Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Menomonee River
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
Key Elements of the Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan ............................ 1-1
1.3
Key Focus Areas Identified During the Watershed Restoration Plan Planning
Process ............................................................................................................... 1-5
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5
1.3.6
1.3.7
1.3.8
Tables
1-1
1-2
1-3
Figures
1-1
Water Quality Assessment Point Areas within the Menomonee River Watershed ......... 1-2
Menomonee River
2.2
2.3
2.2.1
The Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update and the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage Districts 2020 Facilities Planning Process
(2002-2007) ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2
2.3.2
2.3.3
Third Party Total Maximum Daily Loads and the Clean Water Act ................ 2-5
2.3.4
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5.1
2.5.2
Tables
2-1
Impact of NR 151 on Modeled Total Suspended Solids for the Menomonee River .......... 2-8
Figures
2-1
2-2
2-3
Framework for the Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan ................................ 2-10
Appendices
2A
2B
Water Quality Data Existing 2000 and Revised 2020 Baseline with and without NR 151
ii
Menomonee River
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Linked Goals (concurrent with Regional
Water Quality Management Plan Update Pollutant Reduction Goals) ............................ 3-7
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
Internet............................................................................................................. 3-13
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
Figures
3-1 Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Members ................................................. 3-2
Appendices
3A
3B
iii
Menomonee River
4.2
Overview of Habitat Conditions within the Menomonee River Watershed .................... 4-1
4.3
4.4
Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Menomonee River Watershed .......... 4-23
4.5
North Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point Area MN-1) ................. 4-26
4.5.2
Upper Menomonee River Area (Assessment Points MN-2 and MN-5) ......... 4-42
4.5.3
4.5.4
4.5.5
4.5.6
4.5.7
4.5.8
4.5.9
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
Land Use in the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1) ..... 4-27
4-7
iv
Menomonee River
Baseline Water Quality for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-1) ........................................................................................................................... 4-35
4-9
Baseline Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................... 4-36
4-10
Baseline Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-36
4-11
Baseline Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-1)
(Units / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-37
4-12
Year 2020 Water Quality for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-1) ........................................................................................................................... 4-39
4-13
Year 2020 Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN1) (Units / Year) ............................................................................................................. 4-40
4-14
Year 2020 Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN1) (Percent)..................................................................................................................... 4-40
4-15
Year 2020 Loads for the North Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN1) (Units / Acre / Year) .................................................................................................. 4-41
Land Use in the Upper Menomonee River (MN-2) Assessment Point Area................. 4-43
4-17
Civil Divisions in the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) ........ 4-46
4-18
Baseline Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) ........................................................................................................................... 4-51
4-19
Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Units /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-52
4-20
Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-52
4-21
Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Units /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................... 4-53
4-22
Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Units / Year) .................................................................................................... 4-53
4-23
Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-54
4-24
Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Units / Acre / Year) ......................................................................................... 4-54
4-25
Year 2020 Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) ........................................................................................................................... 4-56
Menomonee River
4-26
Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Unit
/ Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-57
4-27
Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-57
4-28
Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-2) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-58
4-29
Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Unit / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-58
4-30
Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-59
4-31
Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-2) (Unit / Acre / Year)........................................................................................... 4-59
4-32
Land Use in the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) ................. 4-61
4-33
Civil Divisions in the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) ........ 4-61
4-34
Baseline Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) ........................................................................................................................... 4-67
4-35
Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit /
Year) .............................................................................................................................. 4-69
4-36
Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-69
4-37
Baseline Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................... 4-70
4-38
Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-70
4-39
Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-71
4-40
Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Acre / Year)........................................................................................... 4-71
4-41
Year 2020 Water Quality for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) ........................................................................................................................... 4-73
4-42
Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit
/ Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-74
4-43
Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-74
4-44
Year 2020 Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-5) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-75
4-45
Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Year) ..................................................................................................... 4-75
vi
Menomonee River
4-46
Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Percent) ........................................................................................................... 4-76
4-47
Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Upper Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-5) (Unit / Acre / Year)........................................................................................... 4-76
Land Use in the West Branch Menomonee River (MN-3) Assessment Point Area ...... 4-78
4-49
Civil Divisions in the West Branch Menomonee River (MN-3) Assessment Point
Area ............................................................................................................................... 4-80
4-50
Baseline Water Quality for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-3) ........................................................................................................................... 4-85
4-51
Baseline Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................... 4-86
4-52
Baseline Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-86
4-53
Baseline Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ........................................................................................................ 4-87
4-54
Year 2020 Water Quality for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-3) ........................................................................................................................... 4-89
4-55
Year 2020 Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................... 4-90
4-56
Year 2020 Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Percent) ......................................................................................................................... 4-90
4-57
Year 2020 Loads for the West Branch Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-3)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ........................................................................................................ 4-91
Land Use in the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ................................... 4-93
4-59
Civil Division in the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ............................ 4-95
4-60
Baseline Water Quality in the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ........... 4-100
4-61
Baseline Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit / Year) . 4-101
4-62
Baseline Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Percent) ....... 4-101
4-63
Baseline Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-102
4-64
Year 2020 Water Quality for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) ...... 4-104
4-65
Year 2020 Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-105
4-66
Year 2020 Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Percent) .... 4-105
vii
4-67
Menomonee River
Year 2020 Loads for the Willow Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-4) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-106
Land Use in the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) ...................... 4-108
4-69
Civil Divisions in the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) ............. 4-110
4-70
Baseline Water Quality for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6)4-115
4-71
Baseline Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-120
4-72
Baseline Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-120
4-73
Baseline Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-121
4-74
Year 2020 Water Quality for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area
(MN-6) ......................................................................................................................... 4-123
4-75
Year 2020 Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-124
4-76
Year 2020 Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-124
4-77
Year 2020 Loads for the Nor-X-Way Channel Assessment Point Area (MN-6) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-125
Land Use in the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) ..................................... 4-127
4-79
Civil Divisions in the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) ............................ 4-129
4-80
Baseline Water Quality for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7).............. 4-134
4-81
Baseline Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Year) ..... 4-135
4-82
Baseline Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Percent) ........... 4-135
4-83
Baseline Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-136
4-84
Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7)........... 4-138
4-85
Year 2020 Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Year) .. 4-139
4-86
Year 2020 Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Percent) ........ 4-139
4-87
Year 2020 Loads for the Lilly Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-7) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-140
Land Use in the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) .................................... 4-142
viii
Menomonee River
4-89
Civil Divisions in the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) ........................... 4-144
4-90
Baseline Water Quality for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) ............ 4-149
4-91
Baseline Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Year) ... 4-150
4-92
Baseline Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Percent) ......... 4-150
4-93
Baseline Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-151
4-94
Year 2020 Water Quality for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) ......... 4-153
4-95
Year 2020 Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Year) 4-154
4-96
Year 2020 Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Percent) ...... 4-154
4-97
Year 2020 Loads for the Butler Ditch Assessment Point Area (MN-8) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-155
Land Use in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) ......................................................................................................................... 4-157
4-99
Civil Divisions in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) ......................................................................................................................... 4-159
4-100 Baseline Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-9) ................................................................................................................ 4-165
4-101 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................... 4-167
4-102 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Percent) ......................................................................................................... 4-167
4-103 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year)......................................................................................... 4-168
4-104 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................. 4-168
4-105 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Percent) ....................................................................................... 4-169
4-106 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................... 4-169
4-107 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-9) ................................................................................................................ 4-171
4-108 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................... 4-172
4-109 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Percent) ......................................................................................................... 4-172
ix
Menomonee River
4-110 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year)......................................................................................... 4-173
4-111 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................. 4-173
4-112 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Percent) ....................................................................................... 4-174
4-113 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-9) (Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................... 4-174
4-114 Land Use in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) ....................................................................................................................... 4-176
4-115 Civil Divisions in the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) ....................................................................................................................... 4-178
4-116 Baseline Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-12) .............................................................................................................. 4-183
4-117 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-185
4-118 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-185
4-119 Baseline Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-186
4-120 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-186
4-121 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-187
4-122 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-187
4-123 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-12) .............................................................................................................. 4-189
4-124 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-190
4-125 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-190
4-126 Year 2020 Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-191
4-127 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-191
4-128 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-192
Menomonee River
4-129 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Middle Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-12) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-192
Little Menomonee Creek (Assessment Point MN-10)
4-130 Land Use in the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) ............. 4-194
4-131 Civil Division in the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) ...... 4-196
4-132 Baseline Water Quality for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-10) ....................................................................................................................... 4-201
4-133 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-202
4-134 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-202
4-135 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-203
4-136 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN10) ................................................................................................................................ 4-205
4-137 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-206
4-138 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-206
4-139 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-10) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-207
Little Menomonee River (Assessment Point MN-11)
4-140 Land Use in the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) .............. 4-209
4-141 Civil Divisions in the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) ..... 4-211
4-142 Baseline Water Quality for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) ....................................................................................................................... 4-216
4-143 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-217
4-144 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-217
4-145 Baseline Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit /
Acre / Year).................................................................................................................. 4-218
4-146 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-218
4-147 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-219
xi
Menomonee River
4-148 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-219
4-149 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN11) ................................................................................................................................ 4-221
4-150 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-222
4-151 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-222
4-152 Year 2020 Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area (MN-11) (Unit
/ Acre / Year) ............................................................................................................... 4-223
4-153 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-223
4-154 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-224
4-155 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Little Menomonee River Assessment Point Area
(MN-11) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-224
Underwood Creek Area (Assessment Points MN-13 and MN-14)
4-156 Land Use in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) ........................ 4-226
4-157 Civil Divisions in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) ............... 4-228
4-158 Baseline Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-13) ....................................................................................................................... 4-233
4-159 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-234
4-160 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-234
4-161 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-235
4-162 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-13) ....................................................................................................................... 4-237
4-163 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-238
4-164 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-238
4-165 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-13) (Unit / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-239
4-166 Land Use in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) ........................ 4-241
4-167 Civil Divisions in the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) ............... 4-243
xii
Menomonee River
4-168 Baseline Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-14) ....................................................................................................................... 4-248
4-169 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-249
4-170 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-249
4-171 Baseline Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-250
4-172 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-250
4-173 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-251
4-174 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-251
4-175 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area
(MN-14) ....................................................................................................................... 4-253
4-176 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-254
4-177 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-254
4-178 Year 2020 Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14) (Unit / Acre
/ Year) .......................................................................................................................... 4-255
4-179 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Year) ................................................................................................................. 4-255
4-180 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Percent) ....................................................................................................................... 4-256
4-181 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Underwood Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-14)
(Unit / Acre / Year) ...................................................................................................... 4-256
Menomonee River Lower Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-15 and MN-17)
4-182 Land Use in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) ....................................................................................................................... 4-258
4-183 Civil Divisions in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) ................................................................................................................................ 4-260
4-184 Baseline Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-15) .............................................................................................................. 4-265
4-185 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) (Unit / Year)........................................................................................................... 4-266
xiii
Menomonee River
4-186 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) (Percent)................................................................................................................. 4-266
4-187 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN15) (Unit / Acre / Year) ................................................................................................ 4-267
4-188 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-267
4-189 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-268
4-190 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-268
4-191 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-15) .............................................................................................................. 4-270
4-192 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-271
4-193 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-271
4-194 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-15) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-272
4-195 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-272
4-196 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-273
4-197 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-15) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-273
4-198 Land Use in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) ....................................................................................................................... 4-275
4-199 Civil Division in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) ................................................................................................................................ 4-277
4-200 Baseline Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-17) .............................................................................................................. 4-283
4-201 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) (Unit / Year)........................................................................................................... 4-289
4-202 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) (Percent)................................................................................................................. 4-289
4-203 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN17) (Unit / Acre / Year) ................................................................................................ 4-290
4-204 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-290
xiv
Menomonee River
4-205 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-291
4-206 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-291
4-207 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-17) .............................................................................................................. 4-293
4-208 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-294
4-209 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-294
4-210 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-17) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-295
4-211 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-295
4-212 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-296
4-213 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-17) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-296
Honey Creek (Assessment Point MN-16)
4-214 Land Use in the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ................................ 4-298
4-215 Civil Divisions in the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ....................... 4-300
4-216 Baseline Water Quality for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ......... 4-305
4-217 Baseline Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit / Year) 4-310
4-218 Baseline Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Percent) ...... 4-310
4-219 Baseline Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-311
4-220 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) ...... 4-313
4-221 Year 2020 Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-314
4-222 Year 2020 Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Percent) ... 4-314
4-223 Year 2020 Loads for the Honey Creek Assessment Point Area (MN-16) (Unit / Acre /
Year) ............................................................................................................................ 4-315
4-224 Land Use in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) ....................................................................................................................... 4-317
4-225 Civil Divisions in the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) ................................................................................................................................ 4-319
xv
Menomonee River
4-226 Baseline Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-18) .............................................................................................................. 4-324
4-227 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) (Unit / Year)........................................................................................................... 4-325
4-228 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) (Percent)................................................................................................................. 4-325
4-229 Baseline Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area (MN18) (Unit / Acre / Year) ............................................................................................... 4-326
4-230 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Year) ............................................................................... 4-326
4-231 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-327
4-232 Baseline Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-327
4-233 Year 2020 Water Quality for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point
Area (MN-18) .............................................................................................................. 4-329
4-234 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) (Unit / Year) ................................................................................................. 4-330
4-235 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) (Percent) ....................................................................................................... 4-330
4-236 Year 2020 Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment Point Area
(MN-18) (Unit / Acre / Year)....................................................................................... 4-331
4-237 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Acre) ............................................................................... 4-331
4-238 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Percent) ..................................................................................... 4-332
4-239 Year 2020 Cumulative Loads for the Lower Menomonee River Mainstem Assessment
Point Area (MN-18) (Unit / Acre / Year) .................................................................... 4-332
Figures
4-1
Habitat Assessment Point Areas within the Menomonee Watershed .............................. 4-3
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
xvi
Menomonee River
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-28
4-29
4-30
4-31
4-32
4-33
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-37
4-38
4-39
4-40
xvii
Menomonee River
4-41
4-42
4-43
4-44
4-45
4-46
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-50
4-51
4-52
4-53
4-54
4-55
4-56
4-57
4-58
4-59
4-60
4-61
4-62
4-63
4-64
4-65
4-66
4-67
4-68
4-69
4-70
4-71
4-72
xviii
Menomonee River
4-73
4-74
4-75
4-76
4-77
4-78
4-79
4-80
4-81
4-82
4-83
4-84
4-85
4-86
4-87
4-88
4-89
4-90
4-91
4-92
4-93
4-94
4-95
Appendices
4A
Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee
River Watersheds: 2000-2009
4B
4C
Fact Sheets
4D
xix
Menomonee River
5.2
5.3
5.3.2
5.4
5.5
5.6
Tables
5-1
Summary of Existing Regulatory Management Strategies (FPOPS) to Achieve Goals .... 5-6
A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Widespread Aquatic Toxicity and Water Quality Impacts on
Local, Regional, and National Scales
5B
SWWT Membership
5C
xx
Menomonee River
6.2
Expected Load Reductions from the Regional Water Quality Management Plan
Update .............................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
6.3
6.4
Water Quality Improvements Estimated with the Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update .................................................................................................................... 6-20
6.5
Tables
6-1
xxi
Menomonee River
7.2
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.3
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7.2.4
7.2.5
Tables
7-1
xxii
Menomonee River
8.2
8.3
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.2.3
New Actions - How to Begin the Process (Implementation Measures) ......... 8-29
8.2.4
8.3.2
8.3.3
8.3.4
8.3.5
8.3.6
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.5.3
8.5.4
8.5.5
Tables
8-1
xxiii
Menomonee River
Figures
8-1 WRP Action Plan for new Actions/Projects ..................................................................... 8-33
Appendices
8A Appendix U: Potential Funding Programs to Implement Plan Recommendations. A
Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds
(SEWRPC, 2007)
8B
8C
xxiv
Menomonee River
USEPA, Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/pdf/ch02.pdf, EPA 841-B-08-002 (March 2008)
1-1
Menomonee River
1-2
Menomonee River
1-3
Menomonee River
publics understanding of and connection to the Menomonee River watershed and will assist
with implementation.
6) Implementation schedule
Chapter 7: Additional Management Strategies and Identification of Priority Actions
addresses the schedule element. To enhance stakeholder understanding and the potential for
improved water quality and habitat, this WRP distills future actions into priority action
tables for each focus area. The chapter also presents a foundation action table that lists the
predecessor actions that should be implemented to realize the full potential of subsequent
actions. Chapter 7s tables suggest actions that should be implemented over the next five
years to continue improving water quality within the Menomonee River watershed. Chapter
8: Implementation Strategy also directly speaks to the schedule element. Chapter 8 presents
an overview of this WRPs implementation process and includes timeframes for actions.
7) Description of interim, measureable milestones
This element is primarily concerned with measuring implementation. Measures of
effectiveness and benefits to water quality are primarily addressed in element 8 below. This
milestone element is addressed primarily in Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy. Chapter
8 contains discussion of action plan steps and implementation measures that are required for
actions, including actions that have been initiated and those that are planned. Chapter 7:
Additional Management Strategies and Identification of Priority Actions also addresses this
element. Chapter 7 presents a discussion of the watershed planning process and interim
milestones, referred to as targets in this WRP.
8) Description of criteria to determine whether load reductions are achieved
The criteria element is discussed in multiple chapters. Chapter 4: Characterize the
Watershed utilizes projections of population and land use as well as management strategies
to estimate future loads. Based on future loads, Chapter 6: Estimate the Load Reductions
and Other Benefits from Management Measures estimates future water quality throughout
the Menomonee River watershed. In terms of habitat improvements, Chapter 3: Building
Partnerships presents a comprehensive discussion of the stakeholders criteria for
improvements to habitat within the watershed. Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy
incorporates discussions of criteria within the context of post implementation monitoring
including adaptive management, success measurement, implementation and effectiveness
monitoring as well as progress evaluation and recalibration
9) Monitoring component to evaluate effectiveness of implementation
The monitoring element is addressed in Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy. In addition to
summarizing the status of all of the various water quality and habitat-based actions that have
been recently completed, are underway, initiated or are planned or recommended, Chapter 8
of this WRP also includes discussions of post-implementation monitoring and progress
evaluation and refinement.
In summary, this WRP uses the watershed planning process found in the federal program
guidance for Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and the specific recommended actions are
based upon those recommended in the RWQMPU. This WRP is intended to be a flexible
1-4
Menomonee River
1.3.1 Key Focus Areas Identified During the Watershed Restoration Plan Planning
Process
Through the stakeholder input of the SWWT, three major focus areas emerged for this WRP:
bacteria/public health, habitat, and nutrients/phosphorous. These focus areas reflect the linkage
between water quality parameters and water usage in the Menomonee River watershed.
a. Bacteria/Public Health
Fecal coliform bacteria are an indicator of pathogens, or microscopic organisms that can make
people sick. The WAT and the Science Committee agreed that public health should be a top
priority of this WRP. High levels of fecal coliform are more of a concern during warm
weather months because that is when people contact the water in the stream the most. One of
the biggest concerns in the Menomonee River watershed is the unknown sources of fecal
coliform.
b. Habitat/Aesthetics
The WAT and Science Committee stressed that habitat issues include physical features as
well as water quality components. Physical features, such as concrete-lined channels and
restoration of watersheds with buffers are important, but the consensus was that this WRP
should consider a wide range of habitat-based parameters. This WRP acknowledges that
aesthetic improvement does not always relate directly to water quality or habitat
improvement, but in many cases they are linked. The major habitat considerations are
summarized below:
Manmade channels/concrete channels - The WAT and Science Committee suggested
that concrete linings be removed and stream channels be naturalized (including specific
reaches). Other suggestions include removing streams from enclosed conduit (stream
daylighting) and re-introduction of stream meanders. While daylighting streams and
introducing meanders would immediately improve habitat along the stream, potential
impacts to public safety and flooding need to be considered.
In-stream conditions - The WAT and Science Committee made suggestions regarding
improvements to in-stream conditions. Note that at the request of the SWWT Science
Committee, SEWRPC staff assessed habitat conditions and provided recommendations to
address habitat issues of concern from the perspective of both the land-based and instream-based conditions, and were distinguished as such. For a complete summary of
biological and habitat conditions from year 2000 to 2009 as well as the recommended
prioritization strategy and priority actions see Appendix 4A (SEWRPC MR-194).
Examples of the habitat-based considerations include the following:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Free of trash
Increase pools and riffles
Decrease flashiness and thermal discharges
1-5
Menomonee River
No fish advisories
Reduce unnatural solids in streambed and improve clarity of water
Less salt
Seawalls/fish condos look at the lower portion of the Menomonee River to
create habitat
Plant wild rice in the Burnham Canal (Milwaukee Riverkeeper is undertaking a
pilot project)
Restore original meanders upstream of 115th Street
No fecal coliforms
Increase levels of DO
Decrease nutrient loads
Remove invasive species
Clean up Superfund sites such as Little Menomonee River
Riparian areas The lands adjacent to the Menomonee River stream banks protect and
buffer the stream from pollutants. To maximize their protective benefits, the WAT
suggested that riparian areas be kept vegetated. Natural vegetation should be managed to
enhance biological diversity and support recreational use needs. Riparian areas should be
expanded to a minimum of 75 feet and structures should be removed from riparian areas
that are located within the floodplain. Other WAT suggestions for improving riparian
areas along the Menomonee River include the following:
Construct and restore wetlands
Improve public access to river (indirect improvement through increased
recreational use and awareness of the river)
Remove invasive species and improve diversity
Reduce or eliminate nutrient inputs from manure spreading in rural areas
In-stream and riparian areas:
For projects, start at the headwaters and work progressively downstream
More aquatic life diversity, plants and animals that would use the waters in a safe
manner
c. Nutrients/Phosphorus
In-stream phosphorus concentrations vary throughout the Menomonee 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.
1.3.2 Baseline Year 2000 Conditions
The characterization of the Baseline Year 2000 conditions within the Menomonee River
watershed was a crucial step in this WRP planning process. A large amount of data was
1-6
Menomonee River
compiled for each of the 18 assessment point areas included in the watershed (see Chapter 4). A
few important planning considerations emerged from the analysis of the baseline data:
The watershed contains rural and highly developed urban areas, which will be a critical
consideration during implementation.
Analysis of the baseline loading data revealed the importance of identifying unknown
sources of fecal coliform bacteria within the watershed.
The baseline characterization also highlighted the predominant role of nonpoint sources
with respect to nutrient loading. However, the analysis also revealed the need to
consider non-contact cooling water and the role of phosphorus compounds in drinking
water when identifying priority actions to curb nutrient loading.
Habitat conditions vary among assessment point areas throughout the watershed. This
WRPs identification of critical habitat impairments helps prioritize actions to improve
habitat within the watershed.
1.3.3 Management Strategies to Achieve Goals
This WRP sought to identify management strategies that could be developed to reduce the loads
in a cost effective manner to achieve the goals identified for the three focus areas. The approach
to reduce pollutant loads in the Menomonee River watershed is predicated on the assumption that
the existing regulations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be implemented (see
Table 5-1 in Chapter 5 for an accounting of existing regulations; examples include Point Source
Control, Combined Sewer Overflow/Separate Sewer Overflow (CSO/SSO) Reduction Program,
and Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management (non-Ag only). In other
words, the analysis assumes the recommended management strategies used to meet these
regulations, identified in the 2020 Facilities Plan and SEWRPCs RWQMPU, are in place.
These regulatory management strategies would then be the foundation on which new
management strategies are added to achieve the desired goals.
This WRP partitions these management strategies, comprised of facilities, policies, operational
improvements, and programs into three categories:
Existing regulatory management strategies (See Chapter 5, Table 5-1)
Other management strategies in various stages of implementation (See Chapter 5, Table
5-2)
Management strategies recommended for implementation by the RWQMPU, but not yet
implemented (See Chapter 5, Table 5-3)
The existing regulatory management strategies identified in Table 5-1 as well as the management
strategies in various stages of implementation generally address water quality. A number of
strategies to improve habitat and further improve water quality are either in the process of being
implemented (Table 5-2) or are yet to be implemented (Table 5-3).
1.3.4 Expected Benefits
Chapter 6 addresses the expected load reductions and improvements to habitat as well as
estimates future impacts to water quality. Analysis of loading data estimates are summarized in
1-7
Menomonee River
the following bullets. These bullets present cumulative load reductions from the major
components of the RWQMPU:
Total phosphorus and BOD loads decrease from Baseline Year 2000 to the Year 2020
with planned growth condition whereas TSS and fecal coliform loads slightly increase.
Implementation of Wis. Admin. Code NR 151 Runoff Management (non-Agriculture
[Ag] only), recommended in the RWQMPU, results in an 11% decrease in TP loads, a
24% decrease in TSS loads, a 14% decrease in BOD loads, and an 18% decrease in fecal
coliform loads, relative to the Year 2020 with planned growth condition.
Building on the load reductions due to NR 151 (non-Ag only), the implementation of the
Point Source Plan, as called for under the RWQMPU, results in additional load
reductions of 1% for TP, 0.3% for TSS, 1% for BOD, and 3% for fecal coliform, relative
to the Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) condition.
Building on the load reductions due to NR 151 (non-Ag only) and the Point Source Plan,
implementation of the remaining measures in the recommended RWQMPU results in
additional load reductions of 4% for TP, 2% for TSS and BOD, and 29% for fecal
coliform relative to the Year 2020 with NR 151 (non-Ag only) and Point Source Plan (5Year LOP) conditions.
The expected load reductions for the Menomonee River watershed were estimated from the
modeling that was completed in support of the 2020 FP, the RWQMPU, and this 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 from the RWQMPU that were then incorporated into this WRP as
actions. However, several management measures included in this WRP were not included in the
model runs (e.g. the statewide ban on phosphorus in fertilizers). It is therefore possible that load
reductions greater than those modeled for the RWQMPU could eventually be realized.
Despite significant projected load reductions, water quality modeling presented in Chapter 6
indicates that modeled year 2020 water quality assessments or scores generally show minor
improvements or no change, although in some instances, water quality exhibits minor
deterioration. Reduced loading does not necessarily directly translate to an improved water
quality score because, in some cases, the baseline water quality is considerably degraded. This
occurs because the scores are based on the percentage of time that compliance with standards is
met. Reduced loading will improve water quality, but if compliance with water quality standard
is still only met 70% of the time, the water quality will still be scored as poor. The most
pronounced change to the assessment of year 2020 water quality within the Menomonee River
watershed is the improved score for TSS within about half of the assessment point areas.
1.3.5 Prioritization of Actions
The three focus areas determined by the SWWTs Science Committee included bacteria/public
health, habitat and aesthetics, and nutrients/phosphorus. The technical team analyzed the
potential benefits and developed a list of high priority actions specifically targeted toward the
three focus areas. The recommended high priority actions are summarized in the following
section, which includes excerpts from Table 7-5 Foundation Actions.
1-8
Menomonee River
a. Public Health
The SWWT committees identified protection of human health as the most important water
quality goal of this WRP. Reducing bacterial loads is a critical element because many locations
in the Menomonee River watershed frequently do not meet existing bacterial water quality
criteria, which means there is a greater risk of getting sick when contacting the water. In
addition to swift and comprehensive action to address significant sources of bacterial loading,
this WRP endorses the enhancement of safe recreation within the Menomonee River. Table 1-1
presents the Menomonee River WRPs foundation actions to improve and address public health
with respect to water quality in the Menomonee River watershed. Foundation actions are a
subset of the priority actions identified in Chapter 7. These actions are considered to be
predecessor actions to be completed first in order to realize the full benefit of the other actions
identified in this WRP.
1-9
Menomonee River
TABLE 1-1
PUBLIC HEALTH TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets to be
Accomplished by 2015
Foundation Actions
1a. Conduct dry weather surveys to identify outfalls
that have dry weather flows
1-10
Menomonee River
1-11
Menomonee River
TABLE 1-2
HABITAT AND AESTHETICS TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets
Foundation Actions
1a. Evaluate existing road salt reduction programs
Land-based
In-stream based
1. Restore fish and aquatic organism
passage from Lake Michigan to the
headwaters and tributaries (i.e. Follow 3Tiered Prioritization Strategy as outlined in
Appendix 4A)
1-12
Menomonee River
that fish passage restoration efforts are expanded to upstream tributaries. This WRP is also
responsive to the need to restore connectivity with adjacent floodplains and the restoration of
more natural hydrology by re-creating more meandering stream courses.
c. Nutrients
Phosphorus loading to Lake Michigan (and to a lesser extent within the Menomonee River
watershed) has also been identified as a priority issue to be addressed by this WRP, and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is in the process of developing water
quality standards for phosphorus. The most significant sources of phosphorus are believed to be
from non-contact cooling water discharges and urban stormwater runoff. Table 1-3 presents the
specific nutrient-related Foundation actions that are recommended by this WRP:
TABLE 1-3
NUTRIENTS TARGETS AND FOUNDATION ACTIONS
Watershed Targets
Foundation Actions
1a. Continue adaptive implementation of overflow
control program
1-13
Menomonee River
Menomonee River watershed. Although this WRP does not identify or prioritize specific actions
to address these other pollutants, several of the recommended actions identified to address the
three focus areas would result in coincident loading reductions of the other pollutants. For
example, the expansion of riparian buffers to improve habitat and increase phosphorus removal
from stormwater would also simultaneously lead to some reductions in nitrogen loadings. More
specific actions to address PCBs, PAHs, nitrogen, copper, and PPCPs will be identified when
future updates of this WRP are developed.
1.3.7 Implementation and Monitoring
Chapter 8: Implementation Strategy is the final chapter of this WRP. This chapter addresses the
implementation of the various actions identified in Chapter 7. This WRP stresses the importance
of addressing funding issues and sources (see Appendix 8A) as well as post implementation
monitoring. Follow-up monitoring recommendations are also included in this WRP because
additional data will be needed to fulfill three primary objectives: (1) obtain additional data to
address information gaps and uncertainty in the current analysis, (2) ensure that the identified
management actions are undertaken, and (3) ensure that actions are having the desired effect.
Implementation activities will then be adjusted based on this new information through the use of
an adaptive management framework to be coordinated by the SWWT.
1.3.8 Policy Issues
Policy issues need to be addressed as projects are considered for implementation. The following
issues compose the initial list to be considered:
Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development: Evaluation should include the timing
of any TMDLs, leadership of the TMDLs in terms of regulatory agencies
(WDNR/USEPA) versus third party (led by public agencies such as the MMSD) and
the exact format of the TMDLs (i.e., which pollutants and which portions of the
watershed). An additional potential issue is the regulatory relationship between NR 151
and TMDLs, as noted in Chapter 2 of this WRP.
Consideration of watershed permits: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are
summarized in the document White Paper/Analysis for Watershed-based Permitting
Primer found in Appendix 8B.
Water quality trading: The issues to be addressed regarding this topic are summarized in
Appendix 8C.
NR 151 implementation: The regulatory and financial issues regarding implementation
of NR 151 may influence the effectiveness 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 phosphorous to the watershed is not
currently the focus of any scientific 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.
1-14
Menomonee River
Chapter 2: Introduction
2.1
The primary purpose of this Menomonee River Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP) is to develop
an adaptive plan with stakeholders that works towards cost-effective water quality and habitat
improvement in the watershed. Recognizing the need to work towards meeting water quality
standards and that stakeholders would like to see improvements (particularly to habitat) that may
go beyond meeting water quality standards, the WRP provides specific actions that can be
implemented in the short term (three to five years) and lays out a more general plan for the long
term to meet these objectives.
The WRP used the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) as the stakeholder
group for development of the plan and will use the SWWT as the vehicle for the plans
implementation.
2.2
2.2.1 The Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update and the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage Districts 2020 Facilities Planning Process (2002-2007)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys (USEPA) watershed approach to facilities planning
has been completed in southeastern Wisconsin by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) in partnership with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC), the regions 208 planning agency. This combined, innovative planning project
called the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) consisted of the MMSDs 2020 Facilities Plan
(2020 FP) and SEWRPCs Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU). The
2020 FP component of the WQI was completed and approved by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) in 2007 and concluded the following:
1) Nonpoint pollution (i.e., stormwater runoff) is the largest source of fecal coliform
bacteria, a primary pollutant of concern; however, it should be noted that a significant
fraction of the nonpoint bacteria load could be coming from failing (exfiltrating) sanitary
sewers or potentially illicit sanitary connections. The annual bacteria load percentages by
source category to the six greater Milwaukee watersheds (GMW) are shown in Figure 21.
2) Eliminating the combined sewer overflows (CSOs) that occur two to three times per year
and the very infrequent sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) that still may occur during
extreme wet weather conditions accompanied by widespread flooding will result in little
or no water quality improvement on an annual basis.
3) Significant improvements to water quality can only be achieved through regional
implementation of extensive measures to reduce pollution from nonpoint sources.
4) The MMSDs primary focus of the 2020 FP must be to develop a recommended plan that
meets the regulatory requirements regarding MMSDs point sources.
5) Recommendations for nonpoint control measures are presented in the RWQMPU because
MMSD lacks authority to implement regional nonpoint control measures.
2-1
Menomonee River
Rural
Nonpoint
Stormw ater
2%
Industrial
< 0.1%
SSOs
4%
CSOs
10%
Urban
Nonpoint
Stormw ater
84%
2-2
Menomonee River
Note that this figure shows an organization called the Milwaukee Regional Partnership Initiative. This
has been renamed the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.
FIGURE 2-2: WHAT PATHWAYS EXIST FOR PROGRESS?
The USEPA encourages and supports watershed area planning intended to achieve needed water
quality improvements in the most cost effective manner. The RWQMPU recommends a holistic
set of pollution abatement actions that will ultimately lead to significantly improved water
quality in the GMW. These actions will address regulatory goals in terms of water quality
improvement and must be implemented by a variety of governmental agencies and individual
property owners. The question for the Milwaukee area was how to start this process?
2.3
2.3.1
A workshop on Integrated Watershed Implementation Planning was held in March 2007 and
was attended by the USEPA, WDNR, SEWRPC, MMSD and technical consultant staff, and
other local and national leaders in watershed planning. The purpose was to form the foundation
for the watershed implementation plan and, more specifically, consider the next steps for water
quality improvement in the Milwaukee area. The agenda for this meeting is shown in Appendix
2A.
2-3
Menomonee River
Input received at the workshop was intended to result in the formation of a technically- and
socially-feasible integrated watershed implementation plan that has the support of key
stakeholders, employing innovative implementation approaches (e.g., water quality trading,
watershed-based permitting, phased total maximum daily loads (TMDL)s, wet weather water
quality standards) intended to effectively and efficiently attain water quality standards in the
GMW. As a result of this workshop and many subsequent meetings in 2007, the MMSD,
working in concert with the USEPA and the WDNR, considered the initiation of a third party
TMDL effort.
The drivers for the third party TMDL were that the WDNR was not planning to initiate any
TMDL work in the GMW for many years and the implementation of Wis. Admin. Code Natural
Resources (NR) 151 Runoff Management, a state of Wisconsin nonpoint pollution regulation
with compliance deadlines in 2008 and 2013. An additional concern was that the water quality
improvement efforts begun under the WQI should continue given the work already accomplished
and the momentum established in the community. This momentum was exemplified by the
formation of a new collaborative organization, the Southeast Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc.,
in the spring of 2008.
2.3.2 Third Party Total Maximum Daily Loads and NR 151
In October 2007, the MMSD Commission approved a contract with the 2020 FP technical team
to conduct third party TMDLs for the major watersheds in Milwaukee the Milwaukee River,
Menomonee River, Kinnickinnic River and Estuary/Lake Michigan watersheds.
Once this effort was approved, preliminary negotiations began with the WDNR staff to enlist
their input into the process and to begin technical discussions on the existing 303(d) listed
pollutants and other matters (see the WDNRs website for more information on impaired waters
and the 303(d) list).1 In other words, the MMSD, its technical team and the WDNR began in
depth technical discussions regarding the scope of the third party TMDL.
Typically, a TMDL is the framework for assessing load allocations in a watershed and is one of
the first steps in identifying the actions needed in a watershed to meet applicable water quality
standards. In the case of the GMW, the states regulatory program, which is based on
performance standards contained in Wis. Admin. Code NR 151 Runoff Management, has already
been implemented. The performance standards contained in NR 151 require permitted
municipalities with separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) to reduce total suspended solids (TSS)
loads by 20% by 2008 and 40% by 2013 from areas of existing development. New development
must implement stormwater management practices to reduce the TSS load from the site by 80%.
Technical standards have been developed by the state to implement the prescribed performance
standards. Other provisions of the regulations prescribe performance standards and prohibitions
for agricultural facilities and agricultural practices that are nonpoint sources and require
implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) when and if the Wisconsin
legislature provides funding for these facilities.
The MMSD and its technical team discussed with the WDNR the relationship between the third
party TMDL effort and the NR 151 regulatory requirements, which are essentially technologybased requirements. Discussions between the MMSD and the WDNR regarding application of
1
WDNR, 2008 Methodology for Placing Waters on the Impaired Waters List (last revised February 17, 2008),
http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/water/wm/wqs/303d/2008/2008methodology.htm
2-4
Menomonee River
NR 151 requirements independent of TMDL findings changed the course and form of the GMW
TMDL program.
2.3.3
The discussion between the MMSDs technical team and the WDNR related to some
fundamental assumptions of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). Specifically, the MMSDs
technical team and the WDNR analyzed the relative merits of building nonpoint/stormwater
water quality improvement actions from the top down using a uniform technology program,
or from the bottom up starting with existing water quality data and building programs
specifically to meet water quality objectives. The similarity between the NR 151 regulatory
requirement and the CWA is that the application of a uniform technology program is
fundamentally assumed to be the minimum effort needed to meet water quality standards.
Additional water quality improvement effort was assumed to be required when this minimum
initial activity based upon uniform technology application did not result in meeting water quality
standards. The original CWA envisioned that nonpoint/stormwater improvement would be based
solely on water quality, not on uniform, minimum technology requirements. As outlined in a
recent publication from the University of Texas:2
TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load and is the maximum amount of a pollutant
that a water body can receive from all of its sources and still meet water quality
standards set by the state for designated uses. Though TMDLs have only recently been
thrust into the spotlight, they are not a new idea. The TMDL program is simply the
enforcement of rules provided in the Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA). Sections 303 (a),
303 (b), and 303 (c) of the CWA mandate that states develop water quality standards for
water bodies within their boundaries based on the designated uses of these water bodies.
These sections also provide guidelines for development and review of these standards.
The provisions in the CWA that called for non-point source pollution control and TMDLs
were largely ignored for 20 years following the passage of the CWA partly due to our
lack of knowledge concerning non-point source pollution and its control. Instead, efforts
to control water pollution were focused on implementing best available technology to
clean up point-source pollution.
Many challenges exist in the implementation of the TMDL program. Non-point source
pollution, which is basically stormwater runoff that has been polluted by land use, is still
not well understood. It is difficult to quantify loadings produced by non-point source
pollution and to predict the water quality responses of water bodies due to these
loadings. Also, the connection of non-point source pollution to land use means that it
must be controlled through land use practices, or the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). For the same reasons we do not understand non-point
source pollution, we do not fully understand the effectiveness of BMPs. Furthermore,
many landowners are affected by the TMDL program and must be involved in the
planning process. Considering that 21,000 water bodies were reported that did not meet
water quality standards, and that the resources of most state environmental agencies are
limited, the challenges facing the TMDL program are obviously substantial.
2
Lee C. Sherman, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Effects on Land Use Planning, CE 385D Water
Resources Planning and Management University of Texas at Austin (May 5, 2001)
2-5
Menomonee River
Pathway Decision
Based on the results of the WQI planning project, the MMSDs technical team thought that there
was a possibility that the outcome of the third party TMDL may result in a different technology
plan and a different water quality improvement than the NR 151 performance standards. The
technical team understood the WDNRs assertion that the TMDL could result in additional
requirements over and above NR 151. The technical team suggested using scientific analysis to
2-6
Menomonee River
contribute to a bottom up approach. The technical team based its idea on the analysis of
existing water quality data in the watersheds studied during the WQI planning project. Also, the
detailed water quality models developed during the WQI planning project were used to assess the
impact of NR 151 on water quality. Two model runs were developed using identical
assumptions except one model run assumed full implementation (urban measures only) of NR
151, and the second run assumed no implementation of NR 151.
A further concern existed regarding the lack of a water quality standard for TSS in Wisconsin.
The closest proxy that can be found is the United States Geological Service (USGS) reference
concentration for TSS. This estimate was used by the WDNR as the basis for TSS TMDLs in
other parts of the state. The reference concentration for TSS, based upon the USGS analysis of
watersheds in the southeastern part of Wisconsin, was expressed as a median concentration of
17.2 mg/l.3 The existing year 2000 model run, as summarized in SEWRPCs RWQMPU,
showed the following with regard to the existing condition model output:4
The RWQMPU water quality simulation model looked at 18 assessment points in the
Menomonee River watershed. None of the assessment points had median TSS
concentrations that exceeded the USGS reference concentration TSS level of 17.2 mg/l.
The average of all the medians was 6.9 mg/l TSS and the median values ranged from 4.6
to 11.2 mg/l TSS. The means averaged 14.5 mg/l TSS with a range from 7.9 to 24.7
mg/l TSS.
One significant result of these water quality model runs was that the TSS concentrations
in the Menomonee River watershed under existing conditions were below the USGS
reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l TSS as a median value. Appendix N of the
RWQMPU also shows other water quality parameters studied, as well as the RWQMPU
revised year 2020 baseline, the revised baseline with the MMSD action of a five-year
level of protection (LOP) for SSOs, and the two RWQMPU conditions one, the
conditions of the recommended plan and two, the extreme measures condition. This
analysis shows that even with the extreme measures condition (implementation of
many water quality improvement actions above and beyond NR 151 requirements), the
concentration of TSS is not materially changed.
The data on the existing water quality runs as well as the revised 2020 baseline with and
without NR 151 are shown in Appendix 2B. The model runs shown are only for the
MMSD assessment points, which are a subset of the RWQMPU assessment points and
consist of five assessment points in the Menomonee River. Table 2-1 shows the results
of the model run on TSS "with" NR 151 and "without" NR 151.
Note: To maintain consistency with the RWQMPU, referenced above, the preceding sections use
existing to describe year 2000 data. Elsewhere in this WRP, the term baseline is used to
indicate year 2000 pollutant loading and water quality data.
USGS, Present and Reference Concentrations and Yields of Suspended Sediment in Streams in the Great Lakes
Region and Adjacent Areas, Scientific Investigations Report 20065066 (2006)
4
SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning
Report No. 50, Appendix N, Water Quality Summary Statistics for the Recommended Plan Tables (December 5,
2007)
2-7
Menomonee River
TABLE 2-1
IMPACT OF NR 151 ON MODELED TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS FOR THE MENOMONEE RIVER
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-16
RI-21
RI-22
RI-09
RI-10
Measure
Units / Criteria
Revised
2020
Baseline
(No NR
151)
Revised
2020
Baseline
(W/ NR
151)
Difference
NR 151
Impact
-0.2
-0.3
-2.8%
-2.6%
Median
Mean
mg / L
mg / L
6.0
10.1
5.8
9.9
TSS Guideline
360
361
0.2%
Median
Mean
mg / L
mg / L
5.8
14.2
5.1
12.9
-0.7
-1.3
-11.7%
-9.1%
TSS Guideline
351
353
0.6%
Median
Mean
mg / L
mg / L
5.1
12.1
4.4
10.9
-0.7
-1.2
-13.6%
-9.8%
TSS Guideline
355
356
0.4%
Median
Mean
mg / L
mg / L
5.8
14.3
4.9
13.2
-0.8
-1.1
-14.7%
-8.0%
TSS Guideline
350
351
0.4%
Median
Mean
mg / L
mg / L
5.5
14.2
4.8
13.1
-0.7
-1.1
-12.7%
-7.5%
TSS Guideline
350
351
0.3%
Notes:
The no NR 151 data column is the revised 2020 baseline without simulated NR 151 impact, while the next column revised 2020
baseline is the same condition with NR 151 simulated impact.
The TSS guideline was developed in the WQI as a measure to assess how many days the watersheds met the guideline to allow
for comparison of alternatives since no TSS water quality standard exists.
The data show that NR 151 does improve TSS concentrations in a range from about 2% to 15%
in the Menomonee River watershed, but the median TSS concentrations are already well below
the reference concentration of 17.2 mg/l.
The impact of NR 151 on fecal coliform levels, as shown in Appendix 2B data, is insignificant as
the improvement in the percent of time the standard is met in the typical year is no greater than
1% at any of the assessment points in the Menomonee River watershed. The most frequently
exceeded water quality parameter analyzed for the WQI in the GMW was compliance with the
existing fecal coliform water quality standards. Thus, based upon the data produced in the
RWQMPU, the imposition of NR 151 will have essentially no impact on fecal coliform
compliance. Information regarding fecal coliform pollution and actions that can help address it
are provided in Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Given this complex situation, including the fact that the WDNR was in the process of evaluating
the NR 151 regulation and that the timetable for implementation of the regulation may be
lengthened, the MMSD and the technical team decided to pursue a different path for the
development of the detailed implementation plan for the WQI. This path, illustrated in Figure 23, was to develop a WRP instead of a third party TMDL.
2-8
Menomonee River
This effort was based upon the nine elements of the CWA section 319 guidelines for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters.5 The effort mirrors the TMDL
concept, but did not result in an actual TMDL or have the regulatory impact of a TMDL. This
effort began in July 2008.
The MMSD chose this route for the following reasons:
The steps are basically the same whether doing a TMDL or a plan that follows the CWA
section 319 guidelines (section 319 plan).
Many grant programs exist to facilitate the development of a section 319 plan.
A section 319 plan produces estimates of load reductions and end points similar to what a
TMDL would produce.
The work product of a section 319 plan can eventually be revised and used as the basis
for a TMDL.
These plans do not have the regulatory impact of a TMDL; thus, they offer different
pathways to get to watershed permits, trading, etc.
Finally, the WDNR has already developed an innovative approach to watershed planning
that does not require a TMDL called an Environmental Accountability Project (EAP).
Although an EAP is not a viable option for the Menomonee River watershed because of
the complex water quality issues being addressed, it is an example of watershed planning
that does not require a TMDL. Similar to the idea behind the development of the WRP,
the WDNR and USEPA Region 5 have developed this approach, which avoids the need
for a TMDL and the listing of stream segments on the state 303(d) list and affords the
ability to use the EAP as the route to a watershed permit and eventually watershed-based
trading.
USEPA, Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/, EPA 841-B-08-002 (March 2008)
2-9
Menomonee River
SWWT
FIGURE 2-3: FRAMEWORK FOR THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
The development of a WRP that is based on a USEPA 319 plan has the benefit of allowing the
plan to focus on bottom up planning while incorporating the water quality improvement
benefits of a top down plan. In other words, the development of this type of WRP used water
quality data and science to specifically target the water quality-based needs of the Menomonee
River watershed, but also incorporated the impacts of the top down implementation of uniform
technology programs such as the NR 151 regulation. This type of plan not only realizes the
water quality benefits of both types of planning approaches, it also addresses the concerns of a
wide range of stakeholders, including communities, citizen groups, WDNR, USEPA, SEWRPC,
and MMSD.
2.5
2.5.1
Overview
This WRP represents the next step in the implementation of a science-based watershed
improvement effort. This second-level planning effort builds upon the sound science, extensive
data, and alternatives analysis of the WQI. The result of this work effort is this adaptive, phased
WRP for the Menomonee River watershed. This WRP contains the following:
The characterization of the baseline conditions within the Menomonee River watershed
highlighting a few important planning considerations, including the following:
2-10
Menomonee River
The watershed contains diverse land uses that range from rural land uses to
highly developed urban areas a critical consideration during implementation.
Habitat conditions vary among assessment point areas throughout the watershed.
The critical habitat impairments identified herein help prioritize actions to
improve habitat within the watershed.
The results of a collaborative stakeholder involvement effort that was based upon
interaction with a newly formed partnership called the SWWT. This is a voluntary, nontaxing partnership of independent units of government, special purpose districts,
agencies, organizations, and members at large that share common goals. These entities
agreed to work collaboratively to achieve healthy and sustainable water resources
throughout the GMW. Through the stakeholder input of the SWWT, three major focus
areas emerged for the WRP: bacteria/public health, habitat and aesthetics, and
nutrients/phosphorus. These focus areas reflect the linkage between water quality
parameters and the way people use and enjoy the streams in the Menomonee River
watershed.
An implementation strategy that focuses on priority actions that should take place in the
near term to meet long-term water quality goals and provides direction for future actions.
An initial list of policy issues that may influence the implementation schedule and
process. The policy issues should be prioritized and examined by the SWWT Policy
Committee as projects are considered for implementation.
An important issue addressed during the development of this WRP was how to best integrate
other ongoing watershed management efforts (e.g., recommendations in the RWQMPU and the
2020 FP, various nonpoint water quality improvements as a result of USEPAs Phase II
stormwater requirements, and the impact of NR 151) with this effort. The technical team, along
with input from the SWWT, developed an approach to build on the recommendations of the
RWQMPU. Therefore, the recommendations from the RWQMPU, the 2020 FP, Phase II
requirements and impacts of NR 151 were all included in the analysis.
The goals from the RWQMPU were used as a starting point for the WRP. Although achieving
these goals is not expected to meet water quality standards for all pollutants in all areas of the
watershed, especially for fecal coliform, achieving them will provide a significant incremental
step towards water quality and habitat improvement. A substantial amount of work will be
required in the watershed to implement the recommended actions to meet these goals. Once
these goals are met, additional work can be done to go beyond the RWQMPU goals. This is
discussed below and in Chapter 8.
2-11
Menomonee River
The overall implementation strategy of the WRP is presented in Chapter 8. The implementation
strategy incorporates adaptive management to identify and implement actions, monitor
incremental progress toward achieving water quality and habitat improvements, and modify the
actions as necessary. 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.As such, the technical
analysis underpinning this WRP started with the baseline WQI water quality model and
added in all the committed projects as of January 1, 2008 using the same approach taken for
the WQI (see Appendix 4B for a description of the updates made to the WQI model). This phase
represents recent progress and will continue approximately through the year 2015.
Phase 2 Implement Identified Foundation Actions and Other Identified High Priority
Actions: The second phase of adaptive implementation includes the implementation of the
foundation actions and the other high priority actions identified in the RWQMPU and by the
SWWT committees during the development of the WRP. This phase also represents progress in
the years 2010 to about 2015.
Phase 3 Full Implementation of the RWQMPU: The third phase of adaptive
implementation of this WRP consists of full implementation of the RWQMPU
recommendations. Depending on the monitoring results of the first two phases, these actions
could include more widespread implementation of the same or modified actions or they could
include most of the remaining elements contained in the RWQMPU (medium- and low-priority
actions) and the additional actions identified through the development of the WRP. These
actions are discussed in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of this WRP. An emphasis would be placed on the
controls that are determined to be most successful (technically, socially, and financially) during
Phases 1 and 2. The development of the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort.
This phase would represent progress in the years 2016 to about 2020.
It is anticipate that Phase 3 would result in meeting the water quality and habitat improvement
goals presented in the RWQMPU and discussed in Chapter 3 of this WRP. Phase 3 is not
presented further in this WRP because the details of this phase will depend upon the results of
Phase 1 and 2.
Phase 4 Enhanced Level of Controls: The final fourth phase of adaptive implementation of
this WRP consists of an enhanced level of controls to further improve water quality or habitat
beyond the goals established by the RWQMPU. Depending on the monitoring results of the first
three phases, these actions could include more widespread implementation of the same or
modified actions. An emphasis would be placed on the controls that are determined to be most
successful (technically, socially, and financially) during Phases 1, 2 and 3. The development of
the initiatives noted in Phase 2 will facilitate this effort. This phase could overlap with Phase 3
and could represent progress in the years 2016 to 2020 or beyond.
Phase 4 is not yet developed nor presented in this chapter because this phase will depend upon
the results of Phases 1, 2 and 3.
Phase 5 Fully Meet Water Quality Standards: The final phase of implementation would be
the adoption of all controls necessary to fully meet achievable water quality standards, whether
2-12
Menomonee River
those are the existing standards, site-specific standards, or future changes in water quality
standards. This phase would occur after 2020.
2.5.2
Detailed Tasks
The tasks listed below served as the technical basis for developing this WRP to meet water
quality standards and protect water resources in the Menomonee River watershed. The tasks are
organized according to the nine elements of the Clean Water Act guidelines for developing
effective watershed plans for threatened and impaired waters. The nine elements are the
following:
1) Identify causes of impairment and pollutant sources that need to be controlled to achieve
needed load reductions and any other goals identified in the watershed plan. This
information was used to develop conceptual plans for this Menomonee River WRP.
2) Estimate the load reductions expected from management measures.
3) Describe the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load
reductions, including a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be
needed.
4) Estimate the amount of needed technical and financial assistance, the associated costs,
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement the plan.
