Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>10
9-10
8-9
7-8
6-7
5-6
4-5
3-4
2-3
1-2
0-1
Average DO (mg/L)
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>0.5
0.45-0.5
0.4-0.45
0.35-0.4
0.3-0.35
0.25-0.3
0.2-0.25
0.15-0.2
0.1-0.15
0.05-0.1
0-0.05
AverageTP (mg/L)
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>200
175-200
150-175
125-150
100-125
75-100
50-75
25-50
0-25
AverageTSS (mg/L)
1000
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Dry
Conditions
100
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.00
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
100
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
94
59
894
io n
Villa ge of
WEST MILW AUKE E
ve
al A
re
st
om
ve
38
20 t h St
27 t h St
35 t h St
o
el
43 r d S t
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
WE
ES
S TT A
A LL LL II S
S
ve
tA
Fo
60 t h St
45
794
B ur nha m S t
B ur nha m S t
Linc oln A v e
Linc oln A v e
24
KINNICKINNIC RIVER
C le v e la nd A v e
T
Ok la hom a A v e
Fo
t
es
om
C le v e la nd A v e
ve
Ok la hom a A v e
C ha s e A v e
6t h S t
13 t h St
20 t h St
35 t h St
43 r d S t
60 t h St
27 t h St
62
C le m en t Av e
N at
13 t h St
100
59
181
59
32
Mo rg an A v e
Mo rg an A v e
241
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
S
S TT .. FF R
RA
AN
NC
C II S
S
894
36
45
43
B oliv ar A ve
94
38
La y ton A v e
62
Pe nn sy lv a nn ia A v e
H owe ll Av e
6t h S t
La y ton A v e
13 t h St
24
894
35 t h St
43
20 t h St
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
D
E LL D
G
N FF II E
EN
EE
RE
GR
27 t h St
100
Edg e rt on A ve
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
C
CU
UD
DA
AH
HY
Y
32
Gr a nge Av e
Gr a nge Av e
119
Village of
HALES CORNERS
Village of
GREENDALE
62
LEGEND
Water
KK WATERSHED
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Subwatersheds
Civil Divisions
1,150 2,300
Feet
4,600
ve
Burnham St
Burnham St
H
st
re
Fo
KINNICKINNIC RIVER
Cleveland Ave
e
Av
20th St
27th St
e
Av
35th St
o it
43rd St
l
Be
60th St
om
H
st
re
Fo
om
Cleveland Ave
e
Av
Okla homa Ave
Chase Ave
6th St
13th St
20th St
27th St
35th St
43rd St
60th St
Clement Ave
A
na l
13th St
o
Nati
Morgan Ave
Morgan Ave
Bolivar Ave
Howell Ave
6th St
13th St
20th St
27th St
35th St
Edgerton Ave
LEGEND
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Aerial Map
Subwatersheds
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Combined Sewer Service Area
Civil Divisions
1,100 2,200
Feet
4,400
94
59
ve
38
13th St
20th St
Lincoln Ave
Lincoln Ave
43rd St
24
Cleveland Ave
Cleveland Ave
60th St
KK-9
KK-3
KK-10
Oklahoma Ave
20th St
ve
43rd St
eA
27th St
s
re
Fo
Oklahoma Ave
om
tH
35th St
32
Morgan Ave
KINNICKINNIC RIVER
Morgan Ave
62
Clement Ave
it
m
Ho
st
re
eA
13th St
lo
Be
27th St
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
WE
ES
S TT A
A LL LL II S
S
Fo
KK-2
e
Av
794
Burnham St
Burnham St
60th St
45
Villa ge of
WEST MILWAUKEE
Av e
Chase Ave
894
nal
6th St
o
Na ti
35th St
100
59
181
59
KK-1
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
S
S TT .. FF R
RA
AN
NC
C II S
S
241
Howard Ave
894
KK-8
KK-7
36
45
43
Bolivar Ave
94
38
Layton Ave
62
Pennsylvannia Ave
Howell Ave
Layton Ave
6th St
24
KK-6
Y
35th St
894
13th St
Y
43
43
20th St
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
D
E LL D
G
N FF II E
EN
EE
RE
GR
27th St
100
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
C
CU
UD
DA
AH
HY
Y
KK-4
KK-5
32
Grange Ave
Grange Ave
119
Village of
HALES CORNERS
Village of
GREENDALE
62
ZZ
ZZ
LEGEND
Assessment Points
32
KK Watershed
Model Reach Tributary Area
Water
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Watershed
Waterbodies
Civil Division
1,200 2,400
Feet
4,800
Cleveland Ave
165
167
166A
166
163
164
260
Cha se Ave
6th St
13th St
27th St
20th St
MI05
168
KK-10
Morgan Ave
Howard Ave
LEGEND
Assessment Points
CSO
SSO
NonContact Cooling Water
Water
Civil Division
380
760
Feet
1,520
KK-10
Clevelan d Ave
Chase Ave
13th St
6th St
Oklahom a Ave
Howard Ave
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Routing Reach Tributary Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Civil Divisions
380
760
Feet
1,520
Measure
Standard/Target
1
1,000 counts/100 ml
1
2,000 counts/100 ml
2 mg/l
17.2 mg/l
Flashiness
1
Planning Guideline
Richards Baker Flashiness Index (quantifies the frequency
and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow; the index
ranges from 0 - 2, with 0 being constant flow)
Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.
0.1 mg/l
indicator only
Figure
Flashiness index
Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Good to Moderate The Flashiness Index quantifies the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in stream flow. The index ranges from 0
Dissolved oxygen
v. days per year
Fecal coliform v.
days per year
Very Good
Phosphorus v.
days per year
Suspended solids
v. days per year
Monthly chloride
grab samples (CL
not from models)
Monthly
dissolved oxygen
Monthly fecal
coliform
Poor
Monthly
phosphorus
Monthly
suspended solids
Poor
Variable (some
good, some bad)
Good
Inconclusive (no
winter data)
Very Good
Moderate to Poor
Good
to 2, with 0 being constant flow. The flashiness is slightly high at this location.
Typically, aquatic communities need 5 mg/l or more of dissolved oxygen to survive. Concentrations at this site
consistently exceed this level as well as the variance standard of 2 mg/l.
For recreational uses, lower fecal coliform counts (a measure of bacteria) are better (preferably under 400 counts / 100ml).
The counts on majority of the days are either below 400 or above 5,000. A goal in this case may be to determine the
conditions that create the above 5,000 days and discourage recreational use on days that meet these conditions. As there
is a variance that allows the fecal coliform to reach 2,000, another goal could be to find ways to decrease coliform loads in
order to increase the number of days that have fewer than 2,000 counts.
Phosphorus is a nutrient that can lead to increased growth of algae. The concentrations on most days are above the 0.1
mg/l planning guideline and the concentrations exceed 0.5 mg/l on some days.
Suspended solids cause water to become cloudy. This can clog the gills of fish and invertebrates, make feeding difficult,
and lead to sediment deposition (poor habitat). The concentrations on most days fall below 25 mg/l.
These samples show chloride values below levels that are acutely toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations in March
often exceed the chronic toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there is no winter
data. .Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride concentrations.
Note the lower dissolved oxygen concentrations during the summer. This is normal due to the decreased solubility of
oxygen in warmer water.
While the ranges of values are fairly consistent throughout the year, note that the medians decline during the summer
swimming season. This may be related to the die-off of bacteria due to solar radiation. Also, the summer accounts for
many of the below 400 days mentioned above while the winter and early spring have many of the above 5,000 days.
Phosphorus concentrations consistently exceed the planning guideline, though the upper extremes tend to decline during
the late spring, summer, and early fall. This may be related to uptake by plants during the growing season.
Suspended solids concentrations tend to be lower in the winter months. This is may be due to frozen conditions,
decreased construction activity, and low-impact storms (snow doesnt pound the soil like rain).
Figure
Chloride by flow
(Cl not from
models)
Dissolved oxygen
by flow
Fecal coliform by
flow
Overall Project
Analysis
Team Assessment
Inconclusive (no
It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being
actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir that is gradually released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry
winter data)
Good
Moderate to Poor
Phosphorus by
flow
Poor
Suspended solids
by flow
Good
conditions. At high flow conditions, dilution takes over, lowering the chloride concentration.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations as shown here are consistent among the flow conditions.
Generally, a pollutant that is present at high concentrations during high flows and low concentrations during low flows
(fecal coliform, in this case) is attributed primarily to non-point sources. Infrequent sewer overflows (once every 2-5
years) would only contribute during the high flows when a substantial non-point load is already present. Note that during
periods with the highest flows, fecal coliform counts exceed the variance standard and during moist conditions, fecal
coliform counts exceed the variance standard over 50% of the time. During dry conditions and low flows, the standard is
met nearly all of the time. These times would be the safest time for recreational uses (boating, wading, swimming).
Concentrations of phosphorus are greatest at high and low flows, although concentrations exceed the planning guideline
under all flow conditions. The higher concentrations at flow extremes suggests a background source that is particularly
noticeable during low flows (perhaps due to inputs of non-contact cooling water) as well as non-point sources of
phosphorus at high flows.
Suspended solids increase with increased flows. This suggests a prevalence of non-point sources. The concentrations
exceed the reference concentration predominantly during the high flow condition. These conditions most often occur
following large storms or major snow-melt events. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries a sediment
load, from stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
Flashiness index
Reach
RI-13
Location
South 7th Street
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Jan Feb Mar Mar Apr May Jun Jun Jul Aug Aug Sep Oct Nov Nov Dec
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
KK-10
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Kinnickinnic River
(annual)
near Upstream
Limit of Estuary
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Copper
5,659
80
492
296
2,660
90
361
150
Mean (mg/l)
6.6
Median (mg/l)
6.3
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.052
Median (mg/l)
0.031
Condition
Existing
88
Mean (mg/l)
0.66
Median (mg/l)
0.67
Mean (mg/l)
8.5
Median (mg/l)
5.0
Mean (mg/l)
0.0036
Median (mg/l)
0.0013
Variance standards are from Chapter NR 104 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code apply.
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>10
9-10
8-9
7-8
6-7
5-6
4-5
3-4
2-3
1-2
0-1
Average DO (mg/L)
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>5000
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>0.5
0.45-0.5
0.4-0.45
0.35-0.4
0.3-0.35
0.25-0.3
0.2-0.25
0.15-0.2
0.1-0.15
0.05-0.1
0-0.05
Average TP (mg/L)
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
>200
175-200
150-175
125-150
100-125
75-100
50-75
25-50
0-25
1000
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Dry
Conditions
100
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
100
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1.00
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
0.10
0.01
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1000
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
100
10
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
APPENDIX 4D
Point Area
Total NP load
per acre
3.0
400
350
2.5
300
2.0
250
200
1.5
150
1.0
100
0.5
50
0
0.0
Total load
(billion
counts)
361,866
327,952
202,882
247,097
469,448
376,749
583,598
185,810
145,038
458,078
Assessment
Total Nonpoint Load per
Point Area
acre (billion
(acres)
counts/acre/year)
1,073
337
1,097
299
685
296
853
290
1,674
280
1,366
276
2,178
268
766
243
615
236
2,477
185
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Total load
(pounds)
KK-5
KK-6
KK-2
KK-8
KK-10
KK-4
KK-1
KK-7
KK-3
KK-9
1006
599
894
1727
1065
1846
625
444
1204
541
Assessment
Point Area
(acres)
1073
684.8
1097.4
2177.91
1366.17
2476.9
853.21
614.85
1674.26
765.8
Point Area
Total NP load
per acre
3.0
2.5
0.35
0.30
0.25
2.0
0.20
1.5
0.15
1.0
0.10
0.5
0.05
0.0
0.00
Total load
(tons)
322
279
157
293
444
442
109
280
128
142
Assessment
Total Nonpoint Load per
Point Area
acre (tons/acre/year)
(acres)
1073
0.30
1097.4
0.25
684.8
0.23
1366.17
0.21
2177.91
0.20
2476.9
0.18
614.85
0.18
1674.26
0.17
765.8
0.17
853.21
0.17
Kinnickinnic River
5-1
Kinnickinnic River
Flow/flood impacts
3) Nutrients/Phosphorus
In-stream phosphorus concentrations tend to be variable throughout the Kinnickinnic
River watershed. While there do not appear to be many problems with algal growth
within the watershed, phosphorus has been identified as an issue along the nearshore area
of Lake Michigan.
The management strategies also consider nitrogen, copper, legacy pollutants such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs). However, these pollutants are not a primary focus for the WRP
and should be addressed in future studies.
The use of real-time data was stressed as an important implementation tool. The USGS and
MMSD have installed monitoring facilities at select locations along the Kinnickinnic River.
These facilities provide water quality, temperature, and flow data to resource managers on a realtime basis. The availability of real-time data facilitates an improved understanding of stream
parameters under varied conditions. The USGS posts real-time monitoring data for Wisconsin at
the following website:
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/nwis/current/?type=quality
With regard to aesthetic and habitat improvements, the Kinnickinnic River Watershed Action
Team (WAT) identified the issues and desired improvements summarized below, which are also
listed in Chapter 3, Section 3.3.
1) Manmade channels/concrete channels
The WAT committee suggested that concrete linings be removed and stream channels be
naturalized. The concrete removal and naturalization would make the river more
attractive and appear less like a drainage ditch. See Chapter V of SEWRPC Technical
Report No. 39 for locations of drop structures and concrete-lined channels in the
Kinnickinnic River.1 Other considerations included removing streams from enclosed
conduit (stream daylighting) and reintroduction of stream meanders. Daylighting
streams and reintroducing meanders would immediately improve habitat and aesthetics
(vistas) and have the effect of drawing people to the river, but potential impacts to public
safety and flooding also need to be considered.
2) In-stream conditions
The WAT committee made a number of suggestions regarding improvements to instream conditions. In general, these suggestions addressed habitat and in-stream physical
conditions. The suggestions included the following:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Introduce environmentally-friendly sheet piling and bulkheads
1
SEWRPC, Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Technical
Report No. 39, Chapter V, Surface Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Kinnickinnic River
Watershed (November 2007)
5-2
Kinnickinnic River
Kinnickinnic River
The management strategies (FPOPs) must be identified and developed to reduce the loads in a
cost effective manner to achieve the goals identified in Chapter 3. The approach to reduce
pollutant loads in the Kinnickinnic River watershed is predicated on the assumption that the
existing regulations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be implemented. In other
words, the analysis assumes that the recommended management strategies used to meet these
regulations, identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP) and SEWRPCs RWQMPU, are in
place. These management strategies would then be the foundation on which new management
strategies are added to achieve the desired goals.
These management strategies (FPOPs) are grouped in the following three categories and
discussed in subsequent sections in this chapter:
1) Existing regulatory management strategies (Table 5-1)
2) Other management strategies in various stages of implementation (Table 5-2)
3) Management strategies recommended for implementation by the RWQMPU, but not yet
implemented (Table 5-3)
These tables summarize the strategies identified in the RWQMPU that could be used to achieve
the goals identified for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Each table corresponds to one of the
three categories of management strategies identified above. The tables indicate which area (or
areas) of focus each FPOP primarily addresses. The table also presents selected responsible
parties and participants. For addition detail, see SWWT membership list and governmental
management agency designations and selected responsibilities (Planning Report No.50 Tables
93-99) located in Appendices 5B and 5C.
5-4
5.3
Kinnickinnic River
Pollutant loading in the Kinnickinnic River is a function of point sources and nonpoint sources.
The management strategies (FPOPs) discussed in this chapter address pollutant loading from
both types of sources. Table 5-1 summarizes the existing regulatory management strategies
(FPOPs) to achieve goals. The table includes: the focus pollutant that the strategy addresses, the
agencies responsible for implementation and compliance, and the status of the regulatory
strategy as of October 2009.
5-5
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES (FPOPS) TO ACHIEVE GOALS
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
WDNR, MMSD,
and
municipalities
Regulatory program
underway
WDNR, MMSD,
and
municipalities
Regulatory program
underway
WDNR and
municipalities
Regulatory program
underway
WDNR and
municipalities
Regulatory program
underway
WDNR
Regulatory program
underway
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
NR 151
Vacuum street sweeping
Infiltration systems
Parking lot
implementation of MCTTs
Vacuum sweeping
parking lots
Wet detention basins
Phosphorus fertilizer ban
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
MMSD and
municipalities
Regulatory program
underway with
revision in progress
Transportation controls
TRANS 401
NR 151
WDNR,
WisDOT, and
WI Department
of Commerce
Regulatory program
underway
5-6
Continued...
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-1
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
Municipalities
and NGOs with
assistance from
UWM GLWI and
MMSD
WDNR and
USEPA
WDNR
Regulation being
drafted by WDNR
NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management
SSO = Sanitary Sewer Overflow
TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load
TRANS 401 = WisDOT CHAPTER TRANS 401: Construction Site Erosion Control
and Stormwater Management Procedures for Department Actions
TSS = Total suspended solids
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UWM = University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WisDOT = Wisconsin Department of Transportation
WPDES = Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
WRP = Watershed Restoration Plan
5-7
Kinnickinnic River
5-8
Kinnickinnic River
5-9
Kinnickinnic River
Municipal Permits
On January 19, 2006, the WDNR issued a general stormwater discharge permit applicable to
MS4s for areas that do not have individual permits and that are one of the following:
1) An urbanized area with a minimum population of 50,000 people as determined by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census, or
2) A municipality with a population of 10,000 or more and a population density of 1,000
persons or more per square mile, or
3) An area that drains to an MS4 that is designated for permit coverage.
The general permit specifies conditions under which stormwater may be discharged to waters of
the state for the purpose of achieving water quality standards. It establishes conditions for
discharges to state-designated outstanding or exceptional resource waters. When an MS4
discharges to an impaired waterbody listed in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the
following conditions must be met:
1) The permittees written stormwater management program must specifically identify
control measures and practices that are to be applied in an attempt to reduce, with the
goal of eliminating, the discharge of pollutants of concern that contribute to the
impairment of the receiving water
2) The permittee may not initiate a new discharge of a pollutant of concern to an impaired
waterbody or increase the discharge of such a pollutant to an impaired waterbody unless
receiving water quality standards will be met or WDNR has approved a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) for the impaired waterbody
3) For discharges to a waterbody for which a TMDL has been established, the permittee
must determine if additional stormwater runoff controls are required to meet the TMDL
wasteload allocation
The general stormwater discharge permit establishes requirements for the following:
1) Public education and outreach
2) Public involvement and participation
3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination
4) Construction site pollutant control
5) Post-construction stormwater management and a pollution prevention program
The construction site pollutant control requirements and the post-construction control
requirements are based on the standards for new development, redevelopment, and transportation
facilities as set forth in NR 151 and NR 216.
The following NR 216 municipalities are in the Kinnickinnic River watershed:
1) City of Milwaukee
2) City of Greenfield
3) City of West Allis
5-10
Kinnickinnic River
5-11
Kinnickinnic River
Chapter NR 151 standards require that municipalities with WPDES stormwater discharge
permits reduce the amount of total suspended solids in stormwater runoff from areas of existing
development that is in place as of October 2004 to the maximum extent practicable, according to
the following standards:
By March 10, 2008, the NR 151 standards called for a 20% reduction
By October 1, 2013, the standards call for a 40% reduction
Also, permitted municipalities must implement 1) public information and education programs
relative to specific aspects of nonpoint source pollution control; 2) municipal programs for
collection and management of leaf and grass clippings; and 3) site-specific programs for
application of lawn and garden fertilizers on municipally controlled properties with over five
acres of pervious surface. Under the requirements of NR 151, by March 10, 2008, incorporated
municipalities with average population densities of 1,000 people or more per square mile that
were not required to obtain municipal stormwater discharge permits must now implement those
same three programs.
In addition, regardless of whether a municipality is required to have a stormwater discharge
permit under NR 216, NR 151 requires that all construction sites that have one acre or more of
land disturbance must achieve an 80% reduction in the sediment load generated by the site. With
certain limited exceptions, those sites required to have construction erosion control permits must
also have post-development stormwater management practices to reduce the total suspended
solids load from the site by 80% for new development, 40% for redevelopment, and 40% for
infill development occurring prior to October 1, 2012. After October 1, 2012, infill development
will be required to achieve an 80% reduction. If it can be demonstrated that the solids reduction
standard cannot be met for a specific site, total suspended solids must be controlled to the
maximum extent practicable. Note that during the development of this WRP, participants
observations indicated that methods and installation are key factors that determine the
effectiveness of erosion control measures at construction sites.
Section NR 151.12 requires infiltration of post-development runoff from areas developed on or
after October 1, 2004, subject to specific exclusions and exemptions as set forth in Sections
151.12(5)(c)5 and 151.12(5)(c)6, respectively. In residential areas, either 90% of the annual
predevelopment infiltration volume or 25% of the post-development runoff volume from a twoyear recurrence interval 24-hour storm is required to be infiltrated. However, no more than 1%
of the area of the project site is required to be used as effective infiltration area. In commercial,
industrial and institutional areas, 60% of the annual predevelopment infiltration volume or 10%
of the post-development runoff volume from a two-year recurrence interval 24-hour storm is
required to be infiltrated. In this case, no more than 2% of the rooftop and parking lot areas are
required to be used as effective infiltration area.
Section NR 151.12 also generally requires impervious area setbacks of 50 feet from streams,
lakes, and wetlands. This setback distance is increased to 75 feet around NR 102-designated
outstanding or exceptional resource waters or NR 103-designated wetlands of special natural
resource interest. Reduced setbacks from less susceptible wetlands and drainage channels of not
less than 10 feet may be allowed.
5-12
Kinnickinnic River
5-13
Kinnickinnic River
Table 5-2 summarizes all of the existing management strategies that are being implemented to
some degree in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The table identifies the focus area the strategy
addresses, the agencies that are responsible for implementing the management strategy, and a
comment on the status of the management strategy as of October 2009.
5-14
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Develop according to
approved land use plans
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
MMSD
Milwaukee County,
SEWRPC, and
municipalities
In general,
municipalities and
Milwaukee County are
following SEWRPC
land use plans.
Comment
Continued...
5-15
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Maintain and preserve
environmentally significant
lands
Ongoing programs
Greenseams
Ongoing planning
efforts
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
MMSD, SEWRPC,
WDNR, and others
such as land trusts
Comment
The potential future
environmental corridor
of the KK River
watershed is preserved
by the sewer extension
process.
The MMSD
Greenseams Program
will continue to look for
opportunities in the KK
River watershed.
Other future actions
under consideration by
Milwaukee County and
by the Kinnickinnic
River Corridor
Neighborhood Planning
process.
Continued...
5-16
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
WisDOT, MMSD,
and municipalities
I-94 North-South
Freeway Project is
evaluating various
options (concentrating
on the Villa Mann Creek
area).
The Kinnickinnic River
Corridor Neighborhood
Planning process is
evaluating options.
Milwaukee County is
looking at the
expansion of
parkland/buffers.
The River Revitalization
Foundation may initiate
a project in the KK
River watershed.
Milwaukee County
and municipalities
Program support
through municipal
ordinances.
Milwaukee County,
NGOs, and
municipalities
Program support
through municipal
ordinances and citizen
cleanup efforts.
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
Continued...
5-17
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Research and implement
projects on nonpoint pollution
controls
Concrete channel renovation
and rehabilitation (includes
drop structures)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
The MMSD is
continuing its
stormwater
demonstration grants.
WisDOT, MMSD,
and municipalities
5-18
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
WisDOT,
Milwaukee County,
MMSD, and
municipalities
MMSD and
municipalities
5-19
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
Milwaukee County,
MMSD, and
municipalities
Milwaukee County,
municipalities, and the
MMSD are addressing
this issue. See notes
section at the end of
this table for a
reference to a recentlycompleted stream
assessment report that
addresses this strategy.
WisDOT,
Milwaukee County,
MMSD, and
municipalities
Various projects
underway by the
MMSD, WisDOT, and
municipalities.
Active programs
supported by the
MMSD. Potential for
NGO effort with
foundation and SWWT
support.
MMSD
5-20
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
WDNR
Various efforts
underway.
MMSD, WDNR,
USGS, and NGOs
USGS
NGOs
5-21
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Continue maintenance of
MMSD conveyance system
modeling tools
MMSD
Continue maintenance of
watershed-wide riverine water
quality models (LSPC)
MMSD and
SEWRPC
Green Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee
and MMSD
MMSD
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
Continued...
5-22
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-2
OTHER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF IMPLEMENTATION
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Wilson Park Creek Flood
Protection Project
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
X
Notes:
Additional detail on all strategies can be found in the RWQMPU Planning Report No. 50,
Chapters X and XI
Cl- = Chlorides
CSO = Combined Sewer Overflow
FC = Fecal coliform
FPOP = Facilities, Policies, Operational Improvements, Programs
KK = Kinnickinnic River
LSPC = Loading simulation program, a watershed modeling system that includes
algorithms for simulating hydrology, sediment, and general water quality
NGO = Non-governmental organization
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
MMSD
Comment
Project addresses risks
associated with
structures located in the
floodplain.
5-23
Kinnickinnic River
5.5
Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation in the Regional Water
Quality Management Plan Update but Not Yet Implemented
Table 5-3 summarizes all of the management strategies that were recommended in the
RWQMPU but are not actively being implemented in the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The
table includes the focus area the strategy addresses, the responsible agencies for initiating the
implementation of the management strategy, and a comment on the management strategy as of
October 2009.
For additional detailed information, Chapters X and XI of the RWQMPU can be viewed at the
following website:
http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/pr/pr-050_part-1_water_quality_plan_for_greater_mke_
watersheds.pdf
5-24
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-3
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria ID program
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
NGOs and
municipalities
Establish similar
program currently
underway in
Menomonee River
watershed.
WisDOT and
municipalities
Consider
implementation of
innovative anti-icing
and deicing programs
to reduce the use of
road salt as utilized by
some Milwaukee area
municipalities. See
Road Salt Article in
Appendix 5A)
Municipalities
Establish similar
program currently
underway in
Menomonee River
watershed.
Restore wetlands,
woodlands, and grasslands
adjacent to the stream
channels and establish
riparian buffers
Milwaukee County,
MMSD, and
municipalities
5-25
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-3
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
WDNR
As fish passage
impediments are
eliminated, the
applicability of this
program will be
increased.
Milwaukee County
and municipalities
Vegetated buffers
discourage waterfowl
congregation. Some
actions already
implemented.
Implement programs to
discourage unacceptably
high numbers of waterfowl
from congregating near
water features
MMSD
Implement collection
programs for expired and
unused household
pharmaceuticals
MMSD
Program should be
expanded as
recommended in the
2020 FP and
RWQMPU.
Continued...
5-26
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 5-3
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES RECOMMENDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE BUT NOT YET IMPLEMENTED
Area of Focus Primarily Addressed
Management Strategy
(FPOP)
Bacteria/Public
Health (FC, E. Coli,
Pathogens)
Habitat/Aesthetics
(Flow, TSS, Cl ,
Trash, Pet Litter,
etc.)
Nutrients
(Phosphorus)
Responsible
and/or
Participating
Organization
Comment
Program should be
expanded as
recommended in the
2020 FP and
RWQMPU.
WDNR
Various actions
underway.
Follow recommendations of
the regional water supply
plan regarding maintenance
of groundwater recharge and
discharge areas
WisDOT, MMSD,
and municipalities
Preservation of
groundwater
discharge zones in the
watershed will
preserve base flow to
waterways.
Improve aesthetics
WisDOT, MMSD,
NGOs, and
municipalities
Notes:
Additional detail on all strategies can be found in the RWQMPU Planning Report No. 50,
Chapters X and XI
2020 FP = MMSD 2020 Facilities Plan
Cl- = Chlorides
FC = Fecal coliform
FPOP = Facilities, Policies, Operational Improvements and Programs
5-27
5.6
Kinnickinnic River
Summary
Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 give a summary of the management strategies (FPOPs) that are being
implemented or available for implementation to improve bacteria (public health), habitat, and
nutrient (phosphorus) loading in the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
These strategies will be evaluated in the next chapter in terms of their ability to reduce loads to
the watershed. The strategies will be prioritized based upon their anticipated impact on
improving water quality and habitat.
5-28
APPENDIX 5A
Steven R. Corsi*,1, David J. Graczyk1, Steven W. Geis2, Nathaniel L. Booth1, Kevin D. Richards1
U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wisconsin, USA; 2Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene,
Corresponding author phone: (608) 821-3835; fax: (608) 821-3817; email: srcorsi@usgs.gov.
ABSTRACT
While road salt runoff influence on water quality has been documented for at least forty years, a new
10
perspective on the severity of aquatic toxicity impact was gained by a focused research effort directed
11
at winter runoff periods. Dramatic impacts were observed on local, regional, and national scales.
12
Locally, samples from 7 of 13 Milwaukee area streams during two road salt runoff events exhibited
13
toxicity in Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas bioassays and had chloride concentrations up
14
to 6,470 mg/L. In long term testing, Wilson Park Creek in Milwaukee was sampled 37 times from
15
1996 to 2008 with resulting chloride concentrations up to 7,730 mg/L. Toxicity was observed in 72%
16
of these samples in chronic bioassays and 43% in acute bioassays. Regionally in eastern and southern
17
18
watersheds with urban land use ranging from 6% to 100%. Elevated specific conductance was present
19
during cold-weather months at all sites with continuing effects during warm weather months at sites
20
with the greatest effect. Specific conductance was measured as high as 30,800 S/cm (Cl = 11,200
21
mg/L). Estimated chloride concentrations exceeded USEPA acute water quality criteria (860 mg/L) at
55% of these sites and chronic (230 mg/L) water quality criteria at 100% of these sites. Nationally,
USGS historical chloride data was examined for 13 northern and 4 southern metropolitan areas.
Chloride concentrations exceeded USEPA water quality criteria at 51% (acute criteria) and 23%
(chronic criteria) of the 168 northern monitoring locations during cold-weather months. Only 15%
(chronic) and 1% (acute) of sites exceeded criteria during warm-weather months. At southern sites, 2%
and 4% of sites had samples that exceeded chronic water quality criteria during cold- and warm-
BRIEF: Road salt has widespread aquatic toxicity and water quality impacts on urban streams
9
10
Introduction
11
and transportation corridors. Four broad issues suggest that road salt runoff is a serious and increasing
12
threat to the nations receiving waters. First, there is a multitude of historical evidence documenting
13
detrimental effects of road salt on water chemistry and aquatic life. This issue was recognized at least
14
as early as the 1960s (1). Studies have continued each decade since with additional and more
15
comprehensive evidence of water quality impacts from road salt. A small sampling of these studies
16
include reporting of specific water quality impacts such as increased chloride and sodium
17
concentrations, seasonality, climatic and land use influence, density gradients, and influence on
18
sediment pore water, mixing and alteration of turnover in lakes (2-5), and aquatic toxicity impacts (2,
19
6, 7, 7). Second, road salt usage in the United States has increased steadily beginning in the 1940s
20
through
21
production-sales, (8)). Average annual salt sales in the United States for deicing purposes by decade
22
beginning in 1940 were 0.28 (1940s), 1.1 (1950s), 4.1 (1960s), 8.7 (1970s), 8.8 (1980s), 13.0
23
(1990s), and 16.0 (2000-08) million metric tons per year. Third, urban development is increasing each
Road salt runoff poses an increasing threat to aquatic ecosystems with influence from urban land use
the
current
decade
(http://www.saltinstitute.org/Production-industry/Facts-figures/US-
year (9) which adds to the impervious area on which winter deicing operations are conducted. This
collective information suggests that the increasing road salt usage trends of the previous seven decades
will likely continue. Fourth, chloride and to a large degree Na, the two primary ions in road salt, remain
in solution, making it difficult with present day technology to design effective management practices
for reduction of road salt loadings to receiving waters after application. Currently, reduction in usage
In addition to effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, other detrimental impacts from road
salt applications include damage to terrestrial vegetation, degraded soil biota, increased soil
10
11
12
Road salt is commonly applied in granular form or as brine in liquid form on paved surfaces to
13
prevent snow and ice buildup on roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and driveways that could otherwise
14
pose automobile and pedestrian safety hazards. Usage includes application by municipalities, county -
15
and state road maintenance departments, institutions, private contractors, private business owners, and
16
homeowners. A number of application technologies are currently in use, some of which have been
17
described in a report that examined application methods for reducing environmental impact (10).
