Appendix A

US Census












Appendix B

Survey and Visioning Results

First Survey March, 2003









1.  Town of Spring Brook should preserve as much farmland as possible.





2.  A landowner or farmer should have the right to sell his or her farmland for purposes other than farming.





3.  There should be a limit as to how many farm animals can exist on a farm.





4.  Productive farmland should not be converted to non-farm uses.





5.  There is a conflict between farm and non-farm neighbors regarding dust, noise and odors.





6.  Agricultural land should not be used for residential housing purposes.





7.  Agricultural land should not be used for commercial/industrial purposes.





8.  More single family housing is needed in the Town of Spring Brook.





9.  There is a need for affordable start-up types of homes for young families.





10. There are too many mobile homes in the Town of Spring Brook.





11. The Town of Spring Brook should regulate the minimum size of a lot for rural  housing.





12. Landowners should be allowed to sell their land to whomever they choose, regardless of how the land will be used.





13. Business/commercial development should be allowed only in designated areas.





14. Agri-business development should be allowed only in designated areas.





15. I am satisfied with the way things are happening in the Town of Spring Brook regarding land use and growth.





16. Land use/regulations, governing development in the Town of Spring Brook should be more restrictive.





17. Land use policies and regulations should be relaxed so that development can respond more freely to market conditions.





18. Land use policies and regulations should emphasize preserving the rural and agricultural character of the Town of Spring Brook.





19. There is a problem with contamination of ground-water in the Town of Spring Brook.





20. There is a problem with pollution of rivers and streams in the Town of Spring Brook.





21. Trees and "open" spaces are more important to me than neighboring houses.





22. It is important to preserve woodlands and environmentally sensitive areas in the Town of Spring Brook.





23. Gravel pit(s) should be allowed to operate in the Town of Spring Brook.





24. Unlicensed salvage or junkyards should be allowed to operate in the Town of Spring Brook.





25. More parks, recreational areas and green spaces are needed in the Town of Spring Brook.





26. I would be willing to pay taxes to expand or improve public lands in the Town of Spring Brook.





27. Traffic is increasing on the roads in the Town of Spring Brook.





28. Town of Spring Brook roads are adequate to meet my needs.





29. The roads and highways in the Town of Spring Brook adequately meet the needs of the citizens and businesses.





30. I like living in the Town of Spring Brook.





31. I would find value in receiving a semi-annual newsletter.





32. What should be the minimum lot size for single family homes in the Town of Spring Brook? (check only one)

1 acre


3 acre

5 acre

10 acre

35 acre








      Other, please state:

33. What kind of housing development should be allowed in the Town of Spring Brook? (more than one response allowed.)

single family

cluster housing


duplex homes







       Other, please state:

34. How many acres of land do you own in the Town of Spring Brook?  _______________ acres

35. Do you anticipate subdividing or selling your land in the Town of Spring Brook for development within the next 5 years?


21 YES     356  NO

36. If you answered yes to #35, check the statements that best describe you plans:


Subdivide all for residential use


Subdivide part for residential use


Subdivide all for commercial/industrial use


Subdivide part for commercial/industrial use


Sell to someone else for development


Not sure

37. Currently the Town of Spring Brook does not have a comprehensive plan which sets out community goals and strategies to guide growth and development.  Such a comprehensive plan is advisory and does not have enforcement powers.  Do you think the town should develop such a plan?                                                                                                       241 YES     154 NO

38. Currently the Town of Spring Brook does not have land use ordinances regulating the use and development of land.  Do you think the town should enact such ordinances?

                                                                                                       220 YES     178 NO

39. Are you a resident of the Town of Spring Brook?            

                                                                                                       336 YES     33 NO

40. How long have you lived in the Town of Spring Brook?




41. Where do you live (check one):


residential area

mobile home court


rural non-farm area






42. Ages of household members? (Enter number of individuals in each group.)





















43. Why do you live where you do? (check all that apply)


Farm here



cost of living


School District


Pleasant Surroundings


Born here


Easy access to work


Safe Area

      Other, please list:

44. What roles should elected officials of the Town of Spring Brook play in land use planning?  (mark all appropriate)





no role





45. Would you be willing to serve on a land use committee for the Town of Spring Brook?


    65 Yes    292  No


      If yes,





46. Do you have any comments regarding land use or questions being asked in the survey? (Attach additional page if needed.)





Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Please return this survey in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope.

Visioning Session Results March/April 2003

The residents of the Town of Spring Brook would like to see agriculture stay pretty much as it is.  Residents would like to encourage new forms of farming that are economically feasible and environmentally sensitive. Residents feel farmers are good stewards of the land. While they believe landowners should have the right to control what is done with their land, residents would like to see as much productive farm land as possible remain in farming. These statements were agreed to by a consensus of the 28 residents who attended the two visioning sessions.





1. As we noted in the last newsletter, the cost for maintaining roads in our township is the largest item in the town budget. Greater than 60% of the money spent by the town goes towards roads. The town receives state aid for road maintenance, but this aid has only covered 55% of the cost the past few years. The largest single cost is for repaving roads which runs approximately $60,000 per mile. Would you be willing to see some of our more rural roads revert back to gravel as a cost savings measure?  Yes/No

Yes – 101 (46%)     No – 106 (48%)    No Response – 13 (6%)


2. Our town does not currently have an ordinance covering the construction of new roads in the township. When land is developed and new roads and streets are constructed by the developer, there are currently few requirements as to how these roads and streets should be built. The township is typically expected to take over ownership/maintenance of these roads, and if they aren’t built to acceptable standards, the maintenance costs could be excessive. Would you support development and adoption of an ordinance that would establish standards for construction of new roads in our township? Yes/no

Yes – 190 (86%)    No – 20 (9%)    No Response – 10 (5%)


3. This year’s annual town meeting attracted 54 residents, with 48 of them voting to take village powers away from the town board. The town board adopted village powers at the 2001 annual town meeting in order to qualify for a planning grant and start the comprehensive planning effort.  Twelve residents attended the 2001 annual meeting. With village powers the town board may exercise various powers, including “police powers” to regulate for the public health, safety and welfare of its residents, and the following land use powers:


            - establishing a plan commission to engage in planning efforts;

            - enacting a subdivision or other land division ordinance

            - enacting a town zoning ordinance

            - enacting a site plan review ordinance


The planning grant requires that the Town, by ordinance, adopt a Comprehensive Plan by May 2005. Right now the plan is approximately 70% complete, but without village powers the Town will be unable to adopt the plan as either an advisory or enforceable document. If the Town fails to adopt its Comprehensive Plan the Town will have to repay all grant money received, approximately $12,500. Do you feel the town board should have “village powers”?  Yes/No

Yes – 124 (56%)     No – 75 (34%)     No Response – 21 (10%)





4. Village Powers can only be adopted at an annual or special town meeting. The next annual meeting will be in April 2005. The plan commission feels it is questionable whether we could complete the planning process in May 2005 with the “village powers” issue in question. Would you favor calling a special town meeting before the April 2005 annual meeting for the purpose of discussing and possibly re-adopting “village powers”? Yes/No

Yes – 141 (64%)    No – 56 (25%)     No Response – 23 (11%)

5. Our township is unique in that it has a large area of flat/open land ideal for raising agricultural crops. The land use map that has been developed by the agriculture subcommittee indicates 70% or more of the land in our township is currently used for agriculture. Would you like to see ordinances enacted to limit residential development of agricultural land in the Town of Spring Brook? Yes/No

Yes – 141 (64%)      No – 66 (30%)    No Response – 13 (6%)


6. As the Chippewa Valley grows, the Town of Spring Brook will likely be an attractive place for residential development. Do you feel our school systems are adequate to serve the potential increase in population without having to expand buildings or build more schools?

Menomonie Schools     Yes/No     Yes-93 (42%)   No-25 (11%)   No Response-102 (47%)                            


Elk Mound Schools      Yes/No    Yes-114 (52%)   No-62 (28%)   No Response-44 (20%)


7. Do you feel that:


A. As a landowner, you should have the freedom to use your property in any way and for any purpose you deem fit.


B. As a landowner, you should consider the rights of your neighbors when making decisions about use of your property.


Please circle A  or  B

A – 75 (34%)     B – 134 (61%)    No Response – 11 (5%)


8. In the first survey, the majority of respondents indicated a desire for minimum lot size limits of 5 acres or less. Please circle as many of the following choices that describe your interest in a lot size limit:


A.        Concern for potential groundwater contamination (Some feel dense residential                           development utilizing septic systems can have a negative effect on groundwater)        

