlife, habitat, and people at Whittlesey Creek that will 

inform day-to-day decision making and actions.

2.5 Public Comments on the Draft CCP

The draft CCP was officially released for public review and comment on March 23, 2015 

(Federal Register Vol, 80, No. 55, page 15249). A news release was sent to local media outlets 

and a postcard notification was mailed or e-mailed to more than 500 individuals and 

organizations. The complete draft CCP was posted on the Service website, and hard copies 

were available on request. Five people attended the open house event on March 31, 2015 at 

the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center. Four written responses were received. Below is a 

summary of public comments and the Service response.

General

Commenters noted the ongoing hard work, leadership, and accomplishments of current Refuge 

staff on behalf of nature, despite reductions in number of staff on site. The addition of more 

personnel was recommended. The importance of maintaining strong relationships with partners 

to share expertise and to leverage resources was described. 

Service Response:

This plan does lay out an ambitious agenda for the Refuge over the next 15 years, and success 

is not guaranteed. Continued strong partnerships with other agencies, organizations, private 

landowners, and volunteers will be essential to accomplishing the objectives set forth for 

Whittlesey Creek NWR. Full plan implementation also will require two staff positions, both a 

biologist and a park ranger. Specific priorities may need to vary somewhat over time to 

accommodate changes in budget and personnel, but the focus always will be on meeting 

Refuge goals for wildlife, habitat, and people as outlined in the CCP. Chapter 5 explains the 

potential effects of funding and staffing on Refuge priorities in more detail. 

Wildlife and Habitat

Comments supported refuge and watershed restoration as a high priority, as well as the 

acquisition of more acreage. A comment recommended actively increasing terrestrial and 

wetland plant diversity via seeding and planting of other species in addition to trees and more 

formal monitoring of restoration success beyond the in-stream projects. A suggestion was made 

for more precise habitat categories for Figure 4-1: Desired Future Land Cover, especially 

clarification of whether “Wetland” includes both open and forested wetlands. 
Chapter 2: The Planning Process

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

19

Service Response:

The Refuge has an ambitious habitat restoration plan, outlined in the Whittlesey Creek NWR 

Habitat Management Plan. Our immediate goal is to work on restoring the riparian corridor of 

Whittlesey Creek to benefit coaster brook trout. We also restore seasonal wetland basins where 

appropriate, but due to the intensive nature of planting additional species and monitoring, we 

have not included seeding and planting of native species in the restorations. Until we have a 

cost-effective method of controlling reed canarygrass and preventing its reintroduction, our 

ability to increase native plant diversity will be limited. Although it would be useful in our 

management efforts, additional plant monitoring for ground layer biodiversity is not a priority at 

this time. As part of the ongoing planning process, the Refuge will develop an Inventory and 

Monitoring Plan (IMP), which will help prioritize our future efforts and consider additional 

monitoring needs. A more detailed habitat layer could also be identified as a priority during the 

IMP process.

People

One commenter supported the new footpath but asked that signage be kept to a minimum to 

help preserve the wild feel of the Refuge. Another commenter preferred to let nature take its 

course on the Refuge, with no public use or habitat management. 

Service Response:

The existing entrance signs, directional signs, and kiosk will be maintained; no significant 

additions to Refuge signage are anticipated anywhere on the Refuge. The lands and waters of 

the Refuge have been highly altered by past human activities, so active restoration and 

management is now necessary to provide habitat suitable for fish and wildlife. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognizes hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as legitimate and 

appropriate public uses of the Refuge System.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

20

Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

In this chapter:

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

3.2 Physical Environment

3.3 Biological Environment

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment

3.5 Cultural Resources

3.6 Refuge Programs 

3.1 Geographic/Ecosystem Setting

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge) is located along the south shore of 

Lake Superior near the head of Chequamegon Bay in Bayfield County near Ashland, WI. Lake 

Superior is the largest freshwater lake, by surface area, in the world. The mouth of Whittlesey 

Creek is associated with a large coastal wetland and floodplain complex that extends along the 

south shore of Chequamegon Bay. 

Laurentian Mixed Forest

The Refuge is within the Laurentian Mixed Forest province as defined by Bailey’s ecological 

classification system developed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Laurentian Mixed 

Forest province covers an extensive area along the Great Lakes and New England lowlands. 

Most of the province has low relief, but rolling hills occur in many places. Elevations range from 

sea level to 2,400 feet. Glacial features are typical of the area. This province lies between the 

boreal forest and the broadleaf deciduous forest and is therefore transitional. Some locations 

consist of mixed stands of a few coniferous and deciduous species; others are pure deciduous 

forest or pure coniferous forest (Bailey, 1976; Bailey, 1980). 

Wisconsin Ecological Landscapes

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) has adopted a classification system that 

divides the state into 16 ecologically similar regions 

called Ecological Landscapes. 

The Refuge lies within the Superior Coastal Plain, 

which is the northernmost Ecological Landscape

(Figure 3-1). The major landform is a nearly level 

plain of lacustrine clays that slopes gently 

northward toward Lake Superior. The clay plain is 

separated into two segments by the more rugged 

Bayfield Peninsula. The mouths of many of the 

streams entering Lake Superior are submerged, 

creating freshwater estuaries. Historically, the 

Superior Coastal Plain was almost entirely forested 

with a distinctive mixture of white pine, white 

spruce, balsam fir, paper birch, balsam poplar, 

trembling aspen, and white cedar occurred on the 

Figure 3-1: Wisconsin Ecological 

Landscapes
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

21

lacustrine clays. The present-day clay plain forest has been fragmented by agricultural use, and 

approximately one-third of this Ecological Landscape is now non-forested. Older forest 

successional stages are now rare (WDNR, 2012).

More than half of the upstream watershed (easement acquisition area) lies within the Northwest 

Sands Ecological Landscape. The Northwest Sands is a large glacial outwash system 

containing two major landforms: flat plains or terraces along glacial meltwater channels, and 

pitted or “collapsed” out wash plains containing kettle lakes. Soils are deep sands, low in 

organic matter and nutrients. Historic vegetation was dominated by jack pine and scrub oak 

forest and barrens. White and red pine forests were also a sizable component of the area.

Current vegetation is a mix of forest, agriculture, and grassland with some wetlands in the river 

valleys. Approximately 64 percent of the area is classified as timberland, of which 49 percent is 

under public ownership. Groundwater conditions are among the least polluted and most 

vulnerable in the state.

Other Conservation Lands

(See Figure 3-2.)

U.S. Forest Service

The former Chequamegon and Nicolet National Forests, established in the early 1930s, were 

combined into the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in 1998, but each national forest has 

retained its individual identity. The Chequamegon side of the forest covers more than 850,000 

acres in Ashland, Bayfield, Sawyer, Price, Taylor, and Vilas counties. About three-quarters of 

the Whittlesey Creek drainage basin is within the Washburn Ranger District of this national 

forest.

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

The Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC, Visitor Center, Center) is adjacent to the 

southern boundary of the Refuge on a 180-acre tract owned by the USFS. The land includes 

black ash swamp, sedge meadow, mature cedar and tamarack forest, restored wetlands, and 

other parts of the tract are managed as hayfield. NGLVC land also includes an experimental 

agroforestry area and a snowmobile trail.

National Park Service

The Apostle Islands archipelago includes 22 islands off the Bayfield Peninsula. The Apostle 

Islands National Lakeshore, a unit of the National Park System, encompasses about 42,000 

acres of land, including 21 of the islands plus a 12-mile segment of shoreline on the peninsula. 

Most of the National Lakeshore is covered with unbroken mature second growth forest. The 

area is at the continental northwestern limits of the hemlock-white-pine-northern hardwood 

forest and contains elements of boreal forest.

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

The 16,000-acre Kakagon and Bad River Sloughs complex is the largest undeveloped coastal 

wetland complex on the upper Great Lakes. Located east of Ashland on land owned by the Bad 

River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, it is home to a variety of natural plant communities and 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

22

is often called the "Everglades of the North." The Kakagon and Bad River Sloughs complex 

provides important spawning and nursery areas for fish and stopover habitat for migratory birds 

and is the only remaining location where wild rice is abundant on Lake Superior. 

This coastal wetland ecosystem is among the richest and most extensive of its kind and has 

received many conservation designations: National Park Service National Natural Landmark, 

Nature Conservancy Priority Conservation Area, Wisconsin Land Legacy Place, Wisconsin Bird 

Conservation Initiative Important Bird Area, Wisconsin Wetlands Association Wetland GEM, and 

Wisconsin Coastal Wetland Primary Inventory Site. Most recently, the Kakagon and Bad River 

Sloughs complex was recognized in 2012 as a Wetland of International Importance, or Ramsar 

site―the first to be owned by a tribe.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

The South Shore of Lake Superior Fishery and Wildlife Area includes various properties owned 

and managed by the WDNR along the streams and shores of Lake Superior in Bayfield County. 

The goal is to enhance stream and coastal habitat to benefit flora and fauna associated with 

these specific areas, and to provide public recreation and education opportunities. The project 

spans five stream drainages and their associated coastal wetlands. Units include Fish Creek

Sloughs (250 acres), Cranberry River Mouth (35 acres), Flag River (600 acres), Big Sioux River

(487 acres), and Pikes Creek Slough (40 acres). WDNR owns more than 250 additional acres 

adjacent to the Fishery and Wildlife Area. The WDNR property borders the Refuge and includes 

coastal wetlands along Chequamegon Bay at the mouth of Fish Creek. 

City of Ashland

Ashland’s 100-acre Prentice Park includes wetlands and boreal forest that are popular for 

wildlife viewing.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

23

Figure 3-2: Other Conservation Lands

3.2 Physical Environment

Geology

The Lake Superior basin emerged from glacial cover between 13,000 and 9,000 years ago. 

During that time, ice melt formed pro-glacial lakes of changing configuration and drainage 

patterns. Lake Superior lies along the southern edge of the Canadian Shield, a region of 

complex geological history dominated by granite and sandstone overlain by glacial till. The red 

lacustrine clay soil underlying Whittlesey Creek and adjoining watersheds is a result of 

deposition that occurred when the level of Lake Superior was considerably higher than today

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS, Service], 1998).

Three main geologic features define the Whittlesey Creek watershed―Bayfield Group, Copper 

Falls Formation and Miller Creek Formation. The Bayfield Group is Precambrian bedrock, 

consisting mostly of sandstone, siltstone, and locally abundant shale and conglomerate. The 

Bayfield Group is overlain by the Copper Falls Formation of sandy till that is up to several 

hundred feet thick. It is thickest along the central spine of the Bayfield peninsula and thins 

toward Lake Superior. The Miller Creek Formation overlies the Copper Falls Formation and 

Bayfield Group up to about 1,100 feet above sea level (500 feet above Lake Superior). It is 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

24

dominated by glacial lake clay deposits, although some areas have layers of sandy relict 

shoreline (Lenz et al., 2003).

Topography 

The topography of the watershed is relatively flat in the lake plain near Lake Superior, but 

steeper upstream, increasing in elevation from about 600 feet to about 1,200 feet in less than 10

miles. The hills are rolling except for the confined stream and tributary valleys, which are very 

steep in the upper and middle section of the watershed. The slopes flatten out considerably 

about one-half mile west of the western Refuge boundary. Floodplains that connect Little 

Whittlesey, Whittlesey, and Terwilliger Creeks are relatively level with a gentle slope toward 

Lake Superior and a 20-foot elevation drop over one mile (FWS, 2006c).

Soils

Soils below about 1,100 feet above sea level (500 feet above Lake Superior) within the 

watershed are mostly formed in clays originating from the post-glacial lakebed of Lake Superior. 

Surface drainage features become evident at elevations below 1,100 feet because the red clay 

soils have very low infiltration rates. Runoff from the uplands quickly enters gullies, ravines, and 

streams, especially in the steeper, upper portions of the watershed. Alluvial fine sands are also 

common, being deposited in floodplains from past and present overbank floods. 

Till plain and lake plain (upland) soils cover roughly one-third of the Refuge. These soils are 

characteristically clay loams, silt loams, or sandy loams and are predominant throughout the 

watershed. Poor internal drainage produces intermittently saturated conditions on the clay 

loams. Sandy and loamy alluvial floodplain soils cover about two-thirds of the Refuge, but are 

less common across the watershed. Localized areas of peat and muck are associated with 

springs and saturated depressions (FWS, 2006c).

Hydrology

Whittlesey Creek NWR is 

located along Chequamegon 

Bay on the south shore of Lake 

Superior. The surface area of 

the upland Lake Superior 

watershed is smaller than the 

lake itself, resulting in very 

short drainage systems into 

the lake. The coastal areas of 

Chequamegon Bay include the 

largest and most significant 

wetlands in the Lake Superior 

basin. 

Three streams flow through the 

Refuge and empty into 

Chequamegon Bay: Whittlesey 

Creek, Little Whittlesey Creek, Chequamegon Bay.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

25

and Terwilliger Creek. All three are spring-fed and flow year round. All three have been altered 

from historic conditions by erosion, sediment, channelization, and loss of large woody debris. 

Lake Superior and Chequamegon Bay

The overall water level in Lake Superior has been controlled by the International Joint 

Commission through the Great Lakes lock and dam system since 1921, although Lake Superior 

water has been kept relatively stable since 1973. Water levels vary frequently, however, due to 

rainfall and snowmelt, annual hydrologic cycles, and natural surface water oscillations called 

seiches. In addition, the bottom of Lake Superior continues to rebound from the weight of past 

glaciers (isostatic rebound), raising the water level relative to land by about one foot per century. 

The Refuge is part of a large complex of coastal wetlands and streams at the head of 

Chequamegon Bay. This complex is critical to the health of the Bay and its economically 

important fishery. Water level fluctuations in the Bay affect coastal wetland function, vegetation 

composition, stream flow, and sediment loading. Isostatic rebound has inundated the mouths of 

Whittlesey Creek and Fish Creek.

Whittlesey Creek

Whittlesey Creek is the largest stream on 

the Refuge. Consistent groundwater input 

results in relatively stable water 

temperatures and year round flow 

beginning approximately one-half mile 

upstream of the North Fork confluence. 

Whittlesey Creek is listed by the WDNR as 

a Class I trout stream indicating sufficient 

natural reproduction to sustain populations 

at or near carrying capacity with no 

stocking of hatchery trout. Water quality is 

good (Stromberg, 2012). Whittlesey Creek 

sometimes carries a heavy load of sand 

and silt. The silt and fine sand are usually 

carried out to Lake Superior while the 

coarser sand is deposited in the stream, 

degrading habitat. The channel slope flattens considerably near the mouth at Lake Superior. 

The North Fork of Whittlesey Creek has an average slope of 0.02, whereas the average slope of 

Whittlesey Creek below the confluence with the North Fork is 0.005 (Lenz et al., 2003).

Following significant floods in the 1940s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dredged 

the lower 4,500 feet of Whittlesey Creek, removed the meanders, and redirected the flow 

straight east into Lake Superior from Highway 13 in an effort to dewater and stabilize the 

floodplain. The Red Clay Interagency Committee redirected the channel to its present location in 

1958 because sand deposits had filled the previous dredging. Their report noted that the new 

channel lowered the water level in the floodplain by 30 inches (Red Clay Interagency 

Committee, 1960). Another result of these activities was a straight shallow stretch of stream 

lacking significant habitat diversity.

The Red Clay Interagency Committee initiated watershed improvements in the 1950s to reduce 

flows, erosion, and sedimentation from stream banks, road ditches, and farm fields. Projects 

Whittlesey Creek.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

26

included fencing livestock away from streams, vegetating stream banks and road ditches, 

constructing farm ponds, and planting trees. In 1991, Whittlesey Creek was designated a 

“priority watershed” under the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program. The 

1996 management plan identified strategies to improve the watershed health of Whittlesey 

Creek and supported partnership efforts to protect and improve fish habitat (WDNR, 1996). 

Special funding was available for 10 years to provide local landowner assistance and to 

demonstrate best management practices to reduce upland runoff, stabilize stream banks, and 

enhance in-stream habitat.

Whittlesey Creek Basin

The Whittlesey Creek drainage basin, as delineated based on topography, covers about 24,000 

acres, but only about 4,700 acres of the Whittlesey Creek drainage basin contribute surface 

water to Whittlesey Creek (Figure 3-3).

Figure 3-3: Watershed, Streams, Topography

The non-contributing portion of the basin is in the Bayfield Highlands and is composed of sandy 

deposits with no surface drainage features. This non-contributing basin does not contribute 

surface water or groundwater to Whittlesey Creek (Lenz et al., 2003). Nearly the entire noncontributing basin is located within the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

27

The 4,700-acre surface-water-contributing area includes Whittlesey Creek, the North Fork, and 

numerous small tributaries. This is the area commonly referred to as the Whittlesey Creek 

watershed. The upper reaches generally have sloping plains in the uplands and deeply incised 

valleys. The elevation changes from 1,100 feet mean sea level (msl) at the upper end, to about 

600 feet msl at Lake Superior. Because the Refuge is located at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek, 

stewardship of upstream watershed lands directly and indirectly affects Refuge lands. 

Unflooded section of Whittlesey Creek on the Refuge.

Surface water generally moves as sheet flow until reaching a ditch or gully leading to the stream 

channel network. The gullies and channels are generally steeply sloped, so water passes 

rapidly through the basin. Soils of the surface-water-contributing basin are dominated by red

clays that give water little chance to infiltrate. Land cover and infrastructure changes have 

altered historic surface water patterns, redirecting overland flow, increasing flood power, 

destabilizing stream banks, and increasing sediment load. The result is a very flashy stream that 

peaks quickly within 24 hours of a large rainfall or snowmelt. Base flow in Whittlesey Creek is a 

consistent 17 to 18 cubic feet per second (cfs), with flood peaks of over 500 cfs. On June 21, 

2013, a record 1,010 cfs peak was observed at the gaging station near the mouth following 

unusually heavy rains on saturated soils.

Modeling results indicate that changes in land cover in the surface-water-contributing basin 

would have minimal effects on average annual runoff, but would affect Whittlesey Creek flood 

peaks (Figure 3-4). Converting the entire surface-water-contributing basin to forested land cover 

would reduce 100-year flood peaks by 12 to 14 percent, potentially reducing sedimentation on 

the Refuge. If the basin were developed into 25 percent residential land or returned to the 

intensive agriculture of the 1920s, flood peaks would increase by up to 12 and 18 percent, 

respectively (Lenz et al., 2003).

Flooded section of Whittlesey Creek on the Refuge.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

28

Figure 3-4: Hydrograph

Whittlesey Creek Groundwater 

Water flow on the Bayfield Peninsula is defined by the three main geologic features: Bayfield 

Group, Copper Falls Formation, and Miller Creek Formation (see Geology section, earlier in this 

chapter). These features have resulted in two groundwater systems: deep flow and shallow 

flow.

The deep flow system moves through the sandy Copper Falls Formation and into the Bayfield 

Group, discharging to Lake Superior and to deeply incised streams such as Whittlesey Creek. 

The main discharge area along Whittlesey Creek is near the North Fork confluence. This 

groundwater discharge provides the steady surface water flow at relatively constant temperature 

in the downstream reaches of Whittlesey Creek. Upstream of the North Fork confluence, 

Whittlesey Creek has little or no base flow; flow is from surface runoff and a small amount of 

perched groundwater from the shallow flow system (Lenz et al., 2003).

The shallow flow system is difficult to delineate but probably includes much of the area 

underlain by the Miller Creek Formation. It 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 Whittlesey Creek and some likely recharges 

the deep system. Alternating layers of sand and clay in the Miller Creek Formation can result in 

isolated, perched water separated from the deep system by 100 feet or more. These perched 

areas provide some discharge into the upper stretches of Whittlesey Creek but not enough to 

sustain year-round surface water flow (Lenz et al., 2003).

Lenz et al. (2003) delineated the area that contributes groundwater to Whittlesey Creek 

including both the deep flow system and the non-perched part of the shallow system. The two-
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

29

dimensional surface of the groundwater-contributing area is about 14,000 acres. Part of it 

overlaps the surface-water-contributing area, but much of it lies to the northwest within the 

Chequamegon-Nicollet National Forest. About 90 percent of the base flow to Whittlesey Creek 

originated as recharge through the sandy Copper Falls formation, the permeable deposits in the 

center of the Bayfield Peninsula. Only about 10 percent of base flow was from recharge through 

the clayey Miller Creek Formation. Median travel time of particles modeled from the stream back 

to the water table was about 94 years (Figure 3-5).

The most likely land cover change for the Whittlesey Creek groundwater-contributing area is 

logging of forests in the sandy zone. Logging can increase recharge by reducing interception 

and evapotranspiration. According to simulations, if logging in the ground-water-contributing 

area resulted in a 25 percent increase in recharge, the base flow of Whittlesey Creek would 

increase by about four percent (Lenz et al., 2003).

Figure 3-5: Groundwater 

Little Whittlesey Creek

Little Whittlesey Creek is a short drainage with low base flow within the Whittlesey Creek 

watershed. Like Whittlesey Creek, some of the Refuge portion of Little Whittlesey was 

channelized in the 1940s. Little Whittlesey flows into the coastal wetland near the mouth of 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

30

Whittlesey Creek, but original land survey maps suggest that it historically emptied into 

Whittlesey Creek in Reach 2. When the Refuge was established, this stream had been 

degraded by intensive grazing and by limited development along its banks (FWS, 1998).

While area residents describe Little Whittlesey as a once productive brook trout stream, minimal 

population assessment data exist with few young-of-the-year coho and brook trout captured. 

Recent observations have noted the presence of at least a few spawning class coho salmon, 

although Little Whittlesey Creek is not listed as a designated trout stream (WDNR, 2002), 

indicating its low habitat value for trout compared to Whittlesey Creek. No habitat assessments 

have been conducted. 

Terwilliger Creek

Terwilliger Creek lies south of Whittlesey Creek. After passing through the Refuge, Terwilliger 

flows under Highway 2 and empties into Fish Creek Sloughs. The watershed is about 1,400 

acres. Original 19th century land survey maps suggest that Terwilliger Creek historically was a 

tributary of Whittlesey Creek. Like the other two Refuge streams, the lower segment of 

Terwilliger was straightened in the 1940s. When the Refuge was established, this stretch was 

described as the most degraded portion of the creek (FWS, 1998). 

No fishery or habitat assessments have been conducted. Terwilliger is closer to being a 

coolwater stream than a coldwater stream, although a few young-of-year salmon and small 

localized populations of brook trout sometimes are found near springs. Creek chubs, small 

northern pike, and a few other species are present. Terwilliger is not known to provide 

significant spawning habitat for salmonids and is not listed as a designated trout stream by the 

WDNR (2002).

Climate

The climate of northern Wisconsin along Lake Superior is moderated by the lake, creating 

longer spring and fall seasons, cooler summers, and increased precipitation when compared to 

inland areas. The average annual temperature over the last 30 years is about 40 °F, averaging 

10 °F in January and 67 °F in July. The area averages 40 days with temperatures below 0 °F

and six days above 90 °F.

Average annual precipitation is about 30 inches with the greatest amount falling from June to 

September. Average annual snowfall is 58 inches, which typically falls from November through 

March. The average growing season is from May 18 to October 1 (135 days).

Climate Change

Information in this section comes primarily from the publication Wisconsin’s Changing Climate: 

Impacts and Adaptation (WICCI, 2011). The Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts 

(WICCI) began as a collaborative project between the University of Wisconsin and the WDNR 

but has since grown to include representatives from other state and federal agencies, tribal 

organizations, businesses, and non-profit groups. WICCI scientists have analyzed the historical 

climate of Wisconsin and are developing and refining models of future climate change. They 

also are assessing the potential impacts of climate change on natural and human systems 

across the state including wildlife habitat, water resources, forestry, agriculture, tourism, 

infrastructure, and human health. The focus is on developing practical information for public and 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

31

private decision-makers at all levels that will aid in determining appropriate climate change 

adaptation strategies. 

Climate change will interact with and exacerbate other stressors―including habitat loss and 

fragmentation, invasive species, and pollution―amplifying the challenges they pose to natural 

habitats and biodiversity. Through proper stewardship, protected habitats can be maintained to 

promote the highest levels of natural resilience to change

Temperature and Precipitation

On an annual average, Wisconsin warmed about 1.1 °F between 1950 and 2006; the 

northwestern part of the state has warmed a bit more than the rest. Winter temperatures have 

risen most significantly. Statewide, winter temperatures have increased 2.5 °F, while increases 

of 3.5 to 4.5 °F have occurred in northwestern Wisconsin. Summer and fall temperatures have 

changed the least. Nighttime temperatures have increased more than daytime temperatures.

These temperature changes are likely to intensify into the future. The average mean projected 

warming rate is about four times greater than what has been observed since 1950. The warming 

is projected to be largest in winter, with projected increases of 5 to 11 °F by the mid-21st century 

across Wisconsin, and the greatest warming in northwestern Wisconsin. By mid-century, the 

growing season in Wisconsin is expected to lengthen by one month. 

Wisconsin as a whole has become wetter since 1950, with a 10 percent average increase in 

annual precipitation. Most of the increase has been concentrated in southern and western 

Wisconsin. Northern Wisconsin has become drier, annually averaging one to two inches less 

precipitation over that period. It is unclear whether these trends are due to climate change or 

represent natural variation in rainfall over Wisconsin. 

Projections of future precipitation are less certain than projections of temperature, with 

considerable disagreement among climate models. However, the models do indicate a 75 

percent probability that annual average precipitation in Wisconsin will increase. The models are 

in considerable agreement that precipitation will increase during winter and show a fair level of 

confidence that spring and fall precipitation will increase. However, climate models do not agree 

on how precipitation patterns are likely to change in the summer. By mid-century, Wisconsin will 

likely have two or three additional intense rainfall events (at least two inches in a 24-hour 

period) per decade, about a 25 percent increase in frequency. 

Hydrology

Temperature and precipitation changes will affect Wisconsin’s water cycles, with impacts on 

lakes, streams, groundwater, and wetlands. Spatially, the state will not be affected uniformly. 

Differences in the characteristics of a place―such as variations in land use, soil type, 

groundwater characteristics, and runoff and seepage―can confound the influence of climate 

change, leading to a wide range in system responses. Some of the expected hydrologic 

responses to climate change in Wisconsin include:

• Increased average surface water and groundwater temperatures;

• Shorter periods of ice cover on lakes and streams;

• Increased evapotranspiration rates during the longer growing season;
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

32

• Increased number of freeze-thaw events;

• More groundwater recharge due to increases in winter and spring precipitation;

• Changes in recharge and discharge patterns as more precipitation falls as rain or snow;

and

• Increased number of high water events causing flooding.

Coastal Wetlands

Although many uncertainties remain, the current scientific consensus is that the average water 

level of Lake Superior will be slightly lower by the end of the century, although water levels will 

fluctuate widely around the average. The combination of warmer temperatures and reduced ice 

cover will contribute to greater evaporation, which eventually is expected to exceed the 

increases in precipitation. Continued increases in temperature, changing lake levels, and 

increased upland runoff and flooding are expected to affect the food web, plant community 

composition, and overall quality of coastal wetland habitats. Plant diversity will likely decrease 

and boreal wetland species could be lost altogether in northern Wisconsin. Increasing 

temperatures could give weedy plant species a competitive advantage.

Coldwater Streams

Potential effects of climate change that can affect coldwater streams include rising water 

temperatures, altered groundwater recharge and stream base flow, and an increase in large 

runoff events from heavy storms. Models show that all coldwater habitats and fish species in 

Wisconsin will be reduced because increases in air temperature produce increases in water 

temperatures in nearly all coldwater streams.

Stream vulnerability will vary geographically across Wisconsin and within regions because 

differences in the characteristics of streams and their watersheds lead to variance in the 

capacity to buffer changes in water temperature. In undisturbed watersheds with sufficient 

groundwater input, for example, streams may be well buffered to climate change impacts, while 

those in urbanized watersheds or agricultural areas may be more vulnerable. 

Federal, state, and academic partners are using local data on climate, land use, hydrology, and 

stream characteristics to study potential impacts of climate change on coldwater streams that 

are part of the Great Lakes system. Current data indicate that streams on the Bayfield 

Peninsula are more likely than many other parts of Wisconsin to retain high quality coldwater 

habitat, and Whittlesey Creek conditions are expected to remain highly suitable for brook trout

(Lyons et al., 2010; Mitro et al., 2010).

Forests

A warming climate will reduce suitable habitat and increase stress in boreal forest species 

currently at the southern edge of their natural range in Wisconsin, such as aspen, white birch, 

white spruce, black spruce, balsam fir, jack pine, and red pine. Lowland forests of black spruce 

and tamarack (Larix laricina) in northern Wisconsin are sensitive to changes in water tables and 

snow cover; less snow could cause freezing of fine root systems and changes in the water table 

could flood or dry the shallow wetland soils needed to establish seedlings. Hardwood trees, 

such as hickory, black oak, and black walnut are predicted to expand their range within the state 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

33

as temperatures rise. Species under increased stress will be more susceptible to damage from 

insects and diseases.

Wildlife

The earlier arrival of spring is altering the timing of seasonal activities such as reproduction and 

migration for many plants and animals. For example, Canada geese now arrive in Wisconsin a 

month earlier than in the 1930s, cardinals begin singing 22 days earlier, and robins arrive nine 

days earlier. Different species are responding to climate change at different rates, which can 

lead to negative impacts such as lack of food if birds reach their summer breeding grounds 

before their insect prey have hatched. Some species will be forced out of Wisconsin as habitat 

conditions change. Others may be unable to make the move to new areas and will face 

population declines.

Cold temperatures and deep snow cause physical stress in white-tailed deer that can lead to 

high death rates. Projected winter warming will reduce this source of mortality and could lead to 

larger deer herds with increased impacts on croplands, forest, and native vegetation. Deer 

populations also may be exposed to more diseases due to changing temperature and 

precipitation patterns. The American marten, a state-endangered species now found only in 

very small numbers in the northern counties, relies on snow cover for insulation during the 

winter, but the predicted 40 percent loss of snow cover during the next half century could 

permanently eliminate the marten in Wisconsin. Rodents and other small mammals, a major 

food source for martens and fishers, also rely on snow cover to survive the winter and could 

face permanent population declines.

The wood frog, found across most of Wisconsin, can freeze during the winter, but cannot 

endure temperatures lower than 21 °F. Snow cover is important to the wood frog for thermal 

insulation. The species also needs temporary ponds close to woodlands for successful 

breeding, but wood frogs rarely travel more than a mile so cannot move away from widespread 

drought conditions. Reduced snow cover and more variable precipitation patterns are expected 

to have substantial impacts on this species over the next half century. This fate will be shared 

by many amphibian species and other poor dispersers that, in turn, are food sources for birds, 

reptiles, and small mammals.

Fish

Coldwater species are at risk as air and water temperatures increase. Brook trout in particular 

are especially sensitive to environmental changes and have a narrow temperature range in 

which they can successfully live, feed, and reproduce. Wisconsin is at the edge of the range of 

native brook trout. If their distribution shifts north due to the habitat effects of climate change, 

Wisconsin will lose many of its brook trout populations in the coming decades.

Climate change models indicate that higher temperatures will threaten the viability of brook trout 

populations throughout Wisconsin. Initial models predicted that brook trout would be completely 

lost from Wisconsin streams under the worst-case scenario, and even the best-case scenario 

predicted 44 percent less brook trout habitat by mid-century (Mitro et al., 2010). Second 

generation modeling now underway incorporates improved data on precipitation and 

groundwater influences. The initial results still do not look favorable for brook trout overall, 

although not as bad as first generation models predicted (John Lyons, personal 

communication). Whittlesey Creek is still projected to remain highly suitable for brook trout,
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

34

even as coldwater habitat is lost in many other locations, so may become more important as 

one of the last remaining sites in the area (Lyons et al., 2010; Mitro et al., 2010).

Warmwater fish species such as smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, black crappie, and channel 

catfish will benefit from rising Wisconsin stream temperatures, but the length of stream habitat 

that warmwater fish are projected to gain is much less than the length of habitat coldwater fish 

stand to lose. 

3.3 Biological Environment

Resources of Concern

The management direction of each national wildlife refuge is driven first by the purpose(s) and 

statutory mandates of the refuge, coupled with species and habitat priorities that are also known 

as resources of concern (FWS, 2010). Priority resources of concern guiding fish, wildlife, and 

habitat management programs on Whittlesey Creek NWR were established as part of the 

Refuge’s habitat management plan (HMP) (FWS, 2006c). Four habitat types were identified, 

along with associated species of concern that have limiting attributes associated with that 

habitat type (Table 3-1).

Table 3-1: Whittlesey Creek NWR Priority Resources of Concern

Priority habitats

Coldwater

stream

Lowland 

forest/shrub

Riparian

forest

Coastal

Wetland

Priority species

Coaster brook trout x

Wood turtle x x

Water shrew x

Northern waterthrush x

Northern black currant x

Marsh horsetail x

Veery x x

Black duck x

Common mudpuppy x

Sora rail x

Coldwater Streams

Coldwater streams that pass through the Refuge (Whittlesey, Little Whittlesey, and Terwilliger 

Creeks) are described under the “Hydrology” heading in Section 3.2 of this Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP). Associated species of concern are coaster brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis), wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta), and water shrew (Sorex palustris).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

35

Coaster brook trout depend on accessible coldwater streams for resting, feeding, spawning, and 

nursery, and are very sensitive to in-stream habitat degradation. The state-endangered wood 

turtle prefers lowland habitats associated with medium to fast current streams with sand or 

gravel substrates; they often nest in sandy stream banks. The water shrew requires coldwater 

streams with high water quality and abundant cover such as rocks, logs, or overhanging stream 

banks. 

Lowland Forest and Shrub

Lowland forest and shrub are found mainly in the floodplain and coastal wetland areas of the 

Refuge, as well as other public lands at the head of Chequamegon Bay including the NGLVC 

(USFS), Fish Creek Sloughs (WDNR), and Prentice Park (City of Ashland). Dominant plant 

species include willow (Salix spp.), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), white cedar (Thuja 

occidentalis), trembling aspen (Populus tremulouides), black ash (Fraxinus nigra), and red 

maple (Acer rubrum). Important functions of this habitat type are floodwater storage, primary 

production, and wildlife habitat. Species of concern are northern waterthrush (Seiurus 

noveboracensis), veery (Catharus fuscescens), northern black currant (Ribes hudsonianum), 

and marsh horsetail (Equisetum palustre). 

The northern waterthrush favors wooded stream banks during breeding season and prefers nest 

sites in exposed root masses of fallen trees. The veery uses large patches of swampy forest, 

especially with a shrubby understory. Northern black currant is found mostly in shaded to partly 

shaded areas of cold conifer swamps; it is found on the Refuge at the edge of a conifer and 

black ash swamp. Marsh horsetail is found along Terwilliger Creek; it usually is found in moist 

settings in variable habitats including fens, alder thickets, sedge meadows, and bog and swamp 

margins.

Riparian Forest

Riparian forest was separated from lowland forest because of stream interface and the functions 

riparian vegetation provide for hydrology and habitat. Mature trees will fall into the stream and 

create habitat for aquatic species. Roots help to keep banks stable. Overhanging vegetation 

helps keep the water cool and provides cover for fauna. Non-native crack willow (Salix fragilis) 

was planted in in the riparian zone in the 1940s and 1950s. Large American elm (Ulmus 

americana) dominated the Refuge riparian zone until the 1970s when Dutch elm disease nearly 

eliminated them. Today, few mature trees remain along Refuge creeks. Species of concern for 

this habitat type are veery and wood turtle.

In addition to large patches of swampy forest, the veery also likes second growth willow or alder 

shrubbery near water. Hatchling and juvenile wood turtles prefer alder thickets associated with 

shorelines, which are considered critical habitat for this segment of the population.

Coastal Wetland

Coastal wetland is found where the waters of Lake Superior influence vegetation along the 

shore. Most coastal wetland on the Refuge would be considered a complex of emergent marsh 

edged with lowland shrub. Water levels and plant communities are dynamic. Changes in Lake 

Superior water levels have influenced this habitat type for thousands of years. Isostatic rebound 

from the weight of past glaciers raises the water level by about one foot per century, flooding 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

36

historic shoreline habitat and stream mouths. Shorter-term influences include natural surface 

water oscillations (called seiches) and variable rainfall and snowmelt. Wave and wind action 

rework sediments carried downstream by Whittlesey and Little Whittlesey Creeks. These 

wetlands assimilate nutrients, store floodwaters, and provide nursery areas for fish, frogs, and 

waterbirds. Species of concern are black duck (Anas rubripes), common mudpuppy (Necturus 

maculosus), and sora rail (Porzana carolina).

The black duck uses diverse habitat, favoring wooded swamps and marshes; they overwinter on 

the Refuge at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek and in open spring ponds. Mudpuppies typically 

congregate in river mouths and harbors of Lake Superior, but their status on the Refuge is 

unknown; they are thought to be sensitive to pesticides, including the lampricides that are used 

on many other Lake Superior streams. Fish Creek, adjacent to the Refuge, is treated with 

lampricide about every five years. Whittlesey Creek was last sampled for larval lamprey in 2005,

and none was present. Little Whittlesey and Terwilliger Creeks haven’t been sampled; all three 

creeks are scheduled for 2015. Soras are found primarily in shallow freshwater emergent 

wetlands, sometimes foraging on nearby mudflats; they have been heard and seen in cattail 

cover on restored Refuge wetlands during breeding season. 

Land Cover

Historic

The original 19th century land surveys indicate that historic vegetation of the Refuge and vicinity

included three forest types. Conifer swamp extended from the mouth of Fish Creek onto 

property now owned by the NGLVC and up to Whittlesey Creek. Tree species included northern 

white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), black spruce, tamarack, balsam fir (Abies balsamea), and 

black ash (Fraxinus nigra). The white-red pine forest was located on the northern edge of the 

current Refuge boundary, at a higher elevation than the conifer swamp. Boreal forest was south 

of the conifer swamp and would have included aspen (Populus spp.), paper birch (Betula 

papyrifera), white spruce (Picea glauca), balsam fir, red pine (Pinus resinosa), and white pine

(Pinus strobus) (Finley, 1976; FWS, 2006c).

By the early 20th century, most timber had been harvested and much of the land within the 

current Refuge boundary was farmed or grazed. These lands probably were often too wet from 

floods or high groundwater to produce consistent crops. When Whittlesey Creek NWR was 

established in 1999, only about 90 acres were still hayed or pastured, and no annually tilled 

cropland remained. Most of the former farmland had regrown with water-tolerant trees and 

shrubs such as willows, white cedar, black ash, and speckled alder (Alnus rugosa). Reed 

canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) dominated many old hayfields.

Current

2006 Vegetation 

A vegetation map of the Refuge was developed as part of the HMP (FWS, 2006c). Vegetation 

cover types were delineated based on aerial photographs and field surveys and followed the 

National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1997)

(Figure 3-6).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

37

Figure 3-6: Refuge Vegetation Map from 2006 Habitat Management Plan

2013 Vegetation 

The Refuge has not been mapped according to the NVCS since originally done for the 2006 

HMP. A more general watershed-wide land cover map was developed for this document

(Figures 3-7 and 3-8). As land has been acquired and haying has been greatly reduced on the 

Refuge, natural succession is transitioning many areas to shrubs and trees. Native conifers 

have been planted on approximately 62 acres, and 180 suitable acres within the acquisition 

boundary remain unplanted. Tentative plans include planting 60 acres during 2015.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

38

Figure 3-7: Refuge Land Cover (2013)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

39

Figure 3-8: Refuge and Watershed Land Cover (2013)
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

40

Currently, watershed land cover is dominated by forests in public (USFS) and private 

ownership. Forest Service lands are part of the Washburn District of the Chequamegon-Nicolet 

National Forest. These holdings include barrens habitat. Private woodlands are owned by 

individuals and timber companies. Farm numbers and crop acreage continue to decline. Few 

dairy farms remain and animal agriculture is dominated by beef and horses. Hayland and 

pasture typically are not intensively managed. Annual crops include corn, soybeans, oats and 

wheat with acreage fluctuating based on commodity prices, crop rotations, and subsidies. 