18
Roadway Weather Information Systems are used by some applicators for timely forecasting of deicing
19
events enabling early deployment of application equipment. Trucks of various size are used to transport
20
the salt, and spinners or conveyors mounted on the trucks are used to deliver salt from the truck to
21
the pavement. Ground speed controlled salt applicators are used by some to vary application based on
22
vehicle speed and achieve a consistent application rate independent of the speed of the vehicle. Some
23
trucks carry liquid pre-wetting agents such as salt brine or magnesium chloride that is applied to road
24
salt prior to application. This enhances bonding between road salt and the pavement or ice surface
minimizing the bounce or overspray effects and reducing overall application needs. Brine or other
liquid deicers are also used as anti-icers by applying them directly to the pavement before freezing
precipitation events, reducing the bond between snow or ice and the pavement surface.
4
5
The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of road salt runoff on surface water and
aquatic organisms. To achieve this, water quality investigations were conducted on a local and regional
scale. On a national scale, analysis of historical data was conducted for 17 metropolitan areas in the
U.S. In the Milwaukee metropolitan area, streams were sampled for chloride, specific conductance, and
aquatic toxicity to assess direct impact on aquatic organisms. In southern and eastern Wisconsin,
10
streams were monitored continuously for specific conductance, a surrogate for chloride, to assess
11
potential impact on aquatic organisms. Nationally, data were mined from the USGS National Water
12
Information System (NWIS) for chloride concentrations from streams sampled between 1969 and
13
2008. Data were compared to USEPA water quality criteria and analyzed for seasonality as a measure
14
15
16
Methods
17
Study Sites:
18
Local scale: Twelve streams in the Milwaukee metropolitan area and one reference stream
19
north of Milwaukee were sampled in February and March 2007 for determination of water chemistry
20
and aquatic toxicity (Table 1, Figure 1). Twelve of the streams had substantial urban land use
21
contribution and the reference stream had 80% natural areas and no urban land use (Parnell Creek).
22
Drainage areas of these streams ranged from 16.4 km2 (6.33 mi2) at Willow Creek to 1833 km2 (872
23
mi2) at the Milwaukee River (Table 1). A 14th stream, Wilson Park Creek, was monitored selectively
24
from 1997 through 2007 during deicing periods. Sample results from these 14 streams reported in this
4
paper include chloride, specific conductance, and bioassays using Pimephales promelas and
Ceriodaphnia dubia.
Table 1. Watershed characteristics for study sites in Wisconsin organized by geographic location.
5
6
1
2
Figure 1. Location of study sites in Wisconsin and metropolitan areas in the United States used for
aquatic toxicity evaluation from road salt.
4
5
Regional scope: Eleven streams in central and southern Wisconsin were monitored using
continuous specific conductance sensors with resulting data used as an indication of road salt runoff
(Table 1, Figure 1). These streams represent a gradient of land use including urban influence ranging
9
10
National scope: Individual water quality samples for chloride in 17 major metropolitan areas around
11
the country were retrieved from NWIS, the U.S. Geological Survey national water quality database
12
(Figure 1). Candidate streams were selected based on the latitude and longitude of the monitoring
13
location and its proximity to major urban land-use areas. Streams ultimately chosen for this study
14
included streams that were sampled for chloride between 1969 and 2008, had at least 12 samples in the
15
cold-weather months (November to April) and 12 samples in the warm-weather months (May to
16
October), and a drainage area of less than 2600 km2. A total of 12005 samples from 162 sites in the
17
northern part of the United States and 2378 samples from 50 sites in the southern part of the United
18
19
20
Water-Quality Sampling: For the 13 Milwaukee area streams, sampling periods were targeted at
21
events with road salt application and subsequent runoff. Continuous specific conductance data was
22
available real-time at Wilson Park Creek and was used as an indicator of road salt presence in
23
Milwaukee area streams for these sampling events. A threshold of 10,000 S/cm in Wilson Park Creek
24
was considered to signify substantial road salt influence and was therefore used to initiate sample
25
collection at these sites. Water-quality samples were collected manually in these streams during the
6
February 26 and March 7, 2007 sampling periods. For the wadeable streams, samples were collected by
submerging sample bottles directly into the stream approximately at the center of the stream. For the
non-wadeable streams, sample bottles were lowered into the water with a weighted-bottle sampler from
a bridge at three locations across the stream (11). Comparison of the relation between chloride and
specific conductance was used to assess potential bias in results. All samples were within 10% of the
resulting linear regression except those with chloride concentration less than 230 mg/L where chloride
and sodium are no longer the dominant ions influencing specific conductance. Flow-weighted
composite samples were collected at Wilson Park Creek from 1997 through 2007 using refrigerated
automatic samplers and Teflon-lined polyethylene sample tubing (model 3700R, Isco Industries,
10
Lincoln, Nebraska). Specific details of the sampling protocol used to collect and process water samples
11
12
Weather data was retrieved from three nearby NOAA weather stations (General Mitchell
13
International Airport, Mount Mary, and Germantown). On February 24, 25 and 26, 2007 average
14
snowfall was 16, 15 and 2 cm (0.9, 1.7, and 0.2 cm water equivalent), and maximum air temperatures
15
16
activities on roads, parking lots, driveways, and sidewalks in the Milwaukee area. On March 7, there
17
was an average of 5.7 cm of snow (0.4 cm water equivalent), and maximum air temperature of 0.5oC.
18
This was not enough snow to trigger a general plowing however salt was applied on paved surfaces to
19
melt snow and ice. Salt application and temperatures greater than 0oC for both of these events resulted
20
in runoff from impervious areas leading to storm sewers, and eventually to receiving streams.
and 2.8oC respectively. This snowfall triggered plowing operations and salt deicing
21
Measurements from continuously deployed specific conductance sensors were recorded at least every
22
hour and as frequently as every 5-min depending on the individual site and specific hydrologic
23
conditions. Instantaneous specific conductance was measured in the 13 Milwaukee area streams at the
time of the 2007 sampling periods. All specific conductance sensors were maintained in accordance
3
4
Analytical methods:
State Laboratory of Hygiene using USEPA method 325.2. The method quantification limit was 2.0
mg/L. Average spike recovery during the study period was 100.6% with a standard deviation of 3.3%
(n=472). Duplicate analyses resulted in an average relative percent difference of 0.86% with a standard
9
10
Toxicity Tests. Pimephales promelas and C. dubia bioassays were conduced at the WSLH in
11
Madison, Wisconsin in accordance with standard U.S. EPA methods (14-16) and modified U.S. EPA
12
methods (16) to determine acute (lethal endpoints) and chronic effects (sublethal endpoints) for water
13
14
The 25% inhibition concentrations (IC 25 ) were computed using the IC P method developed by the
15
16
17
Results
18
in the Milwaukee metropolitan area exhibited toxicity in samples collected during road salt application
19
periods in February and March, 2007 (Figure 2). Adverse response in C. dubia tests occurred in
20
samples with chloride concentrations of 1,610 mg/L or greater mg/L. Adverse response in Pimephales
21
promelas tests occurred in samples with chloride concentrations of 2,940 mg/L or greater. The IC 25
22
values computed using measured chloride concentrations in these stream samples were 1,050 mg/L for
23
C. dubia and 1,810 mg/L for Pimephales promelas. These values are similar to those reported by
24
Environment Canada in a summary of numerous laboratory studies on road salt (7). Chloride
Runoff samples in the Milwaukee Area. Results from seven of the 12 urban-influenced watersheds
concentration was elevated above the EPA Acute Water Quality Criteria concentration of 860 mg/L in
eight of these samples and above the EPA Chronic Water Quality Criteria concentration of 230 mg/L in
11 of these samples indicating potential for aquatic toxicity effects. A sample collected at the rural
reference site during the February sampling period had a chloride concentration of 20.4 mg/L and did
6
7
Specific conductance results from continuous monitoring in Wilson Park Creek in Milwaukee during
2007 indicates that conditions similar to the February and March 2007 sampling periods were common
10
11
12
Figure 2. Chronic bioassay results in relation to chloride concentration in samples collected from 13
13
streams in the Milwaukee, WI metropolitan area, February-March, 2007: (A) C. dubia survival and
14
mean young produced and (B) Pimephales promelas survival and mean weight.
15
16
17
18
Figure 3. Specific conductance in Wilson Park Creek in Milwaukee, WI during 2007 in reference to
19
20
21
22
Long-term toxicity from road salt: Results from 37 samples collected from 1997 to 2007 at Wilson
23
Park Creek in Milwaukee demonstrate long-term toxicity effects in numerous samples and a distinct
relation to chloride concentration (Figure 4). Concentrations at which chronic result effects are
observed from this long-term sampling program are very similar to corresponding concentrations
where chronic effects were observed from the 2007 sampling events in the Milwaukee metropolitan
area. In chronic C. dubia assays, no young were produced when chloride concentration was 1770 mg/L
or greater (43% of samples) and complete mortality was observed at chloride concentrations of 2,420
and greater (38% of samples) with initial toxic effects beginning between 600 and 1,100 mg/L. It is
difficult to determine the exact concentration road salt effects begin for chronic C. dubia assays due to
variability and potential confounding contaminants in urban runoff. Mortality was also observed in
acute C. dubia assays for all samples with chloride concentrations greater than 1900 mg/L. In chronic
10
Pimephales promelas assays, reduced weight and survival is present when concentrations are 2920
11
mg/L or greater. In Pimephales promelas acute assays, only two samples were influenced with initial
12
13
14
10
2
3
Figure 4. Bioassay results in relation to chloride concentration in samples collected from Wilson Park
Creek in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1997-2007: (A) C. dubia survival and mean young produced in
chronic bioassays, (B) Pimephales promelas survival and mean weight in chronic bioassays, (C) C.
dubia survival in acute bioassays, and (D) Pimephales promelas survival in acute bioassays.
7
8
Regional scale influence: Continuous monitoring of road salt runoff. Eleven streams in urban
regions of Wisconsin were monitored with continuous specific conductance sensors during cold- and
10
warm-weather periods selectively from 1998 to 2008 (Table 1). Between one and 10 years of data were
11
available depending on the individual site. Urban land use percentage in these watersheds varied
12
between 6.0 and 100% (Table 1). Linear regression from concurrent analysis of chloride and specific
13
conductance in samples from these streams resulted in R2 = 0.994. However, residuals for specific
14
conductance less than 1,400 S/cm were negatively biased indicating influence of other ions on
15
specific conductance below this level. Constraining data in the regression to include only samples with
16
specific conductance greater than 1,400 S/cm reduced negative bias at low concentrations
17
considerably and resulted in a line with a slope of 0.374 and intercept of -328 (R2 = 0.997, figure S1 in
18
supporting information). This regression is used for the remainder of this paper to provide chloride
19
concentration estimates (referred to as Cl est ) from measurement of specific conductance. The maximum
20
observed specific conductance in these streams increased with increasing urban land use (Figure 5).
21
The maximum Cl est for seven of these sites exceeded the USEPA acute water quality criteria value of
22
860 mg/L (18). The maximum Cl est at all 11 sites exceeded USEPA chronic water quality criteria value
23
of 230 mg/L (18) with a maximum Cl est of 289 mg/L for the least impacted stream.
24
11
1
2
3
4
Figure 5. Maximum specific conductance compared to urban land use percentage in 11 Wisconsin
streams with reference to US Environmental Protection Agency water quality criteria for chloride (18).
6
7
The highest continuous specific conductance results at these eleven sites occurred specifically during
cold-weather months (Figure 6). The most dramatic impacts from road salt runoff were observed at
Lincoln and Wilson Park Creeks in Milwaukee with specific conductance often exceeding 10,000
10
S/cm (Cl est = 3,4l0) and at times exceeding 20,000 S/cm (Cl est = 7,150 mg/L, Figure 6A). Both of
11
these watersheds have urban land use of 98% or greater. Maximum monthly specific conductance at
12
four sites with a medium influence ranged between 3,000 and 8,000 S/cm (Figure 6B). These sites
13
had 26 69% urban land use. Maximum monthly values at four sites with low influence were still
14
15
conductance was less than 3,000 S/cm (Figure 6B). These sites had 6.0 30 % urban land use. While
16
most of these watersheds were small to medium in size with a drainage area of 25 to 280 km2, the
17
Milwaukee River at Milwaukee has a drainage area of 1,800 km2 and still was impacted by road salt
18
runoff in cold-weather months with a maximum specific conductance of 2,850 S/cm. In all months,
19
the average monthly maximum specific conductance was greatest in the sites with urban land use of
20
98% or greater followed by those with 26-69% urban land use, and least in sites with less than 26%
21
22
23
In some cases, specific conductance decreased through the warm-weather months, reaching a
24
minimum in October (Figure 6C). Specific conductance in the highly urban watersheds, Wilson Park
12
Creek and Lincoln Creek, decreased from May through October by 34% and 39% respectively (Figure
6). The average monthly maximum in these two streams was greater than 1,200 S/cm throughout the
entire year. Specific conductance data from Oak Creek (63% urban land use) also decreased steadily
from May through October with a total decrease of 26%. Other sites either did not have sufficient data
6
7
10
11
National scope. USGS chloride sample results from streams near metropolitan areas were retrieved
12
from 1969 to 2008 for assessment of potential road salt influence throughout the country and to
13
provide context to the more intensive Wisconsin study results (Figure 7). The maximum number of
14
sites per metropolitan area was 29 (Denver) and the maximum number of samples per metropolitan
15
16
17
A total of 898 samples were collected and analyzed for chloride at 21 monitoring locations within the
18
Milwaukee area. Results exceeded 230 mg/L chloride in at least one sample at 90% of monitoring sites
19
during cold-weather months and 33% of monitoring sites during warm-weather months (Figure 7A).
20
Similarly, 57% of these monitoring sites exceeded 860 mg/L chloride in at least one sample during
21
22
23
Most of the metropolitan areas included in the analysis in the northern part of the United States
24
demonstrated the same pattern as the Milwaukee area sites. A total of 51% of all 168 represented
13
northern monitoring locations had at least one sample with concentrations exceeding 230 mg/L during
cold-weather months and 15% during warm-weather months. A total of 23 % of northern monitoring
locations had at least one sample with concentrations exceeding 860 mg/L during cold-weather months
and 1% during warm-weather months. Ten of thirteen metropolitan areas had more monitoring sites
that had a chloride sample result exceeding 230 mg/L during cold-weather months than during warm-
weather months. Nine metropolitan areas had more monitoring sites with sample results that exceeded
860 mg/L during cold-weather months than during warm-weather months. Only two northern
metropolitan areas had monitoring sites with concentrations greater than 860 mg/L during warm-
weather months.
10
11
At monitoring locations in the four southern metropolitan areas, few samples exceeded the water
12
quality criteria concentrations and no common seasonal pattern was detected. Only 2% and 4% of
13
monitoring locations had samples exceeding 230 mg/L during warm- and cold-weather months
14
respectively; samples from the southern sites did not exceed 860 mg/L. Several other southern
15
metropolitan areas were analyzed but not included because monitoring locations either had insufficient
16
17
18
14
15
1
2
Discussion
local, regional, and national scales. The presented long- and short-term runoff sampling programs in
Wisconsin demonstrate a substantial effect from road salt on stream water quality and aquatic life.
Bioassay results from runoff events confirm that the observed high concentrations of road salt cause
acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms. In addition, continuous specific conductance results
indicate that elevated levels of road salt were present multiple times per year each year of monitoring. It
is likely that populations of aquatic organisms in these streams and others with such road salt influence
are limited to salt-tolerant species. Effects on aquatic organisms have previously been demonstrated
10
Detrimental impacts from road salt runoff to surface water presented in this study were evident on
using a salt tolerance biotic index (Chloride Contamination Index, CCI) in Toronto area streams (19).
11
12
The results from continuous monitoring of specific conductance in Lincoln and Wilson Park Creeks in
13
Milwaukee indicate that exposures to elevated levels of chloride in these streams were common for
14
extended periods of time, even through the summer months. These results have broad implications
15
considering that traditional chronic toxicity assessments consider relatively short time periods of 7-14
16
days. Exposures over multiple months add a level of complexity to traditional toxicity assessments.
17
Similar to results from Lincoln and Wilson Park Creeks in Milwaukee, a study of groundwater influence
18
on stream chemistry in Massachusetts confirmed that chloride from highway deicing applications
19
persisted throughout the year as a source of contamination to nearby surface water (20). Elevated
20
chloride concentrations were present in groundwater, interflow, and stream water even during warm-
21
weather months.
22
23
In addition to stream-water quality, previous studies have found a detrimental influence from road salt
24
on water quality in lakes and groundwater. A study of road salt influence in the Twin Cities
25
Metropolitan Area of Minnesota demonstrated a degradation of water quality in urban lakes due to
26
application of road salt (5). Concentrations of sodium and chloride in these lakes were 10 and 25 times
16
higher, respectively, than nearby non-urban lakes. Long-term data analysis from these lakes indicated an
increasing trend in lake salinity over 25 years that was correlated to the purchase of road salt by the state
of Minnesota. A study of groundwater in Ohio indicated that chloride concentration in wells near regular
deicing activity in the northern part of the state were elevated, with multi-year means ranging from 124-
345 mg/L (21). Concentrations at these sites rarely returned to background concentrations (7-37 mg/L)
7
8
The analysis of historical chloride data from urban areas around the country indicated potential for
considerable and widespread impact from road salt on surface water quality and aquatic life. Despite the
10
limitation that sample results from these selected areas were from numerous studies not necessarily
11
designed to capture periods of road salt runoff, the influence of road salt is clear. Streams with urban
12
influence throughout the country in areas where road salt is applied are at risk for substantial
13
14
15
Some research on the influence of urban land use on aquatic life in streams has previously identified a
16
level of 7-12% impervious surface percentage where decreases in biological integrity are observed (22,
17
23) while recent research indicates that stream degradation may begin with even lower levels of urban
18
development (24). Much of the work investigating this aquatic life degradation have focused on ambient
19
water chemistry, habitat and other physical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors (25). The relation of
20
chloride concentrations and specific conductance with urban land use shown in this study and a recent
21
study of the northern United States (26) indicates that road salt runoff is an important factor in the
22
biological integrity of urban streams in the northern United States. While chloride sampling has been
23
included in previous evaluations of urban stream water quality (24), water quality sampling did not
24
specifically focus on periods of winter runoff and may not fully represent the severity of road salt
25
influence.
26
17
To better understand the relation between urban land use and stream biology, focused monitoring
should be done to characterize the range of chloride concentrations and duration of road salt influence in
streams during deicing periods. However, because of the episodic nature of road salt runoff, the full
range of in-stream road salt influence is difficult to characterize without use of continuous monitoring
and event monitoring focusing on deicing periods. Manual sampling during critical road salt runoff
periods is difficult because of inclement weather and poor driving conditions during freezing
precipitation. A periodic or fixed-interval sampling plan that does not focus on deicing events will not
Environmental management or mitigation of this issue is complex. Application of road salt to clear
10
streets and parking lots of snow and ice is conducted for human safety and for improved societal
11
function. Management solutions must take into account environmental issues as well as political,
12
economic, and safety aspects. Balancing all of these factors is necessary to achieve a solution that is
13
acceptable by all affected people as well as maintaining a minimal impact on the environment. Added to
14
these issues is the diversity of applicators in urban areas. City maintenance crews deice roadways, public
15
parking lots and sidewalks while a host of private applicators deice commercial, institutional and
16
industrial areas, and home owners apply deicers to residential driveways and sidewalks. Alternative
17
chemicals are available (at higher costs), but each of the alternative chemicals have unique
18
environmental and/or economic impacts as well. For example, use of organic salts such as calcium
19
magnesium acetate would reduce chloride loading, but would increase biochemical oxygen demand and
20
increase potential for oxygen depletion in receiving waters. The increasing trends in road salt usage and
21
expanding urban development do not offer promise that reduction of the environmental impact of road
22
salt is forthcoming in the near future. Greater aquatic toxicity and water quality impacts seem likely if
23
these trends continue. Regardless of methods chosen, reducing the impact of road salt on the
24
environment will take a substantial and sustained effort coupled with consideration of numerous
25
interconnected factors.
18
Sewerage District, General Mitchell International Airport, and the U.S. Geological Survey. We thank the
biomonitoring and inorganic chemistry units of the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene as well as
many people in the U.S. Geological Survey for their contributions. Any use of trade, product, or firm
names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
6
7
conductance. This information is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
A description of bioassay methods and a graph of the relation between chloride and specific
References
10
11
1. Judd, J.H. Effect of Salt Runoff from Street Deicing on a Small Lake. The University of Wisconsin Madison: Madison, Wisconsin, 1969;
12
13
14
2. Hanes, R.E.; Zelazny, L.W.; Blaser, R.E. Effects of Deicing Salts on Water Quality and Biota-Literature Review and Recommended Research. National Cooperative Highway Research Program:
Washington, DC, 1976; Vol. NCHRP report 91.
15
16
3. Scott, W.S. An analysis of factors influencing deicing salt levels in streams. J. Environ. Manage.
1981, 13, 269-287.
17
18
4. Sorenson, D.L.; Mortenson, V.; Zollinger, R.L. A review and synthesis of the impacts of road salting
on water quality. Utah Department of Transportation: Salt Lake City, UT, 1996; Vol. UT-95.08.
19
20
5. Novotny, E.V.; Murphy, D.; Stefan, H.G. Increase of urban lake salinity by road deicing salt. Sci.
Total Environ. 2008, 406, 131-144.
21
22
23
24
25
7. Environment Canada Priority Substances List Assessment Report Road Salts. Environment Canada:
Canada, 2001;
26
27
8. Kelly, T.D. and Matos, G.R. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the
United States. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 2005; Vol. Data Series 140.
28
29
30
9. Lubowski, R.N.; Vesterby, M.; Bucholtz, S.; Baez, A.; Roberts, M.J. Major Uses of Land in the
United States, 2002. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service:
Washington, DC, 2006; Vol. EIB-14.
31
32
33
10. Levelton Consultants Ltd. Guidelines for the Selection of Snow and Ice Control Materials to
Mitigate Environmental Impacts. National Cooperative Highway Research Program: Washington, DC,
2007; Vol. 577.
19
1
2
11. U.S. Geological Survey Collection of water samples (ver. 2.0). U.S. Geological Survey: 2006; Vol.
Book 9, Chap. A4.
3
4
5
12. Corsi, S.R.; Booth, N.L.; Hall, D.W. Aircraft and runway deicers at General Mitchell International
Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 1. Biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen in
receiving streams. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 1474-1482.
6
7
8
13. Gibs, J.; Wilde, F.D.; Heckathorn, H.A. Use of miltiparameter instruments for routine field
measurements. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 2007; Vol. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6., section 6.8.
9
10
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. EPA: Washington, DC, 2002;
11
12
13
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms. EPA: Washington, DC, 2002; Vol. EPA-821R-02-013.
14
15
16
16. Geis, S.W.; Fleming, K.; Mager, A.; Reynolds, L. Modifications to the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas) chronic test method to remove mortality due to pathogenic organisms. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 2003, 22, 2400-2404.
17
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ICp calculation program, Release 1.0. 1988,
18
19
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride--1988.
Washington, DC, 1988; Vol. EPA 440/5-88-001.
20
21
22
19. Williams, D.D.; Williams, N.E.; Cao, Y. Road salt contamination of groundwater in a major
metropolitan area and development of a biological index to monitor its impact. Water Res. 2000, 34,
127-138.
23
24
20. Ostendorf, D.W.; Peeling, D.C.; Mitchell, T.J.; Pollock, S.J. Chloride persistence in a deiced access
road drainage system. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 1756-1770.
25
26
27
21. Jones, A.L. and Sroka, B.N. Effects of highway deicing chemicals on shallow unconsolidated
aquifers in Ohio. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, 1997; Vol. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2004-5150.
28
29
22. Wang, L. and Kanehl, P. Influences of watershed urbanization and instream habitat on
macroinvertebrates in cold water streams. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2003, 39, 1181-1196.
30
31
23. Wang, L.; Lyons, J.; Kanehl, P.; Bannerman, R. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and fish
across multiple spatial scales. Environ. Manage. 2001, 28, 255-266.
32
33
34
35
24. Richards, K.D.; Scudder, B.C.; Fitzpatrick, F.A.; Steuer, J.J.; Bell, A.H.; Peppler, M.C.; Stewart,
J.S.; Harris, M.A. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems Along an Agriculture-to-Urban Landuse Gradient, Milwaukee to Green Bay, Wisconsin, 2003-2004. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA,
2009; Vol. SIR 2006-5101-C.
36
37
38
25. Walsh, C.J.; Roy, A.H.; Feminella, J.W.; Cottingham, P.D.; Groffman, P.M.; Morgan II, R.P. The
urban stream syndrome: Current knowledge and the search for a cure. J. North Am. Benthological Soc.
2005, 24, 706-723.
20
1
2
3
26. Mullaney, J.R.; Lorenz, D.L.; Arntson, A.D. Chloride in groundwater and surface water in areas
underlain by the glacial aquifer system, northern United States. U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA,
2009; Vol. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5086.
21
Cleveland
Minneapolis
Milwaukee Detroit
Chicago
Indianapolis
Columbus
St. Louis
Hartford
Philadelphia
Washington, DC
Tulsa
Dallas
Atlanta
San Antonio
92
88
46
WISCONSIN
50
100 Kilometers
Monitoring
locations
14 locations near
Milwaukee, WI
43
FIGURE 1
A
120%
Survival
C. Dubia
Survival and young produced
(percent of control)
100%
Young produced
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Chloride (mg/L)
B
140%
Fathead Minnow
Survival
120%
Weight
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Chloride (mg/L)
FIGURE 2
5000
6000
7000
14000
Aquatic toxicity
sampling period
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
FIGURE 3
April
May
Pimephales Promelas
160
160
140
120
Survival
100
Weight
140
Young produced
C. dubia
80
60
40
20
Survival
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Chloride (mg/L)
2000
4000
6000
8000
Chloride (mg/L)
C
C. dubia
120
120
Survival
100
Survival percentage
Survival percentage
D
Pimephales promelas
80
60
40
20
0
Survival
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Chloride (mg/L)
2000
4000
Chloride (mg/L)
FIGURE 4
6000
8000
30000
20000
10000
5000
10000
1000
230
1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Urban land use percentage
FIGURE 5
80
90
100
Chloride (mg/L)
100000
32000
Full year
High influence sites
24000
16000
8000
Au
gu
st
Se
pt
em
be
r
O
ct
ob
er
Ju
ly
ay
Ju
ne
Ap
ri l
N
ov
em
be
D
r
ec
em
be
r
Ja
nu
ar
y
Fe
br
ua
ry
M
ar
ch
8000
Full year
Low-medium influence sites
6000
4000
2000
er
r
be
ct
O
em
Se
pt
ob
st
Au
gu
ly
Ju
ne
Ju
ay
M
ril
Ap
ch
ar
ry
y
Fe
br
ua
ar
nu
Ja
be
em
ec
D
ov
em
be
C
3200
Warm months
Low, medium, high influence
2400
1600
800
May
June
July
August
September
FIGURE 6
October
A
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
55%
16%
0%
Chicago
Detroit
Denver
Minn. Cleveland
St. Paul
B
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Southern Sites
Nov.Apr.
MayOct.
0%
0%
Indian- Columbus Salt Lake
apolis
City
0%
DC
0% 0%
Philadelphia
Hartfort,
CT
San
Antonio
0% 0%
0% 0%
0%
Atlanta
Dallas
Tulsa
2% 4%
Southern Sites
Nov.Apr.
MayOct.
25%
Chicago
12/968/873
0%
0%
St. Louis Milwaukee
6/30/108
21/898/606
0%
Detroit
6/101/99
0%
0%
Minn. Cleveland
St. Paul
Indianapolis
0% 0%
0%
Columbus Salt Lake
City
7/276/199
11/413/339
0%
Denver
0% 0%
0% 0%
DC
Philadelphia
12/706/339 17/276/230
Urban area
FIGURE 7
14/203/287
0% 0%
Hartfort,
CT
0% 0%
San
Antonio
0% 0%
Atlanta
0% 0%
Dallas
5/229/174
19/565/177
22/700/370
6/98/519
1% 0% 0%
0% 0%
Tulsa
All North All South
3/20/94
162/6739/5266
50/1383/995
Table 1. Watershed characteristics for study sites in Wisconsin organized by geographic location
Land use percentage
Drainage Area
Natural Areas1
(km2)
Monitoring location
USGS site ID
Urban
Agriculture
Milwaukee metropolitan area
24.8
98
0
2
Lincoln Creek at Milwaukee
040869416
89.9
30
44
25
Menomonee River at Menomonee Falls
04087030
51
44
38
18
Little Menomonee at Milwaukee
04087070
47.1
87
4
9
Underwood Creek at Wauwatosa
04087088
26.7
99
0
1
Honey Creek at Wauwatosa
04087119
318
61
25
15
Menomonee River at Wauwatosa
04087120
48.7
98
0
2
Kinnickinnic River at Milwaukee
04087159
Milwaukee River at Milwaukee
04087000
1800
16
54
30
Milwaukee River at Clybourne Ave
04087012
1833
17
53
30
Oak Creek at South Milwaukee
04087204
64.7
63
21
16
04087214
38.1
92
04087220
127
67
15
18
040870195
040871488
16.4
29.4
24
100
47
0
29
0
04072150
280
74
20
04084468
04086175
53.6
69
25
21.8
20
80
05427948
47.4
26
67
05428600
31.3
50
42
05431017
05435943
56.5
52.6
6
39
66
49
28
12
Supporting Information
A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Widespread Aquatic Toxicity and
Water Quality Impacts on Local, Regional, and National Scales
Steven R. Corsi1, David J. Graczyk1, Steven W. Geis2, Nathaniel L. Booth1, Kevin D. Richards1
1
U.S. Geological Survey Wisconsin Water Science Center, Middleton, Wisconsin, 53562;
2
Methods
Toxicity Tests. Pimephales promelas and Ceriodaphnia. dubia bioassays were conduced at the
WSLH in Madison, Wisconsin in accordance with standard U.S. EPA methods (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2002a); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002b)) and modified U.S. EPA
methods (Geis et al. (2003)) to determine acute (lethal endpoints) and chronic effects (sublethal
endpoints) for the water samples. Static renewal acute tests were conducted at 20oC and chronic tests at
25oC. Both were conducted with a 16:8-hour light:dark cycle. Surface water samples collected during
road salt runoff periods were stored at 4oC upon delivery from the field. Aliquots were removed to
prepare test solutions daily. Samples were warmed in a water bath to the appropriate test temperature.
Surface water samples were assayed without dilution.
Pimephales promelas acute tests were initiated with 4-14 day old juveniles. Prior to 2006, each
replicate consisted of five fish, which was subsequently increased to ten fish per replicate. The fish
were placed in 250 ml plastic cups containing 200 ml of sample. Each treatment consisted of four
replicates per sample. Treatment solutions were renewed daily and fish were fed with live brine shrimp
two hours prior to the 48-h test renewal. The bioassay was ended at 96-h and survival was recorded as
the acute endpoint.
C. dubia acute tests were initiated with young less than 24-h old. Treatments consisted of four
replicates per sample containing five C. dubia per replicate. Test chambers were 30 ml plastic cups
each containing 15 ml sample volume. Test solutions were renewed at 24-h. The C. dubia acute test
was terminated at 48-h when survival was recorded.
Pimephales promelas chronic growth tests were initiated with <24-hour-old larval fish. Live brine
shrimp were fed to the fish three times daily. The tests were terminated on day 7, when the fish were
sacrificed, dried, and weighed for determination of growth as the chronic endpoint. In 2000, methods
were modified to address mortality due to bacterial pathogens which are commonly found in the study
site streams. Prior to 2000, test treatments consisted of four 250 ml plastic cups, each containing 200
ml of sample and 10 larval fish. Tests were revised after 2000 with 30 ml plastic cups, each containing
25 ml of test solution. Replicates were increased with the method modification from four to ten
replicates, with only two fish per test chamber (Geis et al. (2003)).
In the C. dubia chronic reproduction test, organisms were fed a combination of yeast/cerophyll/trout
food and the green algae Selenastrum capricornutum with each water renewal. Production of young
was recorded daily, and the tests were terminated after 80% of controls released their third brood (6 to
7 days). Test chambers consisted of 30 ml plastic cups, each containing 20 ml of test solution. Each
treatment consisted of 10 replicates with one organism per test chamber. The number of young
produced was used as the chronic endpoint.
Results
Figure S1. Relation of chloride to specific conductance using data from 17 Wisconsin streams.
7000
Cl < 230 mg/L
Cl > 230 mg/L
Cl = 0.363 X SC - 271
for Cl 230 mg/L
6000
Cl all
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000 12000
SC all
14000
16000
18000 20000
APPENDIX 5B
Audubon Society
City of Milwaukee
Pier Wisconsin
Growing Power
International Joint Commission
Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, Inc.