110 Responses out of 220


B.         Minimize land consumption/Sprawl     119 Responses out of 220


C.        I prefer no limit     41 Responses out of 220


D.        Maintain the rural character of the township     147 Responses out of 220


E.         Privacy through larger lots     96 Responses out of 220


F.         Other __(see comments  page)


9. Would you like to see the town produce a brief “Guide to Rural Living” that could be given to new residents to help prepare them for life in a township like ours?  Yes/No

Yes – 118 (54%)    No – 82 (37%)    No Response – 20 (9%)

Appendix C

Agricultural, Natural and Cultural Resources Sub Committee



Agricultural Narrative

May 27, 2005


Agriculture, Natural and Cultural Resources Committee


John McMartin, Chairman

Chris Friberg

Cindy Brown

Luther Grohn

Tom Kopp

Roger Cummings

Dan Sieveretson



In the 1860’s to the early 1900’s, land ownership in the township was a combination of homestead and purchased railroad land.  Families chose land near water, a spring fed pond, or a creek or land that was swampy. This was needed to provide water for the livestock and family. 


The Chippewa River was used to transport both goods and passengers into the area.  One of the main river ports, Rumsey’s Landing, was located in the township.  It was the shipping point for the wheat produced in Spring Brook and the surrounding area.  When the railroad was built, the river lost its popularity.  Rumsey’s Landing fell by the wayside and the City of Menomonie became the trading center.


The 1930’s signaled a change in agriculture in the Town of Spring Brook.  Horse drawn equipment was giving way to small tractors.  Families that had been able to hold their farms together during the depression were feeling a bit more prosperous and were looking forward to adding mechanization to increase productivity by the end of the decade.  The farms were diverse, and most included cows, hogs, chickens, or horses.  Crops were produced to feed the livestock.  The farm was sustainable in nature, the entire family was employed, and very little was purchased.  The only cash the family had to pay real estate taxes and make outside purchases with came from what little excess production the farm had.


In the 1940’s, prices increased and prosperity returned to farms in Spring Brook as well as the rest of America.  The increase in prosperity was a result of WWII combined with the exodus from horsepower to mechanization.  That continued into the 1950’s when the size of the equipment increased and stationary threshing machines were replaced by combines reducing the need for as much farm labor.  It was also a time when farmers started using fertilizer.


Agricultural productivity continued to increase.  The decade of the 1960’s saw an increased use of crop inputs, better hybrid seeds, fertilizers and pesticides.  Sprinkler irrigation came to the township in 1966.  The previously unproductive sandy loam soil of the Fall City Prairie blossomed with water.  In the mid-1960’s, the Federal government formulated an Ag Policy that encouraged U.S. farmers to produce food to feed the world.  Lenders were willing to make loans for capital improvements.  A number of farmers with dairy operations in the township upgraded their facilities and added cows.


Residential homes started to appear in the 1970’s.  City people seeking cheap land to build homes on moved into the country.  Agricultural technology helped land that previously had limited production increase outputs.  Irrigation expanded, farms and equipment got bigger, and the value of prime farmland rose dramatically.  Heavy soils were no longer the most prized.  Irrigated, sandy, well-drained soils combined with technological improvements were more productive and were in higher demand as farm size grew.  As cash crop farming grew in the township, animal production declined. 


Dairy farms continued to decrease through the 1980’s, 1990’s and early into 2000.  Few dairy farms were passed on to the next generation.  As profit margins dwindled, dairy farmers either rented or sold their land and took jobs in town.  Their life style improved.  They worked less hours, had more money, and received fringe benefits.  These were all things that a small dairy farm could not easily provide.   Specialty crop farms producing kidney beans, potatoes and horseradish grew while rotating land with traditional grain crops such as corn and soybeans.  City people, envisioning an idyllic life style, continued to move to the country.  Homes were being built primarily on the land least suited for agricultural production.


Twenty years from now there will be less land farmed in the Town of Spring Brook.  As farmers age, they will be more interested in selling their land for development than for production agriculture.  It’s not uncommon to hear a farmer say that their land is their 401K.  The profits they made from farming were plowed back into the farm instead of into a retirement account.  They intend to maximize the value of that investment as they reach retirement age.  More residences will be built as city people want to live in the country and enjoy nature.