5) Develop an information and education component to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage early and continued participation.
6) Develop a schedule for implementing the identified management measures.
7) Describe interim measurable milestones for determining whether the management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
8) Develop a set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are
being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water
quality standards.
9) Develop a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation
efforts over time.
The innovative watershed planning effort conducted during the development of this WRP
included the following:
A series of workshops conducted with the SWWT committees, which included
representatives from the WDNR, to obtain their input on the scope of the WRP effort (to
finalize the pollutants to be assessed and to confirm the water quality targets to be used
for pollutants without numeric criteria).
The development of an adaptive management and adaptive implementation approach
that will allow proposed controls to be implemented, monitored, refined, and revisited so
that effective implementation of the WRP will be achieved.
Analysis of management measures consisting of facilities, programs, operational
improvements and policies (FPOPs). The prioritization from the RWQMPU was used as
the basis and was revised, as necessary, based on input from the SWWT committees.
The management measures were prioritized based on their potential to result in the
2-13
Menomonee River
greatest improvement to water quality and habitat. The FPOPs identified as high priority
actions were organized by assessment points, which generally correspond to subwatersheds.
The development of an implementation plan that includes guidance regarding the
implementation process, implementation schedule, potential funding sources, identified
policy issues and monitoring.
2.6
Summary
This Menomonee River WRP focuses on nonpoint source controls and the management of
polluted stormwater runoff. This plan builds upon initiatives over the past 30 years that were
directed primarily at controlling point source pollution through the implementation of the
Milwaukee Water Pollution Abatement Program and MMSDs Overflow Reduction Plan (Point
Source Plan), which will be completed by 2010. This WRP represents a bottom-up approach
and includes the regulatory actions required under NR 151 and recognizes the importance of
addressing many potential nonpoint pollution sources as well as working across political or
jurisdictional lines. Throughout the development of this WRP, the goal was to identify actions
that would improve water quality in the most cost effective way. As this WRP evolves and is
implemented in the future, regulatory and technical issues will continue to be resolved through
the collaborative efforts of all parties involved in the Menomonee River watershed restoration
planning effort.
2-14
Menomonee River
APPENDIX 2A
2-15
Menomonee River
2-16
Menomonee River
2-17
Menomonee River
2-18
Menomonee River
APPENDIX 2B
2-19
Menomonee River
Fecal Coliform
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-16
RI-21
Units / Criteria
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151
Impact
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)
231
1,627
110
187
208
234
1,649
111
185
207
3
23
1
-2
-1
1.2%
1.4%
1.3%
-1.2%
-0.6%
66%
114
966
53
118
109
81%
510
2,860
355
70
170
65%
117
995
53
116
107
79%
477
2,739
355
83
170
-1%
3
29
0
-2
-2
-1%
-33
-121
0
13
0
56%
229
1,500
101
50
99
75%
56%
212
1,451
89
61
98
74%
0%
-17
-49
-12
11
-1
0
Measure
Note:
Shading indicates the assessment point area is subject to variance standards applying to the designated parameter.
2-20
2.7%
3.0%
0.0%
-2.0%
-1.6%
-6.4%
-4.2%
-0.1%
19.1%
-0.2%
-7.5%
-3.3%
-11.9%
22.1%
-1.0%
Menomonee River
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-22
RI-09
RI-10
Measure
Units / Criteria
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151
Impact
731
3,947
616
39
150
-60
-232
-30
6
2
-7.6%
-5.5%
-4.7%
17.2%
1.5%
Counts / 100 ml
791
4,178
646
33
148
49%
50%
1%
Counts / 100 ml
334
1,998
175
23
90
308
1,928
163
27
90
-26
-70
-12
4
0
69%
69%
0%
Counts / 100 ml
1,064
6,119
987
200
183
981
5,903
970
207
184
-83
-216
-17
7
1
-7.8%
-3.5%
-1.7%
3.6%
0.8%
62%
455
3,129
191
135
63%
415
3,064
172
138
0%
-40
-65
-19
3
-8.8%
-2.1%
-9.8%
2.4%
103
104
0.8%
81%
81%
0%
Counts / 100 ml
1,033
6,148
962
203
955
5,945
946
209
-78
-204
-16
6
-7.6%
-3.3%
-1.7%
3.2%
184
185
0.1%
63%
63%
0%
Counts / 100 ml
437
3,133
179
136
399
3,073
162
138
-38
-60
-17
2
-8.6%
-1.9%
-9.6%
1.6%
104
105
0.1%
81%
81%
0%
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (200 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (400 counts / 100 ml)
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)
Days met (2,000 counts / 100 ml)
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
Days met (1,000 counts / 100 ml)
Counts / 100 ml
Counts / 100 ml
2-21
-7.7%
-3.5%
-7.0%
18.8%
0.4%
Menomonee River
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-16
RI-21
RI-22
RI-09
RI-10
Measure
Units / Criteria
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151 Impact
Median
mg / L
10.7
10.7
0.0
-0.1%
Mean
mg / L
10.5
10.5
0.0
0.0%
351
351
-0.1%
99%
99%
0%
Median
mg / L
11.0
11.0
0.0
0.2%
Mean
mg / L
10.8
10.8
0.0
0.0%
355
356
0.1%
99%
99%
0%
Median
mg / L
10.9
10.9
0.0
-0.1%
Mean
mg / L
10.7
10.7
0.0
0.0%
353
354
0.1%
99%
99%
0%
Median
mg / L
11.0
11.0
0.0
0.0%
Mean
mg / L
10.9
10.9
0.0
0.0%
Variance standard
365
365
0.0%
Variance standard
100%
100%
0%
Median
mg / L
10.9
10.9
0.0
0.0%
Mean
mg / L
10.9
10.9
0.0
0.0%
Variance standard
365
365
0.0%
Variance standard
100%
100%
0%
Note:
Shading indicates the assessment point area is subject to variance standards applying to the designated parameter.
2-22
Menomonee River
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-16
RI-21
RI-22
RI-09
RI-10
Measure
Units / Criteria
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151 Impact
Median
mg / L
6.0
5.8
-0.2
-2.8%
Mean
mg / L
10.1
9.9
-0.3
-2.6%
TSS Guideline
360
361
0.2%
Median
mg / L
5.8
5.1
-0.7
-11.7%
Mean
mg / L
14.2
12.9
-1.3
-9.1%
TSS Guideline
351
353
0.6%
Median
mg / L
5.1
4.4
-0.7
-13.6%
Mean
mg / L
12.1
10.9
-1.2
-9.8%
TSS Guideline
355
356
0.4%
Median
mg / L
5.8
4.9
-0.8
-14.7%
Mean
mg / L
14.3
13.2
-1.1
-8.0%
TSS Guideline
350
351
0.4%
Median
mg / L
5.5
4.8
-0.7
-12.7%
Mean
mg / L
14.2
13.1
-1.1
-7.5%
TSS Guideline
350
351
0.3%
Watershed
Assessment
Location
Menomonee
River
RI-16
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
RI-21
RI-22
RI-09
RI-10
Measure
Units / Criteria
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151 Impact
Median
mg / L
0.97
0.96
-0.01
-0.9%
Mean
mg / L
1.08
1.07
-0.02
-1.4%
Median
mg / L
0.90
0.86
-0.05
-5.1%
Mean
mg / L
0.96
0.91
-0.05
-4.8%
Median
mg / L
0.90
0.85
-0.05
-5.0%
Mean
mg / L
0.94
0.90
-0.05
-5.1%
Median
mg / L
0.99
0.93
-0.06
-6.1%
Mean
mg / L
1.03
0.97
-0.06
-5.5%
Median
mg / L
1.11
1.06
-0.05
-4.6%
Mean
mg / L
1.15
1.10
-0.06
-4.8%
2-23
Menomonee River
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-16
RI-21
RI-22
RI-09
RI-10
Measure
Units
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151 Impact
Median
mg / L
0.067
0.066
0.000
-0.7%
Mean
mg / L
0.105
0.105
-0.001
-0.7%
TP Planning Guideline
238
239
0.2%
TP Planning Guideline
68%
68%
0%
Median
mg / L
0.065
0.064
-0.002
-2.4%
Mean
mg / L
0.104
0.101
-0.003
-3.2%
TP Planning Guideline
231
235
1.8%
TP Planning Guideline
66%
67%
1%
Median
mg / L
0.065
0.063
-0.002
-2.8%
Mean
mg / L
0.102
0.098
-0.003
-3.4%
TP Planning Guideline
238
241
1.4%
TP Planning Guideline
68%
69%
1%
Median
mg / L
0.078
0.076
-0.003
-3.2%
Mean
mg / L
0.110
0.107
-0.004
-3.5%
TP Planning Guideline
224
228
2.1%
TP Planning Guideline
65%
66%
1%
Median
mg / L
0.107
0.105
-0.003
-2.5%
Mean
mg / L
0.133
0.129
-0.004
-2.9%
TP Planning Guideline
167
172
3.0%
TP Planning Guideline
50%
51%
1%
2-24
Menomonee River
Copper
Watershed
Menomonee
River
Menomonee
River
Assessment
Location
RI-16
RI-21
Menomonee
River
RI-22
Menomonee
River
RI-09
Menomonee
River
RI-10
Measure
Units
Revised 2020
Baseline
(No NR 151)
Revised 2020
Baseline
(With NR 151)
Difference
NR 151 Impact
Median
mg / L
0.0017
0.0016
0.0000
-2.1%
Mean
mg / L
0.0043
0.0043
-0.0001
-1.2%
Median
mg / L
0.0020
0.0019
-0.0001
-7.4%
Mean
mg / L
0.0052
0.0048
-0.0003
-6.6%
Median
mg / L
0.0022
0.0020
-0.0002
-8.9%
Mean
mg / L
0.0052
0.0048
-0.0004
-7.2%
Median
mg / L
0.0025
0.0022
-0.0002
-10.0%
Mean
mg / L
0.0054
0.0050
-0.0004
-6.9%
Median
mg / L
0.0024
0.0022
-0.0002
-9.4%
Mean
mg / L
0.0052
0.0049
-0.0004
-6.8%
2-25
Menomonee River
As the watershed restoration planning effort was initiated, the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District (MMSD) decided to use the newly formed Southeastern Wisconsin
Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT) as the stakeholder group for the effort. The SWWT is the ideal
stakeholder group because it was formed to improve water quality throughout the greater
Milwaukee watersheds (GMW), and the goal of this watershed restoration plan (WRP) is to
develop the next steps to be initiated to improve water quality in the Menomonee River
watershed.
The watershed restoration planning process is an ongoing collaborative effort. Work to date has
included the following:
Identification of key stakeholders
Identification of issues of concern
Establishment of preliminary goals
Development of indicators
Implementation of public outreach
Building partnerships is the cornerstone of the SWWT and its mission is one of collaboration to
achieve healthy and sustainable water resources throughout the GMW. The SWWT is building
an active membership of organizations committed to its mission, purposes, and goals.
Participation is open to a large membership of diverse non-traditional stakeholders that actively
participate in all activities of the SWWT and take personal and community responsibility to
improve our water resources.
The SWWT collaborates with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as part of this effort and
has specifically identified five activities to help restore the watersheds in southeastern
Wisconsin. For each activity, specific objectives, tasks, and measurable outcomes are defined.
The activities and participating organizations are listed below.
1) Perform monitoring, modeling, and science work (Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Clean
Wisconsin, River Alliance of Wisconsin)
2) Participate in the development and implementation of the WRP (Milwaukee Riverkeeper,
Clean Wisconsin, River Alliance of Wisconsin, 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, River
Revitalization Foundation, Sixteenth Street Community Health Center)
3) Initiate legal and policy implementation of the WRP (Midwest Environmental Advocates,
Sixteenth Street Community Health Center and Clean Wisconsin)
4) Develop an outreach and communications strategy (1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Clean
Wisconsin, Milwaukee Riverkeeper, Midwest Environmental Advocates)
3-1
Menomonee River
5) Provide SWWT administration and committee support (create an integrated and long
lasting structure that supports watershed restoration across municipal and organizational
boundaries)
3.2
The SWWT and its committee members are the stakeholders for this WRP and provide the
structure for ongoing engagement and action. The SWWT is comprised of members who are
committed to actively and publicly support the mission, goals, and objectives of the SWWT as
established by its members and approved and amended by the Executive Steering Council (ESC).
Initially, a list of potential stakeholders in all the watersheds was compiled, including NGOs,
municipalities, permit holders, universities, industries, and others as part of the restoration
planning effort. Potential stakeholders were invited to participate on Watershed Action Teams
(WATs). Appendix 3A lists the groups invited to participate.
As shown in Figure 3-1, the SWWT consists of a general membership and four main
committees: Executive Steering Council, Science Committee, Policy Committee, and the
Watershed Action Teams. The functions and members of the committees are discussed in
subsections 3.2.1 3.2.4 below. When the SWWT was first developed in February 2008, an
organizing committee appointed the members of the SWWT Executive Steering Council. Soon
thereafter, the Executive Steering Council appointed the Science Committee. The Science
Committee established a Modeling Subcommittee to collaborate on water quality modeling
issues and a Habitat Subcommittee to develop preliminary ideas on habitat-related watershed
improvements. The SWWT formed two Watershed Action Teams - one for the Menomonee
River watershed and one for the Kinnickinnic River watershed. Each Watershed Action Team
has a set of co-chairs.
3-2
Menomonee River
The SWWT members filling committee roles may include independent units of government,
special purpose districts, agencies, organizations, companies, and members at large. Members
may be asked to commit institutional resources to help fulfill the mission, goals, and objectives
adopted by the SWWT. In return, members expect collaborative actions that work toward
achieving healthy and sustainable water resources that benefit them and any constituents they
might represent.
Upon initiating this WRP, the project team (consultants and MMSD staff) worked with the
SWWT and met with the ESC, WATs and the Science Committee. Several general meetings
were held with the ESC at the beginning of the project. From October 2008 to March 2010, nine
meetings were held with the Science Committee, one meeting was held with the modeling
subcommittee, four meetings were held jointly with the Menomonee River WAT and the
Kinnickinnic River WAT, and five meetings were held separately with the Menomonee River
WAT. Several meetings were also held with the SWWT committee chairs during this time.
As noted above, the members of the committees are listed in subsections 3.2.1 3.2.4 below.
The lists provided reflect the participating committee members as they existed at the time the
WRP was developed. It is anticipated that the SWWT website will maintain the most up-to-date
membership lists, as membership is anticipated to change over time.
3.2.1 Executive Steering Council
The SWWT is managed by a subset of its participant members on the ESC. The 15 member
ESC undertakes management and administrative functions of the SWWT. The council uses
input from the WATs to review annual watershed priority lists of projects and programs
supported by the SWWT. The ESC considers and recommends projects to undertake and fund at
the watershed or subwatershed level and monitors and reports on project results.
Membership of the ESC is listed below.
Preston Cole, City of Milwaukee
Ken Yunker, Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
Nancy Frank, Acting Chair, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Tom Grisa, City of Brookfield
Henry Hamilton III, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) - Milwaukee Branch
Andy Holschbach, Ozaukee County
David Lee, We Energies
Scott Mathie, Metropolitan Builders Association
Peter McAvoy, Sixteenth Street Community Health Center
Christine Nuernberg, City of Mequon
Neil Palmer, Village of Elm Grove
Kevin Shafer, MMSD
3-3
Menomonee River
3-4
Menomonee River
Meeting dates: October 28, 2008; January 20, 2009; March 4, 2009; April 9, 2009; May 14,
2009; July 30, 2009; September 28, 2009; November 18, 2009; and December 15, 2009
The Modeling Subcommittee members are listed below.
Cheryl Nenn, Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Chris Magruder, MMSD
Claus Dunkelberg, Milwaukee 7 Water Council
Eric Loucks, AECOM
Ezra Meyer, Clean Wisconsin
Ginny Plumeau, Cedarburg Science, LLC
Jennifer Runquist, League of Women Voters
John Hoopes, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Ken Potter, University of Wisconsin - Madison
Marsha Burzynski, WDNR
Mike Hahn, SEWRPC
Peter Hughes, USGS
Peter Taglia, Clean Wisconsin
Sandra McLellan, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, GLWI
Steve Melching, Marquette University
Tim Ehlinger, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Tony Remsen, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, GLWI (retired)
Val Klump, Chair, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Director GLWI
Meeting date: February 18, 2008.
The Habitat Subcommittee members are listed below.
Chris Magruder, MMSD
Marsha Burzynski, WDNR
Tom Slawski, SEWRPC
Steve Melching, Marquette University
Tim Ehlinger, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
Val Klump, Chair, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, Director GLWI
The Habitat Subcommittee met on a weekly basis with various representatives from MMSD,
WDNR, USGS, and staff from the universities to obtain data and information as well as discuss
issues relevant to the biological communities and habitat within the Kinnickinnic and
Menomonee River watersheds. In addition, this subcommittee regularly attended the
3-5
Menomonee River
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watershed Action Team meetings to share results and
discuss ideas related to habitat issues within each watershed and potential mitigation strategies
and remedial actions. This subcommittee met informally during the period May 2009 through
December 2009.
3.2.3 Watershed Action Teams
The WATs advise the SWWT ESC on important watershed-specific issues pertaining to its
activities and implement projects either as a body or by enabling its member organizations. In
fulfilling its roles, the WATs perform the following tasks:
1) Ensure that a wide range of interests are considered in all watershed discussions.
2) Focus on issues that cut across existing lines of authority to achieve watershed objectives.
3) Work with SEWRPC to develop this WRP.
4) Identify issues and prepare a priority list of watershed-specific projects and programs to
be supported by the SWWT, based on this WRP. Recommend this list to the ESC for
their review and approval.
5) Identify and make recommendations on watershed-specific issues.
6) Undertake projects or advise on member projects that have been awarded by the ESC.
7) Record WAT meeting notes and report out to the ESC.
The following co-chairs were elected to lead the Menomonee WAT:
Cheryl Nenn, Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Gail Epping Overholt, University of Wisconsin Extension
The membership list is included in Appendix 3B.
Joint meeting dates with the Kinnickinnic River WAT: November 11, 2008; December 8, 2008;
February 2, 2009; and May 5, 2009. Separate meeting dates: August 5, 2009; September 22,
2009; October 21, 2009; November 17, 2009; and March 17, 2010.
3.2.4 Policy Committee
The Policy Committee advises the SWWT ESC on important public policy and legal issues
pertaining to its activities. The Policy Committee performs the following tasks:
1) Ensure that a wide range of interests are considered in all public policy and legal
discussions
2) Focus on issues that cut across existing lines of authority to achieve watershed objectives
3) Identify and make recommendations on public policy and legal issues
4) Record Policy Committee meeting notes and report to the ESC
The Policy Committee members are listed below.
Peter McAvoy, Chair - South Sixteen Community Health Center
Dan Collins, Elutions
3-6
Menomonee River
3-7
Menomonee River
The focus of the SWWT is on implementing these goals; however, the SWWT recognizes that its
efforts must build on the goals, objectives, and recommendations of SEWRPCs RWQMPU.1
The RWQMPU provides a relevant and transparent foundation for moving forward.
Below is a detailed listing of the RWQMPUs measurable water quality improvement goals for
the Menomonee River watershed and its objective categories paired to an extensive list of
recommendations and/or implementation strategies. Programs and projects supported by the
SWWT will be evaluated relative to their potential to make progress toward these measurable
goals.
Measurable Water Quality Improvement Goals
In general, the degree of improvement in water quality resulting from implementation of the
plans recommendations will be evaluated through comparison of existing vs. future measured
water quality conditions. These measurable goals can serve as indicators of progress being made
toward improving water quality conditions. The goals range from changes to land use, pollutant
load reductions and improvements to habitat and aesthetics.
Note on using aesthetics with habitat as a goal. While a consensus was reached during the
development of the WRP by the Menomonee WAT to include aesthetic improvement with
habitat as a goal, it is recognized that aesthetic improvement does not always translate to
ecologically-based (habitat) improvement. The use of aesthetics as a goal does present a
challenge in some cases because criteria for aesthetic improvement vary among people and over
time. For example, a concrete-lined channel with managed turf in the riparian area adjacent to
accessible parking may be perceived as aesthetically-ideal to some, but as sterile to others.
Alternatively, a naturalized stream that courses through a wide, wooded riparian corridor has
improved ecological function, but may present challenges in terms of litter control, maintenance
and law enforcement. This WRP acknowledges that aesthetic improvement does not always
relate directly to water quality or habitat improvement, but in many cases they are all linked. In
addition, aesthetic improvement is strongly related to quality of life issues and environmental
justice issues. For the purpose of this WRP, aesthetic improvement impacts amenity value,
personal relationships to the resource, and community connections necessary to provide the
financial resources necessary to address habitat and water quality concerns.
The preceding goals that are to be achieved by 2020 can be reviewed in the Plan Summary of the
RWQMPU, which details the goals for the entire RWQMPU.2
Specific to the Menomonee River watershed, the RWQMPU goals are the following:
1) Land Use Changes
a. Converting 2.3 square miles of marginal cropland to prairie or wetland conditions
SEWRPC implements Section 208 of the federal Clean Water Act toward the goal of achieving water use
objectives for surface waters within the region through a sound and workable plan for the abatement of water
pollution.
2
SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Plan
Summary, http://www.sewrpc.org/publications/planningprogramreport/pr-050_summary_water_quality_plan_
greater_mke_watersheds.pdf (revised January 2009)
3-8
Menomonee River
d) Total Nitrogen:
The breakdown of the load reductions for each of the major components of the RWQMPU is
presented in Section 6.2 of Chapter 6 of this WRP. The modeled Baseline 2000 and Year 2020
water quality assessments are presented in Section 6.4 of chapter 6. Section 6.4 presents
assessments of flashiness, fecal coliform, TSS, total phosphorus, and dissolved oxygen (DO).
The assessments are based on the percentage of time in compliance with either water quality
standards or targets.
It is important to note that achieving these goals will not meet water quality standards at every
location in the watershed, 365 days per year. As explained in Chapter 11 of the RWQMPU
3-9
Menomonee River
(Planning Report No. 50), achieving the goals for BOD, phosphorus and TSS would generally
result in a high level of compliance (defined as compliance 85% of the time or greater) with the
water quality standards or planning standards developed under the RWQMPU. Achieving the
fecal coliform load reduction goal would generally result in a high level of compliance with the
standards during the summer months, but a low degree of compliance is expected when looking
at data for the full year. Based on the model results, in order to meet all of the fecal coliform
standards 100% of the time in all areas of the watershed, over 90% of the total load would need
to be reduced.
Note, for the RWQMPU, the variance standards were used for DO and fecal coliform where
applicable. For the WRP analysis, the SWWT committees decided to look at compliance
assuming the variance standards did not apply. Therefore, the results shown in Chapter 6 of the
WRP do not show as much of an increase as the results of the RWQMPU for fecal coliform and
DO. However, reaching the goals listed above is one of the first steps in improving water quality
and habitat in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive
watershed management approach is implemented.
To get a sense of what achieving the water quality standards means, the RWQMPU links the
water quality objectives to the water use objectives. In general, the Menomonee River is
classified as a warm water fishery. Therefore, meeting the water quality standards should allow
the river to sustain fish such as walleye and bass. However, there are other factors, such as
habitat, that need to be considered when predicting the type of aquatic life that could potentially
be sustained.
3.3.1 Watershed Action Team Visioning Session
The Menomonee River WAT participated in a visioning session in December 2008. The purpose
of this session was not to determine specific goals or objectives, but to determine the parameters
on which the WRP should focus. Project team staff asked the following three questions to help
discover values-based water resource expectations of the members:
How do you want the Menomonee River to look?
What activities do (or would) you like to do in the Menomonee River?
On behalf of aquatic and plant life, what do you think the Menomonee River needs?
While some respondents directly answered the questions and others responded more generally, it
was staffs opinion that answers were generally in line with recommendations of the RWQMPU.
The compiled list of responses that was developed from the WAT visioning session and
considered by the Science Committee is shown below.
Manmade channels:
Concrete channels
o Underwood Creek, Honey Creek (downstream of 84th Street and upstream at
McCarty Park) and Menomonee River should have no concrete and should be
3-10
Menomonee River
naturalized (See the Underwood Creek Baseline Water Quality Report for the
locations of drop structures and concrete-lined channels)3
o Concrete lining along the Menomonee River channel in the vicinity of Miller Park is
an impediment for fish passage
Streams should be daylighted (remove streams from enclosed conduit); however,
consider safety and unintended consequences (e.g., flooding)
Reintroduce meanders
In-stream conditions:
Eliminate barriers to fish passage (add fish ladders)
Free of trash
Increase pools and riffles
Decrease flashiness and thermal discharges
No fish advisories
Reduce unnatural solids in streambed and improve clarity of water
Less salt
Seawalls/fish condos look at the lower portion of the Menomonee River to create
habitat
Plant wild rice in the Burnham Canal (Milwaukee Riverkeeper is undertaking a pilot
project)
Restore original meanders upstream of 115th Street
No fecal coliforms
Increase levels of DO
Decrease nutrient loads
Remove invasive species
Clean up Superfund sites such as Little Menomonee River
Riparian areas:
Keep vegetation wild, but maintained
Balance natural vegetation with recreational use needs
Provide increased riparian areas (i.e., buffers), 75 minimum
Remove all homes and businesses from the floodplain
Construct and restore wetlands
3
3-11
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
A strong information and education component enhances public understanding of both watershed
planning and the project and encourages early and continued participation. Efforts include work
by SEWRPC, MMSD, SWWT, and others.
3.4.1 Internet
Online resources throughout the region include web pages launched and maintained by
SEWRPC, MMSD, SWWT, USGS, and others.
The SEWRPC maintains a web page for the RWQMPU (http://sewrpc.org/waterqualityplan/)
that documents the plan update process consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agencys (USEPAs) watershed planning process. Topics documented include an overview
3-13
Menomonee River
section, planning background, the current effort, public involvement, study meetings, advisory
committees, final plan summary, plan chapters, environmental corridors, yard care, related fact
sheets, links, and contact information. The final RWQMPU report and the companion technical
report are available on the web site.4,5 The website includes opportunities to contact staff.
The MMSD website for the 2020 Facilities Plan planning process was used intensively by
committees, citizens, and stakeholders and afforded the opportunity to comment on documents as
they were drafted. The MMSD continues to maintain the project website at
http://www.mmsd.com/wqi/. The site includes background on the project, a record of committee
activities, information about watersheds, presentations, publications, links, and contact
information.
In the spring of 2009, the MMSD launched an online tool called H2O Info that tracks water
quality indicators on a real-time basis. On this interactive site, users can click on a monitoring
location on a map and view data that are virtually real time and chart data over time. The
MMSD collects data with remote sensors and transmits it in cooperation with the USGS and then
posts the data to the H2O Info website. Water quality variables tracked include conductivity,
DO, turbidity, water temperature, flow (discharge), and stage. Precipitation data are also
available from several precipitation monitoring stations.
The SWWT website (http://www.swwtwater.org/) documents the formation of the group, posts
meeting information, and provides technical information. It includes a calendar of events,
publications, project listings, and lists committee members and activities. The MMSD hosts an
E-forum, accessible through the SWWT website, which is a tool designed to enable stakeholders
to participate in online discussions. The E-forum (http://www.swwtwater.org/swwtforum/) may
be used by all committee members to share information, discuss concepts, and comment on draft
documents, such as the WRP, as they are developed.
3.4.2 Watershed Booklets
As a precursor to the WAT meetings, the MMSD produced a booklet about each watershed that
included information about the status of the water quality within the watershed, the geography of
the watershed, and information about what local governments, the MMSD, and others are doing
to improve water quality. These booklets also outlined additional actions that individuals and
groups could do to further advance improvements to water quality.
3.4.3 Annual Conference
The annual Clean Rivers Clean Lakes conference is attended by hundreds of people dedicated to
improving the regions water quality. Originally convened by the MMSD, SEWRPC and others
as part of the Water Quality Initiative, 2009 marks its 6th year. The event draws people involved
in many aspects of water resource management and protection including scientists, regulators,
planners, elected officials, engineers, developers, environmentalists, and community activists.
SEWRPC, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Planning
Report No. 50 (December 5, 2007)
5
SEWRPC, Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, Technical
Report No. 39 (November 2007)
3-14
Menomonee River
3.4.4 Other Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. Education and Outreach
Initiatives
The SWWT education and outreach materials and tools can be used by municipalities and
counties throughout the watersheds. This ultimately may include an information and education
curriculum for elected officials as well as a communication plan. Print or electronic publications
may include an annual magazine, periodic newsletters, and special topic newsletters focusing on
critical habitat and WAT efforts and results. Ultimately, SWWT envisions development of an
annual water-quality report card for all the watersheds, based on agreed-upon parameters and
measured data.
3-15
APPENDIX A
Name
Rebecca Abraham
Jen Adams
Sharon Adams
David Ahern
Matt Aho
Todd Ambs
Fay Amerson
Eric Anderson
Pehr Anderson
Kathryn Anderson
Kris Andrews
Else Ankel
Martin Aquino
Bette Arey
Lori Artiomow
Steve Atwell
Richard Badger
Karen Baker Mathu
Dana Baldwin
Lyle Balistreri
Brenda Bantz
Scott Baran
Richard Barloga
Thomas Barrett
Alan Barrows
Timothy Bate
Fran Beach
Jill Bedford
Matthew Bednarski
Barbara Behlke
Peter Beitzel
Solomon Bekele
Randy Belanger
John Bennett
Bernadette Berdes
Belle Bergner
Kristina Betzold
Tony Beyer
Bob Biebel
John Bielinski
Greg Bird
Tim Birkel
Paul Boersma
Steve Boettcher
Affiliation
River Revitalization Foundation
Milwaukee Water Works
Walnut Way Conservation Corporation
Ahern Engineering Co.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Division of Water
Walworth County
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Silicon Pastures
UW-Extension
UW System Administration
Urban Ecology Center
City of Milwaukee
Kettle Moraine Land Trust
Discovery World
Office of State Senator Lena Taylor
Bay Ridge Consulting
Great Lakes Water Institute
Milwaukee Building Trades Council
City of Milwaukee - Environmental Services
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Mayor, City of Milwaukee
Waukesha County
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Drumlin Area Land Trust
Bonestroo
Behlke Consulting, Inc.
Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc
City of Franklin
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Village of Mount Pleasant
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Milwaukee Water Works
City of Cudahy
HNTB Corporation
Boettcher Media Group
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]
Name
Curt Bolton
Doug Booth
Harvey Bootsma
Ted Bosch
Joe Boxhorn
Owen Boyle
Stephen Branca
Scott Brandmeier
Douglas Brandon
Todd Breiby
Todd Brennon
Steve Brick
Joe A. Brieske
Carrie Bristoll-Groll
Elda Brizuela
Gerry Broderick
John Broihahn
Lane Brostom
Lesley Brotkowski
Irene Brown
Jeff Browne
Ann Brummitt
Patricia Brust
Michelle Bryant
Susan Buchanan
Anthony Bunkelman
Tom Bunker
Joseph M. Burtch
Marsha Burzynski
Vince Bushell
Jim Buske
Leeann Butschlick
Carolyn Byrne
Michael Campbell
Fredy Canales
Bill Carity
Mike Carlson
Jason Carlson
John Carlson
Julie Carpenter
Alan Carter
Patrick G. Casey
Libby Cavanaugh
Teresa Caven
James V. Celano, III
Affiliation
City of Greenfield
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Great Lakes Water Institute
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Johnson Foundation
Village of Fox Point
Milwaukee Water Works
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
Pier Wisconsin
The Joyce Foundation
Bonestroo
Stormwater Solutions Engineering, LLC
Conservationist/ Filmaker
Milwaukee County
TechStar
Cedarburg Science, LLC
Public Policy Forum
Milwaukee River Work Group
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Wisconsin State Senate
Tall Pines Conservancy
Caledonia Storm Sewer Utility District Commission
City of Racine
City of West Allis
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
River Revitalization Foundation
Village of Brown Deer
Village of Shorewood
Village of Elm Grove
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Carity Land Corporation
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
City of Brookfield
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Village of West Milwaukee
City of Brookfield
Geneva Lake Conservancy
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]
Name
Rita Cestaric
Jeff Chase
Doug Cherkauer
Erik Christensen
Barbara Chudnow
Jerry Chudzik
Tom Churchill
Jim Ciha
Margaret Clark
Louise Clemency
Preston Cole
John Colletti
Lisa Conley
Nancy Counter
Michael Cudahy
Angela Curtes
Eddee Daniel
Jean Davidson
Lou Davit
Troy Deibert
Melinda Dejewski
Sara DeKok
Robert Dennik
Lynn Des Jardins
Jeanne DeSimone Sieger
Dennis Devitt
Sandy DeWalt
Matt Diebel
Carol Diggelman
Frank Dombrowski
Kae DonLevy
JoEllen Donovan
Mary Beth Drapp
Mary Beth Driscoll
James Drought
Carol Drury
Thomas Dunbar
Clare Dundon
Claus Dunkelberg
Mike DuPont
Tony Earl
Dave Eastman
Jon Edgren
Jeff Edstrom
Scott Edwards
Affiliation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
City of Brookfield
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
South Shore Park Watch
Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer & Associates, Inc.
Milwaukee County Parks
Black & Veatch, Inc.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
Town & Country Resource Conservation and Development
Corporation
First Weber Group Foundation, Inc.
The Endeavors Group, LLC
Yggdrasil Land Foundation
Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers
HNTB Corporation
City of St. Francis
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Executive Office Milwaukee County
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Medical College of Wisconsin Research Foundation
Caledonia Conservancy
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Milwaukee School of Engineering
We Energies
Pier Wisconsin
Bonestroo
Medical College of Wisconsin
Groundwork Milwaukee, Inc
Shaw Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.
Center for Resilient Cities
Town of Delafield Plan Commission
Milwaukee 7 Water Council
MWH Americas
Governor - Retired
City of Glendale
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
Geosyntec Consultants
Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Susan Eichelkraut
Mustafa Emir
Jim Engelhardt
Gail Epping Overholt
Russell C. Evans
Greg Failey
Fred Fairbanks
Craig Faucett
Mark Feider
Mary Feind
Robert L. Feind
Daniel Feinstein
Beth Fetterley
Steven A. Finch
Molly Flanagan
Jeffrey Foran
Jeff Fortin
Pamela Foster Felt
David Fowler
Nancy Frank
Ernst-Ulrich Franzen
Jim Fratrick
Krystal Freimark
Mike Friis
Jeri Gabrielson
Steve Gaffield
Steve Galarneau
Sharon Gayan
Danni Gendelman
Doran Gendelman
Ellen Gennrich
Jim Gennrich
Al Ghorbanpoor
Kimberly A Gleffe
Steven A. Godfrey
Pam Golanowski
Jessica Goldsberry
Willie Gonwa
Joe Gorecki
Dave Graczyk
Shawn Graff
Benjamin Gramling
Susan S. Greenfield
Tom Grisa
Laura Gronek
Affiliation
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bonestroo
Clark Dietz, Inc.
University of Wisconsin-Extension Basin Education Initiative
Waukesha County Environmental Action League
General Mitchell Airport
City of Oak Creek
City of Cudahy
Glendale Natural Areas Regreen Project
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
M.]
Name
Barry Grossman
Tim Grundl
David Grusznski
Kim Grveles
Dennis Grzezinski
Rob Guilbert
John Hacker
Bill Hafs
Affiliation
Foley & Lardner, LLP
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The Conservation Fund
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Urban Ecology Center
Assurant Health Foundation
Mike Hahn
Carol Hale
Kevin Haley
Nathan Hanisko
Delene Hanson
Jill Hapner
Joyce Harms
Arthur Harrington
Gregg Harris
Rose Hass Leider
Chuck Haubrich
Wendy Hauser
Joel Hawkins
Joan Hawley
Ronald Hayward
Brian Heard
Thomas Hefty
Ronald Heinritz
William Hendee
Patrick Henderson
Jessie L. Henderson
Nicole Hewitt
Patricia Hidson
Jaren Hiller
Nathan Hinch
Tom Hoffman
Norman Holman
William Hoppe
Brian Hornickle
Jeanne Hossenlopp
Will Hoyer
Randy Hoyt
Jessica Hrobar
Stacy Hron
Peter Hughes
Brett Hulsey
John Idzikowski
AECOM
Sheaffer International
Village of Menomonee Falls
Wisconsin Association for Biomedical Research & Education
City of Mequon
Village of Menomonee Falls
Marquette University
Clean Wisconsin
Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.
The Conservation Fund
Miller Engineers & Scientists
U.S. Geological Survey
Better Environmental Solutions
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]
Names
Nader Jaber
Anthony Jackson
Jeffrey J. Jacobson
Steve Jacquart
Christopher Jaekels
Aaron Jahncke
Jeramey Jannene
John Jansen
Thomas Jansen
Stanley Jaskolski
Debra Jensen
Jason Jentzsch
Jennifer Johanson
Timothy John
Rolf Johnson
Arlyn Johnson
Annie Jones
Warren Jones
Harald Jordahl
Robert Karnauskas
Brian Kasprzyk
Jim Keegan
Steve Keith
Greg Kessler
Lynn Ketterhagen
Kevin Kimmes
Darcy Kind
Kathleen King
John Kirchgeorg
Rebecca Klaper
Michele Klappa-Sullivan
Dave Klemer
Scott Kloskowski
Val Klump
Russell Knetzger
Tom Koepp
Peg Kohring
Brandon Koltz
James Koneazny
Gary Korb
Nik Kovac
Greg Kowalski
Laura Kracum
Paul Krajniak
Kris Krause
Affiliation
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Milwaukee Water Works
Wisconsin State Fair Park
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
River Revitalization Foundation
Village of Whitefish Bay
UrbanMilwaukee.com
Ruekert-Mielke, Inc.
We Energies
Marquette University
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
EN2 Solutions, LLC
Alverno College
Agua Media & Exhibit International
Village of Menomonee Falls
Kenosha County University of Wisconsin-Extension
City of Milwaukee Housing Authority
Wisconsin Department of Administration
BL3 Strategies, LLC
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Milwaukee County Park System
Milwaukee County Department of Public Works
City of New Berlin
Geneva Lake Conservancy
Propex, Inc.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Life Corporation
Great Lakes Water Institute
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
City of Muskego
Great Lakes Water Institute
City & Town Plans
Ruekert & Mielke, Inc.
The Conservation Fund
Symbiont
University of Wisconsin Extension / Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commisison
City of Milwaukee
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
West Wisconsin Land Trust
Discovery World
WE Energies
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Timothy Kriewall
William Krill
Raymond Krueger
Andrew Kurth
Andy LaFond
John Lammers
Mary Lou Lamonda
Rebecca Lane
Dan Lau
Carolynn Leaman
Cora Lee-Palmer
John Lehman
Brian Lennie
Jim Leonhart
Olivier Leupin
Carrie Lewis
Howard Lewis
Sally Lewis
Michael Lewis
Jin Li
Lin Li
Jon Lindert
Jim Lindhorst
Scott Linssen
David Linz
Christopher Litzau
Mark Lloyd
Paul Lohmiller
Les Lovejoy
Michael Luba
Dan Ludwig
Jim Luedeke
Robert J. Lui
Martha Lunz
William Lynch
Alan Madry
Michael Maierle
Melissa Malott
Pat Marchese
Rocky Marcoux
Mike Marek
Janette Marsh
Joel Marshall
Fran Martin
Peter Martin
Affiliation
Wisconsin Lutheran College
Brown and Caldwell
River Revitalization Foundation
River Revitalization Foundation
Village of Thiensville
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Michael Martin
Michelle Mason
Jerald Mast
Scott Mathie
Jeff Maxted
Peter McAvoy
Jeanne McCabe
Wendy McCalvy
Stephen McCarthy
John McCarthy
Gail McCarver
Gloria McCutcheon
Stephen McGowan
Margaret McGuire
Sandra McLellan
Gerard McMullen
Peter McMullen
James McNelly
Steve Mech
Richard Meeusen
G. Tracy Mehan
Hardy Meihsner
Mary Mertes
Joe Mestnick
Ezra Meyer
Tanya Meyer
Todd K. Michaels
William J. Mielke
Mark Mittag
Michael J. Mnichowicz
Robert Monnat
Todd Montgomery
Rob Montgomery
Jane Moore
Sarah Moore
William Moore
Rose Morgan
Kate Morgan
Michael Morgan
Ed Morse
Ron Romeis
James Muller
Kathy Mulvey
Lynn Muza
Emad Nadi
Affiliation
Village of Hales Corners
River Revitalization Foundation
Carthage College
Metropolitan Builders Association
16th Street Community Health Center
Blood Research Institute
Village of Caledonia
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Graef, Anhalt, Schloemer, & Associates, Inc.
Medical College of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Great Lakes Water Institute
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
CSA Commercial
Badger Meter, Inc.
GeoDecisions
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Clean Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Village of Greendale
Ruekert Mielke, Inc.
CH2M-Hill
Mandel Group, Inc.
Friends of Lakeshore Nature Preserve
Montgomery Associates Resources Solutions, LLC
Greater Milwaukee Foundation
City of New Berlin
EMCS, Inc.
1000 Friends of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Administration
Wisconsin Rural Water Association
City of Franklin
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Caledonia Conservancy
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Affiliation
Name
Dan Naze
James Ndon
Doug Neilson
Larry Neitzel
John Nelson
Dan Nelson, Jr.
Karen Nenahlo
Jeffrey S. Nettesheim
Justin New
Bob Newell
Gene Neyhart
Mark Nicolini
Peter Nilles
Gerald Novotny
Tom Nowakowski
Jennifer Oechsner
Lois O'Keefe
Jon Olander
Dale Olen
Brian Olson
Eyad Omari
Mike Oneby
Jill Organ
Kimberly Oriel Siemens
Jason Otto
Abbas Ourmazd
Aaron Owens
Mary Panzer
Chuck Pape
Mary Patzlaff
Eric Paulsen
Andy Pederson
Steve Percy
David Petering
Gerald Petersen
Mindy Petersen
Jane Peterson
Dan Piekarski
Nate Piotrowski
Ginny Plumeau
Todd Polacek
Jeff Polenske
Stephen Poloncsik
Ryan Porter
Lisa Quezada
Village of Germantown
Milwaukee Water Works
VISIT Milwaukee
Village of Brown Deer
Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc
City of Milwaukee
Village of Menomonee Falls
JFNew
City of St. Francis
Milwaukee Community Sailing Center
City of Milwaukee
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin State Senate
Office of Congresswoman Gwen Moore
Weston Solutions, Inc.
Sierra Club
Quad/Graphics, Inc.
Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.
MWH Americas
Milwaukee County
CDM
Milwaukee Water Works
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Greater Milwaukee Committee
Greater Milwaukee Committee
Village of Bayside
Director, UWM Center for Urban Initiatives & Research
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Kettle Moraine Land Trust
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Milwaukee Water Works
Village of Brown Deer
Cedarburg Science
Applied Ecological Services, Inc.
City of Milwaukee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Miller Brewing
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Ramsey Radakovich
Mike Raimonde
Tom Ratzki
Tina Reese
Dave Reid
Joel Reinders
Russ Reinsma
Tony Remsen
Gerard Rewolinski
Tim Rhode
Jon Richards
Mayor Al Richards
Ervin Riley
Robert Brunner
Susan Robertson
Diane Robertson
Christine Rodriguez
Len Roecker
Mark Rosolek
Perry Rossa
Debby Roszak
Rosalind Rouse
James Rowen
Carl Rowlands
Scott Royer
Patrick Ruel
Jennifer A. Runquist
Brian Russart
Mike Ruzicka
Rachel Sabre
Karen Sands
Carlos Santiago
Bill Sasse
Melissa Scanlon
Bonnie Schalow
Erick Schambarger
Karen Schapiro
Penny Scheueman
Kendra Schielke
John Schmid
Dean Schmidtke
Steve Schueller
Jon Schulman
Kristin Schultheis
Randy Schumacher
Affiliation
Milwaukee County Parks
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Black & Veatch, Inc.
Symbiont
UrbanMilwaukee.com
Super Steel Corporation
Great Lakes Water Institute
Arnold & O'Sheridan, Inc.
Village of Butler
State Representative
City of St. Francis
Super Steel Corporation
Commissioner
Village of Fox Point
Village of Thiensville
Pier Wisconsin
Villages of Greendale and West Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Mead & Hunt, Inc.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Milwaukee Waterworks
Consultant
TDI Associates
Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC
League of Women Voters - Milwaukee County
Milwaukee County Parks
Metropolitan Association of Realtors
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Earth Tech
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Village of Mount Pleasant
Midwest Environmental Advocates
Uihlein Foundation
City of Milwaukee
Midwest Environmental Advocates
WE Energies
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Milwaukee Water Works
Milwaukee Area Land Conservancy
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Eric Schumann
Heather Schwar
Michael Schwar
John Scripp
Tom Sear
Jane Segerdahl
Marsha Sehler
Kevin Shafer
Peter Shedivy
John Siepmann
Batya Silva
Tom Simasko
Darin Simpkins
David Simpson
David Simpson
Stephanie Sklba
Rick Smith
Guy Smith
Vacky Smucker
Rick Sokol
Sara Spence
Elizabeth Stager
Chris Stamborski
Mark Stamm
Gloria Stearns
Kris Stepenuck
Tom Still
Rudi Strickler
Michael Strigel
David L. Stroik
Andrew Struck
Duane Struemer
Bill Strutz
Sean Sullivan
Michael J. Sullivan
Jim Surfus
Chris Svoboda
Peter Swenson
Michael S. Switzenbaum
Benjamin Sykes
R.C. Tally
Julia Taylor
Lena Taylor
Tom Taylor
Audrey Templeton
Affiliation
Caledonia Conservancy
HNTB Corporation
HNTB Corporation
Whyte, Hirschboeck, Dudek S.C.
Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.
Uihlein/Wilson Architects
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
HNTB Corporation
Siepmann Realty Corporation
University of Wisconsin-Extension
US Fish and Wildlife Service
City of Brookfield
City of Muskego
Gateway Technical College
RA Smith & Associates
Milwaukee County Parks
City of Greenfield
Representative Moores Office
The Nature Conservancy
Village of Caledonia
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Jim TeSelle
Sara Teske
Scott Thistle
Brian Thompson
Jeffrey Thornton
Tim Thur
Thomas Tollaksen
Angela Tornes
Steve Traudt
John Treffert
Dan Treloar
Kathy Trentadue
Casey Twanow
Mark Uecker
Michael Underwood
Stuart Utley
Kyle Vander Coer
Saji Villoth
Aina Vilumsons
Christopher Vitrano
Don Volkert
Yash Wadhwa
Thomas Wagner
Magdelene Wagner
J. P. Walker
Patrick Walsh
Liz Walsh
Rodney Walter
Brenna Wanous
Andrea Ward
Chuck Ward
Glen Warren
Sheldon Wasserman
William T. Wehrley
Joseph Weirich
JoAnn Weishan
David Weiss
Lyman Welch
Adrian Wencka
Sammis White
Yolanda White
Marc White
Rachel Wilberding
Kristen Wilhelm
Sara Wilson
Affiliation
Wisconsin Great Lakes Coalition
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
Brookstone Homes, Inc.
Tech Star
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
City of Milwaukee
Village of River Hills
National Park Service - Midwest Region
Tall Pines Conservancy
Village of Thiensville
Kenosha County
Caledonia Conservancy
Great Lakes Water Institute
Village of Greendale
Velocity Systems
City of South Milwaukee
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Procurement Institute
Nelson Schmidt
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Strand Associates, Inc.
Kapur & Associates, Inc.
City of Pewaukee
City of New Berlin
Milwaukee Economic Development Corporation
Gathering Waters Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy
Biodiversity Project
Gathering Waters Conservancy
Milwaukee County Park System
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
State Representative
City of Wauwatosa
Argosy Foundation
Village of Germantown
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Milwaukee Water Works
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Riveredge Nature Center
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
City of Franklin
Mayes Wilson & Associates, LLC
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
Name
Dennis Winters
Christina Wistrom
Tom Wiza
Sarah Wright
Richard Yahr
Simon Yao
Zhi Biao Yin
Zafar Yousuf
Christine Zapf
Josh Zepnick
Corey Zetts
Kate Ziino
Robert Zimmerman
Brian Zimmerman
Tim Zimmerman
Richard Zinuticz
Dan Zitomer
Nancy Zolidis
Paul Zovic
Affiliation
Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
City of Cedarburg
The Johnson Foundation
Milwaukee Water Works
Milwaukee Water Works
City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works
Sierra Club
Wisconsin State Assembly
Menomonee Valley Partners, Inc.
HNTB Corporation
Kohler Company
Milwaukee County Park System
Village of Germantown
Milwaukee Water Works
Marquette University
Montgomery Associates, Resources Solutions, LLC
Shaw Environmental
Appendix 3A
INVITED PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.
APPENDIX 3B
Name
Matt Aho
Ryan Amtmann
Mary Anderson
Martin Aquino
Richard Badger
Jessi Balcom
Brenda Bantz
Richard Barlosa
Tim Bate
Kathy Bates
Barbara Behlke
Bernadette Berdes
Gregory F. Bird
Paul Boersma
Curt Bolton
Todd Breiby
Katherine Brenner
Carrie Bristoll-Groll
Marsha Burzynski
Phil Bzdusek
Gary Casper
Theresa Caven
Jerome Chudzik
David Ciepluch
Chris Clayton
Kathy DeCarol
Troy Deibert
Gerald DeMers
Carol Diggelman
Steve Djur
Kae DonLevy
Mary Beth Driscoll
Greg Failey
Beth Fetterley
Sean Foltz
Ernst-Ulrich Franzen
Don Gallo
Sharon L. Gayan
Joan Giuliani
Kimberly Gleffe
Ben Gramling
Affiliation
Groundworks MKE
Ruekert/Mielke
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee
Wisconsin State Senator Taylor
Village of Elm Grove
MMSD
MATC
Behlke Consulting
MMSD
Black and Veatch
City of Greenfield
Wisconsin Coastal Management Program
W DNR
City of Brookfield
Graef Anhalt Schloemer & Associates, Inc
River Alliance
HNTB
Groundworks MKE
Urban Ecology Center
American Rivers
MKE Journal Sentinel
WI DNR
Miller-Coors Corp.
River Revitalization Fdn.
16th St. Community Health Center
Appendix 3B
PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
MO/DY/YR
[FILE NMNG
Lori Grant
Nancy Greifenhagen
Tom Grisa
David Grusznski
Dennis Grzezinski
Danelle Haake
John Hacker
Mike Hahn
Jessie Henderson
Nicole Hewitt
Mary Holleback
Andy Holschbach
Peter Hughes
Shermin Hughes
Nader Jaber
Steve Jacquart
Cindy Janusz
Jason Jentzsch
Jennifer Johanson
Tim John
Karen M. Johnson
Lauren Justus
Katrina Kazik
Steve Keith
Greg Kessler
Bruce Keyes
Terry Kinis
Ryan Kloth
Peg Kohring
Laura Kracum
Kevin Kratt
Bill Krill
Shirley Krug
Andrew Kunth
Michelle Lenski
Paul Lohmiller
Mike Maierle
Michael Maki
Doris Mattke
Peter McAvoy
John McCarthy
Judy Mead
River Alliance
Village of Menomonee Falls
City of Brookfield
MMSD
TN and Associates, Inc.
SEWRPC
Village of Butler/West Milwaukee
City of New Berlin
RiverEdge Nature Center
Ozaukee County
USGS
State Government
City of Milwaukee
MMSD
Engineering Solutions
Alverno College
Village of Germantown
Milwaukee County
City of New Berlin
Foley & Lardner
Conservation Fund
Tetra Tech
City of Milwaukee
River Revitalization Fdn.
MPS
City of Milwaukee
City of Wauwatosa
MPS
16 St. Community Health Center
Appendix 3B
PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
.]
Ezra Meyer
Peter Milles
Mark Mittag
Kate Morgan
Cheryl Nenn
Jeff Nettesheim
Bill Nimke
Lois O'Keefe
Gail Overholt
Harry Parrott
Ginny Plumeau
Lisa Quezada
Mike Raimonde
Russ Reinsma
Dawn Riegel
Perry Rossa
Jennifer Runquist
Brian Russart
Karen Sands
Karen Sands
Melissa Scanlan
Nick Schmal
Cathy Schwalbach
Tom Sear
Leslie Silletti
Laura Smith
Sean Sulllivan
Katie Swartz
Ben Sykes
Angie Tornes
J. Treffert
Stacey Tushaus
Saji Villoth
Marty Weigel
Nancy Welch
Terry Witkowski
Sarah Wright
Steven Wurster
Richard A. Yahr
Langley
Clean Wisconsin
CH2MHill
1000 Friends of Wisconsin
Milwaukee Riverkeeper
Village of Menomonee Falls
Inland Seas School of Expeditionary Learning
UWEX
Cedarburg Science
Miller-Coors Corp.