Menomonee Valley Partners
Metropolitan Builders Association
Milwaukee Community Service Corps
Milwaukee County Parks, Recreation and Culture
Development
Milwaukee Riverkeeper
WE Energies
Appendix 5B
SWWT MEMBERSHIP
Kinnickinnic River WRP
.]
APPENDIX 5C
Table 93
LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED
RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE POINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT ELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Upgrade
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
According to
Recent Site
Study or
Facilities Plan
[High Priority]a
Construct
and Maintain
Intercommunity
Trunk Sewer
[High Priority]a
Construct
and Maintain
Local Sewer
System
[High Priority]a
Abate
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
[Medium
Priority]a
Evaluate
the Need
to Reduce
Clearwater
Infiltration
and Inflow
[High Priority]a
Eliminate
Discharges
from All Points
of Sewage
Flow Relief
[High Priority]a
Implement
CMOM
Program
[High Priority]a
Prepare
Facilities Plans
[Medium
Priority]a
Point Source
Management Agency
Refine and
Detail Sewer
Service Area
[Low Priority]a
Maintain and
Operate
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
[High Priority]a
-X
-X
---
---
-X
---
-X
---
-X
---
-X
--
-X
--
----
----
-X
X
----
-X
X
----
-X
X
----
Kenosha County
None ...................................................................
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-X
-------X
------------
-X
-------X
------------
-X
-------X
------------
-X
-X
------------------
--X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
--------------------
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
-------X
-X
-X
X
--X
----
--X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------------------
----------
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
--
----X
-----
----------
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
--X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
---X
X
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
667
668
Table 93 (continued)
Point Source
Management Agency
Refine and
Detail Sewer
Service Area
[Low Priority]a
Maintain and
Operate
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
[High Priority]a
Upgrade
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
According to
Recent Site
Study or
Facilities Plan
[High Priority]a
Construct
and Maintain
Intercommunity
Trunk Sewer
[High Priority]a
------------X
-X
-------X
--X
--------------
-X
X
X
X
-X
-X
X
X
X
-X
-------
Construct
and Maintain
Local Sewer
System
[High Priority]a
Abate
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
[Medium
Priority]a
Evaluate
the Need
to Reduce
Clearwater
Infiltration
and Inflow
[High Priority]a
Eliminate
Discharges
from All Points
of Sewage
Flow Relief
[High Priority]a
Implement
CMOM
Program
[High Priority]a
Prepare
Facilities Plans
[Medium
Priority]a
--------------
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
--------------
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
-X
--X
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
--X
-X
-X
X
X
X
-X
--X
X
--------
--------
-X
-X
X
X
X
--------
-X
X
X
X
-X
-X
------
-X
-X
X
-X
--------
-X
-X
X
X
----X
-X
-----
-X
X
X
X
X
-------
-X
X
X
X
X
-X
-X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
---X
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---------
-X
-------
---------
--X
X
-----
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---------
-X
X
X
X
X
X
--
-X
---X
X
--
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---------
aGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
bFor those municipalities located outside the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, the management agency designation is advisory only.
cThe Wallace Lake Sanitary District also serves part of the Town of Barton.
Source: SEWRPC.
Table 94
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE RURAL NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Restricting
Livestock
Access to
Streams
[Medium Priority]a
Managing
Milking
Center
Wastewater
[Medium Priority]a
Expanded
Oversight of Private
Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems,
Including
Establishment of
Utility Districtsb
[Medium Priority]a
Implement
Practices to Reduce
Cropland Soil Erosion
to T or Below
[Medium Priority]a
Manure and
Nutrient
Management
[High Priority]a
Control
Barnyard
Runoff
[High Priority]a
Establish
Riparian
Buffers
[High Priority]a
Convert Marginal
Cropland and
Pasture to
Wetlands and
Prairies
[High Priority]a
Dodge Countyc.....................................................
Dodge County Drainage Board ..........................
Town of Lomira ..................................................
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
X
--
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
-X
X
-------
X
-------
X
-------
X
X
------
X
-------
X
-------
X
-------
X
-X
X
X
X
X
Kenosha County...................................................
Kenosha County Drainage Boardd ....................
Town of Paris .....................................................
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
X
--
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
-X
X
---
----
----
X
X
--
X
X
--
----
----
--X
X
----
X
----
X
----
X
X
---
X
----
X
----
X
----
X
-X
X
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
X
X
X
X
X
------
X
------
X
------
X
X
-----
X
------
X
------
X
------
X
-X
X
X
X
X
---------
X
---------
X
---------
X
X
X
--X
----
X
---------
X
---------
X
---------
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
669
670
Table 94 (continued)
Implement
Practices to Reduce
Cropland Soil Erosion
to T or Below
[Medium Priority]a
Manure and
Nutrient
Management
[High Priority]a
Control
Barnyard
Runoff
[High Priority]a
Establish
Riparian
Buffers
[High Priority]a
Convert Marginal
Cropland and
Pasture to
Wetlands and
Prairies
[High Priority]a
Restricting
Livestock
Access to
Streams
[Medium Priority]a
Managing
Milking
Center
Wastewater
[Medium Priority]a
Expanded
Oversight of Private
Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Systems,
Including
Establishment of
Utility Districtsb
[Medium Priority]a
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
X
--
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
-X
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
-----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
X
--
X
---
X
---
X
---
X
-X
State of Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection ..............................
Department of Commerce..................................
Department of Natural Resources .....................
X
-X
X
-X
X
-X
X
-X
--X
X
-X
X
---
-X
--
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Agriculture ..........................
Farm Services Agency .......................................
Natural Resources Conservation Service ..........
--X
X
---
X
---
-X
X
X
---
----
----
----
Land Trustse
Kenosha/Racine Land Trust ..............................
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy ..................
Ozaukee-Washington Land Trust ......................
Waukesha County Land Conservancy ...............
-----
-----
-----
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
-----
-----
aGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
bIn some counties, existing county programs may be providing the additional oversight of POWTS recommended for town utility districts to perform. In these instances, it may not be necessary to form town utility districts for the sole purpose of providing
supplemental oversight of POWTS.
cFor those municipalities located outside the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, the management agency designation is advisory only.
dAs of the date of publication of this report, Kenosha County did not have an active drainage board.
eWhile land trusts are not governmental agencies, they could play a significant role in implementing certain recommendations.
Source: SEWRPC.
Table 95
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE URBAN NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ABATEMENT SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
[High Priority]a
Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a
Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a
Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a
Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a
Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a
Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a
Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a
Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a
X
X
X
X
X
--
----
X
X
--
X
---
-X
--
----
X
X
--
----
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
------
X
X
X
---
X
---X
-X
X
---
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
---
------
-X
X
X
X
X
-------
-------
-------
X
----X
-------
X
------
-------
-------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Kenosha County...................................................
Town of Paris .....................................................
X
X
---
---
X
--
X
--
---
X
--
---
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
--------------------
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
--------------------
671
672
Table 95 (continued)
Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
a
[High Priority]
Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a
Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a
Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
X
-X
-----
-----
Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a
Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a
Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a
Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a
Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a
X
X
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
------------
X
X
-X
-----
X
-X
--
-----
-----
-X
X
X
-----
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
-------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
X
X
X
X
-X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
-X
-----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----
-X
X
X
-----
-----
-----
X
--X
-----
X
----
-----
-----
-X
X
X
-----
-----
-----
X
----
-----
X
----
-----
-----
X
-----
Table 95 (continued)
Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
a
[High Priority]
Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a
Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a
Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a
Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a
Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a
Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a
Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a
Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a
X
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
---
-X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
---
--------
-X
X
X
X
---
X
X
----X
-X
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
X
X
-X
-X
X
X
X
---
--------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-X
---
---
---
X
X
---
X
X
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
----------
----------
X
-------X
----------
X
-------X
----------
----------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
----------
673
674
Table 95 (continued)
Implementation
of Construction
Erosion Control
Requirements and
Nonagricultural
(Urban) Performance
Standards of
Chapter NR 151
a
[High Priority]
Programs
to Detect Illicit
Discharges to
Storm Sewer
Systems and
Control UrbanSourced Pathogens
[High Priority]a
Human Health
and Ecological
Risk Assessments
to Address
Pathogens in
Stormwater Runoff
[High Priority]a
Chloride
Reduction
Programs
[High Priority]a
Fertilizer
Management and
Information and
Education
[Medium
Priority]a
Residential
Roof Drain
Disconnection
[Medium
Priority]a
Beach and
Riparian Debris
and Litter Control
[High Priority]a
Pet Litter
Management
[Medium
Priority]a
Bacteria
and Pathogen
Research and
Implementation
Projects
[High Priority]a
State of Wisconsin
Department of Commerce..................................
Department of Natural Resources .....................
Department of Transportation ............................
University of Wisconsin-Extension .....................
X
X
X
--
-----
-X
---
-X
X
--
-X
-X
-----
---X
---X
-X
---
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey .........................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
U.S. Department of Transportation ....................
----
----
X
---
--X
----
----
----
----
X
X
--
Nongovernmental Organizations
Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, Inc. .............
Friends of Milwaukees Rivers ...........................
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
---
---
aGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
bFor those municipalities located outside the Southeastern Wisconsin Region, the management agency designation is advisory only.
cThis lake district or association does not currently exist, but is recommended to be established.
Source: SEWRPC.
Table 96
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE INSTREAM WATER QUALITY MEASURES SUBELEMENT OF THE RECOMMENDED
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa
Management Agency
Stream
Rehabilitation
[Medium Priority]b
Conduct
Engineering
Studies Related
to Possible
Renovation of the
Kinnickinnic River
Flushing Station
[Medium Priority]b
Require
Preparation of
Dam Abandonment
and Associated
Riverine
Restoration Plans
[Low Priority]b
Implement
Recommendations
Related to Culverts,
Bridges, Drop
Structures, and
Channelized Streams
[Medium Priority]b
Restoration
and Remediation
of Contaminated
Sediment Sites and
Expansion of the
Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary Area of Concern
[High Priority]b
Fisheries
Protection
and Enhancement
[Medium Priority]b
Navigational
Dredging
Dredged
Material
Disposal
Consider
Revisions to
Water Use
Objectives
----
----
----
X
X
X
----
X
X
X
----
----
----
-----------
-----------
-----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----------
-----------
-----------
---
---
---
X
X
---
X
X
---
---
---
X
X
---------------------
-X
---------------------
-----------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------X
---------------
-------X
---------------
-----------------------
-------
-------
-------
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
-------
-------
675
676
Table 96 (continued)
Management Agency
Stream
Rehabilitation
[Medium Priority]b
Conduct
Engineering
Studies Related
to Possible
Renovation of the
Kinnickinnic River
Flushing Station
[Medium Priority]b
Require
Preparation of
Dam Abandonment
and Associated
Riverine
Restoration Plans
[Low Priority]b
Implement
Recommendations
Related to Culverts,
Bridges, Drop
Structures, and
Channelized Streams
[Medium Priority]b
Restoration
and Remediation
of Contaminated
Sediment Sites and
Expansion of the
Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary Area of Concern
[High Priority]b
Fisheries
Protection
and Enhancement
[Medium Priority]b
Navigational
Dredging
Dredged
Material
Disposal
Consider
Revisions to
Water Use
Objectives
---------
---------
---------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---------
---------
---------
-------------
-------------
-------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------------
-------------
-------------
Sheboygan County........................................
Village of Adell ...................................................
Village of Cascade .............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Town of Greenbush ...........................................
Town of Holland .................................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Mitchell .................................................
Town of Scott .....................................................
Town of Sherman ..............................................
-----------
-----------
-----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-----------
-----------
-----------
Washington County.......................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
Village of Germantown.......................................
Village of Jackson ..............................................
Village of Kewaskum..........................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Town of Addison ................................................
Town of Barton ..................................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Germantown.........................................
Town of Jackson ................................................
Town of Kewaskum ...........................................
Town of Polk ......................................................
Town of Richfield ...............................................
Town of Trenton .................................................
Town of Wayne ..................................................
Town of West Bend ...........................................
------------------
------------------
------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
------------------
------------------
------------------
Table 96 (continued)
Management Agency
Stream
Rehabilitation
[Medium Priority]b
Conduct
Engineering
Studies Related
to Possible
Renovation of the
Kinnickinnic River
Flushing Station
[Medium Priority]b
Require
Preparation of
Dam Abandonment
and Associated
Riverine
Restoration Plans
[Low Priority]b
Implement
Recommendations
Related to Culverts,
Bridges, Drop
Structures, and
Channelized Streams
[Medium Priority]b
Restoration
and Remediation
of Contaminated
Sediment Sites and
Expansion of the
Milwaukee Harbor
Estuary Area of Concern
[High Priority]b
Fisheries
Protection
and Enhancement
[Medium Priority]b
Navigational
Dredging
Dredged
Material
Disposal
Consider
Revisions to
Water Use
Objectives
----------
----------
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
----------
----------
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources .....................
Department of Transportation ............................
---
---
X
--
X
X
X
--
X
X
---
---
X
--
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish & Wildlife Service ...................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
U.S. Department of Transportation ....................
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ...........................
-----
-----
---X
--X
X
-X
---
---X
---X
-----
X
X
aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
Source: SEWRPC.
677
678
Table 97
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE INLAND LAKE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa
Inland Lake
Management Agency
Establish
a Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation
District or a Lake
Association
[High Priority]b
Preparation
or Updating
of Lake
Management
Plans
[High Priority]b
Consider Preparation
of Detailed Plans
for Milwaukee
County Lagoons
and Implement
Recommendations
in Milwaukee
County Lagoon
Management Plan
[High Priority]b
Dodge County.......................................................
None ..................................................................
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
--
---
X
X
---
X
--
---
---
---
X
X
X
--
-X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Kenosha County...................................................
None ..................................................................
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-X
---
X
X
X
--
X
--
---
---
---
X
X
X
--
-X
Implement
Washington County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b
Implement
Waukesha County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b
Abate Nonpoint
Source Pollution
According to Plan
Recommendations
[High Priority]b
Implement a
Community-Based
Informational Program
[High Priority]b
Review and
Evaluate Proposed
Land Use Changes
for Lake-Related
Impacts
[High Priority]b
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
X
---
X
--
---
---
---
X
--
X
--
-X
--
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
-X
---
X
X
X
--
X
--
---
---
X
X
X
--
-X
---
Table 97 (continued)
Inland Lake
Management Agency
Washington County (continued)
Town of BartonSmith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associationc .....................................
Town of BartonWallace Lake
Sanitary District .............................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of FarmingtonLake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associationc ........................
Town of FarmingtonGreen Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of West Bend ...........................................
Town of West BendBig Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendLittle Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendSilver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendLucas Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD) or
Lake Associationc..........................................
Establish
a Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation
District or a Lake
Association
[High Priority]b
Preparation
or Updating
of Lake
Management
Plans
[High Priority]b
Consider Preparation
of Detailed Plans
for Milwaukee
County Lagoons
and Implement
Recommendations
in Milwaukee
County Lagoon
Management Plan
[High Priority]b
Implement
Washington County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b
Implement
Waukesha County
Lake and Stream
Classification Plan
[High Priority]b
Abate Nonpoint
Source Pollution
According to Plan
Recommendations
[High Priority]b
Implement a
Community-Based
Informational Program
[High Priority]b
Review and
Evaluate Proposed
Land Use Changes
for Lake-Related
Impacts
[High Priority]b
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
X
X
--
X
--
-X
--
--
--
--
--
X
--
---
---
---
X
X
X
--
-X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
---
X
--
---
---
---
State of Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resourcesd ...................
University of WisconsinExtension ....................
-X
X
--
---
X
--
X
--
X
--
X
X
----
aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
cThis lake district or association does not currently exist, but is recommended to be established.
dIt is recommended that the WDNR develop lake management plans for Auburn, Crooked, and Mauthe Lakes, which are located in the Northern Unit of the Kettle Moraine State Forest.
Source: SEWRPC.
679
680
Table 98
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE AUXILIARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa
Management Agency
Maintain and
Expand Public
Health-Related
Monitoring at
Beaches
[High Priority]b
Identify Local
Sources of
Contamination
by Conducting
Sanitary Surveys
at Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsc
[High Priority]b
Implement
Remedies at
Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsd
[High Priority]b
Dodge County.......................................................
None ..................................................................
---
---
Waterfowl
Control Where
a Nuisance or
Health Hazard
[High Priority]b
Implement
and Refine
the Lakewide
Management
Plan for Lake
Michigan
[Medium
Priority]b
---
---
--
--
--
--
Household
Hazardous
Waste Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b
Pharmaceutical
and Personal
Care Product
Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b
Information
and Education
Programs
Regarding Exotic
Invasive Species
[Medium
Priority]b
Develop a Policy
Regarding Water
Temperatures
and Thermal
Discharges into
Waterbodies
[Medium
Priority]b
Support
and Continue
Ongoing
Water Quality
Monitoring
Programs
[High Priority]b
---
X
--
X
--
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Kenosha County...................................................
None ..................................................................
---
---
---
---
---
X
--
X
--
---
---
---
--X
X
X
-X
---
--X
X
X
-X
---
X
--X
X
X
--X
X
------X
X
----------
-X
--------
-X
--------
----------
----------
X
X
--------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-X
X
X
-X
X
X
-X
X
X
-X
X
X
-----
X
----
X
----
-----
-----
-X
---
-X
-X
---
---
---
X
--
X
--
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Table 98 (continued)
Maintain and
Expand Public
Health-Related
Monitoring at
Beaches
[High Priority]b
Identify Local
Sources of
Contamination
by Conducting
Sanitary Surveys
at Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsc
[High Priority]b
Implement
Remedies at
Beaches with
High Bacteria
Countsd
[High Priority]b
X
X
X
X
--
Waterfowl
Control Where
a Nuisance or
Health Hazard
[High Priority]b
Implement
and Refine
the Lakewide
Management
Plan for Lake
Michigan
[Medium
Priority]b
---
---
--
--
--
Household
Hazardous
Waste Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b
Pharmaceutical
and Personal
Care Product
Collection
Programs
[High Priority]b
Information
and Education
Programs
Regarding Exotic
Invasive Species
[Medium
Priority]b
Develop a Policy
Regarding Water
Temperatures
and Thermal
Discharges into
Waterbodies
[Medium
Priority]b
Support
and Continue
Ongoing
Water Quality
Monitoring
Programs
[High Priority]b
---
X
--
X
--
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
--
---
---
X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration, Coastal
Zone Management Program ..........................
Department of Natural Resources ....................
University of Wisconsin-Extension .....................
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program ......
-X
---
-X
---
-X
---
-----
X
X
-X
-----
-----
-X
X
X
-X
---
-X
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
X
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Management Agency
Washington County .............................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
City of West BendBarton Pond Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of BartonSmith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of BartonWallace Lake
Sanitary District .............................................
Town of FarmingtonLake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of FarmingtonGreen Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of West BendBig Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendLittle Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendSilver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendLucas Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish & Wildlife Service ...................................
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey .........................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration ................................................
Nongovernmental Organizations ........................
Riveredge Nature Center ...................................
Friends of Milwaukees Rivers ...........................
681
682
Table 98 (continued)
Management Agency
Expand USGS
Stream Gage
Network to Include
the Nine ShortTerm Sites
Established for
the Regional
Water Quality
Management
Plan Update
[High Priority]b
Extend Operation
of USGS Gages
on Wilson Park
Creek (3 Gages),
Holmes Avenue
Creek (1 Gage),
Mitchell Field
Drainage Ditch
(1 Gage), and the
Little Menomonee
River (1 Gage)
[High Priority]b
Dodge County.......................................................
None ..................................................................
---
---
Establish and
Maintain LongTerm Fisheries,
Macroinvertebrate,
and Habitat
Monitoring Stations
in Streams
[Medium Priority]b
Continue
Consolidation of
Water Quality
Monitoring Data
and Adopt
Common Quality
Assurance and
Control Procedures
Along with
Standardized
Sampling Protocols
[High Priority]b
Conduct
Aquatic Plant
Habitat and
Fish Survey
Assessments in
Inland Lakes
[Medium Priority]b
---
---
Continue to
Monitor and
Document the
Occurrence of
Exotic Invasive
Species
[Medium Priority]b
Maintain the
HSPF, FFS,
Streamlined
MOUSE, and
MACRO Computer
Models Developed
Under the MMSD
2020 Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b
Maintain the
LSPC, ECOMSED,
and RCA Computer
Models Developed
Under the
RWQMPU and
the MMSD 2020
Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b
---
---
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Kenosha County...................................................
None ..................................................................
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
----------
X
X
--------
-X
--------
-X
--------
----------
----------
----------
-X
--------
----------
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Table 98 (continued)
Management Agency
Washington County .............................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
City of West BendBarton Pond Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of BartonSmith Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Town of BartonWallace Lake
Sanitary District .............................................
Town of FarmingtonLake Twelve
Protection and Rehabilitation District
(P&RD) or Lake Associatione ........................
Town of FarmingtonGreen Lake Property
Owners of Washington County ......................
Town of West BendBig Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendLittle Cedar Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendSilver Lake
Sanitary District and Silver Lake
Protection and Rehabilitation District .............
Town of West BendLucas Lake Protection
and Rehabilitation District (P&RD)
or Lake Associatione .....................................
Expand USGS
Stream Gage
Network to Include
the Nine ShortTerm Sites
Established for
the Regional
Water Quality
Management
Plan Update
[High Priority]b
Extend Operation
of USGS Gages
on Wilson Park
Creek (3 Gages),
Holmes Avenue
Creek (1 Gage),
Mitchell Field
Drainage Ditch
(1 Gage), and the
Little Menomonee
River (1 Gage)
[High Priority]b
---
Establish and
Maintain LongTerm Fisheries,
Macroinvertebrate,
and Habitat
Monitoring Stations
in Streams
[Medium Priority]b
Continue
Consolidation of
Water Quality
Monitoring Data
and Adopt
Common Quality
Assurance and
Control Procedures
Along with
Standardized
Sampling Protocols
[High Priority]b
Conduct
Aquatic Plant
Habitat and
Fish Survey
Assessments in
Inland Lakes
[Medium Priority]b
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
Continue to
Monitor and
Document the
Occurrence of
Exotic Invasive
Species
[Medium Priority]b
Maintain the
HSPF, FFS,
Streamlined
MOUSE, and
MACRO Computer
Models Developed
Under the MMSD
2020 Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b
Maintain the
LSPC, ECOMSED,
and RCA Computer
Models Developed
Under the
RWQMPU and
the MMSD 2020
Facilities Plan
[Medium Priority]b
---
---
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration, Coastal
Zone Management Program ..........................
Department of Natural Resources ....................
University of Wisconsin-Extension .....................
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program ......
-----
-X
---
-X
---
-X
X
--
-X
---
-X
---
-X
---
-----
-----
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
X
--
X
--
X
--
X
X
---
---
---
---
---
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish & Wildlife Service ...................................
U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey .........................................
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..............
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration ................................................
Nongovernmental Organizations ........................
Riveredge Nature Center ...................................
Friends of Milwaukees Rivers ...........................
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
----
----
----
-X
X
----
----
----
----
----
683
684
Table 98 Footnotes
aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
cNeed for sanitary survey depends on results of public health monitoring.
dNeed for remedies depends on results of public health monitoring and sanitary surveys.
eThis lake district or association does not currently exist, but is recommended to be established.
fThe North Shore Health Department includes the City of Glendale and the Villages of Brown Deer, Fox Point, and River Hills.
Source: SEWRPC.
Table 99
GOVERNMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY DESIGNATIONS AND SELECTED RESPONSIBILITIES
AND PRIORITIZATION FOR THE GROUNDWATER WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBELEMENT OF THE
RECOMMENDED REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDSa
Groundwater
Management Agency
Map Groundwater
Recharge Areas Outside
the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
[Low Priority]b
Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
Regarding Maintenance of
Groundwater Recharge Areas
[Medium Priority]b
Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
in Evaluating Sustainability of
Proposed Developments and
in Local Land Use Planning
[Medium Priority]b
Map Groundwater
Contamination
Potential in Areas
Outside the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
[Low Priority]b
Consider Potential
Impacts on Groundwater
Quality of Stormwater
Infiltration from Proposed
Development
[High Priority]b
Develop and
Implement UtilitySpecific Water
Conservation Programs
[Low Priority]b
X
--
X
X
X
X
X
--
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
X
---
X
X
X
X
---------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
685
686
Table 99 (continued)
Groundwater
Management Agency
Map Groundwater
Recharge Areas Outside
the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]
Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
Regarding Maintenance of
Groundwater Recharge Areas
[Medium Priority]b
Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
in Evaluating Sustainability of
Proposed Developments and
in Local Land Use Planning
[Medium Priority]b
Map Groundwater
Contamination
Potential in Areas
Outside the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]
Consider Potential
Impacts on Groundwater
Quality of Stormwater
Infiltration from Proposed
Development
[High Priority]b
Develop and
Implement UtilitySpecific Water
Conservation Programs
[Low Priority]b
------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sheboygan County........................................
Village of Adell ...................................................
Village of Cascade .............................................
Village of Random Lake .....................................
Town of Greenbush ...........................................
Town of Holland .................................................
Town of Lyndon .................................................
Town of Mitchell .................................................
Town of Scott .....................................................
Town of Sherman ..............................................
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Washington County.......................................
City of West Bend ..............................................
Village of Germantown.......................................
Village of Jackson ..............................................
Village of Kewaskum..........................................
Village of Newburg .............................................
Town of Addison ................................................
Town of Barton ..................................................
Town of Farmington ...........................................
Town of Germantown.........................................
Town of Jackson ................................................
Town of Kewaskum ...........................................
Town of Polk ......................................................
Town of Richfield ...............................................
Town of Trenton .................................................
Town of Wayne ..................................................
Town of West Bend ...........................................
------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
------------------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 99 (continued)
Groundwater
Management Agency
Map Groundwater
Recharge Areas Outside
the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]
Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
Regarding Maintenance of
Groundwater Recharge Areas
[Medium Priority]b
Consider the
Recommendations of the
Regional Water Supply Plan
in Evaluating Sustainability of
Proposed Developments and
in Local Land Use Planning
[Medium Priority]b
Map Groundwater
Contamination
Potential in Areas
Outside the Southeastern
Wisconsin Region
b
[Low Priority]
Consider Potential
Impacts on Groundwater
Quality of Stormwater
Infiltration from Proposed
Development
[High Priority]b
Develop and
Implement UtilitySpecific Water
Conservation Programs
[Low Priority]b
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
aDesignation of management agencies is not required under the Federal Clean Water Act. Thus, these designations are advisory only.
bGeneralized priorities are assigned by recommendation. For certain municipalities or agencies, the priority for implementing a given recommendation may be higher or lower than the assigned priority, depending on specific circumstances and changed
conditions over time.
Source: SEWRPC.
687
Kinnickinnic River
Introduction
Chapters 1 through 5 of this watershed restoration plan (WRP) have described the goals for the
Kinnickinnic River watershed, identified and quantified the pollutant loads from all of the
sources, and listed a suite of existing and recommended management measures. The next step is
to determine the potential benefit that would result from implementing each of the potential
management measures. These potential benefits are needed to: (a) determine if the proposed
management measures will be sufficient to achieve the desired watershed goals, and (b) to help
prioritize the most effective measures.
One useful way to determine the potential benefits of the management measures is to quantify
the expected load reductions. Pollutant load reductions directly translate into improved water
quality and are an easy way to convey information to the general public. However, it is difficult
to develop quantifiable load reductions for all of the issues of concern within the Kinnickinnic
River watershed. For example, some goals (e.g., improved aesthetics) are only indirectly related
to pollutant loads and trying to link them to one or even a few specific pollutants and source
loads is difficult or inappropriate. Therefore, this chapter reports not only the expected load
reductions for those management measures for which information exists, but also includes a
description of measures for which load reductions cannot be quantified.
Also included is the priority rating for the various actions based upon Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
(RWQMPU). These priorities were offered as a starting point for further discussion with the
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) and Watershed Action Team (WAT).
Modifications to the priority ratings and additional actions developed by the SWWT committees
are presented in Chapter 7. The recommended implementation schedule is presented in Chapter
8.
6.2
Expected Load Reductions from the Regional Water Quality Management Plan
Update
To support the development of the Kinnickinnic River WRP, the models that were developed to
support the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP)
and the RWQMPU were updated to run through December 31, 2007. The purpose of this update
was to account for the known changes in the watershed that occurred during earlier model
development. The updated modeling results for the Kinnickinnic River watershed model were
found to accurately simulate observed flows and water quality conditions and were used to
support development of the WRP.
Expected load reductions for the Kinnickinnic River watershed were estimated from the
modeling that was completed to support the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Kinnickinnic River
WRP. In some ways, these load reductions represent an upper estimate of the load reductions
that could be achieved in the watershed because they are based on full implementation of a
variety of management measures that were deemed to be possible during development of the
RWQMPU. However, it should be noted that several management measures included in this
6-1
Kinnickinnic River
WRP (e.g., the statewide ban on phosphorus in fertilizers) were not included in the model runs.
Furthermore, better information continues to be gathered about the significance of some of the
key pollutant sources in the watershed (e.g., illicit sewer connections and other unknown sources
of fecal coliform). It is therefore possible that load reductions greater than those anticipated for
the RWQMPU could eventually be realized.
The modeling results for the major components of the RWQMPU are summarized in Table 6-1,
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 and reveal several significant outcomes:
Loads of total suspended solids (TSS) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) increase
from Baseline Year 2000 to Planned 2020 Future with Planned Growth conditions
whereas total phosphorus (TP) loads stay about the same and fecal coliform loads
slightly decrease.
Implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management,
(non-Agriculture [Ag] only), as called for under the RWQMPU, results in an 11% decrease
in TP loads, a 24% decrease in TSS loads, a 12% decrease in BOD loads, and a 13%
decrease in fecal coliform loads, relative to planned 2020 future with planned growth
conditions.
Implementation of the Point Source Plan, as called for under the RWQMPU, results in
additional load reductions of 7% for TP, 1% for TSS, 3% for BOD, and 21% for fecal
coliform, relative to planned 2020 future with NR 151(non-Ag only) conditions.
Implementation of the remaining measures in the recommended RWQMPU results in
additional load reductions of 4% for TP and 29% for fecal coliform, relative to the
planned 2020 future with point source plan (5-Year LOP). No additional load reductions
are predicted for TSS or BOD.
6-2
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 6-1
PROJECTED EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS PLANNED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
TP
TSS
BOD
(LBS/YR)
(TONS/YR)
(LB/YR)
Fecal
Coliform
(COUNTS/YR)
12,777
2,649
408,478
4.89E+15
12,756
2,731
414,343
4.81E+15
11,413
2,064
363,241
4.17E+15
-1,343
-667
-51,102
-6.40E+14
-11%
-24%
-12%
-13%
10,600
2,040
351,781
3.28E+15
-813
-24
-11,460
-8.90E+14
-7%
-1%
-3%
-21%
10,181
2,048
350,492
2.32E+15
-419
-1,289
-9.60E+14
-4%
0%
0%
-29%
-2,596
-601
-57,986
-2.57E+15
-20%
-23%
-14%
-53%
Notes:
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
LOP = Level of protection
NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (Chapter NR) 151, Runoff Management
TP = Total phosphorus
TSS = Total suspended solids
Negative values and percentages indicate load reductions between planned actions being compared.
6-3
Kinnickinnic River
14
450
400
350
10
TP (1,000 lbs/yr)
12
8
6
4
2
250
200
150
100
50
5.E+12
3,000
2,500
TSS (tons/yr)
300
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
4.E+12
3.E+12
2.E+12
1.E+12
0.E+00
Baseline
Year 2020 with planned growth no management measures
Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) implementation only
Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) and Point Source Plan (5Year LOP)
RWQMPU Recommended Plan includes NR 151 (non-Ag only),
Point Source Plan and other recommendations
FIGURE 6-1: PROJECTED ANNUAL LOADS BY PARAMETER FOR THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF
THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
6-4
Kinnickinnic River
TP Annual Load
0%
0%
-11%
-11%
-22%
-22%
-33%
-33%
-44%
-44%
-55%
-55%
0%
-11%
-11%
-22%
-22%
-33%
-33%
-44%
-44%
-55%
-55%
6-5
Kinnickinnic River
The remainder of this section presents the individual load reductions and other anticipated
benefits for each of the specific management measures presented in Chapter 5. A summary of
the load reductions and other benefits of actions included in this WRP is shown in Table 6-2.
TABLE 6-2
EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIONAL WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
Management
Measure
TP
TSS
BOD
Fecal
Coliform
Chlorides
Flow/Habitat
No impact
No impact
No impact
Only minor
impacts expected
Phosphorus
1
fertilizer ban
20%
No impact
reduction in
loads from
residential
grass
MMSD Chapter 13
revisions
Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor
10 to 20%
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
reduction in peak
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
runoff rate from
disturbed areas
(Note: Those
reductions do not
translate into instream reductions
of 10 to 20%.)