Highly productive, irrigated land will continue to be farmed.  If current trends continue, farms will be larger in size and may have diversified into some type of processing that will add value to the crops they grow.  There will probably be very few, if any, large dairy or livestock farms given the difficulty of siting such facilities.


A map showing active farmland, farmsteads, and non-farm residences has been developed.  This was done to see if agricultural trends exist, such as where land is likely to stay in farming, or if there are areas where more development will likely occur (see map).


Productive farmland has been defined, identified and mapped. The USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Dunn County Land Conservation Office assisted in identifying important farmland by using the Dunn County Soil Survey.  The program that was used to determine important farmland is called LESA, which stands for Land Evaluation and Site Assessment.  The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment system was developed by the USDA-NRCS in collaboration with land use planners from Arizona State University and Oregon State University.  It is a numeric rating system for scoring sites to help in formulating policy or making land-use decisions on farmlands.  The system is designed to take into account both soil quality and other factors affecting a site’s importance for agriculture.  Currently, there are over 200 LESA systems being used in 26 states.  LESA is an analytical tool, not a farmland protection program.  Its role is to provide systematic and objective procedures to rate and rank sites for agricultural importance in order to help officials make decisions.


Soil quality factors are grouped under Land Evaluation (LE).  The other factors are grouped under Site Assessment (SA).  The SA factors are of three types:  non-soil factors related to agricultural use of a site, factors related to development pressures, and other public values of a site.  Site assessment factors include:  “SA-1” factors other than soil-based qualities measuring limitations on agricultural productivity or farm practices; “SA-2” factors measuring development pressure or land conversion; and, “SA-3” factors measuring other public values such as historic or scenic values.


The Land Evaluation (LE) component of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system rates the soil-based qualities for agricultural use.  The four common kinds of classifications used for land evaluation are land capability classes, soil productivity ratings, soil potential ratings, and important farmland classes.


For purposes of comprehensive planning, soils are considered to be of high or medium production if they meet 3 criteria:


1)      Considered to be “Prime Farmland”:  This factor is defined in the USDA-NRCS-Wisconsin

Technical Guide, Section 2, Dunn County Cropland Interpretations-Prime Farmland, Pages 1-2, Dated 11/22/95.


Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is also available for these uses (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land but not urban or built-up land or water areas).  It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops in an economic manner when treated and managed, including water, according to acceptable farming methods.


In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable levels of acidity or alkalinity, an acceptable content of salt and sodium, and few or no rocks.  They have soils that are permeable to water and air.  Prime farmland is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and it either does not flood or is protected from flooding.


      2)   Productivity for Corn:  This factor is from the USDA-NRCS-Wisconsin Technical Guide,

Section 2, Dunn County Cropland Interpretations-Yields Per Acre, Pages 1-13, Dated 11/22/96.  Production for corn is determined by a ten year average on soil test plots using high level management.  Actual filed measurements are used to determine the annual yield.  This is the same yield data which is used by UW-Extension Soil Testing Labs.  All soils were assigned a relative yield based on the most productive soil in Dunn County (which has a yield of 150 bushels per acre).


3)   Capability Class:  Land capability classes are practical groupings of soil limitations based on

such characteristics as erosion hazard, droughtiness, wetness, stoniness, and response to management.  Classes range from 1 to 8.  These classes reflect the land’s relative suitability for crops, grazing, forestry, and wildlife.  For a summary of limitations and the recommended management practices, see table 1-1.


Class I land has the widest range of use with the least risk of being damaged.  It is level or nearly level, well-drained, and productive.  Land in this class can be cultivated with almost no risk of erosion and will remain productive if managed with normal care.


Class II land can be cultivated regularly, but certain physical conditions give it more limitations than Class I land.  Some Class II land may be gently sloping so it will need moderate erosion control.  Other soils in this class may be slightly droughty, slightly wet, or somewhat limited in depth.


Class III land can be cropped regularly, but it has a narrower range of safe alternative uses than Class I or II land.  This land usually requires extensive use of conservation practices to control erosion or provide drainage.


Class IV land should be cultivated only occasionally or under very careful management.  Generally, it is best adapted for pastures and forests.


Class V land is not suited to ordinary cultivation because it is too wet or too stony, or because the growing season is too short.  It can produce good pasture and trees.


Class VI or VII land use is severely limited because of erosion hazards.  Some kind of permanent cover should be kept on these soils.  With very special management, including elaborate soil and water conservation practices, improved pastures can, in some instances, be established by renovation.


