U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5156

Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses 

of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential 

Subdivision, Dane County, Wisconsin, 1999–2002

Preconstruction

Land disturbance

Home construction

In cooperation with the Dane County Land Conservation Department

and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic 

Responses of Brewery Creek to 

Construction of a Residential Subdivision, 

Dane County, Wisconsin, 1999–2002

By William R. Selbig, Peter L. Jopke, David W. Marshall, and Michael J. Sorge

Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5156

U.S. Department of the Interior

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

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Charles G. Groat, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2004

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

For more information about the USGS and its products:

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.
iii

Contents

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

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................. 2

Description of Study Area .................................................................................................................. 2

Erosion Control and Stormwater Management at the Subdivision Site ..................................... 4

Methods of Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 6

Water-Quantity, Precipitation, and Water-Quality Measurement .............................................. 6

Macroinvertebrate- and Fish-Community Assessment ................................................................ 9

Habitat Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 9

Geomorphic Assessment ................................................................................................................... 9

Hydrologic Response ................................................................................................................................ 11

Solids Load .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Runoff Volume .................................................................................................................................... 15

Stream Temperature .......................................................................................................................... 16

Ecologic Response ..................................................................................................................................... 16

Macroinvertebrate and Fish Communities .................................................................................... 16

Habitat ................................................................................................................................................ 20

Geomorphic Response ............................................................................................................................... 21

Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 23

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... 24

References ................................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix ...................................................................................................................................................... 27

A1. Preconstruction-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.. ............ 28

A2. Land-disturbance-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. .......... 30

A3. Home-construction-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ....... 32

A4. Quality-control results for water sampling at Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ......... 33
iv

Figures

 1–2. Maps showing:

 1. Location of the Brewery Creek Watershed within the Black Earth Creek 

 Watershed in Dane County, Wis. ....................................................................................... 3

 2. Location of the St. Francis residential subdivision in the Brewery Creek 

 Watershed, Dane County, Wis. .......................................................................................... 5

 3–4. Photos of:

 3. Example of erosion-control practices at the St. Francis residential 

 subdivision, Dane County, Wis. .......................................................................................... 6

 4. Example of stormwater-management practices at the St. Francis 

 residential subdivision, Dane County, Wis. ..................................................................... 6

 5. Map showing locations of habitat, biologic, and geomorphic data acquisition 

on Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ..................................................................................... 7

 6. Graph showing discrete samples collected during a single storm event on Brewery 

Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. Note how samples change in color (change in sediment 

concentration) with respect to the rising and receding limb of the hydrograph. ............. 8

 7. Map showing locations of macroinvertebrate surveys on Brewery Creek, 

Cross Plains, Wis. ...................................................................................................................... 10

 8–9. Photos of:

 8. Example of permanent monument used in geomorphic assessment to 

 mark cross sections along Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. .................................. 11

 9. Measuring a streambed rock along the intermediate axis as part of a 

 Wolman Pebble Count in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ..................................... 11

 10–15. Graphs showing:

 10. Median value of difference between downstream and upstream total 

 solids and total suspended solids load in Brewery Creek during each phase 

 of construction activity at the St. Francis residential subdivision, Cross 

 Plains, Wis. ......................................................................................................................... 15

 11. Median value of difference between downstream and upstream event 

 volume in Brewery Creek during each phase of construction activity at 

 the St. Francis residential subdivision, Cross Plains, Wis. .......................................... 16

 12. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores at two locations on Brewery Creek, Cross 

 Plains, Wis. .......................................................................................................................... 18

 13. Results of fish-shocking surveys and subsequent Index of Biotic Integrity 

 in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. (1999–2003) ........................................................ 18

 14. Number of brown trout measured during fish-shocking surveys in Brewery 

 Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. (1999–2003). ............................................................................ 19

 15. Trend in Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores in Brewery Creek at Highway 14, 

 Cross Plains, Wis. (1985–2002) ......................................................................................... 20

 16–17. Photos of:

 16. Culverts placed in Brewery Creek for road crossing, Cross Plains, Wis. ................. 22

 17. Example of gravitational streambank erosion in Brewery Creek, Cross 

 Plains, Wis. .......................................................................................................................... 22

 18. Graph showing results of Wolman Pebble Count at cross section 13 in Brewery 

 Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. (2001–2003). ............................................................................ 22

 
v

Tables

 1. Description of runoff events at the upstream water-quality sampling station 

in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ..................................................................................... 12

 2. Description of runoff events at the downstream water-quality sampling station 

in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ..................................................................................... 13

 3. Statistics for measured storm events at the upstream and downstream waterquality gages, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. ............................................................... 14

 4. Event mean temperature of Brewery Creek at the upstream and downstream 

monitoring stations during three phases of construction, Cross Plains, Wis. ................ 17

 5. Physical habitat data for Brewery Creek, St. Francis residential subdivision, 

Cross Plains, Wis. ...................................................................................................................... 21

 6. Depth of fines data analysis for Brewery Creek, St. Francis residential 

subdivision, Cross Plains, Wis. ................................................................................................ 21
vi

Conversion Factors and Abbreviated Water-Quality Units

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in) 2.54 centimeter (cm)

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m)

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km)

Area

acre 4,047 square meter (m2

)

acre .4047 hectare (ha)

acre .004047 square kilometer (km2

) 

square ft (ft2) .09290 square meter (m2)

square mile (mi2

) 259.0 hectare (ha)

square mile (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometer (km2) 

Volume

gallon (gal) 3.785 liter (L) 

cubic foot (ft3

) .02832 cubic meter (m3) 

acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3

)

Flow rate

cubic foot per second (ft3

/s) .02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)

gallon per minute (gal/min) .06309 liter per second (L/s)

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

Mass

pound, avoirdupois (lb) .4536 kilogram (kg) 

ton, short (2,000 lb) .9072 megagram (Mg)

foot squared per day (ft2

/d) .09290 meter squared per day (m2/d)

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

 °F=(1.8×°C)+32

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

 °C=(°F-32)/1.8

Concentrations of chemical constituents in water are given either in milligrams per liter (mg/L) 

or micrograms per liter (μg/L).
Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Dane County Land Conservation Department (LCD) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR), investigated the instream effects from 

construction of a residential subdivision on Brewery Creek 

in Dane County, Wisconsin. The purpose of the investigation was to determine whether a variety of storm-runoff 

and erosion-control best-management practices (BMPs) 

would effectively control the overall sediment load, as well 

as minimize any hydrologic, ecologic, and geomorphic 

stresses to Brewery Creek.

Stormwater volumes decreased 60 percent from the 

preconstruction phase to the land-disturbance phase and 

slightly increased (9 percent) from the land-disturbance 

phase to the home-construction phase. The stormwater 

volumes were applied to total solids and total suspended 

solids concentrations to compute a solids load for each 

contaminant. Total and suspended solids load indicated 

a similar trend from preconstruction to land-disturbance 

phases with decreases of 52 and 72 percent, respectively. 

Both total and suspended solids load continued to decrease 

in the transition from land-disturbance to home-construction phases, by 22 and 37 percent, respectively. However, 

because of variability in the data, statistically there was 

no change in the magnitude of difference between the 

upstream and downstream solids load from one phase of 

construction to the next at the 90-percent confidence level. 

Other physical, biological, and ecological surveys 

including macroinvertebrates, fish, habitat, and geomorphology were done on segments of Brewery Creek affected 

by the study area. Macroinvertebrate sampling results 

(Hilsenhoff Biotic Index value, or HBI), on Brewery Creek 

ranged from “very good” to “good” water-quality with 

no appreciable differences during any phase of construction activity. Results for fish-community composition, 

however, were within the “poor” range (Index of Biotic 

Integrity value, or IBI) during each year of testing. A 

general absence of intolerant species, with the exception of 

brown trout, reflects the low IBI values. Habitat values did 

not change significantly from preconstruction to postconstruction phases. Although installation of a double-celled 

culvert in Brewery Creek most likely altered the width-todepth ratio in that reach, the overall habitat rating remained 

“fair”. Fluvial geomorphology classifications including 

channel cross sections, bed- and bank-erosion surveys, 

and pebble counts did not indicate that stream geomorphic 

characteristics were altered by home-construction activity in the study area. Increases in fine-grained sediment at 

various cross sections were attributed to instream erosion 

processes, such as bank slumping, rather than increases in 

sediment delivery from the nearby construction site.

Introduction

Controlling nonpoint sources of water contamination 

has been a major focus of the regulatory community in 

recent years. Because of the past and current successes in 

controlling contamination from point sources, contamination from nonpoint sources (including sediment deposition, 

erosion, contaminated runoff, hydrologic modifications 

that degrade water quality, and other diffuse sources of 

contaminants) is now the largest cause of water-quality 

impairment in the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). 

Conversion of rural and agricultural lands to developed urban areas is a leading contributor of nonpointsource pollution. Urban development generates numerous 

contaminants that are associated with the activities of 

Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses 

of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential 

Subdivision, Dane County, Wisconsin, 1999–2002

By William R. Selbig, Peter L. Jopke1, David W. Marshall2, and Michael J. Sorge2

1

 Dane County Land Conservation Department, Madison, Wisconsin

2

 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin
dense populations. Urban development also increases the 

amount of impervious surface in a watershed as farmland, 

forests, and meadowlands with generally high infiltration 

characteristics are converted into buildings with rooftops, 

driveways, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots with virtually no capacity to absorb stormwater. When stormwater 

and snowmelt runoff wash over these impervious areas, the 

runoff picks up contaminants along the way while gaining 

speed and volume, because it does not have the capacity to 

disperse and filter into the ground. The results are stormwater flows that are higher in volume, contaminant load, 

and temperature than the flows in less developed areas, 

which generally have more natural vegetation and soil to 

filter the runoff (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1997).

Although water quality across the country has 

improved since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, 

various challenges still remain. In 2000, water-quality 

assessments conducted by States indicated that 39 percent 

of assessed stream miles, 45 percent of assessed acres of 

lakes, and 51 percent of assessed estuary areas failed to 

meet criteria for one or more designated uses. The top 

causes of impairment in assessed stream miles were siltation, nutrients, bacteria, metals (primarily mercury), and 

oxygen-depleting substances. Pollution from urban and 

agricultural land that is transported by precipitation and 

runoff was found to be the leading source of impairment 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Dane County Land Conservation Department (LCD) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR), investigated the instream water-quality effects from construction of a residential subdivision 

on Brewery Creek, Dane County, Wis. The purpose of the 

investigation was to determine whether storm-runoff and 

erosion-control best-management practices (BMPs) would 

effectively control the overall sediment load, as well as 

minimize any physical, biological, and ecological stresses 

to Brewery Creek. 

Few previous studies have assessed the capacity of 

erosion and sediment controls and stormwater-management practices to prevent degradation of receiving waters 

in urbanizing areas. Even fewer studies have been multiparameter investigations, integrating water-quality observations with evaluations of stream physical habitat and 

biological quality. This investigation paired water-quality 

analyses with physical habitat, stream geomorphology, 

and biological indices to evaluate the capacity of selected 

management techniques to prevent degradation of a receiving stream.