Development includes farmsteads and low-density rural residential properties.

Fish and Wildlife Communities

Fish

The historic native fish community of Whittlesey Creek, like most coldwater, spring fed 

tributaries to Lake Superior during pre-European settlement times, consisted primarily of brook 

trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). As waters warmed slightly as 

they flowed downstream, and becoming influenced by the seiche of Lake Superior, native 

ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans), common

shiner (Luxilis cornutus), spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius), blackchin shiner, (Notropis 

heterodon), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), creek 

chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and white sucker (Catostomus commersonii) also occurred.

Today, because of intentional or inadvertent introductions, and alterations to the habitat within 

the watershed, the fish community of Whittlesey Creek is dominated by non-native species. 

Non-native fish species found in Whittlesey Creek today include brown trout (Salmo trutta), tiger 

trout (brown trout/brook trout hybrid), rainbow trout/steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho 

salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), splake (lake 

trout/brook trout hybrid), and rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax). Although native to the area, 

fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus), and central 

mudminnow (Umbra limi) were not historically found in Whittlesey Creek but have recently been 

collected, likely entering Whittlesey Creek via flood waters from ponds being breached in the 

uplands within the watershed. An experiment to reestablish a self-sustaining population of 

native coaster brook trout in Whittlesey Creek has been underway since 2003 (FWS and 

WNDR, 2003).

Coaster Brook Trout 

Background

The coaster brook trout (coaster) is a migratory form of brook trout found only in the Great 

Lakes basin. Unlike brook trout that live year round in streams, coasters spend part of their life 

in the Great Lakes, returning to tributary streams in late summer or fall to spawn. A few coaster 

populations spend their entire life in the lake, spawning in rocky areas near shore. The highly 

productive Great Lakes allow coasters to reach very large sizes. Coasters are not a genetically 

distinct brook trout, but rather some stream-resident populations appear to have the ability to 

produce a migratory life history when conditions are suitable. In 2009, the Service found that 

coaster brook trout in the Great Lakes are not eligible for listing under the Endangered Species 

Act (74 FR 23376).

Restoration of self-sustaining brook trout populations is a priority for many conservation 

agencies and organizations working in the Lake Superior basin, including the Great Lakes 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

41

Fishery Commission (GLFC), the Lake Superior Landscape Restoration Partnership, and the 

WDNR. Coaster brook trout is a resource conservation priority (FWS, 2002) and a species of 

concern for the Midwest Region of FWS (see the FWS Species of Concern web page at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/soc/index.html) and for Whittlesey Creek NWR (FWS, 2006c). 

Brook trout was selected as a surrogate species in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes geography 

(FWS, 2014). The interagency Whittlesey Creek brook trout restoration experiment (FWS and 

WDNR, 2003) is intended to serve as a model for other streams in the future.

History and Decline

Brook trout were widespread in the Lake Superior basin prior to European settlement. Most 

Lake Superior tributaries with cool temperatures probably supported resident brook trout year 

round and spawning coaster brook trout in the fall, although historic population information is 

limited because numbers were greatly reduced or even eliminated in some areas before any 

rigorous data could be collected. Newspaper articles, letters, and other reports from the latter 

half of the 19th century describe abundant coaster brook trout populations and document their 

occurrence in at least 45 streams in Ontario, 25 in Michigan, 12 in Wisconsin, and nine in 

Minnesota. Small numbers of coasters also occurred historically in Lake Huron and its 

tributaries (Enterline, 2000).

During the late 19th century, sportsmen from all over North 

America were coming to Lake Superior to fish for coasters, 

which were highly valued because of their abundance, ease 

of harvest, bright coloration, and large size. As early as the 

1880s, however, severe declines in the fishery were noted in 

local newspapers and were associated with a combination of 

excessive harvest and habitat changes caused by logging

(Table 3-2). Clear-cutting and subsequent fires left soil prone 

to excessive erosion. Dams were often constructed across 

confined stream valleys to form impoundments. These were 

filled with logs, dams were breached, and logs were driven downstream to sawmills. Angling 

success generally declined in a progression from easily reached streams to more remote 

streams and from lower stream reaches to upper stream reaches. Commercial harvest along 

the coastline accelerated the decline (WDNR and FWS, 2005).

“. . . over to Whittlesey’s Creek 

where that gentleman succeeded 

in a few hours fishing, in 

capturing 75 trout, while Charley 

raised the number to an even 

hundred . . .”

April 20, 1878 – The Ashland Press
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

42

Table 3-2: Timeline of Coaster Brook Trout Decline and Restoration

1830s 1837 Ojibwe cede lands in northwest Wisconsin to United States

1840s

Sportsman’s 

Paradise

1850s 1855 Sault Ste. Marie canal connects Lake Superior to Lake Huron

Logging Era

1860s

1870s 1877 Wisconsin Central Railroad reaches shore of Lake Superior 

Mining Era

1880s Coaster brook trout decline becomes apparent

1890s Introduction of non-native trout begins

Trout Stocking Era 

1900s

Farming Era

1910s 1916 First brook trout stocking in Whittlesey Creek

1920s

1930s Smelt and sea lamprey invasions

1940s

1950s Only a few coaster brook trout populations still exist

Introduction of non-native salmon begins

1960s

1958-

1964

Erosion control efforts in Whittlesey Creek watershed by Red 

Clay Interagency Committee

1970s

1980s

Collaborative 

Restoration Era

1990s

1990 GLFC establishes fishery objectives for Lake Superior

1999

FWS establishes Whittlesey Creek NWR 

GLFC completes Lake Superior brook trout plan

2000s 2003 Whittlesey Creek brook trout experiment and evaluation 

begins

2010s Climate change models indicate Whittlesey Creek is resilient 

and will remain suitable for brook trout through mid-century
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

43

“Old-timers tell stories about the wonderful trout fishing they used to have but how now . . . good trout fishing is a 

thing of the past.” — 1957 Red Clay Interagency Committee

The exploitation of coaster stocks and demands on their habitat continued in the 20th century. 

The opening of the Lake Superior basin by road, rail, and water ended the area’s isolation. 

Brook trout habitat was degraded by logging, mining, agriculture, and stream modifications as 

settlement and development increased. Intensive harvest via commercial and sport fishing 

continued. Invasion of sea lamprey and smelt in in the 1930s, and introduction of non-native 

trout (late 1890s) and salmon (1950s–1970s) also may have contributed to the range-wide 

decline of native coasters. By 1950, viable coaster populations were reduced to a few remnants 

in Ontario, Michigan, and Minnesota. While the coaster form of brook trout suffered the most 

conspicuous losses, stream-resident brook trout populations were also greatly reduced 

(Newman and Dubois, 1996). Fishing success in Whittlesey Creek was described as “almost 

non-existent” (Red Clay Interagency Committee, 1957).

Restoration

Extensive efforts to bolster declining coaster brook trout populations began in the late 19th

century (Table 3-2), largely through stocking of various strains of brook trout in the Lake 

Superior basin. In Wisconsin, the first officially recorded stocking occurred in 1890 when a 

resort owner put brook trout in the Sioux River. Over the next 100 years, more than 23 million 

brook trout were stocked in Wisconsin’s Lake Superior streams and near-shore waters. The first 

documented fish stocking in Whittlesey Creek occurred in 1916. By 1995, about 178,000 brook 

trout, 16,000 rainbow trout, and 114,000 brown trout had been stocked in Whittlesey Creek 

(WDNR and FWS, 2005) (Figure 3-9). 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

44

Figure 3-9: Historic and Current Range of Self-Sustaining Coaster Brook Trout 

Populations in the Lake Superior Basin

In 1956, the Red Clay Interagency Committee was formed in northwest Wisconsin to reduce 

erosion of clay soils in the Lake Superior basin that was causing water quality problems and 

reducing trout populations. Attention was focused on the Whittlesey Creek watershed as a good 

site for an intensive pilot study, although other watersheds also were included. Experimental 

erosion control methods developed and tested over the next several years included road and 

stream bank seeding, tree planting, livestock fence installation, and stream modifications to 

divert water flow (Red Clay Interagency Committee; 1957, 1960, 1964).

None of the efforts to reestablish naturally reproducing populations of coasters was successful, 

probably due to a combination of factors such as weak harvest regulations, ineffective stocking 

practices, ongoing habitat loss, and competition from non-native species. Until recently, little 

was known about the species, which further complicated restoration efforts. By the late 20th

century, the only documented coaster brook trout populations of significant size were found in 

the Nipigon River region of Ontario, in some streams and near-shore areas at Isle Royale 

National Park, and in Michigan’s Salmon Trout River.

Organizations and tribes across the basin began to recognize the need for collaborative 

programs that addressed all of the causes of coaster brook trout decline. In 1990, members of 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

45

the GLFC developed fish community objectives for Lake Superior that seek, in part, to “reestablish depleted stocks of native species such as the lake sturgeon, brook trout, and walleye.” 

The GLFC began documenting the status of coaster brook trout in 1993 (Newman and Dubois, 

1996) and completed “A Brook Trout Plan for Lake Superior” in 1999 (Newman et al., 2003). 

The plan provided guidelines for rehabilitation efforts, leaving individual states and agencies 

responsible for developing and implementing their own action plans. The goal is to maintain 

widely distributed, self-sustaining populations of brook trout throughout their original habitats. 

Priority actions include restoring tributary habitat, regulating harvest, stocking genetically 

appropriate strains, building public support, researching brook trout life history, and monitoring 

progress. Twenty-six organizations and agencies from across the Lake Superior basin are 

currently involved in coaster rehabilitation efforts guided by recommendations set forth in the 

plan. The Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office is the Service lead for coaster brook 

trout research and conservation.

Both Wisconsin and Minnesota have created state-specific rehabilitation plans for Lake Superior 

brook trout. Whittlesey Creek is one of five priority streams named in the Wisconsin plan, which 

was jointly developed by the WDNR and the Service (WDNR and FWS, 2005). The Refuge was 

established in 1999 and the Whittlesey Creek brook trout experiment began in 2003. 

Migratory Birds

Land use changes and bird range expansion and contraction are evident on the Whittlesey 

Creek NWR as well as throughout the Whittlesey Creek watershed and Chequamegon Bay 

region. Oral history interviews conducted during Refuge HMP development and informal 

conversations with long-term residents provide valuable insights. For example, sharp-tailed 

grouse populations were high when forests were young, and small dairy farms were common. 

Snow goose migrations provided exceptional hunting opportunities, and Canada goose 

numbers were minimal. As is the case throughout their historic range, bald eagle populations 

crashed due to toxin contamination. The species is now common during all seasons and 

regularly breeds in the area. Sandhill crane, northern cardinal, and wild turkey were rarely seen 

several decades ago. Now all have well-established breeding populations. 

Whittlesey Creek NWR is part of the Lower Chequamegon Bay Important Bird Area. The 2006 

Refuge HMP indicates that birders and biologists have identified 271 bird species in the vicinity, 

including waterfowl, neotropical migrants, raptors, grassland, and shore birds. These can be 

found in appendix B. Wetlands, woodlands in the watershed, and agricultural grasslands 

provide resting and breeding habitat for waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds. Piping plover

and red knot have been a rare sighting in the spring at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek. 

Chequamegon Bay contains artificial nesting islands for common terns, one of two nesting 

locations on Lake Superior in Wisconsin and one of only five nesting sites in the state. The terns 

often feed on small fish in the shallows at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek. Large rafts of diving 

ducks, primarily lesser scaup, utilize Chequamegon Bay during migration, providing excellent 

fall open-water hunting. Limited numbers of overwintering American black ducks and mallards 

are found in the open water at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek, nearby Fish Creek, and in spring 

ponds.

Resident Species

Brady and Verch (2007) compiled a list of over 300 bird species that have been observed at 

least once in the Chequamegon Bay region since 1972. Nearly 170 are known to breed in the 

area. They note that this portion of Lake Superior’s south shore features diverse habitats 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

46

including open water, mudflats, coastal wetlands, open fields, pine barrens, shrublands and 

varied forest types. All of these habitats are represented in the Whittlesey Creek watershed; 

they support a wide variety of dependent species during breeding, migration, and winter 

seasons. While relative annual abundance and occurrence may be inconsistent, 90 of the 

species have been recorded during all four seasons. Approximately 50 species are residents 

but several of these are represented by very limited numbers in scattered locations.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Wisconsin’s gray wolf (Canis lupus) population is federally listed as endangered. The gray wolf 

is an uncommon visitor to Whittlesey Creek NWR. 

The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is federally listed as endangered in Wisconsin’s Great 

Lakes watershed. It nests on bare shoreline adjacent to water. It is known to nest on Lake 

Superior shoreline in a few locations, including Long Island in Chequamegon Bay. There are no 

records of nesting pairs on or in the immediate vicinity of the Refuge. Piping plovers have been 

seen near the mouth of Whittlesey Creek during spring migration.

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is federally listed as threatened in Wisconsin and is considered 

to be very rare with only a few recorded sightings in the past 25 years. Bayfield and Ashland 

counties are included in the list of counties with the highest likelihood of occurrence.

The rufa subspecies of the red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) is federally listed as endangered in 

Wisconsin. It is a rare spring migrant in the Chequamegon Bay region. It has been observed at 

the mouth of Whittlesey Creek, but there are no records of nesting pairs on or in the immediate 

vicinity of the Refuge.

Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) currently is proposed for listing as federally 

endangered. None of the Refuge parcels has known suitable winter habitat or suitable spring 

staging/fall swarming habitat. However, most have the potential to include suitable summer 

habitat. Monitoring via acoustic recording, initiated on the Refuge by the Service in April 2014, 

will help determine presence or absence of the northern long-eared bat.

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment

Demographics

Whittlesey Creek NWR is located in Bayfield County along the shore of Lake Superior in 

northwest Wisconsin. The population of Bayfield County was about 15,000 in the 2010 census 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The Refuge lies entirely within the town of Barksdale (population 

723) and six miles west of the city of Ashland (population 8,216), which is the largest city in the 

region. Bayfield County has a total area of 1,478 square miles (946,000 acres). Nearly 50 

percent of the land is publicly owned or controlled, including county, state, and federal forests, 

parks, and fish and wildlife areas (Bayfield County, 2010). 

About 86 percent of county residents are white, and 10 percent are American Indian. About 18 

percent of residents are under the age of 18, and 22 percent are over 65 years of age. The 

median age of Bayfield County residents increased by 17 percent between 2000 and 2010 and 

probably will continue to increase. More than 90 percent of the population 25 years or older has 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

47

at least a high school level of education; 27 percent has a Bachelor’s degree or higher (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2013). 

Logging, mining, and agriculture were the basis of the first period of rapid growth in northern 

Wisconsin in the late 19th century. With the subsequent decline of these extractive industries 

came declines in population. In Bayfield County, the population has never again reached the 

peaks attained by 1920, although the rise of the tourism and recreation industry in recent years

has brought new growth. According to recent census data, more than 40 percent of homes in 

the county are recreational (Bayfield County, 2010).

Income, Employment, and Local Economy

Median household income in Bayfield County is just over $44,000; about 13 percent of the 

population has income below the poverty line. The November 2014 unemployment rate in 

Bayfield County was 9.2 percent, compared to 5.2 percent for the state of Wisconsin. Leisure 

and hospitality is the largest employing sector in the county even on an average annual basis, 

despite the high degree of seasonality during the fall and winter months. Prominent Bayfield 

County employers include Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, County of Bayfield, 

Legendary Waters Resort and Casino, Northern Lights Health Care Center, and the school 

districts of Bayfield and Washburn (Michels, 2011; Wisconsin Department of Workforce 

Development, 2013; U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).

Agriculture

In 2012, Bayfield County had 352 farms totaling 72,000 acres. Market value of agricultural 

products sold was $13.9 million, about one-third from crops and two-thirds from 

livestock/poultry. Harvested crops included about 25,000 acres of hay and other forage, 2,000 

acres of corn, and between 250 and 800 acres each of barley, orchards, oats, soybeans, and 

wheat. Net income averaged $5,779 per farm. Forty-nine percent of operators had a primary 

occupation other than farming (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012). 

Tourism and Recreation

Tourism and recreation is the largest industry in Bayfield County. Popular activities include 

hunting, fishing, bicycling, picnicking, watching wildlife, sightseeing, attending festivals and 

special events, camping, swimming, ATVing, and boating. In the winter, ice fishing,

snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing are popular. Demand for most of these activities is 

expected to continue to grow, as is the number of seasonal and second homes (Bayfield 

County, 2010).

The county’s peak population estimate for a single day in the summer of 2006 was 45,329, 

about three times the resident population. In addition to the 15,000 residents, this figure 

included 7,350 lodgers in hotels, motels, and campgrounds; almost 20,000 owners of seasonal 

homes; and about 2,300 one-day visitors (Bayfield County, 2010).

In 2012, visitors spent $38.5 million in Bayfield County, which supported about 600 jobs and 

contributed $5.3 million in state and local taxes. Bayfield County ranked 46th out of 72 

Wisconsin counties in tourism impacts. Neighboring Ashland County ranked 53rd, with $29 

million in visitor spending (Wisconsin Department of Tourism, 2013).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

48

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

The NGLVC stimulates rural economic development by attracting visitors to the area and then 

directing them out to public lands and area businesses. A recent University of Wisconsin report 

(Hokans et al., 2013) found that about 75 percent of the 125,000 annual visitors to the Center 

are not local residents of Bayfield or Ashland counties. These non-local visitors spent roughly 

$5.1 million in the two counties in 2012. This economic impact can be measured in terms of 84 

local jobs and $1.6 million in locally accrued employee compensation. The operational budget of 

the Center contributes almost $725,000 to the regional economy each year in employee 

salaries, supplies and expenses, and maintenance and upkeep. 

3.5 Cultural Resources

Area History

[From Wisconsin Cartographers’ Guild (1998) and Milwaukee Public Museum (2013).]

Prehistoric

Nomadic hunter-gatherers were present in Wisconsin from the earliest generally accepted 

cultural period, the Paleo-Indian tradition, that began about 12,000 years ago as glaciers 

retreated northward. These hunter-gatherers roamed widely through the boreal forest of the 

Midwest in search of mastodon, wooly mammoth, and other resources. 

The Archaic tradition evolved as the climate became warmer and drier and cool moist boreal 

forest gave way to deciduous forest and savanna. Efficient hunting and gathering cultures 

developed, gradually becoming more sedentary and exploiting local environments for food and 

tools. Groups of Archaic people, for example, hammered metal tools from copper deposits in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There is consistent evidence of ongoing trade and other forms of 

interaction during this period. 

Human populations increased dramatically during the Woodland period, which began about 

2,500 years ago. Climate was similar to today and a broad belt of mixed deciduous and 

coniferous forest stretched from Lake Superior to New England. Woodland cultures began to 

make pottery, store food, develop small villages, and cultivate plants, although the short growing 

season in the north made crops unreliable there. Hunting, fishing, and gathering remained 

important. In many parts of the Great Lakes, particularly northern Wisconsin, wild rice was a 

dietary staple. 

Historic

The first recorded contact between Europeans and Great Lakes Indians occurred between 1534 

and 1542 when Cartier of France explored the St. Lawrence River. The French soon 

established colonies, alliances, and a thriving fur trade that increased competition among tribes 

in the eastern Great Lakes. The Iroquois tried to seize control of the fur trade through a series of 

wars, forcing many tribes to flee westward. Among those that made their way to Wisconsin were 

the Potawatomi, Ojibwe, Sauk, Fox, Ottawa, Huron, Miami, and Mascouten. Most eventually left 

the area, but the Potawatomi and Ojibwe stayed on. The Ojibwe became key French allies in 

the north. They moved according to the seasons, fishing in summer, ricing in the fall, hunting, 

trapping, and ice fishing in the winter; and tapping maple syrup and spearfishing in the spring.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49

The British won control of all French possessions in Canada and the Midwest in 1763. Green 

Bay, La Pointe, and Prairie du Chien emerged as primary Wisconsin sites of the British fur 

trade. Growing U.S.–British conflicts, however, led to the War of 1812, and the British lost the 

region to the Americans in 1814. The American fur trade declined by the 1850s due to depleted 

beaver populations, Native American land cessions, and removal of tribes to reservations.

The Ojibwe ceded vast tracts of forest in northwestern Wisconsin and east-central Minnesota in 

the 1837 Treaty, allowing timber companies to begin cutting the extensive stands of white pine. 

The 1842 Treaty ceded lands rich in copper and iron in northeastern Wisconsin and the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan, including the 

Chequamegon Bay area. The 1854 Treaty 

allowed the Ojibwe to live on four reservations 

at Lac du Flambeau, Bad River, Red Cliff, and 

Lac Courte Oreilles. Small reservations for the 

Mole Lake Sokaogon and the St. Croix Ojibwe 

were created in 1934. In keeping with the 

decentralized Ojibwe political tradition, each 

reservation has its own government.

Commercial logging grew rapidly in Wisconsin 

from the 1850s through the 1890s, encouraging 

settlement of the state’s northern regions. Many 

lumber mills opened in Wisconsin, including the 

south shore of Chequamegon Bay. Between 1899 and 1905, Wisconsin led the nation in lumber 

production. The last stands of old growth pine in the state were harvested in the early 1930s.

As the timber industry declined, northern Wisconsin was touted as the ideal place to acquire 

cleared land and establish farms. Much of the logged area became farmland, but the short 

growing season, infertile soil, and poor economic conditions made farming difficult. Much of the 

land was declared tax delinquent by the 1940s and today accounts for many of Wisconsin’s 

national, state, and county parks and forests. Nevertheless, agriculture is still an important land 

use in the Chequamegon Bay region, including the Whittlesey Creek watershed.

Lake Superior became accessible to large ships in 1855 with the opening of the Sault Sainte 

Marie canal. Duluth-Superior became a leading grain port by the 1870s, but the primary cargo 

soon shifted to iron ore mined in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. Enormous ore docks 

were constructed in Duluth, Superior, and Ashland for shipping the ore to steel mills and 

manufacturing plants. By the 1930s, the Lake Superior iron ranges were producing two-thirds of 

the world’s iron ore. The iron deposits were exhausted after peaking in the 1950s. 

A modest commercial fishing industry on Lake Superior during the 19th century included the 

Bayfield-Apostle Islands region, which had an excellent natural harbor, little industrial 

development, and plentiful whitefish, herring, and lake trout. The Wisconsin fishing industry 

steadily declined after the 1930s due to overfishing, invasion of exotic species, and industrial 

development and pollution. Since the 1950s, Wisconsin has worked with other states and 

Canada on exotic species control, environmental regulation, and fish restocking programs. 

Chequamegon Bay tourism began in the mid-1800s, notably for anglers pursuing the coaster 

brook trout of Lake Superior. The city of Ashland was a destination for anglers from Chicago 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

50

and other Midwestern cities, who arrived by train at the Chequamegon Hotel. Today, the Great 

Lakes retain their attraction for recreational fishing and boating.

Refuge Cultural Resources

Twenty-two sites in Bayfield County have been placed on the National Register of Historic 

Places, but none of these properties is located within the boundaries of the Refuge. Thirteen 

buildings or farmstead complexes are within the approved boundary. One of these buildings 

may have been the home of Asaph Whittlesey, founder of Ashland, WI in 1860, and after whom 

the creek was named. Also within the proposed boundaries could be the site of the cabin built in 

1664 by Pierre Esprit Radisson, a French fur trader and explorer. No National Historic 

Landmarks are located within the Refuge. No cultural resources investigations have been 

conducted on the Refuge (FWS, 1998).

Cultural Resources Management

Cultural resources (archaeological sites, historic structures, and Native American traditional 

cultural properties) are important parts of the Nation’s heritage. The Service strives to preserve 

evidence of these human occupations, which can provide valuable information regarding 

interactions between individuals, as well as between early peoples and the natural environment. 

Protection of cultural resources is accomplished in conjunction with the Service’s mandate to 

protect fish, wildlife, and plant resources.

The Service is charged with the responsibility, under Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, of identifying historic properties (cultural resources that are potentially 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places) that may be affected by Service 

actions. The Service is also required to coordinate these actions with the State Historic 

Preservation Office, Native American tribal governments, local governments, and other 

interested parties. Cultural resource management in the Service is the responsibility of the 

Regional Director and is not delegated for the Section 106 process when historic properties 

could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing archaeological permits, and for tribal 

involvement. 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) Section 14 requires plans to 

survey lands and a schedule for surveying lands with “the most scientifically valuable 

archaeological resources.” This Act also affords protection to all archeological and historic sites 

more than 100 years old (not just sites meeting the criteria for the National Register) on federal 

land and requires archeological investigations on federal land be performed in the public interest 

by qualified persons. 

The Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about 

procedures, compliance, and implementation of these and other cultural resource laws. The 

actual determinations relating to cultural resources are to be made by the RHPO for 

undertakings on Service fee title lands and for undertakings funded in whole or in part under the 

direct or indirect jurisdiction of the Service, including those carried out by or on behalf of the 

Service, those carried out with federal financial assistance, and those requiring a federal permit, 

license, or approval.

The responsibility of the Refuge Manager is to identify undertakings that could affect cultural 

resources and coordinate the subsequent review process as early as possible with the RHPO 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

51

and state, tribal, and local officials. Also, the Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by protecting 

archeological sites and historic properties on Service managed and administered lands, by 

monitoring archaeological investigations by contractors and permittees and by reporting ARPA 

violations.

3.6 Refuge Programs

Biological

Fish and Wildlife Restoration and Management

Coaster Brook Trout

In response to the significant decline in brook trout numbers, and in support of the Brook Trout 

Rehabilitation Plan for Lake Superior (Newman et al., 2003) and the Wisconsin Lake Superior 

Basin Brook Trout Plan (2005) the Service and WDNR are implementing an experimental 

restoration plan specific to Whittlesey 

Creek aimed at establishing a selfsustaining population of migratory 

brook trout. 

The Brook Trout Rehabilitation Plan for 

Lake Superior (Newman et al., 2003) 

was adopted by the GLFC as a 

guidance tool for brook trout initiatives 

undertaken by management agencies 

situated around Lake Superior. The 

Wisconsin Lake Superior Brook Trout 

Plan, developed jointly by the WDNR 

and the Service (WDNR and FWS, 

2005), builds on the lake-wide plan and names five priority Wisconsin tributaries for brook trout 

restoration: Brule River, Bark River, Raspberry River, Whittlesey Creek, and Graveyard Creek. 

Overall program objectives address stream and watershed health, harvest, stocking, genetics, 

life history, species interactions, and outreach. Restoration and management actions are 

tailored to individual streams. An interagency team holds regular coordination meetings to 

evaluate progress and address any issues that arise. 

The Whittlesey Creek experiment is the only brook trout restoration program in Wisconsin’s 

Lake Superior basin that combines all four of the following actions: 

A. Improve Habitat

B. Establish Protective Harvest Regulations

C. Stock Coaster Brook Trout

D. Assess and Monitor

A. Improve Habitat

Refuge staff has responsibility for the habitat improvement portion of the Whittlesey Creek 

experiment. Several hydrologic and geomorphic studies have been completed that identify 

watershed and in-stream stressors affecting brook trout habitat in Whittlesey Creek (WDNR et 

al., 1996; Trout Unlimited 2003; WDNR and FWS, 2005). Implementation of a detailed HMP for 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

52

Whittlesey Creek is now underway (FWS, 2006c). The plan includes long-term restoration 

objectives and strategies for the Refuge, the stream, and the watershed. 

B. Establish Protective Harvest Regulations

The WDNR changed angling regulations in 2003 to provide greater protection for brook trout 

during this experiment. Whittlesey Creek now is a “catch and release only” stream for brook 

trout. In addition, regulations for brook trout harvest in Lake Superior now include a 20-inch 

minimum size limit and one fish per day bag limit. These regulations are intended to continue for 

the length of the experiment.

C. Stock Coaster Brook Trout 

Stocking brook trout into Whittlesey Creek has occurred frequently over the last 100 years 

(FWS and WDNR, 2003). No record exists of the strains used but it is generally understood that, 

until the 1990s, the source fish were not from the Lake Superior basin. In addition, most early 

stocking efforts were not accompanied by habitat restoration, protective regulations, or 

monitoring.

All brook trout now stocked in the basin come from strains that originated in the basin and that 

were known to use the lake environment. For this experiment, two strains (Tobin Harbor and 

Siskiwit) from Isle Royale, Michigan were stocked between 2004 and 2009. Life stages used 

were eyed eggs, fingerlings (1–2”), yearlings (4–5”), and adults (>8”). All life stages (except 

eggs) received a mark for later identification. Iron River and Genoa National Fish Hatcheries 

raised the fish and the Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office (FWCO) released them 

into Whittlesey Creek. Table 3-3 shows number, life stage, and year stocked.

Table 3-3: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Stocking

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Egg 50,000 50,000 50,000

Fingerling 20,000 20,000 20,000

Yearling 2,000 2,000 2,000

Adult 75 50 50 50

D. Assess and Monitor 

The Ashland FWCO is responsible for the assessment and monitoring portion of the Whittlesey 

Creek brook trout experiment. Four stream reaches were selected as index stations to be 

sampled each fall throughout the experiment. Pre-stocking, baseline data were collected from 

2001–2003 at the four fixed index stations, and is scheduled to continue at least through 2030 

to evaluate brook trout reproduction, recruitment, and survival over time. 

Pre-Stocking – The 2001–2003 pre-stocking data showed an estimated 70 to 80 percent 

decline in brook trout numbers compared to a comprehensive survey conducted by the WDNR 

in 1977, confirming the need to begin an experiment to better understand what conservation 

and management actions are potentially needed in order to restore a coaster brook trout 

population. The significant decrease in brook trout numbers from 1977 to the early 2000s was 

possibly due to habitat changes caused by flooding during the 24 years between surveys. Coho

salmon far outnumbered brook trout in all three years of baseline, pre-experimental phase 

monitoring. Population estimates of all trout and salmon collected during the pre-stocking phase 

are shown in Table 3-4. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

53

Table 3-4: Whittlesey Creek Fall Trout Population Estimate by Year

Young-of-year 

Coho*

All 

Rainbow* All Brown* All Brook

Pre-stocking Phase

2001 1,796 78 67 68

2002 5,181 670 1,300 68

2003 18,796 1,210 79 101

Stocking Phase

2004 6,438 4,254 57 209

2005 12,049 4,717 34 1,479

2006 6,513 3,327 37 428

2007 14,188 4,485 40 1,049

2008 8,660 3,302 46 614

2009 14,762 1,678 72 546

Post-stocking Phase

2010 17,650 1,372 38 413

2011 12,961 2,086 63 244

2012 8,966 1,259 49 152

2013 5,279 780 30 170

Asterisk * indicates non-native species

Stocking – Annual fall surveys of the four fixed stations were completed throughout the 

timeframe when stocking was being conducted (2004–2009). As to be expected during a period 

of regular stocking, overall brook trout numbers increased, as did the frequency of occurrence of 

multiple life-stages. In some years, the overall brook trout population was 10 times higher than

any of the three years pre-stocking. 

Post-Stocking – The post-stocking evaluation phase began in 2010 and continues to present. 

In comparing the past four years of catch data (2010–2013) to that of the pre-stocking baseline 

(2001–2003), at least three-year classes of brook trout are present. The average number of 

adult (age 2+) brook trout in Whittlesey Creek represents a ten-fold increase compared to that 

of the pre-stocking phase. The average number of yearlings (age 1) and young-of-year brook 

trout over the past four years represents a two-fold increase.

Life-Stage Comparison – A thorough evaluation of the contribution that each life stage stocked 

has made to the existing brook trout population is not yet complete. However, preliminary 

results indicate that of the four life-stages stocked (i.e., eyed-eggs, fingerlings, yearlings, and 

adults), fingerlings appeared to have the highest survival rate to the yearling, and subsequent 

adult stage. Survival of adult brook trout stocked was quite low, and based on telemetry and 

Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag data of stocked adult fish, most adults either died 

(e.g., predation) or emigrated out of Whittlesey Creek <30 days post stocking. Due to vandalism 

in two of the three years of eyed-egg stockings, an accurate and thorough evaluation of this 

stocking strategy is not possible.

Comprehensive Fish Community Surveys – In addition to the annual surveys of the four 

index stations, Ashland FWCO and WDNR conducted comprehensive fish surveys of Whittlesey 

Creek from mouth to headwaters in 2001 (pre-stocking) and 2010 (immediately post stocking), 

replicating a 1977 survey completed by the WDNR. The purpose of the comprehensive survey 

is to obtain a more complete survey of the fish community across a broader spatial scale than 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

54

what is obtained from the annual index survey of four sites. Table 3-5 shows estimates of the 

total number of brook trout collected at six comparable sites across the three years when 

comprehensive surveys have taken place. Comprehensive fish surveys of Whittlesey Creek to 

assess the entire fish community are scheduled for completion every 10 years through 2030.

Table 3-5: Whittlesey Creek Comprehensive Brook Trout Surveys

1997 2001 2010

184 56 413

Genetic Strain Comparisons – To establish a genetic baseline for the brook trout population 

that existed in Whittlesey Creek prior to the stocking phase of the experiment, tissue samples 

(i.e., small fin clip) were taken from fish collected from 2001–2003. During and following the 

stocking phase, tissue samples were taken from brook trout collected during annual 

assessments. Tissue samples were analyzed and assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) Great Lakes Science Center (2004 and 2005) and the Service’s Northeast Fishery 

Center (2006–2010) to one of three strains: Whittlesey Creek, Tobin Harbor, or Siskiwit. To 

date, tissue samples from brook trout collected during fall assessments from 2004–2010 have 

been processed. Annual and life stage variations exist with respect to strain performance, but 

overall it appears that the Tobin and Siskiwit strains perform equally well. Also, the Whittlesey 

Creek baseline population continues to be present, but in a much smaller proportion (Figure 3-

10).

Figure 3-10: Genetic brook trout strains in Whittlesey Creek

Emigration/Immigration – In addition to annual monitoring of the fish community in Whittlesey 

Creek, a solar-powered, remote PIT tag reader was installed near the mouth of Whittlesey 

Creek in the spring of 2008 to monitor emigration and immigration of coaster brook trout. PIT 

tags were/are inserted into the abdominal cavity of all brook trout captured > 5 inches that were 

either stocked or collected since 2008. Eighty-nine of the 2,000 yearlings stocked in spring 2008 

were subsequently detected leaving Whittlesey Creek, mostly in the spring and fall between 

10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Five of the 89 have since returned to Whittlesey Creek―one in fall 

2009, one in spring 2010, and three in fall 2010. Movement of brook trout originally stocked or 

collected in Whittlesey Creek into other streams also has been documented. Additional analysis 

will be completed as more data become available. 

Progress Toward Goal – The overall goal of this project is to establish a self-sustaining brook 

trout population that exhibits a migrating life history by 2030. A population is considered selfsustaining when it supports itself via 25 breeding pairs for at least two generations after stocked 

Strain

Tobin

Siskiwit

Whittlesey
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

55

fish no longer contribute to recruitment. To date, we have not achieved this goal, nor did we 

expect to as a sufficient amount of time post stocking has not taken place. However, all 

indications based on survey results to date indicate that significant progress toward achieving 

our goal has been made, and that the strategies identified in the experimental plan (see 

appendix H) should continue. We have observed a 2–10 fold increase in the number of fish 

present (depending on age-class), we continue to observe annual reproduction as witnessed by 

our collection of young-of-the-year fish in the fall, we have observed large (relative to prestocking) numbers of adults, and the genetics are telling us that coaster brook trout strains used 

during our stocking phase are performing well. Last, but certainly not least, we have 

documented a small percentage of the brook trout in Whittlesey Creek exhibiting migratory 

behavior, emigrating from Whittlesey Creek as young, immature fish returning subsequently as 

adults, presumably to spawn.

Habitat Restoration and Management

The HMP for Whittlesey Creek NWR has provided direction and guidance for Refuge habitat 

activities since 2006. The HMP includes objectives and strategies both for lands within the 

Refuge boundary and for upstream private lands within the Whittlesey Creek watershed, 

organized under four general goals (FWS, 2006c):

1. Stream: Restore watershed and stream hydrologic functions that improve fish and 

wildlife habitat within the stream and the Refuge, with an emphasis on native species.

2. Sediments: Reduce sediment loads into Whittlesey Creek to historic (pre-European 

settlement) range of variability.

3. Floodplain and wetland hydrology: Restore to the extent possible floodplain function 

in the coastal wetlands and floodplains of the Refuge.

4. Floodplain habitat: Restore native species composition of trees and shrubs in the 

floodplain that will provide heterogeneous vertical and horizontal structure for migratory 

bird habitat.

The USGS studied the effects of land cover on flooding and base flow characteristics of 

Whittlesey Creek by use of two groundwater flow models (GFLOW and MODFLOW) and one 

rainfall runoff model called the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Lenz et al., 2003). 

The study was done in cooperation with the Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation 

Department (LWCD) and the Service. GFLOW and MODFLOW showed that the groundwater 

contributing area did not coincide with the topographically delineated surface-water-contributing 

basin. Instead, about 90 percent of the base flow to Whittlesey Creek originated as recharge 

through the permeable sands in the center of the Bayfield Peninsula. The SWAT model 

indicated that changes in land cover within the surface-water-contributing basin would have 

minimal effects on average annual runoff for Whittlesey Creek but would affect flood peaks. The 

predicted reduction of flood peaks under more forested conditions could potentially cause a 

reduction in sedimentation near the mouth of Whittlesey Creek. 

Additional information comes from a Sediment Impact Analysis Methods (SIAM) model for the 

Whittlesey Creek watershed developed in partnership with the USACE and USGS (USACE,

2010). The Whittlesey Creek model was developed to screen various restoration options and 

determine potential impacts to the sediment balance. Four scenarios were initially modeled: 

addition of large woody debris, reduction in peak flows in the upper reaches, floodplain 

reconnection in the lower reaches, and bank stabilization in the mid-upper reaches. SIAM found 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

56

that restorations that affected hydraulics had the most significant effects on the sedimentation 

and erosion dynamics of the system. SIAM also found examples of potential unintended 

consequences of restoration to the sediment regime of downstream reaches. This tool can help 

focus restoration efforts and funding on the most feasible projects that have the greatest chance 

for long-term restoration success.

Recent habitat restoration activities have centered on in-stream habitat and fish passage, 

although progress on floodplain, wetland, and watershed restoration also has been significant

(Figure 3-11).
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

57

Figure 3-11: Habitat Restoration Projects to Date
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

58

Stream

Large Woody Debris

When the Refuge was established, large 

woody debris had been nearly eliminated 

from stream channels. By 2014, more than 

600 logs will be added to the lower 2.5 

miles of Whittlesey Creek, slowing flood 

flows, protecting stream banks, providing 

cover for fish and invertebrates, and 

exposing beneficial gravel that had been 

buried in sediment. This portion of the creek 

lies mostly within the authorized Refuge 

boundary and was one of the most highly 

degraded channel segments based on 

quality of fish and invertebrate habitat. 

Many of the restoration sites are easy to 

access and highly visible, making them 

good demonstration areas for the benefits 

of large woody debris. 

Another 120 logs were installed upstream near the North Fork confluence where year round 

base flow in Whittlesey Creek begins. This project was designed primarily for bank/bluff 

stabilization and erosion control rather than fish habitat but, like the downstream installations, it 

serves both functions. No logs have been installed yet on Little Whittlesey or Terwilliger Creeks.

Logs are installed in clusters using a large track excavator―either by placing them in trenches 

and backfilling, or by pushing them into the bank. Logs are cabled together and made to look 

like natural logjams. Contractors handle design, engineering, construction oversight, and log 

placement. 

Northland College students, volunteers, staff from agency partners, the Youth Conservation 

Corps, and Refuge staff assist with cabling, seeding, and mulching. Refuge staff and contract 

engineers jointly determine the best locations and configurations for log clusters along the creek 

based on channel profile data, site visits, and professional experience. Funding has come from 

many sources including National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, WDNR, Bayfield County LWCD, 

Trout Unlimited, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

program. 