AECOM
Milwaukee County
MMSD
AECOM/Consultant Team
Midwest Environmental Advocates
City of New Berlin
City of Milwaukee
Cedarburg Science
American Rivers
Foley and Lardner
National Park Service
City of Wauwatosa
City of Milwaukee
Johnson Foundation
Appendix 3B
PARTICIPANTS - MN
WATERSHED ACTION TEAM
Menomonee River WRP
Menomonee River
4.1
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related
features of the Menomonee River watershed. It includes descriptive information pertaining to
the historical trends and current status of habitat (physical, chemical, and biological) quality and
ecological integrity, bank stability, and potential limitations to water quality and fishery
resources. This chapter represents a refinement of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commissions (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update
(RWQMPU) and includes fishery, macroinvertebrate, and habitat data gathered since the
completion of that plan up to the year 2009. In some cases, the habitat discussion focuses on the
watershed as a whole and does not discuss each element of habitat for each assessment point
area. The second half of the chapter presents water quality and pollutant loading within the
Menomonee River watershed. In contrast to the habitat-based discussion, the water quality and
pollutant loading data and modeling results are presented for each assessment point area.
As mentioned in Chapter 3 of this Watershed Restoration Plan (WRP), the RWQMPU was the
starting point and set the framework for this plan it is not intended to be the final level of
restoration for the watershed. The goals of the RWQMPU, and consequently the WRP, were not
set to meet water quality standards in all locations of the watershed 365 days per year.
Therefore, the water quality results shown in this chapter, which are based on the recommended
plan from the RWQMPU, do not all meet water quality standards. However, achieving the goals
will significantly reduce the annual pollutant loads and concentrations in the streams and improve habitat
in the watershed. It is anticipated that additional work will follow as the adaptive watershed
Note: Sections 4.2 and 4.3 consist of excerpts from SEWRPCs Memorandum Report 194
Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River
Watersheds: 2000 2009. In some cases, SEWRPCs material has been modified or rearranged
to highlight pertinent aspects of the Menomonee River watershed and to fit within the context of
this WRP. Memorandum Report 194 is included in Appendix 4A.
Background
Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into stream systems by one of two pathways: either
directly flowing overland as surface water runoff into streams or infiltrating into the soil surface
and eventually flowing underground into streams as groundwater. Ephemeral streams generally
flow only during the wet season or large rainfall events. Streams that flow year-round are called
perennial streams and are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry periods. The surface
water drainage system contains approximately 142 miles of perennial and ephemeral streams
within the Menomonee River watershed (Figure 4-1). This map also depicts the assessment
point areas, identified as MN-1 thru MN-19. As noted above, some of the habitat-based
characteristics and the water quality and pollutant loading discussions utilize assessment point
areas to focus the discussion. Between the discussion of habitat and water quality/pollutant
loading, note that there are minor differences in aerial coverage of several of the assessment
4-1
Menomonee River
point areas. Figure 4-1 corresponds to the Menomonee Rivers habitat-based discussion. Figure
4-7, presented later in this chapter, corresponds to the water quality/ pollutant loading discussion.
Viewed from above, the network of water channels that form a river system typically displays a
branchlike pattern. A stream channel that flows into a larger channel is called a tributary of that
channel. The entire area drained by a single river system is termed a drainage basin, or
watershed. Stream size increases downstream as more and more tributary segments enter the
main channel. As water travels from headwater streams toward the mouth of larger rivers,
streams gradually increase their width and depth and the amount of water they discharge also
increases.
4-2
FIGURE 4-1
HABITAT ASSESSMENT POINT AREAS
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHED
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
Menomonee River
To better understand the Menomonee River watershed and the factors that shape its stream
conditions, it is important to understand the effects of both spatial and temporal scales.
Microhabitats, such as a handful-sized patch of gravel, are most susceptible to disturbance while
river systems and watersheds, or drainage basins are least susceptible. However, large
disturbances can directly influence smaller-scale features of streams. Similarly, on a temporal
scale, siltation of microhabitats may disturb the biotic community over the short term. However,
if the disturbance is of limited scope and intensity, the system may recover quickly to predisturbance levels.1 In contrast, extensive or prolonged disturbances, such as stream
channelization and the construction of concrete-linings, have resulted in longer term impacts
throughout the Menomonee River watershed.
Historical conditions
Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary area including the Menomonee River has been
substantially channelized, relocated, dredged, filled, and dammed to convert the significant
wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists.2 This
conversion allowed for the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area
that currently exists, but this conversion has lead to significant environmental degradation in
water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.3 Further comparison of the earliest known survey
of the entire Menomonee River system, completed in 1836, to the present channel conditions in
2005 also shows evidence of significant channelization, channel lining and diversion of stream
channels over this time period.
Straightening meandering stream channels or channelization was once a widely used and
accepted technique in agricultural management. The National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) cost-shared such activities up to the early
1970s within southeastern Wisconsin. The objectives of channelization were to reduce flooding,
facilitate drainage of low-lying areas, and allow more efficient farming within rectangular fields.
Channelization can lead to increased water temperature due to the loss of riparian vegetation. It
can also alter in-stream sedimentation rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, and
deposition. Therefore, channelization activities, as traditionally accomplished without mitigating
features, generally lead to a diminished suitability of in-stream and riparian habitat for fish and
wildlife.
Flood minimization measures also involved the placement of concrete (both as a flow channel
enhancement and as flow controls as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed channel)
and removal of vegetation from channels to promote rate of flow. Historically, these measures
were implemented without consideration of habitat impacts. Concrete-lined stream segments are
particularly damaging, due to the creation of conditions that fragment and limit linear and lateral
connectivity with the stream and their corridor habitat and ecosystem; limit or prevent fish and
wildlife movement; increase water temperature; destroy fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat;
limit recreational use including those attendant to navigation, fishing and aesthetics; and may
1
G.J. Niemi and others, An Overview of Case Studies on Recovery of Aquatic Systems From Disturbance,
Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 14, pages 571-587, 1990
2
Poff, R. and C. Threinen, Surface Water Resources of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Conservation Department,
Madison, Wisconsin, 1964
3
Milwaukee River Estuary Area of Concern (AOC), http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/milwaukee.html#pagetop
4-4
Menomonee River
actually increase flooding and decrease public safety. See Appendix 4A for SEWRPCs
Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological Assessment of the
Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This memo provides additional
information on the watercourse and contains detailed mapping of the Menomonee River
watershed.
Land use, imperviousness, and hydrology
The urban land use within the Menomonee River watershed is expected to increase between the
present and 2035. While such urbanization in the absence of planning can create negative
impacts on streams, urbanization itself is not the main factor driving the degradation of some
reaches of the Menomonee River watershed. In general, streams can survive and flourish in
urban settings. However, the main factors leading to the degradation of urban waterbodies are
the following:
Creation of large areas of connected impervious surfaces
Lack of adequate stormwater management facilities to control the quantity and quality of
runoff
Proximity of development to waterbodies
Loss of natural areas
Inadequate construction erosion controls.
These factors increase the potential for the occurrence of the negative water quality/quantity
effects associated with urbanization. Industrial and commercial land uses have significantly
more impervious area than residential land uses. Furthermore, smaller residential lots create
more impervious surfaces than larger residential lots. TABLE 4-1 lists the approximate amount
of impervious surfaces created by residential, industrial, commercial, and governmental and
institutional development.
4-5
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-1
Impervious Surface*
(percent)
Two-Acre Residential
10-15
One-Acre Residential
15-25
One-Half-Acre Residential
20-30
One-Third-Acre Residential
25-35
One-Fourth-Acre Residential
35-45
One-Eighth-Acre Residential
60-70
Industrial
70-80
Commercial
85-95
Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, Watershed Protection
Research Monograph No.1, March 2003, p. 7
4-6
Note: The discharge curve is higher and steeper for urban streams
The words before and after refer to before and after urbanization
Source: SEWRPC Memorandum Report No. 194.
FIGURE 4-2
HYDROGRAPH COMPARISON URBAN
AND RURAL STREAMS
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
Menomonee River
In addition, because impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow is
available to recharge ground water. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall,
baseflow levels are often reduced in urban streams.5 This has been observed to occur in the
Menomonee River watershed, which limits recreational opportunities such as canoeing. In
addition to water quantity and stream hydrology, stormwater runoff traveling over a parking lot
or driveway will pick up more heavy metals, bacteria, pathogens, and other stream pollutants
than runoff traveling over surfaces that allow some of the stormwater to be filtered or to
infiltrate. This directly affects water quality and pollutant loading within the Menomonee River
watershed, discussed on page 26.
Biological
Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and
hydrological variables. Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species
abundance and distributions within aquatic systems; however, such interactions are beyond the
scope of this report and are not considered further in this document. Abiotic factors such as
stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature, dissolved oxygen
concentrations, and substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities
(fishes, invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat
quality. For example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high
quality habitat. It is important to note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within
a watershed as well as to land use directly adjacent to the stream bank. Consequently, watershed
size and associated land use characterization as well as riparian buffer width are critical elements
necessary in defining habitat quality.
4.3
This section highlights habitat information for key assessment point areas within the Menomonee
River watershed based upon the analysis of physical and biological conditions from data
obtained from years 2000 through 2009. This assessment was based upon fish,
macroinvertebrate, and habitat samples collected for a variety of purposes by multiple agencies.
These samples were collected for a variety of purposes and programs. However, it is important to
note that the collection methods used were similar and comparable for purposes of this report.
Physical and riparian
The Menomonee River system is comprised of about 6% concrete-lining and 2% enclosed
channel. The concrete lining is predominantly located within the Honey Creek (MN-16) and
Underwood Creek (MN-14) assessment point areas. With several exceptions, the majority of the
Menomonee River stream system is in open channel and largely stable. Lilly Creek is very
unstable and comprised of more than 70% eroded streambanks, whereas the streams within other
Menomonee River watershed assessment point areas are generally less than 20% eroded.
The Menomonee River and its tributaries generally enjoy a high amount of protection from
riparian buffers that exceed 75 feet in width on more than half of its stream miles. The following
assessment point areas are exceptions:
5
Simmons, D., and R. Reynolds, Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected south shore streams, Long Island,
NY, Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 18(5): 797-805, 1982.
4-8
Menomonee River
SEWRPC, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and Management Plan for
Southeastern Wisconsin, Planning Report No. 42 (September 1997)
7
SEWRPC, A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Memorandum Report
No. 152 (December 2002)
8
SEWRPC, A Park and Open Space Plan for Milwaukee County, Community Assistance Planning Report No. 132
(November 1991)
9
MMSD, Conservation Plan Technical Report (October 2001)
4-9
Menomonee River
10-25 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates in the headwaters and gravel substrates
in the lower reaches.
As summarized within RWQMPU, there are a total of 153 point sources identified within the
Menomonee River watershed that include noncontact cooling water permits, individual permits,
combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls, and separate sewer overflow (SSO) outfalls. As
shown in TABLE 4-2, these are mostly located within the lower areas of the Menomonee River
watershed. There are an estimated 236 stormwater outfalls found within the Menomonee River
watershed. Stormwater outfalls are relatively evenly distributed throughout the watershed.
The physical outfall pipes themselves can potentially create significant localized erosion to
streambed and/or banks, especially if they are constructed at poor angles. These outfalls can be
retrofitted by changing pipe angles, installing deflectors, or shortening pipes, among others. It is
also important to note that these outfalls may provide opportunities for innovative infiltration
practices as well as protecting streambed and streambanks from erosion. In addition to outfall
design and construction, the location of the outfall is an important consideration. An outfall that
discharges directly to a waterbody conveys stormwater past the riparian buffer. These conditions
preclude any opportunity for the riparian buffer to filter or treat stormwater. Ideally, outfalls
would discharge directly into the riparian buffer area, which would allow some infiltration and
filtration of the stormwater within the buffer area. Outfall pipes can be retrofit or daylighted to
shift the outfall discharge point to the riparian buffer; note that the riparian buffer may need to be
modified in the new discharge area to prevent erosion. See Figure 4-3 for examples of infiltration
and streambank protection projects along Underwood Creek. Also, see Appendix 4A for
SEWRPCs Memorandum Report No. 194: Stream Habitat Conditions and Biological
Assessment of the Kinnickinnic and Menomonee River Watersheds: 2000 - 2009. This memo
provides additional information on outfall pipes, point sources and monitoring sites including
detailed mapping of these features of the Menomonee River watershed.
4-10
Outfall located
within riparian buffer
Rock-lined area downstream
of outfall to increase infltration
and reduce erosion
Re-connected floodplain/
Expanded riparian buffer
Outfall located
within riparian buffer
Natural stone
streambank
FIGURE 4-3
INFILTRATION AND STREAMBANK
PROTECTION
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
Menomonee River
10
J.C. Thomas , M.A. Lutz, and others, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, February 2004-September 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084 (2007)
11
Note that the USEPA indicates that IBI is used in warm freshwater streams to evaluate fish species richness and
composition, number and abundance of indicator species, trophic organization and function, reproductive behavior,
fish abundance, and condition of individual fish.
4-14
FIGURE 4-4
FIGURE 4-5
INTERACTIONS OF LAND USE, STREAM
CHARACTERISTICS AND HABITAT
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
T$%/(
AGGREGATED BIOASSESSMENT
RESULTS
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.]
Menomonee River
Urban land uses tend to increase impervious surfaces, which affect stream hydrology and impact
water quality. Periodic stormwater pollutant loads result in significant pollutant loading to area
waterbodies. Most of the water quality impacts are associated with the first flush of rainfall or
snowmelt events (wet weather event). The first flush carries most of the pollutants that have
accumulated on impervious surfaces since the preceding wet weather event. Following the first
flush, subsequent runoff is referred to as extended runoff; this runoff tends to transport less
pollution. In general, the first flush occurs during the first 30 minutes of a wet weather event and
the rest of the wet weather event produces extended runoff. Recent analyses compared the
concentrations of total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) among the following
sources:
First flush stormwater
CSO
SSO
Extended runoff
The analysis included water quality data that was gathered from 1990 to 2003, so it included
both pre-tunnel and post-tunnel data. The analysis of TP within first flush stormwater indicates
that TP concentrations are comparable to those found in CSOs, but tend to present in lower
concentrations relative to SSOs. The concentration of TP within extended runoff is generally
lower than those within the CSO and the first flush. The analysis of TSS within first flush
stormwater indicates that TSS concentrations are generally higher than TSS concentrations found
in CSOs, SSOs, and extended runoff. These analyses indicate that nonpoint source pollution
from the first flush of wet weather events contribute to TP and TSS loads and impact water
quality.
Chlorides from deicing activities also affect water quality. Similarly to TP and TSS, chlorides
are transported to area waterbodies during the first flush of wet weather events. Chloride
concentrations in the Menomonee River (at 70th Street) are correlated with winter and wet
weather events. As expected, the measured chloride concentrations tend to be highest during the
winter months when salt is applied to roadways within the Menomonee River watershed.
With respect to item 3 on page 4-15 (habitat loss and fragmentation due to structures and
concrete linings), Figure 4-6 depicts an example of a concrete-lined channel (top) that was
recently restored along with its associated floodplain (bottom). This project is located in
Underwood Creek and it serves as a good example of the potential habitat improvement that can
be realized by concrete removal and floodplain restoration.
4-18
Straight channel
Concrete lining
Re-connected
floodplain
Erosion control
fabric
Natural, meandering
channel
Stabilized bank
Gravel Substrate
Large boulders
provide resting
areas and slope
stability
FIGURE 4-6
CONCRETE REMOVAL / FLOODPLAIN
RESTORATION
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
Menomonee River
T.M. Slawski, and others, Effects of low-head dams, urbanization, and tributary spatial position on fish
assemblage structure within a Midwest stream, North American Journal of Fisheries Management (2008)
4-20
Menomonee River
mainstem and 14 tributary sites on the Menomonee River including inorganic, organic,
bacteriological, and instantaneous water quality measurements. The MMSD also contributes
funds for the operation of flow gaging stations by the USGS on the Menomonee River and some
of their associated tributaries.
4-21
TABLE 4-4
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION
MN WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
.]
Menomonee River
The MMSD with USGS have also established six real-time water quality monitoring station
throughout the Menomonee River watershed. Using remote sensor technology, the MMSD and
USGS are measuring real-time physical water quality and estimating other real-time
concentrations of selected water quality constituents. Real-time sensors at each location are
measuring specific conductance, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity along with
stream flow and stage. The real-time sensors are connected to data-collection platforms that
transmit data in parallel to the MMSD and USGS public websites. Access to this information on
a real-time basis allows for water resources management decisions and provides information for
citizens to see.
4.4
Water Quality and Pollutant Loading within the Menomonee River Watershed
For each assessment point, an assessment point area has been developed as a part of the
modeling process. These assessment point areas are the land areas that the water quality model
uses to calculate the delivered pollutant loads. Each assessment point areas water quality is the
result of the upstream water quality and a function of the delivered loads from the assessment
point area, accounting for the effects of instream processes through the water quality model.
For each assessment point area, the following is presented:
A map of the assessment point area showing the area and land use in the area
Land use in the assessment point area
Civil divisions (municipalities) that are in the assessment point area
Baseline Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Baseline defined as:
o The simulated water quality resulting from the model that has been validated
considering actual water quality data through calendar year 2007
o Land use as of 2000
o Land use pollutant loading rates that were initially based on the source loading
and management model (SLAMM) and soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)
models with some adjustments made to calibrate the water quality model.
To support the development of this watershed restoration plans (WRP), the water quality models
were updated to run through December 2007. The purpose of the update was to account for
known changes in the watersheds and to ensure the models still adequately represent Baseline
conditions. The updated modeling results for the Menomonee River watershed were found to
accurately simulate observed flow and water quality conditions. The Water Quality Model
Refinement memo is included in Appendix 4B.
Detailed Fact Sheets are located in Appendix 4C. The fact sheets use data, maps, figures, and
tables to present a comprehensive picture of the Baseline conditions within each assessment
point area in the Menomonee River watershed.
The pollutant loading is presented by Nonpoint Sources and Point Sources (industrial discharges,
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows SSOs)). The loading for
nonpoint sources is further refined to show the delivered loads by land use (both in loads and in
percent of total loads) and the unit loads for each land use (loads expressed in units per acre per
year).
4-23
Menomonee River
Year 2020 Pollutant Loading and Water Quality with Year 2020 defined as the water
quality resulting from the model assuming the following:
o
Growth in the assessment point areas as projected in the SEWRPC RWQMPU for
Year 2020.
While the chapter presents data for each of the assessment point areas individually, it may be
useful to first provide a comparison between all assessment point areas within the Menomonee
River Watershed. TABLE 4-5 offers a summation of loads derived from modeled nonpoint and
point sources. The nonpoint and point loads represent the Baseline modeled water quality in
units per year. In addition, the ranked loads for the Menomonee River watershed assessment
point areas and graphs that present the unit loads per acre for the assessment point areas are
presented in Appendix 4D. The data and analysis included in these appendices can serve as tools
during the implementation of actions to address focus areas in the Menomonee River watershed.
4-24
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-5
TOTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT POINT AREA LOADS
1
TP
pounds
Baseline Nonpoint
2
3
TSS
BOD
tons
pounds
FC
TP
billion counts
pounds
Baseline Point
TSS
BOD
tons
pounds
FC
TP
billion counts
pounds
Baseline Total
TSS
BOD
tons
pounds
FC
billion counts
MN-1
MN-2
MN-3
MN-4
MN-5
MN-6
MN-7
MN-8
MN-9
MN-10
MN-11
MN-12
MN-13
MN-14
MN-15
MN-16
MN-17
268
722
600
681
1,348
1,226
1,295
1,547
2,649
430
4,135
425
2,259
4,357
3,289
3,921
668
72.51
159.12
166.1
155.84
299.95
503.46
359.86
348.6
794.41
132.24
1,206.69
162.1
458.19
1,080.77
906.89
938.64
153.47
18,311
40,380
31,849
30,953
56,361
45,516
46,638
45,937
96,487
16,862
159,035
17,753
66,400
137,569
108,283
120,123
20,254
17,124
80,777
77,793
94,701
243,600
411,666
200,552
224,212
775,299
150,343
2,203,091
159,102
1,102,226
2,353,537
1,735,461
2,342,744
421,757
0
988
0
0
1
161
0
6
169
0
356
90
2
42
28
205
1,795
0
1.6
0
0
0.04
0.14
0
0.16
0.17
0
1.28
0.09
0.05
0.42
0.69
0.64
53.32
0
6,760
0
0
20
450
0
78
164
0
3,100
570
27
380
1,262
1,082
20,758
0
0
0
0
1,551
0
0
6,070
3,101
0
517
0
2,068
14,266
6,586
9,010
1,486,392
268
1,710
600
681
1,350
1,387
1,295
1,553
2,818
430
4,491
516
2,261
4,399
3,317
4,126
2,463
72.51
160.72
166.1
155.84
299.99
503.6
359.86
348.76
794.58
132.24
1,207.97
162.19
458.24
1,081.19
907.58
939.28
206.79
18,311
47,140
31,849
30,953
56,381
45,966
46,638
46,015
96,651
16,862
162,135
18,323
66,427
137,949
109,545
121,205
41,012
17,124
80,777
77,793
94,701
245,151
411,666
200,552
230,282
778,400
150,343
2,203,608
159,102
1,104,294
2,367,803
1,742,047
2,351,754
1,908,149
MN-18
3,295
945.39
110,523
1,910,966
16,170
79.05
148,801
838,648
19,465
1,024.44
259,324
2,749,614
Notes:
1
TP = Total phosphorus
2
TSS = Total suspended solids
3
BOD = Biochemical oxygen demand
4
FC = Fecal coliform
4-25
Menomonee River
The Menomonee River contains 18 assessment points and corresponding assessment point areas.
The assessment point areas are presented on Figure 4-7.
4.5.1 North Branch Menomonee River (Assessment Point Area MN-1)
The North Branch Menomonee River is located in the far northern extent of the Menomonee
River watershed and predominantly within the village of Germantown. The river begins about
mile west of County Y, between Bonniwell and West Rockfield Roads. It flows northeasterly
across county trunk highway (CTH) Y, state trunk highway (STH) 145 and then crosses Maple
Road approximately mile north of Rockfield Elementary School. From this point, the river
changes direction and flows southeasterly through Faber-Pribyl Woods to cross the Wisconsin
Central Limited (WCL) / Canadian National (CN) rail line and CTH G about 1/8 mile north of
Rockfield Road. From CTH G, the river continues to flow southeasterly and approximately
follows the WSL/CN rail line. The end of North Branch Menomonee River assessment point
area is located upstream of the confluence with the Menomonee River, approximately mile
north of Firemans Park in the village of Germantown (Figure 4-8). A tributary flows through
Hoelz Swamp.
Overall, the North Branch Menomonee River flows for about 1.5 miles and the area encompasses
2.7 square miles. The land use within the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point
area is predominantly agriculture (68%). Recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses
make up nearly 22% of the total land use within the area. This includes the Faber-Pribyl Woods
natural area, which is located in the center of the assessment point area and the Hoelz Swamp,
located on the downstream end of the assessment point area. This downstream point and the
Hoelz Swamp are located within a large environmental corridor that is located north of Freistadt
Road and east of CTH G. The riparian corridor widths vary from greater than 75 feet to less than
25 feet. In a few cases, the narrower riparian widths can be attributed to farming right up to the
edge of the river. The North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area does not contain
any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions.
The minimal development in the assessment point area is primarily distributed north of
Rockfield Road. Low-density residential (defined in following table) along with transportation,
manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 10% of the land
use. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately
2% of the North Branch Menomonee River assessment point area is impervious. More
information pertaining to land use and the effects of imperviousness on water quality and flows
are available in the RWQMPU. TABLE 4-6 presents the land uses within the North Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area.
4-26
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-6
1.8
67.76%
0.2
5.69%
0.0
0.00%
Commercial
0.0
0.06%
0.0
0.00%
0.6
21.63%
Transportation
0.1
4.49%
0.0
0.37%
Total
2.7
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling units /
net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre) along
with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-27
45
t
u
MN-1
43
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
M EE Q
QU
UO
ON
N
MN-1
41
t
u
MN-2
MN-3
!!
MN-3
45
t
u
MN-10
MN-2
MN-10
MN-6
MN-5
MN-4
MN-4
MN-5
MN-11
43
MN-6
MN-9
45
t
u
41
t
u
MN-7
!
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
G LL EE N
D AA LL EE
ND
MN-7
45
t
u
MN-12
!!
MN-8
MN-9
43
MN-11
!
!
MN-12
MN-8
MN-15
41
t
u
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
BB R
RO
OO
O KK FF II EE LL D
D
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
M II LL W
W AA U
U KK EE EE
45
t
u
MN-13
MN-14
MN-13
94
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U
43
MN-15
MN-17
MN-14
MN-16
!
! !MN-17
18
t
u
18
t
u
41
t
u
18
t
u
94
MN-18
94
W
W AA U
U KK EE SS H
H AA
! MN-18
18
t
u
894
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
W EE SS TT AA LL LL II SS
41
t
u
MN-16
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
N
N EE W
W BB EE R
R LL II N
N
45
t
u
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
GR
R EE EE N
N FF II EE LL D
D
94
894
43
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Assessment Point Basins
Watersheds
Waterbodies
Civil Divisions
0 2,3754,750
Feet
Figure 4-7
MN Watershed
9,500
Pioneer Road
MN-1
!
!
Mequon Road
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Land Use
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Agriculture
Commercial
650 1,300
Feet
Figure 4-8
MN-1 Land Use
2,600
Menomonee River
Portions of two municipalities within Washington County are located within the North Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area. The municipalities are the town of Germantown and
the village of Germantown. Nearly 88% of the 2.7 square mile area is located within the village
of Germantown. The town of Germantown occupies the remaining 12%. The extent of the civil
divisions within the assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-7.
TABLE 4-7
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Town of Germantown
0.3
12.33%
Village of Germantown
2.4
87.67%
Total
2.7
100.00%
Civil Division
4-30
Menomonee River
sediment; the concentrations of both parameters appear to be linked to nonpoint source loads.
See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-8. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the
table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, for some
areas, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed
assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables;
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO within the assessment point area. TABLE 4-9
presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-10 presents the Baseline percentage
breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-11 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per
acre basis.
4-31
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-9
FIGURE 4-10
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-8
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
701
81
116
287
672
89
90
147
Mean (mg/l)
9.6
Median (mg/l)
9.5
90
Mean (mg/l)
0.047
Median (mg/l)
0.038
95
Mean (mg/l)
1.24
Median (mg/l)
1.12
Mean (mg/l)
8.2
Median (mg/l)
Copper
Baseline
Condition
6.9
Mean (mg/l)
0.0023
Median (mg/l)
0.0013
4-35
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-9
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
44.24
65.26
56.95
10.86
2.19
--
11.61
9.27
1.75
3.28
3.20
2.34
1.22
10.02
--
0.94
44.85
--
--
--
TSS
tons
12.38
25.52
22.15
3.39
0.37
--
0.79
0.64
0.07
1.45
0.81
0.44
0.19
2.28
--
0.23
1.80
--
--
--
BOD
pounds
1,987
5,251
5,435
1,555
181
--
403
264
33
209
428
182
86
337
--
36
1,923
--
--
--
FC
billion counts
8,970
555
826
157
19
-336
622
154
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
335
156
249
149
4,066
--
362
168
--
--
--
Loads
Units
TABLE 4-10
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (PERCENT)
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
4%
1%
--
4%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
4%
--
TSS
17%
35%
31%
5%
1%
--
1%
1%
0%
2%
1%
1%
0%
3%
--
BOD
11%
29%
30%
8%
1%
--
2%
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
2%
--
FC
52%
3%
5%
1%
0%
-2%
4%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
1%
24%
--
SSOs
Government /
Institution
21%
CSOs
Forest
24%
Industrial
Crop (D)
17%
Wetland
Crop (C)
TP
Ultra Low
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
0%
17%
--
--
--
0%
2%
--
--
--
0%
11%
--
--
--
2%
1%
--
--
--
Loads
4-36
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-11
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.018
0.027
0.024
0.005
0.001
--
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.004
--
0.000
0.019
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.005
0.011
0.009
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
--
0.000
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
0.828
2.188
2.265
0.648
0.076
--
0.168
0.110
0.014
0.087
0.178
0.076
0.036
0.140
--
0.015
0.801
--
--
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
3.738 0.231 0.344 0.065 0.008
-0.140
0.259
0.064
0.140
0.065 0.104 0.062
1.695
-0.151
0.070
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-37
Menomonee River
4-38
Menomonee River
Menomonee River assessment point area would remain unchanged as very good. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-12
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1)
Assessment
Point
MN-1
North Branch
Menomonee River
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
726
80
68
309
700
87
44
152
Mean (mg/l)
9.5
Median (mg/l)
9.5
90
Mean (mg/l)
0.046
Median (mg/l)
0.038
Copper
Year 2020
Condition
95
Mean (mg/l)
0.95
Median (mg/l)
0.88
Mean (mg/l)
7.1
Median (mg/l)
5.8
Mean (mg/l)
0.0022
Median (mg/l)
0.0012
4-39
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-13
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / YEAR)
15.85
15.92
2.28
1.47
1.91
1.50
0.32
13.37
--
9.76
1.82
0.87
--
1.25
1.33
0.11
0.66
0.48
0.27
0.05
3.01
--
4,282
1,516
420
--
649
565
50
97
324
149
29
464
--
218
149
12
20
5,269
--
FC
billion counts
8,864
47
64
15
45
-494
1,145
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
--
CSOs
5.08
Industrial
Transportation
6.75
Wetland
Residential
28.67
Ultra Low
Pasture (D)
4,468
Pasture (C)
12.47
2,008
Pasture (B)
12.15
Industrial
tons
pounds
Grass (D)
TSS
BOD
Grass (C)
35.45
Grass (B)
43.74
Government /
Institution
pounds
Forest
Units
TP
Crop (D)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Crop (C)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
0.95
52.85
--
--
--
0.23
2.12
--
--
--
37
2,266
--
--
--
354
198
--
--
--
TABLE 4-14
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (PERCENT)
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
16%
13%
3%
2%
--
7%
7%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
6%
--
TSS
tons
26%
27%
21%
4%
2%
--
3%
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
0%
6%
--
BOD
pounds
12%
26%
25%
9%
2%
--
4%
3%
0%
1%
2%
1%
0%
3%
--
FC
billion count
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-3%
7%
1%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
0%
0%
31%
--
4-40
SSOs
Government /
Institution
19%
CSOs
Forest
pounds
Industrial
Crop (D)
Units
TP
Wetland
Crop (C)
Loads
Ultra Low
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
0%
23%
--
--
--
0%
5%
--
--
--
0%
13%
--
--
--
2%
1%
--
--
--
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-15
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NORTH BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-1) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Government /
Institution
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds/acre
0.017
0.015
0.012
0.003
0.002
--
0.007
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.005
--
0.000
0.022
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.000
--
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
--
0.000
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
0.837
1.862
1.785
0.632
0.175
--
0.270
0.236
0.021
0.040
0.135
0.062
0.000
0.193
--
0.016
0.944
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
3.507
0.019
0.027
0.006
0.019
--
0.206
0.477
0.091
0.062
0.005
0.008
0.002
2.131
--
0.141
0.083
--
--
--
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-41
Menomonee River
4.5.2 Upper Menomonee River Area (Assessment Points MN-2 and MN-5)
The Upper Menomonee River area is located in the north central portion of the Menomonee
River watershed. Assessment points MN-2 and MN-5 are located along the mainstem in this
area. Throughout these two assessment point areas, the mainstem of the Upper Menomonee
River flows southwesterly for about six miles and then southeasterly for about two miles.
The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) is located predominantly in the
village of Germantown, but some of the area is located in the town of Germantown and the city
of Mequon. The river begins just south of the Pioneer Road at CTH M, on the west side of the
city of Mequon. It flows southwesterly across Bonniwell Road, past Wilderness Park and south
across Holy Hill / Highland Roads. From there, it flows southwesterly for about mile where it
changes direction and flows westerly towards the WCL/CN rail line, north of CTH F. After
flowing west of the rail line, the river again flows southwesterly and passes north of Firemans
Park and Kennedy Middle School. The river eventually flows past the Wisconsin & Southern
Rail line (WSOR) on the north side of the Lake Park Golf Course and enters the Upper
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) (Figure 4-13), see following section. This is
also the approximate location of the confluence with the West Branch Menomonee River (MN3), see page 77.
With the exception of development in the area around CTHs F and G in the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-2), the river flows through agricultural lands and much of the
mainstems riparian corridor exceeds 75 feet in this area. Throughout the area, the river flows
along a predominantly natural channel. The Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-2) covers about 9.4 square miles (Figure 4-12). The Upper Menomonee River assessment
point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land use throughout the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area is predominantly agriculture (54%). Recreation, natural areas, and open
space land uses make up nearly 31% of the total land use. Low-density residential (defined on
following table) along with transportation, institutional and governmental, manufacturing and
industrial, commercial, and high-density residential land uses compose the remaining 15%.
Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 5%
of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2) is impervious. TABLE 4-16
presents the land uses within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area.
4-42
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-16
LAND USE IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-2) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Land Use
Agriculture
5.1
54.12%
0.7
7.08%
0.0
0.40%
Commercial
0.0
0.56%
0.1
0.84%
3.0
31.49%
Transportation
0.5
5.03%
0.0
0.48%
Total
9.4
100.00%
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-43
Pioneer Road
MN-2
!
!
Mequon Road
Ap
pl
et
on
Av
.
!
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Land Use
Agriculture
Commercial
1,000 2,000
Feet
Figure 4-12
MN-2 Land Use
4,000
!
!
Mequon Road
Ap
pl
e
to
n
Av
MN-5
Main St.
!
n
ai
St
.
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Land Use
Waterbodies
Agriculture
Water
Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
800 1,600
Feet
Figure 4-13
MN-5 Land Use
3,200
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Ozaukee and Washington counties are located within the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). The municipalities include: the city of
Mequon, the town of Germantown, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 86% of the
9.4 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The city of Mequon occupies
nearly 9% of the assessment point area. The town of Germantown occupies the remaining 5%.
The extent of the civil divisions within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN2) assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-17.
TABLE 4-17
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2)
Civil Division
City of Mequon
0.9
9.01%
Town of Germantown
0.4
4.55%
Village of Germantown
8.1
86.44%
Total
9.4
100.00%
4-46
Menomonee River
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and TSS
data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were both assessed as very good during
the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations typically decline during the summer
months, which could be a function of decreased water agitation and increased water temperature.
The moderate variability in DO concentrations suggests that there may be algal growth, organic
enrichment, and increased oxygen demand within the river.
The concentrations of TSS were characterized as very good in the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-2). The data indicate that TSS concentrations are generally low and
they decline even lower during the winter months. Settling of suspended solids, especially
within the wetlands located within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2),
could be contributing to the low TSS concentrations. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail
on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-18. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the
table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-19 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2), TABLE 420 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and TABLE 4-21 presents the
Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment point MN-1 is located upstream.
The Baseline cumulative loads, including those from MN-1, are estimated. TABLE 4-22
presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-23 presents the Baseline
percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-24 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-47
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-14
FIGURE 4-15
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-18
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Upper Menomonee
(annual)
River
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
797
75
124
262
602
86
79
144
Mean (mg/l)
9.3
Median (mg/l)
9.1
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.09
Median (mg/l)
0.072
Copper
Baseline
Condition
70
Mean (mg/l)
0.77
Median (mg/l)
0.72
Mean (mg/l)
7.9
Median (mg/l)
5.7
Mean (mg/l)
0.0024
Median (mg/l)
0.0012
4-51
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-19
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
187.70
31.00
125.16
2.62
8.94
7.23
36.46
57.85
8.04
16.61
5.93
34.37
2.28
41.03
--
15.16
141.37
988.18
--
--
TSS
tons
52.52
12.12
48.69
0.82
1.53
2.23
2.47
4.00
0.33
7.35
1.51
6.41
0.35
9.33
--
3.79
5.67
1.60
--
--
BOD
pounds
8,429
2,494
11,946
375
739
618
1,266
1,650
150
1,059
793
2,677
161
1,377
--
583
6,061
6,760
--
--
FC
billion counts
38,057
263
1,814
38
78
5,936
1,054
3,887
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
709
1,697
289
3,656
278
16,643
--
5,847
530
0.00
--
--
TABLE 4-20
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
11%
2%
7%
0%
1%
0%
2%
3%
0%
1%
0%
2%
0%
2%
--
1%
8%
58%
--
--
TSS
33%
8%
30%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
0%
5%
1%
4%
0%
6%
--
2%
4%
1%
--
--
BOD
18%
5%
25%
1%
2%
1%
3%
4%
0%
2%
2%
6%
0%
3%
--
1%
13%
14%
--
--
FC
47%
0%
2%
0%
0%
7%
1%
5%
1%
2%
0%
5%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
21%
--
7%
1%
0%
--
--
Loads
4-52
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-21
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.035
0.006
0.024
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.007
0.011
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.008
--
0.003
0.027
0.186
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.010
0.002
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
--
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
1.586
0.469
2.247
0.070
0.139
0.116
0.238
0.310
0.028
0.199
0.149
0.504
0.030
0.259
--
0.110
1.140
1.272
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
7.159
0.050
0.341
0.007
0.015
1.116
0.198
0.731
0.133
0.319
0.054
0.688
0.052
3.131
--
1.100
0.100
0.000
--
--
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-22
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
231.94
96.25
182.11
13.48
11.14
7.23
48.07
67.12
9.79
19.89
9.13
36.71
3.51
51.05
--
16.09
186.22
988.18
--
--
TSS
tons
64.90
37.64
70.84
4.21
1.90
2.23
3.26
4.64
0.41
8.80
2.32
6.85
0.54
11.61
--
4.02
7.47
1.60
--
--
BOD
pounds
10,416
7,745
17,381
1,930
921
618
1,670
1,915
183
1,269
1,220
2,860
247
1,714
--
619
7,984
6,760
--
--
FC
billion counts
47,027
818
2,640
194
98
5,936
1,389
4,509
864
2,032
445
3,905
428
20,710
--
6,209
698
0.00
--
--
Loads
Units
4-53
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-23
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
12%
5%
9%
1%
1%
0%
2%
3%
0%
1%
0%
2%
0%
3%
--
1%
9%
50%
--
--
TSS
tons
28%
16%
30%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
0%
4%
1%
3%
0%
5%
--
2%
3%
1%
--
--
BOD
pounds
16%
12%
27%
3%
1%
1%
3%
3%
0%
2%
2%
4%
0%
3%
--
1%
12%
10%
--
--
billion counts
48%
1%
3%
0%
0%
6%
1%
5%
1%
2%
0%
4%
0%
21%
--
6%
1%
0%
--
--
FC
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-24
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNITS / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.030
0.012
0.024
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.009
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.007
--
0.002
0.024
0.128
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.008
0.005
0.009
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
--
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
1.350
1.004
2.253
0.250
0.119
0.080
0.216
0.248
0.024
0.164
0.158
0.371
0.032
0.222
--
0.080
1.035
0.876
--
--
0.106
0.342
0.025
0.013
0.769
0.180
0.584
0.112
0.263
0.058
0.506
0.055
2.684
--
0.805
0.090
0.000
--
--
FC
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-54
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
good) in the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-2). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4
for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-25
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT
AREA (MN-2)
Assessment
Point
MN-2
Upper
Menomonee
River
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
832
73
100
269
502
85
53
147
Mean (mg/l)
9.3
Median (mg/l)
9.1
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.091
Median (mg/l)
0.073
Copper
Year 2020
Condition
70
Mean (mg/l)
0.62
Median (mg/l)
0.59
Mean (mg/l)
7.4
Median (mg/l)
5.1
Mean (mg/l)
0.0024
Median (mg/l)
0.0011
4-56
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-26
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / YEAR)
8,324
806
1,000
92.64
--
16.73
0.53
2.08
0.15
21.34
--
4.18
357
1,144
95
3,214
--
662
13
156
16
34,240
--
5,855
569
SSOs
713
1.06
CSOs
1,490
4.90
186
11.57
Industrial
5,542
0.41
2.10
Wetland
127
9.70
4,109
Ultra Low
3.77
1,957
Transportation
109
664
10.83
Residential
16
2.36
1,200
8.39
Pasture (D)
33,881
FC
2.48
251
115.72
Pasture (C)
billion counts
BOD
0.30
47.81
Pasture (B)
pounds
7,319
7.73
Industrial
16.69
1,578
tons
14.51
Grass (D)
4.41
8,348
TSS
1.12
Grass (C)
50.94
pounds
Point Source
Grass (B)
49.01
TP
Government /
Institution
Crop (C)
12.52
Units
Forest
Crop (B)
181.04
Loads
Crop (D)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
151.93
988.18
--
--
6.10
1.60
--
--
6,514
6,760
--
--
0.00
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-27
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
11%
1%
3%
0%
1%
0%
3%
7%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
5%
--
1%
9%
58%
--
--
TSS
tons
39%
3%
13%
0%
2%
2%
3%
7%
0%
4%
0%
2%
0%
16%
--
3%
5%
1%
--
--
BOD
pounds
19%
4%
16%
1%
3%
1%
4%
9%
0%
2%
1%
3%
0%
7%
--
1%
14%
15%
--
--
FC
billion counts
37%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
2%
9%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
37%
--
6%
1%
0%
--
--
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-57
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-28
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.033
0.002
0.009
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.009
0.022
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.017
--
0.003
0.029
0.186
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.010
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.004
--
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
1.570
0.297
1.377
0.047
0.226
0.125
0.368
0.773
0.035
0.134
0.067
0.215
0.000
0.605
--
0.125
1.225
1.272
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
6.173
0.003
0.021 0.000 0.024
1.027
0.280
1.566
0.152
0.188
0.002 0.029 0.003
6.373
-1.076
0.107
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
--
TABLE 4-29
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
224.77
47.98
77.68
7.87
19.59
7.73
63.66
131.64
10.67
12.30
4.01
13.07
1.38
106.00
--
17.68
204.78
988.18
--
--
TSS
tons
63.09
16.88
26.45
2.12
3.34
2.36
5.01
11.03
0.52
5.56
1.01
2.35
0.20
24.36
--
4.41
8.22
1.60
--
--
BOD
pounds
10,356
6,046
11,601
1,766
1,620
664
2,607
4,674
237
810
682
1,293
124
3,678
--
700
8,780
6,760
--
--
FC
billion counts
42,745
63
173
17
172
5,542
1,984
9,469
1,024
1,149
25
177
21
39,508
--
6,209
767
0.00
--
--
Loads
Units
4-58
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-30
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
12%
2%
4%
0%
1%
0%
3%
7%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
5%
--
1%
11%
51%
--
--
TSS
tons
35%
9%
15%
1%
2%
1%
3%
6%
0%
3%
1%
1%
0%
14%
--
2%
5%
1%
--
--
BOD
pounds
17%
10%
19%
3%
3%
1%
4%
7%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
6%
--
1%
14%
11%
--
--
FC
billion counts
39%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
2%
9%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
36%
--
6%
1%
0%
--
--
Loads
Units
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-31
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-2) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
pounds/acre
0.029
0.006
0.010
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.008
0.017
0.001
0.002
0.001 0.002
0.000
0.014
--
0.002
0.027
0.128
--
--
tons/acre
0.008
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.003
--
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
1.342
0.784
1.504
0.229
0.210
0.086
0.338
0.606
0.031
0.105
0.088 0.168
0.016
0.477
--
0.091
1.138
0.876
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
5.540
0.008
0.022
0.002
0.022
0.718
0.257
1.227
0.133
0.149
0.003 0.023
0.003
5.120
--
0.805
0.099
0.000
--
--
Units
Pasture (C)
Crop (C)
TP
TSS
Loads
Pasture (B)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-59
Menomonee River
MN-5
Assessment point MN-5 is located downstream of MN-2, along the mainstem of the Upper
Menomonee River. On the upstream end of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5), the river flows southwesterly through Lake Park Swamp and the Lake Park Golf
Course, past Germantown High School, across STH 167 and flows south through SchoenLauffen Park. About mile south of the park, the river crosses USH 41/45, just east of the
Maple Lane overpass on USH 41/45. The river continues south along Maple Lane where it
changes direction and flows southeasterly about mile from the Rivers Bend Golf Club. The
river continues along the south and west sides of the club and then passes under CTH Q, just
west of the USH 41/45 and CTH Q interchange. From this point, the river flows east along the
south side of CTH Q. The downstream terminus of the Upper Menomonee River assessment
point area (MN-5) is located about mile south of the CTH Q interchange. At this point, the
river flows into the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9), see page 156. The
Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4) is located to the west and flows into the Upper
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5) about mile south of the Maple Lane
overpass on US 41/45, see page 92.
MN-5s assessment point area encompasses 8.3 square miles (Figure 4-13). This assessment
point area does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. In general,
the northern half of the area is developed with low density residential and the riparian buffer
along the river is less than 25 feet. Farther southwest, the buffer width increases as the river
flows through a predominantly agricultural area. Throughout the assessment point area, the river
flows along a predominantly natural channel and the width of the buffer is less than 75 feet along
nearly 60% of the stream within the area. The downstream terminus of the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-5) contains a fair amount of commercial development in the
village of Menomonee Falls.
As noted above, the land uses throughout the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5) are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space (32%). Low-density
residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 24% of the total land use while
transportation makes up nearly 19% of the total land use. Agriculture along with high-density
residential, commercial, institutional and governmental, and manufacturing & industrial land
uses compose the remaining 25%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 18% of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5) is impervious. TABLE 4-32 presents the land uses within the Upper Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-5).
4-60
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-32
LAND USE IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
1.3
16.03%
2.0
23.72%
0.3
3.87%
Commercial
0.2
2.47%
0.1
1.51%
2.7
32.19%
Transportation
1.6
18.92%
0.1
1.29%
Total
8.3
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
Portions of two municipalities within Washington and Waukesha counties are located within the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-5). The municipalities are the village of
Germantown and the village of Menomonee Falls. Nearly 92% of the 8.3 square mile
assessment point area is located within the village of Germantown. The village of Menomonee
Falls occupies the remaining 8%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-5) is presented in TABLE 4-33.
TABLE 4-33
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Village of Germantown
7.6
91.59%
0.7
8.41%
Total
8.3
100.00%
Civil Division
4-61
Menomonee River
land uses. It is important to recognize that land uses directly impact pollutant loading, which in
turn directly affects water quality. The assumed FC loads from the land uses in the assessment
point area reasonably characterize the resulting FC modeled water quality. There is no
significant evidence of unknown sources in this assessment point area.
The detailed assessment of FC counts in terms of days per year, FC counts as a function of
months of the year, and FC counts as compared to stream flow can be viewed in the fact sheet
presented in Appendix 4C. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC
concentrations were poor for the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. While
FC concentrations at this site tend to exhibit only infrequent spikes of above 5,000 counts, FC
counts regularly exceed regulatory standards during periods with high flows. See Figure 4-17,
Figure 4-18, and Figure 4-19. Note: the black line on Figure 4-17 represents the cumulative
number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Total phosphorus concentrations were characterized as poor. Within the Upper Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-5), concentrations of TP tend to peak during high flows and
during low flows. This suggests that there are likely two prominent sources of TP within the
Upper Menomonee River assessment point area. The sources likely include a background source
of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable during low flows and nonpoint contributions that
increase the TP concentrations during high flows.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO and
TSS data. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during
the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). The TSS concentrations were characterized as very good. See
Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more details on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-34. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the assessment point area. In the table,
the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the
detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential
disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where
applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples exhibit chloride concentrations that are below those that
are toxic to fish and invertebrates. Concentrations measured in March consistently exceed the
chronic toxicity threshold. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and there are no
winter data. Note that concentrations in the spring samples (which include snow melt and spring
runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. However, chloride concentrations during the winter
would be expected to be greater than those measured in spring. As the field data used to develop
this figure do not include samples from the winter, it is impossible to draw accurate conclusions
regarding chloride (Figure 4-20).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
4-62
Menomonee River
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-35 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-36 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-37 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
points MN-1 through MN-4 are upstream of the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5). The Baseline cumulative loads, including loads from MN-1 through MN-4, are
estimated. TABLE 4-38 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-39
presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-40 presents
the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-63
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-17
FIGURE 4-18
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
FIGURE 4-19
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-34
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
68
205
202
890
82
105
125
Mean (mg/l)
10.5
Median (mg/l)
10.7
0.097
Median (mg/l)
0.063
70
Mean (mg/l)
1.21
Median (mg/l)
1.08
Mean (mg/l)
10.2
Median (mg/l)
Copper
99
Mean (mg/l)
1,417
Baseline
Condition
Mean (mg/l)
0.0041
Median (mg/l)
0.0016
4-67
1000
100
10
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-35
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
33.56
3.10
2.98
3.09
143.27
49.83
3.54
4.78
12.35
1.95
14.84
0.76
0.54
0.47
32.58
18.50
982
2,447
5,098
876
2,140
399
226
217
4,810
2,138
4,145
3,429
145
308
375
58,122
6,303
121,420
180
316
113
40
9,432
2,036
12,005
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
47.08
CSOs
180.32
Industrial
70.96
Wetland
11.48
Ultra Low
378
Transportation
0.78
810
Residential
2.88
Pasture (D)
9.66
1,484
Pasture (C)
billion counts
9.31
1,440
Pasture (B)
FC
4.67
Industrial
26,893
7.90
Grass (D)
pounds
22.09
Grass (C)
167.56
BOD
21.61
Grass (B)
tons
Point Source
Government /
Institution
598.86
TSS
Forest
pounds
Crop (D)
Units
TP
Crop (C)
Loads
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
64.60
82.84
--
--
1.42
16.14
3.31
--
--
0.04
2,485
3,539
--
--
20
24,921
309
--
--
1,551
TABLE 4-36
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
44%
2%
2%
1%
0%
1%
5%
13%
3%
2%
0%
0%
0%
11%
4%
5%
6%
--
--
0%
TSS
56%
3%
3%
1%
0%
1%
2%
4%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
11%
6%
5%
1%
--
--
0%
BOD
48%
3%
3%
1%
1%
2%
4%
9%
2%
4%
1%
0%
0%
9%
4%
4%
6%
--
--
0%
FC
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
1%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
24%
3%
10%
0%
--
--
1%
Loads
4-69
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-37
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
Pounds/acre
0.127
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.015
0.038
0.010
0.007
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.030
0.011
0.014
0.018
--
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.035
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.003
0.001
--
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
5.682
0.304
0.314
0.171
0.080
0.207
0.517
1.077
0.185
0.452
0.084
0.048
0.046
1.016
0.452
0.525
0.748
--
--
0.004
FC
billion counts/acre
25.652
0.038
0.067
0.024
0.008
1.993
0.430
2.536
0.876
0.724
0.031
0.065
0.079
12.279
1.332
5.265
0.065
--
--
0.328
Loads
Units
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-38
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
286.45
121.02
111.54
SSOs
9.81
CSOs
49.27
Industrial
30.08
Wetland
164.24
Ultra Low
69.77
Transportation
315.42
Residential
280.37
Pasture (D)
20.69
Pasture (C)
Industrial
29.27
Point Source
Pasture (B)
Grass (D)
27.96
Grass (C)
260.56
Grass (B)
224.01
Government /
Institution
1257.36
Forest
Crop (D)
pounds
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Crop (B)
Loads
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
361.78
988.18
--
1.42
TSS
tons
351.81
90.43
103.91
9.47
4.92
6.38
18.89
21.65
2.90
72.62
7.47
9.14
1.50
65.14
44.93
27.86
14.49
1.60
--
0.04
BOD
pounds
56,465
17,034
23,380
3,422
2,386
1,769
9,667
8,938
1,298
10,473
3,927
3,820
689
9,617
5,191
4,290
15,487
6,760
--
20
FC
billion counts
254,933
1,892
3,767
402
253
16,998
8,044
21,048
6,143
16,778
1,432
5,216
1,191
116,205
15,307
43,032
1,354
--
1,551
4-70
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-39
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
27%
5%
6%
1%
1%
0%
6%
7%
2%
4%
1%
1%
0%
6%
3%
2%
8%
0%
--
0%
TSS
tons
41%
11%
12%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
0%
8%
1%
1%
0%
8%
5%
3%
2%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
31%
9%
13%
2%
1%
1%
5%
5%
1%
6%
2%
2%
0%
5%
3%
2%
8%
4%
--
0%
FC
billion
counts
49%
0%
1%
0%
0%
3%
2%
4%
1%
3%
0%
1%
0%
23%
3%
8%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-40
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.066
0.012
0.014
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.015
0.017
0.004
0.009
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.015
0.006
0.006
0.019
0.052
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.018
0.005
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
2.969
0.896
1.229
0.180
0.125
0.093
0.508
0.470
0.068
0.551
0.206
0.201
0.036
0.506
0.273
0.226
0.814
0.355
--
0.001
FC
billion
counts/acre
13.405
0.099
0.198
0.021
0.013
0.894
0.423
1.107
0.323
0.882
0.075
0.274
0.063
6.110
0.805
2.263
0.071
0.000
--
0.082
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-71
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that there also wouldnt be any change in the
assessment of flashiness (very good) within the Upper Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-5). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness
under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-41
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-5)
Assessment
Point
MN-5
Menomonee
River at
WashingtonWaukesha
County Line
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
67
180
214
657
81
79
134
Mean (mg/l)
10.5
Median (mg/l)
10.7
0.102
Median (mg/l)
0.065
69
Mean (mg/l)
0.95
Median (mg/l)
0.85
Mean (mg/l)
9.7
Median (mg/l)
Copper
99
Mean (mg/l)
1,362
Year 2020
Condition
5.5
Mean (mg/l)
0.0042
Median (mg/l)
0.0016
4-73
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-42
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
0.86
0.18
--
0.80
BOD
pounds
29,832
252
57
--
385
FC
billion counts
120,336
--
41
10,000
0.09
0.01
0.00
169.51
48.24
14.44
2.27
21.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
37.10
17.78
6,115
1,033
3,065
14
5,888
2,076
12,869
4,580
4,405
60,735
5,828
SSOs
178.47
47.30
CSOs
tons
47.82
Industrial
TSS
181.62
Wetland
4.76
Ultra Low
--
Transportation
0.50
Residential
2.36
Pasture (D)
653.59
Pasture (C)
pounds
Pasture (B)
TP
Industrial
Units
Grass (D)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
2,549
Forest
6.25
3,245
Crop (D)
4.21
1,192
Crop (C)
82.67
Crop (B)
14.32
Commercial
Government /
Institution
Nonpoint Source
69.00
83.58
--
--
0.47
16.67
3.34
--
--
0.01
2,744
3,570
--
--
23,180
312
--
--
517
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-43
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
46%
0%
0%
--
0%
1%
6%
13%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0%
12%
3%
5%
6%
--
--
0%
TSS
tons
59%
0%
0%
--
0%
1%
2%
5%
1%
7%
0%
0%
0%
12%
6%
5%
1%
--
--
0%
BOD
pounds
50%
0%
0%
--
1%
2%
5%
10%
2%
5%
0%
0%
0%
10%
3%
5%
6%
--
--
0%
FC
billion counts
49%
0%
0%
--
0%
4%
1%
5%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
25%
2%
9%
0%
--
--
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-74
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-44
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.130
0.000
0.000
--
0.001
0.003
0.017
0.038
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.010
0.013
0.018
--
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.038
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.001
--
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.302
0.053
0.012
--
0.081
0.252
0.686
1.292
0.218
0.647
0.003
0.000
0.000
1.244
0.439
0.580
0.754
--
--
0.001
FC
billion counts/acre
24.286
0.001
0.000
--
0.009
2.070
0.539
2.719
0.968
0.931
0.000
0.000
0.000
12.414
1.231
4.710
0.066
--
--
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-45
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
1,333.89
83.20
97.25
9.56
44.01
24.95
366.57
404.63
77.08
191.10
7.81
15.07
1.45
394.69
116.40
118.19
392.99
988.18
--
0.00
TSS
tons
361.86
29.51
33.30
2.60
7.42
7.33
27.91
32.85
3.66
85.76
1.93
2.70
0.21
87.69
43.24
28.34
15.74
1.60
--
0.01
pounds
60,603
10,179
14,131
2,022
3,593
2,075
14,492
13,912
1,663
12,483
1,294 1,486
130
13,629
5,048
4,666
16,824
6,760
--
110
217
21
381
17,326
11,323
28,839
7,381
17,791
23
143,543
13,671
40,027
1,471
--
517
BOD
FC
4-75
47
203
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-46
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
29%
2%
2%
0%
1%
1%
8%
9%
2%
4%
0%
0%
0%
8%
2%
3%
8%
21%
--
0%
TSS
tons
47%
4%
4%
0%
1%
1%
4%
4%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
11%
6%
4%
2%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
33%
6%
8%
1%
2%
1%
8%
8%
1%
7%
1%
1%
0%
7%
3%
3%
9%
4%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
47%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
2%
5%
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
27%
3%
8%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
Units
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-47
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UPPER MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-5) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Grass (B)
Wetland
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.070
0.004
0.005
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.019
0.021
0.004
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.021
0.006
0.006
0.021
0.052
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.019
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
3.187
0.535
0.743
0.106
0.189
0.109
0.762
0.731
0.087
0.656
0.068
0.078
0.007
0.717
0.265
0.245
0.885
0.355
--
0.000
FC
billion
counts/acre
13.116
0.006
0.011
0.001
0.020
0.911
0.595
1.516
0.388
0.935
0.002
0.011
0.001
7.548
0.719
2.105
0.077
0.000
--
0.027
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-76
Menomonee River
4-77
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-48
LAND USE IN THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-3) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
2.3
49.60%
0.3
6.75%
0.1
1.23%
Commercial
0.0
0.54%
0.0
0.56%
1.0
23.07%
Transportation
0.5
11.39%
0.3
6.86%
Total
4.5
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-78
!