This study has relevance at both national and local 

levels. At the national level, the investigation could provide necessary background data on water-quality impairments related to construction-site runoff. This, in turn, 

would help facilitate the implementation of Phase II of the 

USEPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) standard for pollution control on construction sites of less than 5 acres. At the local level, county 

officials are mandating construction-site erosion-control 

standards throughout Dane County. The objective of this 

investigation was to provide evidence of the effects that 

construction has on hydrology, ecology, and morphology 

of receiving waters.

Purpose and Scope

This report describes the methods used in and the 

results from the Brewery Creek study. An upstream-downstream (above-and-below) experimental design was used 

to isolate the pollutant loads coming from the construction site. Automated, intensive stream-water sampling 

took place during storm-runoff periods in three different 

phases on the project: preconstruction (October 1999 to 

April 2001), land disturbance (May 2001 to March 2002), 

and home construction (April 2002 to September 2002). 

Concentrations of total solids and total suspended solids in 

stream-water samples were used to compute storm loads 

for each contaminant contributed to Brewery Creek during 

each phase. In addition to water quality and quantity, other 

physical and biological data were analyzed to determine 

the effectiveness of storm-runoff and erosion controls in 

protecting the integrity of Brewery Creek. Geomorphology 

classifications, including bed- and bank-material characterizations, were done at intervals throughout the study 

period. Stream temperatures were recorded at 15-minute 

intervals during each phase of the project. Annual fish 

surveys were done to determine species composition and 

density. Finally, macroinvertebrate and habitat data were 

collected at various intervals to assess the overall health of 

the stream. 

Description of Study Area

Brewery Creek is in the Black Earth Creek watershed, 

in northwestern Dane County (fig. 1). The drainage area of 

10.5 mi2 at the downstream end of the study area includes 

2.8 mi2 of noncontributing area. The stream is 6.1 mi long 

from the downstream station to the stream headwaters; 

0.5 mi is within the study area. The stream has been 

2 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
#ROSS0LAINS

"LACK%ARTH

g

g

g

g

g

g

  +),/-%4%23

  -),%3

"ASEFROM53'EOLOGICAL3URVEY

$ANE#OUNTYBASEMAP

7)3#/.3). ) 3 # / . 3 ) .

7ATERSHEDLOCATIONIN$ANE#OUNTY

%80,!.!4)/.

"LACK%ARTH#REEK7ATERSHED

"REWERY#REEK7ATERSHED

Figure 1. Location of the Brewery Creek Watershed within the Black Earth Creek Watershed in Dane County, Wis. 

Introduction 3
channelized in places, with the upper reaches of the stream 

last being dredged in 1976. The stream bed material is 

mostly soft silt and clay. Brewery Creek flows through 

outwash and alluvium composed of sandstone with some 

shale; most of the bedrock in the watershed is dolomite 

(Graczyk and others, 2003). The soils of Brewery Creek 

Watershed are predominantly silt loams that are poorly 

drained in valley bottoms and highly erodible in the 

uplands (Glocker and Patzer, 1978). Brewery Creek is a 

warm-water stream that maintains a forage fish population (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1989). 

Although classified as a warm-water stream, the stream 

does support cold-water species and is a candidate to be 

reclassified as a cold-water stream by the WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1989). The largest 

land-use categories in the Brewery Creek Watershed are 

agriculture, at 57 percent, and woodland, at 22 percent 

(Graczyk and others, 2003).

The St. Francis residential subdivision includes 

single-family lot development over approximately 72 

acres. It lies in the southernmost part of the Brewery Creek 

Watershed and represents approximately 4 percent of the 

basin area (fig. 2). The area had previously been used for 

corn and soybean production. An established vegetated 

stream buffer varies from 30 to 100 ft in width on either 

side of the stream.

Erosion Control and Stormwater 

Management at the Subdivision Site

Since August 22, 2002, all municipalities in Dane 

County, Wisconsin have been required to meet the 

requirements of the Dane County Erosion Control and 

Stormwater Management Ordinance. In Dane County, all 

developments disturbing more than 4,000 ft2

 are required 

to implement an erosion-control plan. Stormwater-management plans are required when 20,000 ft2

 or more of 

impervious surface is created. (Chapter 14, Dane County 

Code of Ordinances). During the general permitting of 

the St. Francis subdivision, these regulations were not 

applicable because the permit was issued in April 2001. 

However, the developer agreed to design and implement 

an erosion-control and stormwater-management plan that 

would meet or exceed requirements in the proposed Dane 

County Ordinance. 

The St. Francis subdivision employed a variety 

of BMPs constructed for erosion control and stormwater management. The erosion-control practices were 

designed to meet the maximum allowable cumulative 

soil loss of 7.5 ton/acre/yr. Practices included installing 

silt fence reinforced with straw bales, maintaining vegetative buffers (fig. 3), sequencing construction, deep tilling 

to minimize compaction, temporary seeding of soil stockpiles, protecting inlets, emplacing stone tracking pads, and 

building temporary earthen berms. 

Stormwater-management practices were designed 

and implemented in accordance with the water-quality and 

-quantity standards under development in the Dane County 

Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Ordinance. 

The applicable standards included the following: 

• Maintaining the predevelopment peak-runoff rates 

for the 2-year and 10-year, 24-hour storms, and 

safely passing the 100-year flood. 

• Discharging to a stable outlet carrying the designed 

flows at a nonerosive velocity.

• Retaining all soil particles greater than 5 microns.

• Directing runoff from downspouts, driveways, and 

other impervious areas to pervious areas.

• Including provisions and practices to reduce the 

temperature of runoff to the receiving waters.

Stormwater-management practices included grassed 

swales and boulevards for infiltration and storage of 

runoff, reduced street widths to minimize impervious 

cover, protection of present woodlands, two detention 

and infiltration basins with stone cribs for thermal protection, maintenance of stream buffers, and use of available 

parkland and open space for runoff storage and infiltration. 

Figure 4 highlights some of the BMPs used in the development of the study area.

The site was designed to maximize infiltration of 

runoff on the basis of predevelopment soil and permeability rates. Surface runoff is diverted from impervious 

surfaces to one or more BMPs for temporary storage and 

infiltration. Runoff first enters grassed swales in the street 

medians (fig. 4). The swales were designed to infiltrate 

stormwater over a period of 24 hours. During periods of 

intense runoff, excess water in the swale enters a conveyance system that directs runoff to a larger infiltration basin, 

where it is temporarily stored and allowed to infiltrate. 

Each system is designed to reduce water quantity and 

improve water quality before runoff enters Brewery Creek. 

Vegetated buffers were left intact during site grading 

and plot construction to provide additional water-quality 

benefit.

4 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
"REWERY#REEK

"REWERY#REEK

7ATERSHED

%80,!.!4)/.

3TREETORPATH

)NFILTRATIONAREA

,OTSANDLAWNS

0ARKINGAREA

0LAYGROUND

3TREAM

7ATERSHEDBOUNDARY

-ONITORINGSTATION

  &%%4

  -%4%23

.

Figure 2. Location of the St. Francis residential subdivision in the Brewery Creek Watershed, Dane County, Wis.

Introduction 5
Methods of Data Collection

Data collection in the study area involved water-quantity and sediment measurement at two monitoring stations 

and habitat, biologic, and geomorphic data near each station. Locations of the data-collection stations are shown in 

figure 5.

Water-Quantity, Precipitation, and WaterQuality Measurement 

A stream-monitoring station had been established at 

the downstream site in 1984 and was active from 1984 to 

1986; 1989 to 1998, and May 1999 to September 2002. 

The upstream monitoring station was established in 

October 1999. The location of each station in relation to 

the study area is shown in figure 5. Although the upstream 

station appears to be near the center of the study area, all 

construction activity was confined to the area between 

the upstream and downstream stations for the duration of 

the study. Future development has been planned beyond 

the upstream station. Each station continuously measured 

stream levels and water temperature, and event-based 

water samples also were collected. Water-level measurements were recorded in 15-minute increments during 

periods of base flow and 5-minute increments during storm 

events. 

A storm event was defined as a period of precipitation 

bracketed by 6 hours or more of no precipitation. In some 

cases, storm events were defined as a period of precipitation bracketed by 12 hours or more of no precipitation; 

these events typically were the result of stormwater runoff 

continuing beyond a 6-hour period of no precipitation, 

followed by a second burst of rainfall causing additional 

runoff. 

Water Quantity. Changes in stream levels were 

measured with a bubble-gage system and pressure transducer. Stream levels were then converted to a discharge 

rate by use of a field-verified rating table. A V-notch weir 

was added to the upstream station to gain added sensitivity 

of measured discharge for small fluctuations in water level, 

whereas the downstream channel cross section provided 

sufficient accuracy. 

Precipitation. Precipitation was measured at the 

downstream station with a tipping-bucket raingage. 

Because of the close proximity to the upstream station, 

all precipitation data were collected at a single station. 

Precipitation depths, intensities, and erosivity indices were 

computed for all storm events except snowmelt. See tables 

A1 through A3 in the appendix for precipitation data. 

Intensities are reported in 5-, 10-, 15-, 30-, and 60-minute 

increments. 

Water Quality. Stream temperature was measured 

with a Teflon-shielded thermocouple at a single point in 

the water column at each stream-monitoring station. 

Automated water samplers at each station collected 

samples for water-quality analyses. Sample collection was 

activated by a rise in stream level during a storm event. 

Once a stream-level threshold was exceeded, typically 

a rise of 0.10 ft above base-flow level, the volume of 

water passing the station was measured and accumulated 

at 1-minute increments until a volumetric threshold was 

reached. At that point, the sampler collected a discrete 

water sample and the volumetric counter was reset. The 

process was repeated until the stream level receded below 

the threshold. 

"UFFER 3ILTFENCEREINFORCEDWITH 3ILTFENCEREINFORCEDWITH

STRAWBALESSEEDMULCH STRAWBALESSEEDMULCH

3ILTFENCEREINFORCEDWITH

STRAWBALESSEEDMULCH

Figure 3. Example of erosion-control practices at the St. 

Francis residential subdivision, Dane County, Wis. (View looking upstream).

2EDUCEDSTREETWIDTH 2EDUCEDSTREETWIDTH EDUCEDSTREETWIDTH

)NFILTRATIONBOULEVARD )NFILTRATIONBOULEVARD NFILTRATIONBOULEVARD

Figure 4. Example of stormwater-management practices at 

the St. Francis residential subdivision, Dane County, Wis. 

6 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
  &%%4

  -%4%23

-ACROINVERTEBRATESURVEY

0EBBLECOUNT

0EBBLECOUNT

0EBBLECOUNT

0EBBLECOUNT

0EBBLECOUNT

0EBBLECOUNT

6
NOTCHWEIR

#ROSS
SECTION

-ONITORINGSTATION

(ABITATSURVEYS

&ISHSURVEYS

#ONSTRUCTIONSITE

BOUNDARY



























%80,!.!4)/.

3ITELOCATIONANDDESCRIPTION







"REWERY2OAD "REWERY2OAD "REWERY2OAD

Figure 5. Locations of habitat, biologic, and geomorphic data acquisition on Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

Methods of Data Collection 7
These flow-weighted samples were collected and 

composited into a single water sample, then split and processed for analysis. A Teflon-coated, stainless-steel churn 

splitter was used to composite and split samples. Processed 

samples were placed on ice and taken to the Wisconsin 

State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH) within 48 hours 

after runoff cessation for determination of concentrations of total and suspended solids. Because each discrete 

sample was composited into a single event sample, the 

resulting concentration represents the event mean concentration (EMC). In some cases, individual discrete samples 

were submitted to the laboratory to gain a better understanding of concentration variations during a storm event. 