In-stream habitat monitoring is based on the Fish Habitat Rating System (Simonson et al., 1993) 

developed specifically for Wisconsin streams. The system gives a qualitative ranking (poor to 

excellent) of habitat suitability for coldwater fish based on measures such as channel width and 

depth, cover, pool area, channel substrate, and riparian buffer width. Pre-restoration data is 

available for 21 reference sites established in the Whittlesey Creek watershed; post-restoration 

data is collected by the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) at sites that are influenced by large 

woody debris installation. Refuge staff is especially interested in documenting changes in 

channel width, depth, and substrate and thalweg depth and substrate. Results at two restored 

sites with good before and after data showed significant increases in average water depth and 

percent gravel substrate within one year of log placement (Marx, 2012). These changes indicate 

exposure of potential spawning substrate and improved rearing habitat for anadromous fish, 

including coaster brook trout.

Large woody debris installation.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

59

Northland College students and Refuge staff help collect and analyze data on diversity and 

abundance of macroinvertebrates and fish before and after log installation. Data from the initial 

round of sampling show some promising signs, although a more detailed analysis is needed. 

The initial data has documented the invertebrate families present using samples from treatment 

and reference sections of the creek. The study confirmed that the addition of logs resulted in an 

increase in caddisfly larvae of the Limnephilidae family. Limnephilidae are often clingers that 

depend on larger rocky substrates for a place to cling while they wait for food to drift past. Longterm data collection may help document a shift in invertebrate communities as the habitat 

changes. Exposure of gravel substrates, creation of deeper pools, and increased surface area 

on logs in the stream are expected over time (Brunk, 2012).

Brook trout and rainbow trout have been documented using the newly created habitat, with 

anecdotal sightings of coho salmon, too. A longer data record is needed, however, before 

observed increases in fish use of restored cover, pools, and backwaters can be confirmed 

statistically. Refuge staff and Northland College professors plan to collect annual datasets on 

fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate abundance and diversity, as well as fish habitat rating for a 

minimum of five years post-log installation.

Culverts and Bridges

The Service and its partners have replaced fourteen road culverts in the Whittlesey Creek and 

Terwilliger Creek watersheds since the Refuge was established, increasing fish access to 

spawning habitat along about five miles of the creek. Nearly every replaced culvert has had dual 

benefits for stream health―improving fish passage and reducing scour and stream bank 

erosion. Culvert replacement also benefits local communities by reducing road flooding, 

washouts, and maintenance costs. Local support for the program is very strong. Several 

culverts still need replacement in intermittent stream reaches, along forest roads, and on 

Terwilliger Creek. 

A well-designed culvert installation allows enough water flow at the right velocity to facilitate fish 

movement through it. The Bayfield County LWCD designs the new Whittlesey Creek 

installations, considering watershed size, flood flows, and stream alignment. Proper pipe 

diameter and length are important. Smaller culverts are cheaper, but undersized culverts can 

increase water velocity, which inhibits fish passage and increases erosion potential. The slope 

of the new culverts is no more than one percent and alignment is consistent with natural stream 

alignment. The lower 12 inches of culverts are embedded in the channel substrate to establish a 

natural streambed through the pipe. 

Poorly designed culvert. Well-designed culvert.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

60

All of the bridges that cross Whittlesey Creek are too narrow and should be replaced. Narrow 

bridges cause downstream scour and bank erosion and create upstream backwaters that 

accumulate sediment. One bridge on the Refuge constricts the channel by 50 percent and is a 

very high priority for replacement as soon as funding becomes available. It is scheduled for 

replacement during 2015.

Floodplain and Wetland

Tree Planting

Trees are planted on and near the Refuge to restore the historic forest cover that will slow 

floodwaters, stabilize stream banks, contribute large woody debris to the stream system and 

forest floor, and improve habitat for fish, migratory birds, and other wildlife. The first tree planting 

was in 2003 as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) centennial 

celebration. Since then, about 60 acres total have been planted―mostly on Service fee title 

land, but also on some Refuge inholdings and adjacent private land.

Trees are planted in riparian zones along Whittlesey Creek, in floodplain hayfields, and on the 

limited upland areas. Riparian plantings occur in the same stream reaches as large woody 

debris restoration, usually in September when log placement is complete and weather is cooler. 

Hayfield plantings occur more often in spring, shortly after the frost is gone. Priority fields for 

planting are those that will fill gaps in forest cover, reducing habitat fragmentation. 

Refuge staff uses a suite of native conifers―typically red pine (Pinus resinosa), white pine 

(Pinus strobus), white spruce (Picea glauca), and sometimes black spruce (Picea mariana). 

Tamarack, northern white cedar, and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) sometimes are used 

in lower wetter locations. Conifers are preferred based on easy availability, fast growth, and less 

deer browse compared to hardwoods. Conifers also are more effective than deciduous trees at 

slowing the flow of floodwater. Planting assistance has come from Northland College students, 

other volunteers, the Conservation Corps Minnesota and Iowa, Trout Unlimited, and a local tree 

care service.

Planting techniques have been refined over 

time. Two-year-old accelerated growth 

transplants are now the preferred planting 

stock. Accelerated growth transplants have 

extensive fibrous root systems, are more 

resistant to drought, absorb nutrients from a 

larger volume of soil, are more competitive 

with existing vegetation, grow faster in the first 

few years, and survive much better than the 

bare root or tap root trees used previously. No 

monitoring data is available on tree survival 

and growth or migratory bird use, but field 

observations indicate that survival of the 

accelerated growth transplants has been well 

over 75 percent so far. Annual deer repellent application on browse-susceptible species is 

critical until growth exceeds browse height. Aspen trees are sometimes felled along field 

margins to promote suckering, natural succession, and forest diversity.

Invasive brush (mostly buckthorn and honeysuckle) is controlled prior to tree planting when 

necessary. Trees are planted using planting bars and roots are pruned as needed to fit easily 

Newly planted trees.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

61

into each hole. Species are randomized across the landscape but selected for each microsite 

based on soil moisture and soil type. Tamarack and northern white cedar prefer wetter areas, 

for example, while red pine prefers higher warmer sites. White pine, northern white cedar, and 

eastern hemlock are especially susceptible to browse, so are cluster planted in groves of 20 to 

25 trees to facilitate spraying with deer repellent. Every tree gets a slow release fertilizer tablet 

when planted. An average spacing of 12 feet by 12 feet is used to calculate the number of trees 

to order. Planning has begun to plant 60 acres during the spring of 2015 in partnership with the 

USFS with funding provided by the Lake Superior Landscape Restoration Partnership

(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wi/home/?cid=STELPRDB1247205).

Wetland Restoration

The Refuge and watershed historically 

contained many small shallow wetland basins 

that slowed runoff, trapped sediment, and 

provided habitat for wetland wildlife. Nearly all 

of these ephemeral wetlands were lost as 

fields were leveled and ditches dug to 

increase drainage and improve agricultural 

production. 

Over fifty basins totaling approximately 20 

acres have been restored within the Refuge’s 

fee title and easement acquisition area. 

Approximately one-half are floodplain 

wetlands on Refuge lands and inholdings. The 

Refuge, FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program, Bayfield County LWCD, and the 

Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program have provided funding for wetland restoration projects.

Refuge staff uses leaf-off aerial imagery to delineate naturally occurring basins and manmade 

drainage systems. Groundwater and red clay typically can be found five to eight feet or less 

below the floodplain, so many wetlands were restored simply by plugging the ditches that 

drained them. Some larger basins were excavated and dikes pushed up during restoration to 

hold more water. Many of the smaller basins installed during the Wisconsin Priority Watershed 

Program are now covered with cattails and filling with decayed vegetation. Excavation would 

improve structure and function since water deeper than three feet in wetlands typically does not 

become colonized by cattails. Water control structures have not been installed and no active 

water management occurs. Disposal of some spoil material, placed in the Refuge floodplain 

during proposed golf course development, is still needed.

No formal monitoring of wetland vegetation occurs on the Refuge. The restored wetlands are 

expected to provide habitat for nesting waterfowl, marsh birds such as American bittern and 

green heron, and other wetland wildlife, although no breeding season surveys are conducted to 

document wildlife use. Partnerships with Northland College professors have the potential for 

establishing long-term monitoring.

Watershed

A healthy Whittlesey Creek watershed is important for successful restoration of Refuge lands 

downstream and successful reintroduction of coaster brook trout in the creek. The Service has 

authority to purchase up to 1,260 acres of conservation easements from willing landowners in 

the watershed. Service staff also works with private landowners and other partners to design 

Restored wetland.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

62

and implement voluntary farm conservation practices that slow overland flow and reduce 

erosion.

Conservation Easements

Two conservation easements totaling 47 acres have been purchased from private landowners 

so far. Each easement includes a permanent agreement between the landowner and the 

Service that sets forth specific restrictions on development and land use. Easements allow the 

landowner to continue many outdoor recreation uses on their property including hunting, fishing, 

walking, and quiet enjoyment. Through the easement, motorized uses or consumptive activities 

are restricted. Landowners do not have to allow public access through the easement. The 

property also remains on the tax rolls, limiting the impact to local governments. The first 

easement agreement was not very restrictive; subsequent agreements placed more restrictions 

on land use and gave the Service more management rights.

Landowners receive payment for the appraised value of their easements. Early participation in 

the Whittlesey Creek program has been low, but reinterpretation of the legal authority for these 

easements has increased the appraised values, which is expected to increase landowner 

interest.

Farm Conservation Practices

Rock stream crossings and detention basins are two techniques that have been used on private 

lands to improve the health of the Whittlesey Creek watershed. Rock crossings stabilize banks 

and the streambed on perennial and intermittent drainages. Several have been constructed in 

the watershed to minimize erosion while allowing farm machinery to cross. Detention basins 

help keep nutrients and sediment out of the creek. They slow runoff from farm fields and 

livestock operations, absorb nutrients, and allow solids to settle out before the water reaches 

drainage ditches and ravines. Landowners also work with the Service to implement other 

conservation measures on their property including culvert replacement, in-stream log 

installation, wetland restoration, and tree planting.

Invasive Species

Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) are currently the 

invasive species of highest concern that are known to be present on the Refuge. Buckthorn is 

most common in riparian areas, along fencerows, and in old hayfields transitioning to shrubs. 

Dense thickets of box elder dominate some areas. Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) is 

primarily found in areas that were altered during development of the proposed golf course. 

Knapweed (Centaurea sp.) is also present along roadsides and on the abandoned railroad 

grade that cuts through the Refuge. Buckthorn and other invasive woody plants are treated in 

fields and riparian areas as necessary prior to tree planting by applying glyphosate to cut 

stumps or girdled trunks. Prescribed fire would reduce the reed canarygrass that is dominant 

along the edges of floodplain sedge meadows, but treatment has been minimal due to limited 

resources. Burning is being proposed prior to the 2015 60-acre tree planting that was discussed 

previously. Previous coastal wetland purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) infestations have 

effectively been suppressed by releasing Galerucella spp. beetles.

Partners in the NGLVC established an Invasive Free Zone in 2005 (defined as a 95 percent

reduction of net infested acres for individual invasive species) to achieve a monitoring and

maintenance mode for invasive plants and to restore native vegetation within the boundaries of 

the Refuge and NGLVC. Major components of the concept included comprehensive inventory 

and monitoring, control of all known invasives, demonstration of lessons learned, and outreach 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

63

and education beyond project boundaries. A management plan (McNamara and Mlynarek,

2007) and guidebook (McNamara, 2007) for the project were completed in 2007 (McNamara 

and Mlynarek, 2007). Seven high priority invasive plants were chosen based on their relative 

abundance and relative invasiveness. Initial support was obtained for inventory, mapping, and 

control efforts, but national funding priorities shifted over time and the program has not been 

active for several years. Treatment, primarily of woody invasives, occurs intermittently as 

training opportunities for the National Park Service Exotic Plants Management Team and on a 

contract basis with Conservation Corps Minnesota and Iowa. Buckthorn and honeysuckle 

control is being planned for 2015 with the USFS via Lake Superior Landscape Restoration 

Partnership funding.

The Northwoods Cooperative Weed Management Area provides a forum to share information 

and resources, collaborate on planning, and cooperate on invasive species management in 

Douglas, Bayfield, Ashland, and Iron counties in northern Wisconsin. Supporters include state 

and federal agencies (including Whittlesey Creek NWR), municipalities, tribes, nonprofits, 

community organizations, and individuals. Recent projects have included shoreline restoration 

in the city of Ashland, inventory of invasive plants along town and county roadsides, and 

treatment of invasive plants in gravel pits that otherwise could spread seed to other locations.

Inventory, Monitoring, and Research

A separate inventory and monitoring plan is being developed that will help identify priorities. A 

general description of current inventory, monitoring, and research efforts follow and many of 

these are the result of Refuge HMP recommendations.

On-going fish survey efforts are led by the FWS Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office. 

Annual September mark and recapture sampling is conducted within four index stations. Refuge 

staff, volunteers, and WDNR participate. Details appear in Section 3.6, D. Access and Monitor, 

above, and in appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment. Additionally, to document 

the effects of in-channel habitat restoration, Refuge staff, YCC, and Northland College 

professors and students collected mark-and-recapture fish population data pre-log installation 

and plan to continue for a minimum of five years post-installation.

Aquatic macroinvertebrate population diversity and abundance surveys were initiated pre-log 

installation and it is anticipated that they will be continued for a minimum of five years postinstallation. Refuge staff, YCC, and Northland College professors and students participate.

Twenty-one in-stream habitat monitoring reference sites have been established in the 

Whittlesey Creek watershed. Monitoring protocol measures characteristics such as channel 

width and depth, cover, pool area, channel substrate, and riparian buffer width, and provides a 

qualitative ranking (poor to excellent) of habitat suitability for coldwater fish. Data track changes 

to individual metrics as well as overall qualitative ranking pre- and post-management activity. 

Activities include log-installation or culvert replacement, for example. Refuge staff and YCC 

annually complete this monitoring on a subset of the twenty-one sites. 

A cooperatively funded USGS stream gaging station is located about one mile upstream from 

the mouth of Whittlesey Creek. Gage readings are posted at

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?040263205. Funding is provided by the Refuge, Ashland Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Office, Bayfield County LWCD, and USGS. The gage has been 

operational since April 1999. Data are used for the SIAM model that consultants rely on when 

engineering and designing practices such as in-channel log installations. Ideally, gage 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

64

hydrographs will indicate that Whittlesey Creek is less flashy as watershed enhancement, 

restoration, and protection efforts proceed. USGS is responsible for all aspects of gage 

operation and maintenance.

Nighttime bat and bird monitoring via acoustic recording was initiated on the Refuge by 

Regional Office staff during 2014. Data will provide information about species presence and 

seasonal migration. Of particular interest is the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), 

currently proposed to be federally listed as endangered. Refuge staff provides the minimal 

required weekly maintenance. 

Visitor Services

Hunting and Fishing

Archery deer hunting is allowed on the Refuge. Only tracts of land greater than 20 acres are 

open to hunting in an effort to avoid trespass issues with neighbors. Since safety is imperative, 

archery is not allowed near the Refuge Coaster Classroom or Visitor Center boardwalk adjacent 

to the Refuge. No Refuge-specific statistics are kept for number of hunters or number of deer 

harvested. The Refuge is managed as part of a deer management unit in the state of 

Wisconsin.

Waterfowl hunting is allowed east of Highway 13, an area that includes the shoreline of 

Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior. The area is relatively small and mainly provides 

opportunities for shore hunting of diving ducks (Figure 3-12).

Fishing is not allowed pursuant to Refuge regulations but, according to state regulations, 

individuals can fish in Whittlesey Creek as long as they are able to access the creek at a legal 

point and stay within the creek to fish. Whittlesey Creek is a catch and release brook trout 

stream. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

65

Figure 3-12: Refuge Hunting Areas
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

66

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observation and photography are allowed on Whittlesey Creek NWR. Use varies during 

the year, peaking during special events at the NGLVC. Events such as the Chequamegon Bay 

Birding and Nature Festival in May attract birders from across the country, many of whom take 

advantage of Refuge programs held as part of the event. Chequamegon Bay and the 

associated shoreline of Lake Superior including the mouth of Whittlesey Creek offer excellent 

wildlife viewing opportunities. The Bay is an important migratory stopover for numerous 

waterfowl. The mouth of the creek is a gathering area for many migrant shorebirds, eagles, 

waterfowl, and other wildlife. The Refuge also provides habitat for migrating warblers, raptors,

and other birds that use the Bayfield Peninsula as a staging area to cross Lake Superior.

Most of the opportunities at the Refuge are associated with roads or the Lake Superior shoreline 

since there is no developed trail system on the Refuge. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Currently the park ranger position at the Refuge, which coordinates the environmental education 

and interpretation program, is being held vacant for cost savings. If filled in the future, the 

position will resume education and interpretation work in partnership with the NGLVC. The level 

of programming will be dependent on the funding provided for the position. The education 

program focuses on high quality programs that are tied to school curriculum and have onRefuge and off-Refuge components. 

The Refuge also has developed school-specific 

partnerships such as the “River of Words” 

program with the School District of Washburn. 

Through this program, Washburn fourth-graders 

understand what a watershed is, learn what is in 

their local watershed, and try new mediums to 

express their thoughts. The students develop a 

great sense of place, connection to nature, and a 

beginning sense of stewardship. They express 

what they learn through art and poetry with the 

help of a local artist and a local poet. Their 

expressions, connections, and enthusiasm spill 

out from every page and every project they 

complete during their fourth-grade year.

Interpretive programs on the Refuge and in partnership with the NGLVC will focus on wildlife or 

habitat related topics including duck calling contests, owls of the Northwoods, waterfowl 

identification, habitat restoration, and many others. Refuge programs complement the additional 

programs offered at the Center by other partners, which cover a wide range of topics from 

cultural, historic, geo-caching, local history, etc. The varied programs are representative of the 

various agency priorities for their individual interpretive and educational themes. For example, 

Service priorities are wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent recreation while agencies such as 

the USFS have a broader mission that places more emphasis on consumptive use.

Environmental education program.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

67

The Refuge maintains the Coaster 

Classroom, a 576 square foot 

screened-in classroom available for 

programs. The classroom is near a 

Refuge parking lot and overlooks a 

wetland adjacent to Whittlesey 

Creek. The classroom is located 

about two miles from the NGLVC.

The Refuge biologist is actively 

involved in educational efforts at the 

Refuge, participating in special 

events including the Birding and 

Nature Festival. This three-day event 

hosted at the Center attracts over 

400 birders who enjoy programs 

throughout the lower Chequamegon 

Bay area. Several of these programs are on Refuge lands. The Refuge participates in other 

programs such as Kid’s Fishing Day if they have a tie to the mission of the Service. 

Northland College students often collaborate with the Refuge biologist for internships, 

completion of Senior Theses, or short volunteer terms to gain useful experience. The Refuge 

biologist not only acts as a guide for useful projects but also serves as a mentor to the students.

The biologist provides inventory, monitoring, sampling techniques, and habitat restoration 

experiences to students and YCC crewmembers.

Outreach

Outreach efforts include educational opportunities related to the habitat restoration and 

management program. The current level of outreach for the Refuge is limited by available staff 

time. Various techniques have been used in the past to provide information about the Refuge to 

the public including Facebook, watershed newsletter, news releases, and mailings to neighbors. 

The Refuge also benefits from the extensive outreach completed by the NGLVC partnership. 

The Center maintains a website and Facebook page, both of which list Refuge programs 

through the partnership.

The Refuge biologist hosts several outreach programs each year including a tour of watershed 

projects for agency and non-profit partners and the public. The tour is a good opportunity to 

highlight projects and continue to engage the public and partners in the Whittlesey Creek 

restoration program. Since Whittlesey Creek is the site of an experimental restoration program 

for coaster brook trout, the extensive data collection and analysis program, habitat restoration 

projects, and history of fish stocking provide a great opportunity to tell the story of a 

comprehensive habitat and species restoration program.

Volunteers

The Refuge works with numerous volunteers to help with habitat surveys, restoration efforts, 

public use projects, and general maintenance. Many volunteers are students at Northland 

College pursuing degrees in various biological and natural resources disciplines. Students 

volunteer at the Refuge to gain practical experience. 

Coaster Classroom.
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

68

Partnerships

Partnerships are the key to just about every project the Refuge completes. Partners range from 

agencies at the NGLVC to many agencies and organizations in the local community. The 

Refuge works closely with the Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office on the coaster 

brook trout restoration program. The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources program within the 

Service is responsible for coordinating the restoration project, while the Refuge takes the lead 

on the habitat restoration portion.

The Refuge maintains strong relationships with the town of Barksdale and Bayfield County. The 

restoration of coaster brook trout is a comprehensive program that combines stocking and 

regulations with watershed restoration. Since the Refuge is a relatively small portion of the 

watershed, it is important to work closely with many partners to restore the watershed. Important 

project elements include culvert replacement, bank and bluff stabilization, and in-stream habitat. 

The success of the project depends on the Refuge’s partnerships with local government units, 

landowners, and local agencies. The Refuge has a strong partnership with the Bayfield County 

LWCD. The LWCD coordinates many of the projects including technical support, grant 

submission, fiscal management, and project oversight. Since the Refuge is a relatively small 

portion of the project area, these partnerships are crucial for success.

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center Partnership

The Service is one of six partners at the NGLVC. The Center’s mission is “The Northern Great 

Lakes Visitor Center helps people connect with the historic, cultural, and natural resources of 

the Northern Great Lakes Region through customer-based information, services, and 

educational programs.” The general direction of the Center is managed through the Center’s 

Board of Directors, which consists of one representative from each agency at the Center and a 

representative from the Friends of the Center Alliance, the Center’s non-profit 501(c)(3) friends 

group. The partner agencies include USFS, National Park Service, FWS, University of 

Wisconsin Extension, and the Wisconsin Historical Society. The Board sets direction for the 

Center and manages the common cost budget for the facility.

The Whittlesey Creek NWR office is located in the Center, and the Refuge, through the 

partnership, is able to use the classrooms, common areas, and administrative facilities to 

support the Refuge mission. The Refuge also has an exhibit located in the Visitor Center that 

acquaints visitors with the mission of the Refuge System and tells the story of Whittlesey Creek 

NWR. There are numerous exhibits in the Center focusing on the history of the Lake Superior 

Region, climate change, and the Refuge. A five-story observation tower allows visitors to look 

out across the Lake Superior shoreline.

The Center hosts numerous environmental education and interpretative programs each year as 

well as several special events. Refuge staff participates in programs and events that align with 

the Refuge’s mission. On average, 120,000 people visit the Center each year, providing an 

excellent forum for education about the Lake Superior region. 

Administration

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is managed from the St. Croix Wetland Management 

District (WMD) in New Richmond, WI approximately 160 miles away. A Park Ranger (currently 

vacant) and an FWS biologist are stationed at the Refuge at an office in the NGLVC. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

69

Management, maintenance, and administrative support are coordinated from the St. Croix WMD 

office. 

Facilities

The Refuge office is located in the 32,000 square foot NGLVC, which has an exhibit area, 

auditorium, classrooms, and gathering areas (Figure 3-13). The Refuge has a screened-in 

facility for educational programming (Coaster Classroom), a small storage shed, and a pole 

barn for storage of equipment and supplies.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement coverage for the Refuge is provided by the Zone Law Enforcement Officer 

located at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge, about 250 miles from the Refuge. Local issues 

needing immediate attention are handled through the Bayfield County Sheriff, local WDNR 

Wardens, and the U.S. Border Patrol.

Farm Services Agency Easements

When the Farm Services Agency (FSA, formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration) 

acquires property through default on loans, it is required to protect wetland and floodplain 

resources on the property prior to public resale. The Service assists the FSA in identifying these 

important resources. The FSA assigns a perpetual conservation easement to qualifying 

properties and transfers easement management responsibility to the Service as part of the 

Refuge System. The Refuge manages 15 FSA easements in a three-county management 

district. Easements are inspected each year. The Refuge and partner agencies have completed 

several wetland, in-channel, and riparian restoration projects on easements. 
Chapter 3: Refuge Environment and Management

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

70

Figure 3-13: Visitor Services Facilities
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

71

Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

In this chapter:

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales

Habitat

Wildlife

People

4.1 Introduction

Goals are broad descriptive statements of desired future conditions. There are three goals for 

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). Each goal is followed by a series of 

objectives, which are specific statements describing management intent. Beneath each 

objective is a list of strategies―the specific actions, tools, and techniques needed to meet the 

objective. Finally, rationale statements describe background, history, assumptions, and/or 

technical details of the objectives and strategies. Unless otherwise noted, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) intends to meet these objectives within the next 15 years.

Full achievement of Refuge goals will require the time and expertise of both a biologist and a 

park ranger. Constraints on staffing and/or funding would necessarily limit implementation of 

some of the objectives and strategies described below. These potential constraints and their 

impact on Refuge priorities are explained in chapter 5.

The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Whittlesey Creek NWR (FWS, 2006c) will continue to 

provide direction and guidance for all habitat activities as this Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan is implemented. HMP goals, objectives, and strategies are included in appendix C.

4.2 Objectives, Strategies, and Rationales

WILDLIFE

Goal 1: Protect, restore, and maintain a diversity of wildlife species native to naturally 

functioning Refuge habitats, with special emphasis on coaster brook trout and migratory birds.

Objective 1-1: Brook Trout

Continue to participate in the interagency experimental coaster brook trout restoration program 

on the Bayfield Peninsula of Lake Superior, with Refuge responsibility for restoration of brook 

trout habitat in Whittlesey Creek. Within two years, develop and implement new criteria for 

prioritizing and integrating all habitat restoration activities, emphasizing use of the Sediment 

Impact Analysis Methods (SIAM) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 2010) and Soil and 

Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) models (Lenz et al., 2003) to maximize long-term brook trout 

benefits.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

72

Strategies:

• Regularly work with implementation team to evaluate the reintroduction project and 

determine if the Refuge efforts are meeting the habitat restoration needs for coaster 

brook trout.

• Participate in meetings of brook trout interagency team to evaluate progress of the 

restoration program including discussions of possible population assessment 

alternatives.

• Support Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office’s (FWCO) brook trout monitoring 

program in the watershed.

Rationale:

The importance of brook trout habitat enhancement, restoration and protection is well 

recognized. Coaster brook trout is an FWS Region 3 Species of Concern

(http://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/soc/), and brook trout populations within the Great Lakes basin 

and inland waters are a Region 3 resource conservation priority (FWS, 2002). Brook trout is a 

surrogate species for riverine and riparian habitats in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes 

geography (FWS, 2014), and a focal species for the Lake Superior Landscape Restoration 

Partnership (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/az/home/?cid=stelprdb1247205).

The interagency Whittlesey Creek coaster brook trout restoration experiment is the only 

Wisconsin project that combines stocking, protective regulations, habitat restoration, and 

monitoring to gage success, therefore it is intended to serve as a model for other streams in the 

future. Through on-going dialogue with Ashland FWCO and by participating in interagency team 

meetings, the Refuge’s habitat restoration efforts can address the brook trout project’s priority 

needs and support the monitoring program.

The Refuge’s habitat program is almost entirely focused on the Whittlesey Creek watershed. 

Others who are involved have responsibilities across a much larger area. The Refuge has 

successfully taken the lead to secure funding and implement numerous enhancement, 

restoration, and protection efforts in the watershed. Long-term relationships with project 

partners, landowners, and local officials have fostered necessary trust. 

Support for the Refuge, habitat restoration, and the coaster brook trout experiment through 

funding, in-kind contributions, and various types of assistance has come from diverse sources 

including:

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

• Trout Unlimited

• Volunteers

• Cooperating landowners

• U.S. Forest Service

• National Park Service

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

• U.S. Geological Survey

• Town of Barksdale

• Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

73

• U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service

• Fish America Foundation

• American Sportfishing Association

• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation – Sustain Our Great Lakes Grant Program

• Northland College

• Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

• Conservation Corps Minnesota and Iowa

• Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection

• Ducks Unlimited

• American Land Conservancy

Partner support will continue, and is expected to expand.

Objective 1-2: Migratory Birds

Continue to provide benefits to migratory birds through restoration of forests, wetlands, and 

floodplains on the Refuge and in the watershed.

Strategies:

• Restore forest blocks in conjunction with riparian restoration projects.

• Restore historic conifer community.

• Develop and conduct scientifically valid bird monitoring to answer specific management 

questions.

• Evaluate and, if warranted, limit human disturbance at the mouth of Whittlesey Creek. 

Consider migratory birds when making decisions, especially in light of our concern for 

disturbance at the mouth of the creek as well as potential for piping plover habitat along 

the shore of Chequamegon Bay.

Rationale:

Although the Refuge is relatively small, it is located in an important area for migratory birds at

the south shore of Chequamegon Bay. The Bay is an important migratory bird stopover site for 

many species of waterfowl and shorebirds. The mouth of Whittlesey Creek is also heavily used 

by shorebirds, gulls, bald eagles, and waterfowl. It is also used by a small wintering population 

of black ducks. 

Our goal is to incorporate migratory bird benefits into our habitat restoration strategy for coaster 

brook trout, a major priority for the Refuge. When feasible and cost effective, small changes or 

additions to habitat restoration projects can also provide additional benefits for other species.

Restoration of forest blocks will be conducted in conjunction with riparian work to increase block 

size. Riparian work will also benefit bird species of concern associated with the Refuge 

including northern waterthrush, veery, black duck, and sora rail. 

Bird monitoring would be valuable but not a high priority for expected staff resources and 

funding over the next 15 years. The Refuge will consider implementing surveys that provide 

useful data and that can be conducted by volunteers or college students at little cost to the 

Refuge. Whittlesey Creek NWR provides migratory bird benefits, but it is not a major contributor 

to overall populations. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

74

HABITAT

Goal 2: Preserve, restore, and enhance the native habitats of Whittlesey Creek and its 

watershed.

Objective 2-1: In-Stream

Work toward long-term restoration (30+ years) of high quality in-stream habitat as defined in the 

HMP (cover, roughness, pools, gravel, fish passage) in Whittlesey, Little Whittlesey, and 

Terwilliger Creeks. Within 10 years, install approximately 500 additional logs on lower 

Whittlesey Creek and the North Fork to restore large woody debris to two miles of stream. 

Within 10 years, begin adding logs to Little Whittlesey and Terwilliger Creeks. Within two years, 

complete a comprehensive culvert survey to document locations and deficiencies. Utilize the 

information to rank culvert replacements to reduce erosion and sedimentation and restore fish 

passage on all three creeks. Prioritize additional in-stream restoration activities and locations 

within two years (see Objective 1-1).

Strategies:

• Continue to use and improve current methods of logjam and culvert design and 

installation.

• Continue to collaborate with Bayfield County Land and Water Conservation Department 

(LWCD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), 

Town of Barksdale, Northland College, Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) participants 

and other partners to complete and evaluate restoration projects.

• Remove beaver dams at upper end of the North Fork to reestablish a free-flowing 

coldwater system. 

• Review road and bridge infrastructure needs; work with local governments.

• Replace the bridge on Wickstrom Road within one year.

• Work with local government units to replace other deficient bridges along Whittlesey and 

Little Whittlesey Creeks.

• Consider Little Whittlesey and Terwilliger Creeks when determining priorities for instream habitat restoration.

• Document via GIS all in-stream structures, restorations, and infrastructure such as 

culverts and bridges in the watershed.

Rationale:

Since European settlement, land use changes such as logging, agriculture, and development of 

transportation networks have increased erosion, sedimentation, and flash flooding in Whittlesey, 

Little Whittlesey, and Terwilliger Creeks. These factors have degraded the suitability of instream habitat for many aquatic organisms including fish. Brook trout are especially susceptible 

to habitat degradation since they thrive in cold, clear streams with abundant woody cover. 

Culverts and bridges that are poorly designed and installed can have additional negative 

impacts by impeding fish passage, thereby reducing access to feeding, spawning, and nursery 

habitat.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

75

Because of the logging and agricultural history of riparian areas, few large trees are naturally 

recruited, especially in the downstream reaches. Strategically adding logs to the stream 

channels can provide benefits including reducing flood power and erosion; providing cover for 

fish and substrate for aquatic macroinvertebrates; enhancing channel complexity by creating 

riffles and pools; and transporting sediment through the system. The SIAM model helps guide 

restoration design and focuses efforts and funding on the most feasible projects that have the 

greatest chance of producing long-term benefits. The SIAM and SWAT models should be rerun 

periodically as restorations alter conditions in the system, inputs such as land cover, 

precipitation, and flow change; and as new tools such as spatial and elevation (LIDAR – Light 

Detection and Ranging) and data become available. Utilize new and improved models as they 

are developed.

Visually inspecting and monitoring restoration projects facilitates modifying engineering, design 

and installation of large woody debris, culverts, and bridges in order to achieve habitat 

management objectives. Documenting existing infrastructure allows ranking of retrofit or 

replacement projects based on severity of deficiencies. Continuing and expanding existing 

partnerships provides access to diverse expertise, knowledge of the latest efficient and effective 

techniques, and enhances collaborative funding opportunities. 

Objective 2-2: Watershed

Over the long-term (30+ years), reduce upland erosion and slow overland water flow to historic 

levels in the Whittlesey Creek watershed. Within one year, develop priority criteria for easement 

acquisition and private lands projects (see Objective 1-1). Within three years, develop and 

implement new watershed protection tools―including buffer strips and riparian 

easements―with NRCS, USFS, private landowners, and other partners. 

Strategies:

• Work with the USFS, NRCS, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), 

Bayfield County LWCD and others to develop a more comprehensive watershed-based 

partnership, engaging in the existing Western Lake Superior basin’s Lake Superior 

Landscape Restoration Partnership. Collectively secure funding to implement highpriority projects. Expand partnerships with local governments and landowners.

• Work on habitat restoration projects in the defined groundwater recharge area, which 

includes land located outside of the topographically delineated watershed.

• Continue to acquire easements from willing watershed landowners focusing on lands in 

the lower part of the watershed to protect the riparian zone along the creek, especially 

those areas with springs that contribute to base flow.

• Enhance and restore habitat on Service easements.

• Continue to assist landowners with habitat improvements on their property through the 

FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and other funding sources. In the case of 

competing priorities, use data from the SWAT model to determine the most costeffective projects to fund.

• Partner with NRCS and LWCD for farm program implementation in the watershed and 

recharge area.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

76

Rationale:

Facilitating surface water infiltration and controlling erosion within the upstream watershed are 

crucial to successful restoration of downstream fish and wildlife habitat on Refuge lands. Habitat 

projects such as reforestation and wetland restoration as well as farm conservation efforts 

including improved cropping practices, grade stabilization, and installation of detention basins

are among the techniques typically utilized. Easements, buffers, and setbacks that regulate land 

use along bluff tops and in the riparian zone can reduce bank and bluff failures and the resultant 

erosion and sedimentation while protecting coldwater springs that contribute to watershed base

flow. 

Partners are critical to watershed health since they can provide, for example, complementary 

expertise, resources including funding, and access to property. Assistance is often directed 

toward specific types of practices within board categories, and this changes over time. NRCS 

and LWCD typically assist with habitat and farm conservation projects. FWS, USFS, and WDNR 

generally only provide habitat restoration assistance. FWS can also purchase permanent 

conservation easements within the Whittlesey Creek watershed. It would be beneficial to 

organize those who have a stake in watershed protection, conservation, enhancement and 

restoration initiatives. The group should include landowners and non-governmental 

organizations. Potential projects should be collectively identified, ranked, and implemented by 

way of appropriate funding sources. A formal partnership with USFS is especially important 

since they own much of the watershed’s land base, including a large part of the groundwater 

recharge area; and therefore they are critical to engage for a more comprehensive look at the 

watershed, its management, and restoration.

Objective 2-3: Floodplain and Coastal Wetland

Work toward long-term restoration (30+years) of floodplain function and native plant 

composition on Refuge lands. Within 10 years, plant native trees on all former agricultural fields 

and on stream banks subject to erosion. Within two years, determine highest-priority actions, 

locations, and timeline for restoration of coastal wetlands and sedge meadows (see Objective 1-

1).

Strategies:

• Continue to use and improve current tree planting methods described in “Habitat 

Restoration and Management,” located in section 3.6 Refuge Programs. Annual deer 

repellent application on browse-susceptible species is critical until growth exceeds 

browse height.

• Conduct targeted control of priority invasive plants during restoration projects.

• Work with partners using best available science to determine priorities.

• Build landowner support for future floodplain reconnection and restoration of stream 

meanders.

• Continue to acquire land within the approved Refuge boundary from willing sellers.

• Complete high priority habitat restoration projects including planting trees on remaining 

open fields on the Refuge, complete removal of soil piles on the golf course site, remove 

invasive trees from floodplain and riparian sites. Complete riparian restoration work 

along Whittlesey, Little Whittlesey, and Terwilliger Creeks.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

77

• Complete seasonal wetland basin restoration by installing scrapes in the floodplain 

based on soils and location of historic seasonal basins.

• Consider these strategies in the overall prioritization of activities for the watershed 

restoration efforts.

Rationale:

Floodplain and coastal wetland habitat types provide valuable ecosystem functions by storing 

and slowly releasing floodwaters, promoting infiltration and groundwater recharge, assimilating 

nutrients, filtering sediment, and dissipating wave energy. The complex plant communities, 

influenced by fluctuating water levels, are utilized by diverse suites of species. The Refuge feetitle acquisition area is largely comprised of floodplain and coastal wetland habitats that have 

been altered to varying degrees. Logging, draining, land forming, farming, and stream channel 

straightening have degraded their function by altering hydrology and reducing species richness.

Wetland hydrology will continue to be restored by utilizing aerial imagery, evaluating soil 

characteristics, and ground-truthing to map drainage networks and basins. This assists with 

prioritizing restoration that focuses on plugging ditches and scraping seasonal basins prior to 

planting trees. Existing sedge meadows and moist meadow habitat will be maintained by cutting 

or burning encroaching brush. 

Overbank sediment deposition, channel straightening, and channel incision have affected 

floodplain hydrology by making it more difficult for flood flows to overtop the stream banks. 

Floodplain reconnection by bank shaping and restoring meanders can reduce flood power and 

enhance floodplain function. A great deal of planning will be needed to successfully initiate 

floodplain reconnection and restore meanders due to mixed public-private land ownership and 

the existing infrastructure such as buildings, roads, culverts, and bridges. Current log 

installations are designed to produce sinuosity in the existing straightened channel, generating 

some of the benefits of meanders on a much smaller scale.

Successful forest restoration techniques continue to be used but will be modified as needed.

The Refuge partners with USFS and others to expand tree planting, invasive species control,

and deer repellant application and to reduce costs. Invasive plants impact native plant diversity

and habitat utilization, and their competition can limit reforestation success. Therefore, priority 

invasives including buckthorn, box elder, and crack willow will be suppressed and controlled. 

Cut-stump glyphosate treatment is effective for buckthorn and box elder control, minimizes 

herbicide use, and is a targeted application technique that reduces impacts to non-target 

organisms. Limited late-season foliar glyphosate treatment may be used on dense stands of 

buckthorn seedlings. Crack willow was planted along stream banks decades ago. These large 

trees are girdled and treated with glyphosate, an effective technique that also limits herbicide 

use. Treatment creates canopy gaps for seedlings planted underneath, provides habitat for 

cavity nesting birds, and contributes woody debris to the stream (Figure 4-1).

Reed canarygrass can be extremely competitive and is costly to effectively suppress or control. 

Trees and shrubs have been successfully established in dense reed canarygrass, ultimately 

providing suppression by shading. As resources allow, reed canarygrass will be suppressed by 

burning prior to tree planting. Restoring hydric soil conditions can control reed canarygrass and 

promote hydrophytic plant species such as sedges. Monitoring for purple loosestrife infestations 

is ongoing, with beetles (Galerucella spp.) introduced as needed to limit the spread and provide 

control of this aggressive invasive plant. Once controlled, native wetland plants quickly 

recolonize affected the site.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

78

Figure 4-1: Desired Future Land Cover
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

79

Objective 2-4: Climate Change

Prioritize and integrate all restoration actions using best available science to increase 

ecosystem resilience and achieve long-term habitat and wildlife benefits in the face of a 

changing climate.