Programs to detect
and eliminate illicit
discharges
Expand riparian
areas
8%
8%
Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
reduction in reduction in impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
watershed watershed expected
expected
expected
loads
loads
Concrete channel
renovation and
rehabilitation
Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
6-6
Kinnickinnic River
TP
TSS
BOD
Fecal
Coliform
Chlorides
Flow/Habitat
Limit number of
Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
culverts, bridges,
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
drop structures, and expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
channelized stream
segments
Remove abandoned Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
bridges and culverts impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
Protect remaining
natural stream
channels
Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
Restore, enhance,
and rehabilitate
stream channels
Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Only minor Significant benefit
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
impacts
to habitat
expected
expected
expected
expected
expected
Only minor
impacts
expected
Rain barrels/rain
gardens program
(30% of homes)
1.5%
1%
Only minor
10%
Only minor
reduction in reduction in impacts reduction in impacts
watershed watershed expected watershed expected
loads
loads
loads
No impact
No impact
Notes:
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
TP = Total phosphorus
TSS = Total suspended solids
The RWQMPU recommended a reduction in the use of fertilizers this new Phosphorus Ban exceeds the RWQMPU
recommendation.
The RWQMPU assumed that 33% of illicit discharges would be eliminated, which corresponds to a 16% reduction in watershed
loads. Elimination of more than 33% of illicit discharges would result in load reductions that exceed the reductions noted in the
RWQMPU. If 100% of the discharges were eliminated, the watershed load of fecal coliforms would be reduced by 48%.
6-7
Kinnickinnic River
sweeping of streets and parking lots, infiltration systems, parking lot implementation of multichambered treatment train (MCTTs), and wet detention basins.
Compared to Year 2000 Baseline conditions, the impact of this rule will result in load reductions
that range from 11% for TP to 15% for fecal coliform as shown in Figure 6-2.
Programs to detect and eliminate illicit discharges and control pathogens that are harmful to
public health
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
As shown in Chapter 4, unknown sources are considered to contribute approximately 60% of the
fecal coliform load to the Kinnickinnic River watershed. These sources may be caused by illicit
connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. A bacterial
identification program could therefore be very effective at reducing loads if it can pinpoint the
specific nature and location of these sources and if they can be removed. As recommended in
the RWQMPU, to address the threats to public health and degradation of water quality resulting
from human-specific pathogens and viruses entering stormwater systems, each municipality in
the study area should implement a program consisting of the following:
1) Enhanced storm sewer outfall monitoring to test for fecal coliform bacteria in dry- and
wet-weather discharges
2) Molecular tests for presence or absence of human-specific strains at outfalls where high
fecal coliform counts are found in the initial dry-weather screenings
3) Additional dry-weather screening upstream of outfalls where human-specific strains are
found to be present, with the goal of isolating the source of the discharge
4) Elimination of illicit discharges that were detected through the program described in the
preceding three steps
Additionally, comments received during the development of this WRP recommended monitoring
and testing of sewer infrastructure in the vicinity of new construction projects or new sewer
connection projects.
It is anticipated that the program outlined above would also identify cases where the unknown
fecal coliform sources are not illicit connections and the primary source of bacteria is stormwater
runoff. Examples could include nonpoint sources such as parks along streams where people
walk their dogs or impervious surfaces with large numbers of waterfowl. To adequately assess
the appropriate way to deal with such bacterial sources (and the potentially associated
pathogens), it is recommended that public health and ecological risk assessments be conducted to
address pathogens in stormwater runoff. Depending on the findings of the risk assessments,
consideration should be given to pursuing innovative means of identifying and controlling
possible pathogen sources in stormwater runoff.
Combined Sewer Overflow / Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program (Point Source Plan)
(Sanitary Sewer Overflow: Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority,
Combined Sewer Overflow: Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
The expected load reductions from the existing Point Source Plan were quantified during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Kinnickinnic River WRP. Relative to the
Planned 2020 Future with NR 151 (non-Ag only) condition, these additional load reductions are
6-8
Kinnickinnic River
anticipated to range from less than 1% for TSS to 21% for fecal coliform and are presented in
Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2.
Industrial noncontact cooling water discharges
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
There are 14 known noncontact cooling water dischargers in the Kinnickinnic River watershed
and, as shown in Chapter 4, these dischargers are a significant source of TP. It is believed that
the phosphorus is contained in the source water because the two water utilities within the
watershed, Milwaukee Water Works and the city of Cudahy Water Utility, both add a
phosphorus compound to their drinking water. The phosphorus compounds are added as
corrosion control to prevent certain metals from leaching from distribution systems and building
plumbing materials into the treated water. Given the public health benefits involved and the
reliability of the current technology, the Milwaukee Water Works has indicated that it would not
consider changing its current practice.
Recognizing the public health benefits involved, it is not recommended that the water utilities
end their current practice. It is, however, recommended that various groups (universities, the
Milwaukee 7 Water Council, etc.) and water utilities in the study area give further consideration
to changing to an alternative technology that does not increase phosphorus loading if such a
technology is both effective in controlling corrosion in pipes and cost-effective for the utility to
implement. This development would have watershed-wide significance as well as the potential
to revolutionize a national (and perhaps world-wide) practice.
Industrial stormwater
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
Pollutant loads from industrial point sources are represented in the water quality model based on
permitted discharge limits. No changes to these permit limits are assumed to occur between the
existing and the future water quality models.
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System stormwater permits (Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer System)
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
The requirements placed on the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES)
stormwater permittees in the Kinnickinnic River watershed are described in Chapter 5. These
requirements include a number of specific management measures that are individually described
elsewhere in this chapter, such as illicit discharge detection and elimination as well as postconstruction stormwater management.
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Chapter 13 revisions
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update, included but not prioritized)
Proposed revisions to the MMSD surface water and storm water rules (Chapter 13) stipulate
additional runoff management requirements for redevelopment. Based on the models developed
for the 2020 FP and the RWQMPU, these requirements are anticipated to reduce peak flow from
the re-developed area by 10 to 20%, as summarized below. Reduced peak flow will also lead to
reduced loads of a variety of pollutants, including TSS, TP, BOD, and fecal coliform.
1) If demolition or construction during redevelopment will disturb an area larger than 2
acres, then the redevelopment shall include runoff management techniques that will
6-9
Kinnickinnic River
reduce the runoff release rate by the amount listed in the following table for the 1% / 100year and 50% / 2-year storms, unless runoff management is required according to sec.
13.10(2), MMSD rules or if the exclusions of sec. 13.10(3)(a), (c), or (e) apply.
10%
15%
20%
2) If soil or groundwater contamination or other site features make the runoff release rate
reduction required by sub. (1) unreasonably stringent, then the redevelopment shall
achieve the greatest practicable reduction. The site development storm water
management plan shall describe the features that restrict runoff management options and
the reasons for the proposed runoff management techniques.
6.2.2 Other Management Strategies in Various Stages of Implementation
This section discusses the potential effectiveness of a range of other management strategies that
are being implemented to some degree in the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
Stream channel dredging
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) began work on a $22 million stream channel dredging project of the
Kinnickinnic River in June 2009. The project is intended to remove 170,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediment between Becher Street and Kinnickinnic Avenue. The cleanup will result
in the removal of about 1,200 pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 13,000 pounds of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (a byproduct of petroleum) that are contaminating the river. The
dredged material will be transported by barge and disposed in a special cell within the
Milwaukee Area Confined Disposal Facility at Jones Island, owned by the city of Milwaukee
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Maintain and preserve environmentally significant lands
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The Districts Greenseams Program is an important example of ongoing efforts to maintain and
preserve environmentally significant lands. The purpose of Greenseams is to purchase natural
wetlands to retain stormwater and reduce the risk of future flooding problems. Although no
Greenseams projects currently exist in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, this WRP recommends
that they be initiated. Purchased properties provide multiple benefits to the local community in
the form of open space and wildlife habitat. The preservation of open space and wildlife habitat
provides the public with passive recreation opportunities to quietly enjoy natural settings without
extensive public facilities.
6-10
Kinnickinnic River
Note: increased recreational opportunities will benefit the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
Recreation can increase awareness of the river as well as impact amenity value, personal
relationships to the river, and community connections necessary to provide the financial
resources necessary to address water quality concerns.
Expand riparian buffers and maintain groundwater seepage
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Modeling conducted in support of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Kinnickinnic River WRP
indicated that the expansion of riparian areas in a rural portion of the Root River watershed
would reduce loads of TSS, TP, and total nitrogen (TN) to the stream by approximately 8%.
This is consistent with values found in the general literature, including urban areas, and is
therefore considered a good approximation for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. While
planning for expansion of riparian buffers, note that ongoing maintenance is an important
consideration for these areas.
Riparian litter and debris control
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Efforts to remove litter and debris from riparian areas of the Kinnickinnic River watershed will
greatly improve the aesthetic value of the streams and could also result in improved habitat
conditions for aquatic life. The SEWRPC indicates that addressing aesthetics also includes the
management of invasive species and the rehabilitation of in-stream and riparian habitat for both
human purposes as well as ecological purposes. See SEWRPCs MR-194 in Appendix 4A for a
complete discussion of impairments and response.
Research and implement projects focused on nonpoint pollution controls
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
A great deal of information is already available on the effectiveness of various nonpoint source
pollution controls using the work completed for the RWQMPU. However, this WRP
recommends that studies be continued to refine those practices that make the most sense for the
Kinnickinnic River watershed, both in terms of environmental benefit and acceptance by local
stakeholders. This refinement should include continuation of the MMSDs yearly nonpoint
demonstration projects with an emphasis on documentation of the source reduction data. Future
work should include analysis of the performance of the various demonstration projects already
funded.
To the extent practicable, protect remaining natural stream channels including small
tributaries and shoreland wetlands
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Riparian habitat conditions can have a strong influence on water quality and existing natural
stream channels should be protected. Wooded riparian buffers are a vital functional component
of stream ecosystems and are instrumental in the detention, removal, and assimilation of
nutrients, soil, and other pollutants from or by the water column. Therefore, a stream with good
riparian habitat is better able to prevent erosion and moderate the impacts of high nutrient loads
than a stream with poor habitat. Wooded riparian buffers can also provide shading that reduces
stream temperatures and increase the dissolved oxygen (DO) saturation capacity of the stream.
6-11
Kinnickinnic River
Continue collection programs for household hazardous wastes and expand such programs to
communities that currently do not have them
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Leftover household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients are
considered to be household hazardous waste. Common products include paints, cleaners, oils,
batteries, and pesticides. Improper disposal of household hazardous wastes include pouring them
down the drain, on the ground, into storm sewers, or putting them in the trash. Collection
programs allow communities to safety dispose of these wastes, thus protecting the environment
and reducing threats to public health.
Continue and possibly expand current Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, and U.S. Geological Survey water quality monitoring
programs, including Phases II and III of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Corridor Study
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Continued agency water quality monitoring will be essential to track the progress of the
management measures included in the WRP.
Continue and possibly expand U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging program
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Continued stream gauging efforts will be essential to track the progress of the management
measures included in the WRP. The MMSD plans to install 4 real-time water quality monitoring
stations in the Kinnickinnic River watershed in the future.
6-12
Kinnickinnic River
easily removed because of access issues. The buildup of silt and debris were thought to be
significantly reducing the capacity of the pump station and the ability of the system to improve
the downstream water quality of the Kinnickinnic River. Rehabilitation of the flushing station is
planned to occur from 2012 through 2014 and will lead to improved downstream water quality,
especially for DO.
Concrete channel renovation and rehabilitation (includes drop structures)
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
A significant portion of the streams in the Kinnickinnic River watershed consist of concrete
channels and there are an estimated 259 structures within the 1% probability floodplain. To
partially address this problem, a project is underway to rehabilitate approximately 12,000 linear
feet of concrete channel liner from South Chase Avenue to South 27th Street. The rehabilitation
consists of replacing the concrete channel liner, where feasible, with a bioengineered channel
alternative. Once completed, this project will result in a channel with vastly improved habitat for
aquatic life and potential improvements to flashiness and water quality. For example, flashiness
could improve to the extent that additional floodplain storage is created and water quality could
improve if the new channel is less conducive to excessive algal growth. Note that hazardous
materials assessments should be considered during planning and design of channel renovation
and rehabilitation projects; some concrete channels overlay contaminated soils
Limit number of culverts, bridges, drop structures, and channelized stream segments and
incorporate design measures to allow for passage of aquatic life
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
The significant number of culverts, bridges, drop structures, and channelized stream segments
located along the Kinnickinnic River and its tributaries severely limit the amount of suitable
habitat. Efforts to limit such structures will be critical to attracting and retaining desired fish and
macroinvertebrate communities.
Remove abandoned bridges and culverts or reduce culvert length
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Abandoned bridges and extended culverts also limit the amount of suitable habitat within the
watershed and serve as barriers to aquatic life. Efforts to remove the bridges and reduce the
culvert lengths are needed to attract and retain desired fish and macroinvertebrate communities.
Restore, enhance, and rehabilitate stream channels to provide improved water quality and
quantity of available fisheries habitat
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Habitat management efforts should focus on maintaining and restoring the riparian functions that
are often lost when streams are channelized or riparian areas are otherwise encroached upon.
High quality channel habitats with intact riparian zones and natural channel morphology may
improve water quality by assimilating excess nutrients directly into plant biomass (e.g., trees and
macrophytes), by sequestering nutrients into invertebrate and vertebrate biomass, by deflecting
nutrients into the immediate riparian zone during overland (flood) flow events, and by reducing
sunlight through shading.
6-13
Kinnickinnic River
6-14
Kinnickinnic River
Bacterial ID Program
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
As shown in Chapter 4, unknown sources are considered to contribute approximately 60% of the
fecal coliform load to the Kinnickinnic River watershed. These sources may be caused by illicit
connections to the storm sewer system, leaking sewers, or other unidentified sources. A bacterial
identification program could therefore be very effective at reducing loads it if is successful in
better pinpointing the specific nature and location of these sources so that they can be removed.
Implement chloride reduction programs
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Water quality monitoring data set forth in SEWRPC Technical Report No. 39 indicated that
chloride concentrations in the Kinnickinnic River have been increasing. Mean chloride
concentration at all of the stations except the station at South 1st Street were between 34% and
50% higher during the period 1998-2001 than they were during the period 1975-1986. At the
South 1st Street station, mean chloride concentrations during the period 1998-2001 were similar
to mean chloride concentrations during the period 1975-1986. A recent study conducted by the
U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, included as Appendix
5A, showed very high chloride concentrations in area streams, including Wilson Park Creek.
It is therefore recommended that the municipalities and counties in the study area continue to
evaluate their practices regarding the application of chlorides for ice and snow control and strive
to obtain optimal application rates to ensure public safety without applying more chlorides than
necessary for that purpose. Municipalities should also consider alternatives to current ice and
snow control programs and implement educational programs that provide information about
alternative ice and snow control measures in public and private parking lots, optimal application
rates in such areas, alternative water softening media, and the use of more-efficient water
softeners that are regenerated based upon the amount of water used and the quality of the water.
Limited information is available regarding the effectiveness of road salt reduction programs to
reduce chloride loads to streams. However, a TMDL implementation plan prepared for the
Shingle Creek watershed in Minnesota concluded that a 71% reduction could be achieved by
implementing a plan based on the following five principles:1
Use appropriate snow plow techniques
Select, store, and apply materials appropriately
Encourage communication between applicators
Foster stewardship through improved applicator awareness
Communicate with the public
Both in the RWQMPU and this WRP, efforts were undertaken to develop a mass balance
model to reflect the impacts of reduced chloride use on watershed water quality. In both
instances, the data available (both salt use and water quality data) were inadequate to develop
any meaningful results.
1
Wenck Associates, Shingle Creek Chloride TMDL Implementation Plan, prepared for the Shingle Creek Water
Management Commission (February 2007)
6-15
Kinnickinnic River
Restore wetlands, woodlands, and grasslands adjacent to the stream channels and establish
riparian buffers
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
The expected load reductions from converting croplands to wetlands were modeled during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and the Kinnickinnic River WRP. Load reductions
of 13% for TP, 20% for TSS, 18% for fecal coliform, and 16% for BOD were predicted
assuming conversion of 15% of the cropland. The results are not directly relevant to the
Kinnickinnic River watershed because of the lack of cropland, but comparable results could be
expected from the conversion of residential and certain impervious land uses.
Implement programs to discourage unacceptably high numbers of waterfowl from
congregating near water features
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update high priority)
Waterfowl control measures are various methods that can be used to reduce the waterfowl
population around waterways. The measures include chemical repellent; planting buffer strips of
tall grasses, plants, or shrubs; and erecting a barrier, possibly a stone wall, hedge, or plastic
fencing along the shoreline. However, the use of chemicals and unnatural physical barriers would be
less desirable than planting buffer strips of natural tall grasses, plants, or shrubs.
Disconnect residential roof drains from sanitary and combined sewers and infiltrate roof
runoff, including rain barrels and rain gardens
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Efforts are already underway to promote the use of rain barrels and rain gardens within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed. For example, a rain garden including 10,000 plants was
dedicated in July 2009 at Holler Park and residents and investors will be taught how to create
ponds in their backyards and in their local parks.
The expected load reductions from residential roof drain disconnections were modeled during the
development of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU and the Kinnickinnic River WRP using the
following assumptions:
Rain barrels and downspout disconnection were applied to 15% of the residences. The
modelers assumed that downspouts serve approximately 50% of the impervious area on
residential lots, so the effective application rate to residential impervious area was 7.5%.
Rain barrels will presumably be used for horticultural irrigation and the overflow from
6-16
Kinnickinnic River
rain barrels is also supposed to be routed to pervious areas. Therefore, the water routed
through rain barrels was modeled as a lateral surface input on pervious land areas.
Rain gardens/bioretention cells and downspout disconnection were assumed to apply to a
different 15% of new and existing residences. As with rain barrels, it was assumed that
50% of the impervious area on the lots is routed to these structures, for an effective
application rate of 7.5%. The rain gardens were simulated as an infiltration BMP.
Load reductions of fecal coliform, TSS and TP are expected because stormwater plays a
prominent role in transporting these pollutants to the Kinnickinnic River. Also, actions that
reduce TSS loads often result in coincident reductions in TP loads because some forms of
phosphorus compounds are frequently attached to TSS. Ultimately, actions that reduce or slow
stormwater runoff typically result in reduced fecal coliform, TP and TSS loads. The results of
this analysis indicated that fecal coliform loads could be reduced by approximately 10%, with
TSS and TP loads reduced by 1.5 and 1%, respectively. In addition, the rain gardens and rain
barrels were predicted to decrease flashiness by approximately 2% (based on an analysis done on
Underwood Creek).
Conduct assessments and evaluations on the significance for public health and aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife of the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in surface
waters
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products are used by individuals for personal health or
cosmetic reasons or used by agribusiness to enhance growth or health of livestock. The PPCPs
comprise a diverse collection of thousands of chemical substances, including prescription and
over-the-counter therapeutic drugs, veterinary drugs, fragrances, and cosmetics. Studies have
shown that pharmaceuticals are present in our nation's waterbodies and some research suggests
that certain drugs may cause ecological harm. This WRP recommends that an evaluation be
conducted regarding the potential significance of this issue within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed.
Establish long-term fisheries and macroinvertebrate monitoring stations
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Long-term fisheries and macroinvertebrate monitoring stations should be established to allow
decision makers to track progress in the health and diversity of the aquatic community.
Establish long-term aquatic habitat monitoring stations
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Long-term habitat monitoring stations should be established to allow decision makers to track
progress in improving aquatic habitat.
Monitor exotic and invasive species
(Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update medium priority)
Monitoring of exotic and invasive species should be conducted to determine if the management
measures to control their growth are having the desired impact.
6-17
Kinnickinnic River
Effective implementation of this WRP requires the prioritization of the identified management
measures so that limited resources are directed toward those efforts that are most likely to be
effective. Measures must also be prioritized so that lessons learned from certain measures can be
used to inform efforts scheduled to take place at a later date. Notes have been added to Section
6.2 to show the prioritization of the actions based upon the RWQMPU. This prioritization must
be evaluated and either confirmed or revised by the SWWT and WAT.
This process of prioritization is documented in Chapter 7. Input on prioritization was received
through comments from the review of Chapters 4, 5 and 6 by the stakeholders for the WRP
(SWWT, WAT, SEWRPC and MMSD).
6.4
Water Quality Improvements Estimated with the Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update
Implementation of the management measures identified in this WRP should result in improved
conditions within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Although many of these improvements
cannot be easily quantified, the water quality models have been used to evaluate the potential
significance of several of them, all of which are called for under the RWQMPU. These include
meeting NR 151 standards beyond those achieved under the Baseline Year 2000 condition, the
Point Source Plan, and additional measures called for under the RWQMPU. These measures
will contribute to some reduction in phosphorus loads due to various fertilizer management
efforts. However, the model results will probably underestimate the TP load reduction because
they did not account for the statewide fertilizer ban. These improvements are presented in the
following sections by assessment point and are based on the scoring guidelines summarized in
Table 6-3. The table presents data from the Baseline 2000, Baseline 2020 (year 2020 planned
growth no management measures), and Plan 2020 (full implementation of the RWQMPU)
conditions. Additional information about each metric is provided in the following sections:
Flashiness
The assessments were based upon interpolations of box-and-whisker charts provided in Baker et
al. Consistent with the index, the range of flashiness values is partitioned into quartiles and the
highest flashiness values corresponding to poor conditions. The assessments are based off of
quartile assignments.
6-18
Kinnickinnic River
DO-Minimum (May-Oct)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours per summer season during the 10-year
modeling period that the 5.0 mg/L minimum target is met. The colors are assigned based upon
the percent compliance color scheme.
DO-Maximum (May-Oct)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours per summer season during the 10-year
modeling period that the 15.0 mg/L maximum target is met. The colors are assigned based upon
the percent compliance color scheme.
Fecal Coliform (annual)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours during the 10-year modeling period that the
400 count/ 100 ml [not-to-exceed] target is met during the entire year. The colors are assigned
based upon the percent compliance color scheme.
Fecal Coliform (May-Sep)
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours per recreation season (May through
September) during the 10-year modeling period that the 400 count/ 100 ml [not-to-exceed] target
is met. The colors are assigned based upon the percent compliance color scheme.
TP
The percentage compliance is the percent of hours during the 10-year modeling period that the
0.1 mg/L target is met. The colors are assigned based upon the percent compliance color
scheme.
TSS
The percentage compliance is the percent of years that the mean annual concentration met the
17.2 mg/L [reference concentration] target. The mean annual concentration is calculated as the
annual average of the 365 or 366 daily average concentrations. The colors are assigned based
upon the percent compliance color scheme.
6-19
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 6-3
Flashiness
Percentage Compliance
Description
Minimum
Maximum
Quartile
Minimum
Maximum
Very Good
95
100
Lowest
0.45
Good
85
94
Lower Middle
0.46
0.55
Moderate
75
84
Upper Middle
0.56
0.75
Poor
74
Highest
0.76
Modeled
Condition
Flashiness
DO-Min
(May-Oct)
DO-Max
(May-Oct)
Fecal
Coliform
(annual)
Fecal
Coliform
(May-Sep)
TP
TSS
KK-1
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
1.01
1.01
1.00
40%
40%
40%
100%
100%
100%
80%
75%
82%
90%
86%
92%
88%
89%
89%
100%
100%
100%
KK-2
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.84
0.84
0.82
83%
83%
84%
99%
99%
99%
82%
75%
84%
91%
87%
92%
85%
86%
86%
100%
100%
100%
KK-3
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.93
0.93
0.92
93%
93%
94%
99%
99%
99%
73%
73%
74%
85%
85%
84%
85%
86%
87%
100%
100%
100%
KK-4
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.56
0.60
0.58
99%
99%
100%
100%
100%
99%
52%
52%
58%
67%
68%
75%
81%
82%
83%
10%
30%
70%
KK-5
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
1.00
1.01
1.00
85%
86%
86%
88%
88%
90%
72%
72%
73%
86%
86%
85%
77%
78%
78%
100%
100%
100%
KK-6
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
1.01
1.03
1.02
41%
41%
43%
99%
99%
99%
72%
72%
73%
87%
87%
85%
85%
86%
87%
100%
100%
100%
6-20
Kinnickinnic River
Assessment
Point
Modeled
Condition
Flashiness
DO-Min
(May-Oct)
DO-Max
(May-Oct)
Fecal
Coliform
(annual)
Fecal
Coliform
(May-Sep)
TP
TSS
KK-7
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.96
0.97
0.96
42%
42%
43%
99%
99%
99%
75%
75%
75%
87%
87%
85%
88%
88%
89%
100%
100%
100%
KK-8
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.81
0.83
0.82
99%
99%
100%
99%
99%
99%
56%
57%
63%
73%
73%
79%
77%
78%
79%
100%
100%
100%
KK-9
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.84
0.84
0.84
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
60%
60%
65%
75%
76%
80%
24%
24%
25%
100%
100%
100%
KK-10
Baseline 2000
Baseline 2020
Plan 2020
0.87
0.87
0.86
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
99%
56%
58%
65%
69%
72%
78%
27%
27%
28%
100%
100%
100%
6.5
Allocations
Allocation of pollutant reductions required to meet applicable water quality standards in the
Kinnickinnic River watershed should be deferred at this time for the following reasons:
1) For fecal coliform, allocations would have to be made using a measure (fecal coliform)
that is an imperfect indicator of threats to public health and that is likely to be changed in
favor of a better indicator (discussed in Section 7.2.1 of the WRP). The allocations would
have to assume a high level of reduction of any illicit human fecal coliform sources
because these are not permitted discharges. Because there could be multiple sources of
such discharges that would be attributable to multiple entities, it would be very difficult
to equitably allocate loads. Further, any allocations based upon fecal coliform are likely
to only be temporary given the probability that the fecal coliform water quality criterion
will be phased out in the future in favor of better measurements that address the risks of
human bacteria and pathogens.
2) Regarding phosphorus, allocations of allowable loads could result in the need to treat
cooling water discharges or require that communities reduce the amount of phosphorus
used in drinking water systems for metal exposure control. Both actions would require
significant cost, based on current technology. In addition, the recently enacted ban on
phosphate containing fertilizers may produce enough reductions that most, if not all, of
the assessment point reaches in the Kinnickinnic River watershed will meet the pending
phosphorus water quality standard, assumed to be 0.1 mg/l. The impact from the ban on
phosphorus in fertilizers needs to be analyzed further.
6-21
Kinnickinnic River
3) The remaining water quality parameters (TSS, TN, chlorides, etc.) either do not have
water quality standards or already meet water quality guidelines. Specifically:
a. The median TSS for the entire Kinnickinnic River watershed already meets the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Reference Concentration of 17.2 mg/l. To
address localized, high concentrations of TSS, local sediment issues should also be
monitored and analyzed.
b. Compliance with the water quality standard for DO (which is affected by several
pollutants including nitrogen, BOD and sediment as well as other factors such as
the concrete channels, which promote algal growth) is met for the most part in the
entire watershed.
c. Chlorides may prove to be the largest water quality issue that needs further action
for habitat improvement, but the data base for chlorides is not sufficient to assess
the overall impact of chlorides on water quality.
Therefore, it is recommended that the allocation issue be considered at some future date when
and if a TMDL is conducted on the Kinnickinnic River or as a part of a watershed permitting
effort. The implementation of NR 151 (non-Ag only) may offer some opportunities to develop an
allocation program based upon the various municipal permit and regulatory requirements.
6-22
Kinnickinnic River
The recommended management strategies from the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) were
used as the basis for the recommendations of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP). Chapter 6
presents the RWQMPUs management strategies and estimates the pollutant load reductions
from the major components of the RWQMPU. During the development of this WRP, the project
team and the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) committees enhanced or
expanded some of the RWQMPUs management strategies, changed the priority for some of the
strategies, and developed some new management strategies. These additional or modified
management strategies are presented in the following section. As Chapter 6 identified each
management measures assigned priority from Tables 93-99 within the RWQMPU, the following
section also identifies the priority, determined during the development of this WRP, for each
additional management strategy. The additional strategies are partitioned into three subsections:
committed programs, strategies that are in various stages of implementation, and strategies that
are not yet implemented.
7.1.1 Committed Programs
Transportation controls
(high priority)
The Wis. Admin. Code Transportation (Trans) 401 rule requires BMPs to be employed to
avoid or minimize soil, sediment and pollutant movement, or to manage runoff, onto or off a
project site or selected site, including the avoidance or minimization of discharges to offsite
areas, public sewer inlets and waters of the state. The rule requires new transportation facilities
to reduce the TSS loads by 80% and requires highway reconstruction and non-highway
redevelopment to reduce TSS loads by 40%. It also requires the peak discharge to be maintained
to that of the predevelopment, 2-year 24-hour design event.
There are also several transportation projects underway within the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
For example, the South 6th Street bridge is to be replaced and the concrete channel from the
bridge downstream to I-94 is to be reconstructed to stabilize the channel side slopes. The
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) is also considering lowering and
reconstructing the channel between I-894 and Bolivar Avenue and extending the I-894 enclosure
of the Villa Mann Creek Tributary. The MMSD is also considering plans for replacement and
partial removal of the culvert enclosure along the tributary to Villa Mann Creek east of 27th
Street. Each of these projects has the potential to improve the habitat within the watershed. NR
151 also contains performance standards for major transportation facilities that cause or may
cause polluted runoff. The standards apply to a wide range of facilities, including roadways,
airports and railroads.
7-1
Kinnickinnic River
Lehman, J.T., D. W. Bell, and K. E. McDonald, Reduced river phosphorus following implementation of a lawn
fertilizer ordinance, Lake and Reservoir Management (in press)
7-2
Kinnickinnic River
WDNR, Delisting Targets for the Milwaukee Estuary Area of Concern, March 2008
7-3
Kinnickinnic River
The city of Milwaukee is promoting building green, which can have a positive impact on water
quality within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. For example, a green roof installed on the city
owned building at 809 North Broadway will prevent about 10,500 gallons of water from going
into the sewer system. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) is developing a
Green Infrastructure Plan to enhance and further their focus on sustainability and the use of
green infrastructure to store, convey, and use rainwater in more natural ways. Other
municipalities are also promoting green development, such as encouraging more low impact
development (LID) and greater use of green infrastructure. The use of LID and green
infrastructure on new or re-developments can result in significant reductions in runoff and
pollutant loadings compared to traditional construction.
Total Maximum Daily Load or Environmental Accountability Project
(discussed in Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update but not recommended)
(medium priority)
A total maximum daily load (TMDL) is an analysis that shows how much pollution a waterbody
can receive and still meet water quality standards. An Environmental Accountability Project
(EAP) is an alternative to a TMDL that provides recommendations for significantly reducing the
pollutant loading that is contributing to an impairment of a waterbody. Because both of these
efforts would result in additional study of the Kinnickinnic River watershed, it is not possible to
quantify the expected load reductions or other benefits at this time from these potential studies.
The MMSD submitted a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative grant application to conduct a 3rd
Party TMDL in the Kinnickinnic River watershed in 2010. At the time this WRP was written,
the grants had not been awarded.
Kinnickinnic River Watershed Sediment Transport Study
(medium priority)
As this WRP is being written, the MMSD is conducting a sediment transport study to provide a
supplementary planning tool for appropriate flood management, stabilization, and rehabilitation
activities within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The project scope consists of survey field
work, computer modeling, and field geomorphology assessment of the Kinnickinnic River and
tributaries within the Districts jurisdiction. Potential benefits to be realized from this project
include reduced streambank erosion (resulting in lower sediment loads) and improved habitat
conditions. The study is scheduled to be completed in 2010.
Wilson Park Creek flood protection project
(low priority)
The MMSD is conducting a flood protection project within the Wilson Park Creek subwatershed
to protect residences and businesses in the city of Milwaukee from flooding up to the 1%
probability flood event. The scope consists of performing the planning phase necessary to
identify flooding areas within the Districts jurisdiction. It will include input by a stakeholder
group and construction cost estimating during the alternative analysis phase of the project.
Construction costs will be further refined during the preliminary engineering phase to occur at a
later date. Approximately 120 structures have initially been identified in the floodplain.
Potential benefits to be realized from this project include reduced flashiness and better habitat
conditions.