Figure 6 illustrates how discrete samples were acquired 

over a single storm event.

Solids loads were computed by multiplying the EMC 

by the total volume of the storm event and a constant for 

unit conversion. For those events in which discrete-sample 

concentrations were used rather than an EMC, continuous streamflow and instantaneous concentration data were 

used to estimate loads of total and suspended solids. In 

this case, loads were computed by summing the product of 

streamwater-sample concentration and streamflow rate for 

that storm-runoff period (Porterfield, 1972). 

To ensure sample integrity, field and sample-processing equipment blanks were collected at the upstream 

and downstream stations. Blank samples were obtained 

by drawing deionized water through the suction line and 

sampler into a collection bottle. The Teflon sample line 

and automatic sampler were not cleaned before obtaining 

blank samples. Blank water collected in the sample bottle 

was then run through the Teflon-lined churn splitter into 

laboratory-prepared sample bottles. Samples were placed 

on ice and delivered to the WSLH for analysis. Deionized 

blank water was also used to isolate individual elements 

of the sampling process from source to delivery. These 

samples were not delivered to the WSLH unless erroneous 

concentrations were found in the original blank sample. 

Blank-sample results are detailed in table A4 in the appendix. A significant concentration of total and suspended 

solids was detected in the upstream blank sample collected in August 1999. This blank sample may have been 

compromised by stream water entering the sample tubing 

while the blank sample was being acquired. An additional 

blank sample was acquired as an added quality measure. 

The results of that sample fell within acceptable limits. 

Sample-collection bottles were cleaned with a nonphosphate detergent, tapwater rinse, and hydrochloric acid 

rinse and then were air-dried. Clean bottles replaced soiled 







































$!4%4)-%

$)3#(!2'%).#5")#&%%40%23%#/.$

$ISCHARGE

$ISCRETESAMPLE

Figure 6. Discrete samples collected during a single storm event on Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. Note how samples 

change in color (change in sediment concentration) with respect to the rising and receding limb of the hydrograph.

8 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
bottles upon collection of the samples and remained in 

the sampler housing until the next runoff event. A Teflonlined churn splitter was rinsed with deionized water before 

sample processing. 

Replicate samples were submitted to verify reproducibility with automatically collected samples. Replicate 

samples were checked for precision on the basis of a 

relative percent difference (RPD). Manual samples were 

collected periodically to verify reproducibility with corresponding stream equal-width-increment (EWI) samples 

(Ward and Harr, 1990). Manual samples were also checked 

for precision on the basis of a relative percent difference. 

Total and suspended solids RPD values fell below the 

20-percent-precision criteria for both upstream and downstream replicate samples. However, RPD values exceeded 

the 20-percent criteria on suspended solids at the upstream 

station and downstream station in August 2002. Replicate 

and manual sample results are listed in table A4 in the 

appendix.

Macroinvertebrate- and Fish-Community 

Assessment

Macroinvertebrate communities were sampled in the 

spring and (or) fall beginning in October 1999. A D-frame 

net was used to sample riffle habitats in Brewery Creek at 

Brewery Road (fig. 5). An additional site located on Brewery Creek at Highway 14 (fig. 7) was also sampled because 

of its extensive historical macroinvertebrate data record for 

comparison. Samples were submitted to the Biomonitoring 

Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point 

for processing and identification. The semi-quantitative 

methodology used in the study for sampling and biotic 

index calculation was the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, or HBI 

(Hilsenhoff, 1987), which is based on sensitivity of various 

aquatic insects and crustaceans to organic contamination. 

The HBI water-quality scale ranges from 0 to 10, with 0 

indicating best possible water quality and 10 the worst.

Fish communities were sampled at least once per year 

beginning in October 1999. A towed barge with two electrodes was used to sample 160 m of stream above Brewery 

Road (fig. 5). The sampling methodology and Coldwater Index of Biotic Integrity, or IBI, calculation used for 

assessing the environmental health of trout streams was 

developed by Lyons and others (1996). The Coldwater IBI 

is based on variable tolerances of different fish species to 

environmental degradation. Scores range from 0 (worst) to 

100 (best). The presence of numerous trout, intolerant species, and numerous species adapted to cold temperatures 

score the highest and indicate favorable stream conditions.

Habitat Assessment

Physical characteristics of the stream at both sites 

were measured to document present conditions. Measurements included stream width, stream depth, depth of fines, 

bank erosion, substrate type and amount, and cover for 

fish; all were recorded at 48 transects at each “habitat station” (H1 and H2), a stream reach whose length is 36 times 

the mean stream width (fig. 5).

Surveys also were done during summer 2003 to determine whether construction had an effect on fish habitat. 

The surveys followed methods outlined in “Guidelines For 

Evaluating Fish Habitat in Wisconsin Streams,” (Simonson 

and others, 1994). Qualitative ratings have been established to characterize the physical habitat available for fish. 

The habitat scores range from 0 to 100, with 0 indicating 

the worst habitat for fish and 100 being optimal.

Geomorphic Assessment

The segment of Brewery Creek investigated for this 

study included both straightened channel and natural 

channel (pools, riffles, and runs). The upper reaches of the 

creek have been hydraulically manipulated by past dredging for agricultural purposes.

Various methods were used to determine physical 

stream characteristics and any subsequent changes resulting from construction activity. Stream classifications, 

channel cross sections, pebble counts, and bed- and bankerosion surveys were done according to methods outlined 

in “Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide 

to Field Technique” (Harrelson and others, 1994). Stream 

classifications were done in 2001 and 2003, whereas channel cross sections and bed- and bank-erosion surveys were 

completed during 2001 to 2003.

Fourteen cross sections were established with permanent monuments placed in representative locations (fig. 5). 

Monuments consisted of 4-ft sections of rebar anchored 

into the ground with 4-in diameter pvc tubes filled with 

concrete (fig. 8). Annual surveys were conducted by use of 

a surveyor’s level. Survey points included monuments, top 

of bank, bankfull, bank pins, and water levels. 

Bank Pins. Bank pins consisting of 4-ft sections of 

3/8-in. rebar were inserted horizontally into the streambank at most permanent cross sections at or slightly above 

bankfull in fall 2001. Bank pins were set flush with the 

bank and were intended to measure subtle changes in 

erosion and deposition to the banks. Measurements of the 

amount of material either deposited or the amounts of the 

bank pin exposed (erosion), in millimeters were made in 

Methods of Data Collection 9
.

#ONSTRUCTIONSITE

"OUNDARY

"REWERY2OAD

53(IGHWAY



 

%80,!.!4)/.

3ITELOCATIONANDDESCRIPTION

 "LACK%ARTH#REEK "LACK%ARTH#REEK "LACK%ARTH#REEK

"REWERY#REEK"REWERY#REEK"REWERY#REEK

6ILLAGEOF#ROSS0LAINE 6ILLAGEOF#ROSS0LAINS ILLAGEOF#ROSS0LAINE



  &%%4

  -%4%23

Figure 7. Locations of macroinvertebrate surveys on Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

10 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
September 2002 and October 2003 and noted differences 

as either deposition or erosion. If possible, pins were reset 

to “0” or flush with the bank. Because of severe slumping, 

this was not possible in most locations. Data were recorded 

and used for comparison at all cross sections where bank 

pins were installed.

Stream Classification. Two segments of Brewery 

Creek were classified using Rosgen’s Stream Classification System (Rosgen, 1996). Cross-sections 1 (the furthest 

upstream site in the channelized reach) and 9 (meandering reach) were classified in October 2001 and repeated 

in October 2003 to compare different reaches of stream. 

Stream variables used in the classification procedure 

include slope, sinuosity, width/depth ratio, entrenchment 

ratio, and dominant bed material.

Wolman Pebble Count. The Wolman Pebble Count 

Procedure was used to characterize the composition of the 

streambed at seven locations. Pebble counts were done 

in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Selected reaches were sampled 

(step-toe procedure) from bankfull to bankfull in a random 

fashion. A minimum of 100 samples were recorded per 

location. Particles were tallied according to the Wentworth 

size classes. Particles larger than sand (greater than 2 mm) 

were measured along the intermediate axis (fig. 9) and 

recorded under the appropriate size class. Data were plotted annually by size class and frequency.

Hydrologic Response 

Data on runoff volume, solids load, and EMC for 

each storm event are listed in tables 1 and 2; a statistical summary of runoff volume and solids results for each 

phase of the study is given in table 3. Temperature data are 

listed in table 4.

Large differences in rainfall patterns between each 

phase could potentially bias the results of data analyses. 

To determine whether each construction phase differed 

with respect to rainfall depth and intensity (in the form 

of an erosivity index), the Kruskal-Wallis test was used. 

Precipitation depth and intensities indicated a nonnormal 

distribution. The Kruskal-Wallis test checks for a difference between the medians of independent samples for 

nonnormal datasets. No significant differences between the 

preconstruction and land-disturbance phases were detected 

at the 90-percent confidence level. Similarly, no significant 

differences were detected between the land-disturbance 

and home-construction phases. Therefore, any differences 

between the downstream and upstream stations between 

study phases are not likely because of differences in rainfall patterns.

On the whole, the downstream-upstream experimental 

design worked well at documenting the effects of the BMP 

systems from preconstruction through the home-construction phases. This design could continue to have merit in 

documenting further changes in water volume, solids load, 

and stream temperature after the residential development is 

completely built out.

Solids Load

Critical to obtaining useful conclusions for this study 

was the ability to document that downstream loads were 

significantly greater than upstream loads before any BMPs 

Figure 8. Example of permanent monument used in geomorphic assessment to mark cross sections along Brewery Creek, 

Cross Plains, Wis.

Figure 9. Measuring a streambed rock along the intermediate axis as part of a Wolman Pebble Count in Brewery Creek, 

Cross Plains, Wis.