!
MN-3
Ap
pl
et
on
Av
.
!
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Land Use
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Agriculture
Commercial
650 1,300
Feet
Figure 4-21
MN-3 Land Use
2,600
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Washington County are located within the West Branch
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). The municipalities include: the town of
Germantown, the town of Richfield, and the village of Germantown. Approximately 96% of the
4.5 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The towns of Germantown
and Richfield occupy the remaining 4%. The extent of the civil divisions within the West
Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3) is presented in TABLE 4-49.
TABLE 4-49
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER (MN-3) ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
Town of Germantown
0.0
0.05%
Town of Richfield
0.2
4.43%
Village of Germantown
4.3
95.52%
Total
4.5
100.00%
Civil Division
4-80
Menomonee River
TSS with increasing flows suggests contributions from nonpoint sources. See Chapter 6, Section
6.4 for more details on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-50. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the West Branch Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-3). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality
parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed
earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that
were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality
variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider
special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-51 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-52 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-53 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-81
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-22
FIGURE 4-23
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-50
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
77
159
250
712
90
101
144
Mean (mg/l)
9.4
Median (mg/l)
9.5
91
Mean (mg/l)
0.053
Median (mg/l)
0.039
91
Mean (mg/l)
1.08
Median (mg/l)
0.96
Mean (mg/l)
10.6
Median (mg/l)
Copper
1,167
Baseline
Condition
8.1
Mean (mg/l)
0.0035
Median (mg/l)
0.0013
4-85
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-51
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / YEAR)
282
0.59
3.86
1.65
0.13
163
1,978
682
59
280
FC
billion counts
43,910
537
374
27
30
1,562
1,646
1,605
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
3.79
0.38
20.95
32.72
38.87
1.95
0.71
0.06
4.77
12.15
5,606
1,023
295
27
703
1,404
8,980
373
403
47
8,500
4,139
SSOs
0.58
268
7.65
CSOs
0.58
2,462
87.91
Industrial
10.04
5,083
3.17
Wetland
24.70
9,726
23.90
Ultra Low
60.60
pounds
56.95
Transportation
tons
BOD
1.90
Residential
3.42
Pasture (D)
1.87
Pasture (C)
25.80
Pasture (B)
63.17
Point Source
Industrial
Forest
216.57
TSS
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Government /
Institution
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
13.59
36.51
--
--
--
3.40
1.46
--
--
--
523
1,565
--
--
--
5,243
137
--
--
--
TABLE 4-52
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
36%
11%
4%
0%
1%
0%
9%
4%
1%
15%
1%
1%
0%
3%
5%
2%
6%
--
--
--
TSS
36%
15%
6%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
0%
23%
1%
0%
0%
3%
7%
2%
1%
--
--
--
BOD
31%
16%
8%
1%
1%
1%
6%
2%
0%
18%
3%
1%
0%
2%
4%
2%
5%
--
--
--
FC
56%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
2%
0%
12%
0%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
11%
5%
7%
0%
--
--
--
Loads
4-86
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-53
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.075
0.022
0.009
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.020
0.008
0.001
0.031
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.011
0.005
0.013
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.021
0.009
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.014
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
3.389
1.771
0.858
0.093
0.098
0.057
0.689
0.238
0.021
1.954
0.357
0.103
0.009
0.245
0.489
0.182
0.545
--
--
--
--
--
--
billion
15.302
0.187
0.130
0.009
0.010
0.544
0.574
0.559
0.097
3.130
0.130
0.141
0.016
2.962
1.442
1.827 0.048
FC
counts/acre
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-87
Menomonee River
4-88
Menomonee River
poor at West Branch Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-3). See Chapter 6, Section
6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-54
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-3)
Assessment
Point
MN-3
West Branch
Menomonee
River
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
1,161
76
127
262
612
87
70
147
Mean (mg/l)
9.4
Median (mg/l)
9.4
91
Mean (mg/l)
0.053
Median (mg/l)
0.038
Year 2020
Condition
91
Mean (mg/l)
0.79
Median (mg/l)
0.71
Mean (mg/l)
10.0
Median (mg/l)
7.2
Mean (mg/l)
0.0036
Median (mg/l)
0.0012
4-89
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-55
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
247.21
19.29
8.39
0.08
5.50
2.81
94.05
35.42
4.59
104.45
1.05
0.73
0.05
36.90
30.92
17.52
42.29
--
--
--
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
TSS
tons
62.55
BOD
pounds
11,029
FC
billion counts
47,656
25
6.79
2.86
0.02
0.94
0.73
2,431
1,253
18
454
211
7.41
2.97
0.22
47.27
0.27
0.13
3,851
1,258
102
6,878
179
73
19
0.00
48
1,723
2,932
2,548
440
9,700
10
0.01
7.70
11.75
1,288
1,370
12,756
3,522
3.80
1.70
--
--
--
681
1,813
--
--
--
5,703
159
--
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-56
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
38%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%
14%
5%
1%
16%
0%
0%
0%
6%
5%
3%
6%
--
--
--
TSS
tons
40%
4%
2%
0%
1%
0%
5%
2%
0%
30%
0%
0%
0%
5%
7%
2%
1%
--
--
--
BOD
pounds
34%
7%
4%
0%
1%
1%
12%
4%
0%
21%
1%
0%
0%
4%
4%
2%
6%
--
--
--
FC
billion counts
55%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
3%
3%
1%
11%
0%
0%
0%
15%
4%
7%
0%
--
--
--
Loads
Units
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-90
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-57
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WEST BRANCH MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-3) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.072
0.007
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.033
0.012
0.002
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.011
0.005
0.015
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.022
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
3.844
0.847
0.437
0.006
0.158
0.074
1.342
0.438
0.035
2.397
0.062
0.025
0.000
0.449
0.477
0.237
0.632
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
13.216
0.009
0.007 0.000 0.017
0.544
1.022
0.888
0.153
3.381
0.002 0.003 0.000
3.942
1.227
1.656
0.055
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
--
4-91
Menomonee River
4-92
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-58
2.2
37.70%
1.3
21.39%
0.0
0.86%
Commercial
0.0
0.27%
0.0
0.09%
1.7
28.24%
Transportation
0.6
9.63%
0.1
1.82%
Total
5.9
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-93
MN-4
Ap
pl
et
on
Av
.
!
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Land Use
Agriculture
Commercial
650 1,300
Feet
Figure 4-25
MN-4 Land Use
2,600
Menomonee River
Portions of four municipalities within Washington and Waukesha counties are located within the
Willow Creek assessment point area (MN-4). The municipalities include: the towns of Lisbon
and Richfield, and the villages of Germantown and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 57% of
the 5.9 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown. The town of Richfield
occupies nearly 23% of the area. The village of Menomonee Falls and the town of Lisbon
occupy the remaining 20%. The extent of the civil divisions within the assessment point area for
MN-4 is presented in TABLE 4-59.
TABLE 4-59
CIVIL DIVISION IN THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Civil Division
Town of Lisbon
0.3
5.27%
Town of Richfield
1.4
23.15%
Village of Germantown
3.4
57.24%
0.8
14.34%
Total
5.9
100.00%
Menomonee River
parameters are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS
data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended solids. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4
for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-60. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Willow Creek Assessment point
area (MN-4). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables;
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-61 presents the Baseline annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-62 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and
TABLE 4-63 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads for MN-4 on a per acre basis.
4-96
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-26
FIGURE 4-27
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-60
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Assessment
Point
MN-4
Willow Creek
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
1,244
76
183
218
794
87
125
125
Mean (mg/l)
8.9
Median (mg/l)
9.1
96
Mean (mg/l)
0.036
Median (mg/l)
0.025
Baseline
Condition
93
Mean (mg/l)
0.73
Median (mg/l)
0.65
Mean (mg/l)
9.1
Median (mg/l)
7.3
Mean (mg/l)
0.0030
Median (mg/l)
0.0012
4-100
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-61
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / YEAR)
10.21
5.80
2.84
71.17
38.46
SSOs
22.87
CSOs
9.73
Industrial
44.08
Wetland
104.38
Ultra Low
0.08
Transportation
10.05
Residential
4.70
Pasture (D)
30.56
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
42.97
Pasture (B)
Forest
209.99
Point Source
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
17.26
56.22
--
--
--
TSS
tons
58.76
18.79
13.36
1.80
1.66
0.03
6.98
3.01
0.40
10.11
2.44
1.05
0.43
16.19
14.28
4.31
2.24
--
--
--
BOD
pounds
9,430
2,765
2,052
415
805
3,572
1,244
181
1,459
1,284
439
197
2,389
1,650
664
2,399
--
--
--
FC
billion counts
42,577
357
437
67
85
69
2,973
2,929
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
854
2,337
468
600
341
28,873
4,865
6,659
210
--
--
--
TABLE 4-62
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (PERCENT)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
3%
1%
1%
0%
10%
6%
3%
8%
--
--
--
0%
4%
2%
0%
6%
2%
1%
0%
10%
9%
3%
1%
--
--
--
0%
12%
4%
1%
5%
4%
1%
1%
8%
5%
2%
8%
--
--
--
FC
45%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
3%
1%
2%
0%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
30%
5%
7%
0%
--
--
--
Forest
1%
Crop (D)
6%
Crop (C)
15%
Crop (B)
0%
Commercial
Grass (B)
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Nonpoint Source
TP
31%
6%
4%
1%
1%
TSS
38%
12%
9%
1%
1%
BOD
30%
9%
7%
1%
3%
Loads
4-101
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-63
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.057
0.012
0.008
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.028
0.012
0.003
0.006
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.019
0.010
0.005
0.015
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.016
0.005
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
2.549
0.747
0.555
0.112
0.217
0.002
0.966
0.336
0.049
0.394
0.347
0.119
0.053
0.646
0.446
0.179
0.648
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
11.508
0.097
0.118
0.018
0.023
0.019
0.803
0.792
0.231
0.632
0.127
0.162
0.092
7.804
1.315
1.800
0.057
--
--
--
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-102
Menomonee River
4-103
Menomonee River
deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-64
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4)
Assessment
Point
MN-4
Willow Creek
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
1,196
75
161
233
607
86
99
136
Mean (mg/l)
8.9
Median (mg/l)
9.1
94
Mean (mg/l)
0.037
Median (mg/l)
0.024
Year 2020
Condition
93
Mean (mg/l)
0.58
Median (mg/l)
0.51
Mean (mg/l)
8.8
Median (mg/l)
6.7
Mean (mg/l)
0.0030
Median (mg/l)
0.0012
4-104
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-65
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / YEAR)
2.66
1.26
0.02
82.28
37.24
9.24
4.41
0.64
11.88
0.63
0.22
0.00
18.53
13.72
4,790
1,865
292
1,731
419
119
2,775
1,602
3,953
1,337
2,536
15
16
30,544
4,321
0.46
2.34
0.02
237
1,133
120
61
3,858
SSOs
27.06
CSOs
14.00
0.08
Industrial
55.94
14.16
Wetland
24
126.20
1.61
Ultra Low
18
Transportation
38,714
Residential
billion counts
Pasture (D)
FC
3.82
1,220
Pasture (C)
pounds
4.97
1,450
Pasture (B)
BOD
9,386
Industrial
57.75
Grass (D)
tons
10.68
Grass (C)
TSS
13.57
Point Source
Grass (B)
208.33
Government /
Institution
pounds
Forest
TP
Crop (D)
Units
Crop (C)
Loads
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
13.99
62.33
--
--
--
3.46
2.49
--
--
--
541
2,660
--
--
--
4,934
232
--
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-66
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
31%
2%
2%
0%
2%
0%
19%
8%
2%
4%
0%
0%
0%
12%
6%
2%
9%
--
--
--
TSS
tons
43%
4%
3%
0%
2%
0%
7%
3%
0%
9%
0%
0%
0%
14%
10%
3%
2%
--
--
--
BOD
pounds
31%
5%
4%
1%
4%
0%
16%
6%
1%
6%
1%
0%
0%
9%
5%
2%
9%
--
--
--
FC
billion counts
43%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4%
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
34%
5%
5%
0%
--
--
--
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-105
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-67
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE WILLOW CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-4) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.056
0.004
0.003
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.034
0.015
0.004
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.022
0.010
0.004
0.017
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.016
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
2.537
0.392
0.330
0.064
0.306
0.002
1.295
0.504
0.079
0.468
0.113
0.032
0.000
0.750
0.433
0.146
0.719
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
--
--
10.444
0.005
0.006
0.001 0.033
0.016
1.043
1.068
0.361
0.686
0.004 0.004
0.000
8.245
1.168
1.331
0.063
-Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-106
Menomonee River
4-107
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-68
1.9
44.19%
0.5
11.98%
0.0
0.42%
Commercial
0.0
0.35%
0.0
0.21%
1.1
25.57%
Transportation
0.5
11.57%
0.2
5.71%
Total
4.2
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-108
!
!
Mequon Road
Main St.
MN-6
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Land Use
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Agriculture
Commercial
850 1,700
Feet
Figure 4-29
MN-6 Land Use
3,400
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties are
located within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The municipalities include: the
city of Mequon, the village of Germantown, and the village of Menomonee Falls.
Approximately 71% of the 4.2 square mile area is located within the village of Germantown.
The city of Mequon and village of Menomonee Falls occupy the remaining 15% and 14%,
respectively. The extent of the civil divisions within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point
area is presented in TABLE 4-69.
TABLE 4-69
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Civil Division
City of Mequon
0.6
15.34%
Village of Germantown
3.0
70.76%
0.6
13.90%
Total
4.2
100.00%
4-110
Menomonee River
as very good (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations tend to decline during the summer months, but
generally did not decline below the regulatory standard. The decline in DO could be exacerbated
by the concrete-lined channel within the assessment point area
The concentrations of TP were assessed as good. Nonpoint sources appear to contribute to
higher concentrations of TP within the Nor-X-Way Channel assessment point area. The
concentration of TP decreased during very high flows, which may indicate that TP is diluted
during heavy storms. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-70. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Nor-X-Way assessment point
area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
Actual water quality data are available through the MMSDs H2O Info website. Conductivity
data are presented on Figure 4-33. The online conductivity data show very little impact on
conductivity for long periods of time meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in
the assessment point area. Dissolved oxygen data are presented on Figure 4-34. The DO
exhibits similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than
15.0 mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate
very low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet
weather induced runoff or re-suspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-35). The temperature
data are also well within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-36).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-71 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-72 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-73 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-111
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-30
FIGURE 4-31
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-70
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6)
Assessment
Point
MN-6
Nor-X-Way
Channel
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
3,261
72
208
200
1,962
83
113
114
Mean (mg/l)
10.0
Median (mg/l)
9.9
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.056
Median (mg/l)
0.038
Baseline
Condition
90
Mean (mg/l)
0.75
Median (mg/l)
0.70
Mean (mg/l)
16.0
Median (mg/l)
4.3
Mean (mg/l)
0.0037
Median (mg/l)
0.0011
4-115
FIGURE 4-33
MN-6 MEASURED
CONDUCTIVITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 4-34
FIGURE 4-35
FIGURE 4-36
MN-6 MEASURED
TEMPERATURE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-71
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
489.36
11.74
90.24
4.83
12.42
4.06
48.31
232.28
3.43
126.29
1.75
25.18
1.52
78.82
44.44
13.69
37.17
161.34
--
--
TSS
tons
191.65
14.98
119.92
5.04
2.02
1.76
3.33
23.42
0.25
78.49
0.33
6.89
0.48
25.19
23.15
4.81
1.75
0.14
--
--
BOD
pounds
21,976
391
3,116
187
549
347
731
2,960
31
8,052
132
999
60
2,646
1,908
527
903
450
--
--
FC
billion counts
187
32,327
72
2,004
126
80,677
14,091
13,240
84
--
--
248,649
66
850
39
80
8,360
885
9,929
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-72
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
35%
1%
7%
0%
1%
0%
3%
17%
0%
9%
0%
2%
0%
6%
3%
1%
3%
12%
--
--
TSS
38%
3%
24%
1%
0%
0%
1%
5%
0%
16%
0%
1%
0%
5%
5%
1%
0%
0%
--
--
BOD
48%
1%
7%
0%
1%
1%
2%
6%
0%
18%
0%
2%
0%
6%
4%
1%
2%
1%
--
--
FC
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
8%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
20%
3%
3%
0%
0%
--
--
Loads
4-120
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-73
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.174
0.004
0.032
0.002
0.004
0.001
0.017
0.083
0.001
0.045
0.001
0.009
0.001
0.028
0.016
0.005
0.013
0.057
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.068
0.005
0.043
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.028
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.009
0.008
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
7.814
0.139
1.108
0.067
0.195
0.123
0.260
1.052
0.011
2.863
0.047
0.355
0.021
0.941
0.678
0.187
0.321
0.160
--
--
billion counts/acre
88.406
0.024
0.302
0.014
0.028
2.972
0.315
3.530
0.066
11.494
0.025
0.713
0.045
28.684
5.010
4.707
0.030
0.000
--
--
FC
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-121
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good. The preceding
Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the
assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory
standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness at
MN-6 would deteriorate from good to moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-74
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-6)
Assessment
Point
MN-6
Nor-X-Way
Channel
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
72
118
250
875
83
54
141
Mean (mg/l)
9.9
Median (mg/l)
9.7
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.055
Median (mg/l)
0.036
89
Mean (mg/l)
0.49
Median (mg/l)
0.44
Mean (mg/l)
10.6
Median (mg/l)
Copper
2,124
Year 2020
Condition
3.1
Mean (mg/l)
0.0035
Median (mg/l)
0.0008
4-123
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-75
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / YEAR)
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
474.48
0.18
2.46
--
13.50
6.15
49.50
266.60
5.83
188.90
0.88
3.71
1.28
113.79
38.70
TSS
tons
163.25
0.17
2.38
--
2.20
2.35
3.16
24.97
0.39
104.64
0.16
0.92
0.36
32.19
17.97
BOD
pounds
20,701
11
164
--
597
498
779
3,550
56
11,545
84
186
64
3,791
1,592
FC
billion counts
143,730
--
87
7,479
613
7,713
216
29,440
37
14
68,498
7,471
SSOs
Government /
Institution
pounds
CSOs
Forest
TP
Industrial
Crop (D)
Units
Wetland
Crop (C)
Loads
Ultra Low
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
13.09
41.78
161.34
--
--
4.01
1.97
0.14
--
--
507
1,015
450
--
--
7,185
94
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-76
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
34%
0%
0%
--
1%
0%
4%
19%
0%
14%
0%
0%
0%
8%
3%
1%
3%
12%
--
--
TSS
tons
45%
0%
1%
--
1%
1%
1%
7%
0%
29%
0%
0%
0%
9%
5%
1%
1%
0%
--
--
BOD
pounds
45%
0%
0%
--
1%
1%
2%
8%
0%
25%
0%
0%
0%
8%
3%
1%
2%
1%
--
--
FC
billion counts
53%
0%
0%
--
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
25%
3%
3%
0%
0%
--
--
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-124
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-77
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE NOR-X-WAY CHANNEL ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-6) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.161
0.000
0.001
--
0.005
0.002
0.018
0.095
0.002
0.067
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.038
0.014
0.004
0.015
0.057
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.058
0.000
0.001
--
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.009
0.000
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
7.360
0.004
0.058
--
0.212
0.177
0.277
1.262
0.020
4.105
0.030
0.066
0.000
1.348
0.566
0.180
0.361
0.160
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
--
--
49.740
0.000
0.001
-0.031
2.646
0.218 2.742
0.077
10.467
0.002
0.013
0.005
24.019
2.656
2.474
0.033
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-125
Menomonee River
4-126
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-78
0.7
12.06%
2.5
43.36%
0.0
1.14%
Commercial
0.1
1.51%
0.1
1.29%
1.0
17.18%
Transportation
1.0
18.63%
0.3
4.83%
Total
5.7
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-127
Main St.
!
MN-7
!
!
Capitol Dr.
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Land Use
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Agriculture
Commercial
800 1,600
Feet
Figure 4-37
MN-7 Land Use
3,200
Menomonee River
Only one municipality within Waukesha County is located within the Lilly Creek assessment
point area (MN-7). The entire 5.7 square mile area is located within the village of Menomonee
Falls (TABLE 4-79).
TABLE 4-79
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
5.7
100.00%
Total
5.7
100.00%
Civil Division
4-129
Menomonee River
on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). It is normal for DO
concentrations to decline during the summer due to decreased solubility of oxygen in warm
water; however, the concentrations of DO within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7)
during colder months decline more than would be expected. This could be a function of
increased BOD, including in-stream decomposition of organic matter. The concentrations of DO
also declined during low flow conditions, which could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles
within Lilly Creek. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on the annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-80. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Lilly Creek assessment point area
(MN-7). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-81 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-82 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-83 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-130
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-38
FIGURE 4-39
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-80
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-7
Lilly Creek
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
2,427
69
359
89
1,416
81
265
38
Mean (mg/l)
9.3
Median (mg/l)
9.3
92
Mean (mg/l)
0.063
Median (mg/l)
0.040
Baseline
Condition
85
Mean (mg/l)
0.74
Median (mg/l)
0.67
Mean (mg/l)
19.0
Median (mg/l)
7.9
Mean (mg/l)
0.0051
Median (mg/l)
0.0013
4-134
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-81
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / YEAR)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
87.06
1.25
4.32
--
135.56
--
19.34
34.12
--
--
--
2.34
3.33
20.93
0.14
54.11
0.26
0.73
--
43.33
--
6.79
1.03
--
--
--
462
1,481
6,390
43
5,551
145
237
--
4,552
--
744
907
--
--
--
104,848
49
520
5
82
4,455
1,429
16,462
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
213
8,914
74
379
--
55,503
--
7,481
136
--
--
--
Forest
3.84
Crop (D)
366.72
Crop (C)
67.58
Crop (B)
5.41
Commercial
Grass (B)
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
515.87
4.72
43.17
0.57
5.17
TSS
tons
202.03
2.33
21.58
0.22
0.71
BOD
pounds
23,167
242
2,360
41
316
FC
billion counts
TABLE 4-82
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
40%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
5%
28%
0%
7%
0%
0%
--
10%
--
1%
3%
--
--
--
TSS
56%
1%
6%
0%
0%
1%
1%
6%
0%
15%
0%
0%
--
12%
--
2%
0%
--
--
--
BOD
50%
1%
5%
0%
1%
1%
3%
14%
0%
12%
0%
1%
--
10%
--
2%
2%
--
--
--
FC
52%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
8%
0%
4%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
28%
--
4%
0%
--
--
--
Loads
4-135
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-83
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.142
0.001
0.012
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.019
0.101
0.001
0.024
0.000
0.001
--
0.037
--
0.005
0.009
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.056
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
--
0.012
--
0.002
0.000
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
6.364
0.067
0.648
0.011
0.087
0.127
0.407
1.755
0.012
1.525
0.040
0.065
--
1.250
--
0.204
0.249
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
28.804 0.013 0.143 0.001 0.023 1.224
0.393
4.523
0.059
2.449
0.020 0.104
-15.248
-2.055
0.037
--Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-136
--
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Year 2020 conditions indicates that there wouldnt be any change in the assessment of flashiness
within the Lilly Creek assessment point area (MN-7) (moderate). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for
more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-84
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7)
Assessment
Point
MN-7
Lilly Creek
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
72
190
210
547
84
132
115
Mean (mg/l)
9.2
Median (mg/l)
9.2
92
Mean (mg/l)
0.055
Median (mg/l)
0.037
87
Mean (mg/l)
0.54
Median (mg/l)
0.49
Mean (mg/l)
12.9
Median (mg/l)
Copper
1,211
Year 2020
Condition
5.2
Mean (mg/l)
0.0038
Median (mg/l)
0.0009
4-138
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-85
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / YEAR)
--
0.53
BOD
pounds
--
--
238
FC
billion counts
52,481
--
--
--
62
SSOs
--
--
CSOs
--
18,976
Industrial
147.92
Wetland
tons
Ultra Low
TSS
Transportation
3.89
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
--
Pasture (B)
448.72
Industrial
Forest
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
6.51
57.99
308.80
3.12
74.43
--
--
--
128.31
--
16.65
32.13
--
--
--
2.36
2.53
15.68
0.10
39.35
--
--
--
34.44
--
4.90
0.97
--
--
--
518
1,291
5,475
36
4,464
--
--
--
4,094
--
607
854
--
--
--
3,005
818
9,266
116
4,341
--
--
--
29,712
--
3,654
128
--
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-86
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
42%
--
--
--
0%
1%
5%
29%
0%
7%
--
--
--
12%
--
2%
3%
--
--
--
TSS
tons
59%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
6%
0%
16%
--
--
--
14%
--
2%
0%
--
--
--
BOD
pounds
52%
--
--
--
1%
1%
4%
15%
0%
12%
--
--
--
11%
--
2%
2%
--
--
--
FC
billion counts
51%
--
--
--
0%
3%
1%
9%
0%
4%
--
--
--
29%
--
4%
0%
--
--
--
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-139
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-87
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LILLY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-7) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.121
--
--
--
0.001
0.002
0.016
0.085
0.001
0.020
--
--
--
0.034
--
0.004
0.009
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.041
--
--
--
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.011
--
--
--
0.009
--
0.001
0.000
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
5.213
--
--
--
0.065
0.142
0.355
1.504
0.010
1.226
--
--
--
1.125
--
0.167
0.234
--
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
14.175
---0.017
0.821
0.225
2.546
0.032
1.192
---8.064
-0.990
0.035
---Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-140
Menomonee River
4-141
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-88
0.1
1.99%
3.2
55.92%
0.1
2.08%
Commercial
0.1
1.90%
0.2
2.79%
0.7
12.85%
Transportation
1.1
19.79%
0.2
2.68%
Total
5.7
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-142
MN-8
!
!
Capitol Dr.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
BB R
RO
OO
O KK FF II EE LL D
D
Bluemound Rd.
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Land Use
Waterbodies
Agriculture
Water
Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
800 1,600
Feet
Figure 4-41
MN-8 Land Use
3,200
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Waukesha County are located within the Butler Ditch
assessment point area (MN-8). The municipalities include: the city of Brookfield, the village of
Butler, and the village of Menomonee Falls. Approximately 70% of the 5.7 square mile area is
located within the city of Brookfield. The village of Menomonee Falls occupies just under 30%
of the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8). The village of Butler occupies less than 1%.
The extent of the civil divisions within the Butler Ditch assessment point area (MN-8) is
presented in TABLE 4-89.
TABLE 4-89
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Brookfield
4.0
70.09%
Village of Butler
0.0
0.26%
1.7
29.65%
Total
5.7
100.00%
Civil Division
Menomonee River
point area (MN-8). The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be
associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that
carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, a detailed assessment was also performed on DO data.
During the warm weather months, the minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and
the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). The range of DO concentrations
is wider than would normally be expected. This could be a function of increased BOD, including
in-stream decomposition of organic matter. The concentrations of DO also declined during low
flow conditions, which could indicate a lack of agitation and riffles within the Butler Ditch
assessment point area (MN-8). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-90. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Butler Ditch assessment point
area. In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality parameter will not
necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed earlier in this section.
The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that were used. For example,
where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality variance standards while the
detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider special water quality variance
standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-91 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-92 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-93 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-145
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-42
FIGURE 4-43
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-90
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Assessment
Point
MN-8
Butler Ditch
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
2,425
64
424
82
1,325
79
286
31
Mean (mg/l)
9.6
Median (mg/l)
9.3
93
Mean (mg/l)
0.065
Median (mg/l)
0.042
Baseline
Condition
85
Mean (mg/l)
0.68
Median (mg/l)
0.62
Mean (mg/l)
17.5
Median (mg/l)
7.9
Mean (mg/l)
0.0046
Median (mg/l)
0.0014
4-149
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-91
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / YEAR)
109
FC
billion counts
43.61
0.15
2.46
--
166.15
--
1.20
2.95
28.45
0.05
28.07
0.03
0.41
--
55.17
--
227
1,334
9,276
17
2,780
18
132
--
5,579
--
101
4,467
209
--
68,996
--
110,418
14
37
-28
2,186
1,377
29,568
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
--
1.83
CSOs
0.25
174
654.11
Industrial
--
65
66.41
Wetland
1.60
24,388
2.65
Ultra Low
0.54
pounds
Transportation
222.44
BOD
Residential
1.69
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
3.19
Pasture (B)
1.13
tons
Industrial
Forest
543.05
TSS
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
17.16
43.42
--
--
5.55
6.27
1.17
--
--
0.16
660
1,178
--
--
78
6,640
162
--
--
6,070
TABLE 4-92
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
35%
0%
0%
--
0%
0%
4%
42%
0%
3%
0%
0%
--
11%
--
1%
3%
--
--
0%
TSS
64%
0%
0%
--
0%
0%
1%
8%
0%
8%
0%
0%
--
16%
--
2%
0%
--
--
0%
BOD
53%
0%
0%
--
0%
0%
3%
20%
0%
6%
0%
0%
--
12%
--
1%
3%
--
--
0%
FC
48%
0%
0%
-0%
1%
1%
13%
0%
2%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
30%
--
3%
0%
--
--
3%
Loads
4-150
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-93
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.151
0.000
0.001
--
0.000
0.001
0.018
0.181
0.001
0.012
0.000
0.001
--
0.046
--
0.005
0.012
--
--
0.002
TSS
tons/acre
0.062
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.000
--
0.015
--
0.002
0.000
--
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.765
0.018
0.048
--
0.030
0.063
0.370
2.573
0.005
0.771
0.005
0.037
--
1.548
--
0.183
0.327
--
--
0.022
FC
billion counts/acre
30.629
0.004
0.010
--
0.008
0.606
0.382
8.202
0.028
1.239
0.002
0.058
--
19.139
--
1.842
0.045
--
--
1.684
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-151
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020
conditions.
TABLE 4-94
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8)
Assessment
Point
MN-8
Butler Ditch
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
1,297
68
228
178
700
82
152
98
Mean (mg/l)
9.6
Median (mg/l)
9.3
93
Mean (mg/l)
0.057
Median (mg/l)
0.038
Year 2020
Condition
87
Mean (mg/l)
0.59
Median (mg/l)
0.53
Mean (mg/l)
12.6
Median (mg/l)
5.6
Mean (mg/l)
0.0035
Median (mg/l)
0.0010
4-153
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-95
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / YEAR)
--
0.23
BOD
pounds
--
--
90
FC
billion counts
59,897
--
--
--
21
28.72
--
--
--
153.01
--
1.66
2.25
20.67
0.04
15.98
--
--
--
42.39
--
350
1,125
7,461
13
1,732
--
--
--
5,056
--
2,157
766
15,697
51
1,713
--
--
--
38,133
--
SSOs
--
--
1.35
CSOs
--
20,548
506.69
Industrial
165.02
54.12
Wetland
tons
4.40
Ultra Low
TSS
Transportation
1.27
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
--
Pasture (B)
479.30
Industrial
Forest
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
15.70
41.60
--
--
5.08
4.77
1.65
--
--
0.15
587
1,573
--
--
72
3,663
156
--
--
5,553
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-96
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
37%
--
--
--
0%
0%
4%
39%
0%
2%
--
--
--
12%
--
1%
3%
--
--
0%
TSS
tons
65%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
8%
0%
6%
--
--
--
17%
--
2%
1%
--
--
0%
BOD
pounds
53%
--
--
--
0%
1%
3%
19%
0%
4%
--
--
--
13%
--
2%
4%
--
--
0%
FC
billion counts
47%
--
--
--
0%
2%
1%
12%
0%
1%
--
--
--
30%
--
3%
0%
--
--
4%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-154
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-97
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE BUTLER DITCH ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-8) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.127
--
--
--
0.000
0.001
0.015
0.141
0.000
0.008
--
--
--
0.040
--
0.004
0.012
--
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.046
--
--
--
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.004
--
--
--
0.012
--
0.001
0.000
--
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
5.700
--
--
--
0.025
0.097
0.312
2.070
0.004
0.481
--
--
--
1.402
--
0.163
0.436
--
--
0.020
FC
billion counts/acre
15.806
---0.006
0.591
0.213
4.354
0.014
0.475
---10.198
-0.976
0.043
--0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-155
Menomonee River
4.5.8 Middle Menomonee River Mainstem (Assessment Points MN-9 and MN-12)
The Middle Menomonee River mainstem is located in the central portion of the Menomonee
River watershed. This area of the watershed is represented by assessment point areas MN-9 and
MN-12. Assessment point area MN-9s encompasses 12.8 square miles and extends downstream
to a point that is located at the confluence with Butler Ditch. This downstream point is
approximately located on the western boundary of the village of Butler. Assessment point MN9s assessment point area also includes a three mile segment of the Nor-X-Way channel.
The Middle Menomonee River mainstem begins in northeastern Waukesha and northwestern
Milwaukee counties, at about CTH Q. As noted earlier, the Middle Menomonee River is
downstream of the northern reach of the Nor-X-Way Channel and the Upper Menomonee River
mainstem. The mainstem flows southeasterly through the village of Menomonee Falls, along the
Menomonee River Parkway, and through Lime Kiln Park, which is located south of Main Street.
From this point, the mainstem flows easterly towards Rotary Park and its confluence with the
Nor-X-Way Channel located mile south of STH 74 interchange on USH 41/45. Upstream of
the confluence, the mainstem passes about one mile northeast of the Menomonee Falls Tamarack
Preserve. Downstream of the confluence, the mainstem changes direction and flows southeast
past the Menomonee Falls High School, along the west side of Rivers Edge Park and through the
North Hills Country Club. From this point, it flows easterly into Milwaukee County and
southerly along the county line through Harbinger Woods, south of Good Hope Road, and
through the Menomonee River Swamp-North before changing direction and flowing back into
Waukesha County. At CTH VV, in the vicinity of the village of Butler, the river flows into the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12), see following section.
The Middle Menomonee River mainstem flows through recreation, natural areas, and open space
areas to the north and mostly low density residential with some industrial land uses to the south.
In general, the mainstem flows through a natural channel within the Menomonee River Parkway.
In the vicinity of STH 74, there is a mile reach where the channel bottom is bedrock. The
width of the riparian margins varies, with about 40% exceeding 75 feet. The Middle
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains three known dams, drop structures,
or other obstructions.
Beyond the land uses adjacent to the river, the land uses within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-9) are predominantly recreation, natural areas, and open space
(38%). Low-density residential (defined on following table) land use makes up nearly 21% of
the total land use while transportation makes up nearly 20% of the total land use. Agriculture
along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential, commercial, and institutional
and governmental land uses compose the remaining 21% (Figure 4-45). Based on an analysis of
land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 20% of the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is impervious. TABLE 4-98 presents the land
uses within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).
4-156
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-98
LAND USE IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
1.1
8.45%
2.7
20.84%
0.4
2.83%
Commercial
0.3
2.74%
0.2
1.79%
4.9
38.37%
Transportation
2.6
20.50%
0.6
4.48%
Total
12.8
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-157
Ap
p
le
to
n
Av
.
!
Main St.
!
A
pp
le
n
to
A
v.
MN-9
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Land Use
Waterbodies
Agriculture
Water
Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
800 1,600
Feet
Figure 4-45
MN-9 Land Use
3,200
Menomonee River
Portions of five municipalities within Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha counties
are located within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9). The
municipalities include: the cities of Mequon and Milwaukee, and the villages of Butler,
Germantown, and Menomonee Falls. Approximately 70% of the 12.8 square mile assessment
point area is located within the village of Menomonee Falls. The city of Milwaukee occupies
nearly 26% of the area. The village of Germantown, the city of Mequon, and the village of
Butler occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) is presented in TABLE 4-99.
TABLE 4-99
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Civil Division
City of Mequon
0.1
1.11%
City of Milwaukee
3.3
25.76%
Village of Butler
0.1
0.63%
Village of Germantown
0.3
2.01%
9.0
70.49%
Total
12.8
100.00%
4-159
Menomonee River
presented in Appendix 4C. See Figure 4-46, Figure 4-47, and Figure 4-48. Note: the black line
on Figure 4-46 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout
the year. Based on these detailed analyses, the assessments of FC concentrations were poor for
the annual measure and moderate for the swimming season. The concentrations of FC were
fairly consistent throughout the year and appear to be linked to nonpoint sources within the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).
Detailed analyses of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as poor and are greatest at high and low flows. This may indicate the presence of a background
source that is particularly noticeable during low flows, potentially from non-contact cooling
water. The elevated concentrations of TP at high flows suggest the prevalence of nonpoint
sources during high flows. The concentrations of TSS were also characterized as poor. The data
suggest that TSS concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may
come from runoff that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended
stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, DO was also assessed in detail. During the warm weather
months, the minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good (see habitat
section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). As
expected, DO concentrations declined during the summer months, but the lower portions of the
ranges declined more than would be expected during the summer. This may indicate excess
organic matter and BOD within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9).
See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-100. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-9). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality
parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed
earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that
were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality
variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider
special water quality variance standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels
that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and
winter data are not available. In other parts of the watershed, chloride is higher in March
probably a residual from road salt. As this is not the case here, it is possible that chloride may
not be problematic at this site. It is difficult to assess chloride without data from the winter
months; however, the data suggest that high flows may dilute the chloride concentration (Figure
4-49).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-101 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-102 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
4-160
Menomonee River
and TABLE 4-103 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
points MN-1 through MN-8 are upstream of MN-9. The Baseline cumulative loads, including
loads from MN-1 through MN-8, are estimated. TABLE 4-104 presents the Baseline cumulative
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-105 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-106 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a
per acre basis.
4-161
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-46
FIGURE 4-47
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-100
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
57
489
72
76
229
51
Mean (mg/l)
10.8
Median (mg/l)
11
99
Mean (mg/l)
0.101
Median (mg/l)
0.061
Mean (mg/l)
Mean (mg/l)
Median (mg/l)
Copper
1,571
Median (mg/l)
Total Suspended Solids
2,828
Baseline
Condition
69
1.08
1
15.7
6
Mean (mg/l)
0.0052
Median (mg/l)
0.0019
4-165
1000
100
10
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-101
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
224.35
5.35
9.62
53.27
0.81
84.15
0.34
4.98
0.33
49.22
110.19
1,262
2,492
8,753
168
8,791
155
925
50
5,965
9,629
33,967
71
1,656
101
131,163
62,617
5.19
46.22
0.21
15.79
TSS
tons
382.32
4.13
58.42
0.08
2.58
BOD
pounds
48,807
265
1,778
20
781
SSOs
Pasture (C)
177.66
1086.81
CSOs
Pasture (B)
1.13
pounds
Industrial
Industrial
19.52
Units
TP
Wetland
Grass (D)
1.66
Loads
Ultra Low
Grass (C)
137.88
Forest
13.25
Crop (D)
561.29
Crop (C)
140.00
Crop (B)
14.77
Commercial
Grass (B)
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Nonpoint Source
64.90
138.09
166.26
--
2.84
22.42
6.20
0.09
--
0.08
2,497
4,149
124
--
40
60,632
375
--
3,101
TABLE 4-102
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
39%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
5%
20%
0%
5%
0%
1%
0%
6%
8%
2%
5%
6%
--
0%
TSS
48%
1%
7%
0%
0%
1%
1%
7%
0%
11%
0%
1%
0%
6%
14%
3%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
50%
0%
2%
0%
1%
1%
3%
9%
0%
9%
0%
1%
0%
6%
10%
3%
4%
0%
--
0%
FC
56%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
4%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
17%
8%
8%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
4-167
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-103
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.144
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.019
0.074
0.002
0.018
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.024
0.030
0.009
0.018
0.022
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.051
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.015
0.003
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.460
0.035
0.235
0.003
0.103
0.167
0.330
1.158
0.022
1.164
0.021
0.122
0.007
0.789
1.274
0.330
0.549
0.016
--
0.005
FC
billion counts/acre
57.437
0.005
0.060
0.000
0.014
2.653
0.366
3.501
0.118
4.496
0.009
0.219
0.013
17.360
8.288
8.025
0.050
0.000
--
0.410
Loads
Units
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-104
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
844.64
389.81
226.64
SSOs
12.47
CSOs
34.88 100.76
Industrial
559.09
Wetland
Ultra Low
47.59
Transportation
64.35
Residential
33.56
Pasture (D)
443.37
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
246.79
Point Source
Pasture (B)
Forest
3892.46
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
614.59
1315.78
--
9.81
TSS
tons
1350.24
112.41
305.43
14.82
10.48
17.04
38.11
147.72
4.14
317.45
8.44
22.15
2.31
238.05
178.27
68.15
24.65
1.83
--
0.28
BOD
pounds
174,803
17,997
30,808
3,671
4,141
4,068
15,705
36,316
1,558
35,648
4,376
6,113
799
28,358
16,727
8,718
22,624
7,335
--
138
FC
billion
counts
1,152,817
2,058
5,626
449
550
52,044
96,453
1,657
9,464
1,418
452,545
92,015
131,025
2,111
--
10,722
4-168
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-105
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
33%
2%
4%
0%
1%
0%
5%
18%
1%
5%
0%
1%
0%
7%
3%
2%
5%
11%
--
0%
TSS
tons
47%
4%
11%
1%
0%
1%
1%
5%
0%
11%
0%
1%
0%
8%
6%
2%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
42%
4%
7%
1%
1%
1%
4%
9%
0%
8%
1%
1%
0%
7%
4%
2%
5%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion
counts
54%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
1%
5%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
21%
4%
6%
0%
0%
--
1%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-106
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.106
0.007
0.012
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.016
0.058
0.003
0.015
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.023
0.011
0.006
0.017
0.036
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.037
0.003
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.006
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
4.772
0.491
0.841
0.100
0.113
0.111
0.429
0.991
0.043
0.973
0.119
0.167
0.022
0.774
0.457
0.238
0.618
0.200
--
0.004
FC
billion
counts/acre
31.471
0.056
0.154
0.012
0.015
1.421
0.396
2.824
0.206
2.633
0.045
0.258
0.039
12.354
2.512
3.577
0.058
0.000
--
0.293
Loads
Units
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-169
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
River assessment point area (MN-9). The assessment of TP would remain poor. In contrast, the
reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor
to very good. During the warm weather months, the assessments of the minimum and maximum
DO concentrations would remain as very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality
assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC
Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the
Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Middle Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-9) would deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-107
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9)
Assessment
Point
MN-9
Middle Mainstem
Menomonee
River, Downstream of Butler
Ditch
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
59
329
149
783
78
131
113
Mean (mg/l)
10.8
Median (mg/l)
11.0
Copper
99
Mean (mg/l)
0.098
Median (mg/l)
0.063
1,865
Year 2020
Condition
68
Mean (mg/l)
0.85
Median (mg/l)
0.79
Mean (mg/l)
12.9
Median (mg/l)
5.0
Mean (mg/l)
0.0047
Median (mg/l)
0.0019
4-171
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-108
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
11.89
195.69
0.10
3.67
--
190.84
191.54
64.04
130.08 166.26
SSOs
457.29
CSOs
Ultra Low
110.67
Industrial
Transportation
17.87
Wetland
Residential
13.82
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
0.89
Pasture (B)
--
Industrial
1,104.22
Grass (D)
Forest
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (B)
Crop (C)
Units
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Crop (B)
Loads
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
--
1.42
TSS
tons
342.02
--
0.30
--
2.26
5.71
7.27
41.49
0.71
107.44
0.02
0.91
--
46.78
85.57
18.55
5.83
0.09
--
0.04
BOD
pounds
48,862
--
133
--
695
1,444
2,201
8,101
168
11,986
10
186
--
6,608
7,947
2,457
3,943
124
--
20
FC
billion counts
282,163
--
--
94
15,929
1,744
17,344
706
30,046
37
--
90,096
34,273
33,754
356
--
1,551
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-109
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
42%
--
0%
--
1%
1%
4%
17%
0%
7%
0%
0%
--
7%
7%
2%
5%
6%
--
0%
TSS
tons
51%
--
0%
--
0%
1%
1%
6%
0%
16%
0%
0%
--
7%
13%
3%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
51%
--
0%
--
1%
2%
2%
9%
0%
13%
0%
0%
--
7%
8%
3%
4%
0%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
56%
--
0%
--
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
6%
0%
0%
--
18%
7%
7%
0%
0%
--
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-172
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-110
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.136
--
0.000
--
0.002
0.002
0.015
0.061
0.002
0.026
0.000
0.000
--
0.023
0.025
0.008
0.017
0.022
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.045
--
0.000
--
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.000
--
0.006
0.011
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.467
--
0.018
--
0.092
0.191
0.291
1.072
0.022
1.586
0.001
0.025
--
0.875
1.052
0.325
0.522
0.016
--
0.003
FC
billion
counts/acre
36.023
--
0.000
--
0.012
2.073
0.231
2.296
0.093
3.977
0.000
0.005
--
11.592
4.536
4.345
0.047
0.000
--
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-111
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / YEAR)
980.64
346.64
227.68
SSOs
2.74
CSOs
22.45
Industrial
8.80
Wetland
Ultra Low
678.84
Transportation
99.27
Residential
1,944.01
Pasture (D)
638.86
Pasture (C)
59.88
Pasture (B)
76.50
Industrial
9.56
Grass (D)
100.60
Point Source
Grass (C)
83.38
Grass (B)
3,840.62
Government /
Institution
pounds
Forest
Units
TP
Crop (D)
Crop (B)
Loads
Crop (C)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
638.58
1,315.78
--
6.97
TSS
tons
1,180.06
29.67
35.99
2.60
12.64
19.41
43.13
135.66
4.90
353.17
2.11
4.53
0.57
243.49
146.78
60.56
26.16
1.83
--
0.20
BOD
pounds
169,691
10,190
14,428
2,022
5,213
4,885
19,889
38,499
1,936
42,211
1,388
1,858
195
33,178
14,587
8,823
24,208
7,335
--
98
FC
billion
counts
787,722
110
223
21
645
45,896
15,265
78,860
8,471
83,330
52
277
36
369,982
55,415
88,282
2,204
--
7,620
4-173
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-112
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
35%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
6%
18%
1%
6%
0%
0%
0%
9%
3%
2%
6%
12%
--
0%
TSS
tons
51%
1%
2%
0%
1%
1%
2%
6%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
11%
6%
3%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
42%
3%
4%
1%
1%
1%
5%
10%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
8%
4%
2%
6%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
51%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1%
5%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
24%
4%
6%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-113
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-9) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.105
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.017
0.053
0.003
0.019
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.027
0.009
0.006
0.017
0.036
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.032
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
4.632
0.278
0.394
0.055
0.142
0.133
0.543
1.051
0.053
1.152
0.038
0.051
0.005
0.906
0.398
0.241
0.661
0.200
--
0.003
FC
billion
counts/acre
21.504
0.003
0.006
0.001
0.018
1.253
0.417
2.153
0.231
2.275
0.001
0.008
0.001
10.100
1.513
2.410
0.060
0.000
--
0.208
Loads
Units
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-174
Menomonee River
MN-12
The assessment point area for MN-12 is located downstream of MN-9 and encompasses 1.2
square miles. The mainstem flows southeasterly for just over a mile. It begins in Clarks Woods
on the downstream end of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-9) and
flows easterly through the village of Butler, including the Butler Frontier Park. From this point,
it changes direction and flows southeasterly in the city of Milwaukee towards Hampton Avenue.