7-4
Kinnickinnic River
7.1.3 Additional Management Strategies Recommended for Implementation, But Not Yet
Implemented
Improve aesthetics
(high priority)
Stakeholders have identified improved aesthetics as one of their most important goals for the
watershed. Actions that would improve aesthetics and promote stewardship of the watershed
include restoring areas for recreational use, improved public access, implementing green
infrastructure and removing concrete-lined channels. Efforts to beautify the stream corridor will
therefore need to be a critical aspect of implementing this WRP.
7.2
The identification of Priority Actions builds upon the analyses of the SEWRPC's RWQMPU and
the MMSDs 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP), both of which identified numerous management
measures that would result in meeting watershed goals.
The SWWT Science Committee determined three areas of highest concern, called focus areas.
These include bacteria/public health, habitat and aesthetics, and nutrients/phosphorus (see
Chapters 3 and 5). The technical team then identified a list of Priority Actions for each of the
three focus areas, based on the high priority recommendations identified in the RWQMPU.
Based on input from the Watershed Action Team (WAT), Policy Committee, and the Science
Committee, the technical team compiled the list of actions into a priority actions matrix as a
reference document. The matrix includes four tables: one for public health/bacteria (Table 7-1),
two for habitat one for land-based measures (Table 7-2), one for in-stream based measures
(Table 7-3), and one for nutrients/phosphorus (Table 7-4).
The tables suggest actions that should be implemented over the next five years to continue
improving water quality and habitat in the Kinnickinnic River watershed and are meant to be
used as a guide for future actions by the SWWT and its committees; they are not meant to
exclude any recommendations from the RWQMPU. Additional actions identified in the
RWQMPU can be found in Chapters 5 and 6 of this WRP and in Chapter X of SEWRPCs
RWQMPU Planning Report No. 50.
The information in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 may change over time and as other projects are
implemented. The information should be verified during the preparation of more detailed work
plans as the next steps of implementation are completed. All of the recommendations in the
RWQMPU contribute to improving water quality and habitat within the Kinnickinnic River
watershed and achieving the overall goals of the RWQMPU. Although some recommendations
are not included in the Priority Actions tables, this does not mean they should not be carried
forward or implemented as opportunities arise. The high Priority Actions are merely identified
to guide the implementation process based on the knowledge and data available as of March
2010.
Figure 7-1 summarizes the process to determine actions needed and briefly describes the
components of the tables. The components of the tables are explained in more detail in the
following text.
7-5
FIGURE 7-1
Kinnickinnic River
1) Issues Problems in the watershed. The purpose of this WRP is to address water
quality and habitat issues within the Kinnickinnic River watershed. The following three
issues are addressed by the Priority Actions:
a. Reduce the risk of getting sick if you swim in or otherwise contact the water (too
many bacteria and pathogens in the water)
b. Reduce the impact of development on habitat and aesthetics, including the
following:
i.
Address human-induced runoff from the land surface to the stream system
(reduced buffer widths, pollution, and increased erosion)
ii. Address stream flashiness (rapid increase and decrease in flows; impacts to
runoff peak rate and volume)
iii. Address the impacts of human influences on in-stream fishery habitat,
water quality and aesthetics (obstructions to fish and aquatic life passage,
including concrete-lined channels and low-gradient dams; pollution;
vegetation; and trash)
c. Reduce the nutrient impacts on the watershed and discharge of nutrients,
specifically phosphorus, from the watershed to Lake Michigan (excessive algae
and Cladophora growth)
Issues can be linked to physical factors, chemical factors, or both. Often, there are
multiple factors that contribute to an issue. Physical factors that contribute to issues
include dams, flow velocity (the speed at which water flows in a stream), and concretelined channels. These changes have important implications for stream ecology. For
example, changes to flow velocity and sediment transport can directly disrupt the channel
bottom conditions that organisms depend on to find food and shelter (benthic substrate)
and disrupts their overall life cycle. Chemical factors include high concentrations of
bacteria that can indicate the presence of organisms that make people sick or high
concentrations of chlorides that are lethal to fish.
2) Goals A specific long-term result intended to be achieved that will help move
towards improved regional water quality. Achieving goals will solve or work towards
solving issues within the watershed. Goals can be quantitative or qualitative or both.
Most quantitative goals also have a corresponding qualitative goal. An example of a
quantitative goal is to reduce the total fecal coliform bacteria load to the Kinnickinnic
River watershed by 52%. An example of a corresponding qualitative goal is to increase
water-based recreational opportunities by reducing the risk of people getting sick when
they recreate in the river.
The baseline goals for this plan were defined in the RWQMPU and confirmed as the
baseline goals, or starting point, for this WRP by the SWWT Executive Steering Council.
The baseline goals related to water quality improvements were established by the
RWQMPU in an attempt to meet the applicable fishable/swimmable water quality use
objectives and the associated water quality standards or guidelines . The baseline habitat
improvement goals for the WRP were also based on the RWQMPU and were
subsequently expanded by SEWRPCs Memorandum Report No. 194 (Appendix 4A).
7-7
Kinnickinnic River
As the WRP is implemented, the goals can be adapted and modified at any time by the
SWWT to adjust for new water quality standards or new information.
3) Targets Short-term goals or steps required to reach the long-term goals. In order
to break down the long-term goals into more manageable pieces, targets were established.
Establishing targets helps determine the specific steps needed to achieve a goal and
facilitates the development of measures to track progress. The targets were developed
from the management measures selected from above or from Chapter 6. An example of a
target is to expand riparian buffer widths to a minimum of 75 feet.
4) Actions Activities or projects needed to achieve the targets and address, or start
addressing, the issues. Actions can include data gathering, research, or actually
removing a concrete-lined channel. The actions included in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 were
identified as those that can make the most positive impact on habitat and water quality
(focusing on fecal coliform bacteria and phosphorus reduction) in the Kinnickinnic River
watershed. They are not the only actions that can or should be taken. Implementing
these actions should move water quality and habitat improvement towards meeting the
targets and achieving the goals. An action, or a group of actions, was developed for each
of the management measures that were selected to more clearly define activities needed
to implement the management measures.
5) Measures A way to monitor progress of an action or set of actions towards
achieving a specific target. Measures can be used to determine if the actions are being
implemented and whether or not they are improving water quality or habitat. Examples
of measures include: increased number of days that one can recreate in a stream, miles of
buffers established, length of concrete channel removed, fish population diversity, and
concentrations of pollutants. The progress for some actions, such as the length of
concrete removed, can be determined as soon as they are implemented. However, it may
take several years or even decades to be able to measure progress towards achieving
certain water quality or habitat improvements.
6) Evaluate Results Determine what was accomplished by the actions, make
adjustments, and continue process. An evaluation of the measures will show if the
actions should be continued, used elsewhere, modified, or discontinued.
7) Primary Land Use the Action Addresses Appropriate area(s) where the actions
would be applied. Some actions are land use-specific and are best suited to be applied to
certain land uses, such as pet litter management in residential and parkland areas. This
column provides guidance on where the actions would be most effective at improving
water quality. A bullet in the column indicates the primary land use type(s) that the
action addresses. Most of the actions that address habitat improvement can be applied
regardless of the land use type. Therefore, this column was not included in Tables 7-2
and 7-3.
8) Responsible and/or Participating Organization Organization(s) that will lead the
action and/or participate in the implementation of the activity. One organization will
need to lead each activity to establish an ultimate decision maker and determine who will
be accountable for implementing the action. When appropriate, other organizations can
be identified as team members to help develop and implement the activity. The
7-8
Kinnickinnic River
7-9
Kinnickinnic River
What will achieving the identified goals accomplish? Achieving the goals will
significantly reduce the quantity (load) and concentrations of pollutants in the streams
and improve habitat in the watershed. However, all water quality standards as they exist
in 2009 are not anticipated to be met under all circumstances even if all
recommendations from the RWQMPU are implemented and the goals are met. It is
important to point out that the actions identified in Tables 7-1 through 7-4 are only a
subset of the RWQMPU recommendations. Information regarding anticipated water
quality improvements based on full implementation of the RWQMPU is provided in
Chapters 4 and 6 and discussed briefly below.
Fecal Coliform
Implementation of all actions identified in the RWQMPU recommended plan will result
in significant improvement in fecal coliform concentrations in general even though
anticipated water quality conditions for about half assessment point areas fall short of
meeting water quality standards. However, this reduction and the focus on removing
human sources of bacteria would reduce the risk of getting sick from contacting the
water. For the Kinnickinnic River watershed, the anticipated overall load reduction is
52%. This will increase compliance with the geometric mean standard during the
swimming season (May September) by 21 days in the lower reach of the mainstem.
This reduction will allow progress towards any future bacterial standard that may use a
different measure than fecal coliform bacteria.
Habitat
Achieving the habitat goals of meeting the fishable and swimmable standards will
improve water quality and hydrology to the point where the watershed can sustain a
natural fishery and support a full range of recreational uses such as fishing, kayaking,
bird watching, and any other recreational activity that would be enhanced by improved
water quality and aquatic / riparian habitat. Although progress can be made, intense
urbanization coupled with relatively low flows and extensive channel modification will
make the achievement of fishable and swimmable goals extremely difficult in most areas
of the Kinnickinnic River watershed. However, greater progress can likely be made
toward the fishable and swimmable goals in the downstream portion of the watershed
because of its association with the estuary and the Great Lakes system. In terms of
fishable goals, research indicates that close proximity and a connection to the estuary and
Lake Michigan will tend to support a more diverse fish assemblage. See Appendix 4A for
more information on the interactions among fish passage, fish diversity and the Great
Lakes system. The types of fish and aquatic life that will be present depend on many
factors that will be influenced by the decisions made throughout the implementation of
this WRP. The Kinnickinnic River watershed assessment point areas are identified in
Figure 7-2. Appendix 7A includes a discussion of planning considerations for improved
habitat and biodiversity.
Phosphorus
Implementing the actions to address phosphorus will result in a significant reduction in
nutrient loading within the watershed. This will directly reduce the occurrence of algae
and the loading of nutrients to the Milwaukee Estuary and Lake Michigan. The
7-10
Kinnickinnic River
impending water quality standard scheduled to take effect in 2010 is anticipated to be met
on a yearly average in about half of the assessment point areas following implementation
of these activities. An additional action that should be researched and evaluated is
finding an alternative to adding phosphorus compounds to drinking water. The actions
noted are anticipated to bring most of the assessment point areas into compliance with the
impending standard of 0.075 mg/L on a yearly average basis.
7.2.1 Priority Actions to Address Public Health/Bacteria (Table 7-1)
The presence of fecal coliform bacteria is an indicator of potential pathogens that can make
people sick. High levels of fecal coliforms (and the pathogens they may indicate) are a threat to
the health of anyone who comes in contact with the water. The biggest risk to public health
occurs when human fecal coliforms are present. Higher concentrations of fecal coliforms are
normally found in streams during and after storms. Sources include the following:
Unknown sanitary sewer cross-connections to storm sewers (unknown because the exact
reasons are unknown for the wide-spread and in some cases, very high levels of bacteria
found in storm sewers), combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows
(SSOs), and failing septic systems
Runoff impacted with droppings from pets, seagulls, geese and other wildlife
The WRP modeled fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator of waterborne bacteria and related
public health risks. Fecal coliform was used because it is consistent with Wisconsins standard
for in-stream conditions (see Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources [NR] 102 Water Quality
Standards for Wisconsin Surface Waters). Also, most of the available bacteria/public health data
collected from waterways within the Kinnickinnic River watershed are based on fecal coliform
bacteria. One of the major drawbacks of relying on fecal coliform as an indicator of human
sewage is that fecal coliform bacteria are found in most warm-blooded animals.3 The presence
of fecal coliform bacteria itself neither provides any information on the source of the bacteria nor
the origin of the bacteria; the presence of fecal coliform bacteria does not specifically indicate
human sewage. One of this WRPs Foundation Targets is to identify unknown sources of
bacteria as well as to disconnect these sources. Considering the limitations identified above, this
WRP acknowledges that that future indicators of waterborne bacteria and the related public
health risk will likely be based upon more effective measures of human risk and not based on
fecal coliform bacteria.
It is important to note that while the indicator organism will likely change, this WRPs focus on
identifying and disconnecting illicit connections is still relevant. Illicit connections cause human
sewage contamination and present a direct risk to human health. An effective indicator organism
should be directly linked to illicit connections and not indicate the presence of waste from other
sources like waterfowl and pet litter. Human-specific strains of Bacteroides, with a specific
human genetic marker, have enabled researchers to differentiate between human and non-human
sources of sewage.4 Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM), in
collaboration with MMSD and the Milwaukee Riverkeepers, have used the Bacteroides genetic
3
Bower, P.A., Scopel, C.O., Jensen, E.T., Depas, M.M. & McLellan, S.L. 2005. Detection of genetic markers of
fecal indicator bacteria in Lake Michigan and determination of their relationship to Escherichia coli densities using
standard microbiological methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71(12): 8305-8313
4
Ibid
7-11
Kinnickinnic River
marker to investigate sewage in stormwater outfalls. In some cases, specialized dye testing was
used to confirm the results; Bacteroides has shown promise as an effective and specific indicator
of human sewage. This WRP supports additional research to further refine Bacteroides use as an
indicator of human sewage contamination and the use of the latest technologies to detect human
sources. The WRP also supports an expanded monitoring program for Bacteroides throughout
the watershed to ensure a baseline is established and future evaluations can occur.
7-12
FIGURE 7-2
HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS
WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
WATERSHED
KK WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
Kinnickinnic River
Table 7-1 presents the identified actions and associated information to address public
health/bacteria. Implementing these actions will result in significant improvement in fecal
coliform concentrations, thereby reducing the risk of getting sick when contacting the water
during recreational activities. However, water quality standards as of 2009 are not anticipated to
be met in about half of the assessment point areas - even if all of the activities recommended in
the RWQMPU were implemented and the RWQMPU goals were met. The actions identified in
Table 7-1 are only a subset of the RWQMPU recommendations. Therefore, implementing only
the actions in Table 7-1 will likely not reach the goals. In order to reach the water quality
standards as of 2009 in all areas of the watershed every day of the year, the amount of fecal
coliform entering the streams would need to be reduced by over 90%.
7-14
KK-2
KK-3
KK-4
KK-5
KK-6
KK-7
KK-8
KK-9
KK-10
Kinnickinnic RiverUpper
Holmes Avenue
Creek
Cherokee Park
Creek
Kinnickinnic RiverMiddle
Kinnickinnic RiverMiddle
Low
BR
BR
BR
DR
ARU
BR
CR
BR
CR
BR
Medium
BR
BR
BR
DR
ARU
BR
CR
BR
CR
BR
Low
BR
BR
BR
DR
AR
BR
CR
BR
CR
BR
Low
BR
BR
BR
DR
AR
BR
CR
BR
CR
BR
BR
BR
BR
DR
AR
BR
CR
BR
CR
BR
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)
SWWT
Kinnickinnic RiverG
KK-11
Lower
KK-1
Lyons Park Creek
Transportation
Commercial
Measures
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
1. Identify unknown
sources of bacteria, and
correct/remove/ disconnect
unknown sources of
bacteria (was high priority
in the SEWRPC Regional
Plan)
Actions
Agriculture
Watershed Targets to be
Achieved by 2015
Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving Watershed
Target & Goal
High
2. Increase recreational
use of watershed (was not
an action ranked in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)
1e. % of sources
corrected
Low
SWWT
Low
SWWT
Low
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, NGOs and
SWWT
Low
(Riparian Buffer
$940/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))
Site-specific
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, NGOs and
SWWT
Low
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, NGOs and
SWWT
Low
(Discourage Waterfowl
$189/acre (O&M))
Site-specific
3b. Number of
municipalities with
strengthened pet litter
programs
3e. Number of
documented, successful
education programs
implemented
High
(Parking Lot Sweeping
$3,400/acre (O&M)
Street Sweeping
$2,500/curb mile (Cap.)
$60/curb mile (O&M))
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, NGOs and
SWWT
Low
TBD
Not measurable
7. Development of better
human health risk
assessment to address
pathogens in stormwater
(was high priority in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)
KK-10
Kinnickinnic RiverMiddle
Kinnickinnic RiverG
KK-11
Lower
KK-9
Kinnickinnic RiverMiddle
Low
KK-8
USGS
KK-5
Holmes Avenue
Creek
A
KK-7
KK-4
Wilson Park CreekUpper
Low
Cherokee Park
Creek
KK-3
Kinnickinnic RiverUpper
KK-6
KK-2
South 43rd St.
Ditch
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)
KK-1
Transportation
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
Measures
Commercial
Actions
Watershed Targets to be
Achieved by 2015
Agriculture
Not Applicable
Low
High
AR
Not Applicable
MMSD
Medium
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Medium
Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving Watershed
Target & Goal
Footnotes:
A. The ultimate measure is whether bacteria loads to the streams are being reduced.
B. Land use types are discussed in Chapter 4 of this WRP. Additional details on land use types can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of SEWRPC's Technical Report No. 39.
C. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
D. Cost data are provided for guidance only and are based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance
E. Relative prioriity for Target 1 is based on the percentage of unknown sources estimated by the water quality model developed under the RWQMPU and verified with updated data for the WRP.
F. Target 1: Approximately 60% of the urban nonpoint source fecal coliform loads from the subwatersheds were determined to be from unknown sources. Considering the potential challenges
LEGEND
A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
C = Moderate Priority
D = Lowest Priority
R = Required by Law
U = Underway
Foundation Action
associated with this work, the Regional Plan recommended 33% of these unknown sources be eliminated by 2020. Reducing 33% of these sources would reduce the total fecal coliform
load by 16%. If half of this load is reduced by 2015, approximately 8% of the load would be reduced.Target 5: Goal from MMSD's 2020 Facilities Plan is 5-year LOP for SSO's
G. This assessment point area is associated with the Kinnickinnic River within the estuary. While not included within the pollutant loading and water quality analysis for the WRP, this area is incorporated in the habitat assessment conducted for the Kinnickinnic River watershed
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.
Kinnickinnic River
SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194, Stream Habitat Conditionsand Biological Assessment of the
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000-2009, January 2010.
7-17
Habitat Dimension
Hydrology
Watershed Targets
Actions
Measures
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire watershed;
unit costs shown if available)
High
(Wet Detention
$0.37/cu ft (Cap.)
$0.02/cu ft (O&M)
Stormwater Treatment
$32,500/acre (Cap.)
$3,200/acre (O&M))
AR
Medium
Rain Garden
$1000 (Cap.) / $50 (O&M)
Rain Barrel
$50 (Cap.) / $3 (O&M)
Downspout Disconnect
$50 (Cap.)
Low - Medium
AR
Medium-High
KK-11
KK-10
(includes KK-9)
Kinnickinnic River-Middle
Kinnickinnic River-Lower
KK-3
Kinnickinnic River-Upper
KK-7
Cherokee Park Creek
KK-2
KK-6
Villa Mann Creek
KK-5
Holmes Avenue Creek
KK-1
KK-8
Wilson Park Creek-Lower
KK-4
Wilson Park Creek-Upper
KK-10
(includes KK-9)
Kinnickinnic River-Middle
Kinnickinnic River-Lower
Habitat Dimension
Watershed Targets
Actions
Water Quality
and Quantity
3. Reduce water quality
impacts from nonpoint
runoff (focus on chlorides)
Water Quality
and Quantity
Measures
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire watershed;
unit costs shown if available)
High
(Infiltration (Residential)
$22,000/acre (Cap.)
$1,100/acre (O&M)
Infiltration (Industrial)
$110,000/acre (Cap.)
$5,300/acre (O&M))
Medium
High
(Road Salt Reduction
$35/lane mile (Cap.)
$105/lane mile (O&M))
Low
High
(Infiltration (Residential)
$22,000/acre (Cap.)
$1,100/acre (O&M)
Infiltration (Industrial)
$110,000/acre (Cap.)
$5,300/acre (O&M))
Medium-high
Low
(Riparian Corridors
$944/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))
Medium
Low
Low- Medium
($4000/acre (Cap.)
$773/acre (O&M))
Municipalities, SWWT,
SEWRPC, WDNR, NGOs
Universities, and MMSD
Low
Low
(Riparian Corridors
$944/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))
Medium
Medium
Riparian
Corridors
KK-11
KK-3
Kinnickinnic River-Upper
KK-7
Cherokee Park Creek
KK-2
KK-6
Villa Mann Creek
KK-5
Holmes Avenue Creek
KK-1
KK-8
Wilson Park Creek-Lower
KK-4
Wilson Park Creek-Upper
Riparian
Corridors
(con't)
Monitoring
and
Information
KK-6
KK-7
KK-1
KK-2
KK-3
KK-10
(includes KK-9)
Kinnickinnic River-Upper
Kinnickinnic River-Middle
Watershed Targets
Actions
Measures
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Municipalities, SWWT,
SEWRPC, WDNR, NGOs
Universities, and MMSD
Low
High
Municipalities, County
Low
Low-Medium
Medium
Low
Low
Footnotes:
A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving.
B. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
C. Cost data based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance
D. This assessment point area is associated with the Kinnickinnic River within the estuary. While not included within the pollutant loading and water quality analysis for the WRP, this area is incorporated in the habitat assessment conducted for the Kinnickinnic River watershed
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.
LEGEND
A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
R = Required by Law
Foundation Action
KK-5
Holmes Avenue Creek
Habitat Dimension
KK-11
KK-8
Wilson Park Creek-Lower
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire watershed;
unit costs shown if available)
Kinnickinnic River-Lower
KK-4
7.2.3
Kinnickinnic River
The Habitat Subcommittee also developed Table 7-3, which identifies Priority Actions to address
in-stream-based habitat issues resulting from human influences on in-stream fishery habitat and
water quality. The targets identified to address the issues are related to aquatic organism
passage, aquatic habitat, aquatic organisms, and improved monitoring, recreation, and
aesthetics.6 See Appendix 4A of Chapter 4 for additional information.
Ibid.
7-21
KK-8
KK-5
KK-6
KK-7
KK-1
KK-2
KK-3
KK-10
(includes KK-9)
Kinnickinnic River-Upper
Kinnickinnic River-Middle
Kinnickinnic River-Lower
Habitat Dimension
Aquatic
Organism
Passage
Aquatic Habitat
Watershed Targets
KK-11
KK-4
Mainstem
Reaches &
Subwatersheds
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the action
in the entire watershed; unit
costs shown if available)
High
($2,000 - $4,200/linear foot (Cap.))
Medium-High
Medium-High
(Dam Abandonment and
Restoration Plan
$25,000/dam (Cap.) for drop
structure removal)
Low
Medium - High
High
Medium - High
Medium
Actions
Measures
KK-8
KK-5
KK-6
KK-7
KK-1
KK-2
KK-3
KK-10
(includes KK-9)
Kinnickinnic River-Upper
Kinnickinnic River-Middle
Kinnickinnic River-Lower
Habitat Dimension
Aquatic
Organisms
Monitoring and
Information
Recreation
Aesthetics
Watershed Targets
3. Restore a sustainable
fishery and aquatic
community
5. Improve recreational
opportunities (also see MR194 in Appendix 4A)
6. Continue removal of
trash
Actions
Measures
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the action
in the entire watershed; unit
costs shown if available)
KK-11
KK-4
Mainstem
Reaches &
Subwatersheds
Low
Low
Low-Medium
Low-Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low-Medium
(Skimmer Boat
$1,000,000 for new boat
$150,000 (O&M)); Individual NGO
clean up efforts $35,000/yr/NGO
Footnotes: it is important to note that these instream actions and measures will require permits from the WDNR, municipalities, and/or County.
A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving.
B. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
C. Cost data based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance, cost for
concrete removal is based on average of recent MMSD project costs.
D. Relative prioriity based on 3-tiered approach, described in Appendix 4A, which emphasizes the mainstem, then tributaries, then high quality areas.
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.
LEGEND
A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
R = Required by Law
Foundation Action
Kinnickinnic River
7-24
1. Reduce phosphorus
loads from regulated
discharges (actions were
ranked low to high in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)
KK-9
Kinnickinnic RiverMiddle
Kinnickinnic RiverF
KK-11
Lower
KK-8
Wilson Park CreekLower
Kinnickinnic RiverKK-10
Middle
KK-7
Cherokee Park
Creek
KK-5
Holmes Avenue
Creek
KK-6
KK-4
Wilson Park CreekUpper
KK-3
Kinnickinnic RiverUpper
High
RD
RB
RD
RD
RA
RB
RD
RC
RD
RC
Estimated 8% reduction
in total watershed loads
based on literature
Low
Potential Contribution
Toward Achieving
Watershed Target &
Goal
6% reduction in total
watershed loads
AR
Not Applicable
Medium
Not Applicable
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, NGOs, SWWT
Low
(Riparian Corridors
$944/acre (Cap.)
$210/acre (O&M))
8% reduction in total
watershed loads by 2020
Not Applicable
Low
Not Applicable
USGS
Low
3. Reduce phosphorus
sources from land-based
activities (buffers not
recommended in KK
watershed in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)
KK-2
Responsible and/or
Participating Organization
Relative Cost
(for implementation of the
action in the entire
watershed; unit costs shown
if available)
KK-1
Transportation
Outdoor Recreation,
Wetlands, Woodlands, and
Open Space
Medium-High
(Parking Lot Sweeping
$3,400/acre (O&M)
Street Sweeping
$2,500/curb mile (Cap.)
$60/curb mile (O&M)
(Stormwater Treatment
$32,500/acre (Cap.)
$3,200/acre (O&M)))
2. Reduce use of
phosphorus compounds
for control of lead and
copper in drinking water
systems
Commercial
Measures
Actions
Watershed Targets
Agriculture
Not Applicable
Low
Not Applicable
MMSD
Medium
Not Applicable
Footnotes:
A. The ultimate measure is whether habitat is improving.
B. Land use types are discussed in Chapter 4 of the WRP. Additional details on land use types can be found in Chapters 1 and 2 of SEWRPC's Technical Report No. 39.
C. Organizations listed are understood to lead or participate with the implementation of the action. For greater detail, see the SWWT membership list in Appendix 5B and SEWRPC's Planning
Report No. 50, Tables 93-99, in Appendix 5C.
Reduces concentration
only
LEGEND
A = Highest Priority
B = Next Highest Priority
C = Moderate Priority
D = Lowest Priority
R = Required by Law
Foundation Action
D. Cost data are provided for guidance only and are based on costs developed for SEWRPC's Regional Planning Report No. 50, Appendix R. Cap. = Capital/construction cost; O&M = Operations and Maintenance
E. Relative prioriity for Actions 1b and 1c are based on the total nonpoint load per acre
F. This assessment point area is associated with the Kinnickinnic River within the estuary. While not included within the pollutant loading and water quality modeling, this area is incorporated
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.
Kinnickinnic River
7-26
Actions
PUBLIC HEALTH/BACTERIA
1a. Conduct dry weather surveys to identify outfalls that have dry weather flows
1b. Sample outfalls to determine which have human bacteria discharges (wet and dry weather samples)
1. Identify unknown sources of bacteria, and correct/remove/disconnect unknown sources of bacteria
(was high priority in the SEWRPC Regional Plan)
1c. Determine ownership/owner of outfalls that have dry weather flows and/or human bacteria
1d. Initiate discussion with owner of outfall to begin determining corrective actions
1e. Implement projects to correct/remove/disconnect unknown sources of bacteria
2a. Identify recreational and body contact areas
2. Increase recreational use of watershed and public access (was not an action ranked in the SEWRPC
Regional Plan)
3. Reduce bacteria sources from land-based activities (actions were ranked medium to high in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)
3c. Implement programs to discourage unacceptably high numbers of waterfowl from congregating near water features - identify areas and take action to discourage waterfowl
feeding
3d. Implement projects and programs to comply with MS4 permits and NR 151 TSS and runoff reduction requirements (reduced TSS expected to result in coincidental bacteria
reduction)
3e. Initiate municipal, county and SWWT education programs to educate public on sources of bacteria and actions they can implement to reduce loads to streams
HABITAT - LAND-BASED
1a. Implement stormwater management practices at the subwatershed level
1. Moderate flow regimes to decrease flashiness
2a. Implement green infrastructure to re-establish more natural hydrology, reduce runoff and improve water quality (continue and expand current efforts; e.g. Green Milwaukee
and MMSD's green infrastructure plan)
3a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs
HABITAT - INSTREAM-BASED
1a. Remove concrete within the lower reaches of the mainstem
1. Restore fish and aquatic organism passage from Lake Michigan to the headwaters and tributaries (i.e.
Follow 3-Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in Appendix 4A)
1b. Develop plans for removal of additional obstructions on the mainstem or tributaries and implement the plans
1c. Develop detailed assessments to expand passage restoration efforts beyond the mainstem to the tributaries, prioritize them, and implement them
PHOSPHORUS
1a. Continue adaptive implementation of CSO and SSO overflow reduction program
1. Reduce phosphorus loads from regulated discharges (actions were ranked low to high in the
SEWRPC Regional Plan)
1b. Implement projects and programs to comply with MS4 permits and NR 151 TSS and runoff reduction requirements (reduced TSS expected to result in coincidental TP
reduction)
1c. Reduce phosphorus loads with State ban of phosphorus in commercial fertilizers
2. Reduce use of phosphorus compounds for control of lead and copper in drinking water systems
2a. Research development of alternatives to phosphorus compounds by public and private researchers in area universities and industries
This list is intended to highlight predecessor actions that need to be completed to realize the full potential of actions
listed in Tables 7-1 thru 7-4 and the actions recommended by the RWQMPU.
The activities listed are suggestions to be implemented between 2010 and 2015 to move the watershed towards improved water quality and habitat.
Additional actions recommended by this WRP are presented in Chapters 5 and 6 and a complete list is included in Chapter 8. A complete list of actions
recommended by the RWQMPU is presented in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50. Additional habitat recommendations are included in SEWRPC's MR-194 in Appendix 4A.
7.3
Kinnickinnic River
Watershed Action Team meetings and Science Committee meetings were held in fall 2009 to
discuss ongoing development of the WRP for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Comments
were solicited from participants at the meeting and through the postal service, e-mail, and eforum in regards to the draft Priority Actions tables, which were called the draft Summary
Matrix tables at the time. The following sections are intended to outline the comments that were
submitted during the development of the Priority Actions tables (indicated in italics) and discuss
how the comments were addressed or why they were not addressed in the tables.
1) Metals and PAHs
Metals and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are not specifically addressed in the plans and
these two parameters are important impairments for fish and wildlife.
While metals and PAHs are not identified for special attention in the WRP, they are expected to
be reduced through implementation of the Wis. Admin. Code NR 151 Runoff Management
requirements. In addition, it is expected that metals and PAHs will be reduced as a result of
other actions identified in the Priority Actions tables that reduce stormwater runoff. Because
metals and PAHs have not been a specific focus area, nor on the parameter list based on the
Science and Policy Committees, and Executive Steering Council discussions, they have not been
modeled during this study. Some modeled parameters can be an indicator (such as turbidity) or
surrogate (such as total suspended solids [TSS]) of these pollutants, but additional data on these
pollutants have not been collected as part of this study. Specific reductions of these pollutants
can be measured and investigated in future studies.
Note that hazardous materials assessments should be considered during planning and
design of channel renovation and rehabilitation projects; some concrete channels overlay
contaminated soils.
It was suggested that the matrix include a monitoring recommendation to specifically address
TSS or PAHs/heavy metals. By collecting the relevant data, future plans will have the data
needed to address these important pollutants as well. This will facilitate future iterations of the
plan to address this better data. Another commenter asked whether polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) should also be considered and whether additional monitoring should be added to the
recommendations.
Awareness and education efforts related to automobile practices and use of transportationrelated chemicals such as antifreeze, motor oil, and fuel could be included and would also
benefit from future monitoring data.
These comments were addressed by adding metals and PAHs specifically in the monitoring and
information section of Table 7-3. There are also recommendations in the RWQMPU to maintain
and expand monitoring programs. As the implementation process moves forward, additional
data gaps will be identified and specific monitoring projects can be conducted to gather the
appropriate data.
2) Buffers
There are multiple benefits of buffers and other actions/facilities. Perhaps these are actions that
should be focused on first. These projects may be the most likely projects to receive funding.
7-28
Kinnickinnic River
The use of buffers is recommended in many of the recommended actions. The inclusion of
habitat improvements related to land based activities is included in the Foundation Actions table
(Table 7-5) and buffers are an element of this action.
3) Activity Champions
The SWWT could select one organization to champion each activity and verify if all other
participating organizations were identified in the matrix. There was a desire to have the tables
clearly indicate who will do what and how individuals and organizations can help.
Another suggestion was to organize the Summary Matrix tables by implementation group
(business/industry, households, etc.). Large institutional stakeholders are responsible for most
of the actions on the tables, and it leaves off actions for smaller or individual stakeholders.