Hydrologic Response 11
Table 1. Description of runoff events at the upstream water-quality sampling station in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

[** - Discrete samples only; mg/L, milligrams per liter]

Brewery Creek upstream

Sampled runoff event Storm information Average solids loads Event mean concentration (EMC)

Start date Construction phase Precip. depth 

(inches)

Runoff volume 

(cubic feet)

Total solids 

(tons)

Suspended 

solids (tons)

Total solids 

(mg/L)

Suspended 

solids (mg/L)

02/22/00 Preconstruction snowmelt 3,574,500 72.5 36.9 650** 331**

04/19/00 Preconstruction 2.13 1,531,300 27.5 6.6 576** 138**

05/17/00 Preconstruction 5.04 6,116,800 307.4 263.5 1,610 1,380

05/30/00 Preconstruction 5.07 17,508,000 1,032.9 890.8 1,890 1,630

06/04/00 Preconstruction .88 807,500 13.8 3.9 548 156

06/13/00 Preconstruction 2.70 4,491,300 171.0 136.0 1,220 970

07/02/00 Preconstruction .99 661,900 19.8 13.7 960 664

07/10/00 Preconstruction .73 322,200 4.4 .8 438 75

08/05/00 Preconstruction 1.81 422,100 5.8 .7 438 56

08/17/00 Preconstruction .96 268,900 4.2 .2 496 17.5

09/11/00 Preconstruction 1.08 625,000 9.4 1.1 484 54

09/22/00 Preconstruction .64 507,900 7.9 .6 496 35

04/11/01 Preconstruction .73 392,100 7.5 2.9 546 136

05/10/01 Land-disturbance .75 152,900 2.5 .7 596 157

05/21/01 Land-disturbance 2.02 1,334,800 29.2 14.8 662 298

05/23/01 Land-disturbance .54 368,100 6.2 .9 518 68

06/05/01 Land-disturbance .73 268,700 4.6 1.4 534 101

06/11/01 Land-disturbance 2.07 1,937,800 57.1 38.7 944 640

08/01/01 Land-disturbance 9.56 22,855,400 694.4 570.2 974** 800**

08/22/01 Land-disturbance .20 119,300 1.9 .1 502 36

08/25/01 Land-disturbance 1.31 365,400 5.5 .9 494 57

09/17/01 Land-disturbance .57 321,800 5.2 .5 522 48

09/19/01 Land-disturbance 1.06 662,900 10.0 3.1 498 114

09/23/01 Land-disturbance 1.73 1,424,500 27.0 15.5 584 262

10/22/01 Land-disturbance 1.17 462,700 7.6 1.7 520 90

11/24/01 Land-disturbance .82 342,000 6.7 1.9 574 119

12/12/01 Land-disturbance .58 291,900 5.9 1.9 586 141

02/18/02 Land-disturbance 1.68 1,878,600 37.0 14.3 600 199

03/08/02 Land-disturbance .45 1,066,200 20.2 7.5 592 206

04/07/02 Home-construction 1.35 1,057,500 18.4 5.1 558 154

04/18/02 Home-construction .66 220,400 4.1 1.1 602 153

04/24/02 Home-construction .39 177,300 2.9 .6 530 103

04/27/02 Home-construction .70 556,900 9.3 1.3 534 74

05/01/02 Home-construction .56 271,600 4.5 .8 526 92

05/09/02 Home-construction .78 461,800 11.5 6.4 796 442

05/11/02 Home-construction .83 637,600 14.6 7.8 696 337

05/28/02 Home-construction .30 134,000 2.2 .3 522 75

06/03/02 Home-construction .24 517,400 23.1 18.7 1,430 1,160

06/04/02 Home-construction .36 1,206,600 22.6 8.6 600 228

07/22/02 Home-construction 1.16 251,000 3.90 .4 498 47

08/11/02 Home-construction 1.74 431,300 6.1 1.5 460 94

08/21/02 Home-construction .93 479,700 7.7 .6 516 38

09/02/02 Home-construction 1.05 312,400 5.3 .7 540 67

12 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
Table 2. Description of runoff events at the downstream water-quality sampling station in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

[** - Discrete samples only; mg/L, milligrams per liter] 

Brewery Creek downstream

Sampled runoff event Storm information Average solids loads Event mean concentration (EMC)

Start date Construction phase Precip. depth 

(inches)

Runoff volume 

(cubic feet)

Total solids 

(tons)

Suspended 

solids (tons)

Total solids 

(mg/L)

Suspended 

solids (mg/L)

02/22/00 Preconstruction snowmelt 3,862,800 87.0 50.5 722** 419**

04/19/00 Preconstruction 2.13 1,755,700 32.1 8.6 586** 157**

05/17/00 Preconstruction 5.04 7,077,700 291.6 229.8 1,320 1,040

05/30/00 Preconstruction 5.07 18,098,100 1,050.8 909.5 1,860 1,610

06/04/00 Preconstruction .88 908,000 13.0 1.4 458 48

06/13/00 Preconstruction 2.70 4,838,800 179.7 149.5 1,190 990

07/02/00 Preconstruction .99 662,600 20.7 15.2 1,000 736

07/10/00 Preconstruction .73 343,200 5.1 .7 476 62

08/05/00 Preconstruction 1.81 521,300 8.0 2.1 490 130

08/17/00 Preconstruction .96 308,800 4.7 .2 486 24

09/11/00 Preconstruction 1.08 766,900 11.9 2.0 498 82

09/22/00 Preconstruction .64 580,600 9.2 .8 506 42

04/11/01 Preconstruction .73 451,000 9.4 4.0 614 218

05/10/01 Land-disturbance .75 150,400 1.9 .6 624 205

05/21/01 Land-disturbance 2.02 1,383,500 37.3 22.5 864 522

05/23/01 Land-disturbance .54 415,800 6.6 1.1 512 84

06/05/01 Land-disturbance .73 329,100 6.1 1.8 566 124

06/11/01 Land-disturbance 2.07 2,104,700 96.6 80.8 1,470 1,230

08/01/01 Land-disturbance 9.56 24,816,900 930.2 802.0 1,202** 1,036**

08/22/01 Land-disturbance .20 147,300 1.8 .2 488 49

08/25/01 Land-disturbance 1.31 352,700 5.8 1.4 518 94

09/17/01 Land-disturbance .57 342,400 5.7 .5 534 49

09/19/01 Land-disturbance 1.06 696,400 11.4 2.8 522 117

09/23/01 Land-disturbance 1.73 1,535,200 33.7 20.3 654 325

10/22/01 Land-disturbance 1.17 558,200 9.5 2.8 526 110

11/24/01 Land-disturbance .82 341,600 6.4 1.7 576 136

12/12/01 Land-disturbance .58 273,300 4.9 1.3 536 102

02/18/02 Land-disturbance 1.68 1,943,400 40.8 17.5 632 234

03/08/02 Land-disturbance .45 1,070,500 19.9 6.8 582 188

04/07/02 Home-construction 1.35 1,096,300 18.3 4.2 536 123

04/18/02 Home-construction .66 240,300 4.2 1.1 562 144

04/24/02 Home-construction .39 189,200 3.0 .5 506 79

04/27/02 Home-construction .70 568,300 8.8 1.0 496 57

05/01/02 Home-construction .56 292,800 4.4 .6 484 70

05/09/02 Home-construction .78 511,800 11.7 6.5 734 409

05/11/02 Home-construction .83 727,500 16.7 8.9 688 332

05/28/02 Home-construction .30 152,700 2.4 .4 512 76

06/03/02 Home-construction .24 571,800 24.5 20.2 1,370 1,130

06/04/02 Home-construction .36 1,398,600 25.9 11.0 594 251

07/22/02 Home-construction 1.16 281,800 4.4 .8 498 96

08/11/02 Home-construction 1.74 525,500 7.3 2.6 452 127

08/21/02 Home-construction .93 558,000 8.6 .7 494 42

09/02/02 Home-construction 1.05 380,000 5.9 .7 490 50

Hydrologic Response 13
were in place. Results from the Wilcoxon signed ranks 

test, used to find differences between paired data sets, 

revealed that downstream loads were significantly greater 

than upstream loads at the 90-percent confidence level. 

Therefore, the study area was an important contributor of 

total and suspended solids to Brewery Creek. However, 

previous studies indicate that streambank slumping could 

be an additional input to the solids load of the stream in 

addition to inputs related to construction activities (Allen 

and Gray, 1984). 

Summary statistics for solids load at the downstream 

and upstream gages during each phase of the study are 

listed in table 3. Mean volume, total solids load, and 

total suspended solids load are greater at the downstream 

site than the upstream site for each phase of construction. However, examination of downstream and upstream 

volumes and loads revealed a highly skewed distribution. 

Large rain events can skew the distribution of volume and 

solids load. One such event occurred in August 2001 when 

over 9.5 in of rain was recorded at the downstream station 

within 48 hours. This type of event is atypical and should 

be given less weight statistically. Median rather than mean 

values were used during statistical analyses because the 

median is a more appropriate representation of the population center in highly skewed data sets than the mean. (Ott 

and Longnecker, 2001). 

The difference between downstream and upstream 

loads was computed for total and suspended solids for the 

preconstruction, land-disturbance, and home-construction phases. Changes in the magnitude of the differences 

are believed to be a result of activity in the study area. 

The erosion-control and stormwater BMPs used at the 

construction site were effective at limiting the amount 

of solids load entering Brewery Creek (fig. 10). Each 

bar represents the median of all differences between 

the downstream and upstream constituent loads for the 

preconstruction, land-disturbance, and home-construction 

storm-runoff periods. Differences in median total solids 

loads decreased by 52 percent between the preconstruction 

and land-disturbance phases and 22 percent between the 

land-disturbance and home-construction phases (fig. 10). 

Similarly, downstream-upstream differences in suspendedsolids loads decreased 72 and 37 percent, respectively (fig. 

10). 

However, examination of the median value fails to 

explain the variability of the data. Most of the coefficients 

of variation in table 3 have a value greater than 1, indicating substantial variability in solids load. The Wilcoxon 

rank sum test (Ott and Longnecker, 2001) was used to 

describe the variability of the data and to ultimately 

Table 3. Statistics for measured storm events at the 

upstream and downstream water-quality gages, Brewery 

Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

Construction phase

Statistic PreconstructionLanddisturbanceHomeconstruction

DOWNSTREAM SITE

Volume (cubic feet x 106)

Mean 3.09 2.28 .54

Median .77 .49 .52

Maximum 18.10 24.82 1.40

Minimum .31 .15 .15

Coeff. of 

variation

 1.61 2.65 .66

Total solids (tons)

Mean 132.5 76.2 10.4

Median 13 8 8

Maximum 1050.75 930.2 25.93

Minimum 4.69 1.81 2.44

Coeff. of 

variation

2.18 3.01 .75

Suspended solids (tons)

Mean 105.71 60.25 4.22

Median 3.95 2.26 1.05

Maximum 909.52 802 20.17

Minimum .23 .18 .36

Coeff. of 

variation

2.38 3.3 1.36

UPSTREAM SITE

Volume (cubic feet x 106)

Mean 2.86 2.12 .48

Median .66 .42 .45

Maximum 17.51 22.86 1.21

Minimum .27 .12 .13

Coeff. of 

variation

 1.67 2.63 .66

Total solids (tons)

Mean 129.54 57.57 9.73

Median 13.81 7.16 6.91

Maximum 1032.88 694.4 23.09

Minimum 4.16 1.87 2.18

Coeff. of 

variation

2.21 2.96 .74

Suspended solids (tons)

Mean 104.43 42.12 3.83

Median 3.93 1.9 1.17

Maximum 890.79 570.2 18.73

Minimum .15 .13 .31

Coeff. of 

variation

2.38 3.35 1.36

14 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
determine whether the contribution of loads significantly 

increased or decreased from one phase of construction to 

the next. The null hypothesis states there is no change in 

the magnitude of the difference between the upstream and 

downstream solids load from one phase of construction to 

the next. The alternative hypothesis suggests there is a significant change in the magnitude of the difference between 

the downstream and upstream solids load from one phase 

of construction to the next and this change is related to 

BMP effectiveness. Results from the test, at the 90-percent confidence level, failed to reject the null hypothesis. The data provide insufficient evidence to report an 

increase or decrease in solids load from preconstruction 

levels. Because the test did not indicate a significant 

increase in solids load, one could imply the BMP systems 

implemented before and during the land-disturbance and 

home-construction phases are at least somewhat effective 

at limiting the amount of solids entrained in runoff from 

reaching Brewery Creek. This limitation is supported by 

the reduction in the magnitude of differences between 

downstream and upstream total solids and total suspended 

solids load from one phase of construction to the next (fig. 