The downstream end of the reach is located at the confluence with the Little Menomonee River,
which is approximately located at the intersection of STH 100 and Hampton Avenue within the
city of Milwaukee. In general, the one-mile reach of the Middle Menomonee River mainstem
(MN-12) flows within a natural channel through transportation and manufacturing land uses.
This reach does have wide riparian buffers; nearly 75% of the buffers in the assessment point
area exceed 75 feet. The Middle Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-12)
does not contain any known dams, drop structures, or other obstructions. Notable transportation
uses include the Union Pacific rail line and yard facilities and two interchanges on USH 45.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12) is predominantly transportation (37%). Recreation, natural areas,
and open space land uses make up nearly 24% of the total land use within the Middle
Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) while manufacturing and industrial land uses
make up nearly 19% of the total land use within the area. Low-density residential (defined on
following table), high-density residential, commercial, and institutional and governmental land
uses compose the remaining 20%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the
water quality data, approximately 39% of the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area
(MN-12) is impervious. TABLE 4-114 presents the land uses within the Middle Menomonee
River assessment point area (MN-12).
4-175
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-114
LAND USE IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
0.0
0.00%
0.1
11.05%
0.0
3.30%
Commercial
0.1
5.34%
0.0
1.03%
0.3
23.82%
Transportation
0.5
36.86%
0.2
18.60%
Total
1.2
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the
Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12). The municipalities include the cities
of Milwaukee and Wauwatosa and the villages of Butler and Menomonee Falls. Approximately
55% of the 1.2 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The village of Butler
occupies nearly 42% of the area. The village of Menomonee Falls and the city of Wauwatosa
occupy the remaining 2 and 1%, respectively (Figure 4-50). The extent of the civil divisions
within the Middle Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-12) is presented in TABLE 4115.
4-176
!
!
!
MN-12
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Land Use
Argiculture
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Commercial
375 750
Feet
Figure 4-50
MN-12 Land Use
1,500
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-115
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Milwaukee
0.7
55.33%
City of Wauwatosa
0.0
0.67%
Village of Butler
0.5
42.17%
0.0
1.83%
Total
1.2
100.00%
Civil Division
Menomonee River
warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations decline during the summer
months, but the lower portions of the ranges decline more than would be expected during the
summer. This may indicate excess organic matter and BOD.
The concentrations of TSS were classified as very good and the data suggest that TSS
concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff
that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments.
See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-116. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12). In the table, the level of compliance for a given water quality
parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given parameter discussed
earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different evaluation criteria that
were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates compliance with water quality
variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on habitat and do not consider
special water quality variance standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels
that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and
winter data are not available. March data (which include snow melt and spring runoff) are
higher than the rest of the year. Winter chloride concentrations would be expected to exceed
those measured in March. It is difficult to assess chloride trends without data from the winter
months; however, it appears that when chloride is not being actively applied, some amount is in a
reservoir (sediment). This chloride is gradually released and this is particularly noticeable
during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow conditions, the concentration becomes diluted
(Figure 4-54).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables;
BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-117 presents the Baseline annual
pollutant loads, TABLE 4-118 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load, and
TABLE 4-119 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
points MN-1 through MN-11 are upstream of MN-12. The Baseline cumulative loads, including
loads from MN-1 through MN-11, are estimated. TABLE 4-120 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-121 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown
for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-122 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.
4-179
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-51
FIGURE 4-52
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-116
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
50
795
31
69
348
21
Mean (mg/l)
10.7
Median (mg/l)
10.9
Mean (mg/l)
Copper
2,175
Median (mg/l)
Total Nitrogen
4,366
Baseline
Condition
99
0.1
0.061
69
Mean (mg/l)
1.07
Median (mg/l)
1.01
Mean (mg/l)
13.4
Median (mg/l)
5.2
Mean (mg/l)
0.0054
Median (mg/l)
0.0021
4-183
1000
100
10
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-117
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
197.85
--
--
--
0.77
1.23
8.07
67.09
0.04
80.89
--
--
--
13.17
36.29
7.55
12.52
90.19
--
--
TSS
tons
77.48
--
--
--
0.12
0.53
0.56
6.77
0.00
50.28
--
--
--
4.21
18.91
2.65
0.59
0.09
--
--
BOD
pounds
8,885
--
--
--
34
105
122
855
5,157
--
--
--
442
1,558
291
304
570
--
--
FC
billion counts
100,528
---5
2,526
148
2,868
2
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
20,706
--
--
--
13,483
11,506
7,303
28
--
--
TABLE 4-118
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
38%
--
--
--
0%
0%
2%
13%
0%
16%
--
--
--
3%
7%
1%
2%
17%
--
--
TSS
48%
--
--
--
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
31%
--
--
--
3%
12%
2%
0%
0%
--
--
BOD
48%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
5%
0%
28%
--
--
--
2%
9%
2%
2%
3%
--
--
63%
---0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
13%
--Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
8%
7%
5%
0%
0%
--
--
Loads
FC
4-185
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-119
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.258
--
--
--
0.001
0.002
0.011
0.088
0.000
0.106
--
--
--
0.017
0.047
0.010
0.016
0.118
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.101
--
--
--
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.009
0.000
0.066
--
--
--
0.005
0.025
0.003
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
11.596
--
--
--
0.044
0.137
0.159
1.116
0.001
6.731
--
--
--
0.577
2.033
0.379
0.397
0.744
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
131.203
--
--
--
0.006
3.296
0.193
3.743
0.003
27.024
--
--
--
17.597
15.017
9.531
0.037
0.000
--
--
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-120
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
3168.31 120.10
892.02
1169.05
506.21
283.57
825.54
1671.06
--
10.28
45.77
203.45
5.15
512.17
11.19
29.33
3.86
334.92
235.80
86.87
31.41
3.10
--
0.29
BOD
pounds
249,259
22,894 47,801
7,091
6,186
7,455
19,201
54,002
1,856
56,877
5,844
8,470
1,255
39,250
21,722
10,908
28,258
10,428
--
145
955
781
185,340
17,412
152,513
9,071
993,486
162,679 226,567
2,639
--
11,238
FC
2,634
9,331
4-186
Pasture (D)
753.93
33.10
Pasture (C)
87.21
15.17
Pasture (B)
97.20
36.29
Industrial
87.94
165.95 482.52
Grass (D)
Grass (B)
352.20 793.20
1965.84
Grass (C)
Government /
Institution
5550.41
tons
Units
Crop (C)
pounds
Loads
Crop (B)
TP
TSS
Commercial
Forest
Point Source
Crop (D)
Nonpoint Source
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-121
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
33%
2%
5%
1%
1%
1%
5%
19%
1%
5%
0%
1%
0%
7%
3%
2%
5%
10%
--
0%
TSS
tons
47%
4%
11%
1%
0%
1%
1%
5%
0%
12%
0%
1%
0%
8%
6%
2%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
42%
4%
8%
1%
1%
1%
3%
9%
0%
9%
1%
1%
0%
7%
4%
2%
5%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion
counts
56%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
3%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
21%
3%
5%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-122
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.108
0.007
0.015
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.015
0.062
0.002
0.017
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.023
0.010
0.006
0.016
0.033
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.038
0.003
0.009
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
4.860
0.446
0.932
0.138
0.121
0.145
0.374
1.053
0.036
1.109
0.114
0.165
0.024
0.765
0.424
0.213
0.551
0.203
--
0.003
FC
billion
counts/acre
50.769
0.051
0.182
0.019
0.015
3.614
0.340
2.974
0.177
4.948
0.043
0.249
0.044
19.371
3.172
4.418
0.051
0.000
--
0.219
Loads
Units
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-187
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
remain poor. The assessments of TSS and minimum and maximum DO concentrations would
remain unchanged and very good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are
focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report
No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Middle Menomonee River
assessment point area (MN-12) would deteriorate from very good to good. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-123
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
Statistic
MN-12
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Middle
(annual)
Menomonee
River Mainstem,
Downstream of
Little Menomonee
River
Dissolved Oxygen
52
554
80
72
205
60
Mean (mg/l)
10.7
Median (mg/l)
10.9
99
Mean (mg/l)
0.096
Median (mg/l)
0.062
69
Mean (mg/l)
0.84
Median (mg/l)
0.79
Mean (mg/l)
10.8
Median (mg/l)
Copper
1,220
3,237
Year 2020
Condition
4.2
Mean (mg/l)
0.0048
Median (mg/l)
0.0020
4-189
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-124
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
182.05
--
--
--
0.76
0.96
6.01
49.37
0.03
69.55
--
--
--
12.25
31.60
7.15
12.51
90.19
--
--
TSS
tons
62.00
--
--
--
0.12
0.35
0.38
4.62
0.00
38.53
--
--
--
3.39
14.67
2.17
0.59
0.09
--
--
BOD
pounds
7,970
--
--
--
34
76
95
657
4,251
--
--
--
418
1,300
275
304
570
--
--
FC
billion counts
54,745
--
--
--
1,069
74
1,428
10,840
--
--
--
7,166
6,100
3,957
28
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-125
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
39%
--
--
--
0%
0%
1%
11%
0%
15%
--
--
--
3%
7%
2%
3%
20%
--
--
TSS
tons
49%
--
--
--
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
30%
--
--
--
3%
12%
2%
0%
0%
--
--
BOD
pounds
50%
--
--
--
0%
0%
1%
4%
0%
27%
--
--
--
3%
8%
2%
2%
4%
--
--
FC
billion counts
64%
--
--
--
0%
1%
0%
2%
0%
13%
--
--
--
8%
7%
5%
0%
0%
--
--
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-190
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-126
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.225
--
--
--
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.064
0.000
0.091
--
--
--
0.015
0.041
0.009
0.016
0.118
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.081
--
--
--
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.050
--
--
--
0.004
0.019
0.003
0.001
0.000
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
10.402
--
--
--
0.044
0.099
0.124
0.858
0.000
5.548
--
--
--
0.546
1.697
0.359
0.397
0.744
--
--
FC
billion counts/acre
69.669
--
--
--
0.006
1.374
0.097
1.864
0.002
14.148
--
--
--
9.171
7.962
5.058
0.037
0.000
--
--
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-127
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / YEAR)
1,312.64
478.27
285.37
SSOs
6.33
CSOs
53.62
Industrial
20.07
Wetland
Ultra Low
1,081.76
Transportation
164.99
Residential
2,853.54
Pasture (D)
796.14
Pasture (C)
101.37
Point Source
Pasture (B)
12.73 117.84
Industrial
Forest
Crop (D)
Crop (C)
212.24
Grass (D)
5,478.68 114.61
Grass (C)
pounds
Grass (B)
Units
TP
Government /
Institution
Loads
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
885.13
1,761.25
--
7.45
TSS
tons
1,711.35
43.77
84.97
3.68
18.55
33.89
50.43
182.13
7.05
562.94
4.39
9.53
1.08
329.73
204.87
77.12
34.25
3.18
--
0.21
BOD
pounds
240,333
12,822
25,030
2,440
7,772
8,219
23,567
54,266
2,659
66,722
2,917
4,016
397
44,040
19,978
10,978
30,763
10,998
--
105
136
405
25
929
160,090
18,098
118,572
12,098
211,917
110
580
73
826,035
106,414
161,645
2,787
--
8,137
FC
4-191
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-128
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (PERCENT)
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Residential
1%
Pasture (D)
0%
Pasture (C)
1%
Pasture (B)
Government /
Institution
1%
Industrial
Forest
35%
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Point Source
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
5%
18%
1%
7%
0%
0%
0%
8%
3%
2%
6%
11%
--
0%
TSS
tons
51%
1%
3%
0%
1%
1%
1%
5%
0%
17%
0%
0%
0%
10%
6%
2%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
42%
2%
4%
0%
1%
1%
4%
10%
0%
12%
1%
1%
0%
8%
4%
2%
5%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
53%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
1%
3%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
24%
3%
5%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-129
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE MIDDLE MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-12) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.107
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.016
0.056
0.003
0.021
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.026
0.009
0.006
0.017
0.034
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.033
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
4.686
0.250
0.488
0.048
0.152
0.160
0.459
1.058
0.052
1.301
0.057
0.078
0.008
0.859
0.390
0.214
0.600
0.214
--
0.002
FC
billion counts/acre
36.431
0.003
0.008
0.000
0.018
3.121
0.353
2.312
0.236
4.132
0.002
0.011
0.001
16.106
2.075
3.152
0.054
0.00
--
0.159
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-192
Menomonee River
4-193
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-130
LAND USE IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
1.8
60.76%
0.3
11.28%
0.0
0.55%
Commercial
0.0
0.06%
0.0
0.65%
0.7
21.60%
Transportation
0.2
4.95%
0.0
0.15%
Total
3.0
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-194
on Road
MN-10
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Land Use
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Agriculture
Commercial
500 1,000
Feet
Figure 4-55
MN-10 Land Use
2,000
Menomonee River
Portions of two municipalities within Ozaukee and Washington counties are located within the
MN-10 assessment point area. The municipalities include: the city of Mequon and the village of
Germantown. Approximately 93% of the 3.0 square mile assessment point area is located within
the city of Mequon. The village of Germantown occupies the remaining 7%. The extent of the
civil divisions within the MN-10 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-131.
TABLE 4-131
CIVIL DIVISION IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10)
Civil Division
City of Mequon
2.8
92.93%
Village of Germantown
0.2
7.07%
Total
3.0
100.00%
4-196
Menomonee River
warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). As expected, DO concentrations declined during summer
months, but also note that DO declined during high flows; this suggests that stormwater runoff
may carry a relatively large organic load and BOD.
The concentrations of TP were characterized as good. Unlike a number of other assessment
points, the TP concentrations are not strongly correlated with TSS concentrations within the
Little Menomonee Creek assessment point area. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-132. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-133 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-134 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown, and TABLE
4-135 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-197
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-56
FIGURE 4-57
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-132
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
57
438
91
3,710
73
201
62
Mean (mg/l)
9.2
Median (mg/l)
9.2
97
Mean (mg/l)
0.061
Median (mg/l)
0.049
89
Mean (mg/l)
1.06
Median (mg/l)
0.93
Mean (mg/l)
24.6
Median (mg/l)
Copper
4,970
Baseline
Condition
10.8
Mean (mg/l)
0.0031
Median (mg/l)
0.0014
4-201
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-133
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / YEAR)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
13.39
1.47
26.08
--
22.91
25.98
--
--
--
0.65
4.35
0.15
1.07
0.71
2.28
0.23
7.79
--
7.54
0.83
--
--
--
295
1,382
44
116
377
747
67
876
--
881
694
--
--
--
60,969
136
1,313
48
47
3,715
233
3,608
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
225
749
143
1,046
121
42,411
--
35,518
62
--
--
--
Government /
Institution
3.44
Forest
1.82
Crop (D)
4.10
Crop (C)
81.14
Crop (B)
12.77
Commercial
Grass (C)
Point Source
Grass (B)
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
74.85
24.84
123.96
5.20
6.81
1.13
TSS
tons
27.79
12.61
62.76
2.05
0.97
0.46
BOD
pounds
3,361
1,154
6,022
327
424
96
FC
billion counts
TABLE 4-134
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
17%
6%
29%
1%
2%
0%
3%
19%
1%
0%
1%
3%
0%
6%
--
5%
6%
--
--
--
TSS
21%
10%
47%
2%
1%
0%
0%
3%
0%
1%
1%
2%
0%
6%
--
6%
1%
--
--
--
BOD
20%
7%
36%
2%
3%
1%
2%
8%
0%
1%
2%
4%
0%
5%
--
5%
4%
--
--
--
FC
41%
0%
1%
0%
0%
2%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
28%
--
24%
0%
--
--
--
Loads
4-202
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-135
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.035
0.012
0.058
0.002
0.003
0.001
0.006
0.038
0.002
0.001
0.002
0.006
0.001
0.012
--
0.011
0.012
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.013
0.006
0.030
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.004
--
0.004
0.000
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
1.582
0.543
2.835
0.154
0.199
0.045
0.139
0.651
0.021
0.055
0.177
0.352
0.031
0.412
--
0.415
0.327
--
--
--
0.064
0.618
0.023
0.022
1.749
0.110
1.699
0.106
0.352
0.067
0.492
0.057
19.966
--
16.721
0.029
--
--
--
FC
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-203
Menomonee River
4-204
Menomonee River
remain unchanged (very good). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-136
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-10)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-10
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Little Menomonee
(annual)
Creek
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
4,075
59
278
163
2,998
74
110
108
Mean (mg/l)
9.2
Median (mg/l)
9.2
98
Mean (mg/l)
0.056
Median (mg/l)
0.046
91
Mean (mg/l)
0.80
Median (mg/l)
0.72
Mean (mg/l)
18.1
Median (mg/l)
9.0
Mean (mg/l)
0.0026
Median (mg/l)
0.0012
4-205
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-137
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / YEAR)
5.33
24.68
0.22
1.41
0.80
BOD
pounds
2,805
996
5,342
85
615
183
FC
billion counts
49,656
10
91
68
6,910
SSOs
21.09
CSOs
tons
Industrial
TSS
Wetland
2.26
Ultra Low
9.88
Transportation
0.64
Residential
56.25
Pasture (D)
11.81
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
65.25
Pasture (B)
Forest
pounds
Industrial
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
14.51
71.77
7.95
0.50
2.21
13.23
0.28
24.52
0.00
20.24
36.28
--
--
--
0.66
3.49
0.26
0.26
0.45
2.12
0.04
6.37
0.00
5.77
1.16
--
--
--
344
1,261
87
30
299
915
16
798
751
969
--
--
--
265
3,194
439
193
11
128
36,838
28,958
86
--
--
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-138
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
19%
3%
17%
0%
3%
1%
4%
21%
2%
0%
1%
4%
0%
7%
0%
6%
11%
--
--
--
TSS
tons
28%
7%
33%
0%
2%
1%
1%
5%
0%
0%
1%
3%
0%
9%
0%
8%
2%
--
--
--
BOD
pounds
18%
6%
34%
1%
4%
1%
2%
8%
1%
0%
2%
6%
0%
5%
0%
5%
6%
--
--
--
0%
0%
0%
29%
0%
23%
0%
--
--
--
FC
billion counts
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
39%
0%
0%
0%
4-206
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
0%
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-139
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-10) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.030
0.006
0.026
0.000
0.005
0.001
0.007
0.034
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.009
0.017
--
--
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.010
0.003
0.012
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.003
0.001
--
--
--
BOD
pounds/acre
1.320
0.469
2.515
0.040
0.290
0.086
0.162
0.593
0.041
0.014
0.141
0.431
0.000
0.375
0.000
0.354
0.456
--
--
--
--
--
FC
4-207
Menomonee River
4-208
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-140
LAND USE IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
4.9
25.98%
3.2
17.14%
0.8
4.01%
Commercial
0.3
1.57%
0.5
2.89%
5.1
27.06%
Transportation
3.1
16.59%
0.9
4.76%
Total
18.8
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-209
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
M EE Q
QU
UO
ON
N
Mequon Road
Mequon Road
Main St.
G
ND
D AA LL EE
G LL EE N
Green
d.
Ba y R
nd
Fo
76th St.
u
c
La
v.
A
n
to
le
pp
A
v.
MN-11
!
!
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Land Use
Agriculture
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Commercial
1,300 2,600
Feet
Figure 4-59
MN-11 Land Use
5,200
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Milwaukee, Ozaukee, and Washington counties are
located within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). The municipalities
include: the city of Mequon, the city of Milwaukee, and the village of Germantown.
Approximately 61% of the 18.8 square mile area is located within the city of Milwaukee. The
city of Mequon occupies nearly 38% of the area, and the village of Germantown occupies the
remaining 1%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Little Menomonee River assessment
point area is presented in TABLE 4-141.
TABLE 4-141
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11)
Civil Division
City of Mequon
7.2
38.27%
City of Milwaukee
11.4
60.74%
Village of Germantown
0.2
0.99%
Total
18.8
100.00%
4-211
Menomonee River
that DO concentrations decline during high flows; this suggests that stormwater runoff may carry
a relatively large organic load and BOD.
The concentrations of TSS were classified as very good and the data suggest that TSS
concentrations are attributed to nonpoint sources. The suspended solids may come from runoff
that carries a sediment load, from streambank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments.
The assessment of TP was good and the data indicate that concentrations of phosphorus are
greatest at high flows. This suggests a predominance of nonpoint sources of phosphorus within
the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN-11). Note also that the TP
concentrations increase at low flows; this could be an indication that the assessment point area
contains background sources of phosphorus, such as non-contact cooling water. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-142. Note that this table reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-143 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-144 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown, and TABLE
4-145 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The Little Menomonee
Creek (MN-10) assessment point area is upstream of the Little Menomonee River assessment
point area (MN-11). TABLE 4-146 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads,
TABLE 4-147 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and
TABLE 4-148 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-212
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-60
FIGURE 4-61
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-142
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-11)
Assessment
Point
MN-11
Little Menomonee
River
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
53
700
68
Total Suspended
Solids
Copper
4,477
70
261
48
Mean (mg/l)
10.4
Median (mg/l)
10.5
98
Mean (mg/l)
0.058
Median (mg/l)
0.043
7,777
Baseline
Condition
89
Mean (mg/l)
0.58
Median (mg/l)
0.56
Mean (mg/l)
13.2
Median (mg/l)
4.6
Mean (mg/l)
0.005
Median (mg/l)
0.0017
4-216
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-143
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
4.91
1,611
2,254
51.38
0.86
193.64
16,304
254
21,113
135,881
415
1.32
89.08
57.53
11.18
390
10,016
4,995
1,308
709
485,048
59,158
52,721
438
SSOs
2.04
1,091
7.01
3,201
34.01
CSOs
3,291
116.41
Industrial
15.61
1,620
298.32
Wetland
3.72
3,093
8.57
184.97
355.28
--
0.47
5.93
1.27
--
0.01
4,940
3,093
--
--
517
TABLE 4-144
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Crop (B)
Nonpoint Source
Commercial
FC
19.42
331.11
Ultra Low
10,971
23.89
Transportation
114.34
3,743
28.86
957.36
Residential
40.92
71,094
9.97
138.50
Pasture (D)
587.80
38.50
Pasture (C)
tons
pounds
26.04
Pasture (B)
TSS
BOD
49.18
Industrial
225.86
Grass (D)
80.57
Grass (C)
1583.10
Point Source
Grass (B)
pounds
Government /
Institution
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Forest
Crop (B)
Loads
Crop (D)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
35%
2%
5%
1%
1%
1%
3%
21%
1%
7%
0%
1%
0%
7%
3%
1%
4%
8%
--
0%
TSS
49%
3%
9%
2%
0%
1%
1%
4%
0%
16%
0%
0%
0%
7%
5%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
44%
2%
7%
2%
1%
2%
2%
10%
0%
13%
1%
1%
0%
6%
3%
1%
3%
2%
--
0%
FC
59%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
6%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
22%
3%
2%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
4-217
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-145
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.135
0.007
0.019
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.012
0.081
0.002
0.028
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.025
0.010
0.003
0.016
0.030
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.050
0.003
0.010
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.043
0.318
0.933
0.263
0.138
0.280
0.272
1.386
0.022
1.794
0.093
0.137
0.033
0.851
0.425
0.111
0.420
0.263
--
0.001
FC
billion counts/acre
109.603
0.037
0.203
0.039
0.015
10.799
0.215
3.619
0.111
11.549
0.035
0.192
0.060
41.227
5.028
4.481
0.037
0.000
--
0.044
Loads
Units
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-146
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
324.41
116.41
56.93
SSOs
10.04
CSOs
42.24
Industrial
13.42
Wetland
332.93
Ultra Low
27.99
Transportation
1038.50
Residential
151.27
Pasture (D)
39.63
Pasture (C)
32.85
Point Source
Pasture (B)
54.38
Industrial
349.83
Grass (D)
105.41
Grass (C)
1657.95
Grass (B)
pounds
Government /
Institution
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Forest
Crop (B)
Loads
Crop (D)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
210.96
355.28
--
0.47
TSS
tons
615.60
53.54
177.10
21.47
4.69
16.07
7.66
55.73
1.00
194.71
2.75
7.18
1.55
96.87
57.53
18.72
6.76
1.27
--
0.01
BOD
pounds
74,455
4,897
16,993
3,420
2,044
3,387
3,496
17,686
298
21,229
1,468
2,358
456
10,891
4,995
2,190
5,634
3,093
--
FC
billion counts
1,350,490
576
3,705
506
226
130,771
2,765
46,186
1,536
136,629
558
3,300
830
527,459
59,158
88,239
499
--
517
4-218
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-147
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
34%
2%
7%
1%
1%
1%
3%
21%
1%
7%
0%
1%
0%
7%
2%
1%
4%
7%
--
0%
TSS
tons
46%
4%
13%
2%
0%
1%
1%
4%
0%
15%
0%
1%
0%
7%
4%
1%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
42%
3%
9%
2%
1%
2%
2%
10%
0%
12%
1%
1%
0%
6%
3%
1%
3%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion
counts
57%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
22%
3%
4%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
Units
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-148
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.119
0.008
0.025
0.004
0.002
0.003
0.011
0.075
0.002
0.024
0.001
0.003
0.001
0.023
0.008
0.004
0.015
0.026
--
0.000
TSS
Tons/acre
0.044
0.004
0.013
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
Pounds/acre
5.360
0.353
1.223
0.246
0.147
0.244
0.252
1.273
0.021
1.528
0.106
0.170
0.033
0.784
0.360
0.158
0.406
0.223
--
0.000
0.042
0.267
0.036
0.016
9.415
0.199
3.325
0.111
9.837
0.040
0.238
0.060
37.975
4.259
6.353
0.036
0.000
--
0.037
BOD
FC
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-219
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
unchanged as good. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat
suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are
based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates
that the assessment of flashiness within the Little Menomonee River assessment point area (MN11) would remain unchanged as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled
water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-149
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-11)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-11
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Little Menomonee
(annual)
River
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
54
520
96
Copper
2,704
71
171
69
Mean (mg/l)
10.4
Median (mg/l)
10.6
98
Mean (mg/l)
0.053
Median (mg/l)
0.041
6,053
Year 2020
Condition
91
Mean (mg/l)
0.47
Median (mg/l)
0.46
Mean (mg/l)
9.7
Median (mg/l)
3.3
Mean (mg/l)
0.0040
Median (mg/l)
0.0014
4-221
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-150
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
295.24
100.03
30.31
1.83
2.88
0.47
76.48
43.42
8.61
1,230
1,242
187
9,646
4,091
1,129
174
34
412,048
468
332.87
6.25
38.35
1.88
170.99
3,239
13,849
635
20,229
35,090
3,188
117,554
47
44,898 40,449
SSOs
3.32
57.74
CSOs
2,494
17.95
788.39
Industrial
106,215
9.06
136.76
Wetland
211
Ultra Low
Transportation
90
3,076
Residential
17
13.33
1,910
Pasture (D)
976,339
FC
4.38
333
Pasture (C)
billion
counts
BOD
0.86
Pasture (B)
pounds
5,260
38.27
Industrial
24.30
1,636
tons
30.70
Grass (D)
8.76
59,867
TSS
2.52
Grass (C)
448.20
pounds
Point Source
Grass (B)
55.39
TP
Government /
Institution
Crop (C)
19.41
Units
Forest
Crop (B)
1,390.76
Loads
Crop (D)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
197.77
355.28
--
0.47
6.34
1.27
--
0.01
5,282
3,093
--
--
517
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-151
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Ultra Low
1%
Transportation
0%
Residential
1%
Pasture (D)
1%
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
36%
Pasture (B)
Forest
pounds
Industrial
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
4%
20%
1%
9%
0%
0%
0%
8%
3%
1%
5%
9%
--
0%
TSS
tons
52%
1%
3%
0%
1%
2%
1%
4%
0%
20%
0%
0%
0%
9%
5%
1%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
44%
1%
4%
0%
1%
2%
2%
10%
0%
15%
1%
1%
0%
7%
3%
1%
4%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
56%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
7%
0%
0%
0%
24%
3%
2%
0%
0%
--
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-222
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-152
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.115
0.002
0.005
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.012
0.067
0.005
0.028
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.024
0.009
0.002
0.017
0.030
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.038
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
5.088
0.139
0.447
0.028
0.162
0.261
0.275
1.177
0.054
1.719
0.105
0.106
0.000
0.820
0.348
0.096
0.449
0.263
--
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.000
0.018
8.959
0.212
2.982
0.271
9.992
0.004
0.015
0.003
34.602
3.816
3.389
0.040
0.000
--
0.000
FC
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-153
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
pounds
1,456.01
31.23
111.64
3.17
40.59
40.53
151.26
860.16
65.69
333.37
11.27 31.17
3.60
319.76
100.03
50.54
234.04
355.28
--
0.47
tons
469.29
14.10
48.98
1.07
5.79
14.13
6.91
41.85
2.14
171.24
2.28
5.00
0.51
82.85
43.42
14.39
7.50
1.27
--
0.01
BOD
pounds
62,672
2,632
10,601
418
2,525
3,258
3,583
15,109
722
20,260
1,530 2,158
203
10,444
4,091
1,880
6,251
3,093
--
FC
billion
counts
1,025,995
27
181
279
113,124
2,759
38,284
3,627
117,747
37
448,886
44,898
69,407
554
--
517
Units
4-223
58
Pasture (C)
Crop (C)
TP
TSS
Loads
Pasture (B)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
302
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-154
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (PERCENT)
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Residential
1%
Pasture (D)
0%
Pasture (C)
3%
Pasture (B)
Government /
Institution
1%
Industrial
Forest
35%
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Point Source
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
4%
20%
2%
8%
0%
1%
0%
8%
2%
1%
6%
8%
--
0%
TSS
tons
50%
2%
5%
0%
1%
2%
1%
4%
0%
18%
0%
1%
0%
9%
5%
2%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
41%
2%
7%
0%
2%
2%
2%
10%
0%
13%
1%
1%
0%
7%
3%
1%
4%
2%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
55%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
6%
0%
0%
0%
24%
2%
4%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-155
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LITTLE MENOMONEE RIVER ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-11) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.105
0.002
0.008
0.000
0.003
0.003
0.011
0.062
0.005
0.024
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.023
0.007
0.004
0.017
0.026
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.034
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
4.512
0.189
0.763
0.030
0.182
0.235
0.258
1.088
0.052
1.459
0.110
0.155
0.015
0.752
0.295
0.135
0.450
0.223
--
0.000
FC
billion counts/acre
73.868
0.002
0.013
0.000
0.020
8.145
0.199
2.756
0.261
8.477
0.004
0.022
0.003
32.318
3.232
4.997
0.040
0.000
--
0.037
Loads
Units
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-224
Menomonee River
4-225
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-156
0.2
2.54%
3.2
43.45%
0.2
2.55%
Commercial
0.2
2.75%
0.3
4.28%
1.8
24.07%
Transportation
1.5
20.06%
0.0
0.30%
Total
7.4
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-226
Capitol Dr.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D
MN-13
Bluemound Rd.
Greenfield Av.
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Land Use
Waterbodies
Agriculture
Water
Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
700 1,400
Feet
Figure 4-63
MN-13 Land Use
2,800
Menomonee River
Portions of three municipalities within Waukesha County are located within the Underwood
Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The municipalities include: the city of Brookfield, the
town of Brookfield, and the village of Elm Grove. Approximately 88% of the 7.4 square mile
area is located within the city of Brookfield. The village of Elm Grove and the town of
Brookfield occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) is presented in TABLE 4-157.
TABLE 4-157
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Brookfield
6.5
88.39%
Town of Brookfield
0.2
2.37%
0.7
9.24%
Total
7.4
100.00%
Civil Division
4-228
Menomonee River
Detailed analyses were also performed on TP and TSS. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as moderate and TSS concentrations were assessed as poor. Concentrations of TP tend to
increase during spring and summer, suggesting a relationship with annual snowmelt and
nonpoint inputs of fertilizers. Increased flows tend to be coincident with the highest
concentrations of TP and suggest that nonpoint sources are responsible for elevated
concentrations of TP within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13). The
concentrations of TSS tend to increase with increasing flows.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data.
The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations
were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). Within the Underwood Creek
assessment point area (MN-13), the data indicate that DO concentrations declined more than
expected during the summer months. This decline could be due to a combination of decreased
water agitation and higher water temperatures. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on
modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-158. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-159 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-160 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-161 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-229
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-64
FIGURE 4-65
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-158
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
61
789
44
4,377
77
404
17
Mean (mg/l)
10.1
Median (mg/l)
9.8
96
Mean (mg/l)
0.069
Median (mg/l)
0.050
83
Mean (mg/l)
0.68
Median (mg/l)
0.61
Mean (mg/l)
17.2
Median (mg/l)
Copper
9,075
Baseline
Condition
7.6
Mean (mg/l)
0.0048
Median (mg/l)
0.0013
4-233
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-159
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / YEAR)
369
FC
billion counts
7.82
--
0.05
1.65
175.13
--
10.89
7.81
25.10
2.55
4.80
--
0.01
0.25
57.38
--
2,097
3,688
9,258
962
499
--
72
5,880
--
6,066
3,203
--
147
287,543
--
655,448
0
31
351
96
80,833
4,180
33,983
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
2,446
105.43
CSOs
0.81
133
725.67
Industrial
13.44
196.41
Wetland
1.27
36,202
24.54
Ultra Low
0.00
pounds
Transportation
323.10
BOD
Residential
6.19
Pasture (D)
34.40
Pasture (C)
2.53
Pasture (B)
0.01
tons
Industrial
Forest
806.12
TSS
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Government /
Institution
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
19.25
153.85
--
--
1.89
6.92
3.86
--
--
0.05
741
4,051
--
--
27
29,790
548
--
--
2,068
TABLE 4-160
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
36%
0%
0%
2%
0%
1%
9%
32%
5%
0%
--
0%
0%
8%
--
1%
7%
--
--
0%
TSS
71%
0%
0%
3%
0%
2%
2%
5%
1%
1%
--
0%
0%
13%
--
2%
1%
--
--
0%
BOD
54%
0%
0%
4%
1%
3%
6%
14%
1%
1%
--
0%
0%
9%
--
1%
6%
--
--
0%
FC
59%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%
0%
3%
1%
0%
-0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
0%
26%
--
3%
0%
--
--
0%
Loads
4-234
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-161
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
Pounds/acre
0.173
0.000
0.001
0.007
0.001
0.005
0.042
0.156
0.023
0.002
--
0.000
0.000
0.038
--
0.004
0.033
--
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.069
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.005
0.001
0.001
--
0.000
0.000
0.012
--
0.001
0.001
--
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
7.780
0.000
0.028
0.526
0.079
0.451
0.792
1.989
0.207
0.107
--
0.001
0.016
1.264
--
0.159
0.871
--
--
0.006
0.000
0.007
0.076
0.021
17.371
0.898
7.303
1.304
0.688
--
0.001
0.032
61.792
--
6.402
0.118
--
--
0.444
FC
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-235
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality
regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of
flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-13) would remain as
moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness
under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-162
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-13
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Underwood Creek
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
4,845
64
422
119
2,210
80
212
66
Mean (mg/l)
10.1
Median (mg/l)
9.8
96
Mean (mg/l)
0.061
Median (mg/l)
0.044
Year 2020
Condition
86
Mean (mg/l)
0.59
Median (mg/l)
0.53
Mean (mg/l)
12.8
Median (mg/l)
5.6
Mean (mg/l)
0.0038
Median (mg/l)
0.0010
4-237
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-163
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
724.26
--
0.32
--
5.22
21.78
151.92
562.64
109.85
4.80
--
--
--
160.37
--
16.00
153.11
--
--
1.89
TSS
tons
255.90
--
0.16
--
0.68
8.54
5.69
18.47
2.51
2.56
--
--
--
47.48
--
5.17
3.84
--
--
0.05
BOD
pounds
30,835
--
28
--
310
1,692
2,961
7,525
1,047
290
--
--
--
5,214
--
590
4,032
--
--
27
FC
billion counts
359,924
--
--
81
42,034
2,217
18,127
4,360
1,233
--
--
--
156,855
--
14,553
545
--
--
2,068
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-164
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
38%
--
0%
--
0%
1%
8%
29%
6%
0%
--
--
--
8%
--
1%
8%
--
--
0%
TSS
tons
73%
--
0%
--
0%
2%
2%
5%
1%
1%
--
--
--
14%
--
1%
1%
--
--
0%
BOD
pounds
57%
--
0%
--
1%
3%
5%
14%
2%
1%
--
--
--
10%
--
1%
7%
--
--
0%
FC
billion counts
60%
--
0%
--
0%
7%
0%
3%
1%
0%
--
--
--
26%
--
2%
0%
--
--
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-238
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-165
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-13) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.149
--
0.000
--
0.001
0.004
0.033
0.121
0.024
0.001
--
--
--
0.032
--
0.003
0.033
--
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.055
--
0.000
--
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.001
0.001
--
--
--
0.010
--
0.001
0.001
--
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.626
--
0.006
--
0.067
0.364
0.636
1.617
0.225
0.062
--
--
--
1.121
--
0.127
0.866
--
--
0.006
FC
billion counts/acre
73.812
-0.000
-0.017
8.821
0.476
3.895
0.937
0.265
---32.529
-2.996
0.117
--0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-239
Menomonee River
MN-14
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) is located downstream of the Underwood
Creek assessment point area (MN-13). Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14)
includes the South Branch Underwood Creek and the lower reaches of Underwood Creek.
Within this area, the creek begins at the northern boundary of the village of Elm Grove. The
creek flows southeast towards the Elm Grove Village Hall. Southeast of the Village Hall, the
creek crosses to the south side of the CP rail line and enters an enclosed conduit to pass beneath
the shopping center located along Watertown Plank Road. The creek emerges from the south
side of the shopping center, crosses to the north side of the CP rail line and begins to flow east
towards 124th Street and its confluence with the South Branch Underwood Creek, which is
predominantly a concrete-lined channel. The creek passes less than mile from Bishops Woods
and Elm Grove Pond.
Immediately downstream of the confluence, the creek flows into Milwaukee County on the north
side of Blue Mound Road. From this point, the creek flows within a concrete-lined channel
through Underwood Creek Parkway in a northeasterly direction, past STH 100 and USH 45 and
along the north side of the Milwaukee County Grounds and Wil-O-Way Woods in the city of
Wauwatosa. The creek flows past the Hansen Park Golf Course about 200 feet upstream of its
confluence with the Menomonee River.
Within this area, the creek flows through low density residential to the west and to the south.
East of the county line, the creek flows within a parkway system and adjacent to the County
Grounds and institutions. The riparian margin varies from greater than 75 feet wide to less than
25 feet wide. The Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) contains six known dams,
drop structures, or other obstructions. There are several noted conditions of streambank erosion
located approximately in the Elm Grove Village Grounds and along Bluemound Road upstream
of the confluence with the South Branch Underwood Creek.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the creek, the land use within the Underwood Creek assessment
point area (MN-14) is predominantly low-density residential (defined on following table) (34%).
Transportation land use makes up nearly 32% of the total land use while recreation, natural
areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 17% of the total land use within the area (Figure
4-67). Agriculture along with manufacturing and industrial, high-density residential,
institutional and governmental, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 17%.
Overall, MN-14s assessment point area contains a number of notable features including Mayfair
and Brookfield Square shopping malls, the Milwaukee County Zoo, numerous interchanges
associated with I-94 and USH 45, and a large regional floodwater management project located at
the Milwaukee County Grounds (currently under construction). Based on an analysis of land use
data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 28% of the Underwood Creek
assessment point area (MN-14) is impervious. TABLE 4-166 presents the land uses within the
area.
4-240
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-166
0.0
0.19%
4.2
33.51%
0.7
5.77%
Commercial
0.5
3.71%
0.6
4.78%
2.1
16.95%
Transportation
4.0
32.09%
0.4
3.00%
Total
12.5
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-241
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
B
BR
RO
OO
OK
K FF II E
E LL D
D
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA
!
MN-14
!
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
WE
ES
S TT A
A LL LL II S
S
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Land Use
Waterbodies
Agriculture
Water
Watersheds
Commercial
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
700 1,400
Feet
Figure 4-67
MN-14 Land Use
2,800
Menomonee River
Portions of six municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the
Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The municipalities include: the cities of
Brookfield, Milwaukee, New Berlin, Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of Elm
Grove. Nearly 32% of the 12.5 square mile modeling is located within the city of Wauwatosa.
The city of West Allis and the village of Elm Grove occupy nearly 22 and 21% of the area,
respectively. The cities of Brookfield, New Berlin and Milwaukee, together, occupy the
remaining 25%. The extent of the civil divisions within the Underwood Creek assessment point
area (MN-14) is presented in TABLE 4-167.
TABLE 4-167
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Brookfield
2.1
17.02%
City of Milwaukee
0.4
3.17%
0.7
5.37%
City of Wauwatosa
4.0
31.68%
2.7
21.92%
2.6
20.84%
Total
12.5
100.00%
Civil Division
4-243
Menomonee River
nonpoint sources are the primary contributors of FC in the Underwood Creek assessment point
area (MN-14). See Figure 4-68, Figure 4-69, and Figure 4-70. Note: the black line on Figure 468 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Detailed analyses of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as moderate and are greatest in March and are likely related to runoff from snowmelt.
Concentrations decline during the summer and early fall and could be related to plant uptake
during the growing season. The data also suggest that TP concentrations are attributed to
nonpoint sources and that TP could be associated with suspended solids. Total suspended solids
were characterized as poor within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). The
increase in concentrations of TSS with increasing flow suggests that nonpoint sources contribute
to elevated TSS. The suspended solids may come from runoff that carries sediment load, from
stream bank erosion, or from re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that Underwood
Creek assessment point area (MN-14) contains concrete-lined reaches. As a result, re-suspension
of stream sediments and erosion likely make less of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches
that experience these processes.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data.
The minimum DO concentrations were assessed as good and the maximum DO concentrations
were assessed as very good during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on
the interactions of DO, water temperature, and aquatic habitat). While it is natural for DO
concentrations to decline during the summer months, the data indicate that DO concentrations
sporadically decline during these months. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled
water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-168. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. TABLE 4-169 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads
within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). Note: loads of BOD are presented
in the loading tables because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-170
presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load and TABLE 4-171 presents the
Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Underwood Creek assessment point are
(MN-13) is upstream of Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14). TABLE 4-172
presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-173 presents the Baseline
percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-174 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-244
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-68
FIGURE 4-69
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-168
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Baseline
Condition
8,133
71
691
247
2,964
86
351
147
Mean (mg/l)
11.0
Median (mg/l)
11.1
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.066
Median (mg/l)
0.043
Copper
a
84
Mean (mg/l)
0.67
Median (mg/l)
0.61
Mean (mg/l)
16.8
Median (mg/l)
7.9
Mean (mg/l)
0.0048
Median (mg/l)
0.0013
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-248
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-169
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
0.20
0.35
--
322.47
263.92
14.84
49.25
0.83
67.34
0.04
0.06
--
105.65
133.55
7,006
18,164
315
6,988
24
17
--
10,827
11,328
44,896
11
30
--
529,444
133,902
1,362,536
---264
140,791
7,942
66,675
1,987
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
109.60
CSOs
3,653
34.54
Industrial
18.97
1,015
1423.77
Wetland
billion counts
2.22
--
373.13
Ultra Low
FC
--
Transportation
--
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
75,255
42.74
Pasture (C)
--
pounds
17.05
Pasture (B)
671.65
BOD
--
Industrial
--
Grass (D)
--
tons
Grass (C)
1675.76
TSS
Point Source
Grass (B)
pounds
Government /
Institution
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Forest
Crop (B)
Loads
Crop (D)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
41.93
51.77
28.61
--
13.06
15.07
1.30
0.05
--
0.37
1,613
1,363
196
--
184
64,873
184
--
14,266
TABLE 4-170
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
38%
--
--
--
0%
1%
8%
32%
1%
2%
0%
0%
--
7%
6%
1%
1%
1%
--
0%
TSS
62%
--
--
--
0%
2%
1%
5%
0%
6%
0%
0%
--
10%
12%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
55%
--
--
--
1%
3%
5%
13%
0%
5%
0%
0%
--
8%
8%
1%
1%
0%
--
0%
FC
58%
---0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
2%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
22%
6%
3%
0%
0%
--
1%
Loads
4-249
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-171
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.212
--
--
--
0.002
0.005
0.047
0.181
0.004
0.014
0.000
0.000
--
0.041
0.033
0.005
0.007
0.004
--
0.002
TSS
tons/acre
0.085
--
--
--
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
--
0.013
0.017
0.002
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
9.543
--
--
--
0.129
0.463
0.888
2.303
0.040
0.886
0.003
0.002
--
1.373
1.437
0.205
0.173
0.025
--
0.023
FC
billion counts/acre
172.779
--
--
--
0.034
17.853
1.007
8.455
0.252
5.693
0.001
0.004
--
67.137
16.980
8.226
0.023
0.000
--
1.809
Loads
Units
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-172
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
2481.88
0.01
2.53
34.40
23.25
67.27
569.54
2149.44
139.97
117.42
0.20
0.40
1.65
497.60
263.92
61.18
205.61
28.61
--
14.95
TSS
tons
994.75
0.00
1.27
13.44
3.03
29.85
22.66
74.35
3.38
72.15
0.04
0.07
0.25
163.03
133.55
21.99
5.16
0.05
--
0.43
BOD
pounds
111,457
133
2,446
1,383
5,750
10,694
27,421
1,278
7,487
24
20
72
16,707
11,328
2,354
5,414
196
--
211
31
351
360
221,624
12,122
100,658
8,053
48,099
11
35
147
816,987
133,902
94,663
732
--
16,334
FC
4-250
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-173
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Ultra Low
0%
Transportation
1%
Residential
0%
Pasture (D)
0%
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
37%
Pasture (B)
Forest
pounds
Industrial
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
9%
32%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
7%
4%
1%
3%
0%
--
0%
TSS
tons
65%
0%
0%
1%
0%
2%
1%
5%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
11%
9%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
55%
0%
0%
1%
1%
3%
5%
13%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
8%
6%
1%
3%
0%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
58%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
24%
4%
3%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-174
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.198
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.045
0.171
0.011
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.021
0.005
0.016
0.002
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.079
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.002
0.002
0.006
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
8.889
0.000
0.011
0.195
0.110
0.459
0.853
2.187
0.102
0.597
0.002
0.002
0.006
1.332
0.903
0.188
0.432
0.016
--
0.017
0.000
0.002
0.028
0.029
17.674
0.967
8.027
0.642
3.836
0.001
0.003
0.012
65.154
10.679
7.549
0.058
0.000
--
1.303
FC
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-251
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
would result in the improvement of the assessments of TSS from poor to very good and TP from
moderate to good. The minimum DO concentrations would improve from good to very good and
the maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather
months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability
and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on
water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the
assessment of flashiness within the Underwood Creek assessment point area (MN-14) would
remain as moderate. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and
flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-175
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-14
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Underwood Creek
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
74
369
282
1,332
89
180
153
Mean (mg/l)
11.1
Median (mg/l)
11.2
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.057
Median (mg/l)
0.039
87
Mean (mg/l)
0.57
Median (mg/l)
0.52
Mean (mg/l)
12.7
Median (mg/l)
Copper
4,250
Year 2020
Condition
5.8
Mean (mg/l)
0.0037
Median (mg/l)
0.0010
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-253
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-176
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
--
--
--
1.94
14.40
BOD
pounds
64,137
--
--
--
887
2,999
FC
billion
counts
710,290
--
--
--
231
68,345
76.79
0.16
0.04
--
303.21
225.88
10.96
35.39
0.62
41.06
0.03
0.01
--
85.25
99.48
5,702
14,419
259
4,644
24
--
9,972
9,195
4,269
34,734
1,077
18,277
--
278,753
66,805
SSOs
514.48
27.12
CSOs
tons
1,078.07
Industrial
TSS
292.54
Wetland
38.97
Ultra Low
14.90
Transportation
--
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
1,502.42
Pasture (B)
Forest
pounds
Industrial
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
39.74
44.08
28.61
--
10.99
12.18
1.11
0.05
--
0.31
1,476
1,161
196
--
155
35,294
157
--
12,006
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-177
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Ultra Low
0%
Transportation
--
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
41%
Pasture (B)
Forest
pounds
Industrial
Crop (D)
TP
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
8%
29%
1%
2%
0%
0%
--
8%
6%
1%
1%
1%
--
0%
TSS
tons
63%
--
--
--
0%
2%
1%
4%
0%
5%
0%
0%
--
10%
12%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
56%
--
--
--
1%
3%
5%
13%
0%
4%
0%
0%
--
9%
8%
1%
1%
0%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
58%
--
--
--
0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
23%
5%
3%
0%
0%
--
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-254
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-178
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
TP
pounds/acre
0.180
--
--
--
0.002
0.004
0.037
0.137
0.003
0.010
0.000 0.000
--
0.035
0.029
0.005
0.006
0.004
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.065
--
--
--
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.005
0.000 0.000
--
0.011
0.013
0.002
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
8.133
--
--
--
0.112
0.380
0.723
1.828
0.033
0.589
0.003 0.000
--
1.265
1.166
0.187
0.147
0.025
--
0.020
FC
billion counts/acre
85.361
--
--
--
0.029
8.429
0.541
4.404
0.137
2.318
0.000 0.000
--
33.957
8.471
4.295
0.020
0.000
--
0.000
Pasture (C)
Crop (C)
Loads
Pasture (B)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-179
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
2,226.68
--
0.32
--
20.12
60.74
444.46
1,640.71
136.98
81.59
0.16
0.04
--
463.58
225.88
55.74
197.20
28.61
--
12.88
TSS
tons
770.39
--
0.16
--
2.62
22.94
16.65
53.86
3.14
43.63
0.03
0.01
--
132.73
99.48
17.35
4.95
0.05
--
0.37
BOD
pounds
94,971
--
28
--
1,197
4,691
8,663
21,944
1,306
4,934
24
--
15,187
9,195
2,066
5,193
196
--
181
FC
billion counts
1,070,213
--
--
312
110,379
6,486
52,861
5,436
19,510
--
435,608
66,805
49,847
702
--
14,074
Loads
Units
4-255
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-180
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (PERCENT)
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Transportation
0%
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
0%
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
--
Pasture (B)
Forest
40%
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
8%
29%
2%
1%
0%
0%
--
8%
4%
1%
4%
1%
--
0%
TSS
tons
66%
--
0%
--
0%
2%
1%
5%
0%
4%
0%
0%
--
11%
9%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
56%
--
0%
--
1%
3%
5%
13%
1%
3%
0%
0%
--
9%
5%
1%
3%
0%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
58%
--
0%
--
0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
24%
4%
3%
0%
0%
--
1%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-181
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE UNDERWOOD CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-14) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.178
--
0.000
--
0.002
0.005
0.035
0.131
0.011
0.007
0.000
0.000
--
0.037
0.018
0.004
0.016
0.002
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.061
--
0.000
--
0.000
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
--
0.011
0.008
0.001
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
7.574
--
0.002
--
0.095
0.374
0.691
1.750
0.104
0.393
0.002
0.000
--
1.211
0.733
0.165
0.414
0.016
--
0.014
FC
billion counts/acre
s85.348
--
0.000
--
0.025
8.803
0.517
4.216
0.434
1.556
0.000
0.000
--
34.739
5.328
3.975
0.056
0.000
--
1.122
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-256
Menomonee River
4.5.12 Menomonee River Lower Mainstem (Assessment Point MN-15 and MN-17)
This segment of the mainstem is located in the lower eastern portion of the Menomonee River
watershed. The reach within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area
(MN-15) flows southeasterly from the mainstems confluence with the Little Menomonee River
for about three miles to a point just downstream of the confluence with Underwood Creek. It
flows southerly under Hampton Avenue past the Harley-Davidson Woods, through the
Menomonee River Swamp-South, and into Currie Park which is located south of Capitol Drive
before changing direction and flowing southeasterly. The confluence with Grantosa Creek
occurs in Currie Park immediately west of Mayfair Road. Grantosa Creek flows through
enclosed conduit for slightly more than mile of its length. Downstream of the confluence with
Grantosa Creek, the Menomonee River Lower mainstem passes Mount Mary College and Blue
Mound Country Club before reaching the confluence with Underwood Creek. The Lower
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area contains one known dam, drop structure or
other obstruction.
The Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) encompasses 9.0 square
miles. The mainstem flows through the Menomonee River Parkway, which allows for a greater
riparian width. In general, the width exceeds 75 feet along half of the river within this assessment
point area. Portions of both the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN15) and (MN-17) are located in the city of Wauwatosa.