The Responsible and/or Participating Organization column was included in the tables to
indicate which organizations might lead and/or participate in the activities. It will be the
responsibility of SWWT to determine which SWWT organizations should be involved and what
the roles and responsibilities for SWWT should be for each action. Also, the process of
implementing new actions is discussed in Chapter 8. This process includes the designation of a
lead organization for any new action.
4) Table Organization
The Summary Matrix (Priority Actions table) and the Foundation Actions table, in particular,
could end up causing actions that are not listed to be overlooked and this is not beneficial. It
was agreed that the plan will have to label the summaries with disclaimers warning that specific
actions are part of an overall plan.
The text and the Foundation Action table were revised to address the concern that WRP readers
might only focus on actions listed in the Foundation Actions table. The concern was addressed
by clarifying these foundation actions are simply predecessor actions that are required to
realize the full benefit of other actions intended to improve water quality or habitat within the
watershed. Note also that the actions included in the Priority Actions tables are suggestions to be
implemented between 2010 and 2015. These actions are a distillation of the recommended
actions presented in the RWQMPU, found in Chapter X of Planning Report No. 50 and
discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of this WRP.
One suggestion was that the foundation elements be highlighted within the four focus area tables
rather than called out separately in an additional table.
The Foundation Actions were highlighted in the Priority Actions tables.
The importance of the Foundation Actions table (Table 7-5) to serve as a roadmap for the next
five years was highlighted, and it was suggested to refine the table now.
There was also a suggestion to combine or connect the cost and benefit columns to serve as an
additional measure.
This task was determined to be appropriate for the next level of planning and was not done as
part of the WRP.
Another suggestion was to reorganize the tables in the matrix to detail conditions and possible
actions for specific sections of each of the 10 major tributaries or sections (assessment point
7-29
Kinnickinnic River
areas) of the Kinnickinnic River. This would be an additional table for each sub-watershed that
identifies conditions and possible actions for specific sections of each of the 10 major sections of
the Kinnickinnic River and the feasibility of each action. Actions might include the reduction or
elimination of adverse impacts or possible improvements to the existing condition. Simplified
headings such as these could be used:
Whats there
o
Why do we care
What can be done
o
Kinnickinnic River
6) Phosphorus
The SWWT Policy Committee should look into alternatives to adding phosphorus compounds to
drinking water. It was suggested the plan include other treatment and water re-use alternatives
instead of chemical solutions for dealing with a reduction in the use of phosphorus compounds
for the control of lead and copper in drinking water systems.
This is a Foundation Action. It is important to note that the programs and processes that are
utilized by water utilities are in response to regulatory requirements and successfully address a
significant public health issue.
7) Prioritization Process
Priority is a complex concept involving both an assessment of conditions and values related to
those conditions.
The initial versions of Tables 7-1 through 7-4 (Priority Actions tables) describe the greatest need
in terms of the technical analysis and current conditions and were revised based on input from
the WAT. These initial priority designations can guide the WAT and SWWT as they move
forward with implementation. The SWWT committees or chairs have the ability to add the value
component and adjust the prioritization accordingly. For example, intervention may be more
feasible in some places because of varying factors, opportunities, and synergies creating a
context for increasing or decreasing the level of priority for each item. Priorities may be revised
over time by the WAT.
Another suggestion indicated that it would be beneficial to generate a list that optimizes
available resources, leverages additional resources, and includes an analysis of visibility of
potential projects. Additionally, the prioritization of projects as opportunities arise should also
be considered.
This action should be discussed by the WAT in the next phase of implementation as discussed in
Chapter 8.
Comments also suggested a wider index for prioritization than just A or B. This could increase
clarity of priorities (such as using A, B, C, and D) that could differ across the watershed. One
comment suggested changing the word priority that appears in Column 7.
The prioritization was expanded in Table 7-1 and 7-4 to include A through D. The prioritization
in Tables 7-2 and 7-3 remains limited to A and B due to the relatively high prioritization
attributed to habitat-based actions. After discussion with the Science Committee, the consensus
was to keep the word priority in the Geographic Concentration of Action and Relative Priority
column as it indicates a preference for where actions should be implemented first. The
prioritization can be revised in the future by the WAT.
8) Other Comments by Focus Area
Comments included changes to watershed targets including the refinement of associated actions,
measures, and prioritization. Specific comments are summarized below for each focus area and
are described based on their position in the matrix (action, measure, and priority).
1) Public Health/Bacteria
Action
7-31
Kinnickinnic River
The current measures (bacteria) are not the best measure because it doesnt
highlight the importance of human waste. Clearly, identifying where human
waste is entering our waterways is a high priority.
Text added in Section 7.2.1 that discusses the issues with using fecal coliform
bacteria as an indicator organism and provides recommendations for future
actions regarding the identification of unknown sources.
The 52% goal is doing everything in the regional plan; it is possible doing
everything on the table still may not get to that number to reach the SEWRPC
goal.
This statement is correct.
Measure
Non-governmental organizations are already doing some of these initiatives. In
KK-5, the non-governmental organizations have already found seven outfalls that
need to be further investigated between 6th and 27th streets.
No response required.
Priority
There are sections where it makes sense for the WAT to work on prioritizing. For
example, locations where people are using the resource.
Correct. No response required.
Knowing how many persons are affected in each sub-watershed may help to
prioritize areas in the target for increased recreational use.
This can probably be determined with available information, but it was not done
as part of this WRP. It is recommended that this analysis be completed as part of
the implementation phase if deemed necessary.
2) Habitat
Action
One comment indicated that habitat is an area where best management practices
could cumulatively have an impact.
Correct. No response required.
Salt levels are important and inadvertently missed on the tables. Add salt
(chlorides) to habitat land based measures and to the Foundation Actions table.
Road salt (chloride) reduction has been added to the Chapter 7 Tables.
KK-11 closest to the estuary is the location in the watershed with the most chance
for high quality aquatic life with instream enhancements. Until the concrete
comes out upstream, it doesnt make sense to spend money on fish passage.
Concrete removal is a key component for improving fish passage.
7-32
Kinnickinnic River
KK-4 should be changed so it will be monitored for water quality. It is the airport
location, so for instream habitat it is not a priority, but still should be monitored
for water quality (edit Table 3 of the matrix).
Added.
It is difficult in the spreadsheet on habitat to prioritize certain actions in certain
areas.
Agree. The priorities may need to be modified in the implementation phase.
Some instream work should happen in the lower Kinnickinnic (estuary Area of
Concern), but otherwise passage and other in-steam work should not be too much
of a focus in the Kinnickinnic River watershed until a significant amount of
concrete removal occurs. The MMSDs Underwood Creek projects
accomplishments are instructive here.
Concrete removal is a Foundation Action and is a key component for improving
fish passage.
Measure
Rain barrels, green roofs, and rain gardens could be added to the table. It may
not be realistic to show land purchases as a measure in urbanized areas. The
Kinnickinnic Summary Matrix table ought to bump up in importance
disconnecting downspouts, rain barrels, rain gardens, etc. above buying land to
expand riparian buffers.
Reducing flashiness, by implementing green infrastructure and other stormwater
management practices such as the ones mentioned, is a Foundation Action.
Although listed as a high priority, it is acknowledged that purchasing buffers
along the KK will be challenging due to the degree of development.
9) Other Miscellaneous Comments
Monitoring -- The focus on monitoring needs could vary by assessment area,
depending on water quality, habitat conditions, and land use.
Agree. This should be considered when developing the monitoring plans during
the implementation phase.
The WAT needs to think about how to leverage efforts.
Agree. This action should be discussed by the WAT in the next phase of
implementation.
The blue lines on the map need to be confirmed.
The maps are based off of data from SEWRPC and are not easily updated.
Revisions to the maps can be made, if necessary, as part of an appropriate action
during implementation.
7-33
Kinnickinnic River
10) Goals
Another comment suggested that there be a measure of success on the overall goal to show how
well actions are accomplishing a goal. Another comment indicated that the region has a wellestablished framework for measuring water quality, including the MMSD H2OInfo tool, which is
considered valuable.
Monitoring is a recommended action included in the WRP. Data should be reviewed and
analyzed, as discussed in Chapter 8, to monitor progress. The MMSDs H20Info tool will be a
valuable monitoring tool.
Implementation plans should include a monitoring component.
Monitoring is a recommended action included in the WRP.
11) Funding
Obtaining future funding and investment would be facilitated by developing a specific plan. The
use of mapping to identify problem areas would also improve chances for future funding.
The appendices in Chapter 4 contain numerous maps. Additional map files can be obtained
through SEWRPC and MMSD.
7-34
APPENDIX 7A
Kinnickinnic River
Introduction
The overall implementation strategy of the Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is presented in
this chapter. The implementation strategy incorporates an "adaptive management" approach,
which is a systematic management approach that allows decisions to be modified and improved
over time based on results from previous decisions and/or new information. This approach can
be summarized by the phrase: Plan-Do-Check-Act. The terms in this phrase, for the purposes of
this WRP, are summarized below:
Plan Identify actions to improve water quality and habitat in the Kinnickinnic River watershed.
Do Implement the identified actions.
Check Monitor the incremental progress of the implemented actions toward achieving water
quality and habitat improvements.
Act Evaluate the results, consider new information, and then modify the plan as necessary.
Actions that have been successful should be continued. Actions that did not produce the desired
outcome should be modified or eliminated. This starts the adaptive management process over
again.
This strategy, along with previous chapters in this WRP, can be used by the Southeastern
Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) to further develop an implementation plan for the
watershed. The specific portions of the WRP that will be the most useful for this purpose
include: Chapter 4, Appendix 4A, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 (especially Tables 7-1 through 7-5), and
the information provided in this chapter. The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU) is
also a tremendous resource that can be used to help develop the plan.
As part of the Plan component under the Plan-Do-Check-Act approach, a phased approach for
implementation is recommended. As noted in Chapter 2, the recommended phasing strategy for
implementation of this WRP is as follows:
Phase 1- Completed and Committed Actions/Projects: The first phase in
implementing this WRP includes identifying relevant actions or projects that have been
recently completed and a recommendation to implement already committed projects and
programs. This phase represents recent progress and will continue approximately
through the year 2015.
This Phase is documented in Tables 8-1 and 8-2:
1) Completed actions are shown in Table 8-1. These are actions/projects that have
been completed subsequent to the completion of the SEWRPC's RWQMPU at the
end of 2007.
2) Actions that are underway are shown in Table 8-2. These are actions/projects that
are in the process of being completed at the time this report was being finalized
(March 2010)
8-1
Kinnickinnic River
8-2
8.2
Kinnickinnic River
The actions identified under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the implementation strategy are provided in
the tables below. For each table, the Focus Area that each action is intended to address is
provided. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 5, the Focus Areas were developed with the SWWT
committees in order to focus the WRP on three main parameters. The parameters include public
health/bacteria, habitat (designated as either land-based or instream-based) and aesthetics, and
nutrients/phosphorus. The participants that have either worked on the action, are currently
working on the action, or are understood to work on the action in the future are also listed. The
listed participants are not intended to limit other organizations from participating and may not be
a complete list. However, they are provided to give an indication of who is or might be working
on or participating with the implementation of the action. When the participants would likely
involve additional organizations that are members of SWWT, SWWT is listed. The list of
SWWT member organizations as of March 2010 is provided in Appendix 5B. Also listed in the
tables are the results of completed actions, the status of ongoing actions, and/or the intended
purpose of the action. If the action was identified as a Foundation Action or Priority Action in
Chapter 7, it is noted on the table below the action.
These tables will change over time as actions are completed and the planning process continues.
The intent is for the SWWT to update these tables regularly and modify them as necessary to
help track progress and results. As the adaptive management process moves forward, the actions
for Phases 3, 4 and 5 will be determined and can be added to these tables.
8.2.1 Completed or Committed Actions
Table 8-1 lists recently completed actions on the Kinnickinnic River watershed, the Focus Area
the action is intended to address, and the known results of the action. The meanings of the
acronyms used are noted at the end of the table.
TABLE 8-1
RECENTLY COMPLETED ACTIONS
Action
1. Remove Kinnickinnic
River Sediment
Focus Area
Habitat InstreamBased
Participants
WDNR, USEPA
Results
Removal of
approximately 170,000
cubic yards of sediment
contaminated with PCBs
and PAHs from Becher
Street downstream to
Kinnickinnic Avenue
Notes:
PAHs = Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs = Polychlorinated biphenals
USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Table 8-2 lists actions that have been initiated on the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Initiation is
defined as the steps necessary to implement an action, as defined in Table 8-5, have started. The
source of the information is footnoted at the end of the table along with the meaning of the
acronyms used.
8-3
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-2
UNDERWAY (ACTION IS FUNDED AND UNDERWAY)
Action
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Status
1. Develop and
Implement
Watershed
1
Restoration Plans
Led by the
SWWT and
including all
organizations that
are members of
SWWT
Use non-governmental
organization (NGO) expertise,
capacity and constituent base
to ensure that non-traditional
(people who normally do not
engage in these efforts) and
traditional participants are
engaged in the watershed
restoration planning process
and that innovative, cost
effective approaches are
taken to improve water
resources
Steps 1-9 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-9 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-9 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
3. Develop an
Outreach and
Communications
1
Strategy
(Foundation
Action)
1000 Friends of
Wisconsin, Clean
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper,
Midwest
Environmental
Advocates
Continued
8-4
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-2
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Status
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
4. Expand SWWT
Administration and
Committee
1
Support
SWWT ESC
Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
5. Implement
projects to comply
with
nonagricultural
(urban) NR 151
requirements
(Foundation
Action)
Public Health/Bacteria,
Phosphorus
WDNR and
Municipalities
Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
6. Complete
Kinnickinnic River
Flood
Management,
South Chase
Avenue to South
2
27th Street
MMSD
Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
(Foundation
Action)
th
Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Continued...
8-5
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-2
7. Complete KK
River Sediment
Transport Study
Focus Area
Participants
Status
e. Evaluate alternatives to
rehabilitate the channel with a
bioengineered channel where
feasible
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Habitat InstreamBased
MMSD
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Habitat Land-Based
MMSD
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Habitat Land-Based
MMSD
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Habitat Land-Based
American Rivers,
MMSD
Steps 1-4 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Public Health/Bacteria
MMSD,
SEWRPC,
WDNR, GLRI
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
(Priority Action)
8. Complete
Wilson Park Creek
Flood
Management Plan
Purpose
(Foundation
Action)
9. Complete Villa
Mann Creek Flood
3
Management
(Foundation
Action)
10. Evaluate and
implement Best
Management
Practices in
Holmes Avenue
Creek
(Foundation
Action)
11. Research
development of
better indicator test
than fecal coliform
to assess risks of
disease and
determination of
human sources
(Priority Action)
Continued...
8-6
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-2
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Status
Habitat Land-Based
and Phosphorus
MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities
Steps 1-3 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
Habitat Land-Based
and Instream-Based
and Phosphorus
MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities
All steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway
14. Implement
MMSDs
H2OCapture tool
MMSD
Track implementation of
green infrastructure within the
watershed with an interactive,
web-based mapping tool
Table 8-5
action plan
steps need
to be
initiated
15. Continue
adaptive
implementation of
overflow control
program (point
source control)
Public Health/Bacteria
and Phosphorus
WDNR, MMSD,
and Municipalities
All steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway
Phosphorus
WDNR,
Municipalities,
businesses and
citizens
Steps 1-5 of
Table 8-5
are
underway
(Priority Action)
13. Continue
outreach and
storm drain
stenciling, waste
disposal, and
awareness of
invasive species
(Priority Action)
(Foundation
Action)
16. Support
reduction of
phosphorus loads
due to the state
ban of phosphorus
in commercial
fertilizers
(Foundation
Action)
Continued...
8-7
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-2
(Priority Action)
Focus Area
Public Health/Bacteria
and Phosphorus
Participants
MMSD,
SEWRPC,
WDNR, USGS,
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper,
River Alliance of
Wisconsin
Purpose
a. Improve quality and
quantity of data collected to
improve decision making
b. Ensure a sound, scientific
basis for the development,
refinement and
implementation of the WRPs
Status
All Steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway
Continued...
8-8
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-2
Focus Area
Public Health/Bacteria
and Phosphorus
(Priority Action)
Participants
MMSD,
SEWRPC, River
Alliance of
Wisconsin, Clean
Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper
Purpose
a. Use scientifically sound
modeling results, field
collected data, and analysis
to inform WRPs (including:
continue maintenance of the
MMSD conveyance model,
the watershed-wide riverine
water quality model)
b. Measure the effects of
implementation activities
informed by scientifically
sound monitoring results, field
collected data, and analysis
c. Collaborate between nongovernmental organizations
(NGO), academics, consulting
and practicing science
experts, and interested
member of the public on
scientific dimensions of
SWWTs work
d. Identify and eliminate illicit
discharges to reduce the
bacterial pollution in target
watersheds to target levels
e. Build relationships and
generate the necessary
resources to eliminate illicit
discharges
Sources:
1
Joyce Fund Reports
2
MMSD GLRI proposals, November 2009
3
MMSD Requests for Proposals posted on website
MMSD = Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
NR 151 = Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management
PPCPs = Pharmaceutical and personal care products
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
TRANS 401 = WisDOT CHAPTER TRANS 401: Construction Site Erosion Control
TSS = Total suspended solids
8-9
Status
All Steps in
Table 8-5
are
underway
Kinnickinnic River
Table 8-3 lists actions that have been initiated on the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Initiation is
defined as some initial steps have been completed to begin the action, but due to lack of funding
or other factors, steps to complete the action have not started as of the date of this report (March
2010). The source of the information is footnoted at the end of the table along with the meaning
of the acronyms used.
TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
1. Develop Green
2,3
Infrastructure Plan
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Status
MMSD, SWWT,
American Rivers,
Municipalities,
WDNR and UWExtension
a. Study green
infrastructure and
development
recommendations for
the prioritized
implementation of
green infrastructure
projects
Table 8-5
action plan
steps need
to be initiated
(Foundation Action)
b. Quantify the
reduction in
stormwater runoff and
enhanced water
quality in the
receiving waters
c. Continue Green
Milwaukee program
2. Develop engineering
techniques to find and fix
2,3
illicit connections
(Foundation Action)
3. Develop Total
2
Maximum Daily Loads
Public
Health/Bacteria
and
Phosphorus
SEWRPC,
SWWT, MMSD,
Municipalities
Reduce bacteria in
the watershed
coming from illicit
connections
Public Health,
Phosphorus,
Habitat
InstreamBased
SWWT, MMSD
Table 8-5
action plan
steps need
to be initiated
b. Identify steps
needed to reach the
load allocations and
waste load
allocations
8-10
Continued
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
Focus Area
Participants
SEWRPC,
SWWT, MMSD
Table 8-5
action plan
steps need
to be initiated
USGS, MMSD,
SWWT
a. Install 4 to 6 real
time continuous water
quality monitoring
sites
(Priority Action)
Public Health,
Phosphorus,
Habitat
InstreamBased
Public Health,
Phosphorus,
Habitat
InstreamBased
Purpose
Status
Habitat LandBased
SWWT
Habitat
InstreamBased
SWWT
Public Health
and Habitat
InstreamBased
Milwaukee
Riverkeeper
(Priority Action)
7. Expand and continue
inventory maintenance
for fish passage, habitat
and aquatic biota
(Priority Action)
8. Implement Citizen
Monitoring Program
(includes illicit
connection detection)
Continued...
(Foundation Action)
8-11
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-3
INITIATED ACTIONS
Action
9. Implement
Stormwater Trees
program
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Habitat Land
Based
SWWT, MCSC,
City of
Milwaukee, River
Revitalization
foundation
Plant stormwater
trees to help control
stormwater runoff
Status
All Table 8-5
action plan
steps
underway
Sources:
1
KK = Kinnickinnic
MCSC = Milwaukee County Service Corps
MMSD = Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
SEWRPC = Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
SWWT = Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Table 8-4 lists future actions that are recommended in this plan. These are actions that have not
been initiated on the Kinnickinnic River watershed as of the date of this report (March 2010).
More information for these actions, such as effectiveness and implementation or pollutant
reduction targets and goals, is provided in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 in this WRP. The source of the
information is footnoted at the end of the table along with the meaning of the acronyms used.
TABLE 8-4
FUTURE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED IN THE WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Action
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Habitat Land-Based
Municipalities,
Milwaukee County,
WisDOT,
Habitat Land-Based
SWWT, Milwaukee
County
Habitat Land-Based
Municipalities,
Milwaukee County,
WisDOT, MMSD
Increase public
knowledge regarding
stormwater and its
relationship to surface
water quality
(Priority Action)
3. Conduct stormwater
public education and
1
outreach consortium
(Foundation Action)
Continued...
8-12
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Participants
Purpose
Habitat Land-Based
Milwaukee County,
WisDOT, private
contractors,
Municipalities
5. Conduct
stormwater/water issues
survey of watershed
1
residents
1000 Friends
1000 Friends,
Lakeshore State
Park, WDNR,
UWM, GLWI,
Discovery World,
Neighborhood
House
General public
outreach/education
7. Participate in Gathering
1
Waters Festival
Lakeshore State
Park, US Forest
Service Dept. of
Agriculture, Keep
Greater Milwaukee
Beautiful,
Milwaukee
Moms.com,
Columbia St.
Marys, Historic
Third Ward, REI,
Veolia Water, Rip
Tide, Milwaukee
Summerfest,
USEPA, MMSD
and WDNR
General public
outreach/education
Habitat Land-Based
SEWRPC, Chicago
Metropolitan
Agency for
Planning,
Northwestern
Indiana Regional
Planning
Commission, and
the Southwest
Michigan Regional
Planning
Commission,
SWWT
a. Develop a
comprehensive
riparian corridor
management guide
that would address
information gaps
relative to
effectiveness and
design features of
riparian buffers in rural
and urban settings
4. Implement chloride
reduction education and
1
certification program
Focus Area
(Foundation Action)
Continued...
8-13
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
b. Provide guidelines
for optimally
addressing multiple
buffer-establishment
objectives
c. Relate the
establishment of
buffers to
improvements in
ecological health,
habitat, water quality
and aesthetics
d. Examine legal
issues related to
developing buffers
Public Health/Bacteria
9b.Sample outfalls to
determine which have
human bacteria
discharges (wet and dry
weather samples)
Municipalities
SWWT with
assistance from
UWM GLWI and
MMSD
Identify unknown
sources of bacteria,
and correct/remove/
disconnect them
9c.Determine
ownership/owner of
outfalls that have dry
weather flows and/or
human bacteria
9d.Initiate discussion with
owner of outfall to begin
determining corrective
actions
9e.Implement projects to
correct/remove/disconnect
unknown sources of
2
bacteria
Continued...
(Foundation Actions)
8-14
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Public Health/Bacteria
SWWT
Increase recreational
use of watershed
Habitat Land-Based
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities,
WDNR, DATCP,
USDA, SWWT, and
Land Trusts
Reduce bacteria
sources from landbased activities
Public Health/Bacteria
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, and
SWWT
Public Health/Bacteria
Milwaukee County,
Municipalities, and
SWWT
Increase number of
areas documented,
and successful
implementation of
programs to eliminate
feeding or other food
sources for waterfowl
Habitat Land-Based
MMSD, SEWRPC,
WDNR, and others
such as land trusts
Increase number of
acres purchased or
preserved
Continued...
(Priority Action)
8-15
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Habitat Land-Based
MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities,
Milwaukee County
Habitat Land-Based
WDNR, MMSD,
Municipalities,
Milwaukee County
Reduce chloride
concentration in
streams
Habitat Land-Based
Municipalities,
Milwaukee County,
and State with
support from
SWWT and MMSD
Allow developers to
use LID to simulate
natural hydrology and
reduce runoff from
development
(Foundation Actions)
16a. Evaluate existing
road salt reduction
programs
16b. Implement new pilot
road salt reduction
programs
16c. Implement road salt
reduction program
2
education
(Foundation Actions)
17. Promote the
application of and
eliminate barriers to
implementation of LID on
new developments in the
watershed
8-16
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Habitat Instream-Based
Municipalities
SWWT, WDNR and
MMSD
Phosphorus
WDNR,
Municipalities and
MMSD
Reduce phosphorus
loads from regulated
discharges
(Foundation Action)
18b. Restore connectivity
with floodplain and
recreate a more natural
meandering stream to
restore stream hydrology
dynamics
Foundation Action)
18c. Expand passage
restoration efforts beyond
the mainstem to the
tributaries and develop
and implement plans to
remove additional
2
obstructions
(Foundation Action)
18d. Provide habitat,
maintain water quality to
support fisheries, and
protect excessively
eroding banks
(Priority Action)
19. Implement projects
and programs to comply
with MS4 permits
(Foundation Action)
Continued...
8-17
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
MMSD, WDNR,
SWWT, USGS
Continue removal of
trash and improve
aesthetics
22. Research
development of
alternatives to phosphorus
compounds by public and
private researchers in
area universities and
industries
Phosphorus
MMSD and
Municipalities
Reduce use of
phosphorus
compounds used for
control of lead and
copper in drinking
water systems
Habitat Instream-Based
and Land-Based
SWWT
Develop a more
specific roadmap to
restore habitat in the
watershed
Habitat Instream-Based
SWWT
Restore a sustainable
fishery and aquatic
community
20b.Continue involvement
of USGS in MMSD
Corridor Study
20c.Coordinate WDNR
sampling and monitoring
programs with MMSD and
USGS and integrate NGO
sampling efforts
(Priority Actions)
(Foundation Action)
23. Develop a wildlife
habitat restoration plan
(Priority Action)
Continued...
8-18
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-4
Focus Area
Participants
Purpose
Clean Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
th
Riverkeeper, 16
St CHC, MMSD,
SEWRPC,
municipalities,
technical
consultants, SWWT
26.Reduce flashiness of
streams by restoring
floodplain connectivity
with the stream system
and implementing and
maintaining stormwater
2
management practices
Habitat Land-Based
MMSD, WDNR,
Municipalities,
Milwaukee County
(Foundation Action)
Sources:
1
8-19
Kinnickinnic River
8.2.2 Watershed Restoration Plan Action Plan for Actions Underway or Initiated
Table 8-5 lists action plan steps to be taken for those actions already underway or initiated as
detailed in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. The table is meant as a roadmap for SWWT action, as the leader
and coordinator for the Kinnickinnic River watershed restoration.
The SWWT term used in the table refers to the entire SWWT organization including the
Executive Steering Council (ESC), the Science Committee, the Kinnickinnic River watershed
Action Team (WAT), and the Policy Committee. The SWWT ESC will have to determine which
parts of the organization will participate in specific projects; the ESC will also perform the
overall collaboration function.
TABLE 8-5
ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR ACTIONS UNDERWAY (TABLE 8-2) OR INITIATED (TABLE 8-3)
Step
Responsibility
1
Comments
SWWT
SWWT
SWWT
SWWT
SWWT
SWWT
7. If supporting action is
warranted start the new
actions process
SWWT
SWWT
SWWT
SWWT
8-20
Kinnickinnic River
Step
Responsibility
Comments
SWWT
Responsibility
Timeframes
Comments
1. Prioritize Foundation
Actions
WAT/SWWT
Month 1-3
2. Identify lead
organization
SWWT
Month 4-5
3. Identify collaborating
organizations
SWWT
Same as above
4. Assemble
information for the
action (WRPs and
other available
information and
data)
Lead organization
and collaborating
organizations
Month 6-7
5. Determine if any
funding is available
Concurrent with
activities 2-4
6. If none available
develop funding
strategy
Concurrent with
activity 5
8-21
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-6
ACTION PLAN STEPS FOR NEW ACTIONS (TABLES 8-3 AND 8-4)
Step
Responsibility
Timeframes
Comments
7. Develop package to
apply for funds
Lead and
collaborating
organizations
Month 8-10
(considering
schedule
requirements for
funding requests)
8. Develop
implementation
schedule assuming
funds are obtained
Lead organization
Concurrent with
activity 7
Lead and
collaborating
organizations
Lead and
collaborating
organizations
Based upon
detailed action
schedule
Lead and
collaborating
organizations
Based upon
detailed action
schedule
Lead and
collaborating
organizations
Based upon
detailed action
schedule
Based upon
detailed action
schedule
Based upon
detailed action
schedule
8-22
Kinnickinnic River
Financial assistance for potential WRP projects may be available from government agencies and
private organizations. Various programs may award money to individual landowners, nonprofit
organizations, educational institutions, and local and state governments. Summaries of the types
of available funds from each source are presented below; more detailed information is available
in Chapter XI and Appendices U and V of A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds (SEWRPC, 2007). Appendices U and V of the
RWQMPU are provided in this report as Appendix 8A.
8.3.1 Local Governments
County and municipal governments are permitted to borrow and issue bonds according to
Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Additionally, counties and cities have the power to assess
special taxes for park and parkway acquisitions and improvements. County and municipal
governments may apply for many of the state, federal, and private grants and cost-share
programs.
8-23
FIGURE 8-1
Kinnickinnic River
8-25
Kinnickinnic River
Requirement
Application Deadline
Varies by state.
Typical percentage of
applicants funded
Is a matched amount
required?
Case-dependant.
Match Amount
$194 million
$200.9 million
$200.9 million
N/A
Primary Address
Primary Telephone
(202) 566-1155
Primary Internet
Secondary Internet
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/contacts.html
Legislative Authority
8-26
Kinnickinnic River
TABLE 8-7
Requirement
Associated Keywords
Eligible Organizations
Eligibility Constraints
FY = Fiscal year
WDNR = Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WI = Wisconsin
8.3.5 Private
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other sources help fund a number of programs
that are administered in cooperation with federal agencies (e.g., USEPA, FWS). For example,
the Partnership for Wildlife program is operated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
and administered by the FWS. The Kenosha/Racine Land Trust, Milwaukee Area Land
Conservancy, Ozaukee-Washington Land Trust, and Waukesha Land conservancy acquire lands
or easements for environmentally-valuable lands via purchases, donations, and grants. Eastman
Kodak maintains a small grant program to assess and enhance greenways.
8.3.6 Funding Summary
Appendix U of the SEWRPC Regional Report (SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50), which is
provided as Appendix 8A to this plan, contains a detailed summary of potential funding
programs to implement plan recommendations.
8.4
Policy issues need to be considered as projects are considered for implementation. Consideration
of these policy issues may influence the implementation schedule and process. Issues should be
prioritized and examined by the SWWT Policy Committee and should include the following as
an initial list:
Total maximum daily load development (TMDL): This consideration should include the
timing of any TMDLs, agency leadership of the TMDLs, and the exact format of the
TMDLs in terms of which pollutants and which portions of the watershed are included in
8-27
Kinnickinnic River
the TMDL. An additional potential issue is the regulatory relationship between Wis.
Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management and TMDLs, as noted in
Chapter 2 of this report.
Consideration of watershed permits: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are
summarized in the white paper found in Appendix 8B.
Water quality trading: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are summarized in
Appendix 8B.
NR 151 implementation: The regulatory and financial issues regarding the
implementation of this regulation may change the assumed impact of this regulation on
water quality and the implementation of this WRP.
Alternatives to adding phosphorus compounds to drinking water: There are policy issues
that should be addressed as this major source of phosphorus to the watershed is not
currently the focus of any scientific study or regulatory program.
Alternative indicator to replace fecal coliform bacteria: The policy implications of
building a local consensus for and support of new methods to assess water borne disease
risk need to be addressed.
o
State of Wisconsin 303(d) list: The policy implications of the existing listing and
delisting criteria and process for the development of the Wisconsin 303(d) list
need to be addressed.
Evaluate a potential utility to help pay for implementation of the watershed restoration
plan.
8.5
Post-Implementation Monitoring
8-28
Kinnickinnic River
Kinnickinnic River
The SWWT and the other participants noted in the tables should take the lead in performing
these actions assuming adequate budgets and resources are available.
8.5.4 Implementation Monitoring
The purpose of implementation monitoring is to document whether or not actions and projects
were completed as planned and designed. Objectives of an implementation monitoring program
include the following:
Measuring, documenting, and reporting the watershed-wide extent of recommended
actions and other watershed restoration measures. Suggested measures for this
monitoring activity are outlined for the various actions in the Chapter 7 tables.
Evaluating the general effectiveness of the various actions as applied operationally in the
field. This monitoring activity should concentrate on the water quality and habitat
information both historical and newly developed.
Determining the need and direction of watershed education and outreach programs.
Implementation monitoring must consists of monitoring these three major action areas. The
monitoring must be done by the lead organization. This type of information will provide the
Kinnickinnic River WAT with data on the progress of the various actions. The WAT should
help guide the overall implementation monitoring as it varies by each type of action.