10). 

Runoff Volume

Summary statistics for event volumes are also 

detailed in table 3. Similar to solids loads, the median 

of all differences between the upstream and downstream 

volumes were determined for each phase of the study. A 

60-percent reduction in median runoff volumes from the 

preconstruction to the land-disturbance phase is illustrated 

in figure 11; results from the Wilcoxon rank sum test 

shows this difference to be significant at the 90-percent 

confidence level. 

Median runoff volumes appeared to increase slightly 

between the land-disturbance to the home-construction 

phases (fig. 11); however, statistical tests indicated no 

significant difference in runoff volume between these two 

phases. The apparent increase could be due, in part, to 

the failure of a runoff infiltration pond during the homeconstruction phase. Overall, the BMPs utilized within the 

study area were able to reduce the amount of stormwater 

runoff entering Brewery Creek. 













-%$)!.$/7.342%!-
50342%!-,/!$$)&&%2%.#%).4/.3

4/4!,3530%.$%$3/,)$3 4/4!,3/,)$3

0RECONSTRUCTION

,ANDDISTURBANCE

(OMECONSTRUCTION

Figure 10. Median value of difference between downstream and upstream total solids and total suspended solids load in 

Brewery Creek during each phase of construction activity at the St. Francis residential subdivision, Cross Plains, Wis. 

Hydrologic Response 15
Stream Temperature

The temperature of urban streams is often affected 

directly by urban runoff. For example, Galli (1990) demonstrated an increase in base flow water temperature of 

0.14oC for every 1-percent increase in watershed imperviousness. Although the Brewery Creek Watershed contains 

only 3 percent urban land, the stream flows through an 

urban environment for approximately 0.5 mi before its 

confluence with Black Earth Creek, a Class I trout stream. 

Certain species of fish, such as trout, require relatively 

low daily mean temperatures of less than 22o

C (Lyons, 

1996) for survival and are particularly sensitive to temperature fluctuations. As urbanization continues to spread 

throughout the basin, mitigation of thermal impacts caused 

by increases in impervious surfaces will be increasingly 

important. 

A summary of daily mean stream temperatures measured during sampled events in each phase of construction is given in table 4. Downstream temperatures were 

statistically higher than upstream temperatures, most likely 

because lack of overhead tree canopy in the area between 

the upstream and downstream stations subjects the stream 

to direct solar heating. To determine whether the downstream temperatures increased as a result of activity within 

the study area, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 

(Ott and Longnecker, 2001) test was used to identify differences between the means of independent samples. Test 

results showed no significant increases in stream temperature as a result of activity within the study area (at the 

90-percent confidence level).

Ecologic Response

Ecologic response in terms of macroinvertebrate 

communities, fish communities, and habitat to construction 

of the residential subdivision is discussed in the following 

sections below.

Macroinvertebrate and Fish Communities

A total of 10 macroinvertebrate samples were collected for this study from October 1999 to October 2002. 

HBI values (fig. 12) ranged from 4.19 (very good water 

quality) to 4.76 (good water quality). No significant differences (P=0.05) were detected either between sampling 

sites or before and after development. Results indicate 















6/,5-%

0RECONSTRUCTION

,ANDDISTURBANCE

(OMECONSTRUCTION

-%$)!.$/7.342%!-
50342%!-6/,5-%$)&&%2%.#%

).#5")#&%%4

Figure 11. Median value of difference between downstream and upstream event volume in Brewery Creek during each phase of 

construction activity at the St. Francis residential subdivision, Cross Plains, Wis.

16 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
that dissolved-oxygen concentrations were consistently 

sufficient to support a diverse macroinvertebrate community and that organic contamination was not appreciable 

throughout the 3-year study period. Interpretation of the 

empirical results, relative to Hilsenhoff’s scale, was that 

the degree of organic pollution ranged from “possible 

slight to some” during the study period.

Fish communities were sampled six times for this 

study. A total of 10 species were collected and identified 

at least once. The list includes brown trout, creekchub, 

fathead minnow, golden shiner, white sucker, yellow 

bullhead, black bullhead, brook stickleback, green sunfish, and bluegill. The species in bold are considered tolerant to environmental degradation. No intolerant species 

were found. The proportion of tolerant individuals ranged 

from 54 percent to 78 percent (fig. 13) and was the primary reason IBI scores remained low throughout the entire 

study. IBI scores of 10 or 20 (fig. 13) were both within 

the “poor” range. Brown trout were relatively abundant in 

Brewery Creek with numbers ranging from 22 to 46 (fig. 

14) and percentages ranging from 16 percent to 46 percent 

(fig. 13). Brown trout size structure was variable during 

the study, with greater numbers of juvenile individuals 

from 1999 through 2001 and greater numbers of adults in 

2002 and 2003. Trout of legal keeping size (greater than 9 

in. long) ranged from 1 out of 37 in 2001 to 15 out of 26 in 

2002 and 15 out of 44 in 2003 (fig. 14). The largest brown 

trout was 15.75 in. long.

Table 4. Event mean temperature of Brewery Creek at the upstream and downstream monitoring stations during three phases of 

construction, Cross Plains, Wis.

[oC, degrees Celsius; Std Dev, standard deviation]

Temperature oC

Preconstruction Land disturbance Home construction

Event date Upstream Downstream Event date Upstream Downstream Event date Upstream Downstream

02/22/00 4.1 4.3 05/10/01 14.4 15.1 04/07/02 6.3 6.4

04/19/00 9.0 9.5 05/21/01 13.4 13.7 04/18/02 12.0 13.1

05/17/00 11.4 11.7 05/23/01 11.3 11.5 04/24/02 9.2 9.9

05/30/00 16.0 16.2 06/05/01 10.8 10.8 04/27/02 7.0 7.1

06/04/00 13.0 13.3 06/11/01 16.8 17.5 05/01/02 9.1 9.4

06/13/00 15.8 16.1 08/01/01 21.0 21.9 05/09/02 11.8 12.5

07/02/00 17.1 17.7 08/22/01 15.2 16.4 05/11/02 8.6 8.9

07/10/00 18.0 18.8 09/17/01 13.3 13.7 05/28/02 15.5 15.7

08/05/00 16.1 16.6 09/19/01 14.1 14.3 06/03/02 11.8 12.0

08/17/00 14.6 15.1 09/23/01 13.1 13.3 06/04/02 13.0 13.2

09/11/00 16.1 16.5 10/22/01 9.8 10.0 07/22/02 16.8 18.0

09/22/00 11.8 12.0 11/24/01 9.8 9.9 08/11/02 16.8 18.0

04/11/01 8.8 9.1 12/12/01 6.0 6.0 08/21/02 15.6 16.4

 02/18/02 3.8 4.0 09/02/02 15.7 16.4

 03/08/02 3.5 3.7 

 

Mean 13.2 13.6 Mean 11.7 12.1 Mean 12.1 12.6

Median 14.6 15.1 Median 13.1 13.3 Median 11.9 12.8

Std Dev 4.0 4.1 Std Dev 4.8 5.0 Std Dev 3.6 3.9

Maximum 18.0 18.8 Maximum 21.0 21.9 Maximum 16.8 18.0

Minimum 4.1 4.3 Minimum 3.5 3.7 Minimum 6.3 6.4

Ecologic Response 17
Figure 13. Results of fish-shocking surveys and subsequent Index of Biotic Integrity in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. 

(1999–2003). [Pre-1999 data from Fago, 1979; and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1989].

 























*5,9 *5,9 /#4 !5' !5' *5.% !5' *5,9

0ERCENTBROWNTROUT

0ERCENTTOLERANTINDIVIDUALS

0ERCENTOTHER

)")SCORE

0%2#%.44/4!,&)3(3526%9%$

).$%8/&")/4)#).4%'2)49)")	























 



   









18 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002

Figure 12. Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores at two locations on Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

   

    



















   3PRING &ALL

(),3%.(/&&")/4)#).$%8

3!-0,%0%2)/$

"REWERY2D

(WY
Low IBI scores reflected a combined absence of intolerant species and a general lack of coldwater indicators 

(with the exception of brown trout) and presence of numerous tolerant species. Although brown trout size structure 

did change during the study, the overall fish-community 

structure remained the same.

Differences in the macroinvertebrate and fish sample 

results are related to different metric objectives. The HBI 

is based on macroinvertebrate tolerances to organic pollution, whereas the coldwater IBI is based on fish tolerances to a wide variety of environmental factors including 

temperature and physical habitat. The combination of these 

results indicate that organic-contaminant loading is not a 

limiting factor in Brewery Creek but that overall habitat is 

in poor condition.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, Brewery Creek became 

the focus of water-quality evaluation as part of the Black 

Earth Creek Priority Watershed Project. Historical waterquality, macroinvertebrate, and fish-community data indicated that Brewery Creek was appreciably impaired. Best 

management practices implemented as part of the Black 

Earth Creek Priority Watershed Project did not affect totalphosphorus or suspended-sediment concentrations over 

time, but ammonia concentrations did decline (Graczyk 

and others, 2003). This result suggests that organic loading 

declined. Such a decline is also reflected by a trend (R2

 = 

0.58) of improved HBI scores (fig. 15). Although fishcommunity data from Brewery Creek are limited, surveys 

done before 1990 indicate that the stream was degraded 

(fig. 13). No trout were found during surveys in 1979 or 

1989, and IBI scores were 0 or “very poor”. Beginning 

in 1999, substantial brown trout numbers were found in 

every survey, and coldwater IBI scores improved slightly. 

Although the overall fish community is still considered 

unbalanced, the recent fish-shocking surveys are consistent 

with macroinvertebrate collections and indicate improved 

water quality and habitat conditions in Brewery Creek.

The improved water-quality and habitat conditions in 

Brewery Creek are beneficial for managing Black Earth 

Creek trout fisheries. Not only have organic loads declined 

in Brewery Creek, the small tributary also provides habitat 

for migrating brown trout and forage populations. During the 3-year study, fisheries in Brewery Creek were not 

affected as a result of the new subdivision development. 

Ecologic Response 19

Figure 14. Number of brown trout measured during fish-shocking surveys in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. (1999–2003).









































.5-"%2/&"2/7.42/54#!5'(4

0%2#%.4'2%!4%24(!.).#(%3

/#4 !5' !5' *5.% !5' *5,9

.UMBEROFBROWNTROUTCAUGHT

0ERCENTGREATERTHANINCHES
Habitat 

Preconstruction results from sampling locations 

H1 and H2 yielded Habitat Index Scores of 40 and 45, 

respectively (table 5), which correspond to “fair” in the 

qualitative assessment. Scores from the postconstruction 

evaluation were 40 and 35 at H1 and H2, respectively, but 

the rating for H2 was still “fair.” The 10-point change at 

H2 was due to 5-point changes in two of the assessment 

metrics, width-to-depth ratio and riffle-to-riffle ratio. The 

change in width-to-depth ratio resulted from placement of 

a large double-celled culvert within the habitat station (fig. 

16). 