Class VIII land is not suited to economic crops.  It is usually severely eroded or is extremely sandy, wet, arid, rough, steep, or stony.  Much of it is valuable for wildlife food and cover, watershed protection, or for recreation.


Generally, soils with a Capability Class of I and II are considered to be of high agricultural importance.  Soils with a Capability Class of III are considered to be of medium importance, and soils with a Class greater than IV are poorly suited for agriculture production.  This factor is from the USDA-NRCS-Wisconsin Technical Guide, Section 2, Dunn County Soil Descriptions Non-Technical, Pages 1-26, Dated 11/22/95.


These 3 factors were combined in a mathematical formula with a maximum score of 100 points.  Prime farmland represents 10% of the score.  Production for corn represents 45% of the score, and Capability Class represents 45% of the score.


See “Appendix A” for “Formula Description”.  See “Appendix Z” for the mathematical formula for determining soils of high and medium production.  See “Soil Productivity Map” for soils of high and medium production.


A series of maps has been developed that contain both our productive soils and where agriculture is still the predominant land use.


The majority of the people who responded to the Citizen Opinion Survey said that they wanted to protect agriculture, important farmland, and rural character, which led to the following recommendations:


  • Publish an informational brochure on the community’s beliefs, values, and culture to convey the expectations of being part of this community.


Commentary:  It is important to realize that people will continue to build in our Town and that, somehow, the Town should alert them before they purchase land that the current residents share certain principles that are inherent in most rural communities.


Some issues that new residents need to understand are wind erosion, aerial spraying,

noise and machinery traffic that runs around the clock during spring planting and fall

harvest, line fence maintenance if the neighboring landowner has cattle, nitrate

contamination caused by overloading soils with septic systems that do not remove

nitrates, and building homes along stream terraces and on perched water table soils.


   Protect agricultural areas by limiting the amount of non-farm development that takes place in

these areas.


Commentary:  It will be difficult to achieve this recommendation because of agricultural economics.  This is not saying no new development can occur in these areas, but the Plan Commission should give careful thought to the impacts of development in these areas.

It would be preferable that people not build homes in the middle of productive fields.  It would be preferable to encourage non-farm development to be close to roads, on field edges, or on the edges of woodlots.


          Develop a “Right-to-Farm” Ordinance to protect our farmers.


          Develop an Ag Survey.


Commentary:  Poll farmers on topics such as:  Do they plan to continue farming?  If so, for

how long?  Do they intend on staying in dairy farming?  Are they willing to have any

building restrictions on their land?   Do they have any additional questions that could be

helpful to the Plan Commission?


          Continue working with Dunn County to implement a Comprehensive Plan to protect our quality

             of life and agricultural livelihood


We sincerely hope you are pleased with the work that was done by this Committee.  If this report and the maps meet your expectations for agriculture, we will consider this job completed and move on to natural and cultural resources.

Town of Spring Brook



         The Town of Spring Brook is representative of the prairie topography that borders the Chippewa River.  Its topography, to a large extent, is responsible for its intense agricultural use.  The large open prairies and irrigation make it highly desirable for row and specialty crops.  The floodplain of the Chippewa River is also cropped.  Because of this, there has been little residential development except along the Chippewa River and Elk Creek.

         The Town has one of the two prairie lakes that are mapped in Dunn County.  It also has several large prairie potholes.  In addition, there is a large wetland complex associated with Muddy Creek.  The western border of the Township has a rolling topography which consists of agricultural land that is interspersed with woodlands and wetlands.   It is these unique natural resources that define the rural character for this Township.

         The significant resources of the Town of Spring Brook have been identified and, when possible, mapped. Mapped resources include productive soils, surface water, water quality management areas, steep slopes, wetlands, areas that are occasionally and frequently flooded, and woodlands that are greater than 10 acres.


Soil Erosion

Much of the land on the Fall City Prairie is more susceptible to wind erosion than water erosion because of the lack of woodlands to provide shelter from the winds.

Water Quality

See NR 151 (Wisconsin’s Runoff Rules); ATCP 50 (A listing of conservation practices); Water Quality Goals from the “State of the Lower Chippewa River Basin Report”, 2001, PUBL #WT 554-00; and, Committee Recommendations.