Strategies:

• Incorporate the latest information from the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change 

Impacts (WICCI) into all planning efforts.

• Utilize the latest brook trout range map models that project decline with increasing 

temperature over time.

• Develop a working partnership with climate change scientists at WICCI to understand 

actions the Refuge can take to increase ecosystem resilience on a local scale in the 

Whittlesey Creek watershed.

• Continue to restore habitat in Whittlesey Creek to increase the quality of coaster brook 

trout habitat and mitigate for the negative impacts of climate change.

Rationale:

Early climate change models predict a substantial reduction in brook trout throughout their 

range as temperature increases. Wisconsin may lose up to 98 percent of its brook trout habitat 

with a 5.5 °F (3 °C) rise in temperature. Bayfield County streams, especially Whittlesey Creek, 

are expected to retain suitable coldwater brook trout habitat. Additionally, watershed vegetation

may change dramatically by the end of the century: boreal forest and wetland species currently 

at the southern edge of their natural range in northern Wisconsin could be lost altogether here; 

hardwood forest species are expected to expand in Wisconsin; and increasingly we will be 

faced with managing system transformations and may need to focus on sustaining ecological 

functions rather than historical assemblages of plants and animals.

Habitat enhancement, restoration, and protection efforts that are underway and being pursued 

on the Refuge and in the watershed are consistent with numerous plans and reports including 

WICCI’s observations and recommendations. The WICCI indicates, “In streams that may show 

resilience to climate change impacts, stream habitat may be managed to create and enhance 

refugia from high water temperatures. For example, stream channels can be narrowed and 

deepened, overhead cover can be added, and deep pools can be created to provide coldwater 

refugia in those streams receiving sufficient groundwater input. Riparian areas can also be 

managed to provide shading by tall grasses or trees.” Additionally, sound land management 

practices in a watershed, such as conservation tillage and the enrollment of environmentally 

sensitive land into the Conservation Reserve Program, can be used to protect the biological 

integrity of coldwater streams and enhance their resiliency to climate change impacts. It will be 

critical to continue using the latest scientific information, monitoring, management techniques, 

programs, and partnerships to minimize the effects of climate change.

The Whittlesey Creek watershed may prove to be an important site for testing a long-term, 

multi-faceted approach to reintroducing brook trout. This information could provide valuable 

insights for additional brook trout management efforts.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

80

Objective 2-5: Biological Monitoring

Within three years, develop and implement a prioritized habitat and wildlife monitoring plan for 

Whittlesey Creek NWR. Focus on key habitat metrics that determine the success of restoration 

projects, and key wildlife species to verify a response to restored habitat. 

Strategies:

• Complete the Inventory and Monitoring Plan for the Refuge.

• Integrate Refuge monitoring with other agency efforts in the watershed (partnerships).

• Continue to assist with Ashland FWCO electrofishing in support of the brook trout 

experiment.

• Continue student research and monitoring programs that contribute to Refuge 

objectives.

• Continue in-stream habitat restoration monitoring.

• Continue to monitor post-habitat restoration fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate 

populations.

• Continue to pay for gaging station in partnership with USGS, Ashland FWCO, and 

Bayfield County LWCD.

• Continue limited migratory bird monitoring when volunteer resources are available.

• Add new data to SWAT model and rerun every five years.

• Follow adaptive management principles, evaluating restoration work and fish survey 

results, to assess the effectiveness of the Coaster Brook Trout Restoration experiment.

Rationale:

Monitoring of wildlife and habitat accomplishes several purposes: it allows for evaluation of 

current land use and management practices, it can provide early warning of problems in the 

system, and it provides the foundation for future management decisions. Service policy on 

refuges (chapter 701 FW 2) states that we must (1) collect baseline information on plants, fish, 

and wildlife; (2) monitor, as resources permit, critical parameters and trends of selected species 

and species groups on and around Service units; and (3) base management on biologically and 

statistically sound data derived from such inventory and monitoring. Monitoring at Whittlesey 

Creek NWR will be directed at complementing the Service’s overall efforts to reintroduce 

coaster brook trout into the watershed. Due to limited budget and personnel, we must 

strategically allocate resources to address the highest priority needs. Assessing questions that 

have the greatest impact on management decisions will be the highest priority.

A general description of monitoring for the Refuge was outlined in the HMP to provide guidance 

until the Inventory and Monitoring Plan (IMP) was completed. The IMP will be completed during 

2015 following guidance in Service Manual chapter 701 FW 2. The general direction of 

monitoring will focus on stream hydrology and habitat, fish populations, and terrestrial invasive 

species. Student and volunteer involvement in research and monitoring on the Refuge has been 

critical to our success. It is important to coordinate these activities closely so that good quality 

data is collected, analyzed, and utilized when making management decisions. 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

81

The Refuge also funds a portion of the operation and maintenance costs of the USGS gaging 

station on Whittlesey Creek. This station is critical to understanding the hydrology of the creek. 

The data from the gaging station are also used in the Sediment Impact Analysis Methods model 

to help the Refuge make decisions about restoration projects on the creek and to provide input 

for project engineering and design. 

PEOPLE

Goal 3: Provide a diverse audience with opportunities to experience high quality, wildlifedependent activities and to understand and appreciate a natural functioning landscape.

Objective 3-1: Northern Great Lake Visitor Center Partnership

Continue the current level of involvement in the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC, 

Visitor Center, Center) partnership. Within five years, develop a Memorandum of Understanding 

with the USFS that clarifies roles and responsibilities.

Strategies:

• Maintain on-site office for Refuge staff and contact point for Refuge visitors.

• Refuge manager continues to serve on NGLVC Board of Directors.

• Participate in NGLVC events that meet Refuge purposes and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System) mission.

• Coordinate educational/interpretive programming with NGLVC programs.

• Maintain Refuge exhibit in the NGLVC.

Rationale:

The Refuge’s participation in the NGLVC partnership is an efficient use of funds to allow the 

Refuge access to over 120,000 visitors each year as well as a high quality facility for the Visitor 

Services program. The Center is strategically located on the south shore of Lake Superior along 

the main east-west highway that connects northern Minnesota to northern Michigan through 

Wisconsin. The partnership is a cost-effective arrangement that allows the Service access to 

classrooms, exhibit space, and a trail system and a closer relationship with other federal and 

state agencies. The cost for a comparable facility would be much greater for the Service if 

housed alone. Through the Refuge exhibit and Refuge programs, visitors have the opportunity 

to learn about the Service.

The NGLVC is coordinated through a Board of Directors with one representative from each of 

the agencies and non-profits at the Center (USFS, National Park Service, FWS, University of 

Wisconsin Extension, Wisconsin Historical Society, and the Friends of the Center Alliance, 

LTD). The Board of Directors sets the general budget for the Center operations as well as 

coordinates some of the partnership direction for the Center. 

Each agency and organization retains its individual identity, although some are more intricately 

tied to the operation of the Center than the Service. With the Refuge’s location next to the 

Center, the FWS has a responsibility to complete Refuge projects that may not always relate to 

the mission of the Center. Where overlap exists, the Refuge plays an important role as a partner 

at the Center.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

82

Objective 3-2: Welcome and Orient Visitors

Provide a welcoming, safe, accessible experience for Refuge visitors. 

Strategies:

• Quarterly review and update the Refuge website to provide clear and current information 

about Refuge management, natural history, and visitor activities.

• Ensure that entrance and directional signs are in good condition and meet Service 

standards.

• Maintain existing kiosk and parking area on the Refuge. 

• Provide and maintain publications that are clear and accurate and meet Service 

publication standards. Evaluate the best cost-effective solution for providing information 

to the public when they visit the Refuge. Revise the general Refuge information brochure

or provide a better information source.

• Ensure that all facilities are accessible according to the standards of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.

• Continue to work with the NGLVC partnership to ensure that visitors are welcomed, and 

understand the role of the Refuge as one of many partners at the Visitor Center.

Rationale:

Welcoming and orienting Refuge visitors contributes to a quality wildlife-dependent recreation 

program as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

(Improvement Act) and defined in the Service Manual (chapter 605 FW 1). The ease with which 

the public can understand where they can go, what they can do, and how they can ethically 

engage in wildlife-related activities increases visitor satisfaction and creates a positive 

impression of the Service and an appreciation of the mission and goals of the agency.

The needs and satisfaction of visitors are known only from chance conversations with Refuge 

users. While Refuge-specific visitor surveys would provide better information for improving 

visitor opportunities, the procedures used to conduct proper visitor surveys are time consuming 

and costly. Therefore, basic data will continue to be obtained within the constraints of limited 

Refuge resources.

With the small size of several tracts of Refuge lands, the focus will be to ensure that all lands 

are correctly posted to avoid unintentional trespass on adjacent private lands. 

Objective 3-3: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Provide Refuge-specific environmental education and interpretive programming for at least 

1,000 students and 500 visitors per year. Emphasize curriculum-based environmental education 

packages and multiple visits by students that include hands-on outdoor experiences. At least 90 

percent of teachers will report that Refuge environmental education programs support their 

curriculum and help to promote resource stewardship and conservation. 

Strategies:

• Continue the River of Words program with fourth-grade students in the Washburn 

School District.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

83

• Educate and mentor Northland College and YCC participants.

• Increase collaboration with Ashland FWCO to develop and deliver environmental 

education and interpretive programming.

• Expand themes to include watershed/trout connection.

• Increase use of the Coaster Classroom through partnerships with local agencies, 

colleges, or universities.

• Hire a park ranger or visitor services specialist to replace the position held vacant since 

2011.

Rationale:

Environmental education and interpretation are both priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities, which are listed in the Improvement Act. The Refuge had an active environmental 

education and interpretation program until the park ranger position was held vacant for regional 

savings in 2011. The ability of the Refuge to capitalize on the NGLVC partnership is tied to the 

ability to re-hire the park ranger position. Many of the strategies can only be implemented once 

the vacant park ranger position is filled.

The vision for the Refuge’s environmental education and interpretation program is to focus on 

Refuge-specific messages and where possible, partner with other agencies at the NGLVC to 

provide high quality programming in the natural resources field. The Refuge’s approach to 

environmental education and interpretation has been to collaborate with other agencies at the 

Center when there is a clear connection to Refuge goals and objectives. Each agency at the 

NGLVC partnership has a different mandate and set of interpretive and educational priorities for 

programming at the Center. Some partner agencies are very dependent on grant funding, which 

can direct priorities. One value of the partnership is that between all of the agencies and 

organizations there are programs to address a wide variety of public interests. Through colocation, individuals who attend a program may learn about another offering, increasing the 

chance that they will attend a program hosted by another agency. Centralized promotion of 

programs by the partnership is a cost-effective method of encouraging participation in events. 

Refuge programs are targeted to local schools, especially the fourth through sixth grades, with 

curriculum based programs like the River of Words. Environmental education and interpretation 

can advance awareness, understanding, and appreciation of conservation issues and the role of 

the Refuge and the Service in protecting and restoring fish, wildlife, and habitat. 

The Refuge also participates in special events at the Center that have a tie to the Service 

mission. The Service is a partner in the Chequamegon Bay Birding and Nature Festival, for 

example, hosting several programs on the Refuge as well as providing staff for tours.

The Refuge also works closely with local high schools and colleges to provide mentorship and 

employment opportunities. These opportunities are coordinated by the Refuge biologist who 

incorporates classes and volunteers into biological projects on the Refuge. 

Objective 3-4: Hunting and Fishing

Provide the public with safe and enjoyable hunting and fishing opportunities that minimize 

conflict with other compatible public uses and are consistent with sound fish and wildlife 

management practices.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

84

Strategies:

• Continue current waterfowl and archery deer hunts on the Refuge.

• As additional land is acquired, reevaluate the areas that are open to hunting.

• Open the Refuge to fishing in accordance with state regulations.

• Evaluate each new acquisition to determine if it meets the criteria (>20-acre block size) 

for opening it to hunting. If so, complete opening package for new lands.

• Update website with current hunting regulations.

Rationale:

Hunting and fishing are two of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses that receive priority 

consideration in Refuge planning and management under the Improvement Act. Hunting and 

fishing can instill a unique understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife, their behavior,

and their habitat needs. Well-managed hunting and fishing programs provide traditional outdoor 

activities for the public with negligible adverse impacts to the biological integrity of the Refuge.

Due to the small size of the Refuge, areas open to hunting will be evaluated after any new land 

acquisition. The goal will be to open deer hunting on the largest blocks of Refuge land to 

minimize potential impacts on neighboring lands through trespass. In general, we will look for 

minimum blocks of 20 acres in order to open it to hunting.

In an effort to eliminate confusion with the fishing regulations, the Refuge is proposing to align 

Refuge regulations with state regulations by opening the Refuge to fishing. Refuge regulations 

currently do not allow fishing, but according to state law, individuals may walk in the creek and 

legally fish. The Refuge was involved in the overall planning for the restoration of coaster brook 

trout when the state of Wisconsin established catch and release regulations for Whittlesey 

Creek. By aligning Refuge regulations through Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Wildlife 

and Fisheries with state regulations, we hope to minimize confusion for the visiting public.

Objective 3-5: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Continue to provide year-round opportunities for visitors to safely observe and photograph 

wildlife on the Refuge.

Strategies:

• Provide a new accessible foot trail from the NGLVC to the Coaster Classroom; 

coordinate the off-Refuge segment with NGLVC partners. 

• Allow year round off-trail access on foot throughout the Refuge, including snowshoeing 

and cross-country skiing in the winter. The Refuge reserves the right to close specific 

units throughout the year for management or safety purposes. 

• Evaluate the feasibility of providing an accessible foot and biking trail along the old 

railroad right-of-way (ROW) through the Refuge.

Rationale:

Wildlife observation and photography are priority wildlife-dependent recreation activities listed in 

the Improvement Act. They are popular and important activities that promote understanding and 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

85

appreciation of natural resources and their management. If properly managed, these uses 

provide valuable opportunities for interaction between people and the natural environment with 

little or no detrimental effect to wildlife or habitat. Good wildlife viewing opportunities are 

available along town roads that pass through the Refuge. Developing and maintaining trails and 

overlooks can enhance access to locations that offer premium wildlife viewing opportunities. 

Any trail and overlook proposals need to consider the important resources at the Refuge, 

especially the creeks and adjacent riparian zones. Trails should not create impacts in these 

areas that may result in increased erosion, sedimentation, or destruction of wetland resources. 

Due to potential impacts to migratory birds, an observation deck at the mouth of Whittlesey 

Creek was dropped from consideration. Although this is an excellent viewing area for many 

species of birds, we do not want to create additional disturbance at this important stopover, 

feeding, and wintering site. Numerous gulls, eagles, and waterfowl gather here to take 

advantage of the outflow of Whittlesey Creek. The beaches also provide migratory habitat for 

many species of shorebirds. Because of the importance of this site to migratory birds, we 

determined that minimal disturbance at this site would be in line with the purposes of the 

Refuge.

The existing railroad ROW is currently used as a snowmobile trail during the winter season 

pursuant to existing easements held by the county. Recently there was a proposal to develop a 

hiking and biking trail along the ROW that would also require approval from many other 

landowners along the proposed trail system. The Refuge is opposed to any additional motorized 

uses of the railroad ROW including ATV use. Certain non-motorized uses such as hiking and 

biking may provide enhanced wildlife observation opportunities along the corridor. Ownership 

along the railroad ROW will need to be clarified before evaluating any trail proposal.

Objective 3-6: Outreach

Throughout the life of the plan, increase local community support and appreciation for the role of 

the Service and the Refuge in fish and wildlife conservation. 

Strategies:

• Develop a message that relays the important role Whittlesey Creek NWR plays in 

conservation, and include it in all visitor services activities.

• Coordinate with other FWS stations and partners to expand outreach through local news 

media. Provide news releases, television/radio spots, interviews, newsletter articles, etc. 

a minimum of three times per year.

• Maintain regular contact with community leaders and organizations through tours, 

meetings, presentations, and events.

• Increase opportunities to interact with and listen to local residents and landowners.

• Maintain Facebook page once park ranger position is filled.

Rationale:

It is important to the success of Whittlesey Creek NWR that people, organizations, and agencies 

in the area know about the Service and the Refuge and support it as a valuable part of the 

community. Building support for land and water conservation among Refuge neighbors is 

essential to protect natural resources over the long-term. Outreach can foster a sense of 

ownership in the greater community and contribute to achievement of Whittlesey Creek NWR 
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

86

purposes and the Refuge System mission. Effective outreach depends on open and continuing 

communication and collaboration between the Refuge and the public.

The NGLVC partnership presents a unique and cost-effective opportunity for the Service to work 

with other federal and state agencies to coordinate outreach efforts. In addition to Refugespecific social media tools like the website or Facebook, partner agencies also host a NGLVC 

website and Facebook page. Outreach needs to consider the balance between the needs of the 

partnership and the need to maintain the identity of the Refuge and its mission. The Refuge will 

also target much of our outreach effort to the landowners in the Whittlesey Creek watershed and 

the adjacent recharge area. Efforts to restore coaster brook trout and accomplish Refuge

purposes are directly tied to landowners in these important areas. 

Objective 3-7: Volunteers Programs and Community Partnerships

Throughout the life of the plan, work with local communities and organizations to generate 

support for the Refuge resulting in at least 500 volunteer hours annually.

Strategies:

• Recruit, orient, and train volunteers to assist with a variety of projects including visitor 

services programs, habitat restoration, biological programs, and maintenance tasks.

• Engage volunteers to monitor various suites of bird species such as raptors and 

shorebirds if the data is valuable for refuge, regional, or national monitoring efforts.

• Maintain mutually beneficial partnership opportunities with Northland College.

• Examine potential of working with existing non-profit conservation organizations to take 

a larger role in supporting the Refuge. There are no plans to develop a formal Friends 

group for the Refuge, but several groups with closely aligned missions may be interested 

in formalizing a partnership with the Refuge.

Rationale:

The Service recognizes the value of time and expertise contributed by individuals and groups. 

Volunteers help the Service achieve agency goals. An effective volunteer program: (1) provides 

people with opportunities to assist in the accomplishment of the Refuge System mission; (2) 

enhances our performance through the creativity, innovations, labor, and expertise contributed 

by volunteers; (3) provides opportunities for students and others to gain experience in areas of 

interest for future careers; and (4) encourages stewardship of wild lands, wildlife, and other 

natural and cultural resources through public participation in Service programs. Whether 

through volunteers or other important partnerships in the community, Refuge staff seeks to 

make Whittlesey Creek NWR an integral part of the community.

The volunteer program at the Refuge will be a combination of Refuge-specific volunteers and 

volunteers through the NGLVC partnership who may volunteer for multiple agencies at the 

Center. An important part of the Refuge’s volunteer program will be coordination with the other 

agencies to implement an efficient program and provide clearly defined supervisory 

responsibilities. Numerous volunteers are recruited through other agencies and their respective 

programs but at the Center volunteers often work with staff from multiple agencies. Constant 

communication of needs and opportunities with the Center’s volunteer coordinator is crucial to 

the success of the program.
Chapter 4: Future Management Direction

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

87

The biologist at the Refuge also maintains a working relationship with local colleges and 

professors. Numerous student volunteers work directly with Refuge staff on small research or 

habitat restoration projects. This program also provides a mentoring opportunity to the students. 

There are no plans to develop a Friends group for the Refuge. There is a Friends of the Center 

Alliance, (FOCAL) at the NGLVC that focuses efforts on raising funds for Center operations. 

There are a large number of Friends groups and other non-profit organizations in the local area 

but only a small number of individuals that are involved in many of them. Competition for limited 

local funds and grants is a constant challenge for these groups. The FOCAL group has served 

as a fiscal agent for Refuge projects in the past and is a valued partner to the Refuge.

Objective 3-8: Law Enforcement

Visitors feel safe and resources are protected on Service lands. 

Strategies:

• Post and maintain Refuge boundaries.

• Annually inspect each FSA and Service easement, and follow up with landowner 

contact.

• Ensure that all easement files meet requirements identified in the Service Easement 

Manual.

• Continue to work with Service zone Law Enforcement Officer, WDNR officers, and local 

authorities to address enforcement concerns and violations.

Rationale:

The Service recognizes the value of providing a safe environment for all Refuge visitors and 

staff. The Refuge relies on coverage from the zone officer located in Necedah, WI, over three 

hours from Whittlesey Creek NWR. Therefore, it is important that the Service work closely with 

local officials, especially the Bayfield County Sheriff’s Office to address any immediate 

enforcement concerns. The zone officer coordinates any follow-up investigations or support for 

the Refuge.
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

88

Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

In this chapter:

5-1 Introduction

5-2 Funding and Staffing

5-3 Priorities

5-4 Partnership Opportunities

5-5 Plan Review and Revision

5.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the actions, funding, coordination, and monitoring needed to 

implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). As noted in the inside cover of this 

document, this plan does not constitute a commitment for staffing increases or operational and 

maintenance increases. These decisions are at the discretion of Congress in overall 

appropriations and in budget allocation decisions made at the Washington and regional levels of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service).

5.2 Funding and Staffing

This CCP outlines an ambitious course of action for the future management of Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge). The ability to meet objectives for wildlife, habitat, and 

people will require a significant commitment of staff and funding from the Service. The Refuge 

will continually need appropriate operational and maintenance funding to implement this plan. 

A park ranger (currently vacant) and a Service biologist are stationed at the Refuge at an office 

in the Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC, Visitor Center, Center). Management, 

maintenance, and administrative support are coordinated from the St. Croix Wetland 

Management District (WMD) office in New Richmond, WI approximately 160 miles away. Both 

the ranger and biologist positions will be needed for full implementation of this CCP. 

5.3 Priorities

In the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, Congress established a three-tiered 

hierarchy, or three priorities for Refuge management. As a first priority, every refuge is to be 

managed to fulfill its purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, namely 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants. Secondly, refuges are to facilitate wildlife-dependent or 

“Big 6” public uses, namely hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 

interpretation and environmental education. Of lowest priority is managing other uses and 

activities such as general recreation.

However, setting priorities based on this list may not be realistic given the complexities of 

managing a national wildlife refuge. Below are some reasons why certain actions may be 

completed before others in this plan.

• Staffing levels and expertise at the Refuge determine the types of activities that may 

take place each year. The region has held the park ranger position vacant on the Refuge 

since 2011 for workforce planning salary savings. Unless the position is filled, the 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

89

Refuge will not be able to undertake many of the strategies identified for environmental

education and interpretation. Refuge participation in special events at the visitor center 

will also be reduced due to lack of staff. Many of the objectives and strategies assume a 

best case staffing and funding scenario. Due to the annual variation in funding levels as 

well as long-term workforce planning, strategies and objectives will be prioritized through 

annual work plans that are developed based on funding levels.

• Many of the habitat and riparian restoration projects are very expensive, often exceeding 

the capability of the Refuge to independently fund the project. Successful completion of 

the project requires a coalition of partners and grant funding sources. Since grants often 

have specific purposes, the availability of grant resources and partners can often 

redefine the hierarchy of refuge priorities. We will not “chase” grant funding to complete 

new projects or start new initiatives, but rather, we will rely on good science and 

established priorities to make decisions.

• Refuge management is partially dependent on the availability of staff from the St. Croix 

WMD to assist with administrative and operational support. Priorities at the Refuge need 

to be considered in conjunction with St. Croix WMD priorities. A high priority in the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR plan may not be possible without support from St. Croix WMD 

staff. Therefore decisions will need to be made about the highest priority use of 

resources at both stations.

• Defined priorities in the plan may change if safety problems or other high priority 

activities are identified and need to be resolved, thus resulting in a shift in funding that 

may limit the capacity to complete plan strategies.

In the short term, given the fiscal climate and congressional budgets, our strategy is to maintain 

the wildlife biologist position at the Refuge, focusing on habitat restoration and, when 

complementary to our main biological efforts, partnerships with local universities and colleges 

that provide learning opportunities for students. These learning opportunities will complement 

some of the strategies identified in Goal 3 (“Provide a diverse audience with opportunities to 

experience high quality, wildlife-dependent activities and to understand and appreciate a natural 

functioning landscape”). Although budget levels cannot be predicted from one year to the next, 

our strategy is eventually to fill the park ranger position at the Refuge to implement many of our 

visitor services goals. 

As part of the plan implementation, various step-down plans are usually identified in the CCP. 

Several plans including Habitat Management Plan, Public Use Plan, and Hunt Plan have 

already been completed for the Refuge. At this time, the only remaining step-down plan that will 

need to be developed is the Inventory and Monitoring Plan, which should be completed within 

one year after approval of the CCP.

5.4 Partnership Opportunities

Partnerships are an essential element for the successful accomplishment of goals, objectives, 

and strategies at Whittlesey Creek NWR. The objectives outlined in this CCP need the support 

and the partnerships of federal, state, and local agencies; non-governmental organizations, and 

individual citizens. Refuge staff will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to 

achieve the vision of the Refuge. 
Chapter 5: Plan Implementation

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

90

We expect to continue to work with the following notable partners, while also developing new 

partnerships: 

• U.S. Forest Service

• Natural Resources Conservation Service

• National Park Service

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

• Bayfield County

• Town of Barksdale

• City of Ashland

• Northland College

• Trout Unlimited

• Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

5.5 Plan Review and Revision

The CCP is intended to be a dynamic plan based on the concept of adaptive management. 

Since the CCP will be a constant reference and guide for Refuge staff, internal review will be 

continuous. In addition, it is expected that the public and partners will offer continuous feedback. 

The Service will monitor, evaluate, and document minor plan modifications to determine that

changes are needed to achieve Refuge goals and objectives. There will be opportunity for 

public review and comment before making any substantive amendments or revisions.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

91

Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

In this appendix:

A.1: Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

A.2: Description of Alternatives

A.3: Affected Environment

A.4: Environmental Consequences
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

92

A.1 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action

A.1.1 Purpose and Need

The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to adopt and implement a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, 

Refuge) as mandated in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

(Improvement Act) and that the CCP meets the purposes for which the Refuge was established, 

contributes to the overall mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge 

System) and adheres to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) policies and mandates. 

Refuge purposes and the Refuge System mission are included in chapter 1 of the CCP. 

Appendix D of the CCP contains a list of key laws, orders, and regulations that provide a 

framework for the proposed action.

This EA addresses the need to provide guidance for future Refuge management; address 

significant issues; identify priorities; ensure consistent and integrated management; protect the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge; evaluate the 

appropriateness and compatibility of public uses; and meet other requirements of the 

Improvement Act. The plan is needed to help achieve Refuge goals for wildlife, habitat, and 

people.

Adequate long-term management direction does not currently exist for the Refuge. A 1998 

Interim CCP provided a general outline on how the Refuge would be operated until a more 

detailed plan could be completed. In addition, new threats to wildlife and habitat are emerging, 

new laws and policies are in place, and new scientific information is available. 

A.1.2 Scoping of the Issues

In January 2013, the planning team met to develop a preliminary list of issues, concerns, and 

opportunities associated with management of the Refuge. A second internal scoping session 

was held in May 2013 with regional supervisors, biologists, planners, and other program 

specialists.

In April 2013, staff hosted an open house in Ashland, WI, to inform the public of the planning 

process and to solicit input on issues of concern. A news release was distributed to area media, 

informational posters were displayed in the local community, and a notice was sent to more than 

600 names on the Refuge mailing list. Written comments were received from 11 stakeholders. 

Refuge staff also met with numerous partners to explain the importance of the CCP process and 

to encourage active participation. 

A.1.3 Whittlesey Creek NWR Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities

Major issues identified and analyzed as part of the CCP process are summarized below. These 

issues were critical in framing the various alternatives considered and formed the basis for 

evaluating environmental effects. Additional detail on these topics can be found in chapters 2 

and 3 of the CCP.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

93

Wildlife 

Coaster Brook Trout

The coaster brook trout was common prior to European settlement, but numbers soon 

plummeted due to overharvest and habitat degradation. The 30-year Whittlesey Creek 

experiment is one of the collaborative efforts begun by conservation partners in the 1990s to 

reestablish coaster brook trout in the Lake Superior basin. It combines four priority actions: 

improve habitat, establish protective harvest regulations, stock coaster brook trout, and assess 

and monitor. The role of the Refuge in the experiment is to restore suitable habitat in the creek 

and monitor the effects of habitat restoration projects. 

A self-sustaining migratory coaster population has not yet been achieved, although numbers 

have increased, and movement into and out of Whittlesey Creek has been documented. Habitat 

restoration is incomplete, and the effects of competition from non-native salmonids are not well 

understood. Because these fish are migratory, conditions outside the local watershed could 

affect the likelihood of successful coaster reestablishment within Whittlesey Creek. 

Migratory Birds

Restoration of forests and wetlands on the Refuge improves habitat for many migratory bird 

species including songbirds, raptors, waterfowl, and shorebirds. Improved water quality in 

Whittlesey Creek also benefits Chequamegon Bay, an important downstream staging area for 

migrating waterfowl. 

Some improvements in habitat quality are possible (e.g., forest stand management) but may not 

be cost effective. Additional population benefits would be minimal because the Refuge is small, 

so bird-specific management actions have not been a high priority to date. Surveys and 

monitoring have been sporadic and not always closely tied to habitat restoration activities.

Habitat

Stream, Floodplain, and Watershed Restoration

Habitat protection and restoration are underway in the creek, on Refuge wetlands and 

floodplain, and within the watershed, although much work remains. Activities in recent years 

have centered on in-stream habitat and fish passage, especially installation of large woody 

debris and replacement of culverts. In addition, native conifers have been planted in some 

riparian zones and floodplain hayfields, and some floodplain wetlands have been restored, 

mainly by plugging ditches. 

Facilitating surface water infiltration and controlling erosion within the upstream watershed are 

crucial to successful restoration of downstream fish and wildlife habitat on Refuge lands. 

Several easements have been acquired and conservation actions have been implemented on 

private lands in the watershed. Continued progress requires strong partnerships with 

landowners, other agencies, and conservation organizations.

The Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (FWS, 2006c) provides comprehensive guidance for 

habitat restoration and management on Refuge lands and conservation actions within the 

watershed, but it does not set priorities. Management actions must focus on the highest priority 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

94

projects to make the best use of limited resources and to maximize the fish and wildlife benefits 

of the Refuge.

Climate Change

The effects of a warming climate are expected to eliminate brook trout habitat in many 

Wisconsin streams by mid-century, although Whittlesey Creek is expected to remain highly 

suitable. Boreal and lowland forests will be subject to increased stress and may be lost 

altogether in northern Wisconsin. Hardwood trees are predicted to expand their range in the 

state.

People

Hunting and Fishing

The Refuge offers waterfowl and archery deer hunting opportunities in some locations. Should 

more or fewer hunting opportunities be available? Fishing is allowed within Whittlesey Creek 

waters in accordance with state regulations. The Refuge itself, however, has never been 

opened to fishing per Service regulations, so anglers must walk up the streambed to fish legally 

within the Refuge boundary. Should streambank fishing be allowed in the Refuge?

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Ideas to enhance wildlife observation and photography on the Refuge have included new foot 

trails and construction of an overlook at the mouth of the creek. Additional facilities and 

increased visitation on such a small Refuge must be evaluated carefully to limit wildlife and 

habitat disturbance.

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Environmental education has been a high priority, but capabilities are limited currently due to 

lack of visitor services staff. There is a need to define the vision and priorities for environmental 

education and interpretation on the Refuge and for Service participation in special events at the 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center (NGLVC, Visitor Center, Center). Refuge-specific 

interpretive exhibits and brochures are available at the NGLVC. The Coaster Classroom and 

one interpretive kiosk are located on Refuge land, but the Coaster Classroom is underutilized. 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center

The NGLVC partnership provides many opportunities for mutually beneficial collaboration and 

enhancement of Service identity in the region, but current Service involvement in day-to-day 

activities is limited because the park ranger position is vacant and the refuge manager is located 

several hours away. The annual agreement between the Service and the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) does not address the Service’s long-term commitment to the partnership nor does it 

provide clearly defined roles and expectations.

A.1.4 Decision Framework

This EA describes four alternatives for future Refuge management and the environmental 

consequences of each alternative. Each alternative has a reasonable mix of wildlife habitat 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

95

prescriptions and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. A summary table of action is 

included at the end of this section (Table A-1).

This EA is an important step in the Service’s formal decision-making process. In compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Regional Director of the 

Midwest Region (Region 3 of the Service) will consider the information presented in this 

document to select the preferred management alternative. Selection of the preferred alternative 

is based on its environmental consequences and ability to achieve Refuge purposes and goals. 

The Regional Director will determine whether the preferred alternative is a major federal action, 

which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of 

Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA. If it is determined not to be a major federal action, a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued. A FONSI means that the preferred alternative is 

selected and can be implemented in accordance with other laws and regulations. A Decision of 

Significant Impact would indicate the need to conduct more-detailed environmental analysis in 

an Environmental Impact Statement.

The planning team has recommended Alternative B (“Refuge and Watershed Restoration; 

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership”) to the Regional Director. The draft CCP (see chapter 2) 

was developed for implementation based on this recommendation.

A.2 Description of Alternatives

This section summarizes the alternatives considered by the planning team to achieve the 

proposed vision and goals and to address the issues. These alternatives include continuation of 

current management (Alternative A) and the planning team’s proposed action (Alternative B).

A.2.1 Formulation of Alternatives

Alternatives are different approaches to protecting, restoring, and managing the Refuge. The 

planning team developed and evaluated four alternatives for Whittlesey Creek NWR based on 

the significant issues, concerns, and opportunities brought forth during the CCP scoping period. 

All are designed to achieve Refuge purposes, the vision and goals identified in the CCP, and 

the mission and goals of the Refuge System and the Service. 

The alternatives were formulated under the assumptions that (1) a large budget increase for 

Refuge operations is unlikely during the life of the plan, and (2) Refuge staffing would continue 

to include one park ranger and one biologist position. 

A.2.2 Alternative Components Not Considered for Detailed Analysis

End Participation in the Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

The CCP planning team considered discontinuing Refuge involvement in the experimental 

restoration of coaster brook trout in Whittlesey Creek due to funding and staffing limitations. 

About 20 years remain in the 30-year experiment to re-establish a self-sustaining coaster brook 

trout population in Whittlesey Creek. The Refuge role in the experiment is to restore suitable 

habitat in the creek. Considerable staff time is required to design, organize, implement, and 

monitor habitat improvement projects in the creek and to work with landowners in the watershed 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

96

to slow overland flow and reduce sediment input. Reducing or ending this work would allow 

increased focus on restoring forests and wetlands on the Refuge. 

The experiment, however, is a partnership commitment between the Service and the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to reach a common goal, with shared responsibilities 

between the Refuge, the Service’s fisheries program, and the WDNR’s Division of Fish and 

Wildlife. The combined efforts of all three partners are critical to the success of the project. If the 

Refuge unilaterally ended its involvement, no other potential partner would have the resources 

needed to continue habitat restoration, and the experiment likely would fail. 

Furthermore, creek restoration benefits not only coaster brook trout but also other Refuge 

resources of concern. Restoration of diverse in-stream habitat with good cover will improve 

conditions for all fish and wildlife species that depend on coldwater streams during their life 

cycle, and improving watershed health is an important component of forest and wetland 

restoration on Refuge lands downstream. These restored habitats and the wildlife they support 

will be more resilient to long-term stressors including climate change. 

Fully meeting Refuge purposes and goals requires that we continue to restore Whittlesey Creek. 

For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration.

Modify the Brook Trout Restoration Program

The CCP team also considered potential changes to other components of the brook trout 

program, such as exclusion of coho salmon from a Whittlesey Creek tributary to study cohobrook trout competition and implementation of additional protective harvest regulations in offRefuge streams. The Refuge, however, does not have sole decision-making authority for these 

topics or any others not specifically related to the Whittlesey Creek habitat restoration portion of 

the coaster brook trout program. These broader questions lie outside the scope of this CCP. 

They will be addressed instead by the entire partnership as part of the ongoing evaluation of the 

coaster restoration program on the Wisconsin shore of Lake Superior. The Refuge will continue 

to participate in these programmatic discussions in partnership with the Ashland Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Office (FWCO), which is the lead Service entity on the interagency team.

Trail to Lake Superior and Overlook on Shore

The CCP team considered adding a new Refuge foot trail from Highway 13 to Lake Superior 

and a new overlook on the lakeshore. A small parking area would be constructed next to the 

highway. These developments would provide easier access for visitors to view migratory birds 

that use the coastal wetlands and Chequamegon Bay, especially during fall migration. 

A parking area on the west side of the highway, however, would require visitors to cross the 

busy roadway to access the trail. Locating it on the east side instead would require filling of 

wetlands. In addition, Chequamegon Bay and shore is an important migratory bird stopover 

area, and the Refuge portion includes some of the last remaining protected coastal wetlands on 

Lake Superior. The risk of increased disturbance to waterfowl and shorebird populations was 

determined to be unacceptably high. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from 

further consideration.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

97

A.2.3 Elements Common to All Alternatives

• The team-partnership approach to experimental restoration of coaster brook trout will 

continue between Whittlesey Creek NWR, Ashland FWCO, and WDNR. The Refuge’s 

role in the experiment will continue to be restoration of brook trout habitat in Whittlesey 

Creek. 

• The habitat restoration program will be based on overall guidance developed in the HMP

for the Refuge (FWS, 2006c).

• The Service will continue to acquire land and easements from willing sellers within the 

approved boundary.

• The Service will ensure that Refuge management complies with all federal laws and 

regulations that provide direction for managing units of the Refuge System.

• No adjacent landowners will be adversely impacted by any action taken by the Service 

without mutual agreement and adequate compensation.

A.2.4 Description of Alternatives

Alternative A: Opportunistic Restoration; Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Under this alternative, the current management direction of Whittlesey Creek NWR would 

continue. Habitat restoration activities would be opportunistic. The Service partnership with the 

NGLVC would continue unchanged. Visitor services opportunities would remain the same. This 

alternative provides the baseline against which to compare other alternatives. NEPA requires 

that a no-action alternative be addressed in the planning process. A detailed description of the 

existing programs and uses contained in this alternative is found in chapter 3 of the CCP.

These are key elements of Alternative A:

• Select habitat restoration priorities based primarily on availability of funding and other 

resources; targeted control of priority invasive plants during restoration. 

• Complete currently planned tree planting, logjam installation, and culvert replacement 

projects; targeted control of priority invasives during restoration.

• Migratory birds continue to benefit from restoration of historic vegetation communities, 

but no bird-specific management occurs. Bird surveys and monitoring are opportunistic.

• Continue to focus watershed easement acquisition on protection of springs. 

• Maintain current conservation partnerships with other agencies, landowners, and 

organizations.

• Maintain current Service involvement in the NGLVC; Refuge office remains on-site. 

Participate in partnership events when consistent with Refuge purposes.

• Continue current opportunities on the Refuge for hunting and wildlife observation. 

Continue to develop Refuge-specific environmental education and interpretation 

programs. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

98

• Continue to educate and mentor Northland College students and Youth Conservation 

Corps (YCC) participants.

Alternative B: Refuge and Watershed Restoration; Maintain Visitor Center 

Partnership (Preferred Alternative)

Under this alternative, the Refuge would develop prioritized focus areas for future habitat 

restoration using best available science to achieve maximum benefits for brook trout and other 

priority species. Inventory and monitoring would answer management-relevant questions. Roles 

and expectations for Service involvement in the NGLVC would be more clearly defined. Visitor 

services opportunities would expand on the Refuge. Detailed objectives, strategies, and 

rationales associated with this alternative were developed for chapter 4 of the CCP.

These are key elements of Alternative B:

• Prioritize and integrate all future restoration actions in consultation with partners. 

Emphasize use of data from sediment transport model (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

2010), hydrology study (Lenz et al., 2003), and climate models (Wisconsin Initiative on 

Climate Change Impacts, 2011) to maximize long-term habitat benefits using limited 

resources. Examine role of off-Refuge ground-water-contributing area. Develop map of 

highest priority focus areas. Consider Little Whittlesey and Terwilliger Creeks.

• Complete currently planned tree planting, logjam installation, and culvert replacement 

projects; expand footprint of historic vegetation beyond riparian zone to increase 

migratory bird benefits. Targeted control of priority invasives during restoration.