Mean stream width and depth also were computed for 

each habitat station (table 5). The preconstruction mean 

stream widths indicate a second-order stream (Strahler, 

1957). Postconstruction mean stream widths indicate a 

substantial increase for both stations. The change was 

greater at H2, where the difference of 3.3 feet amounted 

to a 53-percent increase. Changes in mean stream depth 

from preconstruction to postconstruction were, in contrast, 

insubstantial and opposite for the two stations, H1 deepening by 0.13 feet and H2 becoming shallower by 0.13 feet. 

The changes at H2 were, again, attributable to the placement of the large culvert.

The mean depth of fines over the coarse sand and silt 

substrate at both stations ranged from 0.26 to 0.35 feet 

(table 6). At H1, a slight postconstruction increase in mean 

depth of fines was noted. At H2, however, the depth of 

4.86 feet was nearly double the preconstruction value.

The exact cause for the increase is difficult to determine. Sediment influx as a result of construction activity 

of the St. Francis development is one possible scenario; 

however, results of water-quality sampling during storm 

events did not substantiate this scenario. Other activities 

or occurrences within the study area may have contributed 

to an increase in the depth of fines, including removal of 

the weir structure during spring 2003, contribution of fines 

from upstream sources, and failing streambanks. Data 

from additional habitat sites would be needed to identify 

other potential sources of sediment to Brewery Creek. 

Figure 15. Trend in Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores in Brewery Creek at Highway 14, Cross Plains, Wis. (1985–2002).

2























        

(),3%.(/&&")/4)#).$%8

20 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
Table 5. Physical habitat data for Brewery Creek, St. Francis residential subdivision, Cross Plains, Wis.

[ft, feet]

Site Mean stream width 

(ft)

Mean stream depth 

(ft)

Width/depth ratio Habitat score

H1 Preconstruction 9.3 0.9 10.3 40 / FAIR

H2 Preconstruction 6.3 1.0 6.3 45/ FAIR

H1 Preconstruction 10.2 1.0 10.2 40 / FAIR

H2 Preconstruction 9.6 0.9 10.7 35 / FAIR

Table 6. Depth of fines data analysis for Brewery Creek, St. Francis residential subdivision, Cross Plains, Wis.

[all depths in feet]

Site Mean Maximum Median

Preconstruction H1 0.35 1.18 0.33

Preconstruction H2 0.26 0.92 0.23

Preconstruction H1 0.44 1.18 0.43

Preconstruction H2 0.49 1.18 0.39

Difference H1 0.09 0 0.10

Difference H2 0.23 0.26 0.16

a “G” to an “F” (Rosgen, 1996) with the dominant bed 

material changing from gravel to silt-clay. This difference can be attributed to removal of the V-notch weir at 

the upstream water-quality station in May 2003. During 

removal of the weir, soft sediment that had been deposited 

upstream from the structure was flushed and allowed to 

travel downstream. Cross section 9, in the uppermost part 

of the meandering section, did not change in stream type, 

but an increase in size of bed material from silt-clay to 

more gravel was noted. 

Results of the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure 

indicated an increase in the cumulative percentage of 

fine-grained sediment at all transect survey locations. For 

example, differences in size-class distribution at cross section 13 can be seen in figure 18. 

In summary, results of the fluvial geomorphology 

classifications and analyses do not indicate that the St. 

Francis Development on Brewery Creek contributed to 

changes in stream characteristics. Stream hydrology may 

have been altered slightly by removal of the weir and 

placement of the culverts as part of the road construction, 

but it is difficult to quantify the effects of these actions, if 

they can be quantified at all. No significant changes were 

detected after analyzing yearly stream-survey data. 

Erosion of the streambanks was the primary source 

of increased fine-grained sediment noted during annual 

Geomorphic Response

Results of the bank-pin surveys indicated failing banks at most sites. Bank pins in cross sections 1–8 

(straightened reach) averaged 43.6 mm of deposition, 

whereas bank pins at cross sections 9–14 (meandering 

reach) averaged 26.4 mm of deposition at the conclusion 

of the study period. Bank material on Brewery Creek is 

primarily cohesive alluvial silt loam, making exposed 

banks susceptible to erosion. Although measurements indicated deposition, this was due to bank failure rather than 

sediment deposition on the banks. Streambank erosion processes are classified into two basic groups: gravitational or 

mechanical failures and tractive-force failures (O’Neill and 

Kuhns, 1994). The failing banks on Brewery Creek were 

indicative of gravitational failure, given low flows and the 

fine-grained cohesive soils. An example of streambank 

failure on Brewery Creek is shown in figure 17.

Results of the Rosgen Stream Classification showed 

only minor variations from 2001 and 2003 classifications 

(table 7). Bankfull widths and average depths decreased, 

whereas the width depth (w/d) ratios and entrenchment 

ratios increased. These changes were due in part to the 

placement of two large culverts (fig. 16) directly upstream 

from cross-section 8 and lower annual average precipitation in 2003. At cross section 1, the stream type went from 

Geomorphic Response 21
Figure 18. Results of Wolman Pebble Count at cross section 13 in Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. (2001–03).























         

3):%#,!33%3).-),,)-%4%23







3ILTCLAY 3AND

0%2#%.4#5-5,!4)6%&).%24(!.	

'RAVEL

VERYFINE

'RAVEL

FINE

'RAVEL

MEDIUM

'RAVEL

COARSE

'RAVEL

VERYCOARSE

3MALL

COBBLE

,ARGE

COBBLE

3MALL

BOULDER

22 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002

Figure 16. Culverts placed in Brewery Creek for road crossing (view looking upstream), Cross Plains, Wis. Note difference between the culverts and the channel width directly 

downstream.

Figure 17. Example of gravitational streambank erosion in 

Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis. Wedge failure leads to 

mass wasting of bank.

7EDGEFAILURE 7EDGEFAILURE EDGEFAILURE
pebble counts. Based on flow regimes and overall 

decreases in sediment yield from the construction site, the 

percentage of fine-grained sediment should have decreased 

corresponding to flows and constituent loading. In the 

loess area of the midwestern United States, however, bank 

material has been reported to contribute as much as 80 

percent of the total sediment eroded from incised channels 

(Simon and others,1996). Analysis with Rosgen’s stream 

classification indicated that channels were entrenched to 

slightly entrenched, making them more susceptible to erosion processes. 

In addition to bank erosion, removal of the V-notch 

at the upstream water-quality station in the spring of 2003 

likely contributed to an increase in fine-grained sediments. 

The weir was in the upstream segment of the study area 

(channelized reach) and released sediment downstream 

when it was removed. Data collected in 2001 and 2002 

were very similar in results, whereas 2003 data indicated a 

significant increase in fines at all measured cross sections.

Summary and Conclusions 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Dane County Land Conservation Department (LCD) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR), conducted a multidisciplinary study 

incorporating streamflow, water-quality sampling, and 

physical, ecological, and geomorphic metrics to assess 

instream effects from construction of a residential subdivision on Brewery Creek, Dane County, Wis. An upstream/

downstream (above and below) approach was used to 

isolate any changes caused by the study area over a period 

of 3 years (2001–03). 

Collectively, the stormwater-management and erosion-control BMPs used at the St. Francis residential subdivision provided sufficient protection against degradation 

to Brewery Creek. Additionally, proper implementation 

and maintenance of the erosion-control and stormwatermanagement plan were critical components to reducing 

stormwater runoff. Results from this project will serve as 

an example for Dane County developers and builders of 

how to meet stormwater standards detailed in the Dane 

County Ordinance.

Erosion and stormwater-management controls implemented within the study area were effective at controlling 

runoff and solids transport during construction activity. 

Downstream event volumes, loads, and temperature were 

significantly greater than upstream volumes, loads, and 

temperature during three phases of construction: preconstruction, land disturbance, and home construction. The 

effectiveness of stormwater-management and erosion-control BMP systems was measured by evaluating the change 

in magnitude of differences between the downstream and 

upstream stations from one phase of construction activity 

to the next. The median difference between downstream 

and upstream storm volumes decreased (60 percent) from 

the preconstruction phase to the land-disturbance phase 

and slightly increased (9 percent) from the land-disturbance phase to the home-construction phase. The median 

differences for total and suspended solids load indicated 

a similar trend from preconstruction to land-disturbance 

phases with decreases of 52 and 72 percent, respectively. 

Both total and suspended solids load continued to decrease 

in the transition, from land-disturbance to home-construction phases; by 22 and 37 percent, respectively. Extreme 

data variability hampered statistical interpretation. Additional storm volume and load data could reduce variability 

and improve the statistical significance when determining 

an increase or decrease in volume or load from the study 

area.

Although daily mean stream temperature at the downstream monitoring station was consistently higher than at 

the upstream monitoring station during each phase, there 

was no statistical evidence to suggest an increase in stream 

temperature as a result of activity within the study area. 

Stream temperatures were most likely affected by direct 

solar heating because of a lack of overhead tree canopy 

between the downstream and upstream stations on Brewery Creek. Tree canopy was not altered during construction 

activity in the study area and was not considered part of 

the storm-runoff BMP system. 

Ecologic indices for macroinvertebrate and fish 

communities indicate there were no negative effects to 

water quality and fisheries in Brewery Creek as a result 

of activity within the St. Francis subdivision. Macroinvertebrate sampling results (HBI value) on Brewery Creek 

ranged from “very good” to “good” water quality with no 

significant differences during any phase of construction 

activity. Results for fish-community composition, however, 

fell within the “poor” range (IBI value) during each year 

of testing. A general absence of intolerant species, with the 

exception of brown trout, reflects the low IBI values. The 

combination of these results suggests that organic loading 

is not a limiting factor in Brewery Creek but that overall 

fish habitat is in poor condition.

 Habitat measurements did not change significantly 

from preconstruction to postconstruction phases. Although 

installation of a double-celled culvert in Brewery Creek 

most likely altered the width-to-depth ratio in that reach, 

Summary and Conclusions 23
the overall habitat rating remained “fair”. Installation of 

the culvert may also have caused changes in mean stream 

width and depth. These changes were a result of modifications to the stream itself and do not reflect changes caused 

by surface runoff because of activities in the study area. 

Fluvial geomorphology classifications, including 

channel cross sections, bed- and bank-erosion surveys, 

and pebble counts did not indicate that stream geomorphic 

characteristics were altered by home-construction activity in the study area. Increases in fine-grained sediment at 

various cross sections were attributed to instream erosion 

processes, such as bank slumping, rather than increases in 

sediment delivery from the nearby construction site. This 

result was further substantiated by the reduction of storm 

runoff from the construction site during each phase of the 

study. Additional sediment was introduced to the stream 

by way of removal of the V-notch weir at the upstream 

monitoring station in spring 2003.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jesse Pritts of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for assisting in 

development of the study; Daniel Heffron, property owner 

and developer, for graciously allowing us access to the site 

and for agreeing to implement the stormwater management plan; Ron Steiner, project engineer, for coordinating 

and developing the stormwater management plan; Aicardo 

Roa of Dane County Land Conservation Department for 

his assistance on the stormwater plan and site assessment; Dave Owens of the U.S. Geological Survey for 

assisting with the instrumentation; Faith Fitzpatrick of the 

U.S. Geological Survey and Barb Lensch of the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service for assisting with aspects 

of the study related to stream geomorphology; and the staff 

of the Dane County Land Conservation Department for 

countless hours of support. Without their cooperation and 

effort, this study would not have been possible. 