Steep Slopes

Areas with slopes greater than 20% are considered as environmentally sensitive. These areas are subject to severe erosion from tillage, road construction, and home construction unless precautions are taken.  Most slopes are wooded. Some are pastured while few, if any, are cultivated.  These slopes are prevalent throughout the Township but less so in the southeast corner.


Wetlands are a valuable resource because they store flood waters, filter sediment and nutrients, and serve as groundwater recharge areas. These are areas that have hydric soils (water at or near the surface through most of the growing season) and support hydrophytic vegetation (plants that thrive in wet conditions).


Floodplains are lands that are generally adjacent to creeks, rivers, lakes, and wetlands and that are susceptible to flood flow (floodway) or areas of slack water (flood fringe).  For purposes of this plan, it includes areas which are subject to occasional or frequent flooding (based on soils).


Woodlands, for the purpose of this plan, are woodlots that are 10 acres or greater in size.  This acreage was selected because this is the minimum acreage that can be enrolled in the State’s Managed Forest Program.


Although hydrology refers to both surface and groundwater, for purposes of this plan and mapping, it refers to those rivers and streams which are designated on the 7.5 Minute USGS Topographic Maps.


All land and water, whether cropland, woodland, wetlands, rivers and streams, floodplains, and even residential yards, supports wildlife.  The following types of wildlife are common in the Town of Spring Brook:  big game such as deer and black bear; small game such as rabbits and squirrels; upland birds such as turkeys and ruffed grouse; a large variety of songbirds and waterfowl; birds of prey such as owls, red-tailed hawks, and eagles; and, fur bearing animals such as raccoon, opossum, beaver, mink, red and gray fox, and coyote.


Groundwater is the water that saturates the tiny spaces between alluvial material (sand, gravel, silt, clay) or the crevices or fractures in rock.  It is vital for all of us.  We depend on its good quality and quantity for drinking, recreation, use in industry, and growing crops.  It is also vital to sustaining the natural systems on and under the earth’s surface.


Although no specific maps are available at the town or county level showing groundwater, other than soils attenuation maps or groundwater elevations based on USGS topographic maps, it is known that groundwater tends to be localized, often following the same watershed boundaries as surface water.

Nonmetallic Mining Deposits

The Town of Spring Brook has sand and gravel deposits which can be found on outwash plains.

Endangered Resources

The Endangered Resources Program works to conserve Wisconsin’s biodiversity for present and future generations.  The State’s goal is to identify, protect, and manage native plants, animals, and natural communities from the very common to the critically endangered.  They desire to work with others to promote knowledge, appreciation, and stewardship of Wisconsin’s native species and ecosystems.

Wisconsin’s Endangered Species

Endangered species are any species whose continued existence as a viable component of this State’s wild animals or wild plants is determined by the Department of Natural Resources to be in jeopardy on the basis of scientific evidence.

Wisconsin’s Threatened Species

Threatened species are any species which appear likely within the foreseeable future, on the basis of scientific evidence, to become endangered.


No threatened or endangered species are known to exist within the Township.  For additional information, contact local DNR representatives.


In addition to Agriculture, Natural and Cultural Resources being a required element of a Comprehensive Plan, every county in the State of Wisconsin is required to have a Land and Water Resource Management Plan which identifies its resource concerns and strategies for addressing and correcting the problems.  The Towns’ Comprehensive Plans will be consolidated into Dunn County’s Land and Water Resource Management Plan.  The County plan will provide an educational strategy, a voluntary program to achieve compliance with applicable State and County standards, and a regulatory approach should the first two approaches fail.


Committee Recommendations


·   Coordinate with the Dunn County Land Conservation Division to provide training on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and the importance of residue management and no till in controlling soil erosion.

·         The Committee would like to see the re-establishment of grassed waterways as a high priority best management practice.  They would also like this practice to be given a high priority for State and Federal cost sharing assistance.

·         Coordinate with the Land Conservation Division to educate landowners on the advantages of participating in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

·         Coordinate with the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Dunn County Land Conservation Division to educate landowners and help them qualify for the Conservation Security Program, so that when the Spring Brook River Basin is selected, landowners can take advantage of the incentive payments.

·         Work with all landowners, living near streams, to voluntarily participate in an “Adopt a Stream Program” to achieve the water quality goals within the Township.  If all of the landowners living near a stream volunteer to participate as a group, they should be given priority for State and Federal cost sharing programs.