MN-15
The land use within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) is
predominantly transportation (34%). High-density residential land use (defined on following
table) makes up nearly 21% of the total land use while recreation, natural areas, and open space
land uses make up nearly 15% of the total land use in the Menomonee River Lower mainstem
assessment point area (MN-15) (Figure 4-71). Low-density residential along with institutional
and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the
remaining 30%. Based on an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data,
approximately 32% of the area is impervious. TABLE 4-182 presents the land uses within the
area.
4-257
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-182
LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
0.0
0.00%
1.2
13.43%
1.9
21.31%
Commercial
0.3
3.14%
0.6
6.92%
1.3
14.52%
Transportation
3.1
34.20%
0.6
6.48%
Total
9.0
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-258
76th St.
nd
Fo
D
u
c
La
A
n
to
le
pp
v.
A
v.
A
76th St.
M
U KK EE E
W AA U
M II LL W
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U
!
MN-15
!
!
Bluemound Rd.
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Land Use
Agriculture
Commercial
850 1,700
Feet
Figure 4-71
MN-15 Land Use
3,400
Menomonee River
Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee and Waukesha counties are located within the
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). The municipalities include:
the cities of Brookfield, Milwaukee, and Wauwatosa as well as the village of Butler. Nearly
51% of the 9.0 square mile area is located within the city of Wauwatosa. The city of Milwaukee
occupies 37% of the area. The city of Brookfield and the village of Butler, together, occupy the
remaining 12%. The extent of the civil divisions within the MN-15 assessment point area is
presented in TABLE 4-183.
TABLE 4-183
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA
(MN-15)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Brookfield
0.9
9.76%
City of Milwaukee
3.4
37.40%
City of Wauwatosa
4.5
50.69%
Village of Butler
0.2
2.15%
Total
9.0
100.00%
Civil Division
Menomonee River
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). See Figure 4-72, Figure 473, and Figure 4-74. Note: the black line on Figure 4-72 represents the cumulative number of
days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Detailed analysis of TP and TSS were also performed. The concentrations of TP and TSS were
both assessed as moderate; the data suggest that both of these parameters are primarily attributed
to nonpoint sources. The relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be
associated with suspended solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that
carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO
concentrations. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good
during the warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water
quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-184. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-185 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-186 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-187 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. Assessment
point areas associated with MN-1 through MN-14 are all located upstream of the Menomonee
River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-15). TABLE 4-188 presents the Baseline
cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-189 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown
for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-190 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant
loads on a per acre basis.
4-261
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-72
FIGURE 4-73
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-184
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-15)
Assessment
Point
MN-15 Lower
Mainstem
Menomonee River
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<400 cells per 100 ml)
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<200 cells per 100 ml)
Total Phosphorus
Copper
47
1,063
12
3,064
67
476
6
Mean (mg/l)
11.0
Median (mg/l)
11.1
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.063
Median (mg/l)
0.043
6,137
Baseline
Condition
84
Mean (mg/l)
0.55
Median (mg/l)
0.52
Mean (mg/l)
15.6
Median (mg/l)
5.6
Mean (mg/l)
0.0057
Median (mg/l)
0.0023
4-265
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-185
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
1.07
12.25
--
--
383
2,361
FC
billion counts
230.06
--
--
--
268.78
69.23
48.92
2.66
77.12
0.19
141.97
--
--
--
87.84
35.55
17.53
808
15,641
36
14,668
--
--
--
9,024
2,972
1,882
81,018
--
--
--
423,987
28,515
72,315
981,176
---46
90,196
929
56,978
224
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
--
--
3.92
CSOs
--
59,631
1226.17
Industrial
--
pounds
45.34
Wetland
529.24
BOD
Ultra Low
27.62
Transportation
6.90
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
--
tons
Pasture (B)
Forest
1327.84
TSS
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
34.34
21.96
--
6.03
1.47
0.51
--
0.17
877
1,177
--
85
75
--
6,586
TABLE 4-186
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
40%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
37%
0%
7%
--
--
--
8%
2%
1%
1%
1%
--
0%
TSS
58%
--
--
--
0%
1%
0%
8%
0%
16%
--
--
--
10%
4%
2%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
54%
--
--
--
0%
2%
1%
14%
0%
13%
--
--
--
8%
3%
2%
1%
1%
--
0%
--
24%
2%
4%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
FC
56%
---0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
5%
--Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-266
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-187
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.231
--
--
--
0.001
0.005
0.008
0.214
0.001
0.040
--
--
--
0.047
0.012
0.009
0.006
0.004
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.092
--
--
--
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.013
0.000
0.025
--
--
--
0.015
0.006
0.003
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
10.389
--
--
--
0.067
0.411
0.141
2.725
0.006
2.556
--
--
--
1.572
0.518
0.328
0.153
0.205
--
0.015
FC
billion counts/acre
170.945
--
--
--
0.008
15.714
0.162
9.927
0.039
14.115
--
--
--
73.869
4.968
12.599
0.013
0.000
--
1.148
Loads
Units
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-188
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
1948.61
875.65
401.22
SSOs
Pasture (D)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (B)
Industrial
Grass (D)
Grass (C)
CSOs
183.33
Industrial
Wetland
9557.97
Ultra Low
pounds
Transportation
Units
TP
Point Source
Residential
Loads
Grass (B)
Government /
Institution
Forest
Crop (D)
Crop (C)
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
1078.02
1811.82
--
31.26
TSS
tons
3567.31
165.95 483.80
49.73
19.39
75.74
71.64
361.69
8.73
776.56
11.23 29.39
4.11
589.99
423.81
129.04
38.63
3.74
--
0.90
BOD
pounds
429,232
22,895 47,933
9,537
7,986
15,671
30,825
97,919
3,170
84,190
65,423
37,580
15,434
34,854
12,370
--
440
FC
billion
counts
5,602,995
2,634
1,307
1,187
497,161
30,464
3,446
--
34,159
9,362
4-267
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-189
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
35%
1%
3%
0%
0%
1%
5%
24%
1%
5%
0%
1%
0%
7%
3%
1%
4%
7%
--
0%
TSS
tons
52%
2%
7%
1%
0%
1%
1%
5%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
9%
6%
2%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
46%
2%
5%
1%
1%
2%
3%
11%
0%
9%
1%
1%
0%
7%
4%
2%
4%
1%
--
0%
FC
billion
counts
57%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
23%
3%
4%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
Units
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-190
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.137
0.005
0.011
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.020
0.095
0.004
0.019
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.028
0.013
0.006
0.015
0.026
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.051
0.002
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.170
0.329
0.689
0.137
0.115
0.225
0.443
1.408
0.046
1.210
0.084
0.122
0.019
0.940
0.540
0.222
0.501
0.178
--
0.006
FC
billion
counts/acre
80.542
0.038
0.135
0.019
0.017
7.147
0.438
4.458
0.249
5.504
0.032
0.184
0.034
32.120
4.673
5.657
0.050
0.000
--
0.491
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-268
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
swimming season measures. In contrast, the reduction in TSS and TP loading would result in the
improvement of the assessments of TSS from moderate to very good and TP from moderate to
good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain assessed as very good
during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality assessments are
focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning Report
No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year 2020
conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Menomonee River Lower
mainstem assessment point area (MN-15) would remain as good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for
more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-191
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-15)
Assessment
Point
MN-15
Menomonee
Mainstem
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
50
677
53
1,538
70
263
36
Mean (mg/l)
10.9
Median (mg/l)
11.0
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.059
Median (mg/l)
0.042
87
Mean (mg/l)
0.47
Median (mg/l)
0.44
Mean (mg/l)
12.5
Median (mg/l)
Copper
3,820
Year 2020
Condition
4.6
Mean (mg/l)
0.0049
Median (mg/l)
0.0022
4-270
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-192
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
pounds
FC
billion counts
526,215
--
--
--
1.13
9.65
364
2,001
87
50,368
209.42
--
--
--
228.00
60.70
44.02
2.18
63.55
0.16
115.72
--
--
--
66.23
27.88
14.02
660
13,175
30
12,806
--
--
--
7,377
2,499
1,628
501
31,766
125
46,005
--
--
--
226,604
15,908
40,928
SSOs
BOD
--
3.11
CSOs
--
--
978.00
Industrial
--
--
35.10
Wetland
--
48,074
Ultra Low
396.25
Transportation
tons
24.65
Residential
TSS
6.51
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
--
Pasture (B)
--
Industrial
1,116.20
Grass (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (D)
TP
Point Source
Grass (B)
Crop (C)
Units
Government /
Institution
Crop (B)
Loads
Forest
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
32.95
21.96
--
6.03
1.45
0.51
--
0.17
843
1,177
--
85
101
--
6,586
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-193
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Loads
Units
TP
pounds
40%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
35%
0%
8%
--
--
--
8%
2%
2%
1%
1%
--
0%
TSS
tons
57%
--
--
--
0%
1%
0%
9%
0%
17%
--
--
--
9%
4%
2%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
53%
--
--
--
0%
2%
1%
15%
0%
14%
--
--
--
8%
3%
2%
1%
1%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
56%
--
--
--
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
5%
--
--
--
24%
2%
4%
0%
0%
--
1%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-271
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-194
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.193
--
--
--
0.001
0.004
0.006
0.170
0.001
0.036
--
--
--
0.039
0.011
0.008
0.006
0.004
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.069
--
--
--
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.011
0.000
0.020
--
--
--
0.012
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
8.376
--
--
--
0.063
0.349
0.115
2.295
0.005
2.231
--
--
--
1.285
0.435
0.284
0.147
0.205
--
0.015
Loads
Units
TABLE 4-195
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / YEAR)
114.61 212.56
2,877.99
43.77
85.12
3.68
22.31
66.48
69.26
pounds
383,379
12,822 25,057
2,440
9,334
14,912
1,328 320,837
BOD
FC
136
405
25
10.34
722.29
4.42
32,890
89,386
3,994
84,462
25,086
112
9.54
580
1.08
73
764.85
385.13
--
26.35
528.69
332.23
108.49
40.65
3.74
--
0.75
66,603
31,672
14,672
36,798
12,370
--
371
3,590
--
28,797
Industrial
2,004.23
Wetland
Pasture (D)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (B)
Industrial
299.53
4-272
Grass (D)
SSOs
8,821.56
tons
CSOs
pounds
Ultra Low
TP
TSS
Transportation
Units
Point Source
Residential
Loads
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Government /
Institution
Forest
Crop (D)
Crop (C)
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
1,115.27 1,811.82
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-196
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (PERCENT)
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Transportation
1%
Residential
0%
Pasture (D)
1%
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
0%
Pasture (B)
Forest
37%
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
5%
23%
1%
6%
0%
0%
0%
8%
3%
2%
5%
8%
--
0%
TSS
tons
55%
1%
2%
0%
0%
1%
1%
6%
0%
14%
0%
0%
0%
10%
6%
2%
1%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
46%
2%
3%
0%
1%
2%
4%
11%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
8%
4%
2%
4%
1%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
55%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
24%
3%
4%
0%
0%
--
0%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-197
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-15) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.127
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.018
0.079
0.004
0.020
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.029
0.011
0.006
0.016
0.026
--
0.000
TSS
tons/acre
0.041
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
5.511
0.184
0.360
0.035
0.134
0.214
0.473
1.285
0.057
1.214
0.042
0.058
0.006
0.957
0.455
0.211
0.529
0.178
--
0.005
FC
billion
counts/acre
49.807
0.002
0.006
0.000
0.019
4.612
0.361
2.921
0.254
3.988
0.002
0.008
0.001
21.393
2.719
3.628
0.052
0.000
--
0.414
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-273
Menomonee River
MN-17
The Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is located immediately
downstream of the confluence of Underwood Creek and the mainstem. The river flows
southeasterly past Hoyt Park and the Milwaukee County Grounds. It flows past the Harmonee
Avenue Bridge, a pedestrian bridge, and a CP Rail bridge within the city of Wauwautosa.
Within Hart Park, the river continues to flow southeasterly to the confluence with Honey Creek.
The riparian margin is generally greater than 75 feet wide due to the Menomonee River Parkway
and other park lands through which the river flows. The riparian width exceeds 75 feet along
over 65% of the river within this assessment point area. The Lower Menomonee River
maintstem assessment point area contains five known dams, drop structures, or other
obstructions.
Beyond the land use adjacent to the river, the land use within the Menomonee River Lower
mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is predominantly (25%) high-density residential
(defined on following table) (Figure 4-75). Transportation land use makes up nearly 23% of the
total land use while institutional and governmental land uses make up nearly 21% of the total
land use within the area. Parks and open space along the river corridor contribute to recreation,
natural areas, and open space make up nearly 20% of the total land use within the Menomonee
River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). Low-density residential, agriculture,
manufacturing and industrial, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 11%. Based on
an analysis of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 26% of the
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) area is impervious. TABLE
4-198 presents the land uses within the area.
Downstream of the confluence with Underwood Creek, the Menomonee River Lower mainstem
flows southeasterly for about two miles to 72nd Street. This downstream area encompasses 2.7
square miles and includes a portion of the Honey Creek tributary area.
4-274
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-198
0.1
1.94%
0.2
7.96%
0.7
25.25%
Commercial
0.0
0.94%
0.6
20.76%
0.5
19.96%
Transportation
0.6
22.74%
0.0
0.45%
Total
2.7
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-275
76th St.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
O SS AA
W AA TT O
UW
W AA U
!
MN-17
!
!
!
Bluemound Rd.
Greenfield Av.
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Land Use
Agriculture
Commercial
Civil Division
450 900
Feet
Figre 4-75
MN-17 Land Use
1,800
Menomonee River
Portions of two municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the Menomonee
River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17). The municipalities include the cities of
Milwaukee and Wauwatosa. Nearly 97% of the 2.7 square mile area is located within the city of
Wauwatosa. The city of Milwaukee occupies the remaining 3% of the area. The extent of the
civil divisions within the Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) is
presented in TABLE 4-199.
TABLE 4-199
CIVIL DIVISION IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Milwaukee
0.1
2.86%
City of Wauwatosa
2.6
97.14%
Total
2.7
100.00%
Civil Division
Menomonee River
background source of phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps from noncontact cooling water). The high concentrations at high flows indicate that nonpoint sources
contribute to elevated TP concentrations.
The assessment of TSS concentrations was poor; TSS tends to increase with increasing flows.
This suggests that nonpoint sources contribute to suspended solids concentrations. The potential
sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or
re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameters of focus, detailed assessments were also performed on DO data.
The minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm
weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-200. Note that this table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
While chlorides were not modeled with the water quality model, chlorides were characterized
with water sample data. These samples indicate that chloride concentrations are below levels
that are toxic to fish and invertebrates. However, a common source of chloride is road salt and
winter data are unavailable. Note that concentrations in March samples (which include snow
melt and spring runoff) are higher than the rest of the year. Winter chloride concentrations in
samples would be expected to exceed Marchs chloride concentrations. It is difficult to assess
chloride trends without data from the winter months; however, it appears that when chloride is
not being actively applied, some amount is in a reservoir (sediment). This chloride is gradually
released and is particularly noticeable during mid-to-dry conditions. During higher flow
conditions, the concentration becomes diluted (Figure 4-79).
Actual water quality data are available through the MMSDs H2O Info website. Figure 4-80
presents conductivity. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for
long periods of time meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment
point area. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented on Figure 4-81. The DO exhibits
similar good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0
mg/l). The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very
low TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet
weather-induced runoff or resuspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-82). The temperature
data are also within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-83).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-201 presents the Baseline
4-278
Menomonee River
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-202 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-203 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis. The Baseline
cumulative loads, including loads from assessment point areas (MN-1) through (MN-16), are
estimated. TABLE 4-204 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4205 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each cumulative load, and TABLE 4-206
presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-279
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-76
FIGURE 4-77
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-200
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Copper
a
6,926
63
1,124
196
3,622
81
496
130
Mean (mg/l)
11.1
Median (mg/l)
11.1
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.111
Median (mg/l)
0.074
Baseline
Condition
66
Mean (mg/l)
1.13
Median (mg/l)
1.07
Mean (mg/l)
16.3
Median (mg/l)
6.0
Mean (mg/l)
0.0057
Median (mg/l)
0.0024
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-283
1000
100
10
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
FIGURE 4-80
MN-17 MEASURED
CONDUCTIVITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 4-81
FIGURE 4-82
FIGURE 4-83
MN-17 MEASURED
TEMPERATURE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-201
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
--
--
4.77
28.40
12.51
302.85
1.79
3.49
0.25
0.53
--
62.67
3.14
15.65
6.75
SSOs
Government /
Institution
--
CSOs
Forest
225.59
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
463.84
783.73
546.93
TSS
tons
90.42
--
--
--
0.73
12.60
0.69
18.59
0.09
2.14
0.05
0.15
--
20.53
1.59
5.62
0.27
3.37
34.29
15.66
BOD
pounds
10,131
--
--
--
284
2,428
235
3,863
16
222
30
27
--
2,104
135
602
178
2,030
11,021
7,707
--
--
--
30
93,558
266
14,182
103
1,429
10
43
--
102,891
1,591
24,217
14
888,741
597,651
FC
TABLE 4-202
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
9%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
12%
0%
0%
0%
0%
--
3%
0%
1%
0%
19%
32%
22%
Loads
TSS
44%
--
--
--
0%
6%
0%
9%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
10%
1%
3%
0%
2%
17%
8%
BOD
25%
--
--
--
1%
6%
1%
9%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
5%
0%
1%
0%
5%
27%
19%
FC
10%
--
--
--
0%
5%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
--
5%
0%
1%
0%
0%
47%
31%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-289
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-203
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
pounds/acre
0.173
--
--
--
0.004
0.022
0.010
0.233
0.000
--
0.048
0.002
0.012
0.005
0.357
0.603
0.421
tons/acre
0.070
--
--
--
0.001
0.010
0.001
0.014
0.000
--
0.016
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.026
0.012
BOD
pounds/acre
7.791
--
--
--
0.218
1.867
0.181
2.971
0.021
--
1.618
0.104
0.463
0.137
1.561
8.476
5.927
FC
billion
counts/acre
141.067
--
--
--
0.023
71.954
0.205
10.907
0.033
--
79.131 1.224
18.625
0.011
0.000
683.514
459.642
Units
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Crop (C)
TP
TSS
Loads
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-204
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)
TSS
265.80
tons
4251.46
165.95 483.80
49.73
20.88
112.39
74.00
435.13
9.22
807.84
11.29 29.60
BOD
pounds
505,587
22,895 47,933
9,537
8,607
22,720
31,911
123,182
3,351
87,474
FC
billion
counts
6,985,321
2,634
1,307
1,289
768,833
31,556
9,362
4-290
783.73
586.43
7.52
34.29
16.79
35,398
15,366
11,021
8,263
3,507
2465.31
1039.11 441.52
4.11
759.37
501.26
143.55
39.28
82,772
44,598
16,985
408,025 455,898
3,086,400
Industrial
Wetland
Ultra Low
Residential
Pasture (D)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (B)
Industrial
Grass (D)
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Forest
Crop (D)
Crop (C)
SSOs
pounds
CSOs
TP
Point Source
Transportation
Units
Government /
Institution
Loads
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
1098.49 2472.86
888,741 640,820
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-205
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Pasture (B)
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
33%
1%
2%
0%
0%
1%
4%
25%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
7%
3%
1%
3%
7%
2%
2%
TSS
tons
53%
2%
6%
1%
0%
1%
1%
5%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
10%
6%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
BOD
pounds
46%
2%
4%
1%
1%
2%
3%
11%
0%
8%
1%
1%
0%
8%
4%
2%
3%
1%
1%
1%
FC
billion
counts
49%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
22%
3%
3%
0%
0%
6%
5%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-206
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
0.005
0.010
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.018
0.110 0.004
0.018
0.032
0.013
0.006
0.014
0.032
0.010
0.008
Pasture (D)
Grass (B)
0.145
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
pounds/acre
Pasture (B)
Forest
TP
Industrial
Crop (D)
Units
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Loads
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TSS
tons/acre
0.055
0.002
0.006
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.006 0.000
0.010
0.010
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.496
0.294
0.616
0.123
0.111
0.292
0.410
1.583 0.043
1.124
1.064
0.573
0.218
0.455
0.197
0.142
0.106
FC
billion
counts/acre
89.753
0.034
0.120
0.017
0.017
9.879
0.405
5.138 0.238
5.191
39.657
5.243
5.858
0.045
0.000
11.419
8.234
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-291
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
poor. In contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the
assessments of TSS from poor to very good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations
would remain assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020
water quality assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments
in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards.
Modeling of the Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness at the
Menomonee River Lower mainstem assessment point area (MN-17) would remain unchanged as
good. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under
Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-207
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-17)
Assessment
Point
MN-17
Lower
Menomonee
River Downstream of Honey
Creek
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
a
4,198
66
704
230
1,833
84
271
147
Mean (mg/l)
10.9
Median (mg/l)
11.0
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.105
Median (mg/l)
0.075
Year 2020
Condition
67
Mean (mg/l)
0.93
Median (mg/l)
0.89
Mean (mg/l)
13.2
Median (mg/l)
4.9
Mean (mg/l)
0.0049
Median (mg/l)
0.0022
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-293
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-208
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
203.22
--
--
--
4.11
23.13
10.21
242.05
1.44
3.17
0.18
0.39
--
52.36
2.77
15.19
5.23
463.84
489.14
82.70
TSS
tons
73.12
--
--
--
0.74
9.22
0.64
15.72
0.07
1.75
0.05
0.12
--
15.40
1.26
4.90
0.22
3.37
21.40
2.37
BOD
pounds
8,755
--
--
--
245
1,897
202
3,266
14
194
30
27
--
1,686
114
561
138
2,030
6,879
1,165
FC
billion counts
105,165
--
--
--
64
48,507
152
7,949
58
827
--
54,713
894
14,963
19
554,674
90,374
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-209
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
13%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
--
3%
0%
1%
0%
29%
31%
5%
TSS
tons
49%
--
--
--
0%
6%
0%
10%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
10%
1%
3%
0%
2%
14%
2%
BOD
pounds
32%
--
--
--
1%
7%
1%
12%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
6%
0%
2%
1%
7%
25%
4%
FC
billion counts
12%
--
--
--
0%
6%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
--
6%
0%
2%
0%
0%
63%
10%
Loads
Units
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-294
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-210
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.156
--
--
--
0.003
0.018
0.008
0.186
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
--
0.040
0.002
0.012
0.004
0.357
0.376
0.064
TSS
tons/acre
0.056
--
--
--
0.001
0.007
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
--
0.012
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.003
0.016
0.002
BOD
pounds/acre
6.733
--
--
--
0.188
1.459
0.155
2.512
0.011
0.149
0.023
0.021
--
1.297
0.088
0.431
0.106
1.561
5.290
0.896
FC
billion counts/acre
80.880
---0.049
37.306
0.117
6.114
0.045 0.636 0.001 0.004
-42.078
0.688 11.508
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-211
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / YEAR)
422.24
1,131.27 2,472.86
SSOs
880.77
CSOs
2,451.16
Industrial
6.33
Wetland
Ultra Low
Pasture (C)
Pasture (B)
Industrial
Grass (D)
Grass (C)
Transportation
255.26
Grass (B)
Forest
Crop (D)
Crop (C)
Residential
pounds
Point Source
Pasture (D)
Units
TP
Government /
Institution
Loads
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
489.14
116.78
TSS
tons
3,427.08
43.77
23.59
93.83
71.25
358.99
10.73
736.51
4.48
9.69
1.08
660.40
381.64
120.49
41.17
7.52
21.40
3.34
BOD
pounds
448,809
20,531
33,816
110,815
4,146
86,054
2,981 4,054
397
81,007
36,450
16,042
37,223
15,366
6,879
1,646
FC
billion
counts
4,211,565
459,748
25,703
3,648
136
85.12
405
3.68
25
1,449
4-295
113
586
73
554,674 127,615
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-212
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (PERCENT)
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
1%
Residential
1%
Pasture (D)
0%
Pasture (C)
1%
Pasture (B)
Government /
Institution
0%
Industrial
Forest
35%
Grass (D)
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Point Source
Grass (B)
Crop (B)
Loads
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
5%
24%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
8%
3%
1%
4%
8%
2%
0%
TSS
tons
56%
1%
1%
0%
0%
2%
1%
6%
0%
12%
0%
0%
0%
11%
6%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
BOD
pounds
47%
1%
3%
0%
1%
2%
4%
12%
0%
9%
0%
0%
0%
8%
4%
2%
4%
2%
1%
0%
FC
billion counts
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
23%
3%
3%
0%
0%
7%
2%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-213
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-17) (UNIT / ACRE /
YEAR)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
TP
pounds/acre
0.133
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.017
0.090
0.004
0.018
0.000 0.001
0.000
0.031
0.011
0.005
0.015
0.032
0.006
0.002
TSS
tons/acre
0.044
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.009
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.008
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
Pasture (C)
Crop (C)
Loads
Pasture (B)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
BOD
pounds/acre
5.767
0.165
0.322
0.031
0.126
0.264
0.434
1.424
0.053
1.106
0.038 0.052
0.005
1.041
0.468
0.206
0.478
0.197
0.088
0.021
FC
billion counts/acre
54.114
0.002
0.005
0.000
0.019
5.907
0.330
3.259
0.235
3.647
0.001 0.008
0.001
24.843
2.883
3.700
0.047
0.000
7.127
1.640
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-296
Menomonee River
4-297
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-214
LAND USE IN THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
0.0
0.00%
2.1
20.74%
3.1
30.24%
Commercial
0.3
2.76%
0.5
4.91%
0.9
9.07%
Transportation
3.2
30.98%
0.1
1.30%
Total
10.2
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9 dwelling
units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential acre)
along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-298
MN-15
MN-16
Bluemound Rd.
Greenfield Av.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
W EE SS TT AA LL LL II SS
Loo
mis
Fo
r
es
t
Rd
Ho
m
Av
.
27th St.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
G
GR
R EE EE N
N FF II EE LL D
D
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Land Use
Agriculture
Commercial
850 1,700
Feet
Figre 4-84
MN-16 Land Use
3,400
Menomonee River
Portions of five municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the MN-16
assessment point area. The municipalities include: the cities of Greenfield, Milwaukee,
Wauwatosa, and West Allis as well as the village of Greendale. Nearly 35% of the 10.2 square
mile assessment point area is located within the city of West Allis. The cities of Milwaukee and
Greenfield occupy nearly 33 and 28% of the area, respectively. The city of Wauwatosa and the
village of Greendale, together, occupy the remaining portions. The extent of the civil divisions
within the MN-16 assessment point area is presented in TABLE 4-215.
TABLE 4-215
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Greenfield
2.9
28.40%
City of Milwaukee
3.4
33.49%
City of Wauwatosa
0.3
2.30%
3.5
34.70%
Village of Greendale
0.1
1.11%
Total
10.2
100.00%
Civil Division
4-300
Menomonee River
nonpoint sources. See Figure 4-85, Figure 4-86, and Figure 4-87. Note: the black line on Figure
4-85 represents the cumulative number of days at various concentrations throughout the year.
Detailed analyses of DO and TP were also performed. The minimum DO concentrations were
assessed as moderate and the maximum DO concentrations were assessed as good during the
warm weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water
temperature, and aquatic habitat). The concentrations of TP were assessed as moderate and the
data suggest that TP concentrations are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources.
In addition to the parameter of focus, TSS was also analyzed in detail. The TSS concentration
was assessed as very good and also appears to be attributed to nonpoint sources. The
relationship between TP and TSS data also suggest that TP could be associated with suspended
solids. The potential sources of suspended solids include runoff that carries a sediment load,
stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments. However, note that the Honey Creek
assessment point area (MN-16) contains concrete-lined reaches; these processes likely make less
of a contribution to TSS than natural reaches that experience these processes. See Chapter 6,
Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-216. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
Actual water quality data are available from the H20 Info website. Figure 4-88 presents
conductivity. The online conductivity data show very little impact on conductivity for long
periods of time meaning that chloride and other salts are not an issue in the assessment point
area. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are presented on Figure 4-89. The DO exhibits similar
good characteristics, both on the low (above 5.0 mg/l) and the high end (less than 15.0 mg/l).
The turbidity measures the amount of TSS and sediment. The turbidity data indicate very low
TSS (probably less than 10 mg/l) for much of the time period. The only spikes are wet weather
induced runoff or re-suspension of existing sediments (Figure 4-90). The temperature data are
also well within norms for fish habitat (Figure 4-91).
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-217 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-218 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-219 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
4-301
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-85
FIGURE 4-86
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-216
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
72
612
259
Copper
a
4,073
86
325
148
Mean (mg/l)
11.0
Median (mg/l)
10.7
97
Mean (mg/l)
0.074
Median (mg/l)
0.049
9,286
Baseline
Condition
84
Mean (mg/l)
0.77
Median (mg/l)
0.69
Mean (mg/l)
14.4
Median (mg/l)
7.2
Mean (mg/l)
0.0046
Median (mg/l)
0.0016
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-305
FIGURE 4-88
MN-16 MEASURED
CONDUCTIVITY
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
FIGURE 4-89
FIGURE 4-90
FIGURE 4-91
MN-16 MEASURED
TEMPERATURE
WATERSHED RESTORATION PLAN
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-217
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / YEAR)
0.76
24.05
--
--
337
4,622
FC
billion counts
SSOs
--
--
CSOs
--
66,225
Industrial
--
pounds
Wetland
593.73
BOD
Ultra Low
54.07
Transportation
5.53
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
--
tons
Pasture (B)
Forest
1474.67
TSS
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
37.68
1629.42
18.12
48.02
0.09
0.19
--
454.04
160.32
24.65
13.73
197.20
--
8.25
1.67
54.85
0.41
29.14
0.02
0.05
--
148.84
75.86
8.89
0.37
0.40
--
0.24
851
21,399
165
3,062
10
--
15,245
6,883
948
367
965
--
116
19,668
15
--
749,049
81,337
38,138
46
--
9,010
1,198,903
---71
178,114
826
75,538
1,035
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-218
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
36%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
39%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
11%
4%
1%
0%
5%
--
0%
TSS
63%
--
--
--
0%
3%
0%
6%
0%
3%
0%
0%
--
16%
8%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
55%
--
--
--
0%
4%
1%
18%
0%
3%
0%
0%
--
13%
6%
1%
0%
1%
--
0%
FC
51%
---0%
8%
0%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
32%
3%
2%
0%
0%
--
0%
Loads
4-310
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-219
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Units
Transportation
Ultra Low
Loads
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.212
--
--
--
0.001
0.008
0.005
0.234
0.003
0.007
0.000
0.000
--
0.065
0.023
0.004
0.002
0.028
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.085
--
--
--
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.008
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
--
0.021
0.011
0.001
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
9.513
--
--
--
0.048
0.664
0.122
3.074
0.024
0.440
0.001
0.001
--
2.190
0.989
0.136
0.053
0.139
--
0.017
FC
billion
counts/acre
172.218
--
--
--
0.010
25.585
0.119
10.851
0.149
2.825
0.000
0.002
--
107.598
11.684
5.478
0.007
0.000
--
1.294
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-311
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC Planning
Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the Year
2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Honey Creek assessment
point area (MN-16) would remain unchanged as poor. See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail
on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020 conditions.
TABLE 4-220
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE HONEY CREEK
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16)
Assessment
Point
MN-16
Honey Creek
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
75
338
294
88
178
153
Mean (mg/l)
11.0
Median (mg/l)
10.6
98
Mean (mg/l)
0.067
Median (mg/l)
0.046
85
Mean (mg/l)
0.70
Median (mg/l)
0.64
Mean (mg/l)
11.5
Median (mg/l)
Copper
1,882
4,864
5.7
Mean (mg/l)
0.0038
Median (mg/l)
0.0014
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-313
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-221
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
1,314.71
--
--
--
3.67
45.36
30.49
1,307.98
14.27
22.85
0.06
0.14
--
394.58
113.15
21.92
10.77
197.20
--
7.73
TSS
tons
475.97
--
--
--
0.55
18.14
1.35
43.73
0.32
12.47
0.02
0.04
--
116.31
48.16
7.10
0.30
0.40
--
0.22
BOD
pounds
56,675
--
--
--
223
3,722
724
18,163
137
1,399
10
--
12,717
4,664
809
287
965
--
109
FC
billion counts
641,510
--
--
--
57
90,403
466
42,509
573
5,615
--
390,496
34,354
20,601
39
--
8,443
Loads
Units
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-222
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
38%
--
--
--
0%
1%
1%
38%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
11%
3%
1%
0%
6%
--
0%
TSS
tons
66%
--
--
--
0%
3%
0%
6%
0%
2%
0%
0%
--
16%
7%
1%
0%
0%
--
0%
BOD
pounds
56%
--
--
--
0%
4%
1%
18%
0%
1%
0%
0%
--
13%
5%
1%
0%
1%
--
0%
FC
billion counts
52%
--
--
--
0%
7%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
--
32%
3%
2%
0%
0%
--
1%
Loads
Units
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-314
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-223
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE HONEY CREEK ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-16) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.189
--
--
--
0.001
0.007
0.004
0.188
0.002
0.003
0.000
0.000
--
0.057
0.016
0.003
0.002
0.028
--
0.001
TSS
tons/acre
0.068
--
--
--
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
--
0.017
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
--
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
8.141
--
--
--
0.032
0.535
0.104
2.609
0.020
0.201
0.001
0.001
--
1.827
0.670
0.116
0.041
0.139
--
0.016
FC
billion counts/acre
92.150
---0.008
12.986
0.067
6.106 0.082
0.807
0.000 0.000
-56.093
4.935
2.959
0.006
0.000
-0.000
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-315
Menomonee River
This portion of the lower Menomonee River mainstem is located in the southeast portion of the
watershed. The mainstem flows generally easterly and southerly for about three miles before
reaching the downstream limit of the Menomonee River watershed. This downstream limit is
located approximately 500 feet downstream of the 35th Street Viaduct. At this point, the
Menomonee River discharges to the Lake Michigan estuary.
The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area begins at Honey Creeks
confluence with the mainstem. The river flows through Hart Park passing beneath bridges at 70th
and 68th Streets. The river flows east passing north of Jacobus and Doyne Parks where portions
of the streambed in this area are composed of a bedrock channel. The Lower Menomonee River
mainstem flows beneath USH 41 and then passes the southwest corner of the Miller Brewery. At
the brewery, the river changes direction and flows southerly into Valley Park in the vicinity of
the Stadium Interchange. Other features in the area include Miller Park and the Stadium Bluff
Woods, which is a critical species habitat. The channel is concrete-lined from the Miller
Brewery downstream to the Stadium Interchange. Towards the south side of Miller Park, the
river changes direction and begins to flow easterly towards the 35th Street viaduct in the
Menomonee Valley. The riparian margin varies within this area but can generally be classified
as in the 26 to 50 feet wide category; only 6% of the river within this assessment point area has a
riparian margin that exceeds 75 feet.
The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) encompasses 6.2 square
miles and includes Woods Creek and its tributary area. Creek is either enclosed in a conduit or
lined with a concrete channel. The Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area
contains one known dam, drop structure or other obstruction. Most of the Lower Menomonee
River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) is located in the city of Milwaukee.
The land use within the assessment point area for the Lower Menomonee River mainstem
assessment point area (MN-18) is predominantly transportation (33%) (Figure 4-92). Highdensity residential land use (defined on following table) makes up nearly 30% of the total land
use while recreation, natural areas, and open space land uses make up nearly 12% of the total
land use within the area. Institutional and governmental, manufacturing and industrial, lowdensity residential, and commercial land uses compose the remaining 25%. Based on an analysis
of land use data used to develop the water quality data, approximately 36% of the Lower
Menomonee River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) assessment point area is
impervious. TABLE 4-224 presents the land uses within the area.
4-316
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-224
LAND USE IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18)
Land Use Included in
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
0.0
0.00%
0.2
3.64%
1.8
29.31%
Commercial
0.2
2.70%
0.6
9.80%
0.7
11.93%
Transportation
2.1
33.38%
0.6
9.24%
Total
6.2
100.00%
Land Use
Agriculture
Low Density Residential
Notes:
1
Low density residential includes suburban, low, and medium density single-family residential areas (fewer than 6.9
dwelling units / net residential acre).
2
High density residential includes high density single family residential (greater than 7.0 dwelling units / net residential
acre) along with two-family, multi-family, mobile homes and residential land under development.
4-317
76th St.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
M
E
AU
UK
KE
EE
M II LL W
WA
nd
Fo
D
u
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
W
A
SA
OS
A TT O
WA
UW
AU
WA
c
La
!
!
!
Bluemound Rd.
MN-18
!
Greenfield Av.
C
C ii tt yy oo ff
ES
S TT A
A LL LL II S
S
LEGEND
Assessment Points
Water
Waterbodies
Watersheds
Assessment Point Basins
Civil Division
Land Use
Agriculture
Commercial
550 1,100
Feet
Figure 4-92
MN-18 Land Use
2,200
Menomonee River
Portions of four municipalities within Milwaukee County are located within the MN-18
assessment point area. The municipalities include: the cities of Milwaukee, Wauwatosa, and
West Allis as well as the village of West Milwaukee. Nearly 53% of the 6.2 square mile area is
located within the city of Milwaukee. The city of Wauwatosa occupies nearly 29% of the area.
The city of Wauwatosa and the village of West Milwaukee, together, occupy the remaining 18%.
The extent of the civil divisions within the Lower Menomonee River mainstem assessment point
area (MN-18) is presented in TABLE 4-225.
TABLE 4-225
CIVIL DIVISIONS IN THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM
ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18)
Civil Division within
Assessment Point Area (sq mi)
City of Milwaukee
3.3
52.83%
City of Wauwatosa
1.8
28.79%
0.5
7.88%
0.6
10.50%
Total
6.2
100.00%
Civil Division
Menomonee River
Detailed analyses were also performed on TP and TSS. The concentrations of TP were assessed
as poor. The concentrations of TP exceed the 0.1 mg/l planning guideline on nearly half of the
days over the year. Also, concentrations of TP are greatest at high and low flows. The higher
concentrations at these flow extremes may indicate the presence of a background source of
phosphorus that is particularly noticeable at low flows (perhaps due to TP inputs from noncontact cooling water) as well as nonpoint sources of phosphorus at high flows.
The concentrations of TSS were also classified as poor. The data indicate that suspended solids
are primarily attributed to nonpoint sources. The potential sources of suspended solids include
runoff that carries a sediment load, stream bank erosion, or re-suspended stream sediments.
In addition to the parameter of focus, a detailed assessment of DO was performed. The
minimum and maximum DO concentrations were assessed as very good during the warm
weather months (see habitat section for details on the interactions of DO, water temperature, and
aquatic habitat). See Chapter 6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality under
Baseline conditions.
In addition to the detailed analysis described above, the modeled Baseline water quality data,
summarized on an annual basis, are presented in TABLE 4-226. This table also reflects
compliance with applicable water quality standards. In the table, the level of compliance for a
given water quality parameter will not necessarily match the detailed assessment of the given
parameter discussed earlier in this section. The potential disparity is a function of different
evaluation criteria that were used. For example, where applicable, the table evaluates
compliance with water quality variance standards while the detailed assessments are focused on
habitat and do not consider special water quality variance standards.
As noted earlier, water quality is impacted by a number of factors, including pollutant loading.
On the following loading tables, loads are grouped by their type, point or nonpoint, and are
further categorized by their source. Note: loads of BOD are presented in the loading tables
because BOD directly impacts the concentrations of DO. TABLE 4-227 presents the Baseline
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-228 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each load,
and TABLE 4-229 presents the Baseline annual pollutant loads on a per acre basis.
Assessment point areas MN-1 through MN-17 are upstream of the Lower Menomonee River
mainstem assessment point area (MN-18). TABLE 4-230 presents the Baseline cumulative
annual pollutant loads, TABLE 4-231 presents the Baseline percentage breakdown for each
cumulative load, and TABLE 4-232 presents the Baseline cumulative annual pollutant loads on a
per acre basis.
4-320
4000-5000
3000-4000
2000-3000
1000-2000
600-1000
400-600
0-400
FIGURE 4-93
FIGURE 4-94
1.E+05
Mid-range
Flows
Moist
Conditions
High
Flows
Low
Flows
Dry
Conditions
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
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-226
BASELINE WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-18)
Assessment
Point
Water Quality
Indicator
MN-18
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Lower Menomonee
(annual)
River mainstem,
near Upstream
Limit of Estuary
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Percent compliance with single sample
standard (<2,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Geometric mean (cells per 100 ml)
Days of compliance with geometric mean
standard (<1,000 cells per 100 ml)a
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Copper
a
6,889
64
1,081
200
3,557
81
468
133
Mean (mg/l)
11.0
Median (mg/l)
11.0
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.133
Median (mg/l)
0.104
Baseline
Condition
52
Mean (mg/l)
1.25
Median (mg/l)
1.20
Mean (mg/l)
16
Median (mg/l)
5.5
Mean (mg/l)
0.0056
Median (mg/l)
0.0023
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-324
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-227
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / YEAR)
0.83
15.88
--
--
324
3,059
FC
billion counts
7.10
232.20
--
--
--
262.34
169.60
38.47
12.71
--
75.11
0.34
142.67
--
--
--
85.95
85.82
13.83
0.52
--
15,607
65
14,805
--
--
--
8,808
7,280
1,480
335
95,114
--
--
--
430,723
86,046
59,521
27
1,063,905
---35
117,898
-57,290
409
Units are mass or counts per year
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
SSOs
--
--
1223.37
CSOs
--
58,761
--
Industrial
--
pounds
Wetland
524.44
BOD
Ultra Low
35.79
Transportation
5.44
Residential
--
Pasture (D)
--
Pasture (C)
Government /
Institution
--
tons
Pasture (B)
Forest
1308.47
TSS
Industrial
Crop (D)
pounds
Grass (D)
Crop (C)
Units
TP
Grass (C)
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Grass (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
15,074.16
1,095.58
--
21.85
57.19
--
101,144
47,658
--
838,648
--
TABLE 4-228
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
7%
--
--
--
0%
0%
--
6%
0%
1%
--
--
--
1%
1%
0%
0%
77%
6%
--
TSS
51%
--
--
--
0%
2%
--
7%
0%
14%
--
--
--
8%
8%
1%
0%
2%
6%
--
BOD
23%
--
--
--
0%
1%
--
6%
0%
6%
--
--
--
3%
3%
1%
0%
39%
18%
--
39%
---0%
4%
-2%
0%
3%
--Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
--
16%
3%
2%
0%
0%
31%
--
Loads
FC
4-325
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-229
BASELINE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds/acre
0.284
--
--
--
0.001
0.008
--
0.265
0.002
0.050
--
--
--
0.057
0.037
0.008
0.003
3.267
0.237
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.114
--
--
--
0.000
0.003
--
0.016
0.000
0.031
--
--
--
0.019
0.019
0.003
0.000
0.005
0.012
--
BOD
pounds/acre
12.735
--
--
--
0.070
0.663
--
3.382
0.014
3.208
--
--
--
1.909
1.578
0.321
0.073
21.920
10.328
--
FC
billion counts/acre
230.567
--
--
--
0.008
25.551
--
12.416
0.089
20.613
--
--
--
93.345
18.648
12.899
0.006
0.000
181.750
0.000
Loads
Units
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-230
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / YEAR)
SSOs
2727.65
1208.70
479.99
1111.20
17547.02
1879.31
586.43
4.11
845.32
587.08
157.38
39.79
29.37
91.48
16.79
1,328
91,580
51,877
18,464
35,732
116,510
58,679
8,263
494,071 515,420
3,534
1,727,390
640,820
Pasture (D)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (B)
Industrial
Grass (D)
Grass (C)
Grass (B)
Forest
Crop (D)
Crop (C)
CSOs
FC
Industrial
BOD
Wetland
TSS
Ultra Low
pounds
Transportation
TP
Point Source
Residential
Units
Government /
Institution
Loads
Crop (B)
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
301.59
tons
4775.90
165.95 483.80
49.73
21.71
128.27
74.00
510.23
9.57
950.50
11.29
29.60
pounds
564,349
22,895 47,933
9,537
8,930
25,779
31,911
138,788
3,415
102,279 5,908
8,526
1,307
1,324
886,731
31,556
9,362
4-326
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-231
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
24%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
3%
18%
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
5%
2%
1%
2%
33%
4%
1%
TSS
tons
53%
2%
5%
1%
0%
1%
1%
6%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
9%
7%
2%
0%
0%
1%
0%
BOD
pounds
42%
2%
4%
1%
1%
2%
2%
10%
0%
8%
0%
1%
0%
7%
4%
1%
3%
9%
4%
1%
FC
billion counts
48%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
21%
3%
3%
0%
0%
10%
4%
Loads
Units
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-232
BASELINE CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THELOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE /
YEAR)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
0.002
0.004
0.017 0.118
0.004
0.019
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.033
0.015
0.006
0.013
0.213
0.023
0.007
TSS
tons/acre
0.058
0.000
0.002
0.001 0.006
0.000
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.010
0.007
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.845
0.108
0.313
0.387 1.683
0.041
1.241
0.072
0.103
0.016
1.111
0.629
0.224
0.433
1.413
0.712
0.100
0.016
0.229
6.054
0.027
0.156
0.029
42.661
5.993
6.252
0.043
0.000
20.953
7.773
FC
Grass (C)
0.152
Grass (B)
pounds/acre
Crop (D)
TP
Crop (C)
Units
Crop (B)
Loads
Commercial
Government /
Institution
Point Source
Forest
Nonpoint Source
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-327
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
contrast, the reduction in TSS loading would result in the improvement of the assessments of
TSS from poor to very good. The minimum and maximum DO concentrations would remain
assessed as very good during the warm weather months. The preceding Year 2020 water quality
assessments are focused on habitat suitability and may not match the assessments in SEWRPC
Planning Report No. 50, which are based on water quality regulatory standards. Modeling of the
Year 2020 conditions indicates that the assessment of flashiness within the Lower Menomonee
River mainstem assessment point area (MN-18) would remain unchanged as good. See Chapter
6, Section 6.4 for more detail on modeled water quality and flashiness under Year 2020
conditions.
TABLE 4-233
YEAR 2020 WATER QUALITY FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT
POINT AREA (MN-18)
Assessment
Point
MN-18
Lower
Menomonee
River mainstem,
near Upstream
Limit of Estuary
Water Quality
Indicator
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
(annual)
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Phosphorus
Statistic
Mean (cells per 100 ml)
Copper
a
4,214
66
685
232
1,861
85
261
147
Mean (mg/l)
10.9
Median (mg/l)
10.9
100
Mean (mg/l)
0.127
Median (mg/l)
0.103
Year 2020
Condition
52
Mean (mg/l)
1.06
Median (mg/l)
1.02
Mean (mg/l)
13.1
Median (mg/l)
4.7
Mean (mg/l)
0.0048
Median (mg/l)
0.0022
Variance Standard in Wis. Admin. Code Natural Resources (NR) 104 Uses and Designated Standards.
4-329
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-234
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / YEAR)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
1,169.25
--
--
--
5.04
30.57
--
983.53
5.45
163.82
--
--
--
226.46
116.42
34.24
11.03
3,338.53
622.89
--
TSS
tons
420.73
--
--
--
0.90
12.18
--
63.87
0.27
90.36
--
--
--
66.61
52.89
11.05
0.47
11.47
31.76
--
BOD
pounds
50,374
--
--
--
300
2,507
--
13,272
53
10,020
--
--
--
7,294
4,794
1,264
290
57,263
24,452
--
FC
billion counts
605,081
--
--
--
78
64,105
--
32,301
220
42,709
--
--
--
236,646
37,593
33,717
39
509,902
--
Units are per year and are rounded to the nearest hundredth unit per year.
A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-235
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
17%
--
--
--
0%
0%
--
15%
0%
2%
--
--
--
3%
2%
1%
0%
50%
9%
--
TSS
tons
55%
--
--
--
0%
2%
--
8%
0%
12%
--
--
--
9%
7%
1%
0%
2%
4%
--
BOD
pounds
29%
--
--
--
0%
1%
--
8%
0%
6%
--
--
--
4%
3%
1%
0%
33%
14%
--
FC
billion counts
39%
--
--
--
0%
4%
--
2%
0%
3%
--
--
--
15%
2%
2%
0%
0%
33%
--
Loads
Units
Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-330
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-236
YEAR 2020 LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
--
0.001
0.007
--
0.213
0.001
0.036
--
--
--
0.049
0.025
0.007
SSOs
Grass (C)
--
CSOs
Grass (B)
--
Industrial
Government /
Institution
0.253
Wetland
Forest
pounds/acre
Crop (D)
TP
Crop (C)
Units
Crop (B)
Loads
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
0.002
0.724
0.135
--
TSS
tons/acre
0.091
--
--
--
0.000
0.003
--
0.014
0.000
0.020
--
--
--
0.014
0.011
0.002
0.000
0.002
0.007
--
BOD
pounds/acre
10.917
--
--
--
0.065
0.543
--
2.876
0.011
2.172
--
--
--
1.581
1.039
0.274
0.063
12.410
5.299
--
FC
billion counts/acre
131.132
--
--
--
0.017
13.893
--
7.000
0.048
9.256
--
--
--
51.285
8.147
7.307
0.009
0.000
0.000
--
Units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth pound per acre per year; a "0.000" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 pounds per acre per year.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-237
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE)
106.01
71.25
422.86
pounds
499,182
12,822
25,057
2,440 10,101
23,038
33,816
124,088
136
405
523,853
25,703
285,958
BOD
FC
25
24.49
1,527
11.00
826.87
4.48
4,199
96,074
18,511
326,582
4-331
113
9.69
586
1.08
73
727.01
434.53
131.54
41.64
18.99
88,301
41,243
17,306
37,514
72,629
3,687
1,142.30 5,811.39
SSOs
3.68
456.48
CSOs
85.12
997.18
Industrial
43.77
2,677.63
Wetland
3,847.80
Ultra Low
tons
Transportation
TSS
Residential
285.83
Pasture (D)
12.73 157.29
Pasture (C)
212.56
Pasture (B)
114.61
Point Source
Industrial
11,508.75
Grass (D)
pounds
Grass (C)
TP
Grass (B)
Crop (C)
Units
Forest
Crop (B)
Loads
Crop (D)
Commercial
Government /
Institution
Nonpoint Source
1,112.03
116.78
53.16
3.34
31,331
1,646
1,064,576 127,615
Menomonee River
TABLE 4-238
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (PERCENT)
Crop (B)
Crop (C)
Crop (D)
Forest
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Grass (D)
Industrial
Pasture (B)
Pasture (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
Loads
Units
Transportation
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TP
pounds
32%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
4%
22%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
7%
3%
1%
3%
16%
3%
0%
TSS
tons
56%
1%
1%
0%
0%
2%
1%
6%
0%
12%
0%
0%
0%
11%
6%
2%
1%
0%
1%
0%
BOD
pounds
44%
1%
2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
11%
0%
9%
0%
0%
0%
8%
4%
2%
3%
6%
3%
0%
FC
billion counts
48%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
3%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
22%
3%
3%
0%
0%
11%
1%
Cumulative percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. A "0%" represents a nonzero value less than 0.5%.
Note: A -- indicates that the land cover is not present within the given assessment point area.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
TABLE 4-239
YEAR 2020 CUMULATIVE LOADS FOR THE LOWER MENOMONEE RIVER MAINSTEM ASSESSMENT POINT AREA (MN-18) (UNIT / ACRE / YEAR)
Government /
Institution
Grass (B)
Grass (C)
Pasture (D)
Residential
Transportation
Ultra Low
Wetland
Industrial
CSOs
SSOs
0.140
0.001
0.003
0.000
0.002
0.003
0.016
0.097
0.000
0.032
0.012
0.006
0.014
0.070
0.013
0.001
Pasture (C)
Forest
pounds/acre
Pasture (B)
Crop (D)
Units
TP
Industrial
Crop (C)
Loads
Grass (D)
Crop (B)
Point Source
Commercial
Nonpoint Source
TSS
tons/acre
0.047
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.000
0.009
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.000
BOD
pounds/acre
6.055
0.156
0.304
0.030
0.123
0.279
0.410
1.505
0.005
1.071
0.500
0.210
0.455
0.881
0.380
0.020
FC
billion counts/acre
58.424
0.002
0.005
0.000
0.019
6.354
0.312
3.469
3.902
0.045
0.000
12.913
1.548
Cumulative units are per acre per year and are rounded to the nearest thousandth unit per acre per year. A "0" represents a nonzero value less than 0.0005 units per acre per year.
Note: A "--" indicates that the land cover is not present in the given Assessment Point.
(B) = Hydrologic soil group B; (C) = Hydrologic soil group C; (D) = Hydrologic soil group D.