8.5.5 Effectiveness Monitoring
A formal review of the Kinnickinnic River WRP should occur in 2015 and should use the water
quality data and habitat data available at that time for each pollutant (and/or the measures that
best represent interpretations of the water quality and habitat conditions existing at that time) to
assess overall progress toward meeting water quality restoration goals.
This effort will include a combination of water quality and biological monitoring and habitat
assessment aimed at determining the effectiveness of restoration activities. This assessment can
be made based on data collected by the SWWT and all of its partners. A much more thorough
and meaningful assessment will be possible if additional data are collected during the intervening
years. Due to many resource constraints, these additional data would need to be collected by
watershed stakeholders with input from the SWWT and the WAT.
Data trends that should be tracked (at a minimum) include the following:
Fecal coliform and other bacterial indicator water quality data
Fish and aquatic life conditions
Phosphorus water quality data
8.6
This WRP provides the basis for and the documentation of over 60 actions that are underway
(Table 8-2), that have been initiated (Table 8-3), or that are planned (Table 8-4) for the
Kinnickinnic River watershed. This is an unprecedented level of activity to improve water
quality and habitat in the Kinnickinnic River watershed and will require a significant level of
evaluation.
8-30
Kinnickinnic River
The first element in the evaluation process, which corresponds to the "Check" component of the
Plan-Do-Check-Act approach is an annual reevaluation of the status of the actions. There should
be periodic comprehensive reviews of the status of all the actions that are to be completed during
the timeframe of 2010 to 2015. These reviews could be made an integral part of annual SWWT
meetings or scheduled at a separate meeting. The annual reevaluation should start with all the
actions in Tables 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4; after the evaluation, the tables should be updated to reflect the
current status of the actions.
The second element in the evaluation process should be the annual evaluation of the results of
the various actions. The measures that should be used are noted in the tables in Chapter 7 and
provide understandable measures upon which to base progress. This also corresponds to the
"Check" component.
The third element of the evaluation process is more complex. It involves reviewing the water
quality data and habitat data with the purpose of determining if the watershed is improving, has
stabilized, or is continuing to deteriorate. This process will require the Science Committee of the
SWWT to assess all new data from the period 2009 to 2015 and determine to the best extent
possible the improving/stable/deteriorating status of the watershed in terms of the three focus
areas: public health, habitat and aesthetics, and phosphorus. This element corresponds to the
"Check" component as well, but it is the beginning of the "Act" component.
The last element of the evaluation process deals with potential revision or refinement of the
action plan. This is a complex process that may require an update to this WRP. The key
decision in this element involves should the actions be changed if progress is not being
made? and/or should the actions be changed due to new information that indicates different
actions should be pursued? This element corresponds to the "Act" component of the Plan-DoCheck-Act approach.
The third and fourth elements of the evaluation and refinement process will require an update to
this WRP in 2015 if a majority of the actions are completed and the results are known.
8-31
APPENDIX 8A
Appendix U
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
USCOE
Water Resources
Development and
Flood Control Acts
Local governments
Flood Hazard
Mitigation and
Riverine Ecosystem
Restoration
Program
Local governments
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA),
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(NRCS)
Individual landowners
provided they have a
local sponsor such as
a local unit of
government
1.
2.
3.
4.
USDA NRCS
Emergency
Conservation
Program
Individual landowners
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Water resources
planning assistance
Emergency streambank
and shoreline protection
None
Undetermined
Sale of agricultural
floodprone lands to
NRCS for floodplain
easements
Land must have a
history of repeated
flooding (at least twice in
the past 10 years)
Landowner retains most
of the rights as before
the sale
NRCS has authority to
restore the floodplain
function and value
Variable
Up to 64 percent
Federal cost-share
assistance; the
remaining percentage is the
landowners
responsibility
1411
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Farm
Services Agency
(FSA)
Conservation Reserve
Program
Individual landowners in
a 10- or 15-year
contract
1.
2.
3.
4.
Riparian buffers
Trees
Windbreaks
Grassed waterways
50 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 50 percent
local match from
individual; an
annual rental
payment for the
length of the
contract is also
provided
Annually or
ongoingc
USDA FSA
Conservation Reserve
Enhancement
Program
Individual landowners in
a 10- or 15-year
contract
1.
2.
3.
4.
Filter strips
Riparian buffers
Grassed waterways
Permanent grasses
(only in specially
designated grassland
project areas)
Wetland development
and restoration
50 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; one-time
signing incentive
payment (up to
$150 per acre);
practice incentive
payment (about 40
percent of cost of
establishing practice); annual rental
payment; State of
Wisconsin lump
sum payment;
Wisconsin practice
incentive payment
(about 20 percent of
cost of establishing
practice)
Ongoing
July 15
Problem identification
Species and habitat
conservation
Public enjoyment of fish
and wildlife
Species monitoring
Identification of
significant habitats
$768,000 available
nationallyd
September 1
5.
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources
(WDNR)
Municipal Flood
Control Grants
Chapter NR 199
of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS)
Wildlife Conservation
and Appreciation
Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
FWS
1.
Restoration of degraded
wetlands, native
grasslands, stream and
riparian corridors, and
other habitat areas
Continuous
FWSe
Partnership for
Wildlife
Nonprofit organizations,
State and local
agencies, and
individuals
1.
Preservation of
nongame fish and
wildlife species
Management of
nongame fish and
wildlife species
Habitat restoration
projects
$768,000 available
nationallyd
Must be matched
equally from outside
sources
September 1
2.
3.
1412
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
FWS
North American
Wetlands Conservation Fund
1.
2.
3.
50 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 50 percent
local match is
required
Variable
FWS
1.
Cost-share up to
75 percent of
project cost
February 28
USDA NRCS
Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program
Individual landowners
for a 10-year contract
1.
Instream structures
for fish
Prairie restoration
Wetland scrapes
Wildlife travel lanes
Cost-share of up to 75
percent of
installation
Continuous
2.
3.
4.
USDA NRCS
Wetland Reserve
Program
Individual landowners
for a 10-year agreement, or a 30-year or
permanent easement
1.
Wetland restoration of
lands in current agricultural production
75 to 100 percent
cost-share
depending on
option chosen and
technical assistance. Also between
75 to 100 percent of
the cost of the land
assessment taken
out of production in
a one time payment
for the 30-year and
permanent easement options only
Continuous
USDA
Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention Program
1.
Technical assistance
and cost-sharing
are provided; up to
100 percent Federal
cost-share assistance for flood
control prevention;
typical project range
is $3.5 to $5.0
million in Federal
financial assistance
Ongoing
USCOE
Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration
Program
1.
Restoration of degraded
aquatic ecosystems to a
more natural condition
65 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; local match of
35 percent is
required; maximum
Federal share is
$5,000,000 per
project; 100 percent
of maintenance,
replacement, and
rehabilitation costs
must be provided
locally with nonFederal funds
None
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
(USEPA)f
Five-Star Restoration
Program
Public or private
organizations that
engage in communitybased restoration
projects
1.
Wetland restoration
projects
Riparian restoration
projects
Projects must be part of
a larger watershed and
be community based
Projects must also have
at least five contributing
partners
$500,000 available
nationallyd; project
award ranges
between $5,000
and $20,000 at the
local level; average
award is around
$10,000; technical
assistance is also
provided
March 2
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
1413
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
U.S. Department of
Transportation
(USDOT)
Transportation
Enhancement
Program
1.
2.
3.
WDNRg
Stewardship
Incentives Program
Individual landowners
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Wetland preservation
and restoration
Stormwater treatment
systems to address
runoff from roads and
highways
Natural habitat
restoration
80 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 20 percent
local match is
required
Ongoing
Riparian buffers
Reforestation
Forest improvement
Tree planting
Forest management
plan development
Wildlife and fisheries
habitat improvement to
include travel corridors,
nest boxes and platforms, instream habitat
enhancements
65 percent Federal
cost-share assistance; 35 percent
cost-share from
individual; $5,000
maximum per
projecth
Ongoing
WDNR
Nonprofit organizations,
State and local
agencies, and
individuals
Planning projects
require 25 percent
non-Federal
matching funds and
implementation
projects require
50 percent nonFederal matching
funds
March 13
WDNR
Ongoing
WDNR
County Conservation
Aids
Improvement and
enhancement of fish and
wildlife resources and
habitat
Specific funding is
allocated to each
county with the
state paying a
maximum of
50 percent of the
eligible actual
project costs
July 1
WDNR
Local units of
government
May 1
WDNR
Local units of
government and
nonprofit conservation
organizations
1.
March 15 and
September 1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1414
Activities designed to
develop partnerships
that protect river
ecosystems
Educational projects
Activities associated
with river management
plan development
Land acquisition
Ordinance development
Installation of practices
to control nonpoint
source pollution
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
Local units of government and State
agencies, apply to the
WDNR
1.
2.
3.
May 1
WDNR
Stewardship Grant
Program, Urban
Green Space
Program
1.
Ongoing
Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program
Wisconsin Coastal
Management Grant
Program
1.
2.
November 2
1.
Project preproposal:
June 1 and
October 15;
full project
proposal:
July 15 and
December 1
Funding level is
between $35,000
and $100,000 per
project; projects
must have a match
of at least 50 percent from nonFederal funding
sources
Project
applications
November 15.
Announceme
nt of awards
April 15 of
following year
Ecological assessments
Mapping and surveying
Planning activities
Creative projects that
work to establish
greenways in
communities
Must have matching
funds from other
sources
Must show that the
project will be completed
Grants with a
maximum amount
of $2,500
March 1 to
June 1
50 to 70 percent State
cost-share assistance; 30 to 50
percent individual
cost-share is
required; in the
case of financial
hardship, up to 90
percent cost-share
assistance can be
obtained from the
State
December 31
Challenge Grant
Program
3.
2.
3.
Great Lakes
Watershed
Restoration
Program
1.
2.
3.
Eastman Kodak
American Greenway
Grants
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Individual landowners
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Grassed waterways
Manure storage systems
Grade stabilization
structure
Nutrient and pest
management plans
Conservation tillage
1415
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Farmland
Preservation
Program
Individual landowners
for a period of 10
years
1.
Best management
practices that will lower
the soil erosion rate to
the tolerable soil loss
rate or below
Tax incentives on an
annual basis
None
WDNR
Urban Nonpoint
Source Water
Pollution Abatement
and Storm Water
Management Grant
Program. Funding
is through Chapter
NR 155 of the
Wisconsin Administrative Code
Local units of
government
1.
2.
Planning
Educational and
information activities
Ordinance development
and enforcement
Training
Storm water detention
ponds
Streambank and
shoreline stabilization
May 1
Targeted Runoff
Management Grant
Program, Chapter
120 of the Wisconsin Administrative
Code; in the future,
specific rural
nonpoint source
abatement
measures will be
funded under
Chapter NR 151 of
the Wisconsin
Administrative Code
Local units of
government
May 1
WDNR
Local units of
government
Remedy environmental
contamination affecting
surface water or
groundwater
USDA NRCS
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
Individual landowner in a
three-year contract
1.
WDNR
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
3.
4.
Dec. 31
Animal waste
management practices
Soil erosion and
sediment control
practices
Nutrient management
Habitat improvement
75 to 90 percent
Federal cost-share
assistance
Annuallyi
USDA
Land-Grant Institutions,
Hispanic-Serving
Institutions, State and
Private controlled
Institutions of higher
education
Awards up to
$600,000 a dollarfor-dollar match is
required
April 4
USEPA
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
1.
Ongoing
2.
3.
4.
5.
1416
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Water Pollution
Control Program
Grants
Formula Grants
$5,630,000
available
nationallyd
Ongoing
USEPAj
Watershed Assistance
Grants Program
$365,000 available
nationallyd; locally
projects are funded
in the following
ranges: $4,000 and
under, and $4,000
and over with a cap
of $30,000
Variable
USEPA
Targeted Watershed
Grants Program
Watershed
organizations
nominated by state
governor or tribal
leader
May 1
USEPA
Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Program
(PESP) Partners and
Supports, any
organization, group, or
business committed to
reducing the
environmental risk
from pesticides is
eligible to join
1.
Implementation of
pollution control
measures
Plan development which
includes strategies to
reduce pesticide risk
Grant applicants must
be PESP partners or
members
$300,000 available
nationallyd; locally
grants are provided
up to a maximum of
$50,000
Ongoing
November 2
80 percent Federal,
20 percent State;
interest rate varies
with State bond
issues
Ongoing
Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program
Wisconsin Coastal
Management Grant
Program
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
1.
2.
3.
USEPA
Wastewater construction
and planning projects
Formula Grants
yielding more than
$3 billion in direct
wastewater-related
grants since 1992
Ongoing
USDA
1.
Determined by
State USDA
office
2.
3.
Installation, repair,
improvement or
expansion of a rural
water facility
Installation, repair,
improvement or
expansion of a rural
waste disposal facility
Collection and treatment
of sanitary waste,
stormwater and solid
wastes
1417
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Formula Grants
Wisconsins 2007
allocation $225,960
Annual
FWS
Education/information
materials, construction,
renovation, operation
and maintenance of
pump out and dump
stations, including
floating restrooms
January 31
USCOE
Estuary Habitat
Restoration
Program
Ongoing
WDNR
Aquatic Invasive
Species Control
Grants
1.
Education, prevention
and planning
Established infestation
control
Early detection and
rapid response
Awards up to
50 percent of the
cost of a project up
to a maximum grant
amount of $75,000
Local units of
governments, lake
districts, and nonprofit
conservation
organizations
1.
Up to 75 percent State
cost-share assistance, not to
exceed $10,000; 25
percent local match
is required; lakes
are eligible for more
than one grant,
however, the total
amount of State
dollars cannot
exceed $100,000
February 1 and
August 1
Land acquisition
for easement
establishment
Wetland restoration
Lake restoration projects
Other projects involving
lake improvement
May 1
WDNR
2.
3.
2.
3.
4.
February 1 and
August 1
Local units of
government, lake
districts, and nonprofit
conservation
organizations
1.
WDNR
Lake Classification
Grant Programk
Counties
1.
Development of a
county lake classification
system
May 1
Great Lakes
Protection Fund
Government agencies,
nonprofit
organizations,
businesses,
individuals
1.
Addressing biological
pollution
Ecosystem restoration
Market mechanisms for
environmental
improvement
Restoring natural flow
regimes
Variable
None
50 percent Federal,
50 percent
cooperator
Annual
WDNR
2.
3.
4.
2.
3.
4.
1418
Stream Gaging
Cooperator
Program
State agencies,
sewerage system and
wastewater treatment
plant operators, and
other units of
government
1.
Installation, operation,
and maintenance of
stream gages
Name of Funding
Program
Eligibility
Assistance
Provided
Application
Deadline
Environmental
Education Grants
Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Improving environmental
education teaching skills
Educating teachers,
students, or the public
about human health
problems
Building capacity for
environmental education
programs
Education communities
Educating the public
through print, broadcast,
or other media
$2 million available
nationallyd; locally,
grants are for
$5,000; $5000 to
$25,000; and up to
$100,000
Mid-November
NOTE: The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs can be accessed at: http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Additional information on grants can be
accessed through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/ and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries Grants
Information Collection at: http://grants.library.wisc.edu.
aSome of the programs described in this table may not be available under all envisioned conditions for a variety of reasons, including local eligibility requirements
or lack of funds in Federal and/or State budgets at a given time.
bIn kind services are allowed as a part of the local cost-share assistance.
cTwo types of sign-up are available for CRP: continuous CRP, which has no timeline and is used for small sensitive tracts of land and regular CRP, which has an
annual sign up application period and is used for large tracts of land.
dAvailable on an annual basis.
eThe Fish and Wildlife Service receives support funding from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to help fund this program.
fMust apply through an intermediary organization which includes the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Service and Conservation
Corps, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Wildlife Habitat Council.
gThe Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources utilizes USDA Forest Service funding for the Stewardship Incentives Program.
hCost-sharable practices must be part of implementation of a Forest Stewardship Plan prepared by a forester.
iEQIP provides minimal funding in Southeastern Wisconsin.
jThe USEPA provides grant funding to the private nonprofit organization River Network to disburse funding. Applications must be made through River Network.
kThe Lake Classification Grant Program is a subgrant program of the Lake Protection Grant Program.
Source: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Upper Des Plaines River Phase 2 Funding Project Interim Report, December 2000, and SEWRPC.
1419
Table U-2
POTENTIAL GRANT PROGRAMS TO IMPLEMENT SELECTED SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Plan Recommendations
Grant Programs
Point Source Pollution Abatement
1.
1.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
F.
USDA Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Program
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
2.
3.
Wetland Restoration/Protection
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1420
Grant Programs
Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
4.
Prairie Restoration
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
5.
x
x
x
6.
x
x
7.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
USFWS Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Act Grant Program
USFWS Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Program
USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Habitat Restoration Program
USFWS Partnership for Wildlife
USDA NRCS Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
USDA Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program
USCOE Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration
WDNR State Wildlife Grants Program
WDNR County Conservation Aids
WDNR Stewardship Incentives Program
WDNR Stewardship Grant Program
Great Lakes Governors Great Lakes Protection Fund
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Program
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Challenge Grant Program
8.
x
x
1.
x
x
x
x
2.
See Rural and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement and Riparian Buffers,
Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures categories in this table for
applicable grant programs
3.
Lake Monitoring
4.
Informational Programming
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
x
x
Education
1421
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs can be accessed at: http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Additional information on grants can
be accessed through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries
Grants Information Collection at: http://grants.library.wisc.edu.
The following abbreviations were used in this table:
FSA
USFWS
NRCS
USCOE
USDA
Source: SEWRPC.
1422
USDOT
USEPA
USGS
DATCP
WDNR
Appendix V
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
FUNDING CONTACT INFORMATIONa,b
Administrator of
Grant Program
Name of
Grant Program
Address
Phone Number
Water Resources
Development and Flood
Control Acts
(888) 694-8313
www.lre.usace.army.mil
USCOE
(202) 761-0115
www.usace.army.mil
Emergency Watershed
Protection Program
(608) 276-8732
www.nrcs.usda.gov
USDA NRCS
Emergency Conservation
Program
(262) 878-1243
www.nrcs.usda.gov
Conservation Reserve
Program
(262) 878-1234
www.fsa.usda.gov
USDA FSA
Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program
(262) 878-1234
www.fsa.usda.gov
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR)
(608) 267-7152
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Ef/flood/gr
ants.html
(703) 358-1852
www.fws.gov
FWS
(703) 358-2201
www.fws.gov/cep/coastweb.html
FWS
(703) 358-2156
www.fa.r9.fws.gov
FWS
(703) 358-1784
www.northamerican.fws.gov/nawchp.html
1423
Appendix V (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program
Name of
Grant Program
Address
Phone Number
Riparian Buffers, Prairie and Wetland Restoration, and Instream Measures (continued)
FWS
(612) 713-5168
www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/glfwragrants.html
NRCS
(262) 878-1234
www.nrcs.usda.gov
(202) 720-3534
www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/programs.html
USCOE
Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Program
(888) 694-8313
www.lre.usace.army.mil
(202) 260-8076
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star
www.nfwf.org
Transportation Enhancement
Program
(202) 366-4000
www.dot.gov
Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program
Wisconsin Coastal
Management Grant
Program
(608) 267-7982
www.doa.state.wi.us
WDNR
Stewardship Incentives
Program
(262) 884-2390
www.dnr.state.wi.us
WDNR
(608) 264-6043
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/swg/
WDNR
(608) 266-9273
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Grants/Da
mRemov.html
WDNR
(414) 263-8610
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/Grants/coc
onserv.html
(414) 263-8704
www.dnr.state.wi.us
(414) 263-8704
www.dnr.state.wi.us
(202) 565-1200
www.ncrc.nps.gov/lwcf
(202) 857-0166
www.nfwf.org/guideliens.htm
WDNR
or
Eastman Kodak
American Greenways
The Conservation Fund
1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1120,
Arlington, VA 22209
1424
--
(703) 525-6300
http://www.nfwf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Secti
on=Browse_All_Programs&CONTENTID=48
83&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
www.conservationfund.org
Appendix V (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program
Name of
Grant Program
Address
Phone Number
WDNR
Farmland Preservation
Program
(608) 224-4500
(608) 266-2621
www.dnr.state.wi.us
www.datcp.state.wi.us
(608) 224-4633
WDNR
(608) 266-0849
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cfa/EL/S
ection/brownfield.html
NRCS
Environmental Quality
Incentives Program
(262) 878-1234
www.nrcs.usda.gov
USDA
(202) 205-5952
www.csrees.usda.gov
USEPA
(202) 260-7359
http://www.epa.gov/owm
USEPA
(202) 564-8831
http://www.epa.gov/owm
USEPA
River Network
520 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1130
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 241-3506
www.rivernetwork.org
(202) 260-9194
www.epa.gov/owow/wag.html
or
USEPA
(312) 886-7742
www.epa.gov/twg/
USEPA
Pesticide Environmental
Stewardship Grants
Program
(703) 308-7035
www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/PESP
USEPA
(312) 353-2000
www.epa.gov/ogd/
USDA
(202) 690-2670
www.usda.gov/rus//water/programs.htm
USEPA
(202) 566-1731
www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/
FWS
(703) 358-2156
http://federalasst.fws.gov/cva/cva.html
1425
Appendix V (continued)
Administrator of
Grant Program
Name of
Grant Program
Address
Phone Number
(202) 761-4750
www.usace.army.mil/cw/cecwp/estuary_act/
WDNR
(414) 263-8610
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/cfa/Grants/Lakes/i
nvasivespecies.html
WDNR
UWEX-Lakes Partnership
UW-Stevens Point
1900 Franklin Street
Stevens Point, WI 54481
(715) 346-2116
www.uwsp.edu/cnr/uwexlakes/grants
(847) 425-8150
www.glpf.org
(703) 648-5301
http://water.usgs.gov/wid/html/SG.html
(202) 260-8619
www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants.html
USGS
USEPA
Environmental Education
Grants Program
aThe Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs can be accessed at: http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html. Additional information on grants can be accessed through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/ and through the University of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries Grants Information Collection at: http://grants.library.wisc.edu.
bSome of the programs described in this table may not be available under all envisioned conditions for a variety of reasons, including local eligibility requirements or lack of funds in Federal
and/or State budgets at a given time.
Source: SEWRPC.
1426
APPENDIX 8B
Prepared for:
Washington, DC
www.limno.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................2
THE NAVIGATOR PROCESS.....................................................................................3
Navigator Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories........................................... 3
Navigator Element 2:Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach ................................... 4
Table 1: Average Annual Loads of Total Phosphorus in the Menomonee
River Watershed ................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2: Average Annual Loads of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in the
Menomonee River Watershed .............................................................................................. 7
Table 3: Average Annual Loads of Total Suspended Solids in the
Menomonee River Watershed .............................................................................................. 7
LimnoTech
Page iii
Executive Summary
The following White Paper/Analysis evaluates the applicability of a watershed-based permitting
approach for the entities within the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds and the most appropriate
option(s) under this approach. The findings of the analysis support the use of a permitting
approach that is based upon implementation of the Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP)
developed for the applicable watershed as well as the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU, 208
Plan). Under this approach, the WRP and the RWQMPU would be limited to plans and processes
for protecting water quality standards and would be cited in each facilitys Permit Fact Sheet as
the basis for the control requirements established in the permit. The WRP and RWQMPU would
also be used to establish the monitoring and reporting requirements for the permit. The federal
regulations require permits to include limits that are as stringent as necessary to meet water
quality standards, and that the limits be consistent with approved 208 plans (see 40 CFR
122.44(d)(1) 1 & (d)(6)). The regulations also prohibit the issuance of a permit that is not
consistent with an approved 208 Plan (see 40 CFR 122.4(g). This may be accomplished through
development and issuance of individual coordinated permits as an appropriate approach for this
region or a multi-source integrated permit depending on decisions made by those involved in the
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds regarding pollutants of concern to be addressed and priorities for
applying resources.
By developing the permits in a coordinated fashion and using the WRP and RWQMPU as the
basis for the permit, the approach will allow the permittees to continue to work together on
restoration efforts and ensure that there is no conflict between regionally identified goals and
requirements established in the NPDES permits. A watershed-based approach will allow the
permittees to align permit requirements with the WRP and RWQMPU and allow the permit to
become a vehicle to support the WRP. Additionally, the linkage of plans required by CSO and
stormwater permits (such as the combined sewer system Long Term Control Plan or the
stormwater management plan) with the watershed plans and their associated goals can be
ensured through this process. If the permits are not developed on a watershed-basis and are not
aligned with the WRP there is the potential for resources being directed at permit requirements
and plans that are not part of the WRP and, consequently, there is potential for conflicting efforts
such as monitoring that is not coordinated or projects that are focused on different priorities.
As discussed in US EPAs Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance (2003), although the permitting authority often
initiates this process, the process can also be based on the initiative of one or more stakeholders
who spearhead this approach. Due to concerns at the state level in Wisconsin regarding resources
to pursue a non-traditional approach to permitting, it is recommended that the
permittee/stakeholders develop the draft permit language as well as the fact sheet for submission
1
122.44(d)
(1) Achieve water quality standards established under section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria for water
quality.
(6) Ensure consistency with the requirements of a Water Quality Management plan approved by EPA under section 208(b) of
CWA.
122.4
(g) For any discharge inconsistent with a plan or plan amendment approved under section 208(b) of CWA.
to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. A similar approach was used for permits in
Oregon and found to be very beneficial. Having the stakeholders directly involved in the permit
development is also beneficial as they best understand the system and the issues at the watershed
level.
The process outlined in the paper provides a system for the stakeholders and permittees
evaluating this approach in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds (herein after referred to as the
Group) to more fully assess priorities and apply a permitting approach to better focus on
priorities. The approach discussed in this paper was structured according to the steps identified in
the Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting
Technical Guidance (US EPA 2007). The Technical Guidance facilitates the use of a NPDES
Watershed Navigator (the Navigator), which includes three elements that are broken into a series
of questions that facilitate analysis of watershed data and determine how best to structure and
manage implementation of the NPDES program in a way that considers the entire watershed.
The Navigator is used to help a permittee work through a watershed permitting analytical
approach and construct an NPDES watershed framework in a watershed. In this paper, each of
the questions is evaluated from the perspective of the point sources (this includes wastewater
treatment plants and stormwater) within the Greater Milwaukee Watershed and
recommendations are made based on this evaluation.
Note that the recommendations that are included in this Paper are only preliminary suggestions.
The entities working through this process in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds are indeed at an
advantage in having already collected and analyzed extensive data and initiating planning and
permitting at the watershed level. It is still important; however, to continue the current
process of stakeholder and public participation (through the Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust, etc.) and to work through the process described in US EPAs 2007
Technical Guidance as a group to ensure all information and views are considered. This
process can indeed proceed more quickly than in a region starting from scratch, but
following this stepwise process can help ensure that appropriate decisions are made based
on the data available and a comprehensive evaluation of all the options is made.
Introduction
In 2002 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) issued a formal endorsement for
the watershed-based approach to planning in an effort to better address water resource issues.
Based on this endorsement, entities in the Greater Milwaukee Watershed have embraced this
approach and have been developing management and restoration plans on a watershed level. This
paper addresses the efforts to date, identifies decisions to be made, and discusses potential
options for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
The approach outlined in this paper was structured according to the steps identified in the
Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting
Technical Guidance (US EPA 2007). It was felt that use of this established approach would
clearly identify the thought process used to walk through the issues faced in the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds and would help to facilitate discussion with US EPA and the state.
As discussed in the Technical Guidance, a number of factors are involved in selecting a
watershed for a watershed-based permitting approach as well as questions that need to be asked
2
Element 1: Create Watershed and Source Data Inventories this element focuses on
the types of data needed to conduct an analysis of a watershed-based permitting
approach. An extensive amount of data has been collected and analyzed on
watersheds in this region through efforts associated with the development of the
Watershed Restoration Plans as well as the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan
(Planning Report No. 50 and Technical Report No. 39) and MMSDs 2020 Facilities
Plan (Section 201 Plan). Most, if not all, of the important data needed for this effort
has been collected as part of the development of these documents.
Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach taking the data from
Element 1, this step looks at several ways the data can be analyzed to identify
implementation options. Much of this analysis for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
Rivers has been undertaken as part of the Watershed Restoration Planning process.
Each element of the Navigator has a goal, specific activities to be undertaken, and a specific set
of results to help readers make decisions in the remaining elements. This paper will walk through
these elements one by one.
It is important to note that an initial decision on the scale of the watershed-based
permitting approach needs to be made upon moving forward with this effort. One approach
could be focusing on one specific watershed, such as the Menomonee River watershed, while
another approach could be more encompassing, such as including all of the Greater Milwaukee
watersheds in the effort. The flexibility of this approach; however, as well as the fact that a
significant amount of data have already been collected, will allow the Group to move forward at
one scale. If it is determined that this scale is inappropriate, the Group can step back through the
process fairly easily to readjust the scale.
in relation to water quality standards and watershed goals. The Group is at an advantage at this
point because of the extensive data that have been collected as well as the fact that analysis of
these data has been, and continues to be at the watershed level. Focusing on the drivers behind
the desire to pursue this approach will help the Group focus on the most relevant types and
sources of data. It is likely that only minimal additional data will be needed for this effort so this
Paper will not go into great detail on this element. Questions to address are as follows:
Question #1: What types of data should be gathered?
Data to be gathered under this element includes watershed data as well as pollutant source data.
Watershed data includes information on the physical and natural features of the watershed as
well as watershed goals and conditions. Pollutant source data includes data on locations and
characteristics of both point and nonpoint sources.
Much of this data has already been collected, compiled, and analyzed (or is in the process of
being analyzed). These data will be used in Element 2, but some data could also be used in
association with the development of environmental indicators to measure performance (see
Indicator Development for Watershed-based Stormwater Management on page 13, below). As
will be discussed later, it may be possible to use flow as an indicator or surrogate for a number
of pollutants. The approach here would be to use watershed-based data to demonstrate that by
controlling flow there is a measurable reduction in pollutant loading. This would be similar to
processes used in TMDLs to address stormwater impacts. Once this linkage can be made, then
flow would be used as the control parameter in the permit. It is anticipated that this should fit
well with current activities in the watershed to address flow via use of low impact development
techniques, stormwater BMPs such as rain gardens and rain barrels, working with nongovernmental organizations, etc.
Question #2: How are gaps in the watershed and source data assessed?
Based on the issues of concern in the selected watershed, the Group will want to focus on the
most relevant types and sources of data applicable to the concern(s). Focusing on these specific
sources and evaluating issues such as the ease of data assess, the source of the data and the
format it is in, and the quality of the data will help identify data gaps or needs for new or
improved data.
Question #3: How is a data inventory organized?
As much of the data already collected on the watersheds in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds
has been incorporated, or is being incorporated into, management or restoration plans, much of
this step has already been achieved. Because of the analysis of this data in these plans it is
assumed that information such as monitoring data referenced in these plans is also in a format
that makes it useful to search or query. Additional data compiled over time should also be
included in the summary of data on the watershed.
Navigator Element 2: Apply a Watershed Permitting Analytical Approach
The next step in this process is taking the data collected through the previous step and analyzing
it so the Group can conduct a targeted and iterative analysis of the data. This will allow the
Group to identify potential approaches to the situation in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
Questions to address are discussed below. Options that may be available based on the answers to
each of these questions are included in the call-out boxes along the side of the page.
Question #1: Are there common stressors or sources of pollutants of concern in the watershed?
This element includes not only identifying pollutants
of concern, but also identifying relationships among
OPTIONS BASED ON POTENTIAL
existing NPDES permit, nonpoint sources, and these
ANSWERS TO QUESTION#1
pollutants or stressors of concern that can be addressed
Several urban wet-weather sources
within a watershed framework. The analysis that has
identified
already been performed on water quality data in the
Wet-weather integration
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds has identified a
Permit synchronization
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, the SEWRPC
Common
stressors unknown because of
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
lack
of
data
(RWQMPU) evaluates the average annual loads of the
Subwatershed
Butler Ditch ...........
Honey Creek ..........
Lilly Creek .............
Little Menomonee
Creek ...................
Little Menomonee
River ....................
Lower Menomonee
River ..................
North Branch
Menomonee River .
Nor-X-Way
Channel ..
Underwood Creek ..
Upper Menomonee
River ..................
West Branch
Menomonee River .
Willow Creek .........