·         Encourage woodland owners to work with the DNR Forester to remove those trees that are most likely to be defoliated and killed by a gypsy moth infestation, Dutch Elm Disease, oak wilt, bark beetle, blister rust, and other woodland management problems.

·         Work with the DNR Foresters to educate landowners about the Managed Forest Program.

·         Work with the Department of Natural Resources, USDA-NRCS, and the Land Conservation Division to become aware of what plants are considered invasive and to become educated on their control.

·         Recommend educating landowners on the importance of allowing hunting to control wildlife populations.

Appendix D

Topography and Geology


Topography and Geology

Dunn County contains 870 square miles near Mississippi.  Most of Dunn County is composed of land known as Western Coulees and Ridges, "characterized by highly eroded, driftless (unglaciated) topography, relatively extensive forested landscape, and big rivers and a wide river valley.  This includes the Mississippi and Chippewa.  Some areas contain cold streams fed by springs.  Silt loam (loess) and sandy loam soils cover sandstone resting on top of dolomite.  "Vegetation consists of bluff prairie, oak-forest, oak savanna, and some mesic forest."  "Relic conifer forests are present…. There are floodplains with connected wetlands."  Agriculture, including dairy and beef forms, is the primary use of land on the ridge tops and stream valleys.  Some croplands and pasture lands are set aside in the  Crop Reserve Program (CRP).  "Wooded slopes are often managed for oak-hardwood production."

Dunn County lies within a roughly S-shaped transition belt known as "the tension zone" where Northern Forests and Southern Forests meet.  "Early forest surveys indicate that Northern forests consisted of a mosaic of young, mature, and 'old growth' forests composed of pines, maples, oaks, birch, hemlock, and other hardwood and conifer species.''  "Southern Forests are distinct from the Northern forests because of the predominance of oaks and general absence of conifers.  They are relatively open or have a park-like appearance, created by the lack of small trees and shrubs.  Examples of southern Forest biological communities are found within southern Dunn county."     

The Mt. Simon Sandstone Formation, about 25 feet thick, underlies the entire county.  It consists of medium to coarse-grained sandstone with some fine-grained sandstone.  The Formation yields moderate to large amounts of water to wells.

The Eau Claire Sandstone Formation, overlying the Mt. Simon, is present throughout the County except in some areas along pre-glacial stream valleys where erosion has greatly thinned or entirely removed it.  The Eau Claire Sandstone is about 100 to 150 feet thick and consist of medium to fine-grained sandstone and shale.  It generally yields only small quantities of water to wells, but moderate yields may be obtained where shale is absent from the formation.

The Galesville Sandstone Formation ranges in thickness from about 30 to 50 feet.  It is present under the southwestern part of the County and probably in the bedrock hills elsewhere in the County.  The Galesville Formation generally yields moderate amounts of water to wells, but it is missing in most areas where soils and topography indicate irrigation to be most feasible.  The unit consists of coarse to fine-grained sandstone.

The Franconia Sandstone Formation, Trempeauleau Foundation, and Prairie du Chien Group consist of sandstone, siltstone, and dolomite.  These formations occur in the western and southwestern parts of the County and in highland areas.  Moderate to small amounts of water can be obtained from the Franconia Formation, but the Trempealeau Formation and the Prairie du Chien Group yield only small amounts.

Glacial deposits in highland areas of Dunn County are very thin, generally less than 30 to 50 feet deep, but they are very thick in the buried bedrock valleys.  Apparently, the pre-glacial Chippewa River flowed through a broad, deep channel and was the principal river draining the area.  Deep tributary river valleys joining the pre-glacial Chippewa include the present Eau Galle River Valley, the present Red Cedar Valley (approximately from Irvington to Downsville), and a river valley trending from a point about two miles northeast of Knapp to north Menomonie and then southeastward to the Chippewa River.  These pre-glacial stream valleys contain 100 to 200 feet of glacial material over much of their area.

Water in the groundwater reservoir moves by gravity from areas of recharge down the hydraulic gradient to areas of discharge.  Recharge occurs over most of the County, and generally the hydraulic gradient is from topographically high to topographically low areas.  Therefore, groundwater is moving through the water-bearing rocks from the water divides in the highland areas of Dunn County to the streams where it is discharged.


Curtis, John C.  The Vegetation of Wisconsin.  Madison:

            The University of Wisconsin Press, 1959.