References

Allen, H.E., and Gray, J.R., 1984; Runoff, sediment transport, and water-quality in a Northern Illinois agricultural watershed before urban development, 1979–81: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 

Report 82–4073, 55 p.

Dane County Code of Ordinances [2001], Chapter 14, 

subchapter II, Erosion control and stormwater management: Madison, Wis., Dane County Board of Supervisors, 15 p.

Fago, Don, 1992, Distribution and relative abundance of 

fishes in Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources Technical Bulletin 175, 378 p.

Galli, J., 1990a, Thermal impacts associated with urbanization and stormwater management best management 

practices; appendix C, Water temperature and freshwater 

stream biota; an overview: Washington D.C., Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 

Glocker, C.L., and Patzer, R.A., 1978, Soil survey of Dane 

County: U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

Graczyk, D.J., Walker, J.F., Horwatich, J.A., and Bannerman, R.T., 2003, Effects of best management practices 

in the Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed, Wisconsin, 

1984–98: U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigation Report 03–4163, 24 p.

Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., and Potyondy, J.P., 1994, 

Stream channel reference sites—An illustrated guide to 

field technique: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service General Technical Report RM-245, 61 p.

Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1987, An improved biotic index of 

organic stream pollution: The Great Lakes Entomologist, v. 20, no. 1, p. 31–39.

Lyons, John, Wang, Lizhu, and T.D. Simonson, 1996, 

Development and validation of an index of biotic integrity for coldwater streams in Wisconsin: North American Journal of Fisheries Management, v. 16, p. 241–256.

O’Neill, M.P., and Kuhns, M.R., 1994, Stream bank erosion and flushing flows: Stream Systems Technology 

Center Stream Notes, July 1994, p. 3–6.

Ott, L.R., and Longnecker, M., 2001, An introduction 

to statistical methods and data analysis, fifth edition: 

Wadsworth Group, Pacific Grove, Calif., [variously 

paginated]. 

Porterfield, George, 1972, Computation of fluvial-sediment discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of 

Water-Resources Investigations, book 3, chap. C2, 66 p.

Rosgen, Dave, 1996, Applied river morphology: Pagosa 

Springs, Colo., Wildland Hydrology, [variously paginated].

Simonson, T.D., Lyons, J., and Kanehl, P.D., 1994, Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin streams: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, General Technical 

Report NC-164, 36 p.

24 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
Strahler, A.N., 1957, Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology: American Geophysical Union 

Transactions, v. 38, p. 913–920. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, Environmental impacts of stormwater discharges, a national 

profile: Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA 

841–R–92–001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997, Urbanization and streams—Studies of hydrologic impacts: Washington, D.C., Office of Water, EPA 841–R–97-009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, Techniques 

for tracking, evaluating, and reporting the implementation of nonpoint source control measures—III. Urban: 

Washington, D.C., Office of Water. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. National 

water-quality inventory, 2000 report: Washington, D.C., 

Office of Water, EPA 841-R-02-001.

Ward, J.R. and Harr, C.A., eds., 1990, Methods for collection and processing of surface-water and bed-material 

samples for physical and chemical analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90–140, 71 p.

Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement 

Program, 1989, A plan for control of nonpoint sources 

and related resource management in the Black Earth 

Creek Priority Watershed: Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources Publication WR-218-89, [variously 

paginated].

References 25
26 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002
Appendix 27

Appendix
28 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002

Table A1. Preconstruction-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

[-, storm duration does not allow for intensity computation; in/hr, inches per hour]

Start

date/time

End

date/time

Total

rain

(inches)

5-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

10-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

15-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

30-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

60-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

Erosivity

index

10/01/99 21:05 10/02/99 04:30 .36 .24 .18 .16 .12 .10 .27

10/03/99 12:15 10/03/99 18:00 .21 .12 .12 .12 .10 .09 .13

10/16/99 01:20 10/16/99 07:10 .25 .48 .42 .36 .26 .18 .44

11/10/99 14:45 11/10/99 18:30 .80 1.92 1.86 1.84 1.10 .72 7.83

11/23/99 01:45 11/23/99 12:40 .99 .84 .66 .52 .36 .21 2.52

12/03/99 10:55 12/03/99 18:40 .31 .12 .12 .12 .12 .09 .23

12/04/99 15:00 12/04/99 23:30 .12 .12 .06 .08 .06 .05 .04

12/09/99 11:00 12/09/99 16:40 .15 .12 .12 .08 .08 .06 .07

01/09/00 20:30 01/10/00 07:55 .13 .12 .06 .08 .06 .04 .05

02/15/00 12:35 02/15/00 13:50 .16 .24 .24 .20 .18 .14 .19

02/24/00 02:40 02/24/00 10:30 .31 .12 .12 .12 .10 .08 .19

02/25/00 18:10 02/26/00 01:25 .66 1.32 .96 .72 .42 .27 1.94

03/08/00 10:40 03/08/00 17:50 .20 .72 .60 .52 .30 .16 .46

03/09/00 03:25 03/09/00 08:45 .13 .12 .12 .12 .10 .07 .08

03/15/00 12:35 03/15/00 15:30 .13 .12 .12 .12 .08 .06 .06

03/19/00 13:05 03/20/00 05:35 .34 .12 .12 .08 .08 .06 .17

03/26/00 16:15 03/26/00 18:35 .11 .24 .24 .20 .14 .08 .10

04/08/00 13:20 04/08/00 15:15 .28 .36 .36 .36 .32 .25 .64

04/19/00 07:35 04/21/00 00:40 1.67 .96 .72 .64 .42 .38 5.03

04/23/00 00:15 04/23/00 09:30 .46 .24 .18 .16 .14 .14 .41

05/08/00 08:25 05/08/00 10:20 .13 .48 .42 .36 .24 .12 .23

05/11/00 22:35 05/12/00 09:20 .14 .24 .24 .20 .10 .07 .09

05/17/00 12:50 05/20/00 07:35 5.04 4.68 4.38 3.80 2.42 1.24 101.33

05/26/00 22:30 06/01/00 23:30 5.071 11.52 6.60 4.44 2.24 1.36 103.42

06/04/00 06:25 06/05/00 06:55 .88 .36 .24 .20 .20 .19 1.13

06/12/00 06:00 06/12/00 11:10 .20 .36 .36 .32 .26 .15 .36

06/13/00 15:15 06/14/00 02:40 2.71 3.00 2.88 2.44 1.52 .87 37.54

06/16/00 03:20 06/16/00 05:40 .11 .12 .12 .12 .10 .06 .07

06/20/00 04:35 06/20/00 16:00 .70 .96 .90 .76 .50 .31 2.58

06/24/00 14:00 06/24/00 18:50 .29 .24 .18 .16 .14 .13 .25

06/26/00 08:50 06/26/00 10:00 .11 .36 .30 .20 .12 .10 .09

06/28/00 06:20 06/28/00 10:35 .18 .24 .18 .16 .12 .09 .13

07/02/00 19:35 07/02/00 21:15 .99 3.48 3.12 2.68 1.64 .90 15.65

07/09/00 06:20 07/09/00 10:15 .42 .48 .36 .32 .24 .22 .69

07/10/00 03:40 07/10/00 08:45 .73 .84 .72 .68 .44 .30 2.34

07/20/00 17:00 07/20/00 17:15 .14 .96 .78 .56 - - -

07/28/00 17:35 07/28/00 22:50 .20 .60 .48 .40 .30 .18 .44

07/30/00 16:05 07/30/00 16:20 .14 .96 .78 .56 - - -

08/05/00 11:15 08/05/00 22:10 1.81 3.12 3.00 2.80 2.06 1.39 34.29
Appendix 29

Table A1. Preconstruction-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.—Continued

[-, storm duration does not allow for intensity computation; in/hr, inches per hour]

Start

date/time

End

date/time

Total

rain

(inches)

5-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

10-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

15-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

30-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

60-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

Erosivity

index

08/12/00 19:50 08/12/00 21:15 .13 .12 .12 .12 .12 .11 .10

08/13/00 06:30 08/13/00 09:35 .14 .36 .30 .28 .18 .11 .17

08/16/00 20:20 08/17/00 09:05 1.00 1.20 1.02 .96 .72 .50 5.48

08/26/00 07:30 08/26/00 10:05 1.14 2.88 2.34 1.84 1.28 .91 12.99

09/03/00 07:05 09/03/00 08:30 .28 1.08 .72 .56 .36 .24 .76

09/11/00 07:40 09/11/00 22:05 1.081 2.04 1.80 1.48 .90 .77 8.59

09/14/00 00:45 09/14/00 06:40 .22 .36 .30 .28 .20 .10 .29

09/19/00 17:00 09/19/00 23:55 .54 .84 .54 .40 .28 .22 1.04

09/22/00 09:20 09/22/00 23:30 .64 .36 .30 .28 .18 .17 .75

10/03/00 19:30 10/03/00 23:45 .17 .24 .18 .16 .12 .10 .13

10/05/00 16:10 10/05/00 20:00 .16 .24 .18 .16 .12 .07 .12

10/23/00 08:20 10/23/00 14:25 .29 .24 .18 .16 .12 .10 .22

11/06/00 13:00 11/07/00 00:30 .89 .48 .36 .32 .24 .18 1.41

11/09/00 09:50 11/09/00 16:30 .15 .48 .24 .16 .08 .06 .08

11/24/00 11:25 11/24/00 14:15 .25 .24 .18 .16 .14 .11 .22

12/15/00 20:10 12/16/00 06:45 .35 .24 .18 .16 .12 .08 .26

12/18/00 09:25 12/18/00 22:20 .29 .12 .12 .08 .06 .06 .11

12/28/00 19:45 12/29/00 19:05 .22 .12 .06 .08 .04 .03 .05

01/14/01 01:45 01/14/01 09:55 .24 .12 .12 .12 .12 .09 .18

01/29/01 11:30 01/29/01 23:05 .86 .36 .30 .28 .22 .18 1.21

02/07/01 21:30 02/08/01 04:15 .24 .36 .36 .28 .26 .18 .43

02/08/01 15:25 02/09/01 17:55 1.34 .48 .42 .36 .32 .29 2.89

02/24/01 06:20 02/24/01 20:10 .23 .12 .12 .08 .08 .07 .11

03/12/01 07:45 03/12/01 11:30 .14 .12 .12 .08 .08 .07 .07

03/31/01 14:15 03/31/01 17:15 .27 .24 .18 .16 .14 .13 .24

04/05/01 13:15 04/05/01 17:35 .31 .72 .42 .36 .28 .15 .64

04/08/01 23:20 04/09/01 04:35 .76 .36 .36 .32 .28 .24 1.46

04/10/01 22:50 04/11/01 15:20 .73 1.20 .78 .68 .50 .31 2.82

04/20/01 02:15 04/20/01 06:10 .48 .36 .30 .28 .24 .20 .77

04/21/01 00:10 04/21/01 04:55 .44 1.44 .72 .56 .38 .23 1.37

1

 storm defined using 12-hour interval
30 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002

Table A2. Land-disturbance-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

[-, storm duration does not allow for intensity computation; in/hr, inches per hour]

Start

date/time

End

date/time

Total

rain

(inches)