• Develop monitoring plan designed to answer highest priority management questions; 

consider the cost/benefit of migratory bird monitoring.

• Acquire fee title land and easements from willing sellers within the approved boundary; 

emphasize lands within the priority focus areas.

• Develop and implement additional watershed protection tools such as buffer strips and 

riparian easements in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS), USFS, and private landowners. 

• Build landowner support for future floodplain reconnection and re-meandered channel on 

the Refuge.

• Maintain current Service involvement in the NGLVC. Keep Refuge office on-site. 

Participate in partnership events when consistent with Refuge purposes. Develop 

cooperative agreement to clarify the Service’s role and responsibilities. 

• Continue the hunting program. Open the Refuge to fishing in accordance with state

regulations.

• Continue to develop Refuge-specific education and interpretive programs; expand 

themes to include the watershed/trout connection. Increase use of Coaster Classroom.

• Add foot trail from NGLVC boardwalk to Coaster Classroom. 

• Continue to educate and mentor Northland College students and YCC participants.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

99

Alternative C: Watershed Restoration; Expand Visitor Center Partnership 

Under this alternative, Refuge habitat priorities would focus on protection and restoration of the 

Whittlesey Creek watershed. Easement acquisition would increase, as would partnerships to 

implement conservation measures on private lands. Stream restoration would focus on the 

upper reaches of the watershed. Lowland forest and coastal wetland restoration would be a 

lower priority. The Service would expand its participation in the NGLVC. Visitor services 

opportunities would increase and focus more on NGLVC priorities. 

These are key elements of Alternative C:

• Focus future habitat restoration on stabilizing bluffs and slowing overland flow to reduce 

sedimentation and flood peaks in Whittlesey Creek.

• Complete currently planned logjam and culvert projects on lower Whittlesey Creek. 

Design and construct logjams for erosion control on upper Whittlesey Creek.

• Allow natural regeneration of Refuge forests; no new coastal wetland restorations on the 

Refuge; control only problem invasives (e.g., threats to adjacent private land).

• Migratory birds benefit from restoration of historic vegetation communities, but no birdspecific management occurs. Develop volunteer-based bird surveys with NGLVC to 

gather basic trend data and encourage public involvement and support.

• Continue to acquire land and easements from willing sellers within the approved 

boundary. Focus easement acquisition on bank and bluff stabilization.

• Expand efforts to promote conservation farming and forestry practices on private lands 

in the watershed. Develop and implement additional watershed protection tools (e.g.,

buffer strips and riparian easements) in partnership with NRCS, USFS, and Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife.

• Expand Service involvement in the NGLVC; focus visitor services priorities on NGLVC 

programs and special events; provide Refuge staff at front desk. Develop cooperative 

agreement to clarify the Service’s role and responsibilities.

• Continue the hunting program. Open the Refuge to fishing in accordance with state

regulations.

• Add a limited foot trail onto Refuge property from the NGLVC boardwalk.

• Continue to educate and mentor Northland College students and YCC participants.

Alternative D: Refuge Restoration; Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

Under this alternative, Refuge habitat priorities would focus on restoring stream and floodplain 

habitat within the Refuge boundary. Restoration of lowland forests and coastal wetlands on the 

Refuge would increase. Refuge management would focus more on benefits to migratory birds. 

Stream restoration would focus on lower reaches within the Refuge boundary. Watershed work 

would continue, but it would be a lower priority. The Service would reduce participation in the 

NGLVC; Refuge staff and programs would move off-site. Visitor services opportunities on 

Refuge lands would increase. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

100

These are the key elements of Alternative D:

• Focus future habitat work on restoring natural hydrology and native vegetation on the 

Refuge. Climate change is a concern but not a driver of restoration priorities.

• Complete currently planned logjam and culvert projects on lower Whittlesey Creek. 

Design and install logjams for fish habitat on the Refuge portion of Little Whittlesey and 

Terwilliger Creeks.

• Create intensively managed seed production blocks for forest restoration. (This relates 

to managing for scattered blocks of mature native conifers that would ultimately disperse 

seed for forest restoration. Initially it means intensive weed and browse control, then it’s 

mostly hands-off and low-intensity, low-input).

• Expand wetland restoration and management efforts on the Refuge.

• Increase invasive plant control efforts; work to establish the Refuge as an Invasives-Free 

Zone.

• Additional actions to benefit bird species of concern (northern waterthrush, veery, black 

duck, common tern, piping plover, sora rail, cavity nesters). Develop scientifically 

rigorous monitoring of migratory bird use of Refuge floodplain and coastal wetlands.

• Restore stream meanders and reconnect Whittlesey, Little Whittlesey, and Terwilliger 

Creeks to their floodplains.

• Continue to acquire fee title land from willing sellers. Continue limited easement 

acquisition and private lands conservation assistance.

• Reduce involvement in the NGLVC. Move Refuge office and programs off-site.

• Establish the Coaster Classroom as the center of visitor services information for the 

Refuge; establish staffed hours during peak periods.

• Develop Refuge-specific mission-relevant programming. End participation in NGLVC 

events. 

• Add foot trail from the NGLVC to Coaster Classroom. 

• Develop auto tour route with interpretive signs along Refuge roads; add small parking 

areas.

• Educate and mentor Northland College and YCC participants.

.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

101

Table A-1: Comparison of Actions by Alternative

Issues

Alternative A

Opportunistic Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge and Watershed Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Restoration;

Expand Visitor Center Partnership

Alternative D

Refuge Restoration;

Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

WILDLIFE

Coaster Brook Trout

Team approach to restoring coaster 

brook trout; Refuge role is to 

restore Whittlesey Creek habitat.

Opportunistic habitat restoration 

based primarily on availability of 

grants and other resources.

Team approach to restoring coaster 

brook trout; Refuge role is to restore 

Whittlesey Creek habitat.

Develop and prioritize focus areas 

for habitat restoration. Consult with 

partners. Emphasize use of data 

from sediment transport model and 

hydrology study.

Team approach to restoring 

coaster brook trout; Refuge role 

is to restore Whittlesey Creek 

habitat.

Focus on stabilizing bluffs and 

slowing overland flow in the 

watershed to reduce 

sedimentation and flood peaks. 

Team approach to restoring 

coaster brook trout; Refuge role is 

to restore Whittlesey Creek 

habitat. 

Focus on restoring stream and 

floodplain habitat within the 

Refuge boundary. 

Migratory Birds

Birds benefit from restoration of 

historic vegetation, but no birdspecific management. 

Minimal, opportunistic bird 

monitoring.

Expand footprint of restored historic 

vegetation beyond riparian zone 

where feasible to increase bird 

benefits.

Develop monitoring plan designed to 

answer highest priority 

management-relevant questions; 

consider the cost/benefit of 

migratory bird monitoring. 

Birds benefit from restoration of 

historic vegetation, but no birdspecific management.

Develop volunteer-based bird 

surveys (e.g., annual raptor 

migration) in partnership with 

NGLVC to gather basic trend data 

and encourage public 

involvement and support. 

Expand footprint of restored 

historic vegetation beyond 

riparian zone where feasible to 

increase bird benefits. Implement 

bird-specific habitat management 

to benefit northern waterthrush, 

veery, black duck, common tern, 

piping plover, sora rail, etc.

Develop scientifically rigorous 

monitoring of migratory bird use 

of Refuge floodplain and coastal 

wetlands. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

102

Issues

Alternative A

Opportunistic Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge and Watershed Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Restoration;

Expand Visitor Center Partnership

Alternative D

Refuge Restoration;

Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

HABITAT

Stream Restoration

Install remaining logjams on lower 

Whittlesey Creek; replace remaining 

bad culverts.

Install remaining logjams on lower 

Whittlesey Creek; replace remaining 

bad culverts; reestablish freeflowing North Fork by removing 

beaver dams.

Prioritize new stream restoration 

activities using current science in 

consultation with partners; consider 

Little Whittlesey and Terwilliger 

Creeks.

Install remaining logjams on 

lower Whittlesey Creek; replace 

remaining bad culverts.

Design and install logjams for 

erosion control on upper 

Whittlesey Creek. 

Install remaining logjams on lower 

Whittlesey Creek; replace 

remaining bad culverts.

Design and install logjams for fish 

habitat on the Refuge portion of 

Little Whittlesey and Terwilliger 

Creeks.

Floodplain and Coastal 

Wetland Restoration

Plant trees and restore/manage 

wetlands on Refuge as resources 

allow.

Targeted control of priority invasive 

plants during restoration. 

Complete Refuge tree planting 

within 10 years; prioritize new 

wetland restoration activities with 

partners. 

Targeted control of priority invasive 

plants during restoration.

Build landowner support for future 

floodplain reconnection and 

restoration of stream meanders on 

the Refuge.

Allow natural regeneration of 

forests; no new wetland 

restoration.

Control only problem invasives 

(e.g., threats to adjacent private 

lands). 

Create intensively managed seed 

production blocks for forest 

restoration. Expansion of wetland 

restoration and management on 

the Refuge is a priority.

Reduce Refuge acres infested with 

invasive plants by 95% 

(monitoring and maintenance 

mode).

Restore stream meanders on the 

Refuge and reconnect stream to 

floodplain.

Watershed Protection

Acquire easements from willing 

sellers.

Continue limited private lands work. 

Prioritize watershed projects using 

current science in consultation with 

partners. 

Develop new watershed protection 

tools (e.g., buffer strips and riparian 

easements) with NRCS, USFS, and 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife.

Focus easement acquisition on 

bank and bluff stabilization. 

Expand efforts to promote 

conservation farming and forestry 

practices on private lands in the 

watershed.

Develop new watershed 

protection tools with NRCS, USFS, 

and Partners for Fish and Wildlife.

Acquire easements from willing 

sellers.

Continue limited private lands 

work.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

103

Issues

Alternative A

Opportunistic Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge and Watershed Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Restoration;

Expand Visitor Center Partnership

Alternative D

Refuge Restoration;

Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

Climate Change

No specific management driven by 

climate change modeling.

Climate change modeling is one tool 

used to prioritize and integrate all 

restoration actions and could affect 

priorities.

Climate change is a concern but 

not a driver of restoration 

priorities. 

Climate change is a concern but 

not a driver of restoration 

priorities. 

PEOPLE

NGLVC Partnership

Continue current Service 

involvement.

Continue current Service 

involvement. 

Clarify roles and responsibilities; 

develop cooperative agreement.

Become more complete partner.

Focus Refuge visitor services on 

NGLVC priorities, participate in 

seasonal tours and programs, 

provide staff at front desk, 

develop cooperative agreement.

Reduce partnership involvement. 

Move Refuge office and programs 

off-site. 

Welcome and Orient 

Visitors

Visitor contact station, Refuge 

exhibits, and brochures provided at 

NGLVC.

Visitor contact station, Refuge 

exhibits and brochures provided at 

NGLVC.

Visitor contact station, Refuge 

exhibits, and brochures provided 

at NGLVC; Refuge staff works at 

the front desk.

Coaster Classroom is the center of 

visitor services information for 

the Refuge, with staffed hours 

during peak periods.

Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation

Maintain Refuge-specific missionrelevant programming. Participate 

in NGLVC events when appropriate.

Educate and mentor Northland 

College and YCC students.

Expand Refuge-specific missionrelevant programming; participate in 

NGLVC events when appropriate. 

Increase collaboration with Ashland 

FWCO; expand themes to include 

watershed/trout connection.

Educate and mentor Northland 

College and YCC students.

Focus Refuge visitor services 

activities on support of NGLVC 

programs and special events. 

Educate and mentor Northland 

College and YCC student.

Expand Refuge-specific missionrelevant programming. End 

participation in NGLVC events.

Increase collaboration with 

Ashland FWCO; expand themes to 

include watershed/trout 

connection.

Develop auto tour route with 

interpretive signs and small 

parking areas along Refuge roads.

Educate and mentor Northland 

College and YCC students.

Wildlife Observation 

and Photography

All Refuge lands open to visitor 

access on foot. No designated foot 

trails or overlooks. 

All Refuge lands open to visitor 

access on foot.

Add limited trail onto Refuge 

property from NGLVC boardwalk. 

All Refuge lands open to visitor 

access on foot. No designated 

trails or overlooks.

All Refuge lands open to visitor 

access on foot.

Add limited trail onto Refuge from 

NGLVC to Coaster Classroom. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

104

Issues

Alternative A

Opportunistic Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge and Watershed Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Restoration;

Expand Visitor Center Partnership

Alternative D

Refuge Restoration;

Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

Hunting and Fishing

Waterfowl and archery deer 

hunting in designated locations.

Fishing officially closed.

Waterfowl and archery deer hunting 

in designated locations.

Open Refuge to fishing in 

accordance with state regulations.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

105

A.3 Affected Environment

See chapter 3 of the CCP.

A.4 Environmental Consequences

A.4.1 Effects Common to All Alternatives

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations” establishes environmental justice as a federal 

government priority and directs all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs and policies, and activities on minority and low-income 

populations.

None of the alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Public use activities that would be offered under each of the alternatives would be available to 

any visitor regardless of race, ethnicity, or income level.

Cultural Resources

The Service is responsible for managing archaeological and historic sites found on refuges. 

Under each of the alternatives evaluated in this EA, Refuge management would ensure 

compliance with relevant federal laws and regulations, particularly Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Prior to all habitat and facility projects, appropriate efforts will be 

made to identify and protect cultural resources within the area of potential impact by contacting 

the Regional Historic Preservation Officer for project review.

Climate Change

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies 

under its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate 

change impacts as part of long-range planning endeavors. Some potential impacts of climate 

change on the Superior Coastal Plain ecoregion in Wisconsin have been identified and are 

discussed in chapter 3 of the CCP. 

For example:

• Increased average surface and groundwater temperatures could affect habitat quality for 

coldwater-dependent fish species.

• Changes in recharge and discharge patterns could affect erosion, sedimentation, and 

flood peaks. 

• Changes in wildlife composition could occur as boreal forest plant species shift their 

ranges northward. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

106

Managers and resource specialists on the Refuge need to be aware of the potential effects of 

climate change. When feasible, documenting long-term vegetation, wildlife, and hydrologic

changes should become a part of research and monitoring programs. Adjustments in 

management direction may be necessary over time to adapt to a changing climate.

Carbon Sequestration

Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been linked to global climate change. In 

relation to comprehensive conservation planning for refuges, carbon sequestration is one of the 

primary climate-related management strategies that can be considered despite uncertainty 

surrounding site-specific climate change effects. The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE, 

1999) defines carbon sequestration as “. . . the capture and secure storage of carbon that would 

otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 

Vegetation is an important factor in global carbon sequestration. Both wetlands and forests have 

been shown to be carbon sinks, capturing and storing carbon, thereby removing a portion of the 

atmospheric carbon dioxide. The USDOE report notes that ecosystem protection is important to 

carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial 

biosphere.

Restoration of lands previously cleared for agriculture will increase the total quantity of 

sequestered carbon on the Refuge under all alternatives. All alternatives would result in 

increased carbon storage due to continuing land acquisition and restoration. 

A.4.2 Summary of Effects by Alternative

This section examines the environmental impacts of implementing each alternative. Impacts are 

discussed under three broad categories consistent with the CCP: wildlife, habitat, and people. A 

summary table of impacts is included at the end of this section (Table A-2).

Wildlife

All four alternatives would benefit Refuge species of concern, although the magnitude of benefit 

would vary by alternative for specific species. Alternative B provides the greatest overall 

benefits due to improved sequencing and integration of habitat restoration activities that would 

make the most effective use of limited resources. 

Coaster Brook Trout

All four alternatives will improve stream habitat and thereby increase the likelihood of increasing 

the number of coasters in Whittlesey Creek. It should be noted, however, that coaster brook 

trout numbers are not solely dependent on Refuge efforts to restore stream habitat; many other 

factors outside Refuge control also will affect the likelihood of successfully restoring a migratory 

population in Whittlesey Creek. 

Under Alternative B, the improvement in amount and quality of coldwater stream habitat suitable 

for coasters would be greatest due to improved prioritization and integration of habitat 

restoration activities. So, all other factors being equal, the greatest increase in coaster brook 

trout numbers would be expected under this alternative. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

107

The smallest increase in coaster brook trout numbers would be expected under Alternative D. 

Some structural in-stream habitat improvements would continue, but water quality improvement 

would be smallest under this alternative due to decreased focus on upland runoff and sediment 

reduction.

Migratory Birds 

All alternatives would benefit migratory birds as additional acres are acquired and native 

vegetation restoration continues on the Refuge. Northern waterthrush (lowland forest), veery 

(riparian forest), black duck, and sora (coastal wetland) are Refuge bird species of concern as 

defined in the HMP, although many other species also benefit from habitat restoration on the 

Refuge. Although notable local benefits accrue to migratory birds, particularly during migration,

the Refuge is small, so none of the alternatives is expected to have a significant overall effect 

on migratory bird populations that use the area.

Under Alternatives A and B, a small increase in bird numbers would be expected on the Refuge 

as more acres are acquired and restored. Some additional benefits could accrue under 

Alternative B, depending on the habitat restoration priorities that arise from the modeling effort.

Under Alternative C, stable numbers of migratory birds would be expected as habitat focus 

shifts primarily to watershed erosion and runoff control rather than native vegetation restoration 

on the Refuge.

Under Alternative D, a medium increase in migratory bird use of the Refuge would be expected. 

This alternative would provide the greatest benefits due to the primary focus on restoring native 

plants on Refuge floodplains―emergent wetlands, lowland, and riparian forest; plus additional 

bird-specific management. 

Habitat

All alternatives would have a positive net effect on quantity and quality of wetland, forest, and 

stream habitat although amount of improvement achieved over the next 15 years for each 

habitat type would vary by alternative. Alternatives B and C would provide the greatest benefits 

to stream habitat. Alternative D would provide the greatest benefit to forests and wetlands in the 

Refuge floodplain. Alternative C would provide the greatest reduction in watershed erosion and 

runoff.

Alternative B would provide the greatest overall increase in biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge, Whittlesey Creek, and the watershed because restoration 

activities would be more efficiently prioritized and integrated to target sites and activities of 

greatest potential impact. 

The environmental effects of Whittlesey Creek NWR habitat restoration also were addressed as 

part of the EA developed for the HMP (FWS, 2006c).

Stream Restoration

Under Alternative A, stream habitat structure and water quality would improve due to continuing 

in-stream restoration and some reduced runoff and sedimentation in the watershed. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

108

Under Alternative B, more improvement in stream habitat structure and water quality would be 

expected than under Alternative A due to improved sequencing and integration of restoration 

activities to achieve maximum benefit with limited resources. 

Under Alternative C, habitat structure would improve due to continuing in-stream restoration of 

woody debris in upstream reaches of the creek. This alternative also would significantly improve 

water quality due to a primary focus on runoff and erosion reduction in the watershed. 

Under Alternative D, stream habitat and water quality benefits would be smallest and localized 

primarily at the lower end of Whittlesey Creek on and near Refuge lands. 

Floodplain and Coastal Wetland Restoration 

Under Alternative A, acres of floodplain forest and restored wetland would increase as land 

acquisition and restoration continues. Wetland plant diversity would remain stable, and invasive 

reed canarygrass would continue to dominate many areas due to limited wetland management 

activities. Invasive plants in Refuge forests and fields would remain stable or drop slightly when 

they are controlled during restoration projects. Herbicide use would be limited and primarily 

occur via direct application methods such as cut-stump treatment and by utilizing weed-wipers. 

Least-toxic compounds such as the aquatic glyphosate formulation would be utilized. Impacts to 

non-target plants and other organisms are expected to be minimal. Floodplain hydrology would 

remain stable or show some improvement as wetlands are restored and trees planted.

Under Alternative B, acres of floodplain forest and restored wetland would increase as land 

acquisition and restoration continues. Wetland plant diversity would remain stable or increase; 

invasive plants, for example reed canarygrass, would remain stable or decrease if prioritization 

efforts expand wetland management activities over the next 15 years. Invasive plants in Refuge 

forests and fields would remain stable or drop slightly when they are controlled during 

restoration projects. Herbicide use would be limited and primarily occur via direct application 

methods such as cut-stump treatment and by utilizing weed-wipers. Least-toxic compounds 

such as the aquatic glyphosate formulation would be utilized. Impacts to non-target plants and 

other organisms are expected to be minimal. Floodplain hydrology would remain stable or show 

some improvement as wetlands are restored and trees planted.

Alternative C would provide the fewest benefits to floodplain and coastal wetland habitats. 

Restoration activities would be focused primarily in the watershed rather than near the coast. 

This alternative would treat the fewest species and acres with herbicides and would have the 

least impact on non-target plants and other organisms.

Alternative D would provide the greatest improvement in quantity and quality of forest and 

coastal wetland habitat on Refuge lands. Restoration activities would focus primarily on Refuge 

lands in the floodplain near the coast. Forest acreage would increase. Restored wetland 

acreage and native plant diversity would increase significantly, accompanied by near elimination 

of invasive plants. Herbicide use would include numerous application methods, timings, and 

compounds applied to diverse species. While least-toxic compounds would be selected and 

Best Management Practices followed, this alternative would result in the most herbicide applied 

and have the greatest potential impact on non-target plants and other organisms. Floodplain 

hydrology would improve through restoration of stream meanders and reconnection of the 

stream to its floodplain.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

109

Watershed Erosion and Runoff

Alternative A would provide some reduction in sediment and overland flow due to opportunistic 

implementation of conservation practices on private lands and purchase of easements.

Alternative B includes more focused attention on areas of greatest concern within the Whittlesey 

watershed, so greater reduction in erosion and more natural water flow patterns would be 

expected under this alternative than under alternatives A or D, with greater habitat benefits 

downstream.

Alternative C would provide the greatest reduction in overland flow and erosion because 

watershed restoration would be the primary focus of habitat work.

Under Alternative D, some watershed work could still occur, but the priority would be restoration 

of Refuge lands downstream. This alternative would provide the smallest reduction in watershed 

erosion and runoff. 

Climate Change

Climate change is likely to result in changing native vegetation communities in the Superior 

Coastal Plain over the long-term. Although major changes are not expected during the life of 

this plan, it is important to continue to build ecosystem resilience to the effects of climate 

change.

All four alternatives would increase resilience to outside stressors including climate change by 

restoring native vegetation and ecosystem function (hydrology). Under all four alternatives, 

Whittlesey Creek is expected to continue providing suitable coldwater habitat for brook trout due 

to consistent groundwater input. Stream restoration activities (logjams, sediment reduction, etc.) 

would enhance stream resilience to climate change under all alternatives. In addition, 

Alternative B would consider the potential for mitigation of climate change effects in prioritizing 

habitat restoration actions.

People

Hunting and Fishing

Under all four alternatives, hunting opportunities would remain the same, with waterfowl hunting 

and archery deer hunting allowed on some Refuge lands. 

Under Alternative A, Refuge fishing would remain closed per Service regulations. Under 

Alternatives B, C, and D, fishing opportunities would increase because the Refuge would be 

open to fishing in accordance with state regulation. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Under Alternatives A and C, wildlife observation opportunities would remain stable, with off-trail 

access allowed year round, but no foot trails or overlooks. 

Under Alternatives B and D, wildlife observation opportunities would increase due to a trail 

extension from the NGLVC boardwalk and a trail from the NGLVC boundary to the Coaster 

Classroom. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

110

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Under Alternative A, environmental education and interpretation opportunities would remain 

stable. 

Under Alternative B, environmental education opportunities would expand, and quality could 

improve due to increased collaboration with Ashland FWCO and expanded themes to include 

the watershed/trout connection. 

Under Alternative C, Refuge and Service-specific education and interpretive opportunities would 

decrease significantly because the focus would shift to NGLVC messages.

Under Alternative D, environmental education opportunities would expand, and quality could 

improve due to increased collaboration with Ashland FWCO and expanded themes to include 

the watershed/trout connection. Self-directed interpretive opportunities would increase due to 

the development of an interpreted auto tour route. 

Public Awareness and Support

Public awareness and support for Whittlesey Creek NWR is strong in the local community. 

Many factors affect public awareness and support including partnerships, outreach, youth 

mentoring, habitat restoration, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, community 

involvement, increased tourism, and other economic effects of Refuge activities. 

Under Alternative A, public awareness and support would remain stable as current Refuge 

programs and Service involvement in the NGLVC partnership continue. 

Under Alternative B, public awareness and support could increase slightly as wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities increase. 

Under Alternative C, public awareness and support could remain stable or could decrease if 

some Service identity is lost as the Refuge becomes more closely integrated into the NGLVC 

partnership. 

Under Alternative D, public awareness and support would decrease without the high public 

visibility afforded by the NGLVC; it could increase again over the long-term if the Refuge 

successfully develops a stronger individual identity separate from the NGLVC.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are effects that result from the incremental impact of the proposed action 

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over 

time. 

The Council on Environmental Quality, which ensures that federal agencies meet their 

obligations under NEPA, requires mitigation measures when the environmental analysis 

process detects possible significant negative impacts on habitat, wildlife, or the human 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

111

environment. None of the activities proposed are expected or intended to produce significant 

levels of cumulative environmental impacts that would require mitigation measures.

Biological Resources

All four alternatives are intended to maintain or improve biological resources on the Refuge. All 

alternatives would increase the acreage of restored Refuge floodplain forest and coastal 

wetland. All include working with partners to increase the conservation value of adjacent lands. 

The combination of our proposed management actions with those of other organizations could 

result in beneficial cumulative impacts through restoration and protection of stream, floodplain, 

and wetland habitats that are declining nationwide. 

Water Resources

All alternatives would reduce erosion and runoff in the local watershed by converting fields to 

native vegetation, purchasing conservation easements, and encouraging adoption of additional 

conservation measures on privately owned agricultural land. Alternatives B and D also include 

measures to restore more natural hydrologic function in the floodplain over the long-term by 

restoring stream meanders and reconnecting the stream to its floodplain. Improved quality of 

water flowing out of Whittlesey Creek could have positive local benefits in Chequamegon Bay. If 

many similar projects were implemented throughout the Lake Superior basin, the beneficial 

cumulative impacts on the lake could be significant. 
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

112

Table A-2: Summary of Impacts by Alternative 

Issues

Alternative A

Opportunistic Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge and Watershed Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Restoration;

Expand Visitor Center Partnership

Alternative D

Refuge Restoration;

Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

WILDLIFE

Coaster Brook Trout 

Population

Increased. Increased. Increased. Small increase.

Migratory Bird 

Populations

Small increase. Small increase. Stable. Medium increase.

HABITAT

Stream

Improved structure.

Improved water quality.

Significantly improved structure.

Significantly improved water 

quality.

Improved structure.

Significantly improved water 

quality.

Small improvement in structure.

Small improvement in water 

quality.

Floodplain Forest Increase in acreage. Increase in acreage. Small increase in acreage. Increase in acreage.

Coastal Wetlands

Increase in restored acres.

Stable plant diversity.

Increase in restored acres.

Stable or increased plant diversity.

Little or no change in restored 

acres.

Stable or decreased plant diversity.

Significant increase in restored 

acres.

Significant increase in diversity.

Invasive Plants Stable or small reduction. Stable or small reduction. Increased. Significant reduction.

Floodplain 

Hydrology

Stable or small improvement. Stable or small improvement. Stable or deteriorating. Improved.

Watershed Runoff 

and Erosion

Small reduction. Reduced. Significantly reduced. Stable or small reduction.

Resilience to Climate 

Change

Increased. Increased. Increased. Increased.

PEOPLE

NGLVC Partnership

Stable Service involvement. Stable involvement.

Increased clarity of 

roles/responsibilities

Expanded involvement.

Potential loss of Service identity in 

the area.

Reduced involvement.

Potential for reduced Service 

visibility in the area.

Welcome and Orient

Visitors

Service visibility remains the same. Same as Alternative A. Increased Service visibility in the 

area.

Reduced Service visibility in the 

area.

Hunting Stable opportunities.

No program changes.

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.
Appendix A: Environmental Assessment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

113

Issues

Alternative A

Opportunistic Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(No Action)

Alternative B

Refuge and Watershed Restoration;

Maintain Visitor Center Partnership

(Preferred Alternative)

Alternative C

Watershed Restoration;

Expand Visitor Center Partnership

Alternative D

Refuge Restoration;

Reduce Visitor Center Partnership

Fishing

Stable opportunities.

Refuge open per state but not per 

Service fishing regulations.

Increased opportunities.

Open in accordance with both state 

and Service regulations.

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B.

Wildlife Observation Stable opportunities. Increased opportunities. Stable opportunities. Increased opportunities.

Environmental 

Education and 

Interpretation

Stable opportunities.

Stable quality.

Expanded opportunities.

Increased quality.

Decrease in Refuge and Servicefocused opportunities.

Shift in focus to address NGLVC 

messages.

Expanded opportunities.

Increased quality.

Public Awareness 

and Support

Stable. Stable or small increase. Stable or decreased.

Some potential loss of Service 

identity.

Increased or decreased.
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

114

Appendix B: Species Lists

In this appendix:

Common Native Plants Found On and Near Whittlesey Creek NWR

Invasive Plants Confirmed or Likely Found on Whittlesey Creek NWR

Whittlesey Creek NWR Mammals

Whittlesey Creek NWR Birds

Whittlesey Creek NWR Amphibians

Whittlesey Creek NWR Reptiles

Whittlesey Creek NWR Fish

Common Native Plants Found On and Near Whittlesey Creek NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Conifers

Northern white cedar Thuja occidentalis

Balsam fir Abies balsamea

Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis

Jack pine Pinus banksiana

Red pine Pinus resinosa

White pine Pinus strobes

White spruce Picea glauca

Deciduous Trees and Shrubs

Speckled alder Alnus rugosa

Black ash Fraxinus nigra

Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvania

Mountain ash Sorbus americana

Large-toothed aspen Populus grandidentata

Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides

Red-osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera

Balsam poplar Populus balsamifera

Paper birch Betula papyrifera

River birch Betula nigra

Yellow birch Betula lutea

Box elder Acer negundo

Choke cherry Prunus virginiana

Pin cherry Prunus pennsylvanica

American elm Ulmus americana

Ironwood Ostrya virginiana

Juneberry Amelanchier canadensis

Red maple Acer rubrum

Sugar maple Acer saccharum

Meadowsweet Spirea alba

Vibernum Vibernum sp

Willow Salix sp.

Grasses and Forbs

Canada bluejoint Calamagrostis canadensis

Slender sedge Carex lasiocarpa

Common cattail Typha latifolia

Marsh horsetail Equisetum palustre

Northern black currant Ribes hudsonianum
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

115

Invasive Plants Confirmed or Likely Found on Whittlesey Creek NWR

Common Name Scientific Name

Reed canarygrass* Phalaris arundinacea

Bull thistle* Cirsium vulgare

Canada thistle* Cirsium arvense 

Common buckthorn* Rhamnus cathartica

Crack willow* Salix fragilis

Glossy buckthorn Rhamnus frangula

Exotic honeysuckles* Lonicera spp.

Purple loosestrife* Lythrum salicaria

Bird’s foot trefoil* Lotus corniculatus

Red clover* Trifolium pratense

White clover* Trifolium repens

White sweet clover* Melilotus alba

Yellow sweet clover* Melilotus officinalis

Smooth bromegrass* Bromus inermis

Quackgrass* Elytrigia repens

Tall fescue* Festuca elatior

Common reed* Phragmites australis

Kentucky bluegrass* Poa pratensis

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Brown knapweed* Centaurea jacea

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa

Common tansy* Tanacetum vulgare

Ox-eye daisy* Chrysanthemum eucanthemum

Orange hawkweed* Hieracium aurantiacum

Yellow hawkweed* Hieracium caespitosum

Wintercreeper Euonymous fortunei

Wild parsnip Pastinaca sativa

Common burdock* Arctium minus

Orange day lily* Hemerocallis fulva

Butter-and-eggs Linaria vulgaris

Periwinkle Vinca minor

Chicory Cichorium intybus

Lily-of-the-valley Convallaria majalis

Crown vetch* Coronilla varia

Queen Anne’s lace Daucus carota

Creeping Charlie Glechoma hederacea

Common St. John’s-wort Hypericum perforatum

Curly cock Rumex crispus

Watercress Nasturtium officinale

Canada bluegrass* Poa compressa

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Forget-me-not, garden Myosotis sylvatica

Forget-me-not, aquatic Myosotis scorpioides

Common mullein* Verbascum thaspus

Bishop’s goutweed* Aegopodium podagraria

Asterisk * – Indicates species confirmed on Refuge.
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

116

Whittlesey Creek NWR Mammals

Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Virginia Opossum Didelphis virgiana Meadow Vole

Microtus 

pennsylvanicus

Northern Short-tailed 

Shrew Blarina brevicauda House Mouse Mus musculus

Arctic Shrew Sorex arcticus

North American 

Deermouse

Peromyscus 

maniculatus

Masked Shrew Sorex cinereus

White-footed 

Deermouse Peromyscus leucpus

Pygmy Shrew Sorex hoyi Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Water Shrew Sorex palustris Southern Bog Lemming Synaptomys cooperi

Star-nosed Mole Condylura cristata

Woodland Jumping 

Mouse Napaeozapus insignis

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Meadow Jumping 

Mouse Zapus hudsonius

Silver-haired Bat

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Little Brown Bat Myotis lucifugus Coyote Canis latrans

Northern Long-eared 

Bat Myotis septentrionalis Gray Wolf Canis lupus

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Gray Fox

Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus

Eastern Pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus Black Bear Ursus americanus

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Common Raccoon Procyon lotor

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus American Marten Martes americana

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans Fisher Martes pennanti

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Short-tailed Weasel Mustela erminea

Woodchuck Marmota monax Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Least Weasel Mustela nivalis

Red Squirrel

Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus Mink Mustela vison

Thirteen-lined Ground 

Squirrel

Spermophilus 

tridecemlineatus American Badger Taxidea taxus

Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis

Eastern Chipmunk Tamias striatus Northern River Otter Lutra canadensis

Plains Pocket Gopher Geomys bursarius Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis

American Beaver Castor canadensis Bobcat Lynx rufus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus

Southern Red-backed 

Vole Clethrionomys gapperi Moose Alces alces
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

117

Whittlesey Creek NWR Birds

(Spring: Mar–May, Summer: Jun–Aug, Fall: Sept–Nov, Winter: Dec–Feb)

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Loons

Common Loon Gavia immer X X X

Grebes

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps X X

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus X X

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena X X

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis X

Pelicans

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos X X X

Cormorants

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax aurtis X X X

Herons and Bitterns

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus X X X

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis X X

Great Egret Ardea alba X

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias X X X

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis X X

Green Heron Butorides virescens X X X

Snowy Egret Egretta thula X

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor X

Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea X X

Black-crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax X X

Vultures

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura X X X

Ducks, Geese, and Swans

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons X X

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens X X

Ross's Goose Chen rossii X

Canada Goose Branta canadensis X X X X

Mute Swan Cygnus olor X X X X

Tundra Swan Cygnus buccinator X X

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus columbianus X X X

Wood Duck Aix sponsa X X X

Gadwall Anas strepera X X

American Widgeon Anas americana X X

American Black Duck Anas rubripes X X X X

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X X X

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors X X X

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca X X X X

Northern Pintail Anas acuta X X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

118

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata X X

Canvasback Aythya valisineria X X

Redhead Aythya americana X X

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris X X X

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis X X

Greater Scaup Aythya marila X X

King Eider Somateria spectabilis X

Oldsquaw Clangula hyemalis X X X

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata X X

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra X X

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca X X

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola X X X

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula X X X

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis X X

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus X X X

Common Merganser Mergus merganser X X X

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator X X X

Hawks and Eagles

Osprey Pandion haliaetus X X X

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X X X X

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus X X X X

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus X X X X

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii X X X

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis X X X X

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus X X X

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus X X X

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni X

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamiacensis X X X

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus X X X

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos X

Falcons

American Kestrel Falco sparverius X X X X

Merlin Falco columbarius X X X

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X X

Upland Game Birds

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus X X X X

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus X X X X

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus X X X

Rails and Coots

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis X X X

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola X X X

Sora Rail Porzana carolina X X X

American Coot Fulica americana X X

Cranes
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

119

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis X X X

Shorebirds

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola X X X

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica X X X

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus X X X

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus X X

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X X X X

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana X X

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca X X X

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes X X X

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria X X X

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus X X

Spotted Sandpiper Actitus macularia X X X

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda X X

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus X X X

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica X

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa X

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres X X X

Red Knot Calidris canutus X X X

Sanderling Calidris alba X X X

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla X X X

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla X X X

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis X X X

Baird's Sandpiper Calidris bairdii X X X

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos X X X

Dunlin Calidris alpina X X X

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus X X

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis X X

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus X X X

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus X X

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago gallinago X X X X

American Woodcock Scolopax minor X X X

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor X X

Gulls and Terns

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan X X X

Little Gull Larus minutus X X

Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia X X X X

Ring-billed Gull Larus delwarensis X X X X

Herring Gull Larus argentatus X X X X

Thayer's Gull Larus thayeri X

Lesser Black-backed Gull Larus fuscus X X

Greater Black-backed Gull Larus marinus X

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus X X

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia X X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

120

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Common Tern Sterna hirundo X X X

Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea X X

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri X X X

Black Tern Chlidonias niger X X

Doves

Rock Dove Columba livia X X X X

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura X X X X

Cuckoos and Roadrunners

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropalmus X X

Owls

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus X X X X

Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca X

Northern Hawk Owl Surnia ulula X

Barred Owl Strix varia X X X X

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa X X X X

Long-eared Owl Asio otus X X

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus X X X

Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus X

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus X X X X

Nighthawks and Nightjars

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor X X X

Whip-poor-will Capirmulgus vociferus X X X

Swifts

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica X X X

Hummingbirds

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris X X X

Kingfishers

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon X X X X

Woodpeckers

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus X X X X

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus X X X X

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius X X X

Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X X X

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus X X X X

American Three-toed 

Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus X

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus X X X X

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus X X X

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus X X X X

Flycatchers

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi X X *

Eastern Wood Pewee Contopus virens X X *

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventrus X X *

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum X X *

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus X X *
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

121

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe X X X

Great-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus X X X

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus X X *

Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X X

Shrikes

Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor X X X

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus X

Vireos

Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons X X

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius X X X

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus X X X

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus X X

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus X X X

Jays, Magpies, and Crows

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata X X X X

American Crow Corvus branchyrhynchos X X X X

Common Raven Corvus corax X X X X

Larks

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris X X

Swallows

Purple Martin Progne subis X X

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor X X X

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis X X

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X X

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia X X

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica X X X

Chickadees and Titmice

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapilla X X X X

Boreal Chickadee Poecile hudonicus X X X

Nuthatches

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis X X X X

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis X X X X

Creepers

Brown Creeper Certhia americana X X X X

House Wren Trogodytes aedon X X X

Winter Wren Trogodytes troglodytes X X X

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis X X

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris X X X

Kinglets, Bluebirds, Thrushes

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa X X X X

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula X X X

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis X X X

Veery Catharus fuscescens X X X

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus minimus X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

122

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus X X X

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus X X X

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina X X X

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius X X

American Robin Turdus migratorius X X X X

Mimics

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis X X X

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X X

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum X X X

Starlings

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris X X X X

Pipits

American Pipit Anthus rubescens X X

Waxwings

Bohemian Waxwing Bombycilla garrulus X X X

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum X X X X

Warblers

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera X X X

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina X X X

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata X X

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla X X X

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia X X X

Northern Parula Parula americana X X X

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica X X X

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia X X X

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina X X X

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens X X X

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata X X X

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens X X X

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca X X X

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus X X X

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum X X X

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea X X X

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata X X

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia X X X

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla X X X

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus X X X

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis X X X

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis X X

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia X X X

Common Yellow-throat Geothylpis trichas X X X

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla X X

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis X X X

Tanagers

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea X X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

123

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana X

Sparrows, Buntings, Grosbeaks

Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus X X

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea X X X

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina X X X

Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida X X X

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla X X X

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus X X X

Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus X

Lark Bunting Calamospiza melanocorys X

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis X X X

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum X X

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii X X X

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca X X

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia X X X

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii X X X

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana X X X

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis X X X

Harris's Sparrow Zonotrichia querula X X

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis X X X X

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus X X

Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis X X X

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis X X X X

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus X X X

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea X X X

Dickcissel Spiza americana X X

Blackbirds and Orioles

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus X X X

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus X X X

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus X X X

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna X X X

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta X X X

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus X X

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X X X

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula X X X X

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater X X X

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius X

Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula X X

Finches

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator X X X

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus X X X X

House Finch Carpodacus americana X X X X

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra X X X X
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

124

Common Name Scientific Name

SpringSummerFallWinter

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera X X X X

Common Redpoll Carduelis flammea X X X

Hoary Redpoll Carduelis hornemanni X

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus X X X X

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis X X X X

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus X X X X

Old World Sparrows

House Sparrow Passer domesticus X X X X

Asterisk * – Indicates early migrants (i.e., flycatchers) that largely migrate south in late summer.