Total
Percent of Total
Load
Nonpoint Sources
Industrial
Point
Sources
(pounds)
SSOs
(pounds)
CSOs
(pounds)
Subtotal
(pounds)
Urban
(pounds)
Rural
(pounds)
Subtotal
(pounds)
Total
(pounds)
0
200
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
210
0
0
1,490
3,900
1,200
80
50
20
90
350
1,540
3,920
1,290
430
1,550
4,130
1,290
430
360
<10
360
3,300
840
4,140
4,500
15,650
550
1,880
18,080
7,180
70
7,250
25,330
50
220
270
270
160
160
630
340
970
1,130
30
1,150
10
<10
0
0
40
1,150
6,350
4,170
270
1,150
6,620
5,320
6,660
6,470
370
240
610
610
320
430
750
750
17,550
580
1,880
20,010
29,040
4,070
33,110
53,120
33.0
1.1
3.5
37.6
54.7
7.7
62.4
100.0
comparison purposes that urban nonpoint sources identified in Table 1 include permitted
5
Permit synchronization
addressed at a watershed level.
Common pollutants and stressors lend
This question must be answered in two parts: (1) is
themselves to being addressed at a
the pollutant an issue watershed-wide where there is watershed level
potential for cumulative effects from multiple
Table 2. Average Annual Loads of Fecal Coliform Bacteria in the Menomonee River Watershed
Point Sources
Subwatershed
Butler Ditch ...................
Honey Creek ...............
Lilly Creek ......................
Little Menomonee Creek .
Little Menomonee River .
Lower Menomonee River
North Branch
Menomonee River .....
Nor-X-Way Channel ......
Underwood Creek ........
Upper Menomonee River
West Branch Menomonee
River .....
Willow Creek .................
Nonpoint Sources
Industrial
Point
Sources
(trillions
of cells)
SSOs
(trillions
of cells)
CSOs
(trillions
of cells)
Subtotal
(trillions
of cells)
Urban
(trillions
of cells)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.07
9.01
0.00
0.00
0.52
604.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,727.39
0.00
6.07
9.01
0.00
0.00
0.52
2,331.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.33
4.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Rural
(trillions
of cells)
Subtotal
(trillions
of cells)
Total
(trillions
of cells)
223.75
2,342.61
199.31
65.43
2,097.81
4,067.91
9.30
0.46
0.14
1.25
84.91
105.28
0.28
7.82
224.21
2,342.75
200.56
150.34
2,203.09
4,068.19
17.12
230.28
2,351.76
200.56
150.34
2,203.61
6,399.82
17.12
0.00
16.33
4.65
0.00
256.06
3,454.09
1,274.47
62.41
48.78
1.67
79.98
16.80
304.84
3,455.76
1,354.45
79.21
304.84
3,472.09
1,359.10
79.21
0.00
0.00
58.69
45.74
104.43
104.43
Total
0.00
640.82
1,727.39
2,368.21
14,111.84
393.11
14,504.95
16,873.16
0.0
3.8
10.2
14.0
83.7
2.3
86.0
100.0
Table 3. Average Annual Loads of Total Suspended Solids in the Menomonee River Watershed
Point Sources
Subwatershed
Butler Ditch ....................
Honey Creek ...................
Lilly Creek ..................
Little Menomonee Creek .
Little Menomonee River ..
Lower Menomonee River
North Branch
Menomonee River .......
Nor-X-Way Channel .......
Underwood Creek ...........
Upper Menomonee River
West Branch Menomonee
River .......
Willow Creek .................
Total
Percent of Total Load
Nonpoint Sources
Industrial
Point
Sources
(pounds)
SSOs
(pounds)
CSOs
(pounds)
Subtotal
(pounds)
Urban
(pounds)
0
800
0
0
2,530
51,660
0
320
470
0
0
30
31,670
0
0
0
0
0
0
182,960
0
320
1,270
0
0
2,560
266,290
0
689,190
1,874,860
666,000
58,630
1,976,270
4,001,330
27,660
280
90
3,380
0
0
860
240
0
0
0
0
0
280
950
3,620
0
Rural
(pounds)
Subtotal
(pounds)
Total
(pounds)
8,000
2,400
53,720
205,820
437,140
10,180
117,390
697,190
1,877,260
719,720
264,450
2,413,410
4,011,510
145,050
697,510
1,878,530
719,720
264,450
2,415,970
4,277,800
145,050
478,790
3,031,420
2,504,060
232,070
351,000
46,540
462,670
103,580
829,790
3,077,960
2,966,730
335,650
830,070
3,078,910
2,970,350
335,650
197,990
151,790
349,780
349,780
58,740
33,590
182,960
275,290
15,738,270
1,950,230
17,688,500
17,963,790
0.3
0.2
1.0
1.5
87.6
10.9
98.5
100.0
Question #3: What are critical environmental conditions for the pollutants or stressors of
concern?
As defined in the Technical Guidance, critical
OPTIONS BASED ON POTENTIAL
environmental conditions are the environmental
ANSWERS TO QUESTION #3
conditions in the waterbody where controls designed
to protect those conditions will ensure attainment of
Critical environmental conditions
water quality standards and goals for all other
unknown because of insufficient data
conditions. These conditions could include a
Indicator development for watershedbased stormwater management (if wetinformation about critical conditions. The SEWRPC
weather conditions are critical)
has already analyzed previous monitoring data for
This step requires that, after defining critical conditions in the watershed, available data be
analyzed to determine whether point and nonpoint source contributions of pollutants of concern
at critical conditions have been quantified through monitoring or have been modeled.
As discussed above, contributions of pollutants of
concern have been analyzed for both point and
nonpoint sources in the Milwaukee area watersheds.
This has included evaluating both monitoring data as
well as assessing instream water quality conditions
through modeling existing (year 2000), planned (year
2020), and recommended RWQMPU conditions.
As explained in the Technical Guidance,
understanding the relationship between point and
nonpoint sources is important to understanding if
point sources in the watershed contribute enough of
the pollutant load, relative to nonpoint sources, to
warrant a watershed-based approach. Although there
is significant information available to make this
determination, a rough estimate of relative
contributions is all that is necessary to make this
assessment. For example, because urban stormwater
is a significant source of pollutants for the parameters
of concern addressed above in Tables 1, 2 and 3, as
are industrial point sources for phosphorus, point
sources can be identified as significant contributors of
certain pollutants in the Menomonee River
watershed.
Question #5: How are point and nonpoint sources
related spatially and temporally?
As stated in the US EPA Technical Guidance,
consideration should be given to defining the spatial
and temporal relationships among contributing sources.
Understanding relationships among sources is
especially important for implementing a successful
trading program, if this approach is ultimately pursued
by the Group. For pollutants with watershed-wide or
regional effects, contributions at one point in a
watershed are not necessarily equivalent to
contributions at another point in the watershed in terms
of their overall impact on the watershed.
The Technical Guidance provides the example of a lake
that has experienced nuisance aquatic plant growth and
dissolved oxygen sags resulting from nutrient enriched
water. Total phosphorus has been identified as a
9
Permit synchronization
OPTIONS
ON POTENTIAL
*Note that point
sourcesBASED
as defined
here by EPA include
permitted urban stormwater
sources.
ANSWERS TO QUESTION#5
Spatial and temporal relationships
unknown because of insufficient data
Permit synchronization
Spatial and temporal relationships well
defined
Permit synchronization
pollutant of concern. Nine sources of phosphorus have been shown to contribute loads to the
basin. These sources are along the river that feeds the lake. One of the sources, a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW), is a permitted point source upstream of the lake, but 20 miles
downstream of an irrigation return flow to the river. A farm, an agricultural nonpoint source, is
the only source discharging phosphorus to the irrigation return ditch. In addition, there is an
agriculture diversion that diverts 75 percent of the river flow between the farm and the POTW.
Total phosphorus discharges from the farm and the POTW would not have the same relative
impact on the downstream lake. First, the phosphorus is likely to be in different formssoluble
from the POTW and non-soluble from the farm. Second, the distance between the farm and the
POTW and the significant agricultural diversion between the two sources mean that even
phosphorus discharges from the two sources that are in the same form would not have equal
impact on the lake. The regulatory authority would need to quantify the relationship between the
effects of a pound of phosphorus discharged by the farm and a pound of phosphorus discharged
by the POTW to determine an approach for effectively managing water quality in the lake. It
might be helpful to use equations and models that have been developed to estimate the decay
rate, or attenuation, of water quality pollutants to account for spatial relationships in calculating
the relative contributions of various sources in a watershed.
Answering the question of how point and nonpoint sources are related in the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds will, of course, depend on the scale chosen for the project. Urban stormwater
permittees (covered under the WPDES permitting program) cover a vast majority of the
watersheds. The location of other point sources, such as CSOs, SSOs, or industrial sources vary
by watershed. Additionally, there may be temporal variability with other sources, such as from
agricultural sources, or temperature impacts on pollutants during warmer summer months. Much
of the monitoring and modeling data already exists in the SEWRPC plans and will be utilized in
the upcoming watershed plans. Further discussion of the scale of this approach will be helpful at
this point. The approaches could include addressing only one watershed (i.e., the Menomonee or
the Kinnicknnic River watershed), assess all watersheds in the Greater Milwaukee area; or
consider all watersheds at the same time, but address them each separately, but include
coordination between the watersheds given they all ultimately impact Lake Michigan.
Navigator Element 3: Construct an NPDES Watershed Framework
There are a range of options possible for a watershed-based approach. Ultimately, the option that
is chosen for the region will be based on the condition of the selected watershed and specific
pollutants of concern and watershed goals identified by the Group. The Group may also choose
to pursue all or a subset of these approaches according to stakeholder priorities and the comfort
level of the permitting authority. The questions below walk through the range of possible
implementation options.
Navigator Element 3 - Question #1: What are the implementation options to consider in
constructing an NPDES watershed framework?
Although an NPDES watershed framework should focus primarily on programs and approaches
directly related to NPDES program implementation and activities, other water programs
influence NPDES implementation and local water quality and may also be included in this
approach. EPA has identified a number of implementation options to consider under an NPDES
watershed-based approach including:
10
As stated previously, the watershed-based approach is very flexible. Approaches that have been
used elsewhere can be modified to meet the local requirements, the local issues, and the comfort
level of the Group as well as the permitting authority. The Group might choose only one or two
of these approaches for inclusion into the approach for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, or
the Group could design a comprehensive framework that incorporates a suite of these
approaches. Below several approaches are identified and discussed further that may be of most
interest to stakeholders in the Milwaukee area and most applicable to the specific situation in the
region.
NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed Basis
As the Group walks through each of the steps identified above the associated questions could
either be answered or possibly initial thoughts or ideas might be facilitated. Because of the
amount of work that has already been achieved collecting and analyzing data on the watersheds
in the region, conditions in the watershed are well understood. It is also known that there are
common stressors or pollutants of concern among sources in the watersheds and that certain
point sources most notably urban stormwater sources have a significant impact in the watersheds.
Given this scenario, developing and issuing NPDES permits on a watershed basis is an
appropriate approach for addressing point source loads of one or more pollutants. As stated
earlier, in cases where there are multiple sources contributing the same pollutants and those
pollutants have primarily far-field or additive effects, a watershed-based permit is appropriate.
The types of permits that might be considered for a watershed will vary depending on the
specific conditions and types of dischargers within a watershed (again, this would depend on the
scale of the project choose one specific watershed such as the Menomonee River watershed
or scale the project up to the encompass the Greater Milwaukee area). The permit types that are
available under this approach include coordinated individual permits, integrated municipal
permits, and multisource watershed-based permits. Each of these permit types is discussed in
greater detail below.
11
Coordinated Individual Permits - This permitting approach is the closest to traditional NPDES
permitting in that each discharger receives an
individual permit. The difference is that water quality
Watershed characteristics leading to
based effluent limits (WQBELs) and other conditions
consideration of this option: common
of coordinated individual permits (such as
stressors or sources of pollutants of
concern; critical environmental conditions
monitoring) are developed using a holistic analysis of
are defined; point and nonpoint source
the watershed conditions rather than being established
contributions are understood, at least for
to ensure attainment of water quality standards on a
the pollutant(s) of concern; point sources
permit-by-permit basis. Often where permits are
contribute a notable portion of the pollutant
developed on a permit-by-permit basis assumptions
load or there are significant differences
are made regarding other sources that are not realistic
among the loadings contributed by various
such as zero contribution of pollutants or zero
point sources, or there are a number of
background loadings. Given the extensive monitoring
point sources with similar types of
and modeling of watersheds such as the Menomonee
discharges.
and Kinnickinnic, this holistic analysis is (or soon will
be) complete to serve as a basis for this approach.
With this approach, the individual permits are designed to meet watershed-specific goals (e.g.,
comprehensive watershed monitoring, nutrient reduction). The permitting authority may re-issue
permits to single dischargers or modify existing single discharger permits. To strengthen the
coordination among individual permits, expiration and reissuance or effective dates should also
be synchronized. By synchronizing permit issuance it ensures that the data used to make permit
decisions are consistent and the data collected will also be consistent across the permits and the
watershed.
Integrated Municipal NPDES Permit Coverage - This approach is most often applicable in cases
where all municipal discharges are under the ownership of a single entity. In cases where there is
single ownership the permitting authority may bundle a number of point source permit
requirements for a municipality (POTWs, combined sewer overflows [CSOs], biosolids,
pretreatment, and stormwater, including municipally owned industrial activities such as public
works and utility yards) into a single permit. In cases where the treatment plants, stormwater,
CSOs (if applicable), and other municipally controlled point source activities are all under single
ownership, the permitting authority could consider one permit that covers and integrates all
NPDES requirements. Ideally, these activities would take place within the boundaries of the
same watershed. This approach may reduce the administrative burden for both the permittee and
permitting authority (e.g., one application, one public notice and public hearing, one compliance
report) and allow the permitting authority to develop permit conditions (limitations and
monitoring requirements) that specifically address existing watershed goals and watershed
management plans. In the case of the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, this may still be done
instead of a permit with a single owner, there would be multiple owners and they would be
considered co-permittees under a single permit with permit language clearly delineating
compliance liability (e.g., language in the Neuse River NPDES permit) (NCDENR 2004). The
permit conditions would be developed using the same process as for an integrated municipal
permit, but the issuance of the permit would be done differently to recognize the different
owners.
Multi-source Watershed-based Permit - This type of permitting approach is also a single permit
and would cover multiple sources included in the same watershed, watershed plan, or TMDL. It
12
would allow several point sources in a watershed to apply for and obtain permit coverage under
the same permit. This type of permit might be appropriate in situations where a watershed plan,
such as one developed for the Menomonee River or Kinnicknick River watersheds, identifies the
need to address a specific pollutant(s). A watershed plan might include agreed-upon controls
necessary to achieve watershed goals. Stakeholders can then identify point sources that would be
logical to group under a single permit.
Some permitting authorities have chosen to issue a single watershed-based permit that
supplements or overlays the existing individual permits for the covered facilities. This approach
allows the permitting authority to focus effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, trading
provisions, and other special permit conditions that are developed on a watershed basis in a
single permit and clearly links the permitted facilities in a way that simply incorporating
watershed-based permit conditions into individual permits does not accomplish. The permit
would identify all point sources that have agreed to the controls and the individual specific
requirements for each point source. An example is a permit that includes control requirements
for nutrients issued to all POTWs in the watershed and requires specific nutrient reductions that
reflect agreed-upon goals and, possibly, trades. This same approach could be used for multiple
types of discharges such as POTWs, stormwater, CSOs, etc. to address the same pollutant such
as TSS or nutrients. This permit might be issued in addition to the existing individual permits
and, if so, would include limitations or controls to address only the watershed-specific common
pollutant or pollutants. Other pollutants would continue to be addressed through each facilitys
individual permit.
Wet-Weather Integration
Wet-weather integration is an approach to address wet-weather discharges in a holistic manner to
provide for greater efficiency, more comprehensive planning, less redundancy among permitting
requirements, and better water quality outcomes. It is focused on urban areas that include
permitted wastewater treatment facilities and sewer systems,
such as that in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds.
Watershed characteristics leading
The major drivers of wet weather integration are all found in
the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds multiple programs driven
by wet weather events, shared common pollutants between the
program, and hydraulic connectivity of the systems. Wetweather integration can include not only WPDES programs,
but also other issues such as non-point source discharges,
which are also an issue in the region. As addressed in US
EPAs Technical Guidance, wet-weather integration includes:
Coordinating with water quality standards programs and enforcement and compliance
programs across an urban area (municipal footprint)
13
Considering the water quality goals and objectives of existing watershed management
plans and the resources needed to address pollutant loads and setting priorities
This approach could be tied together with an integrated wet-weather permit approach as is
discussed above (NPDES Permit Development and Issuance on a Watershed Basis).
A guiding principle for the integration of wet-weather programs is reducing the volume of water
entering sewer systems (sanitary, combined, and storm sewers) for example focusing on
infiltration reuse, and evapotransporation techniques rather than traditional stormwater controls.
Methods to reduce water volume through this approach are less focused on end of pipe treatment
and more on initiatives such as the reduction of inflow and infiltration, natural infiltration (low
impact development, LID), and water conservation. Entities, such as MMSD, are already
encouraging the use of LID, in recognition of the principles of wet-weather integration.
Indicator Development for Watershed-based Stormwater Management
Excessive stormwater runoff is often the cause for aquatic life impairment because of the
relationship among stormwater runoff volume, pollutant loadings, and habitat degradation. The
connections between these stressors are very complex, posing a unique challenge for effectively
managing stormwater and tracking progress toward water quality standards attainment. US EPA
and several states have begun using stormwater/hydrologic targets, or indicators, for use in
developing and implementing stormwater TMDLs. Indicators might include a percent reduction
in annual surface runoff volume or a percent reduction in peak runoff rates for a specific design
storm. Using stormwater/hydrologic indicators is based on the premise that the hydrologic
condition of a watershed where streams have aquatic life
Watershed characteristics
impairments related to stormwater is a surrogate for the pollutant
leading to consideration of
and non-pollutant stressors contributing to those impairments.
ambient monitoring (e.g., a monitoring consortium) by the regulated community. The ambient
monitoring could include biological monitoring, with follow-up stressor identification analysis to
verify the appropriateness of selected BMPs.
Permit Synchronization
This implementation option focuses on coordinating expiration and reissuance of existing
NPDES permits within a specified watershed. As discussed in US EPAs Technical Guidance,
permit synchronization has several benefits including coordination of NPDES support activities
such as biological and water quality surveys, industrial pretreatment inspections, and compliance
inspections that provide up-to-date information at the time of permit issuance. An important
benefit of this approach is that watershed-based needs, such as monitoring requirements or
wasteload allocation (WLAs), are reflected equitably in all
permits even within the standard individual permit
Watershed characteristics
approach, because all permits in a watershed are being
leading to consideration of this
considered simultaneously. Permit synchronization is
option: some overlap in pollutants
discharged by sources within the
currently being done in a number of states and these states
watershed that present the
have found the process to be very beneficial (see North
opportunity to achieve efficiencies
Carolina Case Study; US EPA 2007).
by simultaneously analyzing
watershed data for the same
pollutant(s).
15
under the watershed framework (such as the Screening Alternatives identified in the RWQMPU).
Navigator Element 3 - Question #2: How should priorities for implementing the components of
an NPDES watershed framework be set?
There are a number of approaches available to stakeholders in the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds within a WPDES watershed framework for the pollutants of concern that have been
identified. As discussed further in the Technical Guidance, a scoring system can be used to
prioritize initiatives upon which to place the most focus. This approach is one option for
attempting to provide a more objective approach for determining whether the overall process is
appropriate. There may be other ways for making the same determination.
The Technical Guidance outlines the first step in the suggested approach as determining whether
and how to group implementation options for priority setting. For the Greater Milwaukee
Watersheds two initial groupings were considered in an example prioritization (see Figure 1)
including (1) watershed analysis/pollutant source analysis and (2) permitting. As so much data
collection and analysis has already occurred for the Greater Milwaukee Watershed, watershed
analysis and pollutant source analysis were grouped to reduce redundancy. Had this level of
effort not already occurred in the region, a more intensive analysis would be required to
determine additional data needs, etc. These groupings represent the major activities that could be
undertaken in implementing an NPDES watershed approach that focuses on watershed-based
permitting as the primary implementation option. Grouping implementation options in this
manner allows assessment of the implementation options based on a clear methodology for
decision-making.
Once potential implementation options are listed and grouped, the Group should consider
establishing criteria for setting priorities and determining the manner in which the criteria will be
used to evaluate potential options or groups of options. Criteria could consider factors such as
environmental impact, availability of resources, and current planning priorities. It is at this point
in developing a watershed framework that the Group might need to look beyond technical
feasibility and environmental impact to include administrative criteria (e.g., availability of
funding) to set priorities among the possible implementation options.
16
One screening level method for priority setting is to develop a scoring process for all potential
implementation options. For example, a scoring scale from one to three for a series of criteria
could be used to evaluate each implementation option on how it compares to each criterion. The
IMPLEMENTATION OPTION GROUPING
EXAMPLE
Watershed/Pollutant Source Analysis
Permitting
Wet-weather integration
Permit synchronization
criteria can be weighted, with those most important to stakeholders receiving a higher weighting
factor than others. Implementation options with the highest weighted total scores would be
initially identified as potentially higher priority approaches. Such a procedure does not provide
mathematical precision in ranking potential implementation options. It simply helps stakeholders
get a general sense of which approach seems to best fit the Groups multiple and, sometimes,
competing priorities. The Group could use the results of such an analysis to further refine its
selection of the highest priority projects or approaches.
The regulations require the permitting authority to issue permits requiring the permittee to meet
permit limits. The regulations further require the permitting authority to include effluent limits in
17
the permit and that these limits be based on technology-based standards or water quality-based
standards if the limits derived from technology-based standards are not stringent enough to meet
water quality standards. The regulations require the NPDES permitting authority to develop
limits for all outfalls (40 CFR 122.45(a)) and include the applicable technology-based limits (40
CFR 122.44(a)); if the technology-based effluent limits are not stringent enough to meet the
applicable water quality standards then the permitting authority must include more stringent
limits (40 CFR 122.44(d)). In setting the limits, the permitting authority is expected to set
numeric limits whenever feasible. In cases where it is infeasible to set numeric effluent limits,
the permitting authority may establish BMPs that the permittee must meet (40 CFR 122.44(k)).
All permits must include monitoring and reporting requirements for any pollutants for which the
permitting authority has established limits in the permit. This is so the permittee may
demonstrate compliance.
The permitting regulations provide flexibility regarding the process for determining the
appropriate limitations. In cases where the limitations are set to meet water quality standards
(water quality-based effluent limitations), it is possible to set aggregate limits or limits that are
based on trading allocations. This provides flexibility to prioritize or focus pollutant control
efforts on specific areas. The distinction here is that there will be controls established for all
discharges, but the controls will not be uniform, rather they will be coordinated and to some
degree dependent on the control at other outfalls. This approach was used in the Neuse River
Compliance Association permit and approved by EPA Region 4. The permit considers the total
discharge of all the POTWs in the association that discharge to the Neuse River Watershed and
sets compliance based on the aggregate allocation. If compliance is not achieved for the
aggregate discharge limit, then individual allocations are considered.
Many of the discharges that need to be controlled are discharges due to wet weather events and
are best handled by BMPs. US EPA has issued many guidance manuals and policies regarding
wet weather impacts and how to address wet weather issues in permits. This BMP approach is
consistent with US EPA guidance for addressing non-continuous discharges. Specifically, the
2002 Wayland and Hanlon memo, Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements
Based on Those WLAs and the 1996 memo from Robert Perciasepe, Interim Permitting
Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits explain that
BMPs are preferred when discharges are highly variable in frequency and duration and are not
easily characterized. The Perciasepe memo goes on to state, only in rare cases will it be
feasible or appropriate to establish numeric limits. Due to the nature of the stormwater
discharges variable frequency, duration and volume, and unpredictable as far as location
there is no clear way to arrive at a numeric effluent limit. Because it is infeasible to calculate a
numeric limit, BMPs are required in the permit as the effluent limitations (see 40 CFR
122.44(k)). This BMP approach is also consistent with 40 CFR 122.45(e)(1).
In order to include flexibility in the permit, the Fact Sheet will need to be written to clearly
explain how the permit is consistent with the regulations and also explain how the limitations
meet both technology and water quality-based requirements. The watershed restoration plans will
be very important for this part of the process. The watershed restoration plans will be used to
demonstrate where control is needed and how the control will ensure water quality standards are
being addressed.
18
References
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources. 2004. Permit to Discharge
Wastewater Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The Neuse River
Compliance Association and Its Co-Permittee Members.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/00001nrcapermit-pt1mod200401.pdf
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2007. A Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning Report No. 50 and
Technical Report No. 39. http://www.sewrpc.org/waterqualityplan/chapters.asp.
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 2009. A Regional Water Quality
Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Plan Summary.
http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/planningprogramreport/pr050_summary_water_quality_plan_greater_mke_watersheds.pdf.
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust. 2009. Draft Watershed Restoration Plans for the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
http://www.swwtwater.org/home/documents.cfm.
US EPA. 2003. Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permitting Implementation Guidance. EPA 833-B-03-004.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershedpermitting_finalguidance.pdf
US EPA. 2007. Watershed-Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permitting Technical Guidance. EPA 833-B-07-004.
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/watershed_techguidance.pdf
US EPA. 2007. Watershed-Based Permitting Case Study Neuse River Watershed, North
Carolina. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/wq_casestudy_factsht11.pdf
19
APPENDIX 8C
Sweetwater Trust
Water Quality Trading Subcommittee
Policy Recommendations (3-2-10 draft)
By Melissa Scanlan, Committee Chair
I.
In 1997, Wisconsins Legislature created Act 27, which allowed water quality trading
through a DNR-administered pilot project. 2 This state law needed to be consistent with
the Federal Clean Water Act in a variety of ways; the DNR determined the program
should include:
The state law set up a DNR pilot project that allows a WPDES permitee to discharge
pollutants above regulated levels if it reached an agreement with a point or non point
source to reduce pollution in another part of the watershed. The trade would need a
broker to facilitate and monitor the trade. The trade would also need to be limited to the
same pollutant or water quality standard, improve water quality, have a contract term
that did not exceed five years, and involve a watershed that is impaired and includes both
agricultural and municipal point and non point sources. 4
Three pilot study areas emerged in the Red Cedar River Watershed, the Fox and Wolf
River Basins, and the Upper and Lower Rock River Basins. From these pilot areas, only
one trade occurred between a single POTW and agricultural non-point source in the Red
1
Mary Anne Loundes presented for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Jamie Saul presented
for Midwest Environmental Advocates, and Paul Kent presented for the Municipal Environmental Group.
2
S. 283.84, Wis. Stats.
3
Mary Anne Loundes, WDNR, powerpoint presentation, April 2009.
4
S. 283.84, Wis. Stats.
Cedar River. In this situation, the POTW paid a clearly-economical $1.84 for each
pound of phosphorus removed by No-Till planting and Conservation Tillage, two
methods that are easy to verify with drive-by monitoring by the local Land Conservation
Department. 5
Despite the lack of trades, the DNR and its study groups learned about the impediments
and drivers to water quality trading, and the DNR has developed the following findings:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
III.
The Sweetwater Trust Water Quality Trading Subcommittee has discussed and reached a
consensus that the overall goals of any water quality trading program should include the
following three elements:
1. Effectiveness
Measurable water quality improvement with time Improvements should be
at least as great as with the status quo, and account for uncertainty as well
as secondary benefits
2. Transparency
Trading agreement containing essential information, such as credit ratios
and trade partners, is completed and made available for public comment
prior to DNR approval, either as part of the WPDES permit when the draft
permit is released for public comment or as part of a draft modified permit
Water quality data is collected and made publicly available
3. Enforceability
WPDES Permitees retain enforceable permits with binding effluent
limitations and other conditions that reflect the trade
http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/pt/. The WDNR reports that this trade cost $58,000, and removed 31,500 pounds
of phosphorus.
6
http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/pt/.
IV.
In addition to incorporating the overall goals (above) into a trading program, the Water
Quality Trading Subcommittee recommends the following policies should be considered
in development of a water quality trading program in the watersheds of concern for the
Sweetwater Trust:
1. Trading Area - The trading area must be defined, and would be
restricted to the watershed or area with an approved TMDL. 7
Watershed should be defined by DNR rules to be an area that is
sufficiently large enough to supply trading partners, but sufficiently small
enough to ensure the trades are having a quantifiable water quality
impact.
2. Pollutants of Choice - Nutrients (N and P) and sediment and other
oxygen-related pollutants are the preferred pollutants for trading
because these pollutants have less localized toxic effects. 8
3. Same Pollutants Trades would generally only be allowed for the
same pollutants or water quality standards; an exception would be
where adequate scientific information exists to establish and correlate
impacts on water quality between different oxygen-related pollutants. 9
4. Written Agreements and Transparency Prior to the DNR approving
a trade, there must be a written agreement between the buyer and the
seller containing all essential terms that is made available for public
comment. The agreement should be attached to the WPDES permit
and referenced within.
5. Trade duration The goal should be to establish duration of trade
agreements and individual credits that reflect the best science and fit
the administrative structure. Current law, i.e., the Wisconsin pilot
program statute, sec. 283.84, Wis. Stats., limits the duration to 5
years, which follows the 5 year duration of a WPDES permit. The
trade duration could be extended for practices that require renewable
rental fees (i.e., stream buffers or other changes in land use) or
maintenance costs (i.e., repairing sediment basins) and where water
7
Water quality trading is intended to provide opportunities for efficiently achieving and maintaining water
quality standards within watersheds, as opposed to cleaning up one watershed at the expense of another. EPAs
2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, pages 12-14.
EPAs 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, pages 10-11.
9
EPAs 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, page 11.
8
EPAs January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 8. Among the items the EPA says should
be in a credible trading program, are incorporating provisions for trading into NPDES permits and
expressing trades in clearly defined rates or mass per unit time as appropriate to be consistent with the
time periods that are used to determine compliance with NPDES permit limitations or other regulatory
requirements. Id. at pars. 1 & 2. Additionally, [m]echanisms for determining and ensuring compliance
are essential for all trades and trading programs. EPAs January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at
page 10. In the event of default by another source generating credits, an NPDES permittee using those
credits is responsible for complying with the effluent limitations that would apply if the trade had not
occurred. Id.
11
EPAs January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at pages 6-7.
12
EPAs January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 5:
The term pollution reduction credits (credits), as used in this policy, means pollutant reductions
greater than those required by a regulatory requirement or established under a TMDL.
V.
13
EPAs January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 5; see also EPAs 2007 Water Quality
Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers, pages 132-133 of the PDF:
Nonpoint Source Baseline Derived from TMDL Load Allocations
An LA established under a TMDL defines the nonpoint source load reductions necessary to
achieve water quality standards. EPA would not support a trading program that allows nonpoint
sources to sell credits if the discharge is contributing to water quality impairment; therefore,
nonpoint sources should meet their portion of the LA before generating credits to sell on the
trading market.
See also, EPAs January 13, 2003 Water Quality Trading Policy at page 5:
The term pollution reduction credits (credits), as used in this policy, means pollutant reductions
greater than those required by a regulatory requirement or established under a TMDL.
For example, where a TMDL has been approved or established by EPA, the applicable point
source waste load allocation or nonpoint source load allocation would establish the baselines for
generating credits.
The Trading Subcommittee left several issues for future discussions and
recommendations, not because they were too controversial, but simply because we ran
out of time. These are outlined below:
1. Credit ratios how many pounds of pollutant reduction (credit) must be
purchased to offset 1 pound of pollutant reduction from on-site treatment? The
larger the trade ratio the faster the water quality improvements, however, the
ratio should not be set so high as to discourage trades that would improve water
quality. How should credit ratios be determined?
2. Credit Adjustment based on monitored results: Some subcommittee
members stated that ongoing water quality monitoring is a key element of an
effective restoration program and should be done throughout the restoration
period for the watershed so that pollutant reduction efforts, including credit
adjustment, could be refined as the process moves forward.
3. Monitoring: frequency of monitoring, where it is done, who does it, and who
pays for it.
3. Pollutant Dead Zones With trading there is a potential for localized,
permanent impairments due to (a) geographic factors (i.e., distance between
trading partners or trading beyond the watershed) or (b) pollutant factors (trades
that inappropriately allow for hypoxic or dead zones)
Possible solutions:
Identify where the WQ gains are to be realized (at the point source?
Further downstream?) and monitor the water quality between trading
partners
Specify which pollutants may be traded under what circumstances
Set a baseline for water quality that must be attained and dont allow a
trade to allow more pollution than that into the water. 14
14
NPDES permits must not incorporate trades that would cause impairment of a designated use (CWA
301(b)(1)(C); 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A)). EPAs 2007 Water Quality Trading Toolkit for Permit Writers,
page 28.