4-332
APPENDIX 4A
STREAM HABITAT
CONDITIONS AND
BIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT OF THE
KINNICKINNIC AND
MENOMONEE RIVER
WATERSHEDS: 2000-2009
SOUTHEASTERN
WISCONSIN
REGIONAL
PLANNING
COMMISSION
SOUTHEASTERN WISCONSIN
REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
KENOSHA COUNTY
RACINE COUNTY
Anita M. Faraone
Adelene Greene,
Secretary
Robert W. Pitts
Susan S. Greenfield
Mary A. Kacmarcik
Michael J. Miklasevich
MILWAUKEE COUNTY
WALWORTH COUNTY
Brian Dranzik
John Rogers
John F. Weishan, Jr.
Richard A. Hansen,
Vice-Chairman
Gregory L. Holden
Nancy Russell,
Treasurer
OZAUKEE COUNTY
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Thomas H. Buestrin
William E. Johnson
Gustav W. Wirth, Jr.
John M. Jung
Daniel S. Schmidt
David L. Stroik,
Chairman
WAUKESHA COUNTY
James T. Dwyer
Anselmo Villareal
Paul G. Vrakas
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special acknowledgements for discussion of ideas and concepts and
provision of data used in this report:
MEMORANDUM REPORT
NUMBER 194
Prepared by the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive
P.O. Box 1607
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53187-1607
www.sewrpc.org
Preparation of this report was funded in part by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District.
January 2010
$10.00
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Page
Chapter IINTRODUCTION ........................
Background .........................................................
Project Identification, Development,
and Prioritization .......................................
1
1
5
5
5
Chapter IIIWATERSHED
TARGETS, OBJECTIVES, AND
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS .....................
Introduction .........................................................
Land-Based Measures ...................................
Instream-Based Measures .............................
Recommended Land-Based
Habitat Protection Actions ...............................
Riparian Corridors ........................................
Corridor Target 1 ....................................
Issue .................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Corridor Target 2 ....................................
Issue .................................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Corridor Target 3 ....................................
Issue .................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
9
16
17
17
21
21
22
24
28
34
37
37
37
38
41
57
57
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
58
58
58
59
59
59
59
59
iii
60
60
60
61
61
61
61
61
62
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
66
66
66
66
69
69
69
69
70
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
Page
Page
Instream Monitoring and
Informational Programming ......................
Target......................................................
Issue .................................................
Key Questions ..................................
Objective ..........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Recreation .....................................................
Recreation Target 1 ................................
Issue ........................................................
Key Questions ........................................
Objectives ........................................
Recommended Actions ....................
Potential Measures ...........................
Sampling Parameters and Methodologies ...........
72
72
72
72
72
73
73
74
74
74
74
74
74
76
76
76
77
78
78
78
79
79
80
81
82
82
82
83
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A
Page
List of River Cleanup Sites within the Milwaukee, Menomonee,
and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds: Spring 2009 ...........................................................................
87
Residential Yard Care Fact Sheet to Improve Water Quality and the Environment ........................
93
103
137
Qualitative Fish Habitat Rating Protocols for Small and Large Wadable Streams ..........................
143
Protocols for Studying Wet Weather Impacts and Urbanization Patterns ........................................
149
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Chapter II
1
2
3
4
6
7
10
27
Table
5
6
7
Page
Fish, Invertebrate, and Habitat Quality Among Reaches
within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2000-2009 ......................................................................
Fish Species Composition Among Reaches in the
Menomonee River Watershed: 1902-1999 vs. 2000-2009 ...............................................................
Fish Species Composition Among Reaches in the
Kinnickinnic River Watershed: 1902-1999 vs. 2000-2009 ..............................................................
28
30
33
Chapter III
8
Fish Passage Assessment At Road Crossing Structures, Calculated Stream Length between
Structures, and Biological (fish, invertebrate) and Habitat Quality Determinations Among
Mainstem and Tributary Reaches within the Menomonee River Watershed: 2000-2009 ................
42
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Chapter II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
8
9
11
12
13
13
14
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
26
Figure
17
18
19
20
21
22
Page
Concrete Lining in the Menomonee River Watershed near the
Canadian Pacific Railway Bridge from River Mile 3.62 to 4.24......................................................
Menomonee Falls Dam in the Menomonee River Watershed At River Mile 21.93.........................
Adult Salmon Migrating from Lake Michigan Trying to Swim
through the Excessive Velocities within the Concrete Lining of
the Menomonee River Watershed Downstream of River Mile 4.24 ................................................
Concrete Lining in the Kinnickinnic River Watershed within Reach KK-10 ..................................
Restoration of Excessive Streambank and Streambed Erosion and
Reconnection of Floodplain within the Menomonee River At Hoyt Park .......................................
Pre- versus Post- Concrete Channel and Drop Structure Removal/Stream
Restoration near N. 43rd Street and W. State Street along the Menomonee River ..........................
29
29
32
34
35
36
Chapter III
23
24
25
26
Instream Three-Tier Prioritization Strategy within the Menomonee River Watershed ....................
Instream Three-Tier Prioritization Strategy within the Kinnickinnic River Watershed ...................
Fish Passage Obstructions within the Menomonee River Watershed between
Swan Boulevard and Harmonee Avenue within the Menomonee River: 2009 ................................
Downstream Reaches within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River Watersheds..............
39
40
67
70
LIST OF MAPS
Map
Page
Chapter II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Map
Page
Chapter III
13
14
15
16
vii
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) is the State-designated and Federally
recognized areawide water quality planning agency with responsibility for preparation of a regional water quality
management plan for the seven-county Southeastern Wisconsin Region. In this capacity, the Commission
prepared and adopted the first areawide water quality management plan for the Southeastern Wisconsin Region in
1979.1 This plan has been amended, refined, and updated since 1979 with the most recent major plan amendment
being documented in SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50 (PR No. 50), A Regional Water Quality Management
Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, which was completed in 2007.2 From the outset, SEWRPC
has approached the process of developing a regional water quality management plan, and all subsidiary plans,
within a watershed framework, incorporating regional land use planning, public involvement, and application of
sound science. This plan, based upon a five year data gathering, analysis, and interpretation effort that is
summarized in SEWRPC Technical Report No. 39 (TR No. 39), Water Quality Conditions and Sources of
Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, continues this long-standing tradition.3
Key elements in the PR No. 50 planning process included:
Application of updated land use, demographic, and economic data through the year 2000, and updated
planned land use, demographic, and economic data through the plan year 2035;
Coordination with, and incorporation of, the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD)
2020 facilities plan;
_____________
1
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 30, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin
2000, Volume One, Inventory Findings, September 1978; Volume Two, Alternative Plans, February 1979; and
Volume Three, Recommended Plan, June 1979.
2
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50, A Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds, December 2007.
SEWRPC Technical Report No. 39, Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater Milwaukee
River Watersheds, November 2007.
Consideration of historical and existing surface water and groundwater conditions as the basis for
formulating and refining recommendations for actions to continue to improve fishery and water-based
recreational conditionsincluding extensive consideration of riparian buffers (Appendix O), and
criteria and guidelines for stream crossings to allow fish passage and allow stream stability
(Appendix P), as well as consideration of sediment remediation as part of dam removal, stream corridor management as an element of aquatic and terrestrial fish and wildlife management, restoration of
connectivity along streams, and re-naturalization of stream hydrology;
Identification of sources of water pollution under existing and future land use conditions;
Review of the existing legal structure governing the management and mitigation of the sources of
pollution;
The Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc. (SWWT),4 is a new umbrella organization that was formed in
response to the recommendations set forth in PR No. 50. The SWWT is a nongovernmental, voluntary
organization dedicated to promoting and encouraging the protection and improvement of water quality in the
Greater Milwaukee Watersheds. The SWWT operates through a committee structure that includes: Executive
Steering Council, Science Committee, Policy Committee, Watershed Action Teams, and Ad Hoc Committees.
The Science Committee of the SWWT formed the Habitat Subcommittee (hereinafter, the Subcommittee) at their
meeting on May 14, 2009. It was requested that the SEWRPC staff serve as the Chair of the Subcommittee, which
was formed to address habitat issues related to the preparation by MMSD and SWWT of watershed restoration
plans (WRPs) for the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. The Subcommittee was tasked with
developing recommendations for conserving and restoring fisheries and wildlife habitat within the Menomonee
and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Specific tasks assigned to the Subcommittee included:
Characterizing existing instream and riparian physical and biological conditions based on SEWRPC
TR No. 39;
Identifying potential habitat restoration projects that would be expected to positively influence the
overall aquatic ecosystem based on existing information; and
Recommending future habitat data collection and analysis, and possible additional planning
requirements, after the WRPs are completed.
_____________
4
This report expands on habitat-related information set forth in PR No. 50 and includes fishery, invertebrate, and
habitat data gathered since completion of that plan up to the year 2009. Specifically, this report is intended to
provide the Science Committee members with a basis to understand the quality and extent of habitat, limitations
to habitat, and project prioritization strategies to improve habitat and the resultant fisheries within the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. This report provides the basis for integration of habitat-related
recommendations in the WRPs. This document summarizes data, research, and information gathered among
numerous formal and informal meetings with the Science Committee, SWWT Menomonee and Kinnickinnic
River Watershed Action Teams, MMSD, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), nongovernmental agencies, and various university faculties held between May through
November 2009.
Project Identification, Development, and Prioritization
This report presents the results of an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related features of the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. It includes descriptive information pertaining to the historical
trends and current status of habitat (physical, chemical, and biological) quality and ecological integrity, bank
stability, and potential limitations to water quality and fishery resources. To the extent that instream biological
conditions are a reflection of channel conditions and structures, and to the extent that channel conditions are a
reflection of riparian corridor conditions, either existing or historical, this report is based on the instream surveys
completed during the process of data gathering associated with the regional water quality management plan
update. This monitoring data was provided by WDNR, USGS, MMSD, and Wisconsin Lutheran College. This
report is intended to provide a strategic framework for decision-making for the purpose of protecting and
improving recreation, water quality, and fisheries. Specifically, it summarizes the biological and habitat quality
within each watershed; identifies factors potentially limiting the aquatic community and habitat quality; identifies
information needs; provides recommended goals, objectives, and actions to address the impairments; recommends
a prioritization strategy to maximize project cost effectiveness; and recommends post-project monitoring to assess
project success.
Chapter II
INVENTORY FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The water-resource and water-resource-related problems of a watershed, as well as the ultimate solutions to those
problems, are a function of the human activities within the watershed and of the ability of the underlying natural
resource base to sustain those activities. Regional water quality management planning seeks to rationally direct
the future course of human actions within the watershed so as to promote the conservation and wise use of the
natural resource base. Accordingly, two recently completed and separate regional planning documents, SEWRPC
Technical Report No. 39 (TR No. 39), Water Quality Conditions and Sources of Pollution in the Greater
Milwaukee Watersheds, November 2007, and SEWRPC Planning Report No. 50 (PR No. 50), A Regional Water
Quality Management Plan Update for the Greater Milwaukee Watersheds, December 2007, have thoroughly
described both the natural resource base and the man-made features of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds, thereby establishing a factual base upon which the refined local watershed restoration planning
process undertaken by the Southeastern Wisconsin Watersheds Trust, Inc., with funding from the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District could proceed. A more thorough description of the natural and human-made
features of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds can be found on the Southeastern Wisconsin
Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) website (www.sewrpc.org).
The following sections present a summary of important stream characteristics and their relationship to agricultural
and urban development, as well as an inventory and analysis of the surface waters and related features of the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Included is descriptive information pertaining to the historical
trends and current status of habitat (physical and biological) quality and ecological integrity within the
Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, bank and bed stability evaluation, riparian buffer analysis, and
potential limitations to water quality and fishery resources.
Stream System Characteristics
Water from rainfall and snowmelt flows into streams by one of two pathways: 1) either directly flowing overland
as surface water runoff or 2) infiltrating into the soil surface, recharging the groundwater, and eventually reaching
streams as baseflow. Ephemeral, or intermittent, streams generally flow only during the wet season or during
large rainfall events. Perennial streams that flow year-round are primarily sustained by groundwater during dry
periods. The surface water drainage systems within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds contain
totals of about 142 and 31 miles of both perennial and ephemeral streams, respectively, as shown on Maps 1
and 2. Maps 1 and 2 show the modeling assessment points and reaches for the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds. The reaches for the Menomonee River watershed range from MN-1 through MN19 and from KK-1 through KK-11 for the Kinnickinnic River watershed (see Tables 1 and 2). These reaches form
the basis for the summary statistics and recommendations in this report.
5
Table 1
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ALONG REACHES WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Mainstem Reaches and Subwatersheds
MN-5
MN-9
MN-12
MN-17
MN-17A
MN-18
MN-19
4.64
7.33
6.22
8.20
5.13
5.71
3.31
5.70
18.48
18.86
5.69
3.44
5.66
4.16
3.48
4.88
4.86
7.45
5.43
3.46
6.13
6.68
10.87
8.70
7.78
10.10
11.89
11.95
1.20
2.53
8.99
4.02
2.04
2.18
8.24
4.22
3.59
2.10
43.74
37.10
Streambed Conditions
Degrading (miles)
Degrading (percent)
Aggrading (miles)
Aggrading (percent)
Bedrock (miles)
Bedrock (percent)
Concrete Lining (miles)
Concrete Lining (percent)
Enclosed Channel (miles)
Enclosed Channel (percent)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.52
5.11
1.21
11.90
0
0
0
0
0.76
7.52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.66
15.63
0.26
6.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.07
91.06
0
0
0
0
0.18
4.47
0
0
2.63
65.34
0.14
3.48
0
0
0.27
3.1
0.12
1.38
4.41
50.81
2.44
28.11
0
0
0.96
21.38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.12
1.39
0.69
8.00
0.31
3.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.98
0
0
0
0
0.07
3.10
0
0
0.08
3.55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.42
8.11
0.85
16.42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.71
<1
3.97
<1
1.25
<1
8.96
<1
3.34
<1
Streambank Conditions
NA
NA
NA
2
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
0
0
0.1
0
0
54
0.85
8
100
2.45
71
100
0.05
1
28
0
0
62
0.25
5
34
0
0
60
0.19
5
100
0.23
3
45
0.43
10
72
0.92
11
77
0.41
21
100
0.25
4
100
0.26
12
100
0.17
3
100
0.00
0.00
17
6.45
45
Obstructions
0
8
8
1.8
0
5
5
2.2
0
14
14
3.9
0
3
3
1.1
1
15
16
4.9
0
8
8
3.5
0
31
31
3.0
0
16
16
4.7
0
9
9
2.3
1
8
9
3.7
3
21
24
6.1
0
5
5
2.9
6
20
26
6.9
15
21
36
4.8
0
10
10
2.3
3
21
24
3.0
0
5
5
2.3
1
10
11
2.7
5
8
13
6.0
1
21
22
5.2
0
10
10
4.8
36
269
305
8.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0.4
1
0
0
0
3
4
0.8
1.1
1
0
0
0
6
7
2.1
2.5
7
0
0
0
10
17
3.1
5.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
1
1
0
27
41
2.6
3.9
0
0
0
0
8
8
2.3
2.3
0
0
4
0
13
17
3.3
4.3
0
0
3
0
9
12
3.7
4.9
0
0
2
0
5
7
1.3
1.8
2
0
3
0
12
17
6.9
9.8
2
1
8
0
4
15
1.1
4.0
2
1
9
0
38
50
5.0
6.6
1
0
2
0
50
53
11.3
12.0
3
1
3
0
20
27
2.5
3.4
2
0
0
0
5
7
2.3
3.3
8
0
8
0
7
23
1.7
5.7
1
0
4
0
0
5
0.0
2.3
11
3
7
8
14
43
3.3
10.2
8
1
0
21
5
35
2.4
16.7
62
8
54
29
236
389
1.2
2.7
Riparian Buffersa
91
93
85
95
98
95
92
96
94
28
54
40
57
70
84
94
71
100
93
91
100
85
50
50
27
73
33
67
43
57
36
64
71
29
52
48
72
28
54
46
100
0
52
48
50
50
77
23
72
28
59
41
59
41
26
74
47
53
34
66
94
6
100
0
45
40
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
3
3
1
1
0
0
5
1
1
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
3
5
0
13
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
5
1
2
1
0
0
4
0
2
1
1
1
5
0
1
1
0
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
3
0
5
0
2
2
9
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
2
0
4
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
1
2
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
22
14
17
10
74
Monitoring Stations
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
3
1
0
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
13
12
7
24
0
1
10
7
0
0
0
0
Honey Creek
8.32
14.63
Underwood
CreekUpper
3.75
6.16
Dousman Ditch
Butler Ditch
Parameters
Willow Creek
Menomonee
RiverLowerd
MN-16
Menomonee
RiverLowerc
MN-14
Menomonee
RiverLowerb
MN-14A
Menomonee
RiverLowera
MN-13
Menomonee
RiverUpperd
MN-13A
Menomonee
RiverUpperc
MN-8
Menomonee
RiverUpperb
MN-7
Underwood
CreekLower
MN-11
South Branch
Underwood Creek
MN-10
Lilly Creek
West Branch
Menomonee River
MN-6
Little Menomonee
River
Menomonee
RiverUppera
MN-4
Little Menomonee
Creek
MN-3
Nor-X-Way Channel
MN-2
North Branch
Menomonee River
Watershed
Total
a
Riparian buffer segments includes separate buffer widths for the right bank and left bank.
b
The following qualities were assigned to the Floristic Quality Index (10-19 = Very Poor, 20-29 = Poor, 30-39 = Fair, 40-49 = Fairly Good, 50-59 = Good).
c
Level-1 volunteers conduct periodic stream assessments and measure dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, flow, and qualitative aquatic invertebrate assessments. Level-2 volunteers are advanced monitors that assess water quality using WDNR equipment and protocols for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and
temperature (using automated programmable temperature data loggers).
Source: SEWRPC.
Table 2
PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ALONG REACHES WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Tributary Reaches and Subwatersheds
Kinnickinnic
RiverLower
KK-11
Kinnickinnic
RiverMiddle
KK-10
(includes KK-9)
Kinnickinnic
RiverUpper
KK-3
South 43rd
Street Ditch
KK-2
Lyons Park
Creek
KK-1
Cherokee Park
Creek
KK-7
Villa Mann
Creek
KK-6
Holmes Avenue
Creek
KK-5
Wilson Park
CreekLower
KK-8
Wilson Park
CreekUpper
KK-4
3.47
6.95
3.56
5.17
1.72
2.64
1.32
1.66
0.96
2.23
1.33
1.46
1.71
1.50
2.62
2.90
4.33
2.82
3.63
3.20
25
31
Streambed Conditions
1.13
16
3.31
48
1.94
37
1.14
22
1.15
44
1.31
50
0.56
34
0.41
25
0
0
0.73
33
0.46
32
0.38
26
0
0
0.61
40
1.03
32
0.20
7
2.39
85
0.01
1
0
0
0.00
0
9
28
8
27
Streambank Conditions
0
NA
25
36.3
0
NA
11
25.4
63
62.8
48
53.4
29
39.1
63
62.8
11
0
0
0
20
20
Obstructions
0
8
0
11
0
3
3
8
1
5
10
9
0
3
1
9
0
14
0
8
15
78
16
15
55
2
1
2
0
4
9
1.5
3.5
0
0
1
0
13
14
3.7
4.0
3
0
0
0
4
7
1.5
2.7
0
0
0
0
2
2
2.8
2.8
0
0
0
0
1
1
0.4
0.4
0
0
1
0
4
5
3.1
3.8
5
2
7
0
6
20
5.5
18.2
0
0
3
0
9
12
3.1
4.1
4
1
2
6
7
20
2.6
7.4
0
2
0
19
3
24
1.3
10.0
14
6
16
25
53
114
1.7
3.7
41
73
47
75
70
79
31
83
88
56
62
100
90
100
100
81
90
100
73
77
84
88
Parameters
a
Riparian Buffers
a
Riparian Buffers continued
Watershed
Total
10
19
10
27
23
16
12
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
1
6
Monitoring Stations
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
3
3
3
8
1
5
0
3
a
Riparian buffer segments includes separate buffer widths for the right bank and left bank.
b
The following qualities were assigned to the Floristic Quality Index (10-19 = Very Poor, 20-29 = Poor, 30-39 = Fair, 40-49 = Fairly Good, 50-59 = Good).
c
Level-1 volunteers conduct periodic stream assessments and measure dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, flow, and qualitative aquatic invertebrate assessments. Level-2 volunteers are advanced monitors that assess water quality using WDNR equipment and protocols for pH,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and temperature (using automated programmable temperature data loggers).
Source: SEWRPC.
Figure 1
TYPICAL STREAM NETWORK PATTERNS BASED
ON HORTONS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Source:
Oliver S. Owen and others, Natural Resource Conservation: Management for a Sustainable Future, and
SEWRPC.
C.A. Frissell and others, A Hierarchical Framework for Stream Classification: Viewing Streams in a
Watershed Context, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 10, pages 199-214, 1986.
2
G.J. Niemi and others, An Overview of Case Studies on Recovery of Aquatic Systems From Disturbance,
Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 14, pages 571-587, 1990.
8
Figure 2
RELATION BETWEEN RECOVERY TIME AND SENSITIVITY TO DISTURBANCE FOR
DIFFERENT HIERARCHICAL SPATIAL SCALES ASSOCIATED WITH STREAM SYSTEMS
Source: C.A. Frissell and others, A Hierarchical Framework for Stream Habitat Classification: Viewing Streams in a
Watershed Context, Environmental Management, Vol. 10, and SEWRPC.
upon the upstream areas; and 2) that streams are intimately connected to their adjacent terrestrial setting, that is,
the land-stream interaction is crucial to the functioning of stream ecosystem processes and this connectivity does
not diminish in importance with stream size. In this regard, land uses have a significant impact on stream channel
conditions and associated biological responses.3
Urban Development, Imperviousness, and Hydrology
The Kinnickinnic River watershed is nearly entirely built out and contained about 93 percent urban land in year
2000 (TR No. 39). Urban land use in the Menomonee River watershed is expected to increase from about
64 percent in year 2000 to approximately 76 percent in 2035 (TR No. 39 and PR No. 50). In the absence of
planning, such urbanization can create negative impacts on streams. Urbanization itself is not the main factor
driving the degradation of the local waterbodies. Streams can survive and flourish in urban settings. The main
factors leading to the degradation of urban waterbodies are the creation of large areas of connected impervious
surfaces, the lack of adequate stormwater management facilities to control the quantity and quality of runoff,
_____________
3
Lizhu Wang and others, Influences of Watershed Land Use on Habitat Quality and Biotic Integrity in Wisconsin
Streams, Fisheries, Volume 22, No. 6, June 1997; Jana S. Stewart and others, Influences of Watershed,
Riparian-Corridor, and Reach-Scale Characteristics on Aquatic Biota in Agricultural Watersheds, Journal of
the American Water Resources Association, Volume 37, No. 6, December 2001; Faith A. Fitzpatrick and others,
Effects of Multi-Scale Environmental Characteristics on Agricultural Stream Biota in Eastern Wisconsin,
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Volume 37, No. 6, December 2001.
9
Table 3
APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF
CONNECTED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
CREATED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Impervious Surface
(percent)
10-15
15-25
20-30
25-35
35-45
60-70
70-80
85-90
Source:
Although commercial and industrial developments create a larger percentage of impervious surfaces, residential
developments, where lawns are the single largest use of land area, present different concerns. Lawns are
considered pervious, but they do show some similarities to impervious surfaces. When lawns are compared to
woodlands and cropland, they are found to contain less soil pore space (up to 15 percent less than cropland and
24 percent less than woodland) available for the infiltration of water. In many instances, considerable soil
compaction occurs during grading activities, significantly reducing the perviousness of lawns. Native grasses,
forbs, and sedges have significantly deeper root systems than turf grass, which loosen the soil and create flow
channels that increase infiltration capacity. Also, owing to excessive application of fertilizers and pesticides on
urban lawns, they typically produce higher unit loads of nutrients and pesticide than does cropland.4
When a new commercial or residential development is built near a stream, the area in driveways, rooftops,
sidewalks, and lawns increases; while native plants and undisturbed soils decrease; and the ability of the
shoreland area to perform its natural functions (flood control, pollutant removal, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic
beauty) is decreased. In the absence of mitigating measures, urbanization impacts the watershed, not only by
altering the ratio between stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, but also through the changing of stream
hydrology (i.e., increasing stormwater runoff volumes and peak flows and altering the baseflow regime) and
through divergence of the seasonal thermal regimes away from their historical patterns (see Figure 3). These
changes further influence other characteristics of the stream, such as channel morphology, water quality/quantity,
and biological diversity. More specifically, recent research has shown that average flow magnitude, high flow
magnitude, high flow event frequency, high flow duration, and rate of change of stream cross-sectional area were
the hydrological variables most consistently associated with changes in algal, invertebrate, and fish communities.5
When urban development increases, the area of impervious surfaces increases proportionately to the decrease in
the amount of pervious surfaces. For this reason alone, many researchers throughout the United States, including
those at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), report that the amount of connected
_____________
4
Center for Watershed Protection, Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, Watershed Protection
Research Monograph No. 1, March 2003, p. 7.
5
10
Figure 3
A COMPARISON OF HYDROGRAPHS
BEFORE AND AFTER URBANIZATION
L. Wang, J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman, Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish Across
Multiple Spatial Scales, Environmental Management, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 255-266.
L. Wang, J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl, Impacts of Urban Land Cover on Trout Streams in Wisconsin and
Minnesota, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, Vol. 132, 2003, pp. 825-839.
8
Roger Bannerman, WDNR and partners; Menasha biofiltration retention research project, Middleton, WI, 2008;
N.J. LeFevre, J.D. Davidson, and G.L. Oberts, Bioretention of Simulated Snowmelt: Cold Climate Performance
and Design Criteria, Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), 2008; William R. Selbig and Nicholas
Balster, Evaluation of Turf Grass and Prairie Vegetated Rain Gardens in a Clay and Sand Soil: Madison,
Wisconsin, Water Years 2004-2008, In cooperation with the City of Madison and Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, USGS Scientific Investigations Report, in draft.
11
Figure 4
WHAT HAS BEEN LEARNED FROM BIORETENTION AND RAIN GARDEN STUDIES?
In the absence of mitigating measures, one of the consequences of urban development is the increase in the
amount of stormwater, which runs off the land, instead of infiltrating into the groundwater. A parking lot or
driveway produces much more runoff than an undisturbed meadow or agricultural hay field. Depending on the
degree of watershed impervious cover, the annual volume of storm water runoff can increase by up to 16 times
that for natural areas.9 In addition, since impervious cover prevents rainfall from infiltrating into the soil, less flow
is available to recharge groundwater. Therefore, during extended periods without rainfall, baseflow levels are
often reduced in urban streams.10 This has been observed to occur in both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds. Furthermore, runoff traveling over a parking lot or driveway will pick up more heavy metals,
hydrocarbons, chlorides, bacteria, pathogens, and other stream pollutants than runoff traveling over surfaces that
allow some of the stormwater to be filtered or to infiltrate. Runoff traveling over impervious surfaces bypasses the
filtering action of the soil particles, soil microbes, and vegetation present above (stems and leaves) and below
(roots) the soil surface. For example, as shown in Figures 5 and 6, MMSD staff observed that total phosphorus
and total suspended solids concentrations downstream of stormwater outfalls in the greater Milwaukee River
watersheds were significantly higher during the initial first flush of a rainfall event compared to later samples.
_____________
9
T. Schueler, The importance of imperviousness, Watershed Protection Techniques, Volume 1(3): 100-111,
1995.
10
D. Simmons and R. Reynolds, Effects of urbanization on baseflow of selected south shore streams, Long
Island, NY, Water Resources Bulletin, Volume 18(5): 797-805, 1982.
12
Figure 5
COMPARISON OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS AMONG
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOs), SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSOs), AND
STORMWATER OUTFALL DISCHARGES WITHIN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Figure 6
COMPARISON OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS AMONG
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSOs), SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSOs), AND
STORMWATER OUTFALL DISCHARGES WITHIN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
13
Figure 7
PREDICTED AND OBSERVED CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT
70TH STREET WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2008-2009
Figures 5 and 6 also illustrate important points relative to the Inline Storage System, or deep tunnel, that was
constructed by MMSD to reduce the number of sewer overflows: 1) post deep tunnel pollutant concentrations for
combined sewer overflows (CSOs) have improved significantly compared to pre-tunnel conditions, 2) stormwater
pollutant concentrations of total suspended solids associated with the initial first flush during a storm are
equivalent or exceed pollutant concentrations in both CSOs and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and 3)
stormwater pollutant concentrations of total phosphorus associated with the first flush are similar, or slightly
greater, than pollutant concentrations in CSOs, but less than SSOs.
Figure 7 illustrate the connection or synergistic relationship between stream flashiness (water quantity) and
pollutant loadings (water quality) associated with urban stormwater runoff. This figure shows how observed
chloride concentrations and predicted concentrations based on associated total conductivity measurements in the
Menomonee River at N. 70th Street fluctuate in response to rainfall events and seasons. It is clear that this
location on the River is impacted by chlorides for extended periods during the winter (December through March).
There are both episodic periods of acute toxicity and extended periods of chronic toxicity at this location during
the winter. Additionally the fish index of biotic integrity score at this location is very poor. A variety of factors
are likely contributing to this result, with chloride concentrations being one of them. Based on this relatively new
real-time information, it is becoming clear that chloride impacts are not short lived; rather chronic toxicity
impacts can last most of the winter depending on snowfall and weather. This same relationship is also likely to be
the case for the Kinnickinnic River.11 In addition, researchers found that the high levels of imperviousness within
_____________
11
14
the Honey Creek and Kinnickinnic River watersheds were strongly associated with higher amounts of nonpoint
source pollutants that significantly affect fathead minnow reproductive behavior.12 The most striking results in
this study showed decreased sexual development in males, reduced average egg count by females, and reduced
number of breeding pairs.
Location of impervious surfaces also determines the degree of direct impact they will have upon a stream. There
is a greater impact from impervious surfaces located closer to a stream, due to the fact that there is less time and
distance for the polluted runoff to be naturally treated before entering the stream. A study of 47 watersheds in
southeastern Wisconsin found that one acre of impervious surface located near a stream could have the same
negative effect on aquatic communities as 10 acres of impervious surface located further away from the stream.13
Because urban lands located adjacent to streams have a greater impact on the biological community, an
assumption might be made that riparian buffer strips located along the stream could absorb the negative runoff
effects attributed to urbanization. Yet, riparian buffers may not be the complete answer since most urban
stormwater is delivered directly to the stream via a storm sewer or engineered channel and, therefore, enters the
stream without first being filtered by the buffer. Riparian buffers need to be combined with other management
practices, such as infiltration facilities, detention basins, and grass swales, in order to adequately mitigate the
effects of urban stormwater runoff. Combining practices into such a treatment train can provide a much higher
level of pollutant removal, than single, stand-alone practices could ever achieve. Stormwater and erosion
treatment practices vary in their function, which in turn influences their level of effectiveness. Location of a
practice on the landscape, as well as proper construction and continued maintenance, greatly influences the level
of pollutant removal.
An additional artifact of urbanization is the intentional and unintentional accumulation of trash and debris in
waterways and associated riparian lands, including those within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds (see Figure 8). These accumulations of trash are unsightly, as well as posing potential human health
concerns. Trash and debris can cause physical and/or chemical (i.e. toxic) damage to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife. In some cases, historical fill, ranging from abandoned vehicles to gasoline pumps can be found within
the riparian corridors adjacent to the waterways within the Menomonee River watershed.14 Sometimes debris can
accumulate to such an extent that it may limit recreation and the passage of aquatic organisms and/or cause
streambank erosion. Although there has not been a comprehensive survey of trash and debris conditions within
riparian areas of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, continued efforts to remove trash and debris
within these watersheds by the River Skimmer project, Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful, and Milwaukee
Riverkeeper cleanup projects (see Appendix A for list of cleanup sites) indicates that this is an important issue to
consider for the protection of these watersheds.15
_____________
12
D. Weber and R. Bannerman, Relationships between impervious surfaces within a watershed and measures of
reproduction in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas), Hydrobiologia, Volume 525:215-228, 2004.
13
L. Wang, J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Bannerman, Impacts of Urbanization on Stream Habitat and Fish Across
Multiple Spatial Scales, Environmental Management, Vol. 28, 2001, pp. 255-266.
14
Eddee Daniels, Urban Wilderness: Exploring a Metropolitan Watershed, University of Chicago Press,
September, 2008.
15
Note: The City of Milwaukee Department of Public Works owns and operates the River Skimmer boat in
partnership with MMSD, the Milwaukee Water Works, the Milwaukee Community Service Corps, and the Port of
Milwaukee. Keep Greater Milwaukee Beautiful and Milwaukee Riverkeeper organize annual river cleanups in the
greater Milwaukee River watersheds. In 2009, volunteers removed hundreds of thousands of pounds of garbage
out of waterways and surrounding land within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
15
Figure 8
EXAMPLES OF TRASH AND DEBRIS WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AND KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHEDS
MENOMONEE RIVER (WITHIN REACH MN-19)
What is Habitat?
Habitat is comprised of a complicated mixture of biological, physical, chemical, and hydrological variables.
Biotic interactions such as predation and competition can affect species abundance and distributions within
aquatic systems, however, such interactions are beyond the scope of this report and are not considered further in
this document. Abiotic factors such as stream flow, channelization, fragmentation of stream reaches, temperature,
dissolved oxygen concentrations, substrates, among others are strong determinants of aquatic communities
(fishes, invertebrates, algae). Therefore, biological community quality is a surrogate for habitat quality. For
example, high abundance and diversity of fishes is strongly associated with high-quality habitat. It is important to
note that habitat quality is intimately related to land use within a watershed, as well as to land use directly
adjacent to the streambank. Consequently, watershed size and associated land use characterization as well as
riparian buffer width are critical elements necessary in defining habitat quality.
16
As noted previously, urbanization increases impervious surface, which can lead to an increase in flashiness (or
the rate at which flow responds to a precipitation event). Such increases in streamflow subsequently affect
streambank stability, streambed stability, pollutant loading, and sediment dynamics, which, in turn, affect habitat
availability and quality. As detailed in TR No. 39, the Menomonee River watershed contains approximately 20
percent imperviousness and the Kinnickinnic River watershed contains about 30 to 40 percent imperviousness
based upon the amount of urban land development in year 2000. Therefore, the hydrology of the urban stream
systems within both watersheds is a major determinant of stream dynamics and is a vital component of habitat for
fishes and other organisms (see Figure 9).
Based upon this information and for purposes of this report, habitat has been divided into two separate elements
that distinguish Land Based versus Instream dimensions of habitat. The land based elements include a
number of features that include existing and planned land use, historical urban growth, stormwater runoff, riparian
buffers, and civil divisions, among others. However, the land based elements addressed specifically in this report
are focused on riparian buffer width and continuity, plant community quality, recreational opportunities, and
groundwater recharge potential within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Instream measures
addressed in this report include channelization, streambank and streambed stability, channel obstructions,
recreational opportunities, habitat quality, fishery quality, and invertebrate quality.
INVENTORY FINDINGS
Based upon the analysis of physical and biological conditions from data obtained for years 2000 through 2009,
this section summarizes information by stream reaches for the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds as
shown in Tables 1 and 2. This assessment was based upon a total of 94 fish samples, 39 invertebrate samples, and
55 habitat samples collected for a variety of purposes by WDNR staff, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff, and
Dr. Robert Anderson of the Wisconsin Lutheran College. These samples were collected for a variety of purposes
and programs that include baseline monitoring by the WDNR, the MMSD Corridor Study Database Project, the
USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) and Effects of Urbanization on Stream Ecosystems
(EUSE) projects, and other research projects. It is important to note that the collection methods used were similar
and comparable for purposes of this report. The only samples not used in direct comparison were fisheries
samples collected with mini-boom shocking gear within the downstream reaches of the Menomonee River and
associated shipping canals. These data were used for species presence or absence information only.
Historical Conditions
Early records reveal that the Milwaukee Estuary Area including the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers has been substantially channelized, relocated, dredged, filled, and dammed to convert the significant
wetland complex into the highly constructed navigable port that currently exists.16 This conversion allowed for
the development and growth of the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area that currently exists, but this conversion
has lead to significant environmental degradation in water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat.17 Further
comparison of the earliest known survey of the entire Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River systems
completed in 1836 to the present channel conditions in 2005 also shows evidence of significant channelization
and diversion of stream channels over this time period (see Maps 3 and 4).
_____________
16
R. Poff and C. Threinen, Surface Water Resources of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin Conservation Department,
Madison, Wisconsin, 1964.
17
Figure 9
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM DEPICTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LAND USE, HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, HABITAT QUALITY, AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
Straightening of meandering stream channels or channelization was once a widely used and accepted technique
in agricultural management. The National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation
Service) cost shared such activities up to the early 1970s within southeastern Wisconsin.18 The objectives of
channelization were to reduce floods by conveying stormwater runoff more rapidly, to facilitate drainage of low_____________
18
18
Figure 10
EXAMPLES OF A COMBINATION OF CHANNEL ENCLOSURE, CONCRETE
CHANNEL LINING, AND DROP STRUCTURES ENGINEERED FOR FLOODWATER CONTROL
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AND KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHEDS
UNDERWOOD CREEK (WITHIN REACH MN-14)
lying agricultural land, and to allow more efficient farming in rectangular fields. Through channelization, farmers
attempted to protect their crops by increasing the velocity of water moving downstream and the rate at which
water drained away from their land. However, channelization rarely succeeds in increasing the speed of water
moving downstream for two main reasons; 1) waterways throughout the Southeastern Wisconsin Region often
have low slopes (i.e. slopes less than 1 percent), and 2) the effective slope within a reach that is channelized is
generally not changed, because slope within the channelized section is limited by the streambed elevation of
flatter, downstream reaches. These two factors combined with the fact that channelized reaches are often dredged
too deep and too wide, produce areas that are characterized by slow moving, stagnant waterways. Many
channelized reaches become long straight pools or areas of sediment deposition. Because the velocities within
these reaches are too low to carry suspended materials, sediment particles settle out and accumulate. This is why
many channelized reaches contain uniformly deep flocculent organic sediments. Channelization can also lead to
instream hydraulic changes that can decrease or interfere with surface water contact to overbank areas during
floods. This may result in reduced filtering of nonpoint source pollutants by riparian area vegetation and soils, as
well as increased erosion of the banks. Channelization can lead to increased water temperature, due to the loss of
riparian vegetation, and it can alter instream sedimentation rates and paths of sediment erosion, transport, and
deposition. Therefore, channelization activities, as traditionally accomplished without mitigating features,
generally lead to a diminished suitability of instream and riparian habitat for fish and wildlife.
Historically, prevention of flooding problems has been the major focus of stormwater and floodland management
efforts in urban areas. This has led to channelization (both ditching and straightening), placement of concrete (to
promote conveyance of flood flows and to control flows as in the case of dams, drop structures, and enclosed
channels) as shown in Figure 10, without consideration of habitat impacts in portions of both the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds. Concrete-lined stream segments are particularly damaging, due to the creation of
conditions that 1) fragment and limit linear and lateral connectivity with the stream and their corridor habitat and
ecosystem; 2) limit or prevent fish and wildlife movement; 3) increase water temperature; 4) destroy fish, aquatic
life and wildlife habitat; 5) limit recreational uses, including those attendant to navigation, fishing, and aesthetics;
and 6) may actually increase flooding and decrease public safety if not designed as part of an overall system plan.
Today, recognition of the value of lotic water resources and their multi-faceted contributions to quality of life has
19
Figure 11
UNDERWOOD CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION AND STREAM
RESTORATION PRE- AND POST-CONSTRUCTION
PRE-CONSTRUCTION SHOWING CONCRETE LINED
STREAMBED AND STREAMBANKS
Source: Thomas R. Sear, Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) and SEWRPC.
lead to programs to restore and recreate naturalized river systems that not only meet flood mitigation
requirements, but also incorporate features related to habitat and maintenance of aquatic life.
MMSD has completed a number of concrete and drop structure removal projects throughout the greater
Milwaukee watersheds over the last decade. The most recent project is located along Underwood Creek as shown
in Figure 11. That project involved removal of both concrete lining and drop structures.19 Stream stabilization and
flooding are important issues that must be addressed when removing concrete lining. Figure 12 shows how
increased stream velocities within a concrete lined section of channel on Lyons Park Creek within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed can impact downstream natural channels and cause excessive streambed and
streambank erosion. This is an example of why streambed and streambanks must be protected after concrete
lining is removed. Protecting the streambed and streambanks with some type of material increases stream channel
roughness relative to a smooth surface like concrete, which slows water down, increasing flood elevations and the
potential risk to nearby structures. To mitigate or offset the potential for increased flood risk, concrete removal
needs to be associated with mitigative measures such as expanding the floodplain to the lands adjacent to the
channel and lowering the ground elevation in the overbanks outside the low- and moderate-flow channel to allow
more room for attenuation and/or conveyance of flood flows. Such measures have the added benefit of decreasing
instream velocities for multiple flood stages and reducing streambed and streambank erosion. Expansion of the
floodplain also allows for the opportunity to restore connectivity with the stream channel, restore native riparian
vegetation, and allow space for a more naturally functioning stream channel, as well as providing stable instream
habitat.
_____________
19
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Underwood Creek Rehabilitation and Flood Management Project,
Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Tetra Tech, August 2006.
20
Figure 12
Current Conditions
Kinnickinnic River
EXAMPLE OF CHANNEL EROSION
The Kinnickinnic River system is comprised of about
DOWNSTREAM OF CONCRETE LINING ON
30 percent concrete lining and 30 percent enclosed
LYONS PARK CREEK (WITHIN REACH KK-1)
WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
channel, with most of the remaining open stream
channel unstable and eroding (see Table 2 and
Map 5). A 2004 stream assessment report indicated
that the upper unchannelized sections of the Kinnickinnic River are severely incised (downcut or eroded
streambed) and laterally unstable (see Figure 13).20
Comparison of historic longitudinal profiles indicates
that up to four to five feet of incision has occurred
since the 1970s. This channel instability is due to a
combination of elements that include: a large amount
of urban development and associated impervious area,
a stormwater management system designed to move
runoff quickly and efficiently off the land surface and
into the stream; significant encroachment of urban
development near the stream, which confines flows
Note placement of large stone on the streambed and streambank to
within a narrow area and exposes the streambank and
mitigate excessive erosion due to high velocities.
streambed to extremely high velocities and shear
stresses; and steep slopes. The eroding streambed and
Source: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District and SEWRPC.
streambank areas as shown on Map 5 should be
addressed. A high degree of bank instability is
associated with extensive areas within the Kinnickinnic River watershed with riparian buffers less than 75 feet in
width (see Table 2 and Map 6). Table 2 shows that more than 70 percent of the river corridors within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed contain buffers that are less than 75 feet in width. The Upper and Middle
subwatersheds of the Kinnickinnic River (KK-3, KK-10) contain the most highly buffered stream reaches with
about 27 and 23 percent, respectively, of the River having buffers greater than 75 feet in width. These areas are
located within Milwaukee County park land, and the Upper Kinnickinnic River also contains two of the six total
highest-quality vegetation communities in the entire watershed based upon their Floristic Quality Index (FQI),21
The Lower Wilson Park Creek (KK-8), Holmes Avenue Creek (KK-5), and Lyons Park Creek (KK-1)
subwatersheds also contain important plant community areas with fair to good-quality, which serve as important
wildlife refuge areas within the highly urbanized landscape (see Table 2 and Map 6). These park lands, natural
areas, and remaining environmental corridors also include areas with the best groundwater recharge potential
within the Kinnickinnic River watershed (see Map 7). Map 7 shows that developed areas are associated with the
lowest groundwater recharge potential; therefore, preservation and, where practical, expansion of open space
would protect, and perhaps enhance, the groundwater recharge potential within the watershed.
_____________
20
Milwaukee County, Milwaukee County Stream Assessment, Final Report, completed by Inter-Fluve, Inc.,
September, 2004.
21
Note that these ratings are approximate indications of plant community quality due to the following potential
limitations: 1)inventories in some cases date back 20 years and may not reflect current conditions and 2) data
collection methods may be different among sites, due to inventories being conducted for multiple purposes or only
partial inventories being conducted. For more information see T. Bernthal, Development of a Floristic Quality
Assessment Methodology for Wisconsin, Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V,
June 2003.
21
Figure 13
EXAMPLES OF EXCESSIVE STREAMBED AND STREAMBANK
EROSION CONDITIONS WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Stream widths in the Kinnickinnic River were noted as being 42 and 74 feet at the only two cross-sections
obtained by Inter-Fluve, Inc., under a study conducted for Milwaukee County. Stream widths in the remaining
subwatersheds generally ranged from about 10 to 30 feet in width.22 Substrates throughout the Kinnickinnic River
watershed were dominated by gravels and course sands. These large substrate sizes are consistent with high
velocity flows that occur throughout this watershed. However, not much instream physical information exists
within this watershed.
As previously summarized within TR No. 39 there are a total of 61 point sources identified within the
Kinnickinnic River watershed that include permitted noncontact cooling water discharges, permitted individual
discharges, CSO outfalls, and SSO outfalls. As shown in Table 2 these are predominantly located within the
mainstem of the Kinnickinnic River reaches KK-3, KK-10, and KK-11 of the watershed. There are an estimated
53 stormwater outfalls within this watershed, which comprise about 50 percent of the total outfalls observed. The
stormwater outfalls are not concentrated in any particular area, but are widely distributed throughout the
watershed. These outfalls are far more numerous than any other type of outfall in the watershed. In addition, since
these stormwater outfalls discharge during most rainfall events and during periods of snowmelt, as opposed to
only a few events a year when CSOs may occur, their potential for water quality impacts is significant. The
physical outfall pipes themselves can potentially create significant localized erosion to streambed and/or banks,
especially if they are constructed at poor angles in relationship to the flow of the river or stream. These outfalls
can be retrofitted by changing pipe angles, installing deflectors, or shortening pipes, among other strategies. It is
also important to note that these outfalls may provide opportunities for innovative infiltration practices, as well as
protecting streambed and streambanks from erosion. For example, Figure 14 shows two outfalls where infiltration
and streambank protection treatments were constructed as part of the Underwood Creek stream restoration project
in the Menomonee River watershed.
Menomonee River
The Menomonee River system, including tributaries, has about 6 percent concrete-lined channel and 2 percent
enclosed channel (see Table 1). The highest amounts of concrete lined channel are located within the Honey
_____________
22
Ibid.
22
Figure 14
OUTFALL TREATMENTS CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE UNDERWOOD CREEK
FLOOD MITIGATION AND STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT: 2009
Mixture of rock to
protect from erosion
and promote infiltration
Shallow basin with rock
protection to dissipate high
high energy flows
Grassy swales
NOTE: This project has not yet been completed and more native tree, shrub, and wetland plantings will be implemented in the year 2010.
Source: SEWRPC.
Creek (MN-16) and Underwood Creek (MN-14) subwatersheds. With the exception of the Lilly Creek
subwatershed, the majority of the stream system is in open channel and largely stable, with limited localized areas
of erosion, as shown on Map 8. The streambanks along Lilly Creek and two tributaries (MN-7) are unstable, with
more than 70 percent of the assessed streambanks being classified as eroded, whereas assessed streambanks in the
remaining subwatersheds are generally less than 20 percent eroded. Research has indicated that high-quality
streams have less than 20 percent of their total stream bank lengths severely eroded. Streams with less than
20 percent severe streambank erosion have been found to maintain a high-quality fishery.23 However, all of the
eroding streambed and streambank areas as shown on Map 8 should be addressed, since such erosion may still
cause significant habitat degradation. The relatively small amount of streambed and streambank erosion
is consistent with a high amount of protection from riparian buffers greater than 75 feet in width throughout
the Menomonee River watershed (see Table 1 and Map 9). Table 1 shows that at least 50 percent or more of
the river corridors among the subwatersheds within the Menomonee River watershed are protected by
riparian buffers that are greater than 75 feet in width. However, in the Lilly Creek (MN-7), Little Menomonee
Creek (MN-10), Dousman Ditch (MN-13A), Underwood Creek (MN-14), Honey Creek (MN-16) and
_____________
23
T. D. Simonson and others, Guidelines for evaluating fish habitat in Wisconsin Streams, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, General Technical Report NC-164, 1994.
23
the Lower Menomonee River (MN-18, MN-19) subwatersheds, generally less than 30 percent of riparian buffers
are greater than 75 feet in width and many areas of these streams have no buffers with widths greater than 75 feet.
Like the Kinnickinnic River watershed, these riparian areas are coupled with park systems and are often
associated with high-quality vegetation communities. As shown on Map 9 and Table 1 there are a total of 74
significant vegetation plant communities distributed throughout the Menomonee River watershed that are
components of primary environmental corridors (PEC), natural areas, and critical species habitat areas as
summarized in TR No. 39. These vegetation communities range in quality from poor to excellent based upon their
Floristic Quality Index (FQI),24 which is a measure of plant species diversity and native community composition.
In general, the highest FQI ratings in the good to excellent range are associated with the largest stands of plant
species, but it is important to note that all of these vegetation communities provide necessary habitat for a variety
of wildlife. These park lands, natural areas, environmental corridors, and remaining agricultural lands are
associated with the best groundwater recharge area lands within the Menomonee River watershed (see Map 10).
Since the highest amount of agricultural and open lands are located in the northern portion of the watershed, these
areas are currently providing the greatest amount of groundwater infiltration, helping to sustain stream baseflows.
Map 10 also shows that the developed areas within the watershed are associated with the lowest groundwater
recharge potential. Therefore, preservation and, where feasible, expansion of the open space lands including
agricultural lands would protect, and perhaps enhance, the groundwater recharge potential within the watershed.
Stream widths in the Menomonee River were observed to range from about 20 to 30 feet in the headwaters to
about 70 to 100 feet in the downstream reaches.25 The Menomonee River is generally dominated by gravel and
sand substrates. The Little Menomonee River is dominated by sand substrates and ranges from about 20 to 30 feet
in width. Honey Creek and Underwood Creek are both dominated by gravel substrates and range from about 10 to
40 feet in width. Butler Ditch ranges from about 10 to 25 feet in width and is dominated by sand substrates in the
headwaters and gravel substrates in the lower reaches.
As previously summarized in TR No. 39, there are a total of 153 point sources identified within the Menomonee
River watershed that include permitted noncontact cooling water discharges, permitted individual discharges,
CSO outfalls, and SSO outfalls. As shown in Table 1 these are predominantly located within the lower areas of
the Menomonee River watershed. There are an estimated 236 stormwater outfalls within this watershed, which
comprise about 60 percent of the total outfalls observed. These stormwater outfalls are found throughout the
watershed and, much like in the Kinnickinnic River watershed, there are likely to be more outfalls than identified.
Biological Conditions
The most recent biological assessment of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds identified a strong
relationship between water and aquatic community quality and amount of urban land use.26 For example, median
chloride concentrations among several watersheds throughout the greater Milwaukee metropolitan area tend to
increase with increasing urban development. More specifically, the less developed upper areas of the Menomonee
River watershed (Willow Creek, Upper Menomonee River, Little Menomonee River) contain better water quality
than areas within the more highly urbanized, lower reaches of the Menomonee River watershed (Honey Creek,
Lower Menomonee River) and the entire Kinnickinnic River watershed. However, it is important to note that not
_____________
24
T. Bernthal, Development of a Floristic Quality Assessment Methodology for Wisconsin, Final report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V, June 2003.
25
Ibid.
26
J.C. Thomas, M.A. Lutz, and others, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, February 2004-September 2005, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.
24
all water quality constituents showed the same pattern in relationship with urban lands. Some showed opposite
responses and some showed no patterns at all, which is similar to what SEWRPC documented in TR No. 39.
Figures 15 and 16 also show the strong negative relationship between fisheries Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) and
Hilsenhoff Biotic Integrity (HBI) quality with increased levels of urbanization among the greater Milwaukee
River watersheds.27
Table 4 shows that the highest-quality fish, invertebrate, and algal communities are located in less developed
watersheds of the greater Milwaukee area including the Upper Menomonee River.28 The poorest biological
communities were associated with the highest urbanized watersheds and include Honey Creek, Underwood Creek,
and the Kinnickinnic River. This is also consistent with observations detailed in the SEWRPC TR No. 39 report.
More specifically, TR No. 39 summarized that the biological community in both the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic River watersheds is limited primarily due to 1) periodic stormwater pollutant loads (associated with
increased flashiness); 2) decreased base flows and increased water temperatures due to urbanization; and 3)
habitat loss and continued fragmentation due to culverts, concrete lined channels, enclosed conduits, drop
structures, and past channelization (see Channel Obstructions Section below).