Whittlesey Creek NWR Amphibians

Common Name Scientific Name

Central Newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

Common Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus

Blue-spotted Salamander Ambystoma laterale

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum

Four-toed Salamander Hemidactylium scutatum

Eastern Red-backed 

Salamander Plethodon cinereus

Eastern American Toad Bufo americanus

Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer

Western chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata

Gray Treefrog Hyla versicolor

American Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Green Frog Rana clamitans

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens

Mink Frog Rana septentrionalis

Wood Frog Rana sylvatica

Whittlesey Creek NWR Reptiles

Common Name Scientific Name

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina

Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta

Wood Turtle Clemmys insculpta

Northern Prairie Skink Eumeces septentrionalis

Ring-necked Snake Diadophis punctatus

Western Fox Snake Elaphe vulpina

Eastern Hog-nosed Snake Heteron platirhinos

Northern Water Snake Nerodia sepidon

Smooth Green Snake Opheodrys vernalis
Appendix B: Species Lists

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

125

Common Name Scientific Name

Northern Red-bellied Snake Storeria occipitomaculata

Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis

Whittlesey Creek NWR Fish

Common Name Scientific Name

Brown Trout* Salmo trutta

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis 

Rainbow Trout* Oncorhynchus mykiss

Coho Salmon* Oncorhynchus kisutch

Chinook Salmon* Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Splake (hybrid) Lake trout x brook trout

Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus

Ninespine Stickleback Pungitius pungitius

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans

Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius

Blackchin Shiner Notropis heterodon

Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum

Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas

Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus

White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Rainbow Smelt* Osmerus mordax

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Central Mudminnow Umbra limi

Asterisk * – Indicates introduced species.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

126

Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat 

Management Plan, Chapter IV

Note that page numbers references used within this appendix (C) refer to the original 

document’s page numbering and not the page numbering of this comprehensive conservation 

plan. 

IV. Habitat Goals, Objectives and Strategies

Habitat and population goals were adopted for the Whittlesey Creek NWR when the Interim 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan was written. Revisions to the original goals were made for this plan, 

only to clarify, add watershed approaches or merge similar habitats into one goal. The intent and direction 

of the original goals were not altered.

The goals and objectives discussed in this document were developed with an understanding that upstream 

events, both past and present, directly impact the streams and floodplain within the refuge. Our goals, 

objectives and strategies must be based on flows and sediments entering the refuge from upstream. As 

engaged landowners continue to restore habitats that reduce flows and sediments, our objectives can be 

better defined. 

The Service will gain a much better understanding of the dynamics of sediment entering the stream once a 

sediment transport study has been done. This study will identify sediment sources, quantify the amount, 

and model the movement of sediment entering and moving through the system. Until this study is done, 

stream restoration objectives within the Whittlesey Creek NWR will not be set, because anything we 

might try to do could be negated with excess sediment buildup or simply lost to high flood flows.

Goals, objectives and strategies are divided into two categories based on land ownership: Whittlesey 

Creek NWR and private lands. Private lands here refer to lands that are upstream of the refuge boundary 

and located within the surface water drainage area of Whittlesey Creek (Figure 2). The Service has no 

jurisdiction or authority over private land actions, but it can provide financial and technical assistance to 

landowners who are interested in restoring fish and wildlife habitat. 

Several resources were used to redraft goals and draft objectives:

• Refuge staff convened a group of scientists that have expertise in hydrology, geomorphology, 

fisheries biology or wildlife biology to identify stream reaches and describe potential habitat 

and geomorphic characteristics for each reach. They were extremely helpful in formulating 

stream goals and objectives. A list of participants is provided in Appendix C.

• We convened another group of scientists that have expertise in plant ecology and soils to help 

us identify historic and potential native plants for the floodplain. A list of participants from 

this group is provided in Appendix C.

• We relied on data collected for the Whittlesey Creek hydrology study, as well as results of the 

analysis from this work (Lenz et al. 2003). Faith Fitzpatrick of USGS and coauthor of the 

Whittlesey Creek hydrology study (Lenz et al. 2003) and Marty Melchoir of inter-fluve, inc. 

provided valuable insight and helped us quantify objectives for the stream. 

• Other reports and studies were used as references, such as the “Bayfield Peninsula Stream 

Assessment” (inter-fluve, inc. and Graber 2003) and “Guidelines for Evaluating Fish Habitat 

in Wisconsin Streams” (Simonson et al. 1993).
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

127

Steam objectives are set to provide habitat for coaster brook trout. If these objectives are not reachable by 

slowing overland flow and reducing sediment inputs, then the Service assumes the stream will still 

provide habitat for other fish and wildlife species, such as wood turtle, black duck and coho salmon.

A. Habitat Goals

Habitat Goal 1 – Stream: Restore watershed1 and stream hydrologic functions that 

improve fish and wildlife habitat within the stream and the refuge, with an emphasis on 

native species.

Brook Trout Population Goal: Establish a self-sustaining brook trout population in the 

Whittlesey Creek watershed that exhibits a migrating life history.

Objectives and Strategies are laid out in the document titled, “An experiment to establish a selfsustaining brook trout population in Whittlesey Creek that exhibits a migrating life history 

(coaster) by stocking, enacting protective regulations and implementing habitat improvements.” 

Specific objectives are:

1) By 2030, establish a self-sustaining migratory brook trout population. A population is 

considered self-sustaining when it supports itself for at least two life spans after stocked fish no 

longer contribute to recruitment. 

2) Stocking Objective: Establish 25 spawning pairs of brook trout exhibiting the migratory life 

history.

Assessment needs, stocking schedules and monitoring requirements are specified in the Whittlesey 

Creek Brook Trout plan mentioned above.

Habitat improvements will improve the chances of success for Coaster Brook Trout and other species 

of concern, such as wood turtle and northern water shrew. The following habitat objectives are laid 

out to improve brook trout survival.

Objectives for Entire Whittlesey Creek:

Objectives for Whittlesey Creek are to slow the flow of water over the upland and within the 

stream. These objectives are measured with geomorphic terms. In the next 30 years, Whittlesey Creek 

will have:

1) A 20 percent reduction in flood peaks in Whittlesey Creek, as measured by 2 to 10 year flood 

events.

2) In-channel roughness of 0.06 (using Manning’s roughness coefficient). 2

 

3) Roughness coefficient of overland flow increased to 0.5 (using overland flow coefficient 

calculated in SWAT model (Lenz et al. 2003)).3

 1 Watershed in goals, objectives and strategies refers to the surface-water contributing portion of the watershed only. 2 Manning’s roughness coefficient represents the resistence [sic] to flood flows in a stream channel. A streambed with a lot of 

debris, boulders, rubble or vegetation will have a higher roughness coefficient. A rough stream will slow flood flows and the 

erosive power of a stream. The Manning’s coefficient of 0.6 corresponds to a stream with a large amount of large woody debris. 

North Fork Reach 2 is the most important stretch for increasing channel roughness in the Whittlesey watershed.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

128

Objectives for Whittlesey Creek Within Refuge:

Within the next 30 years, Whittlesey Creek will have:

4) Whittlesey Creek Reach 1: A moving, dynamic channel and delta with the channel freely 

meandering in the floodplain. Conditions allow spawning adult fish to pass to spawning sites. 

Adjacent wetlands and floodplains are dominated by native tree, shrub and emergent 

vegetation.

5) Whittlesey Creek Reach 2: A naturalized stream channel, with variable depth and cover. 

Habitat rated as good to excellent when using Simonson et al. (1993) quantitative habitat 

assessment for Wisconsin streams.4

 Native riparian vegetation with a diversity of tree age 

classes and good shrub cover. The floodplain reconnected to the stream.

Objectives for Whittlesey Creek Within Private Lands:

The Service will work with partners and private landowners to restore the Creek toward:

6) Whittlesey Creek Reaches 3 – 5: Complex in-stream habitat with good cover (large woody 

debris, undercut banks, boulders, and macrophytes), pools, gravel and overhead riparian 

cover (rating of good to excellent when using Simonson et al. (1993) quantitative habitat 

assessment for Wisconsin streams). Riparian forest maturing naturally, to include conifers codominant with hardwoods. The floodplain reconnected to the stream.

7) Whittlesey Creek Reaches 6 and 7: Sediments entering the stream from this reach 

significantly reduced.5

 Complex in-stream habitat with good cover (large woody debris, 

undercut banks, boulders), especially good pool structure and overhead riparian cover (rating 

of good when using Simonson et al. (1993) quantitative habitat assessment for Wisconsin 

streams). Riparian forest maturing naturally, with conifers co-dominant with hardwoods. 

Stream water temperatures below 70 °F.

8) North Fork Reach 1: Same as Whittlesey Creek reaches 3 - 5.

9) North Fork Reach 2: Adequate fish passage between North Fork Reaches 2 and 3, without 

creating incision problems below Cozy Corner Rd. Complex in-stream habitat with good 

cover (large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and macrophytes), pools, gravel and 

overhead riparian cover (rating of good to excellent when using Simonson et al. (1993) 

quantitative habitat assessment for Wisconsin streams). Riparian forest maturing naturally, 

with conifers co-dominant with hardwoods.

10) North Fork Reach 3: Large upstream wetland protected and maintained.

Objectives for Terwilliger and Little Whittlesey Creeks Within the Refuge:

 3 Overland flow is also referred to as sheetflow. It is surface runoff from rain that is not absorbed (infiltrated into the ground) but 

insead [sic] fills small depressions and runs downslope into streams. In the SWAT model, the overland flow is related to 

vegetation type and soil type. 4 Refuge staff will consider each habitat variable on a case-by-case basis and use those that fit well with Whittlesey Creek 

specifically and Bayfield peninsula streams generally.

5 We will need to complete a sediment transport study to give us amounts of sediments that are entering and flowing through the 

system. Then we can set quantifiable objectives for this reach.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

129

Within the next five years, the Service will have determined the potential to restore Little 

Whittlesey and Terwilliger Creeks as tributaries to Whittlesey Creek within reach 2, as they may 

have done historically.

Strategies for Whittlesey Creek Within Refuge:

Clear, quantifiable strategies cannot be identified for the stream within the refuge until a sediment 

transport study is completed (objective 1, page 45). This study will not only identify quantity, flow 

and deposition of sediments, but will also provide recommendations for how to meet our objectives 

for reaches 1 and 2. In the meantime, broad strategies are placeholders for future, specific strategies. 

Many private lands strategies will also apply to appropriate habitats within the refuge.

Stream Strategy 1: Reach 1 – Investigate the possibility of removing spoil banks that were 

deposited when the stream was channelized, along with other man-induced barriers, to allow the 

stream to meander within the floodplain.

Stream Strategy 2: Reaches 1 and 2 - Restore natural stream channel as recommendations are 

provided in the sediment transport study (objective 1, page 45). 

Stream Strategy 3: Reach 2 – Improve stream habitat in conjunction with or in addition to natural 

stream channel restoration work. Determine specific work to be conducted as part of stream 

restoration design.

Strategies for Whittlesey Creek on Private Lands6

: 

Private Lands Strategy 1: Slow overland flow 

This strategy will help fulfill objective 3 (page 40) regarding slowing overland flow by increasing 

surface “roughness.” Upland roughness can be increased by adding obstructions that will slow water 

as it flows over the watershed’s clay soils. Wetlands, wooded land, surface micro-topography, and 

shrubs are examples of such obstructions that reduce flow (Lenz et al. 2003; Fitzpatrick et al. 1999) 

and can also be good wildlife habitat. The Service will work with willing landowners and other 

partners to add these features in appropriate places. The Service, in cooperation with partners, will 

rerun the SWAT model (from Lenz el al. 2003) and the watershed health/open lands model7 (Kroska 

2005) adding restored habitat features to determine if we can sufficiently increase overland roughness 

to slow the flow. We will also analyze our actions on a subwatershed basis to help set priorities. Until 

these models are rerun, we will give priority to uplands around North Fork 2 and Whittlesey Creek 6 

and 7 reaches. This is also the highest priority strategy to implement.

Private Lands Strategy 1a: Restore wetlands and create detention ponds.

Private Lands Strategy 1b: Plant trees and shrubs on abandoned fields and open lands (new 

clearcuts), encouraging conifers such as red pine, white pine and white spruce, as much as 

possible.

 6 All strategies on private lands will be conducted with willing landowners who voluntarily agree to work with the Service and 

other partners to participate in habitat projects. Also, these projects will be limited to the surface-drainage portion of the 

watershed.

7 This model was developed in 2004 and 2005 as part of the project titled: Comparative Analysis of Subwatersheds in the WI 

Portion of the Lake Superior Watershed. The project is a joint effort of the Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (Wisconsin 

Department of Administration), the Great Lakes Protection Fund (Wisconsin DNR) and the Ashland/Bayfield/Douglas/Iron 

Counties Land Conservation Department.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

130

Private Lands Strategy 1c: Restore hydrology of old fields (by filling old ditch networks) that 

were leveled and drained, but are no longer used for agriculture.

Private Lands Strategy 1d: Experiment with other new techniques as they are developed 

(infiltration ponds, detention wetlands, etc.)

Private Lands Strategy 2: Reduce gully erosion

This strategy will help us meet the sediment reduction goal (page 45). Measurable objectives were not 

developed for this goal, but practices to reduce sediment inputs can still be implemented. The 

Bayfield Peninsula Stream Assessment report noted that gully erosion of tributaries, especially those 

near open land, is a source of sediments into Bayfield streams (inter-fluve and Graber 2003). Interfluve inc. also provided recommendations for actions that can reduce erosion and restore hydrology to 

these tributaries. One of their recommendations is incorporated into this plan: that the Wisconsin 

DNR’s best management practice of 35 foot no-harvest buffers around intermittent streams 

(Wisconsin DNR 1995) be increased to 50 feet for Whittlesey Creek because of steeper slopes and 

heavy clay soils. They also recommended a selective harvest buffer (no clearcuts) within 300 feet of 

intermittent streams in the Whittlesey watershed.

Several landowners in the Whittlesey watershed have replaced stream and tributary crossings that 

were eroding and/or causing increased erosion downstream of the crossing. Additional opportunities 

to stem erosion from gullies, either at crossings or elsewhere likely exist. The Service will work with 

interested landowners and partners to provide technical and financial assistance to fix such sites. 

Priority will be given to problems that affect Whittlesey Creek reaches 6 and 7, and North Fork 

reaches 2 and 3.

Private Lands Strategy 2a: Identify roads that cross stream tributaries or are near the stream 

bank. Note crossings and roads that are exacerbating gully erosion, and restore hydrology and 

habitat to reduce erosion where possible.

Private Lands Strategy 2b: Identify other gully erosion problem areas, such as those created by 

field drainages, and use appropriate technology to fix them.

Private Lands Strategy 2c: Encourage no-cut zones of at least 50 feet around steep gullies and 

tributaries and recommend selective harvest within 300 feet of them.

Private Lands Strategy 2d: Where there are no trees near steep gullies, tributaries, and high 

terraces, plant buffer zones of trees and shrubs that are at least 100 feet wide (interfluve inc. and 

Graber 2003).

Private Lands Strategy 3: Reduce bank and slump erosion

This strategy will also help meet the sediment reduction goal (page 45). There are a few locations that 

have large slumps creating substantial bank erosion. The Service is not suggesting that we armor 

banks that are eroding – that is often counterproductive to stream dynamics and if not done correctly, 

will reduce in-stream habitat. There are some locations, however, where proper technology can 

reduce erosion from slumps. U.S. Geological Survey has successfully installed flow-deflecting vanes8

in the North Fork of Fish Creek to stop erosion from 100 foot tall banks (Fitzpatrick et.al, 2004). The 

 8 Vanes are vertical plates that protrude from a stream-bed about one-third of the bankfull depth, are oriented at an angle to the 

local stream velocity, and are distributed in a group along the stream near the eroding bank. They deflect the flow and cause 

sedimentation at the toe of a cut bank, preventing further undercutting and helpint [sic] to stabilize the bank.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

131

Service and Partners have incorporated large woody debris to stabilize a slump that was eroding in 

reach 5 of Whittlesey Creek. The partners do not know yet whether that action will be successful. All 

actions to reduce slump erosion must be carefully designed and placed appropriately. 

Private Lands Strategy 3a: Identify locations of bank slumps that add large sediment loads and 

use appropriate technology to fix them.

Private Lands Strategy 4: Install large woody debris and riffle grade structures in appropriate 

areas to reduce flood power.

This strategy will help meet objective 2 regarding channel roughness (page 40) under habitat goal 1. 

Flood power is a function of water’s specific weight, flow and channel slope. When the roughness of 

the channel increases, flood power is reduced. Inter-fluve inc. and Graber (2003) note that prior to 

settlement, channel roughness was likely very high due to complex log jams in the channel and 

floodplain. The addition of properly sized and placed log jams is an appropriate means to add channel 

roughness to Bayfield peninsula streams. Whittlesey Creek has substantial access difficulties, with 

steep slopes and few roads to the creek. This confounds large woody debris projects in Whittlesey 

Creek. One project has been done where Whittlesey Creek flows through Galligan Farms in Reach 5. 

There are likely other locations that are possible large woody debris project sites if landowners are 

interested. The best location for these projects is above the regional groundwater discharge area 

(upper end of reach 5, reaches 6 and 7), where excess sand can accumulate and not affect spawning 

sites.

Private Lands Strategy 5: Protect groundwater discharge areas by purchasing conservation 

easements from willing sellers. 

The largest groundwater discharge area (about 18 cfs) is located around the confluence of Whittlesey 

Creek and the North Branch (Lenz et al. 2003). These groundwater upwellings are also important 

spawning and nursery areas for trout and salmon in Whittlesey. In-stream habitat is better here than 

anywhere else within the drainage, but there remain limiting factors, such as shallow pools and sparse 

overhanging vegetation (inter-fluve, inc. and Graber 2003). Much of the riparian vegetation is nearing 

maturity (70 to 80 years old), and could be a good source of large woody debris.

The most effective means to protect this groundwater discharge area is to leave it alone. An 

appropriate easement would restrict any activity such as trails, roads, buildings, and logging within 

and near the discharge area. Easements are purchased only from willing landowners.

Private Lands Strategy 6: Purchase development rights from willing landowners on lands with 

development potential that are located in sensitive portions of the watershed.

The SWAT analysis showed that daily mean flow on peak flood days would increase up to 12 percent 

if the basin were developed to 25 percent urban (Lenz et al. 2003). Whereas this substantial change 

from rural residential and agriculture to urban is not likely to happen within the next 20 years, 

concerns remain about roads that increased housing development could bring. Roads channelize flows 

and often increase erosion and sedimentation. Housing development often fragments habitats, which 

can reduce wildlife populations that require large blocks of habitat. Human habitation will bring in 

domestic cats and dogs that prey on wildlife. The Service will therefore purchase development rights 

from willing landowners, especially in the upper portion of the watershed.

Private Lands Strategy 7: Find or develop a program that provides incentives and technical 

assistance for sustainably managing forests along riparian corridors and upland buffers.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

132

Retention of existing forest cover in the basin will help keep peak flows at current levels.9 Most 

landowners obtain income from their forests, and if they are following a management plan, are also 

required to harvest timber to improve stands and diversity. The Service will encourage the use of 

existing state programs to maintain sustainable forestry, but not all forest lands are or can be included 

in state program. The Service proposes to work with partners to provide additional incentives to either 

forgo timber harvest in some areas, such as steep slopes, or to provide an additional means to manage 

forests. It will be important to include tributaries of Whittlesey Creek in this program. It will also be 

important to emphasize growth of conifers, such as white pine, red pine, white spruce and white 

cedars, as much as possible. Mature trees will eventually fall into the stream bank to provide large 

woody debris.

Habitat Goal 2 - Sediments: Reduce sediment loads into Whittlesey Creek to historic (preEuropean settlement) range of variability.

Sediment Objective:

Within the next five years, conduct a sediment transport study to determine the amount and 

supply of sediment load in the stream, and to determine the proper sizing and geomorphology of 

Whittlesey Creek through the refuge.

Habitat Goal 3 – Floodplain and Wetland Hydrology: Restore to the extent possible 

floodplain function in the coastal wetlands and floodplains of the refuge.

Hydrology Objective:

Restore habitat by reconnecting the floodplain to the stream and allowing overbank flooding onto 

all stream floodplains within the refuge at least once a year.

Hydrology Strategy 1: Within the next five years, review road and bridge infrastructure within the 

refuge to identify how transportation needs and habitat restoration needs can overlap.

Hydrology Strategy 2: Within the old golf course, remove fill, especially in areas that have high 

groundwater to restore flooded conditions. Consider re-contouring the bottoms of some of the deep 

ponds to provide one-half to three feet of water. 

Habitat Goal 4 – Floodplain Habitat: Restore native species composition of trees and 

shrubs in the floodplain that will provide heterogeneous vertical and horizontal structure for 

migratory bird habitat.

Floodplain within the refuge includes lowland forest, lowland shrub, riparian forest and coastal wetland. 

These habitats can provide for several species of concern: northern waterthrush, veery, northern black 

current, marsh horsetail, and black duck. The habitat objectives for lowland forest and shrub are based on 

habitat needs of veery.

Objectives for Lowland Forest and Shrub:

Over the next 50 years, aim for a mosaic of native trees and shrubs, both deciduous and 

coniferous, that provide a relatively open tree canopy (25 to 60 percent canopy cover) and a dense 

 9 Increasing forest cover is provided in strategy 1b.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

133

shrub canopy cover (25 to 50 percent). Habitat patches should be at least 250 acres contiguous 

with adjacent Wisconsin DNR and Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center lands.

Objective for Riparian Forest:

Remove exotic trees and shrubs and restore native tree and shrub canopy cover at a rate that 

provides a 75 percent canopy cover on the stream through the refuge; allow these trees to mature 

and drop into the stream to produce large woody debris.

Objective for Coastal Wetland:

Eliminate invasive plant species and allow the native plants to follow a natural successional 

pathway.

Coastal Wetland Strategy: Eliminate invasive species according to invasive free zone objectives 

and strategies, and provide native species restoration when necessary and possible.

Strategies for Floodplain within the Refuge:

Floodplain Strategy 1. Replace reed canarygrass with native species.

Floodplain objectives are to restore hydrology (page 45) and native species (see objectives under 

floodplain habitat goal, page 45). Over 50 percent of the floodplain is infested with varying densities 

of reed canarygrass, which seriously inhibits native species growth. This invasive species is most 

prevalent where land had been logged, drained, farmed and then abandoned. Reed canarygrass was 

likely planted for cattle forage in some of these fields. Reed canarygrass has dominated these fields 

for many years, so the seed bank will be very dense.

The Service’s goal is to eliminate all invasive plant species on refuge and Northern Great Lakes 

Visitor Center lands. A more detailed description of the invasive project is provided later (page 47). 

The invasive species inventory, and control and monitoring plan will be appended to this document 

once it is completed (late 2006). That plan will provide details on location and timing of strategies 

recommended in this section. 

Recent studies of reed canarygrass have provided excellent guidelines for its control and for restoring 

native species in its place (Reinhardt and Galatowitsch 2004; Tu 2004). It is expected that reed 

canarygrass control will take several years. The Service’s preliminary strategy is to:

• Annually treat reed canarygrass as seed heads emerge, typically in August, with Rodeo or 

a similar glyphosate herbicide using selective (weed wiper) application techniques. At 

this growth stage the species is most susceptible to systemic herbicides.

• Continue annual herbicide application to control both established plants and new plants 

arising from the seed bank. Monitoring, described below, will guide the decision to 

discontinue herbicide treatment and proceed with habitat restoration.

• Remove the duff layer, either by mowing or burning during the year prior to habitat 

restoration. 

• Till to prepare for planting.

• Replant to adapted woody and herbaceous native species. Lists of such species will be 

developed for use in various floodplain locations. 
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

134

Floodplain Strategy 2. Plant native conifers along stream corridor. 

Plant red pine, white spruce and other adapted conifers interspersed with hardwood shrubs and trees. 

Plant cedar and hemlock in patches that can be protected from deer browsing with techniques such as 

exclosures or repellent sprays.

Note: This strategy should not be implemented until decisions have been made on stream and 

floodplain hydrological restoration.

Floodplain Strategy 3. Allow natural succession to take place.

Some areas within the floodplain are dominated by native species. Native trees and shrubs are 

reestablishing themselves in former agricultural fields that haven’t been in production for many years. 

Where native species make up greater than 50% of the tree and shrub canopy, plants will be left alone 

to follow natural successional pathways. Where trees and shrubs make up less than 50% of the 

canopy, but where it appears their cover is increasing, consider allowing natural succession to take 

place. Where appropriate, speed succession by inter-planting swamp conifers such as cedars and 

protect them from deer browsing with exclosures or repellent sprays. 

Strategies for All Refuge Lands and Habitats - Invasive Free Zone Development:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service and partners of the Northern Great Lakes Visitor 

Center (Center) are establishing the Whittlesey Creek NWR and the lands of Center as a model Invasive 

Free Zone, covering 720 acres. The model will include inventory and control of terrestrial and emergent 

aquatic plants that are non-native invasives, along with an education program about invasive species. The 

project will integrate inventory and control programs of two federal agencies on their adjacent lands and 

cooperate with private landowners to participate in inventory and control efforts. The Center will be used 

as a platform to demonstrate invasive species control and prevention, as well as native habitat restoration. 

The Invasive Free Zone includes: inventory of invasive species known or suspected to be present, initial 

control of targeted species that are present, development of a plan to prevent further spread on Invasive 

Free Zone lands, development of education and interpretive programs to be given at the Center, and 

presentation of the project’s successes and failures to Lake Superior basin agencies and interested parties. 

Future work will include: continued control and prevention of newly-found invasive species on federal 

and private lands, additional delivery of education and interpretive programs at the Center and refinement 

of our model based on successes and failures. Our experience and results will be used to produce a “case 

study” which will be circulated widely to serve as a template for other interested parties.

 

Invasive Free Zone Strategy 1: Comprehensive inventory of terrestrial and emergent aquatic 

plant invasive species.

Standardized methods will be used to ensure systematic GPS mapping and documentation of invasive 

species. All collected data will be managed via the refuge’s geographic information system. 

Invasive Free Zone Strategy 2: Control of known invasive species

Target exotic buckthorn, exotic bush honeysuckle, purple loosestrife and reed canarygrass for initial 

control. Generally, the following techniques will be used:

• Buckthorn and Honeysuckle – Cut stems and apply herbicide to the stumps. Marking paint 

will also be applied to monitor treatment efficacy.

• Purple loosestrife – Large infestations are found at the mouth of Whittlesey. Smaller 

infestations are found along road rights-of-way. Control larger infestations with Galerucella 

sp. beetles. Small infestation will be treated with Rodeo or similar herbicide using selective 

(weed wiper) application techniques.
Appendix C: Whittlesey Creek NWR Habitat Management Plan, Chapter IV

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

135

• Reed canarygrass – Strategies are provided in the Floodplain strategy section (page 46).

Invasive Free Zone Strategy 3: Design a monitoring program for all species.

Monitoring will be targeted by species. Spatially referenced locations will be established for longterm monitoring of invasive control and habitat restoration results. Monitoring techniques will include 

transects, quadrats, photo-points and possibly aerial photo interpretation. Monitoring will guide 

follow up control, restoration and maintenance efforts.

Invasive Free Zone Strategy 4: Develop a plan for prevention of spread and future control.

A thorough literature search, consultations and experience will guide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U.S. Forest Service in formulating prescriptions to eradicate terrestrial and emergent 

aquatic invasive plant species within the Invasive Free Zone. The plan will include recommended 

techniques, a control schedule, expected costs and a monitoring program as described above. 

Restoration of appropriate native flora will be included. The plan will also identify and incorporate 

additional partners for the project.

Invasive Free Zone Strategy 5: Demonstrate lessons learned and provide education about 

invasive species.

The partnership between federal agencies and private landowners within the refuge, as well as 

educational opportunities provided at the Center, make this an ideal setting to demonstrate this model 

of cooperation and to educate visitors about the need to stop invasive species. An education program 

will be developed cooperatively with the U.S. Forest Service and partners of the Center.

Invasive Free Zone Strategy 6: Promotion 

A plan to market the project beyond our boundaries will be developed that will include outreach to 

other agencies and organizations who can lead future prevention and control efforts.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

136

Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies with respect to 

identification of information to be made public; publication of material in the Federal Register; 

maintenance of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures, in consultation with native 

traditional religious leaders, in order to determine changes required to protect and preserve 

Native American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008

Requires that public services be accessible to individuals with disabilities and prohibits 

discrimination in employment of qualified individuals with disabilities. 

Antiquities Act of 1906

Authorizes the president to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interest on lands owned or controlled by the United States. Requires that a permit be 

obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites, and the gathering of 

objects of antiquity on federal lands. Provides penalties for violations.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Largely supplants the resource protection provisions of the Antiquities Act for archaeological 

items. Establishes detailed requirements for issuance of permits. Protects material of 

archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction. Establishes civil and criminal 

penalties for violations, including trafficking in such resources in violation of any provision of 

federal law. Requires federal managers to develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological 

resources and to establish public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological 

resources to the Nation. 

Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological data in federal construction projects. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1969 

Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be accessible to persons 

with disabilities. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, or part, 

nest, or egg except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition 

purposes or for the religious purposes of Indians.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in 

order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil 

erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife. 

Some early refuges and hatcheries were established under authority of this act.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

137

Clean Air Act of 1970 

Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. Requires federal land 

managers to protect the “air quality and related values” of land under their control. These values 

include fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986

Authorizes the purchase of wetlands using Land and Water Conservation Fund dollars. 

Requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation 

Plan and requires the states to include wetlands in their comprehensive outdoor recreation 

plans. Directs the Secretary, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to continue the National 

Wetlands Inventory; to complete mapping of the contiguous United States; and to produce at 

ten-year intervals reports to update and improve in the September 1982 "Status and Trends of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the Coterminous United States, 1950s to 1970s."

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

Directs federal agencies to ensure that actions they carry out, authorize, or fund do not 

jeopardize endangered species or their critical habitat. Provides land acquisition authority. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990

Establishes the Office of Environmental Education within the Environmental Protection Agency 

to develop and administer a federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (1971)

States that if the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes any development activities that may 

affect the archaeological or historic sites, the Service will consult with federal and state Historic 

Preservation Officers to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended.

Executive Order 11644: Use of Off-road Vehicles on the Public Lands (1972)

Establishes policies and procedures to ensure that the use of off-road vehicles on public lands 

will be controlled and directed to protect the resources of those lands, to promote the safety of 

all users of those lands, and minimize conflicts among the various uses of those lands. EO 

11989 (1977) amends section 2 of EO 11644 and directs agencies to close areas negatively 

impacted by off-road vehicles.

Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management (1977)

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse impacts associated with occupancy 

and modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of floodplain development.” In 

the course of fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands (1977)

Directs federal agencies to: (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; and (2) 

preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a practical alternative 

exists.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

138

Executive Order 12372: Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (1982)

Directs the Service to send copies of the Environmental Assessment to state planning offices for 

review. 

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994)

Establishes environmental justice as a federal government priority and directs all federal 

agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs and 

policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. 

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographical Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (1994), as amended by Executive Order 13286:

Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in Connection With the Transfer of 

Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security (2003)

Recommends that the executive branch develop, in cooperation with state, local, and tribal 

governments, and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial Data Infrastructure to 

support public and private sector applications of geospatial data, including the National 

Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). 

Executive Order 12962: Recreational Fisheries (1995)

Directs federal agencies to improve recreational fishing opportunities in cooperation with states 

and tribes.

Executive Order 12996: Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (1996)

Defines the mission, purpose, and priorities public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Presents four principles to guide System management. 

Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites (1996)

Directs federal land management agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of 

Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the physical 

integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 13061: Federal Support of Community Efforts Along American Heritage 

Rivers (1997)

Establishes the American Heritage Rivers initiative for environmental protection, economic 

revitalization, and historic and cultural preservation. Directs federal agencies to preserve, 

protect, and restore rivers and their associated resources important to our history, culture, and 

natural heritage.

Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

(2000)

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration 

with tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have tribal implications.

Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species (1999)

Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost effective and environmentally sound 

manner, accurately monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of native species and 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

139

habitat conditions, conduct research, and promote public education on invasive species and the 

means to address them. 

Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001)

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds by several means, including incorporation 

of recommendations found in national and continental bird conservation plans into agency 

management documents. 

Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (2007)

Directs appropriate federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Agriculture, to expand and enhance hunting opportunities and the management 

of game species and their habitat.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, as amended

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible 

conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, as amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that provide advice to the federal 

government. Advisory committees may be established only if they will serve a necessary, nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless otherwise specified and 

meetings must be open to the public.

Federal-Aid Highways Act of 1968

Establishes requirements for approval of federal highways through wildlife refuges and other 

designated areas to preserve the natural beauty of such areas. 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act) of 1950

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration 

and management plans and projects through excise taxes paid by manufacturers of rods, reels, 

and other fishing tackle.

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937

Taxes the purchase of ammunition and firearms and earmarks the proceeds to be distributed to 

the states for wildlife restoration. 

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988

Establishes requirements for management and protection of caves and their resources on 

federal lands, including allowing the land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves 

from the public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities.

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (REA) of 2004

Allows the government to charge a fee for recreational use of public lands managed by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. Fees paid by visitors to certain federal recreation 

sites are retained by the collecting site and used to improve the quality of the visitor experiences 

at those sites. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

140

Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1975, as amended

Requires the use of integrated management systems to control or contain undesirable plant 

species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other federal and state 

agencies. 

Federal Records Act of 1950

Directs the preservation of evidence of the government's organization, functions, policies, 

decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, as frequently amended particularly by the 

Clean Water Act of 1977 

Requires restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

Nation’s waters. Regulates discharge of pollutants, including dredge and fill materials, into 

waters of the United States. Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 

permits) for major wetland modifications. 

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965, as amended

Declares the intent of Congress that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement be given full 

consideration as purposes of federal water development projects. Authorizes the use of federal 

water project funds for land acquisition in order to establish refuges for migratory waterfowl. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as frequently amended 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish and wildlife resources policy with emphasis on the 

commercial fishing industry, but also public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Broadens the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. The 1998 

amendments modify the powers of the Secretary of the Interior regarding volunteer service, 

community partnerships, and education programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, as amended

Requires the Service to monitor non-game bird species, identify species of management 

concern, and implement conservation measures to preclude the need for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended

Requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the state fish and wildlife 

agencies whenever the “waters of a stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, 

permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted . . . or otherwise controlled or modified” by any 

agency under federal permit or license. Authorizes use of surplus federal property for wildlife 

conservation purposes and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide public fishing 

areas and accept donations of lands and funds. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws 

including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept 

gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United States. Authorizes the 

use of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out a volunteer program.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

141

Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill), as amended

Promotes wetland conservation. Establishes “Swampbuster” provisions whereby farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting are ineligible for most farm program subsidies. 

Establishes the Wetlands Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands through easements. 

Freedom of Information Act of 1966

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for inspection and copying 

administrative staff manuals and staff instructions; official, published and unpublished policy 

statements; final orders deciding case adjudication; and other documents. Special exemptions 

have been reserved for nine categories of privileged material. The act requires the party seeking 

the information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs.

Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related resources on public lands. 

Section 15(c) of the act prohibits issuing geothermal leases on virtually all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service-administered lands.

Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

Popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended in 1965. Establishes a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. 

Provides procedures for designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites, 

including National Historic and Natural Landmarks. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as amended

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals and to safeguard U.S. crop 

production from harmful foreign species. Prohibits interstate and international transport and 

commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of domestic or foreign laws. Regulates the 

introduction of foreign species to the United States.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal land, appropriations from oil 

and gas receipts from the outer continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for matching grants to states for 

outdoor recreation projects and for land acquisition by various federal agencies including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended

Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of areas approved by the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (Duck Stamp Act) of 1934

Requires every waterfowl hunter 16 years of age or older to carry a Duck Stamp and earmarks 

proceeds to buy or lease waterfowl habitat. A 1958 amendment authorizes the acquisition of 

small wetland and pothole areas to be designated as “Waterfowl Production Areas,” which may 

be acquired without the limitations and requirements of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal responsibility. Enables the setting of 

seasons, closed areas and other regulations related to migratory bird hunting. Makes it unlawful 

to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export, or import any 

migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product except as allowed by special regulations. Implements 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

142

various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and 

the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds.

Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands.

Minerals Leasing Act of 1920, as amended

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of deposits of coal, oil, gas, and 

other hydrocarbons, sulphur, phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this act 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal lands for pipelines.

Mining Act of 1872, as amended

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called “hardrock” minerals (such as 

gold and silver) on public lands.

National and Community Service Act of 1990

Authorizes several programs to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job and education skills, 

and fulfill environmental needs. Establishes the American Conservation and Youth Service 

Corps to engage young adults in projects that benefit the public and occur on federal or tribal 

lands.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended

Requires federal agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and utilize public participation in the planning and implementation of 

all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements and must 

prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

Establishes as policy that the federal government is to provide leadership in the preservation of 

the Nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. Section 106 requires federal agencies to 

consider potential impacts of their undertakings on historic properties; Section 110 requires 

agencies to manage historic properties and document them prior to destruction or damage; 

Section 101 requires agencies to consider Indian tribal values in historic preservation programs 

and requires each agency to establish a program to inventory all historic properties on its land.

National Trails System Act of 1968

Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of Interior to protect the historic and recreational values 

of congressionally designated National Historic Trail sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997)

Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and addresses the growing need for recreational 

opportunities by providing a decision framework for allowing appropriate and compatible uses of 

the Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and serves as the 

"organic act" for the NWRS. Defines the mission as focused singularly on wildlife conservation, 

designates priority wildlife-dependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive conservation 

planning. Requires the Secretary to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System.
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

143

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement 

Act of 1998 

Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community 

partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes. 

National Wildlife Refuge Volunteer Improvement Act of 2010 

Maintains funding authorization for volunteer and community partnership programs. Directs the 

Service to develop and implement a national strategy for coordination of volunteers within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Requires the Service to provide at least one volunteer 

coordinator for each Service region to implement the strategy. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate 

cultural items under their control or possession. Imposes serious delays on a project when 

human remains or other cultural items are encountered in the absence of a plan.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that promote the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds in the United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Available funds 

may be expended for up to 50 percent of the United States’ share cost of wetlands conservation 

projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on 

federal lands).

Partnerships for Wildlife Act of 1992

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to receive appropriated funds and 

donations from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for conservation of non-game 

species. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended

Requires that any recreational use on areas of the NWRS be "compatible" with the primary 

purpose(s) for which the area was acquired or established. Requires that sufficient funding be 

available for the development, operation, and maintenance of recreational uses that are not 

directly related to the area's primary purpose(s). 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935

Provides for payments to counties for loss of tax revenue due to the establishment of Service 

areas. Uses funds derived from the sale of products from refuges. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 

Prohibits discrimination based on disability under any program or activity receiving federal 

financial assistance. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, as amended

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to any work in, 

on, over, or under navigable waters of the United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

144

authorizes the Service to review and comment on the fish and wildlife effects of proposed or 

permitted activities by the USACE.