5-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

10-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

15-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

30-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

60-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

Erosivity

index

05/01/01 04:05 05/01/01 07:10 .15 .36 .30 .28 .22 .13 .23

05/03/01 18:30 05/04/01 08:35 .37 .36 .30 .28 .18 .12 .43

05/06/01 19:35 05/07/01 10:50 .46 .48 .36 .36 .26 .21 .83

05/10/01 00:55 05/10/01 03:05 .15 .36 .30 .28 .20 .13 .21

05/10/01 19:45 05/11/01 05:15 .60 1.68 1.50 1.16 .70 .41 3.44

05/20/01 23:55 05/21/01 12:20 2.02 1.92 1.74 1.52 1.04 .71 17.33

05/22/01 11:20 05/23/01 16:30 .54 .48 .48 .32 .18 .11 .65

05/31/01 15:20 06/01/01 07:30 .42 .24 .18 .12 .10 .08 .26

06/01/01 16:55 06/01/01 20:20 .45 1.32 .78 .60 .40 .29 1.36

06/05/01 01:30 06/05/01 13:00 .73 1.32 1.02 .80 .54 .41 2.97

06/09/01 21:35 06/10/01 05:30 .28 .72 .54 .44 .26 .13 .56

06/11/01 22:00 06/12/01 05:30 2.07 2.40 2.22 2.04 1.74 1.31 33.12

06/14/01 11:40 06/14/01 22:55 .14 .72 .48 .32 .16 .08 .17

06/15/01 05:40 06/15/01 10:45 .16 .24 .18 .16 .08 .08 .08

06/18/01 03:00 06/18/01 11:55 .46 .48 .42 .36 .22 .19 .69

06/21/01 18:50 06/22/01 00:15 .33 .48 .42 .44 .34 .26 .81

07/17/01 08:20 07/17/01 13:45 .55 3.00 1.86 1.40 .80 .52 3.94

07/18/01 07:15 07/18/01 08:30 .98 3.72 3.24 2.76 1.74 .96 16.70

07/24/01 20:25 07/25/01 02:00 .24 .72 .48 .32 .16 .09 .26

08/01/01 18:00 08/02/01 08:00 9.56 5.40 5.10 4.76 3.84 2.74 235.11

08/09/01 17:10 08/09/01 17:25 .11 1.08 .60 .44 - - -

08/15/01 15:25 08/16/01 07:30 .50 .24 .24 .20 .14 .09 .43

08/22/01 06:40 08/22/01 13:05 .20 .24 .18 .20 .16 .08 .21

08/24/01 19:10 08/26/01 01:40 1.31 2.28 1.98 1.44 1.08 .84 12.09

08/27/01 04:20 08/27/01 06:30 .16 .48 .30 .24 .14 .09 .15

09/06/01 14:15 09/07/01 03:30 .14 .72 .42 .28 .14 .07 .14

09/07/01 12:20 09/07/01 12:40 .46 2.52 2.34 1.76 - - -

09/07/01 19:05 09/08/01 03:00 1.28 2.52 2.22 2.04 1.48 .81 17.45

09/09/01 09:00 09/09/01 19:50 .71 .36 .24 .24 .18 .16 .82

09/17/01 04:45 09/17/01 12:15 .57 .36 .30 .28 .24 .22 .90

09/18/01 23:45 09/19/01 14:35 1.06 .36 .30 .28 .22 .22 1.52

09/20/01 19:50 09/21/01 00:30 .24 .24 .24 .24 .24 .21 .40

09/22/01 22:30 09/23/01 16:40 1.73 1.08 .96 .88 .84 .63 10.80

10/09/01 23:35 10/10/01 12:55 .23 .24 .18 .16 .14 .08 .21

10/13/01 09:15 10/13/01 20:40 .20 .36 .24 .16 .08 .07 .10

10/22/01 14:40 10/22/01 22:05 1.17 .96 .84 .76 .60 .41 5.06

10/24/01 07:25 10/24/01 18:35 .25 .24 .24 .20 .18 .14 .29

11/13/01 02:50 11/13/01 10:05 .24 .36 .24 .20 .14 .12 .22

11/18/01 18:20 11/19/01 02:15 .25 .24 .12 .12 .10 .07 .16
Appendix 31

11/23/01 18:00 11/24/01 11:00 .82 .60 .54 .48 .30 .19 1.62

11/26/01 17:20 11/27/01 02:45 .25 .36 .24 .20 .12 .08 .19

11/30/01 02:10 11/30/01 07:05 .25 .24 .18 .16 .14 .10 .22

12/05/01 03:05 12/05/01 07:55 .17 .24 .18 .20 .12 .10 .13

12/12/01 17:30 12/13/01 04:05 .58 .48 .42 .36 .28 .23 1.10

12/22/01 07:55 12/22/01 18:00 .23 .36 .30 .24 .18 .10 .27

02/01/02 10:05 02/01/02 13:20 .31 .24 .18 .16 .16 .13 .31

02/09/02 22:45 02/10/02 13:20 .50 .12 .12 .12 .12 .09 .37

02/18/02 22:10 02/20/02 19:55 1.68 .24 .24 .20 .18 .16 1.89

03/05/02 12:15 03/05/02 15:20 .20 .24 .18 .20 .16 .13 .20

03/07/02 22:00 03/09/02 09:45 .461 .84 .54 .44 .24 .14 .80

03/19/02 13:50 03/19/02 22:10 .20 .12 .12 .12 .10 .08 .12

1

 storm defined using 12-hour interval

Table A2. Land-disturbance-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.—Continued

[-, storm duration does not allow for intensity computation; in/hr, inches per hour]

Start

date/time

End

date/time

Total

rain

(inches)

5-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

10-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

15-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

30-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

60-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

Erosivity

index
32 Hydrologic, Ecologic, and Geomorphic Responses of Brewery Creek to Construction of a Residential Subdivision, Dane County, Wis., 1999–2002

Table A3. Home-construction-phase precipitation data, Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

[-, storm duration does not allow for intensity computation; in/hr, inches per hour]

Start

date/time

End

date/time

Total

rain

(inches)

5-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

10-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

15-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

30-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

60-minute

intensity

(in/hr)

Erosivity

index

04/02/02 08:25 04/02/02 18:30 .25 .12 .12 .12 .10 .09 .15

04/07/02 03:40 04/09/02 06:40 1.361 .36 .36 .32 .28 .14 2.40

04/12/02 00:25 04/12/02 02:20 .16 .24 .24 .20 .18 .11 .19

04/14/02 18:10 04/14/02 19:10 .19 1.08 .84 .64 .32 .19 .51

04/18/02 16:00 04/18/02 22:25 .66 1.44 1.32 1.08 .84 .46 4.74

04/21/02 03:15 04/22/02 03:00 .32 .36 .24 .24 .16 .08 .32

04/24/02 12:55 04/24/02 15:30 .39 .72 .66 .64 .58 .36 1.79

04/27/02 11:05 04/28/02 06:15 .70 .36 .30 .28 .18 .12 .79

05/01/02 12:20 05/02/02 00:20 .56 .36 .30 .28 .22 .15 .79

05/06/02 22:15 05/06/02 23:15 .31 1.32 1.14 1.00 .60 .31 1.67

05/08/02 22:20 05/09/02 07:45 .78 1.44 .90 .64 .64 .50 3.90

05/11/02 10:50 05/12/02 10:30 .83 .84 .42 .32 .28 .22 1.60

05/25/02 05:05 05/25/02 13:55 .76 .36 .36 .32 .30 .24 1.50

05/28/02 20:25 05/29/02 05:35 .30 .60 .54 .44 .36 .24 .79

06/02/02 16:30 06/03/02 10:15 .24 .24 .18 .16 .12 .09 .18

06/03/02 22:45 06/04/02 11:30 .36 .36 .36 .32 .24 .16 .56

06/10/02 18:55 06/10/02 20:50 .14 .24 .24 .24 .16 .11 .15

06/26/02 04:05 06/26/02 10:10 .39 1.20 .84 .68 .38 .21 1.10

07/08/02 12:05 07/08/02 12:45 .56 1.56 1.50 1.48 1.06 - 5.56

07/08/02 20:35 07/08/02 20:50 .10 .60 .54 .40 - - -

07/20/02 15:20 07/20/02 15:55 .55 2.28 2.16 1.68 1.08 - 5.75

07/22/02 00:35 07/22/02 07:25 1.16 3.48 2.46 2.12 1.28 .70 13.21

07/27/02 05:30 07/27/02 10:30 .21 .24 .18 .16 .10 .08 .13

07/27/02 23:05 07/27/02 23:15 .12 1.20 .72 - - - -

08/04/02 02:25 08/04/02 10:35 .73 2.28 2.04 1.76 .98 .50 6.34

08/11/02 16:35 08/11/02 17:55 1.74 3.96 3.30 2.96 2.02 1.53 35.90

08/12/02 20:15 08/13/02 05:10 .43 .60 .42 .36 0.26 .16 .76

08/17/02 06:50 08/17/02 07:10 .32 1.56 1.44 1.12 - - -

08/21/02 18:00 08/22/02 13:05 .931 2.28 2.10 1.60 .88 .45 6.62

09/02/02 03:45 09/02/02 08:15 1.05 1.56 1.38 1.20 .90 .57 7.73

09/10/02 12:15 09/10/02 13:25 .16 .24 .24 .20 .18 .14 .19

09/19/02 00:55 09/19/02 05:05 .35 .72 .42 .36 .22 .17 .54

09/19/02 12:45 09/19/02 20:35 .17 .72 .48 .48 .26 .14 .34

09/20/02 04:00 09/20/02 18:15 .28 .96 .72 .52 .28 .14 .57

09/28/02 21:45 0 9/29/02 05:35 .70 1.45 1.17 .93 .71 .36 3.99

1

 storm defined using 12-hour interval
Appendix 33

Table A4. Quality-control results for water sampling at Brewery Creek, Cross Plains, Wis.

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; RPD, relative percent difference; NA, not applicable; <, less than; %, percent]

Date/time Sample type

Total solids

(mg/L)

Total solids

(RPD)

Suspended solids

(mg/L)

Suspended solids

(RPD)

UPSTREAM

08/17/99 16:45 Blank 66 NA 48 NA

08/17/99 17:00 Blank <7 NA <5 NA

04/17/01 09:40 Blank <20 NA <2 NA

07/09/02 09:20 Blank <50 NA <2 NA

08/21/02 13:05 Replicate 454 4% 18 0%

08/21/02 13:06 EWI 438 18

11/07/01 12:00 Manual 506 0% 52 10%

11/07/01 12:01 EWI 504 47

08/21/02 13:00 Manual 494 12% 45 86%

08/21/02 13:06 EWI 438 18

DOWNSTREAM

08/17/99 16:30 Blank 22 NA <5 NA

04/19/01 09:00 Blank <50 NA <2 NA

07/09/02 09:00 Blank <50 NA <2 NA

12/12/01 19:40 Replicate 554 3% 110 8%

12/12/01 19:41 EWI 536 102

08/21/02 12:55 Replicate 454 0% 17 11%

08/21/02 12:56 EWI 452 19

03/06/00 09:25 Manual 482 0% 23 4%

03/06/00 09:20 EWI 482 22

11/07/01 11:50 Manual 512 1% 52 2%

11/07/01 11:51 EWI 508 51

08/21/02 12:48 Manual 462 2% 32 51%

08/21/02 12:56 EWI 452 19
Printed on recycled paper