Fish and invertebrate community data from 2000-2009 as shown in Table 5 and Map 8 generally supports the
conclusions summarized above that higher-quality areas are located within less developed areas compared to the
more developed areas of the Menomonee River watershed. However, these recent data also show that where
multiple samples were taken there is a range in both warmwater IBI and intermittent IBI quality throughout the
entire watershed. Although the intermittent IBI is not applicable for larger perennial streams within the watershed,
it was used to provide an assessment for the smaller tributaries and headwater reaches of the larger tributaries to
the Menomonee River. Basically, intermittent headwater streams are associated with less diverse fish assemblage
than perennial larger warmwater stream systems. Therefore, an intermittent IBI assessment will generally provide
a better score when compared to the warmwater IBI assessment. However, although these tributaries may not
necessarily be intermittent streams, an intermittent IBI was used to assess whether or not these urbanized
tributaries were at least functioning as good-quality intermittent systems; the idea being that, given the high
potential for fragmentation of fish passage and species extirpations, it is possible that these tributaries cannot
currently function better than an intermittent stream system. Therefore, comparison of the intermittent IBI versus
the warmwater IBI quality potentially indicates that the majority of the tributaries sampled are functioning as fair
and good intermittent fisheries. It is also important to note that Map 8 shows the maximum quality achieved
within each subwatershed reach throughout the time period from 2000 to 2009, as well as the highest quality
ranking achieved by either the warmwater IBI or intermittent IBI, whichever indicated better quality. Hence,
Map 8 shows the best possible fish community quality achievable within a particular reach, as well as the highest
functional stream assemblage achievable.
In contrast, invertebrate quality throughout the Menomonee River watershed shows that this community is
consistently ranked as good. Since invertebrates tend to colonize or re-establish sooner after a reach has been
disturbed and begins to stabilize, the high proportion of good HBI scores is a potential sign the Menomonee River
watershed may be recovering/improving. Invertebrates as a biotic indicator also tend to show a clearer
relationship to habitat as compared to Fish Indices.29 This also seems to be the case given that the invertebrate
quality ratings are more closely associated with the habitat quality ratings than are the fish ratings. This may also
be a good indication that habitat and food-based organisms are improving and that the fishery may need more
time to recover.
_____________
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Figure 15
FISH INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (IBI) SCORES COMPARED TO PERCENT
URBAN LAND USE AMONG SITES IN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Source:
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.
Figure 16
A MODIFIED HILSENHOFF BIOTIC INDEX (HBI-10) COMPARED TO PERCENT
URBAN LAND USE AMONG SITES IN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS
Source:
26
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites Within the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific
Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.
Table 4
AVERAGE TROPHIC-LEVEL RANKINGS AND AGGREGATE BIOASSESSMENT RANKING
AMONG STREAM SITES WITHIN THE GREATER MILWAUKEE WATERSHEDS: 2004-2005
Average Trophic-Level Ranking
Site
Fisha
Invertebratesb
Algaec
Aggregate
Bioassessment
Ranking
Quartile 1
1.00
1.33
2.00
1.44
2.00
2.67
6.00
3.56
5.00
6.00
1.50
4.17
3.00
7.33
4.00
4.78
Quartile 2
4.00
6.17
7.00
5.72
6.00
6.67
8.50
7.06
7.50
11.00
7.00
8.50
Quartile 3
7.50
8.33
10.00
8.61
9.50
7.33
9.50
8.78
13.00
8.33
6.50
9.28
11.00
8.17
9.00
Quartile 4
Underwood Creek at Wauwatosa
9.39
9.50
10.33
8.50
9.44
13.00
9.67
12.00
11.56
13.00
11.67
13.50
12.72
NOTE:
IBI = Index of Biotic Integrity; EPT = Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera; HBI = Hilsenhoff Biotic Index. Fill color indicates
quartile of ranking (quartile 1, blue; quartile 2, light blue; quartile 3, light orange; quartile 4, orange; each column is considered
independently).
U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Quality Characteristics for Selected Sites within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
Planning Area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005, Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5084, 2007.
Table 5 also shows that habitat quality conditions are generally good to excellent within the Menomonee River
watershed. However, there are a few tributaries where habitat was only rated as fair and in one case very poor
(Lower Underwood Creek subwatershed). It is important to note that the habitat ratings within the Lower
subwatershed of Underwood Creek were conducted prior to completion of the concrete removal and
floodplain/channel restoration project (see Figure 11).30 Riparian buffer and instream habitat has been
substantially improved in this portion of Underwood Creek and associated habitat and fisheries quality within this
area are expected to improve, especially after concrete and drop structures downstream of this project are
_____________
30
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Underwood Creek Rehabilitation and Flood Management Project,
Preliminary Design Report, prepared by Tetra Tech, August 2006.
27
Table 5
FISH, INVERTEBRATE, AND HABITAT QUALITY AMONG REACHES
WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Biological Conditions
Fisheries
Warmwater IBI
Subwatershed
Reach ID
MN-1
MN-2
MN-3
MN-4
MN-6
MN-10
MN-11
MN-7
MN-8
MN-13A
MN-13
MN-14A
MN-14
MN-16
-Very poor
-Poor-fair
-Poor-fair
Very poor-fair
Good
Very poor
-Very poor-fair
-No fish-fair
Very poor-fair
MN-5
MN-9
MN-12
MN-17
MN-17A
MN-18
MN-19
Poor-fair
Very poor-good
Fair
Very poor
Very poor-fair
Very poor-fair
N/A
Fisheries
Intermittent IBI
Invertebrates
HBI
--
-Good
Poor-fair
Good
Fair-good
-Poor-fair
-No fish-good
Fair-good
-Fair
Good
Fair-good
-Good
Fairly poor-good
Good
--Fair-good
-Fairly poor-fair
Fair
-Good
Fair-excellent
Fair
Fair-good
-Fair-good
-Very poor-fair
Good
Fair-good
Poor-good
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-Fairly poor-good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair-good
N/A
-Poor-excellent
Good
Fair-good
-Fair-good
N/A
Fair
-Good
Habitat Rating
--Fair
Fair
NOTE: The tributary reaches and mainstem reaches are generally ordered from upstream to downstream.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Lutheran College, and SEWRPC.
removed. However, it is important to note that a significant amount of concrete channel will remain in upstream
areas, which will continue to limit the potential overall fishery within the Underwood Creek subwatershed. For
example, the very poor habitat rating within the lower subwatershed of Underwood Creek was associated with the
worst invertebrate rating, as well as the worst fish rating where several samples yielded no fish at all. This
demonstrates that although urban development may be associated with biological degradation, stream channel
conditions such as concrete lining can cause further collapse of the biological quality and severely limit its
ultimate potential for restoration.
Channel Obstructions or Fragmentation
There are nearly 100 potential channel obstructions in the Kinnickinnic River watershed and more than 300 in the
Menomonee River watershed. These structures are primarily associated with road and railway crossings in the
form of culverts and bridges, but obstructions can also include concrete lined channels, drop structures, debris
jams, and beaver dams. These obstructions can form physical and/or hydrological barriers to fisheries movements,
which can severely limit the abundance and diversity of fishes within stream systems.31 Not all road or railway
crossings are limiting fish passage in the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, but many of these
_____________
31
T.M. Slawski, and others, Effects of low-head dams, urbanization, and tributary spatial position on fish
assemblage structure within a Midwest stream, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 2008.
28
Figure 17
Figure 18
structures have not been assessed for fish passage and it is not known which of these structures are limiting the
fishery. However, the section of concrete lining near Miller Park (River Mile 3.62 to 4.24), as shown in Figure 17,
and the Menomonee Falls dam (River Mile 21.9), as shown in Figure 18, are two of the most significant fish
passage obstructions on the Menomonee River (see Table 6). The Menomonee Falls dam is a complete barrier to
upstream fish passage. This particular reach also contains bedrock outcrops resulting in natural falls (see Map 8).
These outcrops have probably limited fish passage upstream both historically and currently, so the upper reach of
the Menomonee River may have always been rather isolated from the downstream areas, even before construction
of the dam. The upper approximately 1,000 feet of the concrete lining from River Mile 3.62 to 4.24 along the
lower reach of the main stem limits fish passage due to the occurrence of supercritical flows at high velocities in
combination with no resting areas (see Figure 19). Similarly, the concrete lining within the lower reach of the
Kinnickinnic River (KK-10) also limits fish passage due to its length, lack of habitat, lack of adequate water
depths, high velocities, and flashiness.
As summarized in TR No. 39, there has been an apparent loss of multiple fish species throughout the Menomonee
River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds over the last 100 years. However, it is important to note that this loss of
species has been disproportionately greater among reaches that are further away from a connection with Lake
Michigan. For example, comparison of historic (pre-2000) versus current (post-2000) fish species abundance
within the Kinnickinnic River indicates that species abundance has been and continues to be much greater in the
most downstream reach (KK-11) connected to the Milwaukee River estuary and Lake Michigan compared to any
other areas in the watershed (see Table 7). This indicates that the poor habitat, hydrology, and water quality
conditions primarily associated with concrete lining as shown in Figure 20 continue to severely limit fisheries
within this watershed. Table 4 confirms that the Kinnickinnic River contains the poorest fish, invertebrate, and
algal communities among the greater Milwaukee watersheds. In fact, only two native fish species have been
found to occur within this watershed since the year 2000 (see Table 7). However, due to its connection with the
Estuary and Great Lakes system, the lower reach of the Kinnickinnic has the greatest potential for fishery
improvement. That factor, combined with the completion of the removal of 167,000 cubic yards of contaminated
29
Table 6
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION AMONG REACHES IN THE
MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 1902-1999 VS 2000-2009
Reaches
MN-1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Reach above
Menomonee Falls Dam
at River Mile 21.93
Entire Watershed
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
Intolerant
Blackchin Shiner .................................
Blacknose Shiner ................................
Brook Trout .........................................
Greater Redhorsea .............................
Least Darterb ......................................
Redside Daceb ...................................
Rock Bass ...........................................
Smallmouth Bass ................................
Spottail Shiner.....................................
----X
-----
X
X
--------
-X
--X
X
----
--------X
---X
------
--X
X
--X
X
--
-X
-X
X
X
--X
X
X
X
X
--X
X
X
Intermediate
Black Bullhead ....................................
Black Crappie......................................
Bluegill ................................................
Brassy Minnow....................................
Brook Stickleback ...............................
Brown Bullhead ...................................
Brown Trout ........................................
Central Stoneroller ..............................
Channel Catfish ..................................
Chinook Salmon..................................
Coho Salmon ......................................
Common Shiner ..................................
Emerald Shiner ...................................
Fantail Darter ......................................
Gizzard Shad ......................................
Golden Redhorse ................................
Grass Pickerel.....................................
Hornyhead Chub .................................
Johnny Darter .....................................
Lake Sturgeonb...................................
Largemouth Bass ................................
Largescale Stoneroller ........................
Longnose Dace ...................................
Northern Pike ......................................
Northern Redbelly Dace ......................
Pearl Dace ..........................................
Pumpkinseed ......................................
Rainbow Trout.....................................
River Carpsucker ................................
Round Goby ........................................
Sand Shiner ........................................
Shorthead Redhorse ...........................
Silver Redhorse ..................................
Southern Redbelly Dace .....................
Spotfin Shiner .....................................
Stonecat..............................................
Threespine Stickleback .......................
Walleye ...............................................
Yellow Perch .......................................
X
-X
X
X
--X
---X
-X
---X
X
-X
---X
X
X
------X
------
X
-X
-X
X
-X
---X
------X
-X
--X
-X
X
--------X
X
---
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
---X
-X
--X
X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
-X
-X
--X
----X
X
X
X
-X
--X
X
--X
X
X
--X
X
X
-X
-X
X
-X
X
---X
-------X
X
-X
-----------X
X
----X
-----X
-----------X
X
X
X
---X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
-X
--X
X
-X
-X
X
-X
--X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
---X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
-X
X
X
X
-X
-X
--X
----X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
Tolerant
Blacknose Dace ..................................
Bluntnose Minnow...............................
Central Mudminnow ............................
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
----
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30
Table 6 (continued)
Reaches
MN-1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Reach above
Menomonee Falls Dam
at River Mile 21.93
Entire Watershed
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
Tolerant (continued)
Common Carp.....................................
Creek Chub .........................................
Fathead Minnow .................................
Golden Shiner .....................................
Goldfish...............................................
Grass Carp .........................................
Green Sunfish .....................................
White Sucker.......................................
Yellow Bullhead ..................................
X
X
X
X
--X
X
--
X
X
X
X
--X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
--
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
--
X
-----X
X
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-X
X
--
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
24
24
35
30
12
42
39
54
23
22
33
28
11
38
37
50
Total Intolerants
14
13
22
19
26
24
35
10
10
12
10
12
Total Intermediate
Total Tolerant
aDesignated threatened species.
bDesignated Species of special concern.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Lutheran College, and SEWRPC.
sediment from the Kinnickinnic River between Becher Street and Kinnickinnic Avenue in 2009 under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/WDNR Kinnickinnic River Environmental Restoration Project,
makes it much more likely that fish species utilization will increase within this lower part of the system.32
In contrast, historic fish assemblages within the lowest reach of the Menomonee River (4.24 miles) contained the
fewest number of species (12) as compared to the upstream areas that were comprised of more than twice as many
fish species. However, the lower reach of the Menomonee River was only recently reconnected with the
Milwaukee River estuary and Lake Michigan when the Falk dam was completely removed in 2001. In addition,
removal of the North Avenue dam on the Milwaukee River at the upstream end of the Milwaukee Harbor estuary
and major habitat improvements near the dam site that were completed in 1996 has also contributed to a
significant increase in abundance and diversity of fishes in the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, and estuary
areas. These efforts combined with several instream restoration enhancements, as well as fish stocking programs
have also contributed to the highest ever recorded number of total species (42) found within the Menomonee
River in over 100 years of fishery surveys.
_____________
32
USEPA, Kinnickinnic River cleanup means a revitalized Milwaukee neighborhood, News Release 09OPA221, http://epa.gov/greatlakes/sediment/legacy/kk/index.html, November 2, 2009.
31
Figure 19
_____________
33
Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Menomonee River Phase 2 Watercourse Management Plan,
prepared by Tetra Tech, August 2002.
34
USEPA, Cleanup Nears Completion in Little Menomonee River, Moss-American Superfund Site, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, http://www.epa.gov/region5/sites/mossamerican/, December 2007; and SEWRPC Staff Memorandum,
Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha CountySurvey Data, Analysis, and Recommendations Relating to the
Proposed Relocation of Dretzka Park Tributary to the Menomonee River Under the Jobs Corridor Project,
August 1999.
35
The N. 124th Street and W. Brown Deer Road WisDOT roadway improvement project won the national 2001
Globe Award for excellence in environmental protection and mitigation for exceeding regulatory compliance by
incorporating principles of stream ecology into a stream relocation design.
32
Table 7
FISH SPECIES COMPOSITION AMONG REACHES IN THE
KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED: 1902-1999 VS 2000-2009
Reaches
KK-4, KK-5,
KK-6, KK-7, KK-8
KK-11
Upstream
Confluence of
Wilson Park Creek with
the Kinnickinnic River
Upper
Kinnickinnic River
to River Mile 2.81
Lower Kinnickinnic
River Downstream of
Concrete Lining
(approximately River
Mile 2.81 at 6th Street) to
confluence with Milwaukee
Harbor Estuary
Entire Watershed
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
Years Sampled
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
1902-1999
2000-2009
Intolerant
Greater Redhorsea .............................
Redhorse Species ...............................
Smallmouth Bass ................................
----
----
----
----
X
X
--
--Xb
X
X
--
--Xb
Intermediate
Alewife ................................................
Black Bullhead ....................................
Brassy Minnow....................................
Brook Trout .........................................
Brown Trout ........................................
Brook Stickleback ...............................
Chinook Salmon..................................
Coho Salmon ......................................
Common Shiner ..................................
Gizzard Shad ......................................
Johnny Darter .....................................
Northern Pike ......................................
Orangespotted Sunfish .......................
Pumpkinseed ......................................
Rainbow Trout.....................................
Striped Shinerc ...................................
Threespine Stickleback .......................
Yellow Perch .......................................
Walleye ...............................................
-----X
----X
-X
-------
--------------------
--X
------------X
----
--------X
-----------
X
X
----X
X
-X
-X
-X
X
-X
---
---Xb
Xb
---Xb
Xb
--Xb
Xb
X
X
X
--X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---
Tolerant
Banded Killifishd .................................
Common Carp.....................................
Creek Chub .........................................
Fathead Minnow .................................
Golden Shiner .....................................
Goldfish...............................................
Green Sunfish .....................................
White Sucker.......................................
--X
X
-----
---------
X
----X
---
---X
-X
---
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---------
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
---X
-X
---
18
8b
24
11
14
8b
20
10
-Xb
----Xb
--Xb
-Xb
-X
--Xb
--Xb
--Xb
Xb
Total Intolerants
1b
Total Intermediate
7b
14
Total Tolerant
33
Figure 20
CONCRETE LINING IN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER
WATERSHED WITHIN REACH KK-10
34
Figure 21
RESTORATION OF EXCESSIVE STREAMBANK AND STREAMBED EROSION AND
RECONNECTION OF FLOODPLAIN WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER AT HOYT PARK
BEFORE
AFTER
The Milwaukee Riverkeeper staff trains and manages numerous volunteers who conduct Citizen Based
Monitoring efforts in the watershed. They currently have seven Level-1 sites, 13 Level-2 sites, and 15 temperature
monitoring locations throughout the mainstem and tributary areas of the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic
River watersheds.
Their monitoring program was launched in 2006 and they currently have 58 volunteers monitoring sites
throughout the greater Milwaukee River watersheds. Volunteers are trained at two levels. Level-1 volunteers
conduct periodic stream assessments and measure dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity, flow, and qualitative
aquatic invertebrate assessments. Level-2 volunteers are advanced monitors that assess water quality using
WDNR equipment and protocols for pH, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and temperature (using automated
programmable temperature data loggers). Volunteers generally monitor on at least a monthly basis, and data is
entered into either the WDNR SWIMS or Water Action Volunteer (WAV) databases.
These ongoing data collection efforts have and will continue to provide a sound basis for the assessment of
current and future water quality conditions and high-quality data to evaluate the effectiveness of water pollution
control measures, to detect new and emerging water quality problems, and to help decision makers manage these
systems.
35
Figure 22
PRE- VERSUS POST- CONCRETE CHANNEL AND DROP STRUCTURE
REMOVAL/STREAM RESTORATION NEAR N. 43RD STREET AND
W. STATE STREET ALONG THE MENOMONEE RIVER
36
Chapter III
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 42 (PR No. 42), A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection
and Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, September 1997; SEWRPC Planning Report No. 48 (PR
No. 48), A Regional Land Use Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin: 2035, June 2006; SEWRPC Memorandum
Report No. 152 (MR No. 152), A Greenway Connection Plan for the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,
December 2002; and Kristen Wilhelm and Jason Schroeder, River Revitalization Foundations Menomonee River
Mainstem Land Protection Plan 2008-2009, 2009.
37
lands currently held in public ownership by the State, counties, cities, villages, towns, and nongovernmental
organizations form the structural framework for prioritization of the land-based measures from which to expand
protections. The high-priority lands for the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River watersheds are shown on
Maps 13 and 14, respectively. The high-priority lands identified to be protected represent a synthesis of recommendations from multiple planning efforts and they include open lands in public or public interest ownership
identified in the regional land use plan (SEWRPC PR No. 48) and in the River Revitalization Foundation
Menomonee River Land Protection Plan, MMSD conservation areas identified in SEWRPC MR No. 152, open
space areas identified to be protected through public land use regulation (MR No. 152), groundwater recharge
areas,2 high-quality plant community areas (SEWRPC PR No. 42), and riparian buffers adjacent to streams with
less than 75 feet of buffer width (SEWRPC PR No. 50 and TR No. 39) (see Maps 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14).
Instream-Based Measures
This framework is based upon a three-tiered approach, focused on the reconnection of waterways that have been
historically isolated from the Lake Michigan stream system through construction of dams, roadways, and flow
control structures, or modified through construction of single-purpose systems, such as stormwater conveyances.
As indicated in Figures 23 and 24, the three components of this strategy are:
Tier 1Restoring connectivity and habitat quality between the mainstem waterways and the Lake
Michigan endpoint,
Tier 2Restoring connectivity and habitat quality between the tributary streams and the mainstems of
the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers, and
Tier 3Expanding connection of highest-quality fish, invertebrate, and habitat sites within each of the
watersheds as shown on Maps 5 and 8.
The third tier is a catch-all that enables stakeholders to link the goals of habitat restoration and improvement of
recreational options with ongoing activities throughout each watershed. This strategic element provides the
flexibility for communities and stakeholders to take advantage of opportunities throughout each watershed that
may arise independently of the primary strategy of restoring linkages with Lake Michigan and tributary streams.
An example of this latter strategic approach would be using the opportunity provided by scheduled reconstruction
of area roadways to remove obstructions or modify channelized stream segments that might not fully conform to
the first two strategic priorities. To this end, it is further noted that provision of fish passage will provide passage
for other aquatic organisms such as invertebrates.3 By providing restored connectivity, and associated habitat, it is
envisioned that implementation of this plan will not only further the purpose of establishing a sustainable fishery
but also enhance human economic opportunities and recreational and aesthetic values associated with the
waterways of the greater Milwaukee watersheds.
It is fully recognized that within this framework opportunities will arise that should be acted upon. For example,
even though it is a general principle of this strategy that activities progress from downstream to upstream, the
completion of an action in headwaters areas or on a tributary stream should not be passed up or ignored simply
because it does not conform to the downstream to upstream strategy. Rather, all opportunities should be seized as
they become available. However, where multiple opportunities exist, and where limited funds are available, this
strategic framework is intended to assist decision-makers in allocating resources where they would be most
appropriate and effective in achieving the goals of the regional water quality management plan update.
_____________
2
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 52, A Regional Water Supply Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, in progress.
D.M. Vaughan, Potential Impact of Road-Stream Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream Passage of Aquatic
Macroinvertebrates, U.S. Forest Service Report, March 21, 2002.
38
Figure 23
INSTREAM THREE-TIER PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED
Source: SEWRPC.
39
Figure 24
INSTREAM THREE-TIER PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY WITHIN THE KINNICKINNIC RIVER WATERSHED
Source: SEWRPC.
The Tier 1 prioritization is based upon the understanding that Lake Michigan is the most diverse resource and
greatest asset that both the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems have for the potential to restore and
maintain a sustainable fishery. This prioritization is also based upon the understanding that within River systems
the widest and deepest downstream areas are generally associated with a greater abundance and diversity of fishes
compared to narrower and shallower upstream areas.4 For example, as shown in Tables 6 and 7 in Chapter II of
this report, those portions of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers connected with Lake Michigan through the
Milwaukee Harbor estuary contain the most diverse fish assemblages. This observation is also consistent with the
most diverse fish assemblages being found within the downstream reaches of the Milwaukee River that were
_____________
4
I.J. Schlosser, A conceptual framework for fish communities in small warmwater streams, pages 17-24 in W.J.
Matthews and D.C. Heins (editors), Community and Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes,
University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.
40
connected with Lake Michigan through removal of the North Avenue dam as described in TR No. 39. Position
within a stream network also is an important determinant of fish species assemblage structure with greater
abundance and diversity generally associated with tributary streams located in lower portions of the stream
network.5 Therefore, the highest priority, or Tier 1, approach focuses on restoring continuity of passage and
habitat restoration for native fishes on the mainstems of the Menomonee River (MN-19 through MN-5) and
Kinnickinnic River (KK-11 through KK-3) from downstream at Lake Michigan to their headwaters upstream as
shown in Figures 23 and 24, respectively. This approach is designed to redevelop the fishery through reconnection and restoration of the strongest determinants of overall fish species diversity and assemblage structure,
namely Lake Michigan and the tributary networks and their associated habitats from downstream to upstream.
The Tier 2 prioritization is based upon the understanding that through their connection with Lake Michigan the
mainstems of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers are the most diverse resources and greatest assets that
their tributaries have for the potential to restore and maintain a sustainable fishery. Tributary streams that are
connected to, as opposed to being not fragmented from, the associated mainstem of stream systems have a greater
potential for increased fish abundance and diversity via access to feeding, rearing, and spawning, as well as refuge
from thermal stress or low-water periods.6 Hence, the second tier approach is focused on addressing fish passage
continuity and habitat quality from the tributary streams to the mainstems of the Menomonee River and
Kinnickinnic Rivers. The Tier 2 prioritization component is illustrated graphically in Figures 23 and 24.
The Tier 3 approach is designed to focus on improving fish passage and habitat quality throughout the entire
watershed. Prioritization of projects to improve the fishery quality should be based upon where fish passage
obstructions have been identified to be a problem and where improvement in ecosystem structure and function
can be attained. Factors to be considered include connection to one or more tributaries, length of stream between
structures, and/or connection to high-quality fish and habitat areas as indicated in Table 8 for the Menomonee
River watershed. A similar table was not developed for the Kinnickinnic River watershed because fish passage
and habitat quality improvements cannot begin until substantial removal of concrete channel segments and drop
structures is accomplished and the channels are rehabilitated within this system. It is recommended that these
structures and crossings be examined at the time of replacement or major modification with the intent of
minimizing the numbers of crossings, and improving crossings to eliminate barriers to fish migration. Further, it is
anticipated that new development or redevelopment may provide opportunities for interventions that do not
conform to the first and second tier approaches. These opportunities should not be ignored; rather, where there are
opportunities to enhance passage of fish and aquatic organism and/or to improve instream habitat, and where
funds can be obtained, it is recommended that actions be taken to enhance fish and aquatic organism passage and
habitat quality throughout the river systems.
_____________
5
L.L. Osborne and M.J. Wiley, Influence of tributary spatial position on the structure of warmwater fish
communities, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Volume 49: 671-681, 1992.
6
T.M. Slawski and others, Effects of tributary spatial position, urbanization, and multiple low-head dams on
warmwater fish community structure in a Midwestern stream, North American Journal of Fisheries
Management, Volume 28: 1020-1035, 2008.
41
42
Table 8
FISH PASSAGE ASSESSMENT AT ROAD CROSSING STRUCTURES, CALCULATED STREAM LENGTH
BETWEEN STRUCTURES, AND BIOLOGICAL (FISH, INVERTEBRATE) AND HABITAT QUALITY DETERMINATIONS
AMONG MAINSTEM AND TRIBUTARY REACHES WITHIN THE MENOMONEE RIVER WATERSHED: 2000-2009
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0250
--
--
--
--
0.0300
--
--
--
--
0.3000
---
- -a
- -a
---
---
0.2150
--
--
--
--
0.3525
--
--
--
--
0.1875
--
--
--
--
0.7650
--
--
--
--
0.0375
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.1300
--
--
--
--
0.5385
--
--
--
--
0.1390
--
very poor
good
--
0.3850
---
fair
fair
fair
fair
fair
good
0.0800
--
--
--
--
0.1800
--
--
--
--
0.2230
--
--
--
--
0.0620
--
--
--
--
0.3600
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
MN-19W
0.025
No
0.055
0.15
0.23
0.355
No
N. Plankinton Avenue
No
N. 6th Street
0.57
No
IH 94
0.9225
No
1.11
No
N. 16th Street
1.875
No
1.9125
No
Canal Street
1.9525
No
1.9725
No
2.1025
No
N. 27th Street
2.641
2.71
2.78
2.91
3.11
3.165
No
S. 35th Street
No
Pedestrian bridge
No
3.245
No
Pedestrian bridge
MN-18
3.425
3.615
3.648
3.71
4.07
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.1980
--
--
--
--
0.0120
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.0630
--
--
--
--
0.0160
--
--
--
--
0.1920
--
--
--
--
0.3240
--
--
--
--
0.5350
--
--
--
--
0.2700
--
--
--
--
0.1400
---
fair
very poor
fair
good
good
good
0.2100
--
--
--
--
0.3900
--
very poor
fair
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.3400
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.3300
--
--
--
--
0.0100
--
--
--
--
0.1400
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.1300
--
--
--
--
MN-18
(continued)
4.24
Yes
4.438
No
Pedestrian bridge
4.45
Unknown
N. 45th Street
4.56
Unknown
4.623
Unknown
USH 41 (northbound)
4.639
Unknown
USH 41 (southbound)
4.831
No
5.155
Unknown
5.69
No
Pedestrian bridge
Hawley Road
Pedestrian bridge
5.9625
6.06
6.09
6.1025
6.24
6.3135
Unknown
Unknown
N. 70th Street
Confluence with Honey Creek
Bike trail bridge
6.7025
Unknown
6.7215
Unknown
6.78
Unknown
Harmonee Avenue
Unknown
N. 68th Street
MN-17A
6.8895
No
7.23
Yes
Ford-#5
7.34
Yes
Obstruction-#4
7.67
Yes
Obstruction-#3
7.6805
No
Footbridge
7.82
Yes
Paved ford-#2
7.87
Yes
Obstruction-#1
43
44
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.3100
--
--
--
--
0.0100
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
MN-17A
(continued)
MN-17
Menomonee River-Upper
MN-12
8.0025
Unknown
Swan Boulevard
8.314
No
8.325
8.37
8.5015
Yes
Unknown
Paved ford
Confluence with Underwood Creek
W. North Avenue
8.62
9.6805
Unknown
9.6835
Unknown
10.28
Yes
10.671
Unknown
10.674
Unknown
10.9
Unknown
Pedestrian bridge
10.94
Unknown
Private drive
11.041
Unknown
11.202
11.22
12.05
12.41
12.521
Unknown
W. Capitol Drive
Unknown
12.524
Unknown
12.883
Unknown
13.423
Unknown
Railroad
13.523
Unknown
N. 124th Street
13.8
13.89
14.41
14.643
Unknown
Pedestrian bridge
Unknown
12.57
0.1800
Underwood Creek
1.1800
--
very poor
fair
good
0.0030
--
--
--
--
0.6000
--
--
--
--
0.3900
--
--
--
--
0.0000
--
--
--
--
0.2300
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.1600
--
--
--
--
1.3200
----
poor
---
-fair
fair
fair
---
0.0030
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Limestone ford
0.3600
Little Menomonee
River
0.5400
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.2800
--
--
--
--
0.8400
-Butler Ditch
fair
good
fair
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.3200
--
fair
Good
--
1.0200
--
--
--
--
0.5700
--
--
--
good
0.7500
--
--
--
--
0.9200
--
--
--
--
0.1900
--
--
--
--
0.2400
--
--
--
--
0.0800
--
--
--
--
0.0300
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
poor
--
good
MN-9
14.72
14.963
Unknown
Railroad
15.983
15.99
16.55
Unknown
W. Mill Road
Unknown
W. Appleton Avenue
17.303
Unknown
18.22
Unknown
Private bridge
18.41
Unknown
Private bridge
18.65
Unknown
Private bridge
18.73
Unknown
Private bridge
18.76
Unknown
Private bridge
18.81
Unknown
Private bridge
18.85
Unknown
Private bridge
18.95
18.98
19.703
19.78
20.21
20.3
20.81
Unknown
Private bridge
Confluence with Lilly Creek
Lilly Road
Unknown
Unknown
No
Pedestrian bridge
Confluence with Nor-X-Way Channel
Pedestrian bridge
45
21.093
21.17
21.443
Unknown
Pilgrim Road
Unknown
Arthur Avenue
21.75
Yes
Limestone drop
21.82
No
Pedestrian bridge
21.907
Yes
22.073
Unknown
Roosevelt Drive
22.17
22.44
22.68
22.683
Unknown
Private bridge
Unknown
Private Drive
0.7500
Lilly Creek
0.5100
--
0.6000
Nor-X-Way
--
--
--
0.2800
--
--
--
--
0.3500
--
poor
good
excellent
0.3100
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.5100
---
very poor
--
-fairly poor
fair
--
46
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.5000
--
--
--
--
0.2500
--
--
--
--
0.8500
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
MN-5
23.179
Unknown
23.433
Unknown
24.282
24.7
24.803
Unknown
Unknown
Private drive
Confluence with Willow Creek
USH 41/45
25.233
25.34
25.893
Unknown
Lilac Avenue
Unknown
Mequon Road
25.943
Unknown
River Drive
26.536
Unknown
Private drive
26.883
27.12
Unknown
Railroad
Confluence with West Branch
MN-1
27.133
27.135
27.253
27.87
27.873
Unknown
Freistadt Road
Unknown
STH 145
Unknown
Railroad/Confluence with
North Branch
28.663
Unknown
28.913
Unknown
0.5200
Willow Creek
0.4300
--
--
--
--
0.6600
--
fair
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.5900
--
--
--
--
0.3500
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
0.2500
West Branch
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
fair
fair
--
0.6200
--
--
--
--
0.7900
--
--
--
--
0.2500
--
--
--
--
0.4600
--
--
--
--
0.0300
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.3400
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
good
fair
good
0.3000
--
--
--
--
0.1900
--
--
--
--
0.2900
--
--
--
--
MN-16
0.032
Unknown
0.15
Unknown
0.49
0.577
0.59
Unknown
W. Portland Avenue
Unknown
0.89
Unknown
W. Wisconsin Avenue
1.08
Unknown
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.4200
--
--
--
--
0.1600
--
--
--
--
2.3300
--
--
--
--
0.2400
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.4200
--
--
--
--
0.1600
--
--
--
--
0.2400
--
--
--
--
0.1800
--
--
--
--
0.2600
--
--
--
--
0.2200
--
--
--
--
0.3700
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.3900
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.1300
--
--
--
--
0.3300
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.2250
--
--
--
--
0.5800
--
--
--
--
0.0100
--
--
--
--
0.4600
--
good
fair
excellent
0.1900
--
poor
--
fair
Underwood Creek
MN-16
(continued)
MN-14 and
MN-13
1.37
Unknown
1.79
Unknown
S. 84th Street
1.9491
Yes
4.2767
Yes
4.515
Unknown
4.62
Unknown
W. Beloit Road
5.04
Unknown
S. 76th Street
5.2
Unknown
W. Oklahoma Avenue
5.436
Unknown
S. 72nd Street
5.6144
Yes
5.878
Unknown
W. Morgan Avenue
6.1
Unknown
S. 68th Street
6.4722
Yes
6.524
Yes
6.9121
Yes
7.012
Yes
7.14
Unknown
7.47
Unknown
IH 43/894
0.225
Yes
0.805
Yes
0.8125
Unknown
1.27
Unknown
N. Mayfair Road
47
48
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0000
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.0300
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.1800
--
--
--
--
fair
fairly poor
fair
MN-14 and
MN-13
(continued)
1.46
Yes
1.462
Unknown
1.5
Unknown
1.535
Yes
1.635
Yes
1.695
Yes
1.8725
Unknown
N. 115th Street
2.5725
Unknown
2.5805
Unknown
Pedestrian bridge
2.6725
Unknown
Private drive
2.6925
Unknown
Private drive
2.7325
Unknown
Private drive
2.8325
Unknown
Private drive
3.1025
Unknown
3.1225
Unknown
Private drive
3.2525
Unknown
Wall Street
3.311
Yes
3.41
Yes
3.4325
Unknown
3.505
Unknown
Private drive
3.54
Unknown
Private bridge
3.5525
Unknown
0.7000
2.56
South Branch
Underwood Creek
0.0100
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.2700
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.1300
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.0100
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.7200
--
--
--
--
0.3400
---
poor
fair
fair
good
fair
good
0.6600
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.2900
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.0100
--
--
--
--
0.0800
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.0020
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
MN-14 and
MN-13
(continued)
3.6725
Unknown
Juneau Boulevard
3.7625
Unknown
4.4825
4.67
4.74
4.8225
Unknown
Marcela Drive
Unknown
North Avenue
5.4825
Unknown
Private drive
5.5925
Unknown
Clearwater Road
5.881
Unknown
Private bridge
5.9925
Unknown
6.0825
Unknown
Woodbridge Road
6.2025
Unknown
6.3215
Unknown
6.37
Unknown
Private bridge
6.41
Unknown
Private bridge
6.48
Unknown
Private bridge
6.5
Unknown
Private bridge
6.5125
Unknown
Private drive
6.59
Unknown
Private bridge
6.6425
Unknown
Private drive
6.6825
Unknown
Pilgrim Parkway
6.685
6.95
7.2385
Unknown
Unknown
Pedestrian bridge
Confluence with Dousman Ditch
Wirth Park bridge
7.685
Unknown
0.5500
Dousman Ditch
0.4500
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
49
50
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0525
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.4200
--
--
--
--
0.5100
--
--
--
--
0.6500
--
--
--
--
0.0040
--
--
--
--
0.2800
--
--
--
--
0.0300
--
--
--
--
0.1400
--
--
--
--
0.4300
--
--
--
--
0.6300
--
--
--
--
0.3600
--
--
--
--
0.2300
--
--
--
--
0.5200
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.0880
--
--
--
--
0.4200
--
--
--
--
0.6200
--
--
--
--
0.3300
--
--
--
--
0.0300
--
poor
fairly poor
excellent
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.8100
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
Dousman Ditch
MN-14A
0.0525
Unknown
W. Bluemound Road
0.1525
Unknown
0.5725
Unknown
IH 94
1.081
1.662
1.726
1.73
Yes
Yes
0.028
Unknown
0.06
Unknown
North Avenue
0.2
No
MN-13A
Pedestrian bridge
0.625
Unknown
Gebhardt Road
1.258
Unknown
Private drive
1.62
Unknown
Private drive
1.847
Unknown
Private drive
2.369
Unknown
Lake Road
MN-11
0.088
Unknown
0.51
Unknown
Pedestrian bridge
1.126
Unknown
1.46
1.47
1.485
Unknown
Unknown
1.589
Unknown
W. Appleton Avenue
2.402
Unknown
W. Mill Road
2.567
Unknown
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.7300
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.3000
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.4600
--
--
--
--
0.6200
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
1.1600
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.3800
--
--
--
--
0.2600
--
--
--
--
0.3900
--
--
--
--
0.1900
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.2600
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.3900
---
fair
fair
good
fair
fair
fair
--
--
--
--
--
--
MN-11
(continued)
2.603
Unknown
W. Leon Terrace
3.33
Unknown
Park bridge
3.3835
Unknown
3.685
Unknown
3.76
Unknown
4.215
Unknown
W. Calumet Road
4.835
Unknown
W. Bradley Road
4.92
Unknown
6.075
Unknown
6.125
Unknown
6.5
Unknown
Park bridge
6.76
Unknown
Footbridge
7.15
Unknown
7.34
Unknown
Private bridge
7.45
Unknown
Private bridge
7.71
Unknown
Farm bridge
7.83
7.92
8.21
8.22
8.31
Unknown
Private bridge
9.07
Unknown
9.365
Unknown
Mequon Road
Unknown
0.8500
0.3000
Little Menomonee
Creek
--
51
52
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
1.0200
--
--
--
--
0.2900
--
--
--
--
0.2900
--
--
--
--
0.2400
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.8600
---
good
good
good
good
good
good
0.3600
--
--
--
--
Willow Creek
MN-11
(continued)
MN-10
9.38
Unknown
Private bridge
9.425
Unknown
Farm bridge
10.44
Unknown
Freistadt Road
0.29
Unknown
0.58
Unknown
0.8225
Unknown
Granville Road
0.84
Unknown
0.91
1.03
1.0325
1.16
1.47
1.89
Unknown
Unknown
Mequon Road
Unknown
2.2525
Unknown
Freistadt Road
MN-4
0.0625
Unknown
Maple Road
0.6525
Unknown
Lannon Road
1.1525
Unknown
MN-1
0.6315
Unknown
1.05
Unknown
1.2725
Unknown
Rockfield Road
1.6015
Unknown
Division Road
1.8315
Unknown
Railroad
0.0100
--
--
--
--
0.0625
--
--
--
--
0.5900
--
good
fair
fair
0.5000
--
good
good
fair
1.7000
--
--
--
--
0.6315
--
--
--
--
0.4200
--
--
--
--
0.2200
--
--
--
--
0.3300
--
--
--
--
0.2300
--
--
--
--
1.0600
--
--
--
--
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.4700
--
--
--
--
0.7200
--
--
--
--
Lilly Creek
MN-1
(continued)
2.895
Unknown
Maple Road
3.365
Unknown
STH 145
4.085
Unknown
Goldendale Road
MN-3
0.3315
Unknown
Freistadt Road
0.3915
Unknown
Private drive
0.51
Unknown
1.1625
Unknown
Maple Road
1.2525
Unknown
Railroad
1.6325
Unknown
Private drive-bridge
2.0525
Unknown
Private drive-bridge
2.225
Unknown
Dalebrook Road
2.335
Unknown
Goldendale Road
2.525
Unknown
Freistadt Road
2.745
Unknown
Goldendale Road
3.015
Unknown
Goldendale Road
3.285
Unknown
USH 41/45
3.305
Unknown
Hilltop Drive
MN-7
Unknown
0.4015
--
--
--
--
--
fair
good
fair
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.6500
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.3800
--
--
--
--
0.4200
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.1900
--
--
--
--
0.2200
--
--
--
--
0.2700
--
--
--
--
0.2700
--
--
--
--
0.0200
--
--
--
--
0.3000
--
--
--
--
0.4015
--
--
--
--
0.4400
--
--
--
--
0.2200
--
--
--
fair
0.4100
--
good
good
fair
0.3300
--
--
--
--
Appleton Avenue
Unknown
0.8425
0.85
1.0625
1.07
1.469
0.4400
0.3315
53
54
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0800
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.0700
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.3800
--
--
--
--
0.4700
--
--
--
--
0.0725
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.1000
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.1400
--
--
--
--
0.2800
--
--
--
--
0.0900
--
--
--
--
0.4900
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.7500
--
--
--
--
MN-7
(continued)
1.8025
Lilly Road
Unknown
1.8825
Mill Road
Unknown
1.99
2.05
2.1125
Private drive
Unknown
2.2025
Private drive
Unknown
2.2625
Private drive
Unknown
2.43
Kaul Avenue
Unknown
2.48
Bobolink Avenue
Unknown
2.5525
Private drive
Unknown
2.5925
Railroad
Unknown
2.9725
Nor-X-Way Channel
MN-6
0.0725
Unknown
0.1325
Unknown
0.1725
Unknown
USH 45
0.2725
Unknown
Stanley Drive
0.3125
Unknown
Main Street
0.4525
Unknown
0.7325
Unknown
Private drive
0.8225
Unknown
1.3125
Unknown
STH 145
1.3725
Unknown
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0800
--
--
--
--
0.3000
--
--
--
--
0.1500
--
--
--
--
0.5600
--
--
--
--
0.0600
--
--
--
--
0.2400
--
fair
--
good
0.4100
--
--
--
--
0.2600
--
--
--
--
0.1200
--
--
--
--
0.3300
--
fair
--
--
0.4100
---
good
poor
---
fair
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.9100
--
--
--
0.6900
--
--
--
--
Butler Ditch
MN-6
(continued)
MN-8
2.12
Unknown
Railroad
2.2
Unknown
Railroad
2.495
Unknown
2.645
Unknown
3.205
Unknown
Wasaukee Road
0.23
0.24
Unknown
Campbell Road
0.645
Unknown
Overview Drive
0.9
Unknown
Private bridge
1.0225
1.03
1.3525
1.36
1.49
1.7625
Unknown
Hampton Road
Unknown
Lisbon Road
Unknown
Lilly Road
1.81
2.5
Unknown
2.715
Unknown
3.405
Unknown
Lisbon Road
MN-9
0.0531
Unknown
0.13
Unknown
0.31
Unknown
0.492
Unknown
W. Bradley Road
0.662
Unknown
0.788
Unknown
0.5900
--
--
--
--
0.0530
--
--
--
--
0.0770
--
--
--
--
0.1800
--
--
--
--
0.1820
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
0.1260
--
--
--
--
0.1300
--
--
--
--
55
56
Table 8 (continued)
Subwatershed
Reach
River
Mile
Fish
Passage
Obstruction
Structure Identification
Distance
between
Structures
(river miles)
Major
Tributaries
Fish
Sites
(2000-2009)
Invertebrate
Sites
(2000-2009)
Habitat
Sites
(2000-2009)
0.0670
--
--
--
--
0.1640
--
--
--
--
0.0325
--
--
--
--
0.0610
--
--
--
--
0.0930
--
--
--
--
0.0350
--
--
--
--
0.1100
--
--
--
--
0.0730
--
--
--
--
0.3000
--
poor
--
poor
0.1800
--
good
--
excellent
0.1500
--
fair
--
good
0.3700
--
--
--
--
0.0500
--
--
--
--
0.1700
--
--
--
--
0.0400
--
--
--
--
0.4800
--
--
--
--
0.0750
--
--
--
--
NOTE:
MN-9
(continued)
0.918
Unknown
0.985
Unknown
1.149
Unknown
1.1815
Unknown
1.242
Unknown
1.335
Unknown
1.3695
Unknown
1.475
Unknown
1.5475
1.66
1.845
1.89
2.02
2.04
2.17
Unknown
Unknown
N. 124th Street
2.54
Unknown
Private drive
2.585
Unknown
Abandoned railroad
2.755
Unknown
2.795
Unknown
Railroad
3.275
Unknown
No
N. 124th Street
No
The tributary reaches and mainstem reaches are generally ordered from upstream to downstream.
Quality Rating
aNo quality could be assigned to this site due to the sampling methods.
Fish Sites
Invert Sites
Habitat Sites
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Lutheran College, and SEWRPC.
very poor
fairly poor
very poor
poor
fair
poor
fair
good
good
fair
good
excellent
Riparian Corridors
Healthy riparian corridors help to protect water quality, groundwater, fisheries and wildlife, and ecological
resilience to invasive species, as well as reducing potential flooding of structures and harmful effects of climate
change.7 In turn, the health of riparian corridors is largely dependent upon width (size) and continuity. Therefore,
efforts to protect and expand the remaining riparian corridor width and continuity are the foundation for
protecting and improving the fishery and recreation within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
Corridor Target 1
Expand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 feet.
Issue
All riparian buffers provide some level of protection that is greater than if there were no buffer at all. In addition,
wider buffers provide a greater number of functions (infiltration, temperature moderation, species diversity) than
narrower buffers. Therefore, it is important that existing buffers be protected and expanded where possible and
not be converted to urban land uses, which could lead to increased degradation to the fishery, water quality,
wildlife, and recreational opportunities of the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds.
Key Questions
Where do they generally occur in the watershed (map the location of important uses such as
recreational facilities, public access points, and trails)?
What impacts are the uses having, and what opportunities are there to reduce those impacts?
What needs or opportunities are there related to human uses or facilities in terms of meeting
management objectives and moving toward desired conditions in the watersheds?
Objective
The objective is to protect, preserve, and expand riparian buffer width to a minimum of 75 feet where possible
among mainstem and tributary waterways throughout the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River systems.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities for
establishment or expansion of riparian buffers:
Use public lands or purchase lands identified on Maps 13 and 14 through donation, grants, fee simple
purchase, or acquisition of conservation easements.
_____________
7
N.E. Seavy and others, Why Climate Change Make Riparian Restoration More Important than Ever:
Recommendations for Practice and Research, Ecological Restoration, Volume 27(3): pages 330-338, September,
2009; Association of State Floodplain Managers, Natural and Beneficial Floodplain Functions: Floodplain
ManagementMore Than Flood Loss Reduction, 2008, www.floods.org/NewUrgent/Other.asp.
57
Conduct additional surveys to determine riparian buffer widths along streams for which inventories
have not yet been conducted.
Effect changes in zoning ordinances to minimize the adverse effects of urban development by
providing specific provisions and incentives for the clustering of development on smaller lots within
conservation subdivisions, thus preserving significant portions of the open space within each property
or group of properties considered for development, and minimizing the footprint of the developed
area relative to the open space on and around a development site.
Potential Measures
Volume of historic fill and/or tons of trash removed from riparian areas.
Corridor Target 2
Expand riparian buffer continuity (connectedness).
Issue
Fragmentation of riparian buffers by roads, railways, and utilities combined with encroachment by development
impacts the structure and function of riparian corridors and their ability to adequately protect waterways and
wildlife habitat. Stream crossings tend to have a cumulative impact on the stream and associated lands and on the
quality of water and the fishery.
Objective
The objective is to reduce the linear fragmentation of the existing riparian buffers by either removing crossings
where possible or at least not increasing the number of crossings of waterways within the Menomonee and
Kinnickinnic River systems, where practical. The human safety need to preserve access by police, fire protection,
and emergency medical services is an overriding consideration that must be applied in determining whether the
objective of removing a crossing is feasible. This objective is only meant to apply to situations where more road
crossings exist than are necessary to ensure adequate access for emergency services.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
expand riparian buffer continuity:
58
Use of public lands or purchase lands identified on Maps 13 and 14 through donation, grants, fee
simple purchase, or acquisition of conservation easement.
Potential Measures
Number of stream channel crossings and/or impediments to flow removed and/or retrofitted to restore
continuity of riparian buffers.
Increase in number of locations of safe public access for recreational use of streams.
Corridor Target 3
Protection of high-quality areas or environmentally sensitive lands.
Issue
The existing plant communities, natural areas, and critical species habitat areas are the most vital wildlife areas
remaining within the Menomonee and Kinnickinnic River watersheds, and those areas need to be protected. Such
areas help provide local and regional ecological resilience within these largely urbanized watersheds. In addition,
protection of primary and secondary environmental corridors, isolated natural resource areas, and groundwater
recharge areas throughout the two watersheds should also be a priority.
Key Questions
What plant/animal communities or species are in decline or are considered rare on the landscape?
How do the current conditions compare with reference or desired conditions, and how do these relate
to human activities in the watershed?
How might the current conditions affect future land management objectives and strategies, and what
can be done to bridge the gap between current and desired conditions?
What is the relative abundance and distribution of species of concern that are important in the
watershed (Threatened or Endangered Species, Management Indicator Species, Species of Special
Concern, Birds of Conservation Concern)?
What is the distribution and character of the plant and animal habitats?
What activities could occur to improve riparian habitat conditions and improve wildlife habitat
conditions?
What needs and opportunities are there for habitat protection, maintenance, or enhancement?
Objective
Protect and manage environmentally sensitive lands to maximize native plant and animal biodiversity as well as
groundwater recharge.
Recommended Actions
The following actions, or combinations of those actions, should be considered in identifying opportunities to
protect high-quality areas or environmentally sensitive lands:
Protect wetlands, woodlands, and groundwater recharge areas through land use regulation, public land
acquisition via donation or purchase, establishment of conservation easements on critical lands,
and/or possible expansion of environmental corridors. These protections are recommended for the
priority lands indentified on Maps 13 and 14 within the Menomonee River and Kinnickinnic River
watersheds, respectively.
59
Wetland areas, many of which have been historically modified or filled, are currently largely
protected through the existing regulatory framework provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit program, State wetland zoning requirements, and local zoning ordinances. Many wetland
areas in the watersheds are included in the environmental corridors delineated by the Regional
Planning Commission and protected under one or more of the existing Federal, State, county, and
local regulations. Consistent and effective application of the provisions of these regulations is
recommended.
Certain wetland and woodland areas have been identified for acquisition in the adopted regional
natural areas and critical species habitat protection and management plan.8 Implementation of these
recommendations, in addition to those set forth in the adopted park and open space plan for
Milwaukee County,9 would complement the protection and preservation of environmentally sensitive
lands.
Consider adopting and enforcing municipal shoreland setback requirements and should actively
enforce construction site erosion control and stormwater management ordinances.
Enforce local zoning regulations to discourage development within the one-percent-annualprobability floodplain.
As a refinement of the recommendations of the regional water quality management plan update,
specific candidate sites for restoration of native wetland and/or upland prairie communities have been
identified as shown on Maps 13 and 14. Those lands should be purchased or easements should be
obtained, and the lands should ultimately be restored through modification of agricultural drainage
systems, removal of nonnative exotic invasive species, removal of historical fill, and/or establishment
of native vegetation, among other best management practices.
Purchase lands to expand buffers within the SEWRPC-delineated primary and secondary
environmental corridors, especially along the river mainstems and tributary streams.
Potential Measures
_____________
8
SEWRPC Planning Report No. 42, A Regional Natural Areas and Critical Species Habitat Protection and
Management Plan for Southeastern Wisconsin, September 1997.
9
SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 137, A Park and Open Space Plan for Waukesha County,
December 1989; SEWRPC Community Assistance Planning Report No. 132, A Park and Open Space Plan for
Milwaukee County, November 1991.
60