Sikes Act of 1960, as amended

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of the Interior and Defense with state agencies 

in planning, development, and maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977

Regulates surface mining and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Designates certain areas as 

unsuitable for coal mining operations.

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act of 1948

Provides that, upon a determination by General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the Secretary of the 

Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds or to a state agency for other wildlife 

conservation purposes.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998

Establishes the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation planning, and provides funding 

for approved public use roads/trails and associated parking lots, comfort stations, and 

bicycle/pedestrian facilities.

Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2000

Requires federal agencies to publish guidelines to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, 

utility, and integrity of information that they disseminate to the public (44 U.S.C. 3502).

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, businesses, or 

farms to the Service. Requires that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of 

the property.

Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

Establishes the Water Resources Council to review river basin plans with respect to agricultural, 

urban, energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. Establishes a grant program 

to assist states in participating in the development of related comprehensive water and land use 

plans.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968

Establishes a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and prescribes the methods and 

standards through which additional rivers may be identified and added to the system. Requires 

that federal planning for use and development of water and related land resources consider 

potential wild and scenic rivers. 

Wilderness Act of 1964

Establishes the National Wilderness Preservation System. Requires review of roadless areas in 

national wildlife refuges, national parks and national forests for wilderness suitability. Prescribes 

the management of new wilderness areas. 
Appendix D: Legal and Policy Guidance

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

145

Youth Conservation Corps Act of 1970

Establishes a permanent Youth Conservation Corps program within the Departments of the 

Interior and Agriculture.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

146

Appendix E: Literature Cited

Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. Unnumbered report. Ogden, Utah: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region. 1 map (1:7,500,000).

Bailey, R.G. 1980. Descriptions of ecoregions of the United States. Misc. Publ. 1391. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DC.

Bayfield County Tourism and Recreation Department. 2010. Bayfield County Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan 2010–2015.

Busiahn, T.R. (ed.) 1990. Fish community objectives for Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission Special Publication 90-1.

Brady, R. and D. Verch. 2007. Checklist of Chequamegon Bay Birds. Chequamegon Bay 

Birders and Northern Migrations Backyard Birding and Gift Shoppe, Washburn, WI. 

http://www.nps.gov/apis/naturescience/upload/Checklist%20(final).pdf

Brunk, K. 2012. Establishing baseline macroinvertebrate monitoring after coarse woody debris 

additions at Whittlesey Creek NWR. Northland College Independent Study Report.

Enterline, H.L. 2000. Coaster brook trout in Lake Huron. USFWS Fishery Resources Office. 

Alpena, MI.

Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1997. National vegetation classification standard (FGDCSTD-005). Vegetation Subcommittee for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, C/O U.S. 

Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Finley, R.W. 1976. Map. Original vegetation cover of Wisconsin, compiled from U.S. General 

Land Office notes. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Extension. map (1:500,000).

Finley, R.W. 1978. Interpretation of map of the original vegetation of Wisconsin. St. Paul, MN: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Gardner, M. and J. Malischke. 1996. A nonpoint source control plan for the Whittlesey Creek 

priority watershed project. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.

Hokans, R., J. Maloney, D. Marcouiller, J Mich, and T. Wojciechowski. 2013. Community 

economic impacts of interpretive centers: A case study of the Northern Great Lakes Visitor 

Center. University of Wisconsin – Madison/Extension, Department of Urban and Regional 

Planning. Extension Report 13-03. August 2013.

Huff, A. and A. Thomas. 2014. Lake Superior climate change impacts and adaptation. Prepared 

for the Lake Superior Lakewide Action and Management Plan – Superior Work Group. Available 

at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/lakesuperior/index.html.

Lenz, B.N., D.A. Saad, and F.A. Fitzpatrick. S. Geological Survey. 2003. Simulation of groundwater flow and rainfall runoff with emphasis on the effects of land cover, Whittlesey Creek, 

Bayfield County, Wisconsin, 1999-2001. Water-Resources Investigation Report 03-4130, U.S. 

Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

147

Lyons, J., J.S. Stewart, and M. Mitro. 2010. Predicted effects of climate warming on the 

distribution of 50 stream fishes in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Journal of Fish Biology 77:1867-1898.

McNamara, D. 2007. Invasives Free Zone Guidebook: A practical guide to developing an 

Invasive Free Zone. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland, WI.

McNamara, D. and M. Mlynarek. 2007 (revised 2008).. Invasive Free Zone: Invasive plants 

management plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ashland, WI.

Michels, T. 2011. Bayfield County Workforce Profile. Wisconsin Department of Workforce 

Development. Office of Economic Advisors. Superior, WI.

Milwaukee Public Museum. 2013. Indian Country Wisconsin. http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/; website 

accessed August 2013.

Marx, B. 2012. Channel morphology response to large woody debris additions in a sand-laden 

Wisconsin trout stream. Student Report, USFWS, Whittlesey Creek NWR, Ashland, WI. 

Mitro, M., J Lyons, and S. Sharma. 2010. Coldwater Fish and Fisheries Working Group Report. 

Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, Madison, WI. 

Newman, L.E. and R.B. Dubois. 1996. Status of brook trout in Lake Superior. Prepared for the 

Lake Superior Technical Committee by the Brook Trout Subcommittee. Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission.

Newman, L.E., R.B. Dubois, and T.N. Halpern (eds.) 2003. A brook trout rehabilitation plan for 

Lake Superior. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Comm. Misc. Pub. 2003-03.

Red Clay Interagency Committee. 1960. Whittlesey watershed. A progress report by the Red 

Clay Interagency Committee. April 1960.

Simonson, T.D., J. Lyons, and P.D. Kanehl. 1993. Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in 

Wisconsin streams. General Technical Report NC-164. North Central Forest Experiment 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Stromberg, K. 2012. Final Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) Report for Whittlesey Creek 

NWR. Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program, USFWS Ecological Services 

Field Office, Green Bay, WI.

Trout Unlimited. 2003. Bayfield Peninsula Stream Assessment, Final Report: Fluvial 

Geomorphology, Hydrology and Management Recommendations. Prepared by Interfluve, Inc., 

Madison, WI and Brian Graber Water Resource Consulting, Madison, WI.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Whittlesey Creek 516(e) Sediment Impact Analysis 

Methods (SIAM) modeling report. Great Lakes Hydraulics and Hydrology Office, Detroit District, 

Detroit, MI.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. State and County Quickfacts. Accessed August 2013 at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

148

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Census of Agriculture County Profile: Bayfield County –

Wisconsin. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Accessed December 2014 at 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov.

U.S. Department of Labor. 2015. Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS Data Viewer. Accessed 

January 2015 at http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Wisconsin, 

Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Compatibility. 603 FW 2. National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Department of Interior. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Comprehensive conservation planning process. 602 FW 

3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/602fw3.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. 

601 FW 3. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://policy.fws.gov/601fw3.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Fish & Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities – Region 

3 – Version 2.0. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort Snelling, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. General guidelines for wildlife-dependent recreation. 605 

FW 1. National Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/605fw1.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Appropriate Refuge Uses. 603 FW1. National Wildlife 

Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006c. Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Habitat 

Management Plan and Environmental Assessment. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Fort 

Snelling, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008a. Wilderness review and evaluation. 610 FW 4. National 

Wildlife Refuge System, Department of Interior. Available URL: 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/610fw4.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008b. Birds of conservation concern 2008. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 

pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Guidance for Implementation of Appropriate Refuge Uses 

Policy (603 FW 1). Internal agency memorandum, June 03, 2008.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Rising to the urgent challenge - Strategic plan for 

responding to accelerating climate change. Arlington, Virginia. 32 pp.
Appendix E: Literature Cited

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

149

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Selecting surrogate species for Strategic Habitat 

Conservation in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes geography. Bloomington, MN: Powers, N., 

Brouder, M., Blomquist, S., Potter, B., Dingledine, J., Deloria, C., Soulliere, G., Kerr, T., SteigerMeister K. Accessed Feb 2015 at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/science/surrogatespecies/documents/UMGLSurrogatesSpeciesTec

hnicalReportFINAL2014.pdf.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2003. An 

experiment to establish a self-sustaining brook trout population in Whittlesey Creek that exhibits 

a migrating life history (coaster) by stocking, enacting protective regulation and implementing 

habitat improvements. Ashland, WI.

Wisconsin Cartographers’ Guild. 1998. Wisconsin’s Past and Present: A Historical Atlas. 

University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources et al. 1996. A nonpoint source pollution control 

plan for the Whittlesey Creek priority watershed project. Publication No. WR-474-96, Madison, 

WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Wisconsin Trout Streams. PUB-FH-806-

2002.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Wisconsin’s strategy for wildlife species of 

greatest conservation need. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Implementation: Priority conservation 

actions & conservation opportunity areas. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Ecological landscapes of Wisconsin. 

Handbook 1805.1, Wisconsin DNR, Madison.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. 

Wisconsin Lake Superior Basin brook trout plan. 47 pp.

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 2013. Bayfield County Summary. Accessed 

August 2013 at http://worknet.wisconsin.gov/worknet/.

Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI). 2011. Wisconsin's Changing Climate: 

Impacts and Adaptation. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of WisconsinMadison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

150

Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

In this appendix:

Installation of Artificial Nest Structures

Haying

Short Term Upland Disturbance or Other Public Interest Projects

Third Party Research

Summary of Appropriate Use Policy on National Wildlife Refuges (603 FW 1)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS, Service) appropriate use policy (FWS, 2006b)

describes the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first considering whether 

to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must first find a use to be appropriate 

before undertaking a compatibility review of the use and outline the stipulation of the use (see 

appendix G). By screening out proposed uses not appropriate to the refuge, the refuge manager 

avoids unnecessary compatibility reviews.

Appropriate use findings are not required for uses that have been administratively determined 

appropriate under the policy.

A. Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses. As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible.

B. Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. States have regulations concerning 

take of wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers take of 

wildlife under such regulations to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must 

determine if the activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge.

An internal memorandum with attachments (FWS, 2008c) provides (1) additional guidance to 

the regions and refuge managers in implementing this policy and (2) additional background 

information further describing the policy’s function and applicability. 
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

151

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Installation of Artificial Nest Structures

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Thomas M. Kerr/ Date: 5-12-2015 _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 5-18-2015 _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

152

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Haying

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Thomas M. Kerr/ Date: 5-12-2015 _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 5-18-2015 _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

153

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Short Term Upland Disturbance or Other Public Interest Projects – see CD

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Thomas M. Kerr/ Date: 5-12-2015 _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 5-18-2015 _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix F: Appropriate Use Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

154

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Third Party Research

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, forms of take regulated by the State, or uses 

already described in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997.

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot 

control the use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be 

found appropriate. If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use.

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes No .

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager 

must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence.

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate Appropriate X .

Refuge Manager: /Thomas M. Kerr/ Date: 5-12-2015 _ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use.

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.

Refuge Supervisor: /James T. Leach/ Date: 5-18-2015 _ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and 

local)? X

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service 

policies? X

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use, or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? X

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s 

natural or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural 

resources? 

X

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational 

uses or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for 

description), compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X

FWS Form 3-2319

02/06
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

155

Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

In this appendix:

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Archery Deer Hunting

Sport Fishing

Installation of Bluebird Boxes, Other Nest Boxes, or Nesting Structures by Public or Groups

Hay Harvest

Short-Term Upland Disturbance or Other Public Interest Projects with No Right-of-Way Expansion and 

Full Restoration

Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

Summary of Compatibility Policy on National Wildlife Refuges (603 FW 2)

Compatibility determinations are documents written, signed, and dated by the refuge manager 

and the regional chief of refuges that signify whether proposed or existing uses of national 

wildlife refuges are compatible with their establishing purposes and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS, Refuge System). All recreational activities and economic or 

other uses of a refuge by the public or other non-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, Service) 

entity require compatibility determinations. Economic uses must also contribute to achieving 

refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. Before undertaking a compatibility 

review, the refuge manager must first determine that the use is appropriate (see appendix F).

Compatibility determinations are not required for such refuge management activities as 

prescribed burning, managing water levels, controlling invasive species, routine scientific 

monitoring, studies, surveys, and censuses, conducting historic preservation or law enforcement 

activities, or maintaining refuge facilities.

Compatibility determinations for priority public uses―hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation―are reevaluated at least every 

15 years, and all other uses are reevaluated at least every 10 years (sooner if conditions 

change or significant new information about the use or its effects becomes available).
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

156

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), located in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, as established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) encourages wildlife observation and photography 

as a means for the public to enjoy the Refuge resource. Access to the refuge would be limited to 

foot traffic only (including hiking, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing). Access by bicycles, 

horses, and motorized vehicles would be limited to county and township roads. Boats are not 

allowed on the refuge.

Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses on Refuge System lands as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Entry on all or 

portions of individual areas may be suspended by posting upon occasions of unusual or critical 

conditions affecting land, water, vegetation, wildlife populations, or public safety.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use?

The needed staff for developing and administering the wildlife observation/photography 

program is available.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Because of the anticipated low impact of these uses, minimal staff time will be required. 

Most resources will be dedicated to the upkeep of associated facilities for these uses.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Both short- and long-term impacts include temporary disturbance to wildlife while visitors access 

the Refuge. However, by limiting the disturbance on the refuge to foot travel only, these 

disturbances will be minimized.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

157

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

By providing wildlife observation and photography, the public will have an opportunity to 

observe/photograph wildlife on the Refuge. This appreciation of the Refuge and associated 

resources supports the Refuge goals and objectives.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Access to the Refuge will be by foot traffic only (including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing).

2. Motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses are restricted to adjacent county and township 

roads. Boats are not allowed within the Refuge.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is a priority public use on national wildlife refuges. By providing wildlife observation and 

photography, the public will have an opportunity to observe/photograph wildlife on the Refuge. 

This could lead to a further appreciation of the Refuge and associated resources.

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/12/2015__ 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2030
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

158

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), located in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, as established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

Allow wildlife interpretation and environmental education programs to be conducted on 

Whittlesey Creek NWR. Formal programs include activities prepared, scheduled, and organized 

for school-aged children and organized groups by Service staff. In most cases, curriculums and 

program schedules are prepared in advance. These curriculums address a number of wildlife 

conservation issues including coaster brook trout restoration, riparian habitat restoration, 

wetland and grassland conservation, migratory bird management, and the conservation of 

endangered species. The visitation and use of the Refuge by local educators and their classes 

on their own for the purposes of furthering their understanding of natural resource management 

issues would also classified as an informal program.

In addition, this would include use of the shared facilities at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor 

Center (NGLVC) including exhibits, classrooms, multimedia room and auditorium, and the 

adjacent NGLVC trail system. This also includes the use of the Refuge’s Coaster Classroom 

facility. 

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use?

The current staffing levels are sufficient to support environmental education and 

interpretation programs on Whittlesey Creek NWR. No increase in cost is expected above 

the Refuge’s current Operations and Maintenance budget. The Refuge’s partnership with 

the U.S. Forest Service at the NGLVC is a cost-effective method to share educational 

facilities used for the Refuge’s educational and interpretive programs. Joint programming 

with the five partners (U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Wisconsin Historical 

Society, University of Wisconsin Extension and Friends of the Center Alliance) at the 

NGLVC also increases the efficiency of the program. Special educational events such as the 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

159

Birding and Nature Festival are large events with a distributed workload so the Refuge is 

able to participate at current staff levels.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Yes, existing Refuge resources are adequate to properly and safely administer the use.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

The overall impacts to the Refuge and associated wildlife populations from this use will be 

minimal. There will be some disturbance to wildlife, but at levels that will not likely interfere with 

the wildlife and habitat goals of the Refuge. School buses and personal vehicles will utilize 

parking areas already constructed for use by other Refuge users. The limited number of nature 

trails planned for development will be done in a way to minimize disturbance to vegetation and 

wildlife use of these areas.

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

The use is supportive of a priority public use on national wildlife refuges.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Access on the Refuge will be by foot traffic only (including hiking, snowshoeing, and 

cross-country skiing).

2. Motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses are restricted to adjacent county and township 

roads. Boats are not allowed within the Refuge.

3. The Refuge Manager may allow staff or expert-led special events such as birding 

festivals, etc. on a case-by-case basis.

Justification:

This use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is a priority public use on national wildlife refuges. By allowing environmental education 

and interpretation, the public will have an opportunity to learn about the Refuge, its habitats and 

wildlife. This could lead to a further appreciation of the conserving the Refuge and associated 

resources. 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

160

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2030
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

161

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Archery Deer Hunting

Refuge Name

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended by Public Law 93-271

Refuge Purposes

The Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge was established under the authority of the Fish 

and Wildlife Act of 1956 “...for the development, advancement, management , conservation, 

and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such 

acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of 

servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

Description of Use

a) The use is archery deer hunting. Hunting is a priority public use.

b) Where the use will be conducted: On tracts of refuge lands that are at least 20 contiguous 

acres. A buffer around the Refuge's Coaster Classroom site and near the Northern Great Lakes 

Visitor Center will be closed to hunting. The Refuge lands are currently 215 acres. As additional 

refuge lands are acquired, archery deer hunting will be allowed if they meet the 20 contiguous 

acre standard. Habitat utilized for archery deer hunting include coastal wetlands, uplands, 

forested wetlands, forested shrublands and riparian areas.

c) When the use will be conducted: During Wisconsin's regular archery deer hunting season. 

Wisconsin's 2005 deer hunting regulations opened archery hunting from September 17, 2005 

through January 3, 2006, excluding the 10-day deer gun season.

d) How the use will be conducted: Refuge staff will notify the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources yearly to inform them of lands available for archery deer hunting. Refuge staff will 

also notify the public via its web site and other mediums that archery deer hunting is allowed. 

The Service will request, but not require, that archery deer hunters obtain an information packet 

that includes a map showing lands that are open and a flyer describing Refuge-specific 

regulations. The packet will also request that harvest information be sent to the Refuge. Archery 

deer hunters typically find deer sign and either create a blind or use a portable blind/stand. 

Archery hunting is almost always conducted as a still hunt where the deer will walk upon the 

hunter who is hidden and quiet. This type of hunting will be allowed, but live vegetation cannot 

be removed, destroyed or altered by the hunter for any purpose. No baiting is allowed.

Hunters will park at regular Refuge access points and walk to their hunting site. No additional 

facilities will be provided for archery deer hunting.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

162

Why the use is being proposed: Hunting is a priority public use for National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan (1998) that established the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge stated: "On most units of the Whittlesey Creek NWR, hunting and 

fishing will be permitted in accordance with state seasons. Units will be opened to these uses 

when they are of a sufficient size, when suitable public access can be provided, when there are 

no detrimental impacts to any threatened or endangered species, and where these activities can 

be conducted safely.

The project manager may establish time and space zones to regulate these uses to insure they 

remain compatible with the wildlife and habitat preservation purposes of the NWR, and to 

reduce potential conflicts between users.

Certain small portions of the units may be closed to hunting, fishing or other public uses, when 

the manager determines that there are specific habitat or wildlife protection needs are best met 

by establishing sanctuary areas. "

The Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge Public Use Plan (1991) stated: "Guidelines for 

hunting on refuge lands will be limited to waterfowl hunting for this plan version. The Service 

intends to provide hunting opportunities for upland birds, deer and other species on Refuge 

lands once additional properties are acquired and the Service understands public needs and 

evaluates safety issues. "

We are beginning to meet these stated commitments by allowing deer archery hunting.

Availability of Resources

Current staff will inform the public about archery deer hunting annually through press releases. 

Information packets that include maps and regulations will be available at the Northern Great 

Lakes Visitor Center (Refuge headquarters). No additional facilities are needed.

The Refuge does not have any law enforcement personnel at the station; a zone law 

enforcement officer is stationed at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in central Wisconsin. The 

Refuge currently utilizes this officer to meet Refuge law enforcement needs and will continue 

with this arrangement. Whittlesey Creek Refuge staff will be expected to watch for abuse by 

hunters who use live vegetation for blind construction, who impact vegetation with tree stands, 

and who don't remove their stands each day. Portable stands will be confiscated and turned 

over to state wardens or Service's law enforcement personnel. All tree stands and blinds that 

remain overnight will be removed. Staff will continue to work with our zone law enforcement 

officer and state wardens to ensure hunter compliance.

We will monitor hunter use by the number of packets that are provided to archery hunters. We 

will monitor harvest when hunters volunteer to provide harvest information.

Park Ranger's time to develop and distribute information, monitor use (3% of existing FTE) = 

$1,800

Zone Law Enforcement Officer's time and transportation to assist with enforcement (estimated 

at 2% of existing FTE) = $1,500.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

The environment of the Refuge and potential impacts from public use are described in detail in 

the document: "Environmental Assessment for the Public Use Plan, Whittlesey Creek National 

Wildlife Refuge Bayfield County, Wisconsin" dated April 6, 2001. The document is on file at the 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

163

Whittlesey Creek NWR headquarters office in Ashland, Wisconsin. A summary of potential 

impacts specific to archery deer hunting follow.

Fish and Wildlife Populations

The Service's ability to reach its fish and wildlife population goals would not be negatively 

affected.

Archery deer hunting will have a minimal effect on the deer population in both the Refuge and 

within the DNR's deer management unit 3. We anticipate that at most, 10 deer will be harvested 

from Refuge lands. Concurrently, the deer population should not be negatively harmed by 

harvest of a few deer within the Refuge. However, we expect a minimal drop in impacts from 

deer browsing on trees and shrubs.

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

The proposed use would not affect the Service's ability to reach habitat goals established for the 

Refuge.

User Conflicts

Conflicts could occur between non-consumptive users and archery hunters, especially in 

September and early October when visitation remains high at the Northern Great Lakes Visitor 

Center and in the Coaster Classroom (Refuge environmental education site). The Service will 

manage public use to avoid conflicts as much as possible by prohibiting archery hunting within a 

buffer near the Visitor Center's boardwalk and around the Refuge's Coaster Classroom site.

Archery hunters are very inconspicuous and will shoot a deer only when it is within about 30 

yards or less. Their mode of operation will in itself minimize impacts. However, other users 

could disrupt the experience for a hunter when they are not aware that the hunter is in her/her 

blind/stand. We are not proposing to control these situations; hunters will have to accept the 

potential for interference from other users.

Private landowners within and adjacent to the Refuge might experience additional trespass on 

their lands if a hunter wounds and tracks a deer onto their lands. It is considered trespass if a 

hunter does not have permission from the landowner to track a deer onto the landowner's land. 

The landowner would be responsible to report trespass violations on their property.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Archery deer hunting should not affect nesting piping plovers or bald eagles. Gray wolf travel 

through and possible hunt within the Refuge. Canada lynx are not known to use the Refuge. 

The Service will track all sightings of threatened and endangered species to monitor use and 

ensure that conflicts do not occur.

Public Review and Comment

A public notice was published two times each in two local papers (see attached copy of the 

notice). It was printed on December 8 and 15, 2005 in the Bayfield County Journal. It was 

printed on December 7 and 10, 2005 in the Ashland Daily Press.

The archery hunting plan, compatibility determination and supplemental environmental 

assessment were available for review on the Whittlesey Creek Refuge's web site or by 

contacting the Refuge office. No public comments were received.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

164

Refuge staff also sent a letter to all private landowners within the Refuge boundary to inform 

them of the proposed plan and compatibility determination. No comments were received from 

them.

Determination

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility

Hunting

General guidelines for hunting on refuge lands require that in general, the Service will follow all 

Federal regulations and most State of Wisconsin regulations. The following general guidelines 

are followed for hunting on Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge:

• Hunters will be required to follow all Federal and State laws and regulations. This 

includes no shooting within 100 yards of a residence without permission of the resident.

• The Service does not allow baiting on any refuge system lands, so baiting will not be 

allowed on the Refuge.

• A no-hunting buffer on Service-owned lands adjacent to the Center will be established 

for visitor safety needs.

• Ground blinds or any elevated stands may be used only if they do not damage live 

vegetation, including trees.

• Ground blinds may be constructed entirely of dead vegetation from on the property.

• Nontoxic shot is required for all shotgun use on the refuge.

• Check with Refuge staff annually for open hunting areas for archery deer hunting and 

waterfowl hunting.

Refuge-specific Hunting Regulations

• Archery deer hunting will be allowed to take place on Refuge lands owned by the 

Service that constitute tracts greater than 20 acres.

• No hunting will be allowed within a designated, signed area around the Coaster 

Classroom and Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center boardwalk.

• The construction or use of permanent blinds or platforms is not permitted.

• All stands and blinds must be removed from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt.

• Motorized vehicles are allowed only on public roads and parking areas.

National Wildlife Refuge System regulations that apply to all refuges also apply to Whittlesey 

Creek National Wildlife Refuge. System regulations are found in the Code of Federal 

Regulations under section "What are the requirements for hunting on areas of the National 

Wildlife System?" Where Federal law differs from State law, Federal law supersedes State law. 

For example, baiting is prohibited on all National Wildlife Refuges so it is prohibited on 

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge. A hunter's duty is to know the rules and regulations 

of where they are hunting.

Archery hunters will be encouraged to check-in at Refuge headquarters, but no Refuge-specific 

permit will be required or issued. Tagging of harvested deer must follow state regulations, but 

the Service will request that hunters notify us of harvested deer.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

165

Justification:

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act mandates that compatible, wildlifedependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation are priority public uses. This compatibility 

determination will allow archery deer hunting to take place at the Whittlesey Creek National 

Wildlife Refuge, in fulfillment of that mandate. These uses will help fulfill one of the goals of the 

Refuge's Interim Comprehensive Conservation Plan to: "Manage for compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses, including environmental education, hunting, fishing, wildlifeviewing, and demonstrating restoration and management techniques."

Hunting of resident wildlife on the Refuge is not considered a means to manage regional 

population goals established by the WI DNR. Rather, hunting resident wildlife are considered for 

their compatibility with Refuge goals. This use is compatible with Refuge goals. 

Archery deer hunting will have minimal impact on the resources of the Refuge. Public use of this 

Refuge will help build support for the Refuge and the Service's mission.

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Pamela Dryer/ 12/30/2005__

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Nita M. Fuller/ 1/9/2006 __

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2021
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

166

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Sport Fishing

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), located in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, as established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

Sport fishing as an activity conducted by the general public under regulation authority of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The use would be allowed on Whittlesey 

Creek and Little Whittlesey Creek on the Refuge. 

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use? The cost of 

administering this program includes a startup cost for incorporating fishing regulations into 

Refuge signage and brochures. Additional costs are associated with enforcement of the 

regulations on Refuge property. Under state regulation the creeks are already open to fishing. If 

an individual can access a stream from a public location such as a road right-of-way and remain 

in the streambed then the stream is open for public access. At the current time, enforcement of 

fishing regulations is by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) wardens. Additional 

enforcement by Refuge officers would be minimal since enforcement coverage is provided by 

the zone law enforcement officer in Tomah, Wisconsin. Existing fishing pressure under state 

regulations is minimal and would probably not increase very much by this change, which aligns 

state and federal regulations.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Staff resources are deemed adequate to manage this use at anticipated levels. The 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan identifies the filling of the existing park ranger position, 

which will be responsible for updating signage and brochures. The enforcement of regulations 

will primarily fall within the jurisdiction of the state wardens who patrol the county. Additional 

special enforcement if deemed necessary would be coordinated by the zone law enforcement 

officer.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

167

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Possible impacts of use include introduction of invasive species, fishing line entanglement, and 

impacts from lead tackle. Fishing on the Refuge would likely occur with walk-in anglers who 

wear chest waders or hip boots to fish in the stream or bank fish. Most movement of aquatic 

invasive species between water bodies occurs on boats, live wells and trailers. The method of 

fishing in Whittlesey Creek would tend to eliminate the use of these transport vectors thereby 

significantly reducing the risk of invasive species. 

Use of lead tackle is an impact but to what degree, is largely unknown. Education and 

mandatory use of non-toxic tackle may be phased in but any such work would have to be in 

partnership with the state of Wisconsin. Other concerns, such as litter and fishing line 

entanglement are addressed through education.

Whittlesey Creek is an experimental site for the restoration of Coaster Brook Trout. The 2003 

Whittlesey Creek coaster brook trout restoration plan developed by the Service and the 

Wisconsin DNR instituted protective harvest regulations on the creek. At this time, we do not 

anticipate any impact on the restoration plan because Whittlesey is designated as a catch and 

release brook trout stream through state regulations. The Service is conducting an extensive 

population monitoring study as the restoration experiment proceeds. If we determine that fishing 

mortality is impacting the success of the restoration project we would re-evaluate the role of 

fishing on the Refuge.

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

Recreational fishing is a priority public use identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

Improvement Act of 1997. The fishing program is administered to provide recreational 

opportunities to visitors while avoiding negative impacts to wildlife and their habitat. The activity 

will promote local tourism and economic trade and enhance Service initiatives in the 

surrounding local community. 

The fishing program follows all applicable laws, regulations and policies, including Title 50 Code 

of Federal Regulations, National Wildlife Refuge System goals and objectives, and the Refuge 

goals and objectives. This activity is also compliant with the purpose of the Refuge and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission. Conducting this program does not alter the Refuge’s 

ability to meet habitat goals, provide for public safety and support the primary objectives of the 

Refuge.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. State fishing requirements apply on the Refuge.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

168

2. Whittlesey Creek is a catch and release stream for brook trout only.

3. Vehicles are permitted only on designated roads and parking lots. 

Justification:

The use has been determined compatible provided the above stipulations are implemented. 

This use is being permitted as it is a priority public use and will not diminish the primary 

purposes of the Refuge. This use will meet the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

by providing renewable resources for the benefit of the American public while conserving fish, 

wildlife and plant resources on these lands.

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/12/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2030
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

169

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Installation of Bluebird Boxes, Other Nest Boxes, or Nesting Structures by Public or 

Groups

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), located in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, as established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

Allow the installation of nest structures such as bluebird nest boxes and wood duck boxes by 

individuals or groups on the Refuge. Site-by-site authorization will be made by the Refuge 

Manager via a letter of authorization. Requests for installing nesting structures are occasionally 

made by individuals and sporting groups. The majority of requests are for bluebird and wood 

duck boxes to be placed along roads or in Refuge wetlands. Some requests could be for 

artificial mallard nesting sites or other artificial nest sites for migratory birds. The structures are 

usually placed in late winter or early spring. Structures are affixed either using floating rafts (less 

common) or poles or posts. Structures are occasionally mounted to existing trees although this 

is less desirable due to increased nest predation.

In all cases, the intention of the requestors is to enhance wildlife populations through providing 

safe nesting sites.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use?

The installation of artificial nesting structures on the Refuge by private individuals or groups 

requires minimal resources. Monitoring and maintenance of structures is required by the 

private individual or group as well as associated costs of installation.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The needed staff time for development and administration of this program is available. The 

additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed special use 

permit is relatively minor and within Refuge resources.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

170

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

The installation of artificial nesting structures has a minimal impact on the purposes for which 

the Refuge was established. Waterfowl nesting structures will increase the production of 

waterfowl by providing sites for nests where predators are less likely to destroy the nests. 

Waterfowl nests in nesting structures are far likelier to be successful than nests in uplands. 

Other structures such as bluebird houses will provide nesting sites for other migratory birds. 

Artificial nesting boxes are widely credited with helping increase the population of eastern 

bluebirds in North America. There is some small, temporary wildlife disturbance caused during 

placement and maintenance of the structures. This disturbance is minor.

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

There are some aesthetic costs associated with placing artificial structures in natural settings. 

These costs are minimized by requiring placement of non-waterfowl structures along the edges 

of Refuge units in areas already appearing unnatural due to fences, signs, and adjacent roads. 

Wood duck boxes and other waterfowl nesting devices are typically placed in or near wetlands, 

although private parties typically prefer to place the structures adjacent to roads. No access by 

motorized vehicles or other special access will be provided for installing nest structures. The 

use will provide an increase in value for migratory birds.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Approval from Refuge Manager via a letter of authorization is required prior to 

installation.

2. Annual maintenance is required. 

3. Structures must be removed upon Refuge Managers' request. Some possible reasons 

include: lack of maintenance, poor placement, and variation from approved installation 

plan.

4. Ownership of any nest structure placed on the Refuge by private individuals or groups 

will be forfeited to the Service upon installation.

Justification:

Artificial nesting structures do not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which 

the Refuge was acquired. These structures likely contribute to the purposes of the Refuge by 

providing secure nesting sites for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Nest success for ducks 

using artificial nest structures is higher than for ducks nesting in grasslands or woodlands. 

Nesting boxes for cavity nesting birds like bluebirds and wood ducks can increase populations 

when natural cavities are scarce. At worst, nesting structures are neutral in their effect; it is likely 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

171

that there is a positive effect. The aesthetic costs of artificial nest structures are modest and can 

be minimized through appropriate siting.

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/12/2015__ 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

172

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hay Harvest

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge, located in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, as 

established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

The cutting and removal, by baling and transport to an off-refuge location, of grasses and forbs, 

either non-native cool season species such as brome, timothy and reed canary grass or native 

warm or cool season grasses. The use is typically completed by a cooperative farmer under 

authority of a special use permit.

Where would this use be conducted? 

The use would be conducted on various fields on the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge 

as part of the Refuge’s long-term habitat management plan. Haying will be used as a 

management tool to maintain grassland habitat or more typically as a short-term action to 

maintain or prepare a field for tree planting. Field size varies from two acres to 40 acres in size. 

When would this use be conducted?

Seasonally after July 15 of each year.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use?

Planning for this use would not require any additional resources and would be a normal part of 

Refuge habitat management. Staff time would be needed to complete the bid process, develop 

public notices and issue special use permits and bills for collection.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

The needed staff time for development and administration of this program is available. The 

additional time needed to coordinate issuance and oversight of the needed special use permit is 

relatively minor and within Refuge resources.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

173

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

Haying will result in short-term disturbances and long-term benefits to both resident and 

migratory wildlife that use the Refuge. Short-term impacts will include disturbance and 

displacement typical of any noisy heavy equipment operation. Long-term benefits will result 

since haying is an effective management tool for maintaining grassland or preparing sites for 

planting to trees, depending on the goal for the management unit. Without haying as a 

management tool, grassland areas would degrade through natural succession or dominance of 

non-native plants. 

The typical use of haying on the Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is as one of 

numerous steps in preparing a site for restoration to forested habitat. Haying prevents the 

incursion of invasive tree species and allows the site to be prepared for chemical treatment and 

eventually tree planting. Haying removes the buildup of vegetation and allows better chemical to 

plant contact, resulting in greater effectiveness of the chemical treatment. Haying will be used 

on individual sites until funds are available for forest restoration.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Assessment and Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

_____ Use is not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Haying will only be allowed after July 15 to minimize disturbance to migratory birds and 

other nesting wildlife. In normal years, most birds are off the nest by this date.

2. Bales must be removed from the Refuge within two weeks of baling.

3. Windrowed grass left lying to dry prior to baling must not be left on the ground more than 

six days prior to baling.

Justification:

Haying is a useful management tool for maintaining grasslands or preparing sites for tree 

planting for forest restoration. Haying to maintain grassland is an effective technique for 

maintaining and reinvigorating the growth of native grasses and forbs. This prevents the

invasion of trees and simulates some of the effects of the natural process of fire. 

At Whittlesey Creek NWR, haying is more commonly used as a restoration tool. It is the first 

step in the tree planting process, reducing the invasion of unwanted species in areas that we 

want to convert to forest. Haying also creates an ideal situation for chemical treatment, allowing 

better chemical treatment of the site by removal of standing vegetation and treatment of the 

regrowth. One of the most common invasive species on the refuge is reed canary grass. Haying 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

174

is a technique to create a situation with increased chemical contact on the plant for better 

effectiveness at removing or stressing the plants before tree planting. 

Long-term benefits will result from the use of haying through maintenance of grassland habitats 

or by restoration of forest habitat. Strict time constraints placed on the use will reduce short-term 

impacts to nesting wildlife.

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/12/2015__ 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

175

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Short-Term Upland Disturbance or Other Public Interest Projects with No Right-of-Way 

Expansion and Full Restoration

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), located in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, as established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

Allow short-term disturbance to uplands for highway or other public interest projects with no 

right-of-way expansion and full restoration. Occasionally, requests are made by state and local 

government agencies and utility companies to do repairs and improvements to existing 

roadways and utility facilities associated with existing right-of-ways on Refuge lands. Many of 

these requests require temporary work outside existing right-of-way boundaries, generally 

resulting in temporary disturbance to the associated vegetation. Frequently, the temporary work 

requested is required to reshape a slope immediately adjacent to a road right-of-way to improve 

transportation safety. Other times, the requested action can be merely for permission to turn 

around heavy equipment on land immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. Most often, the 

temporary work outside of the right-of-way is conducted during the summer and fall, when 

construction conditions are optimal. The work typically involves temporary disturbance to 

previously farmed uplands or disturbed areas that are then reseeded to native vegetation by the 

requesting organization. This determination will allow approved work and temporary habitat 

disturbance outside the right-of-way boundary when long-term impacts are either beneficial or 

not significantly harmful.

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use?

Minimal expense is required of the Service for these projects. Authorization of the projects 

will require the requesting organization to cover habitat restoration costs. There is a modest 

administrative cost to issuing and monitoring this work.

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

176

Existing Refuge resources are sufficient to properly and safely administer this use. The 

additional time to issue letters of authorization or Special Use Permits is relatively minor and 

within exiting Refuge resources. The flexibility to solve right-of-way issues through this 

process is also more time efficient than requiring applications for expanding existing right-ofways.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

The impacts to the associated uplands with this use will be minimal and temporary. When the 

request includes unavoidable destruction of vegetation, approval will be limited to sites 

previously disturbed or dominated by invasive vegetation. No wetlands, springs, or stream 

habitat may be destroyed. Any areas with disturbed vegetation will be seeded by the requesting 

organization to a diverse mix of native species that will lead to better long-term habitat than the 

vegetation originally disturbed.

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

Most of this work occurs in summer and fall, after the nesting season for waterfowl and other 

migratory birds. The duration of any single project is usually one to eight weeks. Occasionally, 

work may occur during the nesting season, but the size of the disturbance zone will be minimal. 

The quality of the habitat in the disturbed zone may be diminished for up to three years following 

the project, but the disturbed zone will provide some migratory bird value by the year following 

the project. The long-term productivity of the disturbed zone will frequently increase due to the 

replacement of exotic, less-desirable cover with native vegetation.

Most of the impacts will be along existing roads in areas already subject to significant habitat 

and aesthetic deterioration due to existing transportation right-of-ways. Rarely, a utility 

right-of-way can split an otherwise contiguous block of quality habitat. In these settings, the 

disturbance will still be temporary, but the impact to waterfowl and other migratory birds is likely 

greater. The existing right-of-way already authorizes disturbance within the right-of-way, so the 

larger impact of creating a disturbance within quality habitat will likely occur anyway. The 

decision to authorize temporary disturbance outside the right-of-way will slightly increase the 

magnitude of the disturbance. Projects conducted adjacent to and in streams are regulated by 

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Waterway permits restrict activities from 

September 15 through May 15 on trout streams in order to minimize impacts on fish movement, 

spawning, and egg incubation. The permit and regulatory requirements adequately protect 

coldwater resources.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

177

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All work done outside of existing right-of-ways must be approved by the Refuge 

Manager in the form of a letter of authorization.

2. Conditions stipulated in a letter of authorization such as seeding mixes, weed control, 

etc. must be followed to remain a compatible use.

3. No work that leads to permanent loss of wetlands, springs, or stream habitat will be 

allowed without a site-specific compatibility determination.

Justification:

This use will not materially interfere with or detract from the purposes for which the Refuge was 

established with the above stipulations in place. Many tracts on the Refuge are constrained by 

one or more right-of-ways that were in place before acquisition by the federal government. 

Temporary disturbances to land adjacent to these right-of-ways will have only small, temporary 

harmful effects on wildlife. Work within the right-of-ways is beyond the authority of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to regulate other than influencing the timing and scope to minimize wildlife 

harm. Allowing temporary work outside the right-of-way does little or no long-term harm to 

wildlife resources and allows the holder of the right-of-way to provide essential human services 

to our rural communities. 

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/12/2015__ 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

178

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Scientific Studies and Research Projects by Third Parties

Refuge Name: Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

Establishing Authority and Acquisition Authority:

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge (NWR, Refuge), located in Bayfield County, 

Wisconsin, as established on September 30, 1999.

Refuge Purposes:

The primary purpose of Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge is “...for the development, 

advancement, management , conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources...16 

U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)”...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing 

its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or 

affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude...” 16U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956)

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) is to “administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the 

benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended [668dd-668ee])

Description of Use:

The Refuge allows research investigations on a variety of biological, physical, archeological, 

and social components to address Refuge management information needs or other issues not 

related to Refuge management. Studies are or may be conducted by federal, state, and private 

entities, including the U.S. Geological Survey, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 

state and private universities, non-governmental organizations, and independent researchers 

and contractors through the issuance of a Special Use Permit. Each research project will be 

approved by the Refuge Manager on a case-by-case basis. 

Research investigations will follow a specific protocol. Sites and timing of the investigations will 

depend on each individual project. Locations, means of access, and frequency of visits will be 

stipulated by the Special Use Permit. 

Availability of Resources:

What resources are needed to properly and safely administer the use?

Facilities and staff are currently available to issue and oversee Special Use Permits required 

for research projects. Many of these research projects will address Refuge questions and 

require a small amount of time for the Refuge staff to review the proposal and issue a 

permit. Refuge staff will require a written report that will be in a format useful for future 

Refuge use. 

Are existing refuge resources adequate to properly and safely administer the use?

Staff resources are deemed adequate to manage this use at anticipated levels. Staff will 

prioritize requests so that staff time is dedicated to reviewing projects that have a Refuge

benefit, limiting staff time spent on third party research projects. Follow-up monitoring of the 
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

179

project will take some staff time but at the expected levels of research project requests for 

the Refuge, Refuge staff time is adequate to administer the program.

Anticipated Impacts of Use:

Short-term impacts include disturbance to wildlife and habitat. Efforts to capture animals can 

cause disturbance, injury, or death. Sampling activities can also disturb habitat by trampling of 

vegetation.

No long-term impacts are expected as the scientific studies and research projects by third 

parties are typically short duration investigations. 

How does the use affect the refuge purposes, the Refuge System mission, and the refuge 

goals and objectives?

These studies provide valuable information regarding Refuge resources and management that 

will help make decisions in the future. All impacts can be controlled by the issuance of Special 

Use Permits.

Public Review and Comment:

This compatibility determination is available for public review as part of the Whittlesey Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment. Comments received and agency responses are included in the final version of the 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Determination:

 Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Prior to conducting investigations, researchers will obtain Special Use Permits.

2. Researchers must possess all applicable state and federal permits as required for their 

research.

3. Researchers must provide the Refuge with copies of all data and a final report.

4. Collection of specimens must be specifically authorized by the Refuge.

Justification:

Research is conducted to provide useful information on which to base Refuge management 

decisions in the future. In order to make scientifically-based decisions, research must be 

conducted to monitor and document management activities.
Appendix G: Compatibility Determinations

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

180

Signature: Refuge Manager __/Thomas M. Kerr/ 5/12/2015__ 

(Signature and Date)

Concurrence: Regional Chief __/Charles W. Blair/ 5/20/2015__

(Signature and Date)

Mandatory 10- or 15- year Re-Evaluation Date: 2025
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

181

Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

AN EXPERIMENT TO ESTABLISH A SELF-SUSTAINING BROOK TROUT 

POPULATION IN WHITTLESEY CREEK THAT EXHIBITS A MIGRATING LIFE 

HISTORY (COASTER) BY STOCKING, ENACTING PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS 

AND IMPLEMENTING HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ashland 

Fishery Resources Office and Whittlesey 

Creek National Wildlife Refuge

&

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

June 5, 2003

BACKGROUND

Whittlesey Creek is a 5.2-mile tributary to Lake Superior in Bayfield County located at the head of 

Chequamegon Bay west of Ashland, Wisconsin. There are two named tributaries to Whittlesey Creek, the 

North Fork of Whittlesey Creek and Little Whittlesey Creek. Whittlesey has a surface drainage watershed 

of approximately 4900 acres (Johannes et al 1970). The watershed has two main soil regions consisting of 

mainly sand or clay.

The sand portion of the basin (upstream of the headwaters) is dominated by forest cover, most of which 

lies within the Chequamegon National Forest. This region consists of a very deep layer of sands (at least a 

couple of hundred feet deep) where any precipitation that falling here quickly penetrates the ground and

enters the deep aquifer of Whittlesey Creek. Faith Fitzpatrick of the United States Geological Survey has 

estimated that the recharge cycle (estimated time for precipitation that falls in this sand region to reach the 

stream) is in the neighborhood of 90 years (Faith Fitzpatrick, personal communication, 8505 Research 

Way, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562). This creates a situation where Whittlesey Creek receives a very 

stable base flow from this groundwater source (approximately 16 cfs.). The great majority of this water 

enters the stream reach located from about a quarter mile upstream of the junction of the Mainstem and 

the North Fork to about a half-mile downstream of the forks.

The second major soil region, consisting of mainly steeply sloping impervious clay soils, encompasses 

the drained portion of the watershed. The great majority of this region is in private ownership either in 

field, pasture or forest. The clay soils of this region are very impervious and shed water very quickly to 

the stream. Precipitation runs off this clay region so quickly that the USGS described surface runoff rates 

as ‘urban-like’ (Bernard Lenz, personal communication, Northwest Field Office, Rice Lake, Wisconsin 

54868). A typical snow-melt or rainfall event can increase volume of flow by 15 to 20 times in a few 

hours while more severe events in recent years have amplified flows by up to 40 times base flow (USGS, 

1999). These peak flood events cause severe bank erosion, destabilizing spawning substrates, and 

accelerating sedimentation.

Whittlesey Creek provides valuable spawning and rearing habitat for resident and migratory trout and 

salmon. Whittlesey Creek is listed as having Class I trout water on 4 miles of the main stem from Lake 

Superior to the junction of North Fork and 1.8 miles on the North Fork from the junction with Whittlesey 

Creek to Cozy Corner Road (WIDNR 2002). Upstream of Cozy Corner Road there is 1 mile of Class II 

trout water (WIDNR 2002). Brook trout abundance and distribution was determined during surveys 
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

182

conducted by Wisconsin DNR in 1977 and by Wisconsin DNR and the Service in 2001 and 2002. 

Comparative data from these surveys indicates that abundance declined 70% from 1977 to 2001. 

Population estimates from 6 common survey stations were 184 in 1977 and 56 in 2001. In the 2 stations 

(Stations 4 and 5) for which population estimates were made in 1977, 2001 and 2002 brook trout 

population estimates were 79, 27, and 11, respectively. The apparent decline in abundance may be a result 

of in-stream habitat changes caused by floods over the 24-year time period between surveys.

Whittlesey was historically an important brook trout stream whose populations probably declined by the 

turn of the century. We assume (although there is no documented evidence yet) that at least some of the 

settlement period (late 1800’s) brook trout may have migrated to Chequamegon Bay and exhibited lake 

growth (coaster). The first official record of brook trout stocking took place in 1916 and stocking 

continued sporadically until the early 1990’s (Table 1).

We presently lack important information regarding the question, ‘what creates the coaster phenotype or 

life history’. We note a few of the numerous explanations of which we are aware, and acknowledge that 

there are undoubtedly more. All can be supported given our current level of understanding.

Table 1. History of stocking in Whittlesey Creek (compiled by Wisconsin DNR).

Year Date Location Species (strain) Size Number

1916 May 29 Whittlesey Brook Trout Advanced Fry 10800

1916 May 29 North Fork Brook Trout Advanced Fry 3600

1916 June 23 Whittlesey Rainbow Trout Advanced Fry 6400

1916 June 23 North Fork Rainbow Trout Advanced Fry 6400

1917 May 30 Whittlesey Brook Trout Advanced Fry 3600

1917 May 30 North Fork Brook Trout Advanced Fry 3600

1921 April 1 Whittlesey Brook Trout Fry 3600

1928 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling #3 28000 (Up to)

1929 July 18 Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 5600

1933 Sept. 9 Whittlesey Rainbow Trout Yearling 3000

1933 June 26 Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling #3 1600

1935 June 10 Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 21250

1935 August 7 Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 15000

1936 Sept. 24 Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 18000

1938 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 13675

1939 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 20815

1940 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 25060

1941 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Adults 14

1941 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 15000

1941 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Yearling 845

1942 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 7650

1942 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Yearling 300

1943 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Yearling 682

1944 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Yearling 1000

1946 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 6500

1947 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 6800
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

183

1948 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 7600

1949 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 4800

1950 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout Fingerling 4500

1971 May 17 Whittlesey Brown Trout 6.8 per pound 20000

1972 May 18 Whittlesey Brown Trout 6.2 per pound 12500

1972 May 17 Whittlesey Brown Trout 6.3 per pound 7500

1973 May 16 Whittlesey Brown Trout 6.7 per pound 20000

1994 No date Whittlesey Brown Trout (L. Yearling (Ad 500

Nipigon) clip)

1994 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout (L. Yearling 1000

Nipigon)

1995 No date Whittlesey Brook Trout (L. Yearling (Ad 1000

Nipigon) clip)

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into the question of what triggers the lake life history in brook trout, a number of 

experiments are being developed or are on-going in Wisconsin and other areas around Lake Superior. 

This experiment is one aspect of the Brook Trout Plan for Wisconsin’s Lake Superior Basin. It will 

attempt to test the whether stocking progeny of Isle Royale strains of brook trout can re-establish a selfsustaining migratory population in Whittlesey Creek.

Hypothesis:

Whittlesey Creek can support a healthy self-sustaining migrating brook trout population by 

stocking brook trout with a known lake life history, by protective regulations, and by habitat 

improvements.

Project Goal:

Establish a self-sustaining brook trout population in the Whittlesey Creek watershed that exhibits 

a migrating life history.

Project Objectives:

Short term: By 2003, describe the current status and abundance of the Whittlesey Creek fish 

community and identify strategies to establish a self-sustaining migratory brook trout population.

Long term: By 2030, establish a self-sustaining migratory brook trout population. A population 

is considered self-sustaining when it supports itself for at least two life spans after stocked fish no 

longer contribute to recruitment.

Strategies:

• Repeat in 2001, the comprehensive fish survey conducted by WIDNR in 1977.

• Establish index stations in the stream and along the lake shoreline and survey these on a regular 

schedule beginning in 2001.

• Stock Whittlesey Creek for seven years using strains of brook trout from the Lake Superior basin 

with a known lake life history.
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

184

• Identify watershed stressors and instream stressors through hydrologic geomorphologic studies 

and fishery assessment, identify habitat improvement options, and conduct projects that 

ultimately improve instream habitat.

• During and post stocking conduct the comprehensive fish survey to monitor changes in the fish 

community of Whittlesey Creek throughout the experiment.

• Document genetic characteristics of the existing brook trout stock and of the strains proposed to 

be stocked.

• Establish regulations that protect brook trout from harvest while in the stream.

• Establish regulations that provide greater protection of brook trout while in Lake Superior.

STOCKING PLAN

Stocking Goal

To establish 25 spawning pairs of brook trout exhibiting the migratory life history.

Biological Considerations

Fish Community Effects

In Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior brook trout are the only native salmonine that utilize the riverine 

environment. Historically, both lake trout and lake dwelling brook trout were present in the lake, with 

brook trout utilizing the nearshore environment and lake trout occupying deeper waters of the lake.

In addition to brook trout, the current fish community of Whittlesey Creek consists of numerous 

introduced salmonines including migratory coho salmon, rainbow (steelhead) and brown trout, and 

resident rainbow and brown trout. These introduced salmonines are considered ‘naturalized’ as their 

populations are sustained by natural reproduction. In addition, splake are stocked in Chequamegon Bay 

and are occasionally found in Whittlesey Creek.

As described in the Background section, brook trout numbers in Whittlesey Creek are low and declined 

by at least 70% over the time period from 1977 to 2001. From recently collected data, it appears that the 

brook trout population in Whittlesey Creek is small and remaining stable or declining.

Based on WIDNR survey data from 1977, 2001, and 2002, the abundance of coho salmon in Whittlesey 

Creek has also dropped. Data from 2001 and 2002 suggest that abundance was down by 70-80% from 

1977. In common stations, population estimates for all ages were 26,131 in

1977 and 4,877 in 2001. While abundance is much reduced from 1977, coho salmon in Whittlesey Creek 

have been found to exhibit high survival over-winter, comparable or better than over-winter survival in 

streams of the Pacific Northwest (Ford 1997). Based on Ford’s

(1997) study the decline in abundance is not attributable to poor over-winter survival. We do not expect 

the stocking of coaster strain brook trout to affect survival of coho salmon in Whittlesey Creek.

Limited data on Lake Superior tributaries suggests that juvenile coho salmon may depress brook and 

brown trout populations (Stauffer 1977). Peck (1992) speculated that coho salmon might have a negative 

effect on the restoration of coaster brook trout in Lake Superior by competition in the stream 

environment. This is unknown, as coho introductions in Lake Superior occurred after coaster brook trout 

populations in the lake had already declined.

Inherent in the experiment hypothesis is the belief that migratory brook trout can, if the proper strain is 

present and if protection is adequate, co-exist with non-native naturalized and stocked salmonines in 

Whittlesey Creek. Groundwater upwellings or springs are abundant in Whittlesey Creek, especially in the 
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

185

area near and upstream from the confluence of the main stem and North Fork. Brook trout, apparently 

more than any other salmonine, prefer upwellings for spawning habitat (Powers 1980, Curry and Noakes 

1995). At the time of spawning, redd site selection is likely to result in some segregation of brook trout 

and non-indigenous salmonines in Whittlesey Creek.

Brook trout and other salmonines have proven to be rather adaptable at using apparently sub optimum 

spawning sites (Powers 1980, Curry and Noakes 1995). If upwelling groundwater is present brook trout 

have spawned on sand, silty-sand, and waterlogged sticks (Powers 1980, Curry and Noakes 1995). 

Kondolf and Wolman (1993) report that in a particular river system, chum salmon select sites with 

upwelling currents to prevent freezing of the eggs. They note that these sites are selected despite the need 

to excavate 30 cm of silt to locate gravel in which to deposit eggs.

Fish Community Objectives

Rehabilitation of lake dwelling coaster brook trout is a priority of the Great Lakes Fishery

Commission Lake Superior Committee (Horns et al. 2002). To advance efforts to rehabilitate lake 

dwelling brook trout in Lake Superior, a multi-agency adhoc committee of the Lake Superior Technical 

Committee was formed. This committee developed the document, A Brook Trout Rehabilitation Plan for 

Lake Superior (Newman et al. 1999). The rehabilitation goal for brook trout in Lake Superior to maintain 

widely distributed, self-sustaining populations in as many of the original, native habitats as is practical 

(Newman et al. 1999).

The rehabilitation plan provides guidance for population objectives and identifies numerous issues and 

strategies for consideration. Population objectives that will be adopted for this project include: the 

population will be self-sustaining and capable of co-existing with populations of naturalized salmonines 

in the existing fish community, the population will exhibit genetic profiles consistent with those of 

populations currently existing in the Lake Superior basin, essential habitat will be protected and where 

necessary, rehabilitated, and that the fully restored population will be comprised of 6 or more age groups, 

including at least two spawning year classes of females.

Biology and Life History

The fecundity of brook trout in Tobin Harbor has been determined for 2 fish. A 16-inch female contained 

1,800 eggs (Quinlan 2000), while a 2.5- pound, 18-inch female had 3,373 eggs (Henry Quinlan, personal 

communication, USFWS Ashland Fishery Resources Office, Ashland, Wisconsin, 54806). Becker (1983) 

reported that a 14-inch female contained 1,500 eggs. The number of eggs produced by Lake Nipigon 

strain brook trout at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dorian Hatchery is typically 1,500 

eggs/kg of fish (John Sagar, personal communication, Hatchery Manager, Ontario Ministry of Natural 

Resources Dorian Fish Culture Station).

There is a dearth of information available on the characteristics of coaster redds. Ten brook trout redds 

located during surveys conducted by the Service in the Salmon Trout River, had an average diameter of 

0.8 m (range 0.6 to 1.1m) (Lee Newman, personal communication, USFWS Ashland Fishery Resources 

Office, Ashland, Wisconsin, 54806). At Tobin Harbor, a large male and female and several smaller male 

coasters were observed on one redd in 1997. Substrate material in the redd was a mixture of sand and pea 

gravel, and water depth was 0.5 m (Henry Quinlan, personal communication, USFWS Ashland Fishery 

Resources Office, Ashland, Wisconsin, 54806). There is no information on whether or not eggs were 

deposited, nor whether fry emerged from redds in the Salmon Trout River or in Tobin Harbor. Becker 

1983, described typical redd size as having a diameter of 0.3-0.6 m for stream brook trout.

Strain Selection and Genetics

Currently 3 strains of brook trout from the Lake Superior basin that exhibit the lake life history are being 

maintained in hatcheries as brood stock for rehabilitation stocking efforts. Two Isle Royale strains (Tobin 
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

186

Harbor and Siskiwit Bay area) are reared by the Service at the Iron River (Iron River NFH) and Genoa 

National Fish Hatcheries. The Lake Nipigon strain is from a lacustrine population that is within the Lake 

Superior basin, but due to natural barriers is inaccessible to Lake Superior. The Lake Nipigon strain is 

reared at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Dorian Fish Culture Station and through a transfer of 

eggs from Dorian at the Red Cliff Tribal Hatchery.

The Siskiwit Bay area strain originated from brook trout captured in the estuary of the Big and

Little Siskiwit rivers, primarily the Big Siskiwit River. This strain has been derived from

gametes collected over two years (1995 and 1999). A total of 8 males and 11 females contributed to this 

brood stock.

The Tobin Harbor strain is derived from gametes collected in three separate years (1996, 1998, and 2001) 

from a shoreline spawning population. Founding parents for the brood stock consist of

51 males and 48 females.

Tissue samples from Isle Royale stocks have been analyzed genetically using Mitochondrial DNA 

(MtDNA) (Burnham-Curtis 1996 and 2001). MtDNA analysis indicates that the predominant haplotype 

found in Lake Superior brook trout populations predominates in the Isle Royale source stocks and 

populations from Wisconsin (Little Onion and Little Sioux rivers and Oak Island streams numbered 6 and 

7) (Burnham-Curtis 2001). The MtDNA analysis suggests that the evolutionary history of these 

populations have a common pattern of colonization, likely from the Atlantic refugium (Burnham-Curtis 

2001). While BT1 is the predominant haplotype in Lake Superior populations, the Big Siskiwit River 

population also contained haplotypes BT2 and BT4 and therefore can be differentiated from the Tobin 

Harbor strain in which only BT1 was present. The sample size was rather small, particularly for the 

Siskiwit Bay area population, which renders the results informative but not statistically significant.

Additionally, recent unpublished microsatellite DNA analysis shows that the Tobin Harbor and Siskitwit 

Bay (Big and Little Siskiwit rivers) populations exhibit different markers and can be differentiated 

genetically (Loren Miller, personal communication, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of 

Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55108, and Wendy Lee Stott, U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes 

Science Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105). Dr. Loren Miller’s study will compare wild and hatchery 

stocks using microsatellite analysis to determine the level of genetic conservation in the hatcheries, to 

describe parentage relationships, and to provide recommendations for continued maintenance of diverse 

genetics in the hatchery system. Because genetic and life history differences are evident, and tagging 

work has shown no movement between populations at Isle Royale, the Service maintains the Tobin 

Harbor and Siskiwit brood stocks separately.

While no records of strain exist, it is believed that many different strains of brook trout have been stocked 

in Whittlesey Creek (Table 1). Additionally, brook trout have been stocked in Fish Creek located 1⁄2 mile 

from Whittlesey Creek, in other tributaries within 10 miles of Whittlesey Creek, and in Chequamegon 

Bay.

Genetic analysis of the resident brook trout in Whittlesey Creek is in progress. Samples collected in 2001 

and 2002 are being analyzed by UW-Stevens Point in cooperation with Wisconsin DNR. The genetic 

characterization of resident brook trout will be conducted using the same genetic markers used to describe 

the Isle Royale strains and Lake Nipigon strain fish from the Red Cliff Tribal Hatchery.

The brook trout population in Whittlesey Creek is not a “heritage” population (remnant population with 

no documentation and/or likelihood of having mixed with stocked or transferred fish). As shown in Table 

1, stocking of brook trout in Whittlesey Creek has occurred frequently over the last 100 years. 

Unfortunately, there is no record of the various strains that have been used, however, it is generally 
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

187

understood that until the 1990’s, the source fish were not from the Lake Superior basin. Stocking brook 

trout that originated from the Lake Superior basin in Whittlesey Creek is consistent with the Brook Trout 

Rehabilitation Plan for Lake Superior (Newman et al. 1999).

Fish Health

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Health Laboratory in La Crosse, Wisconsin, conducts fish health 

testing at the Iron River National Fish Hatchery semi-annually. At present the classification for the Iron 

River NFH is Rs. This classification indicates that Renibacterium salmonarium bacteria (causative agent 

for Bacterial Kidney Disease), were present in samples tested. The Service will follow guidelines of the 

Great Lakes Fish Health Policy which state that efforts should be made not to stock fish with overt signs 

of the disease (Hnath et al. 1993). None of the brook trout or lake trout at Iron River NFH shows overt 

signs of BKD or any other fish health diseases. Prior to stocking a complete Fish-Disease Inspection 

Report will be provided to WIDNR. However, due to the small size (<1 inch) of advanced fry planned for 

stocking, bacterial disease testing cannot readily be conducted on these fish.

Stocking Details

In determining the number of coasters to be stocked at various life stages we considered coaster biology 

(egg production) and information on the size of remnant and re-established coaster populations at Isle 

Royale, in the Salmon Trout River, Michigan, and at Grand Portage, Minnesota.

There is no definitive information available from which to determine which of the two Isle Royale strains 

would be most suited to Whittlesey Creek and provide the greatest chance of meeting the goal of this 

project. Therefore, we plan to stock various life stages of both strains and evaluate their performance in 

situ, through assessment surveys and genetic analysis.

Annually throughout the stocking period (2003-2009) we plan to stock multiple life stages of both the 

Tobin Harbor and Siskiwit strains of brook trout. The number of eggs to be stocked is based on estimated 

production by the target population and the availability of eggs from Iron River NFH. The number of eggs 

stocked will be evaluated throughout the project. Observations from surveys conducted in fall and winter 

on use of spawning sites by fall run salmonines will be used to provide information on the amount of 

available spawning habitat. This may provide additional information to better determine the number of 

eggs to stock.

The number of fingerlings, yearlings and adults to stock will be determined by the target population size, 

estimates of survival (including straying), and hatchery availability. Fingerlings, yearlings and adults will 

be scatter stocked throughout the stream. Areas of suitable spawning and nursery habitat will be a 

priority.

The stocking of Tobin Harbor spring fingerlings was determined to be more successful than fall 

fingerlings in an ongoing experimental stocking project in several streams at Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore (Lora Loope, personal communication, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Munising, 

Michigan, 49862). However, the source hatchery for the fish differed, with the spring fish being reared at 

Genoa NFH and the fall fingerlings being reared at Iron River NFH. As a result of water temperature 

differences at these two hatcheries, the spring fish from Genoa NFH were equal in size (3.0-3.5 inches) to 

the fall fingerlings at Iron River NFH.

At the time that stocking is discontinued, we expect that 3-4 year classes of stocked fish will be mature 

and capable of reproducing naturally. To allow adequate evaluation of this experiment, WDNR has 

enacted regulations that protect brook trout in Whittlesey Creek and in the lake environment.

Methods
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

188

All life stages to be stocked, except eggs, will receive a mark for later identification. We anticipate being 

able to utilize genetic analysis to differentiate fish stocked as eggs (no external mark) versus naturally 

reproduced fish as a result of ongoing genetic analysis being conducted at the University of Minnesota 

and U.S. Geological Survey in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

All fish reared at Iron River NFH are marked with oxytetracycline. The oxytetracycline mark will be used 

to differentiate stocked advanced fry from wild fish since they are too small for an external tag or fin clip 

(the capability to assess / read oxytetracycline marked fish needs to be secured for this project). All 

yearlings will be marked with an adipose fin clip and receive a coded-wire tag in the snout. Adults will be 

marked with Floy tags and will retain fin clips used to manage brood stock in the hatchery. Additional 

stocking of adult coasters in 2005 and 2007 will be conducted if excess brood stock is available. The 

intent of the adult transfer is to stimulate natural reproduction by all means possible.

Lacking information, we made several assumptions on survival of stocked eggs/fish to aid planning 

efforts. The first is that roughly 5% of the stocked eggs will survive to the advanced fry stage (i.e. 2,500 

advanced fry will survive from 50,000 eggs). Advanced fry will survive to yearlings at a rate of 10%, and 

yearlings to age 2 at 10% per year. Beyond age 2 we estimate that survival will be 50%, similar to the rate 

of survival (0.56) at Tobin Harbor, Isle Royale, Michigan (Quinlan 1999).

A telemetry study conducted on Tobin Harbor brook trout found that fish remain within the harbor year 

round (Newman 2000). Therefore, survival rate may be quite different for fish that migrate to and from 

Lake Superior. We expect the return rate of fish out-migrating to be low but have no figure to use as an 

estimate. The number of eggs and fish to be stocked and the number projected to survive to subsequent 

years are shown in Table 2.

The number of fish, particularly females, of age 3 and greater may be critical to successful reproduction. 

At Tobin Harbor, 80% of female coasters were found to be mature by age 3, while less than 20% of age 2 

or younger females were mature (Quinlan 1999). Using the predicted survival rates as a guide, the total 

number of fish projected to survive to age 3 or greater is shown at the bottom of Table 2. We 

acknowledge that these totals result in more than the 25 pair goal for this experiment. However, due to 

uncertainties in our survival estimates, straying and return rates, and lack of understanding of fish survival 

during migration, the projected number of fish was used simply as a guide to help determine a reasonable 

number of eggs and fish to stock. We also note that after 2004, the number of mature fish could be greater 

than the projected number of fish > age 3 shown in Table 2, as males may mature at younger ages.

At each eyed egg stocking site a minimum of 50 eggs will be placed in egg trays to estimate percent 

hatch. Eggs will be stocked in manually created redds in areas of suitable habitat and where brook trout 

are observed spawning. Care will be taken to avoid disruption of any redds created naturally by 

salmonines.

Advanced fry will be scatter stocked near areas of suitable spawning substrate or where brook trout are 

observed spawning. Yearlings and adults will be scatter stocked throughout the stream. Some yearlings 

and adults will be stocked in areas of suitable spawning habitat. Enclosures such as pens or temporary 

block nets will be used to retain stocked yearlings and adults in the stream for 3-7 days post stocking. The 

intent of the enclosures is to provide some degree of imprinting and reduce the likelihood of immediate 

departure from the stream.

Table 2. Stocking by year and number of fish present over time at assumed survival rates described in text 

(stocking events are shown in bold and the estimated number of fish equal to or greater than age 3 are 

shown in italics).
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

189

Lifestage 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2003

Adults 75 33 16 8

2004

Eggs 50,000 250 25 13 6 3

Yrlngs* 2,000 200 100 50 25 12

2005

Ad Fry** 20,000 2,000 200 100 50 25 12

Adults 50 25 12 6

2006

Eggs 50,000 250 25 13 6 3

Yrlngs* 2,000 200 100 50 25 12

2007

Ad Fry** 20,000 2,000 200 100 50 25

Adults 50 25 12 6

2008

Eggs 50,000 250 25 13 6

Yrlngs* 2,000 200 100 50 25

2009

Ad Fry** 20,000 2,000 200 100

Adults 50 25 12 6

> Age 3 75 33 66 133 125 262 190 287 152 162

* Yearlings will be approximately 4 inches for a spring release.

** Advanced Fry - Fish will be approximately 1.25 inches for a spring release.

Measurable Objectives

• First Generation Target (2014): Do enough stocked fish migrate and survive to maturity?

o Migration Target: If stocked fish survive in sufficient numbers to achieve 25 migratory 

spawning pair target by 2014 - Target achieved and experiment succeeds to this stage and 

continues.

o Reproduction Target: That migratory brook trout successfully recruit enough to support 

next generation targets. - Target achieved and experiment succeeds to this stage and 

continues.

o If fewer than 25 migrating spawning pairs survive to spawning age or if natural 

recruitment does not achieve self-supporting goal – Target not achieved, but assessment 

continues.

• Second Generation Target 2019: Does spawning stock generate sufficient juvenile production to 

migrate and support next generations’ recruitment?

o If spawning produces sufficient fall fingerlings that normal survival would allow 

population to survive and reach 25 spawning pair in the next generation, about 2019 –

Target achieved and experiment succeeds to this stage and continues.

o If fall fingerling population is insufficient to achieve next generation spawner target of 25 

pair – Target not achieved, but assessment continues.
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

190

• Third Generation Target 2024 to 2030: Does experiment achieve target rehabilitation goal?

o If spawning population is sustained at or near 25 pair for at least two generations beyond 

the end of stocking, about 2030 - Target achieved and experiment is a success.

o If self-sustaining spawning population stabilizes at less than 25 pair, but assessments 

indicated carrying capacity reached at lower level than target – Target not achieved but 

rehabilitation successful at lower level.

o If spawning population is not sustained at or near 25 pair for at least two generations 

beyond the end of stocking - Target not achieved.

ASSESSMENT AND HABITAT RESTORATION ACTIVITIES

Post Stocking Evaluation Period (2010 – 2030)

Assessment of stocked fish and monitoring of changes to the fish community will occur for the duration 

of the stocking period or until stocked fish are no longer encountered. All standardized index stations 

described below will be conducted for the duration of the project. These assessments will provide 

information to evaluate stocking success, the abundance of brook trout and other salmonines, population 

status, habitat use, and other life history traits of the developing migratory ‘coaster’ brook trout 

population.

Stream Electrofishing

Comprehensive Fishery Survey - In 2001, WDNR and Service staff conducted a comprehensive fishery 

survey repeating a similar survey done by WDNR in 1977. Tissue samples were collected in both 2001 

and 2002 for genetic analysis of the existing stock (lab workup has not been done yet). We propose to 

repeat the comprehensive survey between 2005 and 2009, and again 3-5 years post stocking to provide a 

comparison of the fish community pre, during, and post stocking.

Index Stations - Three stream reaches were selected as index stations to be sampled annually (midSeptember) throughout the experiment. These index stations were chosen to encompass the majority of 

the existing spawning habitat located in the watersheds transitional zone. Results of surveying these index 

stations will allow documentation of changes in brook trout recruitment success. A USFWS-DNR crew 

sampled the three index stations in 2002. These surveys will be conducted during the 2nd week of 

September.

Fall Index Station - A stream reach in the depositional zone (between STH 13 and Ondassagon Road) has 

been sampled by WDNR annually each fall, since 1971. This station will continue to be sampled annually 

throughout the experiment.

Lake Shore Electrofishing

In 2001, an index electrofishing station was established and sampled along a portion of the Chequamegon 

Bay shoreline (a 5 km section from the mouth of Whittlesey Creek north along the shoreline to Bono 

Creek). This station was selected to determine presence, abundance and habitat use by lake-dwelling 

migratory brook trout. This station was re-sampled during 2002 and will be sampled two to three times 

annually (spring and fall) throughout the experiment.

Monitoring In and Out Migration
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

191

A method to monitor in and out migration has not yet been identified. Discussion has focused on 

upstream and downstream nets such as the modified fyke nets used on the Salmon Trout River

by Michigan Technological University, or weirs and video equipment. WDNR experience with numerous 

in-stream devices (weirs and or nets and traps on the Bois Brule, Iron, Sioux, and Pikes) to monitor and 

quantify in and out migration on local streams has proven to be impractical. Devices typically become 

non-functional during flood events, the autumn leaf period and during winter conditions. Structures that 

have been tried typically block fish runs, cause fish damage or latent mortality, or due to blowout, lose the 

capability of enumerating movement numbers (major peaks in both upstream and downstream fish 

movement typically occur during the turbid water period on the declining water volume side of the flood 

event). Use of underwater cameras to enumerate movement will continue to be explored, however, 

turbidity is a concern for effective viewing with underwater cameras. In order to enumerate ascending 

runs on the Bois Brule River, salmonids are crowded within two to three inches of the fish-way window 

during turbid water conditions. Radio telemetry will be investigated for use on larger fish, generally those 

greater than one pound. A stationary data logging station set up near the mouth and active tracking by 

foot and boat would be utilized to monitor movement of fish outfitted with radio transmitters. These and 

other options will be further explored in the future.

Monitor Migratory Adult Spawning Activity

Visual counts and/or electrofishing gear will be used to monitor migratory spawning aggregations to 

verify spawning sites. Walking the stream a number of times during the spawning period can be used to 

observe large fish, indicative of the migrating life history. Electrofishing gear may be used to capture and 

tag individuals.

Monitor Fry Emergence

Upon identification of spawning locations attempts will be made to assess fry emergence success. This 

will be done during the late winter/early spring fry emergence period prior to the first significant runoff 

event, by walking the stream.

Table 3. Assessment activities related to brook trout in Whittlesey Creek.

Purpose of Survey Season Waterbody Gear

Determine presence, abundance, and habitat use Spring/Fall Lakeshore EF boat

Assess YOY and juvenile year class strength Early Fall Stream Barge/Backpack EF

Assess spawning adults and describe habitat 

used for redds

Fall Stream Visual and/or backpack

EF

Assess fry emergence Winter Stream Visual

Monitor Water Volume and Temperature

Flow and temperature data will be collected for the duration assessment period. The USGS gauging 

station will be maintained to provide data on daily mean and peak flow for the duration of the study. 

WDNR has been monitoring fall to spring water temperatures since 1994-95 at the bridge at Wickstrum 
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

192

Road and this effort will continue. At least two temperature loggers will be set in the stream in areas 

where eggs are stocked to describe winter water conditions. Two temperature loggers will also be set in 

Chequamegon Bay annually from spring through early winter. One will be set within the lakeshore 

electrofishing index station and the other near Houghton Point to describe the thermal regime in those 

areas of the bay.

Monitor Stream Channel Morphology Changes

In 1999, the Service conducted an assessment of instream and riparian habitat in Whittlesey Creek. 

Surveys were conducted on 20 stream reaches in Whittlesey Creek, Little Whittlesey Creek, and North 

Fork Whittlesey Creek. The surveys identified channel type using the Rosgen Classification system 

(including dimension, pattern and profile) and quantity and quality of habitat (woody debris, undercut 

banks, sediment, riparian condition) that contribute to spawning, nursery and refuge for salmonines. This 

baseline information (a snapshot in time of the condition of these three streams) will assist evaluation of 

future watershed and instream habitat restoration activities.

The Service will select five to ten of the sites that were sampled in 1999 to serve as reference reaches. 

Channel morphology and substrate data will be taken annually at each site after the spring snow-melt 

period and after other major (100 year) flood events to monitor changes to salmonid habitat throughout 

the experiment. Additionally, photos will be taken at each station to visually record changes in channel 

structure and instream habitat.

In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey completed field work on a hydrologic study to determine how 

changes in land cover affect surface water and base flow in Whittlesey Creek. Upon completion of the 

written report, the results and recommendations will used to evaluate future watershed, riparian, and 

instream habitat restoration efforts.

Watershed Improvements

Concurrent with fish assessments and management actions, the Service will conduct watershed and 

stream corridor restoration treatments with landowners, partner agencies and non- governmental 

organizations (e.g. Trout Unlimited). The actions will include but not be limited to conservation 

easements, land acquisition from willing sellers, educational outreach, planning, physical alterations, and 

streamside litter clean up. We anticipate the USGS hydrologic study on Whittlesey Creek will help 

identify priority actions. Initial attention will focus on the North Fork of Whittlesey Creek and 

contributing watershed. Instream habitat improvements have yet to be determined. Information gained 

from hydrologic and geomorphologic studies will be used to evaluate the suitability and location of 

instream habitat projects.

Angling Regulations

Angling regulations were changed in 2003 to provide greater protection for brook trout during this 

experiment. Stream harvest was eliminated with a ‘no kill’ regulation throughout the fishing season and 

lake harvest is limited by establishing a twenty-inch minimum size limit. These regulations are intended 

to continue for the length of the experiment.

REFERENCES

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press.
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

193

Burnham-Curtis, M.K., 2001. Genetic profiles of selected brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis populations 

from Lake Superior. Research Completion Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105.

Curry, R.A. and D.L.G. Noakes. 1995. Groundwater and the selection of spawning sites by brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis). Canadian J. of Fish and Aquatic Sci. 52: 1733-1740.

D’Amelio, S. 2002. Conservation genetics and metapopulation structure of brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) in Nipigon Bay (Lake Superior, Ontario). Master of Science Thesis. Trent University, 

Peterborough, Ontario.

Ford, J.E. 1977. Over-winter survival and habitat use of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in 

Lake Superior tributaries. Master of Science thesis. University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, 

Wisconsin.

Hnath, J. G. [ED.]. 1993. Great Lakes fish disease control policy and model program (supersedes

September 1985 edition). Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Special Publication. 93-l: l-38.

Horns, W.H., C.R. Bronte, T.R. Busiahn, M.P. Ebener, R.L. Eschenroder, T. Gorenflo, N. Kmiecik, W. 

Mattes, J.W. Peck, M. Petzold, D.R. Schreiner. 2003. Fish-community objectives for Lake Superior. 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Special Publication 03-01. 78 p.

Johannes, S.I. Sather, L.M., and Threinen, C.W. 1970. Surface-water resources of Bayfield

County. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Report.

Kondolf, M.G. and M.G. Wolman 1983. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water

Resources Research 29:7:2283.

Newman, L.E., R.B. Dubois, and T. Halpern [EDS.]. 1999. A brook trout rehabilitation plan for Lake 

Superior. Brook Trout Subcommittee report to the Lake Superior Committee. Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission. March 1999.

Newman, L.E. 2000. Movement and range of coaster brook trout of Tobin Harbor, Isle Royale. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fishery Resources Office, 2800 Lake Shore Drive, Ashland, Wisconsin, 

54806. Station report 8 p.

Peck, J. W. 2001. Population dynamics of juvenile steelhead and coho salmon in Michigan’s Lake 

Superior tributaries, 1982-97. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report 

2057, Ann Arbor.

Powers, G. 1980. The brook charr, Salvelinus fontinalis. In Charrs – Salmonid fishes of the

Genus Salvelinus. E.K. Balon [Ed.] The Hague. 141-203.

Quinlan, H.R. 2000. Biological characteristics of coaster brook trout at Isle Royale 1996-1998. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ashland Fishery Resources Office, 2800 Lake Shore Drive, Ashland, Wisconsin, 

54806. Station report 28 p.

Stauffer, T. M. 1977. Numbers of juvenile salmonids produced in five Lake Superior tributaries and the 

effect of juvenile coho salmon on their numbers and growth, 1967-74. Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Fisheries Research Report 1846, Ann Arbor.
Appendix H: Whittlesey Creek Brook Trout Experiment 

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

194

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Wisconsin Trout Streams. April 2002. WIDNR 

publication FH-806 -2002.

USGS. 1999. Whittlesey Creek stream gauge data.
Appendix I: List of Preparers

Whittlesey Creek NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan

195

Appendix I: List of Preparers

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

• Tom Kerr – Project Leader

• Mike Mlynarek – Wildlife Biologist

Ashland Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

• Mark Brouder – Project Leader

Branch of Conservation Planning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Midwest Region

• Karen Westphall – Wildlife Biologist/Planner

• Gabe DeAlessio – GIS Specialist

• Mark Hogeboom – Writer/Editor

• Mary Mitchell – GIS Specialist
(This page intentionally left blank)

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

29270 County Highway G

Ashland, WI 54806-9339

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/whittlesey_creek/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Region 3, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest